Quote:
Originally Posted by Locke
I am wildly militarily uneducated, but to me it boils down to the fact that the US have gotten used to fighting from a position of obscene strength. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were more like 'Seek & Destroy' than combat.
What happens when they go up against an enemy they'd have to fight toe-to-toe?
Basically, if you go up against inferior opposition constantly then you'll be unprepared and unready against equal or superior opposition.
|
Correct, The American's really haven't had a "tough war" against a militarily similar enemy since Korea.
People say, but Captain what about Iraq? Iraq was powerful in a sense that they had decent equipment and numbers. But the Iraqi Soldiers were poorly trained and had cut their teeth fighting in the swamps against Iran who basically treated their soldiers like bullet shields.
While America's technology gap against Iraq was fairly significant, every American Soldier had a kill multiplier of like 10-1 because of their training.
In Vietnam, frankly America should have been able to go in their and pound the crap out of that rag tag army. But American Training prior to Vietnam was piss poor, on top of that they were pretty much a conscript army where half of their members didn't want to be there so there was low moral.
The North Vietnamese were well trained and had extremely high moral and a water tight war plan based around if you bleed them enough, you can lose every battle and the enemy will still go home and not come back.
While America is still formidable as a military and in terms of technology and training. IF they go against another Modern Military like the Russians or the resurgent Chinese it will still get bloody, and when it comes down to math in the Ukraine, the Russians can get more troops and supplies to the front faster then the American's can.
Its a war in somebodies back yard that you don't want to fight.