U.S. Military Can't Even Fight One War Today

Putin came in for the propaganda, a naval base, and the chest thumping. But I dont see any evidence that Assad is in a worse position now.

Mi-28 gunship in action in Palmyra-posted today...
[video=youtube;Dnx4LSq1c-8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=6&v=Dnx4LSq1c-8[/video]

 

I am aware.

I am asking if you or anyone else can detail out any possible and viable scenario where a large scale war would break out.

AA

 

He is.

His own family is waiting to grab power.

AA

 

Maybe-but that's the status quo for dictators.

 

Those who advocate Fundamentalism.

AA

 

We have been fighting the war in Afghanistan stupid especially under the Obama administration. Spending $20,000 on a Hellfire missile to kill one Taliban fighter when a .25 cent bullet can accomplish the job.

Spending a million dollars using a Tomahawk cruise missile to take out a target when a $500 round from an Iowa class 16" gun could do the same thing.

The price today of a Mk-82 500 pound bomb (dumb bomb) is $2,082. The Hellfire missile has a 20 pound warhead and cost almost ten times more than the 500 pound M-82.

Maybe I'm stupid at math or maybe today's bean counters in the Pentagon are the stupid ones ?

 

Yes.

Why do you think so many generals and admirals are testifying before Congress last week ?

 

I never said you did, I was commenting on what you said to him is all.

Uhhh, what? You had better check your sources here AA.

The Pershing II carried a modified W85 nuclear warhead. A variable yield warhead, capable of yields from 5 to 80 kilotons.

750 kilotons? Hell, the Trident does not even carry that kind of a warhead, and it is much larger then the Pershing II. It carries either the W76 (100 kilotons), or the W88 (475 kiloton) warheads, or a combination of the 2 in a MIRV configuration.

Now please, give us some kind of reference to the Pershing II being a 750 kiloton weapon, I would love to see that. Especially since that is almost 8 times the actual power.

OK, for one I did not mention "large scale", simply retaliatory. And you have to keep your eras straight. You can not switch back and forth between the era of the Pershing II and the USSR, then turn right around and try to compare it today with the US and Russia. But let me address what you are trying to say as if it is current.

Yes, if either the US launched a ballistic missile at Russia, or if Russia launched a ballistic missile at the US, the response would be as if the agressor nation launched a nuclear strike.

Because since the IRBM Treaty, the only ballistic missiles either of those countries uses are nuclear only! Both the US, and USSR/Russia destroyed all conventional ballistic missiles in their inventories. So if the US saw Russia launching a ballistic missile at them, they would have to conclude it is nuclear armed, and respond in kind.

Brother, you are getting dangerously close to being put on my list to not be responded to once again. You have got to learn how to do research, and not just make things up. Even Wikipedia gives the yields of the various warheads we have been talking about. So where you are getting such hyper-inflated numbers can only be from sites with no validity, or from your own imagination.

But if I am wrong and you are getting them from elsewhere, I would love to know that source. So I will know to avoid them myself in the future. An IRBM with a 3/4 of a megaton thermonuclear warhead? Good god man, these were battlefield portable weapons, not heavy-hitter devistation weapons.

 

I must be getting old.

Your right about the Pershing II.

I have no idea how I made this mistake.

AA

 

Your math is off.

Based upon Vietnam war statistics it required about 50,000 rounds per enemy KIA and the ammunition costs more like $1/round as opposed to just the .25 cents for the bullet part of the round.

Having been in the artillery the fact is that the Tomahawk missile will actually hit the target while the round from the Iowa class 16" gun is going to miss it repeatedly.... and that 16" round costs a hell of a lot more than $500 (a fuse alone can cost up to over $1,000).

The Hellfire missile hits the target and although it may cost ten times as much a "dumb bomb" rarely hits the target. A B-52 can carry about fifty 500 lbs. bombs but when bombing from high altitude the USAF typically uses an entire squadron of B-52's to attack a single enemy position because the vast majority of the "dumb" bombs miss the target completely. The USAF uses the strategy of "if we drop enough dumb bombs we might get lucky and actually hit the target" but they don't always do that.

 

I've also made mistakes in posts and had to admit it and it's always good to see anyone admit when they've made a mistake. Kudos for taking responsibility regardless of what your actual position was on the topic. More members should do that.

 

Nothing wrong with my math, all of those 16" AP and HE rounds were manufactured during WW ll at $500 per projectile.

$1 per round is what you are paying at the store, the military orders it's small arms ammunition by the millions.

The new green bullets that the PC bigots are forcing the military to use cost more, infact the new PC green bullet (projectile not the brass case, primer and powder) cost three times more that the olf FMJ lead core copper bullets.

I'm looking at a box of Speer 230 gr. .45 ACP ammunition of 50 rounds that I purchased back when Bush was president, $12.

Re: Vietnam, your right, when the M-16 was adopted the worse fears of fire discipline became a reality, it went into the crapper.

The U.S. Marines had the same fear when they adopted the M-1 Garand but with some training, ammunition expenditure in combat remained close to the same as it was with the old 03-Springfield. SOP, don't pull that trigger unless you have that Jap in your rifle sights.


Ammunition expenditure during WW ll:

U.S. Marines on Tarawa armed with the M-1 Garand, a three day battle, 43 rounds per day were fired.
U.S. Army's 165th Regt. on Makin Island (Same 3 day Tarawa battle) 87 rounds.
1st Mar. Div. on Cape Gloucester, 52 rounds.

During WW ll both Marine and soldiers armed with the M-1 Garand would go into battle with just 240 rounds of ammunition.

There was one major battle on Guadalcanal when the Marines went on an offensive operation and there was only 45 rounds available for each Marine rifleman because that's all there was available.

http://www.ww2gyrene.org/role_ammo.htm

Since the adoption of the M-16 it's been just sending a whole lot of lead down range.

But it's gotten even worse in the past ten years and nobody knows why. Americans going back to colonial times have always been known for their marksmanship.

Here's what the Marine Corps is trying to figure out. They been using the same marksmanship training for over 100 years. It has worked.

The maximum effective range of a rifle, pistol, etc. is set by that a basic marksman should be able to hit the upper body of a human 50% of the time. A sharpshooter would do better and a rifle expert maybe 90% to 100% of the time.

Maximum effective range of the 03-Springfield was 600 yards. M-1 and M-14 500 yards. M-16 A1 400 meters, M-16 A2 500 meters.

Something has gone wrong, today the average Marine is only able to hit a human target at 500 meters 30% of the time. An Army rifleman 20% of the time. If true, that would mean in the Marine Corps case that the M-16 A2 maximum effective range is no longer 500 meters but less. What went wrong ? Ten years your average Marine rifleman was able to hit a human target at 500 meters over 50% of the time.

What has changed ???

I have a theory.

 

But there are other things that you are also missing here.

A Tomahawk is a single shot precision weapon. We fire one at a target, a point target, and then that is it. In other words we can use one to take out the ATC center of an air base, but we are not going to fire the hundreds needed to take out the air base itself.

A really big gun however (like the main gun of a BB) is an area target weapon. Rarely would the target for one be such a pin-point area such as "the ATC center of the air base", but instead it would be "the entire freaking air base". If you need to take out the Division CP, a Tomahawk is a great weapon. But if you want to take out the entire Division itself, you call in the 16" guns.

Plus there is the intimidation and morale factor. A Tomahawk is a "fire and forget weapon", largely sent off by themselves. Really Big Guns are volley weapons, and the other side knows damned well that another one might be landing in another 10 seconds. And that they can keep firing for as long as the enemy wants to continue to fire at them (at 18 rounds per minute).

They were so effective in Lebanon that attacking forces would break up and run when they fired a single spotting round. They knew the guns were not pinpoint accurate, but when you have a kill radius of over 200 meters, it does not have to land all that close in order to seriously mess up your day.

And for the cost of 16" rounds, the main issue is that we have not made any since WWII. We had so many in inventory that they were long ago paid off, so there was no cost in acquiring them. And they were bought and paid for in 1940's currency, not our much more inflated currency of today. And nothing about those rounds was "high tech". WWII era technology, the most advanced component was the Proximity fuse. And if I remember correctly those cost in the range of $5 each.

 

You may have to explain "buggery" to Americans who aren't privy to that term. It's nonetheless hilarious.

 

The Buggery Act of 1533.

Shoals and Rocks.

Before the UCMJ the Navy and Marine Corps had the Shoals and Rocks. There was no Catch-22 in the Shoals and Rocks.

 

As a shooting enthusiast I can say nothing has been more detrimental to the cost of ammo than the Obama presidency.

While its true that ammo demand did go up for the Iraq/Afghanistan wars, it took Obama for them to truly spike. Once he came in, gun sales skyrocketed and have stayed high-which is generally a good thing-but its bad for ammo costs.

I found a brick of Winchester T-22 target the other day I purchased 15 years ago-it was 15 bucks for 500 rounds. Now I'd be lucky to pay 60 bucks if I shopped around. A 550 round bulk pack of .22 used to cost 10 bucks, now they are at least 50. There is a range in San Gabriel that hosts a ladies shooting day-the range fee for the shoot includes match ammo, but as it turns out they aren't shooting small enough groups, and the range will trade plinking high velocity ammo 2:1 for match ammo, so I bring them a case of bulk stuff and get a half case of target ammo in exchange. Thats what I do these days to keep my .22 ammo costs down.

I used to be able to reload match .308 for 50 cents a round. Now its closer to a dollar. Every component is more expensive.

To get around that, I have been shooting my Swiss K31's more. Ammo is still around 50 cents a round if you buy a case.

At 500 yards, I use standard sheets of paper for targets with open sights. Im able to hit around 70% of the time. With a scope its of course much easier. Nice thing about the K31 is even if its scoped you can still use the open sights.

That far canyon wall is 600 yards.


Obama has been horrible for ammo costs, amongst other things.

 

You are using current civilian ammo costs and applying them to vietnam-in an era where there were few guided weapons, and the enemy was obscured by the jungle.

 

"Buggery" is a euphemism for woofing a fellow sailor in his nether regions.

 

Looks like a Schmidt and Rubin.

I use to own one of them a long time ago.

 

A $500 round purchased in 1944 would cost about $6,700 today based upon inflation alone.
http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/

I have a theory too.

The enemy doesn't expose themselves like a target on a shooting range. The enemy is using fully automatic weapons. Most importantly the Marines don't want to suffer the 17% casualty rate like they suffered at Tarawa where the attacking force of 18,000 Marines suffered 1,009 KIA and 2,101 WIA during a three day battle.

 

So we elect a black president and the White Supremacists go bonkers and the number of anti-black hate groups quadruple. The gun-nuts go crazy and start purchasing enough firearms to arm an infantry platoon and begin purchasing and stockpiling enough ammunition to last through an insurrection against the government and the skyrocketing demand for ammunition drives up the costs.... and you blame President Obama. For what? Being black?

 

Keeping one American service member in Afghanistan cost between $850,000 and $1.4 million a year.
This was in 2012.

God forbid they are wounded, say paralyzed. They will require assistance for the rest of their lives. Claims for PTSD are through the roof, approaching 150,000 a year. The costs incurred in waging a war last far beyond the drawdown date. We're still paying on the war in Iraq in the form of wounded veterans, and they will need government support for the remainder of their lives, as well they should; I'm not arguing otherwise.

My point is, deploying ground troops is not always the most cost effective, or effective for that matter, way to wage a war. It requires a sustained investment of blood and treasure, therefore the decision to do this must be well thought out.

In contrast, a remotely piloted aircraft, while not cheap, doesn't require putting a human being directly in harms way nor does it require the level of support crew to say deploy a company size group of soldiers.

 

Lolz at lefty race baiting.

Obama is a lefty-lefties wan't gun control. After every mass shooting Obama laments the rights of law abiding Americans including the 2nd. And the same goes for democrat party candidates for POTUS.

He's been the major driver for gun sales the last 8 years. Thats actually a good thing because the more guns there are out there, and the more people that own them-the harder it will be to pass anti-gun legislation.

But its bad for ammo availability-people buy ammo for those guns too.

So yes, I blame Obama entirely.

 

Assuming that you have to buy a new one, and that the cost originally has kept pace with the standard inflation curve, with no modifications on modern technology.

An example? Well, the cost of a new TV in 1946 (new TVs were banned during WWII) was $445. That is $5,410.99 according to your own calculator when adjusted for inflation. However, for that exact same $445 I can either get a really nice 1080p set, or an entry level 4K set.

You are forgetting, there was never a need to make "new battleship rounds", they were already built. And it is silly to assume the costs would be anywhere near the same, since in 1944 there was hyper-inflation on a great many things due to wartime scarcity. Especially the metals used to make weapons, and gunpowder.

 

I'm pretty sure that all of those 16" naval gun rounds have been demilitarized and disposed of sold for scrap metal. That's what they do at the former Naval Ammunition Depot, today known as the Hawthorne Army Depot. -> http://www.jmc.army.mil/Installations.aspx?id=Hawthorne

Well maybe not. Looking at this photo can't tell if they are 16" projectiles or not. But the date is clearly from 2011. -> http://molosyndicate.com/3/sites/default/files/hawthorne_army.jpg

When all four of the Iowa's were deactivated during the 1990's they said there were enough 16" AP and HC rounds to refight WW ll 1 1/2 times and there were enough spare 16" gun barrels to re-gun all four Iowa's three times.

Have you ever been to Hawthorne Nv. ? Home of the largest ammunition depot in the world.

Taraw has nothing to do with American's marksmanship going into the (*)(*)(*)(*)ter.

At the time, Taraw was the bloodiest battle that America had fought at that time. There would be larger and more bloodier battles to follow, Iwo Jima, Okinawa the Normandy D-Day landings.

But the lessons learned during the Taraw operation would save tens of thousands of American Marines and soldiers in the coming years.

When the M-16 A1 was adopted fire discipline went into the (*)(*)(*)(*)ter. Only the fire team automatic rifleman was suppose to have his M-16 on full auto but when the (*)(*)(*)(*) hit the fan it was not uncommon most putting their M-16's on full auto. Just a lot of lead going down range hitting nothing.

That's why when the M-16 A2 was adopted it was no longer capable of full auto fire but just 3 round burst which is the proper way to fire a full auto rifle or sub machinegun.

Full auto weapons like the BAR that was found in a fire team or general purpose machine guns was used for providing suppressive fire so the rifleman could close in and kill the enemy with one shot, one kill.

Now not all militaries deployed and used the machine gun the same way. During WW ll the Germans used their machine guns not for laying down suppressive fire or as a supporting weapon for the rifleman, in fact the German rifleman supported the machine gunner. An American or British soldier in the European theatre was more likely to be hit by machine gun fire than by rifle fire whereas in the Pacific theatre you were more likely to be hit by rifle fire.