« World of Warships- Dont be a Team Killer Jackass. | Main | The Army Is Bringing Back a 70-Year-Old Gun for New Fights »



Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


I consider myself, not a lowly CDAT but bringer of rapidity, flexibility, mobility, lethality and all-around awesomeness and sheer combat power. May deign to watch your video after my current rotation ends.

ron snyder

Kudos to the NC NG Team. Yet we did not even place in the recent European competition. We may be stuck on our overwhelming victory against the muzzies of over 20 years ago: any major power could have defeated the muzzies. Appears that our ability to compete against a Tier 1 team is lacking.


Ron - maybe you're right. Or maybe we're not willing to pick out the best of the best and stick them in a tank together with a ton of ammunition for the sole purpose of winning a competition. Not saying either is true, I have zero knowledge of it.

ron snyder

I was an ordy guy when I was in, centuries ago it seems, (and a North Carolinian BTW), so I have no subject matter expertise Ken. However, it seems to me that we would have sent our best to Europe. I certainly could be in error though. I do believe that XBradTC would have said, or at least alluded to this, if it were the case. He IS a SME.



Ron, define "major power." I don't think any of the usual suspects could have done.

Not through lack of ability, but sheer numbers. The only near equivalent were the Soviet forces, and the rank & file were terrible.

The UK & France had some good troops, but not very many for a long time. Even the US was very nearly too spread out while engaged in both Afghanistan and Iraq.

I once took the time to compare the ratio of troops to population post WW2 an Iraq, and we used one tenth the proportion in Iraq. It's no surprise we had as much trouble as we did. It turns out Shinseki was right; we didn't have enough troops to do the job properly.

ron snyder

Casey, interesting metric re troops/population. So, we used only 10% (proportionately) of troops in Iraq as we did in WWI? Theater specific or overall? My impression was that our forces were overwhelmingly mechanized in Iraq vs any of the WWII Theaters.

Yes, I was thinking of Russia, or Israel, or a Germany led coalition. China could just by numbers alone, if they had the logistics -which I do not think they do. As you mention, there are a number of countries that had/have the ability to win against Iraq from a qualitative position, there is just not one country that has the numbers to do so.

I'm sure that Russia is learning a great deal about combat from their adventure in the Ukraine.

One thing I've gathered from watching the various vids of tankers is that it is a very physical job and one for young men.


No wonder that was B Roll. While not taking anything away from winning this competition, there were some questionable shots in the video, including missing a barn-door flank mover, unable to ID troops and cease-fire, loader loading rounds by using the flat palm rather than pushing in with his fist, which can cause gloves to get caught in the breach. Also, crewmen out of nomex balaclava. Not in the proper uniform is a disqualifying crew cut per engagement, as I recall. I don't even know which crew was in those pictures or whether they were taken during competitive runs. It's like the army guy watching the war movie...


Ron, did you mean to say " So, we used only 10% (proportionately) of troops in Iraq as we did in WWII?"

I was comparing occupation forces in Germany & Japan to those in Iraq. IIRC Afghanistan was close to Iraq numbers.

Yes, your examples would at the least prove problematic.

Our excellent host has more than once discussed some of the tricks the Russians have revealed in the Ukraine. I don't relish the idea of our troops encountering those tricks without a lot of counter-training.

I'm not sure the brass has been paying attention. See also Brad's post about the "death" of SEAD.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Become a Fan