Scenario: Acceptable US Casualties Against 3rd World Armies

[DRG]

Originally Posted by shahadi

"At the outbreak of the Civil War, Forrest volunteered as a private before deciding to raise and equip an entire unit at his own expense. He was commissioned lieutenant colonel, and issued this call to arms in June, 1861: ==

Ah ! Well, that salient fact was missing from the synopsis I quoted. I had forgotten that at the time is was possible to buy your way to the top. Had I dug deeper I would have found that

HOWEVER, what has followed points out how easily "history" can be "re-interpreted" when past events are viewed in a contemporary perspective. There are enough events from 70 years ago under current PC scrutiny, turn back the clocks a further 80 years and it's possible to find more examples of behaviour that would have been acceptable or at least tolerated at the time that are not now. How many remember ( or care ) that at Agincourt Henry V ordered the slaughter of several thousand French prisoners when he feared the French were regrouping for another attack......should we tear down his statures it a fit of PC angst too ?

That said , I started the deviation in the thread when I searched the source of the " first with the most" quote so now I'm ending it

Don

[IronDuke99]

In a COIN scenario that is a planned operation, say clearing a village, I think it would be fair to have the Western assets on call at the outset.

Also bear in mind these days you are likely to have all the troops on a radio net, of some kind, not just a platoon or even section/squad commanders. So if, in a planned operation, a platoon or section gets pinned down, or even comes under heavy fire, it is often fairly easy to call in air support, helos, artillery etc and to get that support fairly quickly.

An ambush of a patrol, can be a different thing, especially if your force is less 'asset rich' than the US tends to be. People may recall the Royal Marine hanging on to the outside of a Apache attack helo in Afghanistan (I think he was trying to get to a friendly casualty) because at that stage the Brits still did not have enough transport helos in Afghan...

[shahadi]

Let's consider updating our terminology or language. So, rather than "Western," or "Third World," I suggest we consider whether an army is a "peer," "near-peer," or "non-peer."

In general, we are comparing these peer terms to the US military forces as her forces extend power over the globe.

If we were to consider a peer army, in terms of our game, certainly, then our concerns are not whether a force can challenge the US anywhere, but only if that force can challenge the US on a winspmbt map with like TO&E.

Then, our use of a peer does not encompass strategic qualites, but is confined to the tactical determinants.

So, we might agree that while Russia and China are conducting joint naval exercises in the South China sea, this does not mean Russia and China combined can challenge the US anywhere.

However, in our game, we may agree that a Chinese belligerent force vs an American or for that matter, the Brits meets the condition to talk about the belligerent as a peer, because the Chinese have comparable TO&E.

A near-peer would be France (I like french fries), and a non-peer would be Mexico, Japan or the Daesh forces in Syria and Iraq.

So then to proceed, the title of this thread would more aptly be titled: "Acceptable US Casualties Against Non-peer Armies."

=====

[IronDuke99]

Originally Posted by shahadi

Let's consider updating our terminology or language. So, rather than "Western," or "Third World," I suggest we consider whether an army is a "peer," "near-peer," or "non-peer."

In general, we are comparing these peer terms to the US military forces as her forces extend power over the globe.

If we were to consider a peer army, in terms of our game, certainly, then our concerns are not whether a force can challenge the US anywhere, but only if that force can challenge the US on a winspmbt map with like TO&E.

Then, our use of a peer does not encompass strategic qualites, but is confined to the tactical determinants.

So, we might agree that while Russia and China are conducting joint naval exercises in the South China sea, this does not mean Russia and China combined can challenge the US anywhere.

However, in our game, we may agree that a Chinese belligerent force vs an American or for that matter, the Brits meets the condition to talk about the belligerent as a peer, because the Chinese have comparable TO&E.

A near-peer would be France (I like french fries), and a non-peer would be Mexico, Japan or the Daesh forces in Syria and Iraq.

So then to proceed, the title of this thread would more aptly be titled: "Acceptable US Casualties Against Non-peer Armies."

=====

I generally try to avoid as much military jargon as possible on here myself. Not sure it makes anything much clearer either, as, just to take your example, using the USA as a base I would probably make France and Japan peer, in game terms. While the Japanese Self Defense Force lacks much recent experience, their military history suggests they would be formidable, highly disciplined, troops.

So you might have USA (including USMC of course) UK, France, Germany, Israel, Japan, Russia and China as peer nations in terms of a land battle group as of this year.

Near peer would be much of the rest of Western Europe, including Poland, Canada, Australia, South Korea, Taiwan, India, Pakistan, North Korea, assorted former Eastern bloc nations, Vietnam, Egypt, Singapore, maybe South Africa (although nothing I hear about that army, these days, would give me all that much confidence in it against a serious enemy from outside Africa) perhaps one or two of the richer South American nations.

Non peer would be just about anyone else, including assorted terrorists/guerilla groups.

Of course you could argue about exactly what nations are peer and what are near peer (for example, I think you could make a strong case for Australia and Canada being rated as peer forces) and sometimes they change over time. Then you have exceptions like New Zealand, excellent, well trained, if very small Army, but, these days, they lack Armoured and air support.

[shahadi]

Interesting stuff you put on the table.

It just seems stale and dated to talk about "Western" armies as if they are all of comparable capabilities.

====

[IronDuke99]

When I talk about 'Western Forces' most of the time I mean US/British/Old Commonwealth (ie, Canada, Australia and New Zealand). The Anglosphere, if you like.

My knowledge of, and interest in, German, French and Italian forces is more limited. Beyond those nations, most Western European armed forces are really no longer fit to face first class enemies at all, in my view (although the Netherlands has a fairly small force of good marines who sometimes operate alongside the UK Royal Marines).

In terms of peer forces: German forces are important in Europe (as are the Poles). France, as always, runs a two tier army with some very good forces, like the Foreign Legion, that are mostly used for purely French purposes. How good French, or Italian, armoured battle groups might be remains to be seen and, hopefully we shall never have to find out. For my money Germany and the EU are very unwise to push Russia on anything east of Poland and certainly lack the military strength to back it up. I hope UK stays well clear of this. I actually think there is a very strong case for some sort of 'entente cordiale' between 'Western nations' and Russia, given that China is a much bigger, much richer, much longer term threat to both.

Most Western European nations spend less on Defence than the percentage NATO officially requires. Even the UK - that does spend proportionally more than other European nations - is only doing so with a bit of 'creative accounting' at present.

In terms of US allies, outside Europe, especially east of the Gulf of Arabia, only UK, and, to a considerably lesser degree, France, within Western Europe, is at all likely to have the will, or military capacity, to act usefully. So then you have to look at countries like Australia, Japan, South Korea, Singapore and Taiwan and, perhaps in due course, India in terms of any major war involving China and perhaps North Korea.

[Aeraaa]

Originally Posted by IronDuke99

I generally try to avoid as much military jargon as possible on here myself. Not sure it makes anything much clearer either, as, just to take your example, using the USA as a base I would probably make France and Japan peer, in game terms. While the Japanese Self Defense Force lacks much recent experience, their military history suggests they would be formidable, highly disciplined, troops.

So you might have USA (including USMC of course) UK, France, Germany, Israel, Japan, Russia and China as peer nations in terms of a land battle group as of this year.

Near peer would be much of the rest of Western Europe, including Poland, Canada, Australia, South Korea, Taiwan, India, Pakistan, North Korea, assorted former Eastern bloc nations, Vietnam, Egypt, Singapore, maybe South Africa (although nothing I hear about that army, these days, would give me all that much confidence in it against a serious enemy from outside Africa) perhaps one or two of the richer South American nations.

Non peer would be just about anyone else, including assorted terrorists/guerilla groups.

Of course you could argue about exactly what nations are peer and what are near peer (for example, I think you could make a strong case for Australia and Canada being rated as peer forces) and sometimes they change over time. Then you have exceptions like New Zealand, excellent, well trained, if very small Army, but, these days, they lack Armoured and air support.

I disagree with Germany's position. IMHO this has more to do with German army's reputation rather than their current capabilities. Germany belongs to the near-peer status.