Scenario: Acceptable US Casualties Against 3rd World Armies

[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.

[Suhiir]

While a fair number of nations have decently trained/equipped forces available (perhaps not their main military force but some "elite" units) a big part of being a "peer" is the ability to move a useful size force to where it's needed in a timely fashion. A lack of this capability severely limits their "peer" status.

[IronDuke99]

One reason I was trying to avoid using the term 'peer'. We were using it it in game terms, for a well equipped battle group.

Obviously Strategic lift (air or sea) does not really fit into the game much. Even if it did I don't think I would change the list I used earlier by all that much.

UK can field a reinforced Marine brigade and a reinforced Para brigade pretty much anywhere in the world, fairly quickly and in due course, back that up with a good Armoured Div, and that is more than anyone else in Western Europe can do.

[shahadi]

Originally Posted by IronDuke99

Obviously Strategic lift (air or sea) does not really fit into the game much. Even if it did I don't think I would change the list I used earlier by all that much.

Indeed, you gave a compelling list as well.

=====

[shahadi]

According to the Office of Naval Intelligence: "The naval buildup includes three new classes of advanced submarines and several new types of warships that the report warns will “provide a flexible platform for Russia to demonstrate offensive capability, threaten neighbors, project power regionally (my emphasis), and advance President Putin’s stated goal of returning Russia to clear great power status.”

Source: http://freebeacon.com/national-secur...naval-buildup/

And, this is another tidbit: “We’re back to the great powers competition,” Adm. John M. Richardson, the chief of naval operations, said in an interview.

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/21/wo...rise.html?_r=0

So, it seems the Russians want to up the ante to become a "peer" adversary to essentially challenge the US, the UK, and NATO anywhere and everywhere.

=====

[Suhiir]

Much like China, tho perhaps less important than it is to China, Russia lacks a navy that has any hope of matching the combined US/UK capability. A few subs one way or the other really don't make much difference.

[IronDuke99]

Russia has a very out of date navy right now. The two major units in the Russian Task Force shadowed by the Royal Navy recently, on its way to the Med, a Carrier and a large guided missile cruiser, were both old, Soviet era ships.

Russia, rather like Germany in the 19th-20th century suffers from geography in terms of her Navy. To operate as a Blue Water Navy the Russians have to get out of the Baltic or the Black Sea or operate (and defend) a significant base in the remote far east of Siberia. All them very hard to do. Plus it would be hugely expensive to maintain three significant fleets. Russia is, and always has been, mainly a Land Power.

Longer term, China has much more coastline on more open warm water and also has a lot more money than Russia. The Chinese are also looking to become a Carrier Navy, but it will be a while until the Chinese fleet could really challenge the USN and its major allies -Australia and Japan- in that part of the world.

Prediction: Japan will have a Carrier again by the end of the 20's. Indeed Japan (and Australia) already have flat top ships large enough to operate F35B.

Then there is India, with a Carrier Navy, that has been drawing a little closer to the US and UK lately (the Indian Air Force and the RAF carried out some joint training last year) in the face of the increased threat from China, etc.