Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

How many bayonets do we have?
Quote | Reply
I've searched the WWW to no avail (interesting in itself).

So to the LR brain trust...

How many bayonets does the armed forces of the US have in it's possession today?

How many in 1917?

Same for horses.

I know this is really stupid and pointless, but the difficulty in finding these numbers has me curious. It's like trying to find out how many actual dollars are spent on education in California (hint, it has gone up every year since as far back as 1975 despite the almost universal claim, every year, that there are "drastic cuts").

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb
Last edited by: Duffy: Oct 23, 12 7:54
Quote Reply
Re: How many bayonets do we have? [Duffy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Duffy wrote:
I've searched the WWW to no avail (interesting in itself).

So to the LR brain trust...

How many bayonets does the armed forces of the US have in it's possession today?

How many in 1917?

Same for horses.

I know this is really stupid and pointless, but the difficulty in finding these numbers has me curious. It's like trying to find out how many actual dollars are spent on education in California (hint, it has gone up every year since as far back as 1975 despite the almost universal claim, every year, that there are "drastic cuts").

It is hard to say. Prior to the passage of the draft in May, 1917 the US Army was about 100,000 strong. I do not know how many were drafted and outfitted by the end of the year but it would have been a quick ramp up. You can expect that the US had something more than 100,000 during 1917.

At present we are likely near 1 million men who would have been issued a bayonet. You can expect the US to have supplies to at least double that number. So, probably 2 million bayonets.

The point of the debacle is that what size navy we had in 1917 is an irrelevant metric by which to measure our current force structure. So, Romney was not very smart in using it. Similarly, Obama, in an attempt to be snarky and condescending, displayed a real ignorance of both our military history and current standard issue gear and force size. We very likely had far fewer bayonets in 1917 then we do now and it is a real stretch to suggest that we had more.

Romney's metric was faulty and Obama should have had the maturity to dress him down as a sober and knowledgeable CiC. Instead, he was childish, snarky and either forgetful or ignorant.
Quote Reply
Re: How many bayonets do we have? [Duffy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I wonder if the real political tactic is to spew out such crazy BS that we spend all our time arguing over whether or not we have more or fewer knifes to bring to the WMD fight, enough women in our binders, where our leaders were supposedly born or not, etc, than to realize neither side as our best interest in mind and our attention has successfully been deflected?


Score one more for the political machine I guess.
Quote Reply
Re: How many bayonets do we have? [Duffy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Last time I touched a bayonet was July-ish of 2002. . .during basic. I did carry a boot knife in Iraq and Afghanistan.

--------------------------------------------------------

It seemed like a good idea at the time. . .
Quote Reply
Re: How many bayonets do we have? [Duffy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In April of 1917, the US had 200,000 ground troops. Today, the US has 562,000 Army soldiers and 202,000 Marines on active duty. We have another 600,000 soldiers and marines in the National Guard and Reserves. The bayonet is still standard issue for many units.

There have been 330,254 M9's issued to soldiers and marines since 1984. In addition to that, the M11 is primarily used by EOD, but, we used them when I was a 12B, Combat Engineer. Add about another 20,000 M11's issued since 1990.


I have no idea what the numbers are for horses.



If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR
Quote Reply
Re: How many bayonets do we have? [Duffy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
The point is: it doesn't matter. While they may still serve a purpose at times, bayonets and horses are largely irrelevant to military capabilities now a days. That's why you have no idea how many of them we have.

I'll throw some of you a bone and ignore the spot-on mockery Obama dished out and some of you can't seem to smartly set aside and focus on the point Romney made.

We learned our Navy lesson regarding number of ships after Pearl Harbor. Battleships were out, carriers were in. I'm not sure why people are having such a hard time coping with something that became blatantly obvious more than 70 years ago, never mind citing numbers from almost 100 years ago. Quoting 1916 Navy ship numbers as if they mean something is ridiculous. If we decommissioned our Naval carrier groups and used the funds to invest in a bunch of 17 foot skiffs, we'd have more ships than we did in 1916. But who the fuck would do that?
Quote Reply
Re: How many bayonets do we have? [JSA] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
JSA wrote:
In April of 1917, the US had 200,000 ground troops. Today, the US has 562,000 Army soldiers and 202,000 Marines on active duty. We have another 600,000 soldiers and marines in the National Guard and Reserves. The bayonet is still standard issue for many units.

There have been 330,254 M9's issued to soldiers and marines since 1984. In addition to that, the M11 is primarily used by EOD, but, we used them when I was a 12B, Combat Engineer. Add about another 20,000 M11's issued since 1990.


I have no idea what the numbers are for horses.



Our numbers are off. Here is one of my sources:

Mobilizing for War

Though the United States had joined the fight, it would be some time before American troops could be fielded in large numbers. Numbering only 108,000 men in April 1917, the US Army began a rapid expansion as volunteers enlisted in large numbers and a selective draft instituted.

http://militaryhistory.about.com/...erview/a/wwi1917.htm
Last edited by: Brick: Oct 23, 12 8:16
Quote Reply
Re: How many bayonets do we have? [Quel] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quel wrote:
The point is: it doesn't matter. While they may still serve a purpose at times, bayonets and horses are largely irrelevant to military capabilities now a days. That's why you have no idea how many of them we have.

I'll throw some of you a bone and ignore the spot-on mockery Obama dished out and some of you can't seem to smartly set aside and focus on the point Romney made.

We learned our Navy lesson regarding number of ships after Pearl Harbor. Battleships were out, carriers were in. I'm not sure why people are having such a hard time coping with something that became blatantly obvious more than 70 years ago, never mind citing numbers from almost 100 years ago. Quoting 1916 Navy ship numbers as if they mean something is ridiculous. If we decommissioned our Naval carrier groups and used the funds to invest in a bunch of 17 foot skiffs, we'd have more ships than we did in 1916. But who the fuck would do that?

A 17 foot skiff is not a ship. It is a boat. Big difference. As CiC Obama should know the difference and Romney had better learn.
Quote Reply
Re: How many bayonets do we have? [Duffy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Condescending response by the leader of the free world doesn't make for interesting conversation. Does it?
Quote Reply
Re: How many bayonets do we have? [Brick] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quote:
The point of the debacle is that what size navy we had in 1917 is an irrelevant metric by which to measure our current force structure. So, Romney was not very smart in using it. Similarly, Obama, in an attempt to be snarky and condescending, displayed a real ignorance of both our military history and current standard issue gear and force size. We very likely had far fewer bayonets in 1917 then we do now and it is a real stretch to suggest that we had more.

I agree with this.

Does anyone else find it curious that the bayonet numbers are so difficult to find?

All the "news" stories talk about who got the better of the exchange and some even say "we still use bayonets", but you'd think the job of a journalist is to get the facts out there. If I did that for a living the first thing I'd report is the actual number of bayonets and horses we have now compared to back then.

Of course, this is all totally stupid and irrelevant (perfect for The Lavender Room), but who cares? I already voted anyway.

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb
Quote Reply
Re: How many bayonets do we have? [Brick] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Brick wrote:
JSA wrote:
In April of 1917, the US had 200,000 ground troops. Today, the US has 562,000 Army soldiers and 202,000 Marines on active duty. We have another 600,000 soldiers and marines in the National Guard and Reserves. The bayonet is still standard issue for many units.

There have been 330,254 M9's issued to soldiers and marines since 1984. In addition to that, the M11 is primarily used by EOD, but, we used them when I was a 12B, Combat Engineer. Add about another 20,000 M11's issued since 1990.


I have no idea what the numbers are for horses.



Our numbers are off. Here is one of my sources:

Mobilizing for WarThough the United States had joined the fight, it would be some time before American troops could be fielded in large numbers. Numbering only 108,000 men in April 1917, the US Army began a rapid expansion as volunteers enlisted in large numbers and a selective draft instituted.http://militaryhistory.about.com/...erview/a/wwi1917.htm


You are looking at Army soldiers for your 108,000 number. My 200,000 number is all ground troops, not just Army. In addition, it includes the national guard. I have the military history book at home from my ROTC days. So, both numbers are accurate, but, include different groups.

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR
Last edited by: JSA: Oct 23, 12 8:21
Quote Reply
Re: How many bayonets do we have? [JSA] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
JSA wrote:
Brick wrote:
JSA wrote:
In April of 1917, the US had 200,000 ground troops. Today, the US has 562,000 Army soldiers and 202,000 Marines on active duty. We have another 600,000 soldiers and marines in the National Guard and Reserves. The bayonet is still standard issue for many units.

There have been 330,254 M9's issued to soldiers and marines since 1984. In addition to that, the M11 is primarily used by EOD, but, we used them when I was a 12B, Combat Engineer. Add about another 20,000 M11's issued since 1990.


I have no idea what the numbers are for horses.



Our numbers are off. Here is one of my sources:

Mobilizing for WarThough the United States had joined the fight, it would be some time before American troops could be fielded in large numbers. Numbering only 108,000 men in April 1917, the US Army began a rapid expansion as volunteers enlisted in large numbers and a selective draft instituted.http://militaryhistory.about.com/...erview/a/wwi1917.htm


You are looking at Army soldiers for your 108,000 number. My 200,000 number is all ground troops, not just Army. In addition, it includes the national guard. I have the military history book at home from my ROTC days. So, both numbers are accurate, but, include different groups.

Perfect. Thanks.
Quote Reply
Re: How many bayonets do we have? [Duffy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Duffy wrote:
Quote:
The point of the debacle is that what size navy we had in 1917 is an irrelevant metric by which to measure our current force structure. So, Romney was not very smart in using it. Similarly, Obama, in an attempt to be snarky and condescending, displayed a real ignorance of both our military history and current standard issue gear and force size. We very likely had far fewer bayonets in 1917 then we do now and it is a real stretch to suggest that we had more.


I agree with this.

Does anyone else find it curious that the bayonet numbers are so difficult to find?

Nope. I gave the current numbers. I am not surprised no one kept track of the number bayonets in 1917.

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR
Quote Reply
Re: How many bayonets do we have? [Duffy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Duffy wrote:
Quote:
The point of the debacle is that what size navy we had in 1917 is an irrelevant metric by which to measure our current force structure. So, Romney was not very smart in using it. Similarly, Obama, in an attempt to be snarky and condescending, displayed a real ignorance of both our military history and current standard issue gear and force size. We very likely had far fewer bayonets in 1917 then we do now and it is a real stretch to suggest that we had more.


I agree with this.

Does anyone else find it curious that the bayonet numbers are so difficult to find?

All the "news" stories talk about who got the better of the exchange and some even say "we still use bayonets", but you'd think the job of a journalist is to get the facts out there. If I did that for a living the first thing I'd report is the actual number of bayonets and horses we have now compared to back then.

Of course, this is all totally stupid and irrelevant (perfect for The Lavender Room), but who cares? I already voted anyway.

Maybe not the US. . .but I remember hearing about this over the net when I was in Mosul. Fucking hardcore.

"In May 2004, approximately 20 British troops in Basra were ambushed and forced out of their vehicles by about 100 Shiite militia fighters. When ammunition ran low, the British troops fixed bayonets and charged the enemy. About 20 militiamen were killed in the assault without any British deaths."

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=0bd_1249524865

--------------------------------------------------------

It seemed like a good idea at the time. . .
Quote Reply
Re: How many bayonets do we have? [Quel] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quel wrote:
The point is: it doesn't matter. While they may still serve a purpose at times, bayonets and horses are largely irrelevant to military capabilities now a days. That's why you have no idea how many of them we have.

I'll throw some of you a bone and ignore the spot-on mockery Obama dished out and some of you can't seem to smartly set aside and focus on the point Romney made.

We learned our Navy lesson regarding number of ships after Pearl Harbor. Battleships were out, carriers were in. I'm not sure why people are having such a hard time coping with something that became blatantly obvious more than 70 years ago, never mind citing numbers from almost 100 years ago. Quoting 1916 Navy ship numbers as if they mean something is ridiculous. If we decommissioned our Naval carrier groups and used the funds to invest in a bunch of 17 foot skiffs, we'd have more ships than we did in 1916. But who the fuck would do that?

I agree. I'm not the person who "can't seem to... set aside" Obama's dick move. Romney made a stupid point.

I don't know how many different ways I can say that Romney got de-pantied here. I don't know how many ways I can say this whole thing is largely irrelevant.

Romney said what he said and it was kind of dumb. I'm not defending it in any way. Obama said what he said, came across as a dick and may be factually wrong.

The point this thread is to determine what the actual facts are. And a side point I'm trying to make is that seemingly zero journalists are actually interested in finding the numbers.

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb
Quote Reply
Re: How many bayonets do we have? [Duffy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Bayonets could be useful in case of a Zombie Apocalypse. Once you run out of bullets...
Quote Reply
Re: How many bayonets do we have? [JSA] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quote:
Nope. I gave the current numbers. I am not surprised no one kept track of the number bayonets in 1917.

I know, but if I keep ignoring you this thread will last longer.

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb
Quote Reply
Re: How many bayonets do we have? [Quel] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quel wrote:
The point is: it doesn't matter. While they may still serve a purpose at times, bayonets and horses are largely irrelevant to military capabilities now a days. That's why you have no idea how many of them we have.

You sure?

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR
Quote Reply
Re: How many bayonets do we have? [JSA] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Yes.

How many insurgents in Iraq/Afghanistan were killed by bayonet?
Quote Reply
Re: How many bayonets do we have? [JSA] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
JSA wrote:
Quel wrote:
The point is: it doesn't matter. While they may still serve a purpose at times, bayonets and horses are largely irrelevant to military capabilities now a days. That's why you have no idea how many of them we have.


You sure?

To be fair, you and I have a solid idea as to how many have been issued. That does not mean we know how many the US has. In other words, we can estimate the number "in the field" but not available for issue.
Quote Reply
Re: How many bayonets do we have? [Quel] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
At least 20. See here: In May 2004, approximately 20 British troops in Basra were ambushed and forced out of their vehicles by about 100 Shiite militia fighters. When ammunition ran low, the British troops fixed bayonets and charged the enemy. About 20 militiamen were killed in the assault without any British deaths.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=0bd_1249524865

--------------------------------------------------------

It seemed like a good idea at the time. . .
Quote Reply
Re: How many bayonets do we have? [type-B] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Awesome! I stand slightly corrected, though would still deem them "largely irrelevant".
Quote Reply
Re: How many bayonets do we have? [Quel] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply


Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb
Quote Reply
Re: How many bayonets do we have? [Duffy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Romney's horses would beat the enemy to death in a horse dancing competition.


Quote Reply
Re: How many bayonets do we have? [Quel] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
"largely irrelevant"

Pretty sure that the people doing the actual fighting, in this case the British soldiers, would disagree.

Maybe you should have said bayonets are not optimal?

Quote Reply
Re: How many bayonets do we have? [Quel] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quel wrote:
Awesome! I stand slightly corrected, though would still deem them "largely irrelevant".

What do you base this characterization on? The reason I ask is because I disagree completely with it. Every ground troop is issued either a bayonet or a combat blade or both. Neither the commanders nor the troops want to be burdened with extra largely irrelevant gear. Yet, almost to a man they carry these items. They carry these items even after shedding their heavy and hot body armor.
Quote Reply
Re: How many bayonets do we have? [Quel] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quel wrote:
Yes.

How many insurgents in Iraq/Afghanistan were killed by bayonet?

Bayonets are only used to kill? Interesting.

I used my bayonet almost daily when I was in the Gulf. You didn't?

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR
Quote Reply
Re: How many bayonets do we have? [JSA] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
JSA wrote:
Quel wrote:
Yes.

How many insurgents in Iraq/Afghanistan were killed by bayonet?


Bayonets are only used to kill? Interesting.

I used my bayonet almost daily when I was in the Gulf. You didn't?

Doh, you ruined my set up counselor!
Quote Reply
Re: How many bayonets do we have? [JSA] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
JSA wrote:
Bayonets are only used to kill? Interesting.

I used my bayonet almost daily when I was in the Gulf. You didn't?

That a bayonet has other purposes is nice, but not what we are talking about.
Quote Reply
Re: How many bayonets do we have? [Quel] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quel wrote:
JSA wrote:
Bayonets are only used to kill? Interesting.

I used my bayonet almost daily when I was in the Gulf. You didn't?


That a bayonet has other purposes is nice, but not what we are talking about.

It isn't? How many insurgents were killed by combat boots in the last 10 years? How about kevlar helmets? Flak jackets? Canteens? Are those important to the military's mission?

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR
Quote Reply
Re: How many bayonets do we have? [Brick] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
People wouldn't remember sober and knowledgeable. Whether or not being snarky will end up be beneficial is an open question. I don't know that he himself doesn't know that we still use bayonets, but it was meant to sound good to a undecided (aka low-information aka moron) voter. Wouldn't surprise me if many of them had to google bayonet. To be fair the last bayonet charge was during the Korean War and the Army has discontinued bayonet training (as of 2010).
Quote Reply
Re: How many bayonets do we have? [JSA] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
The level of mental gymnastics you seem to be willing to go through in order to make this a positive thing for Romney is amazing to me.
Quote Reply
Re: How many bayonets do we have? [link5485] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
link5485 wrote:
To be fair the last bayonet charge was during the Korean War and the Army has discontinued bayonet training (as of 2010).

Exactly.
Quote Reply
Re: How many bayonets do we have? [link5485] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
link5485 wrote:
People wouldn't remember sober and knowledgeable. Whether or not being snarky will end up be beneficial is an open question. I don't know that he himself doesn't know that we still use bayonets, but it was meant to sound good to a undecided (aka low-information aka moron) voter. Wouldn't surprise me if many of them had to google bayonet. To be fair the last bayonet charge was during the Korean War and the Army has discontinued bayonet training (as of 2010).

No they haven't. Starting in 2010:

To make bayonet training relevant again, the Army got rid of the bayonet assault course, in which soldiers fixed a bayonet to the end of a rifle, ran towards a target while yelling and then rammed the bayonet into the target center. Instead, soldiers learn in combatives training how to use a knife or bayonet if someone grabs their primary weapon.
“There’s never going to be a day when we issue a pistol to every soldier, and traditionally a soldier’s secondary weapon has been his blade – his knife or bayonet,” Larsen said.
The new technique was demonstrated during last year’s Association of the United States Army convention in Washington. A soldier approached an attacker, who grabbed the end of his rifle. In the ensuing scuffle, the soldier grabbed his bayonet from a sheath on his leg and stabbed the attacker into submission.

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR
Quote Reply
Re: How many bayonets do we have? [Quel] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quel wrote:
The level of mental gymnastics you seem to be willing to go through in order to make this a positive thing for Romney is amazing to me.

I am just asking where you are getting your information. You seem to believe that bayonets are irrelevant. It wasn't to me or anyone in my unit. Care to share your source?

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR
Quote Reply
Re: How many bayonets do we have? [link5485] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
link5485 wrote:
People wouldn't remember sober and knowledgeable. Whether or not being snarky will end up be beneficial is an open question. I don't know that he himself doesn't know that we still use bayonets, but it was meant to sound good to a undecided (aka low-information aka moron) voter. Wouldn't surprise me if many of them had to google bayonet. To be fair the last bayonet charge was during the Korean War and the Army has discontinued bayonet training (as of 2010).

They continue training in hand-to-hand including the use of blades or unaffixed bayonets. So, yes, you can attempt to suggest that what Obama was driving at was the lack of modern bayonet charges but we know he did not say that. He may yet be hung (at least a little bit) on his own snarky and immature pitard.
Quote Reply
Re: How many bayonets do we have? [Quel] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quel wrote:
link5485 wrote:
To be fair the last bayonet charge was during the Korean War and the Army has discontinued bayonet training (as of 2010).


Exactly.

That would be great if it were true.

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR
Quote Reply
Re: How many bayonets do we have? [JSA] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
So just to get into the weeds a bit here, what's the difference between a knife and a bayonet? I know we'll never agree that the comment was made in jest to mock the idea that ship levels from 1917 have any use in guiding policy today, but I'm still curious.
Quote Reply
Re: How many bayonets do we have? [Quel] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
    Well Obama could have taken a more intelligent and more reasoned tack by pointing out his own budget item, or alternatively, Romney could have pointed this out to Obama. Most likely neither knew.

10 Ships for U.S. Navy in New Budget
Feb. 12, 2012 - 10:06AM |

By CHRISTOPHER P. CAVASAt least $12.8 billion in shipbuilding funds will be part of the Obama administration’s fiscal 2013 defense budget, according to a Pentagon document prepared for Feb. 13 news briefings and obtained by Defense News.
That’s enough for 10 new warships, and includes money to start construction on a new aircraft carrier and refuel another.
http://www.defensenews.com/...-U-S-Navy-New-Budget
Last edited by: dave_w: Oct 23, 12 9:18
Quote Reply
Re: How many bayonets do we have? [dave_w] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I think that the stupidity of comparing present ship levels with those of 1917 needed to be mocked. It seems uttering bayonet was a mistake because OMG we still use those. Most people won't know the difference and so won't get hung up on that particular fine point. They don't realize bayonets are still in use because that isn't something they think of when they think of the military. Similar to Romney's attempt to nail Obama for the way information was reported after the consulate attack it seems the substantive point being made will be lost in bickering ( in Romney's case he tried to make too much of one particular turn of phrase, in Obama's he chose a bayonet which is a poor example for the point he is making)
Quote Reply
Re: How many bayonets do we have? [Brick] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Brick wrote:
link5485 wrote:
People wouldn't remember sober and knowledgeable. Whether or not being snarky will end up be beneficial is an open question. I don't know that he himself doesn't know that we still use bayonets, but it was meant to sound good to a undecided (aka low-information aka moron) voter. Wouldn't surprise me if many of them had to google bayonet. To be fair the last bayonet charge was during the Korean War and the Army has discontinued bayonet training (as of 2010).


They continue training in hand-to-hand including the use of blades or unaffixed bayonets. So, yes, you can attempt to suggest that what Obama was driving at was the lack of modern bayonet charges but we know he did not say that. He may yet be hung (at least a little bit) on his own snarky and immature pitard.


I'd say that's how 95% of viewers interpreted that. Myself included. I see how people can technically say otherwise, but it's missing the forest for the trees.
Last edited by: Quel: Oct 23, 12 9:19
Quote Reply
Re: How many bayonets do we have? [link5485] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
link5485 wrote:
So just to get into the weeds a bit here, what's the difference between a knife and a bayonet? I know we'll never agree that the comment was made in jest to mock the idea that ship levels from 1917 have any use in guiding policy today, but I'm still curious.

Standard issue is bayonet, so, that's what the military uses for training. The primary defining feature of a bayonet is that it can be fixed to the end of a rifle. However, the M11 bayonet is unique in that it does not having that feature. Rather, it looks more like a "regular" knife. The M11 is used primarily by EOD (but, also troops like 12B, combat engineers) who will use it more like a utility knife for disarming, breaching, etc.

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR
Quote Reply
Re: How many bayonets do we have? [link5485] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
link5485 wrote:
So just to get into the weeds a bit here, what's the difference between a knife and a bayonet? I know we'll never agree that the comment was made in jest to mock the idea that ship levels from 1917 have any use in guiding policy today, but I'm still curious.


A bayonet is a knife, sword or spike that fits on, in, over, or under the muzzle of a long arm.

So a bayonet could be a knife, but not all bayonets are knives, and not all knives are bayonets. It's from the French.


What is interesting comparing today's bayonet to what was issued in 1916, is that in '16, we used the M1903 Springfield which had a 16" long blade for it's bayonet! That's a nice sized bayonet. In 1917, the M1917 Entfield started production (and issuing), but used the same bayonet.
The top one is a M1903 with bayonet.
The bottom is a M4 bayonet on a M1 Carbine (the M4 and modern M9 have almost the same blade length 6.75" vs. 7.0")


Quote Reply
Re: How many bayonets do we have? [Quel] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quel wrote:
Brick wrote:
link5485 wrote:
People wouldn't remember sober and knowledgeable. Whether or not being snarky will end up be beneficial is an open question. I don't know that he himself doesn't know that we still use bayonets, but it was meant to sound good to a undecided (aka low-information aka moron) voter. Wouldn't surprise me if many of them had to google bayonet. To be fair the last bayonet charge was during the Korean War and the Army has discontinued bayonet training (as of 2010).


They continue training in hand-to-hand including the use of blades or unaffixed bayonets. So, yes, you can attempt to suggest that what Obama was driving at was the lack of modern bayonet charges but we know he did not say that. He may yet be hung (at least a little bit) on his own snarky and immature pitard.


I'd say that's how 95% of viewers interpreted that. Myself included. I see how people can technically say otherwise, but it's missing the forest for the trees.

As I said in the other thread:


Romney was pandering to Virginia and its many naval shipyards. Obama's response is getting an interesting reaction on twitter. Navel vets are going nuts. Many are claiming this will be a Romney sound bite in Virginia. It is even getting a very large reaction here in WI where Marinette Marine has gone from 150 employees to over 900 employees in the last 2 years b/c of a large Navel contract for the LCS, which will run through 2016, unless the Navy faces more cuts from Obama's proposed military cuts.

Many comments coming out of Alabama as well, where Austal, in Mobile, has the second LCS contract. As with Marinette Marine, Austal has increased their workforce by nearly 8 fold as a result of this contract. Those ships mean a ton of jobs.

So, it was cute and funny, but, you are going to hear the President's comment in many sound bites in those areas.


- and -

Yeah, a little, but, consider the Navy's plan for the LCS program alone:

The deal, if approved by Congress, would replace an earlier plan by the Navy to pick one of the two competing ships and bid out the winning design to other shipyards. The Navy said the dual buy was preferable because it would deliver new ships faster, support more jobs and sustain competition between the two manufacturers.
The Navy ultimately plans to buy 55 of the new modular warships that will operate close to shore, a key part of its drive to expand the naval fleet to at least 313 ships.

There is no question we are light on ships. To the target audience, the President's comment was a very big deal. To everyone else, it will be forgotten before Thursday.





If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR
Quote Reply
Re: How many bayonets do we have? [Duffy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Duffy wrote:
I've searched the WWW to no avail (interesting in itself).

So to the LR brain trust...

How many bayonets does the armed forces of the US have in it's possession today?

How many in 1917?

Same for horses.

I know this is really stupid and pointless, but the difficulty in finding these numbers has me curious. It's like trying to find out how many actual dollars are spent on education in California (hint, it has gone up every year since as far back as 1975 despite the almost universal claim, every year, that there are "drastic cuts").

I remember reading something about Marine Corps legendary general Lewis B. 'Chesty Puller who, upon seeing a flame thrower for the first time, asked: "Where does the bayonet go?" ;-)

Generally, for each rifle with the capability to support a bayonet, one is supposed to come with it. Over time, though, you can end up with many more bayonets than rifles, and vice-versa, in an infantry or other unit as troops lose them, keep them as souvenirs and so forth. Bayonets are maintained in a unit's armory and the armorers are responsible for keeping adequate numbers of them in accordance with the unit's TO, or Table of Organization or TO&E (Table of Organization and Equipment, though I think it's called something else nowadays). A bayonet is a specific piece of infantry rifle equipment and it differs from the so-called 'combat knife,' or Ka-Bar (in the Marine Corps and in Navy special warfare units), a lot of troops sport.

The 'bayonet charge' was instrumental in several US military actions of note, including at Little Round Top, at Gettysburg in the Civil War, where Union troops, nearly out of ammunition and in danger of having their lines broken and outflanked by charging Confederate troops, fixed bayonets and charged forward, turning the Confederates and putting them to rout. Bayonets were also fixed and US troops charged forward using them in WWW I and II in more than a few major battles as well as in Korea and even Vietnam, at Ia Drang in a couple of smaller unit melees and elsewhere. Knowing how to effectively fight with your rifle and bayonet combination is an indispensable part of the US infantryman's combat toolkit, God bless him. :-)
Quote Reply
Re: How many bayonets do we have? [JSA] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I see no fucking way in hell that Romney issues an effective ad focusing around this. I may eat my words on this, but I just don't see it happening. While there may be a few people that think this is some gigantic gaffe for Obama, the overwhelming majority will take it for what it was, and it did make Romney look foolish. Like I said, I think about 95% of viewers would have taken it the way it was intended and scored it for Obama. The other 5% are people who were looking for any reason to be pissed off at Obama, and go figure, they found one. Imagine that. But if you show it in an ad, 95% of people are still going to think it's foolish for Romney, no matter how you frame it.

Really. Someone explain to me how such an ad would go.
Last edited by: Quel: Oct 23, 12 9:32
Quote Reply
Re: How many bayonets do we have? [Quel] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quel wrote:
I see no fucking way in hell that Romney issues an effective ad focusing around this. I may eat my words on this, but I just don't see it happening. While there may be a few people that think this is some gigantic gaffe for Obama, the overwhelming majority will take it for what it was, and it did make Romney look foolish. Like I said, I think about 95% of viewers would have taken it the way it was intended and scored it for Obama. The other 5% are people who were looking for any reason to be pissed off at Obama, and go figure, they found one. Imagine that. But if you show it in an ad, 95% of people are still going to think it's foolish for Romney, no matter how you frame it.

Really. Someone explain to me how such an ad would go.

You are not the target audience and the ad or campaign speach or whatever it is will only impact those targeted few. There are a lot of military contractors who are worried about the proposed budget cuts and this exchange is going to be used in those areas. In an election where every vote is going to matter, a candidate cannot afford to alienate anyone. In addition, you may think it "scored" point for Obama, but, on the CNN tracking poll, every snarky comment from either candidate received significant negative reaction.

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR
Quote Reply
Re: How many bayonets do we have? [Quel] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I'll give it a go

Fade in from black to image of a Marine with a rifle with a fixed bayonet
Voiceover: Obama thinks our Marines don't use bayonets anymore, play Obama quote
New image: Fighting somewhere
Voiceover: If he doesn't even know what our Marines use, how can he lead them.
New image: People on horses somewhere rugged
Make sure to remember our troops- Make sure they have the horses and bayonets they need.
This message was paid for by Crossroads Super PAC (aka the Koch brothers, Sheldon Adelson, et al.)
Quote Reply
Re: How many bayonets do we have? [Quel] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Bayonets? Pffft.

Motherf***ing CHAINSAWS, baby!


Quote Reply
Re: How many bayonets do we have? [JSA] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
JSA wrote:
You are not the target audience and the ad or campaign speach or whatever it is will only impact those targeted few. There are a lot of military contractors who are worried about the proposed budget cuts and this exchange is going to be used in those areas. In an election where every vote is going to matter, a candidate cannot afford to alienate anyone. In addition, you may think it "scored" point for Obama, but, on the CNN tracking poll, every snarky comment from either candidate received significant negative reaction.

I know I'm not a target audience for the bayonet thing. Who is? And what would you say to them?

That's true about any negative statements made by the candidates. People disliked that. Maybe Romney was baiting Obama into being snarky by saying something so dumb?
Quote Reply
Re: How many bayonets do we have? [link5485] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
opening: a foggy urban battle scene - now quiet . . .
JSA uses his bayonet to clean his fingernails and says "Obama - what an asshat - can't use an aircraft carrier to clean ma nail"

then Romney comes on and says "Syria is important to the region because Syria is Iran's way to the sea." BTW, look at a map sometime to see how funny Romney's gaffe was.
Quote Reply
Re: How many bayonets do we have? [LorenzoP] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Oh I know. Someone forgot all the times they've threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz.
Quote Reply
Re: How many bayonets do we have? [Quel] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quel wrote:
The point is: it doesn't matter. While they may still serve a purpose at times, bayonets and horses are largely irrelevant to military capabilities now a days. That's why you have no idea how many of them we have.

I'll throw some of you a bone and ignore the spot-on mockery Obama dished out and some of you can't seem to smartly set aside and focus on the point Romney made.

We learned our Navy lesson regarding number of ships after Pearl Harbor. Battleships were out, carriers were in. I'm not sure why people are having such a hard time coping with something that became blatantly obvious more than 70 years ago, never mind citing numbers from almost 100 years ago. Quoting 1916 Navy ship numbers as if they mean something is ridiculous. If we decommissioned our Naval carrier groups and used the funds to invest in a bunch of 17 foot skiffs, we'd have more ships than we did in 1916. But who the fuck would do that?

I think everyone is missing the point. the President did a playground tactic making fun of Romney and avoided answering the reall question being asked.

The point was not that we need as many ships as in 1917, but that you had to go back that far to see such a small number of ships. Romney's point was that we are already below the number of ships recommended for the navy, and we are going to be quite a bit lower if Obama gets his defense cuts.

Obama really got him with his jab, but did not have an answer on why we have less ships then are required and are still shrinking. Better to make some snide remark than give us a substantive answer. What a great example for our country.
Quote Reply
Re: How many bayonets do we have? [Quel] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
How about this:


In 2010, Marinette Marine employed 190 employees in its Marinette shipyard and was on the verge of closure. However, when the Navy LCS project, which was commissioned under George Bush, was awarded to Marinetee Marine, the shipyard was saved and in two years expanded to over 950 employees with a target of goal of 1500 employees by the end of 2013. But now the 55 ship LCS program is at risk under President Obama's proposed military cuts. While Mitt Romney wants to see our Navy grow in size and strength, President Obama sees Navy ships as despensable like "bayonets and horses." President Obama does not understand that these ships not only represent military security abroad, but, economic security at home as tens of thousands of jobs rely on this contract. Don't give President Obama the chance to loose even more jobs. Tell him he has lost enough.

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR
Quote Reply
Re: How many bayonets do we have? [LorenzoP] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
See my post above this. Pretty sad that you do not know about the shipyard in your own state. Of course, you do live in Madison.

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR
Quote Reply
Re: How many bayonets do we have? [patf] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Okay, I see it.

Sounds like the Libya question from the previous debate. Obama was focusing on what Romney said instead of what the real issue was. Which doesn't help. But maybe Romney should be setting things up better. Looking back on the transcript, he did mention that the Navy needs 313 ships to carry out their CURRENT mission but only has 285. That's a good point. Then he fucked it all up. That got lost because of his 1916 crap.
Quote Reply
Re: How many bayonets do we have? [JSA] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
wouldn't it be pure outright socialism if we kept these folks building ships we don't need?
Quote Reply
Re: How many bayonets do we have? [Quel] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quel wrote:
Okay, I see it.

Sounds like the Libya question from the previous debate. Obama was focusing on what Romney said instead of what the real issue was. Which doesn't help. But maybe Romney should be setting things up better. Looking back on the transcript, he did mention that the Navy needs 313 ships to carry out their CURRENT mission but only has 285. That's a good point. Then he fucked it all up. That got lost because of his 1916 crap.

Yep. Romney had the perfect opportunity to blast O on this one and blew it. But, like I said, this will be used on the campaign trail and will be used effectively with the target audience.

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR
Quote Reply
Re: How many bayonets do we have? [LorenzoP] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
LorenzoP wrote:
wouldn't it be pure outright socialism if we kept these folks building ships we don't need?


What source do you have that says we do not need them? Do you know anything about the LCS?

EDIT TO ADD: These are union jobs, btw. That sould make you all warm and tingly.

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR
Last edited by: JSA: Oct 23, 12 10:01
Quote Reply
Re: How many bayonets do we have? [JSA] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Hrm. That's actually pretty good for some political spinstering. I still think it's a bunch of bullshit, but it could work. I'd leave the part out about them being saved in 2010 due to a contract award though:).
Quote Reply
Re: How many bayonets do we have? [Quel] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quel wrote:
Okay, I see it.

Sounds like the Libya question from the previous debate. Obama was focusing on what Romney said instead of what the real issue was. Which doesn't help. But maybe Romney should be setting things up better. Looking back on the transcript, he did mention that the Navy needs 313 ships to carry out their CURRENT mission but only has 285. That's a good point. Then he fucked it all up. That got lost because of his 1916 crap.


ding ding! Romney is right on the actual point, Obama thinks he "won", and maybe he did with his base. My take is that it was another snarky moment that cuts into Obama's "likeability" and ultimately, his favorable ratings, and those things matter more with folks in the middle.
Last edited by: dave_w: Oct 23, 12 10:07
Quote Reply
Re: How many bayonets do we have? [JSA] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
You are proposing we need more then Obama is willing to budget - do you have a link to a Navy request for more.
Quote Reply
Re: How many bayonets do we have? [Duffy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Not definitive answer, but some info to work with.


http://www.slate.com/...he_u_s_military.html
Quote Reply
Re: How many bayonets do we have? [LorenzoP] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
LorenzoP wrote:
You are proposing we need more then Obama is willing to budget - do you have a link to a Navy request for more.

I posted it earlier on two different threads. In 2010, the Navy awarded the LCS contract to both Lockheed Martin and Austal. Instead of a winner-take-all bid, the 20 ship award was split in two with each contractor taking 10 ships (there are 2 different models, which is how the bid was split). Lockheed Martin is the general contractor, but, in reality, your home-state company, Marinette Marine, is doing all the building from start to finish. The total LCS program, approved by the Department of the Navy, is for 55 ships total. Not only is that 55 ship goal in jeopardy, but, the contractually awarded 20 ships are in jeopardy and it aint b/c we don't need them.

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR
Quote Reply
Re: How many bayonets do we have? [Duffy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Total numbers of the Army doesn't really help, though. The key stat is that out of 565,000 in the Army, only about 50,000 are infantry...a very small number. There are about 20,000 Marine infantry. Our tooth to tail ratio has gotten insane. You can't just draft somebody and make a competent infantryman out of them overnight...it is a skill that has to be taught, trained, and kept current, just like any other. The real problem that neither candidate is really trying to address is the fact that our military has been turned into a jobs program, and not one of defending the nation.

Spot

___________________________________________________
Taco cat spelled backwards is....taco cat.
Quote Reply
Re: How many bayonets do we have? [JSA] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I found some more comments for you guys to get outraged about. Who would call them battleships? I hope you military buffs take this dude to task for using a term incorrectly even though we know what he means:

"To compare modern American battleships and Navy with bayonets, I just don't understand that comparison"
Last edited by: Quel: Oct 23, 12 10:47
Quote Reply
Re: How many bayonets do we have? [LorenzoP] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
You are quite naive if you think defense is all about national security, it's about job creation. Watch what happens when the military tries to close a base.
Quote Reply
Re: How many bayonets do we have? [Rambler] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
everybody becomes a Socialist when it's their pet special interest group on the chopping block
Quote Reply
Re: How many bayonets do we have? [LorenzoP] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
LorenzoP wrote:
everybody becomes a Socialist when it's their pet special interest group on the chopping block

I don't think you know what the word "Socialist" means.

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR
Quote Reply
Re: How many bayonets do we have? [JSA] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I should have gone pink - I was using socialism as the right wing likes to use the term -
Quote Reply
Re: How many bayonets do we have? [JSA] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
JSA wrote:
LorenzoP wrote:
wouldn't it be pure outright socialism if we kept these folks building ships we don't need?


What source do you have that says we do not need them? Do you know anything about the LCS?

EDIT TO ADD: These are union jobs, btw. That should make you all warm and tingly.

I work for Lockheed Martin and maintaining LCS is a very, very big deal to me, personally

"What's your claim?" - Ben Gravy
"Your best work is the work you're excited about" - Rick Rubin
Quote Reply
Re: How many bayonets do we have? [randymar] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
well then we should keep you working then - now that you put it that way.
Quote Reply
Re: How many bayonets do we have? [LorenzoP] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
LorenzoP wrote:
well then we should keep you working then - now that you put it that way.

You would feel better about randymar if he worked at GM instead of Lockheed Martin, wouldn't you?

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR
Quote Reply
Re: How many bayonets do we have? [JSA] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
 it's just me being a prick - but again, everybody has their projects they don't want cut . . .
Quote Reply
Re: How many bayonets do we have? [dave_w] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
dave_w wrote:
Quel wrote:
Okay, I see it.

Sounds like the Libya question from the previous debate. Obama was focusing on what Romney said instead of what the real issue was. Which doesn't help. But maybe Romney should be setting things up better. Looking back on the transcript, he did mention that the Navy needs 313 ships to carry out their CURRENT mission but only has 285. That's a good point. Then he fucked it all up. That got lost because of his 1916 crap.


ding ding! Romney is right on the actual point, Obama thinks he "won", and maybe he did with his base. My take is that it was another snarky moment that cuts into Obama's "likeability" and ultimately, his favorable ratings, and those things matter more with folks in the middle.

You DO realize that the low point of our ship count since the 19th century was in 2007 (278), since then we have added 9 New destroyers and 2 littoral combat ships while decommissioning some old frigates. Our count has risen to 285 since Obama took over and more ships are coming, so even though this argument that Obama is crippling the navy is absolutely absurd, it's also wrong.
My unreliable, liberal source is http://www.history.navy.mil/...ches/org9-4.htm#2000

When it comes to the bitching about visiting Israel, Reagan never visited Israel as president and GW didn't go until his second term in 2008, Papa Bush never went as president either. Irrelevant? Yes, but don't attack someone for not doing it ENOUGH when your guys never did it.

The real question that wasn't answered last night, or even asked by the moderator was the issue of Europe and the situation in the EU. Our economic growth and stability of worldwide credit markets are more in the hands of the EU right now than our own. Every day there continues to be uncertainty in the EU and contraction in the eurozone it squeezes our recovery further. There was not ONE question about candidates views on the issues of Spain, Greece, or the future of the EU. This was ridiculous. An unstable, contracting EU is the number one worldwide economic issue right now and we will not grow at 3%+ until they get there shit together and we need to help leverage and facilitate this. Instead we were talking about the size of our WW1 fleet as if the lusitania was just sunk by the kaiser, the ocean apparently doesn't touch Iran anymore and Romney talked about Mali as if a dirt poor, landlocked country that is 90% Muslim having an Al-qaeda presence is shocking. Maybe we should attack them since they have a few uranium mines too. I will sign back up for that, i've always wanted to see that camel train carrying the salt into timbuktu. White gold baby!

With the crises in the EU going on and directly effecting the US economy, Mali should never be mentioned more than Greece, Spain or Germany. Absurd.

I did appreciate Romney calling out the Chinese for being counterfeiting, fraudulent thieves. Counterfeiting and intellectual theft by the Chinese is a much, much bigger issue than we give it credit for.
Quote Reply
Re: How many bayonets do we have? [Quel] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quel wrote:
I found some more comments for you guys to get outraged about. Who would call them battleships? I hope you military buffs take this dude to task for using a term incorrectly even though we know what he means:

"To compare modern American battleships and Navy with bayonets, I just don't understand that comparison"

It should be "battle ships," or the more accurate term "Man of war" or "man o' war." You're right that a "battleship" is a type of man o' war. As to bayonets, it seems a bayonet company just put out an ad today about what President Obama had to say about bayonets:




As to ships and their total number, we're nowhere near the raw number needed for force projection and protection of the sea lines of communication. Admittedly, I'm biased because I served as an enlisted man and then a commissioned officer in our fabled '600-ship Navy' of the mid-to-late 1980s, but the fact is still that we don't have enough materiel, let alone personnel, that would enable our Navy and Marine Corps combat team to project sufficient force over a long-enough timeline to allow for our Army and Air Force to move into position in a modern contingency action. Yes, some of our equipment can act as an effective force multiplier, thereby decreasing the materiel and equipment needed in some aspects, but the Navy and the Marine Corps must cover a vast amount of territory in a hurry. 280-odd ships and a smallish Marine Corps doesn't allow for effective coverage of that territory, even if we were to cover just the Asian and Western Pacific regions and leave everything else to the Russians and other naval powers. Not that that's a very good idea, either...
Quote Reply
Re: How many bayonets do we have? [big kahuna] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Do you have any sort of report by the DOD or an external think-tank that has concluded what you have about us not being able to project our force to an adequate amount until our larger forces arrive?
Quote Reply
Re: How many bayonets do we have? [Karaya0321] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Karaya0321 wrote:
Do you have any sort of report by the DOD or an external think-tank that has concluded what you have about us not being able to project our force to an adequate amount until our larger forces arrive?

How about this (sorry, no article): Stateside pilots operating drones in Pakistan taking out Al Queda. that seems like a pretty high tech, cost effective, low risk way to get our point across.

I used to design missiles for a living. We had another name for Ships. We called them Targets. And lemme' tell ya'. they're easy targets to find, track and hit. Big hunks of slow moving metal in the middle of an unobstructed ocean, that sink when you poke holes in them.
Quote Reply
Re: How many bayonets do we have? [morey000] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
morey000 wrote:
Karaya0321 wrote:
Do you have any sort of report by the DOD or an external think-tank that has concluded what you have about us not being able to project our force to an adequate amount until our larger forces arrive?


How about this (sorry, no article): Stateside pilots operating drones in Pakistan taking out Al Queda. that seems like a pretty high tech, cost effective, low risk way to get our point across.

I used to design missiles for a living. We had another name for Ships. We called them Targets. And lemme' tell ya'. they're easy targets to find, track and hit. Big hunks of slow moving metal in the middle of an unobstructed ocean, that sink when you poke holes in them.

Good thing we don't need any platform from which to launch those missiles and drones ...

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR
Quote Reply
Re: How many bayonets do we have? [morey000] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
morey000 wrote:
Karaya0321 wrote:
Do you have any sort of report by the DOD or an external think-tank that has concluded what you have about us not being able to project our force to an adequate amount until our larger forces arrive?


How about this (sorry, no article): Stateside pilots operating drones in Pakistan taking out Al Queda. that seems like a pretty high tech, cost effective, low risk way to get our point across.

I used to design missiles for a living. We had another name for Ships. We called them Targets. And lemme' tell ya'. they're easy targets to find, track and hit. Big hunks of slow moving metal in the middle of an unobstructed ocean, that sink when you poke holes in them.

Have you ever served on or commanded ships, sir? I hear your refrain from a lot of men and women who've never earned a surface warfare officer designation. Our ships aren't as easy to 'kill' as you might believe or have been led to believe. I've served at sea and in ground combat positions. A naval man 'o war, in the skilled hands of a surface warrior, is a formidable thing, despite what you believe about anti-ship missile technologies.
Quote Reply
Re: How many bayonets do we have? [Duffy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Duffy wrote:
How many bayonets does the armed forces of the US have in it's possession today?

42-something, I'm sure

42-Thousand maybe?

"What's your claim?" - Ben Gravy
"Your best work is the work you're excited about" - Rick Rubin
Quote Reply
Re: How many bayonets do we have? [big kahuna] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
big kahuna wrote:
morey000 wrote:
Karaya0321 wrote:
Do you have any sort of report by the DOD or an external think-tank that has concluded what you have about us not being able to project our force to an adequate amount until our larger forces arrive?


How about this (sorry, no article): Stateside pilots operating drones in Pakistan taking out Al Queda. that seems like a pretty high tech, cost effective, low risk way to get our point across.

I used to design missiles for a living. We had another name for Ships. We called them Targets. And lemme' tell ya'. they're easy targets to find, track and hit. Big hunks of slow moving metal in the middle of an unobstructed ocean, that sink when you poke holes in them.


Have you ever served on or commanded ships, sir? I hear your refrain from a lot of men and women who've never earned a surface warfare officer designation. Our ships aren't as easy to 'kill' as you might believe or have been led to believe. I've served at sea and in ground combat positions. A naval man 'o war, in the skilled hands of a surface warrior, is a formidable thing, despite what you believe about anti-ship missile technologies.

And anti-ship missile sites are known as "targets" to JDAM-laden B-1s....

It would also seem that Mr. Morey has never heard of Phalanx CIWS (if I remember the acronym correctly). Nothing is quite as easy to target and kill as some might have us believe...

Spot

___________________________________________________
Taco cat spelled backwards is....taco cat.
Quote Reply
Re: How many bayonets do we have? [spot] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
spot wrote:
big kahuna wrote:
morey000 wrote:
Karaya0321 wrote:
Do you have any sort of report by the DOD or an external think-tank that has concluded what you have about us not being able to project our force to an adequate amount until our larger forces arrive?


How about this (sorry, no article): Stateside pilots operating drones in Pakistan taking out Al Queda. that seems like a pretty high tech, cost effective, low risk way to get our point across.

I used to design missiles for a living. We had another name for Ships. We called them Targets. And lemme' tell ya'. they're easy targets to find, track and hit. Big hunks of slow moving metal in the middle of an unobstructed ocean, that sink when you poke holes in them.


Have you ever served on or commanded ships, sir? I hear your refrain from a lot of men and women who've never earned a surface warfare officer designation. Our ships aren't as easy to 'kill' as you might believe or have been led to believe. I've served at sea and in ground combat positions. A naval man 'o war, in the skilled hands of a surface warrior, is a formidable thing, despite what you believe about anti-ship missile technologies.


And anti-ship missile sites are known as "targets" to JDAM-laden B-1s....

It would also seem that Mr. Morey has never heard of Phalanx CIWS (if I remember the acronym correctly). Nothing is quite as easy to target and kill as some might have us believe...

Spot

I didn't want to get into anti-anti-ship missiles and other technologies. That's for another time and place. I also didn't write what follows, but the writer himself has a keen understanding of what the surface combatant is and what's it's adapted to become:

As silly, parochial, and partisan as the infighting gets over defense planning and procurement, there is a reason why we have the forces we have, and it maps back to the basic, enduring strategy of the United States. We intend to control the seas that directly affect us and deter hostile control over the world’s other key chokepoints. And to do that, we need surface combatants.

...

That reality of sea control hasn’t changed since the ancient Romans locked down the Mediterranean, and it’s not clear that it ever will. As an environment for power and confrontation, the sea is sui generis. Modern threats from the air and under the sea have not made the surface combatant obsolete; they have merely driven it to adapt.


And the surface combatant has adapted, transformed from a platform that was largely about bringing guns to a fight into a platform whose effective purpose is to multitask 100% of the time. The US cruiser or destroyer can fire Tomahawk missiles hundreds of miles inland; it can deploy helicopters for a variety of missions; it can use guns large and small, and anti-ship missiles, against other surface ships; it can hunt submarines (if not as effectively as US Naval forces did during the Cold War), and attack them if it identifies them; and it can manage maritime air space for any combat purpose and shoot down enemy aircraft and missiles.


The surface combatant creates an envelope of multi-use combat power that moves around with it and acts variously as reassurance or a deterrent. There is a sense in which the aircraft carrier does that too, but from the maritime power perspective, the carrier doesn’t do all the things the surface combatant does – and that means it requires a protection provided by the surface combatant. If you want survivable, effective carriers, you need escorts.


Today’s carrier doesn’t have any antisubmarine warfare capability, nor can it reliably defend itself against a barrage of enemy missiles. Its close-in defenses are not the equal of the Aegis combatant’s anti-air or anti-missile capabilities. Nor can the carrier launch an anti-ship or Tomahawk cruise missile. The carrier is there to launch and recover aircraft. Its power envelope is singular; the surface combatant’s is multifaceted. The carrier’s air wing has a key role in maritime combat, but that role – like the Air Force’s – is complementary; it can’t replace the surface combatant, which remains the basic unit of naval power.


The submarine is a tremendously capable platform – in a face-off between a US submarine and a surface combatant I’d back the submarine every day of the week – but the sub’s role is also limited. In a geopolitical world in which “gray hulls” often exert their most proximate influence through sheer, obvious presence, the submarine’s purpose is to be invisible. The fear of a sub you can’t find is a more powerful motivator than the sight of a sub you can see, which is the opposite of the surface combatant’s effect. The attack submarine can collect intelligence, launch Tomahawk missiles, and hunt other submarines – and is by far the most effective anti-ship platform known to man. What it doesn’t do is integrate influence in all the dimensions of naval warfare – subsurface, surface, air, space, the littoral interface, geopolitics, and suasion – as the surface combatant does.


If you want to control the seas, you still need surface combatants. And since the seas are the pathway to most of what we do outside our borders, there is no such situation as one in which we will only need to do what aircraft carriers do, or only what submarines do, or only what minesweepers or oilers or merchant ships do. If we do not control the seas, we do not control our security conditions or our strategic options.


Numbers and priorities


How many surface combatants do we need? Romney proposes a number – a total of 328 ships (the current total is 284), of which surface combatants would represent about 130 – and backs it up with reasoning about a strategic purpose.
Obama’s approach has been budgetary. Under the constraints of the defense budget reductions proposed by Obama – $487 billion through 2022 – the Navy proposed decommissioning 11 ships in 2013, including four Ticonderoga-class Aegis cruisers whose service life has another 10-15 years left. Three additional cruisers with more than a decade of service life remaining are to be decommissioned in 2014. As noted at the Navy-oriented Information Dissemination blog, when the proposed cuts were first outlined in late 2011, the decommissioning plan will take out of service cruisers that can be upgraded with the ballistic missile defense (BMD) package – now a core capability for the Navy – while keeping five cruisers that cannot receive the BMD upgrade.


Other ships to be decommissioned include two Whidbey Island-class dock landing ships, or LSDs, which transport the Marines and support their amphibious operations. With the planned decommissioning of USS Peleliu, a Tarawa-class amphibious assault ship – although the date is now pending – the loss in capability would amount to the loss of an amphibious ready group, the combat formation in which a Marine Expeditionary Unit deploys. The loss of Peleliu, a “big deck,” which anchors an amphibious group, would drop the number of big decks from nine to eight.


Congress has moved to rescue the four cruisers proposed for decommissioning next year – and has also (see last link) stepped in to ensure the full funding of aircraft carrier USS Theodore Roosevelt’s nuclear-plant refueling overhaul. Theodore Roosevelt has about 8 months left in the 3.5-year overhaul, but the lack of a federal budget in the last three years has jeopardized her funding. With the decommissioning of USS Enterprise in 2013, and USS Abraham Lincoln’s scheduled entry into a refueling overhaul in December, the combat-ready carrier force will be down to eight in a few weeks.


In the end, the difference between Romney’s approach and Obama’s isn’t a difference between buying a 328-ship force and having no Navy at all. It never is; the difference is always between one policy and another. Obama’s policy is to cut defense spending, even when that leads to the decommissioning of some of our best ships. Yet in 2010, the Navy could only fulfill 53% of the requirements for presence and missions levied by the combatant commanders (e.g., CENTCOM, PACOM). Cutting this Navy will reduce further its ability to fill warfighter requirements.


Given the constraints of Obama’s budgetary priorities, DOD envisions eventually sustaining a Navy whose size averages 298 ships through 2042. Romney has articulated a national-security policy that emphasizes building faster and having a larger Navy, one that can better meet the requirements of US policy and the combatant commanders for naval power. Obama has used sophomoric sarcasm to imply that Romney’s approach is ignorant and outdated. That pretty much sums up the choice the voters have between them.




In 2010, Navy could only fulfill 53% of combatant commanders' preferences for presence and missions. That chills the bones of any Navy man who's ever sailed the seven seas.

Any Navy man or woman, and most Marine Corps officers and enlisted personnel, for that matter, with a modicum of time and experience in naval warfare (both of the Navy variety as well as the Marine Corps variety), understands why Navy ships and submarines and air power, as well as Marine Corps power, is vital to the United States, mainly because of the role we've chosen to play in the world and on the high seas. At 283 ships, at most (and many of those aren't combatants ships but supply and other logistics/auxiliary platforms), we simply don't have the needed firepower to effectively control the seas as we assume we must. There's certainly no other naval power, at present, that can either, but that's not the point, after all, correct?
Quote Reply
Re: How many bayonets do we have? [Duffy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I don't know how many the Army has today, but they issued them along with M-16's back in the day. I still have mine, the bayonet not the M-16, so it's possible there are as many out there as there are vets from 1970 to 1990.
Quote Reply
Re: How many bayonets do we have? [big kahuna] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Here's a question we should be asking: do we want to continue to be the underwriters for global security? I think people on both side of the aisle have an implicit answer, but this is a conversation that ought to happen in the open. Romney could have brought up those points instead of bringing up ship levels in 1916. That would have been a substantive point not so easily dismissed.
Quote Reply
Re: How many bayonets do we have? [link5485] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
If not us, who?

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR
Quote Reply
Re: How many bayonets do we have? [link5485] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
link5485 wrote:
Here's a question we should be asking: do we want to continue to be the underwriters for global security? I think people on both side of the aisle have an implicit answer, but this is a conversation that ought to happen in the open. Romney could have brought up those points instead of bringing up ship levels in 1916. That would have been a substantive point not so easily dismissed.

Agreed. I was thinking it's the difference between the oft used "peace through strength" and some new meme that might be more of peace through collaborative strength...or just hoping to always achieve peace through diplomacy. The two sides certainly differ on how often they expect the last can be achieved.
Quote Reply
Re: How many bayonets do we have? [JSA] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I don't have a good answer for that. It may be there's no one else. The Romans at least got taxes from the outlying provinces. We're providing security for everyone and we're the only ones paying for it. I'm not sure how much longer that will be sustainable.
Quote Reply
Re: How many bayonets do we have? [link5485] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quote:
do we want to continue to be the underwriters for global security?

Yes. And this where I depart from my libertarian brethren.

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb
Quote Reply
Re: How many bayonets do we have? [link5485] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Well, I wouldn't say we are the only ones, but, we certainly are carrying the lion's share. With awesome power comes awesome responsibility.

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR
Quote Reply
Re: How many bayonets do we have? [link5485] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
link5485 wrote:
Here's a question we should be asking: do we want to continue to be the underwriters for global security? I think people on both side of the aisle have an implicit answer, but this is a conversation that ought to happen in the open. Romney could have brought up those points instead of bringing up ship levels in 1916. That would have been a substantive point not so easily dismissed.

My answer would be "who knows?" I'm also not really sure we're doing what we're doing, naval power projection-wise, solely out of the goodness of our hearts but, rather, to ensure we're the dominant power on the world's oceans, because that maritime dominance assures us of a prime position in so many areas in terms of global commerce and policy that I'm not really sure there's really an area that isn't affected by control of the seas. There once was a Pax Brittanica, imposed on the world by the sheer might of Great Britain's Royal Navy and, in the main, the Royal Navy's power worked magnificently. Since World War II, the dominant sea power has been the United States, with its US Navy (backed up by the kind of Marine Corps power projection presence that dwarfs the ground combat power that Britain's Royal Marines were once able to project), a naval force that's unparalleled in world history. Rome and Greece had strong navies, no doubt, but were in some cases inept in how they used them, actually, as were the Phoenicians and other naval powers of the day. Not surprising, given the challenges that the sea presented to nations during those times.

Also, as JSA observes: "If not us, then whom?" The world -- including the high seas -- would be a far more tumultuous and even barbaric place if it weren't for US military might and the nation's willingness to, literally, go to war for causes and for people to whom we really owe nothing, except human decency and charity. Consider that US military might helped to save Muslims in Kosovo, when we really had no 'dog in the fight,' so to speak. It freed Kuwait from Saddam Hussein's Iraq. It faced down numerous despots and tinhorn dictators and it backed up its allies with a kind of ferocious power that's put a halt to many a regional strongman's territorial ambitions. Lately, it's been used to enable humanitarian aid after tsunamis and earthquakes and many of the world's people, when threatened by those with bad intent, or who've just went through a staggering natural disaster, stand in front of television cameras and go "Where is the United States? When is it getting here?" In Indonesia, after the tsunami, US Navy and Marine Corps personnel were on scene relatively quickly, and there were plenty of Indonesians that asked the TV crews "Where are the US Marines?"

This is our role in the world, and it's what the world mostly expects of us, though it often also hates us for our power and strength. But I've haven't seen another nation's people so consistently willing to send its men and women in harm's way for the benefit of other nations or for causes the U.S.'s friends and allies ask us to assist in effectuating. Of course, that aid is reciprocated, most especially by Canada, Great Britain and Australia, whose Diggers have sacrificed so much in Afghanistan. New Zealand and much of the Commonwealth is there, too. But that's what democracies do for each other, quite often. But without the United States to lead the charge, FROM THE FRONT, it would mostly be for naught and most other nations understand that that's just the way of things.
Quote Reply
Re: How many bayonets do we have? [big kahuna] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
That Marine killed the FUCK out of that tire. Good thing he had that bayonet. I bet he probably wants to trade his V22 support for a few extra bayonets, just to be on the safe side:).
Quote Reply
Re: How many bayonets do we have? [big kahuna] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Maybe do we want to at all is too stark a choice. We do need to ask how much we're willing to pay in live, time and treasure though. The money well isn't bottomless and I don think any candidate does well trying to convey those costs - undoubtedly because people hate being reminded of the cost of things. Romney thinks we should have defense spending at 4% of GDP and I would like to hear the rationale for that. He mentioned in passing that the doctrine used to be to maintain capacity for two land wars ( I feel as though there was a point where a third smaller action was supposed to be provided for also). Do we need that much in the way of land forces? Why? I can see the argument for keeping the sea lanes secure. I'm far less clear on what conditions we would need such a large land force for.
Quote Reply
Re: How many bayonets do we have? [Quel] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quel wrote:
That Marine killed the FUCK out of that tire. Good thing he had that bayonet. I bet he probably wants to trade his V22 support for a few extra bayonets, just to be on the safe side:).

There's a reason why it's good to have the ability and skill to fix a bayonet and use it when you, as a combat infantryman, have to close with the enemy, which the modern infantryman still has to do, sir. Also, the OKC (the bayonet) is often a weapon of last resort (next to those dinky pistols that some infantry leaders carry) when in the combat kill environment, which is where it's most useful. They're used to kill people, sir, and they're very good at it, when used correctly by a well-trained infantryman. The bayonet is an excellent tool in combat.

Also; air-to-ground support is important. But it can rarely help you when you're in a melee or when you're going house-to-house in a MOUT (military operations in urban terrain) situation. You should could call in fire support and level a position or a building -- possibly killing non-combatant men, women and children in the process -- no doubt, but air support can't orbit 24/7 and there are times when the enemy seeks to join itself with you at the hip. That's where a rifle/bayonet combination comes in most handy.
Quote Reply
Re: How many bayonets do we have? [Quel] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
V22's suck at CAS every single ground pounder knows this

____________________________________________________
Life is a Near Ambush, ASSAULT THROUGH!!!!!!! https://www.facebook.com/The44thMongolArmy
Quote Reply
Re: How many bayonets do we have? [TDThornton] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
TDThornton wrote:
V22's suck at CAS every single ground pounder knows this

I'm sure he remembers the V22s from the "Transformers" movies or something. ;-) They were super-efficient and deadly cool. I can remember sitting in on general briefings in the late-1980s on the big Marine Corps push for the Osprey, though I don't remember much at all (actually, nothing at all) being mentioned about possible CAS uses for it. That particular function was ladled on late in the procurement authorization process so that it could attract sufficient support in the Congress to keep it from being killed off.
Quote Reply
Re: How many bayonets do we have? [Karaya0321] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Karaya0321 wrote:
Do you have any sort of report by the DOD or an external think-tank that has concluded what you have about us not being able to project our force to an adequate amount until our larger forces arrive?

http://www.airforce-magazine.com/...%202010/1010qdr.aspx (emphases mine)

...

"As a Pacific power, the US presence in Asia has underwritten the regional stability that has enabled India and China to emerge as rising economic powers. The United States should plan on continuing that role for the indefinite future," the report notes. "The panel remains concerned that the QDR force structure may not be sufficient to assure others that the United States can meet its treaty commitments in the face of China’s increased military capabilities."


Adopting this force structure construct would have the greatest impact on the Navy. Whereas the 2010 QDR calls for increasing the size of the Navy fleet from the current 285 ships to roughly 322, the panel recommends a fleet of 346 ships. It also calls for modernizing the fleet with a new attack submarine, a next generation cruiser, and improved countermeasures to anti-access weapons such as anti-ship missiles and submarines. In analyzing the strategic landscape, the independent panel identified four vital interests of the United States, and a handful of current or evolving threats to those interests. As the underwriter of global security, the panel argues the United States and its military forces must adequately defend the homeland; assure access to the global sea, air, space, and cyberspace commons; preserve a favorable balance of power across Eurasia; and provide for the global "common good" through such actions as disaster relief, humanitarian aid, and development assistance.

I don't have the operations research software nor the data needed for input, but my blue-and-brown-water Navy experience tells me our Navy and Marine Corps combat team isn't sufficiently sized at present to meet contingency needs plus combatant commanders' requests for presence and support when and where needed, especially given our desired role in global ocean-related affairs. 285 ships, insufficiently classed, area-deployed and under-maintained as well as logistically supported, simply can't get the job done. The President and his staff people know this.
Quote Reply
Re: How many bayonets do we have? [big kahuna] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
big kahuna wrote:
I'm sure he remembers the V22s from the "Transformers" movies or something. ;-)

Nah. Boeing family, my friend! Though recently had a family member start working for a competitor. Buncha profiteers, we are.

Plus they cruise up and down the Potomac on occasion and they are fun to watch.
Quote Reply
Re: How many bayonets do we have? [Quel] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Ships: where is everybody getting 280 some-odd for our battle fleet? Our current Pennant List (All commissioned USS warships) is only 258 ships long. That doesn't count Military Sealift Command's Fleet Auxiliaries (supply and replenishment ships) but the Pennant List also includes the USS CONSTITUTION and USS PUEBLO, so the number is really 256. The Navy's required capabilities as set fourth by Congress in 2000 (yeah, its been that long) needs a fleet of 313 to meet all requirements with adequate time for training and maintenance. Of course training and maintenance budgets have been cut more times then I can count with my boots on. Oh and for the individual that used to 'design cruise missiles' one word for you buddy...AEGIS! and CIWS, and RAM, and NSSM, and EW, and well, you get the point...GFY

Bayonets; yeah we still use those, even as a Naval Officer I've carried and used one, couldn't tell you how many we have as not everyone in uniform is combat arms, so I don't know if we have more or less than in 19whatever... poor example.

Horses; we have a few of those still, mainly ceremonial units, some were/are used by Special Forces in the 'stan, I know horses are used DAILY in Arlington National Cemetery, far too many friends have made their last trip via the horse and caisson, and the POTUS would know that, if he ever cared enough to cross the Potomac and honor those who have made the ultimate sacrifice...guess that Memorial Day golf outing is always more important.

So, if nothing else this entire segment of the debate has highlighted how out of touch and elitist the politicians of all parties are...

Thanks for reading!

::Secure from whisky powered rant::

Slainte!
-Sea Dog Sends
Quote Reply
Re: How many bayonets do we have? [SeaDogAther] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
something I learned from an old friend - - - Sometimes you go to war with the army you've got, not with the one you want.
Quote Reply
Re: How many bayonets do we have? [LorenzoP] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
At least get the quote right: "you go to war with the army you have---not the army you might want or wish to have at a later time."

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR
Quote Reply
Re: How many bayonets do we have? [JSA] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
JSA wrote:
At least get the quote right: "you go to war with the army you have---not the army you might want or wish to have at a later time."

The military doesn't have a problem going to war with the forces it has. That war might be much more difficult to fight and win at the present materiel, equipment and force manning (and 'woman-ing' ;-) levels, though. Perversely, we'd lose more men and women and equipment and materiel fighting a war or a conflict, or whatever contingency situation you might want to call what we'd find ourselves in, at present force size and disposition because we'd be spreading ourselves across too-wide a swath of territory, globally speaking, in order to deal with a given contingency situation.

It also takes time to surge reserve units and the reservists themselves and I don't know that we've gotten any better at doing that since Iraq/Kuwait in 1990/1991, where it took months for some units to be ready to deploy. Theoretically, we're supposed to be able to pour reserve units into not only backfill roles but directly into theater-wide conflict situations. Certainly, many Guard and reserve units are training at a much more effective pace, from what I've observed, but budgetary constraints and cutbacks are also beginning to impact that aspect of Guard and reserve activities as well.

We're told that conflicts as we might see them today will be handled at least in part by coalition-style aggregations of various nations' military forces. Again; I'm not sure such coalitions can be as quickly effective as we'd need them to be in order to efficiently deal with a conflict situation as it might be presented to us. We're still looked to to provide the bulk of such forces, though, and I certainly wouldn't be counting on much support from many of our Western allies, outside of the traditional friends and allies that operate with us on a regular basis.

Mr. SeaDog made an excellent point about the 'true' size of our fleet (I'd add Fleet Marine Forces to the 'fleet'), which is actually woefully undersized when you start excluding ships kept on our books that are unsuited to modern warfare requirements, those in extended yard periods (we'll soon be down to 8 aircraft carriers actually available for operational deployments while three of their brethren are either still in yard periods or moving into them) and those that aren't combatant men of war-type ships. Though recommended fleet size varies by expert, 322 to 346 could work under present contingency requirements. It's a far cry from the 600 ships we hit in the mid-to-late 1980s but the world is also different, too.

One last thing: Mr. SeaDog correctly pointed out training and maintenance shortfalls, which is where you always see budget cutbacks hit first. If you can't train to fight a war, no matter the kind of 'army' you go to war with, you simply can't win that war. And if your equipment isn't ready to go to war when you need it to go to war, you're doubly hurt.
Quote Reply
Re: How many bayonets do we have? [big kahuna] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
we'd all be better served if we saw war, and the preparedness of war for what it truly is - - the biggest scam on earth.
Quote Reply
Re: How many bayonets do we have? [big kahuna] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
big kahuna wrote:
TDThornton wrote:
V22's suck at CAS every single ground pounder knows this


I'm sure he remembers the V22s from the "Transformers" movies or something. ;-) They were super-efficient and deadly cool. I can remember sitting in on general briefings in the late-1980s on the big Marine Corps push for the Osprey, though I don't remember much at all (actually, nothing at all) being mentioned about possible CAS uses for it. That particular function was ladled on late in the procurement authorization process so that it could attract sufficient support in the Congress to keep it from being killed off.



When I left in 2011 there was talk of a tail gun, to keep it from being all the way helpless the huey cobra tandem pairs over head in Afghanistan are better, no talib ran from v22's ever

____________________________________________________
Life is a Near Ambush, ASSAULT THROUGH!!!!!!! https://www.facebook.com/The44thMongolArmy
Quote Reply
Re: How many bayonets do we have? [LorenzoP] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
LorenzoP wrote:
we'd all be better served if we saw war, and the preparedness of war for what it truly is - - the biggest scam on earth.

That might be, but that particular day will never come as long as humans are human, sir. Until that day, should we somehow become capable of genetically modifying our genes for aggression, there are just times when war is necessary. I surely wish that wasn't so, but it is. If we don't defend ourselves and prepare to wage war -- which even the Swiss and the Swedes do, especially the Swiss -- we just increase the likelihood of it.
Quote Reply
Re: How many bayonets do we have? [TDThornton] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
TDThornton wrote:
big kahuna wrote:
TDThornton wrote:
V22's suck at CAS every single ground pounder knows this


I'm sure he remembers the V22s from the "Transformers" movies or something. ;-) They were super-efficient and deadly cool. I can remember sitting in on general briefings in the late-1980s on the big Marine Corps push for the Osprey, though I don't remember much at all (actually, nothing at all) being mentioned about possible CAS uses for it. That particular function was ladled on late in the procurement authorization process so that it could attract sufficient support in the Congress to keep it from being killed off.




When I left in 2011 there was talk of a tail gun, to keep it from being all the way helpless the huey cobra tandem pairs over head in Afghanistan are better, no talib ran from v22's ever

I agree. It was given a CAS role more to justify having more of them for theater contingencies and, thus, a reason to build and keep them, than anything else. Serviceable as a slick, not so serviceable as a gunship, which is kind of like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole when it comes to that particular Osprey role.
Quote Reply
Re: How many bayonets do we have? [big kahuna] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
If you can turn a C-47 into a gunship, surely you can make an Osprey a decent gunship.
Quote Reply
Re: How many bayonets do we have? [patf] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
patf wrote:
Quel wrote:

The point was not that we need as many ships as in 1917, but that you had to go back that far to see such a small number of ships. Romney's point was that we are already below the number of ships recommended for the navy, and we are going to be quite a bit lower if Obama gets his defense cuts.

Obama really got him with his jab, but did not have an answer on why we have less ships then are required and are still shrinking. Better to make some snide remark than give us a substantive answer. What a great example for our country.

You mean the defense cuts that both the house and the senate approved? But somehow in your mind they are Obama's cuts. Got it.

So you want to compare the number of ships in the Navy now to the number in 1917?

Since a single carrier battle group could sink the entire 1917 Navy and a single Trident submarine could destroy most countries, I don't think any such comparison is valid. Sure other Navy's have gotten stronger, but we still have by far the most capable ships and one carrier battle groups could still sink the modern Navy of all but a few nations.
Quote Reply
Re: How many bayonets do we have? [link5485] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
link5485 wrote:
If you can turn a C-47 into a gunship, surely you can make an Osprey a decent gunship.

The C-47 Dakota (DC-3). That was simply one of the best airframes in aviation history. The V22 Tilt Rotor is not, but that doesn't mean it's a bad air asset. We've been dealing with figuring out the proper role for the Osprey since the mid-1980s, though, and it's not the all-in-one solution that many might think.
Quote Reply
Re: How many bayonets do we have? [big kahuna] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
what do you think about an AC-17

____________________________________________________
Life is a Near Ambush, ASSAULT THROUGH!!!!!!! https://www.facebook.com/The44thMongolArmy
Quote Reply
Re: How many bayonets do we have? [TDThornton] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
TDThornton wrote:
what do you think about an AC-17

It would work at least as well as the V22. A Spectre gunship with jet engines...
Quote Reply
Re: How many bayonets do we have? [TDThornton] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
An AC-17 would cost waaaay more to acquire and operate than a AC-130; also, it can't turn as tight, is a lot louder, etc, etc. I don't think that an AC-17 would bring many benefits to the gunship mission other than being able to carry a lot more firepower (and perhaps greater range/endurance). The AC-130, despite the venerable age of its platform, is really still the best candidate for the job. A V-22 doesn't have the range required when heavily loaded for the gunship job, nor could it carry large ordnance like the 105mm howitzer...I would think the V-22 would make a poor gunship (perhaps you could stuff it full of those new mini-missiles, but that would be about it).

Spot

___________________________________________________
Taco cat spelled backwards is....taco cat.
Quote Reply
Re: How many bayonets do we have? [spot] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
[/img]
From FP.
Is anyone REALLY concerned about Obama's plan and think Romney's isn't excessive?
Quote Reply
Re: How many bayonets do we have? [Karaya0321] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Karaya0321 wrote:
[/img]
From FP.
Is anyone REALLY concerned about Obama's plan and think Romney's isn't excessive?



The QDR probably should guide us, outside of any defense plans or forecasts from the two candidates, sir. What we know at the moment is that Defense appears to be underfunded for its current missions and requirements. The Navy has asked for 313 ships, QDR envisions 322, the panel I cited in the Air Force Times article believes about 346 is appropriate. At 285 ships or so, many of which aren't combatant men of war-type hulls, we simply can't cover the ground we need to cover, and President Obama and his staff people know this. My guess is that if President Obama were reelected (this appears increasingly unlikely) he'd deliberately force us into sequestration, take to the bully pulpit and claim that "those evil Republicans" caused it, in order to gut defense in favor of various entitlement and social programs, all of which should also be cut if we're to be reasonably fiscally responsible these days.

I've been privileged to serve the United States Marine Corps in various enlisted and commissioned officer roles and I served in the United State Navy, again in various enlisted as well as commissioned officer roles. I may be a somewhat wild-eyed retired officer these days, but I'm not stupid or unlearned by any means, especially when it comes to defense spending and appropriations. As I said: My top-of-the-head "blue water" and "brown water" Navy and Marine Corps experiences tell me that the Navy and Marine Corps combat team is simply stretched too thin to handle "normal" and everyday operations, let alone contingency requirements that seem to be picking up in number, not slackening. The oceans aren't shrinking, after all.
Quote Reply
Re: How many bayonets do we have? [Karaya0321] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Yes, I do think Obama's plan is excessive. Much of the DoD's equipment is old and worn out. The USAF is in particularly dire straits....their fleet is the oldest in its history, and doesn't appear to be getting much relief in the near or even mid-term future. As planes age, they get more and more expensive to maintain. This in turns eats into the budget for buying new planes, putting the budget into a spiral of spending more and more on maintenance every year.

Then you have the fact that you have much of Congress that feels that the DoD budget is primarily about funding jobs, and not efficiently buying military capability. This gets you things like extra bases, units, and equipment that you simply don't need.

Spot

___________________________________________________
Taco cat spelled backwards is....taco cat.
Quote Reply
Re: How many bayonets do we have? [big kahuna] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I see no current or near term threat where a large standing military waiting at the ready would be useful - I would vote towards the Post-Cold War Style Drawdown
Quote Reply