# Article: The US Army is preparing to fight in Europe, but can it even get there?



## Ooh-Rah (Oct 9, 2018)

I love/hate these types of articles.  In this case, “hate”....

The US Army is preparing to fight in Europe, but can it even get there?

WASHINGTON — With Russia’s reemergence as a menace in Europe, the U.S. Army has been laying the foundations to fight once again on the continent it defended through most of the 20th century. But if war were to break out tomorrow, the U.S. military could be hard-pressed to move the number of tanks, heavy guns and equipment needed to face off with Russian forces.

And even if the Army could get there in numbers, then the real problems would start: how would the U.S. sustain them?

The U.S. sealift capacity — the ships that would ultimately be used to transport Army equipment from the states to Europe or Asia — is orders of magnitude smaller than it was during World War II. *Combine that with the fact that the commercial shipbuilding industry in the U.S. is all but gone*, and the U.S. can’t launch the kind of massive buildup of logistics ships it undertook during wartime decades ago.

Among the ships the country has for sealift and logistics forces, the Government Accountability Office has found a steady increase in mission-limiting equipment failures, which raises questions about how many might actually be available if the balloon goes up

“The American people far too often seem to believe that we could fly everything we needed over to Europe but that’s just not the case,” Hendrix said. “We’ve been practicing with Brigade Combat Teams but if we needed to respond to a large-scale contingency with Russia, you’d be looking at the need to move a corps — two or three divisions.”


----------



## Devildoc (Oct 9, 2018)

You know who else besides Clancy fans read Red Storm Rising? The Soviets.  Everyone knows that the US will need massive sealift to sustain a war. Hello, does World War 1 and World War II ring any bells?

You're right, the volume and type of shipping we have is totally unacceptable and pointless. We have ships driven by steam turbines that are 50 years old.  now I am all four forward staging bases like Diego Garcia and some of the others, but you can't put a whole Division there and you still have to transport it.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Oct 9, 2018)

Devildoc said:


> We have ships driven by steam turbines that are 50 years old.


The article actually makes mention of that


----------



## Marauder06 (Oct 9, 2018)

Sounds like a good argument to start building Fort Trump in Poland.


----------



## Gunz (Oct 9, 2018)

I doubt very much there will be a conventional ground war with Russia. We stood poised to annihilate one another with nuclear warheads for decades; an almost continuous belligerancy complete with proxy wars in Cuba, Korea, Vietnam, Central America, the African continent and the Middle East...and open warfare with the USSR never happened.

Why would it happen now? Why would the risk be higher now than during the height of the Cold War? The threat level just isn't there. Putin is aggressive where Russian interests are concerned but far less antagonist than any past Soviet regime.

The article I think is probably more alarmist than the situation actually warrants.

Many areas of our logistic and defense capabilities can be criticised. It's pretty easy to find waste, incompetence and short-comings within any huge military industrial bureaucracy. No, we don't have the sealift capabilities of the 2nd World War, of course not. We could never maintain anywhere near the expense...nor should we. The circumstances are far from that dire.


----------



## Teufel (Oct 9, 2018)

Ocoka said:


> I doubt very much there will ever be a conventional ground war with Russia. We stood poised to annihilate one another with nuclear warheads for decades; an almost continuous belligerancy complete with proxy wars in Cuba, Korea, Vietnam, Central America, the African continent and the Middle East...and open warfare with the USSR never happened.
> 
> Why would it happen now? Why would the risk be higher now than during the height of the Cold War? The threat level just isn't there. Putin is aggressive where Russian interests are concerned but far less antagonist than any past Soviet regime.
> 
> ...


I don’t think it’s inconceivable that we see drawn into a limited ground war with Russia in the Baltics. Especially since Poland is itching for a fight worse than Khabib Nurmagomedov.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Oct 9, 2018)

Yeah...we're kinda fucked.  But the Jones Act has truly messed up American shipbuilding when it comes to the commercial space.


----------



## Gunz (Oct 9, 2018)

Teufel said:


> I don’t think it’s inconceivable that we see drawn into a limited ground war with Russia in the Baltics. Especially since Poland is itching for a fight worse than Khabib Nurmagomedov.



Not inconceivable, sir, no...but I doubt it. And a massive confrontation of armor on the plains of Europe as envisioned during Cold War, something that requires the kind of sealift capabilities of WW2? I just don't see it. I think the PRC presents more of a threat.


----------



## Kraut783 (Oct 9, 2018)

Agree about the PRC and PACOM being the next hotspot. But, Russia and a limited ground war in our future...absolutely.


----------



## Teufel (Oct 9, 2018)

Ocoka said:


> Not inconceivable, sir, no...but I doubt it. And a massive confrontation of armor on the plains of Europe as envisioned during Cold War, something that requires the kind of sealift capabilities of WW2? I just don't see it. I think the PRC presents more of a threat.


You don’t always get to pick your battlefield. China is the bigger threat but Russia is more belligerent. Hopefully we are all wrong.


----------



## SpitfireV (Oct 9, 2018)

I agree that Russia won't go *much* further west. They make too much money selling energy to Europe to put that at risk IMO and that would then interfere with Putin's "director's fees". Maybe some limited stuff with former Soviet states a la South Ossetia but right now they're pretty tied up and still in the process of restructuring their armed forces IIRC (they might have finished that up though). 

With China they're throwing their weight around in so many places it's hard to tell where it would kick off. India/China border? SCS? Kashmir? I can see more riots against the Chinese like in Tonga in 06 happening in the Pacific. 

I think if anywhere South Africa will be the next big blow up- and if there's a big war in Africa, god save us all. I don't know what the US position is on South Africa if you guys would militarily support the government or not but that shit would be *messy*.


----------



## Kakashi66223 (Oct 9, 2018)

I believe a title reflects the gist of the document.

To back up @Ocoka as it's alarmism.

Scuba diving the title leads the reader to believe that we or US Army can no longer hold eastern Europe. The article is mostly saying Army requires naval and commercial sea transportation. Now this is all conjecture anyhow, or a big "guess" on my part. Most equipment in the inventory should be able to be loaded in a "large aircraft" at least it was Army doctrine at one time. I'm assuming the US Army base realignments are under indirect fire from this article too. I figured out long ago the Army moves faster than it appears to show off. I'm sure they could set up another V Corps in Germany in 72hours. Especially since Rangers can be ANYWHERE in 24, and they need support so it would be too far fetched to say that Big Army would not be far behind.


----------



## AWP (Oct 9, 2018)

We can only preposition so much equipment before we start talking about hundreds of millions/ billions to set up a Corps' worth of equipment waiting on troops. The sea bridge is vital. One good thing is there isn't a navy on the planet that can stop us from moving equipment to Europe. If you talk about limited engagement (between superpowers..how is that possible?), then will the shipping lanes even factor? The second Russia tries to interdict our sea routes, that escalation makes this a world war.

In the event of a war, anywhere, we're the only limiting factor on the high seas.


----------



## Cookie_ (Oct 9, 2018)

AWP said:


> If you talk about limited engagement (between superpowers..how is that possible?)



Back to the proxy wars of the cold war, or it could be like that incident in Syria where Russian "mercenaries" attacked US troops.


----------



## Kakashi66223 (Oct 10, 2018)

@Ooh-Rah and @Teufel, This particular MilitaryTimes author writes mostly NAVMC from what looked into. Nothing about it says he has an axe to grind either, with the Army that is.

The points are valid, but if there was some conflict I'd be really let down if the US President doesn't say "Everyone pitch in, get it done." And like magic we are moving. Considerations are also given to European allies allowing us to use their ships, their freight and Navy to move equipment. I'm guessing the writer might not have taken allied European shipping/return shipping into account, it's never mentioned. I'd imagine if the European countries want the U.S. help they need to help get the U.S. back there.

Still want to believe that Putin is an enemy of an enemy, for what it's worth. Edit: device died, He is definitely not our friend but why not turn a negative into a positive?


----------



## Teufel (Oct 10, 2018)

I didn’t read the article to be honest. I think the biggest mobility challenge will be the incompatible rail lines in the Baltics. This will be an Army dominated coalition fight. The Navy would probably focus on sea control outside of the Baltic Sea to stay outside of CDCM range of Kaliningrad. Russia knows that any ship she sorties in the Baltic Sea would quickly decorate the sea floor. A conflict with Russia would either be short and incredibly violent, and fought entirely outside of Russian territory, or protracted and apocalyptic.


----------



## SpitfireV (Oct 10, 2018)

AWP said:


> One good thing is there isn't a navy on the planet that can stop us from moving equipment to Europe.


Only the US Navy can stop the US Navy and the US Navy don't stop!


----------



## Gunz (Oct 10, 2018)

Teufel said:


> You don’t always get to pick your battlefield. China is the bigger threat but Russia is more belligerent. Hopefully we are all wrong.



Yes sir, hard agree. Nobody can predict the future. 

My doubts about the likelihood of direct combat between US and Russian troops rest on the risks involved, not just to those two countries but to Europe and the world. MAD is still on the table even with reduced nuclear stockpiles. Everybody has too much to lose in the event of escalation...which, given precedent, is almost a given.

I agree with @SpitfireV re PRC, India and Pakistan as a possible flashpoint and the potential for dangerous encounters with China at sea or virtually anywhere.

As far as sealift capabilities, @AWP summed it up for me.


----------



## Devildoc (Oct 10, 2018)

Kakashi66223 said:


> I believe a title reflects the gist of the document.
> 
> To back up @Ocoka as it's alarmism.
> 
> Scuba diving the title leads the reader to believe that we or US Army can no longer hold eastern Europe. The article is mostly saying Army requires naval and commercial sea transportation. Now this is all conjecture anyhow, or a big "guess" on my part. Most equipment in the inventory should be able to be loaded in a "large aircraft" at least it was Army doctrine at one time. I'm assuming the US Army base realignments are under indirect fire from this article too. I figured out long ago the Army moves faster than it appears to show off. I'm sure they could set up another V Corps in Germany in 72hours. Especially since Rangers can be ANYWHERE in 24, and they need support so it would be too far fetched to say that Big Army would not be far behind.



My disclaimer is that I am not 'Army,' but I am pretty sure it isn't doctrine to predominantly transport via AC.  The only viable option to transport anything with teeth is at sea.  Yeah, the Rangers can be anywhere in 24 hours, the 82nd less than that, the Marines, even less than that in many places, but none of those can hold out without quick resupply and massive reinforcement.  The Marines DO have forward-deployed tracks and supplies, but aside from the stash in Norway, everything else still needs to be moved by ship.

@SpitfireV , the US view on South Africa:  "South Africa?  Is there a South Africa?"


----------



## Gunz (Oct 10, 2018)

SpitfireV said:


> I think if anywhere South Africa will be the next big blow up- and if there's a big war in Africa, god save us all. I don't know what the US position is on South Africa if you guys would militarily support the government or not but that shit would be *messy*.




The ANC is historically a communist entity. They're in bed with China (the strategic Beijing Agreement) and have denounced opposition as US-led imperialism. And, IMV, corrupt as hell. What could possibly go wrong? I suspect there is much discontent brewing down there.

What would the US do in a blow-up? Hard to say. Socialists or communists or not, any significant support of anti-ANC factions would instantly be labeled racist. At this juncture, we are so sensitive to the slightest hints of racial inequality in this country...no matter how ridiculous they may be. You will recall that we condemned Rhodesia even though, just like us, it was engaged in a struggle against communist-backed forces. They, however, just happened to be predominantly black at a time when we were experiencing widespread racial violence.

A democratic US administration might materially or financially lend support to the government. A republican administration would probably stay out of it to spare itself the misery. I don't think either party would lend military aid.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Oct 10, 2018)

We talk about a conventional fight in Europe.  I'm unsure our allies have what it takes to ship heavy equipment overseas in their SeaLift fleets.  What we do have are thousands of ships that can be brought into service to do heavy lift.  Doctrinally speaking I think we've screwed up a bit by moving Armored brigades around by plane to forward stocks as we've downsized our overall component numbers and European force.  We've started to forward supply more Armored vehicles in Germany for the rotational brigade.  But that's a brigade, when we used to have an entire Corps (+) stationed in Germany alone.

Will it be a good allied fight?  The state of the German Army is as such that their readiness has them on the back foot right now.  Luftwaffe can't keep planes in the Air...so Russia is coming to France baby, and although the French train a decent amount their Army has been downsized to under 100k active.  

Granted the Russian Army's size is nowhere near what it was, I just think their readiness is far greater than our allies on the edges of Eastern Europe.


----------



## CQB (Oct 10, 2018)

Is there any mention of a traffic jam of civvi vehicles heading west to escape conflict, hindering troop movements heading east? An old as the hills argument; look at the Third Prussian Corps at Waterloo, it can be done but WTF.


----------



## DA SWO (Oct 10, 2018)

Ocoka said:


> The ANC is historically a communist entity. They're in bed with China (the strategic Beijing Agreement) and have denounced opposition as US-led imperialism. And, IMV, corrupt as hell. What could possibly go wrong? I suspect there is much discontent brewing down there.
> 
> What would the US do in a blow-up? Hard to say. Socialists or communists or not, any significant support of anti-ANC factions would instantly be labeled racist. At this juncture, we are so sensitive to the slightest hints of racial inequality in this country...no matter how ridiculous they may be. You will recall that we condemned Rhodesia even though, just like us, it was engaged in a struggle against communist-backed forces. They, however, just happened to be predominantly black at a time when we were experiencing widespread racial violence.
> 
> A democratic US administration might materially or financially lend support to the government. A republican administration would probably stay out of it to spare itself the misery. I don't think either party would lend military aid.


Democrats would have to certify the government as one that follows Human Rights.  The recent anti-white declarations would be hard to hide.
Democrats would take a beating at the polls if they openly supplied the government.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Oct 10, 2018)

We have the strongest Navy in the world, as in nobody even comes close. The combination of the world's Naval forces don't come close to ours. There are two nations with a super carrier, Russia isn't one of them, and we have 11? We don't just dominate the seas, we literally control them...

We could mass a couple armor division in Europe within month's and nobody could stop us. Light BCT's within hours, with enough indirect and anti armor to allow the heavy shit to show up. We would dominate the air space and most likely use a contracted air war before putting boots on the ground.

Russia just ain't that stupid, they may fuck with a NATO member or do some limited conflict stuff, but as soon as we started moving battle groups and staging planes, they would retract their forces so fast it would be stupid. Anything we do to Russia militarily would be punitive in nature.

China the bigger threat? lol, they barely have a Navy,  can't forward deploy their forces and are regionally locked...


----------



## Kakashi66223 (Oct 10, 2018)

@Devildoc I've never been a big fan of base realignment idea. I honestly believe it was just to see if we could do it. It did force the US Army to be more expeditionary, but looking back to WW2 the U.S. forces in Europe had a staging collection (UK) area prior deploying to the actual battlefield where sealift would bring those assets to a more forward AO. I'm guessing it is not broke why fix it.

(To all readers)
Speaking of which. I have a correction, I said Rangers can be ANYWHERE in 24, it's actually 18. Although in under 24 hours a MEF could be monkey stomping a threat, it's all relative to the fact the somewhere, somebody in 24hours, is gonna be hating life.

The article is about present capabilities, and yes, it is a hard to swallow pill. But it also hints it was future capabilities, the writer limits the readers scope by not including allied shipping and possible airlift to forward staging areas as a viable option . Also Europe and the UK have Armor why do we have to depend on US Armor until it is forward deployed.

@CQB this reminds me of the beginning of The Walking Dead, there is no traffic jams going towards Atlanta GA(?).


----------



## Teufel (Oct 10, 2018)

Ocoka said:


> Yes sir, hard agree. Nobody can predict the future.
> 
> My doubts about the likelihood of direct combat between US and Russian troops rest on the risks involved, not just to those two countries but to Europe and the world. MAD is still on the table even with reduced nuclear stockpiles. Everybody has too much to lose in the event of escalation...which, given precedent, is almost a given.
> 
> ...



We destroyed a company of Russian mercenaries in Syria earlier this year. No one intended to go to war before Archduke Ferdinand died either but it happens. Russia invaded Ukraine and Georgia without batting an eye. What would happen if they tried it again and we were in their way? I don’t think they would intentionally attack one of our units but war is chaotic and tactical commanders can inadvertently make strategic decisions.

Russian toll in Syria battle was 300 killed and wounded: sources | Reuters


----------



## Gunz (Oct 10, 2018)

Teufel said:


> We destroyed a company of Russian mercenaries in Syria earlier this year. No one intended to go to war before Archduke Ferdinand died either but it happens. Russia invaded Ukraine and Georgia without batting an eye. What would happen if they tried it again and we were in their way? I don’t think they would intentionally attack one of our units but war is chaotic and tactical commanders can inadvertently make strategic decisions.
> 
> Russian toll in Syria battle was 300 killed and wounded: sources | Reuters



It could happen, absolutely. Hey, sir, I would never presume to try to argue military matters with an officer of your experience and education. Or someone so adept at meme warfare. 😉


----------



## Teufel (Oct 10, 2018)

Ocoka said:


> It could happen, absolutely. Hey, sir, I would never presume to try to argue military matters with an officer of your experience and education. Or someone so adept at meme warfare. 😉


I’m not saying that we will go to war. Only that it is possible.


----------



## Teufel (Oct 10, 2018)

Diamondback 2/2 said:


> We have the strongest Navy in the world, as in nobody even comes close. The combination of the world's Naval forces don't come close to ours. There are two nations with a super carrier, Russia isn't one of them, and we have 11? We don't just dominate the seas, we literally control them...
> 
> We could mass a couple armor division in Europe within month's and nobody could stop us. Light BCT's within hours, with enough indirect and anti armor to allow the heavy shit to show up. We would dominate the air space and most likely use a contracted air war before putting boots on the ground.
> 
> ...



You sound like a French General lauding the effectiveness of the Maginot line in 1939. China and Russia have been shaping their doctrine and military forces to indirectly contest the American way of war. No one is going to go toe to toe with a Carrier Battle Group, but I don’t know how well we would fare against a fleet of small boats that are bristling with over the horizon anti-ship ballistic cruise missiles.  

China is clearly the bigger threat. They are our biggest trading partner and almost everyone of our government, military, and civilian supply chains are linked in some way to China. We just found out that China may be implanting circuit boards with malware at their factories. Who knows how widespread that is and what information they have stolen with those microchip implants. If the reports are true of course. Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

They are also using their economic power to buy influence around the world and rebalance the global political system in their favor. This has already happened in South East Asia and is occurring in Europe, Africa, and South America. They can easily pull the economic and diplomatic levers of their national power to increase their global influence and gradually, or suddenly, reduce our own. 

China is also feverishly researching artificial intelligence, machine learning, and quantum computing. The first nation that develops those capabilities will dominate the next generation of military technology. Right now they are rapidly outpacing us as their entire industry supports their objectives, while our innovators thumb their noses at the military on “moral grounds” and jump in bed with the Chinese. A quantum computer will quickly neutralize the most sophisticated encryption and I’m afraid that all of our critical infrasructure and information systems will be laid bare if we aren’t the first to the finish line. Our critical infrastructure, of course, is already notoriously undefended. The United States has always enjoyed the protection of two vast oceans to keep our enemies at arms length. The internet, however, will permit our adversaries to quickly invade our information networks and bring any war directly to the home front. How will we fare if one of our adversaries destroys our financial sector with a SOF raid, missile strike, or a cyberattack? 

China and Russia both know that they will lose if they go face to face with us in a global confrontation. They will do their best to ensure that any conflicts stay below the threshold of declared war. I don’t think we fare well in that kind of power competition. You say that the Russians will run scared from our BCTs and Carrier Battle Groups. What will we do if they do not, and threaten to deploy tactical nukes if we don’t back away? I’m really not sure what we would do in a scenario like that. No one is trying to destroy America. They are trying to become regional hegemons, and this normally means they will have to erode American power before they can do so.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Oct 10, 2018)

Teufel said:


> You sound like a French General lauding the effectiveness of the Maginot line in 1939. China and Russia have been shaping their doctrine and military forces to indirectly contest the American way of war. No one is going to go toe to toe with a Carrier Battle Group, but I don’t know how well we would fare against a fleet of small boats that are bristling with over the horizon anti-ship ballistic cruise missiles.
> 
> China is clearly the bigger threat. They are our biggest trading partner and almost everyone of our government, military, and civilian supply chains are linked in some way to China. We just found out that China may be implanting circuit boards with malware at their factories. Who knows how widespread that is and what information they have stolen with those microchip implants. If the reports are true of course. Bloomberg - Are you a robot?
> 
> ...



Good points on all and I don't disagree, however, China's economy is heavily based upon 1) the safety of their shipping, which is guaranteed by our Navy, and 2) stable currency, which is guaranteed by our currency (the world reserve currency).

They don't have a forward deployable Navy to protect their shipping. They are trying to assert that by building ports and militarizing islands in the South China sea, but their trade capability is dependent on a global consumption econmey. I mean even if they could control the south China sea,  who are they selling too in the region? China's currency is not stable enough to conduct pure trade without the USD valuation attached.

In essence, China would commit economic suicide if they tried to fully become a regional power without our consent, which they may very well get, but at that point they have to compete with the Japanese for regional dominance if we retract our trade protection from the region. I'm not sure China as a whole is stable enough, to withstand the economic restrictions of a trade and commerce conflict with the United States. How will they handle recession, internal conflicts, regional conflicts, etc. But I'm no expert, but I definitely don't see China as a true threat to our power or our stability. Maybe in 25 years, but not currently.

Russia on the other hand, I completely agree with you. There is that possibility they would go full in. At that point it's a nuclear war and everyone is fucked. I don't see Russia taking that leap just to secure their regional power. Most likely they would wait for a global economic recession and attempt to secure the regional countries through trade agreements. Essentially as we retract our trade, they will look to fill the void, country on board will be left alone militarily, countries who are not on board will probably see low level conflicts, state sponsored "revolutions", etc... Shit we have seen them do the last decade or so. Russia, is more threatening to us, because of our commitments to NATO and assured defense policy.

As for the AI stuff and next gen warfare, that stuff is so far out of my knowledgeable lane that I can't even begin to comment. Ok have to do some reading...


----------



## Teufel (Oct 10, 2018)

Diamondback 2/2 said:


> Good points on all and I don't disagree, however, China's economy is heavily based upon 1) the safety of their shipping, which is guaranteed by our Navy, and 2) stable currency, which is guaranteed by our currency (the world reserve currency).
> 
> They don't have a forward deployable Navy to protect their shipping. They are trying to assert that by building ports and militarizing islands in the South China sea, but their trade capability is dependent on a global consumption econmey. I mean even if they could control the south China sea,  who are they selling too in the region? China's currency is not stable enough to conduct pure trade without the USD valuation attached.
> 
> ...


Belt and Road Initiative - Wikipedia

Notice how much of the belt and road initiative goes over land. Again, we could quickly gain sea control by choking off the South China Sea in a protracted global conflict with China. They will do everything in their power to keep any conflict below this level. This is by far the more dangerous adversary. China does has serious domestic issues that will always be their critical vulnerability. Sometimes, it helps to wag the dog and distract your impoverished population with an external threat, imaginary or otherwise. Anyway, China is playing the long game. We fight wars in 6 month increments. They are planning out the next century. 

Russia would love to break up NATO by invading one of the Baltic States and invalidating the power of an article 5 declaration.


----------



## Kakashi66223 (Oct 10, 2018)

Sorry Brothers it gets better, same Writer posted this 4 hours ago. Found checking my link in an post in this thread.

*‘**You’re on your own’: US sealift can’t count on US Navy escorts in the next big war.*


----------



## Blizzard (Oct 10, 2018)

Pfft.  If it gets to that point and we go back door...grab a couple ferry boats and shuttle everyone across the Bering in a few hours, then sweep East to West.  Problem solved.


----------



## SpitfireV (Oct 10, 2018)

Teufel said:


> China does has serious domestic issues that will always be their critical vulnerability.



Which issues do you have in mind?


----------



## ThunderHorse (Oct 10, 2018)

Diamondback 2/2 said:


> Good points on all and I don't disagree, however, China's economy is heavily based upon 1) the safety of their shipping, which is guaranteed by our Navy, and 2) stable currency, which is guaranteed by our currency (the world reserve currency).
> 
> They don't have a forward deployable Navy to protect their shipping. They are trying to assert that by building ports and militarizing islands in the South China sea, but their trade capability is dependent on a global consumption econmey. I mean even if they could control the south China sea,  who are they selling too in the region? China's currency is not stable enough to conduct pure trade without the USD valuation attached.
> 
> ...


In regards to the Chinese Navy not being forward deployable? They've been going on expeditionary tours all over the world as they've deployed troops to protect their interests.  They're building carriers and developing their maritime air wing.   It's not about today or five years from now, it's about 10-20 years from now.  A lot of Chinese tech is reverse engineered, some shit, some not.  The reality is they do have some great engineers that have gone to Western universities for decades so that they can learn this shit.  They will have a full blue water Navy shortly.  Have you looked at our fleet?  It's pretty small, yes we have 11-carriers, doesn't mean we have 11.  Currently we have 10 that can go to sea, with the USS Washington in dry dock for a three year refit.  Which I find crazy, then you have the others which are in various stages of deployment or maintenance.

Awhile ago the rule was: 1/3 Navy is at sea, 1/3 is preparing to go to sea, the last 1/3 is in refit.


----------



## Cookie_ (Oct 10, 2018)

I come to this thread to add my two cents, and @Teufel Already mentioned the Russian "mercs" that attacked us in Syria, China and Russia using other than outright military attacks to weaken us, and even the belt road? Hell, that's all I had to throw out there lol.


----------



## Teufel (Oct 10, 2018)

SpitfireV said:


> Which issues do you have in mind?


Public unrest sparked by government corruption, extreme economic gaps between social classes, an unhappy rising middle class, an aging population with a shrinking national birth rate, ethnic strife; especially in Tibet and Xinjiang, labor strikes, and a rapidly growing debt/GDP imbalance. China spends more on domestic security than they do on external defense. 

China's Domestic Security Spending: An Analysis of Available Data - Jamestown


----------



## SpitfireV (Oct 10, 2018)

Teufel said:


> Public unrest sparked by government corruption, extreme economic gaps between social classes, an unhappy rising middle class, an aging population with a shrinking national birth rate, ethnic strife; especially in Tibet and Xinjiang, labor strikes, and a rapidly growing debt/GDP imbalance. China spends more on domestic security than they do on external defense.
> 
> China's Domestic Security Spending: An Analysis of Available Data - Jamestown



I'm pretty well acquainted with China and their culture so I was interested what your perspective was. Hope you didn't think it was an ambush! 

I would tend to agree but I think the ethnic issues aren't as much of a problem without support of a foreign state- and that comes back to the massive spending on internal security IMO. Corruption I don't think is an issue at all- it's the Chinese way of doing things, it has been for 1000s of years. Many Chinese grumble about it but at the end of the day they accept it as a fact of life and get on with living. Combine that with Xi's "anti-corruption" drive that is a mixture of both legitimate anti corruption and the clearing out of opponents and it creates a perception within China at least that the problem is being tackled.   

I'd probably add in there an artificially strengthened RMB too.


----------



## Teufel (Oct 11, 2018)

I think the Chinese are worried that ethnically dissimilar provinces, like Xijiang; Tibet; yanbian; and Inner Mongolia,may strike for their independence one day.


----------



## Gunz (Oct 11, 2018)

Teufel said:


> I’m not saying that we will go to war. Only that it is possible.



We're just looking at it from different perspectives. As a serving professional you have to consider strategic contingencies anywhere in the world. I'm like a guy trying to bet on a horse race.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Oct 11, 2018)

Teufel said:


> I think the Chinese are worried that ethnically dissimilar provinces, like Xijiang; Tibet; yanbian; and Inner Mongolia,may strike for their independence one day.



This is spot on.


----------



## Gunz (Oct 11, 2018)

Kakashi66223 said:


> Sorry Brothers it gets better, same Writer posted this 4 hours ago. Found checking my link in an post in this thread.
> 
> *‘You’re on your own’: US sealift can’t count on US Navy escorts in the next big war.*



At the beginning of WW2 our sealift resources and our Navy were woefully inadequate. What did we end up doing? We built more ships than the enemy could sink. That's the beauty of America. When we run out of ships, tanks, planes, bullets...we just make more.


----------



## SpitfireV (Oct 11, 2018)

Teufel said:


> I think the Chinese are worried that ethnically dissimilar provinces, like Xijiang; Tibet; yanbian; and Inner Mongolia,may strike for their independence one day.



Yes and that's why they have their colonisation program to introduce Han to the areas. These will eventually outnumber the local minority and is another reason why I don't think ethnic separatism is going to be too much of an issue for the PRC.


----------



## CQB (Oct 14, 2018)

Teufel said:


> I think the Chinese are worried that ethnically dissimilar provinces, like Xijiang; Tibet; yanbian; and Inner Mongolia,may strike for their independence one day.


Bazinga! The rulers of China, whatever their persuasion over time, have been concerned about internal disunity & this drives the PRC policy towards not only those you mention but also Hong Kong & Taiwan, which the mainland considers rebel provinces which should be brought back into the fold.


----------



## Teufel (Oct 14, 2018)

SpitfireV said:


> Yes and that's why they have their colonisation program to introduce Han to the areas. These will eventually outnumber the local minority and is another reason why I don't think ethnic separatism is going to be too much of an issue for the PRC.


I don’t know...Russia tried that in a number of places and it didn’t work.


----------



## Teufel (Nov 28, 2018)

Teufel said:


> You don’t always get to pick your battlefield. China is the bigger threat but Russia is more belligerent. Hopefully we are all wrong.


Recent events are troubling to say the least. You can love or hate Russia but you can’t ignore them.


----------



## Teufel (Nov 29, 2018)

Russia is deploying anti ship cruise missiles to Crimea. Alert 5   » Russia moving Bal coastal anti-ship missile systems to Crimean city of Kerch - Military Aviation News


----------



## Marauder06 (Nov 29, 2018)

Teufel said:


> I don’t know...Russia tried that in a number of places and it didn’t work.



What it did do for them, though, is to give them a later claim to areas that they wanted to annex... like eastern Georgia, Crimea, eastern Ukraine... if your country can afford to be patient, seeding territory you want to possess with people who look like you and speak your language could be a successful long-term strategy.


----------



## Teufel (Nov 29, 2018)

Marauder06 said:


> What it did do for them, though, is to give them a later claim to areas that they wanted to annex... like eastern Georgia, Crimea, eastern Ukraine... if your country can afford to be patient, seeding territory you want to possess with people who look like you and speak your language could be a successful long-term strategy.


Of course. I only meant that it didn’t keep these former Soviet republics from breaking off. Russia isn’t afraid to roll tanks over the border to impose their will on their neighbors but I think China likes to be more subtle than that.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Nov 30, 2018)

Teufel said:


> Of course. I only meant that it didn’t keep these former Soviet republics from breaking off. Russia isn’t afraid to roll tanks over the border to impose their will on their neighbors but I think China likes to be more subtle than that.



Hmmmm, the seeding over time of people to justify the ends of means...  An interesting take on something I haven't thought about.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Nov 30, 2018)

Devildoc said:


> Yeah, the Rangers can be anywhere in 24 hours, *the 82nd less than that*, the Marines, even less than that in many places, but none of those can hold out without quick resupply and massive reinforcement.



LOLWUT


----------



## Devildoc (Nov 30, 2018)

Ranger Psych said:


> LOLWUT



Weren't they supposed to be deployable in 18 hours or something like that? I don't know, you tell me.

I am okay being wrong. My wife tells me all the time.


----------



## Teufel (Nov 30, 2018)

I think the certain forces within the Ranger Regiment and the 82nd are supposed to deploy from home station to contingency zones within 18 hours of notification. That’s wheels up, not wheels down. The Marine Corps can often respond faster then that with a MEU because those forces are fully trained, forward deployed, and self transportable courtesy of the Navy. The DOD forward deploys other highly specialized forces that are extremely responsive but I won’t get into that here.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Dec 7, 2018)

IIRC, alert Ranger Battalion is wheels up in 18 hours and the 82nd Division Ready Brigade is wheels up in 24 hours.  Maybe less for both.


----------



## DasBoot (Dec 7, 2018)

Devildoc said:


> Weren't they supposed to be deployable in 18 hours or something like that? I don't know, you tell me.
> 
> I am okay being wrong. My wife tells me all the time.


Reverse that

ETA: not to talk any shit on my buddies at the 82nd but I don’t think that 24 mark has ever been met. We go full retard to make our time hack and have a much smaller element moving. I can’t imagine a Brigade getting their gears turning.... again zero shit talking on my end. Those guys do some great stuff with not a lot of money behind them.


----------



## PDL (Dec 21, 2018)

Doesn't this take completely ignore the logistical support that the US would have from France and Germany?


----------



## DasBoot (Dec 21, 2018)

PDL said:


> Doesn't this take completely ignore the logistical support that the US would have from France and Germany?


If war broke out in Europe, there is a high chance our allies would be too tied up in the fight or be fully combat ineffective due to loses. Help is great but at the end of the day we need to know whether or not we can do it on our own.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Dec 21, 2018)

PDL said:


> Doesn't this take completely ignore the logistical support that the US would have from France and Germany?


At the beginning I don't think we'd have much logistical support from them.  We would be the ones supplying logistical support to them across an ocean before we could mass our forces and conduct operations.  As @DasBoot mentions above they would be focused on fighting the fight before they'd attempt to provide logistical support.


----------



## DA SWO (Dec 21, 2018)

PDL said:


> Doesn't this take completely ignore the logistical support that the US would have from France and Germany?


Other than facilities what support would we get from Europe?
We generally provide a significant portion of our Coalition Log and Intel support.  Europe rarely executes without some US assistance.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Dec 21, 2018)

Fuel, bullets and facilities. That's about all the support we can expect.


----------



## PDL (Dec 21, 2018)

DA SWO said:


> Other than facilities what support would we get from Europe?
> We generally provide a significant portion of our Coalition Log and Intel support.  Europe rarely executes without some US assistance.


In a total war scenario all the civilian infrastructure would be re-purposed. So America would have access to German accommodations, fuel stations, roads, heavy trucks, railways, factories etc.


----------



## DA SWO (Dec 21, 2018)

PDL said:


> In a total war scenario all the civilian infrastructure would be re-purposed. So America would have access to German accommodations, fuel stations, roads, heavy trucks, railways, factories etc.


Great, once we get there.
Mobility Log is still a US Responsibility, and that's where the shortfall will always exist.


----------

