User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 11/3/2014 4:19:20 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Not in the work spaces. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
1985 still had porn mags in the exchanges. Sorry, 2014 wins on the porn front. They'll get slaughtered with their eyes glued to their smart phones. Not in the work spaces. The younger guys are not aware how much of their equipment was already fielded in 1985. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/3/2014 4:20:27 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
For those saying 85 would lose. You are saying that the Taliban is stronger than the force that faced down the bear. Afloat, 85 would not be for long... All Aegis escorts, VLS, about the only place where today's Navy isn't better is that it's still using the same ASCM, although today's works better than 85's. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/3/2014 4:22:41 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The 1985 military had more air defense assets than the 2014 military. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Drones would take out a lot of troops/crap from 85...with minimal losses on new age side. The 1985 military had more air defense assets than the 2014 military. How good was 85 air defense radar against LO/VLO? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/3/2014 4:24:30 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Current military would lose because they would be too busy going to sexual harassment and EEOC and cultural sensitivity lectures to fight. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
85 would lose Munitions guidance Armor capability Rotary wing aircraft Aiming systems That's just Army Current military would lose because they would be too busy going to sexual harassment and EEOC and cultural sensitivity lectures to fight. Had a nice chuckle from that. I love how any answer to any question in GD can always be turned into a Beating for Liberals. GD Delivers Huzzah, vets. God bless you folks. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/3/2014 4:26:18 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
How good was 85 air defense radar against LO/VLO? LO/VLO 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/3/2014 4:26:28 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Not in the work spaces. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
1985 still had porn mags in the exchanges. Sorry, 2014 wins on the porn front. They'll get slaughtered with their eyes glued to their smart phones. Not in the work spaces. I can recall "counting coup" for infiltrating a MI DF vehicle on site in the woods by slapping a centerfold pic that would make a OBGYN vomit onto a HUMMV's windshield, and that was in 1990. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/3/2014 4:27:20 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'd be a savage if the USMC didn't have powerpoint. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/3/2014 4:29:40 PM EDT
[#8]
And 2014 would be easier to spot.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/3/2014 4:33:13 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You have exactly less than 200 5th Gen F-22s today. They are not going to be able to maintain a 24/7 sortie rate. The rest of our airframes are what? At least 20 years old? How much have the budget cuts over the years affected readiness rates on those aircraft? How many veteran pilots have retired over the years or been pushed out due to the budget cuts? Experienced enlisted personnel as well. All of that up against a numerically superior opponent, with fresh airframes, Reagan budget, more personnel, and experienced guys from the Vietnam era. They take losses due to the tech imbalance, but can absorb those losses and still win. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Just like any major war, all depends on air superiority. F-22 could expect to have a kill ratio of 5-1, that's almost 1000 1985 planes, could easily sneak in and kill the awacs, think the airwar would be pretty one sided. if the two militaries started like a mile away from each other or something like that, yeah then size and quality of army would matter. Winner 1985 if they started on equal islands hundreds of miles apart? Prolly a draw, or current. 1985 navy would win just by number of SSNs, but they couldn't move the army without air superiority which current military would win. How in the blue hell is today's USAF going to achieve and maintain air superiority against 1985 when they are struggling with ISIS now? I don't think air superiority means what you think it means. You have exactly less than 200 5th Gen F-22s today. They are not going to be able to maintain a 24/7 sortie rate. The rest of our airframes are what? At least 20 years old? How much have the budget cuts over the years affected readiness rates on those aircraft? How many veteran pilots have retired over the years or been pushed out due to the budget cuts? Experienced enlisted personnel as well. All of that up against a numerically superior opponent, with fresh airframes, Reagan budget, more personnel, and experienced guys from the Vietnam era. They take losses due to the tech imbalance, but can absorb those losses and still win. Course they can't fly 24/7. they fly with the other 15s,16s,18s, get past and take out awacs, blind F4s aren't going to be much of a threat. Air war is all about sensors, ranges and tactics. 2014 pilots have all the lessons their 1985 opponents plus 30 years. believe me, all fighter jocks care about is shooting down other planes, don't really care about blowing up terrorists. We really haven't lost that many from the ops world, mostly support. A 2014 f15 airframe is just as capable as a 1985. I wonder if civil war vets could post, they would be making fun of the WWI guys and how wimpy they were for using cover. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/3/2014 4:34:50 PM EDT
[#10]
1985 unless you went Special Forces vs. Special Forces
Today's average soldier has same/better equipment than what SF had in the 80's. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/3/2014 4:40:12 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Just like any major war, all depends on air superiority. F-22 could expect to have a kill ratio of 5-1, Till the fly home and their runways are blown and destroyed by 1985 Army Rangers. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/3/2014 4:41:53 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Till the fly home and their runways are blown and destroyed Army Rangers. Nuh uh, your runways would be blown up by army rangers with cooler camo http://usarmy.vo.llnwd.net/e2/-images/2010/04/27/71407/size0-army.mil-71407-2010-04-27-090423.jpg Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Just like any major war, all depends on air superiority. F-22 could expect to have a kill ratio of 5-1, that's almost 1000 1985 planes, could easily sneak in and kill the awacs, think the airwar would be pretty one sided. if the two militaries started like a mile away from each other or something like that, yeah then size and quality of army would matter. Winner 1985 if they started on equal islands hundreds of miles apart? Prolly a draw, or current. 1985 navy would win just by number of SSNs, but they couldn't move the army without air superiority which current military would win. Till the fly home and their runways are blown and destroyed Army Rangers. Nuh uh, your runways would be blown up by army rangers with cooler camo http://usarmy.vo.llnwd.net/e2/-images/2010/04/27/71407/size0-army.mil-71407-2010-04-27-090423.jpg |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/3/2014 4:45:02 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Till the fly home and their runways are blown and destroyed by 1985 Army Rangers. http://usarmy.vo.llnwd.net/e2/-images/2010/04/27/71407/size0-army.mil-71407-2010-04-27-090423.jpg Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Just like any major war, all depends on air superiority. F-22 could expect to have a kill ratio of 5-1, Till the fly home and their runways are blown and destroyed by 1985 Army Rangers. http://usarmy.vo.llnwd.net/e2/-images/2010/04/27/71407/size0-army.mil-71407-2010-04-27-090423.jpg Where are all the minorities, women and other special snowflakes. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/3/2014 4:45:05 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The younger guys are not aware how much of their equipment was already fielded in 1985. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
1985 still had porn mags in the exchanges. Sorry, 2014 wins on the porn front. They'll get slaughtered with their eyes glued to their smart phones. Not in the work spaces. The younger guys are not aware how much of their equipment was already fielded in 1985. The older guys are not aware how much of their "equipment" has changed since 1985. Go ahead though, we could always use some more laughs. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/3/2014 4:49:23 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The older guys are not aware how much of their "equipment" has changed since 1985. Go ahead though, we could always use some more laughs. its not so much equipment. as in personal readiness. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/3/2014 4:54:03 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The older guys are not aware how much of their "equipment" has changed since 1985. Go ahead though, we could always use some more laughs. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The younger guys are not aware how much of their equipment was already fielded in 1985. The older guys are not aware how much of their "equipment" has changed since 1985. Go ahead though, we could always use some more laughs. What do you fly? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/3/2014 5:00:07 PM EDT
[#17]
In 1990 it cost 5583.20 to equip the average Marine, 2010 it was 15800.92
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/3/2014 5:06:12 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
There were probably closer to 20 divisions in 1985 with nearly all senior NCOs and officers Vietnam veterans. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
10 Army divisions versus 5 now. Not many Combat vets Versus a metric Fuckton of combat vets. Too close to call. There were probably closer to 20 divisions in 1985 with nearly all senior NCOs and officers Vietnam veterans. Yep. About 1/3 of my unit's aviators were Vietnam vets. Some with multiple tours. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/3/2014 5:10:22 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yep. About 1/3 of my unit's aviators were Vietnam vets. Some with multiple tours. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
10 Army divisions versus 5 now. Not many Combat vets Versus a metric Fuckton of combat vets. Too close to call. There were probably closer to 20 divisions in 1985 with nearly all senior NCOs and officers Vietnam veterans. Yep. About 1/3 of my unit's aviators were Vietnam vets. Some with multiple tours. My top was a Nam vet. And this guy was still around 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/3/2014 5:15:11 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The younger guys are not aware how much of their equipment was already fielded in 1985. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
1985 still had porn mags in the exchanges. Sorry, 2014 wins on the porn front. They'll get slaughtered with their eyes glued to their smart phones. Not in the work spaces. The younger guys are not aware how much of their equipment was already fielded in 1985. 1985! Hell, I was flying aircraft built in 1969 in Iraq in 2003. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/3/2014 5:16:06 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
How good was 85 air defense radar against LO/VLO? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Drones would take out a lot of troops/crap from 85...with minimal losses on new age side. The 1985 military had more air defense assets than the 2014 military. How good was 85 air defense radar against LO/VLO? Rhetorical question? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/3/2014 5:16:27 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
In 1990 it cost 5583.20 to equip the average Marine, 2010 it was 15800.92 Worth it? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/3/2014 5:17:29 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
In 1990 it cost 5583.20 to equip the average Marine, 2010 it was 15800.92 Quantitative Easing |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/3/2014 5:18:43 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quantitative Easing Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
In 1990 it cost 5583.20 to equip the average Marine, 2010 it was 15800.92 Quantitative Easing Airsoft 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/3/2014 5:20:19 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You are quite simply Wrong with regards to the combat experience being so important. A lot of it might be helpful, but a lot of it might actually be detrimental, because the wrong lessons were learned. That "Untested" 1985 military rolled right over Sadams forces in the first gulf war. How dey do dat? How did our 1940's green GI's defeat battle hardened Nazis and Japs in WWII? Honestly, you sound like someone with limited military experience and knowledge of tactics, logistics or strategy. Are you currently serving? In what capacity? Now if you were to argue that 2014 wins because it has GPS, and 1985 doesn't, then I would be the first to agree with you. If 2014 has an advantage, it is in technology. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Let me spell it out for ya. it's called negative learning transfer. 2014 Military will have a steep learning curve when it gets to fight a peer Military force. If you go out and beat up retarded middle schoolers every day for ten years, how many do you have to beat up before you can defeat a trained MMA fighter twice your size? Question for the OP- Does 2014 get to use GPS and Satcom, whereas 1985 military doesn't? 'Cause if so, I want to change my vote. GPS was indeed a game changer. If both sides get to use it, 85 wins. If niether side gets it, 1985 decimates them and 2014 surrenders like a Frenchman. Did you miss the premise of the OP? 1985's military means 1985's military. Who was the 1985 military beating up? Who was their "MMA" fighter? Todays Military is better equipped, the majority have combat experience-not just senior NCO's and Officers, They have taken on a conventional and asymmetrical war in two theaters with quasi conflicts world-wide, and the training of today stands on the shoulders of giants. So I appreciate those that have come before, I truly do, but your premise just isn't so. Edit: Spelling You are quite simply Wrong with regards to the combat experience being so important. A lot of it might be helpful, but a lot of it might actually be detrimental, because the wrong lessons were learned. That "Untested" 1985 military rolled right over Sadams forces in the first gulf war. How dey do dat? How did our 1940's green GI's defeat battle hardened Nazis and Japs in WWII? Honestly, you sound like someone with limited military experience and knowledge of tactics, logistics or strategy. Are you currently serving? In what capacity? Now if you were to argue that 2014 wins because it has GPS, and 1985 doesn't, then I would be the first to agree with you. If 2014 has an advantage, it is in technology. Oh boy, this is getting a little deep for a fun mental exercise. Our GI's in WWII won because the entire production infrastructure was wiped out in Europe and Japan and supply was erratic. Our Generals were battle hardened off WWI, Philippines, etc and knew how to command large swaths of military elements (notice I say elements which implies beyond the war fighter- and if you look at my post on the first page you will see what I think wins wars) You say 2014 would win, but if 1985 had GPS they would win which again flies in the face of this exercise. And then you say that the Military in 1985 won the Gulf War which didn't take place until 5 years after 1985 and there were leaps and bounds in operational technology that occurred in those five years. So I really don't know exactly what you're saying. Then you ask me about having limited military experience (which I was thinking about you) but it's neither here nor there for this exercise. I think at this point we agree that todays military would win - you because of GPS, and me because a whole lot more. So I guess we are in agreement but we didn't get there in the straightest of lines. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/3/2014 5:21:06 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
In 1990 it cost 5583.20 to equip the average Marine, 2010 it was 15800.92 I'm surprised it's not a bigger difference. What equipment does that include? How is that number derived? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/3/2014 5:21:15 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Worth it? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
In 1990 it cost 5583.20 to equip the average Marine, 2010 it was 15800.92 Worth it? Would you like your kid or brother to go to combat with the load out they had in 1990? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/3/2014 5:27:09 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Would you like your kid or brother to go to combat with the load out they had in 1990? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
In 1990 it cost 5583.20 to equip the average Marine, 2010 it was 15800.92 Worth it? Would you like your kid or brother to go to combat with the load out they had in 1990? Of course not. I'm just asking the guy who works/worked at the Pentagon his opinion. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/3/2014 5:29:28 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Till the fly home and their runways are blown and destroyed by 1985 Army Rangers. http://usarmy.vo.llnwd.net/e2/-images/2010/04/27/71407/size0-army.mil-71407-2010-04-27-090423.jpg Yep -- current Rangers have very little operational experience in small unit tactics or direct action raids, and with the Obama budget are very poorly trained and equipped. 
Look at all that useless crap they have just to look cool in pictures -- real rifleman use iron sights! these nerds and weaklings wouldn't stand a chance (also lol CIB + combat scroll ratio between 1985 and now) |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/3/2014 5:34:49 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm surprised it's not a bigger difference. What equipment does that include? How is that number derived? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
In 1990 it cost 5583.20 to equip the average Marine, 2010 it was 15800.92 I'm surprised it's not a bigger difference. What equipment does that include? How is that number derived? 10% or so of that is probably rifle optics, and IBA or later model body armor is probably good for another $1000 vs. a 1990 era PASGT vest. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/3/2014 5:37:14 PM EDT
[#31]
In the mid 80's the military was highly motivated, and contrary to what some may believe, the military could pick and choose who it accepted. Vast sums of money was being spent to replace and update our military equipment. All those nuke sites that are abandoned now were loaded and ready to go, here and in Europe...the same with the bases in NATO countries that sit vacant now. Thousands of planes and tanks, supply depots stocked full of new equipment. Most of the technology of today has it's roots in the 80's. People training all over the world, pilots flying, tanks running, etc. The military in the 80's was expecting a fight, and dare I say, looking for one. There was a great deal of pride in our country and patriotism...people wanted to join. Most small towns had a National Guard unit or Reserve Unit. "Born in the USA" and "Go Wolverines" meant something to young people of that era. We didn't have GPS, but we had a compass, and you learned how to use it, a bomb may be capable of flying through a window today, back then you would just blow-up the house...and we had a lot of bombs. We trained to fight the USSR, and in a sense, expected to die if that happened. We expected nukes and chemical/biological warfare. It was to be a war of attrition, and most of Europe was expected to fall. The soldiers, sailors and airmen of today stand alongside the soldiers of the past, technology has improved greatly, but don't count grandpa out of the game, it was a completely different world back then, and a completely different enemy. The 80's military was no slouch
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/3/2014 5:41:31 PM EDT
[#32]
1985 for sure
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/3/2014 5:41:57 PM EDT
[#33]
By 1985 this 1981 Prototype was deployed in Division-sized elements across Europe. Clinton put them all in mothballs in the 90s in fear of them violating arms treaties. The modern army wouldn't stand a chance.
 |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/3/2014 5:43:17 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
In the mid 80's the military was highly motivated, and contrary to what some may believe, the military could pick and choose who it accepted. Vast sums of money was being spent to replace and update our military equipment. All those nuke sites that are abandoned now were loaded and ready to go, here and in Europe...the same with the bases in NATO countries that sit vacant now. Thousands of planes and tanks, supply depots stocked full of new equipment. Most of the technology of today has it's roots in the 80's. People training all over the world, pilots flying, tanks running, etc. The military in the 80's was expecting a fight, and dare I say, looking for one. There was a great deal of pride in our country and patriotism...people wanted to join. Most small towns had a National Guard unit or Reserve Unit. "Born in the USA" and "Go Wolverines" meant something to young people of that era. We didn't have GPS, but we had a compass, and you learned how to use it, a bomb may be capable of flying through a window today, back then you would just blow-up the house...and we had a lot of bombs. We trained to fight the USSR, and in a sense, expected to die if that happened. We expected nukes and chemical/biological warfare. It was to be a war of attrition, and most of Europe was expected to fall. The soldiers, sailors and airmen of today stand alongside the soldiers of the past, technology has improved greatly, but don't count grandpa out of the game, it was a completely different world back then, and a completely different enemy. The 80's military was no slouch I think you need to read the lyrics to that song and then tell me what you think. And training continues to go on internationally, however with the changing world defending the Fulda gap just seems so...primitive. And, nukes this nukes that. Do you understand we could still vaporize the entire planet with our stock pile today? And "go wolverines?" I think you're drinking part of the GD Kool-Aid. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/3/2014 5:48:02 PM EDT
[#35]
Lol did soldiers even lift in '85?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/3/2014 5:50:39 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yep -- current Rangers have very little operational experience in small unit tactics or direct action raids, and with the Obama budget are very poorly trained and equipped. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e4/Flickr_-_DVIDSHUB_-_Operation_in_Nahr-e_Saraj_%28Image_5_of_7%29.jpg/1920px-Flickr_-_DVIDSHUB_-_Operation_in_Nahr-e_Saraj_%28Image_5_of_7%29.jpg Look at all that useless crap they have just to look cool in pictures -- real rifleman use iron sights! http://cmsimg.armytimes.com/apps/pbcsi.dll/bilde?Site=M6&Date=20121031&Category=NEWS&ArtNo=210310310&Ref=AR&MaxW=640&Border=0&Rangers-awarded-medals-Afghanistan-heroics http://cmsimg.armytimes.com/apps/pbcsi.dll/bilde?Site=M6&Date=20120325&Category=NEWS&ArtNo=203250313&Ref=AR&Border=0 these nerds and weaklings wouldn't stand a chance (also lol CIB + combat scroll ratio between 1985 and now) Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Till the fly home and their runways are blown and destroyed by 1985 Army Rangers. http://usarmy.vo.llnwd.net/e2/-images/2010/04/27/71407/size0-army.mil-71407-2010-04-27-090423.jpg Yep -- current Rangers have very little operational experience in small unit tactics or direct action raids, and with the Obama budget are very poorly trained and equipped. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e4/Flickr_-_DVIDSHUB_-_Operation_in_Nahr-e_Saraj_%28Image_5_of_7%29.jpg/1920px-Flickr_-_DVIDSHUB_-_Operation_in_Nahr-e_Saraj_%28Image_5_of_7%29.jpg Look at all that useless crap they have just to look cool in pictures -- real rifleman use iron sights! http://cmsimg.armytimes.com/apps/pbcsi.dll/bilde?Site=M6&Date=20121031&Category=NEWS&ArtNo=210310310&Ref=AR&MaxW=640&Border=0&Rangers-awarded-medals-Afghanistan-heroics http://cmsimg.armytimes.com/apps/pbcsi.dll/bilde?Site=M6&Date=20120325&Category=NEWS&ArtNo=203250313&Ref=AR&Border=0 these nerds and weaklings wouldn't stand a chance (also lol CIB + combat scroll ratio between 1985 and now) Those tan berets are just awful. An insult to the good men who wear them. If they were going to steal someones head gear, they should have left the French alone and stole the Marines Cover. Those would look pretty sharp. I can see the Staff meeting now: "General, our focus groups say Army popularity is trailing 15 points behind the Marines, and now it's even dropped below the Navy, for the first time in history."  .
"Well, those Green Berets are pretty popular... hell, they even had a movie made...What say we get some Berets, but we'll make them a different color.  . So nobody can say we stole the idea"
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/3/2014 5:52:59 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Would you like your kid or brother to go to combat with the load out they had in 1990? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
In 1990 it cost 5583.20 to equip the average Marine, 2010 it was 15800.92 Worth it? Would you like your kid or brother to go to combat with the load out they had in 1990? The only personal equipment I wish I had back then that is issued now is a red dot optic and a weapon mounted flashlight. You new guys carry too much shit. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/3/2014 5:54:11 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yep -- current Rangers have very little operational experience in small unit tactics or direct action raids, and with the Obama budget are very poorly trained and equipped. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e4/Flickr_-_DVIDSHUB_-_Operation_in_Nahr-e_Saraj_%28Image_5_of_7%29.jpg/1920px-Flickr_-_DVIDSHUB_-_Operation_in_Nahr-e_Saraj_%28Image_5_of_7%29.jpg Look at all that useless crap they have just to look cool in pictures -- real rifleman use iron sights! http://cmsimg.armytimes.com/apps/pbcsi.dll/bilde?Site=M6&Date=20121031&Category=NEWS&ArtNo=210310310&Ref=AR&MaxW=640&Border=0&Rangers-awarded-medals-Afghanistan-heroics http://cmsimg.armytimes.com/apps/pbcsi.dll/bilde?Site=M6&Date=20120325&Category=NEWS&ArtNo=203250313&Ref=AR&Border=0 these nerds and weaklings wouldn't stand a chance (also lol CIB + combat scroll ratio between 1985 and now) Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Till the fly home and their runways are blown and destroyed by 1985 Army Rangers. http://usarmy.vo.llnwd.net/e2/-images/2010/04/27/71407/size0-army.mil-71407-2010-04-27-090423.jpg Yep -- current Rangers have very little operational experience in small unit tactics or direct action raids, and with the Obama budget are very poorly trained and equipped. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e4/Flickr_-_DVIDSHUB_-_Operation_in_Nahr-e_Saraj_%28Image_5_of_7%29.jpg/1920px-Flickr_-_DVIDSHUB_-_Operation_in_Nahr-e_Saraj_%28Image_5_of_7%29.jpg Look at all that useless crap they have just to look cool in pictures -- real rifleman use iron sights! http://cmsimg.armytimes.com/apps/pbcsi.dll/bilde?Site=M6&Date=20121031&Category=NEWS&ArtNo=210310310&Ref=AR&MaxW=640&Border=0&Rangers-awarded-medals-Afghanistan-heroics http://cmsimg.armytimes.com/apps/pbcsi.dll/bilde?Site=M6&Date=20120325&Category=NEWS&ArtNo=203250313&Ref=AR&Border=0 these nerds and weaklings wouldn't stand a chance (also lol CIB + combat scroll ratio between 1985 and now) They are extremely well trained and equipped. Just greatly outnumbered by a force that can pick up and use their equipment. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/3/2014 5:55:01 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Lol did soldiers even lift in '85? Those barracks beer machines didn't stock themselves-they had help. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/3/2014 5:56:31 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Lol did soldiers even lift in '85? Our heroes were Rambo, Conan, Rocky and Chuck Norris. Your heroes were Justin Beber and Jon Stewart.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/3/2014 5:57:06 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
1985....from memory so might be missing somebody. 1 Inf Div - Ft. Riley 2 Inf Div - Korea 3 Inf Div - Germany 4 Inf Div - Ft. Carson 5 Inf Div - Ft. Polk 7 Inf Div - Ft. Lewis 8 Inf Div - Germany 10 Inf Div - Ft. Drum 25 Inf Div - Hawaii, Alaska 82 Inf Div - Ft. Bragg 101 Inf Div - Ft. Campbell 1 Armor Div - Germany 2 Armor Div - Ft. Hood, 1 Brigade in Germany 3 Armor Div - Germany 1st Cav Division - Ft. Hood In addition 11 ACR and 2 ACR in Germany, 75th Ranger at Ft. Benning and Ft. Lewis, and a shit-ton of other independent Brigades and Battalions. 15 Divisions, probably the equivalent of 1-2 more with independent Regiments, Rangers, SF, and even independent battalions (i.e. 1/509 PIR). I seem to remember there being 18 total, so please let me know if I missed any. 6 Inf Div was reactivated sometime in late 80's but don't think they were up by 1985 Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
10 Army divisions versus 5 now. Not many Combat vets Versus a metric Fuckton of combat vets. Too close to call. There were probably closer to 20 divisions in 1985 with nearly all senior NCOs and officers Vietnam veterans. 1985....from memory so might be missing somebody. 1 Inf Div - Ft. Riley 2 Inf Div - Korea 3 Inf Div - Germany 4 Inf Div - Ft. Carson 5 Inf Div - Ft. Polk 7 Inf Div - Ft. Lewis 8 Inf Div - Germany 10 Inf Div - Ft. Drum 25 Inf Div - Hawaii, Alaska 82 Inf Div - Ft. Bragg 101 Inf Div - Ft. Campbell 1 Armor Div - Germany 2 Armor Div - Ft. Hood, 1 Brigade in Germany 3 Armor Div - Germany 1st Cav Division - Ft. Hood In addition 11 ACR and 2 ACR in Germany, 75th Ranger at Ft. Benning and Ft. Lewis, and a shit-ton of other independent Brigades and Battalions. 15 Divisions, probably the equivalent of 1-2 more with independent Regiments, Rangers, SF, and even independent battalions (i.e. 1/509 PIR). I seem to remember there being 18 total, so please let me know if I missed any. 6 Inf Div was reactivated sometime in late 80's but don't think they were up by 1985 forgot the 3rd ACR "Brave Rifles" I was in from 81-84 Infantry 3rd ID and 3rd ACR A lot of my fellow soldiers were druggies and losers who couldn't pass a pt test. All the so called field testing was pencil whipped, our nco's were incompetent and drunks. We had about 15 of us in the whole friggin brigade who passed EIB. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/3/2014 5:57:11 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Lol did soldiers even lift in '85? Yeah bro, we lifted. Fuckin tank treads and BFRs an MaDueces and Fat Chicks. .
Hell we was liftin that shit when you was just a twinkle in.....erm... nevermind..... 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/3/2014 5:59:07 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Our heroes were Rambo, Conan, Rocky and Chuck Norris. Your heroes were Justin Beber and Jon Stewart. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Lol did soldiers even lift in '85? Our heroes were Rambo, Conan, Rocky and Chuck Norris. Your heroes were Justin Beber and Jon Stewart. Well, they still have Conan. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/3/2014 6:01:13 PM EDT
[#44]
Today's Army would win probably. Yesterday's Army (1985) armed with today's technology would hand us our own asses easily.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/3/2014 6:03:54 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Worth it? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
In 1990 it cost 5583.20 to equip the average Marine, 2010 it was 15800.92 Worth it? The infantrymen (and those filling the role) are significantly better equipped today with better night fighting capability, better force protection, better communications capabilities. Much of this fielding was the results of the needs to increase lethality and survivability due but the support of disaggregated/distributed operations because of having less forces available. The problem is the capability means an ever increasing training requirement to become and maintain proficiency with only limited training time. Commands and services have made tradeoffs in their training, and one of the biggest tradeoffs is reduction or elimination of much of the traditional maneuver warfare training. At the team and squad level, as long as they are only focusing on organic assets, the modern unit is significantly more capable than its predecessor. However at the Company and higher level you will see problems in fires integrations, combine arms operations and multi-unit coordination. Additionally; 11 plus years of fighting from FOBs has made for an unwieldy, non-expeditionary logistics and long-haul communications capability. When BNs and Regts go to the field, their companies and batteries struggle a bit but can conduct independent operations; they have significant difficulty when it comes to operating as part of a BN or Regiment and their log-trains struggle like they are relearning how to support a unit. Comm today because of how it has evolved from radio to data, now often takes hours to become available once a unit moves. The armor and artillery communities both have better equipment today but also suffer from some of the same problems as the infantry. Our tanks may have slightly better sights and some better survivability features but they more use to infantry support in small dets instead of being wielded as an armor fist. Our artillery may have great PGMs and more leathal HE but is not as good at massing fires and the need to mensurate and targets conduct safety precautions has slows down fires to the point they may not be useful against a near peer adversary. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/3/2014 6:06:58 PM EDT
[#46]
I think you need to read the lyrics to that song and then tell me what you think. And training continues to go on internationally, however with the changing world defending the Fulda gap just seems so...primitive. And, nukes this nukes that. Do you understand we could still vaporize the entire planet with our stock pile today? And "go wolverines?" I think you're drinking part of the GD Kool-Aid. Sorry bud, I was there. I lived it. I listened to the lyrics and know how the "boss" hated war, I think I still may have the cassette somewhere. I also remember Reagan used that song during his second term and Bruce asked him to quit playing it. I also remember the resolve the people, and the military had to make sure another Viet Nam did not happen. It seems our politicians have forgot some lessons. Also, if you read the ops question, you would realize it was a two part question. Back in the '80's the schools taught reading, and reading comprehension. And yes, I did like Kool-Aide as a child, and have since grown up, perhaps you need to switch to an adult drink and review your '80's history? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/3/2014 6:09:07 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The infantrymen (and those filling the role) are significantly better equipped today with better night fighting capability, better force protection, better communications capabilities. Much of this fielding was the results of the needs to increase lethality and survivability due but the support of disaggregated/distributed operations because of having less forces available. The problem is the capability means an ever increasing training requirement to become and maintain proficiency with only limited training time. Commands and services have made tradeoffs in their training, and one of the biggest tradeoffs is reduction or elimination of much of the traditional maneuver warfare training. At the team and squad level, as long as they are only focusing on organic assets, the modern unit is significantly more capable than its predecessor. However at the Company and higher level you will see problems in fires integrations, combine arms operations and multi-unit coordination. Additionally; 11 plus years of fighting from FOBs has made for an unwieldy, non-expeditionary logistics and long-haul communications capability. When BNs and Regts go to the field, their companies and batteries struggle a bit but can conduct independent operations; they have significant difficulty when it comes to operating as part of a BN or Regiment and their log-trains struggle like they are relearning how to support a unit. Comm today because of how it has evolved from radio to data, now often takes hours to become available once a unit moves. The armor and artillery communities both have better equipment today but also suffer from some of the same problems as the infantry. Our tanks may have slightly better sights and some better survivability features but they more use to infantry support in small dets instead of being wielded as an armor fist. Our artillery may have great PGMs and more leathal HE but is not as good at massing fires and the need to mensurate and targets conduct safety precautions has slows down fires to the point they may not be useful against a near peer adversary. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
In 1990 it cost 5583.20 to equip the average Marine, 2010 it was 15800.92 Worth it? The infantrymen (and those filling the role) are significantly better equipped today with better night fighting capability, better force protection, better communications capabilities. Much of this fielding was the results of the needs to increase lethality and survivability due but the support of disaggregated/distributed operations because of having less forces available. The problem is the capability means an ever increasing training requirement to become and maintain proficiency with only limited training time. Commands and services have made tradeoffs in their training, and one of the biggest tradeoffs is reduction or elimination of much of the traditional maneuver warfare training. At the team and squad level, as long as they are only focusing on organic assets, the modern unit is significantly more capable than its predecessor. However at the Company and higher level you will see problems in fires integrations, combine arms operations and multi-unit coordination. Additionally; 11 plus years of fighting from FOBs has made for an unwieldy, non-expeditionary logistics and long-haul communications capability. When BNs and Regts go to the field, their companies and batteries struggle a bit but can conduct independent operations; they have significant difficulty when it comes to operating as part of a BN or Regiment and their log-trains struggle like they are relearning how to support a unit. Comm today because of how it has evolved from radio to data, now often takes hours to become available once a unit moves. The armor and artillery communities both have better equipment today but also suffer from some of the same problems as the infantry. Our tanks may have slightly better sights and some better survivability features but they more use to infantry support in small dets instead of being wielded as an armor fist. Our artillery may have great PGMs and more leathal HE but is not as good at massing fires and the need to mensurate and targets conduct safety precautions has slows down fires to the point they may not be useful against a near peer adversary. Interesting. Thanks. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/3/2014 6:15:55 PM EDT
[#48]
1985 would win.
We had this 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/3/2014 6:20:59 PM EDT
[#49]
The early 2000's laugh at you back in 85 spiels...
 Don't think some of us don't know... |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/3/2014 6:22:12 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The military of today soundly defeated the Iraqi Army in conventional warfare and then transitioned to asymmetrical warfare. Is there really a "peer" military to that of the US military. Russia is antiquated, China doesn't have the projection we do, etc. The 1985 military trained for a conventional war, todays military fought one. FBHO Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
No but that is what they trained for. The military of today soundly defeated the Iraqi Army in conventional warfare and then transitioned to asymmetrical warfare. Is there really a "peer" military to that of the US military. Russia is antiquated, China doesn't have the projection we do, etc. The 1985 military trained for a conventional war, todays military fought one. FBHO The military that destroyed Sadam's forces is arguably not the same force we have in 2014. Much of the 2014 military has only fought an anti insurgency campaign. Not to take anything from our military members, but I don't believe you have the training to fight a conflict against a force that was trained to fight on a multi divisional level against a numerically superior enemy. Divisions were the maneuver unit. Now I have been out of the military since 1991 so I don't know what the training is now but I would bet there are few military personnel that know how to effectively counter tactics of the 1985 military. Also keep in mind that many senior enlisted and senior officers were Vietnam vets. You can bet they learned something about counter insurgency and guerilla warfare over there. They could counter any tactics that the 2014 military might have learned from their current enemy. In the air it would be a bloody mess. At first glance you have to say that the 2014 air force would stomp the 1985 air force. This may be true but you have got to consider the sheer number of airframes the 1985 air force had. Either way it goes neither side would have much left in the way of an air force. Navy I would give to the 85 military due to the larger number of attack subs. They would decimate the 2014 fleet. |
|
|
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
