Great Power contentions

[Montmorency]

The Boxer works though in the Australian model in which it's likely opponents are indonesia or china's expeditionary capabilities. Also, an IFV or APC still get infantry farther forward, faster, and with more protection than walking.

What should change though is the top dollar that the west pays out for essentially an APC with a mounted gun. There's a lot of overhead, graft, and inefficiency that's unnecessary, part of that is buying on a scale of dozens to low hundreds instead a production run of thousands.
Much as the Europeans hate to work together on major defense purchases they need to really settle on a one or two base models for each platform role instead of each country having a different version. If all of europe settled on the CV-90, Lynx, or ASCOD for the IFV roles they could make larger purchases at less cost with only small variations from country to country.

From a practical and political standpoint, I personally don't think Western Europe or CAN/ANZAC should prioritize national resources on remilitarization for mass mechanized attrition, so it's not that I oppose something like the Boxer on principle. It would have been for the best if NATO militaries were tightly focused on complementing the US in the Western hemisphere and everyone was on that same page. But from the perspective of Eastern Europe, or most other countries (to the extent a given country should even have a military), you really prefer something like a souped-up BMP-2 type of bulk platform (with higher survivability) as the most cost-effective IFV solution. Russia (post-Soviet) has exported BMP-2s for ~$300K, which I believe is something like the export price of a Javelin CLU and one missile. The Yemen deal in the 2000s was ~$200K per unit. If the chart below is correct, BMP-3s tend to sell for around $3 million/unit (another source showed a contract price for domestic manufacture at around $1 million/unit), which IMO is not worth the added value.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/sebasti...h=347cbc234b1b
https://dfnc.ru/en/analytics/export-...s-from-russia/



Czechia recently announced a package deal for 246 CV-90 Mk.IV, a few months ahead of Slovakia signing on 152 units. News reports attest the respective contracts at $2.2 billion and €1.3 billion. Let's round it up to $4 billion total for 400 units plus spares, support, and all else typically associated with such contracts. That's effectively $9-10 million per unit. Cut that cost in half, make it the upcoming Mk.V model, and carry over the price cut to the older models, and the CV-90 could be extremely competitive worldwide. I would definitely prefer a Mk.IV to the overspecced BMP-3 at the same price point. But to make it possible you would probably need to get several dozen European countries to agree to massively subsidize Sweden to produce thousands, which can't happen without an unprecedented quid pro quo and technology transfer between EU members. Especially since it would be matching or beating the Polish Rosomak/Borsuk and South Korean K21 at price point, to say nothing of Lynx or smaller competitors.

I hope we don't have to find out, but in West Africa we may soon receive the first 21st-c. lessons on the requirements of 'real war' for countries that aren't rich or in the top tier.

[Montmorency]

@spmetla

I'm sorry bro, but come on. Come. On.

Just like the trainee reported.

This is right up there with the perennial complaints from the Pentagon in the media on how they wish the Ukrainian military would try just shooting less artillery.

[spmetla]

It's kinda of mind boggling what's coming out of the pentagon. Same with the criticism of the offensive so far. The "this is Kursk not rebels" comment sums it up best.

Ground recon is great but drones are absolutely essential in modern war.

[Montmorency]

The "kids these days wouldn't storm Omaha beach" crowd get super uncomfortable when you then ask them how they feel about mandatory service, nationalized industry and transportation, and rationing

I can't find the quote directly, but in one of Rick Atkinson's WWII books, he highlights how the winning essay in Life's "Why I Serve" essay contest for '43 or '44 was simply, "I got drafted"

National service & national industry combined to bring about victory in both world wars

No discussion about large scale combat operations against a near-peer enemy should happen without discussing both of those things

And yet. And YET. The US military services chalk that up to "political problems that aren't our problem" and then try to make war plans

*Nations* fight wars, as wars are an extension of political and social ends -- but if you try to fight a war without the nation, like, oh, I don't know, the last 20 years, then you get a military that is divorced from national strategy and a people disconnected from reality

And this is why historians don't get invited to many parties. Apparently we're too negative.

Heh. But though it's not the poster's exact point, I reckon if the US has to reinstate a general draft to fight a war, something would seem to have gone very, very wrong. Like "World in Conflict" wrong.

Tangentially, it's generally agreed now that in the past year - including the "partial mobilization" - Russia's military has recruited at least half a million personnel. (I'm referring just to the military, not Wagner or anything else.) There's the well-known 300K, but the rest have been voluntary or semi-voluntary recruits (prisoners, the accused, debtors, immigrants, people tricked by administrative means, covert mobilization, etc.) subject to 'hard-press' treatment. It's probably why the leadership has been acting so confident that their ongoing losses have been covered.

[spmetla]

Would agree with the premise that the US needs to look at economic and industrial capacity in a wartime setting and take that more seriously. If there's a war with China and most of the worlds ships are made in China, Japan, and South Korea we're going to have a bit of a problem worldwide building ships for our own commerce and military if those shipyards are building for their militaries. I think China is still thinking that the US would be a 'paper tiger' in a war over a periphery interest. Think their lesson learned is a direct attack like Pearl Harbor is a no-no but a gradual ramp up in the scale of war from the current 'competition' to more blatant war of Taiwan would cause the US to backdown or just dither about too long before it could make an impact in time.

For terms of conscription, well the US might need to do that in the future just for our peace-time force as the US population continues to live increasingly unhealthy lives and as military service requires more skilled persons than in the past. If kids are still wanting free college but not willing to serve a few years in peace time to do so then what other incentives are there?

[Montmorency]

I’ve consistently seen it remarked that the military’s uncompetitive pay scale and unappealing work conditions discourage potential applicants in the context of a high-employment economy (esp. since the late 2010s).

IIRC in WW2 enlisted GIs were paid comparably to white-collar workers. We can’t afford that now, but I think before long something like the link is going to be the bipartisan consensus.
https://www.military.com/daily-news/...roops.html/amp

[CrossLOPER]

For terms of conscription, well the US might need to do that in the future just for our peace-time force as the US population continues to live increasingly unhealthy lives and as military service requires more skilled persons than in the past. If kids are still wanting free college but not willing to serve a few years in peace time to do so then what other incentives are there?

Not a dangerous trend at all.

Healthcare costs insane? Military service.
Basic college education unreachable? Military service.
Many common jobs paying wages not worth considering? Military service.
Rations not high enough for survival? Military service.
Habshelter unlivable? Military service.

Maybe the solution is the reverse?

https://www.military.com/daily-news/...roops.html/amp
The White House also argued the changes would create "pay compression" in some areas.

"This would remove an important incentive for enlisted members to seek increased responsibilities and earn promotions at the grade of E-6 and higher, harming military readiness," the statement said.

The House's defense spending bill was already unlikely to become law as-is after Republicans included a slew of partisan riders aimed at Pentagon policies that conservatives consider "woke."

The funding bill would, among other provisions, prohibit surgery or hormone therapy for transgender troops and ban funding from being used to pay for travel and leave for service members seeking abortions.

The US is absolutely screwed unless the leadership gets it into their head that dangling promises of better pay, and interfering with medical care is unacceptable.

[Montmorency]

Speaking of college education, the latest reporting finds an 8-year life expectancy gap between college Americans (bachelors or higher) and no-college Americans (though including 2-year degree and some college), largely because the latter are much likelier to have worse healthcare, environment, diet, and working conditions.

More broadly than life-expectancy, we could almost say non-college Americans live in Mexico, and college Americans live in Western Europe.