Draw Down

[Fisherking]

So the current platoon these days is 2 squads, 2 fireteams each? Or did they just eliminate the SAWs and grenadiers?

That is about it. And the reason is not that the troops are better or better equipped.

Strike is completely right here. All this talk countering him amounts to nothing more than "You are going to get invaded if you make drastic cuts." (lol) "Troop platoons are already from here to here and if you make them from here to here, America will collapse." (lol) "You can't change the system, it is too cemented into the political culture." (lol)

All in all, fear mongering and apathy at the system are the reasons why we should not reduce the military portion of the budget from 25% to 20%. Great reasons guys.

No! The difference in troop size is a major factor in capabilities. The reason for the size change is because of the M-2 Bradley.

It costs more and can’t carry enough men. Where the M-113 carried 13 men the M-2 carries 4.

16 men can not do what 48 once did even with a more powerful taxi cab. It is men on the ground that count in a fight or to accomplish a mission.

It was not a doctrinal change because the men are more efficient. It was because the transport wouldn’t carry more and they couldn’t get the okay for more of them.

The truth is that a platoon does what a squad did and a company does the job of a platoon and so on up the line.

It doesn’t stop there either. Tank units have a 20% reduction in size and there are only about half as many of those unit now.

The Divisions only have two Brigades and their 3rd Brigade will be made up from the Reserves should it come to mobilization.

The Department of Defense keeps telling the politicians they are not able to take on two major operations at once, though that is ignored and so they do a half way job of it, as is evident from events.


The politicians will have there adventures if you cut the military to six men and a dog. Not having the forces to do it with just means you place the lives of your men in greater jeopardy.

Our forces have never been large enough to defend our territory. But as you say the likely hood of invasion has not been great. But a lack of capability increases the likelihood that someone is going to call your bluff.

Most Americans don’t understand military matters. They haven’t needed to. They just know that we have troops and they cost money. If there are less troops then that should cost less money.

Americans also think that their troops can’t be beaten. Haven’t we won almost every war we ever fought?

When politicians order troops to a place and men get killed people want the troops brought home.

That sends a strong message, like it our not.

Not having the troops to accomplish the mission, what ever it is, usually means you are going to lose, if not the war then a lot more troops than you would have if you did the job right in the first place.

DoD doesn’t work in a vacuum. They get missions and tell politicians what whey need to do them.

Politicians usually want it done with half the men at half the cost and you military tries to accomplish the mission with what they have. They didn’t pick the mission they just do what they are told.

That is where it stands.

Cuts mean doing more with less.

If you don’t like the mission talk to the politicians.

Having a strong defense doesn’t mean they have to be used. It makes it less so.

When they are weak and asked to do too much is when you find it all unacceptable.

If you have less troops chances are good that you have to use them more.

If they can’t do the job now what do you think you have with 25% less?