Increasing the size of the Present Day US Army

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Increasing the size of the Present Day US Army

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion >> Increasing the size of the Present Day US Army

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Increasing the size of the Present Day US Army - 1/24/2007 5:59:36 PM

Brady

Posts: 10701
Joined: 10/25/2002
From: Oregon,USA
Status: offline

I keep hearing that they want to do this, but I have not heard any mention of just how they intend to do this, I asume they mean increasing the size of all the Armed forces, Marines and Army and Navy and Air Force, does anyone have any specifics on this?

_____________________________

Beta Team Member for:

WPO
PC
CF
AE
WiTE

Obi-wan Kenobi said it best: A lot of the reality we perceive depend on our point of view

Post #: 1

RE: Increasing the size of the Present Day US Army - 1/24/2007 10:17:48 PM

Capt. Harlock

Posts: 5358
Joined: 9/15/2001
From: Los Angeles
Status: offline

Not quite: the Air Force is to be left as is, and there will be no increase in the personnel of the U.S. Navy. (Technically the Navy will grow because the Marines are part of the Navy, as the FBI is part of the Department of Justice.) The total increase in ground-pounders is planned at 92,000 men. It remains to be seen what Congress is willing to fund.

_____________________________

Civil war? What does that mean? Is there any foreign war? Isn't every war fought between men, between brothers?

--Victor Hugo

(in reply to Brady)

Post #: 2

RE: Increasing the size of the Present Day US Army - 1/24/2007 10:45:18 PM

Erik Rutins

Posts: 37503
Joined: 3/28/2000
From: Vermont, USA
Status: offline

Given the size of the pre-1992 volunteer military, I can't imagine this would really be that hard to do. Is the main obstacle the various base closures and a reduction in actual training capabilities?

_____________________________

Erik Rutins
CEO, Matrix Games LLC

For official support, please use our Help Desk: http://www.matrixgames.com/helpdesk/

Freedom is not Free.

(in reply to Capt. Harlock)

Post #: 3

RE: Increasing the size of the Present Day US Army - 1/24/2007 11:03:48 PM

.50Kerry

Posts: 325
Joined: 3/30/2004
From: a long dark river winding through the jungles....
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

Given the size of the pre-1992 volunteer military, I can't imagine this would really be that hard to do. Is the main obstacle the various base closures and a reduction in actual training capabilities?

There are several obstacles but the biggest is that politicians and generals are loathe to capitalize the human element of the game as it is less personally rewarding for them than systems acquisition.

_____________________________

Anchors aweigh!

(in reply to Erik Rutins)

Post #: 4

RE: Increasing the size of the Present Day US Army - 1/25/2007 2:06:53 AM

Brady

Posts: 10701
Joined: 10/25/2002
From: Oregon,USA
Status: offline

Thanks, But just what does 92,000 men translate into? How many Brigades, asuming they will be brigades, and if so what type?(Strriker,Armored,Light Infentry, ect???)

_____________________________

Beta Team Member for:

WPO
PC
CF
AE
WiTE

Obi-wan Kenobi said it best: A lot of the reality we perceive depend on our point of view

(in reply to .50Kerry)

Post #: 5

RE: Increasing the size of the Present Day US Army - 1/25/2007 2:33:13 AM

morvwilson

Posts: 510
Joined: 11/30/2006
From: California
Status: offline

Given the current war, I don't think it likely they will activate heavy maneuver units (armor or mech. inf.). My guess would be light inf.

(in reply to Brady)

Post #: 6

RE: Increasing the size of the Present Day US Army - 1/25/2007 2:34:47 AM

Sarge

Posts: 2841
Joined: 3/1/2003
From: ask doggie
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Brady

I keep hearing that they want to do this, but I have not heard any mention of just how they intend to do this, I asume they mean increasing the size of all the Armed forces, Marines and Army and Navy and Air Force, does anyone have any specifics on this?

Where do you keep hearing this, did you see this figure prior to last night ?

But anyway there is a whole host of ways to up enrolment numbers , lift prior restrictions , incentives/bonuses.

As any of you known that have prior service in the last ten years you received a exploratory to interest level of enrolment, along with a detailed description of alternative training options (depending on prior MOS).

From what I know, there is about 100,000 ground pounders due to rotate back to civ that signed back in 02-03

_____________________________

(in reply to Brady)

Post #: 7

RE: Increasing the size of the Present Day US Army - 1/25/2007 2:39:03 AM

Sarge

Posts: 2841
Joined: 3/1/2003
From: ask doggie
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: morvwilson

Given the current war, I don't think it likely they will activate heavy maneuver units (armor or mech. inf.).�My guess would be light inf.�

Correct, also skilled support .

IIRC the number is around 12 to 1 Grunt

_____________________________

(in reply to morvwilson)

Post #: 8

RE: Increasing the size of the Present Day US Army - 1/25/2007 3:37:45 AM

Brady

Posts: 10701
Joined: 10/25/2002
From: Oregon,USA
Status: offline

I listen to NPR during the day a lot, and they mention it often...

_____________________________

Beta Team Member for:

WPO
PC
CF
AE
WiTE

Obi-wan Kenobi said it best: A lot of the reality we perceive depend on our point of view

(in reply to Sarge)

Post #: 9

RE: Increasing the size of the Present Day US Army - 1/25/2007 6:58:33 AM

Twotribes

Posts: 6929
Joined: 2/15/2002
From: Jacksonville NC
Status: offline

There was a news blurb on Yahoo awhile back also, that listed the break down for marines and Army. Marines were climbing about 20000 the rest will be army.

Using the old numbers for "divisions" that is 4 regiments for the Marines and probably 10 to 15 brigades for the army, assuming the vast majority go into combat arms.

A note, a MArine regiment is similiar in numbers to an Army Brigade. Those not aware, the Marines call elements of Divisions Regiments and stand alone organizations less than a Division Brigades, the Army uses the term Brigade for the elements of a Division, cant remember if Regiments were ever stand alone organizations for the Army though.

(in reply to Brady)

Post #: 10

RE: Increasing the size of the Present Day US Army - 1/25/2007 7:07:39 AM

Twotribes

Posts: 6929
Joined: 2/15/2002
From: Jacksonville NC
Status: offline

My take on the "difficulty" is no one wants to PAY for more troops. The pay and maintanaince costs for individuals is the highest cost to the military. An increase of 90 thousand is a major money investment in just pay alone, not counting the increased cost in medical and support costs and depending on whether the Army and marine Corps has weapons to arm them, that could be another cost.

Getting the people to join isnt a problem as far as I can tell. Getting the politicians to PAY for it is the problem. And this includes all 3 of the political types the US has, Independent and the 2 major parties.

Another sort of problem is that once they start recruiting it will take time to increase the levels AND even more time to train and actually field new units. The increase in manpower has to be a decision the politicians will live with for years to come or it is a complete waste of money.

By law ( the Constitution) No funding for the military can exceed a life of 2 years. Every year basicly, the military is rebudgetted. And that cant significantly change. Every 2 years the House of Representatives has every member stand for election/reelection. That body is the primary body of the US Government to create all money bills. Unless the 2 main parties are interested in maintaining an increase, actually doing it would be a big waste of resources, time and money. Neither party has been interested in doing that and my feeling is they still really arent interested in it.

(in reply to Brady)

Post #: 11

RE: Increasing the size of the Present Day US Army - 1/25/2007 7:10:12 AM

chris0827

Posts: 441
Joined: 11/17/2006
Status: offline

The army had quite a few independent regiments in world war II. They usually called them regimental combat teams. They switched to brigades in 1957.

(in reply to Twotribes)

Post #: 12

RE: Increasing the size of the Present Day US Army - 1/25/2007 7:20:18 AM

Ursa MAior

Posts: 1416
Joined: 4/20/2005
From: Hungary, EU
Status: offline

"Ironically, while some experts think the draft exacerbated the desolation of the Army after Vietnam, others argue that it is one option to maintain national security given the current strain on the all-volunteer force. "America has a choice. It can be the world's superpower or it can maintain the current all-volunteer military, but it probably can't do both," Phillip Carter and Paul Glastris wrote in the Washington Monthly last month."

source globalsecurity.org 2005. may

_____________________________

Art by the amazing Dixie

(in reply to chris0827)

Post #: 13

RE: Increasing the size of the Present Day US Army - 1/25/2007 8:04:19 AM

Marauders

Posts: 4428
Joined: 3/17/2005
From: Minnesota
Status: offline

I wonder what Ike would think about this. The United States is still fighting the Cold War for the military industrial complex.

The United States military would do better to be structured like the Israeli Self Defense Forces. Every citizen should be trained, so if there is a war, the United States can use overwhelming force and get it done with.

(in reply to Ursa MAior)

Post #: 14

RE: Increasing the size of the Present Day US Army - 1/25/2007 9:36:36 AM

bartholimew

Posts: 86
Joined: 2/23/2004
From: Swastika Ontario Seriously I am
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marauders

The United States military would do better to be structured like the Israeli Self Defense Forces. Every citizen should be trained, so if there is a war, the United States can use overwhelming force and get it done with.

They are more so than any other country. Why do you think people own mach 10's and every old lady has a gun in their purse in Texas for example. I pitty the king of England when he tries to take the colonies back.

< Message edited by bartholimew -- 1/25/2007 10:08:16 AM >

(in reply to Marauders)

Post #: 15

RE: Increasing the size of the Present Day US Army - 1/25/2007 2:52:29 PM

Twotribes

Posts: 6929
Joined: 2/15/2002
From: Jacksonville NC
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ursa MAior

"Ironically, while some experts think the draft exacerbated the desolation of the Army after Vietnam, others argue that it is one option to maintain national security given the current strain on the all-volunteer force. "America has a choice. It can be the world's superpower or it can maintain the current all-volunteer military, but it probably can't do both," Phillip Carter and Paul Glastris wrote in the Washington Monthly last month."

source globalsecurity.org 2005. may

I suspect for every "expert" you find that thinks this there are 2 or 3 that dont think so. There is no need for the draft and other than people with an agenda ( not a military one) no one seriously believes the draft is neccassary.

The people in Congress touting a draft dont even really want one, it is a ploy, they remember the 60's and believe if they can just get the draft they can actually get protestors for any war or 'adventure" the US needs to do.

More importantly no current major military Generals believe the draft is neccassary. The "all Volunteer" force is meeting its recruitment and retention goals, inspite of claims to the contrary. And the Military believes it can add the 92000 new troops with out a draft, rather as they are now, all volunteer.

(in reply to Ursa MAior)

Post #: 16

RE: Increasing the size of the Present Day US Army - 1/25/2007 3:12:07 PM

Sarge

Posts: 2841
Joined: 3/1/2003
From: ask doggie
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ursa MAior
"America has a choice. It can be the world's superpower or it can maintain the current all-volunteer military, but it probably can't do both," Phillip Carter and Paul Glastris wrote in the Washington Monthly last month."

source globalsecurity.org 2005. may

NOT !

_____________________________

(in reply to Ursa MAior)

Post #: 17

RE: Increasing the size of the Present Day US Army - 1/25/2007 6:30:06 PM

Knuckles_85

Posts: 581
Joined: 9/1/2002
From: The hell known as Wisconsin
Status: offline

We can use overwhelming force with the troop levels as they are. There is no political will to do so. You can have 2 million people on the ground and they can be useless without effective ROE

_____________________________

Me: God that guy is annoying

Co-worker: What would Jesus do?

Me: I don't know set him on fire and send him to hell?

(in reply to Marauders)

Post #: 18

RE: Increasing the size of the Present Day US Army - 1/25/2007 7:08:32 PM

Erik Rutins

Posts: 37503
Joined: 3/28/2000
From: Vermont, USA
Status: offline

"Heavy" units are extremely expensive in particular due to equipment, but the US has been moving away from those towards HMMWV / Stryker-based units, keeping only a few really "Heavy" divisions. The recent reorganization to more brigades also makes each brigade smaller as well.

How many new brigades could we expect from the proposed expansion and would it be fair to assume they would all be non-heavy units? Without venturing into politics, what do you all feel is the most effective type of brigade for the US Army to have in the next ten years? Heavy, Light Mechanized (i.e. Stryker), Light Infantry (i.e. 10th Mountain), Airmobile, Airborne? Or should we have more Marine brigades with their existing flexible structure?

Now, to venture into armchair strategy, if we have to maintain 120-150k troops in Iraq for several more years, what size expansion would we need in order to be able to handle these two possibilities:

1. War with Iran
2. War with North Korea
3. Limited War with tribal regions of Pakistan

I make no assumptions as to what the best strategy would be in each case and thus how many ground troops it would require, but I'm interested to hear your thoughts. Again, let's stick to discussing strategy and the military side rather than politics, just pretend we're in a political vacuum.

Regards,

- Eriks

_____________________________

Erik Rutins
CEO, Matrix Games LLC

For official support, please use our Help Desk: http://www.matrixgames.com/helpdesk/

Freedom is not Free.

(in reply to Twotribes)

Post #: 19

RE: Increasing the size of the Present Day US Army - 1/26/2007 12:49:09 AM

Twotribes

Posts: 6929
Joined: 2/15/2002
From: Jacksonville NC
Status: offline

We are in capable of fighting 3 wars , we never were actually geared for that to begin with. Though they used to claim we could fight 2 and a half wars. What ever half a war is....

For arguements sake we will call current operations in Iraq/Afghanistan as the half a war. We might be able to pull of one short war ( 4 to 6 months) with out significant increases in troop strength, but it would require all ( in my opinion) Reserves and national Guard called up.

If we want a credible force we should increase the Army by about 300 thousand combat troops, meaning we would need at least that many in support as well, OR a major change in how our military trains and operates.

The Marine Corps should add 5 to 6 more Regiments 4 being Infantry and 2 being Artillery. They should also add several battalions of Amphibious vehicles and several Battalions of tanks and LAV's. That would be about 2/3's or more of what their strength is now , so say 150000 troops.

The Airforce should increase the number of squadrons they have, adding 4 to 6 mulitpurpose squadrons, 4 to 6 heavy bomber squadrons and 4 to 6 airlift squadrons. No idea what manpower that requires.

The Navy should increase to at least 500 combat vessels. We should have at least 15 Aircraft Carriers and their required escorts and support ships. We need more Amphibious troop carriers of both helo capable and of just troop landing capable. We need more prepositioned ships and we NEED combat ships assigned on a permanent basis to protect them. This increase would require a lot more support vessels alos.

We need light craft and possibly medium craft capable of in shore operations and riverine operations. We need craft designed to insert teams of up tp 30 to 40 troops and escort vessels to provide security and fire support.

None of this is going to happen, No one wants it to that is in any position of power.

Until the US wakes up to the fact they are in a Global War against as much as 6 to 10 nation States ( potentially) and potentially millions of "stateless" terrorists the US will not take the needed steps.

Troops in any number mean nothing, as does any gee whiz state of the art weapons system or platform. Unless the Country intends to use them. This requires a MAJOR change in the politics of US foreign Affairs. It requires the cooperation of all major political parties and it MUST be articulated to the people of the country. NO ONE is on the horizin that grasps this or plans any of this.

We need to adopt and use realistic Rules of Engagement. We need to tell our potential enemies that we have no intent of ever again wasting our time rebuilding any country we destroy unless it is required by world conditions and the needs of the US. Few of the current potential enemy states require us to do that if we are forced to fight them.

(in reply to Erik Rutins)

Post #: 20

RE: Increasing the size of the Present Day US Army - 1/26/2007 3:03:55 AM

2ndACR

Posts: 5665
Joined: 8/31/2003
From: Irving,Tx
Status: offline

2T.............That is basically where we were at before King William became President. The Army fielded 18 divisions, along with several 6 IIRC, independent brigades. The Navy had IIRC 500 ships, 12 full strength CVN battle groups. Not sure what the USAF had, but it was a bunch. The Marines have basically maintained around 200,000 or so for 20 years.

90,000 troops equates to roughly 18.5 combat brigades fully staffed. But figure 10 to be on the safe side and to account for the additional combat support units those 10 brigades would need. Without the added combat support units, we would get 18 fully staffed combat brigades with roughly 5,000 troops each.

It takes years to field a large military and lots of money (something we did in the 80's) but it can all be undone in 1-2 years. As Clintoon did.

I would like to see the army expanded back to pre Clinton years. I would like to have the LID's back (light infantry divisions). Fairly easy to air lift (only around 500 flights or so)

. The 7th, 6th, 9th, 25th, 10th were all LID's back in my day. Lots of infantry which is what we need now. But infantry combat is casualty heavy, and i fear, as we see now, that the US people are too casualty sensitive. Heck, this the the lowest casualty war in history. IMO anyway.

The navy needs to be back to 500 ships with the CV's. And I want the BB's back too. I like them. The USMC could do to be expanded some, but I really think by only 20-30,000. They are a, as designed, in and out force.......the army is the long haul force.

The USAF.......well, it needs to be enlarged, but not sure how big. Their toys are too expensive and manpower intensive.

(in reply to Twotribes)

Post #: 21

RE: Increasing the size of the Present Day US Army - 1/26/2007 3:22:32 AM

BailChannis

Posts: 9
Joined: 1/25/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: bartholimew

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marauders

The United States military would do better to be structured like the Israeli Self Defense Forces. Every citizen should be trained, so if there is a war, the United States can use overwhelming force and get it done with.

They are more so than any other country. Why do you think people own mach 10's and every old lady has a gun in their purse in Texas for example. I pitty the king of England when he tries to take the colonies back.

More than any other country? Sure about that? If tribes and villagers in places like Africa and the Middle East had only small arms like pistols and rifles, many of the conflicts in those places would have been over long ago. In some of these places you can buy an RPG or DshK HMG in an open air market, no questions asked.

Also I think places like Switzerland or Israel - places with mandatory military service - could really beg to differ. Every Swiss male of age is fully equipped, with full gear - everything from weapons and ammunition to needles and thread - stored at home. Bit different than ladies with pistols in their purses!

(in reply to bartholimew)

Post #: 22

RE: Increasing the size of the Present Day US Army - 1/26/2007 6:47:00 AM

2ndACR

Posts: 5665
Joined: 8/31/2003
From: Irving,Tx
Status: offline

BailChannis,

There are roughly 200 million guns in civilian hands in the US. Probably more than that since that number is dated some. A few years ago, it was said that there are enough guns in private hands to equip every person (man woman and child) in the US with a gun. We have roughly 20 million hunters in the US.......maybe more than that. Countless target shooters here.

I alone have 2 AR15's, 3 shotguns, 2 rifles and 4 pistols. Plus about 3,000 rounds of ammo. That is just me. Plus, I have the military training to make alot of trouble for an enemy. So, yes, I pity anyone who try's to take the US by force.

(in reply to BailChannis)

Post #: 23

RE: Increasing the size of the Present Day US Army - 1/26/2007 6:54:26 AM

morvwilson

Posts: 510
Joined: 11/30/2006
From: California
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: 2ndACR

BailChannis,

There are roughly 200 million guns in civilian hands in the US. Probably more than that since that number is dated some. A few years ago, it was said that there are enough guns in private hands to equip every person (man woman and child) in the US with a gun. We have roughly 20 million hunters in the US.......maybe more than that. Countless target shooters here.

I alone have 2 AR15's, 3 shotguns, 2 rifles and 4 pistols. Plus about 3,000 rounds of ammo. That is just me. Plus, I have the military training to make alot of trouble for an enemy. So, yes, I pity anyone who try's to take the US by force.

Hope you don't mind me dovetailing here 2ndACR, but I heard these very facts quoted as the reason why the Soviet Union never tried an armed invasion in an interview of a former KGB official on the radio.

(in reply to 2ndACR)

Post #: 24

RE: Increasing the size of the Present Day US Army - 1/26/2007 6:57:23 AM

2ndACR

Posts: 5665
Joined: 8/31/2003
From: Irving,Tx
Status: offline

Would not surprise me. But I hope the ultimate threat of "before the last free breathe from an American, we will destroy all life on Earth" also worked. And continues to work.

I worry more about the inside threat to America that I can not fight against..................Liberals.

(in reply to morvwilson)

Post #: 25

RE: Increasing the size of the Present Day US Army - 1/26/2007 7:03:52 AM

morvwilson

Posts: 510
Joined: 11/30/2006
From: California
Status: offline

I think the liberals will fight, but it may take a mushroom cloud over an american city befor that happens. I hope I am wrong, but they keep backing our enemies.

(in reply to 2ndACR)

Post #: 26

RE: Increasing the size of the Present Day US Army - 1/26/2007 8:51:42 AM

Erik Rutins

Posts: 37503
Joined: 3/28/2000
From: Vermont, USA
Status: offline

Ok, despite some interesting responses, this has veered again into politics. Can I please ask you folks to discuss the subject without bringing politics into it? I'm genuinely interested in the opinions on this board as far as what shape a modern conflict vs. Iran, North Korea or the border areas of Pakistan would take. Does the US have the ability to fight any of these conflicts while engaged in Iraq at the current level?

If it veers towards politics again, I'll have to lock it, unfortunately.

_____________________________

Erik Rutins
CEO, Matrix Games LLC

For official support, please use our Help Desk: http://www.matrixgames.com/helpdesk/

Freedom is not Free.

(in reply to morvwilson)

Post #: 27

RE: Increasing the size of the Present Day US Army - 1/26/2007 10:48:57 AM

Ursa MAior

Posts: 1416
Joined: 4/20/2005
From: Hungary, EU
Status: offline

To be honest as far as I heard, being a member of the US armed forces is widely respected, but compensation is not in balance with it. Correct me if I am wrong. If it is so it will tkae more money than a new weapon system, but incrreasing the soldeirs' salary to a level where it is REALLY worth to be a soldier will have to solve the problem.

quote:

"Unless things start to improve, we will start to see a serious problem in six to nine months," said Bernard E. Trainor, a retired Marine Corps three-star general and a former Marine Corps deputy chief of staff under Ronald Reagan. "I think they [the Pentagon] are betting that things are going to get better. But that could be a miscalculation," said Trainor. "This crowd has been pretty good at miscalculating."

Indeed, the revelation that well over 1 million U.S. troops have fought in Iraq and Afghanistan surprises even close military observers. "Those are big numbers ... a lot bigger than I would have thought," said John Pike, the director of GlobalSecurity.org, a defense information Web site that tracks the logistics of war. Pike thinks it is too early to tell what the impact will be on the regular Army, but he said the repeated deployments have already broken the reserve forces.

What do you think of this it is also from the same article?

< Message edited by Ursa MAior -- 1/26/2007 11:02:42 AM >

_____________________________

Art by the amazing Dixie

(in reply to Erik Rutins)

Post #: 28

RE: Increasing the size of the Present Day US Army - 1/26/2007 12:06:03 PM

BailChannis

Posts: 9
Joined: 1/25/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: 2ndACR

BailChannis,

There are roughly 200 million guns in civilian hands in the US. Probably more than that since that number is dated some. A few years ago, it was said that there are enough guns in private hands to equip every person (man woman and child) in the US with a gun. We have roughly 20 million hunters in the US.......maybe more than that. Countless target shooters here.

I alone have 2 AR15's, 3 shotguns, 2 rifles and 4 pistols. Plus about 3,000 rounds of ammo. That is just me. Plus, I have the military training to make alot of trouble for an enemy. So, yes, I pity anyone who try's to take the US by force.

I admit that the United States would be a nightmare to occupy, due to the size (both population and land) and diversity of environments ... lots of urban terrain, deserts, mountains, etc. Also I think things like the quantity of small machine shops (and even well-stocked garages) and technical expertise would pose a formidable problem for any would-be occupier. Plus no pacification can possibly be succesful if the borders can't be sealed, and this would be totally impossible in the US. And the quantity of firearms is a problem (though of less relevance than a steady supply of ammunition).

However, in all fairness, if geography and other factors are taken out of the picture, I don't think the US population is prepared for an insurgency against a modern military force "moreso than any other country in the world". It's not like there are a few dozen RPGs in even the smallest village, as is the case in many other parts of the world, and only a small fraction of the population has actual military training. Small arms alone are not sufficient equipment for any guerrilla force in this day and age (although I imagine that, due to factors mentioned above, an American insurgency would have little difficulty arming itself with heavy ordinance).

< Message edited by BailChannis -- 1/26/2007 12:35:58 PM >

(in reply to 2ndACR)

Post #: 29

RE: Increasing the size of the Present Day US Army - 1/26/2007 6:31:05 PM

anarchyintheuk

Posts: 3921
Joined: 5/5/2004
From: Dallas
Status: offline

Agree w/ BailChannis. I've always suspected that we would have had a significant quisling element.

(in reply to BailChannis)

Post #: 30