Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't think it''s a disrespectful question, it's just a stupid question as the answer is of course the same military would defeat an otherwise equal military advanced by 30 years of technological development.
Otherwise, regardless of conflicts, the US did have a similarly funded, trained, and manned military force 30 years ago. And the first Gulf War was a mere 2 years after 1988.
I guess you are keying on the word "superior""...I caught that but not sure what the OP meant. I don't think it's a generational thing as you imply. For these silly "what if" questions it seems the OP never returns.
My post was too reactionary and unthoughtful. I apologize.
Thirty years is a long time. I tend to agree here, modern technology makes all the difference. One reason our troops rolled over saddam Hussein’s Iraq is because of a huge technology gap like that. They were still using early 70s tanks when they challenged our tanks in 91. Twenty years of development meant the Iraqi tanks were sitting ducks. Technology does indeed win wars.
Yep. Mostly T-72 soviet tanks vs M1 MBT's. Pretty much a blowout on the Iraqi side. I think they lost something like 4,000 tanks, and the US lost only a handful.
Yep. Mostly T-72 soviet tanks vs M1 MBT's. Pretty much a blowout on the Iraqi side. I think they lost something like 4,000 tanks, and the US lost only a handful.
The Iraqis has a relatively small number of T-72s. Mostly, their armor were Chinese-produced versions of the T-54/-55/-62 as well as Type 69s, a PRC tank that was a further development of the T-54.
But the idea that the Gulf War was simply 1990s technology versus 1970s technology misses the point in more ways than that. It wasn't 1990s US tech v. 1970s US tech but American hardware against Soviet/Chinese hardware. And it was state of the art American hardware, whereas even in those T-72s possessed by Iraq, they didn't have all the bells and whistles because the Soviets didn't sell the best of their goodies to just any communist Jose, Wang or Ali who came knocking. And often, the stuff wasn't even Soviet-made but an even more inferior localized rip-off of some Soviet product.
And that's completely beyond the vastly superior Allied organization, training and dedication (generals who rose through the officer corp, not who were chosen because they were from Tikrit - volunteer troops, not conscripts who 'volunteered' at gunpoint).
Can Kevin explain what makes 1988 troops superior to 2018 troops? This is a ridiculous premise.
I read it as superior numbers. Thus my post about attrition and the political will about how far the military would go. One thing about 1988, the US was still prepared for WW III and the massive casualties that were expected. One APC gets hit with a squad lost today would be major news for a few days.
The U.S. military was slightly bigger in 1988 than today in numbers. We had around 2 million active duty forces then and now we have 1.3 million. This is mainly due to drastic improvements in technology. The more technology advances the fewer troops are needed.
I'm just wondering why he selected 1988 as a benchmark? Wouldn't 1968 to 1972 be a better comparison? The U.S. military was far larger then than in 1988.
The U.S. military was slightly bigger in 1988 than today in numbers. We had around 2 million active duty forces then and now we have 1.3 million. This is mainly due to drastic improvements in technology. The more technology advances the fewer troops are needed.
I'm just wondering why he selected 1988 as a benchmark? Wouldn't 1968 to 1972 be a better comparison? The U.S. military was far larger then than in 1988.
By 1988 the first generation of most of the current weapon systems were entering field service.
The U.S. military was slightly bigger in 1988 than today in numbers. We had around 2 million active duty forces then and now we have 1.3 million. This is mainly due to drastic improvements in technology. The more technology advances the fewer troops are needed.
I'm just wondering why he selected 1988 as a benchmark? Wouldn't 1968 to 1972 be a better comparison? The U.S. military was far larger then than in 1988.
The military in 1972 was battle hardened from its continued war in Vietnam. In that respect it’s a better comparison to today, sorta. Better comparison would be the military of 2010 (Iraq, Afghanistan battle hardened) vs 1972 (Vietnam battle hardened)
The US Military has always produced some of the best trained high quality troops in the world. However it’s ridiculous to think the military from 1988 could compare with today’s. How does your personal computer compare in its abilities to its 1988 counterpart? Phone? Car? You get the point. 1988 was a different world, even if many of today’s advancements were being developed then. Much of the world was still quite “old school” in 1988, I am sure the military was no different. Technology matters on a battlefield.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
