PDA

View Full Version : How big is our military?



Stoop Dawg
6/6/2007, 11:57 AM
I hear numbers like 120,000 troops in Iraq and it just doesn't seem like that many troops to me. And people say that our troops are "spread thin" and we have a lot reserves over there. How many troops do we have total? Should we have more? How many have we had historically? I'm under the impression that we had millions during WW2.

Can someone give me an idea of what scale our military is and/or should be?

sooner_born_1960
6/6/2007, 12:01 PM
It ain't big enough, or we'd have some of them posted at the Southern border.

def_lazer_fc
6/6/2007, 12:10 PM
what about those pesky canadians?

sooner_born_1960
6/6/2007, 12:12 PM
If they start becoming a problem.

jk the sooner fan
6/6/2007, 02:42 PM
the army is just a tad over 500K.......those "forces in the area" include members from all branches of the service - i dont know what the other branches are

i do know that Clinton "down scaled" the Army from over 1million to 500K while he was the POTUS

thanks Bill!!!!!!

Stoop Dawg
6/6/2007, 02:53 PM
thanks, jk. does the 500K number include reserves?

I see these shows about reserves in Iraq and their tour is extended by 6 months and they're all crying about it and their family is all ****ed at the govt about it. Don't get me wrong, I don't want to go to Iraq for a year. But I also didn't voluntarily join the army or the reserves. If these guys had been drafted I might have a little more sympathy. But OTOH, I'm thinking with "only" 120K troops in Iraq we shouldn't be needing reserves in the first place.

And I guess my rant about "journalists asking a 20 year old enlisted man what he thinks of our presence in Iraq" should go in another thread.

jk the sooner fan
6/6/2007, 03:29 PM
the 500K is active - some of the divisions that got downsized did so into reserve numbers

our troops in world war 2 were over there for 2 and 3 years,....as much as i hate to say it, i agree with you on tour lengths in iraq - and thats with my son over there for another 12 months on top of the 3 he's already served

however, the problem is that since we have such a smaller force, alot of those soldiers are doing 2d and 3d tours - for a year at a time

Vaevictis
6/6/2007, 03:30 PM
No, 500k is active duty. I think reserves are in the 700k-800k range.

As far as not needing reserves is concerned, consider that the 500k number is NOT 500k infantry available to go to Iraq. We have commitments to fill other than just Iraq -- we've got a bunch of bases that need staffing worldwide -- and for every infantryman in the Army, there's a certain number of people that have to be tasked to support him (supply, medical, payroll, etc). And then there's the non-infantry combat components like armored and artillery which are of limited use in an urban role (outside of flattening city blocks, that is).

jk the sooner fan
6/6/2007, 03:33 PM
dont forget the CID agents! :)

Vaevictis
6/6/2007, 03:34 PM
however, the problem is that since we have such a smaller force, alot of those soldiers are doing 2d and 3d tours - for a year at a time

IMO, it's also that the civilian populace just isn't committed like it was in WWII. In WWII, we didn't expect it to be easy, so we dug in. This war was "sold" and the expectation of difficulty set at "easy and cheap." It shouldn't be all that surprising that the civilian populace is holding it to that standard.

Vaevictis
6/6/2007, 03:36 PM
dont forget the CID agents! :)

"etc." :D :D :D

jk the sooner fan
6/6/2007, 03:38 PM
there are more infantry troops on active duty than any other MOS

can anybody guess the second highest MOS?

Vaevictis
6/6/2007, 03:49 PM
can anybody guess the second highest MOS?

etc? :D

jk the sooner fan
6/6/2007, 03:51 PM
the army medic!

SoonerStormchaser
6/6/2007, 03:55 PM
I can't speak for the other branches, but here's what I know for the Air Force.

WE'RE SCREWED!

They're having RIF's (Reduction In Force) and "Force Shaping" boards to cut about 35% of our numbers. The majority are civilians and enlisted, but the ratio of officers being cut compared to the total population is astounding (there are a lot of 4-8 year Captains being issued their walking papers).

The reasoning? They need to cut the workforce so we can buy newer (and extremely expensive planes). I understand their thinking...but good luck fixing that new, expensive plane when you LET GO HALF THE MAINTENANCE FIELD!

Frankly, I'm lucky as hell to have a commission at this point...and I aim on doing everything I can to keep it.

Stoop Dawg
6/6/2007, 03:58 PM
No, 500k is active duty. I think reserves are in the 700k-800k range.

As far as not needing reserves is concerned, consider that the 500k number is NOT 500k infantry available to go to Iraq. We have commitments to fill other than just Iraq -- we've got a bunch of bases that need staffing worldwide -- and for every infantryman in the Army, there's a certain number of people that have to be tasked to support him (supply, medical, payroll, etc). And then there's the non-infantry combat components like armored and artillery which are of limited use in an urban role (outside of flattening city blocks, that is).

That makes sense.

Another, related, question: What prevents us from growing the military to a level where we can comfortably station troops in Iraq (or nearby countries) for an extended period (i.e. adequate rotations, etc)? Is it money, or simply a lack of people willing to join the military?

Stoop Dawg
6/6/2007, 04:01 PM
I can't speak for the other branches, but here's what I know for the Air Force.

WE'RE SCREWED!

They're having RIF's (Reduction In Force) and "Force Shaping" boards to cut about 35% of our numbers. The majority are civilians and enlisted, but the ratio of officers being cut compared to the total population is astounding (there are a lot of 4-8 year Captains being issued their walking papers).

So, while the media is telling us that we don't have enough troops, the Air Force is actually cutting its numbers by 35%?

SoonerStormchaser
6/6/2007, 04:07 PM
Yep!

jk the sooner fan
6/6/2007, 04:10 PM
That makes sense.

Another, related, question: What prevents us from growing the military to a level where we can comfortably station troops in Iraq (or nearby countries) for an extended period (i.e. adequate rotations, etc)? Is it money, or simply a lack of people willing to join the military?

short answer - congress

Vaevictis
6/6/2007, 04:11 PM
That makes sense.

Another, related, question: What prevents us from growing the military to a level where we can comfortably station troops in Iraq (or nearby countries) for an extended period (i.e. adequate rotations, etc)? Is it money, or simply a lack of people willing to join the military?

Recruiting during wartime isn't the easiest thing to do. Even in WWII we had a draft, the large lines after Dec 7 notwithstanding.

The Army has been trying pretty hard, and doing some pretty imaginative things. I know a guy who's a recruiter who wanted to return to his original unit, and the Army offered him several tens of thousands of dollars to stay on as a recruiter. It's not for lack of trying.

Vaevictis
6/6/2007, 04:12 PM
So, while the media is telling us that we don't have enough troops, the Air Force is actually cutting its numbers by 35%?

Well, also, Air Force troops aren't exactly a drop in replacement for Army troops.

reevie
6/6/2007, 04:21 PM
I understand their thinking...but good luck fixing that new, expensive plane when you LET GO HALF THE MAINTENANCE FIELD!




Not to worry, we're contracting that out. First we cut out your I level shops, then we limit you to R and R. Then it will just be some contractor doing it all.

SoonerStormchaser
6/6/2007, 04:24 PM
...and we're still flying planes that are more than twice as old as me...

Harry Beanbag
6/6/2007, 04:53 PM
Active Duty Personnel
Army 500,000
USMC 176,000
Navy 375,000
USAF 358,000
Total 1,409,000

Apparently there are approximately 180,000 permanently stationed in Europe and South Korea and 148,000 or so in Iraq. I didn't see the actual number for troops in Afghanistan, but I beliieve it's about 20,000. And around 1/3 of the Navy is afloat at any one time.

For the most part, Air Force people not flying planes are either behind a desk or turning a wrench. Naval personnel is totally dependent on the number of ships in the fleet, which was reduced drastically the last 15 years.

By my calculations, after subtracting our commitments to Iraq, Afghanistan, South Korea, and Europe, we are left with less than 500,000 active duty Marines and soldiers. And I have no idea what percentage of that number are actually combat troops.



Here's an interesting site that shows U.S. casualties from all major conflicts along with the numbers of active duty troops serving...

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/casualties.htm

Stoop Dawg
6/6/2007, 06:01 PM
Here's an interesting site that shows U.S. casualties from all major conflicts along with the numbers of active duty troops serving...

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/casualties.htm

That's a great link, Harry. Thanks.

My perspective after viewing that link is NOT that we have too many troops in Iraq, but that we don't have enough active duty to be fighting ANY war right now.

I'm still curious whether the limited troop size is due to budget or number of recruits. My guess is it's budget.

olevetonahill
6/6/2007, 06:02 PM
In the Day , We had 500,000 in Nam , several bunchs more all around the world

Harry Beanbag
6/6/2007, 06:26 PM
That's a great link, Harry. Thanks.

My perspective after viewing that link is NOT that we have too many troops in Iraq, but that we don't have enough active duty to be fighting ANY war right now.

I'm still curious whether the limited troop size is due to budget or number of recruits. My guess is it's budget.


I talked to a lady the other day that has a brother in the 82nd Airborne. He's on his fourth tour in Iraq right now.

Stoop Dawg
6/6/2007, 06:31 PM
I talked to a lady the other day that has a brother in the 82nd Airborne. He's on his fourth tour in Iraq right now.

Sure would be nice to have someone to take his place for a bit, huh? Dude signed on to fight for his country, but it sounds like he needs a little help. Why isn't anyone proposing that we open up our pocketbook a little and increase the size of our military?

Actually, why didn't anyone propose that 2 years ago so that the new troops would be trained and ready by now?

Harry Beanbag
6/6/2007, 06:36 PM
Sure would be nice to have someone to take his place for a bit, huh? Dude signed on to fight for his country, but it sounds like he needs a little help. Why isn't anyone proposing that we open up our pocketbook a little and increase the size of our military?

Actually, why didn't anyone propose that 2 years ago so that the new troops would be trained and ready by now?


I have no idea, weak kneed politicians would be my first guess. I've been saying this for 3 years now, we are not prepared to fight this war, in more ways than this one.

jk the sooner fan
6/6/2007, 06:42 PM
i dont know that as a nation, we'll ever have the stomach to fight something start to finish ever again

Harry Beanbag
6/6/2007, 06:49 PM
I think the people in general really do have the will or at least the capability to nut up and do what needs to be done. I still have faith in this country.

It's our leaders that are too afraid of losing votes or campaign contributions that are more loyal to their party or the status of their office that are the problem. There must be a secret castration ceremony for anyone elected to public office on the national level.