The low point of U.S. military after Vietnam

[Anchises]

Reading some interesting debates and TLs, I have often read about the bad state of the U.S. military after Vietnam.

From doubting that the U.S. could have seized Arabian oil fields in 1973, to doubting that U.S. capabilities to project power were seriously hampered, different positions are being held.

So what I want to discuss here:

Was there a "real" low point, where Americas military options were seriously reduced (waging overseas wars, force levels in Europe etc.).

Opposed to this low point, when was the high point of Americas military might, in the Cold War.

And how did the U.S. military recover from Vietnam/the low point, and when was this recovery started and finished?

 

[vl100butch]

Based upon my own experiences, I'd say the lowest point (in Europe) was at the end of 1970, beginning of 1971...things slowly got better but really took off with Reagan coming into office in 1981...

 

[gatordad699]

IMHO the high peak would be the 1991 Gulf War. Can’t recall many experts who thought it would end with such a quick ground war. First widespread use of stealth, precision guided weapons, GPS, tanks that fired accurately on the move, etc. (I do understand that SH was an idiot to start it and then sit there while the coalition built up its forces for months)

 

[Asp]

Reading some interesting debates and TLs, I have often read about the bad state of the U.S. military after Vietnam.

From doubting that the U.S. could have seized Arabian oil fields in 1973, to doubting that U.S. capabilities to project power were seriously hampered, different positions are being held.

So what I want to discuss here:

Was there a "real" low point, where Americas military options were seriously reduced (waging overseas wars, force levels in Europe etc.).

Opposed to this low point, when was the high point of Americas military might, in the Cold War.

And how did the U.S. military recover from Vietnam/the low point, and when was this recovery started and finished?

Reagan unquestionably had everything to do with it. He rebuilt the U.S. military into what it was in 1991, which was pretty much the unquestioned high point. People point out that Carter made some efforts in that direction, but it was just not on the same level of magnitude.

With regards to the low point, I will say that even in 1983 after years of improvement the U.S. still had real trouble in dealing with Grenada, and that invasion was carried out with the country's most elite military units (Rangers, SEALs, 82nd Airborne, USMC, etc.). It took four days (compare that to the Gulf War when we rolled over all of Kuwait and much of southern Iraq in that time) and cost dozens of lives. Communications broke down to the point that soldiers were using payphones to call Fort Bragg and asking them to patch them through to command centers in the field so they could request air support, systems among the different services turned out not to be interoperable at all, etc. The consensus is that it was a circus.

If that was the case in the 1980s, I definitely wouldn't call seizing the oil fields in 1973 a sure thing.

 

[Dunning Kruger]

Reagan unquestionably had everything to do with it. He rebuilt the U.S. military into what it was in 1991, which was pretty much the unquestioned high point. People point out that Carter made some efforts in that direction, but it was just not on the same level of magnitude.

Based upon my own experiences, I'd say the lowest point (in Europe) was at the end of 1970, beginning of 1971...things slowly got better but really took off with Reagan coming into office in 1981...

Reagan did a lot but calm down here. Eliminating the draft did wonders for developing a highly trained, motivated professional force. Developments in electronics and computers allowed for step function improvements in military hardware. Reagan paid for the new weapons systems to be developed and deployed but the underlying technology was happening regardless.

 

[Dunning Kruger]

The Gulf War was so significant that it caused the Chinese to revise their entire military doctrine. Previously, they had believed that mass would overwhelm technology. But the introduction and use of smart bombs, with their ability to degrade command and communications illustrated that this no longer held true. So, yeah, the Gulf War was most likely the peak.

 

[Anchises]

Reagan unquestionably had everything to do with it. He rebuilt the U.S. military into what it was in 1991, which was pretty much the unquestioned high point. People point out that Carter made some efforts in that direction, but it was just not on the same level of magnitude.

With regards to the low point, I will say that even in 1983 after years of improvement the U.S. still had real trouble in dealing with Grenada, and that invasion was carried out with the country's most elite military units (Rangers, SEALs, 82nd Airborne, USMC, etc.). It took four days (compare that to the Gulf War when we rolled over all of Kuwait and much of southern Iraq in that time) and cost dozens of lives. Communications broke down to the point that soldiers were using payphones to call Fort Bragg and asking them to patch them through to command centers in the field so they could request air support, systems among the different services turned out not to be interoperable at all, etc. The consensus is that it was a circus.

If that was the case in the 1980s, I definitely wouldn't call seizing the oil fields in 1973 a sure thing.

And Vietnam degraded the military capabilities so much ? Or was it the switch to a Volunteer army?

I just have a hard time imagining that Vietnam wrecked the military so much, that in 1973 basic overseas force projection might have been a problem.

 

[Carl Schwamberger]

And Vietnam degraded the military capabilities so much ? Or was it the switch to a Volunteer army?

It took more than a couple years for the change to a volunteer military to show the effects. The last draftees were not gove until 1972-73, and the people who volunteered during the draft era to avoid being drafted into the Army combat arms were around a year or two longer.

I just have a hard time imagining that Vietnam wrecked the military so much, that in 1973 basic overseas force projection might have been a problem.

Believe it. I was around then in the Marines. Started my military career in 1974. Morale was rock bottom in the early 1970s, drug use was rampant, roughly 30% on the NCOs were serving two grades above their rank and service time, that is between casualties & choice a huge number on NCOs had been lost, along with critical amounts of experience. A similar thing occurred with the Marine officers, a very large portion of the top quality men left early vs staying on for a full career. Junior officers were elevated past their experience and training simply because there was no one else. Racial problems were still rampant in the mid 1970s.

Things were turning around circa 1973-73, but it was absolutely not a overnight thing. When I completed my first contract in 1976 you could see some improvements, but it took the rest of the decade before the leaders returned to the necessary capability, the training standards achieved, & the edge returned. When I started my second active service contract in 1982 the changes were obvious & 1972 a fading nightmare.

 

[Cryptic]

So what I want to discuss here:

Was there a "real" low point, where Americas military options were seriously reduced (waging overseas wars, force levels in Europe etc.).

I would put the "low point" at 1975 as tens of thousands of combat experienced men left the military after Vietnam and public apathy hindered the maintaining of an effective military. Though this low point would have an impact regarding military operations, I think this fact needs to be balanced against some important questions:

- "Who is the opponent and what is the war goal?"

Even at the low point, the US had enough elite forces (Marines, Rangers, Airborne, selected heavy units) backed by sufficient technological fire power to successfully make large scale (tens of thousands of troops) short term interventions in developing nations anywhere in the world. Two simultaneous interventions, however, could have taxed the number of fully effective units and would also limit deterance capabilities.

Moving up the scale, even in the low point, the US could probably have defeated a North Korean massed attack on South Korea. Such an effort, however, could well have involved deploying nearly all the truly effective units and would not have left much in reserve for deterrance.

Going furher up, could the US military have stopped an all out Soviet Attack on West Germany in 1975? I dont know. My guess would be.... maybe.

 

[Asp]

And Vietnam degraded the military capabilities so much ? Or was it the switch to a Volunteer army?

I just have a hard time imagining that Vietnam wrecked the military so much, that in 1973 basic overseas force projection might have been a problem.

It absolutely did; Grenada more or less proves it. There is no way to overstate how badly the Vietnam debacle as well as the racism, division in the outside U.S. culture, and draft screwed up the military in the early 1970s. Literally hundreds of officers were murdered by their own men in the 1969-1972 period, and that's just the incidents we know about. There were a lot of places on bases where officers and NCOs flat out would not go without armed guards accompanying them. If it was better than the Russian military in the 1990s it was only by a single step.

 

[Dunning Kruger]

And Vietnam degraded the military capabilities so much ? Or was it the switch to a Volunteer army?

I just have a hard time imagining that Vietnam wrecked the military so much, that in 1973 basic overseas force projection might have been a problem.

The Soviets moved a generation ahead in armored tech due to spending being diverted to Vietnam. M-60 vs. T-72.

 

[Dunning Kruger]

It absolutely did; Grenada more or less proves it.

I was generally under the impression that Grenada was more about operational issues (the type that can plague any operation) and general rustiness than the lingering effects of Vietnam. If you feel differently, please elaborate.

 

[Anchises]

The Soviets moved a generation ahead in armored tech due to spending being diverted to Vietnam. M-60 vs. T-72.

Interesting. I would love to hear an educated guess, how would the U.S. military have developed without Vietnam?

Or with a low intensity, early vietnamized Vietnam that never used up the funding of OTL.

 

[Asp]

I was generally under the impression that Grenada was more about operational issues (the type that can plague any operation) and general rustiness than the lingering effects of Vietnam. If you feel differently, please elaborate.

A lot of it came about because of training and communication deficiencies that can be traced back to Vietnam. All that time spent on small unit and jungle tactics led to a neglect of the sort of large-scale combined arms coordination and execution that was needed for Grenada, and things just broke down.

 

[Asp]

Interesting. I would love to hear an educated guess, how would the U.S. military have developed without Vietnam?

Or with a low intensity, early vietnamized Vietnam that never used up the funding of OTL.

The revolution in smart weapons might happen a half decade earlier, and we would put more money into developing an earlier replacement for the M-60 and other vehicles of that generation. There also would have been more money put into ATGMs and SAMs; we realized we had seriously neglected those after the Yom Kippur War.

 

[Cryhavoc101]

I mate of mine trained with the US Army Rangers in the late 70s on a joint training op in the UK

He was shocked by their poor discipline and low morale (which he said was a by product of the Vietnam war)

When they went on ops his unit actually dug the trenches and then had to fill them afterwards (usually just as they finished digging them) - the Rangers on the other hand laid out tape to 'simulate' the trenches and then (according to this chap) got stoned.

And on route marches he said they would let the US unit go first because they would just ditch equipment which the British would pick up

I do not know how much of what he told me was exaggerated in the telling but he sounded genuinely disappointed when he spoke of it.

Mind you he was just as scathing about some of the British ops particulalrly in Germany where armoured units would deliberately churn up planted fields as quickly as possible - as each unit had a limited budget to compensate the German farmers and so would end up sitting out most of an exercise when said budget was reached (much to the annoyance of the infantry units and supporting arms who would have to finish the exercise).

 

[marathag]

Going furher up, could the US military have stopped an all out Soviet Attack on West Germany in 1975? I dont know. My guess would be.... maybe.

Since that's a WWIII trigger, all the nukes the would be tossed about, it wouldn't really be up to the ground forces.

Knew a few 4AD guys in the '70s, and they knew that they would be 'Speedbump' not 'Spearhead' , though soon everyone would be dead from NBC attacks before it would be found if REFORGER would actually work

 

[Anchises]

The revolution in smart weapons might happen a half decade earlier, and we would put more money into developing an earlier replacement for the M-60 and other vehicles of that generation. There also would have been more money put into ATGMs and SAMs; we realized we had seriously neglected those after the Yom Kippur War.

Interesting, thank you!

The problem is, that I don't know if the technological level for all the fancy 80s weapon, was truly there in the 70s.

Is a 1975 M1 Abrahams feasible? Is a 1978 Humvee feasible?

I always struggle to just introduce OTL gear (or equivalent stuff) earlier, simply because some necessary research might not have happened.

A half a decade earlier smart weapons revolution sounds really cool, but was the necessary tech already there ?

 

[Carl Schwamberger]

I was generally under the impression that Grenada was more about operational issues (the type that can plague any operation) and general rustiness than the lingering effects of Vietnam. If you feel differently, please elaborate.

That operation was lashed together on a emergency basis. Not time to review anything in any depth, nothing was effectively rehearsed or gamed out on a map ex. There was also a problem emerging in the 1980s of micromanagement of operations from inside the Beltway. This continues, with political hacks, policy wonks, & others with to little military experience trying to control operations and tactical decisions according to their political agendas & other misapprehensions.

 

[marathag]

Is a 1975 M1 Abrahams feasible? Is a 1978 Humvee feasible?

That's a bit early for Chobham armor, so would look more like the just failed MBT-70, that fielded a lot of wonky Tech, like the 152mm gun launcher, driver in the turret on a lazy susan and active suspension

The M-1 was to be a minimalist design, highly mobile with heavy armor (somewhat like the Chieftain) and a mature cannon, the L7 from the UK


For the Hummer,it just an upsized Ford Mutt designed for better stability.

Look at the old Dodge from WWII, the WC

That could have been updated at anytime, and after the M37, they went to GMC Pickups in OD.