Originally Posted by KJ

What was the "normal deployment schedule" during WW II?
Did the american efforts decrease as the war dragged on?
Did american soldiers "loose drive" during that conflict?

I might be cynical here, ( I have been once or twice before) but it seems to me that people have different opinions about what is reasonable deployment length depending on ones view on if the war is "just" or not.

A war is a war is a war is a...

KJ.

In the War Deuce we were still on a points system for rotation back to the States. A tour had no set, specific time (which was instigated in Vietnam as a 13-month deployment and still the standard today). The difference between II and Vietnam and now is that now it's obligatory to do more than one tour. Back then it was one and out unless you volunteered to return.

Unfortunately, liberals (not painting, just pulling the term, no flames) have drastically cut military funding over the last 20 years or so. We're way too short on manpower to offer the one and out. Hell, the last years I was AD (92/93) they were handing out early separation bonuses like candy at an Easter party.

The fact is that politicians and policy makers, much like they did back in the late '50's, made a bad call and downsized us too much. Now the soldiers are paying the price for their actions to cut the defense budget and expenditures.

It wouldn't be such a bad deal except it rarely works as a 13/6. Rather, it's usually deploy for 13 months, get extended for 4 more months, then PCS CONUS for 6 months (2 of which you'll be in NTC for the next deployment), then off for another 13, then possibly another extension, then home for 6...

That's a pretty rough schedule, and guys with 2 and even 3 deployments are righteous to speak up when asked. Their wives are seeing them for 4 months out of 2 and 1/2 years when the REAL deployment schedule is examined.

I don't have any answers, but I'm not blind to the problem. All I can do is keep them in my prayers and support them with every bit of my being.

God Bless You, troops, and Godspeed home.

It's the redesigning of the military really.
They wanted something lighter, faster, more deployable with massive firepower. That's what they got. but what they forgot is that if you indeed have to hold onto territory, what you need is a heavy, slow, large military that can effectively control ground through presence.
This is why there was originally two kinds of units, the rapidly deployable units like elements in the Airborne divisions, Ranger Regiments, Special Forces, Marine Expeditionary Units etc. along side heavies such as the US 8th Army.
They all have their uses.

Originally Posted by the_13th_redneck

It's the redesigning of the military really.
They wanted something lighter, faster, more deployable with massive firepower. That's what they got. but what they forgot is that if you indeed have to hold onto territory, what you need is a heavy, slow, large military that can effectively control ground through presence.
This is why there was originally two kinds of units, the rapidly deployable units like elements in the Airborne divisions, Ranger Regiments, Special Forces, Marine Expeditionary Units etc. along side heavies such as the US 8th Army.
They all have their uses.

Precisely.

We have a decent balance when it comes to equipment, but we are severely lacking in manpower - that's why we have activated so many NG/USAR units.

It's taking its toll, that's for certain.

America needs a Foreign Legion.

Originally Posted by KJ

I might be cynical here, ( I have been once or twice before) but it seems to me that people have different opinions about what is reasonable deployment length depending on ones view on if the war is "just" or not.

A war is a war is a war is a...

But that's not the case. There's a massive difference between the current conflict and WWII (a few actually). We have a volunteer army, which the brass has to keep happy or they'll up and leave when their commitments are up. We're also not fighting a defensive war as we were in the beginning stages of II. Big difference between going to Europe and Asia to protect yourself and your allies and going to Iraq for whatever reason is on the approved list nowadays...

In response to the washington post article posted:

I personally havent worked with many of the "regular" army however its kind of a given when you enlist let alone become an officer that becoming stationary in todays military is not as easy as it was say 10 years ago. His wife shoulda known moving was part of the package deal.

I will say the army takes the brunt of the long deployments, Mosta the marine deployments Ive seen were maybe 6 to 9 month rotations for the standard troop. Ive known some army guys who have been in the desert for way way longer, and really what that does to you mentally is unchangeable the damage done to your body is a warzone is like aging 3 years to your body per 1 year of normal life due to knee, back and various other medical issues.
Lets face is the army needs bodies, thats why they offer deals to other branches who will cross over. When your people are getting clipped the way the army is losing people it affects both the morale of the current troop population and the decisions of the civilian to enlist.
Now at the bottom with military healthcare, cmon... Ive work in and around the military healthcare comminuty for quite awhile, yes its very true ALL branches are hurting for medical officers / doctors. Lets be realistic why in gods name would a doctor take that type pay cut they dont make nearly as much in the military as they do on the outside the only perks they have is A) we cant sew them for malpractice, B) they see more places that boosts their credentials, and C) the military will pay for every bit of medical school?
The run around in military hospitals is universal, half because of the ill trained civilians or young enlisted they have working the desks. My personal advice would be this in that scenario: Empty out the damn hospitals which are FULL of skating enlisted medical personel and send them via IA's into the desert and let them actually do their jobs!

Anyway we wont go down that road I can rant all day....

all n all its simple.... the military has become more of a "corporation" than a fighting force. You cant run a war machine and a business the same way which is what they try to do.