GROUND-WAR DOMINANCE - (Maj. Gen. Bob Scales calls for faster modernizing of current weaponry)

In World War II and Korea, American fighter pilots compiled impressive "kill ratios" against the Germans and Japanese (8 to 1) and the Chinese and North Koreans (10 to 1). These successes came to an embarrassing halt over the skies of Vietnam in 1967. The North Vietnamese pilots found that they could defeat the larger, more complex and cumbersome American fighter aircraft by shooting them down with unsophisticated heat-seeking missiles and cannon fire. When kill ratios diminished to near parity, the American air services resolved to spare no expense to regain absolute dominance in the air.

For the next 40 years the Air Force and Navy spent literally trillions of dollars transforming how they fought in the air. They formed fighter schools such as Top Gun for the Navy and Red Flag for the Air Force to relearn the art of aerial combat. The services developed families of new fighters such as the F-15 and F-16 flown by the American and Israeli air forces and the Navy's F-14 and F-18. The investment has paid off. Since Vietnam, Americans and Israelis flying American aircraft have achieved kill ratios of several hundred to one. No one can challenge us in air-to-air combat today.

On the ground, the news on kill ratios hasn't been very good. The numbers are inexact, but recent experience suggests that Army and Marine ratios are at about six to one when engaging an enemy with help from artillery and air power. They compress to about parity when the enemy is able to draw our soldiers into the close fight in places like Fallujah.

How about a system that's already in inventory and issued to SOCOM units, the M3 MAAWS?

Already works, already proven. Just about as heavy as this thing we're talking about.

It's hard to argue with Bob Scales. He was the direct support battery commander at Dong Ap Bia Mountain. Today is the 36th anniversary of the beginning of that battle now called Hamburger Hill. What he said about those men is still true of our warriors today:

"I guess the last thing that struck me about the thing is the enormous tenacity of the American soldier when he's put in these situations. There was no reason viscerally for the soldiers to do the things they did. It made me think, frankly, "What makes people do this? What are the motives? Is it money? No. Is it the commander? No. Is it national pride? I don't think so." Many of the soldiers that came back from those assaults came back disenchanted, complaining, "This is a terrible thing. I don't know why we're doing this." And yet when you put a rifle in their hands and you put them back on the hill, they did it again."

I think we tend to over focus on armaments and armor. Of course they are essential, but finding and training warriors to close with and kill the enemy in a very personal and direct way is what will always create our greatest advantage in battle. Our willingness and ability to do so will always create the greatest chaos and fear in our enemies.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.