Army Vs. National Guard: Who Gets Those Apache Helicopters?
Source: NPR
For decades the National Guard has fought hard against the stereotype that it was the place to avoid the draft during the Vietnam War, or that it's a place to get college money rather than combat duty.
Guard leaders thought that after more than a decade of war in Afghanistan and Iraq they had finally earned some respect. So it was a body blow when the Army's top officer, Gen. Ray Odierno, unveiled his plan on Capitol Hill to take all of the National Guard's Apache helicopters and move them to the regular Army.
Read more: http://www.npr.org/2014/04/22/305887787/army-vs-national-guard-who-gets-those-apache-helicopters
Personally, I don't see why the National Guard would want or need Attack helicopters. The National Guard was horribly misused in Bush's wars of choice, but I don't see why we need to perpetuate the mistakes and have attack helicopters in National Guard units.
If there is another war where Attack helicopters are needed, there should be sufficient time to train BlackHawk crews into Appaches.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
warrant46
(2,205 posts)Thor_MN
(11,843 posts)At least until they started drug testing.
But I don't think you can directly compare the National Guard units of the Viet Nam era with today. Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld turned them into essentially additional active duty units. I can see why the pilots would like to continue with the Apaches, but seriously, when would a Guard Unit need an attack aircraft to perform their normal functions? It's time to revert them out of the "active" military and back into what they used to be before Bush & Friends screwed them over.
warrant46
(2,205 posts)
Bobbed and Weaved Dipped and Dodged along with his sidekick
7962
(11,841 posts)
graegoyle
(532 posts)7962
(11,841 posts)The object of war is not to die for your country, but make some other guy die for his.
TreasonousBastard
(43,049 posts)riot control. And that's pretty much about it since attack helicopters are specialized for attacking things, not stuff like rescue missions.
Since we don't expect an invasion any time soon, what possible use could the Guard have for such a thing other than to fight off a supposed "revolution"? Or start one?
avebury
(10,952 posts)state if they have a Governor and State Legislature that decides to rebel against the Federal Government.
Shemp Howard
(889 posts)Presidents, both Democratic and Republican, are way too quick to start wars these days.
And it's easy to start a war when the Army has all the firepower, and is ready to go. It's less easy when some of that firepower is in the hands of the National Guard, and has to be called up.
Standing armies are dangerous toys.
Thor_MN
(11,843 posts)Having attack aircraft in the Guard costs more money than if they were all in the active military. Add the expense to spin up Guard units for active deployment and one is talking about throwing a lot of tax payer dollars around.
For the same reason that I favor the "inefficient" separation of police powers in my state. We've got the state police, the county police, the sheriffs, and then the municipal (local) police.
It would be much more efficient to concentrate all the police powers in one place, say with the state police. But that could easily lead to mischief and abuse. So I'm quite willing to pay a little more in taxes to spread the police power around a bit.
Same goes on the national level with military power.
cosmicone
(11,014 posts)olddad56
(5,732 posts)War, because that is exactly what it was. People who were drafted, or joined a branch of the military to avoid the draft looked down on the national guard. It was regarded as a way to avoid 'your military obligation'. It was considered by many, if not most, as a less than honorable thing to do.
Times have changed a lot since the days of the draft, and the term 'military obligation' is obsolete.
Bush misused the National Guard because he didn't want to re-institute the draft. But in the process of doing so, he brought respect to the National Guard. The people in the National Guard who served in the illegal wars of the Bush Administration deserve the same respect as their counterparts in any other branch of the service.
Thor_MN
(11,843 posts)But that doesn't mean we need to perpetuate Bush's errors.
Stainless
(718 posts)Rather than become Cannon Fodder for the MIC, I joined a U,S. Army Reserve unit in 1966. My Honorable Discharge entitles me to the title of "Veteran" and I even obtained a FHA loan to buy a home using my Veteran status.
The fact that I was intelligent enough to avoid becoming a sad statistic of the Vietnam War overrides your smug insinuation, that what I and many others chose to do, was "less than honorable". You can GFY because, unlike many Vietnam War Vets, I'm still alive and able to tell you to do so.
newblewtoo
(667 posts)http://loriduffstorytelling.com/2012/06/28/forty-years-later/
Which might cause you to rethink a bit of what you posted.
Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)the Army wants the Apaches to replace the aging OH-58 Kiowas in the scout role. On paper it makes sense, it increases the aviation brigade's combat power and reduces the amount of training among pilots, mechanics and other support personnel. It also simplifies parts supply.
The downside is that the states will have to pay for the training of the current Apache pilots to transition to the Blackhawks and pay for the upgrades to the older Blackhawks to bring them up to current specifications.
Since the plan is for 200 National Guard Apaches to be replaced by 100 Blackhawks, with the resulting loss in state jobs, I don't see Congress going along and that doesn't count that all 50 state governors have protested as well.
It might save some money, but I wonder if the political costs and the damage to National Guard morale is worth it.
weissmam
(905 posts)Thor_MN
(11,843 posts)
There's obviously a learning curve, but maintaining one helicopter is quite similar to maintaining a different one. Flying would be very different, but if it was needed, I have faith that Apache pilots could be coined faster out of someone that already can fly a helicopter than out of someone who has never flown one.
AnalystInParadise
(1,832 posts)it really doesn't work that way. Flying a transport helicopter and then trying to fly an attack helicopter is about as different as night and day. The Army has retrained pilots from different airframes, but the washout rate is signficant.
Thor_MN
(11,843 posts)If you have a link that supports your position, please post it.
AnalystInParadise
(1,832 posts)claiming it would be easy, the burden of proof is on you.
Thor_MN
(11,843 posts)I maintain that the Military actually DOES train Apache pilots, as evidenced that Apache pilots DO exist.
Your position devolves to that once a person is trained on a Black Hawk, that they simply can not be trained to fly an Apache. Your claim, your proof to provide. Please explain why the knowledge of how to fly a Black Hawk permanently displaces the ability to fly a different airframe.
AnalystInParadise
(1,832 posts)I am stating military fact, you are the one claiming something beyond the norm. But hey man whatever you need to do to feel better.
Thor_MN
(11,843 posts)
I'm stating fact. The military trains Apache pilots. That can not be argued, unless one thinks Apaches fly themselves. Yet you maintain the military is unable to train anyone who has ever touched a Black Hawk.
Care to explain why you think it is impossible to train someone who already knows how to fly a helicopter to fly an Apache?
Or are you going just continue to hide behind null statements?
AnalystInParadise
(1,832 posts)I can't believe you keep spinning this shit sandwich as truth. Unreal. Keep it up friend.
AnalystInParadise
(1,832 posts)I can't believe you keep spinning this shit sandwich as truth. Unreal. Keep it up friend.
Thor_MN
(11,843 posts)and repeating yourself...
Hey, put up or shut up, you have been able to offer anything but "because I say so."
At this point, I have to conclude you have nothing and will do nothing more than blather on. Crawl back under your bridge.
sofa king
(10,857 posts)None. I know a few full-time helicopter pilots, all in the military.
One way to guarantee higher loss and lower efficiency is to take people without rigorous full-time training and expect them to carry out the role of fully mechanized, fully trained combat units. (One could argue that most of our national guard units went through that phase ten years ago when they were put on a cycle of permanent combat and refit. But sooner than anyone thinks the problem will creep back in.)
All else being equal, a part time army always loses to a full time army. That simple rule highlights all of military history back to Aristophanes' jokes about lazy citizen soldiers unable to hold up their shields in battle.
It's how Alexander the Great's professionals conquered everyone they could easily reach within 2000 miles in only fifteen years.
So yeah, the logical and safe play now would be to concentrate the better equipment in the standing units, now that we've gone and fucked everything up by wearing out our entire military through interminable low-level combat for thirteen years.
Either that or stop pretending, conscript the guard units, and scrape up another trillion dollars of my grandchildrens' money by paying them all to stay in uniform year-round.
happyslug
(14,779 posts)King Pyrrhus of Epirus in 281 BC found that out the hard way, when he engaged the Roman Militia based army. Pyrrhus defeated the Romans, but the Romans were able to come back from the Defeat and he could NOT afford another such victory. Pyrrhus then withdrew from Italy and his comment on defeat of the Roman Militia became the name of "Pyrrhic Victory" i.e. "If we are victorious in one more battle with the Romans, we shall be utterly ruined"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrrhus_of_Epirus
Rome did NOT have a professional army till 109 BC, when Marius made the first when the Militia refused to show up and defeat the invading Germans then invading what is now Southern France. That Professional Army would become the backbone of the Roman Empire and would remain so, till Rome ran out of money to pay then (In the West around 450 AD, in the East around 620 AD). In regards to the Western Roman Empire, it just collapsed. In the case of the Eastern Roman Army, the Army was made into something like today's National Guard. A hard cord of trained troops, but whose pay was tied in with owning land (i.e. the Feudal System of the Middle Ages).
When facing Hannibal (c 200 BC) Rome was still a Militia that served only for a campaign and then went home. On the other hand Hannibal's army were paid professionals. This difference is one of the reasons Hannibal did so well in the beginning of the Second Punic War, he was facing a Militia Army and his Professional easily defeated them, but like Pyrrhus 80 years before, the Romans could raise more troops, Hannibal could not. Furthermore the level of Training of a Roman Legion of the time of Hannibal was almost to the level of any professional army, thus Rome could not only out number Hannibal, they could also out fight him.
A similar situation developed in the US Revolution, The New England Militia of the Colonial era (and up to after the War of 1812) was considered the best Militia in the world. It was almost as good as a professional army. It was that army that drove out the British from Boston. That Army was subsequently defeated in New York, but that was the result of Washington trying to hold an island, when the other side had naval superiority. Frederick the Great called the subsequent Retreat across New Jersey, the Greatest Military move of the age (no professional Army could have done it). The Colonial Army not only survived the retreat, it was able to counter attack at Trenton and Princeton, driving the British Regulars back to New York City.
George Washington, when he finally did convert his Militia based Army to a Professional Army with the aid of von Steuben actually made a decision that how US army units were to be set up for battle was to be published so that the Militia could obtain copies of the manual and set up their militia units along the same lines. This maximize the number of troops Washington could field in a battle.
Now, the Militia of the South at the time of the Revolution was terrible. Thus you have SOUTHERN commanders telling other commanders NOT to rely on the "Useless Militia". If this was true of all militia, there would have been no need to tell commanders from the North of the "Useless Militia" but the Southern Militia had always been tied in with the Sheriff's patrol, which in the south was much more important for it guarded intersections and other places to make sure slaves were NOT using the roads to escape. Thus the Southern Militia had little training in actual military activities, but a lot of time to beat up on African Americans (both free and enslaved) and each other. Thus the New England Militia was as good as regular troops, but the Southern Militia were simple head bashers.
Mao Tse Tung, lead a Guerrilla Army against not only the Japanese but the Nationalist Chinese Army. The key to his army was his dividing the army into three types of units. For certain activities you need professionals, and thus Mao set up a regular force, which he kept quite small to minimize costs. Mao's second set of soldiers were a regional Militia (Much like the National Guard of the US). These troops were part timers, but given extra training on a constant basis. Not quite up to the level of the regulars, but for the cost of a Professional Unit, you could have 10 such regional militia units. The third level of troops were called "Local Militia" and consisted of local units raised locally in times of needs. They were organized in times of peace, but when the enemy forces came near could be called up to assist the Regulars and the Regional militias.
Alexander Hamilton actually proposed a similar dual militia system in the Federalist Papers. A trained Militia that could be called up when needed, but is armed and paid for their training by the Federal Government, and a "Militia" of the general population that is called up once a year to see if they have the right level of equipment if they are ever needed, but given no additional training for it would be a waste of resources in most cases. Hamilton (Who was most familiar with the New York Militia, which was between the New England Militia and the Militia of the South in usability) valued this militia, but viewed the best way to form and train them is once a year unless they are actually needed, for most of the work such militia can do is support the Regulars and Organized Militia in any actual fight,
A good example of this was Yorktown. The Regulars of the US Army (and the French Troops aiding the American Troops) stood guard, while the Militia dug the trenches under the instructions of French Engineers. These Trenches were to provide protection for any attack forces as those troops reached the point where they were to storm Yorktown. That is how Hamilton saw how most what we now call the "Reserve Militia" would be used. Troops freeing better trained troops for any actual combat.
I went into the above in regards to the Militia, for they have been Militia that can go toe to toe with regular full time soldiers, and they are Militia that can no. The National Guard has historically received the equipment the Regular Forces are replacing, thus tend to be a step below the Regular forces in that regard. On the other hand, National Guard units have gone toe to toe with regular forces and won, even with less then the latest up to date equipment (In the 1970s and 1980s it was common for Air National Guard Pilots to defeat full time Navy and Air Force Pilots in combat simulation, mostly based on the fact the Air National Guard Pilots had more time in their plane, then had the younger Navy and Air Force pilots, "Top Gun" and other programs were implemented in the same time period and to a great degree has changed this situation, but it is an example of a "Militia" unit defeating a "Regular" unit in at least a combat simulation situation).
Just a comment that Professional Soldiers do NOT always defeat Militias, most of the time the Professional Army has the training to win, but the Militia often has the numbers. In the US Revolution, it was the Militia that forced the British to send out at least company sized units to obtain supplies. When facing Company size or larger formation the Militia would generally retreat. When facing smaller units the Militia would stand they ground and force the regulars to retreat or face being cut off from any help. This had the effect that the British had to import not only horses but food. Given that during the Revolution the lack of horses were the main restrictions on the movement of British troops this denial of horses by the Militia was the main cause of the British defeat (the US lost most of the battles, but they did not really count for anything for all the Regular US Army had to do was survive).
The Regular forces of Washington acted more as a hammer that could drop on any small British units if they tied themselves up fighting a Militia Unit. Thus the British had to move about in company of larger units. Units the Militia could avoid by striping the areas they were marching through. Thus the Militia made the job of the Regulars easier, and the existence of American Regulars made the operations of the Militia extremely effective. The British Army never did solve this problem. Its solution in the south was to go with a much smaller army that could be supported by the Horses they could obtain (Which given the nature of the South, it was the most pro British Area during the Revolution, horses were easier to obtain). In the north, the Militia denied the British Horses and thus the ability to move on land.
My point is simple, it is rare in history where a professional army meets a militia army of about the same size. Worse, it is common for the Militia to want to fight a different battle then the Regulars (The Regulars may want to defeat the Militia Army, the Militia Army may just want to deny the regulars food and supplies). Thus a Militia Army often can afford to be defeated, but by fighting the Militia often deny the objective of the battle. The Regulars may hold the Battlefield and the Militia lose more men, but the food and supplies that the Regulars need to survive long gone by the time the Regulars had defeated the Militia. Thus the Regulars were DENIED why the battle was fought and the Militia, while driven from the Battlefield, achieved its reason for going to battle.).
Similar fights between Professional Armies and Militia Armies, happened in Vietnam (Both the French 1956-1954 was the the American intervention 1965 to 1973), The Russians in Afghanistan, the US in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Professionals won almost every fight, but lost the war for the Militia could take such defeats and the mere fact that they could still fight was all of a victory they needed. As long as the Militia could operate almost anywhere it wanted to operate they would be winning the war. Preventing the Militia from operating in one area is meaningless in such a situation, you have to stop the militia from obtaining new militiamen and supplies. As long as the Militia prevents the Professional from going alone in small groups, the Militia is winning such wars. In most such situation the Professionals keep defeating the Militia, but the Militia keep coming back. Sooner or later that level of attacks does in the Professionals, drive the professionals from the area, or the Professionals decides it is not worth attacking the Militia and with draws. In all three cases, the Militia is often never able to claim a single victory, except that the enemy leaves the country.
Kaleva
(36,295 posts)"the Romans could raise more troops, Hannibal could not."
This had more to do with lack of support Hannibal received from Carthage. Rome learned from her earlier defeats and with a more professional and experienced military lead by more competent generals such as Scipio Africanus , began gathering victories and in the end, crushed Carthage.
In modern times, it is rather rare where a militia defeats a professional force unless the militia has the support of another power. Without the men, money and material provided by France, there'd have been no Yorktown. The Vietnam War probably would have had an entirely different outcome had Communist China and the USSR stayed out of it. The military forces of the North American Native American nations were true militia but they were no match for the much more technologically advanced professional military, often augmented by their own militia, of the European nations and of the United States.
Edit: All in all though, your post is one of the best I've read here this evening.
happyslug
(14,779 posts)His army, on entering Italy, was a professional corp of Greeks and other professional Soldiers, reinforced by volunteers from the Celts in Gaul. He had only 37 Elephants at the end of his march throgh the Alps, but only, one, Surus, survived more then a year. Till after Cannae, Hanibal only had Surus. Later on he did received a shipment of more Elephants from Carthage, but he only used them in the relief of Capua.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surus
http://books.google.com/books?id=-5RHK4Ol15QC&pg=PA123&lpg=PA123&dq=surus+elephant&source=bl&ots=dltXtldBVr&sig=qKYcfPpnVF5WrGnyHUaA0oYWDG4&hl=en&sa=X&ei=W1tZU_PhAsKmyQHy0IHYBQ&sqi=2&ved=0CEoQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=surus%20elephant&f=false
Over time, his Gauls left for home and the number of Greeks and other professionals slowly declined. These were replaced by Italians who opposed Rule From Rome (Capua was the largest city to defect to Hannibal). Hannibal's army not only became more Italian in the form of actual troops, but Hannibal had seen the Roman's method of infantry warfare, and slowly adopted them for his own army. The Roman Short Sword (Which the Romans had adopted from Spain) became the norm in the Army of Hannibal, as did the plywood shield. Plywood is stronger and lighter then Bronze, Iron or even non tempered steel (the three choices for Shields prior to the adoption of Chinese iron making in Europe after about 600 AD). Tempered Steel was lighter and stronger, but could only be made in quality of about the amount of steel in a sword. Anything that needed more steel had to be welded.
This was the problem with using Steel in anything tell the late 1860s when the open health oven was invented. Do to the small amount of steel that could be produced prior to the 1860s, the Steel Crossbows of the Middle ages were made of welding three pieces of Tempered Steel together. The Welds were the weak points and thus the long bow and Re-curve Bows were retain, they were less likely to break in combat, cheaper, shoot more arrows and even usable in bad weather (if the Archer kept their String in their pocket so it would not absorb water). Cross bows had longer range and could be fired by anyone with minimal training (unlike Archers who had to be trains almost from birth in the use of bows, especially the 100 to 150 pound pull bows popular among such professional archers till the 1800s).
Back to Hannibal. Thus Tempered Steel Shields were not possible in the time of Hannibal (Tempered Steel was known and used in Armor during the late Middle Ages, for except at short distance could make someone arrow proof, but the problem was the cost and that the horse such knight rode on rarely had the same level of armor, thus the infantryman motto till horse mounted cavalry disappeared, DON"T SHOOT THE RIDER. SHOOT THE HORSE. Without the horse the rider was restricted by his armor, he could still maneuver but over time it would tie him out.
Thus by the time of the battle of Zama, Hannibal's Army was mostly Italian, through being back in Africa he did recruit more Native Carthaginians and other non-Italians to his army. His Equipment was almost the same as the Roman's he was facing, for he saw the advantages of that equipment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_longbow#Range
The introduction of Cannon move the battlefield from 300 yards to 1500 yards wide (and in most cases prior to Cannon, the effective battle range was 100 yards, which is the primary reason British Football fields were 100 yards across in the first place). The increase in range killed off the advantages of armor. Charging 1500 yards (almost a mile) is a lot harder on Riders and Horses in Full Armor then riding 100-300 yards. This expansion of the battlefield lead to the abandonment of Armor and the bow, except in areas where cannons were NOT used, then the Bow stayed effective (Thus the "Tartars" of what is now Modern Russia retained the bow till the 1800s, as did Native Americans).
The Tartars and American Plains Indians used their horses to stay away from Cannon, and to force whoever was fighting them to move quicker then they could move their Cannons. Native Americans of the American Woods relied on the forest to keep Cannon useless. In deep Forest the Cannon's greater range was unimportant.
Thus the Musket with a Bayonet that replaced the Pike, which in turn had replaced the Roman Shield, sword and Pilus (the ancestor of the Pike). Prior to the introduction of Gun power, the bow had provided "Fire power" to any army, but Cannon could provide superior Fire Power in any area where they were roads or open fields (Thus not mountains or Forests) AND the enemy did not adopt a policy of out running cannon and then attacking (The Tartars and Mongols of the Asian Steppes and the Native Americans of the Great Plains).
As to support for Guerrillas. any such army has to have a safe area to retreat to. This was provided by Russia and China in the case of Vietnam, but huge areas of the Viet Nam were under their control even during the height of American Involvement. They also had the support of most of the people of Vietnam (This no elections were ever held on merging with North Vietnam, as agreed to in the 1954 Peace Treaty, for the US knew how it would go, when one was held after the fall of South Vietnam, in what is considered a clean and fair election South Vietnam voted to merge with North Vietnam).
One aspect of such safe havens, is that they can be moved. This was a problem for any army fighting a guerrilla force. Often such safe havens are destroyed then when the attackers go some where else, the guerrillas return for they have support of the locals, but the other side does not. This is how Mao's guerrillas operated in China during the 1920s and 1930s (and the reason the "Long March" took place, the Germans, who were running the Nationalist Campaign against the Communists of Mao, had defeated them and Mao had to leave or be wiped out. Mao managed to get his troops to North China where he had support and the Nationalist had none. Mao did have some support from the Soviet Union, but Stalin still wanted to work with the Nationalists at that time, thus the support was minor. Mao's greatest maneuver was he PAID for any food his men took while on that march (And enforced strict orders against looting), turning the peasants who feared ANY army going through their land (Chinese army were noted for looting) from being anti any army to being pro communists (even while Mao demanded that those same peasants pay taxes, for Mao taxes tend to be fairer then what the Nationalist wanted in taxes AND what most of the landlords of the peasants wanted).
Thus the key to any successful guerrilla war is to maintain a safe area of support. That can be something protected by regular troops (Most of Pennsylvania during the Revolution) or a solid base that is just to hard to attack and hold (New England during the Revolution). An attacking Army must destroy that safe haven, if they can not then make a deal,
dembotoz
(16,802 posts)really not that complex
sort of reminds me of our sending ill equipped troops to iraq
did not work out real well for us
AnalystInParadise
(1,832 posts)Even when confronted with evidence, they refuse to admit they are wrong. Weir thatd they like this site with that attitude.
Thor_MN
(11,843 posts)So far, all you've put up is your unsupported opinion.
Thor_MN
(11,843 posts)At least without a real good reason. Bush's illegal wars were not a good reason.
QED
(2,747 posts)Sometimes when I'm driving home from work they rise up seemingly from nowhere. I'm used to seeing them now but at first it was rather startling.