Rusted Sky

Heh. Said the same thing to my husband the other day. Thought I was being witty and original...! Oh well...Guess I'll lay it off on "Great minds...etc."

One of the problems of 'cost of equipment' that is not addressed is the 'cheapness of indiscriminant arms' for terrorists. I first addressed this in my supernote article and found out that things like AK-47 are 'loss leaders' for arms brokers. Basically its in the range of 'buy this nice, new mortar and get an AK-47 FREE!' sort of deal. To put it in perspective, an AK-47 costs $300-$800@ depending on manufacturer and such. Your basic RPG launcher is $100-$500 but an anti-tank round is $50-$100. Using the hand-dandy BLS CPI calculator and putting in 1942 that comes to: $24-$63 for your AK-47 and $8-$40 for your RPG-7 launcher, with AT warheads $4-$8@. Damned cheap!

The problem with the 'cost of equipping the modern soldier' isn't that it is too expensive, but that it is too cheap to kill indiscriminantly.

Remember, 'free trade will make you free' and arm up terrorism at low cost! Maybe, someday, we can stop treating economics like a religion on the Left and Right and start treating it as something that people do and that can be held accountable to society. Until we get our heads on straight about that, we will continue to suffer unaccountable 'small' arms trade at low cost.

Sue -

Look at it this way - if WE can see it clearly, eventually even Joe Six-Pack will go "Uhh... WTF?", blink, and realize he's been scammed. And scammed for a LONG time.

When that happens, the Dems might just as well sign on with the Whigs.

J.

AJacksonian -

I remember somewhere that your standard M-1 in '42 cost about $25-35 each, in million-plus lots. Given inflation, things are about as expensive now as they were then... but back then there wasn't so much of the stuff floating around...

Gotta go - might do some more on this later...

J.

J - The cost figure sounds 'ballpark' correct for the M-1 circa 1942. I tend to collect odd facts about warfare and another piece in the pie is the amount of factory space and output production of aircraft between Germany in 1943 and the US circa 1983. They were exactly equal, and yet German aircraft output was 4,000/month and the 1983 US output was 14, if memory serves. It is neither here nor there, as figures go, but demonstrates how much technical complexity has added into the time of production for combat aircraft. On the small arms front the cost of an AK-47 that I gave was for standard production models out of factories, not things made by local blacksmiths... a truly fascinating weapon with the design specs loose enough so even poorly made parts would work for awhile. During the era of funding the mujahideen in Afghanistan, a local blacksmith said that it takes his shop a day to make an AK, about a week for a mortar and a month for an artillery piece. The quality of those are not up to Western specs, but then they aren't Western pieces, either: they were Soviet ones.

The Iraqi Army is making an interesting decision to switch to US equipment, like the M-16 and such for small arms (they are stuck with T-72 and slightly better tanks for the next decade or so, until the used market can offer up some quantity deals on older German and British tanks). Now US equipment is notorious for needing regular care and cleaning, and it is that aspect, beyond standardizing on NATO equipment, that is causing the switch. In theory it is cheaper and easier to standardize on the common arms they can get cheaply, that require less care and maintenance. It is that knowledge of repair and needing to maintain equipment that is the sales point, not the standardization factor. An Army that intimately knows its equipment must function to survive, then puts the onus on each individual to care for his equipment to survive. Further, that also requires one's comrades in arms to inspect your work while you inspect theirs, which builds esprit and camaraderie. Also the US equipment is deucedly effective at long range with proper training and maintenance, something that the Old Iraqi Army could not counter. As one soldier out of the Old army put it: 'We train in this new army. Shoot and shoot and they expect us to *hit* the target. In the old army it was stand up and shout 'Inshallah!' and then get down again before you were shot. Now when we finally can hit the target what do they do? The move it further away and expect us to hit it!! You Americans (I think he was talking to Yon), when we were fighting you before we would be safe and suddenly one man would get killed and we couldn't see who killed him...then a second! We ran! What could we do?'

Yes the Old Iraqi Army went on the 'spray and pray' theory of automatic weapons, not placed shots. The New Iraqi Army will be the most competent Army in the Middle East, save Israel for now. It is already a tougher, light infrantry outfit than Jordan, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and starting to bat up in Turkey's range along with Iran. It is not done growing yet nor fully experienced yet, and already it is taking the fight to terrorists and insurgents, plus organized crime and killers for hire and just plain rented thugs. Heaven help us if Iraq and Afghanistan come to a military agreement and the Iraqis start training High Mountain Warfare troops. It will take at least a decade for the IA to get a reliable NCO corps and good flag officer cadre. But good soldiers and commanders are already showing up and effective, and their 5th and 2nd Infantry Divisions are capable of everything save logistics and a bit of air cover. Roggio keeps Wikipedia updated on the size, readiness and position of the Iraqi military. It took Germany decades to get to a point like this after WWII, and Japan is only now starting to realize its lack of forces... but then they are in quiet neighborhoods, as the world goes.

Well, enough drivel from me!

Nothing new:

'Two thousand pounds of education
Drops to a ten-rupee jezail--'

Kipling, 'Arithmetic on the Frontier'

"The more you spend to arm and equip your soldiers with the latest, greatest technology, the easier it becomes for a naked man with a rock to wreck everything."

This comes from a barely remembered Christopher Anvil story in Analog that I read in college.

otpu

This is a good article. The problem may be that we have to become more efficient in our killing efforts...or use different methods.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/014/185jeplm.asp?pg=1