re: 1990 US Desert Storm armed forces vs 2025 US armed forces: Who wins?

quote:

---

11 ABCT’s in the active duty force - equivalent to just under ~4 full divisions. Dispersed throughout 1st Armored, 1st Cav, 1st ID, 3rd ID, and 4th ID. They have combined arms battalions (tank companies + mech infantry companies, 2 each) + fires battalion and support.

7 SBCT’s in the active duty force. Dispersed throughout 2nd ID, 4th ID, 25th ID, 2CR, 3CR. SBCT’s were the capability most drawn down post-GWOT given the heavy lifting they did in both theaters.

5 light infantry BCT’s - 10th MTN and 25th ID.

5 airborne BCT’s - 82nd, 25th ID, 173rd.

3 air assault BCT’s - all in the 101st.

31 active duty BCT’s at the moment (+ 12 aviation brigades and a bunch of other support and service support brigades). I think we were in the 40 - 45 BCT range at the height of the GWOT.

All that not including the 9 or so RCT equivalents + armor support that the crayon eaters have.

---

quote:

---

I hadn't heard that. I know a kid that went 19d a year and a half ago. Hopefully they let them reclass out of branch. No offense, but I'd be pissed if I joined to be a scout and wound up a kilo.

---

I can’t remember exactly, but I think what they’re doing now is you enlist as a “19U” and then later you’re assigned as either a 19K (Abrams) or 19C (Bradley). So, basically the army decides which one you go on based on what’s needed.

Ultimately the OP's question only has one answer. The 2025 military would destroy the 1990 force in short order. A lot has been discussed but I will give the three main reasons IMO:

1. I have said it multiple times on threads here but the US military is a global logistics company that just happens to dabble in war fighting. Getting men, machines and material from point A to point B is one if not the biggest strength of the military. That capability is much better today than it was in 1990. Yes, we moved ungodly amounts of stuff to the ME for ODS but it was by brute force and would have been difficult to maintain for long periods.

2. the lack of institutional knowledge of what it is like to close with and kill an enemy. People often forget the military of the late 80s was very much a peace time military. It was built on the back of the post-Vietnam sentiment without the patriotic headwinds of 9/11 at its back. Outside of a handful of crusty old NCOs and general officers outside of a few that served in places like Grenada and Panama there were very few CIBs on soldiers chests. There would have been very few CABs as well but that was ~15 years before they existed. It is hard to act like you have been there when you literally haven't. The number of soldiers that chambered a live round for the first time outsude the cozy confines of a range as they went over the berm was extraordinary. While we are moving away from the instututional knowledge since the major end of the WOT, CIBs and CABs are still common on every military base and prevalent in the guard and reserves. The act of killing is impossible to train into a soldier and the 2025 military has a lot more of that in them.

3. force multipliers and survivability gear Just look at the typical light infantry loadout of today compared to 1990 and you will be amazed. Just compare IBA body armor with PASGT (we didn;t even have ISAOP at the time). I could go on and on about this but whether you are talking about a single soldier or a field army they are much more lethal and have much better survivability than we did in 1990.


I have droned on from a 11B mentality because that is what I know but the reality is even more stark than my words above. The majority of the war would be fought over the horizon by the POGs and REMFs and grunts like me would likely never get to chamber a round.

Veterans from 1990 were some men

2025 could decimate a country with nerds playing game consoles.


Unless it’s boots on the ground, modern tech always wins.

Boots on the ground, I’d put the tougher generations first

I think if it came to an existential war you'd see some mind blowing shite. Things like scalar weapons, bending spacetime, etc. We are clearly sitting on technologies that are getting more and more difficult to hide. One school of thought would be to lay our cards on the table to deter potential adversaries. Another would be to not admit we've made breakthroughs so as not to kick off an arms race. We've apparently decided on the latter.

Dessert Storm wins in a cage match all day.

I hope the US military is keeping up with the drone revolution. We've owned the battle space above our ground forces since early in WWII and in the next conflict with a halfway capable adversary we won't.

2025 wins unless 1990 is named Ditka.

To keep and hold an area boots must be on the ground

Wouldn't the better question be if who would win 1990 vs 2025 if they had the same tech in this fairy tale fight scenario. If both sides used 90s tech, who would win? And who wins if both sides use 2025 tech?