- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: 1990 US Desert Storm armed forces vs 2025 US armed forces: Who wins?
Posted on 8/12/25 at 7:24 am to speedybaw
Posted on 8/12/25 at 7:24 am to speedybaw
quote:
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?
If given the same tech, I’d say us guys from 1990 would win easily. I’ll refer back to my first post in this thread as to the reason why, namely that we were, from our first day in the military, trained to fight a large scale combined arms war while the military of today has only recently started to pivot from the past 20 years of training for low intensity counter-insurgency warfare.
1
Posted on 8/12/25 at 8:22 am to Darth_Vader
I’ll just say this about who would win
Put a full set of chem gear in a pile in front of both sides. First man to don said gear, clear his mask and be ready to fight in an CNB environment wins
Point to Desert Storm vets
;)
Put a full set of chem gear in a pile in front of both sides. First man to don said gear, clear his mask and be ready to fight in an CNB environment wins
Point to Desert Storm vets
;)
Posted on 8/12/25 at 8:37 am to weagle1999
In a fist fight…. 1990 wins.
Gun fight…. Not so much.
Gun fight…. Not so much.
Posted on 8/12/25 at 8:40 am to Darth_Vader
quote:
That would be our main advantage. We were very much trained and equipped for a conventional combined arms war. And we’d definitely have numbers on our side.
This.
You can change the setting, objectives, etc and make a case for 1990 being able to win in some scenarios. There would be more targets to shoot at for the 2025 force first off. Over the GWOT and recently with all of the conflicts going on our inventories have shrank. 1990 would still be coming off of the greatest military buildup in world history and that saturation of equipment and personnel would strain the 2025 force. The doctrine would have to adapt to less precision and more volume.
The tech wouldn’t be comparable. But keeping all of the fancy toys functioning properly would be the challenge. The U.S. military of today is built for a very fast very lethal conflict and the concern is what comes after the first two weeks. The loss tolerance is far lower as well.
The military of 1990 was built to absorb a Soviet invasion into Western Europe and resupply the entirety of NATO across the Atlantic in a conflict that could last months and the losses were expected to be massive.
Posted on 8/12/25 at 8:58 am to GeauxGutsy
quote:
The Veterans from the 1990’s are all drawing 100% disability.
That's news to me. I had better contact the VA.
Posted on 8/12/25 at 9:20 am to rmnldr
quote:
The military of 1990 was built to absorb a Soviet invasion into Western Europe and resupply the entirety of NATO across the Atlantic in a conflict that could last months and the losses were expected to be massive.
Ah, good old REFORGER.
Posted on 8/12/25 at 4:10 pm to SlowFlowPro
The f22 was actually based on 80/90s design lol.
Yea op is crazy if he even thinks this is close. Wouldn’t even require soldiers, simply put…~15 f22s, ~15 f35s along with 1 maybe 2 E-2 Hawkeyes and prolly 8 F-18 growlers to block radar and its game over easily. 1990s loses every air craft and every ship within 3 days.
Yea op is crazy if he even thinks this is close. Wouldn’t even require soldiers, simply put…~15 f22s, ~15 f35s along with 1 maybe 2 E-2 Hawkeyes and prolly 8 F-18 growlers to block radar and its game over easily. 1990s loses every air craft and every ship within 3 days.
Posted on 8/12/25 at 4:11 pm to weagle1999
One thing left out is how thin our shells, ammo, and missile stocks are right now. If the older force could absorb the punch, it could roll
This post was edited on 8/12/25 at 8:52 pm
Posted on 8/12/25 at 8:30 pm to Larry_Hotdogs
quote:
Drone warfare
This. Drone swarms would overwhelm the old school. 90’s in a slugfest for sure though.
Posted on 8/12/25 at 8:46 pm to weagle1999
2025 without a doubt unless we go low tech only. Then, I'll go with 1990 in combat without all the drones and advanced weaponry.
Posted on 8/12/25 at 8:50 pm to RougeDawg
Yep I don’t recall a single PowerPoint briefing during Desert Storm lol.
I’d say 2025 version of our military is a better version than the 1990 version even outside of the obvious technological advances just because of the actual combat experience that has been acquired since 2001.
I’d say 2025 version of our military is a better version than the 1990 version even outside of the obvious technological advances just because of the actual combat experience that has been acquired since 2001.
Posted on 8/12/25 at 9:03 pm to weagle1999
It’ll be a lot closer than what folks here give it credit for.
Drones were a thing even back in 1990. A group of Iraqis famously surrendered to one. So it’s not like most areas have been improved by orders of magnitude, with sweeping functionality that was gained.
The one place where this is not true is with the dramatically improved datalinks between units.
Military today is a lot more high tech, but I don’t think it’s enough to automatically overcome the count difference. Army is half the size it used to be, and we carried 4 times as many top of the line (for the era) main battle tanks.
Quantity has a quality all of its own.
Drones were a thing even back in 1990. A group of Iraqis famously surrendered to one. So it’s not like most areas have been improved by orders of magnitude, with sweeping functionality that was gained.
The one place where this is not true is with the dramatically improved datalinks between units.
Military today is a lot more high tech, but I don’t think it’s enough to automatically overcome the count difference. Army is half the size it used to be, and we carried 4 times as many top of the line (for the era) main battle tanks.
Quantity has a quality all of its own.
This post was edited on 8/12/25 at 9:07 pm
Posted on 8/12/25 at 9:17 pm to Volvagia
There are examples from the war in Ukraine where older tech is performing well. Bradleys are allegedly killing T90s..
That Gulf War stuff might be old, but there would be a lot of it and its dangerous. If youre 20 miles or closer to a coast youre subject to get nailed with a 16 inch battleship shell. 2025 has nothing like that.
That Gulf War stuff might be old, but there would be a lot of it and its dangerous. If youre 20 miles or closer to a coast youre subject to get nailed with a 16 inch battleship shell. 2025 has nothing like that.
Posted on 8/12/25 at 9:20 pm to lsu777
quote:
~15 f22s, ~15 f35s along with 1 maybe 2 E-2 Hawkeyes and prolly 8 F-18 growlers to block radar and its game over easily.
So, LeMay, your grand strategy is to pair stealth craft with craft that will SCREAM exactly where they are all at, and give you the opportunity to sneak sidewinders up the arse from behind.
You do realize that even if you successfully jam their radars, it doesn’t just turn detection off. They know exactly where the jamming is coming from. If they even can jam without blinding themselves. It’s basically all the same equipment.
The Growler uses basically the same jamming equipment as the 1990s version. Hell, the last revision was 20 years ago.
Posted on 8/12/25 at 9:29 pm to Volvagia
The F14's from then have something called the Phoenix Missile.You remember it I'm sure. Now the 14 might not see the 22's and 35.s but it WILL see the Hawkeyes and from a very long way off. It might even go after the F18'S.
Posted on 8/12/25 at 9:35 pm to antibarner
Phenoix isn’t catching the -22, or -35 period. It might see the Growlers but dunno if it has the oomph to burn through jamming. Plus, as I mentioned in the last post, not sure if you’d want to target them.
Growlers are to either get SIGINT or to provide unstealthy bombers some cover.
Growlers are to either get SIGINT or to provide unstealthy bombers some cover.
Posted on 8/12/25 at 9:40 pm to Volvagia
It's a definite danger to those Hawkeyes without a doubt. Any B1 B52's or F15E"s the Growlers were trying to cover would be in danger too.
This post was edited on 8/12/25 at 9:44 pm
Posted on 8/12/25 at 9:46 pm to prplhze2000
quote:
One thing left out is how thin our shells, ammo, and missile stocks are right now. If the older force could absorb the punch, it could roll
We did I have some serious ammo stockpiles back then. We were still firing .50 cal ammo made during WWII in the late 80s.
Posted on 8/12/25 at 9:53 pm to antibarner
Yep. But guy didn’t add any of them to his inventory. Just some AWACs and stealth planes.
I especially liked how he felt -135s weren’t needed.
I especially liked how he felt -135s weren’t needed.
Page 5 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News