Why does the US Army have a 17 to 1 Support to Combat ratio & Putin's Russian Army maintains a 1 to 1 ratio???

Question

It seems to be part of the money problem the Pentagon is complaining about.

If We had more actual Combat troops would we be able to Win?

Oh the Source was Gen Tommy Franks he said we have 503,000 Men working at a 17 to 1 ratio.

This was because the Iraq war started in the middle of Rumsfeld's Transformation Policy.

These numbers were back in 03 Since then the Army has had a stop loss program and agressive recuiting.

The numbers could be in the millions by now. Especially with so many young republicans joining.

Answer 1

17 to one is a difficult number to accept, Every soldier is trained in basic combat skills, and in to-days type of warfare there are very few non-combatants.

Drivers and medics have been under fire and had to fight back.

As far as needing more combat troops to win, well sure more is what is needed but we are winning. So that really doesn't matter as much. But I do believe we need to return the military to its pre Desert Storm size.

Answer 2

Because we plan on winning wars. You cannot win with out logistics and a 1 to 1 ratio will never make a supply line, never keep the troops fed, never give enough air power cover, etc... It seems like some have little understanding about how military operations work. 1 to 1 is a stupid non-working ratio. And we would win a lot faster without the left subverting our efforts and emboldening the enemy. And the best thing is we are making headway in Iraq despite that.

Answer 3

It is because we have the best equipped, best trained, and most supported army the planet has ever seen. Plus, we can afford it. Don't you think the average russian grunt would like to know that 17 other guys got his back? Know what a 1 to 1 ratio means? That there is only one guy available to treat your wounds, make your meals, plan your movements, come get you if things get too thick, resupply you, and maybe bring your body home to mama. Sounds like a lot of work for one guy, doesn't it?

Answer 4

Who are you getting information from on Russia's military?

1 to 1 is simply not sustainable. For every combat troop, you have 1 one person who fuflills all other functions--Combat Support--Communications, MP, Engineer, Intelligence, Medical..., Combat Service Support--Finance, Admin, Supply, Ordinance, Food Service, Laundry,...?

Can't be done.

Answer 5

It seems to work though. Yes, more expensive, but but it means any one US troop has much better odds of survival than 1 Russian troop. And can get more done. So in the end, we have the more effective army.

Answer 6

Go watch 'Enemy at the Gates' and it will explain what happens when there is a 1 to 1 ratio.

Answer 7

Because logistics wins wars. Yes, you need a pointy end of the spear, but the spear will not fly without a shaft. The U.S. excels at logistics. Also, our warfighters are much more efficient than other those of other nations.

Answer 8

17 to 1 may be extreme but 1 to 1 is asinine
we have opportunities to improve in how we spend our military dollars. in the working world you pay more but in return you expect better productivity. we have the finest fighting men and women in the world and they deserve better pay and better benefits and we should expect a better more efficient support staff.

FLEOscott:
just what war in Afghanistan is it that we won in 3 weeks?
you've been listening to Bush and Cheney and believe the hostilities are over ay?

Answer 9

I suppose we could take a few leaps backwards in technology so we could fit your ideal military breakdown..

Hell.. if we went back to using swords I bet we'd have a ratio even you could be proud of.

Answer 10

only 20 percent of the military does the real fighting..most military personnel are support..they all cant fight some one needs to supply the war fighters and fix the equipment..