How many Americans become suitable for military service from EACH STATE in the U.S per year?

[dave8383]

You should look at the kill ratio. The US lost 58,000, the NVA and Viet Cong lost over a million and possibly as many as two million. The casualty rates against the Japanese in WW2 were similar to that as well.

That has nothing to do with an infantryman's prior experience with firearms. What can make a difference is an individual's prior experience in very rural/wilderness settings. Farmers, ranchers, etc. Being aware of your natural suroundings. Now, prior experience with hunting can be very beneficial but not because of the firearms involved. Because of the experience of being stealthy, etc.

 

[JMR]

It is a very simple inquiry. How many Americans (males only)...in each state...reach the age...where they become eligible for military service...and how many of these are physically fit enough to serve in any branch of the U.S. military?

How would anyone know how many are physically fit. They do not have to submit to a physical when eligible.

 

[holbritter]

I've been unable to find this doing a google search I'm interested in the number of Americans in each of the 50 states that become physically eligible for military service in each year on average.

Don't know why it is hard to find.

Maybe because it's none of your business.

 

[dave8383]

If you are referring to the Vietnam War that is not true. The irregulars/guerrillas, the Vietcong were all but exterminated during the 1968 Tet Offensive. Thereafter the fighting against the U.S. was almost entirely conducted by North Vietnamese regulars. And when South Vietnam fell in 1975 it wasn't a bunch of guys in sandals storming the main government offices, it was North Vietnamese tankers driving T-55 main battle tanks.

Yes the NVA overran the country, but the VC made a comeback a year or so after Tet. They were never what they were but they played a role.

 

[Dayton3]

Maybe because it's none of your business.

How do figure

 

[Jredbaron96]

This is true. However, who would be more familiar with a firearm? A peasant who spent his life working in a rice paddy, was constricted into the military, handled a firearm for the first time, received a few weeks of training then went to war or a kid who started using a firearm before he was 10, went hunting often, operated multiple and different types of firearms, and spent years honing his firearm skills at rifle ranges or shooting targets. As someone who was in the military, I can tell you that the amount of time you spent firing a weapon was a very small part of you training program.

I ask this because this is the you would see between a Chinese Army and most firearm enthusiast in America. The fact is being in the military does not make you a firearms expert or proficient in using one. One of those guys who goes to the rifle range once a month and owns a half dozen guns is far more knowledgeable about the capabilities of his weapon and able to effectively use it than some novice who has been through a few weeks of military training.

Proficiency in handling firearms does not at all equate to proficiency in combat. There are far more things that go into making a good soldier than simply knowing your small arms well.

Small arms account for just 20% of casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan. They haven't been the primary casualty producer since WWI.

 

[Jredbaron96]

You should look at the kill ratio. The US lost 58,000, the NVA and Viet Cong lost over a million and possibly as many as two million.

North Vietnam's military dead were about 850,000. The US/South Vietnamese military dead amounted to ~350,000, for a total ratio of a little over 2:1.

 

[RetiredUSN]

I've been unable to find this doing a google search I'm interested in the number of Americans in each of the 50 states that become physically eligible for military service in each year on average.

Don't know why it is hard to find.

Why in the hell would they want to serve anyways?

The commissioned officers have gone totally political, and professionalism among the enlisted has gone to hell.

 

[Dayton3]

Why in the hell would they want to serve anyway

Leave that to me.

 

[BahamaBob]

That has nothing to do with an infantryman's prior experience with firearms. What can make a difference is an individual's prior experience in very rural/wilderness settings. Farmers, ranchers, etc. Being aware of your natural suroundings. Now, prior experience with hunting can be very beneficial but not because of the firearms involved. Because of the experience of being stealthy, etc.

First of all, a guy who spends his days working in a rice paddy is likely to be no more aware of how to survive in the jungle any more than someone who worked in an office. Second, the firearm is an infantryman's primary weapon. The more familiar and expert you are with it, the more likely you will stay alive. A guy who is hunting will learn techniques that can help him in combat. I can't say that working on a farm or in a rice paddy would offer that same training. I have yet to see anyone try to sneak up on their crops.

Beyond that, my original post had nothing to do with Asian Military vs US Military. Many in the US Military were not that familiar with firearms either. My posts referred to sportsmen who throughout their lives have used and acquired firearms. However, millions of these guys are former military. That only enhances their skills. There are millions of people in this country who are well armed and could easily become very effective gorilla fighters.

In short, due to these gun owners, occupying the US would be impossible.

 

[BahamaBob]

Leave that to me.

I don't know what the eligible numbers look like but data shows that physically only 23% of the eligible are physicallty fit enough to serve.

U.S. Army recruits: Physically fit soldiers hard to find in South

 

[Dayton3]

First of all, a guy who spends his days working in a rice paddy is likely to be no more aware of how to survive in the jungle any more than someone who worked in an office. Second, the firearm is an infantryman's primary weapon. The more familiar and expert you are with it, the more likely you will stay alive. A guy who is hunting will learn techniques that can help him in combat. I can't say that working on a farm or in a rice paddy would offer that same training. I have yet to see anyone try to sneak up on their crops.

Beyond that, my original post had nothing to do with Asian Military vs US Military. Many in the US Military were not that familiar with firearms either. My posts referred to sportsmen who throughout their lives have used and acquired firearms. However, millions of these guys are former military. That only enhances their skills. There are millions of people in this country who are well armed and could easily become very effective gorilla fighters.

In short, due to these gun owners, occupying the US would be impossible.

Guerrilla tactics are the tactics of losers.

 

[dave8383]

First of all, a guy who spends his days working in a rice paddy is likely to be no more aware of how to survive in the jungle any more than someone who worked in an office. .

Oh my god. Forget it.

 

[BahamaBob]

Guerrilla tactics are the tactics of losers.

Tell that to Castro and the North Vietnamese. You can add France, the Philippines and a few other countries from WW2 as well.

 

[TypicalRussian]

The effectiveness of a military fighting force is dependent on a lot more than just how many guns they have.

mid east?

 

[RaleBulgarian]

There are millions of people in this country who are well armed and could easily become very effective gorilla fighters.

Is this coming from your own personal knowledge/experience or the latest issue of SoF?

In short, due to these gun owners, occupying the US would be impossible.

Bwahahahahaha!! :2rofll:

If you think a buncha fat, outta shape militiamen and vigilantes is what keeps the bad guys off of our shores, you’re even more ignorant than I figured you to be.

 

[Dayton3]

Tell that to Castro and the North Vietnamese. You can add France, the Philippines and a few other countries from WW2 as well.

The North Vietnamese did not win using guerrilla tactics. France wasn't liberated using guerrilla tactics either.

 

[BahamaBob]

The North Vietnamese did not win using guerrilla tactics. France wasn't liberated using guerrilla tactics either.

Guerrilla tactics played a big part in both victories.

 

[Dayton3]

Guerrilla tactics played a big part in both victories.

Not really. The Vietcong were smashed in 1968 and thereafter it was North Vietnamese regulars doing the bulk of the fighting for the communist side.

Don't know where you get the idea that guerrilla tactics played much of a role in the liberation of France.

 

[BahamaBob]

Is this coming from your own personal knowledge/experience or the latest issue of SoF?


Bwahahahahaha!! :2rofll:

If you think a buncha fat, outta shape militiamen and vigilantes is what keeps the bad guys off of our shores, you’re even more ignorant than I figured you to be.

Perhaps a reading comprehension class would help, I doubt it but it would be worth a try. Most likely just lying to try and cover after getting your weak argument destroyed. No one said "militiamen and vigilantes is what keeps the bad guys off of our shores". I wrote "In short, due to these gun owners, occupying the US would be impossible."

Lying about what someone posts is a common ploy from someone without intelligence or a valid argument.

 

[Casca XV]

I've been unable to find this doing a google search I'm interested in the number of Americans in each of the 50 states that become physically eligible for military service in each year on average.

Don't know why it is hard to find.

Close to 70% of Americans who are of age don't qualify for military service for various reasons, inability to read and write is one of the biggest. If we were in a real hard core war and we really needed the troops, requirements would be greatly relaxed.

Google is most likely censoring this information over political bias relating to trans-sexual people largely being disqualified. That most Americans don't qualify anyhow was an argument used against them.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

Perhaps a reading comprehension class would help, I doubt it but it would be worth a try. Most likely just lying to try and cover after getting your weak argument destroyed. No one said "militiamen and vigilantes is what keeps the bad guys off of our shores". I wrote "In short, due to these gun owners, occupying the US would be impossible."

Lying about what someone posts is a common ploy from someone without intelligence or a valid argument.

I didn’t say/imply that you said militiamen or vigilantes. I posted your own unedited words above mine in my post. :doh

Militiamen and vigilantes would be the first civilian combatants, fighting the evil invaders if your poorly informed/thought out “Red Dawn” scenario was ever realized. Fact is, if another country tried to invade America (an extremely doubtful possibility), our military forces would first be employed, with the proper firepower and armament. Civilians with rifles and handguns would be a last gasp resort effort.

 

[BahamaBob]

I didn’t say/imply that you said militiamen or vigilantes. I posted your own unedited words above mine in my post. :doh

Militiamen and vigilantes would be the first civilian combatants, fighting the evil invaders if your poorly informed/thought out “Red Dawn” scenario was ever realized. Fact is, if another country tried to invade America (an extremely doubtful possibility), our military forces would first be employed, with the proper firepower and armament. Civilians with rifles and handguns would be a last gasp resort effort.

Duh, you think?

 

[Dayton3]

According to wikipedia, about 2 million Americans become eligible to serve in the military each year based on their ages.

Now simple averaging would mean about 40,000 each year from each state annually. If you consider the three main ages for inducting people into the military (18-20 years old) that would mean an average of 120,000 Americans per state on average. Assuming half of them are women and I don't want women in the military if at all possible that means 60,000 men per state on average being eligible.

Assuming that 75% of those men are unfit for military service, that means an average of 15,000 men per state eligible and qualified for military service.

So if in a national emergency a U.S. president (not wanting to resort to conscription) issued a "challenge" to each state to come up with 10,000 men to serve in the military (not accepting those currently serving, in the reserves, or serving as police/firemen/other vital positions) then it should be doable wouldn't it?

 

[BahamaBob]

According to wikipedia, about 2 million Americans become eligible to serve in the military each year based on their ages.

Now simple averaging would mean about 40,000 each year from each state annually. If you consider the three main ages for inducting people into the military (18-20 years old) that would mean an average of 120,000 Americans per state on average. Assuming half of them are women and I don't want women in the military if at all possible that means 60,000 men per state on average being eligible.

Assuming that 75% of those men are unfit for military service, that means an average of 15,000 men per state eligible and qualified for military service.

So if in a national emergency a U.S. president (not wanting to resort to conscription) issued a "challenge" to each state to come up with 10,000 men to serve in the military (not accepting those currently serving, in the reserves, or serving as police/firemen/other vital positions) then it should be doable wouldn't it?

Your math sucks and your numbers are way off.

2020 United States Military Strength

Go to the US and expand on Manpower