What woud the U.S military look like if they had been forced to fight wars in different terrain?

Ratmancampidori · Feb 10, 2017

I'm mainly thinking along the lines of how terrain has effected how the U.S military is structured and what technology they use. Since the 1990's the United States has fought several engagements in the Middle East which has significantly altered the technology their armed forces uses, an example of this can be seen with a focus on the air force and the development of drone technology.

What if the Middle East had remained peaceful and stable over the past thirty years, with the United States having no need to become involved in the region. What if instead chaos and instability developed in South America and the Malay Archipelago. These countries are both jungles, which would continue the focus on jungle warfare the United States had in Vietnam.

If this had happened how would the United States military be structured and what technology would they focus on or pay less attention to compared to OTL.

I'd love to get everyone's thoughts.

TheBrazilSpirit · Feb 10, 2017

Coiler · Feb 10, 2017

Not very different at all. The US military plans to fight anywhere in the world and has devoted training and manuals to varying kinds of terrain. You'd see training and maybe slight prioritization of their lighter infantry units, but not much else.

General Mosh · Feb 10, 2017

US military structure would remain largely the same, as it has in every small war since Korea. The US military would just design its equipment differently. Armored vehicles would be jungle green instead of desert tan, ditto for standard camouflage. The Logistics chain working in most of Central and South America would be shorter than the US. There would be a greater emphasis on water-capable armor (see: US units and tactics in the South Pacific). The Coast Guard would almost certainly be more involved. Napalm would still be a thing, assuming concerns of war crimes were shot down. Drones would be less efficient, given the more enclosed nature of South American jungles. Mountain warfare would be an important training exercise, but it already really is (see: Afghanistan). Light vehicles capable of fording streams and crossing rough Jungle terrain would be a priority, look to see heavily armored but still mobile jeeps and the like, rather than Bradleys or Abrams. Special Forces would recruit from pools of Spanish and Portuguese speakers, rather than speakers of Arabic or Farsi. All the small changes you'd expect, really. The Air Force would still be a major player.

Ratmancampidori · Feb 10, 2017

General Mosh said:
US military structure would remain largely the same, as it has in every small war since Korea. The US military would just design its equipment differently. Armored vehicles would be jungle green instead of desert tan, ditto for standard camouflage. The Logistics chain working in most of Central and South America would be shorter than the US. There would be a greater emphasis on water-capable armor (see: US units and tactics in the South Pacific). The Coast Guard would almost certainly be more involved. Napalm would still be a thing, assuming concerns of war crimes were shot down. Drones would be less efficient, given the more enclosed nature of South American jungles. Mountain warfare would be an important training exercise, but it already really is (see: Afghanistan). Light vehicles capable of fording streams and crossing rough Jungle terrain would be a priority, look to see heavily armored but still mobile jeeps and the like, rather than Bradleys or Abrams. Special Forces would recruit from pools of Spanish and Portuguese speakers, rather than speakers of Arabic or Farsi. All the small changes you'd expect, really. The Air Force would still be a major player.

To what degree however, would the stealth aircraft program have still have gone through or would greater focus have been put on helicopters. I've read that fast moving, fixed wing aircraft are significantly less effective in jungle environments in contrast to desert environments.

General Mosh · Feb 10, 2017

Ratmancampidori said:
To what degree however, would the stealth aircraft program have still have gone through or would greater focus have been put on helicopters. I've read that fast moving, fixed wing aircraft are significantly less effective in jungle environments in contrast to desert environments.

Stealth aircraft weren't really designed with respect to the Middle Eastern conflicts, although we do use them because they're in our arsenal. Stealth aircraft were designed with regards to nations with significant aerial defense capabilities, like Russia or China, who US military planners still look at as their major potential adversaries.

Ratmancampidori · Feb 10, 2017

General Mosh said:
Stealth aircraft weren't really designed with respect to the Middle Eastern conflicts, although we do use them because they're in our arsenal. Stealth aircraft were designed with regards to nations with significant aerial defense capabilities, like Russia or China, who US military planners still look at as their major potential adversaries.

What about American tank programs, would the Abrams still be developed in this timeline or would it come in at a later date. What about the Humvee, would that be chile be developed in the 1980's like it was in our timeline?

General Mosh · Feb 10, 2017

Again, the Abrams and the Humvee were more or less developed before the Middle Eastern conflicts, or at least concurrently to them, with no real emphasis in designing them for the Middle East (final specs were drawn in '79 for the Humvee, and prototypes of the Abrams were delivered in '76, when we were far more concerned with potential Eastern European battlefields than anything else). Now, the Humvee has had some major modifications done to it over the years in order to play a better role in the Middle East, but those are just those, modifications. No doubt similar modifications would be made for South American battlefields.

Ratmancampidori · Feb 10, 2017

General Mosh said:
Again, the Abrams and the Humvee were more or less developed before the Middle Eastern conflicts, or at least concurrently to them, with no real emphasis in designing them for the Middle East (final specs were drawn in '79 for the Humvee, and prototypes of the Abrams were delivered in '76, when we were far more concerned with potential Eastern European battlefields than anything else). Now, the Humvee has had some major modifications done to it over the years in order to play a better role in the Middle East, but those are just those, modifications. No doubt similar modifications would be made for South American battlefields.

So not all that many significant changes?

General Mosh · Feb 11, 2017

Ratmancampidori said:
So not all that many significant changes?

Essentially. Small unit combat is conceptually similar in the desert and in the jungle. The major change would be the US somehow never shifting focus from large unit combat.