The bottom line is that the DoD has an insatiable thirst for money.

Critical support to the lazy troops who ensure our combat ineffectiveness through deferred maintenance

The US military and it's think tank-proxies constantly produces this type of reports to legitimate receiving additional recources. There's a great Citations Needed episode about it, episode 117: The Always ‘Lagging’ U.S. War Machine https://soundcloud.com/citationsneeded/episode-117-the-always-lagging-us-war-machine

I think you have to consider the difference between peace time (technically) bureaucratic safety standards vs. I don't care if your HMMV has a slow leak in the front left tyre, go pump it every 5 miles in a combat scenario

Oh no, if only living in peace was an option

What's the point of being able to redact stuff for national security if you're just gonna post "all of our equipment is broken, and theres no one around to fix it" for the world to see

greatest country in the world, love it or leave it librulz

fuck yea

they should build combat trains

Single-source suppliers also contributed to shortages. This includes when only a single manufacturer supplies certain parts or materiel for a fleet of vehicles.

For example, Army officials reported that the Bradley program had more than 40 backordered fuel tanks due to long lead times of 7 months to 9 months for new orders.

According to these officials, the Army relies on a single supplier for fuel tanks across multiple fleets of vehicles,putting them in competition with each other for that manufacturer’scapacity to produce parts and materiel.

Okay, so this is explainable by pointing out that there's two types of officers in any military. The first one is one that thinks they know what ready looks like, and nothing else. This first one is easy to fool when it comes to equipment checks, but will do stupid shit like wondering why there's oil stains in the mechanic bay. The second one actually knows what ready means for equipment, is the complete opposite of the first guy, and knows exactly why there's oil stains in the mechanic bay.

I would say this sort of thing is a little misleading. No army is ever going to need 100% of all their vehicles in the field, they always want reserves for reinforcement and support. This is just more fearmongering about how the US military needs more money to "get up to code"

And they're going to cut 20% of generals.. They trying to get a high score?

Misinformation. The article (which is just an uncited quote from the GAO report) says

selected Army ground support vehicles achieved mission capable goals about 20 percent of the time

That does NOT mean 20% of vehicles are mission capable. It means in the past 10 years, the Army has only acheived their missian capable target twice.

Their mission capable target is 90%. All the article says is the army is usually sitting at <90% mission caapble, which honestly isnt saying much