It depends. With current production? Not in a million years, though that’s a bit obvious because the current system isn’t designed to mobilize 5 million men. However, if war production shifted (that would probably take 6+ months) the US could easy mobilize and arm all of those soldiers.
Also the current US doctrine doesn’t require massive amounts of infantry that you have to equip. The focus is more on superior firepower through artillery and air power, and shock troops built around armored and mechanized divisions manned by veteran/professional career soldiers. Further, the navy is built around power projection, so you don’t need to man 1 million corvettes and frigates, hence the Navy has no need for conscripts.
The Air Force is extremely difficult to get into as is. The list of requirements is absurd, and they are essentially all professors flying jets, so I doubt that they’d let in hoards of random people WW2 style.
Simple grunt infantry is cannon fodder on the modern battlefield. Which is good, because then you don’t need to equip them all.
The focus is more on superior firepower through artillery and air power, and shock troops built around armored and mechanized divisions manned by veteran/professional career soldiers
You'll notice it's also nearly the same doctrine that Russian armed forces have in Ukraine - artillery dominance, select groups of professional assault troops. Likewise with the airforce - Russian airspace force is very professionally oriented. It's actually an issue, because it takes a lot of time and effort to train a pilot for Ka-52 for example. Heck, I don't know of any modern army that relies on "massive amounts of simple grunt infantry", as you put it. So I'm not sure where you are getting that this was suggestion.
But consider this: an M777 howitzer (used widely by Ukraine right now) has a minimum crew of 5, and a nominal crew of 9 + 1 driver. So that's 5 people at least, who each must receive at least one set of uniform (strictly speaking more, as per military regulations, but we're talking imaginary scenario here). That would be proper fabrics with regulation paint scheme, boots, socks, undershirts, etc. Since we're talking a war in EU, they'd also need a separate set of winter gear. Plus food, which must be manufactured, and logistics to get it to the actual troops. Five people, on some both basic and essential as a howitzer. Do you are where I'm going? And we haven't even looked at ammunition for the gun, spare parts, spare barrels, etc. And for artillery to function you also need recon of some kind - drones or forward observation troops. Radios. More uniforms, food, logistics.
That's what I meant by "equipping many people". There's zero need for any imaginary "human wave" for the task to become difficult, just economy. Takes a village to arm a soldier.
It depends. With current production? Not in a million years, though that’s a bit obvious because the current system isn’t designed to mobilize 5 million men. However, if war production shifted (that would probably take 6+ months) the US could easy mobilize and arm all of those soldiers.
Also the current US doctrine doesn’t require massive amounts of infantry that you have to equip. The focus is more on superior firepower through artillery and air power, and shock troops built around armored and mechanized divisions manned by veteran/professional career soldiers. Further, the navy is built around power projection, so you don’t need to man 1 million corvettes and frigates, hence the Navy has no need for conscripts.
The Air Force is extremely difficult to get into as is. The list of requirements is absurd, and they are essentially all professors flying jets, so I doubt that they’d let in hoards of random people WW2 style.
Simple grunt infantry is cannon fodder on the modern battlefield. Which is good, because then you don’t need to equip them all.
You'll notice it's also nearly the same doctrine that Russian armed forces have in Ukraine - artillery dominance, select groups of professional assault troops. Likewise with the airforce - Russian airspace force is very professionally oriented. It's actually an issue, because it takes a lot of time and effort to train a pilot for Ka-52 for example. Heck, I don't know of any modern army that relies on "massive amounts of simple grunt infantry", as you put it. So I'm not sure where you are getting that this was suggestion.
But consider this: an M777 howitzer (used widely by Ukraine right now) has a minimum crew of 5, and a nominal crew of 9 + 1 driver. So that's 5 people at least, who each must receive at least one set of uniform (strictly speaking more, as per military regulations, but we're talking imaginary scenario here). That would be proper fabrics with regulation paint scheme, boots, socks, undershirts, etc. Since we're talking a war in EU, they'd also need a separate set of winter gear. Plus food, which must be manufactured, and logistics to get it to the actual troops. Five people, on some both basic and essential as a howitzer. Do you are where I'm going? And we haven't even looked at ammunition for the gun, spare parts, spare barrels, etc. And for artillery to function you also need recon of some kind - drones or forward observation troops. Radios. More uniforms, food, logistics.
That's what I meant by "equipping many people". There's zero need for any imaginary "human wave" for the task to become difficult, just economy. Takes a village to arm a soldier.