American Military Culture

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 24 2004 @ 03:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by W4rl0rD
The Japanese had better tech and training until nearing the end of the war,and the invasion of europe was in 1944,thats when american troops had plenty of training.


Better tech and training wow I wonder how they lost to a country fighting on two different fronts.

Better tech LOL they produced perhaps some of the worst guns of the entire war I have one of their rifles the thing is bad, They had a handgun that you could set off by putting to much pressure on the side of the gun

The Germans had the good tech and look what they did with it against low tech counrties like poland.

[edit on 24-12-2004 by ShadowXIX]




posted on Dec, 24 2004 @ 08:06 PM
link   
The U.S. soldiers to day are very well-trained and professional; one Marine who recently got the Navy Cross in Iraq even said he disagrees with the notion that today's people are too soft; he says the Marines, if anything, are as good as they've ever been.

And no, they do not simply rely on tech, it depends a good deal. Anything from tanks to artillery to supply, takes a lot of discipline. You have to keep thousands of vehicles fueled up maintained. It takes a lot of work. You also have to direct thousands of vehicles if they're all moving through Iraq and such.

The U.S. military and the British military are two of the finest militaries in the world right now.



posted on Dec, 24 2004 @ 11:44 PM
link   
If America simply relied on big fancy guns, we probably would have lost the ground war to Iraq in 91. We were going up against tanks that weren't much worse then our own, and they had them in large numbers.



posted on Dec, 25 2004 @ 05:54 AM
link   
While I agree that we didn't just "rely on big fancy guns," the Iraqi tanks weren't much of a match for the American tanks; their rounds couldn't penetrate the armor on the Abrams and they were easy to blow up because the Soviets designed them with the ammunition inside, so if it caught fire, it blew the turret off. The Iraqi tanks also had no special optics or computers the way the American tanks had. Most of the Iraqi tanks probably couldn't even see where they were getting hit from.

The Abrams tank keeps the ammo in a separate compartment with blow-out panels, so if it explodes, the crew is unharmed.



posted on Dec, 25 2004 @ 11:12 AM
link   
The U.S. Army is very well trained. This article is pointing out flaws in the soldiers which I believe are indicative of the greater flaws in this country. In other words we're producing weak, soft, snot-nosed brats.



posted on Dec, 25 2004 @ 10:32 PM
link   
From what I have read about today's soldiers, I definitely wouldn't say they are weak or soft at all. They are greedy tends to more be the word for a lot of them, I think. These reservists and national guard have no problem whatsoever recieving the same pay and benefits as the active-duty, yet god-forbid should you call them to the front line.



posted on Dec, 25 2004 @ 10:56 PM
link   
It's not just big fancy guns. It's a coherent combined arms doctrine which is applied at the lowest levels (especially in the MAGTF) and superior training (mainly by volume, not standards.
The primary weakness with our military is that it must rely on recruits with the weaknesses inherent to our culture, as Kozzy pointed out. We could do a better job of training that weakness out of them. Our training is good enough and constant enough that our people do their jobs with a high degree of skill, but it is less effective in creating the attitude and mentality of a professional soldier (in some cases).

Reservists are a major problem in terms of morale and professionalism. They dont seem to think about the prospect of deployment. I dont know how we would go about making it clear when they enlist that they may have to go, but this point does have to start getting across.



posted on Dec, 25 2004 @ 11:37 PM
link   
I dont believe that todays military is soft just because in the onslaught of new wave technology we use on the field. I am a United States Marine, and I would hope that you people have more faith in your country than that. When I went to recurit training in PI, I asked my senior if he thought that todays Marines were softer, because of the same thought. He told me that if anything, todays Marines are smarter, faster, stronger, and far more efficient than the Marines of yesterday. Just because we dont charge head on and get slaughtered by the thousands, dosent mean we arent tough. It means that we have learned, thoughout our bloody history, that charging head-on just means more senseless losses. By changing our tactics, and using more conventional means of warfare, we have more than cut our combat casualty losses by over 75%. And yes, part of it is due to our progress in technology. Times change, and as times change, so do the ways in which people act on one another. Just think of how the war in Iraq would have went over without our current technology. You think we lost senseless amounts of people now, imagine the losses without our current technological advances. And besides... if you dont know the facts, dont open your mouth. It is better to keep your mouth shut and let people think you are stupid, that to open your mouth and confirm it.



posted on Dec, 26 2004 @ 12:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Teufelhunden
I am a United States Marine, and I would hope that you people have more faith in your country than that. When I went to recurit training in PI, I asked my senior if he thought that todays Marines were softer, because of the same thought. He told me that if anything, todays Marines are smarter, faster, stronger, and far more efficient than the Marines of yesterday.

I'm not sure the point was to say that today's Marines are not combat effective. I believe the point was more that today's recruits are personally lacking and that as a result recruit training and the state of the force as a whole have degenerated somewhat- and that this is far more true in the Army because they lack key advantages which the Marine Corps has made for itself through its sense of purpose and sense of tradition, as well as superior organization.

The loss of militarily desireable traits from our society has brought people into the service who are not ideally suited to it. We have enlisted men who fall out of short humps and just barely squeak through their PFTs. Somehow someway an alarming number of lazy belligerent pigs make it out of boot a little too early and make themselves a problem for combat instructors and presumably later for their units. We also end up with a certain number of officers who behave like business managers more than combat leaders.
Although superior tactics, organization, training and technology continue to make Marines the most potent fighting force in the world it is a fact that our men are not fundamentally as "hard" as those of generations past. Its not immediately a danger to our defensive capabilities, however even a minor weakness should be addressed and corrected if possible because it is at least somewhat detremental to our military capabilities. If we can find a reasonable way to improve the strength, discipline and other virtues of our troops (especially in the army and even more so in the reserves where deficiencies are magnified by lack of the purpose and tradition which make the Marine Corps so much more effective.)



And besides... if you dont know the facts, dont open your mouth. It is better to keep your mouth shut and let people think you are stupid, that to open your mouth and confirm it.


Devil, I can see how you would be offended by the implications of this thread, but a reasoned response is the way to go. Implying that the opposing viewpoint stems from stupidity is a sure way to start a flame war in which you can never hope to show somebody the error of their thinking.

Semper Fi.



posted on Dec, 27 2004 @ 05:56 PM
link   
I believe today some people go into the Military for the benefits, not knowing what they are getting themselves into. They are not going into the Military to serve and protect the country they should so dearly love, but to serve, and get financial aid for college. When I join in four years, I am going to serve and protect the country I love. I am joining to protect all of my brothers and sisters, every last American citizen. To uphold the rights that we have. The rights we have, that we need to protect and spread around the globe. Not every where in the world do they have the rights that we do.

The Marines are always going to be the best troops in the world for a long time. They are the most elite force in the world in my opinion. Yes you have the Navy seals, and all the other elite branches, but unlike those, the Marines mix a large fighting force, and being elite. They are not soft at all, but I believe the National Guard is becoming soft, but that is just what you hear from a negative media.





top topics
 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join