US-infantry, any good?

Not according to the vast majority of western intelligent and defense 'experts' ( and many weren't) NATO wouldn't and i am just interested to know why seem to believe differently.



True but it helps to have command posts that approaches invulnerability in respect to conventional weaponry.



Magimushroom:

In the second world war losses were hard to hide ( losing massive tracts of land could not be explained away without admitting that something happened to the soldiers defending it) but when presented with the opportunity the USSR like almost all other countries does it best to inflate enemy casualties while trying to avoid acknowlegding it's own losses. This has certainly been true of Afghanistan and the later fighting in Balkans so lets not try to pain these countries as having very different leaders from our own. In the end even the worse dictator on Earth can only get away with so many obvious and or well known crimes before his people rises up replace him and for dictators to hold power for very long , despite serious crimes, they really need massive foreign aid and or obvious external threats that threaten to do even worse.

As cold war and post war studies have revealed the Soviet citizenry had been far better prepared to survive a prosecute a global nuclear war :





According to Soviet civil defense SOVIET FATALITIES (SAY SOVIETS): "BETWEEN THREE AND-FOUR PERCENT" manuals, this plan for the evacuation and dispersal of people is designed to limit casualties in the event of a nuclear exchange to between three and four percent of the
population. Modest, feasible measures to protect machinery from nuclear effects greatly increase both the probability of industrial survival and U .S. retaliatory force requirements . . . [FEMA and the CIA] estimate that the Soviet Union, given time to implement fully these civil defense measures, could limit casualties to around fifty million, about half of which would be fatalities. This compares to the approximately 20 million Soviet fatalities suffered in World War II . There is no significant U .S. civil defense effort, and the Soviets recognize this. The potential impact of Soviet civil defense on our deterrent could be devastating. Calculations based on reasonable assumptions indicate that Soviet civil defense

www.tfxib.com...

It's funny, with the exception of Stellarx(as much as I'd hate to admit it) is the only person on this thread at this point actually backing up his claims. I've been reading some posts and some of you guys saying things like "US intelligence believes" or "It's well known that..." and yet have failed to provide any solid evidence of this...

Can't we all just admit that the US has a near infinite amount of resources compared to other countries, but the leaders don't necessarily know how to handle such power? I mean c'mon, the US's capabilities are near endless and yet look at what's happening, it doesn't take a rocket-scientist to figure out that we're in the hole here.

Shattered OUT...

Shattered its ridiculous to say the US has endless military supplies, that simply is not true unless you intend to bring back the draft and turn the industrial complex into a military one. All resources are finite, how long does it take to build a super carrier and at what cost, how easily could they be replaced, there not liberty ships are they.

The current wars and the burgeoning defense budget is crippling the country, health care, housing, education are all suffering because of it.

And if you had read my post, I said "compared to other countries".

Shattered OUT...

Stellar I know how good the Ruskies are and how well prepared they are, why are you telling me this.

It has absolutely nothing to do with how 'good' the 'Ruskies' are and everything to do with the apparent choices their sometimes brutal/murderous regimes made in terms of trying to protect everyone they did not lock up/kill. I tried to point out that the Soviet leaders, especially after Stalin, were by no means uncaring when it came to casualties in future wars and that they in fact built fighting systems ( tanks, aircraft etc) that were by no means indicative of a government that simply 'did not care'.

Hope that clears up some issues?

Stellar

reply to post by magicmushroom

---

WWII if I recall was somewhere over 60yrs ago.
I doubt there are too many still serving from then, or any of the same weapons systems still fielded. Again- when in recent history(i.e. the force that currently is in place), has the US had to rely on an ally to get save them from a foe, or been beaten in battle? In every engagement that US forces have been in, in Iraq, the Iraqi Army/insurgents have been resoundingly routed.

I have quite a bit of knowledge(over 15yrs active duty). I understand that there are secondary and tertiary effects from accidents and disease, etc..
To say that there have been 107,000 since 2003, in addition to the other figures is a bit of an exaggeration though, as a lot of what you're referring to has been rolled up into the other figures.

The reason the US infantry acts the way it does in combat situations is because they have too many rules holding them back (eg ROE).

The US is probably the best infantry in the world right now.

The British had the best Army and Navy in the 18th century.

The Russian had the best Tanks and Artillery after WWII.

The US had the best pilots in the 50's - 60's -- the Israeli's did in the 70's-80's.

I say this simply because nothing beats operational experience. A vast portion of the US military has already been rotated in and out and back into Afghanistan and Iraq.

After combat experience, then you can debate what countries train their infantry the best.

I have heard reports of Iraqi insurgants having more fear and concern for Marine troops than Army. As well as the fact that Marines tend to get the more difficult tasks.

[edit on 9-7-2008 by DoBravery]

Controversial. I agree that combat experience is the decider. However I fail to see how the average US infantryman will have more combat experience than his British counterpart.

The UK has a small army covering numerous operational commitments since the end of the last world war. This means a fast turn around time and more operational experience. I've spent more than half of my 18ish years on ops, which is about average. This includes twice in Iraq, twice in Afghanistan (which is where I am at the minute), once in Sierra Leonne, Once in Kosovo and god knows how many N. Ireland tours. I know of plenty of regiments on their third or fourth tours of both the major theatres at the minute.

Just because the US Army is the one you see on the TV of an evening doesn't mean that they're the only ones out there. There are armies racking up ops experience in areas that the US doesn't operate in and that the average US citizen doesn't know exist.

[edit on 9-7-2008 by PaddyInf]

Fair enough. . .
I went from answering the poster question, to saying the US was the best--which I see on average is very debateable.

I should have included our British allies as well.

My main point being that operational experience is very important in evaluating a miltary unit.

If someone posts "UK-infantry, any good?" I'll be sure to respond favorably.

The best infantry on the face of the planet are the special forces of boy scout troop 444.

Simply put, this question is highly irrational and cannot be logically answered with a fact. A battle is souly dependant on the fighting spirit of the men involved. So, the US could be the best one day, then the UK could be better the next day. It's a give and take kind of thing. Of course we are going to have the top contenders for the almighty "best" position. It'll change depending on the situation.

We all know who the top contenders are for the "best." I would put them all at a equal respect.

Wow, with all the testosterone, and puffing peacocks, and inane comments I would have thought this was a squid bar and some jarheads just walked in.

Look, all citizen soldiers are what they are. Average citizens....who are also soldiers. Their morals, education, and values reflect their citizens, and societies current standards. The military has only a precious number of months to add to that enough training to get a job completed. The military does NOT raise these kids, it tacks on a year sometimes at the most to 18 years of societies successes and failures.

So yeah you have great people in the uniform, and sometimes you have jerk offs, usually in the same proportion you have in the population.

I myself am concerned about the status of the American soldier, as I am also concerned as to the values, education, and morality of the average American Citizen these days.

All that said....I don't see a single other nation matching our military over all. Because every nation mentioned thus far, is also represented by their governments. The military simply being the scalpel of that government. And almost every one of the governments of these "elite" soldiers mentioned have become spineless, naive, self serving, organizations like they always been over the last few 1,000 years of the "old world's" existance. Always more interested in what their neighbor has, and what they can get then working together for a better future for all. Europe in the 21st century just uses lawyers, and corperate ceos in the place of the Assassins and pike weilding thugs of the dark ages....same old selfish, and inconsiderate politics....just a different era.

I've tread my feet on a few continants, and in all my travels it has reenforced my beliefs, that America even on a bad day, has more integrity, more genuiness, and more desire to be altruistic, then any other country in the world. Honestly that scares the hell out of me too, because we're deffinately not the nation we were 60 years ago.

True leadership, and true virtue isn't found in an opinion poll, or in some biased self serving news rag.

The true "warriors" what few we have these days, also don't take part in these bar room cock waving matches......they see their brothers across the world, and honor and respect them as such.

There are great soldiers in every nation....but the scalpel, is only as honorable as it's masters intentions.

[edit on 11/7/2008 by ForkandSpoon]

[edit on 11/7/2008 by ForkandSpoon]

I don't want to read this whole thread -- there is too much garbage here. I will just say that every fighting force is limited by the intelligence and creativity of its commanders. Add in the sheer incompetence of the U.S. civilian administration of Iraq, and I can only conclude that our soldiers have done the best they were allowed to do.