Originally posted by Samiralfey
I am not too impressed with the way, for example, marines act in Iraq in combat situations.
You mean you aren't impressed with wining? The army and marines are doing a spectacular job. I expect we'll all see more use of them in teh syrian
and iranian wars. Actually, in the Syrian War they'll probably do much the same as in Iraq, tho considering that the country is much smaller it
should be much quicker to defeat the governement there. The Turks might also might an effective fighting force in Syria too, I can't imagine that
they'd pass up the oppurtunity to reclaim that country once the poo really hits the fan.
Also it is really no good measurement against Afganistan nor Iraqi army troops since their army was a bit non existence. So does the US-army
rely mainly on the airweapon to gain success in combat situations?
Of course. Why waste ground troops and vehicles when you can kill the enemy from miles above 'im? Every army that has had effective artillery
(which, in a sense, is what the airforce is in these situations) makes ample use of them. As far as some sort of head to head, well, the nazis the US
and Brits fought in WWII were supposed to be pretty decent. Of course, I have read that the western front troops were reinforced with people who had
been on teh eastern front, where the uber-brutal fighting with the ruskies had been, so its debatable if they faced the top of the line reich troops.
But basically every army that has met the US infantry head on has been defeated so far, and the gap between training and equiping between the US army
and other armies has only widened. I expect that the German military and of course the british military could give the US army some problems,
certainly pound for pound, especially since the US basically rebuilt the German armies (at least as far as the marshall plan and cold war preparations
for a soviet invasion of eastern europe goes). And along with the Brits one would have to include their colonials, and I would say the poles and
italians too, again, pound for pound, foot to foot. Also, americans are a well fed people, to say the least, and american soldiers get meals that are
reinforced and enriched and have lots of milk available. So even stripped of equipment and specialized combat training, I'd bet the most american
and western armies wouldn't have a problem with any other armies, tho that basic nutritional advantage is a gap that is narrowing in some instances.
I'd hate to see these iraqis in a decade or two if they actuall pullthemselves together and acheive western standards of living, similar to the early
hussein era. I suspect that they'll be a bit more bellicose than the turks. I don't know much about the turk army, tho its supposed to be
relatively modernized if nothing else, however, its all rather theoretical. Democracies don't do two things. Have famines, and go to war with one
another. (India being the famine exception, but some would argue thats nigh purposeful)
Was there some army in particular you were thinking of? I think the US army will do very well in most situations it faces for a while. Look at the
British Imperial Army that used to be around. They policed a quarter of the world and fought multiple wars in series on different continents, and
with only volunteers, who didn't have the ludicrous technological advantage that teh US has over any reasonably likely opponents (you
know, like invisible planes, ships, nigh indestructible heavy tanks, ability to fight at night as if it were daylight, ability to see thru walls,
tactical nuclear warheads, depleted uranium rounds, fast moving armoured personnel carriers, ability to see in real time the entire battle field and
coordinate with strategic centers anywhere on the globe, etc). Heck, they're even near on issueing suits that will make their infantry invisible
(well, 'smart camoflage' anyway) I mean, if we're talking about comparably sized infantry units going head to head, I'd definteiyl put my money
on the US each time.