US-infantry, any good?

page: 3
2
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 14 2004 @ 09:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
Some US deaths to kills numbers



Yeah they really suck as a fighting force. They more often then not kill more of the enemy then the enemy kills of them.



Well, if you use that as a measurement then my country did just as good or better in the WW2 against a far more bigger army.

But my point was in this thread to compare the ground forces without the support of aerial bombardments. US-army has pretty good equipment of course but how do they stand against UK, Germany, Russia etc. And also how about the tactics and the skill of the personel in combat situations outside urban territories? I was trained as a anti tank(is that engineer in US-army), laying minefields(removing enemy's), blowing up bridges,building, disrupting enemy movement, increasing own troops movement etc. so I know basically what my country's army is capable of and I must say that trying to invade my country would be hard as the Russian tried it in WW2.

[edit on 14-9-2004 by Samiralfey]




posted on Sep, 14 2004 @ 10:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Samiralfey
Well, if you use that[kill to death ratio] as a measurement then my country did just as good or better in the WW2 against a far more bigger army.

What country is that?

But my point was in this thread to compare the ground forces without the support of aerial bombardments.
I had addressed that in my post. Are you also excluding vehicles? The problem with stripping the army down to basics is that the soldiers are trained to fight in certain combinations of arms. It wouldn't make sense to train the average US soldier to fight as a pure infantryman when he's going to have cavalry and armour and artillery support and i think you'd have to include helicopter action in this also. I mean, the US doesn't just send the infantry, and what the infantry is doing now in Iraq isn't what its trained to do either, to a certian extent anyway. Having troopers kick down doors and look for weapons or dissidents isn't their specialty. But in an open field, with, say, just what they carry, I'd say the US Army and Marines would do well enough against almost any enemy infantry with only what they can carry and no support.



posted on Sep, 14 2004 @ 11:05 PM
link   
I thought I'd throw in my two cents. (Please note that I was injured at the USMC's School of Infantry a few weeks before I should have joined the 2nd batallion, 5th Marines, so I've can't speak first-hand for training in "the fleet").

From experience as well as from being a bit of a military buff, I can tell you the following about our strengths and weaknesses:

Strengths: Our strengths seem to come from two places: 1. We have the money to give first-rate training and equipment to our men. 2. Especially in the Marine Corps we have strong traditions to cling to.

1. Our infantry places a very high emphasis on marksmanship.
2. We introduce every marine, rifleman and otherwise, to basic fireteam and squad tactics.
3. We place an emphasis on first aid training which saves lives and keeps less-severely wounded men combat-effective.
4. We familiarize with certain weapons we may not regularly carry or fire. For example, every infantryman fires the training-version of an AT-4 anti-tank weapon and recieves instruction on the weak points and methods of firing on tanks. This makes our men a little more flexible.
5. Our military, especially the Marine Corps, has developed the concept of combined arms heavily. Marine Infantry works in the MAGTF (Marine Air Ground Task Force) organization which ensures that Marine infantry is filling its intended roll, and being supported by armor artillery and airpower as is necessary)
6. We have a volunteer military with personal loyalties not only to their nation but to their service and its history. Marines don't fall break in the face of "shock and awe"- whatever may be coming they know all about Marines past who have been there, done that.
7. America has developed a very strong NCO corps which has been a long standing advantage over soviet-style militaries. Especially in the Marines, America has succeeded in creating a capable manuever-warfare force by pressing tactical decisions (and the training to make such decisions) to the lowest levels.)
8. Equipment is distributed appropriately- every fireteam has a base of fire weapon and an indirect fire weapon (the M249 SAW and M203 Grenade Launcher.) Radios and Night Vision goggles are fairly common equipment.
9. America places an extremly high emphasis on fighting at night. Our capability to do so is probably second to none, in the infantry and otherwise.

I could go on a bit more, but thats a pretty good start right there. Basically America enjoys tactical and organizational advantages over most non-NATO forces at the very least. Our men are generally more dependable and disciplined than those of forces which rely on conscription. Last but not least, our men have the tools and they know how to use them.


Disadvantages:
1. America over-generalizes training. Cooks and Infantryman are held to the same marksmanship and fitness standards.
2. Basic training does has been softened and does not provide the necessary temptering and sorting of recruits. Failures should be weeded out more strictly and to certain extents it should be acceptable to strike a recruit or restrict food and sleep.
3. The academic ability of Americans as a whole is sinking, and the military reflects this. This is a military issue which will have to be addressed in the civilian sector.
4. The American military sometimes feels invincible. Patrols may fail to vary their routes, officers may underestimate opposition, and generals may fail to finesse their planes enough. If "hey-diddle-diddle, right up the middle" becomes our standard approach, just because we have the technology to slug it out and win, eventually somebody clever is going to beat us.
5. The American military allows too many distractions for the first-term enlisted men. It's time to ban marriage in the first hitch and do away with off-base housing. The Spartans who invented western military discipline would roll in their graves.
6. Nobody to my knowledge has really figured out a good system for operations in a chemical environment. They can BS somebody else about 8 hours of sustained operations in MOPP gear. If you've read JARHEAD you will remember that you can't even play a friendly game of football in your MOPP suit.
7. American infantry weapons are high maintance. If an American unit were in harsh conditions (severe rain/mud) for several days of heavy fighting, I would expect to see things shift in favor of an enemy using the AK-47, unless US forces succeeded in cleaning their weapons frequently despite the constant contact with the enemy.
8. America keeps sending this message that there's going to be hell to pay if the men do something that looks bad on CNN. We can't have people hesitating to do whats needed. I don't care what you say, if I had an enemy officer I'd cut him apart piece by piece until he told me where his artillery observers were if it meant i could save the lives of my men in my unit- just as an example.
(Don't Geneva convention me either... I don't want to hear about the rules of war which are named for a city in a nation which played ball with Nazi Germany)

So America has weaknesses in the whole population which weaken the quality of our men, and we have some matters of perception to sort out- political correctness, complacency, and the like.


When it's all said and done, I can name 3 forces on this planet I'd want to be among in a warzone. 1. The US Military (especially Marines) 2. The UK Military (I won't specifiy marines because it's a special operations force for them). 3. The ROK Marines (Republic of Korea... thats the south for those of you who dont follow). ROK Marines are some hardened and sick individuals if I can trust what my drill instructors used to tell me. They used to taunt us for being 3-month recruits... ROK Marines spend a whole year in basic.



posted on Sep, 15 2004 @ 04:58 AM
link   

Nygdan
Who do you think is better tho?


There are a few Armies that could lay claim to having the best.

The UK is well known for the dicipline and Training it gives its troops and as most regiments can trace their begginings back hundreds of years it gives a very strong sense of belonging to a familiy. The UK's Regimental system has been compared to a tribal system were the Regiment is more important than anything else and inter Regiment rivalry is common. The UK also doesnt rotate troops to other regiments, you stay with your regiment all the way through your service there by strenthening the bond to that regiment.Its not uncommon to have Great Grandfather,Grandfather, Father and Son having served the same regiment giving a sense that you are in a huge family. The UK's record regarding its Army speaks for itself really.

The US ( for all the reasons stated )

Norway has prob the best Mountain Troops in the World. They are absolutaly Superb, even the UK's Royal Marines have a great deal of respect for their ability to Operate and survive in Mountain Operations.

Russia, the Russian's are without a doubt the toughest SOB's in the World their training is hellish and the dicipline harsh. The Russian Soldier can take a licking and keep on ticking. There arnt many Armies that can keep up with the Russians when it comes to Winter Warfare. They are tough, resiliant and can improvise in most situations. Their weakness is that because they are so bloody tough they will throw their toops in to a situation were other commanders would think twice about tackling resulting in high casualties.

The German Soldier has always been good.Dicipline, training and equipment has always been a priority for the Germans. Logistics and Military planning is also of the highest standard. Altough they have been the bad guys of the last Century there is no doubting the Quality of the German Soldier. The Old German Paratroop Regiment for instance has allways been held in the highest regard by the British Paratroop Regiment infact some of the old German Paratroop songs are still sung in the Para's regimental messes.


I could go on really but my point is that most Armies can hold some part of their Army up and say that they do something better than anyone else. There is no best over all Army in my opinion, but there are parts that are better than anyone elses which ever Army you look at.

The list ive just given is in no paticular order, its just a few examples of how different Countries can lay claim to being the best.

[edit on 15-9-2004 by Janus]


D

posted on Sep, 15 2004 @ 05:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Janus

Nygdan
Who do you think is better tho?


Russia, the Russian's are without a doubt the toughest SOB's in the World their training is hellish and the dicipline harsh. The Russian Soldier can take a licking and keep on ticking. There arnt many Armies that can keep up with the Russians when it comes to Winter Warfare. They are tough, resiliant and can improvise in most situations. Their weakness is that because they are so bloody tough they will throw their toops in to a situation were other commanders would think twice about tackling resulting in high casualties.



[edit on 15-9-2004 by Janus]


I wouldn't want to be in the Russian Army, definitely the toughest of any army. I've always believed that the best TRAINED army's are the smaller ones because of their size. ie, Germany, Scandanvian countries and Australia. From all the stuff I've read, and not being biased, the Australian army is pretty amazing with the amount of training the receive in every environment.



posted on Sep, 15 2004 @ 05:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Janus
[

Russia, the Russian's are without a doubt the toughest SOB's in the World their training is hellish and the dicipline harsh. The Russian Soldier can take a licking and keep on ticking. There arnt many Armies that can keep up with the Russians when it comes to Winter Warfare. They are tough, resiliant and can improvise in most situations. Their weakness is that because they are so bloody tough they will throw their toops in to a situation were other commanders would think twice about tackling resulting in high casualties.

The German Soldier has always been good.Dicipline, training and equipment has always been a priority for the Germans. Logistics and Military planning is also of the highest standard. Altough they have been the bad guys of the last Century there is no doubting the Quality of the German Soldier.
[edit on 15-9-2004 by Janus]


With regards to the Russians, just ask the Germans. (Napoleon as well!)

With regards to the Germans, just ask the Russians.

I would not want to be on the business end of either army!

I still have a soft spot for the Jarheads though....



[edit on 15-9-2004 by Facefirst]



posted on Sep, 15 2004 @ 06:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Janus


Russia, the Russian's are without a doubt the toughest SOB's in the World their training is hellish and the dicipline harsh. The Russian Soldier can take a licking and keep on ticking. There arnt many Armies that can keep up with the Russians when it comes to Winter Warfare. They are tough, resiliant and can improvise in most situations. Their weakness is that because they are so bloody tough they will throw their toops in to a situation were other commanders would think twice about tackling resulting in high casualties.


You're joking right ? They've had their a$$ kicked all over Afghanistan and now in Chechnya. Even in WW2, it was their sheer numbers which beat the Germans, not superior soldiering ability.



posted on Sep, 15 2004 @ 06:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by mad scientist

Originally posted by Janus


Russia, the Russian's are without a doubt the toughest SOB's in the World their training is hellish and the dicipline harsh. The Russian Soldier can take a licking and keep on ticking. There arnt many Armies that can keep up with the Russians when it comes to Winter Warfare. They are tough, resiliant and can improvise in most situations. Their weakness is that because they are so bloody tough they will throw their toops in to a situation were other commanders would think twice about tackling resulting in high casualties.


You're joking right ? They've had their a$$ kicked all over Afghanistan and now in Chechnya. Even in WW2, it was their sheer numbers which beat the Germans, not superior soldiering ability.


Just my opinion mate, nothing i have said is cast in stone. Everyone has different opinions as to what makes something the best, i was just giving a few examples as to what i thought were the best points of a few Armies.

[edit on 15-9-2004 by Janus]



posted on Sep, 15 2004 @ 07:02 AM
link   
So your saying that the Russians are good because they are suicidal in combat. I've seen and read enough to know the Russian soldiers in Chechnya are pissing their pants.

It seems you are basing your opinions of the Russians on a war which happened 60 years ago. Even then the Germans inflicted losses which were staggering.



posted on Sep, 15 2004 @ 07:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by mad scientist
So your saying that the Russians are good because they are suicidal in combat. I've seen and read enough to know the Russian soldiers in Chechnya are pissing their pants.

It seems you are basing your opinions of the Russians on a war which happened 60 years ago. Even then the Germans inflicted losses which were staggering.



Mad Scientist, im not going to get into a pissing contest with you about this, they are just my opinions nothing more. If you dont agree with what i said then thats fine, but im not going to get into an argument with you because you dont agree with me. ok? It serves no purpose.
You could contribute by giving some opinions as to what makes a good Army to you.



posted on Sep, 15 2004 @ 07:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Janus

Originally posted by mad scientist
So your saying that the Russians are good because they are suicidal in combat. I've seen and read enough to know the Russian soldiers in Chechnya are pissing their pants.

It seems you are basing your opinions of the Russians on a war which happened 60 years ago. Even then the Germans inflicted losses which were staggering.





Mad Scientist, im not going to get into a pissing contest with you about this, they are just my opinions nothing more. If you dont agree with what i said then thats fine, but im not going to get into an argument with you because you dont agree with me. ok? It serves no purpose.
You could contribute by giving some opinions as to what makes a good Army to you.


OK, fair enough. One thing I can say about the Spetznaz is they have be some of the fittest men about. They have to do everything for the first couple of weeks in training wearing a 25lb vest. I mean everything - running, crawling, rappelling etc. One Spetznaz said when he was finally allowed to take it off ( after 3 weeks ) he felt like he could fly.

[edit on 15-9-2004 by mad scientist]



posted on Sep, 15 2004 @ 07:19 AM
link   
From what ive read about Spetznaz they are very good Spec Force troops. As they are considered the best the Russians have im sure they are well equipped and supplied with the best Mother Russia can give them. Also i read somewhere that the training is so hard that its not uncommon for troops to killed in training.



posted on Sep, 15 2004 @ 07:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
Yeah they really suck as a fighting force. They more often then not kill more of the enemy then the enemy kills of them.

www.geocities.com...

users.erols.com...

Thats all well and good but how about some friendly fire statistics? Any yahoo can spray fire round like its going out of fashion but it takes real guts and intelligence to know friendly from foe in the heat of battle. Something US forces lack.



posted on Sep, 15 2004 @ 07:37 AM
link   
no-one here has mentioned the israeli army..they are probably some of the most battle hardened troops in the world???



posted on Sep, 15 2004 @ 08:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Heratix
no-one here has mentioned the israeli army..they are probably some of the most battle hardened troops in the world???


No doubt about it. They have seen more action than any other army in the past 50 yearsn and have been victorious every time.



posted on Sep, 15 2004 @ 09:10 AM
link   
The Infantry of the United States is the best in the world.

If it has failed in the past, its failure has been secondary to a political failure. In these cases, the government has tied the hands of the infantry and/or used them in a purpose for which they were not intended.

In Iraq right now, I think we could really be done with it rather quickly, if all the diplomacy didn't play a role. If we were to be allowed to simply sweep the cities of the vermin who cause the trouble, there would be no more trouble. Of course, that would mean action closely resembling WAR, and there are too many civilians in this country that would not have it. The people in this case would be the hinderance.

However, if the people would shut up for about 4 months, let the soldiers do their thing as they were trained to do it, we could just get out of there, as they would have it anyway. Ironic, isn't it?



posted on Sep, 15 2004 @ 09:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by DeltaChaos
However, if the people would shut up for about 4 months, let the soldiers do their thing as they were trained to do it, we could just get out of there, as they would have it anyway. Ironic, isn't it?


What, by killing everything that moves ? I know it's been said many times before, but they have to win hearts and minds. It just apalls me that the average intelligence of the US footsoldier seems so low, maybe it's their age. Still though, many come across as having dropped out of school at 14.



posted on Sep, 15 2004 @ 10:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by mad scientist

Originally posted by DeltaChaos
However, if the people would shut up for about 4 months, let the soldiers do their thing as they were trained to do it, we could just get out of there, as they would have it anyway. Ironic, isn't it?


What, by killing everything that moves ? I know it's been said many times before, but they have to win hearts and minds. It just apalls me that the average intelligence of the US footsoldier seems so low, maybe it's their age. Still though, many come across as having dropped out of school at 14.

No, kill everything that shoots at us. And bomb everything that makes bombs that are used to kill us. I'm sorry, collateral damage is all BUT avoidable. It's going to happen. But would you rather sit over there for 4 more years, or 4 more months? Look, had we a plan, and mitigated more risks, and constructed sound contingencies for the myriad possible outcomes, we'd quite possibly be back already. The administration planned to fail, wittingly or otherwise. It doesn't matter.

How do you intend to win these people's hearts and minds? I'm not talking about the majority of moderate Muslims in Iraq. We already won those hearts and minds, and promptly lost them to indifference as a result of poor work on the part of the politicians. I'm talking about the insistent ones. The ones that truly believe that we are infidels and that their last cause and justification for thier lives is to wipe western society off the map. It's culturecide, man. Bigger than genocide. What kind of action do you propose would be a good effort in order to win the hearts and minds of these people?

And as for the last thing, I was a soldier for 7 years, and I remain a soldier to this day. While I served, I met some of the most intelligent, creative, and enigmatic personalities that I believe I ever will. I think Ranger spidergooch can attest to that. Moreover, a 19 year old who has served for a year in the military is worlds beyond a civilian 19 year old in terms of common sense, maturity, and self-discipline.

As for me, I dropped out at 17. And from what you've show me, high school didn't really help you much.

Insulted,
Deltachaos

[edit on 15-9-2004 by DeltaChaos]



posted on Sep, 15 2004 @ 10:05 AM
link   
And tell me. Just how many soldiers do you know personally, anyway?



posted on Sep, 15 2004 @ 10:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Heratix

no m8..not the forces..the mindset/thinking...the american history comes mainly from our way of thinking(no offence intended)IMO

actually if you look a bit you can see a diffrent aproach to engageing the enemy. the american forces prefer to go in and kill ,pre emtive ,simple gets the job easily. nothing wrong with that but the british forces seem to be sneaky well as many as iv seen. mabye its cause of our size?





new topics
top topics
 
2
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join