US-infantry, any good?

I served in the first Gulf alongside the Americans and also in Bosnia. I was then part of a British Infantary Battalion. We were so pissed with the Americans in Bosnia. For instance we had to paint the roof of our (camoflauged) vehicles Lumonious orange just so the Americans would not take shots at us but did it stop them ? did it hell. They used to go out on routine patrols and for some reason cause absolute havoc and in the end we would get crashed out to go and deal with it. We in the British Army are also trained on the hearts and mind side of things aswell (as proven in iraq) however the yanks are bloody cowboys. They may have all the latest fancy kit but not really good at soldiering as far as im concerned from my experience with them. Just my opinion.

I also just noticed a post on P4 about the fact that someone also believes the American special forces are the best in the world. If thats the case then why does the american goverment to this day hire sas and ex sas to train the south american police in the combat against the drug cartels. If the american sf are so good why not use your own.

You cannot answer that question as a whole ,individual units can be better than others as can individual men/women.The outcome of an operation or excersise depends on so much more than the ability of individuals.Training and equipment is a better way of judgeing a countries capabillity.

Originally posted by boosted
I would have to say the US has the best infantry, not including the spec ops forces. I just dont think there is any other country with the size, money, technology and amount of training as the US infantry has, maybe England? China has a numerically HUGE infantry force, but as far as being as "good", effcient, and effective as the US I don't think so.

I have always heard that the Ghurkha soldiers are no joke. They believe its better to die than be a coward

and all kinds of other crazy stuff. I wouldn't want to fight them on the ground.

that`s why we got `em m8..lol(the ghurkha`s)

Originally posted by thesaint
I also just noticed a post on P4 about the fact that someone also believes the American special forces are the best in the world. If thats the case then why does the american goverment to this day hire sas and ex sas to train the south american police in the combat against the drug cartels. If the american sf are so good why not use your own.

Whether or not who is the best SF is debatable.

Actually the Americans do use their own as well as contracted sources to train the South Americans. It is a training camp in Georgia called "The School of the Americas." One of my friends (Ex-Delta Force Recon Sniper) was an instructor there towards the end of his military career.

He mentioned to me a few times that he had a great time training with as well as working with the British and French SF Commandos. He and his troops held them in high regard. He also said the respect was mutual.




[edit on 15-9-2004 by Facefirst]

I aint bein rude mate but i aint on about Camp americas or whatever it was. I am on about training and actually helping them follow through with operations and they dont live in a camp as such they skim between the cover of British Embassy and in the jungle. Believe me mate i seen it with my own eyes whats goin on.They are on a "We are here but not officially so dont tell anyone" Kinda thing. I aint doubting what your friend has told you but your friend obviously was not in the full picture of what was going on over there.

Originally posted by thesaint
I aint bein rude mate but i aint on about Camp americas or whatever it was. I am on about training and actually helping them follow through with operations and they dont live in a camp as such they skim between the cover of British Embassy and in the jungle. Believe me mate i seen it with my own eyes whats goin on.They are on a "We are here but not officially so dont tell anyone" Kinda thing. I aint doubting what your friend has told you but your friend obviously was not in the full picture of what was going on over there.

The US does have those things. It just does not get reported very much. IIRC, we call them "Spooks." They participated via the CIA in training our very own Frankenstein, "The Mujahadeen" in Afgahnistan during the Soviet occupation. It also sometimes politicaly makes sense to use other countries to train forces.


When he was referring to British and French SF, he said he participated in joint training and joint operations in Europe and I think the Gulf. This was during the cold war and during the 1st Gulf War. He also mentioned once(after a few beers) that these joint operations were sometimes behind Soviet Union lines. He would not give any specifics with regards to those actual operations other than that several fire-fights he personaly was in as well as casualties incurred were never disclosed. He also took a bullet during one of those operations.

But he still smiles when he occasionally talks about the French SF Commandos. He referred to them as "bad-asses." (extremely complimentary US slang!)



[edit on 15-9-2004 by Facefirst]

We did not do it alone. You are forgetting about the UK troops as well as other nations who particiapted in Gulf War 1. They deserve credit as well.

Credit yeah right? When the US has 90% of the troops and does 90% of the fighting we deserve almost all the credit we direct operations and our general was the commander for all the countries, done deal the Us deserves most of the credit sure the other countries killed like 11 Iraqis and destroyed 4 tanks but the rest was done by US military not to mention the Us paid for 90% of it too.

Yeah WestPoint23, US can do everything alone. Look how awesome they're doing in Iraq now that they decided that they would go at it alone, compared to how poorly we did in GW1 when we had a massive coalition.

Originally posted by WestPoint23

We did not do it alone. You are forgetting about the UK troops as well as other nations who particiapted in Gulf War 1. They deserve credit as well.

Credit yeah right? When the US has 90% of the troops and does 90% of the fighting we deserve almost all the credit we direct operations and our general was the commander for all the countries, done deal the Us deserves most of the credit sure the other countries killed like 11 Iraqis and destroyed 4 tanks but the rest was done by US military not to mention the Us paid for 90% of it too.

Yes, you deserve all the credit. Who else could so completely stuff a country as much as you ?
What is this American preoccupation about body count ? All the other countries killed like 11 Iraqi's and 4 tanks - sounds pretty stupid when someone else repeats it.

Let's face it most American GI's ( I emphasize GI's not more specialized units ) are trailer trash, who joined the Army to get a college education ( not that many would get a degree, not enough brain cells ).

I have no idea what all this bickering is about who's infantry is better than who's. I served in the U.S. Army (I had quit school and acquired my GED thinking I could get into the U.S. Marine Corps, was rejected due to fact I quit school! Shouldn't have quit school. I still regret that decision.)during a time of a restructuring overhaul and it happened to be during a time of unprecedented peace (1981-1985, the Reagan years) and though the Army infantry then was not the Army infantry we have today, it was still had a very capable infantry.

I'm not about to put down any other nations armed forces for the fact that each nation trains it's own armed forces to meet their individual criteria.

Yes, a damned good one at that, is the answer to the question what has been asked. Hands down. Every recruit, in all branches of the U.S.Armed Forces recieve top-notch training that is second to no other in the world.

We do have a few "wonders", but that's beside the point. So how about let's giving a little respect to others branches and armies of different nationalities.

Just my thoughts on the matter.



[edit on 15/9/04 by Intelearthling]

Originally posted by WestPoint23


Credit yeah right? When the US has 90% of the troops and does 90% of the fighting we deserve almost all the credit we direct operations and our general was the commander for all the countries, done deal the

So I figure you resent that since you were in that conflict? Those troops put their lives on the line as well. Let's see you do that.

Iagree with a lot of the comments made about this being a silly argument of battle of the Armies. Although earlier i did say how much the Americans pissed us off in Bosnia and the gulf a lot of the time it was general banter however it became serious when we had to go to the lengths of painting the roofs of our camoflauge vehicles bright orange just so the yanks wouldnt shoot us. All armys no matter how good or bad deserve some respect as how many people on here would take up arms and fight for their country if needed. Its hard work and i done it for 11 years and i would not wish the things i seen and done on anyone. Give them all respect for having the balls to stand up and fight.

so your saying that you wouldnt like british support?
wouldnt want british SF forces helping yours?
wouldnt want british forces looking after basra?
you know if you think your so great WHY did you want us to come along?
also i have to say american infantry ,although good are not the same as british army. we spend at least 3 more weeks training our men and women in combat manouvours and thats just the general guys.
alos your marines although very good are not any where near as better trained than ours. though you have a slightly larger force. mabye 4 or 7 times as big.

[edit on 16-9-2004 by devilwasp]

Originally posted by devilwasp
so your saying that you wouldnt like british support?
wouldnt want british SF forces helping yours?
wouldnt want british forces looking after basra?
you know if you think your so great WHY did you want us to come along?
also i have to say american infantry ,although good are not the same as british army. we spend at least 3 more weeks training our men and women in combat manouvours and thats just the general guys.
alos your marines although very good are not any where near as better trained than ours. though you have a slightly larger force. mabye 4 or 7 times as big.

[edit on 16-9-2004 by devilwasp]

Why don't you guys pull down your pants and get out a ruler?

This is ridiculous. This is"My Dad can beat up your Dad" talk. Enough. It gets really tired.

How about ways of improving armies. Or tech ideas.

Originally posted by Facefirst


Why don't you guys pull down your pants and get out a ruler?

This is ridiculous. This is"My Dad can beat up your Dad" talk. Enough. It gets really tired.

How about ways of improving armies. Or tech ideas.

exscuse me ? i asked some questions no need to go off and say "oh another cock fight"
all im saying is that RMC's are better trained because there are a smaller number of them ,stateing a fact. and firstly the US marine core would beat the RMC no bother cause they have access to more weapons and have a larger force. BUT if equal numbers then RMC would win cause thier trained to be comando's were as the general marine is designed to work as a team not a comando.
frankly that little dig you gave me,NO NEED.

Originally posted by devilwasp
exscuse me ? i asked some questions no need to go off and say "oh another cock fight"
all im saying is that RMC's are better trained because there are a smaller number of them ,stateing a fact. and firstly the US marine core would beat the RMC no bother cause they have access to more weapons and have a larger force. BUT if equal numbers then RMC would win cause thier trained to be comando's were as the general marine is designed to work as a team not a comando.
frankly that little dig you gave me,NO NEED.

It was not directed at anyone in particular and I shouldn't have quoted you directly. I am just sick of more and more threads that degenerate into "we'll kick your ass!" This armchair general stuff is getting tired. I'll give my opinion on things, but at the end of the day, I know that I am a layman with regards to such knowledge and most likely, you are too.

And I won't slag anyone un-nessecarily since I have not been through the military. (I have respect for almost anyone with the balls to sign up and follow through) Personally experiences such as TheSaint's are fine since they are actual first hand. But discussing who would win between allies seems pointless to me. Let them decide that through international training exercises and the winners can gloat all they want.

It is very interesting to discuss military capability or tech, but again, enough of the "My Dad can beat up your Dad talk." It is pointless.

And again, not directed directly at you, but what seems to be what these threads invariably degenerate into.

In my opinion the best Infrantry soilders are from Taiwan and the far east.They may be small little ******* but when it comes to fighting l would rather have them alongside me when the crap hits the fan than any regular British or American.

And just for the record my dad would kick all your dads asses

also this isnt arm chair generaling this is giveing opinion and using the facts and information obtained to prove points, arm chair generaling is like giveing one of us total comand over the army/navy/air force, or like letting a stupid civie assh**e polition in charge

Originally posted by devilwasp
also this isnt arm chair generaling this is giveing opinion and using the facts and information obtained to prove points, arm chair generaling is like giveing one of us total comand over the army/navy/air force, or like letting a stupid civie assh**e polition in charge

It is an old expression that has been used for years. We sometimes say armchair *insert name of profession" to refer to people who criticise from the safety of their own home or who do not have anything to do with the actual situations being discussed. That is why I singled out TheSaint's examples as being fine IMO since he has actual experience in these matters.

As well as armchair general, we have another expression. "Monday Morning Quarterback" which basically means anyone can criticise when using hind-sight. (Shoulda, coulda, woulda) The media is particularly good at that.