US-infantry, any good?

well would you prefer us to go out into the middle of the iraqi desert and discuss it there?

Whoever said US soldiers are trailer trash may want to look back in history and see how those trailer trash soldiers have preformed. Next time the US is liberation your arse from another country make sure you tell them, that you think they are trailer trash.

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Whoever said US soldiers are trailer trash may want to look back in history and see how those trailer trash soldiers have preformed. Next time the US is liberation your arse from another country make sure you tell them, that you think they are trailer trash.

"Next time the US is liberation your arse from another country make sure you tell them, that you think they are trailer trash" please exsplain this or at least make it make sense.

oh BTW we didnt say they were trailer trash just there not that well trained,by european standards. yes in the past but that is then and this is now.

The U.S forces (in general) arn't BADLY trained, but there are standards of soldiers, I think most people will agree that British and Australlian soldiers are most of the best trained soldiers in the world.

The thing about alot of american grunts is that they are given basic training, and are released kinda like trained thugs, with a shoot everything attitude. Those soldiers who have more training that this should be the standard of all the G.I's.

The Navy Seals I would deem as America's best Elite Unit, and these are very well trained.

So If you look at the Difference in training from Grunt/G.I all the way to the Navy Seals...
I think you will agree that the question wether US Infantry is any good is a hard one to answer.

Compared to the standard of the Standard British Army all the way to the SAS....
You will see every one of them are very well trained, even though it ranges from Very well trained Infantry all the way to the Most Elite Fighting Unit in the world.

But Still very good would you not say? I would find it hard to say the same thing about the American Infantry that I have about the British one.

Originally posted by devilwasp
well would you prefer us to go out into the middle of the iraqi desert and discuss it there?

What the hell is that supposed to mean?

Discuss what you want, but I am not an expert and as far as I can figure, neither are you.

Originally posted by Facefirst


What the hell is that supposed to mean?

Discuss what you want, but I am not an expert and as far as I can figure, neither are you.

arm chair generaling is done by people in safety far away from the war , so to counter this i suggested we go to the nearest conflict zone . iraq.thanks thats real kind of you to figure i aint an exspert ,but i know a bit more than any JD, also we all agree we are not exsperts but this does not mean we cant discuss and say or have opinions about things.
also what is wrong with haveing an opinion on which force is better?

The best Army in the world is the one that does not need fight at all.

Look at what the Rebels did in Sierra leone, once the British Army turned up.... In fact, we go into Africa alot, but rarely do the natives challenge us once we are there.

Kosovo...the British led the Ground Assault as the Americans where too timid, we stormed all the way to Pristina and had a show down with the Russians who turned up.... no fighting, just alot of backing down...

Look at what is happening in Iraq....

British Sector, fairly peaceful....
American Sector, the nasty smelling stuff has truly hit the fan....

Originally posted by stumason
The best Army in the world is the one that does not need fight at all.

Look at what the Rebels did in Sierra leone, once the British Army turned up.... In fact, we go into Africa alot, but rarely do the natives challenge us once we are there.

Kosovo...the British led the Ground Assault as the Americans where too timid, we stormed all the way to Pristina and had a show down with the Russians who turned up.... no fighting, just alot of backing down...

Look at what is happening in Iraq...

also remember what happened in afghanistan when the tunnels needed to be cleared...who did the USA call????...only the basic mountain troop we NEEDED to supply...we coulda put sf forces in there and we didnt need to
(no offence against rangers coz u are damn good troops and the best when needed)but they had to call our troops to sort it out...IMO

Originally posted by devilwasp
dude,no offence but thats kinda sadistic.

so is war

the army doesnt JUST kill.

thats its primary and fundamental purpose, the precise application of deadly force.
they are there to kill the enemy and then help with general stuff.
Oh, don't get me wrong, I agree whole heartedly that the military can, has, and should perform other services, but I am unsure that the regular military is the proper unit to garrision cities, police civilian populations, infiltrate resistant organizations, and patrol urban blocks. Just a thought anyway.

i mean remember the RN crews doing the firemans jobs.

No, i don't rembmer that, what are you talking about?

also i would say a soldier is perfect for cop buisness.

Ah, but they -do- still go throu cop school and police training, they require more specialized training.

yeah thats the general role of an officer,MP,public relations and basic army medical core.

and if thier country says protect these people they will.

They will do the best they can I agree. Don't get me wrong, they seem to be doing a good job. However, I have to wonder at just how much more effective a special unit with special training could do it. Same people, just different training. I'm not doubting the ability of the soldiers, just doubting that a specialized group couldn't do it even better. Because it looks like everyone is going to have to do a lot more street fighting and garrisoning.

"The Infantry of the United States is the best in the world"
please name to me one "infantry man" aka not an SF soldier a general duties infantry man, it can be marine or army . that has the same fitness as a navy seal?

Navy seals are infantry? I think what he meant was that the US infantry, compared to the infantry of other nations, besides, navy seals are special forces, and the regular army can't be special forces.

Originally posted by Heratix

Originally posted by stumason
The best Army in the world is the one that does not need fight at all.

Look at what the Rebels did in Sierra leone, once the British Army turned up.... In fact, we go into Africa alot, but rarely do the natives challenge us once we are there.

Kosovo...the British led the Ground Assault as the Americans where too timid, we stormed all the way to Pristina and had a show down with the Russians who turned up.... no fighting, just alot of backing down...

Look at what is happening in Iraq...

also remember what happened in afghanistan when the tunnels needed to be cleared...who did the USA call????...only the basic mountain troop we NEEDED to supply...we coulda put sf forces in there and we didnt need to
(no offence against rangers coz u are damn good troops and the best when needed)but they had to call our troops to sort it out...IMO

Load of BS, they didn't call British troops in specifically to sort it out. Where did you here this fantasy ? It was actually Australian SAS who intitiated the contact and called in air strikes for the next 24 hours. British troops were jus air lifted in because they were the closest air mobile group.
Brit SF didn't go in because the Americans didn't want them there, not because they were sooo good . The Brit SAS command had to beg the Americans for a mission, so they let the SAS attack a heroin factory which the Americans were going to bomb anyway. Even then it took 200 yes 200 SAS men to subdue 100 Al-qaeda fanatics.
In posted the link to the book on this battle on another thread. I cant think of its name at the moment, but I'll post the link when I do.

200 SAS.....Thats half the regiment!! Crikey! Bet that was an interesting fight!

(Just found out this was called Operation Trent..trying to locate more info)

Why the putting down of the SAS anyway? They are quite clearly the best in the business, and to say that we had to "beg" the Americans for missions is a bit sh*t!! The fact is they are all working together, no one party out there is claiming all the credit.
I would rather when you quote someone and say its BS, you didnt include my words in that quote, unless you say i am talking BS?

[edit on 18-9-2004 by stumason]

[edit on 18-9-2004 by stumason]

Originally posted by stumason
200 SAS.....Thats half the regiment!! Crikey! Bet that was an interesting fight!

(Just found out this was called Operation Trent..trying to locate more info)

Why the putting down of the SAS anyway? They are quite clearly the best in the business, and to say that we had to "beg" the Americans for missions is a bit sh*t!! The fact is they are all working together, no one party out there is claiming all the credit.
I would rather when you quote someone and say its BS, you didnt include my words in that quote, unless you say i am talking BS?

The Brit SAS aren't clearly the best, that is BS. Just because every ex-trooper seems to write a book does not make them the best. What proof do you have ? US Delta has seen much more action in the last 10 yaers than the SAS - they also have 2 Medal of Honor's from Somalia.
Well they did beg for a mission as the Americans didn't need the SAS, they had more than enough of their SF personel in theatre.
THe US Green Beret's some estimates say accounted for 20 - 40 000 Raliban mostly through airstrikes. Robin Moore ( who wrote the book the Green Beret's in the '60's )wrote a great book following the 4 GB teams inserted into Afghanistan at the beginning of the war. It's called Operation Dagger and is one of the best books I've read on SF combat.l

[edit on 18-9-2004 by mad scientist]

Originally posted by devilwasp

Originally posted by Facefirst


What the hell is that supposed to mean?

Discuss what you want, but I am not an expert and as far as I can figure, neither are you.

arm chair generaling is done by people in safety far away from the war , so to counter this i suggested we go to the nearest conflict zone . iraq.thanks thats real kind of you to figure i aint an exspert ,but i know a bit more than any JD, also we all agree we are not exsperts but this does not mean we cant discuss and say or have opinions about things.
also what is wrong with haveing an opinion on which force is better?

What the hell is a JD?

GO to the nearest combat zone to discuss things of this nature? Umm no.

Have an opinion all you want. I have not walked through Basra or Tikrit and neither have you.
.
.


I would never be so arrogant to say that I could understand combat while never having experienced it.
.
.

And two, this is turning into a willie size contest again.

I'll leave it to the pros to figure out who is the baddest.

Face

[edit on 18-9-2004 by Facefirst]

Originally posted by mad scientist

Originally posted by stumason
200 SAS.....Thats half the regiment!! Crikey! Bet that was an interesting fight!

(Just found out this was called Operation Trent..trying to locate more info)

Why the putting down of the SAS anyway? They are quite clearly the best in the business, and to say that we had to "beg" the Americans for missions is a bit sh*t!! The fact is they are all working together, no one party out there is claiming all the credit.
I would rather when you quote someone and say its BS, you didnt include my words in that quote, unless you say i am talking BS?

The Brit SAS aren't clearly the best, that is BS. Just because every ex-trooper seems to write a book does not make them the best. What proof do you have ? US Delta has seen much more action in the last 10 yaers than the SAS - they also have 2 Medal of Honor's from Somalia.
Well they did beg for a mission as the Americans didn't need the SAS, they had more than enough of their SF personel in theatre.
THe US Green Beret's some estimates say accounted for 20 - 40 000 Raliban mostly through airstrikes. Robin Moore ( who wrote the book the Green Beret's in the '60's )wrote a great book following the 4 GB teams inserted into Afghanistan at the beginning of the war. It's called Operation Dagger and is one of the best books I've read on SF combat.l

[edit on 18-9-2004 by mad scientist]

Erm, I some how doubt that you can know that the SAS have been in less "action" than the Delta Force. The SAS don't tell about any of their operations or what they are doing. The SAS is involved in LOADS of things though, and you wouldnt know about it.

The SAS could be in your back garden right now and you wouldnt know about it.

The SAS has been said, by alot of people (not just people in Great Britain) to be the most elite fighting force in the world. To be honest I think you'd really have to push it to be able to have 200 fighting men in the SAS!! Its that elite.

The thing about 200 SAS men having to take out 100 Al-Queda's men (which I SERRIOUSLY doubt is true!) could be that their position was given away, and the Al-Queda's men were in a very good position, with better fire power than the SAS, which in all respect means the mission has gone tits up... and this has happened to every special unit at some point, and usually more than once.

Just think about the 10,000 Zulu's against 300 British men in the Victorian days. Good position and Better firepower enabled the british to win that battle. It took the Zulu's 5000 warriors to defeat 100 British soldiers! So the Zulu's backed off.

So to many nations (except america) the SAS is deemed to be the most powerful and well trained elite fighting force on earth. The Americans just can't admit to going second place in somthing as far as alot of people are concerned.

Also, Just for you americans that wont belive it, here's somthing else to think about - The British SAS and the American Delta Force and the American Navy Seals fight each other in training; the British SAS comes out on top nearly all the time. So please dont start the crap the the Delta force or Navy Seals could beat the SAS, because they have tried and failed nearly every time.

EDIT: Extra Point

[edit on 18-9-2004 by The_Squid]

Originally posted by Facefirst


What the hell is a JD?

GO to the nearest combat zone to discuss things of this nature? Umm no.

Have an opinion all you want. I have not walked through Basra or Tikrit and neither have you.
.
.


I would never be so arrogant to say that I could understand combat while never having experienced it.
.
.

And two, this is turning into a willie size contest again.

I'll leave it to the pros to figure out who is the baddest.

Face

[edit on 18-9-2004 by Facefirst]

a john doe.
why not? at least then we wouldnt be arm chair generals as you seem to think.
so what we havnt walked in the combat zone so what?
i never said i understood combat,i understand the theory but have never put it into practice.
the pro's ? care to name a few?

Originally posted by The_Squid

Erm, I some how doubt that you can know that the SAS have been in less "action" than the Delta Force. The SAS don't tell about any of their operations or what they are doing. The SAS is involved in LOADS of things though, and you wouldnt know about it.

Erm, where is your proof they have I guess you know about all these fantasy operations they've been on. By your theory then every other SF have done loads of things you haven't heard of.

The SAS has been said, by alot of people (not just people in Great Britain) to be the most elite fighting force in the world. To be honest I think you'd really have to push it to be able to have 200 fighting men in the SAS!! Its that elite.
The thing about 200 SAS men having to take out 100 Al-Queda's men (which I SERRIOUSLY doubt is true!) could be that their position was given away, and the Al-Queda's men were in a very good position, with better fire power than the SAS, which in all respect means the mission has gone tits up... and this has happened to every special unit at some point, and usually more than once.

Where are all these people, surely you could find one quote off the net. Yes it was 200 men, read the book written with the SAS's permission. They aren't the supermen naive people like you think they are

www.amazon.co.uk...=1095502761/sr=1-12/ref=sr_1_2_12/026-9513028-6646818

Just think about the 10,000 Zulu's against 300 British men in the Victorian days. Good position and Better firepower enabled the british to win that battle. It took the Zulu's 5000 warriors to defeat 100 British soldiers! So the Zulu's backed off.

Ridiculous analogy, guns against spears, PLEASE.

So to many nations (except america) the SAS is deemed to be the most powerful and well trained elite fighting force on earth. The Americans just can't admit to going second place in somthing as far as alot of people are concerned.

I think you'd find that is not true, the Australian SAS are trained just as well and are better equipped than the Brits. Many European countries would disagree with your statements as well. It's only really the British who think their SAS is the best. I think you'd find that many special forces consider themselves the best.

Also, Just for you americans that wont belive it, here's somthing else to think about - The British SAS and the American Delta Force and the American Navy Seals fight each other in training; the British SAS comes out on top nearly all the time. So please dont start the crap the the Delta force or Navy Seals could beat the SAS, because they have tried and failed nearly every time.

Umm yeah right, Now your fantasies are really getting twisted. Where is your information to back this up ? Don't have any beause now you're really talking out of your a$$. Mate stop making stuff up I can pick it a mile away. PLEASE post, a link, where it states the SAS is constantly kicking everybody elses a$$ during training. I've been laughing so hard I think my guts about to split

Originally posted by Nygdan

so is war
.

yes but it doesnt mean you need to be.
.

thats its primary and fundamental purpose, the precise application of deadly force.
they are there to kill the enemy and then help with general stuff.

Oh, don't get me wrong, I agree whole heartedly that the military can, has, and should perform other services, but I am unsure that the regular military is the proper unit to garrision cities, police civilian populations, infiltrate resistant organizations, and patrol urban blocks. Just a thought anyway.
.
the primary job/role is to protect its citizens by any means possible by lethal force or other wise.

No, i don't rembmer that, what are you talking about?

the fire cews went on stirke so the royal navy crews took over for a while and as i remember it they done a damm good job.

Ah, but they -do- still go throu cop school and police training, they require more specialized training.

i wouldnt say so they are taught how to perform body checks. take prisoners, ID a target.

yeah thats the general role of an officer,MP,public relations and basic army medical core.
quote]
dude the army medical core is not a perfect role for the police job mabye hospitals but not policeing. yeah but basic soldiers still get target identification.

They will do the best they can I agree. Don't get me wrong, they seem to be doing a good job. However, I have to wonder at just how much more effective a special unit with special training could do it. Same people, just different training. I'm not doubting the ability of the soldiers, just doubting that a specialized group couldn't do it even better. Because it looks like everyone is going to have to do a lot more street fighting and garrisoning.

hmm i dont think a specual unit would would work that much better,mabye better at ending the conflict but think of the cost,time,training, its a one shot weapon also the army does have a pretty hard stance on law, that is good in some cases.

Navy seals are infantry? I think what he meant was that the US infantry, compared to the infantry of other nations, besides, navy seals are special forces, and the regular army can't be special forces.

no i mean any soldier that is as any infantry not an actual navy seal im meaning a general infantry man who is as physically fit as a navy seal?

[edit on 18-9-2004 by devilwasp]

I've seen US Marines (having been one), ROK Marines, Philippine's Marines, and Russian naval infantry, and Japanese mech infantry while stationed out of Japan and doing cross-training.

US Marines, ROK Marines, Philippine Marines, were all pretty hard core units with really good discipline, leadership, and level of skill. Of course all built by the USMC model.

Japanese Infantry were OK guys but they didn't have nearly the stamina, leadership, or level of skill the Marines had. They were mech infantry in Hokkaido we cross-trained with, and they constantly commented on how far the Marines humped.

Russian naval infantry I saw, granted this was in 1994 and a lot has changed, no doubt, but these kids were KIDS and I mean incredibly young, no one older than 19 except for lieutenant about 21, and they had no concept of discipline, leadership, or organization, and absolutely no weapons skills. Seriously, an entire platoon of these guys could use one razor blade a month.

I think you can make good fighters out of almost anyone in the world, but poor country boys are the best stock from which to make infantry.

Originally posted by mad scientist


The Brit SAS aren't clearly the best, that is BS. Just because every ex-trooper seems to write a book does not make them the best. What proof do you have ? US Delta has seen much more action in the last 10 yaers than the SAS - they also have 2 Medal of Honor's from Somalia.
Well they did beg for a mission as the Americans didn't need the SAS, they had more than enough of their SF personel in theatre.
THe US Green Beret's some estimates say accounted for 20 - 40 000 Raliban mostly through airstrikes. Robin Moore ( who wrote the book the Green Beret's in the '60's )wrote a great book following the 4 GB teams inserted into Afghanistan at the beginning of the war. It's called Operation Dagger and is one of the best books I've read on SF combat.l

[edit on 18-9-2004 by mad scientist]

yeah the SAS isnt the best its second best. you know who to? the SBS the hardest unit to get into.
so american delta force has seen more action has it? well has delta had to carry bergens weiing 55 pounds over breacon hills in less than a day to pass it?
yeah they didnt need us sure whatever you know if you didnt need us then why did you ask us to join you in your merry crusade?
also if you didnt need us then why did we have to save two of your CIA operatives?
also in gw1 the SAS were sent into destroy scuds the area where the SAS were to destroy them in all scud activity stopped in that area.
and in GW1 again
SAS patrols penetrated deep inside of Iraq, at one point a "mobile" fighting column from A Squadron was just 18 kilometers outside of Baghdad. The SAS played an important role in Iraq; they prevented Israelis from entering the war.
March 16th, 1998 a 4-man SAS patrol was sent to a southern part of Albania to rescue an aid worker named Robert Welch. mission sucess no causulties or hitch's
the SAS have been fighting drug wars since 1985 in columbia.
NI there the regiment fuaght both UVF and IRA soliders.

also we british only think thier the best? hmm then why have many a country asked us to train thier troops and not get americans in? Oh wait they did do that once they got americans in first then british ones in ,guess what the americans taught the columbians so bad fire drills they almost shot each other.



[edit on 18-9-2004 by devilwasp]

Are the US infantry the best in the world? Well in some areas of combat they are world class but when it comes to peace keeping and winning hearts & minds of local popuations there useless. News flash just because US SF are in hollywood movies dosnt make them better.

So who has the best SF? if the mearsureing stick is the number of Capabilities the countries SF perform then you would have to say that Australia and mayabe New Zealand has the worlds best SF.