US-infantry, any good?

All Posters Read This!
Please could members refrain from starting threads that are based around:
what is your favourite gun
who would win if the ??? and ??? went to war with each other
who has the best army/navy/airforce/secret service........
etc etc ...
This forum is for information about Military weapons technology past, present, and future.

Lets redirect the conversation back into the avenue of the US soldier, their equipment and their position in the modern and future battlefields.

[edit on 15-11-2007 by UK Wizard]

back to the us soldier...........

one thing that history has shown is that veteran soldiers with some combat time will walk the dog on any highly trained, well equiped force. france 1941, octavian v everbody else, etc.. nothing like the crack of a real bullet near you head to get you motivated to s**t your pants, or embrace the suck and get some.

seems to me, that we (yes i'm american) are getting a little combat experience, and that translates into figuring out what really works, what really dosen't, and what needs to be done. no better school than the "sandbox". even as much as the unrealistic media and pc politicians try to keep the soldiers confused and handcuffed with an insane roe; the us soldier is the best.

I take alot of this personal since alot of my buddies are in Iraq right now.

All these armchair warriors talking about how we should replace .50cals with miniguns and how we should fight like we play Counterstrike just make it a tad worse.

We are actually fighting these damn wars, I woud appriciate some more respect...

US infantry any good? what the hell kind of question is that?

I apologize for my rant....

Originally posted by GrOuNd_ZeRo
I take alot of this personal since alot of my buddies are in Iraq right now.

All these armchair warriors talking about how we should replace .50cals with miniguns and how we should fight like we play Counterstrike just make it a tad worse.

We are actually fighting these damn wars, I woud appriciate some more respect...

I agree. There are a few threads on the go at the minute that are filled with people with no real-world experience but continue to act as authorities. In reality the only experience they have is Black Hawk Down and Ghost Recon.

Please remember that the ability to quote Google searches and read a field manual does not equal experience. You learn more in your first 6 months in the forces than you could in 10 years of looking these things up.

Knowledge of technical specifications is usually a waste of time. Soldiering is only learned through getting your boots muddy. How many on here have actual experience of training with the US Army? My experience is limited to a couple of attachments/exercises over the years, so my posts reflect this. Many of you have never had anything to do with it, yet make sweeping statements.

Please be aware of your experience before making comments.

[edit on 18-11-2007 by PaddyInf]

Originally posted by Samiralfey
OK, we have seen how effective the US airweapon is in bombing(I won't mention combat nor dogfight) situations but how about the infantry compared to other countries? I am not too impressed with the way, for example, marines act in Iraq in combat situations. 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?

What the hell are you talking about........The USMC had so many head shots in Falluja that the DOD had to check too see if they were capping POWs. The ARMY moved so fast in the start that it made the German blitz into Poland look slow. The rest is just aftermath...4000 KIA is nothing..In past wars that was a slow month...The US armed forces are the greatest fighting force the world has ever seen.

Mind you but US hasn't fought a proper and modern army in six decades, so unilaterally declaring them the best there has ever been is a bit arrogant...

On my experience USMC has a bad command structure, the men are good fighters but entirely lack initiative and entire platoons grind to halt if comms are lost, individual soldiers are unable to make any decisions beyond to shoot or not...

Of course this is based on a single two week exercise with a MEU... but my honest opinion anyway. Brittish and Dutch were far more professional and their NCOs kept things running even when comms whent down.

[edit on 26-1-2008 by northwolf]

Originally posted by Samiralfey
OK, we have seen how effective the US airweapon is in bombing(I won't mention combat nor dogfight) situations but how about the infantry compared to other countries? I am not too impressed with the way, for example, marines act in Iraq in combat situations. 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?

the weaponry/technology used is phenomenal.
but the training the soldure's receive and the "work ethic's" of the soldure's themselve's....~SUCKS~....the highest ranking officer's in the American/afghan conflict will tell you that 25 canadian soldure's with our crappy technology, will get a job done more efficiently and faster than 100 American soldures.

reply to post by Infadel


I'd love to see them quoted on saying that.

Northwolf, the point you make I think is valid to an extent. I think however, it is extremely more difficult to fight an unseen enemy than an enemy in an open field with tanks. Just because we're only fighting rats with guns and RPG's, doesn't mean they aren't qualified as a dangerous enemy, they're still rats with guns and RPG's, and rats are excellent at hiding, running, and pissing you off.

Shattered OUT...

Originally posted by northwolf
Mind you but US hasn't fought a proper and modern army in six decades, so unilaterally declaring them the best there has ever been is a bit arrogant...

I agree with that but isn't the type of combat we have fought since the Vietnam war the most difficult one of all to succeed in? Given the fact that there are so many more factors which must be dealt with. I was under the impression that large conventional conflicts were the bred and butter of the US military machine. Maybe man for man we're not the "best" but as a whole I'm almost tempted to say it.

Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo
And here's something else to consider. The Army is working hard to repalce the M-16A2. The Marines are upgrading to the M-16A4.

We used the A4 in basic training 4 years ago at Ft. Benning (Army)

The thing to remember is that within any military, there are going to be better units and worse units. Some are better as a result of leadership, or due to the seasoned and experienced members.On the flip side, if you have poor leadership or inexperienced troops, a unit will not perform a given task as well as one without that hindrance. To simply say Country A's troops are better than Country B's, without taking such things into consideration, can skew results and be misleading. I suspect the best US troops are as good as anybody, per given task.

reply to post by mad scientist


(You competed against Canadian soldiers on the rifle range ? These soldiers must be of low quality if they have to test their skills against 16 year old kids.)

That's enough of the brow beating. If you knew anything about the competition you are making fun of(and apparently you don't) you would really be impressed by this kid's accomplishments.

and then you just had to bash a canadian soldier's marksmanship in the same competition as well as their quality.

just who's army do you think is ranked among the highest in UN peace keeping abilities?

i will let you reasearch that one yourself since all of your military experience seems to be based on web browsing.

bet you've never had to check your bunk space for spiders,scorpions or snakes have you?

to go on topic(sorry for the rant)

i have met a few "grunts" and aircrew(blackhawk) on exercise and they seem to be very professional. some of the ways they do things don't make sense to me( vehicles break down and the operators sometimes wait a day for repair crews for a flat tire or a thrown track) but that's the way they operate so who am i to judge. and they do have some nifty gear that some of our guys would give their left nut to have as regular issue lol.

I would have to say no. We " The United States" have a great military both air, naval, and ground wise. Our troops are some if not the most well trained in the world and im not just saying this because im a die hard American. Only reason we are experiencing some trouble in Iraq is because the people we are fighting are using gorilla tactics in which personally i don't think we are prepared for and because in Iraq we truly don't know who's the enemy and that has been stated by many nations helping us. This effects the soldiers mind during combat but all in all no i have to disagree with you i think the U.S Forces are great and if anything i think we just lack the right enough of funding.

yeah they upgraded that one after korea," when the british shot the germans ducked,when the germans shot the british ducked when the americans shot every fu**er droped.

I guess both of them should have changed after Vietnam. Neither shooting nor bombing did the trick there. I think the greatest problem with the Army is the age of our soldiers. True, some are very mature, but most are highschool graduates who are'nt even alowed to drink and we send them in harm's way with gun in hand. As for their lethality, well, if you give a guy a gun and several clips of ammo he's bound to hit something. Not much training is needed for killing.

reply to post by 3vilscript


Most soldiers in every military are in the 18-25 age range. As for training, you might want to do a little more research before just spouting off rhetoric about giving a kid a gun and some ammo, and sending them into battle.

reply to post by BlueRaja


Yes, but not all have the mentality that we have here in the states. And no training can prepare you for the things you'll see in battle. I dont mean to get you angry there man. I was just giving my opinion... after all thats the only thing we could do in this thread... give opinions.

Ok now that i,ve read most of the post i will tell you what my opinion is as a former marine i will honestly say that if i had to have anybody by my said it would be the BRITS or CANADIANS but never the US army so there you go the US infantry is not the best they aint even close to it the U.S.M.C. is the best fighting force on earth

Originally posted by Papa Sierra
Ok now that i,ve read most of the post i will tell you what my opinion is as a former marine i will honestly say that if i had to have anybody by my said it would be the BRITS or CANADIANS but never the US army so there you go the US infantry is not the best they aint even close to it the U.S.M.C. is the best fighting force on earth

Dont forget the Aussies, I hear on there training missions alone theyre driving around 50mph shooting a 50 cal on top. I hear theyre pretty crazy.

U.S. Army Infantry training is insane. Then when you go to airborne school, get even more intense.