US-infantry, any good?

Originally posted by jerico65
Whatever.

Russia was pretty big, and pretty formidable, too. Without using nukes, we would have really kicked the teeth out of their army in a fight. Of course, we'd have taken some really serious losses, too.

Not according to the vast majority of western intelligent and defense 'experts' ( and many weren't) NATO wouldn't and i am just interested to know why seem to believe differently.

Deep underground facilities? You have to think, are these important to destroy? Are they just a command and control facility? If so, they won't have much to command or control if their military is defeated in the field.

True but it helps to have command posts that approaches invulnerability in respect to conventional weaponry.



Magimushroom:

In the second world war losses were hard to hide ( losing massive tracts of land could not be explained away without admitting that something happened to the soldiers defending it) but when presented with the opportunity the USSR like almost all other countries does it best to inflate enemy casualties while trying to avoid acknowlegding it's own losses. This has certainly been true of Afghanistan and the later fighting in Balkans so lets not try to pain these countries as having very different leaders from our own. In the end even the worse dictator on Earth can only get away with so many obvious and or well known crimes before his people rises up replace him and for dictators to hold power for very long , despite serious crimes, they really need massive foreign aid and or obvious external threats that threaten to do even worse.

As cold war and post war studies have revealed the Soviet citizenry had been far better prepared to survive a prosecute a global nuclear war :

Civil Defense
A dozen years ago, we studied in detail Soviet civil defenses in a number of cities. If we believe those cities are typical and extrapolate the amount of building they have done in the meantime, then according to these unproved assumptions, the Soviets now have good shelters for most of their city population.

Whether this extrapolation is right or not, I do not know. The CIA has either neglected its duty to find out, or has found out -- but not told us. Plans to protect millions of people cannot be considered secret information. We should know, and we have a right to know. We have done practically nothing about civil defense.

www.commonwealthclub.org...

The Soviets spend the equivalent of more than $1 billion annually (the CIA in Soviet Civil Defense estimates approximately $2 billion) on their CD program and have conducted some tests of their city evacuation plans. Although the extent of these tests is not fully known, they concentrate efforts on protecting political and military leaders, industrial managers, and skilled workers. Professor Richard Pipes of Harvard sees the CD organization under Altunin as "...a kind of shadow government charged with responsibility for administering the country under the extreme stresses of nuclear war and its immediate aftermath."24

The potential lifesaving effectiveness of the Soviet CD program is not a matter of unanimous agreement. However, several studies estimate casualty rates as low as two to three percent of the Soviet population in the event of nuclear war.25

www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil...

According to Soviet civil defense SOVIET FATALITIES (SAY SOVIETS): "BETWEEN THREE AND-FOUR PERCENT" manuals, this plan for the evacuation and dispersal of people is designed to limit casualties in the event of a nuclear exchange to between three and four percent of the
population. Modest, feasible measures to protect machinery from nuclear effects greatly increase both the probability of industrial survival and U .S. retaliatory force requirements . . . [FEMA and the CIA] estimate that the Soviet Union, given time to implement fully these civil defense measures, could limit casualties to around fifty million, about half of which would be fatalities. This compares to the approximately 20 million Soviet fatalities suffered in World War II . There is no significant U .S. civil defense effort, and the Soviets recognize this. The potential impact of Soviet civil defense on our deterrent could be devastating. Calculations based on reasonable assumptions indicate that Soviet civil defense

www.tfxib.com...

So if any of these numbers are even remotely accurate the Soviet leadership in their supposed crazed quest for global dominance initiated a supreme effort to keep their citizens alive while prosecuting such. Comparatively the US political leaders did very little if anything to protect anyone but themselves and even in many instances went out of their way to dismantle both active and passive defenses that would have likely saved millions of American lives.

Stellar

It's funny, with the exception of Stellarx(as much as I'd hate to admit it) is the only person on this thread at this point actually backing up his claims. I've been reading some posts and some of you guys saying things like "US intelligence believes" or "It's well known that..." and yet have failed to provide any solid evidence of this...

Can't we all just admit that the US has a near infinite amount of resources compared to other countries, but the leaders don't necessarily know how to handle such power? I mean c'mon, the US's capabilities are near endless and yet look at what's happening, it doesn't take a rocket-scientist to figure out that we're in the hole here.

Shattered OUT...

Shattered its ridiculous to say the US has endless military supplies, that simply is not true unless you intend to bring back the draft and turn the industrial complex into a military one. All resources are finite, how long does it take to build a super carrier and at what cost, how easily could they be replaced, there not liberty ships are they.

The current wars and the burgeoning defense budget is crippling the country, health care, housing, education are all suffering because of it.

And if you had read my post, I said "compared to other countries".

Shattered OUT...

Stellar I know how good the Ruskies are and how well prepared they are, why are you telling me this.

Originally posted by magicmushroom
Stellar I know how good the Ruskies are and how well prepared they are, why are you telling me this.

It has absolutely nothing to do with how 'good' the 'Ruskies' are and everything to do with the apparent choices their sometimes brutal/murderous regimes made in terms of trying to protect everyone they did not lock up/kill. I tried to point out that the Soviet leaders, especially after Stalin, were by no means uncaring when it came to casualties in future wars and that they in fact built fighting systems ( tanks, aircraft etc) that were by no means indicative of a government that simply 'did not care'.

Hope that clears up some issues?

Stellar

reply to post by magicmushroom


WWII if I recall was somewhere over 60yrs ago.
I doubt there are too many still serving from then, or any of the same weapons systems still fielded. Again- when in recent history(i.e. the force that currently is in place), has the US had to rely on an ally to get save them from a foe, or been beaten in battle? In every engagement that US forces have been in, in Iraq, the Iraqi Army/insurgents have been resoundingly routed.

Originally posted by magicmushroom
Blue, if you have any knowledge of military campaigns you will realise that casulties are not just dead or wounded, there are accidents ,sickness and disease especially over prolonged periods ot time like 5 years and as for he figures there on the net if you wish to look. Its bad propaganda to tell you people just how many people are suffering, yes you are told about the dead and wounded but not casulties due to other causes.

I have quite a bit of knowledge(over 15yrs active duty). I understand that there are secondary and tertiary effects from accidents and disease, etc..
To say that there have been 107,000 since 2003, in addition to the other figures is a bit of an exaggeration though, as a lot of what you're referring to has been rolled up into the other figures.

hey guys
was just watching the "ross kemp in afghanistan" series. I noticed the british troops werent wearing night vision while out on night missions. Im pretty sure that our troops (australia) have night vision and was surprised to see the british not using them. this is not meant to be a slight at all on the british military at all, im aware we are a big rich country here with hardly any people so we can afford to kit out our tiny army pretty well i guess. I presume the americans get their own night vision. I was reminded of images of our troops in east timor walking around looking pretty futuristic with all sorts of cameras and night vision and stuff as part of their standard kit.

The reason the US infantry acts the way it does in combat situations is because they have too many rules holding them back (eg ROE).

The US is probably the best infantry in the world right now.

The British had the best Army and Navy in the 18th century.

The Russian had the best Tanks and Artillery after WWII.

The US had the best pilots in the 50's - 60's -- the Israeli's did in the 70's-80's.

I say this simply because nothing beats operational experience. A vast portion of the US military has already been rotated in and out and back into Afghanistan and Iraq.

After combat experience, then you can debate what countries train their infantry the best.

I have heard reports of Iraqi insurgants having more fear and concern for Marine troops than Army. As well as the fact that Marines tend to get the more difficult tasks.

[edit on 9-7-2008 by DoBravery]

Originally posted by DoBravery
The US is probably the best infantry in the world right now...

...I say this simply because nothing beats operational experience. A vast portion of the US military has already been rotated in and out and back into Afghanistan and Iraq.

Controversial. I agree that combat experience is the decider. However I fail to see how the average US infantryman will have more combat experience than his British counterpart.

The UK has a small army covering numerous operational commitments since the end of the last world war. This means a fast turn around time and more operational experience. I've spent more than half of my 18ish years on ops, which is about average. This includes twice in Iraq, twice in Afghanistan (which is where I am at the minute), once in Sierra Leonne, Once in Kosovo and god knows how many N. Ireland tours. I know of plenty of regiments on their third or fourth tours of both the major theatres at the minute.

Just because the US Army is the one you see on the TV of an evening doesn't mean that they're the only ones out there. There are armies racking up ops experience in areas that the US doesn't operate in and that the average US citizen doesn't know exist.

[edit on 9-7-2008 by PaddyInf]

Originally posted by PaddyInf

Controversial. I agree that combat experience is the decider. However I fail to see how the average US infantryman will have more combat experience than his British counterpart.

[edit on 9-7-2008 by PaddyInf]

Fair enough. . .
I went from answering the poster question, to saying the US was the best--which I see on average is very debateable.

I should have included our British allies as well.

My main point being that operational experience is very important in evaluating a miltary unit.

If someone posts "UK-infantry, any good?" I'll be sure to respond favorably.

The best infantry on the face of the planet are the special forces of boy scout troop 444.

Simply put, this question is highly irrational and cannot be logically answered with a fact. A battle is souly dependant on the fighting spirit of the men involved. So, the US could be the best one day, then the UK could be better the next day. It's a give and take kind of thing. Of course we are going to have the top contenders for the almighty "best" position. It'll change depending on the situation.

We all know who the top contenders are for the "best." I would put them all at a equal respect.

Wow, with all the testosterone, and puffing peacocks, and inane comments I would have thought this was a squid bar and some jarheads just walked in.

Look, all citizen soldiers are what they are. Average citizens....who are also soldiers. Their morals, education, and values reflect their citizens, and societies current standards. The military has only a precious number of months to add to that enough training to get a job completed. The military does NOT raise these kids, it tacks on a year sometimes at the most to 18 years of societies successes and failures.

So yeah you have great people in the uniform, and sometimes you have jerk offs, usually in the same proportion you have in the population.

I myself am concerned about the status of the American soldier, as I am also concerned as to the values, education, and morality of the average American Citizen these days.

All that said....I don't see a single other nation matching our military over all. Because every nation mentioned thus far, is also represented by their governments. The military simply being the scalpel of that government. And almost every one of the governments of these "elite" soldiers mentioned have become spineless, naive, self serving, organizations like they always been over the last few 1,000 years of the "old world's" existance. Always more interested in what their neighbor has, and what they can get then working together for a better future for all. Europe in the 21st century just uses lawyers, and corperate ceos in the place of the Assassins and pike weilding thugs of the dark ages....same old selfish, and inconsiderate politics....just a different era.

I've tread my feet on a few continants, and in all my travels it has reenforced my beliefs, that America even on a bad day, has more integrity, more genuiness, and more desire to be altruistic, then any other country in the world. Honestly that scares the hell out of me too, because we're deffinately not the nation we were 60 years ago.

True leadership, and true virtue isn't found in an opinion poll, or in some biased self serving news rag.

The true "warriors" what few we have these days, also don't take part in these bar room cock waving matches......they see their brothers across the world, and honor and respect them as such.

There are great soldiers in every nation....but the scalpel, is only as honorable as it's masters intentions.

[edit on 11/7/2008 by ForkandSpoon]

[edit on 11/7/2008 by ForkandSpoon]

LOL the US is by far not the most altruitic nation on earth. The thought of that is simply comical. There is half of the world that loathes the US. Even in the countries that are with you in this ridiculous Iraq war think you are stupid. Is there any outcome in Iraq that doesnt involve the US leaving and the place falling straight into the hands of the bad guys? These are of course the bad guys that Saddam used to lock up. The ones that never had any say in that country before we get there.

The US is an example of a plce which however well intentioned it is, they have almost zero understanding of how the world works outside its borders. The thought that everyone in the world wants to live our kind of democracy is a joke. The fact that we force our lifestyles on other people doesnt make us altruistic. It makes us arrogant and misguided.

I don't want to read this whole thread -- there is too much garbage here. I will just say that every fighting force is limited by the intelligence and creativity of its commanders. Add in the sheer incompetence of the U.S. civilian administration of Iraq, and I can only conclude that our soldiers have done the best they were allowed to do.

There are good, bad & average soldiers in every army - fact. There are no bad soldiers, only bad officers & NCOs - opinion, but one I agree with!

Have concluded that individual & unit performances will vary considerably, often on a day by day basis, depending on a complex web of variables. Broadly, professional infanteers of most Western/ NATO armies are comparable; they're remarkably similar "animals", in fact, & differences in training are largely "cultural" & not that significant re the long-term "end product". American Infantry at their best match the finest in the World, & have unrivalled resources/ logistical support etc, plus - compared with most other armies - there are lots of them!

Brit Infantry are more thoroughly trained at the basic/ MOS levels; their NCOs (who conduct most of the training) are exceptionally good, & "The Regimental System" gives huge advantages re unit cohesion etc.. American Infantry training at the basic/ MOS level involves, IMO, too much shouting, & too much large group instruction that prevents NCOs from ensuring recruits have absorbed thoroughly the really important lessons. PT is also surprisingly poor - relatively slow mass shuffles, a huge emphasis on big muscles, lots of macho chanting etc, but insufficient emphasis on developing real endurance. "Combatives" are ridiculously naive - as delivered most likely to get "virgin soldiers" into big trouble! Eg the look of shock on an instructor's face when introduced to a few obvious "counters" (eye gouging, testicle wrenching etc) to the grappling techniques being taught, & yet this was meant to be preparation for life & death situations! Appreciate this is only foundational level, & has broader intent (physical conditioning, confidence building, "warrior ethos" etc), but in the context of a short initial training package (15 weeks) feel this time could be put to better use - eg platoon/ squad battle drills, navigation etc..

That said, The US Army has superb facilities for continuation training of units/ formations, so the deficiencies of basic/ MOS initial training tend to get ironed out later: an American infanteer who takes his job seriously (and most do!) will have "caught up" with his Brit counterpart after a couple of years' service. The US Army is a very large, well resourced, institution, & unlike others has the luxury of regarding "Basic Training" as just that - basic. The British, in contrast, have to work on the basis that every newly minted infanteer is likely to be on operations as soon as he joins his battalion - since 1945 there's only been 1 year (1968) when that wasn't the case - and trains recruits accordingly.

So, to answer the question in short: American Infantry are certainly good - they haven't done badly over the years! Individually, on average, probably not the best trained or most experienced, but certainly the best resourced & supported, & part of the most powerful army the World has ever seen.

reply to post by StellarX


Stellar, it's not often I agree with you however your viewpoint of what would have happened cannot be ignored. Especially with sources such as this stating the likely outcome. I'm glad we never got to see how realty would hold up to theory, but it sure would have been interesting, to say the least.

When it comes to CONVENTIONAL warfare the U.S. is the leader of the pack. When it comes to UNCONVENTIONAL warfare (i.e. anti-terrorism and guerrilla warfare) the U.S. is little better at it than the Russians. The reason is you cannot effectively combat guerrilla tactics through conventional means because it is not about fire superiority and body counts. Our Conventional tactics are painfully predictable ( in both the Army and the Marines) and it is fully used against us. An undeniable example is the I.E.D. or roadside bomb. We have failed to find an effective countermeasure other than changing routes, speed and intervals. We need to let go of the vehicles and get back to being "ground pounders". Israel failed with Lebanon, Russia failed in Afghanistan and Chechnya and we will fail in Iraq and Afghanistan because of our love affair with technology and push button tactics that alienate the local populations. What does make the U.S. infantry move forward (at a crawl) are the changes made by the soldiers at the bottom, on the ground, in the fight, despite the manuals and the big wigs who think they know best. So "U.S. Infantry, any good?" I will say yes, but, NO THANKS to any general, politician, reporter or person that put their 2 cents in when they haven't experienced rounds coming there way