US-infantry, any good?

Some US deaths to kills numbers

Battle of Saipan - US invades Island of Saipan. 3K killed
13K wounded or MIA . 29k enemies killed

Iwo Jima- 6K killed , 21k enemies killed

Korean War-33,741 Americans killed , North K130,000 KIA ,China 110,000 KIA

Tet Offensive-6 K - US and South Vietnamese
50 K - North Vietnamese KIA

Gulf War 50-100,000 Iraq casualties, 143 US

Somalia 18 U.S. Rangers more than 1000 Somalis were killed

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...

Another thing, people keep harping on how the US in the Gulf Wars, have higher Friendly fire numbers than, say, the British. Well, look at which nation is doing most of the firing and bombing. If the US performs 90% of bombing missions, then it would make sense that they would incur 90% of friendly fire incidences.

The US Military can lay down an awsome amout of fire power. The kill rates you mentioned dont really mean that much Shadow, after all look at the Opponents you have quoted. The reason i think the figures are so one sided is mainly because the Vietamise, Somalies etc were fighting the best equipped Army in the World with Air support, superior logistics, and they were fighting Proffesional Soldiers.
War is more than how many you can kill and to fixate on kill ratios, as the War in Vietnam shows, dosent win Wars.
The Average US G.I. is really not better and no worse than any other Proffesional Soldier in any other Volenteer Army in the World. But what gives the US the edge is the equipment and the backup they can expect to have that will help them in any situation you can care to mention. Close Air support, Heavy Armour, Superior Infantry Weapons, Carrier based support, Medical facilities and evac the list goes on.
Really the question of if the US Army is any good has been answered, yes they are good. And if you asked any Soldier in the world, and if that Soldier put aside proffesional jealousy and pride to one side, he would say the same thing. But are they the best? No i dont think so but if you take the US Army as a whole package then they are very close.

Janus,

Great post. The U.S. Army and U.S. Marine Corps infantry are simply well-equipped and well supported.

In warfare, it's all about the help you have.

Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo
Janus,

Great post. The U.S. Army and U.S. Marine Corps infantry are simply well-equipped and well supported.

In warfare, it's all about the help you have.

I served in the British Army for 4 years and im very proud of what my Countries Armed forces can achieve on a shoe string budget.
I was just quoting the hard facts. When it comes to logistics and support the US really has no rival. Sometimes in this kind of " we are better than you" discussion people tend to forget that it take more than a Infantry Soldier to make an Army. The amount of equipment and the quality of the Soldier distrubuting that equipment is just as important.
The way my Government treats its Soldiers in regard to Supply and equipment is damn near crimminal at times. They expect miracles at times and so far we have delivered but sooner or later we wont be able to.Sadly our armed forces are streched almost to breaking point due to Government cut backs.

Originally posted by Janus
The US Military can lay down an awsome amout of fire power. The kill rates you mentioned dont really mean that much Shadow, after all look at the Opponents you have quoted. The reason i think the figures are so one sided is mainly because the Vietamise, Somalies etc were fighting the best equipped Army in the World with Air support, superior logistics, and they were fighting Proffesional Soldiers.
War is more than how many you can kill and to fixate on kill ratios, as the War in Vietnam shows, dosent win Wars.
The Average US G.I. is really not better and no worse than any other Proffesional Soldier in any other Volenteer Army in the World. But what gives the US the edge is the equipment and the backup they can expect to have that will help them in any situation you can care to mention. Close Air support, Heavy Armour, Superior Infantry Weapons, Carrier based support, Medical facilities and evac the list goes on.
Really the question of if the US Army is any good has been answered, yes they are good. And if you asked any Soldier in the world, and if that Soldier put aside proffesional jealousy and pride to one side, he would say the same thing. But are they the best? No i dont think so but if you take the US Army as a whole package then they are very close.

All the equipment in the world doesn't mean a hill of beans unless you make fighters good enough to use it to its maximum.

US Marines train constantly under extremely adverse conditions. The discipline and espirit de corps are extremely high. The leadership and example is awesome. The education of Marines in all aspects of warfare and its history is better than I've seen in any other servce.

What other military in the world has all of its troops, from cooks to generals, qualifying annually with their service rifle, firing on 36" profile targets from 500 yards.

In World War One check out the Battle of Belleau Wood. Germans nicknamed the Marines 'Tuefelhunden' after that engagement and German Intel classified Marines as shock troops.

It's an extremely good fighting force not because I was in it, but because Marines realize that the intangible things in a fighter and fighting force are more important than the equipment.

Originally posted by taibunsuu

In World War One check out the Battle of Belleau Wood. Germans nicknamed the Marines 'Tuefelhunden' after that engagement and German Intel classified Marines as shock troops.

Whats "Tuefelhunden" mean?

Originally posted by ShadowXIX

Originally posted by taibunsuu

In World War One check out the Battle of Belleau Wood. Germans nicknamed the Marines 'Tuefelhunden' after that engagement and German Intel classified Marines as shock troops.

Whats "Tuefelhunden" mean?

'Teufelhunden' means 'devil dogs.' Also, shock troops was Germany's highest classification of infantry.

The Marines use equipment that the U.S. Army and modern military America would call primitive. They still use the M-1911, they still use the UH-1N and the AH-1W, the oldest currently active artillery gun, and even the M-60.

Yet they can bring firepower like nobody else. Plus they got the support of an entire CVBG!

Marines produce so much power because their training enhances effectiveness of their equipment.

Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo
The Marines use equipment that the U.S. Army and modern military America would call primitive. They still use the M-1911, they still use the UH-1N and the AH-1W, the oldest currently active artillery gun, and even the M-60.

Yet they can bring firepower like nobody else. Plus they got the support of an entire CVBG!

Marines produce so much power because their training enhances effectiveness of their equipment.

I have been out for some time, but when I left in 1997 they had switched to the 9mm, and the M60E3 was replaced by M240G I believe.

But just look at the CH-46. Some of them are now flying with patched bulletholes from 3 wars.

Originally posted by taibunsuu

Originally posted by Janus
The US Military can lay down an awsome amout of fire power. The kill rates you mentioned dont really mean that much Shadow, after all look at the Opponents you have quoted. The reason i think the figures are so one sided is mainly because the Vietamise, Somalies etc were fighting the best equipped Army in the World with Air support, superior logistics, and they were fighting Proffesional Soldiers.
War is more than how many you can kill and to fixate on kill ratios, as the War in Vietnam shows, dosent win Wars.
The Average US G.I. is really not better and no worse than any other Proffesional Soldier in any other Volenteer Army in the World. But what gives the US the edge is the equipment and the backup they can expect to have that will help them in any situation you can care to mention. Close Air support, Heavy Armour, Superior Infantry Weapons, Carrier based support, Medical facilities and evac the list goes on.
Really the question of if the US Army is any good has been answered, yes they are good. And if you asked any Soldier in the world, and if that Soldier put aside proffesional jealousy and pride to one side, he would say the same thing. But are they the best? No i dont think so but if you take the US Army as a whole package then they are very close.

All the equipment in the world doesn't mean a hill of beans unless you make fighters good enough to use it to its maximum.

US Marines train constantly under extremely adverse conditions. The discipline and espirit de corps are extremely high. The leadership and example is awesome. The education of Marines in all aspects of warfare and its history is better than I've seen in any other servce.

What other military in the world has all of its troops, from cooks to generals, qualifying annually with their service rifle, firing on 36" profile targets from 500 yards.

In World War One check out the Battle of Belleau Wood. Germans nicknamed the Marines 'Tuefelhunden' after that engagement and German Intel classified Marines as shock troops.

It's an extremely good fighting force not because I was in it, but because Marines realize that the intangible things in a fighter and fighting force are more important than the equipment.

You will find that kind of espirit de corps in most Volenteer Armies of the world my Regiment for instance is over 300 years old and has fought in all the wars my county has been a part of over that time. You are right that Fighting Spirit is an important part of the efectiveness of any Army. My point was that the support that the US can call on give them a little extra.
And the Germans had a few choice words about us too, after the battles we fought like the Somme, Pashandale, Ypes etc, none of them very nice.

[edit on 14-9-2004 by Janus]

Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo
The Marines use equipment that the U.S. Army and modern military America would call primitive. They still use the M-1911, they still use the UH-1N and the AH-1W, the oldest currently active artillery gun, and even the M-60.

Yet they can bring firepower like nobody else. Plus they got the support of an entire CVBG!

Marines produce so much power because their training enhances effectiveness of their equipment.

I'm pretty sure the Marines held onto the 1911 as long as they did because they favored it over the 9mm, not because they couldn't afford it.

Originally posted by taibunsuu

Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo
The Marines use equipment that the U.S. Army and modern military America would call primitive. They still use the M-1911, they still use the UH-1N and the AH-1W, the oldest currently active artillery gun, and even the M-60.

Yet they can bring firepower like nobody else. Plus they got the support of an entire CVBG!

Marines produce so much power because their training enhances effectiveness of their equipment.

I have been out for some time, but when I left in 1997 they had switched to the 9mm, and the M60E3 was replaced by M240G I believe.

But just look at the CH-46. Some of them are now flying with patched bulletholes from 3 wars.

Well, the M-1911 is still used by Force Recon and the various specialized units.

And who can forget the CH-46? Marines certainly make the best of what they have.

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.

Originally posted by taibunsuu




'Teufelhunden' means 'devil dogs.' Also, shock troops was Germany's highest classification of infantry.

I remember My Grand father talking about Scottish troops in WW2 and he said they were often called "The Ladies from Hell" Due to the kilts some wore and how well they fought.

[edit on 14-9-2004 by ShadowXIX]

Originally posted by Samiralfey
I am not too impressed with the way, for example, marines act in Iraq in combat situations.

You mean you aren't impressed with wining? The army and marines are doing a spectacular job. I expect we'll all see more use of them in teh syrian and iranian wars. Actually, in the Syrian War they'll probably do much the same as in Iraq, tho considering that the country is much smaller it should be much quicker to defeat the governement there. The Turks might also might an effective fighting force in Syria too, I can't imagine that they'd pass up the oppurtunity to reclaim that country once the poo really hits the fan.

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?

Of course. Why waste ground troops and vehicles when you can kill the enemy from miles above 'im? Every army that has had effective artillery (which, in a sense, is what the airforce is in these situations) makes ample use of them. As far as some sort of head to head, well, the nazis the US and Brits fought in WWII were supposed to be pretty decent. Of course, I have read that the western front troops were reinforced with people who had been on teh eastern front, where the uber-brutal fighting with the ruskies had been, so its debatable if they faced the top of the line reich troops. But basically every army that has met the US infantry head on has been defeated so far, and the gap between training and equiping between the US army and other armies has only widened. I expect that the German military and of course the british military could give the US army some problems, certainly pound for pound, especially since the US basically rebuilt the German armies (at least as far as the marshall plan and cold war preparations for a soviet invasion of eastern europe goes). And along with the Brits one would have to include their colonials, and I would say the poles and italians too, again, pound for pound, foot to foot. Also, americans are a well fed people, to say the least, and american soldiers get meals that are reinforced and enriched and have lots of milk available. So even stripped of equipment and specialized combat training, I'd bet the most american and western armies wouldn't have a problem with any other armies, tho that basic nutritional advantage is a gap that is narrowing in some instances. I'd hate to see these iraqis in a decade or two if they actuall pullthemselves together and acheive western standards of living, similar to the early hussein era. I suspect that they'll be a bit more bellicose than the turks. I don't know much about the turk army, tho its supposed to be relatively modernized if nothing else, however, its all rather theoretical. Democracies don't do two things. Have famines, and go to war with one another. (India being the famine exception, but some would argue thats nigh purposeful)

Was there some army in particular you were thinking of? I think the US army will do very well in most situations it faces for a while. Look at the British Imperial Army that used to be around. They policed a quarter of the world and fought multiple wars in series on different continents, and thatswith only volunteers, who didn't have the ludicrous technological advantage that teh US has over any reasonably likely opponents (you know, like invisible planes, ships, nigh indestructible heavy tanks, ability to fight at night as if it were daylight, ability to see thru walls, tactical nuclear warheads, depleted uranium rounds, fast moving armoured personnel carriers, ability to see in real time the entire battle field and coordinate with strategic centers anywhere on the globe, etc). Heck, they're even near on issueing suits that will make their infantry invisible (well, 'smart camoflage' anyway) I mean, if we're talking about comparably sized infantry units going head to head, I'd definteiyl put my money on the US each time.

Also it is really no good measurement against Afganistan nor Iraqi army troops since their army was a bit non existence.

In 91 Iraq had the 4 largest army and over 4 thousand tanks, the Us won the war in 100 hours talk about impressive. Our ground forces will beat any country in open combat but when our soldiers are told to act as cops and not soldiers things get messy.

Originally posted by ShadowXIX

Originally posted by taibunsuu


Whats "Tuefelhunden" mean?

'Teufelhunden' means 'devil dogs.' Also, shock troops was Germany's highest classification of infantry.

I remember My Grand father talking about Scottish troops in WW2 and he said they were often called "The Ladies from Hell" Due to the kilts some wore and how well they fought.

Lol theres nothing like an angry Scotsman to put the fear of god into you. Some of our best Snipers came from the big estates in Scotland, they invented the Gilley Suit and pioneered most of the tecniques used by snipers today.

[edit on 14-9-2004 by Janus]

Originally posted by WestPoint23

Also it is really no good measurement against Afganistan nor Iraqi army troops since their army was a bit non existence.

In 91 Iraq had the 4 largest army and over 4 thousand tanks, the Us won the war in 100 hours talk about impressive. Our ground forces will beat any country in open combat but when our soldiers are told to act as cops and not soldiers things get messy.

Now then westpoint the UK turned up too you know, one of the only countries that did.

Originally posted by WestPoint23

Also it is really no good measurement against Afganistan nor Iraqi army troops since their army was a bit non existence.

In 91 Iraq had the 4 largest army and over 4 thousand tanks, the Us won the war in 100 hours talk about impressive.

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.

Originally posted by drfunk
I think US soldiers need to be taught better communication and diplomatic skills. This would go a long way.

I disagree. I think that the military should'nt be given any training in this sort of thing at all, and should only be trained to be as lethal as possible. I do, however, think that a different branch of the military should be created, to deal with those sorts of situations, trained in those sorts of tactics, trained to interact with the public and deal with tactical situations specific to urban environments. But if the actual military is being sent in, they should be sent for murder/death/kill and do that until removed; what else are they there for anyways?

spidergooch
But just because one is a grunt does not mean they are unintelligent, unthinking, unfeeling cro-magnons.

cro-magnons were homo sapiens. I think an army made up of homo erectii and neanderthals would be quite nice. If only charlton heston could train some gorillas to use a gun, then everyone'd be set.

the best? No i dont think

Who do you think is better tho? Some one else mentioned espirite de corps and said its strong in the US, particularly the Marines. The US military is actually starting to change the way that they rotate people, and keeping individuals in units longer, to build up more of this unpredictable and very useful propterty. But The brits, I suspect (at least from some of my historical readings) have really got that part down.

taibunsuu
German Intel classified Marines as shock troops.

Aren't they tho? 'Ol stormtroopas.