A little long (for this) so spoilering for space purposes.
Spoiler:
What follows is an account from a French ISAF soldier that was stationed with American Warfighters in Afghanistan sometime in the past 4 years. This was copied and translated from an editorial French newspaper.
A NOS FRERES D’ARMES AMERICAINS
"We have shared our daily life with two US units for quite a while - they are the first and fourth companies of a prestigious infantry battalion whose name I will withhold for the sake of military secrecy. To the common man it is a unit just like any other. But we live with them and got to know them, and we henceforth know that we have the honor to live with one of the most renowned units of the US Army - one that the movies brought to the public as series showing "ordinary soldiers thrust into extraordinary events". Who are they, those soldiers from abroad, how is their daily life, and what support do they bring to the men of our OMLT every day? Few of them belong to the Easy Company, the one the TV series focuses on. This one nowadays is named Echo Company, and it has become the support company.
They have a terribly strong American accent - from our point of view the language they speak is not even English. How many times did I have to write down what I wanted to say rather than waste precious minutes trying various pronunciations of a seemingly common word? Whatever State they are from, no two accents are alike and they even admit that in some crisis situations they have difficulties understanding each other. Heavily built, fed at the earliest age with Gatorade, proteins and creatine (Heh. More like Waffle House and McDonalds) - they are all heads and shoulders taller than us and their muscles remind us of Rambo. Our frames are amusingly skinny to them - we are wimps, even the strongest of us - and because of that they often mistake us for Afghans.
And they are impressive warriors! We have not come across bad ones, as strange at it may seem to you when you know how critical French people can be. Even if some of them are a bit on the heavy side, all of them provide us everyday with lessons in infantry know-how. Beyond the wearing of a combat kit that never seem to discomfort them (helmet strap, helmet, combat goggles, rifles etc.) the long hours of watch at the outpost never seem to annoy them in the slightest. On the one square meter wooden tower above the perimeter wall they stand the five consecutive hours in full battle rattle and night vision goggles on top, their sight unmoving in the directions of likely danger. No distractions, no pauses, they are like statues nights and days. At night, all movements are performed in the dark - only a handful of subdued red lights indicate the occasional presence of a soldier on the move. Same with the vehicles whose lights are covered - everything happens in pitch dark even filling the fuel tanks with the Japy pump.Here we discover America as it is often depicted: their values are taken to their paroxysm, often amplified by promiscuity and the loneliness of this outpost in the middle of that Afghan valley.
And combat? If you have seen Rambo you have seen it all - always coming to the rescue when one of our teams gets in trouble, and always in the shortest delay. That is one of their tricks: they switch from T-shirt and sandals to combat ready in three minutes. Arriving in contact with the enemy, the way they fight is simple and disconcerting: they just charge! They disembark and assault in stride, they bomb first and ask questions later - which cuts any pussyfooting short.Honor, motherland - everything here reminds of that: the American flag floating in the wind above the outpost, just like the one on the post parcels. Even if recruits often originate from the hearth of American cities and gang territory, no one here has any goal other than to hold high and proud the star spangled banner. Each man knows he can count on the support of a whole people who provides them through the mail all that an American could miss in such a remote front-line location: books, chewing gums, razorblades, Gatorade, toothpaste etc. in such way that every man is aware of how much the American people backs him in his difficult mission. And that is a first shock to our preconceptions: the American soldier is no individualist. The team, the group, the combat team are the focus of all his attention.
(This is the main area where I'd like to comment. Anyone with a passing knowledge of Kipling knows the lines from Chant Pagan: 'If your officer's dead and the sergeants look white/remember it's ruin to run from a fight./ So take open order, lie down, sit tight/ And wait for supports like a soldier./ This, in fact, is the basic philosophy of both British and Continental soldiers. 'In the absence of orders, take a defensive position.' Indeed, virtually every army in the world. The American soldier and Marine, however, are imbued from early in their training with the ethos: In the Absence of Orders: Attack! Where other forces, for good or ill, will wait for precise orders and plans to respond to an attack or any other 'incident', the American force will simply go, counting on firepower and SOP to carry the day.
This is one of the great strengths of the American force in combat and it is something that even our closest allies, such as the Brits and Aussies (that latter being closer by the way) find repeatedly surprising. No wonder is surprises the hell out of our enemies.)
We seldom hear any harsh word, and from 5 AM onwards the camp chores are performed in beautiful order and always with excellent spirit. A passing American helicopter stops near a stranded vehicle just to check that everything is alright; an American combat team will rush to support ours before even knowing how dangerous the mission is - from what we have been given to witness, the American soldier is a beautiful and worthy heir to those who liberated France and Europe.
To those who bestow us with the honor of sharing their combat outposts and who everyday give proof of their military excellence, to those who pay the daily tribute of America's army's deployment on Afghan soil, to those we owned this article, ourselves hoping that we will always remain worthy of them and to always continue hearing them say that we are all the same band of brothers".
Much of this the various veterans reading will go 'Well, duh. Of course we do our 'camp chores' and stand our posts in good order. There's a reason for them and if we didn't we'd get our heads handed to us eventually. And, yeah, we're in shape. Makes battle easier. The more you sweat, the less you bleed.'
What is hard for most people to comprehend is that that attitude represented only the most elite units of the past. Current everyday conventional boring 'leg infantry' units exceed the PT levels and training levels of most Special Forces during the Vietnam War. They exceed both of those as well as IQ and educational levels of: Waffen SS, WWII Rangers, WWII Airborne and British 'Commando' units during WWII. Their per-unit combat-functionality is essentially unmeasurable because it has to be compared to something and there's nothing comparable in industrial period combat history.
This group is so much better than 'The Greatest Generation' at war that WWII vets who really get a close look at how good these kids are stand in absolute awe.
Everyone complains about the quality of 'the new guys.' Don't. The screw-ups of this modern generation are head and shoulders above the 'high-medium' of any past group. Including mine.So much of 'The scum of the earth, enlisted for drink.'
"We have shared our daily life with two US units for quite a while - they are the first and fourth companies of a prestigious infantry battalion whose name I will withhold for the sake of military secrecy. To the common man it is a unit just like any other. But we live with them and got to know them, and we henceforth know that we have the honor to live with one of the most renowned units of the US Army - one that the movies brought to the public as series showing "ordinary soldiers thrust into extraordinary events". Who are they, those soldiers from abroad, how is their daily life, and what support do they bring to the men of our OMLT every day? Few of them belong to the Easy Company, the one the TV series focuses on. This one nowadays is named Echo Company, and it has become the support company.
"We have shared our daily life with two US units for quite a while - they are the first and fourth companies of a prestigious infantry battalion whose name I will withhold for the sake of military secrecy. To the common man it is a unit just like any other. But we live with them and got to know them, and we henceforth know that we have the honor to live with one of the most renowned units of the US Army - one that the movies brought to the public as series showing "ordinary soldiers thrust into extraordinary events". Who are they, those soldiers from abroad, how is their daily life, and what support do they bring to the men of our OMLT every day? Few of them belong to the Easy Company, the one the TV series focuses on. This one nowadays is named Echo Company, and it has become the support company.
101st
Yeah, 4th BCT was there in 2008. E Company of the 506th was attached to them at the time I believe.
Saw this on another forum, nice to see some respect for the US Military from other nations. I know the Aussies have a massive chip on their shoulder about the Americans and it gets a bit shameful at times.
EmilCrane wrote: Saw this on another forum, nice to see some respect for the US Military from other nations. I know the Aussies have a massive chip on their shoulder about the Americans and it gets a bit shameful at times.
They're pissed at us for making fun of their DCU's
Not sure if I would "prance around the tulips" or wear high heels.....
EmilCrane wrote: Saw this on another forum, nice to see some respect for the US Military from other nations. I know the Aussies have a massive chip on their shoulder about the Americans and it gets a bit shameful at times.
They're pissed at us for making fun of their DCU's
Not sure if I would "prance around the tulips" or wear high heels.....
Hehehe yeah DPCUs look a bit naf, I used to call it the "bunny camo". Here in NZ we've just switched to multicam, looks pretty damn cool.
EmilCrane wrote: Saw this on another forum, nice to see some respect for the US Military from other nations. I know the Aussies have a massive chip on their shoulder about the Americans and it gets a bit shameful at times.
Hooray for insulting generalisations, that aren't all that accurate (at least in my experience). Don't do it again. And don't confuse taking the piss with having a chip on the shoulder, which you may well be doing.
I am not current on how they do things now, but a lot of Eurpoean countries including France have very short services periods in their armed forces. They used to be mandatory, but I don't know if that is the case now. To their eyes, a professional, volunteer US soldier looks quite impressive. In combat units, physical training is a religion. It doesn't take long for that lean and mean look to set in. A unit that has deployed a couple of times develops a quiet confidence that gets passed on to the fresh soldiers. A "we can handle whatever comes our way" attitude that is quite impressive to the uninitiated.
Also, and I don't mean this as slight to the French, but we take pride in our history. Those 101st soldiers know they have a lot to live up too. It means something special to wear the patch of one of the army's most storied units. You push a little bit harder for all the ones who went before you.
It's nice to see that a soldier from another country noticed. Unfortunately, those vets probably left the service and struggled to find jobs in the US. Support the troops doesn't translate into offers of employment.. Maybe they should move to France.
BlaxicanX wrote:So the French look at us the way Guardsmen look at Space Marines.
I approve of this.
Damn, you beat me to the punch. Reminds me a bit of that WW1 picture that had soldiers of various nations and the Americans towered over everyone else.
BlaxicanX wrote:So the French look at us the way Guardsmen look at Space Marines.
I approve of this.
Damn, you beat me to the punch. Reminds me a bit of that WW1 picture that had soldiers of various nations and the Americans towered over everyone else.
As I recall, the Brit in that particular pic was the same height if not taller. I may be misremembering.
I visited France back when I was in high school and I found that I was a couple inches taller than most of the people I met (not towering but a bit taller) I was also into a fair amount of sports at the times so I was in good shape and had far more muscular build. I was invited to a track meet and left them in the dust. When I'm at home I was basically average height and running ability, due to practicing martial arts at the time I was really strong but not bulky. I'm 5"10 while most of my friends are in the 6ft range with a couple being 6'2-6'4 (and were marines)
While I didn't tower over people I felt like I had a much larger physical presence than the average french person, this was also compounded by the fact that so many items like doors and beds are much smaller there as many of the building are centuries old and built for people who were even shorter at that period, it was a bit odd.
WellSpokenMan wrote: I am not current on how they do things now, but a lot of Eurpoean countries including France have very short services periods in their armed forces. They used to be mandatory, but I don't know if that is the case now. To their eyes, a professional, volunteer US soldier looks quite impressive. In combat units, physical training is a religion. It doesn't take long for that lean and mean look to set in. A unit that has deployed a couple of times develops a quiet confidence that gets passed on to the fresh soldiers. A "we can handle whatever comes our way" attitude that is quite impressive to the uninitiated.
Also, and I don't mean this as slight to the French, but we take pride in our history. Those 101st soldiers know they have a lot to live up too. It means something special to wear the patch of one of the army's most storied units. You push a little bit harder for all the ones who went before you.
It's nice to see that a soldier from another country noticed. Unfortunately, those vets probably left the service and struggled to find jobs in the US. Support the troops doesn't translate into offers of employment.. Maybe they should move to France.
And with all historical units, the 101st especially. It's hard to live up to the legends of those veterans like Easy Company, which certainly provides motivational material for those in the 101st Airborne in the modern day to fight harder.
Hell, I can't even think of a more famed division/unit/battalion/etc then the 101st, only equals.
EmilCrane wrote: Saw this on another forum, nice to see some respect for the US Military from other nations. I know the Aussies have a massive chip on their shoulder about the Americans and it gets a bit shameful at times.
Hooray for insulting generalisations, that aren't all that accurate (at least in my experience). Don't do it again. And don't confuse taking the piss with having a chip on the shoulder, which you may well be doing.
I lived in Australia from 2001 to 2007, most of my school years. I spent a lot of that time in the Air Force Cadets. During that time I was verbally abused by a superior who called all Americans fat idiots and racists, he did this in front of the entire cadet unit. I was constantly reminded by senior cadets how much better Australia's military was and how badly trained American soldiers were, and how all they were good for was friendly fire. I was bullied heavily at school just for being an american. I've had a pretty bad personal experience with Australia regarding the US military.
I still think Australia is a wonderful country and have some of my fondest memories and best friends from there, but not every country is perfect and I encountered some fairly shocking abuse there, so I think I've got a right to speak my mind.
EmilCrane wrote: Saw this on another forum, nice to see some respect for the US Military from other nations. I know the Aussies have a massive chip on their shoulder about the Americans and it gets a bit shameful at times.
Hooray for insulting generalisations, that aren't all that accurate (at least in my experience). Don't do it again. And don't confuse taking the piss with having a chip on the shoulder, which you may well be doing.
I lived in Australia from 2001 to 2007, most of my school years. I spent a lot of that time in the Air Force Cadets. During that time I was verbally abused by a superior who called all Americans fat idiots and racists, he did this in front of the entire cadet unit. I was constantly reminded by senior cadets how much better Australia's military was and how badly trained American soldiers were, and how all they were good for was friendly fire. I was bullied heavily at school just for being an american. I've had a pretty bad personal experience with Australia regarding the US military.
I still think Australia is a wonderful country and have some of my fondest memories and best friends from there, but not every country is perfect and I encountered some fairly shocking abuse there, so I think I've got a right to speak my mind.
You do have a right to talk about it, but steer clear of insulting generalisations. Stick to saying the specific stuff that you said just then. Air Force Cadets, and whoever runs the individual unit, hardly speak for the Australian armed forces, let alone the rest of Australia. They may think they're a valuable part of the air fairies, and thus the rest of the ADF, but they aren't. They're cadets.
If I had gone to the US and been teased in a cadet unit about being an Aussie, then come out swinging and said "the US has terrible attitudes towards Australia", surely you'd understand why it isn't appropriate to a) tar a whole country with a sweeping generalisation and b) use someones experiences in 1 junior sort of military unit as representative of the rest of that country's armed forces/population. Right?
Also, the guy sounds like an absolute tosser who ran that unit, I've seen one, and heard of a lot more cadet units getting pineappled by having a dropkick in charge, who they just can't seem to get rid of for whatever reason.
What was the saying the Brits had for the US soldiers during WWII?
"Over sexed, over paid and over here"
banter back
"Under sexed, under paid , and under Eisenhower"
Been in 82nd, 101st, and 160th.
82nd and 101st in peace time and war.
No damn difference who was better, living up to a reputation, exceeding past combat history, and/or riding on one's reputation.
Regardless of deployments once one boots hits the ground its "Do your damn job and do it well."
Poland and Romania I have to admit were fun to be with. Quite eager to take the fight to the Insurgents and at times over zealous.
EmilCrane wrote: Saw this on another forum, nice to see some respect for the US Military from other nations. I know the Aussies have a massive chip on their shoulder about the Americans and it gets a bit shameful at times.
Hooray for insulting generalisations, that aren't all that accurate (at least in my experience). Don't do it again. And don't confuse taking the piss with having a chip on the shoulder, which you may well be doing.
I lived in Australia from 2001 to 2007, most of my school years. I spent a lot of that time in the Air Force Cadets. During that time I was verbally abused by a superior who called all Americans fat idiots and racists, he did this in front of the entire cadet unit. I was constantly reminded by senior cadets how much better Australia's military was and how badly trained American soldiers were, and how all they were good for was friendly fire. I was bullied heavily at school just for being an american. I've had a pretty bad personal experience with Australia regarding the US military.
I still think Australia is a wonderful country and have some of my fondest memories and best friends from there, but not every country is perfect and I encountered some fairly shocking abuse there, so I think I've got a right to speak my mind.
You do have a right to talk about it, but steer clear of insulting generalisations. Stick to saying the specific stuff that you said just then. Air Force Cadets, and whoever runs the individual unit, hardly speak for the Australian armed forces, let alone the rest of Australia. They may think they're a valuable part of the air fairies, and thus the rest of the ADF, but they aren't. They're cadets.
If I had gone to the US and been teased in a cadet unit about being an Aussie, then come out swinging and said "the US has terrible attitudes towards Australia", surely you'd understand why it isn't appropriate to a) tar a whole country with a sweeping generalisation and b) use someones experiences in 1 junior sort of military unit as representative of the rest of that country's armed forces/population. Right?
Also, the guy sounds like an absolute tosser who ran that unit, I've seen one, and heard of a lot more cadet units getting pineappled by having a dropkick in charge, who they just can't seem to get rid of for whatever reason.
Fair enough, I came across a little too aggressive in my first post, poor word choice, just had some very bad experiences. Sorry for any implied offense.
I'm older and wiser now and sort of put it down too
a) Right after the iraq war was declared and many people disagreed with Australia's involvement.
b) Kids can be little gakheads to their fellow kid.
To be fair, I think quite a lot of people have a chip on their shoulder about the American military. It's pretty common, "tall poppy syndrome" in a way I suppose. Every force likes to big themselves up, and sometimes that involves running others down.
I thought the article was quite refreshing because it didn't fall into that trope.
BlaxicanX wrote:So the French look at us the way Guardsmen look at Space Marines.
I approve of this.
Damn, you beat me to the punch. Reminds me a bit of that WW1 picture that had soldiers of various nations and the Americans towered over everyone else.
As I recall, the Brit in that particular pic was the same height if not taller. I may be misremembering.
IIRC, the Brit, American, and Russian were the tallest.
Jihadin wrote: What was the saying the Brits had for the US soldiers during WWII?
"Over sexed, over paid and over here"
banter back
"Under sexed, under paid , and under Eisenhower"
Been in 82nd, 101st, and 160th.
82nd and 101st in peace time and war.
No damn difference who was better, living up to a reputation, exceeding past combat history, and/or riding on one's reputation.
Regardless of deployments once one boots hits the ground its "Do your damn job and do it well."
Poland and Romania I have to admit were fun to be with. Quite eager to take the fight to the Insurgents and at times over zealous.
I found Eastern European troops in general to be a joy to work with.
BlaxicanX wrote:So the French look at us the way Guardsmen look at Space Marines.
I approve of this.
Damn, you beat me to the punch. Reminds me a bit of that WW1 picture that had soldiers of various nations and the Americans towered over everyone else.
As I recall, the Brit in that particular pic was the same height if not taller. I may be misremembering.
I recall the picture as well... I thought that the only reason the Brit came "close" to the same height was due to his helmet standing so damn tall.... or maybe that was another country's soldier??
Some Americans may be surprised that other nations and individuals like their military, but I've always been a fan.
My favourite FOW list is an 82nd + British Shermans for when I'm playing Market Garden missions/scenarios, and MacArthur is one of my all time favourite Generals. Can't see the fuss about Omar Bradley though. Sorry.
As for Gatorade, awful, awful, stuff
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Da Boss wrote: To be fair, I think quite a lot of people have a chip on their shoulder about the American military. It's pretty common, "tall poppy syndrome" in a way I suppose. Every force likes to big themselves up, and sometimes that involves running others down.
I thought the article was quite refreshing because it didn't fall into that trope.
No true Frenchman would say that about America. A true Frenchman would acted in a similar manner to that annoying Frenchman in monty python and the holy grail
My favourite FOW list is an 82nd + British Shermans for when I'm playing Market Garden missions/scenarios, and MacArthur is one of my all time favourite Generals.
At the risk of being OT, I have a very low opinion of any American officer who decides to field cavalry against US veterans of WWI.
My favourite FOW list is an 82nd + British Shermans for when I'm playing Market Garden missions/scenarios, and MacArthur is one of my all time favourite Generals.
At the risk of being OT, I have a very low opinion of any American officer who decides to field cavalry against US veterans of WWI.
I resisted the urge to bring this up, but yeah, that has always bothered me. I am also bothered by his response to the Pearl Harbor attack. After he heard the news he, tragically, did almost nothing. Hours later the Japanese decimated his air units and any hope for holding the Phillipines was lost.
Omar Bradley is famous for not generally being an epic douche. This was so much out of character for a high ranking US or UK officer that the media didn't know what to do with him.
My favourite FOW list is an 82nd + British Shermans for when I'm playing Market Garden missions/scenarios, and MacArthur is one of my all time favourite Generals.
At the risk of being OT, I have a very low opinion of any American officer who decides to field cavalry against US veterans of WWI.
I agree that the man had his flaws (like most military commanders since war began) but if you were looking at him from a purely tactical point of view, then you can't help but admire his actions at Hollandia, and of course, Inchon. Military genius at work.
My favourite FOW list is an 82nd + British Shermans for when I'm playing Market Garden missions/scenarios, and MacArthur is one of my all time favourite Generals.
At the risk of being OT, I have a very low opinion of any American officer who decides to field cavalry against US veterans of WWI.
I resisted the urge to bring this up, but yeah, that has always bothered me. I am also bothered by his response to the Pearl Harbor attack. After he heard the news he, tragically, did almost nothing. Hours later the Japanese decimated his air units and any hope for holding the Phillipines was lost.
Omar Bradley is famous for not generally being an epic douche. This was so much out of character for a high ranking US or UK officer that the media didn't know what to do with him.
This is going way OT, but what happened to MacArthur at Pearl, has happened to a few military commanders. MacArthur's biographer, William Manchester, highlighted how Stonewall Jackson froze on the eve of Fredericksburg/Chancellorsville? Washington lost the plot at Brandywine, and Wellington froze somewhat at Badajoz (but recovered) so it has been known to happen.
anyway, back OT
I've always admired the fighting spirit and firepower of American troops, but I can't help feeling that when dealing with the insurgency in Iraq and Afghanistan, that the go forward mentality might have made things tougher. I'm not saying their idiots or anything but I've always understood counter-insurgency to be more of a 'thinking' way of fighting, rather than the battering ram approach. I could be wrong.
My favourite FOW list is an 82nd + British Shermans for when I'm playing Market Garden missions/scenarios, and MacArthur is one of my all time favourite Generals.
At the risk of being OT, I have a very low opinion of any American officer who decides to field cavalry against US veterans of WWI.
I agree that the man had his flaws (like most military commanders since war began) but if you were looking at him from a purely tactical point of view, then you can't help but admire his actions at Hollandia, and of course, Inchon. Military genius at work.
My favourite FOW list is an 82nd + British Shermans for when I'm playing Market Garden missions/scenarios, and MacArthur is one of my all time favourite Generals.
At the risk of being OT, I have a very low opinion of any American officer who decides to field cavalry against US veterans of WWI.
I resisted the urge to bring this up, but yeah, that has always bothered me. I am also bothered by his response to the Pearl Harbor attack. After he heard the news he, tragically, did almost nothing. Hours later the Japanese decimated his air units and any hope for holding the Phillipines was lost.
Omar Bradley is famous for not generally being an epic douche. This was so much out of character for a high ranking US or UK officer that the media didn't know what to do with him.
This is going way OT, but what happened to MacArthur at Pearl, has happened to a few military commanders. MacArthur's biographer, William Manchester, highlighted how Stonewall Jackson froze on the eve of Fredericksburg/Chancellorsville? Washington lost the plot at Brandywine, and Wellington froze somewhat at Badajoz (but recovered) so it has been known to happen.
anyway, back OT
I've always admired the fighting spirit and firepower of American troops, but I can't help feeling that when dealing with the insurgency in Iraq and Afghanistan, that the go forward mentality might have made things tougher. I'm not saying their idiots or anything but I've always understood counter-insurgency to be more of a 'thinking' way of fighting, rather than the battering ram approach. I could be wrong.
Iraq before the surge was frustrating, because lower level NCOs and Officers knew we weren't going about it the right way. However, the Generals and politicians were not interested in listening to anyone, so the change in tactics had to wait until General Petraeus and the "surge"
I'll put the rest in a spoiler, because it's more than a little off topic.
Spoiler:
There were a couple of different thoughts on how to handle things. Units that had experience in peacekeeping ops knew that having a strong patrol presence and engaging the local community is vital. Units that did not have that experience felt that it was best to armor up. The armor up faction won and we lost control. My unit was a corps asset, and got to work with a lot of different commands. The difference in confidence in dealing with the Iraqi people between units with Balkan deployments under their belt and those without was plain to see. There was also a general difference in mindest between infantry and armor units, with the amor units favoring, not surprisingly, an armored approach. You have to be willing to walk among the people to protect them. It's hard, but it works. Driving around in an M1 and putting rounds into any building you take fire from does not work.
This is not a knock on the armored units. They just didn't have the experience and were not particularly well suited to police actions. It is a knock on the US senior leadership at the time, who should have known better. Believe it or not, Iraq in the summer of 2003 was a fairly peaceful place. It was horrifying to watch it turn into the meat grinder it became later.
My point being that, when necessary, US troops are capable of measured responses and peaceful engagement with the enemy. They just have to have been taught how.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Some Americans may be surprised that other nations and individuals like their military, but I've always been a fan.
My favourite FOW list is an 82nd + British Shermans for when I'm playing Market Garden missions/scenarios, and MacArthur is one of my all time favourite Generals. Can't see the fuss about Omar Bradley though. Sorry.
As for Gatorade, awful, awful, stuff
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Da Boss wrote: To be fair, I think quite a lot of people have a chip on their shoulder about the American military. It's pretty common, "tall poppy syndrome" in a way I suppose. Every force likes to big themselves up, and sometimes that involves running others down.
I thought the article was quite refreshing because it didn't fall into that trope.
No true Frenchman would say that about America. A true Frenchman would acted in a similar manner to that annoying Frenchman in monty python and the holy grail
Gatorade is horrible, horrible stuff to drink given the absurd amount of sugars it contains. These aren't necessarily bad, but unless you're a bloody Olympian or Super Soldier and thus can burn the stuff out before it settles in your body, you probably shouldn't be drinking it.
I loved the bit about how they don't understand us, and sometime we don't even understand one another.
But is cool to see if the military getting respect, god knows they deserve it from other countries.
I've always admired the fighting spirit and firepower of American troops, but I can't help feeling that when dealing with the insurgency in Iraq and Afghanistan, that the go forward mentality might have made things tougher. I'm not saying their idiots or anything but I've always understood counter-insurgency to be more of a 'thinking' way of fighting, rather than the battering ram approach. I could be wrong.
Again, I could be wrong, but I'm sure I read somewhere that the counter-insurgency manual used by the US military is based on one developed by the SS. Which might explain a few things.
On Topic: I'm not in the military, but from what I gather, US and UK troops tend to work generally well together due to the long history of co-operation between our two countries and cultural similarity. Members of the public occasionally have negative opinions about the US military when they hear about rape statistics, civilians being killed, friendly-fire etc, and I think that's probably a normal response to those sort of headlines, free from the context of having worked alongside US servicemen. With that being said, as I recall, my good pal mattyrm has had his live saved on at least one occasion by the USAF and there are a lot of Brits living now, veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan, who probably wouldn't be if it wasn't for the actions of our cousins across the Atlantic, so fair play to them I say.
Its reading things like this that makes me happy that the US and UK share so many joint operations, we both have a lot to learn from each other and for the most part able to enjoy friendly banter.
Your guys do a great job as does ours and long may that continue. It's very easy to fall into the trap of "who has the bigger stick or who is best with said stick" but really it means nothing, as long as we both use said sticks to beat the other guy
I am glad the US helped us out 70 years ago (even though Hollywood suggests it was just you ) as it meant less brits had to die including my family members. I am also glad that they help our troops out now as it means my friends have returned home safe from tours and are able to share a beer.
So big hats off to all our men and women on both sides of the pond that make us sleep a bit easier at night o7
Daston wrote: Its reading things like this that makes me happy that the US and UK share so many joint operations, we both have a lot to learn from each other and for the most part able to enjoy friendly banter.
Your guys do a great job as does ours and long may that continue. It's very easy to fall into the trap of "who has the bigger stick or who is best with said stick" but really it means nothing, as long as we both use said sticks to beat the other guy
I am glad the US helped us out 70 years ago (even though Hollywood suggests it was just you ) as it meant less brits had to die including my family members. I am also glad that they help our troops out now as it means my friends have returned home safe from tours and are able to share a beer.
So big hats off to all our men and women on both sides of the pond that make us sleep a bit easier at night o7
Well, things did start going a whole lot better for you once you stopped wearing bright read on the battlefield
Daston wrote: Its reading things like this that makes me happy that the US and UK share so many joint operations, we both have a lot to learn from each other and for the most part able to enjoy friendly banter.
Your guys do a great job as does ours and long may that continue. It's very easy to fall into the trap of "who has the bigger stick or who is best with said stick" but really it means nothing, as long as we both use said sticks to beat the other guy
I am glad the US helped us out 70 years ago (even though Hollywood suggests it was just you ) as it meant less brits had to die including my family members. I am also glad that they help our troops out now as it means my friends have returned home safe from tours and are able to share a beer.
So big hats off to all our men and women on both sides of the pond that make us sleep a bit easier at night o7
Well, things did start going a whole lot better for you once you stopped wearing bright read on the battlefield
I will never forget the Brit that got shot in arse by his own guys in a engagement
Edit
I still believe it was our beloved Matty for all the "F" bombs that were dropped
Daston wrote: Its reading things like this that makes me happy that the US and UK share so many joint operations, we both have a lot to learn from each other and for the most part able to enjoy friendly banter.
Your guys do a great job as does ours and long may that continue. It's very easy to fall into the trap of "who has the bigger stick or who is best with said stick" but really it means nothing, as long as we both use said sticks to beat the other guy
I am glad the US helped us out 70 years ago (even though Hollywood suggests it was just you ) as it meant less brits had to die including my family members. I am also glad that they help our troops out now as it means my friends have returned home safe from tours and are able to share a beer.
So big hats off to all our men and women on both sides of the pond that make us sleep a bit easier at night o7
Well, things did start going a whole lot better for you once you stopped wearing bright read on the battlefield
Well we did own a fair % of the world wearing red so wasn't all bad....plus no other nation could match our gun lines :p its like the imperial guard nerf all over again lol
Johnnytorrance wrote: Even though it is supposedly translated, it doesn't sem to me that it's written by a foreign military service member. Sounds kinda fake to me
Well there is a link to the original but it is, unsurprisingly, in French.
EmilCrane wrote: Saw this on another forum, nice to see some respect for the US Military from other nations. I know the Aussies have a massive chip on their shoulder about the Americans and it gets a bit shameful at times.
Quiet, ya damned Kiwi!
Jihadin wrote: Been in 82nd, 101st, and 160th. 82nd and 101st in peace time and war.
No damn difference who was better, living up to a reputation, exceeding past combat history, and/or riding on one's reputation. Regardless of deployments once one boots hits the ground its "Do your damn job and do it well."
I get the feeling that the 82nd and 101st aren't the kind of units to rest on their laurels, and work every day to earn the reputations they have.
Johnnytorrance wrote: Even though it is supposedly translated, it doesn't sem to me that it's written by a foreign military service member. Sounds kinda fake to me
I've just read the original french text, and while the english translation is quite faithful, it fails to express how well written it was originally. "Well written" as in "written by someone that writes for a living".
Johnnytorrance wrote: Even though it is supposedly translated, it doesn't sem to me that it's written by a foreign military service member. Sounds kinda fake to me
I've just read the original french text, and while the english translation is quite faithful, it fails to express how well written it was originally. "Well written" as in "written by someone that writes for a living".
Maybe it was written by a French military Public Affairs official then?
EmilCrane wrote: Saw this on another forum, nice to see some respect for the US Military from other nations. I know the Aussies have a massive chip on their shoulder about the Americans and it gets a bit shameful at times.
Quiet, ya damned Kiwi!
Jihadin wrote: Been in 82nd, 101st, and 160th.
82nd and 101st in peace time and war.
No damn difference who was better, living up to a reputation, exceeding past combat history, and/or riding on one's reputation.
Regardless of deployments once one boots hits the ground its "Do your damn job and do it well."
I get the feeling that the 82nd and 101st aren't the kind of units to rest on their laurels, and work every day to earn the reputations they have.
That's been my experience here at the 101st. These guys train hard.
djones520 wrote: Maybe it was written by a French military Public Affairs official then?
Or he was a vet that became a writer. Not like there has never been someone who served who was also an author. Honestly not sure what saying it was 'well written...to well written' is supposed to mean to be honest. Maybe it was a compliment or maybe they don't think vets can write?
djones520 wrote: Maybe it was written by a French military Public Affairs official then?
Or he was a vet that became a writer. Not like there has never been someone who served who was also an author. Honestly not sure what saying it was 'well written...to well written' is supposed to mean to be honest. Maybe it was a compliment or maybe they don't think vets can write?
Ah we can write if we want to, we can leave your friends behind
Cause your friends don't write and if they don't write
Well they're are no friends of mine
I say, we can go where we want to, A place where they will never find
And we can act like we come from out of this world
Leave the real one far behind,
And we can write
And we can write
Or sing!
We can go when we want to
The night is young and so am I
And we can dress real neat from our hats to our feet
And surprise 'em with the victory cry
Say, we can act if we want to
If we don't, nobody will
And you can act real rude and totally removed
And I can act like an imbecile
And say, we can write, we can write
Everything's out of control
We can write, we can write
They're doing it from pole to pole
We can write, we can write
Everybody look at your hands
We can write, we can write
Everybody's taking the chance
Safety Write
Oh well, the fancy write
Ah yes, the fancy write
We can write if we want to
We've got all your life and mine
As long as we abuse it, never gonna lose it
Everything'll work out right
I say, we can write if we want to
We can leave your friends behind
Because your friends don't write and if they don't write
Well, they're no friends of mine
And say, we can write, we can write
Everything's out of control
We can write, we can write
They're doing it from pole to pole
We can write, we can write
Everybody look at your hands
We can write, we can write
Everybody's taking the chance
Johnnytorrance wrote: Even though it is supposedly translated, it doesn't sem to me that it's written by a foreign military service member. Sounds kinda fake to me
I've just read the original french text, and while the english translation is quite faithful, it fails to express how well written it was originally. "Well written" as in "written by someone that writes for a living".
Maybe it was written by a French military Public Affairs official then?
Or he was a vet that became a writer. Not like there has never been someone who served who was also an author. Honestly not sure what saying it was 'well written...to well written' is supposed to mean to be honest. Maybe it was a compliment or maybe they don't think vets can write?
He doesn't read like somebody who likes to write and share his experiences, talented or not. He reads like a trained PR writer.
Can't see the fuss about Omar Bradley though. Sorry.
He was a solid officer (probably one of the most solid in US military history). Unfortunately he was fighting in the same war as men of great personality. MacArthur, Patton, Rommel, Monty etc. Omar was so plain in comparison.
I'm also afraid I must inform you that MacArthur was a douche and his firing came far too late /historicalcontext
Some authors with military experience that you may have heard of.
J.D. Salinger, United States Army
Isaac Asimov, United States Army
Pierre Boulle, British Special Forces
Arthur C. Clarke, Royal Air Force
Joseph Heller, United States Army Air Corps
Frank Herbert, U.S. Navy
L. Ron Hubbard, U.S. Navy
James Jones, United States Army
Norman Mailer, United States Army
Gore Vidal, United States Army
Kurt Vonnegut, United States Army
Harvey Shapiro, United States Army Air Corps
This is by no means a comprehensive list. Can we stop with the "this is written too well to be somebody in the military" comments.
Also... yeah, MacArthur was ridiculously "horrible" as a person.... I blame Japan's weirdness on him.
That's pretty much accurate. The cultural laws MacArthur foisted onto Japan at the end of the war are a direct cause of how wierd their porn gets.
I wouldn't say that's the only weird thing to come out of japan, but yeah.... He was "forced" to remain stationed in Japan, but Macarthur wanted to live in the US, so he forced the US into Japan (baseball, music, etc... pretty much any aspect of american life you can think of, he tried to bring in)
EmilCrane wrote: Saw this on another forum, nice to see some respect for the US Military from other nations. I know the Aussies have a massive chip on their shoulder about the Americans and it gets a bit shameful at times.
Really?
I worked with some AU soliders in my various deployments and never njoticed any kind of animousity, what are their general complaints?
EmilCrane wrote: Saw this on another forum, nice to see some respect for the US Military from other nations. I know the Aussies have a massive chip on their shoulder about the Americans and it gets a bit shameful at times.
Really?
I worked with some AU soliders in my various deployments and never njoticed any kind of animousity, what are their general complaints?
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Some Americans may be surprised that other nations and individuals like their military, but I've always been a fan.
My favourite FOW list is an 82nd + British Shermans for when I'm playing Market Garden missions/scenarios, and MacArthur is one of my all time favourite Generals. Can't see the fuss about Omar Bradley though. Sorry.
As for Gatorade, awful, awful, stuff
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Da Boss wrote: To be fair, I think quite a lot of people have a chip on their shoulder about the American military. It's pretty common, "tall poppy syndrome" in a way I suppose. Every force likes to big themselves up, and sometimes that involves running others down.
I thought the article was quite refreshing because it didn't fall into that trope.
Try some "Rip It"' you'll love those
No true Frenchman would say that about America. A true Frenchman would acted in a similar manner to that annoying Frenchman in monty python and the holy grail
EmilCrane wrote: Saw this on another forum, nice to see some respect for the US Military from other nations. I know the Aussies have a massive chip on their shoulder about the Americans and it gets a bit shameful at times.
Really?
I worked with some AU soliders in my various deployments and never njoticed any kind of animousity, what are their general complaints?
Good money says our "Attitude"
Maybe, but from my experience, AU troops were just as cocksure as we were. It was something I admired them for actually. they didn't try to act like they were more sophisticated then us, they joked and got down just like we did.
On Topic: I'm not in the military, but from what I gather, US and UK troops tend to work generally well together due to the long history of co-operation between our two countries and cultural similarity. Members of the public occasionally have negative opinions about the US military when they hear about rape statistics, civilians being killed, friendly-fire etc, and I think that's probably a normal response to those sort of headlines, free from the context of having worked alongside US servicemen. With that being said, as I recall, my good pal mattyrm has had his live saved on at least one occasion by the USAF and there are a lot of Brits living now, veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan, who probably wouldn't be if it wasn't for the actions of our cousins across the Atlantic, so fair play to them I say.
Fun fact, USMC Officer Candidate School's PT program is run by a British Royal Marine. We have an exchange program set up. When I was at OCS, I never learned his name, he was just 'The Color Sergeant' to us candidates, but he was pretty badass.
Maybe, but from my experience, AU troops were just as cocksure as we were. It was something I admired them for actually. they didn't try to act like they were more sophisticated then us, they joked and got down just like we did.
I also have VERY limited experience with the Aussies, and they seemed quite a bit like us, but they ate even better at their compound than I did normally... (seriously, we were just stopping for fuel and that sort of thing, but ended up getting dinner with them, it was amazing)
Maybe, but from my experience, AU troops were just as cocksure as we were. It was something I admired them for actually. they didn't try to act like they were more sophisticated then us, they joked and got down just like we did.
I also have VERY limited experience with the Aussies, and they seemed quite a bit like us, but they ate even better at their compound than I did normally... (seriously, we were just stopping for fuel and that sort of thing, but ended up getting dinner with them, it was amazing)
Same experience, they seemed much like us with very...colorful, senses of humor, and i guess a kind of "frontier" spirit, if that makes any sense.
On Topic: I'm not in the military, but from what I gather, US and UK troops tend to work generally well together due to the long history of co-operation between our two countries and cultural similarity. Members of the public occasionally have negative opinions about the US military when they hear about rape statistics, civilians being killed, friendly-fire etc, and I think that's probably a normal response to those sort of headlines, free from the context of having worked alongside US servicemen. With that being said, as I recall, my good pal mattyrm has had his live saved on at least one occasion by the USAF and there are a lot of Brits living now, veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan, who probably wouldn't be if it wasn't for the actions of our cousins across the Atlantic, so fair play to them I say.
Fun fact, USMC Officer Candidate School's PT program is run by a British Royal Marine. We have an exchange program set up. When I was at OCS, I never learned his name, he was just 'The Color Sergeant' to us candidates, but he was pretty badass.
Yeah, two of my best pals were Royal Marines. They're fething sickos, that lot. Thank christ they're on our side!
WellSpokenMan wrote: Some authors with military experience that you may have heard of.
J.D. Salinger, United States Army
Isaac Asimov, United States Army
Pierre Boulle, British Special Forces
Arthur C. Clarke, Royal Air Force
Joseph Heller, United States Army Air Corps
Frank Herbert, U.S. Navy
L. Ron Hubbard, U.S. Navy
James Jones, United States Army
Norman Mailer, United States Army
Gore Vidal, United States Army
Kurt Vonnegut, United States Army
Harvey Shapiro, United States Army Air Corps
This is by no means a comprehensive list. Can we stop with the "this is written too well to be somebody in the military" comments.
How could you forget the man who so accurately guessed military secrets that the Navy was convinced he had an inside source? Tom Clancy
WellSpokenMan wrote: Some authors with military experience that you may have heard of.
J.D. Salinger, United States Army
Isaac Asimov, United States Army
Pierre Boulle, British Special Forces
Arthur C. Clarke, Royal Air Force
Joseph Heller, United States Army Air Corps
Frank Herbert, U.S. Navy
L. Ron Hubbard, U.S. Navy
James Jones, United States Army
Norman Mailer, United States Army
Gore Vidal, United States Army
Kurt Vonnegut, United States Army
Harvey Shapiro, United States Army Air Corps
This is by no means a comprehensive list. Can we stop with the "this is written too well to be somebody in the military" comments.
How could you forget the man who so accurately guessed military secrets that the Navy was convinced he had an inside source? Tom Clancy
I've always admired the fighting spirit and firepower of American troops, but I can't help feeling that when dealing with the insurgency in Iraq and Afghanistan, that the go forward mentality might have made things tougher. I'm not saying their idiots or anything but I've always understood counter-insurgency to be more of a 'thinking' way of fighting, rather than the battering ram approach. I could be wrong.
Again, I could be wrong, but I'm sure I read somewhere that the counter-insurgency manual used by the US military is based on one developed by the SS. Which might explain a few things.
I'm not 100% certain, because I'm not very familiar with that specific field manual, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say I'm pretty sure that's false. Reason being, the US Military actually has a lot of COIN and guerrilla warfare related doctrine that has been written over the years, much of which predates the Waffen-SS, particularly the Marine Corps Small Wars manual. Judging by that, as well as the terror tactics used by the SS, I don't think that has much to do with American COIN doctrine.
It is not surprising that there are a lot of authors who were in the armed forces. Except for the UK and USA in the 19th century up to the first world war, practically every developed nation had conscription. The UK brought in conscription in the first and second world war. The USA had conscription in the ACW and the second world war and continued until the 70s. All that would have swept up a lot of potential authors on top of any who volunteered.
We probably will see a smaller proportion of modern authors being ex-military nowadays, since we haven't fought any major wars for such a long time.
I've always admired the fighting spirit and firepower of American troops, but I can't help feeling that when dealing with the insurgency in Iraq and Afghanistan, that the go forward mentality might have made things tougher. I'm not saying their idiots or anything but I've always understood counter-insurgency to be more of a 'thinking' way of fighting, rather than the battering ram approach. I could be wrong.
Again, I could be wrong, but I'm sure I read somewhere that the counter-insurgency manual used by the US military is based on one developed by the SS. Which might explain a few things.
I'm not 100% certain, because I'm not very familiar with that specific field manual, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say I'm pretty sure that's false. Reason being, the US Military actually has a lot of COIN and guerrilla warfare related doctrine that has been written over the years, much of which predates the Waffen-SS, particularly the Marine Corps Small Wars manual. Judging by that, as well as the terror tactics used by the SS, I don't think that has much to do with American COIN doctrine.
Well, coin itself is pretty new. But, no, not so much on the SS influence. Maybe, maybe CIA tactics, but even the worst of what the CIA has been accused of pales compared to what the Nazis.
I've always admired the fighting spirit and firepower of American troops, but I can't help feeling that when dealing with the insurgency in Iraq and Afghanistan, that the go forward mentality might have made things tougher. I'm not saying their idiots or anything but I've always understood counter-insurgency to be more of a 'thinking' way of fighting, rather than the battering ram approach. I could be wrong.
Again, I could be wrong, but I'm sure I read somewhere that the counter-insurgency manual used by the US military is based on one developed by the SS. Which might explain a few things.
I'm not 100% certain, because I'm not very familiar with that specific field manual, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say I'm pretty sure that's false. Reason being, the US Military actually has a lot of COIN and guerrilla warfare related doctrine that has been written over the years, much of which predates the Waffen-SS, particularly the Marine Corps Small Wars manual. Judging by that, as well as the terror tactics used by the SS, I don't think that has much to do with American COIN doctrine.
Well, coin itself is pretty new. But, no, not so much on the SS influence. Maybe, maybe CIA tactics, but even the worst of what the CIA has been accused of pales compared to what the Nazis.
While the current form of US COIN doctrine is newish to the US, COIN itself isn't really new. They were doing COIN in Rhodesia in the 60s and 70s, and the Marine Corps was doing basically what amounted to COIN during the Banana Wars for a really long time, which is what brought us the Small Wars Manual. To be quite honest, if we had payed more attention to our successes and failures and the successes failures of others in COIN-like operations of the past, instead of trying to reinvent the wheel, we probably would have been better off.
While the current form of US COIN doctrine is newish to the US, COIN itself isn't really new. They were doing COIN in Rhodesia in the 60s and 70s, and the Marine Corps was doing basically what amounted to COIN during the Banana Wars for a really long time, which is what brought us the Small Wars Manual. To be quite honest, if we had payed more attention to our successes and failures and the successes failures of others in COIN-like operations of the past, instead of trying to reinvent the wheel, we probably would have been better off.
Oh, I know, I'm just saying that COIN is a term that comes from a manual written during the Iraq war. It's a specific set of tactics, strategies, policies, and procedures written for the current environment. Calling the Banana Wars a COIN operation wouldn't be accurate, even though COIN did draw experience from said conflict. Calling an older counter-insurgency campaign a COIN operation is like referring to Microsoft's video game division as "the Xbox 360". Though it's really just semantics, not a big deal.
Edit: Of course, COIN is just short for COunter INsurgency, so I guess it really doesn't matter...
Many Americans have asked me, “Is it true the French served wine at dinner and had wine in their MREs?” The answer is yes and no. They not only served wine at dinner, they sometimes served it at lunch as well. The firebase I was on, which wasn’t that big, had three bars. The regular French Joes could have all the alcohol they wanted in their tents.
I went on a week-long mission to a combat outpost with a French recon platoon. The outpost was at the furthest edge of coalition control, surrounded by Taliban. One of their company XO’s, a captain, accompanied us. When we occupied the outpost, the first thing the troops did was pop open beers and break out steaks to grill
Many Americans have asked me, “Is it true the French served wine at dinner and had wine in their MREs?” The answer is yes and no. They not only served wine at dinner, they sometimes served it at lunch as well. The firebase I was on, which wasn’t that big, had three bars. The regular French Joes could have all the alcohol they wanted in their tents.
I went on a week-long mission to a combat outpost with a French recon platoon. The outpost was at the furthest edge of coalition control, surrounded by Taliban. One of their company XO’s, a captain, accompanied us. When we occupied the outpost, the first thing the troops did was pop open beers and break out steaks to grill
.. sacreblue !
Not just the French. Spanish were like that as well. My first deployment, I was supporting a detachment of the Spanish Air Force, so I got invited to some of their shindigs. Beer for miles... once a week they'd fly a plane in just loaded with food and beer. It was awesome.
Many Americans have asked me, “Is it true the French served wine at dinner and had wine in their MREs?” The answer is yes and no. They not only served wine at dinner, they sometimes served it at lunch as well. The firebase I was on, which wasn’t that big, had three bars. The regular French Joes could have all the alcohol they wanted in their tents.
I went on a week-long mission to a combat outpost with a French recon platoon. The outpost was at the furthest edge of coalition control, surrounded by Taliban. One of their company XO’s, a captain, accompanied us. When we occupied the outpost, the first thing the troops did was pop open beers and break out steaks to grill
.. sacreblue !
Not just the French. Spanish were like that as well. My first deployment, I was supporting a detachment of the Spanish Air Force, so I got invited to some of their shindigs. Beer for miles... once a week they'd fly a plane in just loaded with food and beer. It was awesome.
I don't recall booze... but my second tour in Iraq, we stopped into the Aussie compound for fuel/ammo/water, and got invited to stay for dinner. The biggest T-Bone I've EVER had in my life (maybe it was two... no clue), had to get "seconds" just for the non-meat parts of the meal and THAT was piled onto my plate well beyond its load bearing limit
While whenever we're on the US bases, the only time we ate remotely as well as that was on 4th of July, Thanksgiving and Christmas (and on Sundays my first deployment... 3d ACR put on the best Steak/Lobster night in Iraq)
djones520 wrote: Yeah, for as much money as our military spends on quality of life, our food certainly seems to be the worst in theater.
I'm so looking forward to Afghanistan now with all the draw down thats taken place... *sarcasm alert*
Remember. Friday nights is steak night. Which include either crab legs or lobster tails. We all look forward to Friday nights. We know what's for dinner on Friday nights. Chow hours are known to all. Everyone on the FoB knows the schedule. Everyone off the FoB knows the schedule. Everyone on the FoB knows whats for dinner on Friday nights. Everyone off the FoB knows what's for dinner on Friday nights. That's including the Insurgents
It was sunday on my last rotation. Steak and lobster tails.
Let me tell you... even that can get old after a while.
Best food I've had while deployed, Veterans Day. Outback Steak House and Carrera's flew out enough food to feed about 5,000 people There was only about 1500 on base... man did I get fat that night.
And a sprinkle of mortar and/or rocket fire being they know we're lined up to be served.
Your down to three choices in that situation...
-Move to the bunkers
-Get flat on the ground
-Move ahead of the line over those that picked the above two
Jihadin wrote: And a sprinkle of mortar and/or rocket fire being they know we're lined up to be served.
Your down to three choices in that situation...
-Move to the bunkers
-Get flat on the ground
-Move ahead of the line over those that picked the above two
By month #2 I'll be so fed up with the chow I'll just be living on PB&J's that i've pilfered fromt he dfac, so shouldn't be to much of an issue.
Jihadin wrote: And a sprinkle of mortar and/or rocket fire being they know we're lined up to be served.
Your down to three choices in that situation...
-Move to the bunkers
-Get flat on the ground
-Move ahead of the line over those that picked the above two
By month #2 I'll be so fed up with the chow I'll just be living on PB&J's that i've pilfered fromt he dfac, so shouldn't be to much of an issue.
Pppfffttttt
Weak Airman
Its damn beef jerky and coffee
LordofHats wrote: Say what you want about the French War Record, but at least they do war with class
With the exception of WW1 (arguably), WW2 and Indo-China, overall their record is actually pretty good. They certainly gave a good showing in Mali recently.
LordofHats wrote: Say what you want about the French War Record, but at least they do war with class
With the exception of WW1 (arguably), WW2 and Indo-China, overall their record is actually pretty good. They certainly gave a good showing in Mali recently.
I know. I just like mocking them. Good old nation to nation jabbing. All in good sport I think we're past the days where we have to start a world war over it
France was barely holding on throughout the war. Even managed to face the risk of mutiny across their entire military on two separate occasions. WWI was a very bad war for everyone. France ran the continual risk of ending up like Russia (the waging of the war toppling the government) throughout.
On the other hand, all that gak you folks were dealing with and you still managed not to lose
First time I ever had lobster was courtesy of the US military in Afghanistan.
And for the record, the USMC were the most professional soldiers from a foreign nation I have had the pleasure to serve alongside.
France got steam rolled in WW1, but the Germans, on the cusp of victory took a wrong left turn, and it opened up a gap that let the British and some French elements punch through. The Germans had to fall back, and so the stalemate started.
djones520 wrote: France got steam rolled in WW1, but the Germans, on the cusp of victory took a wrong left turn, and it opened up a gap that let the British and some French elements punch through. The Germans had to fall back, and so the stalemate started.
In addition, at the end of the war, no Germany territory was in French hands, while the Germans still controlled territory in France.
Never questioned the quality of French troops in WW1 or WW2, the issue was more that the generals/leaders who made the strategies used ways that were out of time.
Interesting article especially on the puritanical views.
Jehan-reznor wrote: Never questioned the quality of French troops in WW1 or WW2, the issue was more that the generals/leaders who made the strategies used ways that were out of time.
Interesting article especially on the puritanical views.
Yeah, that is a given. Both the French and German soldiers were superb. It was the leadership that made the difference. Much like the war that followed a couple decades later, the Germans were definitely an echelon above in leadership and tactics. The French soldiers though, they fought valiently, if not vainly.
Jehan-reznor wrote: Never questioned the quality of French troops in WW1 or WW2, the issue was more that the generals/leaders who made the strategies used ways that were out of time.
Interesting article especially on the puritanical views.
And even then, there were a small number of "excellent" generals from France. Much of the reading that I've done on the subject seems to point much more at the civilian politics of the time hamstringing the military much more than the military itself... .And even then, I use the term civilian politics because some of the generals were so far entrenched into "regular" politics that they couldn't see the barrel of a rifle for what it was.
Hordini wrote: I'm not 100% certain, because I'm not very familiar with that specific field manual, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say I'm pretty sure that's false. Reason being, the US Military actually has a lot of COIN and guerrilla warfare related doctrine that has been written over the years, much of which predates the Waffen-SS, particularly the Marine Corps Small Wars manual. Judging by that, as well as the terror tactics used by the SS, I don't think that has much to do with American COIN doctrine.
It would have to be false. Even ignoring the brutality of the SS, the organisation was also highly inconsistent and reactive, traits that no modern military would want to embrace in dealing with a counter insurgency.
I mean, when developing policy, who would look to the idiots that managed to make people want to go back to Stalin, and copy anything they did?
djones520 wrote: France got steam rolled in WW1, but the Germans, on the cusp of victory took a wrong left turn, and it opened up a gap that let the British and some French elements punch through. The Germans had to fall back, and so the stalemate started.
Wrong turn? The Germans were marching straight at Paris (thanks to the terrible Plan XVII and poor French offensive doctrine). They were stopped at Marne because the French did brilliantly in rapidly assembling an army to stop them, and because French heavy artillery finally game to the party.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jihadin wrote: Weapon technology was more advance then the strategy/tactics used on the battlefield.
Tactics on the field evolved constantly, and were actually quite sophisticated and varied. By the end of the war German infiltration tactics and British combined arms operations were actually pretty impressive, especially considering the limited communication tech.
And that's actually the big issue - communication tech. Armies had exploded in size in a few years, but the tech to co-ordinate those armies had barely progressed at all. Fixed line telephones are great, but only on the defensive - forward units relying on runners and signal flags were pretty dodgy, and that frequently resulted in commanders being fed wrong information about the success of various attacks.
Well, and the you add in the ability of the defender to rapidly move reserves by train, while the attacker is stuck with footslogging, and you realise why most offensives petered out fairly quickly.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hordini wrote: In addition, at the end of the war, no Germany territory was in French hands, while the Germans still controlled territory in France.
But that's meaningless. Germany lost. They could have been in the outer suburbs of Paris for all it mattered, because they signed on the bottom line admitting they were to blame, they got to watch their country get cut up and have bits of its handed out to other countries, and pay reparations for the next generation. That's losing.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ensis Ferrae wrote: And even then, there were a small number of "excellent" generals from France. Much of the reading that I've done on the subject seems to point much more at the civilian politics of the time hamstringing the military much more than the military itself... .And even then, I use the term civilian politics because some of the generals were so far entrenched into "regular" politics that they couldn't see the barrel of a rifle for what it was.
Petain seems to me a character that really defines France in WWI and WWII. In WWI he did what was needed to keep France in the war, and fed troops as needed in to the meatgrinder at Verdun, won the operation and all but ensured Germany would have to lose the war of attrition.
But come WWII, as he was promoted in to the war cabinet as the disaster snowballed, the same fight wasn't there. It was a much more hopeless position, for sure, but it seemed that idea that came out of Verdun after the battle, that France had done that once and never again, had actually crept in to the mind of the chief saviour of Verdun.
paulson games wrote: I visited France back when I was in high school and I found that I was a couple inches taller than most of the people I met (not towering but a bit taller) I was also into a fair amount of sports at the times so I was in good shape and had far more muscular build. I was invited to a track meet and left them in the dust. When I'm at home I was basically average height and running ability, due to practicing martial arts at the time I was really strong but not bulky. I'm 5"10 while most of my friends are in the 6ft range with a couple being 6'2-6'4 (and were marines)
While I didn't tower over people I felt like I had a much larger physical presence than the average french person, this was also compounded by the fact that so many items like doors and beds are much smaller there as many of the building are centuries old and built for people who were even shorter at that period, it was a bit odd.
In Europe and Asia I am the perfect height and size lol It's here I am tiny...(makes sense I am part of the first generation of my family to be born here and not Europe)
But that's meaningless. Germany lost. They could have been in the outer suburbs of Paris for all it mattered, because they signed on the bottom line admitting they were to blame, they got to watch their country get cut up and have bits of its handed out to other countries, and pay reparations for the next generation. That's losing.
It's absolutely not meaningless. That very fact helped fuel the Dolchstoßlegende which had a huge impact on the disgruntled WWI veterans who later joined the various Freikorps and other groups that contributed to the rise of Nazism, such as the SA. It doesn't mean Germany didn't lose WWI - they did. It also doesn't mean that the French military performed particularly well - they often didn't, which led to Germany taking and holding French territory until the end of the war. But to say that it's meaningless is only accurate if you see war as a zero sum game of win/loss ratios, which it is not. Germany holding French territory at the end of WWI, with no German territory in French hands contributed directly to the rise of the Nazis and the start of the second world war.
Hordini wrote: It's absolutely not meaningless. That very fact helped fuel the Dolchstoßlegende which had a huge impact on the disgruntled WWI veterans who later joined the various Freikorps and other groups that contributed to the rise of Nazism, such as the SA. It doesn't mean Germany didn't lose WWI - they did. It also doesn't mean that the French military performed particularly well - they often didn't, which led to Germany taking and holding French territory until the end of the war. But to say that it's meaningless is only accurate if you see war as a zero sum game of win/loss ratios, which it is not. Germany holding French territory at the end of WWI, with no German territory in French hands contributed directly to the rise of the Nazis and the start of the second world war.
First up, I'm not looking to claim the French performance in WWI was equal to the Germans - it wasn't. France won because they had better allies and British control of the sea. Their own performance was, well, 'good enough'.
My point is that where the front lines were when the war was concluded is meaningless. It was was fought in France because Germany mobilised faster and fought better in the early, mobile stages of the war. From there, both sides realised they were facing an attritional war then the capture of any ground was meaningless. Look at the German strategic objectives for Verdun - kill 3 Frenchmen for every 2 Germans lost. Consider the British objective for the Somme - kill more Germans than British are lost. The actual capturing of ground was not prioritised because that wasn't how the war was going to be won.
You are right that German vets used the fact that the war concluded while they were still in France as evidence of betrayal from political masters... but the point is that the vets were wrong, Germany's military and economic capacity was spent, no matter who's country the front line was in.
This may be a semantic argument, in how we see the use of the word 'meaningless'. Consider 9/11 Truthers - they have meaning in that they exist and have political relevance (though nothing like the political relevance of the post WWI situation), so that is meaning in the sense that I think you're using the term. But their arguments are meaningless in that they have no sensible basis, they are fundamentally mistaken, and so are meaningless in the way I have used the word.
) as it meant less brits had to die including my family members. I am also glad that they help our troops out now as it means my friends have returned home safe from tours and are able to share a beer.
