America's overrated Army

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Gitzbitah**

Amaya wrote:The Persians, Greeks, Romans, French, and Germans all have had significantly more impressive armies throughout history than America ever had or even has today.

Many of the boards historians are busy debunking your historical facts, and I'll leave them to it. I have an issue with your phrasing. Claiming that these armies were better 'throughout history' really makes this a hollow statement. That would mean that the Roman army of 1911 (remember those guys?) were a superior army to America today. The same goes for the modern day Persian army. Heck, logically the Germans or the Romans must have had worse armies when they were mixing it up during the fall of Rome.

If you'd like to advance this discussion into- well, a discussion- please set your criterion.
What constitutes a major war?
What are the qualities of a good army?
What are signs of a bad army?
How can we compare a bunch of sword and spear wielding Romans to a force that is equipped with modern assault rifles and heavy armored vehicles?
Do results make for a successful army, or is it the intent of the training and preparation?

You may have a point amaya- but you're going to have to get past your rhetoric to make it.

**Orlanth**

Deathshead420 wrote: So your saying that the allied forces would have won if America wouldn't have entered WW 1&2.

The Soviets would have won WW2 so long as the UK held enough attention elsewhere. By the winter of 1941 the reich was already doomed. I would however have taken a while longer.

WW1 was 'won' because of an internal economic collapse of the central powers, they were not defeated in battle. Arguably that would still have happened without US involvement so long as the US remained a hostile market.
On the other hand the spring offensive of 1918 nearly finished the western allies, the US certainly helped especially with the French who had been bled dry and were conscripting 15 year olds.

**Experiment 626**

Frazzled wrote:
FabricatorGeneralMike wrote:
Horst wrote:The whole point is that america doesn't need a large army, really, at this point. I mean... we're a continent away from the other superpowers.

The only reason the US keeps such a large military is because of those Canadians, just like the =][= no body expects the Canadians.

The world underestimates the awsesome might of a Tim Hortons fuelled military at its peril.

That should be a Tim Hortons denied military! We're all happy and content when we have plentiful supplies of our double doubles + timbits. It's when they get taken away by our enemies we turn angry!

But really, why does everyone always forget Canada's roles during WWI & WWII?

And you guys have also missed out on 1812, when the Americans began their short-lived invasion of the Canadian colonies and were soundly thrashed by the British and native allies! No borders changed and nothing was really gained or lost in the end, but it was definately a failure for the US.

**Frazzled**

Experiment 626 wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
FabricatorGeneralMike wrote:
Horst wrote:The whole point is that america doesn't need a large army, really, at this point. I mean... we're a continent away from the other superpowers.

The only reason the US keeps such a large military is because of those Canadians, just like the =][= no body expects the Canadians.

The world underestimates the awsesome might of a Tim Hortons fuelled military at its peril.

That should be a Tim Hortons denied military! We're all happy and content when we have plentiful supplies of our double doubles + timbits. It's when they get taken away by our enemies we turn angry!

But really, why does everyone always forget Canada's roles during WWI & WWII?

And you guys have also missed out on 1812, when the Americans began their short-lived invasion of the Canadian colonies and were soundly thrashed by the British and native allies! No borders changed and nothing was really gained or lost in the end, but it was definately a failure for the US.

Count your blessings. Had my ancestors known about the greatness of maple glazed donuts, they would have tried that with beignets and launched the Cajun Canada War of 1815. Grapeshot firing gator cannon are unstoppable...

**AndrewC**

Gitzbitah wrote:How can we compare a bunch of sword and spear wielding Romans to a force that is equipped with modern assault rifles and heavy armored vehicles?

On a personal perspective, I would say the Roman Legionnaire is probably, physically, braver than the modern infantryman based on the possible wounds. By that I mean that an infantryman will probably never see the bullet that injures him, but the Legionnaire will see and anticipate a sword/axe wound.

But this is all oranges to apples to pears here.

Cheers

Andrew

**Grakmar**

I don't understand all the competitiveness.

The US, Canada, China, UK, USSR, Australia, France, Poland, New Zealand, South Africa, India, Denmark, Norway, Belgium, Luxumburg, Netherlands, Greece, Yugoslavia, Panama, Costa Rica, DR, El Salvatore, Haiti, Honduras, Nicaragua, Philippines, Guatemala, Cuba, Korea, Czechoslovakia, Mexico, Brazil, Ethiopia, Iraq, Iran, Bolivia, Columbia, Liberia, Peru, Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary, Ecuador, Paraguay, Uruguay, Venezuela, Turkey, Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Finland, Argentina, Chile, and Italy (that was quite the list, did I miss anyone?) all came together to defeat the Nazis. It was quite the accomplishment, and surely we can all celebrate our victory over evil as brothers.

**Relapse**

Amaya wrote:Before I go into my rant I want to state that I am specifically referring to America's Army as being overrated, primarily by Americans, not the Air Force, Navy, or Marines. Ignorant Americans love to go on about how we saved Europe in WW1 and WW2. This is simply untrue and not only it is untrue, America has never achieved decisive control of a territory by means of an army without significant aid from Allies. In my opinion the greatest armies since the 19th century were France under Napoleon and the Werhmacht of the Third Reich. Soviet Russia would be notable due to the sheer massiveness of their forces, but they lacked the superior training and tactical prowess of Napoleon's forces and the Werhmacht.

Looking back at the major wars America has been in.

American Revolution - Engaged only a fraction of the English army which at the time was not arguably the best army in Europe. At the very least they certainly lacked the most prestigious units. America would have been hard pressed to win without French aid and the developments of more pressing events in Europe that required British attention.

The American Civil War - Interestingly, this war featured the largest and bloodiest battles that America has ever engaged in and, correct me if I'm wrong, the bloodiest civil war any Western nation has engaged in. From a military standpoint all the war showed was that the North won due to superior manpower and resources despite excellent Southern generals and superior riflemen.

World War I - America lost over 100,00 men to this war and did help contribute to the defeat of the Central Powers, but England, France, and even Serbia contributed much more to the Entente. The Central Powers were bloodied and near defeat by the time America entered the war and the knowledge that America could provide millions of fresh soldiers in addition to the widespread flu pandemic contributed more to Germany's surrender than any involvement by the American army.

World War II - This is the war widely thrown about to highlight the cowardice of France and the greatness of America. France did not perform exceptionally poorly during the war, they were caught off guard by a numerically superior, motivated, and highly trained force. France had to choose between surrender and slaughter. Ironically, America would experience a similar event in the early days of the Korean War when "inferior" NKPA forces drove back ROK and US armies to the Pusan perimeter and nearly seized control of South Korea.

America never faced the full might of Werhmacht which was fighting a two front war and was being severely depleted by the numerically superior Soviet forces. The American army contributed greatly to Germany's defeat, but no more than the Soviets did and in my opinion much less, seeing how Americans fought alongside British and other Allied forces whereas the Soviets were left to fend for themselves.

America also never faced the full might of the Japanese army in a major land engagement. A significant portion of the Japanese army was in Manchuria on guard against Soviet incursions. America played a massive role in defeating Japan, but success in the Pacific theater can not be solely attributed to the army. America's navy was superior, the Marine Corps performed splendidly, and the Soviet threat distracted a large part of the Japanese army significantly weakening Japanese holdings. And of course, Japan was struggling to hold onto their territories in Korea, Manchuria, China, and SE Asia which required a great deal of manpower and had already cost Japan many lives.

Germany lost Europe when they attempted to invade Russia. They lacked the resources and manpower to successfully capture and control Russia west of the Urals. America simply sped up Germany's inevitable defeat. America's victory in the Pacific was more due to naval and air superiority than it was to an impressive army.

The Korean War - At the start of the war America's army was unfathomably weak and unprepared. The war ended in a truce and the army managed to successfully defeat both the NKPA and Chinese forces, but by no means on their own. The ROK army's incredible bravery at the start of the war was critical to stalling the NKPA's advance and made the war actually winnable. American naval and air superiority was absolute and allowed the army to move unmolested. Chinese forces performed very well during the war despite lacking mechanized supply lines and any form of air support. Strictly speaking, the American army did not perform very well against what should have been an inferior opponent.

Vietnam War - It is an undeniable fact that American forces dominated the war and won nearly every major engagement. The VC and other communist forces fought bravely and fiercely, but they were little more than a ragtag group of guerrillas that could do little more than harass a proper army be it Soviet or American. I am not saying American veterans of the war did not fight bravely but nearly every physical advantage was on their side. They should have dominated and they did so for the most part. America simply lost the will to fight and simply didn't understand how to properly go about that war.

I don't consider the Gulf War or the current War on Terror to be major wars due to their relatively small scale in comparison to prior wars.

The American army has never defeated another major power by achieving control over a territory without aid of allies and extenuating circumstances in their favor. That said, since WW2, America has had by far the finest Navy and Air Force in the world which, thanks to massive technological advances, make them one of the most powerful, if not the dominant, military power on the planet despite having a relatively small army.

All that and yet here you sit in a free country made possible by the over rated army. I have to ask this, have you been in the military?

**Samus_aran115**

That's a cool rant.

I have less respect for the army than I do for the other branches, but I still acknowledge them as an important part of our global projection force. Seems like the Marines are the ones who get stuff done nowadays. The Army seems like the clean-up crew, and the occupational force.

If the DOD has to cut anything, it should be the Army, and traditional infantry and armor divisions in particular. Not to mention army reserve units, which seem to be funding vacuums. Rangers, Airborne and Special Operations communities are what I personally think they should pool resources into. There's a place for 'grunts', but in a much smaller capacity.

**Fattimus_maximus**

WOW, there i alot of hate out there for my branch of choice... From the sound of it, the OP must of been denied recruitment or something, cause alot of what he has said is well... wrong. Enough people have gone into specifics why but the guy right above me, you got some issues that I would like to clarify right now.

I have less respect for the army than I do for the other branches

Really? even though they are bigger and older then all the other branches ( I consider national guard an off-branch of the army, so please don't use their "1632 founded" argument against me). And don't forget the Air force started as the Army Air Corps, so um... no army, no air force.

Seems like the Marines are the ones who get stuff done nowadays. The Army seems like the clean-up crew, and the occupational force

The Marines are a shock force but they are also shockingly small compared to the army. I will begrudgingly admit that the army is an occupational force but we have still done our fair number of invasions.
( Italy, Sicily, Normandy, Market-garden, Gulf War 1 and 2)

If the DOD has to cut anything, it should be the Army, and traditional infantry and armor divisions in particular.

Yes, let's cut the largest and most diverse military organization in america. Buddy, I was in traditional infantry and armor divisions, and if you didn't have them you couldn't get anything done. You think a bunch of cooks, supply clerks and chaplains assistants could do all the patrols and combat operations? HINT: they can't.

Rangers, Airborne and Special Operations communities are what I personally think they should pool resources into

First off, airborne is and never has been a special forces organization. 101st, 82nd and 173rd are all regular army units with nothing beyond a tab to signify any uniqueness. 10th mountain has a tab too, but they don't only get deployed to the Mountains. Rangers and SF DO get all the funding, the money that a battalion (600-700 troopers) of infantry gets is what a ranger or SF company (100 troopers) gets for gear and supplies, and believe me even those guys use grunts. We drove SF around for two days looking for an HVT one time, they need us like we need them. Also on another note, guess where they draw operators for SF and rangers from? THE GRUNT INFANTRY, they are all proud blue-chord wearing hard-

es.

On a personal perspective, I would say the Roman Legionnaire is probably, physically, braver than the modern infantryman based on the possible wounds. By that I mean that an infantryman will probably never see the bullet that injures him, but the Legionnaire will see and anticipate a sword/axe wound.

While i will be the first to admit that A legionnaire could out-pace me or even the best modern infantryman, seeing the sword coming and being able to do something about it is no braver then driving down the road not knowing if the next tire on the side of the road is packing an EFP (true-story).

**Joey**

Compare the casualty rates for Battle of the Bulge to Battle of Kursk and American troops were head and shoulders above the Soviets. The Germans would have crushed the Soviets were it not for the Western allies, of which the USA was the major player.

**Yak9UT**

America had an okay Army in WW2 but they certainly didn't win the war on thier own, if anything it was the USRR that really won,

Had Hitler never attacked Russia and never started the war with Russia, USA would have proberly never gone to war against Germany.

Battles like the battle for Moscow, the battle of Stalingrad and the battle of Kursk really change the outcome of the war against Germany.

And lets not forget that USSR helped the surrender of Japan to the allies, Had the the Russians not prepare for the invasion of Japan the war might have gone on longer even at the threat of nuclear annihilation.

**Ahtman**

Yak9UT wrote:America had an okay Army in WW2 but they certainly didn't win the war on their own

Did someone make that claim?

**Frazzled**

Yak9UT wrote:America had an okay Army in WW2 but they certainly didn't win the war on thier own, if anything it was the USRR that really won,

Had Hitler never attacked Russia and never started the war with Russia, USA would have proberly never gone to war against Germany.

Battles like the battle for Moscow, the battle of Stalingrad and the battle of Kursk really change the outcome of the war against Germany.

And lets not forget that USSR helped the surrender of Japan to the allies, Had the the Russians not prepare for the invasion of Japan the war might have gone on longer even at the threat of nuclear annihilation.

1. The USSR didn't win WWII. They beat the Germans, Romanians, and Bulgarians with Allied help.
2. The US defeated Japan with help from the UK (including CD and Aussies etc.)
3. US and UK defeated Italy and German forces there (later).

The US went to war with Germany, not because of Russia but becasue Germany declared war on the US.
The Soviets invaded Manchuria. Whether or not that did anything to end the war is up for debate. on the positive it kicked the

out of the Japanese army there that was occupying Manchuria and committing war crimes so that is a good thing.

EDIT: I'm not really getting this. Germany and Japan picked on the strongest powers in history and got their heads handed to them. With the exception of very few instances it wasn't a mano O mano situation. Off the top of my head I can only think of:
*Battle of Britain - air force vs. air force.
*1941/1942 Soviet invasion. Although there were German armies in Africa, majority in Barborrossa. After that Allies started head banging and signifcantly drawing off land and air forces.
*Pacific Naval War. Japan vs. US in the great game of Oops I sank your battle fleet.

**Yak9UT**

Ahtman wrote:
Yak9UT wrote:America had an okay Army in WW2 but they certainly didn't win the war on their own

Did someone make that claim?

No but some people believe that USA joing the war meant that it was to be won by the Allies.

**Joey**

Yak9UT wrote:America had an okay Army in WW2 but they certainly didn't win the war on thier own, if anything it was the USRR that really won,

Had Hitler never attacked Russia and never started the war with Russia, USA would have proberly never gone to war against Germany.

Battles like the battle for Moscow, the battle of Stalingrad and the battle of Kursk really change the outcome of the war against Germany.

And lets not forget that USSR helped the surrender of Japan to the allies, Had the the Russians not prepare for the invasion of Japan the war might have gone on longer even at the threat of nuclear annihilation.

The Germans would have crushed the Soviets if they didn't have to divert so many men and resources to the war in the West. Not to mention the huge damage done by strategic bombing to their industry. Not to mention the entire soviet infrastructure dependant on Lend-Lease trucks. Not to mention the huge invasion of France in 1944 by the Western Allies.
But yeah, other than that the Soviets won.

**mattyrm**

I don't have much respect for the military in general and I was in for ten years! I think its cos soldiers bs so much. Whats wrong with being a radio operator or a clerk or a chef of a driver or a storeman? All jobs are equally important, so why do men think they must always be Gods of war?

Run of the mill army and especially the Navy and the Airforce are always "attached" to someone! Whenever I meet a sailor or an airman they say "Oh yeah we do the equivalent of the SEALS!" or "Im attached to /names unit far better than the one they actually joined" or "Oh I'm an airforce, recon green beret with sniper, airborne training" as If you can bs a bloke who was ten years in. Why the feth would the military spend a small fortune sending you on every course just cos your a badge collector? Do they need chefs and signallers to be snipers?

I even had some fether in the airforce tell me that in his basic training he had to run 70 miles in 12 hours in -10 degrees with 200lbs on his back or some ridiculous gak.

And then some SF are gung-ho and walk like they have a mattress duct taped to their back, so I dont like them either.. And dont even start me on the National Guard...

I know, just hate everyone like me and take people on an individual basis. You wouldn't say "bricklayers are professional" or "Plumbers are professional" so why bother making generic statments about soldiers? Some are great pros regardless of branch, some are fething douchebags.

Fattimus_maximus wrote:

While i will be the first to admit that A legionnaire could out-pace me or even the best modern infantryman, seeing the sword coming and being able to do something about it is no braver then driving down the road not knowing if the next tire on the side of the road is packing an EFP (true-story).

By out pace do you mean in a race?!

Ill play devils advocate and say I doubt a legionnaire could out-pace me at all. I can run 3 miles in about 21 minutes. I mean, aren't we all 6 inches taller these days as well?

With sports science, greatly improved nutrition, improved training techniques, and my regular use of creatine and whey protein, I reckon I could knack a legionnaire physically, its the swordfighting stuff he would beat my taller stronger ass at!

**Joey**

mattyrm wrote:
I know, just hate everyone like me and take people on an individual basis. You wouldn't say "bricklayers are professional" or "Plumbers are professional" so why bother making generic statments about soldiers? Some are great pros regardless of branch, some are fething douchebags.

In The Sun newspaper soldiers are literally synonymous with Heroes(nearly always capitalised). Not venerating soldiers as living avatars of Adonis gets you labled a politically correct, probably muslim, probably gay, liberal.
That's my perception of public mood, anyway. Personally I don't much care. I mean, I must have met about 10 blokes in pubs who were all snipers in the SAS, and they all seemed like alright guys...

**Yak9UT**

Joey wrote:
Yak9UT wrote:America had an okay Army in WW2 but they certainly didn't win the war on thier own, if anything it was the USRR that really won,

Had Hitler never attacked Russia and never started the war with Russia, USA would have proberly never gone to war against Germany.

Battles like the battle for Moscow, the battle of Stalingrad and the battle of Kursk really change the outcome of the war against Germany.

And lets not forget that USSR helped the surrender of Japan to the allies, Had the the Russians not prepare for the invasion of Japan the war might have gone on longer even at the threat of nuclear annihilation.

The Germans would have crushed the Soviets if they didn't have to divert so many men and resources to the war in the West. Not to mention the huge damage done by strategic bombing to their industry. Not to mention the entire soviet infrastructure dependant on Lend-Lease trucks. Not to mention the huge invasion of France in 1944 by the Western Allies.
But yeah, other than that the Soviets won.

Troops were being moved out of the western front to fight in the eastern front while D Day was happening they used POW soldiers on the beaches of normandy to compensate for lack of german troops.

**AustonT**

Amaya wrote:
The Korean War - At the start of the war America's army was unfathomably weak and unprepared. The war ended in a truce and the army managed to successfully defeat both the NKPA and Chinese forces, but by no means on their own. The ROK army's incredible bravery at the start of the war was critical to stalling the NKPA's advance and made the war actually winnable. American naval and air superiority was absolute and allowed the army to move unmolested. Chinese forces performed very well during the war despite lacking mechanized supply lines and any form of air support. Strictly speaking, the American army did not perform very well against what should have been an inferior opponent.

Lets try at the start of the War America's Army wasn't present and work from there. The ROK is notable in the invasion for mass defection and retreat, incredible bravery indeed. I guess we'll overlook that while the 8th Army was pushing past the 38th Parallel that the Air Force and Fleet Air Arm completely lost air superiority to the MiGs for nearly a year while the Soviet and Chinese fighter ran amok. Lacking any form of air support indeed.
I think that sums up how I reacted to your entire rant of factually incorrect dribble: indeed.

LordofHats wrote:
Only three Generals in the Civil War are worth calling excellent. Two of them come from the North. What the South had was a large number of capable and talented generals facing off against a number of incompetent northern generals for the first few years of the war.

I probably disagree, but I'd love to know who you are referring to.

Samus_aran115 wrote:
If the DOD has to cut anything, it should be the Army, and traditional infantry and armor divisions in particular. Not to mention army reserve units, which seem to be funding vacuums. Rangers, Airborne and Special Operations communities are what I personally think they should pool resources into. There's a place for 'grunts', but in a much smaller capacity.

This post staggeringly full of either fail or ignorance.

**Inquisitor Lord Bane**

Relapse wrote:

All that and yet here you sit in a free country made possible by the over rated army. I have to ask this, have you been in the military?

Well if that's actually his picture I doubt hes even old enough, and most of his "facts" were probably pulled off of Google. He's probably just been talking to a Marines recruiter, they love to talk s

about the Army.

**AustonT**

mattyrm wrote: I don't have much respect for the military in general and I was in for ten years! I think its cos soldiers bs so much. Whats wrong with being a radio operator or a clerk or a chef of a driver or a storeman? All jobs are equally important, so why do men think they must always be Gods of war?

**Joey**

Yak9UT wrote:
Joey wrote:
Yak9UT wrote:America had an okay Army in WW2 but they certainly didn't win the war on thier own, if anything it was the USRR that really won,

Had Hitler never attacked Russia and never started the war with Russia, USA would have proberly never gone to war against Germany.

Battles like the battle for Moscow, the battle of Stalingrad and the battle of Kursk really change the outcome of the war against Germany.

And lets not forget that USSR helped the surrender of Japan to the allies, Had the the Russians not prepare for the invasion of Japan the war might have gone on longer even at the threat of nuclear annihilation.

The Germans would have crushed the Soviets if they didn't have to divert so many men and resources to the war in the West. Not to mention the huge damage done by strategic bombing to their industry. Not to mention the entire soviet infrastructure dependant on Lend-Lease trucks. Not to mention the huge invasion of France in 1944 by the Western Allies.
But yeah, other than that the Soviets won.

Troops were being moved out of the western front to fight in the eastern front while D Day was happening they used POW soldiers on the beaches of normandy to compensate for lack of german troops.

There were over a million German soldiers fighting the allies in France. You seriously telling me the Eastern Front didn't need those men more?

**Ahtman**

Yak9UT wrote:
Ahtman wrote:
Yak9UT wrote:America had an okay Army in WW2 but they certainly didn't win the war on their own

Did someone make that claim?

No but some people believe that USA joing the war meant that it was to be won by the Allies.

And some in the UK and Russia think they could have done it single-handedly as well, but you didn't refute those unmade claims. It was a team effort by everyone involved.

**mattyrm**

Joey wrote: I must have met about 10 blokes in pubs who were all snipers in the SAS, and they all seemed like alright guys...

Ive met about 300. I think 198 were in the Navy, 100 were in the Air Force and two were full time students.

**Yak9UT**

Frazzled wrote:
Yak9UT wrote:America had an okay Army in WW2 but they certainly didn't win the war on thier own, if anything it was the USRR that really won,

Had Hitler never attacked Russia and never started the war with Russia, USA would have proberly never gone to war against Germany.

Battles like the battle for Moscow, the battle of Stalingrad and the battle of Kursk really change the outcome of the war against Germany.

And lets not forget that USSR helped the surrender of Japan to the allies, Had the the Russians not prepare for the invasion of Japan the war might have gone on longer even at the threat of nuclear annihilation.

1. The USSR didn't win WWII. They beat the Germans, Romanians, and Bulgarians with Allied help.
2. The US defeated Japan with help from the UK (including CD and Aussies etc.)
3. US and UK defeated Italy and German forces there (later).

The US went to war with Germany, not because of Russia but becasue Germany declared war on the US.
The Soviets invaded Manchuria. Whether or not that did anything to end the war is up for debate. on the positive it kicked the out of the Japanese army there that was occupying Manchuria and committing war crimes so that is a good thing.

EDIT: I'm not really getting this. Germany and Japan picked on the strongest powers in history and got their heads handed to them. With the exception of very few instances it wasn't a mano O mano situation. Off the top of my head I can only think of:
*Battle of Britain - air force vs. air force.
*1941/1942 Soviet invasion. Although there were German armies in Africa, majority in Barborrossa. After that Allies started head banging and signifcantly drawing off land and air forces.
*Pacific Naval War. Japan vs. US in the great game of Oops I sank your battle fleet.

Germany had the most powerful military for a while they made large ground in russia and had almost seiced victory.

USA opening up on another front with Germany helped the war and help Britan but had Germany manage to conquer Russia they would be able to divert thier major forces in the West and would have proberly been able to repel the Allies.

Japan was also quite powerful its Army were veterans of the war in china but the Japanese military failed to work together properly.

Japan surrenderd to the Allies to insure that they would not risk thier way of life being destroyed by communsim partcially why the Allies nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki to end the war quickly before the Soviets invaded as the had agreed with Stalin that he may gain japnaese territory
(America was worried of a communsit state being so close to the US )

I

**mattyrm**

AustonT wrote:
mattyrm wrote: I don't have much respect for the military in general and I was in for ten years! I think its cos soldiers bs so much. Whats wrong with being a radio operator or a clerk or a chef of a driver or a storeman? All jobs are equally important, so why do men think they must always be Gods of war?

Funny. What are you in anyway AT, I never thought to ask because I like you on an individual basis, so I don't much care if you fill planes with petrol.

**AustonT**

mattyrm wrote:
AustonT wrote:
mattyrm wrote: I don't have much respect for the military in general and I was in for ten years! I think its cos soldiers bs so much. Whats wrong with being a radio operator or a clerk or a chef of a driver or a storeman? All jobs are equally important, so why do men think they must always be Gods of war?

Funny. What are you in anyway AT, I never thought to ask because I like you on an individual basis, so I don't much care if you fill planes with petrol.

I was a drone operator, time will tell if this time next year I'm an operator again or some silly officer type.

**Ribon Fox**

But isn't Codex: America LSA (Land, Sea and Air) the most overpowered codex to date...opps

By the way D-day was planed by the British http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D-day, it was one of her last days as a super power. They had the experience of how to do amphibious landings that the US comanders didn't.

As for all the WW1 blustering the US troops probably helped shorten the war indirectly but really the war was pretty much won. The RNs total war blockade of german ports sort to starve the german popules into submition (which it did horrifically efficiently, some thing the germans tried and all most succeded to do to the UK in WW2).

WW2 the US had the manufacting might but not the tech, that came from the UK as they had to beg for help and offerd up nigh on all of its top secert tech that even the US hadn't even thoght of. The UK could invent but it lacked the mass production and raw matirals the US had.

Korea was a UN police action that still is in opperation, so not really a war...

Veitnam...well what could be said about that fail. The US should have fought it with total comitment, and kept the media away. Like what they did in the two world wars (and if the reported did see some thing a kind word or two would shut him up and the story disapire).

**Yak9UT**

Joey wrote:
Yak9UT wrote:
Joey wrote:
Yak9UT wrote:America had an okay Army in WW2 but they certainly didn't win the war on thier own, if anything it was the USRR that really won,

Had Hitler never attacked Russia and never started the war with Russia, USA would have proberly never gone to war against Germany.

Battles like the battle for Moscow, the battle of Stalingrad and the battle of Kursk really change the outcome of the war against Germany.

And lets not forget that USSR helped the surrender of Japan to the allies, Had the the Russians not prepare for the invasion of Japan the war might have gone on longer even at the threat of nuclear annihilation.

The Germans would have crushed the Soviets if they didn't have to divert so many men and resources to the war in the West. Not to mention the huge damage done by strategic bombing to their industry. Not to mention the entire soviet infrastructure dependant on Lend-Lease trucks. Not to mention the huge invasion of France in 1944 by the Western Allies.
But yeah, other than that the Soviets won.

Troops were being moved out of the western front to fight in the eastern front while D Day was happening they used POW soldiers on the beaches of normandy to compensate for lack of german troops.

There were over a million German soldiers fighting the allies in France. You seriously telling me the Eastern Front didn't need those men more?

The Germans diverted lots of men to fight on the Eastern front but to move all of them would make them defenceless to an Allied invasion.

The Allies were not as much of a threat then the Soviets, The Germans had lost millions of men on the Eastern front (they lost entire army divisions) they had to send forces form the western front to withhold thier advance

**Frazzled**

mattyrm wrote:
Joey wrote: I must have met about 10 blokes in pubs who were all snipers in the SAS, and they all seemed like alright guys...

Ive met about 300. I think 198 were in the Navy, 100 were in the Air Force and two were full time students.

I'm not a sniper, but a tracker. I can sense the presence of pizza at 600 yards.