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.

sebster wrote:
The US armed forces are the only army in the history of world for which it can be said that they can go anywhere in the world they please, and be confident of inflicting decisive defeat on whoever's army happened to be defending that place. I really don't see how you can dismiss that.

Except when the army defending it is not using conventional tactics. Guerilla warfare defeated them in Vietnam and terrorism tactics used by the Taliban has so far prevented a decisive victory in Afghanistan.

In Vietnam they were facing a force extremely well trained in their choice of fighting. The Vietminh (later called Vietcong) had had years of warfare against Japan in World War 2 and then against France when they were fighting for independence from colonialism. The US had vastly superior technology that didn't work against the tactics that were being used against them.

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.

Not hardly.
-Tanks ours were better.
-Mustang. It was actually a design you wanted from us. Combined with your engine (Rolls Royce merlin?) it seemed to do just fine.
-Our Bombers were just fine.
-Our naval aircraft and ships were better.
-Radar. We had it too.
-Plus we had the Tommie gun.


What tech besides your awesome Rolls Royce engines did you have again that we didn’t? Now once we were both on the same side both countries shared a lot.

NELS1031 wrote:

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.

How do you figure? What qualities did they have that place them over their modern contemporary in the US Army?

This reminds me of "greatest boxer of all time" threads on boxing/fighting forums.

Dude1: "Rocky Marciano is undefeated, ergo greatest ever"
Dude2: "No way, he didn't face the level of competition Ali, Sugar Ray or even Tyson faced"
Dude3: "yeah dude2, Marciano is top 5 greatest, but not best Joe Lewis is #1"
Spambot: "go to keylogger.com to make millions, I do it, so can all"
Dude1: "It wasn't Marcianos fault he dominated his era."
Dude4 : "lol mike tyson was greatest lol " post pic of holyfields partially eaten ear
Dude2: "just saying, it was a different time for the sport"
Dude1: "whatever nazi"

Topics like this are always tethered to subjective interpretations of history and can never be settled. Except on Deadliest Warrior where a fat kid with a computer, a douche with a slow speed camera and a dude in a lab coat can simulate it. With real science!

OF COURSE!! SCIENCE!!!

But seriously I don't know about this thread.

I was in the 82nd Airborne once upon a time, and even though the Army rubbed me the wrong way, with the garrison life and doing nothing and what not, I gotta say the Army does hold up to the statement that it is well trained. I was infantry so I don't know about the other guys, but the gunner on our gun team could cut your legs off with a 240 from 800m away.

Frazzled wrote:

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.

Not hardly.
-Tanks ours were better.
-Mustang. It was actually a design you wanted from us. Combined with your engine (Rolls Royce merlin?) it seemed to do just fine.
-Our Bombers were just fine.
-Our naval aircraft and ships were better.
-Radar. We had it too.
-Plus we had the Tommie gun.


What tech besides your awesome Rolls Royce engines did you have again that we didn’t? Now once we were both on the same side both countries shared a lot.

I wouldn't have said technology. I would have said specialist knowledge. Our spy networks and code breakers for example.

OT, but yet totally worth 30secs of you life to read.

Allegedly the German air controllers at Frankfurt Airport are renowned as a short-tempered lot. They, it is alleged, not only expect one to know one's gate parking location, but how to get there without any assistance from them. So it was with some amusement that we (a Pan Am 747) listened to the following exchange between Frankfurt ground control and a British Airways 747, call sign Speedbird 206. Speedbird 206: "Frankfurt, Speedbird 206 clear of active runway." Ground: "Speedbird 206. Taxi to gate Alpha One-Seven." The BA 747 pulled onto the main taxiway and slowed to a stop. Ground: "Speedbird, do you not know where you are going?" Speedbird 206: "Stand by, Ground, I'm looking up our gate location now." Ground (with quite arrogant impatience): "Speedbird 206, have you not been to Frankfurt before?" Speedbird 206 (coolly): "Yes, twice in 1944, but it was dark,...... and I didn't land."

Frazzled wrote:

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.

Not hardly.
-Tanks ours were better.
-Mustang. It was actually a design you wanted from us. Combined with your engine (Rolls Royce merlin?) it seemed to do just fine.
-Our Bombers were just fine.
-Our naval aircraft and ships were better.
-Radar. We had it too.
-Plus we had the Tommie gun.


What tech besides your awesome Rolls Royce engines did you have again that we didn’t? Now once we were both on the same side both countries shared a lot.

A lot http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_technological_cooperation_during_World_War_II
I't may not have been big or flashy but the UK had the brains, the US the brawn.

Frazzled wrote:

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.

Not hardly.
-Tanks ours were better.
-Mustang. It was actually a design you wanted from us. Combined with your engine (Rolls Royce merlin?) it seemed to do just fine.
-Our Bombers were just fine.
-Our naval aircraft and ships were better.
-Radar. We had it too.
-Plus we had the Tommie gun.


What tech besides your awesome Rolls Royce engines did you have again that we didn’t? Now once we were both on the same side both countries shared a lot.

The only real difference in all those you noted was in tanks. As far as I'm aware American tanks were superior to British ones.
The others you listed were only possible due to superior industry/resources. There was nothing the Americans could do that the British couldn't, given the same resources.
And as A Town Called Malus says, British intelligence, code breaking and computational theory was head and shoulders above anywhere else in the world, including the USA.

AustonT wrote:OT, but yet totally worth 30secs of you life to read.

Allegedly the German air controllers at Frankfurt Airport are renowned as a short-tempered lot. They, it is alleged, not only expect one to know one's gate parking location, but how to get there without any assistance from them. So it was with some amusement that we (a Pan Am 747) listened to the following exchange between Frankfurt ground control and a British Airways 747, call sign Speedbird 206. Speedbird 206: "Frankfurt, Speedbird 206 clear of active runway." Ground: "Speedbird 206. Taxi to gate Alpha One-Seven." The BA 747 pulled onto the main taxiway and slowed to a stop. Ground: "Speedbird, do you not know where you are going?" Speedbird 206: "Stand by, Ground, I'm looking up our gate location now." Ground (with quite arrogant impatience): "Speedbird 206, have you not been to Frankfurt before?" Speedbird 206 (coolly): "Yes, twice in 1944, but it was dark,...... and I didn't land."

Automatically Appended Next Post:

A Town Called Malus wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

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.

Not hardly.
-Tanks ours were better.
-Mustang. It was actually a design you wanted from us. Combined with your engine (Rolls Royce merlin?) it seemed to do just fine.
-Our Bombers were just fine.
-Our naval aircraft and ships were better.
-Radar. We had it too.
-Plus we had the Tommie gun.


What tech besides your awesome Rolls Royce engines did you have again that we didn’t? Now once we were both on the same side both countries shared a lot.

I wouldn't have said technology. I would have said specialist knowledge. Our spy networks and code breakers for example.

Ayah, Brit spy stuff is the bomb. Now we had similar with the Japanese but no one outspies Da Queen!

Why must you lot insist on turning this into another tiresome "we are the best" thread?

None of you fought in WW2....

Joey wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

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.

Not hardly.
-Tanks ours were better.
-Mustang. It was actually a design you wanted from us. Combined with your engine (Rolls Royce merlin?) it seemed to do just fine.
-Our Bombers were just fine.
-Our naval aircraft and ships were better.
-Radar. We had it too.
-Plus we had the Tommie gun.


What tech besides your awesome Rolls Royce engines did you have again that we didn’t? Now once we were both on the same side both countries shared a lot.

The only real difference in all those you noted was in tanks. As far as I'm aware American tanks were superior to British ones.
The others you listed were only possible due to superior industry/resources. There was nothing the Americans could do that the British couldn't, given the same resources.
And as A Town Called Malus says, British intelligence, code breaking and computational theory was head and shoulders above anywhere else in the world, including the USA.

1. I didn't make the claim the US was better, I'm merely defending against that outrageous claim.
Also, as noted our naval aircraft were better. Thats not disputed by anyone. You even used our Catalinas.
Tommy guns were better than anything anyone had. Sorry, but if the Terminator had a WWII submachine gun, that would be it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ribon Fox wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

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.

Not hardly.
-Tanks ours were better.
-Mustang. It was actually a design you wanted from us. Combined with your engine (Rolls Royce merlin?) it seemed to do just fine.
-Our Bombers were just fine.
-Our naval aircraft and ships were better.
-Radar. We had it too.
-Plus we had the Tommie gun.


What tech besides your awesome Rolls Royce engines did you have again that we didn’t? Now once we were both on the same side both countries shared a lot.

A lot http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_technological_cooperation_during_World_War_II
I't may not have been big or flashy but the UK had the brains, the US the brawn.

The only thing I see is the engines and an anti tank gun at the start of the war. you're not helping your argument here. Again I'm not the one making thre claim that the "UK had the brains, the US had the brawn" here.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

mattyrm wrote: Why must you lot insist on turning this into another tiresome "we are the best" thread?

None of you fought in WW2....

I think my wiener dog did. He's that old.

Frazzled wrote:
Tommy guns were better than anything anyone had. Sorry, but if the Terminator had a WWII submachine gun, that would be it.

I personally would make the case for the Suomi as the best submachine gun of the war. With the MP 38/40 a close second. The Tommy gun is essentially WWI tech, not that that says much so is the BAR, Browning 30cal MG, etc. Worth mentioning at least.

Frazzled wrote:
The only thing I see is the engines and an anti tank gun at the start of the war. you're not helping your argument here. Again I'm not the one making thre claim that the "UK had the brains, the US had the brawn" here.

An engine they even gave to the Germans...for shame.

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

Lee, Grant, and Sherman, and you probably do disagree I just don't think that any of the other Civil War Generals are particularly noteworthy beyond "they fought in the Civil War and they fought well."

As far as I'm aware American tanks were superior to British ones.

Dennis Showalter (WWII Scholar): "British tank design in the Second World War was so atrociously bad that I'd go so far as to suggest it was treasonous."

Yeah. It took the British five years to really put out a decent tank, and the Cromwell wasn't much better than the Sherman.

Frazzled wrote:Automatically Appended Next Post:

A Town Called Malus wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

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.

Not hardly.
-Tanks ours were better.
-Mustang. It was actually a design you wanted from us. Combined with your engine (Rolls Royce merlin?) it seemed to do just fine.
-Our Bombers were just fine.
-Our naval aircraft and ships were better.
-Radar. We had it too.
-Plus we had the Tommie gun.


What tech besides your awesome Rolls Royce engines did you have again that we didn’t? Now once we were both on the same side both countries shared a lot.

I wouldn't have said technology. I would have said specialist knowledge. Our spy networks and code breakers for example.

Ayah, Brit spy stuff is the bomb. Now we had similar with the Japanese but no one outspies Da Queen!

Favourite spy of the war is possibly the double agent who fed the Germans information about D-Day so he could later tell them that it was a feint and the real invasion was coming at Calais. Apart from that being so insane that no-one else would think of it being a trick, there was also the fact that the double agent didn't actually exist. He was a fabrication created by a man called Ian Fleming, a man I'm sure we've all heard of

LordofHats wrote:

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

Lee, Grant, and Sherman, and you probably do disagree I just don't think that any of the other Civil War Generals are particularly noteworthy beyond "they fought in the Civil War and they fought well."

As far as I'm aware American tanks were superior to British ones.

Dennis Showalter (WWII Scholar): "British tank design in the Second World War was so atrociously bad that I'd go so far as to suggest it was treasonous."

Yeah. It took the British five years to really put out a decent tank, and the Cromwell wasn't much better than the Sherman.

just a few off the top of the head:
Sheridan
Reynolds
Jackson
Longstreet
Forrest
Buell

just a few off the top of the head:
Sheridan
Reynolds
Jackson
Longstreet
Forrest
Buell

SO they fought in the Civil War and they fought well?

If we were to do a survey of military strategy over the course of history, none of these men would really be worth mentioning. Lee is worth mentioning because he really was brilliant (and probably the only Southern General capable of grasping strategic warfare at a level that allowed him to successfully execute a campaign). Grant and Sherman are probably only noteworthy for incidentally stumbling into Clauswitz's trinity of war (and Grant himself was also brilliant in his own way).

There really weren't any other Civil War generals capable of operating beyond the Division or the Corp level with great success. I remember one article mentioning Hook I think it was having nearly achieved a combined arms warfare that wouldn't really be seen until WWI, but that's it. Civil War saw a huge number of capable Division and Corp leaders but as far as I can tell on 3 truly remarkable generals.

This is all subjective of course.

mattyrm wrote: Why must you lot insist on turning this into another tiresome "we are the best" thread?

None of you fought in WW2....

This is why we can't have nice wars.

I can lay this to bed REALLY fast. since the OP is likely a teenager and has ABSOLUTELY no idea what he's talking about, and likely neither of his parents served in either of the world wars....

I work at the VA and I talk to WWII patients frequently.

there isn't anything nice about war at all. and if you think there is, go to a warzone, or where ANY soldier comes home afterwards. it is NOT a friendly gig.

so I tell you this OP, feelin froggy about calling out the US Army on a gaming thread, head to your local recruiters office and jump.

otherwise shut your fething mouth. you can discuss these topics when you've held the hand of a man who faithfully served a cause he believed in and NOT jsut our country in the last place he would ever see alive. I have.

ignorant stupid ass children.

come talk to one of our patients, lost both his legs and half his skull in Afghanistan. (not Iraq) he's FETHING 20 now.

ingrate.

ban me if its warranted, but I will not stand idle by and listen to this drivel any longer.

I commend you dear troll on envoking the spirit of rage within me.

peace i'm out.

LordofHats wrote:

just a few off the top of the head:
Sheridan
Reynolds
Jackson
Longstreet
Forrest
Buell

SO they fought in the Civil War and they fought well?

If we were to do a survey of military strategy over the course of history, none of these men would really be worth mentioning. Lee is worth mentioning because he really was brilliant (and probably the only Southern General capable of grasping strategic warfare at a level that allowed him to successfully execute a campaign). Grant and Sherman are probably only noteworthy for incidentally stumbling into Clauswitz's trinity of war (and Grant himself was also brilliant in his own way).

There really weren't any other Civil War generals capable of operating beyond the Division or the Corp level with great success. I remember one article mentioning Hook I think it was having nearly achieved a combined arms warfare that wouldn't really be seen until WWI, but that's it. Civil War saw a huge number of capable Division and Corp leaders but as far as I can tell on 3 truly remarkable generals.

This is all subjective of course.

Without Longstreet and Jackson there could be no Lee. Longstreet was year's ahead of his time in the understanding of the new techynology of war, that traipsing forward like Redocats at Bunker Hill would lead to a slaughter due to rifled muskets and minie balls. Jackson was aggressive and instrumental in the early victories in Virginia.

Grant was smart for understanding it was a numbers game. Sherman was brilliant for the concept of deep raid and destruction of the enemy's morale.
Reynolds was viewed by many historians as one of the best generals the Union had (til that whole Arghh I'm shot ! thing).
Sheridan was an attack dog of a cavalry officer.
Buell was good but unsung because he didn't follow Grant from the West.
Forrest wrote the book on mobile warfare and his actions were reviewed by certain German thinkers who liked armored horses...

Fattimus_maximus wrote: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.

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.

The Navy (and consequently the Marine Corps) has had a huge part in aviation, and it wasn't AAC planes bringing down japanese warships in WW2... If the air force didn't exist, we would manage. Plus, why should "big" have anything to do with how competent a force is?

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)

1,000,000 (at least) to 300,000 is 'shocking'? I wouldn't call it shocking. Especially considering every Marine is a rifleman and is trained to kill. I think you're right about most of those invasions, except possibly the Gulf Wars. Marines were the first to fight in Desert Shield, IIRC.

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.

I'm not saying get rid of them entirely. They do serve a purpose, but certainly their girth could be slimmed down...

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.

Never said they were a SF community, but I agree that they're not necessarily unique. My point is flexibility. An airborne soldier can always perform traditional grunt duties, but a grunt can't perform airborne/ranger/SF. If I had to choose one to slim down, it would be the 'nothing special' guys, since they offer nothing over more specialized troops. Forget I said anything about Heavy Armor though. I think that's an important presence tool, and when the SHTF, Tanks are invaluable.

I think you're taking my post the wrong way, maybe. I think grunts serve a purpose, just like everything else, and as an occupational force, they seem to do alright. The Army would do a fantastic job if warfare was cut and dry, but it really hasn't been since around WW2... I have no doubt they would horrendously effective at being just that, an Army. In the modern world though, I think the army needs to adapt a little bit.

LordofHats wrote:

Poppabear wrote:Ok, in WWI, the Germans new they already lost before the Americans even landed in France. The U.S Army's only major battle was in some forest near the german border and it took them weeks to take the whole thing.

Are you suggesting that Operation Torch, the Battle of Cherbourg, the Falaise Pocket, or the invasion of Italy never happened? Or are we using some arbitrary definition of major battle?

Germany was beaten WAY before America even came in to WWI, the Germans were about to collapse, and there is no two ways about it. America just spread up the process by a tiny bit.

One can recognize the invasion of Normandy and the subsequent battles as being ultimately meaningless to the outcome of the war and still recognize it for the monumental feat that they represented was. No nation in history to that time had successful launched the entirety of its military power overseas and successfully won before like that. Let alone over the distances and with the numbers we're looking at in WWII. Its a huge testament to the ability of American military planners that they could execute a war across thousands of miles in two directions! And in WWII, those planners were Army.

even Romel said that Germany would lose the war several times and the first time he said that was at the start of 1943 (some time in January).

That would be during the Battle of Tunisia after Rommel was forced to leave the Afrika Korp to their fate by Hitler. Whether he actually meant it or if it was one of his rash statements is debatable ( I think he meant it).

You know I'm talking about WWI eh? Well accept for the comment about rommel and the comment about you guys not having to be in europe from 443-45 and onwards.

So are you talking about WWI or WWII?

LordofHats wrote:

Poppabear wrote:Ok, in WWI, the Germans new they already lost before the Americans even landed in France. The U.S Army's only major battle was in some forest near the german border and it took them weeks to take the whole thing.

Are you suggesting that Operation Torch, the Battle of Cherbourg, the Falaise Pocket, or the invasion of Italy never happened? Or are we using some arbitrary definition of major battle?.

Pretty sure none of that happened in WW1

I agree with Popabear. The US had little significant to do with WW1. To be honest the name it is usually given in europe: 'The Great War' is more apt than world war one.

It's a free speech thing. Nobody here fought in WW2 or WW1 but if we want to talk about it all day and night, that is our right. Unless of course the mods say otherwise Anyway, with that sort of logic, nobody should talk about the past or study it because nobody here was alive during the civil war, battle of hastings, the 1st crusade etc ect

I agree that war is the scourge of humanity and that being shot at is not an experience I would care to repeat, but this is a discussion board for a hobby that involves plastic soldiers. What do you expect?

Finally, I take issue BIG issue with Frazz going on about 1814 and the battle of New Orleans. This battle was fought after the treaty was signed. The British knew this and hence, put up no resistance. Compare this to the treachery of the American forces led by Jackson who ignored British pleas to stop fighting. Our guys were peace loving tourists who took a wrong turn in Canada

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:It's a free speech thing. Nobody here fought in WW2 or WW1 but if we want to talk about it all day and night, that is our right. Unless of course the mods say otherwise Anyway, with that sort of logic, nobody should talk about the past or study it because nobody here was alive during the civil war, battle of hastings, the 1st crusade etc ect

This.

Oh and I just thought I'd mention that the latin in your signature isn't quite right. It should be "Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori". From the poem by Wilfred Owen, right? Great poem.

ifStatement wrote:

LordofHats wrote:

Poppabear wrote:Ok, in WWI, the Germans new they already lost before the Americans even landed in France. The U.S Army's only major battle was in some forest near the german border and it took them weeks to take the whole thing.

Are you suggesting that Operation Torch, the Battle of Cherbourg, the Falaise Pocket, or the invasion of Italy never happened? Or are we using some arbitrary definition of major battle?.

Pretty sure none of that happened in WW1

I agree with Popabear. The US had little significant to do with WW1. To be honest the name it is usually given in europe: 'The Great War' is more apt than world war one.

Other than al the actions in Africa, the Middle East, the Stans area and Far East Asis you're completely correct.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:It's a free speech thing. Nobody here fought in WW2 or WW1 but if we want to talk about it all day and night, that is our right. Unless of course the mods say otherwise Anyway, with that sort of logic, nobody should talk about the past or study it because nobody here was alive during the civil war, battle of hastings, the 1st crusade etc ect

I agree that war is the scourge of humanity and that being shot at is not an experience I would care to repeat, but this is a discussion board for a hobby that involves plastic soldiers. What do you expect?

Finally, I take issue BIG issue with Frazz going on about 1814 and the battle of New Orleans. This battle was fought after the treaty was signed. The British knew this and hence, put up no resistance. Compare this to the treachery of the American forces led by Jackson who ignored British pleas to stop fighting. Our guys were peace loving tourists who took a wrong turn in Canada

Oh you went there...

ifStatement wrote:To be honest the name it is usually given in europe: 'The Great War' is more apt than world war one.

Or 'The War To End All Wars'. Sadly that name has been proven false

I'm really amazed at how claiming America's army is overrated equates to saying that it is garbage.

Since a great deal of people fail miserably at reading comprehension I will further explain my statement.

1) The Army is a branch of the military not the entirety of it. Saying that a branch of the military is overrated does not equate to saying that the whole military is overrated (which it is not, if anything it does not receive the respect it deserves). An appropriate metaphor would be to say that a basketball player's jump shot is overrated, even if the player is still quite good.

2) There is no denying that the Army is very good and certainly one of the best trained and equipped in the world. The soldiers serving in Combat Arms right now are quite possibly better in terms of skill than any of their predecessors. Certainly, the Special Forces are extremely skilled and would rival the greatest warriors of history. Despite that, the Army has historically had many failings and still has some of those failings today.

America has never had the will to send large numbers of her men to fight and die in foreign wars except in defense of a ally or in a 'righteous' crusade. You'll note that America initially desired to avoid conflict in both WW1 and WW2 and delayed considerably in providing reinforcements to Korea. This shortcoming detracts from the quality of the Army, not necessarily the individual soldier.

Because of America's lack of will the Army is frequently gutted immediately following a war. An excellent example of this would be the post WW2 Army. Not only were many units under 70% strength, but the soldiers in them were undisciplined and poorly trained. The new, softer Army was forced by the civilian populace to stop being tough and harsh on its soldiers. This contributed significantly to the armies embarrassing performance in the early days of Korea. American men literally threw down their weapons and fled from the NKPA onslaught abandoning wounded and supplies. It was undoubtedly one of the poorest showings by the Army in its history.

The Army is still soft in many ways today and many young soldiers (and Marines for that matter) fail to grasp that they are in the service to fight, and be killed . It is not their fault, but that of all Americans, because we loathe war so greatly that we can not stomach the true nature of a soldier. This shortcoming is relatively recent, I would say it only dates as far back as Korea. Still, even prior to that, the American army had never won any overly impressive victories. That is not to say they weren't successful, because they were wildly successful. Success alone does not make an army great. The Werhmacht was ultimately defeated, but is widely acknowledged as one of the finest armies of all time, if not the finest army of the 20th century.

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Finally, I take issue BIG issue with Frazz going on about 1814 and the battle of New Orleans. This battle was fought after the treaty was signed. The British knew this and hence, put up no resistance. Compare this to the treachery of the American forces led by Jackson who ignored British pleas to stop fighting. Our guys were peace loving tourists who took a wrong turn in Canada

I can only assume you are being sarcastic.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Amaya wrote: The Werhmacht was ultimately defeated, but is widely acknowledged as one of the finest armies of all time, if not the finest army of the 20th century.

You and Nazi Atlantis should totally date.

Frazzled wrote:

ifStatement wrote:

LordofHats wrote:

Poppabear wrote:Ok, in WWI, the Germans new they already lost before the Americans even landed in France. The U.S Army's only major battle was in some forest near the german border and it took them weeks to take the whole thing.

Are you suggesting that Operation Torch, the Battle of Cherbourg, the Falaise Pocket, or the invasion of Italy never happened? Or are we using some arbitrary definition of major battle?.

Pretty sure none of that happened in WW1

I agree with Popabear. The US had little significant to do with WW1. To be honest the name it is usually given in europe: 'The Great War' is more apt than world war one.

Other than al the actions in Africa, the Middle East, the Stans area and Far East Asis you're completely correct.

Well other than the middle east, which again the US had relatively little to do with, they weren't significant theatres. So yeh, pretty much correct.

Compairing armies throughout time, and tech levels is such a wobbly position to posit from.
Really this sort of thing just leads to silly assertions and memes like this one.