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.

A Town Called Malus wrote:

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.

Best crack open a book or two. After Tet '68 the Vietcong were about extinct and the NVA took up the fight, and it wasn't limited to guerilla warfare. You may also want to do a bit of research into how the US Army (and other branches) performed against them and then look at the strategic side to adjust your knowledge on what defeated the US. (hint: it wasn't the VC guerilla warfare tactics).

Zakiriel wrote: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.

Silly assertions? Yeh I'd say. Assuming there is a place which exists called "Briton" of course.

Gitzbitah 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.

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.

The "historians" disproving my points are either rambling wildly (Frazzled) or unable to understand my post (partially my failing).

Any war that exceeds a certain duration, mobilization of troops, historical impact, number of territories affected, and number of casualties. The only major wars that America has been involved in during the 20th Century would be WW1 and 2, Korea, and Vietnam. I don't consider the current War on Terror to be a major war due to relatively low number of casualties and lack of significant battles. It is more of a short war followed by a prolonged holding action.

The US has a good army. It doesn't have a great or legendary army. The closest thing to that probably be Patton's 3rd Army and the Marines (despite being a Marine Corps and not an army).

The soldiers of a great army must understand or at least accept their purpose (to fight and be killed), be willing to do so in foreign lands far from home, must possess excellent physical stamina, must be highly disciplined and skilled, and must be able to cope with fear.

America only tends to accept the first two in defense of an ally or in a "crusade" such as in the Pacific Theater of WW2. Americas inability to accept those points led to defeat in Vietnam whereas an army that possessed the qualities of the Roman Legions would have been much harder to drive out.

The necessity of physical stamina is at times ignored or considered to be of lesser importance due to our mechanized forces. In areas where our vehicles are unable to move, the ability to march 15-20+ miles a day becomes increasingly important. The necessity of physical stamina is highly enforced in the Marine Corps because they lack vehicles and are quite active in the mountainous regions of Afghanistan. The USMC SOI requires Marines to complete a 15 kilometer march with an existence load (read 100~ lbs of gear and weaponry) in order to complete the course. Other Marines are required to complete a 10 kilometer march.

China's temporary success in Korea can be attributed greatly to their marching speed. They moved farther and faster than American intelligence could have possibly believed and managed to catch American forces unaware. The superior firepower and armor of American forces ultimately prevailed, but it did service to highlight the value of fast moving infantry.

I would say that the average discipline and skill of US Army today is quite possibly the highest it has ever been in some ways, but it really doesn't compare to older armies. There was a time when soldiers served for life regardless of rank. 20 year privates (or whatever the lowest rank or two of the army was) were not uncommon. A 20 year veteran is enormously superior to a soldier who has served only a handful of years. They are battle hardened and tough beyond modern understanding. Younger soldiers may panic, but it will take much more to break the will of a grizzled veteran. Therein lies a great problem, the Army's officer and NCO corps is without a doubt excellent, but soldiers typically serve for 4-8 years. The days of ancient campaigners are over.


It is, of course, very difficult to compare soldiers from different eras, but I think we can safely acknowledge that the average legionnaire was both physically and mentally tougher than any modern infantryman in addition to quite possibly being more skilled at his trade. The more committed a soldier is to his trade the better he will be. America does not require its soldier to be nearly as devoted to their trade as other armies have done in the past because we have no love or desire for war and because our technological (especially naval and air) superiority allows our forces on a whole to be victorious without having our average soldiers on par with Roman legionnaires.

Maybe its because you write like you tried to OD'd on angry angsty teenager pills. here let me bold some of the things that might piss people off, instead of encouraging some sort of, you know, reasonable discussion.

Amaya wrote: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.
****Frazzled bold****Here's where the angry pills kick in.

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.
***Frazzled note: you didn't say this in your first post and very few posts have alluded to that.***

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.
***Frazzled note: probably, heh no ones perfect.

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.
***Frazzled note: wait where's the bad thing here?***

You'll note that America initially desired to avoid conflict in both WW1 and WW2
****Again, where's the bad side? Plus this has nothing to do with the uber killy power, just that, wow democracies aren't generally eager to go to war***

and delayed considerably in providing reinforcements to Korea.
***NO. They didn't Your awareness of history is incredibly bad. There were US military units fighting there immediately. The US pulled together a coalition under the UN (unheard then and since) in record time to support SK). It took time, because at the start, the US military had just massively downsized from WWII. Everything was in mothballs and US forces available were limited.

This shortcoming detracts from the quality of the Army, not necessarily the individual soldier.
***NO. it means, until the Cold War, the US did not maintain a large standing army. We didn't need to. There are really strong arguments you still don't. To hit us in the US with troops you have to get through the Air Force, Navy, and enough nuclear weapons to scare Darth Vader. ***

Because of America's lack of will the Army is frequently gutted immediately following a war.
***Don't be daft. Its not lack of will (you're clearly not a taxpayer). We don't need to. Indeed if the Cold War had not occurred the Army would have been tiny. Who exactly do we need a large standing army to fight?

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.
***And within days they toughened up. Thats called surviving a surprise attack. Shortly thereafter the corn cob guy came and planned Phillipines II-this time its nuclear and we stomped the NKs head to toe.

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 .
***Wow, this just screams teenager who's never fought anything except his sisters. In the real world, there is no Respawn.***

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.
****You would say wrong.
-Yorktown
-New Orleans
-Gettysberg
-Vicksburg
-Chattanooga
-Sherman's Georgia campaign
-The Seminole Wars
-Cuba

Normandy
Morocco
Sicily
Operation Cobra / Cobra II
Bulge
breaching the Siegfried Line
Borneo
New Guinea
Phillipines
Guadalcanal
Okinawa
Inchon



Automatically Appended Next Post:

ifStatement wrote:

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.

Didn't say the US just said its not just a European War. If you look at a map of all the locations and countries that fought, its literally the vast majority of the populated surface of the Earth.

Frazzled wrote:

ifStatement wrote:

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.

Didn't say the US just said its not just a European War. If you look at a map of all the locations and countries that fought, its literally the vast majority of the populated surface of the Earth.

Yeh and i didn't say it was just a European war either.

I think it would be wise of you to at least read a book or two on Korea since your grasp of the initial stages of the war are at best, quite poor. This Kind of War by T.R. Fehrenbach would be a good start.

So either way, you are trolling by making rather explosive comments that are oddly specific so you can make a point that really is what?

Amaya wrote:I think it would be wise of you to at least read a book or two on Korea since your grasp of the initial stages of the war are at best, quite poor. This Kind of War by T.R. Fehrenbach would be a good start.

Neatly summed up.

Overall, then, how does This Kind of War stack up? Clearly, it is dated in its presentation of the political context and the MacArthur firing. From today’s perspective, the author’s language and views of the Cold War are almost quaint. While the emphasis on individuals stands up well, despite the book’s length, Fehrenbach’s coverage of the war is narrow. There is very little on the air portion of the war. The lack of either citations or a bibliography also limits the usefulness of this effort. Finally, this is a long book written in a flamboyant, journalistic style that some readers will find refreshing and others will find annoying

As a historian I tend to find books without citation "questionable" sources and return them to the stack as useless.

CptJake wrote:

A Town Called Malus wrote:

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.

Best crack open a book or two. After Tet '68 the Vietcong were about extinct and the NVA took up the fight, and it wasn't limited to guerilla warfare. You may also want to do a bit of research into how the US Army (and other branches) performed against them and then look at the strategic side to adjust your knowledge on what defeated the US. (hint: it wasn't the VC guerilla warfare tactics).

The Tet Offensive shattered American support for the war just as much as the revelation of the atrocities at My Lai. All the technology and firepower couldn't stop the North Vietnamese from being able to strike right at the heart of the south.

US tactics were centred around achieving a high number of confirmed kills, which was reflected in their use of Search and Destroy missions. With mobile infantry using helicopters they had a good fighting force but one that was ill-trained and ill-equipped to fight in the jungle environment they found themselves in.

I have studied the Vietnam War. Guerilla warfare was not a military victory but it was a strategic one. US soldiers were living in constant fear of attack when on patrol and any villager could potentially be a Vietcong fighter. The psychological effects of Guerilla warfare were extremely successful.

The "historians" disproving my points are either rambling wildly (Frazzled)
***I mustb have hit a nerve. As I like to sing when walking by the kids “teeeeeeeeeeeeenager!”


Any war that exceeds a certain duration, mobilization of troops, historical impact, number of territories affected, and number of casualties.
***WTF are you talking about?

The only major wars that America has been involved in during the 20th Century would be WW1 and 2, Korea, and Vietnam.
***You forgot a little shindig in the 90s with arguably the largest tank battle in history.

I don't consider the current War on Terror to be a major war due to relatively low number of casualties and lack of significant battles. It is more of a short war followed by a prolonged holding action.
***That’s because you’re not there and probably don’t know anyone who was/is.

The US has a good army. It doesn't have a great or legendary army. The closest thing to that probably be Patton's 3rd Army and the Marines (despite being a Marine Corps and not an army).
***See above. We took less than 300 casualties.

The soldiers of a great army must understand or at least accept their purpose (to fight and be killed), be willing to do so in foreign lands far from home, must possess excellent physical stamina, must be highly disciplined and skilled, and must be able to cope with fear.
****Except for the foreign lands part duh. For the foreign lands part…says you.

America only tends to accept the first two in defense of an ally or in a "crusade" such as in the Pacific Theater of WW2. Americas inability to accept those points led to defeat in Vietnam whereas an army that possessed the qualities of the Roman Legions would have been much harder to drive out.
****Well the Romans would have just killed everyone or sold them into slavery. Is that what you’re saying?


The necessity of physical stamina is at times ignored or considered to be of lesser importance due to our mechanized forces. In areas where our vehicles are unable to move, the ability to march 15-20+ miles a day becomes increasingly important.
***Duh. And my ability to use a slide rule has really gone to *(&^( since we invented calculators.

The necessity of physical stamina is highly enforced in the Marine Corps because they lack vehicles and are quite active in the mountainous regions of Afghanistan. The USMC SOI requires Marines to complete a 15 kilometer march with an existence load (read 100~ lbs of gear and weaponry) in order to complete the course. Other Marines are required to complete a 10 kilometer march.
***Good. And?

China's temporary success in Korea can be attributed greatly to their marching speed.
***No it can be attributed to surprise, a massive weight of numbers, and guts.

I would say that the average discipline and skill of US Army today is quite possibly the highest it has ever been in some ways, but it really doesn't compare to older armies. There was a time when soldiers served for life regardless of rank. 20 year privates (or whatever the lowest rank or two of the army was) were not uncommon. A 20 year veteran is enormously superior to a soldier who has served only a handful of years. They are battle hardened and tough beyond modern understanding. Younger soldiers may panic, but it will take much more to break the will of a grizzled veteran. Therein lies a great problem, the Army's officer and NCO corps is without a doubt excellent, but soldiers typically serve for 4-8 years. The days of ancient campaigners are over.

***Of course, back in the old days, life meant until you were 30, so big whup.


It is, of course, very difficult to compare soldiers from different eras, but I think we can safely acknowledge that the average legionnaire was both physically and mentally tougher than any modern infantryman in addition to quite possibly being more skilled at his trade.
****In the words of Col. Sherman Potter: “HORSEPUCKY!”

The more committed a soldier is to his trade the better he will be. America does not require its soldier to be nearly as devoted to their trade as other armies have done in the past because we have no love or desire for war and because our technological (especially naval and air) superiority allows our forces on a whole to be victorious without having our average soldiers on par with Roman legionnaires.
***Roman legionnaires were mercenaries. Get over yourself. You’ve been playing computer games too long.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Amaya wrote:I think it would be wise of you to at least read a book or two on Korea since your grasp of the initial stages of the war are at best, quite poor. This Kind of War by T.R. Fehrenbach would be a good start.

TEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEENager!. I had family that fought in Korea. Thou knowest not thine own knavery.

Frazzled wrote:It is, of course, very difficult to compare soldiers from different eras, but I think we can safely acknowledge that the average legionnaire was both physically and mentally tougher than any modern infantryman in addition to quite possibly being more skilled at his trade.
****In the words of Col. Sherman Potter: “HORSEPUCKY!”

YAY! A M*A*S*H reference!

A Town Called Malus wrote:

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.

I think the bigger issue currently being problematic in Afghanistan isn't so much the guerilla tactics of the insurgency, but rather their peoples' insanely backwards resistance to entertain even the very notion of change.
As a whole, the Afghan people don't want anything to change. It's a very closed-minded society who are still firmly rooted in what even Churchhill considered a 'barbaric culture of oppression'.

Those few that wanted change have for the most part gotten out. The ones left are either content to flip the bird to the civilised world or else are too young and/or frightened to get out.
I don't think any force no matter how elite or how well they're lead, be it American, Canadian, British or whoever can make a change or outright 'win the war' over there sadly.

Amaya wrote:I think it would be wise of you to at least read a book or two on Korea since your grasp of the initial stages of the war are at best, quite poor. This Kind of War by T.R. Fehrenbach would be a good start.

The fact that I have read books on the subject makes me unwilling to engage someone who not only doesn't know what they're talking about, but is so cranky with people that disagree.

I'd just like to point out that as evidenced in this thread, expertise on a given topic isn't just the reading of the subject matter, but the interpretation an application of the material as well.

Frazzled your ignorance and vitriolic responses are at once both amusing and annoying.

My father served 23 years in the US Army, retiring with the rank of Lt. Colonel. He was deployed for the entirety of the Gulf War and a couple of times to Iraq during the current WoT.

My uncle is currently an active duty Lt. Colonel in the USAF.

I have a cousin who recently was promoted to Petty Officer, 1st Class (E6, equivalent to Staff Sergeant in the Army) after only 5 years of service. Up until now he has served aboard submarines and I believe he is going to be moving into an instructor billet soon. My knowledge of the USN's recruit training and MoS schools is lacking, so I'm not entirely sure where he will be stationed.

I have multiple friends in both the Army and Marines and I have known individuals who have died and been wounded while serving in the WoT. I will admit that I have not lost a close friend or family member to the war, thankfully.

As for myself, I completed USMC basic at MCRD, San Diego and MCT at Camp Pendleton, California before being medically discharged from the service. Even in that short time frame I was greatly impressed by the professionalism and dedication of USMC officers and NCOs, a view somewhat skewed by the fact the individuals who serve at MCRD are typically the most 'picturesque' Marines and those at MCT are nearly all combat veterans.

So to say, I have no idea what I am talking about and am "blinded by video games" (funny, I don't even own a military video game of any kind) is quite asinine. Yes, combat veterans have greater knowledge than me, but many veterans have willingly shared their knowledge with me and I base my opinions on a combination of reading, personal experience, and second hand knowledge acquired directly from veterans.



Unlike you, I am able to discuss something without becoming emotionally involved in it. For whatever reason you are personally offended by my opinions.

A Town Called Malus wrote:

Frazzled wrote:It is, of course, very difficult to compare soldiers from different eras, but I think we can safely acknowledge that the average legionnaire was both physically and mentally tougher than any modern infantryman in addition to quite possibly being more skilled at his trade.
****In the words of Col. Sherman Potter: “HORSEPUCKY!”

YAY! A M*A*S*H reference!

The honor, is to serve.

Monster Rain wrote:

Amaya wrote:I think it would be wise of you to at least read a book or two on Korea since your grasp of the initial stages of the war are at best, quite poor. This Kind of War by T.R. Fehrenbach would be a good start.

The fact that I have read books on the subject makes me unwilling to engage someone who not only doesn't know what they're talking about, but is so cranky with people that disagree.

I'd just like to point out that as evidenced in this thread, expertise on a given topic isn't just the reading of the subject matter, but the interpretation an application of the material as well.

Perhaps you should read Frazzled's posts including his hastily edited "feth off kid!".

I care very little if anyone disagrees with me as long as they do so politely. I am not a Christian and I do not show common courtesy to those who spit upon me.

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."

/thread

Amaya wrote:Frazzled your ignorance and vitriolic responses are at once both amusing and annoying.
My father served 23 years in the US Army, retiring with the rank of Lt. Colonel. He was deployed for the entirety of the Gulf War and a couple of times to Iraq during the current WoT.

My uncle is currently an active duty Lt. Colonel in the USAF.

I have a cousin who recently was promoted to Petty Officer, 1st Class (E6, equivalent to Staff Sergeant in the Army) after only 5 years of service. Up until now he has served aboard submarines and I believe he is going to be moving into an instructor billet soon. My knowledge of the USN's recruit training and MoS schools is lacking, so I'm not entirely sure where he will be stationed.

I have multiple friends in both the Army and Marines and I have known individuals who have died and been wounded while serving in the WoT. I will admit that I have not lost a close friend or family member to the war, thankfully.

As for myself, I completed USMC basic at MCRD, San Diego and MCT at Camp Pendleton, California before being medically discharged from the service. Even in that short time frame I was greatly impressed by the professionalism and dedication of USMC officers and NCOs, a view somewhat skewed by the fact the individuals who serve at MCRD are typically the most 'picturesque' Marines and those at MCT are nearly all combat veterans.

So to say, I have no idea what I am talking about and am "blinded by video games" (funny, I don't even own a military video game of any kind) is quite asinine. Yes, combat veterans have greater knowledge than me, but many veterans have willingly shared their knowledge with me and I base my opinions on a combination of reading, personal experience, and second hand knowledge acquired directly from veterans.

Thats it, you're just a Jarhead. That explains it. Of course you think Army pukes are wusses (to be polite). Thats the law.

Unlike you, I am able to discuss something without becoming emotionally involved in it. For whatever reason you are personally offended by my opinions.

No you are, or you have an absense of understanding of "tone." Again I'll highlight. To the record, you've yet to say where I am wrong.

Experiment 626 wrote:

A Town Called Malus wrote:

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.

I think the bigger issue currently being problematic in Afghanistan isn't so much the guerilla tactics of the insurgency, but rather their peoples' insanely backwards resistance to entertain even the very notion of change.
As a whole, the Afghan people don't want anything to change. It's a very closed-minded society who are still firmly rooted in what even Churchhill considered a 'barbaric culture of oppression'.

Those few that wanted change have for the most part gotten out. The ones left are either content to flip the bird to the civilised world or else are too young and/or frightened to get out.
I don't think any force no matter how elite or how well they're lead, be it American, Canadian, British or whoever can make a change or outright 'win the war' over there sadly.

Except Rambo

But seriously you are right. The only way you could begin to change that is to get rid of the thing which cemented that view, which in this case was all the propaganda spewed out by the Taliban when they were in power. As long as the Taliban are still there and capable of offensive action they can continue to reinforce their warped view, which makes it impossible to get the full support of the local population which means you can't get rid of the Taliban. A vicious cycle.

What they really needed was an uprising of their own people, without overt international support. If that was at least partially successful (managing to secure territory and support from the population) then it would have shown that there was a portion of the population that does want change and is actively working towards it. If the movement was strong enough with charismatic leaders then it might be able to carry out its goal without outside help, like the Cuban Revolution. If it can't then there would be the case for helping militarily like in Libya.

Amaya wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:

Amaya wrote:I think it would be wise of you to at least read a book or two on Korea since your grasp of the initial stages of the war are at best, quite poor. This Kind of War by T.R. Fehrenbach would be a good start.

The fact that I have read books on the subject makes me unwilling to engage someone who not only doesn't know what they're talking about, but is so cranky with people that disagree.

I'd just like to point out that as evidenced in this thread, expertise on a given topic isn't just the reading of the subject matter, but the interpretation an application of the material as well.

Perhaps you should read Frazzled's posts including his hastily edited "feth off kid!".

I care very little if anyone disagrees with me as long as they do so politely. I am not a Christian and I do not show common courtesy to those who spit upon me.

I was trying to remember rule #1 and be polite. However the original post is my true thought.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Amaya wrote:I care very little if anyone disagrees with me as long as they do so politely. I am not a Christian and I do not show common courtesy to those who spit upon me.

Ditto baby.

Amaya wrote:Frazzled your ignorance and vitriolic responses are at once both amusing and annoying.

My father served 23 years in the US Army, retiring with the rank of Lt. Colonel. He was deployed for the entirety of the Gulf War and a couple of times to Iraq during the current WoT.

My uncle is currently an active duty Lt. Colonel in the USAF.

I have a cousin who recently was promoted to Petty Officer, 1st Class (E6, equivalent to Staff Sergeant in the Army) after only 5 years of service. Up until now he has served aboard submarines and I believe he is going to be moving into an instructor billet soon. My knowledge of the USN's recruit training and MoS schools is lacking, so I'm not entirely sure where he will be stationed.

I have multiple friends in both the Army and Marines and I have known individuals who have died and been wounded while serving in the WoT. I will admit that I have not lost a close friend or family member to the war, thankfully.

As for myself, I completed USMC basic at MCRD, San Diego and MCT at Camp Pendleton, California before being medically discharged from the service. Even in that short time frame I was greatly impressed by the professionalism and dedication of USMC officers and NCOs, a view somewhat skewed by the fact the individuals who serve at MCRD are typically the most 'picturesque' Marines and those at MCT are nearly all combat veterans.

So to say, I have no idea what I am talking about and am "blinded by video games" (funny, I don't even own a military video game of any kind) is quite asinine. Yes, combat veterans have greater knowledge than me, but many veterans have willingly shared their knowledge with me and I base my opinions on a combination of reading, personal experience, and second hand knowledge acquired directly from veterans.



Unlike you, I am able to discuss something without becoming emotionally involved in it. For whatever reason you are personally offended by my opinions.

Oh a marine, well this explains everything Those uppity jarheads are just pissed off because they have nothing to pick on except each other.

Is this one of those e-peen "I knows moar then you about war111" threads?


This Dakka, is why we can't have nice things...

LordofHats wrote:

No one can invade Russia in the winter, it is absolute idiocy.

If you think its winter that really caused those invasions to fail then you need to go read more history. Also, Germany didn't invade in the winter. As an aside, both those winters (1812 and 1941) were actually quite mild. Russia's size is the problem not its winter (and German tanks kept breaking down due to Russian dust clogging the air filters in the engines that doesn't really help). EDIT: Russian winter is as much a hyped myth as France always surrendering and no where near as funny when turned into a joke.

Thats actually incorrect. It was the mud that caused the German tanks to get bogged down, not the dust clogging air filters. And the Russian winter is not a myth. They may have been "mild" winters (actually thats kind of a lie, as they were both average for Russia (in the case of WW2 only 41-42 was really that bad IIRC)), but the reality of that is a "mild" winter in Russia is still a pretty damn cold winter with temperatures well below 0 deg F.

Then explain how Germany and Napoleon invaded Russia in winter when they invaded in June and Russian winter doesn't start until mid October. Also, explain why its Russian winter that beat Napoleon when by the time temperatures started reaching freezing he'd already begun his retreat? Temperatures don't even drop bellow zero until November.

I'm not well versed on my Napoleonic History, so I'll ignore that bit, but in the case of Russia, the invasion didn't really begin to stall until autumn when the first frosts hit and the fall rains come, turning everything to mud. The invasion still had a bit of ''oomph" left in it and kept pressing forward with a good amount of success until... WINTER.

German planners thought Moscow was 200 miles closer than it actually was, and failed to recognize that vital Russian rail lines were a different width than western European lines (meaning they couldn't use trains to transport supplies).

Citation please. Its common knowledge that the Germans had very poor intelligence and the maps were extremely outdated, going back to the first world war, but missing the location of Moscow by 200 miles is kind of unlikely... especially considering, you know, the Germans had diplomatic offices in Moscow, and military staff regularly traveled between Berlin and Moscow and other parts of Germany/Russia prior to the war (as they had a somewhat shaky alliance and the Germans and Russians trained together). Likewise, it was pretty well understood that their was a difference in the rail gauge. The bigger issue was that rail lines that existed on maps were no longer there or were unusable either because of age or deliberate sabotage and dismantling by retreating russian forces. Of course it didn't help that supplies transported by rail had to be unloaded from wide gauge railcars and then reloaded into narrower gauge ones at the border/transition points.

In any case, the operational goal of the invasion was the A-A line, a boundary along the Volga river running from Archangelsk to Astrakahn, and well past Moscow, so that Moscow was mislocated is largely irrelevant.

EDIT: Frankly I find your idolization of the Heer odd. The Wehrmacht I'd argue was all around worse than the Western powers bar Italy. They had an army of between 100 and 140 division. At any given time, 20 of those divisions only existed on paper. Half of them were under manned and equipped, and all but about 30 Germany divisions were pretty much photo copies to their WWI counter parts. The Germany army in WWII was not a modern army and not even a very good army. What it had were a handful of extremely well trained and equipped divisions who managed to use revolutionary tactics to break their opponents, i.e. they got one of the greatest strokes of luck in military history with a brilliant dash of genius (and some pepprica). By 1944, the Heer was finished and it was the Waffen SS pulling a lot of the weight (and getting a lot of the goodies from factories).

I disagree with this assessment. Look at the number of casualties inflicted by the Germans relative to the number suffered. A positive kill ratio is a good measure of effectiveness, and brother you better believe that the Germans were in the black. Regarding the number of divisions that were undermanned, etc. The same can be said of all the combatants. Its sort of impossible to maintain a division at full strength in the middle of a war, similarly a lot of divisions end up being training and replenishment units. The Germans might not have started the war as a modern army, but they were one by the end of it (arguably because only the most modernized units still remained at all combat effective). This post also diminishes the bravery that the common German fighting man exhibited on the battlefield. Theres a reason why numerous famous allied generals have been quoted about the effectiveness of the German armed forces (Patton most famously IMO). Given the dire straights they were in, they were still a stubborn and deadly opponent on the battlefield.

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.

Thats a joke, right? You realize that the Spring Offensives failed because they encountered heavy resistance from fresh American troops that bolstered the line and boosted morale immeasurably amongst the other Allies, right? And that the Hundred Days Counter-Offensive that ultimately broke them would not have otherwise been possible? I mean, granted I dont think the Germans would have won, but I dont think we would have had the same result we did without American forces present in France, the Germans would have been in a much better position to get a more reasonable set of terms of surrender, because the reality of the situation was that France and Britain were only fairing slightly better than Germany in terms of internal affairs. Hell, elements of the French army took up arms against the government at one point...

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?

Categorically disagreed. While you're right that it was Navy aviation that brought down most Japanese ships, the Army Air FORCE played a huge and instrumental role in the Pacific War.

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.

Overrated. Every Marine is a Riflemen does not mean Every Marine is an Infantrymen. Most Marines will tell you that they wouldn't expect a unit formed of supply clerks to be at all effective in a combat zone. Marines have a pretty good track record... because they have a really good propaganda machine that ignores the contributions of other forces or shifts the blame for their defeats to others.

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.

Need to check your facts mate. The Army didn't even get to Korea until it looked like the NKPA was going to win things, and when they arrived it was without heavy equipment capable of dealing with armor (seriously, they sent riflemen in without consideration for enemy armor or any sort of heavy support) and they trickled in a few hundred at a time. That being said, they did a pretty damn good job of holding the line at Pusan.

I find this thread to be full of people stroking their/their nations egos, presenting 'facts' of dubious accuracy, and in general making stuff up or engineering reality to suit the purposes of their argument (the OP for one). When in doubt, listen to AustonT, thats what I say.

Amaya wrote:
As for myself, I completed USMC basic at MCRD, San Diego and MCT at Camp Pendleton, California before being medically discharged from the service.

A glowing recommendation for your ability to interpret actual combat stresses, and the capabilities of a modern force. You went to Hollywood and got shipped out as a non hacker.
Somewhat different than hanging out the ass end of a Shithook buzzing along the desert, or humping your gear from the LZ to the pick up site just to get there, find out the trucks aren't coming, and hump back home. Oh I forgot, the jump to get there.

Just polish your airsoft kit and keep dreaming.

AustonT wrote:

Amaya wrote:
As for myself, I completed USMC basic at MCRD, San Diego and MCT at Camp Pendleton, California before being medically discharged from the service.

A glowing recommendation for your ability to interpret actual combat stresses, and the capabilities of a modern force. You went to Hollywood and got shipped out as a non hacker.
Somewhat different than hanging out the ass end of a Shithook buzzing along the desert, or humping your gear from the LZ to the pick up site just to get there, find out the trucks aren't coming, and hump back home. Oh I forgot, the jump to get there.

Just polish your airsoft kit and keep dreaming.

Can I eat some chili cheese queso and a burger at Chilis instead?

You should try skillet Queso with buffalo wings. It's fantastic.

This thread has descended into Dullsville.

mattyrm wrote: This thread has descended into Dullsville.

And it's the only thread that was moving today in the OT.
I wonder if some figurative dick waving can bring new life to this thread?

The American Army was better of before women were allowed to join, especially the ugly ones.

AustonT wrote:The American Army was better of before women were allowed to join, especially the ugly ones.

You'd have to say something that isn't true or controversial to get some discussion going.

What Ahtman said. ;P