PDA

View Full Version : Top 5 Best Trained Infantry



Pages : [1] 2

longcat
16 Sep 05,, 02:58
What are your top fives?

Mine is:

1. Israel
2. UK
3. USA
4. Germany
5. France

Bill
16 Sep 05,, 03:15
US 75th Airborne Rangers.

troung
16 Sep 05,, 03:23
For what role, with what support, where and so forth...

longcat
16 Sep 05,, 03:24
Someone told me that American infantry is no match for their Iranian counterparts if they were equally equiped.

magic-spaceship
16 Sep 05,, 03:35
Someone told me that American infantry is no match for their Iranian counterparts if they were equally equiped.


lol

some one told me there was a easter bunny too

Bluesman
16 Sep 05,, 05:09
Someone told me that American infantry is no match for their Iranian counterparts if they were equally equiped.

Absolutely correct. Nobody could ever prove it, though, because Iranians will never get similar equipment.

So, actually, it's complete BS.

Except for being absolutely correct. That 'someone' you're listening to REALLY has the bubble on the subject matter, boy, lemme tell YOU.

Do you have any other fantasies I can confirm for you while ridiculing them, and secretly laughing at with everybody else while pretending to address them seriously, even though they're ludicrous on their face?

Speak right up; I'm ready with the answers.

Officer of Engineers
16 Sep 05,, 05:14
Someone told me that American infantry is no match for their Iranian counterparts if they were equally equiped.

I'm not going to jump on the bandwagon knocking you down but how can you get expert qualified on equipment that you don't have?

longcat
16 Sep 05,, 05:32
Now this guy says Americans are not as resouceful as Iranians.

Officer of Engineers
16 Sep 05,, 05:33
The Americans did more damage to Iraq in 10 hours than Iran did in 10 years.

Bluesman
16 Sep 05,, 07:45
Now this guy says Americans are not as resouceful as Iranians.

Not as...'resourceful'. Hm.

Well, being resourceful is a great trait in an infantryman, that's true.

But not getting slaughtered in huge numbers by a professional, motivated, brave, well-led and highly-skilled enemy is WAY more important that 'resourcefulness'.

indianguy4u
16 Sep 05,, 09:02
The Americans did more damage to Iraq in 10 hours than Iran did in 10 years.
Isnt this thread about army, then why incld AF here?

Bluesman
16 Sep 05,, 10:47
What a charming avatar you have, indianguy4u.

lemontree
16 Sep 05,, 11:27
What are your top fives?

Mine is:
....
4. Germany
5. France
Did you mean best trained infantry for ceremonial duties or for fighting?? ;)
Actual infantry could be (not in any particular order.....
- India
- Pakistan
- UK
- US
- China
- Vietnam

I have left out Israel since they are better at Spl ops, and I am not aware if they have faught any famous infantry battles (apart from Battle for Golan Heights).

giggs88
16 Sep 05,, 11:51
1. Us

indianguy4u
16 Sep 05,, 13:14
What a charming avatar you have, indianguy4u.
If u like so much, u can use it too. Its all help to images of google :biggrin:.

Officer of Engineers
16 Sep 05,, 13:18
Isnt this thread about army, then why incld AF here?

It's called shaping the battlefield and it's one of the tools of the Western infantry.

And to be clear here,

US-UK-Canada-Australia-New Zealand can be considered the same training qualifications. We all follow the same standards and Field Manuals.

Repatriated Canuck
16 Sep 05,, 14:21
I was going to mention something along those lines Sir. You beat me to it.

leib10
16 Sep 05,, 14:45
What are your top fives?

Mine is:

1. Israel
2. UK
3. USA
4. Germany
5. France

You could move these around a bit, but I think they are the Top 5, with the probable exception of France.

troung
17 Sep 05,, 00:07
Flawed question and way to open for so many variables me thinks...

TopHatter
17 Sep 05,, 03:13
Isnt this thread about army, then why incld AF here?

I daresay it's because the civilians of Western nations (among others) have become extremely gunshy when it comes to KIA's.
So, they've figured out that it's much more efficient to develop technology to inflict as much damage upon the enemy as possible before sending in divisions of infantry and armor.

And really, why not? Look at what the Iraqis and Iranians accomplised in 8 years. Not bloody much except for one giant bloody mess. My my my, how useful.

SuperFlanker
17 Sep 05,, 03:48
This thread is useless. There is no way to objectively rate which infantry has the best training. I've seen threads like this many times in the PDF and htey always lead to "PAKISTAN HAS THE BRAVEST AND MSOT WELL TRAINED INFANTRY IN THE WORLD" or "1 MUSLIM = 10 HINDUS".

Officer of Engineers
17 Sep 05,, 03:57
Easiest question to answer. Who I want to fight beside me? And who do I not want to fight against.

JG73
17 Sep 05,, 04:00
Theoreticly the infantrie of all NATO-partners should be on the same level of training because there are NATO-standards given. But not all are able to hold them.
So I think in the world Israel, UK, Germany, France, USA are leading the others are following somewhere. If we look at the special units of these countries they are nearly on the same level of training.

P.S: please excuse my poor english - I hope you understood what I wanted to say :rolleyes:

@Leibstandarte10
I just mentioned my bad english....what's about your signature in german? :biggrin: It doesn't make sense to me. If you wrote in english what you wanted to say I maybe could translate it into german... ;)

Officer of Engineers
17 Sep 05,, 04:22
Theoreticly the infantrie of all NATO-partners should be on the same level of training because there are NATO-standards given. But not all are able to hold them.

Think we could safely said all those who went to Yugoslavia met the standard ... and then some.


So I think in the world Israel, UK, Germany, France, USA are leading the others are following somewhere.

I don't remember an exercise with the French even though they were part of CENTAG and their RRF part of NORTHAG. Do you?


If we look at the special units of these countries they are nearly on the same level of training.

Doorkickers are the same throughout the world. Snake eaters, however, would differ greatly between countries, especially those integrated into the regforce. Don't think the Israelis can call in an American airstrike just yet.

JG73
17 Sep 05,, 04:38
Think we could safely said all those who went to Yugoslavia met the standard ... and then some.



I don't remember an exercise with the French even though they were part of CENTAG and their RRF part of NORTHAG. Do you?

No I don't. But I'm not realy a infantrie specialist. All I can say is that our german troops are training together with the french troops often. They are exercising survival and jungle-fight and so on in french colonies in the south sea. i believe they are very well trained.




Doorkickers are the same throughout the world. Snake eaters, however, would differ greatly between countries, especially those integrated into the regforce. Don't think the Israelis can call in an American airstrike just yet.

Sorry. Could you repeat these last 3 sentences in a more simple way. It's hard for me to understand.

JG73
17 Sep 05,, 04:49
I think my english grammar must sound cruel to you. So I hope the synapses of your brains do not explode as :biggrin: you read this.

Officer of Engineers
17 Sep 05,, 04:51
No I don't. But I'm not realy a infantrie specialist. All I can say is that our german troops are training together with the french troops often. They are exercising survival and jungle-fight and so on in french colonies in the south sea. i believe they are very well trained.

I served with the French in UNPROFOR. I know they're good soldiers but I don't think they observed NATO standards, but French standards. Alot of similarities but not the same.


Sorry. Could you repeat these two sentences in a more simple way. It's hard for me to understand.

When the SOF operate on their own, they're pretty well identicle through out the world, at least the good ones. They rely on their own personal training, observations, determination, and skill to get the job done. However, there's only so much a single human body can do.

When SOF operate as part of a team, ie the reconaisance, then they're expected to guide the main force onto the enemy be that force a tank battalion or a B52 bombing run. That's where the differences between the various countries are really noticeable. NATO SOF were trained to guide B52s onto tank columns. The Israelis did not ... and do not.

Bill
17 Sep 05,, 04:59
As a total force package with all that they can bring to bear rated for effectivness(IMO, of course):

Light Forces:

1) US Airborne Rangers
2) UK Gurkha
3) UK Royal Marine Commando
4) US Army 101st Airborne
5) US Army light infantry

Heavy Forces:

1) Any US Army heavy mechanized division
2) USMC Infantry
3) UK Mech Infantry
4) Israeli Mech Infantry
5) German Mech Infantry

Overall title:

Any US Army mechanized infantry division(by far)

JG73
17 Sep 05,, 05:15
When the SOF operate on their own, they're pretty well identicle through out the world, at least the good ones. They rely on their own personal training, observations, determination, and skill to get the job done. However, there's only so much a single human body can do.

When SOF operate as part of a team, ie the reconaisance, then they're expected to guide the main force onto the enemy be that force a tank battalion or a B52 bombing run. That's where the differences between the various countries are really noticeable. NATO SOF were trained to guide B52s onto tank columns. The Israelis did not ... and do not.

Thanks for repeating. Yes of course. Except the US none of these countries has as powerfull bombers as B52 or B2. But like I understood the thread-theme is how well the infantrie is trained. In a modern kind of war infantrie is nothing without airpower, that's right.

Bill
17 Sep 05,, 05:27
"Thanks for repeating. Yes of course. Except the US none of these countries has as powerfull bombers as B52 or B2. But like I understood the thread-theme is how well the infantrie is trained. In a modern kind of war infantrie is nothing without airpower, that's right."

No it goes far beyond that. It's comms, unit intelligence/recon capabilities, logistics capabilities, planning capabilities, unit training, individual troop intelligence, individual education level, individual military training(airborne, sniper, ranger, etc, etc, etc), coordination, indirect support, unit counter-battery capability, rotary aviation support, lift capabilities, overland transport capabilities, and then finally air support assets.

As a total package, a US Army Mechanized Infantry division is without peer or rival.

It's not even close.

Officer of Engineers
17 Sep 05,, 05:31
As a total force package with all that they can bring to bear rated for effectivness(IMO, of course):

Light Forces:

1) US Airborne Rangers
2) UK Gurkha
3) UK Royal Marine Commando
4) US Army 101st Airborne
5) US Army light infantry

Don't know if they can be compared together. The Rangers operate in company. The Brits operate in battalion level operations. And your last two reference are brigade and division. Admittingly, the Rangers and the Brits can insert themselves quite nicely into 4 and 5 but the reverse is definetely not true.




Heavy Forces:

1) Any US Army heavy mechanized division
2) USMC Infantry
3) UK Mech Infantry
4) Israeli Mech Infantry
5) German Mech Infantry

Overall title:

Any US Army mechanized infantry division(by far)

Let's be real here. Any US Army Inf Div (Mech) - over the rest combined.

Bill
17 Sep 05,, 05:34
"Don't know if they can be compared together. The Rangers operate in company. The Brits operate in battalion level operations. And your last two reference are brigade and division. Admittingly, the Rangers and the Brits can insert themselves quite nicely into 4 and 5 but the reverse is definetely not true."

Take a Bn out of any of those units.

Rangers are fully trained for Bn sized ops, and US Army/Marine Infantry units are also primarily operated in Bn sized elements, though of course it would normally be as part of a Bde or Div effort.

Support them as they'd actually be supported in real conflict, and face them off.

The rankings reflect my opinion of how the fight would come out most of the time. Of course, it's just my opinion. ;)

JG73
17 Sep 05,, 05:40
I agree in what you said. The US has the most advanced technologies and materials. But in nower days we're all partners. And if Gerhard (Schröder) calls George for to get 2 or 3 B52s because german KSK has found some terrorists in some caves at Hindukusch George will send them there. ;)


Edit:
O.k. I'm going to sleep now. In Germany the sun has raised two hours ago and I've got to wake up at least untill 3.30p.m. to watch a german soccerleague game.
Whooaaaa.........it's a good life to be a student. :biggrin:
See ya tomorrow/today

Bill
17 Sep 05,, 05:46
"And if Gerhard (Schröder) calls George for to get 2 or 3 B52s because german KSK has found some terrorists in some caves at Hindukusch George will send them there."

You bet your ass! ;)

Officer of Engineers
17 Sep 05,, 05:48
And if Chirac should call, 2 or 3 B52s would also be on their way ... to where he's calling from?

JG73
17 Sep 05,, 05:55
On Sunday there are elections in Germany and I hope CDU wins and coalates with FDP. Then Angela Merkel is cancellor and I think Goerge would do everything for a lady. :biggrin:

Blademaster
17 Sep 05,, 05:56
When SOF operate as part of a team, ie the reconaisance, then they're expected to guide the main force onto the enemy be that force a tank battalion or a B52 bombing run. That's where the differences between the various countries are really noticeable. NATO SOF were trained to guide B52s onto tank columns. The Israelis did not ... and do not.

How hard it can be? Just give the GPS coordinates of where the tank column is and give the best possible coordinates of where they are headed in a given time.

JG73
17 Sep 05,, 05:58
And if Chirac should call, 2 or 3 B52s would also be on their way ... to where he's calling from?

:biggrin:

Bill
17 Sep 05,, 05:59
I can tell you first hand that advance reconaissance is a bit more complicated than that Blademaster.

Blademaster
17 Sep 05,, 07:09
I can tell you first hand that advance reconaissance is a bit more complicated than that Blademaster.

Then can you describe it for me?

lemontree
17 Sep 05,, 08:45
Then can you describe it for me?
Insertion of 3/4 man teams into enemy territory (by foot) that are self contained for 3 days. That would mean an OP location at max 10 km away from own forward defences. At those ranges the enemy tanks would be in sqn str strength. It is very diffcicult to analyse the situation as seen on ground by the individual teams. The analysis is done at the HQ from info recieved by all the recce teams.

lemontree
17 Sep 05,, 08:48
As a total force package with all that they can bring to bear rated for effectivness(IMO, of course):

Light Forces:

1) US Airborne Rangers
2)
3)
4) US Army 101st Airborne
5) US Army light infantry

Excluding the Gurkhas and RM, what is the adm back up of the troops. Like cook houses?

TopHatter
17 Sep 05,, 13:55
Excluding the Gurkhas and RM, what is the adm back up of the troops. Like cook houses?

A man with his mind on important business :)

Speaking of which, I think I'll go raid the fridge.... :redface:

Bill
17 Sep 05,, 17:20
"Excluding the Gurkhas and RM, what is the adm back up of the troops. Like cook houses?"

The 75th Rangers have a very small logistical tail, the 101st actually has a huge logistical tail(bigger even than a mech div), a typical US Army light infantry division has a much smaller tail.

As far as total consumption of supplies etc, i'd really have to look it up- if i could even find the info on line.

giggs88
18 Sep 05,, 01:38
Snipe, are there any reasons you happened choose the 101st instead of say....the 82nd? Just curious.

brownboi4eva
18 Sep 05,, 02:38
We are talking training....so pretty much we are putting all the soldiers into battle with the same support system and weapons and resources...and the only defining factor is tactics and training...and this is where i think the US lacks, but heck they dont even need it...especially when a squadron of B52's are done with an area

Pure training- Indian Army, British Army, Israeli Army

giggs88
18 Sep 05,, 03:29
and the only defining factor is tactics and training...and this is where i think the US lacks

You are very well informed..........NOT.

Bill
18 Sep 05,, 08:54
"Snipe, are there any reasons you happened choose the 101st instead of say....the 82nd? Just curious."

The 101st is an Air Assault division with a massive organic Apache contingent and unparalelled mobility.

The 82d is Airborne light infantry.

Gun Grape
18 Sep 05,, 09:09
Who has the best trained infantry? Everyone and no one. It really depends on what you want to do with them.

I'm in agreement with OoE. The answer for me is Who do I want to have fighting alongside me. Or whos peremeter would I be comfortable sleeping in.

If I'm conducting artic ops I don't want that US Army Mech Div. I want British RMs or Royal Netherland Marines.

But if I'm in extreme high altitude then Indian or Pak troops. And please don't start on which are better.

Large scale Amphib ops? Uncle Sams Misguided children

I could keep going but before you decide whos best define the varables.

giggs88
18 Sep 05,, 19:59
"Snipe, are there any reasons you happened choose the 101st instead of say....the 82nd? Just curious."

The 101st is an Air Assault division with a massive organic Apache contingent and unparalelled mobility.

The 82d is Airborne light infantry.
k. thanks.

TopHatter
19 Sep 05,, 02:04
Who has the best trained infantry? Everyone and no one. It really depends on what you want to do with them.
I'm in agreement with OoE. The answer for me is Who do I want to have fighting alongside me. Or whos peremeter would I be comfortable sleeping in.
If I'm conducting artic ops I don't want that US Army Mech Div. I want British RMs or Royal Netherland Marines.
But if I'm in extreme high altitude then Indian or Pak troops. And please don't start on which are better.
Large scale Amphib ops? Uncle Sams Misguided children
I could keep going but before you decide whos best define the varables.

Hey Gunny, I loved your "Who to bring when you are in (blank) environment.
Got any more geographic locations or situations?

Chino
19 Sep 05,, 05:11
Best infantry troopers in the post WW2 era - in no particular order:

UK
UK Gurkha
China PLA
North Korea
South Korea
NVA
Vietcong
Australia
Thailand
South Africa
Rhodesia
Israel

Most countries have pretty good armed forces and good quality fighting men. The ones I mentioned are those whom have fought in big and small conflicts post-WW2 and have proven themselves in battle. And all these are normal infantrymen, not considering Commandos, SpecOps etc.

Officer of Engineers
19 Sep 05,, 05:20
Vietcong

How did you come to this conclusion that they're good infanteers?

lemontree
19 Sep 05,, 06:09
"Excluding the Gurkhas and RM, what is the adm back up of the troops. Like cook houses?"

The 75th Rangers have a very small logistical tail, the 101st actually has a huge logistical tail(bigger even than a mech div), a typical US Army light infantry division has a much smaller tail.

As far as total consumption of supplies etc, i'd really have to look it up- if i could even find the info on line.
Snip,
I did not mean it at Div level, but battalion level. To make it specific, can one deploy your infantry battalions on mountains in the manner below, and ensure that all meals for troops are hot meals and not emergency ration tins?
- Platoon or in some cases section posts at separate locations from the company HQ, covering a frontage of say 1.5 km and a depth of about 1 km.

shek, please do give your inputs too.

Officer of Engineers
19 Sep 05,, 06:28
To make it specific, can one deploy your infantry battalions on mountains in the manner below, and ensure that all meals for troops are hot meals and not emergency ration tins?

Captain, inside of six months of any longterm American deployment, not only will they have hotmeals but also a shopping mall wtih a Starbucks and a cinema with 1st run movies - just kidding, they're second run movies.

lemontree
19 Sep 05,, 06:41
Captain, inside of six months of any longterm American deployment, not only will they have hotmeals but also a shopping mall wtih a Starbucks and a cinema with 1st run movies - just kidding, they're second run movies.
:biggrin: Lol...un-doubtedly, sir.

VovaLee
19 Sep 05,, 07:34
1. Israel

Bill
19 Sep 05,, 08:08
"I'm in agreement with OoE. The answer for me is Who do I want to have fighting alongside me. Or whos peremeter would I be comfortable sleeping in."

I froze my diick off in Alaska. I can shiver with the best of them. ;)

LOL...i hate the cold.

Bill
19 Sep 05,, 08:11
"Snip,
I did not mean it at Div level, but battalion level. To make it specific, can one deploy your infantry battalions on mountains in the manner below, and ensure that all meals for troops are hot meals and not emergency ration tins?"

So long as the NCA commits the appropriate support assets, i see no reason why not. Meals would be MREs the majority of the time, but that's no biggie.

"- Platoon or in some cases section posts at separate locations from the company HQ, covering a frontage of say 1.5 km and a depth of about 1 km."

Any US Inf. Bn could cover an AO of that size. Might be thin in some places depending on terrain, but yeah.

lemontree
19 Sep 05,, 08:20
So long as the NCA commits the appropriate support assets, i see no reason why not. Meals would be MREs the majority of the time, but that's no biggie.
Pardon my ignorance of your abreviations. Whats "MRE"?

Any US Inf. Bn could cover an AO of that size. Might be thin in some places depending on terrain, but yeah.
I never doubted that, just checking on the administration aspect.

Bill
19 Sep 05,, 09:28
MRE= Meal Ready to Eat.

lemontree
19 Sep 05,, 11:19
MRE= Meal Ready to Eat.
Thank you. The point I was trying to emphasis is that MRE rations in place of 'hot meals' are O.K for emergencies or short periods. In the long run its detremental to good moral of the troops. If you remember your army days, after a 20km or 30km route march, a cup of hot chocolate is much appreciated than a can of coke.
How long does it take for one to get sick of MREs? :) I would say the first day itself.
An infanteer that can sustain high moral, which inturn reflects good training, command and administration will always win the day.

bull
19 Sep 05,, 12:57
Now this guy says Americans are not as resouceful as Iranians.

i will laugh..excuse me pls

dave angel
19 Sep 05,, 14:47
MRE= Meal Ready to Eat.


Meals Rejected by Ethiopians...

Chino
19 Sep 05,, 15:30
How did you come to this conclusion that they're good infanteers?

The Vietcong were not all guerilla fighters i.e. farmer by day terrorist by night.

Just like their predecessors the Viet Minh who defeated the French at Dien Bien Phu, there were full-time Vietcong units. They are organised and regimented just like infantry battalions anywhere.

If you doubt their effectiveness as a fighting force - it might be due to their lack of firepower, support etc. But as individual riflemen, they're much better motivated, more prepared for sacrifice and better suited to being infantry soldiers than were the average American conscript at the time.

Their lack of weapons and logistics have turned them into the most resourceful soldiers of the 20th century. Their booby trap methods are still being taught at jungle fighting schools all over the world.

Aryaramnaes
19 Sep 05,, 16:02
I think the Singapore Armed Forces... Infantry deserve to be mentioned here...

Officer of Engineers
19 Sep 05,, 17:27
If you doubt their effectiveness as a fighting force - it might be due to their lack of firepower, support etc. But as individual riflemen, they're much better motivated, more prepared for sacrifice and better suited to being infantry soldiers than were the average American conscript at the time.

As a regular infanteer? I doubt it. Their casualty rates ain't nothing to brag about, even when they have superior firepower as they did at DBP. All you telling me here is that they have good leaders who knew how to use canon fodder.

Only live infanteers can be good infanteers.

Recon_sgt
19 Sep 05,, 20:03
A plague on all your houses (please ignore the drama :biggrin:) .
A disscussion on the 5 best trained infy in the world and me and my pals are no where to be found shock gasp (insert sobs here).
I will however On a serious note say that in 2003 the Irish army ranger wing (clap now) won 3rd place at its 2nd year in the wordl special forces war games and team conference in Bonn (hi JG73).Cant remember what the lads got durin the last 2 years was payin more attention to the lads who came back from Belize(they went on a Jungle course with the Brits an a bundle of others, great war stories :biggrin: ). will add pics later lads.
So please i think we deserve to be mentioned (oh wait I just did)
:cool:

Chino
19 Sep 05,, 20:25
I think the Singapore Armed Forces... Infantry deserve to be mentioned here...

Thank you thank you from me and my former mates of 173 SIR (Singapore Infantry Regiment).

But, no, we are nowhere near being good enough to be considered one of the world's top infantry fighting men.

Furthermore, Singapore's armed forces hasn't yet fought a war (not since playing a small part in the Confrontation with indonesia during the early sixties).

And I hope we have peace forever. :biggrin:

Officer of Engineers
19 Sep 05,, 20:26
Mighty damned fine whiskey there, Sgt.

longcat
20 Sep 05,, 02:30
Does the United States have the capabilities and power to invade Iran and defeat their military?

giggs88
20 Sep 05,, 02:33
I'm guessing yes.

leib10
20 Sep 05,, 02:37
Does the United States have the capabilities and power to invade Iran and defeat their military?

The US has the capabilities to defeat any nation on earth, through conventional or unconventional means. However, politicians often limit those capabilities so that smaller, less well-equipped armies may defeat us, not on the battlefield, but in Washington (Vietnam).

Selective
20 Sep 05,, 06:10
The title of the thread is "best trained".

Chino
20 Sep 05,, 07:44
The US has the capabilities to defeat any nation on earth, through conventional or unconventional means. However, politicians often limit those capabilities so that smaller, less well-equipped armies may defeat us, not on the battlefield, but in Washington (Vietnam).


The Vietnam War was ended by Washington because the war ain't being won on the battlefield in Vietnam. If everything was hunkydory and the NVA was on their knees, you think public opinion would be swayed against the war?

America had noble intentions in Vietnam but they were not winning miitarily. That's why Americans got tired and said "let's get the hell out".

They may have killed a lot of VC and NVA but people forgot to tell the VC and NVA that because so many of them are dead, technically they should be the one losing the war. Bodycount don't mean much as for every VC NVA killed, there's 10 more waiting to take his place.

The Australians, especially, were very critical of how the Americans conducted the war in Vietnam. The Aussies had a different view of things and recognised that it was counter revolutionary warfare. The US believe they were fighting WW2 all over again.

This was the same case in Korea. America was not able to defeat China and there really was no restraint on the use of military force on the battlefield in Korea. Americans bombed, shelled and napalmed the hell out of the PLA and NKPA without any restraint. Yet, the commies stood.

So the answer is "NO". America is not capable of defeating anyone they please.

Leader
20 Sep 05,, 08:13
" America is not capable of defeating anyone they please."

Nuclear weapons + Willingness to use them = The US can defeat any country on Earth if we really want too

Officer of Engineers
20 Sep 05,, 12:09
The Vietnam War was ended by Washington because the war ain't being won on the battlefield in Vietnam. If everything was hunkydory and the NVA was on their knees, you think public opinion would be swayed against the war?

You're crapping me! Of course the war was being won on the battlefield. Tet was a military disaster for both the VC and NVA. With over Hanoi's own admitted 2 million casualties, the North and VC was finding it hard to replace their own losses in the south. The North's population was being exhausted by the war and had it not been for Linebacker I and II which galvanized their opposition, the North might have very well given up their dreams of conquering the south.

And Tet destroyed the VC. They were wiped out.


They may have killed a lot of VC and NVA but people forgot to tell the VC and NVA that because so many of them are dead, technically they should be the one losing the war. Bodycount don't mean much as for every VC NVA killed, there's 10 more waiting to take his place.

Of course there was not 10 more to take one dead man's place. That's just plain propaganda.


This was the same case in Korea. America was not able to defeat China and there really was no restraint on the use of military force on the battlefield in Korea. Americans bombed, shelled and napalmed the hell out of the PLA and NKPA without any restraint. Yet, the commies stood.

Come on, the actual history states that the Americans were deliberately fighting with one hand tied behind their backs. MacArthur got fired for God sake for wanting to fight an unrestricted war against China. And more troops went to Europe than to Korea. And let's be real here, the Chinese got hurt and got hurt bad in Korea. It takes two to agree to a truce.

leib10
20 Sep 05,, 14:58
Precisely, OOE.

RepublicanGuard
20 Sep 05,, 19:45
my vote would have to go to the Waffen SS for best trained infantry

Kontakt Era
21 Sep 05,, 01:31
Pakistan's troops are good? I thought they were just..retards with flashy armor. But ok.

Chino
21 Sep 05,, 06:30
You're crapping me! Of course the war was being won on the battlefield. Tet was a military disaster for both the VC and NVA. With over Hanoi's own admitted 2 million casualties, the North and VC was finding it hard to replace their own losses in the south. The North's population was being exhausted by the war and had it not been for Linebacker I and II which galvanized their opposition, the North might have very well given up their dreams of conquering the south.

If that makes you sleep better at night, good for you. I don't want to get into a full on debate about the Vietnam War here cos I really don't want to belittle what the US tried to do in Vietnam - to stop the spread of communism for the rest of the world. And that's a worthy cause.

But if the Vietnamese were as devastated as you said they were, how come after the Vietnam War they went on to invade Cambodia for another 10 years? And they were listed as one of the world's largest standing army for a very long time.



Come on, the actual history states that the Americans (in Korea) were deliberately fighting with one hand tied behind their backs. MacArthur got fired for God sake for wanting to fight an unrestricted war against China. And more troops went to Europe than to Korea. And let's be real here, the Chinese got hurt and got hurt bad in Korea. It takes two to agree to a truce.

I've read several books about the American, Australian and South Korean involvement in the Korea War so I got at least 3 perspectives on that conflict. I do not debate that the Chinese were in no shape to fight on. But why should they? Their direct involvement was out of fear that if the North was lost, then the US would be right at their doorstep. This, Communist China considered detrimental to their continued existence. They needed North Korea as a buffer against the US and would've paid any price in human lives to keep North Korea from falling. This they had succeeded, and they never had any illusion they could win a prolonged fight with the US for South Korea. So peace was more than good enough for the ChiComs and they went home gloating - minus several hundred thousands of course. But again, that figure was a drop in the ocean for an army of their size.

How were Americans fighting "with one hand tied behind their backs" in Korea? In what way is that possible? They US threw in everything it had in its arsenal to kill Commies short of nuclear devices.

You mean just because MacArthur was not allowed to nuclear bomb Chinese cities means you guys are "fighting with one hand tied behind your backs"? (Hey, it worked on the Japs, didn't it?)

The war is on the battlefied in Korea. MacArthur was not winning it and good thing the US government had the foresight to replace this egomaniac who's also a sore loser. He wanted to start a world war to end a small conflict. The Russians were waiting with eager fingers on the button for the US to fire the first nuclear warheads. They would've been happy to destroy a few US cities, given half the excuse.
'
'
'
But don't forget how this debate is started.

Some fellow here by the German name of "leibstandarte10" and has a NAZI soldier as his avatar said US can defeat any country on this planet.

Well, I was just reminding him of the 2 times the US didn't succeed - for whatever excuse or reason.

Leader
21 Sep 05,, 06:33
"US can defeat any country on this planet..."

...if it has the will

leib10
21 Sep 05,, 06:39
my vote would have to go to the Waffen SS for best trained infantry

At the midpoint of WWII, they were the finest soldiers in the world because of their training, discipline, equipment, but above all their unique esprit de corps and fighting spirit. It was because of these things that the Waffen SS formations (or at least the German ones) were able to accomplish the things they did.

leib10
21 Sep 05,, 06:41
"US can defeat any country on this planet..."

...if it has the will

Exactly. I'm not saying we're invincible because it is impossible to be invincible. I am saying that we have the means to defeat any country on this planet. Whether we have the will is another story.

Officer of Engineers
21 Sep 05,, 06:44
If that makes you sleep better at night, good for you. I don't want to get into a full on debate about the Vietnam War here cos I really don't want to belittle what the US tried to do in Vietnam - to stop the spread of communism for the rest of the world. And that's a worthy cause.

Why not? Isn't this what these forums are for? You sound like you have some data? Why not match wits with a Canadian Officer and see where we are right and where we are wrong?


But if the Vietnamese were as devastated as you said they were, how come after the Vietnam War they went on to invade Cambodia for another 10 years? And they were listed as one of the world's largest standing army for a very long time.

Obvious answer. They've rebuilt. It took Hanoi 3-4 years to rebuld her armies after Tet and 2 years after Kantum before the north could resumed operations. The VN War ended in 1975 and the Sino-VN War happenned in 1979.


I've read several books about the American, Australian and South Korean involvement in the Korea War so I got at least 3 perspectives on that conflict. I do not debate that the Chinese were in no shape to fight on. But why should they? Their direct involvement was out of fear that if the North was lost, then the US would be right at their doorstep. This, Communist China considered detrimental to their continued existence. They needed North Korea as a buffer against the US and would've paid any price in human lives to keep North Korea from falling. This they had succeeded, and they never had any illusion they could win a prolonged fight with the US for South Korea. So peace was more than good enough for the ChiComs and they went home gloating - minus several hundred thousands of course. But again, that figure was a drop in the ocean for an army of their size.

How were Americans fighting "with one hand tied behind their backs" in Korea? In what way is that possible? They US threw in everything it had in its arsenal to kill Commies short of nuclear devices.

I wonder whose perspective you've got on that. There is no doubt that three times more troops went to Europe than to Korea during that war. There is no doubt that the Americans refrained from attacking Chinese support bases in China of which their destruction would certainly curtailed any communist action in Korea. So, why do you think that the Americans were not fighting with one hand tied behind their backs?

I raise a very valid point to which you seemed to be ignoring. Amateurs think strategy and tactics. Professionals think logistics.

Why were not the Lines of Communications in China attacked?

As for your admiration of numbers, how about the fact that the Chinese advance of 4 divisions was stopped by a single Canadian company at Kapyong?


You mean just because MacArthur was not allowed to nuclear bomb Chinese cities means you guys are "fighting with one hand tied behind your backs"? (Hey, it worked on the Japs, didn't it?)

Simple enough answer, why was the war not carried into China?


The war is on the battlefied in Korea. MacArthur was not winning it and good thing the US government had the foresight to replace this egomaniac who's also a sore loser. He wanted to start a world war to end a small conflict. The Russians were waiting with eager fingers on the button for the US to fire the first nuclear warheads. They would've been happy to destroy a few US cities, given half the excuse.

Your timeline is extremely skewed! The Russians did not have the ability to hit the CONUS until the mid-60s on.


But don't forget how this debate is started.

Some fellow here by the German name of "leibstandarte10" and has a NAZI soldier as his avatar said US can defeat any country on this planet.

Well, I was just reminding him of the 2 times the US didn't succeed.

Tagged, you're it!

RepublicanGuard
21 Sep 05,, 07:55
on the contrary from what you said liebstandarte, ALL SS divisions ( including the foreign ones ) faught with tenacious determination and where well trained.

Im not sure if you ever read the book "Hitler's Tutonic Knights, the Waffen SS" ( i think thats the exact name. the book shows the SS units with the best combat records where actually the Scandinavian Divisions such as the Prinz Eugen ( not the pocket battleship of course ) and Wiking.

These divisions mainly served in the eastern front saving Army Group Centre from complete destruction in the Cherkassy Pocket and in Holland in fall of 1944, notably at arnem during the dismal allied failure of "Market Garden".

This division, unlike many SS divisions ( notably Totenkompf), had a clean record with war-crimes such as execution of local jews and POW massacres.

but, all SS units fought well and in my honest opinion one SS soldier was worth 5 British or american troops ( including us rangers ) and 20 Ruskies.

dalem
21 Sep 05,, 09:20
but, all SS units fought well and in my honest opinion one SS soldier was worth 5 British or american troops ( including us rangers ) and 20 Ruskies.

That explains why Germany won the war.

-dale

lemontree
21 Sep 05,, 09:46
Pakistan's troops are good? I thought they were just..retards with flashy armor. But ok.
Yes PA is good and one of the best disciplined armies in the world. There is no doubt about that.

Chino
21 Sep 05,, 10:54
Why not? Isn't this what these forums are for? You sound like you have some data? Why not match wits with a Canadian Officer and see where we are right and where we are wrong?

Yep, but this is not the thread to talk about the Vietnam War, is it?

Victors have stories, losers have excuses.

America for whatever reason or excuse did not defeat China or Vietnam.

That's the fact that still stands today.

And if you continue to feel that America and her allies could've won in Korea or Vietnam had they had the will ... good for you. Now you can all feel confident and go forth and defeat any other country in the world as you please. Just make sure there's still a world left when you're done.

Thanks, but I do not want to match wits with you, I'm certain you are the smarter one.

leib10
21 Sep 05,, 15:17
"but, all SS units fought well and in my honest opinion one SS soldier was worth 5 British or american troops ( including us rangers ) and 20 Ruskies."

I wouldn't go that far, but I do stand by my statement that they were the best soldiers in the world, bar none. Their closest equivalent would be the US Marines.

1. SS Panzer Division "Leibstandarte Adolf Hitler" was the finest when it came to equipment and manpower, thus in effectiveness. It was an elite within an elite.

Bill
21 Sep 05,, 15:41
"And if you continue to feel that America and her allies could've won in Korea or Vietnam had they had the will ... good for you. Now you can all feel confident and go forth and defeat any other country in the world as you please. Just make sure there's still a world left when you're done."

The US/UN/ROK did win the Korean war.

Bill
21 Sep 05,, 15:42
""but, all SS units fought well and in my honest opinion one SS soldier was worth 5 British or american troops ( including us rangers ) and 20 Ruskies.""

So who's the Ranger?

Officer of Engineers
21 Sep 05,, 16:05
Yep, but this is not the thread to talk about the Vietnam War, is it?


No, this thread is about infantry. So I think this discussion is with merit.


Victors have stories, losers have excuses.

I rather go into battle with a battalion of US troops than a division of VC.


America for whatever reason or excuse did not defeat China or Vietnam.

Of course they did. Have you studied the operational aspects? The Chinese bashed their heads into a bloody pulp trying to destroy the 8th Army. Vo had thrown in even the kitchen sink during Tet and as a result, had the Americans decided to march to Hanoi, there was nothing left to stop them.

RepublicanGuard
21 Sep 05,, 17:30
m21, US Army rangers i meant by "rangers".

Yes, the leibstandarte i believe was the first division in the entire german wehrmact ( i cant spell ) to receive the pzkw mk 6 tiger and mk 5 panther which they used at kursk.

Shek
21 Sep 05,, 17:35
No, this thread is about infantry. So I think this discussion is with merit.



I rather go into battle with a battalion of US troops than a division of VC.



Of course they did. Have you studied the operational aspects? The Chinese bashed their heads into a bloody pulp trying to destroy the 8th Army. Vo had thrown in even the kitchen sink during Tet and as a result, had the Americans decided to march to Hanoi, there was nothing left to stop them.

My regiment, 23rd Infantry, defeated 5 Chinese divisions at Chip Yong-ni in FEB '51. I'm not sure of the exact size of the Chinese divisions at the time, but that should put it at a 10-15:1 odds in favor of the Chinese.

RepublicanGuard
21 Sep 05,, 17:37
and dalem, germany lost the war because they fought it on two fronts and did not have the industrial capacity to fight a long term war against the US and Russians which where industrial superpowers.

The complete allied air superiority on the western front from mid 44 onward and the shortage of fuel didnt help either. Heres a fact that i think would baffle you dalem:

in 1944, the german war machine produced roughly 11,548 panzers, 6,000ish planes mainly of the fw 190 type, and about 30,000 pieces of artillery including panzerjagers, twice the amount of machines made in 1941 and this was during the height of the allied air campaign

dalem
21 Sep 05,, 17:48
m21, US Army rangers i meant by "rangers".

Yes, the leibstandarte i believe was the first division in the entire german wehrmact ( i cant spell ) to receive the pzkw mk 6 tiger and mk 5 panther which they used at kursk.

You're like, what, 14 years old?

Psychologists should really study the fixation of 14 year olds learning about WWII on German tanks and SS units.

LAH was not the first unit to employ Tiger Is (PzKwVIE if that makes you feel better) - they were in Tunisia at the very end of 1942, Schwere Panzer Bn 501.

The Panthers at Kursk were crap. Waste of effort to commit them as early as they did.

Anyway, there is far more to WWII than silly German tanks - study it with joy.

-dale

dalem
21 Sep 05,, 17:56
and dalem, germany lost the war because they fought it on two fronts and did not have the industrial capacity to fight a long term war against the US and Russians which where industrial superpowers.

The complete allied air superiority on the western front from mid 44 onward and the shortage of fuel didnt help either. Heres a fact that i think would baffle you dalem:

in 1944, the german war machine produced roughly 11,548 panzers, 6,000ish planes mainly of the fw 190 type, and about 30,000 pieces of artillery including panzerjagers, twice the amount of machines made in 1941 and this was during the height of the allied air campaign

So what?

Germany lost the war because they lacked sophistication at the strategic and operational levels. They started attacking their neighbors in 1939 swinging a knife while their neighbors all slept in their beds and countered clumsily with frying pans and pleas for mercy. When they surrendered in 1945 they were swinging a bigger knife and their conquerors had brought guns. And we know what happens when you bring a knife to a gunfight.

-dale

Chino
21 Sep 05,, 19:54
My regiment, 23rd Infantry, defeated 5 Chinese divisions at Chip Yong-ni in FEB '51. I'm not sure of the exact size of the Chinese divisions at the time, but that should put it at a 10-15:1 odds in favor of the Chinese.

The last book on the Korean War I read was called "This kind of War - The classic Korean War History" written by T. R. Fehrenbach.

Chipyong-ni was where the US 8th Army and the 23rd infantry held its ground against the CCF as you said.

But this was after the US 8th Army crossed the 38th parallel back to South Korea in full retreat after being smashed by the CCF in December 1950. The casualty figures was about 8,000 US army and marine troopers lost. The place was Changjin Reservoir. The Chinese general who outfought the allies was Sung Shih-lun through a series of moves and gambles that resulted in the Aliies' defeat at Changjin Reservoir.

The CCF troops were no supermen, but mere peasant boys. But on some occasions they did demonstrate remarkable infantry tactics which caused the Allies defeat.

MacArthur described the CCF as having "complete organization and spledid training". The CCF was also reported to have very good discipline: entire divisions can remain virtually undetectable by US aircrafts by day even in the treeless areas of Korea - moving only at night.

The Korean War and the nature of its battles were mostly see-sawing. One minute the Allies were in charge, the next it's the CCF. And then it reverses again.

Interesting fact:
"The Chinese hordes that had burst the UN Korean bubble did not number more than 300,000 at the time of their intervention, and of this number, probably not more than 60,000 actually went into close combat with the advance ROK and American divisions." - pg 260

Allied troops were more willing to surrender to CCF than to NKPA as the CCF fed and gave medical attention to wounded POWs. The NKPA took no prisoners.

Officer of Engineers
21 Sep 05,, 20:29
You might be interested in this then

Korea: Reluctant Dragons and Red Conspiracies (http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/showthread.php?t=2928)

Recon_sgt
21 Sep 05,, 21:44
You're like, what, 14 years old?
What has that got to do with anything.

Psychologists should really study the fixation of 14 year olds learning about WWII on German tanks and SS units.
Ok cool it down just a little he is trying and to some people the S.S. make very interesting study (trust me I know).

and dalem, germany lost the war because they fought it on two fronts and did not have the industrial capacity to fight a long term war against the US and Russians which where industrial superpowers.
Dalem your above statments are slightly confusing me, given that his argument here does actually have an exceptional amount of merit.

Germany lost the war because they lacked sophistication at the strategic and operational levels.
Need I say this. German tactics in WW II (especially at the start) Surpassed the allies by a long shot. They lost because of many factors (neither one of those with one exception). The exception: Hitler was totally incompetent and quite often the despair of his generals who by and large were of the highest quality (Rommel anyone).oh if I missed the point of your statment let me know ok


The Panthers at Kursk were crap
I'm not so sure though I must look it up.

Anyway, there is far more to WWII than silly German tanks
Quite true there is far more to WW II than German tanks but "silly". I doubt if Sherman (good tank btw) crews found the tiger silly. Stat: generally 3-4 Shermanns required to kill 1 Tiger which could usually dipsose of most if not all of the Shermans.
Thank you all, I still maintain by the way that the Irish (modern) belong in the top 5 :biggrin: .
BTW: check out http://www.panzerace.net/english/index.asp, very interesting man Wittmann :cool:

dalem
21 Sep 05,, 22:18
What has that got to do with anything.

I have a low tolerance for loudmouth Germanophiles punching way above their weight. And most of them turn out to be misguided young kids.



Ok cool it down just a little he is trying and to some people the S.S. make very interesting study (trust me I know).

Dalem your above statments are slightly confusing me, given that his argument here does actually have an exceptional amount of merit.

I disagree.



Need I say this. German tactics in WW II (especially at the start) Surpassed the allies by a long shot.

Which is why I referred to strategic and operational levels, and not the tactical level.



They lost because of many factors (neither one of those with one exception). The exception: Hitler was totally incompetent and quite often the despair of his generals who by and large were of the highest quality (Rommel anyone).oh if I missed the point of your statment let me know ok

You are not going to gain any points by hanging your hat on the "Hilter was nuts and Rommel was great" hook. The infighting and pigheadedness (and in some cases weakness) among the German Generals contributed greatly to the German failures throughout the war. And Rommel was at best a highly competent Corps commander.

The Germans got their butts kicked because they were only good at winning battles, not the operations and wars that give them context.



I'm not so sure though I must look it up.

Please do. It was the D model that performed so inadequately at Kursk. I believe the standard claim is that more were lost to engine fires and other mechanical breakdowns than to Russian guns, but that may be apocryphal.



Quite true there is far more to WW II than German tanks but "silly". I doubt if Sherman (good tank btw) crews found the tiger silly. Stat: generally 3-4 Shermanns required to kill 1 Tiger which could usually dipsose of most if not all of the Shermans.

You do realize that that is a general kill ratio figure, not an individual engagement figure, yes? And my point is that focusing on one aspect of the war, the over-hyped Tiger brands of tanks especially, usually leads to people with a completely warped and useless point of view about the topic of WWII.

-dale

leib10
22 Sep 05,, 01:04
I wouldn't go so far as to call it useless. Any knowledge, if it is true, is useful in some way. For instance, weapons like the Tiger were able to turn the tides of battles, provided they were properly used. It is because of the superiority of German weaponry in many areas that they lasted as long as they did, combined with their tactics (especially the Kampfgruppen) and their bravery. Their lasting effect on modern warfare is apparent; the British adopted the battle-group as their standard formation, and we used a version of the Schwerepunkt during Operation Desert Storm. Not to mention their legacy of weaponry, with concepts like the GPMG and assault rifle.

Shek
22 Sep 05,, 02:04
and dalem, germany lost the war because they fought it on two fronts and did not have the industrial capacity to fight a long term war against the US and Russians which where industrial superpowers.

The complete allied air superiority on the western front from mid 44 onward and the shortage of fuel didnt help either. Heres a fact that i think would baffle you dalem:

in 1944, the german war machine produced roughly 11,548 panzers, 6,000ish planes mainly of the fw 190 type, and about 30,000 pieces of artillery including panzerjagers, twice the amount of machines made in 1941 and this was during the height of the allied air campaign

Republican Guard,
Try "Why the Allies Won the War" by Richard Overy. It will help to open your eyes. Germany reached their industrial peak in 1944 despite having to decentralize production and suffer through bombing because Speers was finally allowed to centralize control of production and production decisions. Prior to then, the Germans continuously stopped production lines to retool for slight improvements. This cut production, cut spare parts availability, and created a fleet of hundreds of types of trucks, motorcycles, tanks, and airplanes, all of which needed their own specialized parts. Contrast this to the Soviets, who went with only a handful of variants of tanks and planes and produced a boatload of each. It wasn't superior resources, but superior decision making on the part of the Soviets. Heck, Hitler still had Germany producing VWs during the war.

troung
22 Sep 05,, 02:47
But if the Vietnamese were as devastated as you said they were, how come after the Vietnam War they went on to invade Cambodia for another 10 years? And they were listed as one of the world's largest standing army for a very long time.

The Vietnamese army was rebuilt throught the USSR and China and captured ARVN/VNAF equipment spearheaded the invasion into Cambodia. CAS and BAI were done by F-5Es, UH-1Hs and A-37s with CH-47s and UH-1Hs moving troops and supplies. M-113s moved around infantry and much of the artillery was 105mm M-101s and 155mm M-114s. The VPAF even thought like the old VNAF and used FAC tactics like near the Fishhook to wipe out scores of Khmer Rouge from the air.

Lets also remember that the Khmer Rouge were caught in the akward stage of trying to form a real national military (from a guerilla style militia) while conducted their awful tactics of running a nation. Wiping out the smartest and best trained elements of the population is not a great way to have an air force or navy or even run a ground war. In short they were not capable of much of a standing fight. Then add the lack of support among Cambodians and one is left with a rather easy mark seeing as they was an anti Khmer Rouge resitiance that Vietnam supported. Still over 10 thousand Vietnamese troops died taking over Cambodia (not counting the COIN war for hte next 10 years).

But the war against America left the Vietnamese economy shattered and the 10 years in Cambodia made things worse. In fact the logistics system in Cambodia often broke down for a number of reasons and not as much due to enemy action. The famous logistics systems of the 2nd Indochina war was not lived up to in the 3rd Indochina war. Troops ran out of food and medicine during the occupation at times.

Being one of the world's largest armies means acutally very little to the quality of the soldier.


Quite true there is far more to WW II than German tanks but "silly". I doubt if Sherman (good tank btw) crews found the tiger silly. Stat: generally 3-4 Shermanns required to kill 1 Tiger which could usually dipsose of most if not all of the Shermans.

And it takes 3 infantrymen attacking versus one defender so what is the point?

Thing is having M-4A1s around when you need them is better then a Tiger 40 miles down the road fearing to move lest it run out of fuel, break down or be attacked by Tempests and P-47s. I'll take the Shermans any day of the week to support me...


Psychologists should really study the fixation of 14 year olds learning about WWII on German tanks and SS units.

So true... ;)


I wouldn't go that far, but I do stand by my statement that they were the best soldiers in the world, bar none. Their closest equivalent would be the US Marines.

Some proof? They were damn good at murdering allied POWs and civilians thats for sure but the Gemran war machine was a lot of hype...


Try "Why the Allies Won the War" by Richard Overy. It will help to open your eyes. Germany reached their industrial peak in 1944 despite having to decentralize production and suffer through bombing because Speers was finally allowed to centralize control of production and production decisions. Prior to then, the Germans continuously stopped production lines to retool for slight improvements. This cut production, cut spare parts availability, and created a fleet of hundreds of types of trucks, motorcycles, tanks, and airplanes, all of which needed their own specialized parts. Contrast this to the Soviets, who went with only a handful of variants of tanks and planes and produced a boatload of each. It wasn't superior resources, but superior decision making on the part of the Soviets. Heck, Hitler still had Germany producing VWs during the war.

That was a good book.

I guess anyone thinking the Germans were super men might want to look at the German artillery park (from the smallest mortars to the biggest guns), truck fleet, and the small arms that were type classifed and actually entered German service as issue weapons. And those same people once they do the research can talk about the tech marvels of the Nazis. There is the German equipment of the movies and the German equipment that soldiers were actually issued...

Bill
22 Sep 05,, 03:31
"Heck, Hitler still had Germany producing VWs during the war."

Heck should never be part of the vocabulary of an infantryman.

Fucck is a perfectly good substitute. ;)

Bluesman
22 Sep 05,, 04:33
Yes, the leibstandarte i believe was the first division in the entire german wehrmact ( i cant spell ) to receive the pzkw mk 6 tiger and mk 5 panther which they used at kursk.

Small quibble: the SS was never part of the Wehrmacht. They were split off from the SA (which most of the Wehrmacht's professionals would have nothing whatever to do with, because the SA was just a club of thugs and political creeps), and maintained a parallel organization throughout the war...and by so doing, impeded their own and the Army's missions.

I'll give you this, though: the average SS trooper (before being diluted with second-rate troops to make up for horrendous losses) pulled off some amazing and dare I say, HEROIC feats of arms. Fanatacism, extreme discipline, hard training, cohesiveness and the pick of equipment and re-supply priority were all factors in their performance in battle, which can rightly be called 'excellent'.

Bluesman
22 Sep 05,, 05:10
Chipyong-ni was where the US 8th Army and the 23rd infantry held its ground against the CCF as you said.

But this was after the US 8th Army crossed the 38th parallel back to South Korea in full retreat after being smashed by the CCF in December 1950. The casualty figures was about 8,000 US army and marine troopers lost. The place was Changjin Reservoir. The Chinese general who outfought the allies was Sung Shih-lun through a series of moves and gambles that resulted in the Aliies' defeat at Changjin Reservoir.

The CCF troops were no supermen, but mere peasant boys. But on some occasions they did demonstrate remarkable infantry tactics which caused the Allies defeat.

True. They weren't great troops, but they came in great numbers, and they were employed ruthlessly by their high command. And yes, some were remarkably tough, determined, and pretty dam' good (not often, but almost often enough.)


MacArthur described the CCF as having "complete organization and spledid training".

Well, what do you expect he'd say: "We just got our asses handed to us by a bunch of clodhoppers and laundrymen."? With an ego like Doug's, you know he'd have to impart some kind of skill to their soldiers, lest he admit that he'd been beaten by a great general using second-rate troops - which is what happened.


The CCF was also reported to have very good discipline: entire divisions can remain virtually undetectable by US aircrafts by day even in the treeless areas of Korea - moving only at night.

When you can jerk some kid out of the ranks for lighting a survival fire and shoot him in front of his company, discipline tends to be pretty dam' good.


The Korean War and the nature of its battles were mostly see-sawing. One minute the Allies were in charge, the next it's the CCF. And then it reverses again.

Very true. The Chinese couldn't sustain offensive ops, because we cut their LOCs. But when they WERE able to mass materiel, they controlled ops tempo and had the initiative. May God forbid we EVER find our forces in that position again, with the enemy determining when he's going to do what he wants, and us in reactive mode, wating for the hammer to fall, and scrambling to find the right answer. Intolerable.


Interesting fact:
"The Chinese hordes that had burst the UN Korean bubble did not number more than 300,000 at the time of their intervention, and of this number, probably not more than 60,000 actually went into close combat with the advance ROK and American divisions." - pg 260

Interesting counter-fact:
I don't think that's accurate, as the figure generally accepted by historians is 500K. As for the 60K at the pointy end, I think that's WAY low, too, and even if it were accurate (I do not concede that point), they certainly were not fighting every single Allied troop that tried to escape on the long trip back down south, either. In fact, given the MASSIVELY longer 'tail' of the Allied forces compared to their enemy, it makes the factor that the Allied line doggie was outnumbered by that much higher.


Allied troops were more willing to surrender to CCF than to NKPA as the CCF fed and gave medical attention to wounded POWs. The NKPA took no prisoners.

So, they were all set then, after they'd given up to the Chinese, right? Three hots, a cot, and Doctor Hu to look after their boo-boos.

They were more willing to surrender because the infiltration/encirclement tactics used by ChiCom formations made pulling back VERY much an unsure proposition. So, I concede this: the Chinese, in their pursuit of battles of annihilation all too frequently acheived their goal, and bagged WAY too many of our guys. Nothing wrong with admitting that they bested our units with appalling regularity.

generation_x
22 Sep 05,, 05:59
I frequently come across this "I am Captain America" tendency from the west. Well you know America lost the battle in Vietnam is a fact, try to accept that may be you will learn what you don't know. You donot win a battle by running away from the battle field.

Leader
22 Sep 05,, 06:18
"may be you will learn what you don't know. You donot win a battle by running away from the battle field."

Many of us do know that actually.

Bluesman
22 Sep 05,, 06:29
I frequently come across this "I am Captain America" tendency from the west. Well you know America lost the battle in Vietnam is a fact, try to accept that may be you will learn what you don't know. You donot win a battle by running away from the battle field.


And where are YOU from, sport? Any other wise words about losing wars that you'd care to share?

Bill
22 Sep 05,, 08:24
"I frequently come across this "I am Captain America" tendency from the west. Well you know America lost the battle in Vietnam is a fact, try to accept that may be you will learn what you don't know. You donot win a battle by running away from the battle field."

Go fucck yourself.

lemontree
22 Sep 05,, 09:13
You donot win a battle by running away from the battle field.
On the contrary US forces won all major battles in Vietnam, however, they lost the political battle in their own home.

Chino
22 Sep 05,, 12:22
So, they were all set then, after they'd given up to the Chinese, right? Three hots, a cot, and Doctor Hu to look after their boo-boos.

No, not quite yet, the author of the book related that the Chinese captors were accused of starving the Americans. He went on to explain that the Chinese fed each American POW the equal amount of ration each PLA soldier would receive. However, what was adequate for a PLA soldier was far from enough for the American POW.

leib10
22 Sep 05,, 14:44
I'll give you this, though: the average SS trooper (before being diluted with second-rate troops to make up for horrendous losses) pulled off some amazing and dare I say, HEROIC feats of arms. Fanatacism, extreme discipline, hard training, cohesiveness and the pick of equipment and re-supply priority were all factors in their performance in battle, which can rightly be called 'excellent'.

Couldn't have said it better.

RepublicanGuard
22 Sep 05,, 20:08
Well true they where never "Officially" part of the whermacht ( forgive the spelling again ) but they where determined/controlled by Army central command

RepublicanGuard
22 Sep 05,, 20:14
Dahlem, im 18.

now back to topic. the panthers and tigers commited to kursk did have trouble with their drivetrains but they still had the classic effect of the later marks of german tanks on russian armor ;) IE the armor that could not be penetrated at point blank by a T-34's 76mm gun, the L48 75 and the 88 that could rip through a T-34 @ 1900 + meters.

Dont doubt my intelligence. you are probably more than twice my age who has been avidly studying military tech since the mid-70's. if you want to argue about my age, grow up- im not going around flaming other members like you seem to be doing to me either...

leib10
22 Sep 05,, 22:27
Actually, the Panther had the L70 gun. The Mark IV had the L48. ;)

Recon_sgt
22 Sep 05,, 22:34
I have a low tolerance for loudmouth Germanophiles punching way above their weight. And most of them turn out to be misguided young kids.
And so would I but the problem is you have summed up this mans age and abilities without much actual info on him to go on this is in itself missguided.

I disagree.
What with that the S.S. make ineresting study or that his argument has merit.

And it takes 3 infantrymen attacking versus one defender so what is the point?
My point was merely that the tiger was not to be taken as lightly as being called silly nothing more.

Thing is having M-4A1s around when you need them is better then a Tiger 40 miles down the road fearing to move lest it run out of fuel, break down or be attacked by Tempests and P-47s. I'll take the Shermans any day of the week to support me...
Yes so true but I would prefer the tigers personnally if they were properly supplied and air support was adequate. My argument in this case is not based on the course of event more the actual vehicle (not sure if that made sense, oh well).

You are not going to gain any points by hanging your hat on the "Hilter was nuts and Rommel was great" hook
Wait a moment whats this about points, suddenly this is a competition :biggrin: .
seriously though, Do you deny that Hitlers blatent incompetence and direct interference in military affairs contributed greatly to the way in which WW2 turned out. Yes there were other factors (many and some quite big) that contributed as well. Oh by the way I did not mention his sanity merely his lack of military clout :cool: .


Which is why I referred to strategic and operational levels, and not the tactical level.
Hmm got ya

You do realize that that is a general kill ratio figure, not an individual engagement figure, yes? And my point is that focusing on one aspect of the war, the over-hyped Tiger brands of tanks especially, usually leads to people with a completely warped and useless point of view about the topic of WWII.
agreed, you can get quite a confused view of events by focusing on only 1 aspect.


That explains why Germany won the war.
Of course it does as we now live in the real live version of the film "fatherland", wait a moment oh thank F*** it was only a dream :biggrin: . Truely though it is not always the most numerically or technologicaly superior or the most mightily equiped who win wars. :cool:

generation_x
23 Sep 05,, 00:52
"I frequently come across this "I am Captain America" tendency from the west. Well you know America lost the battle in Vietnam is a fact, try to accept that may be you will learn what you don't know. You donot win a battle by running away from the battle field."

Go fucck yourself.

Yeah that's exactly what the Vietnamese had to say when Americans moved out of Vietnam

troung
23 Sep 05,, 01:46
Yes so true but I would prefer the tigers personnally if they were properly supplied and air support was adequate. My argument in this case is not based on the course of event more the actual vehicle (not sure if that made sense, oh well).

The fact was Germany couldn't properly support their military...

Check out German small arms, trucks, mortars and artillery...

Things like the sFH-443 (r), Haubitze 520 (i), Haubitze 503 (r), and FK-280 (e) show they were not able to arm their military. Or the Gewehr 242 (f), Gewher 254 (r), Leicht MG-138 (e) show the state of real German infantry units during the war. Granatwerfer 274 (r), Gebirgsgrantawefer 328 (r), Granatwerfer 176 (i) and so forth...

And that is not even factoring in the mess of German made stuff...

But then again I doubt you take much of a look at the German military past "cool" stuff like fighters, MP-40s and Tigers...

So a few massive tanks unable to move due to no aircover, no fuel and being prone to breaking down are of no use if they are 40 miles away compared to a platoon of Shermans or T-34s. And those Shermans and T-34s are operating under friendly skies and well supported with artillery and fuel.

astralis
23 Sep 05,, 03:30
col. yu,

somewhat off-topic but,


Linebacker I and II which galvanized their opposition, the North might have very well given up their dreams of conquering the south.

from my studies of the VN war, it seems that the linebacker operations were valuable in cutting up NVA supply routes. in fact, some of the books i've read on the subject said that the linebacker operations (especially number 2) was what drove the north vietnamese back to the negotation tables.

any comments? in your estimation how badly WERE the NVA hurt by the linebacker operations? from what you said it seems like whatever losses north vietnam might have had logistically was made up by renewed national will to fight.

sparten
23 Sep 05,, 04:17
The fact was Germany couldn't properly support their military...


Agreed, but that does not change the fact that if Army Group Center had been allowed to go on to Moscow as originally planned in 1941, or even as lat as 1944 if Hitler had allowed those Panzer divisions to be released on D-Day when they could have made a difference.

thesaint
23 Sep 05,, 04:26
Wait a moment whats this about points, suddenly this is a competition :biggrin: .
seriously though, Do you deny that Hitlers blatent incompetence and direct interference in military affairs contributed greatly to the way in which WW2 turned out. Yes there were other factors (many and some quite big) that contributed as well. Oh by the way I did not mention his sanity merely his lack of military clout :cool: .


Many historians agree that Hitler saved the day during the Soviet counteroffensive of Winter '41. His stand fast order avoided a general rout.
Also, from OKW records, there is his statement about the upcoming Kursk offensive "when I think of it, I feel like puking" or something like that. Most generals were instead quite keen on it.
Even during the battle of Stalingrad, where he was accused of causing the total loss of VI Army, he probably wasn't so wrong. The Soviets had formidable forces tied up in the siege and if they had been freed it is very possible that the entire Army Group A would have been cut off.
After the end of the war it was easy for German generals (who were alive) to put all the blame on Hitler (who was dead).
Of course he did screw up, and mightly so, but the theory that Germany without Hitler would have performed much better doesn't hold water.

Officer of Engineers
23 Sep 05,, 04:28
in your estimation how badly WERE the NVA hurt by the linebacker operations? from what you said it seems like whatever losses north vietnam might have had logistically was made up by renewed national will to fight.

Hanoi was on the verge of economic collapse as a result of LB I & II. Their infrastructures, especially food distribution, was blasted to smitherines. No one could have come out of those bombing campaigns equal to a couple of years of WWII tonnage unhurt to the point of collapse.

However, LB I and II brought the war home to the people. Before, the war was always in the south. You hear news about it and talk about the liberation of the south but the war really wasn't about home. The North had the same kind of revulsion the Americans had about the war in the south.

NVA operations were in the decline before LB I and II. However, after LB I and II, this was no longer a war of liberation but of national survival.

TopHatter
23 Sep 05,, 04:34
Of course he did screw up, and mightly so, but the theory that Germany without Hitler would have performed much better doesn't hold water.

Without his constant micro-management and meddling into...everything...I would say yes, Germany would have performed much better without Hitler.
Interestingly enough, without Hitler it's unlikely that Germany would have took the course that it did...
Although it can also be argued if Hitler hadnt been the man, it would've been someone else.

leib10
23 Sep 05,, 04:58
The fact was Germany couldn't properly support their military...

Check out German small arms, trucks, mortars and artillery...

Things like the sFH-443 (r), Haubitze 520 (i), Haubitze 503 (r), and FK-280 (e) show they were not able to arm their military. Or the Gewehr 242 (f), Gewher 254 (r), Leicht MG-138 (e) show the state of real German infantry units during the war. Granatwerfer 274 (r), Gebirgsgrantawefer 328 (r), Granatwerfer 176 (i) and so forth...

And that is not even factoring in the mess of German made stuff...

But then again I doubt you take much of a look at the German military past "cool" stuff like fighters, MP-40s and Tigers...

So a few massive tanks unable to move due to no aircover, no fuel and being prone to breaking down are of no use if they are 40 miles away compared to a platoon of Shermans or T-34s. And those Shermans and T-34s are operating under friendly skies and well supported with artillery and fuel.

If anything, being able to fight effectively with such mixed equipment is more testimony to the German soldier's skill. You often make note of the poor logistics; yet in reality foreign or obsolete weapons were not used much by frontline troops at all until the end of the war.

brownboi4eva
23 Sep 05,, 05:09
Americans are getting pretty cocky, yea you guys are the strongest....but not unbeatable...and please learn some humility...

Also American soldiers [regular foot inf.] are pretty soft and easily shaken compared to other infantries....you think an american army without air force support and naval support could stand up to every single infantry in the world without a problem? I highly doubt it...

Officer of Engineers
23 Sep 05,, 05:14
Have you served?

Bluesman
23 Sep 05,, 05:30
Americans are getting pretty cocky, yea you guys are the strongest....but not unbeatable...and please learn some humility...

Also American soldiers [regular foot inf.] are pretty soft and easily shaken compared to other infantries....you think an american army without air force support and naval support could stand up to every single infantry in the world without a problem? I highly doubt it...

Put down the crack pipe and back away slowly.

leib10
23 Sep 05,, 05:43
It's true that the American infantryman has always been heavily dependent on air and artillery support. However, that doesn't mean that they are unable to accomplish anything without those two support elements. We're not "soft".

Bluesman
23 Sep 05,, 06:01
It's true that the American infantryman has always been heavily dependent on air and artillery support.

'Dependent' isn't the right word, because that proposition is completely false. What would make it true would be to substitute 'lavishly supported' for 'dependent'.


However, that doesn't mean that they are unable to accomplish anything without those two support elements. We're not "soft".

The US Army is the most professional, skilled, well-led, highly-motivated and LAVISHLY-SUPPORTED and -EQUIPPED force ever fielded. Man-for-man, a US infantry outfit of any echelon will absolutely EAT any like formation that dares oppose it, all other things being equal.

I'm not saying that Americans are inherently superior as a people, because we're not homogenous, anyway. But there is absolutely nothing that any other army in the world can boast that can equal the NTC; the money spent on training; the support (all aspects); the professionalism of the military education; and a hundred other things that go into making the US Army the machine that it is.

We're not 'soft', leibstandarte10 is absolutely correct. Ask anybody that has met us in battle, if you can find the survivors. They usually go into hiding after the event.

Bill
23 Sep 05,, 06:12
"in your estimation how badly WERE the NVA hurt by the linebacker operations?"

The Linebacker II raids UTTERLY destroyed the IADS nets of both Hanoi and Haiphong, and the N.Vietnamese actually shot so many SA-2 missiles during the operation they ran out of them!

By the end of Linebacker II even US B-52s flew with absolute impunity over any target they so chose.

The North was completely naked to air attack.

astralis
23 Sep 05,, 06:52
lcol yu, m21,

yes, that's what i got out of it as well. however, what i find absolutely surprising is that despite getting their armies creamed twice, and coming to the precipice of economic collapse, that the NVA was able to overpower the ARVN by 1975 (only 2 years or so after linebacker 2 and their failed offensive).

certainly, the NVA was almost wholly rebuilt due to soviet and chinese arms, but then again, the US was doing the same thing. hell, the US rebuilt south vietnam so much that its airforce and navy was quite a power by its lonesome in the region.

not quite sure what happened here: the ARVN fought valiantly in '72, and even in the collapse of '75 quite a few ARVN divisions fought to the death, dealing a good deal more than they took. it had seemed like abram's "vietnamization" was quite successful up to this point too.

troung
23 Sep 05,, 08:14
If anything, being able to fight effectively with such mixed equipment is more testimony to the German soldier's skill. You often make note of the poor logistics; yet in reality foreign or obsolete weapons were not used much by frontline troops at all until the end of the war.

It is a testimate to how few of the Germanophiles read up on the German Army that so few of them probably knew about the P-62, Pak-113 or the K-433 without googling it after I type it in proving my point... hell its all about the V-2s, King Tigers and Me-262s what am I talking about...

It is a testimate to the fact that the mighty German war machine was not as mighty as made out to be...

It is a testimate to the fact the idiots started a war which killed millions of innocent people and go figure couldn't even standrize a simple thing like trucks...

And guess what those foriegn weapons were widley used and put into service all around the 3rd Riech... guess they should have ditched the V-2 program and made a good medium artillery piece or a decent light mortar... maybe drop the King Tiger for a tank that could go down the road without breaking down... forget about the Me-262 and decide train pilots to fly the current rack of jets to protect their oil fields and thier front line troops...

Sure as hell didn't see American divisions with Ariska rifles stationed in Italy...

So you know what I guess they don't impress me much...

lemontree
23 Sep 05,, 08:16
Man-for-man, a US infantry outfit of any echelon will absolutely EAT any like formation that dares oppose it, all other things being equal.
Come on Bluesman....I have already pointed out one major adm drawback in this very thread, which effects the most important aspect - moral.

Bluesman
23 Sep 05,, 08:58
Come on Bluesman....I have already pointed out one major adm drawback in this very thread, which effects the most important aspect - moral.

Oh, I agree that morale is absolutely vital. But I absolutely believe that American infantry - with outstanding weapons, body armor and personal equipment, electronics, night vision, commo, ammo, vehicles, support, and EVERYthing they could want or need to fight will so out-class any other country's entry that there would be no stopping the enemy's morale's plunge to the bottom, and the relative steadiness of the Yank's morale would tend to lead to a win.

In other words, the American soldier KNOWS that he can beat anybody, and actual contact with the enemy and the experience of combat would do nothing but confirm that belief, as well as tending to harden his faith that if he fights hard and well, he will almost certainly live. On the other hand, the enemy's experience will tend to disprove what he thought he knew about HIS chances to win...or even survive. Morale will consequently drop, and with it will go the odds of victory.

lemontree
23 Sep 05,, 09:06
Oh, I agree that morale is absolutely vital. But I absolutely believe that American infantry - with outstanding weapons, body armor and personal equipment, electronics, night vision, commo, ammo, vehicles, support, and EVERYthing they could want or need to fight will so out-class any other country's entry that there would be no stopping the enemy's morale's plunge to the bottom, and the relative steadiness of the Yank's morale would tend to lead to a win.

In other words, the American soldier KNOWS that he can beat anybody, and actual contact with the enemy and the experience of combat would do nothing but confirm that belief, as well as tending to harden his faith that if he fights hard and well, he will almost certainly live. On the other hand, the enemy's experience will tend to disprove what he thought he knew about HIS chances to win...or even survive. Morale will consequently drop, and with it will go the odds of victory.
All aspects considered and granted....
The only edge the US infantry has is that his higer command has the resources to SEE the enemy while the enemy is groping in the dark. The ability of the US infanteers' commander to see where the enemy is located gives him victory.

Shek
23 Sep 05,, 11:49
Americans are getting pretty cocky, yea you guys are the strongest....but not unbeatable...and please learn some humility...

Also American soldiers [regular foot inf.] are pretty soft and easily shaken compared to other infantries....you think an american army without air force support and naval support could stand up to every single infantry in the world without a problem? I highly doubt it...

Let me know when you've gone through Ranger School and then we'll talk about your "soft" comments. I'd agree with a statement that on average, that Americans people are softer than many other nationalities due to our advanced economy and their high standard of living, but a few months of military training helps to take care of most of that.

An open question to all the other military members of this forum - what physical and mental toughness did the military instill in you and what are your proudest accomplishments in the military involving physical and mental stamina?

Shek
23 Sep 05,, 12:02
lcol yu, m21,

yes, that's what i got out of it as well. however, what i find absolutely surprising is that despite getting their armies creamed twice, and coming to the precipice of economic collapse, that the NVA was able to overpower the ARVN by 1975 (only 2 years or so after linebacker 2 and their failed offensive).

certainly, the NVA was almost wholly rebuilt due to soviet and chinese arms, but then again, the US was doing the same thing. hell, the US rebuilt south vietnam so much that its airforce and navy was quite a power by its lonesome in the region.

not quite sure what happened here: the ARVN fought valiantly in '72, and even in the collapse of '75 quite a few ARVN divisions fought to the death, dealing a good deal more than they took. it had seemed like abram's "vietnamization" was quite successful up to this point too.

The NVA offensive of 1972 was in some respect an attempt to force the Chinese and Soviets to cancel their summits with the US. This angered both the Chinese and Soviets (the Soviets were the main equippers of NVN at this point), the Soviets especially, because a summit in Beijing and not in Moscow would have been embarassing for the Soviets. Between trying to manipulate the Soviets and the ensuing negative reaction from the Soviets and the successes of the summits with Nixon, support for the NVA was temporarily suspended to allow the US to get out of Vietnam though "peace with honor." Whether it was really "peace with honor" or just enough "breathing space" is a matter of debate.

If LB I and II were just preludes to an incursion into the north, then the summits may have been called off and the flow of arms may not have stopped. It was in the Soviet/Chinese interest to get the US out of the region, and if the intent wasn't to leave, then the effects of the operations may have been different. However, the operations do provide a glimpse into the possibilities of how the war could have turned out if the US had taken a more risky strategy (in terms of provoking an outright response from the USSR) and put the screws to North Vietnam earlier in the war when there was still public support for it.

I have yet to read the Harry Summers book that looks into this strategy.

Shek
23 Sep 05,, 12:07
All aspects considered and granted....
The only edge the US infantry has is that his higer command has the resources to SEE the enemy while the enemy is groping in the dark. The ability of the US infanteers' commander to see where the enemy is located gives him victory.

Lemontree,
This has really only evolved into being true during the past year plus. OIF was fought in the dark. 3 ID was the only divisional asset to have a UAV, and it had only 1. The Marines had a handful of UAVs (Dragon Eye) during their march up the east side of Iraq. There's a decent amount of literature about a mech battalion fighting an intense battle over a bridge (I believe at Diyawana) that was fought as a traditional movement to contact.

I can understand the misperception due to the rapid fielding of UAVs and the large scale fielding of the BFT system post-ground war and the hype surrounding this "transformational" warfare that eminated from the Pentagon in the months following the collapse of Baghdad.

SOF did have this capability from the onset of the GWOT, but don't confuse their capabilities with the capabilities that conventional forces had at the time.

lemontree
23 Sep 05,, 12:15
An open question to all the other military members of this forum - what physical and mental toughness did the military instill in you and what are your proudest accomplishments in the military involving physical and mental stamina?
In reponse to shek's call...
The army (I mean all those that matter) knows how to mould a person. They break you, then mould you. They make you do things that you did'nt realize you were capable off.
It slowly dawns on you that toughness rests in the mind - "It all in the mind". Military training anywhere is a crucible that shapes your mental and physical makeup and makes you an efficient being (efficient compared to the average person). It makes no difference if you come from the plains, you end up being a mountain goat if you lived all your life in the plains, or a jungle cat if you lived in cities. The army has a way of turning you into what it wants.
The best managers in the corporate world are ex-militray men. All the MBAs in the world cannot match the managerial skills and decisiveness of good officers/soldiers.
The proudest moments were after completing the 40km (..and still doing the 5 km every morning when others younger to me are struggling). Leading troops in counter-insurgency, combat, rescuing/evac of wounded troops, holding your dead soldiers etc. Too many moments to mention in a short space.
The proud moments don't end there, the values instilled in me by the army make me unique in my field of work in the civil.
...For those who do not know what army life is, can first imagine that "Sunday" does not exist, we had a vague recollection of its existance. The only running water you see is when you pass a river or stream. Showers function only in movies or in your home town :biggrin:. Food is what civilians eat, we ate something edible :rolleyes:.etc,etc...

Bluesman
23 Sep 05,, 12:15
Let me know when you've gone through Ranger School and then we'll talk about your "soft" comments. I'd agree with a statement that on average, that Americans people are softer than many other nationalities due to our advanced economy and their high standard of living, but a few months of military training helps to take care of most of that.

An open question to all the other military members of this forum - what physical and mental toughness did the military instill in you and what are your proudest accomplishments in the military involving physical and mental stamina?

Aircrew Survival School, October/November, 1987, and Special Aircrew Survival Training Course.

Glad I did it, and I learned a lot about myself there. But I never want to do it again.

I was physically tough enough to do the physical part, and I found out how mentally tough I was, too. I ended up being the best resistor in the POW camp, out of about 90 others, 80% of whom were officers. I was an A1C at the time, an E-3.

It was ME that finally got the resistance going, when none of the officers would risk getting slammed by the guards. It was ME (and ONLY ME) that got into the senior ranking officer's isolation cell, and I even brought him three oranges, too. It was ME that broke up the enemy's plan to undermine our chain of command (although in the debrief the guards told me I would've been shot for what I had to do to stop them).

I'm not trying to make myself out to be the hero, but I was THE BEST resistor, and the instructors all said so. It cost me, but I have confidence I could do okay in the real situation, should it arise, God forbid.

But it was a tough time, and it proved to me that I was capable of more than I thought I was.

lemontree
23 Sep 05,, 12:33
Lemontree,
This has really only evolved into being true during the past year plus. OIF was fought in the dark. 3 ID was the only divisional asset to have a UAV, and it had only 1. The Marines had a handful of UAVs (Dragon Eye) during their march up the east side of Iraq. There's a decent amount of literature about a mech battalion fighting an intense battle over a bridge (I believe at Diyawana) that was fought as a traditional movement to contact.

I can understand the misperception due to the rapid fielding of UAVs and the large scale fielding of the BFT system post-ground war and the hype surrounding this "transformational" warfare that eminated from the Pentagon in the months following the collapse of Baghdad.

SOF did have this capability from the onset of the GWOT, but don't confuse their capabilities with the capabilities that conventional forces had at the time.
Please don't misunderstand. When I say higer commander I mean the EW assets of the combined army/navy/airforce, that give a complete picture to your joint command. These US assests help to destroy the will of the enemy to pose any meaningfull resistance.

Recon_sgt
23 Sep 05,, 13:45
Things like the sFH-443 (r), Haubitze 520 (i), Haubitze 503 (r), and FK-280 (e) show they were not able to arm their military. Or the Gewehr 242 (f), Gewher 254 (r), Leicht MG-138 (e) show the state of real German infantry units during the war. Granatwerfer 274 (r), Gebirgsgrantawefer 328 (r), Granatwerfer 176 (i) and so forth...
Have not checked them out yet but will, and perhaps you should remember the various weapons that the Germans were noted for and still are today.
88mm gun (tank killer if ever there was one), the m.g. 34 and 42 (still in use in variant forms by many armies today, the Sturmgeshutz 3 and 4 (very good self propelled guns), the Jagpanther (relatively reliable machine), the panzer 4 which distinguished itself start to finish in its many varuiants, the 88mm mortar used to deadly effect in Caen, Arnhem and Monti casino (where the allies got a grand pasting) to name but a few, the Pak 40 anti tank gun, The mauser kar 98.
I am going to stop listing of good weapons they had in abundance now as I think I've made my point which is,
To worship the German army as invincible and so forth is a common mistake but to say they were not properly organized, equiped or trained is totaly untrue.

But then again I doubt you take much of a look at the German military past "cool" stuff like fighters, MP-40s and Tigers...
Childish put downs dont make you right you know.

And guess what those foriegn weapons were widley used and put into service all around the 3rd Riech... guess they should have ditched the V-2 program and made a good medium artillery piece or a decent light mortar... maybe drop the King Tiger for a tank that could go down the road without breaking down... forget about the Me-262 and decide train pilots to fly the current rack of jets to protect their oil fields and thier front line troops...
The V-2 program arrived to late to make any real impact to be sure. As for decent light mortars and artillery pieces they had those as any war vet (my late great gradad) will tell you. Agreed though they should have stook to Tiger 1 type J as it was much better. :cool:
P.S. I am not a Germanophile

Shek
23 Sep 05,, 13:52
Let me know when you've gone through Ranger School and then we'll talk about your "soft" comments. I'd agree with a statement that on average, that Americans people are softer than many other nationalities due to our advanced economy and their high standard of living, but a few months of military training helps to take care of most of that.

An open question to all the other military members of this forum - what physical and mental toughness did the military instill in you and what are your proudest accomplishments in the military involving physical and mental stamina?

Ranger School would be my top accomplishment of physical/mental stamina. 63 days of fun: 2-4 hours of sleep a day (the 3 nights before jumps were great, we got to sleep in and get 5 hours of sleep); 2 MREs a day, which sounds sufficient until you spend most of the day with 50-60lb rucksacks on your back patrolling through rolling terrain (Fort Benning), mountainous terrain (northern Georgia), and soft sand/swamps (Florida), in which case you lose 30lbs over the course of Ranger School (and I was about 155lbs going into it with body fat in the single digits). I learned about how I could push past my "physical" limits, and I had already run four marathons and been a triathlete prior to this, so I already had a greater mental capacity than most people thanks to my prior endurance training. I also learned that you can't take anything for granted and that an order not supervised under trying conditions is an order not executed to standard.

A distant second, but doing the 12 mile road march during Air Assault School in under 2 hours (35lb rucksack plus your web gear and weapon) over rolling terrain in the New York summer heat was an accomplishment that made me proud.

Bluesman
23 Sep 05,, 14:43
But...how could this be true, ya big ole American softie? ;)

Shek
23 Sep 05,, 14:49
But...how could this be true, ya big ole American softie? ;)

I'd reply right now, but I have to clean out all the doughnut crumbs that fell into the keyboard earlier! Plus, I ran out of Doritos and Coke, so I have to run to the store too. ;)

leib10
23 Sep 05,, 15:02
A distant second, but doing the 12 mile road march during Air Assault School in under 2 hours (35lb rucksack plus your web gear and weapon) over rolling terrain in the New York summer heat was an accomplishment that made me proud.

This sounds a lot like a pre-war Waffen SS exercise.

Shek
23 Sep 05,, 15:03
This sounds a lot like a pre-war Waffen SS exercise.

BS.

leib10
23 Sep 05,, 15:19
The march does. I forget the exact figures, but I do remember about a 20km march in a few hours with a very heavy pack. This was for the SS-Verfungungstruppe. Ironically, they performed poorly in Poland.

Shek
23 Sep 05,, 15:29
The march does. I forget the exact figures, but I do remember about a 20km march in a few hours with a very heavy pack. This was for the SS-Verfungungstruppe. Ironically, they performed poorly in Poland.

If you were trying to argue that they were doing 12 mile foot marches as training, I'd find that to be wholly realistic. The US Army does that regularly. If you were trying to say that they were doing them as a unit in under two hours, that's when I'm raising BS flag. Outside of SOF, I cannot see units being able to do 12 miles with a medium/light pack in under two hours, except for some rare occasions where you have an exceptionally fit and motivated squad and maybe up to a platoon.

BTW, the difference between 2 hours and 3 hours is tremendous. 2 hours is jogging/running the entire way, while 3 hours is just walking at a steady pace. If you put on a heavy pack, then it becomes a whole new ballgame, and 2 hours becomes running and 3 hours becomes walking at a very brisk pace.

leib10
23 Sep 05,, 16:05
Very true. I'll see if I can find the book that has the exact figures in it. I do remember the book was called Loyalty Is My Honor.

astralis
23 Sep 05,, 18:01
bluesman,



In other words, the American soldier KNOWS that he can beat anybody, and actual contact with the enemy and the experience of combat would do nothing but confirm that belief, as well as tending to harden his faith that if he fights hard and well, he will almost certainly live. On the other hand, the enemy's experience will tend to disprove what he thought he knew about HIS chances to win...or even survive. Morale will consequently drop, and with it will go the odds of victory.

well, to go back to the VN war, this was the case during that war, no? the morale of the troops were high in 1965; the initial operations (operation starlite and ia drang) were victories...hell, all the major operations were victories; the american troops were well-armed, more mobile, and saigon/other major bases had everything from movies to ice cream parlors. yet morale had dropped by 1969 that the term 'fragging' became common slang, use of marijuana had spread, and soldiers were, instead of concentrating on achieving the mission, counting down days till getting back to the world.

certainly morale wasn't exactly high in the NVA ranks too. in north vietnam they'd hold early funerals for their sons...prior to them going down south.

i am sure what you say is true in many cases, but it is scenarios like these which unfortunately points to more factors. i'd be interested in hearing comments, as usual! :)

-----

shek,

good points. i'll see if i can get hold of the summers book.

Shek
23 Sep 05,, 18:32
shek,

good points. i'll see if i can get hold of the summers book.

The Summers book was very well received by the military community because it blamed the politicians for not allowing the conventional might of the US to prevail and shunned COIN operations, which had been the fabric of US military operations post Civil War through WWI, but had lost its vogueness following WWI and especially WWII.

Recon_sgt
23 Sep 05,, 18:59
Before we go on with this I suggest we return the point in this thread which is "top 5 trained infy" and I will shortly form a new thread in the History section which you Troung are more than welcome to join.
By the way is it top 5 current infy or historical as well, because if historical are included where do we draw the line I mean Roman infy were among the best trained infy in the world back in their day. :biggrin:

troung
23 Sep 05,, 20:08
Have not checked them out yet but will, and perhaps you should remember the various weapons that the Germans were noted for and still are today. 88mm gun (tank killer if ever there was one), the m.g. 34 and 42 (still in use in variant forms by many armies today, the Sturmgeshutz 3 and 4 (very good self propelled guns), the Jagpanther (relatively reliable machine), the panzer 4 which distinguished itself start to finish in its many varuiants, the 88mm mortar used to deadly effect in Caen, Arnhem and Monti casino (where the allies got a grand pasting) to name but a few, the Pak 40 anti tank gun,

You left out PzKpfw 35H 734s and other goodies. And of course lets remember that not all German units had GMPGs of any kind as the VZ-37 and ZB-26/ZB-30 were still very common even by the end of the war and even the SS with the pick of weapons still ran around with ZB-26/30s and VZ-37s which were not GPMGs and far from it. Don't see those in many movies I guess...

And then there was the Machinengewehr 156... :rolleyes:

As for the 88mm getting all the press that leaves out the Pak-36 (r) and Pak-97/38...


The mauser kar 98.

In different shapes and calibers and even then that was not the only bolt action rifle used by the Nazis. Plenty of German units on D-Day carried G-254s, G-252s and G-242s. Or the Selbstladegewehr 310. Not the stuff you see in movies huh?


The V-2 program arrived to late to make any real impact to be sure. As for decent light mortars and artillery pieces they had those as any war vet (my late great gradad) will tell you.

The V-2 was a waste pure and simple. America dropped far more tonnage on bombing raids then the V-2s put down total. That's called a waste of time, material and people.

They didn't have decent light mortars and were forced to use captured artillery becuase of their own rather silly arms industry. American artillery was not only more capable but there when needed.


Agreed though they should have stook to Tiger 1 type J as it was much better.

Yes something with poor mobility and that was prone to break down. Off course seeing as it shared an engine with the Panther and even the King Tiger... :rolleyes:


I am going to stop listing of good weapons they had in abundance now as I think I've made my point which is, To worship the German army as invincible and so forth is a common mistake but to say they were not properly organized, equiped or trained is totaly untrue

For every text book weapon you name I can dig up examples of the opposite. American front line infantry didn't walk into battle with Type-38 Ariska rifles with the officers carrying Brizia pistols....

Recon_sgt
23 Sep 05,, 21:28
Owing to there seems to be no limit how far back we can go I am going to put this forward.
1: Roman
2: Samurai
3: Saracen
4: FFL (eighteen hundreds style)
5: Teutons/Francs/britons
enjoy :biggrin:

dalem
23 Sep 05,, 21:34
I wouldn't go so far as to call it useless. Any knowledge, if it is true, is useful in some way. For instance, weapons like the Tiger were able to turn the tides of battles, provided they were properly used. It is because of the superiority of German weaponry in many areas that they lasted as long as they did, combined with their tactics (especially the Kampfgruppen) and their bravery. Their lasting effect on modern warfare is apparent; the British adopted the battle-group as their standard formation, and we used a version of the Schwerepunkt during Operation Desert Storm. Not to mention their legacy of weaponry, with concepts like the GPMG and assault rifle.

I agree the Germans were the first ones to realize and apply the concept of malleability to modern warfare, but rarely did their technology make a difference. They conquered France and Poland with inferior technology and numbers, and came "this close" to doing the same to the USSR. Their heavy tanks were nice for a year or so, but became highly redundant and wasteful once the Panther was in production.

And note that the legacy of assault rifles and GPMGs is not as solid as you might assume. There are still multiple ways to skin those cats, and the role of automatic FP in small units has been in flux ever since WWII, as I understand it.

-dale

leib10
23 Sep 05,, 21:48
It's certainly open to interpretation and debate. However, what is irrefutable is the fact that the MG34/42 and Stg. 44 had some influence on postwar small arms around the world.

Their technology was occasionally the decisive factor in combat. The MG42 was horribly effective in stopping Soviet human wave attacks, whereas with, say, a Browning .30 caliber machine gun, the Germans might've been overrun.

thesaint
23 Sep 05,, 21:56
I agree the Germans were the first ones to realize and apply the concept of malleability to modern warfare, but rarely did their technology make a difference. They conquered France and Poland with inferior technology and numbers...

Duh ?! The Germans "inferior in technology and number" to the Poles and the French ?? This sounds like a somewhat forced notion

leib10
23 Sep 05,, 21:57
French and British tanks were better armored and armed than most German tanks. It's because of their tactics that the Germans were victorious over them.

dalem
23 Sep 05,, 22:06
If anything, being able to fight effectively with such mixed equipment is more testimony to the German soldier's skill. You often make note of the poor logistics; yet in reality foreign or obsolete weapons were not used much by frontline troops at all until the end of the war.

Something like half of the German front line equipment in the first year of the war was Czeck.

-dale

leib10
23 Sep 05,, 22:08
Within the first year, yes. However, as German armaments industry began to kick in, Czech weapons were phased out of frontline use when possible. Usually, the panzergrenadier, panzer, and later SS divisions received the best, German equipment. However, weapons from all over the place were used throughout the war in various numbers.

dalem
23 Sep 05,, 22:27
Have not checked them out yet but will, and perhaps you should remember the various weapons that the Germans were noted for and still are today.
88mm gun (tank killer if ever there was one), the m.g. 34 and 42 (still in use in variant forms by many armies today, the Sturmgeshutz 3 and 4 (very good self propelled guns), the Jagpanther (relatively reliable machine), the panzer 4 which distinguished itself start to finish in its many varuiants, the 88mm mortar used to deadly effect in Caen, Arnhem and Monti casino (where the allies got a grand pasting) to name but a few, the Pak 40 anti tank gun, The mauser kar 98.

The various mid-to late-war StuGs and JagdPanzers are a testimony to the failures of Germany's industry and economy. They were fielded as cheap ways to get powerful guns into the field. Turreted tanks would have been far more versatile in those roles but they couldn't build enough, hence the array of different SPGs. They are marks of desperation, not success.

The Kar-98 was a great gun in WWI, and a fine hunting rifle even today, but a horrible battle rifle in the 1940s.



I am going to stop listing of good weapons they had in abundance now as I think I've made my point which is,

Actually you're making MY point for me. :)



To worship the German army as invincible and so forth is a common mistake but to say they were not properly organized, equiped or trained is totaly untrue.

Incorrect. From the waste of the Luftwaffe army and the SS, all the way down to the bewildering array of transport and weaponry, the German army had huge problems with organization, implementation, and equipment.



Childish put downs dont make you right you know.

The V-2 program arrived to late to make any real impact to be sure. As for decent light mortars and artillery pieces they had those as any war vet (my late great gradad) will tell you. Agreed though they should have stook to Tiger 1 type J as it was much better. :cool:
P.S. I am not a Germanophile

The 50mm mortar was relegated to second line units after 1942, and their artillery park in general was relatively unsophisticated. I'm not familiar with the J model of the Tiger. They should have stuck to the Panther, which was one of, if not the best tank of the war.

-dale

thesaint
23 Sep 05,, 22:35
French and British tanks were better armored and armed than most German tanks. It's because of their tactics that the Germans were victorious over them.

How about ze luftwaffe ?

troung
23 Sep 05,, 22:40
The Kar-98 was a great gun in WWI, and a fine hunting rifle even today, but a horrible battle rifle in the 1940s.

And that is leaving out the scores of other bolt action rifles in different calibers and models that were pressed into service from Lebels and MAS-36s, to Mosin Nagats.


The 50mm mortar was relegated to second line units after 1942, and their artillery park in general was relatively unsophisticated.

Unsophisticated and a mess of different calibers and models...

Bluesman
23 Sep 05,, 23:24
bluesman,



well, to go back to the VN war, this was the case during that war, no? the morale of the troops were high in 1965; the initial operations (operation starlite and ia drang) were victories...hell, all the major operations were victories; the american troops were well-armed, more mobile, and saigon/other major bases had everything from movies to ice cream parlors. yet morale had dropped by 1969 that the term 'fragging' became common slang, use of marijuana had spread, and soldiers were, instead of concentrating on achieving the mission, counting down days till getting back to the world.

certainly morale wasn't exactly high in the NVA ranks too. in north vietnam they'd hold early funerals for their sons...prior to them going down south.

i am sure what you say is true in many cases, but it is scenarios like these which unfortunately points to more factors. i'd be interested in hearing comments, as usual! :)

-----

shek,

good points. i'll see if i can get hold of the summers book.

Oh, I was referring to present-day American infantry being the tops of their class. The old Army from just thirty years ago is light years behind, and I grant that back in the day of the draftee, there was definitely NOT the high degree of professionalism and awesome motivation that today's soldier is imbued with.

But your point is a great one: the raw material was exactly the same THEN as it is NOW (and may have been slightly better), and yet we see an ENORMOUS difference in degree and scale.

So, if anybody thinks I'm saying that Americans are just better troops SIMPLY BECAUSE they're American, I'm not.

astralis
24 Sep 05,, 02:32
bluesman,

good points. i had neglected the draftee aspect of the VN era army. by the way, one of the things which i do credit pres. bush for in the handling of this war is by utilizing the NG to the full measure. in vietnam, for the sake of political expediency, LBJ refused to use the NG, only deploying a few units; as the average age of a NG member was considerably older than their active army counterparts, this represented a bastion of skills and maturity that was largely untapped and needed in the VN war.

that should be a warning, immediate political expediency during a war can mean not just strategic setbacks but also medium-long range political costs later. the problem is recognizing when this will occur.

Chino
24 Sep 05,, 13:48
bluesman,

good points. i had neglected the draftee aspect of the VN era army.

Speaking of the VN War draft, read that later on in the war, the draft system was such that you could easily escape a rifleman job if you try hard enough.

Those were, of course, those who became riflemen because they WANTED to fight as a rifleman. But the majority of riflemen were those whose IQ was to low to escape the infantry job, or those who simply accepted fate. As a result, there were always a lot of reports of poor infantry performance in VN cos the soldiering quality of the majority of the VN War draftees were poor to begin with.

Unlike WW2, where a lot of good men joined up willingly to fight.

Shek
24 Sep 05,, 14:06
Speaking of the VN War draft, read that later on in the war, the draft system was such that you could easily escape a rifleman job if you try hard enough.

Those were, of course, those who became riflemen because they WANTED to fight as a rifleman. But the majority of riflemen were those whose IQ was to low to escape the infantry job, or those who simply accepted fate. As a result, there were always a lot of reports of poor infantry performance in VN cos the soldiering quality of the majority of the VN War draftees were poor to begin with.

Unlike WW2, where a lot of good men joined up willingly to fight.

Chino,

1. IIRC, the percentage of draftees in WWII vs. Vietnam wasn't a whole lot different. I'm reading a book now about the 95th Division in WWII, and pretty everyone interviewed was drafted. However, I think that there was definitely a greater sense of duty due to fewer people trying to "dodge" the draft through waivers and deferments.

2. The conception about infantrymen being dumb is a false one. You don't have to be a rocket scientist, but there's plenty of things that you need to memorize and need to be able to calculate. If you'd like me to give you an example of battlefield "calculus" to demonstrate the complexities of the battlefield and what infantry leaders need to be to do.

3. The biggest failings of Vietnam later in the war was the combination of the decimation of the NCO corps, which means that you didn't have the requisite leadership to nip problems in the bud and properly execute orders, and the individual replacement system, which eroded team building and inhibited unit training due to the constant turnover.

sparten
24 Sep 05,, 15:11
NVA operations were in the decline before LB I and II. However, after LB I and II, this was no longer a war of liberation but of national survival.

Col, if LB type operations had been carried out in the late sixties (when support for the war was still strong in the US), would the US have been able to save S.Vietnam?

Officer of Engineers
24 Sep 05,, 20:43
Col, if LB type operations had been carried out in the late sixties (when support for the war was still strong in the US), would the US have been able to save S.Vietnam?

More than anything else, it was South Vietnam who lost South Vietnam. There was too much corruption and incompetence for Saigon to stand up to a determined Hanoi.

RepublicanGuard
24 Sep 05,, 23:08
Jagdpanzers actually faired well in combat. I agree they where a cheap way to get the powerful 75's, 88's, and in the jagdtiger-the 12.8 cm gun onto the field. however, unlike the american M-10 and later tank destroyers, these jagdpanzers actually had good armor.

leib10
24 Sep 05,, 23:30
The Germans' greatest mistake of WWII, other than attacking the Soviet Union, was fielding too many different and non-interchangeable pieces of equipment. Unlike the Allies, who fielded many vehicles of few types that were often inferior to German ones, the Germans had a lot of vehicles of all sorts of makes which led to supply problems that resulted in catastrophe.

dalem
25 Sep 05,, 09:31
Jagdpanzers actually faired well in combat.

Irrelevant. I am not claiming they didn't fare reasonably well in combat (I have no hard stats for comparison), I am saying that they shouldn't be thought of as examples of superior German design or implementation.



I agree they where a cheap way to get the powerful 75's, 88's, and in the jagdtiger-the 12.8 cm gun onto the field. however, unlike the american M-10 and later tank destroyers, these jagdpanzers actually had good armor.

U.S. TD doctrine was completely different (and heavily flawed). U.S. TDs were designed with light and thin armor on purpose.

-dale

leib10
25 Sep 05,, 16:58
So were some German TD's, such as the Marder series. They weren't even fully enclosed.

dalem
25 Sep 05,, 21:06
So were some German TD's, such as the Marder series. They weren't even fully enclosed.

Mmm, different concepts. The Marders were stopgap designs, as were most of the German junkwagens, again designed only around getting an AT gun onto a tracked platform ASAP. Protection for the crew was secondary, but as the war progressed the JagdPanzers evolved into the fully-armored types like the Hetzer and JagdPanther.

U.S. TD design was purposeful and deliberate from the start, albeit flawed. When the U.S. was designing their army structure and doctrine in '39-40, it was very reactive to the German bliztkrieg offensive successes, i.e. the thought was that there was going to be a large need to defend against onslaughts of German armored spearheads (and waves of Stukas - hence the mounting of an M2 .50cal on everything with wheels or tracks). Early wargames showed high successes of mobile AT guns against tank attacks, so the armor doctrine that emerged was that tanks should be designed to fight infantry via breakthrough attacks and enemy tanks would be dealt with by highly mobile towed and self-propelled AT guns. The dedicated TD was designed from the ground up to be highly mobile - its defense would be its speed and maneuverability. So light, thin armor, low weight, and an open top for higher visibility were all intentional. Note that the last new TD design to be fielded, the M18 Hellcat, had the lightest armor and fastest speed of the whole series!

Now reality dictated a different matchup, and U.S. tankers in their near-perfect breakthrough infantry-killer, the M4 Sherman, of course found themselves facing off against German tanks on a regular basis, and the TDs, with their inadequate machineguns, open and vulnerable turrets, and low HE ammo loadout, likewise were often pressed into service to support the GIs in the role of "tank", a role for which they were poorly suited.

Such is war.

-dale

Chino
26 Sep 05,, 04:39
2. The conception about infantrymen being dumb is a false one. You don't have to be a rocket scientist, but there's plenty of things that you need to memorize and need to be able to calculate. If you'd like me to give you an example of battlefield "calculus" to demonstrate the complexities of the battlefield and what infantry leaders need to be to do.

I misrepresented myself when I said "those whose IQ was too low to escape the infantry job". The book I read said that kids whom had the least education were the first ones for the infantry job during the VN War. I wasn't saying that they were too dumb to be riflemen.

I can quote you the name of the book once I'm back home.

Sir, I myself served as a conscript in a infantry rifle company for 2 years and thereafter another 7 years as a reservist, doing a month's combat training every year. So you don't need to further enlighten me about the infantry.

In my country, the lowest quality of men goes to the infantry battalions. In my platoon, we had triad members, illegal gambling den operators, drug addicts, illegal money lenders and many other layabouts. Nearly all had below high school education. There were one or two whom were so ignorant you had to keep a wary eye when they were handling weapons with live ammo.

The ones deem to be a little "cleverer" were sent to the airforce, navy or other arms of the army like armour, scouts etc.

RepublicanGuard
26 Sep 05,, 04:43
Quote:
Originally Posted by RepublicanGuard
Jagdpanzers actually faired well in combat.


Irrelevant. I am not claiming they didn't fare reasonably well in combat (I have no hard stats for comparison), I am saying that they shouldn't be thought of as examples of superior German design or implementation

No, i wouldnt regard them as quite a "Superior Design". superior design would have to go to the Mk4, Mk5 Panther, and the Tiger series of tank.

BTW forgot to think of the Marders but this is a message board. Im not going to list the numerous types of Jagdpanzers due to the germans fielding so many diff. types w/many diff. classis's and AT guns. Marders, yes they where junk heaps, and most where used on the Russian front equipped with modified captured Soviet 76mm AT guns.

Still, the "Jagdpanzer" in general faired well in combat. unlike your example the M4 Sherman. I know it was designed to support infantry but by god, we all know the german tankers called them "Matchboxes" and "Fire Crackers" :biggrin:

Not to flame, just this so called "14 year old kid" is countering your argument ;)

lemontree
26 Sep 05,, 05:22
Their technology was occasionally the decisive factor in combat. The MG42 was horribly effective in stopping Soviet human wave attacks, whereas with, say, a Browning .30 caliber machine gun, the Germans might've been overrun.
Sorry is disagree with this statement. The MG42 was mainly used in a GPMG mode while the .30 Browing was used in a MMG mode. The role of both the weapons is different in a defensive battle. The role of the MG42 was performed by the LMGs at section level in the allied armies and the Germans too used the Czech Bren varient earlier.

leib10
26 Sep 05,, 05:24
I'm just saying that if the Germans had used something similar to the Browning in the same role that they used the MG42, they might've been defeated more often in smaller engagements.

dalem
26 Sep 05,, 05:28
No, i wouldnt regard them as quite a "Superior Design". superior design would have to go to the Mk4, Mk5 Panther, and the Tiger series of tank.

1) Might I suggest that you learn how to use the quote button? ;) Makes your posts easier to read.

2) My comments about the German Jagdpanzers was in reference to whoever first listed them as indicators of good German epuipment. The PzIV was another outdated design with nothing "superior" about it. Its armor and maneuverability was a little below that of the M4 Sherman, and when upgraded to the KwK 75mm L43 or L48 (F2 and later models) was in the same ballpark as the U.S. 3" and 76mm guns penetration-wise (although it entered that ballpark much sooner than the M4 :) ). Its reliability was much less than that of the M4 series.

3) The Panther was, as I've already agreed, probably the best tank in the whole war. The Tiger I was nice to have in that horrible gap between the realization that the PzIII couldn't be upgunned to trade evenly with Soviet armor and the introduction of the Panther. But after that, say late 1941 through mid 1943, the Tigers and other Hitler heavy armor fixations were more of a hindrance than a help. Anything that took steel or skilled hands away from extant or potential Panther production lines was a mistake.



BTW forgot to think of the Marders but this is a message board. Im not going to list the numerous types of Jagdpanzers due to the germans fielding so many diff. types w/many diff. classis's and AT guns. Marders, yes they where junk heaps, and most where used on the Russian front equipped with modified captured Soviet 76mm AT guns.

Still, the "Jagdpanzer" in general faired well in combat. unlike your example the M4 Sherman.

Really? Why do you say that? What kind of combat? How well?



I know it was designed to support infantry but by god, we all know the german tankers called them "Matchboxes" and "Fire Crackers" :biggrin:

Yep, the early Shermans had the legendary problems with brewing up due to open ammo stowage. Later models took care of most of that problem. The Sherman was still never a good tactical "tank vs. tank" platform. Even the 76mm gun didn't do enough to change that. The resistance to and the delay in introducing the M26 Pershing was definitely a big mistake. Still, the Sherman did get the job done, and in the hands of a skilled crew could accomplish quite a bit even against the decent German armor.



Not to flame, just this so called "14 year old kid" is countering your argument ;)

No flame taken. ;)

-dale

leib10
26 Sep 05,, 05:32
I agree that the Panther was the finest tank of WWII. A perfect mix of speed, manueverability, firepower, and armor. If it had a problem it was its complexity. Germany, despite all difficulties, managed to turn out a surprising 5000 or so of them.

lemontree
26 Sep 05,, 08:21
I'm just saying that if the Germans had used something similar to the Browning in the same role that they used the MG42, they might've been defeated more often in smaller engagements.
Then it must be athe German army rations :biggrin: ....
This theory about the MG42. Our nearest adversary Pak Army uses the MG3 in the same role as the Germans used it in 1939-1945, and we use the MAG 58 in the same role as the .30 cal was used, and somehow we won most of the battles and wars from 1965 Indo-Pak wars to Kargil 1999, with lesser casulties than the enemy. In 1971 the PA used the Chinese made RPDs as the gpmg and the .30 cal as the MMG.

dalem
26 Sep 05,, 08:35
Then it must be athe German army rations :biggrin: ....
This theory about the MG42. Our nearest adversary Pak Army uses the MG3 in the same role as the Germans used it in 1939-1945, and we use the MAG 58 in the same role as the .30 cal was used, and somehow we won most of the battles and wars from 1965 Indo-Pak wars to Kargil 1999, with lesser casulties than the enemy. In 1971 the PA used the Chinese made RPDs as the gpmg and the .30 cal as the MMG.

Yeah, I'm thinking that I'm peeing myself and going face down in the dirt no matter what the type and caliber of the MG firing in my direction.

-dale

lemontree
26 Sep 05,, 10:20
Yeah, I'm thinking that I'm peeing myself and going face down in the dirt no matter what the type and caliber of the MG firing in my direction.

-dale
Lol...you are right. :biggrin:

leib10
26 Sep 05,, 22:17
Then it must be athe German army rations :biggrin: ....
This theory about the MG42. Our nearest adversary Pak Army uses the MG3 in the same role as the Germans used it in 1939-1945, and we use the MAG 58 in the same role as the .30 cal was used, and somehow we won most of the battles and wars from 1965 Indo-Pak wars to Kargil 1999, with lesser casulties than the enemy. In 1971 the PA used the Chinese made RPDs as the gpmg and the .30 cal as the MMG.

That said, the MG42/MG3 requires the operator to go through a lot of training (especially in fire discipline) to be used effectively, thanks to the extremely high rate of fire.

troung
27 Sep 05,, 03:05
I'm just saying that if the Germans had used something similar to the Browning in the same role that they used the MG42, they might've been defeated more often in smaller engagements.

Shoudl I waste my time to point out how many "German" machine guns of the war were not even GPMGs.. they actually had Browning machine guns (BAR as well) in service along with the Czech VZ-37 MMG (very common) and other types like the classic MG-08-15... so not every German unit had MG-42s or even GPMGs. The ZB-26/ZB-30 LMG and VZ-37 MMG were very common among German units on all fronts during the war.


Still, the "Jagdpanzer" in general faired well in combat. unlike your example the M4 Sherman.

The M-4 fared well enough to play a role in post war victory parades... ;)

And it fared well enough in infantry support, calvary and even anti tank duties (not everything the Germans had was a Tiger or Panther). Plus even more important it was around in the needed numbers and could be supported in the field. Those little things like being able to be supported are what makes a system great in the end.

So it fared rather well during the war actually...


The Panther was, as I've already agreed, probably the best tank in the whole war.

A good case could be mad for the T-34-85 in terms of overall ability and being around in the needed numbers.

leib10
27 Sep 05,, 03:21
From a design standpoint, the Panther was a better tank.

Officer of Engineers
27 Sep 05,, 04:30
I would not say the Chinese are in the top 5 infantry force on earth but clearly, they are one of the most ambitious on earth. I have to say that I see a mistake in the making in their recent announcement of moving towards a corps-brigade-battalion model away from their traditional army-division-regiment model. But it would be interesting to see if they would return to division at some point.

Oh, incidently, Colonel Blasko was a former Defence Attache to Beijing.







Mr. Dennis J. Blasko

Independent Consultant

September 15, 2005

Hearing on

“Net Assessment of Cross-Strait Military Capabilities”

Before the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission

Thank you for the invitation to be here today.

Today, I would like to address the question “how is China’s military training and operational capability developing?” and focus primarily on the nearly 70 percent of the PLA found in the ground forces.

While now even the Chinese government officially acknowledges priority of development is given to the PLA Navy, Air Force, and Second Artillery, as in the other services a comprehensive ground force and joint training regimen has been accelerated in the years since 1999. This acceleration was the result of several factors:

1) The requirement levied upon the PLA by the civilian leadership to increase its capabilities to a) deter Taiwan from further steps toward independence and b) if necessary, to coerce Taiwan to the negotiating table or defeat it in battle, even if Taiwan were to be supported by “foreign forces,” i.e., U.S. intervention.

2) The impact of economic development in China that a) permitted significantly more funds to be allotted to the PLA and b) greatly improved PLA command, control, communications, and computer capabilities through acquisition of mostly Chinese-manufactured communications and electronic equipment supported by an infrastructure of optical fiber, microwave, satellite, and wireless communications systems.

3) The confidence that the international security environment had changed sufficiently to allow strategic focus to be directed toward the Taiwan Strait. In other words, Beijing was finally satisfied the former threat from the USSR/Russia no longer required a major focus by the Chinese military. This realization is mostly clearly evident in the fact that the Shenyang Military Region felt the greatest impact of force reductions since 1997. The corollary to this situation was a cash-hungry Russia was more willing to sell more advanced weaponry to a China with more money to spend (due to economic development), supercharging a trend begun in the early 1990s.

4) The reduction in personnel strength of the PLA by approximately 23 percent with simultaneous emphasis on the development of an NCO corps and improving the educational level of the officer corps. Increased resources now available to the PLA can be focused on a considerably smaller force.

5) Last, but certainly not least, the promulgation in 1999 of a new set of training regulations, which outline doctrine and procedures for the PLA to “prepare for military struggle.” The related, new Military Training and Evaluation Program, which became effective in 2002, sets standards for all units and is further refined by annual training guidance issued by the General Staff Department for the PLA in general and the Military Regions and services.

My statement today is based almost exclusively on reading the Chinese press and official Chinese documents. I have used no classified U.S. material, nor have I had the opportunity to observe PLA training or interview PLA officers since 1999. Nevertheless, I believe that through close examination of open source material it is possible to understand general trends in training and much of its content. However, using only Chinese sources, it is less feasible to make definitive judgments about specific units and capabilities, especially relative to the capabilities of other armed forces. Therefore, I will not attempt to make any sort of net assessment of cross-Strait military capabilities.

Nonetheless, based on my own personal experience both in the U.S. Army and observing the PLA a decade ago, I will provide my impressions of the state of ground force training: In short, the PLA is a good student of other militaries and understands in theory the complexities of modern war. It has developed a doctrine that integrates lessons learned from other countries’ recent military experiences and adapts these to the unique conditions in China. From what I read and see on Chinese television, at this point in time, most PLA training is still relatively rudimentary in nature, reflecting their efforts to combine optimally the new weapons and equipment, new doctrine, and the new caliber of personnel available since 1999. They realize this is a complex task and understand there are no shortcuts or “silver bullets” to achieving combat effectiveness. The PLA leadership has a two-decade plan to continue its modernization and transformation process (and I believe 15-20 years is a reasonable timeframe to approach achieving the goals the PLA has set for itself). However, if ordered by the government and party before it has completely achieved its modernization goals, the PLA will follow the commands of China’s civilian leadership and utilize its best units in the most appropriate way, supported by a large civilian effort, to achieve the political and military goals assigned.

Though the focus of this hearing is on the Taiwan Strait, in fact, PLA ground force training emphasizes the entire array of missions it may be called upon to conduct “to defend national sovereignty and territorial integrity” – this includes defense of its land borders as well as its maritime claims. I have no doubt the Chinese assume the mainland will be the target of long-range attacks in future conflicts and defending against this threat and recovering afterwards is a major theme in nearly all training. They also are aware of the need to defend against the threat of terrorism.

In April 2000, the army paper, Jiefangjunbao, clearly highlighted recent training priorities. These priorities were then continued in exercises reported over the next five years:

* Nanjing and Guangzhou Military Regions have concentrated on amphibious operations;
* Beijing, Shenyang, and Jinan Military Regions have stepped up long-range mobility and rapid reaction; and
* Lanzhou and Chengdu Military Regions explored cold weather operations on plateaus.
* In general, explore and intensify training on:
o Air defense operations
o Information war
o Amphibious landings
o Joint operations, and
o The new “three strikes, three defenses” (strike at stealth aircraft, strike at cruise missiles, strike at helicopter gunships; defend against precision strikes, defend against electronic jamming, defend against reconnaissance and surveillance)

This list was augmented after 2001 with “anti-terrorist” training and heightened emphasis on nuclear, chemical, and biological defense. Disaster relief training has also been added to unit training programs.

Not only have active PLA ground forces increased the intensity of training since 1999, so, too, have reserve and militia forces stepped up their training. Civilian support increasingly is integrated into PLA operations. Reserve and civilian support is often coordinated using the mechanism of the National Defense Mobilization Committee system and its expanding web of civil-military command posts. Reserve, militia, and civilian support is particularly important to PLA logistics and armament support functions. The concept of People’s War, especially the mobilization of the population and its emphasis on the use of speed, stealth, stratagem, and deception, remains relevant to future PLA campaigns. People’s War is still considered a “magic weapon” for the weak to defeat the strong.

Before discussing some of the content of recent PLA ground force training, I would first like to highlight a few training techniques common throughout the force.

* Experimentation is a major characteristic of PLA training activity. “Pilot” units are assigned tasks, such as night, high-altitude, or various other aspects of joint operations, to explore and report their findings. Innovation is encouraged and many units conduct experiments on their own, including modification of tactics and equipment, such as building command vans and creating computer programs to assist command and control. The results of experiments are reviewed and, if applicable, may be promulgated throughout the force. Many “good ideas” on paper do not pan out in practice and many experiments are discarded.

* Over the past 15 years or so, opposing force training or Red versus Blue force confrontational, free-play exercises have become common in all services. Many units have created permanent Blue (or enemy) forces, which are often equipped with the most advanced weapons and attempt to emulate foreign tactics and techniques. Opposing force training is commonly used by air defense units (both in the ground and air forces) and flight units. Some units (often in different services) have established “habitual relationships” to train with each other. Like the U.S. experience at the National Training Center at Fort Irwin, the “enemy” often wins these confrontations enabling the friendly force to better examine its strengths and weaknesses.

* With the widespread introduction of computers and internet connectivity throughout the PLA, units have constructed training halls to conduct in-garrison computer and simulation training. Long-distance computerized war games are reported in addition to using computers for learning, especially for new equipment training. Driving, firing, and maintenance simulators have been developed for many types of equipment with the goal of keep training costs down and wear and tear on equipment to a minimum. Many simulators still appear to be rather basic. Sand table exercises and command post exercises by headquarters elements without troops in the field are also commonly reported.

* In recent years large units have gone to the field for extended training, sometimes lasting two or more months. Units often conduct “progressive training,” moving from individual tasks (like swimming or marksmanship) to small unit (platoon, company, and battalion) training to larger combined arms or joint training at regiment and higher level. These training periods often culminate in individual and unit evaluations and live fire practice. During extended deployments away from home base, units learn to live in the field and sustain and maintain the force in austere conditions. Long deployments are real-world tests of logistics and armament organizations at varying levels.

Joint and Combined Arms Training and Integrated Joint Training. Since this round of PLA modernization began in 1979, improving joint operations and combined arms capabilities has been a major training emphasis. By the middle of the first decade of the 21 st century, joint and combined arms training exercises conducted over extended periods in remote locations have become common for ground force units in all Military Regions. Rapid assembly and deployment and air defense are among the most frequently practiced tasks by all PLA units; camouflage techniques and NBC defense are also practiced frequently. As the PLA’s electronics and communications capabilities increase, information operations have been incorporated into most training scenarios. Information operations commonly reported in exercises include rapid, secure transmission of orders and data among friendly forces; intelligence collection using various technical means, such as UAVs, battlefield radars, and tactical imaging systems; protection from enemy attacks on friendly command and communications systems; use of information to influence the enemy through propaganda and psychological warfare; and the offensive and defensive employment of electronic warfare against enemy systems.

Each Military Region has established a combined arms training center into which units at regimental level and above rotate for training and evaluation. These training centers at located at:

* Zhaonan, Jilin for the Shenyang Military Region
* Juhr (also known as Zhurihe), Inner Mongolia for the Beijing Military Region
* Yongning County (Helanshan), Ningxia for the Lanzhou Military Region
* Queshan, Henan for the Jinan Military Region
* Sanjie, Anhui for the Nanjing Military Region
* Luzhai in Lusai County, Guangxi for the Guangdong Military Region
* Xichang, Sichuan for the Chengdu Military Region

In addition to combined arms training bases, regional training areas and live fire ranges for armored and artillery training are also found throughout the country. Individual divisions, brigades, and regiments have their own local training areas and firing ranges, which often include facilities for amphibious operations even when located away from the coast. Nonetheless, as the PLA ground force modernizes, PLA commanders recognize the need for more training areas where all aspects of joint operations can be practiced.

Chinese sources identify four major amphibious training areas at Dongshan and Pingtan islands in Fujian province, Zhoushan island in Zhejiang province, and Shanwei near Shantou in Guangdong province. PLA Navy marine brigades practice amphibious operation on the Leizhou peninsula in Guangdong near their bases at Zhanjiang. From the combined Chinese-Russian exercise “Peace Mission 2005,” we now know that Weibei in Shandong province can also be used for amphibious training.

Joint and combined arms training certainly has become more realistic and more complex over the decades; however, PLA leaders still see a gap between their operational goals and the actual level of many training exercises. Perhaps the most striking indication of this training shortfall was the creation and widespread use of the term “integrated joint operations” in 2004. “Integrated joint operations” generally is a reminder of the necessity to incorporate all types of units (ground, naval, air, missile, logistics, and armament support) and battlefield systems (intelligence, reconnaissance, communications, electronic warfare, fire support, etc) into operations while treating each element equally in planning and execution. In other words, it means REALLY joint operations, not just exercises where different units are in the same general area conducting independent tasks at the same time. Along with the use of this term, several large areas known as “coordination zones” have been established in the various Military Regions in which forces from the various services may interact during training.

Amphibious Training. Large-scale amphibious operations were not a major emphasis in the first decade and a half of the PLA’s modernization program. During the 500,000-man reduction from 1997 to 2000, one ground force division in the Guangzhou Military Region (the former 164 th Division) was transferred to the PLA Navy to become the second marine brigade. Starting in about the year 2000, the 1 st Motorized Infantry Division in the Nanjing Military Region and 124 th Infantry Division of the Guangzhou Military Region were issued new equipment and transformed into amphibious mechanized divisions. Since 2001, these two amphibious mechanized divisions have been given priority for training and, along with other regional units, have deployed to amphibious training areas for extended periods of time from the late spring to early fall.

Entire brigades and divisions have deployed for up to three months to conduct training from small unit level up to joint army-navy-air force amphibious landing operations controlled by group army or Military Region headquarters. Infantry and armored brigades and divisions are often joined in training by group army and Military Region assets, such as artillery, air defense, AAA, helicopter, engineer, chemical defense, electronic warfare, logistics, and armament support units. Exercises also incorporate reserve, militia, and civilian augmentation forces and have been used to test and improve real-world logistics and armament support to deployed forces. In many cases, only elements of larger units, such as one or two regiments of a division or a single division of a group army, are involved in an exercise controlled by the higher headquarters mentioned in press accounts. In 2001 and 2002, amphibious training began in May and continued through September; in 2003, amphibious training was delayed because of the SARS problem and in 2004 and 2005 amphibious training also started later in June or July.

Nanjing and Guangzhou Military Region units have conducted the majority of amphibious training, with a lesser amount of training conducted by units in the Jinan, Shenyang, and Beijing Military Regions. These training priorities fit with what we would expect to be the first wave of an amphibious operation against Taiwan and follow-on, exploitation forces. They also are consistent with the training outline from April 2000 mentioned earlier.

Based on reviewing Chinese news reports of amphibious training exercises since 2001, I estimate that some 22 or more infantry and armored divisions or brigades, or about one-quarter of the 80-some PLA maneuver (infantry and armored) divisions and brigades, plus several artillery, AAA, and air defense brigades, have trained to some extent for amphibious operations. Many of these other units may not train for amphibious operations as frequently or as intensively as the 1 st and 124 th Amphibious Mechanized Infantry Divisions and the amphibious armored brigade of the 31 st Group Army in the Nanjing Military Region, but a significant portion of the ground force in north and east China has been exposed to the complexities of landing operations. These numbers do not, however, necessarily represent the size of a force the PLA could put together at one time to conduct an amphibious campaign, but individual divisions and brigades are the basic building blocks which would form a larger campaign.

Anti-terrorist Training. After September 11, 2001, anti-terrorism training was elevated in priority for the PLA, PAP, militia, and civilian police forces. Anti-terrorism training is conducted in all parts of the country, but especially in China’s western regions and the major cities. Special training courses have been conducted to introduce commanders to terrorist techniques and countermeasures.

All elements of the uniformed armed forces (the PLA, PAP, and militia) train with the civilian police force in anti-terrorist operations. Training scenarios frequently include hostage rescue, anti-hijack, bomb detection and disposal, and chemical, biological, and radiological (“dirty bomb”) situations. Additionally, the PLA has conducted several anti-terrorist exercises with military forces from neighboring countries.

Airborne Training. The PLA Air Force’s 15 th Airborne Army is one of the best trained units in the PLA. Like other components of the PLA, it has benefited from new equipment and increased training opportunities made available in recent years. The size of airborne operations appears to have grown to include more battalion and regimental exercises, ranging from several hundred to well over a thousand paratroopers, in addition to the numerous company size drops of 100 to 200 personnel. Most airborne missions appear to be raids or seizure of key terrain behind enemy lines, such as ports or airfields, followed shortly by link-up with ground forces.

Airborne training now includes the employment of the airborne’s own Special Operations, communications, and logistics forces along with its infantry and artillery units. Airborne forces also train to receive fire support from aircraft and helicopters, as well as from missile units. New equipment has been introduced to drop cargoes in containers or on pallets, along with vehicles, from multiple types of transport aircraft.

One of the PLA’s largest and most important airborne exercises took place on July 12, 2004. The exercise was called “unprecedented in the history of airborne troops” and demonstrated the progress from several years of work. On that date, an airborne infantry battalion reinforced with artillery, air defense, engineer, chemical defense, communications, and logistics units jumped into the Gobi desert. The paratroopers used airborne assault vehicles to seize an enemy airfield and were supported by artillery, electronic jamming, a ground missile unit, and armed helicopters. They also practiced logistics support operations in this one-day exercise.

Most airborne exercises appear, however, to be conducted on their own independently, without integration into larger joint training scenarios. A significant exception to that observation was seen in “Peace Mission 2005” when 86 PLA and 86 Russian paratroopers (a company-size unit for each country) and 24 combat vehicles were dropped to capture an airfield in support of the combined amphibious landing operation.

Special Operations Forces and Helicopter Training. Special Operations units were established in each Military Region in the 1990s. In the first 10 years of their existence, their greatest focus was on organizing themselves and enhancing the specialized individual and team skills needed for the missions assigned. Integration of SOF units into larger joint exercises currently appears to be in the exploratory phase. Most reporting about SOF training emphasizes their physical toughness and marksmanship abilities, as well as techniques used to infiltrate behind enemy lines, live off the land in extreme conditions, and conduct strike missions. SOF missions include prisoner snatch operations; raids on enemy missile sites, command posts, and communications facilities; harassment and interdiction operations to prevent or delay enemy movements; strategic reconnaissance; and anti-terrorist operations. SOF units may also be involved in information operations. SOF troops may be inserted by parachute, sea, or landed by helicopters. Helicopter insertion seems to be a favored method.

PLA ground force helicopter units have expanded in size since the mid-1990s, but are still relatively small in number for such a large army. The Chinese media recently has highlighted the trend for helicopter units to develop attack capabilities in addition to their more traditional transport role. PLA helicopter units mount machine guns, rockets, and anti-tank missiles on utility helicopters, such as the Mi-17-series from Russia or the domestically produced Z-9 or Z-11. Helicopters are also used in electronic warfare, mine laying, propaganda leaflet drop, medical evacuation, command and control, and reconnaissance missions. Since 2004, helicopter pilot proficiency training has emphasized night flights, low level (nap-of-the-earth) operations, over-water flights, and long-distance navigation exercises. Depending on the type of the helicopter used, most exercises probably transport a company or less of infantry soldiers in a single lift of up to about 12 helicopters, or even smaller numbers of SOF troops. Some exercises appear to be supported by helicopters in attack roles to suppress enemy defenses. The size of airmobile operations, of course, can be increased through the use of multiple lifts.

Other Training. In addition to the operations mentioned above, units throughout the country prepared for missions appropriate to their local situations (coastal, interior, desert, mountain, etc), including border and coastal defense from external threats and disaster relief operations. Moreover, specific training supervised by the political, logistics, and armament systems was conducted to prepare these units to better integrate themselves into joint operations. Reserve and militia units also have undergone a variety of training exercises to hone their capabilities to support the active force.

* “Three war” operations. In 2004, the General Political Department highlighted “Three war” training, i.e., media (or public opinion) war, psychological war, and legal war. These efforts fall under the rubric of information operations.
* Logistics and armament training. Logistics and armament support units conduct an array of functional exercises on their own to perfect the skills necessary to support the combat forces. Military Region logistics subdepartments and group armies form “emergency support units” to provide forward-based, reinforcing support to lower level units. The size and composition of “emergency support units” varies according to the needs of the unit supported, the mission, and terrain. “New equipment training” is overseen by technicians in the armament system both in garrison and in the field to prepare soldiers to operate and maintain the large numbers of new weapons and equipment introduced into the force since 1999. In 2004, a PLA Daily article highlighted the significance of maintenance and equipment reliability by describing how “a tiny screw falling off a radar system brought a [brigade] field exercise to a standstill.” This modern parable taught the lesson that even “minor specialized elements,” such as a repair unit, can play a major role in overall unit capabilities.
* Reserve and militia training. Following their own structural reforms begun around 1998, reserve and militia units have increased their training tempo to prepare for new missions assigned. In addition to conducting independent training to develop functional proficiencies, PLA reserve units and militia forces are frequently mixed into active duty field training exercises along with civilian support. Surprisingly, in September 2002 in what was called the “first drill with reservists joining active servicemen,” Xinhua reported a reserve regiment from the Beijing Military Region mobilizing to link up with an active duty unit for a “confrontation exercise” against a “Blue Army.” Since that time, more reserve units have trained with active PLA forces and “linking reserves with active units” was a training priority for 2005. In particular, the seven newly formed reserve logistics support brigades, one for each Military Region, are among the busiest units as they support both reserve and active forces. Integration of reserve, militia, and civilian support with active duty forces is often accomplished using the system of National Defense Mobilization Committees that extends from national-level to Military Region, down to every province, and theoretically to every county in the country.

In conclusion, I must note that I read reports of PLA training in the Chinese media with caution and often view skeptically pronouncements that such and such an operation was conducted in three minutes or 45 minutes or it was “the first ever” or the “largest ever” or “all missiles hit their targets.” Still, careful reading of the Chinese press can provide reasonable insight into the content of PLA training activities and when tempered with some military experience can result in useful perspectives not frequently considered in the excitement generated by many foreign press articles about new equipment acquisition. For example, in all the reporting of air operations, I see little evidence of doctrine for or training in what we call “close air support” (CAS). Instead, most, if not all, “air support” is still conducted against preplanned targets with aircraft under the command of controllers far away from the frontlines. This situation may change as new communications equipment, that permits forward units to talk with aircraft, and laser target designators are issued to the force. Experimentation may be underway, but I’ve not seen evidence of it.

Some recent observations found in PLA newspapers may serve to provide a Chinese perspective on the state of training activity in perhaps the two most important Military Regions.

* In 2004, the Nanjing Military Region reported, although region units have achieved remarkable progress in building up their “Two Capabilities” (combat and technical support capabilities), they still lag behind actual war requirements. A conference on training identified the following “Matters to Be Dealt With”:

o Some units do not train according to correct guidance, their training standards are not high, and basic training is not on solid footing;
o There are still weak links in new equipment training;
o Training units at various levels fall short of training tasks;
o Some units prepare training plans roughly and the teaching force on the first line is weak;
o Headquarters fail to provide effective training guidance;
o Some units lack initiative in providing training support.

* In 2003, the Nanjing Military Region reported that night training “is a weak link in current training.” (This is especially noteworthy in an army with a reputation for successful night operations in its early years.)
* In 2004, the Guangzhou Military Region reported there is still a gap between the overall quality of region personnel and the planned target of the Central Military Commission and the requirement to fight and win information wars. Outstanding problems are:
o Shortfall in total number of capable personnel;
o Generally low science and technology and cultural qualities in personnel;
o A lack of joint operations capability in commanders at all levels;
o Lack of competent technical support personnel for new weapons and equipment of combat units resulting in actual support capability being low.
* In 2005, command staff training was said to be “a weak link” in the Guangzhou Military Region.

From these types of reports it is understandable why the PLA has established a two-decade long goal for improving the quality of its personnel (see China ’s National Defense in 2004 , “ Revolution in Military Affairs with Chinese Characteristics” for details). The amount of change and uncertainty introduced into the force due to personnel reductions, force structure changes, new doctrine, new equipment, and new personnel policies over the past six years can be disorienting and imposing for many officers and enlisted men alike. Yet, it is exactly these people who must plan new PLA operations, execute its doctrine, operate more advanced equipment, and maintain and sustain the force at tempos never before seen. Success on the modern battlefield will be much more dependent upon the quality of these personnel and the rigors of their training than on the new equipment they have acquired recently. I believe the Chinese leadership understands these challenges and is approaching the problems of modernization and transformation in a logical and methodical manner. As always, I remain open to change my conclusions based on new information and I encourage further examination into these complex topics.

Finally, I think it is useful to quote Russian Defense Minister Sergey Ivanov when asked what had impressed him most about the PLA during “Peace Mission 2005.” Ivanov stated it was the PLA’s “iron discipline.”

sas1
27 Jan 08,, 17:54
for those who think israel and pakistan r the best

u ppl dont know anything britain used to control the world we have took control of more contries than israel has had hot dinners we may be small but we r well trained hahaha israel pakistan it would be a walk over its uk then us well maybe not usa there shooting more brits than taliban and when we had a tiff with usa we invaded washington and burnt the whitehouse to the ground and they may have won in the end but we were already at war with france and were outnumbered and still killed more of them than they did us.but uk and us are allies now and together were the most powerful.and if the pakistani is the best then how do they need our help when something bad happens.and they havent got the weapons to match ours.so uk and us are best even thou us has only ever won 1 war without alies

and britain won world war 1 and 2 while europe didnt have a leg to stand on

numbers count for nothing if u have the best trained and best weapons in the world.

glyn
27 Jan 08,, 18:50
for those who think israel and pakistan r the best

u ppl dont know anything britain used to control the world we have took control of more contries than israel has had hot dinners we may be small but we r well trained hahaha israel pakistan it would be a walk over its uk then us well maybe not usa there shooting more brits than taliban and when we had a tiff with usa we invaded washington and burnt the whitehouse to the ground and they may have won in the end but we were already at war with france and were outnumbered and still killed more of them than they did us.but uk and us are allies now and together were the most powerful.and if the pakistani is the best then how do they need our help when something bad happens.and they havent got the weapons to match ours.so uk and us are best even thou us has only ever won 1 war without alies

and britain won world war 1 and 2 while europe didnt have a leg to stand on

numbers count for nothing if u have the best trained and best weapons in the world.

I'm sure this must be our old chum 'simalcrum'. Am I right?

sas1
27 Jan 08,, 19:30
I'm sure this must be our old chum 'simalcrum'. Am I right?

im british do u think i would have a ****ed up name like that.and if u dont believe wot i said look it up on google

dave angel
27 Jan 08,, 20:02
I'm sure this must be our old chum 'simalcrum'. Am I right?


no, simalcrum could write a paragragh have it make sense.

could you pm me - or do it here - as to why he's no longer about, i'm somewhat behind on gossip.

glyn
27 Jan 08,, 20:30
could you pm me - or do it here - as to why he's no longer about, i'm somewhat behind on gossip.

pm sent.

BadKharma
27 Jan 08,, 20:41
for those who think israel and pakistan r the best

u ppl dont know anything britain used to control the world we have took control of more contries than israel has had hot dinners we may be small but we r well trained hahaha israel pakistan it would be a walk over its uk then us well maybe not usa there shooting more brits than taliban and when we had a tiff with usa we invaded washington and burnt the whitehouse to the ground and they may have won in the end but we were already at war with france and were outnumbered and still killed more of them than they did us.but uk and us are allies now and together were the most powerful.and if the pakistani is the best then how do they need our help when something bad happens.and they havent got the weapons to match ours.so uk and us are best even thou us has only ever won 1 war without alies

and britain won world war 1 and 2 while europe didnt have a leg to stand on

numbers count for nothing if u have the best trained and best weapons in the world.
When I was on joint maneuvers with the SAS they did not strike me as being semi-illiterate or making such fanciful claims. They were very professional soldiers with a good education.
BTW I always thought the Allies won WWI / WWII.

omon
27 Jan 08,, 21:04
what, nobody mentioned kgb\fsb alpha squad, or spetsnaz? not even vdv?

sas1
27 Jan 08,, 21:10
When I was on joint maneuvers with the SAS they did not strike me as being semi-illiterate or making such fanciful claims. They were very professional soldiers with a good education.
BTW I always thought the Allies won WWI / WWII.

it wasnt the allies most of their countrys were already falling to the germans and germany practicaly controlled europe then they tried to invade britain but they were beaten by the spitfire planes but they did bomb london

Stan187
27 Jan 08,, 21:29
what, nobody mentioned kgb\fsb alpha squad, or spetsnaz? not even vdv?

Alpha group and Spetsnaz are special forces, not regular infantry. As far as the VDV goes, they might be Russian's best, but I don't know of any particular sophistication in their training that would make them better than US, British, Israeli or other top notch Western airborne infantry.

glyn
27 Jan 08,, 21:30
im british do u think i would have a ****ed up name like that.and if u dont believe wot i said look it up on google

Do I detect a teensy weensie touch of asperity in your thoughtful reply? What, pray tell, should I look up on google?

omon
27 Jan 08,, 21:34
Alpha group and Spetsnaz are special forces, not regular infantry. As far as the VDV goes, they might be Russian's best, but I don't know of any particular sophistication in their training that would make them better than US, British, Israeli or other top notch Western airborne infantry.
nether is af, It's called shaping the battlefield
and what particular sophistication do you know regarding US, British, Israeli or other top notch Western airborne infantry?

Officer of Engineers
27 Jan 08,, 23:16
it wasnt the allies most of their countrys were already falling to the germans and germany practicaly controlled europe then they tried to invade britain but they were beaten by the spitfire planes but they did bomb londonFunny, I don't recall Axis armies marching into Washington DC, Moscow, Ottawa, Dehli, and Canberra.

BadKharma
28 Jan 08,, 01:08
Office of Engineers you beat me to it.

Feanor
28 Jan 08,, 04:13
Funny, I don't recall Axis armies marching into Washington DC, Moscow, Ottawa, Dehli, and Canberra.

You see some people live in what I would refer to as alternate universes.

EDIT: What countries capital is Canberra?

BadKharma
28 Jan 08,, 04:52
You see some people live in what I would refer to as alternate universes.

EDIT: What countries capital is Canberra?

Canberra is the capital city of the Commonwealth of Australia.

tankie
28 Jan 08,, 07:18
it wasnt the allies most of their countrys were already falling to the germans and germany practicaly controlled europe then they tried to invade britain but they were beaten by the spitfire planes but they did bomb london

I think you will find it was the Hurricane that was the workhorse of the esteemed RAF in the Battle of Britain , shame there were no allies to fly them alongside the Brits tho . :rolleyes:

S2
28 Jan 08,, 08:28
"shame there were no allies to fly them alongside the Brits tho ."

Well, that's why it was YOUR finest hour.:)

VarSity
28 Jan 08,, 12:10
This thread has come alive out of nowhere...
Given their recent ops in Afghanistan, does anyone now have a greater respect for the Dutch? Maybe replace the French in people’s top 5? (The whole, actually seeing combat, and not being ‘Nancy Boy‘ thing)

dave angel
28 Jan 08,, 23:39
This thread has come alive out of nowhere...
Given their recent ops in Afghanistan, does anyone now have a greater respect for the Dutch? Maybe replace the French in people’s top 5? (The whole, actually seeing combat, and not being ‘Nancy Boy‘ thing)

obviously as an Englishman frog-bashing comes as naturally as breathing, but i'm somewhat hesitant to join in the 'the French are crap' hullaballoo.

yes the Dutch are doing seriously good woork in Helmand-upon-Styx, and they are giving it out big style to our our wooly-faced friends, but let us not fall into the trap of believing that just because you choose not to fight a particular theatre it means you are unable to do so because of a lack of talent.

indeed the basic premise is false, the French have, until very recently, been playing a greater role in the 'anti-AQ' campaign - a US campaign, not a NATO one - than the UK has. that France chooses not to engage in the south is not a military decision, it is a political one (and not one based on a fear of casualties, given France's willingness to conduct military operations in pursuit of its interests worldwide).

those of us who have worked with French forces wouldn't describe them as ill-trained, ill-lead, or indeed anything other than superbly professional. the fact that their firefights don't end up on youtube is not an indicator of their inability to win them.

Officer of Engineers
28 Jan 08,, 23:45
but i'm somewhat hesitant to join in the 'the French are crap' hullaballoo.Captain,

You've been drinking American beer again, haven't you?

VarSity
29 Jan 08,, 01:19
obviously as an Englishman frog-bashing comes as naturally as breathing, but i'm somewhat hesitant to join in the 'the French are crap' hullaballoo.

yes the Dutch are doing seriously good woork in Helmand-upon-Styx, and they are giving it out big style to our our wooly-faced friends, but let us not fall into the trap of believing that just because you choose not to fight a particular theatre it means you are unable to do so because of a lack of talent.

indeed the basic premise is false, the French have, until very recently, been playing a greater role in the 'anti-AQ' campaign - a US campaign, not a NATO one - than the UK has. that France chooses not to engage in the south is not a military decision, it is a political one (and not one based on a fear of casualties, given France's willingness to conduct military operations in pursuit of its interests worldwide).

those of us who have worked with French forces wouldn't describe them as ill-trained, ill-lead, or indeed anything other than superbly professional. the fact that their firefights don't end up on youtube is not an indicator of their inability to win them.

Granted, but my comments (other than the bit at the end, which was honestly in jest) were more to highlight the skills of the Dutch, than the ineptness of the French.

Just felt like the Dutch were being left out of peoples lists was all, especially when you think of combat experiance, because it seems to have been a while since the French mixed it up.

tankie
29 Jan 08,, 09:32
"shame there were no allies to fly them alongside the Brits tho ."

Well, that's why it was YOUR finest hour.:)

True , but we did have a teeny weeny bit of help from the USA Eagle Sqd based in N/Ireland , and the Polish pilots + the Canadians etc etc , but the allies didnt help a lot tho , now where were they when they were needed huh :rolleyes: :)

By the way , there is a street in my home town of Darlington called McMullen road , it was named after a Canadian bomber pilot , who ordered his crew to bail out of his stricken craft , and he stayed at the controls to divert it away from the town , it crashed and killed him about 3 miles away from a fighter sqd based at Middleton St George , which is where Teesside int airport now is, or durham tees valley as they have renamed it , the pilot was based at Dalton on tees , what is now called Croft motor racing circuit . A VERY BRAVE CANADIAN MAN ,,,,,RIP ......... THANKS

dave angel
29 Jan 08,, 20:12
Captain,

You've been drinking American beer again, haven't you?

Colonel,

i'd rather drink my own piss.

it has more flavour - and certainly more alcohol.

S2
29 Jan 08,, 22:03
"i'd rather drink my own piss.

it has more flavour - and certainly more alcohol."

Drink up, hoss.

Both of you remain clueless about the new realities of American beer courtesy of the multitudes of micro-brews from Boston to Seattle. Local brews full of flavor and punch everywhere.

Colonel, you should know better from your vantage. It's those damn Scots single-malts. A small glass of Makers Mark or Knob Creek and a pint of a nice hand-crafted microbrew will restore the clarity, sir.:biggrin:

tankie
30 Jan 08,, 04:53
Colonel,

i'd rather drink my own piss.

it has more flavour - and certainly more alcohol.

:eek: :)) Sqd bar antics are alive and well i see, :rolleyes:

Officer of Engineers
30 Jan 08,, 05:25
S-2,

Only if you take a shot of Glenmorangie.

S2
30 Jan 08,, 05:54
Colonel,

Small glass, sir. Neat. Let it stand on it's own merits. Not your best, mind you. My untutored palate isn't ready.

Thank you, Colonel.

To the Canadian Army, sir. (S-2 raises glass)

Now. About that beer thingy...:biggrin:

tankie
30 Jan 08,, 05:57
Colonel,

Small glass, sir. Neat. Let it stand on it's own merits. Not your best, mind you. My untutored palate isn't ready.

Thank you, Colonel.

To the Canadian Army, sir. (S-2 raises glass)



Creep.:P

Officer of Engineers
30 Jan 08,, 05:57
Captain, a favour then, I will return your glass provided that you give me a primer and what bourbon I should put on my shelf and that I would be proud of and can explain why. What should I look for in tasting a fine bourbon as compared to a bad bourbon. I think I have enough Jack Daniels in me to know a bad bourbon.

Now, about that beer thingy? You ale guy or stout guy?

BadKharma
30 Jan 08,, 06:20
I think I have enough Jack Daniels in me to know a bad bourbon.

Now, about that beer thingy? You ale guy or stout guy?
I'm sure some people would disagree with that however it is not one of the worlds finest. I like both stouts and ales. The ale for when a stout is just too heavy.

S2
30 Jan 08,, 07:18
Colonel,

"Now, about that beer thingy? You ale guy or stout guy?"

After barking about our improved brews, I confess to Euro-lagers. Stone-cold Pilsner Urquell fan. All damn year. It can work for me in any situation. Unfortunately, I'm the only one I know who drinks it

The micro-brew scene in the states is dominated by stouts, english ales, and IPAs. It's possible, though not especially easy to find a good micro-lager. One worrisome concern is the rising cost of grains is endangering these small, entrepreneurial enterprises. Not especially well-capitalized, price-shocks to the operating costs of many of these is scary. I think somebody had a thread here on it somewhere.

Personally, I am a fan of Jack Daniels. However, it is not a bourbon whiskey. The differences between Kentucky bourbon and Tennessee whiskey are subtle. I'm no expert and have difficulty...no, honestly, I can't functionally separate them qualitatively AT All. However, there are laws of distilling that define the differences. Key is 51%. Bourbon guarantees that 51% of the mash is corn. Tennesee whiskey guarantees 51% of the mash is a grain-corn, barley, rye, etc. J.D., as example, is an 80% corn-dominated mash...but it could have been 80% barley I suppose.

Sir, I'm a poor choice to provide a bourbon recommendation. I've great memories associated with many. I do believe that there are few bad true American whiskies, bourbon or Tennessee sour mash. I disdain blended whiskies utterly. They're pointless as they dilute heritage.

It's immensely difficult for me, as I don't drink my whisky mixed, to not idly consider the history EVERY SINGLE time I enjoy a glass. It's frontier booze, sir. The product is a simple pleasure, distilled simply, from a simple legacy. Easy enough for me to see a Kentucky long rifle leaning in the corner of a cabin somewhere.

Colonel, you keep a number of Scots whiskies for different reasons. Each markedly different to your trained tongue yet so similar. So too with both bourbons and Tennessee sour-mash. Half the fun so often is the exploring. Try this site for some solid ideas-

Small-Batch Bourbon Reviews (http://www.straightbourbon.com/reviews/boyd_small.html)

A nice quickie on Tennessee sour mash-

"In the world of Tennessee Sour Mash Whiskey, there are but two names to remember: Jack Daniels and George Dickel. And perhaps the most recognizable of the two is Jack Daniels -- the whiskey with a Rock 'n Roll personality.

Some people mistakenly call this whiskey a Bourbon. It is NOT a Bourbon whiskey.


Old Time Tennessee Sour Mash Whiskey
--------------------------------------------------
This is an 80 Proof (40% alcohol by volume) Tennessee Whiskey.

Tennessee Whiskey is often confused with Kentucky Bourbon, but there are subtle differences. Bourbon must be made from a mixture of at least 51% corn (it cannot be a straight corn whiskey) with the balance of the mash being from malted barley or other small grains like rye. Tennessee Whiskey works the same equation, requiring that at least 51% of the whiskey must be made from one grain, but it doesn't matter if that grain is corn, wheat or rye.

It so happens that Jack Daniels Old Time Tennessee Sour Mash Whiskey is made from about 80% corn mash. Like Kentucky Bourbons, this whiskey is aged in newly charred wood barrels. Unlike Kentucky Bourbons, however, this whiskey is filtered through a 10-to-12 foot layer of ground up charcoal made from charred sugar maple wood.

The result? A whiskey that that has impurities removed, and a whiskey that benefits from the additional flavoring of sugars that are leeched into the spirit as it passes through the maple charcoal.

Aroma: In the nose, very sweet -- almost sugary.

Color: Dark honey, a golden copper color

Flavor: Vaporous. Fills the senses and the sinuses. First sip will coat your mouth. Progressive sips are smooth, sweet. This is a full-flavored, mellow, and sweet whiskey with a lingering finish and very pleasant warmth.

Exarecr
30 Jan 08,, 14:57
Tsk,tsk,tsk.Talk about a meaningless,absolute waste of electronic ink to even get into such a debate. My dads bigger than your dad so I guess our Army is better seems about right.People please. The best Infantry don't die for their Country,they fight for their comrades and the best of all these warriors can be found in every Military cemetery around the world. Who's the best....anybody on my right and left.

Albany Rifles
30 Jan 08,, 15:08
What S2 said.

When I am not quaffing beer (usually a Sam Adams Lager, Yuengling or Leinenkugel Wheat) I will enjoy a JAck and club soda or a Knob Creek neat.

Mass market bourbon? Wild Turkey is not bad.

And as for mass market American beer on a really hot day (95 F degrees......sitting in the bleachers at a baseball game, as soon as you are done working in the yard, etc.) don't turn your nose up at an ice cold Bud.

1 Observer
30 Jan 08,, 16:11
Perhaps I am mislead ... It happens; besides I do enjoy a tasty refreshing beverage ... but I came upon this thread due to the "best infantry" bit. It occurred to me that the point of the exercise may have been to shout something inflammatory and then step back, to enjoy the mayhem created ... This reminds me of a similarly childish activity from my child hood: Counting Coup on a hornets nest and then fleeing ... Still fun, isn't it?

S2
30 Jan 08,, 19:01
We're all "yelled-out". No point. Whiskey and beer are worthy argument material. Fourteen pages into this thread and you need a drink.

S2
30 Jan 08,, 19:08
Killed CASES of the lager on Friday evening after class. Liquor store was a half-block away. A Wisconsin institution. We used to have some great small breweries back there. Much, much older and slightly larger than microbrews- Rhinelander, Point, and Leinenkugel were our portal to beer.

A.R....um, can't drink the bud. Rice beer. No...please...:eek:

1 Observer
30 Jan 08,, 19:12
I saw that S-2 ...
and dangit! Some how I knew you'd make sense of it all. How is it we are required to re-learn the things we fail to learn "right" the first time.?

S2
30 Jan 08,, 19:15
"How is it we are required to re-learn the things we fail to learn "right" the first time.?"

With that said, let me have your glass and we'll try to work that "muscle memory" in your right elbow. Your poison, sir?

1 Observer
30 Jan 08,, 21:08
err, aw ... les sees' what it says here on the side of this ... Ah yes! Amber bach ... it says ... Too early for anything in a short glass sir ... I promise to get right on it...

Shek
30 Jan 08,, 21:53
Perhaps I am mislead ... It happens; besides I do enjoy a tasty refreshing beverage ... but I came upon this thread due to the "best infantry" bit.

Since us NATO allies don't get a chance to compete against each other on a two way live fire, it seems appropriate that the thread progresses to where the competition starts, which is at the end of the day in each others cantinas. :))

1 Observer
30 Jan 08,, 22:02
Sounds like a much better way ... don't you think?

Albany Rifles
31 Jan 08,, 04:03
A.R....um, can't drink the bud. Rice beer. No...please...:eek:


That's cause you don't live where it is HOT!!!!!

You have to lighten up for high heat/humidity.

In cool or cold weather, I can go heavier but hard to do in hot weather....unless it is an Aussie brew!!!!

S2
31 Jan 08,, 05:16
"That's cause you don't live where it is HOT!!!!!"

Not now. That's for sure. 25F and snowing. Has been since Sunday and is supposed to continue for another week.

Damn that global heating.;) Time to hitch up the dogs for a class VI run.

1 Observer
01 Feb 08,, 02:45
"That's cause you don't live where it is HOT!!!!!"

Not now. That's for sure. 25F and snowing. Has been since Sunday and is supposed to continue for another week.

Damn that global heating.;) Time to hitch up the dogs for a class VI run.


In Bend? It snows there? (LOF lol)

S2
01 Feb 08,, 04:02
All damn week. Couldn't get the car out of the garage today. Driveway had eighteen inches of wet snow since Sunday. Snowblowers are nice.:biggrin:

1 Observer
01 Feb 08,, 04:05
You know someblower that ain't nice?

FrontLineMarine
27 Feb 08,, 14:10
the best trained soldiers are the United States Marine Corps Recon

Gun Grape
27 Feb 08,, 23:12
the best trained soldiers are the United States Marine Corps Recon

Bullshat Get a little learning in you then come back with a intelligent answer:rolleyes:

And go to the introduction thread and tell us a little about yourself.


(damn I've wanted to type that forever. Buy Glyn always beats me to it)

Gun Grape
27 Feb 08,, 23:13
All damn week. Couldn't get the car out of the garage today. Driveway had eighteen inches of wet snow since Sunday. Snowblowers are nice.:biggrin:

What is this snowblower of which you speak?

Is that the machine that the cute young lady in front of wally-world uses to make those nice flavored ices:confused:

BadKharma
28 Feb 08,, 02:13
Bullshat Get a little learning in you then come back with a intelligent answer:rolleyes:

And go to the introduction thread and tell us a little about yourself.


(damn I've wanted to type that forever. Buy Glyn always beats me to it)

Wow that is a bit harsh..........although not incorrect.

Gun Grape
28 Feb 08,, 02:34
Wow that is a bit harsh..........although not incorrect.

As my old friend M21 once said "Sometimes you gotta grab those Jarheads by the stacking swivel and shake them around":))

Why would anyone want to restart a "My Johnsons bigger than yours" thread that had obviously transformed to more important topics (Beer):confused:

glyn
28 Feb 08,, 10:38
Bullshat Get a little learning in you then come back with a intelligent answer:rolleyes:

And go to the introduction thread and tell us a little about yourself.


(damn I've wanted to type that forever. Buy Glyn always beats me to it)

This leopard has changed his spots!:eek: I haven't advised anyone to do the decent thing for ages now. You tell 'em Gun Grape. Atta boy!

Shipwreck
28 Feb 08,, 10:57
As my old friend M21 once said "Sometimes you gotta grab those Jarheads by the stacking swivel and shake them around"

LOL :biggrin:

FrontLineMarine
28 Feb 08,, 14:18
who has the best trained Spec Opps then?

Officer of Engineers
28 Feb 08,, 15:07
Everyone and no one.

Albany Rifles
28 Feb 08,, 15:17
who has the best trained Spec Opps then?


A good Optometrist

Gun Grape
01 Mar 08,, 01:09
A good Optometrist

ROFL:biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin:

"THATS FUNNY RIGHT THERE, I DON'T CARE WHO YOU ARE"
Larry the cable guy

tankie
03 Mar 08,, 14:45
the best trained soldiers are the United States Marine Corps Recon

I already replied to this , but, my post has vanished .??????

Qoute.

Ever heard of the SAS :cool:

entropy
03 Mar 08,, 18:25
who has the best trained Spec Opps then?

Introduction subforum is here for a reason.