Officer of Engineers

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.

__________________
Chimo

Expat Canuck

I was going to mention something along those lines Sir. You beat me to it.

leib10

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

__________________
"The right man in the wrong place can make all the difference in the world. So wake up, Mr. Freeman. Wake up and smell the ashes." G-Man

troung

Flawed question and way to open for so many variables me thinks...

TopHatter

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.

__________________
If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader.
~John Quincy Adams

SuperFlanker

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

Easiest question to answer. Who I want to fight beside me? And who do I not want to fight against.

JG73

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

@Leibstandarte10
I just mentioned my bad english....what's about your signature in german? 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

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?

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

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.


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

JG73

I think my english grammar must sound cruel to you. So I hope the synapses of your brains do not explode as you read this.

Officer of Engineers

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.

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.

Anon

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

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.

Anon

"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.