Concerning the great worries about the self defence capabilities of Europeans.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Relax people. It is all not important, not worth getting worked up about.





Besides :

[PanzerJaeger]

I heard a lovely story about a US liggh infantry battallion being unable to keep up with a British mechanised one despite carrying 7lb less gear and a lighter rifle.

Such talk has been characteristic of Anglo-American joint operations since World War 2. For example, I can link to dozens of highly detailed American criticisms of the British performance in Iraq that amount to quite a bit more than 'they can't carry as much as we can'. As there is natural competition between the two militaries, such anecdotes should be taken with more than a grain of salt.

Two speakers — Marston and David Kilcullen, who moderated the panel and is Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s special adviser for counterinsurgency — were sharply critical of the British military’s performance in Iraq and Afghanistan, saying that the British had failed to back up their boasts of superiority in counterinsurgency and in fact had fallen behind the U.S. military.


“The British Army has the reputation of being good at counterinsurgency, and in 2003 and 2004 there was lots of fairly snide criticism of the United States by British commanders saying that Americans didn’t understand counterinsurgency [and] were taking too kinetic an approach,” said Kilcullen, who described the British attitude as, “‘Look at us, we’re on the street in our soft caps and everyone loves us.’”


Marston, who was until recently a senior lecturer at the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst — the British Army’s rough equivalent of the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, N.Y. — said that “as an American working in the British system for the last five years” in 2003, he watched the British “act as if they were the best in [counterinsurgency] in the world.”


But the British performance on Iraqi and Afghan battlefields since then has not backed up such strident talk, according to Kilcullen and Marston.


“It would be fair to say that in 2006 the British Army was defeated in the field in southern Iraq,” Kilcullen said, adding that there were numerous “incidents” in Afghanistan that further undercut the British claims of superiority in counterinsurgency.


“They’ve been embarrassed by their performance in southern Iraq,” Marston said. Meanwhile, the Taliban “almost destroyed” the British Army’s 16th Air Assault Brigade in Afghanistan. In some places, he said, “they just held on.”


The British military was simply unprepared for the challenges it faced in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to Marston, who stressed he was not speaking in his official capacity as an employee of the British Ministry of Defence.


“There have been major problems with their pre-deployment training,” he said. “There were a lot of problems with their education. … The staff college had one day for counterinsurgency for majors. The RMA Sandhurst lieutenants course was a bit of a joke, bit of a video here and there.”

[Vuk]

You shoulod really shut up now. Your original post was full of pretentious assumptions about out country vs a continent based on I assume your touristy travels there, during which you go so far to say that west And east coast americans are scumbags, as well as some midwesterners. You went so far as to say that Marines from New York are ineffective.

Then, in your classical style, you back pedal in the face of counter-arguments and say you did not mean England and Ireland in your Europe sucks thread. Later, you say you also did not mean Germany or Spain. Frakking wow, man.

Everything out of your mouth in that thread was presumptive, one-size-fits all drivel followed by changing your argument to fit the ever-decreasing scope of the intellectual paradigm. One does not need military experience to see that. You lost. Admit it. You are offensive.

um...actually you are quite wrong. I never said that Germany and Spain were not part of Europe, or part of my argument. I also never said that Marines from New York are ineffective, but that citizens in New York tend not to make good troops. Troops from rural areas (who are much more likely to already be proficient with firearms) tend to make better soldiers/Marines than troops from urban areas.
And no, I did not say that my arguments were 'one-size-fits-all', I said 'in general'. Of course there is room for exceptions, and I in fact pointed some out. Your problem MRD, is that you simply do not read my posts.

[Major Robert Dump]

um...actually you are quite wrong. I never said that Germany and Spain were not part of Europe, or part of my argument. I also never said that Marines from New York are ineffective, but that citizens in New York tend not to make good troops. Troops from rural areas (who are much more likely to already be proficient with firearms) tend to make better soldiers/Marines than troops from urban areas.
And no, I did not say that my arguments were 'one-size-fits-all', I said 'in general'. Of course there is room for exceptions, and I in fact pointed some out. Your problem MRD, is that you simply do not read my posts.

No, the problem is that I do read your posts, and your arguments change every third or fourth post.

Virtually no one on these boards agrees with your presumptious post, yet you accuse everyone of "not reading your posts" when in fact that is what is confusing everyone to begin with. And yes, you did back pedal and say that Germany and Spain had the potential to be good militaries (despite them being European along with England and Ireland), and yes, paraprhased or not, you said that New York makes crap soldiers. And through all of this, you even mention that the soldiers of South American countries are somehow superior to European forces again without a shred of practical evidence and then accuse someone who makes a siesta joke of using sterotypes. LOL. If you want to play semantics with us, little boy, you may consider choosing your initial words a little more carefully.

Your idea that people from the South makes better troops cannot be backed up with a shred of evidence other than the fact that they are the majority of enlisted soldiers, which means virtually squat if you consider that every branch of the military has its badasses, mouth breathers and grifters. In fact, considering there are more soldiers from the south in the military one might reasonably assume that the majority of crapbags are also from the south, due primarily to reasonable statistical chance, right? Not very good science, is it?

Your entire basis of calling the Army douchebags is based on some hearsay from an ROTC friend, which I find comical considering most ROTC officers are considered a joke until they prove themselves otherwise.

The entire premise of your OP was offensive to a vast segment of people who have fought and died in far more brutal wars than we. In an effort to backpedal and not be so offensive, you manage to change direction and offend a whole new lot of people, this time your fellow citizens . Wash, rinse, repeat.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Let me tell you guys about why all of your military's suck.

Now let me tell you why my military sucks.

Now let me tell you why my military sucks less than your military.

Why are you guys all offended? How about you read my posts guys.

EDIT: Also New York is full of wimps which is why 9/11 happened there and not the strong heart of America, AKA the Dakotas.

Seriously guys! Stop attacking me and respond to my actual arguments, geeze!

[Major Robert Dump]

Let me tell you guys about why all of your military's suck.

Now let me tell you why my military sucks.

Now let me tell you why my military sucks less than your military.

Why are you guys all offended? How about you read my posts guys.

Brilliant.

[Brenus]

“Can you back up this statement any more than Vuk can back up his”
Err, actually yes, as it is based on the 1980’s US Army shape… At theses times the US had still the Vietnam to recover and the experience about the training is one thing I witnessed…

“Brenus using the absurdity of this thread as a nice place to vent some harbored feelings?” No. I don’t think the US Army is bad or inferior to others. The US citizen joining the Army gets probably a harsh start and a good training, and then has to do with it.

“Besides, I am sure you yourself made a great soldier.”
Nope. Average plus… Not the faster, average at shooting except with light machine gun, never failed on various training, well, nothing exceptional, ordinary fellow joining because he believed in the Republic, her values and the need to take arms in case of…

[a completely inoffensive name]

“Can you back up this statement any more than Vuk can back up his”
Err, actually yes, as it is based on the 1980’s US Army shape… At theses times the US had still the Vietnam to recover and the experience about the training is one thing I witnessed…

“Brenus using the absurdity of this thread as a nice place to vent some harbored feelings?” No. I don’t think the US Army is bad or inferior to others. The US citizen joining the Army gets probably a harsh start and a good training, and then has to do with it.

“Besides, I am sure you yourself made a great soldier.”
Nope. Average plus… Not the faster, average at shooting except with light machine gun, never failed on various training, well, nothing exceptional, ordinary fellow joining because he believed in the Republic, her values and the need to take arms in case of…

I like you Brenus. Idk why, but you seem like an alright guy in my book. Of course, this being the internet, I could be completely wrong.

[PanzerJaeger]

Err, actually yes, as it is based on the 1980’s US Army shape… At theses times the US had still the Vietnam to recover and the experience about the training is one thing I witnessed…

I meant with something other than anecdote.

Vuk's experience suggests that Europeans are a bunch weak-willed poltroons. Your experience suggests that Americans are (or were) poor soldiers, negligent with their material, insubordinate, and not willing to take too many risks. My experience suggests that excessive curry intake causes Indian people to stink.

All of that is meaningless and mildly offensive.

Let us keep things in the realm of demonstrability, lest we fall into the same chasm of conjecture and assumption that Vuk has found himself in.

[Subotan]

I wonder if there's any military which can be universally agreed on the board to be crap...

*Throws dart at map on the wall*

I know! BRAZIL

[Furunculus]

Such talk has been characteristic of Anglo-American joint operations since World War 2. For example, I can link to dozens of highly detailed American criticisms of the British performance in Iraq that amount to quite a bit more than 'they can't carry as much as we can'. As there is natural competition between the two militaries, such anecdotes should be taken with more than a grain of salt.

all true, but our part in southern iraq was only half the battle fought, if you want to hear about the other half then read Task Force Black, and see what Patraues and Co had to say about British Forces.

southern iraq was a failure but not by the military, rather it was a political lack of spine to let the military do the necessary to pacify Southern Iraq. blair wanted a quiet life and pissed away SI to get it.

[Husar]

Why?

For the same reason that some say "Buy American!"

[Vuk]

No, the problem is that I do read your posts, and your arguments change every third or fourth post.

Virtually no one on these boards agrees with your presumptious post, yet you accuse everyone of "not reading your posts" when in fact that is what is confusing everyone to begin with. And yes, you did back pedal and say that Germany and Spain had the potential to be good militaries (despite them being European along with England and Ireland), and yes, paraprhased or not, you said that New York makes crap soldiers. And through all of this, you even mention that the soldiers of South American countries are somehow superior to European forces again without a shred of practical evidence and then accuse someone who makes a siesta joke of using sterotypes. LOL. If you want to play semantics with us, little boy, you may consider choosing your initial words a little more carefully.

Your idea that people from the South makes better troops cannot be backed up with a shred of evidence other than the fact that they are the majority of enlisted soldiers, which means virtually squat if you consider that every branch of the military has its badasses, mouth breathers and grifters. In fact, considering there are more soldiers from the south in the military one might reasonably assume that the majority of crapbags are also from the south, due primarily to reasonable statistical chance, right? Not very good science, is it?

Your entire basis of calling the Army douchebags is based on some hearsay from an ROTC friend, which I find comical considering most ROTC officers are considered a joke until they prove themselves otherwise.

The entire premise of your OP was offensive to a vast segment of people who have fought and died in far more brutal wars than we. In an effort to backpedal and not be so offensive, you manage to change direction and offend a whole new lot of people, this time your fellow citizens . Wash, rinse, repeat.

I said that Spain had the potential to have good citizens, but it was wasted by political instability, and that Germany had more potential than the other major European powers, but that it still was sub-par at best. That does not at all contradict my original argument or any made thereafter.
Also, I never said that South American troops were better than European troops. I said that South American citizens had better potential than European citizens, but that it could not be realized because of the poverty and political instability of South America. Again, that does not contradict my opening remarks at all. If you will remember, I said that two main things were needed for a good military, and that South America had better potential for one than Europe, but that Europe had the advantage in the other.
You either just skim my posts, do not know how to read, or look at other people's posts and infer from that what my post must be. Either way, it demonstrates a decided lack of basic language and comprehension skills...esp concerning sensitive issues.
Also, about the Army, I never said that they were not an effective military force because of the hearsay of a friend. I used that as an example. I never told you what I based it on, and nor did you inquire. I based my opinion on the Army on countless reports, articles, accounts, etc that I have read, as well as on my own personal experience with Army personnel.
Case in point, I know several guys from the Army who attend Uni with me. With one exception, they are generally not very fit, and know nothing at all about hand-to-hand combat. Not only that, but they are more uneasy with the sissified TKD sparring we do that some of their smaller civvy counterparts! They don't know how to take a hit, or give a hit, and don't want to find out. The only thing they were taught is bullcrap things for getting out of this grip, or this lock, etc, etc. Some military experts hold that the intimacy with danger acquired through hand-to-hand combat training is the best way to prepare someone for real combat, but whether you hold with that or not, you can at least agree that Soldiers should know how to shoot, right?
When my Pastor was a mechanic in the Army, he said that they did not even teach him how to shoot!! I don't know...I think that is kind of important when you are in a combat zone. (Every Marine a Rifleman)
You have no objectivity (as you were in the military), and have proven incapable of even reading and comprehending a three paragraph post! Quit while you are ahead...kind of...

[Major Robert Dump]

Did you not say the US Army regulars are sub-par? Did you not say you have no faith in the US Army? You even tried to back this up by pointing out the removeal of bayonet training from basic, as if the physical condition initial recruits has anything to do with the overall, trained fighting force!

Here's some info your "friends" in the military didn't give you:
Bayonet training was removed because
A) NO ONE FIGHTS WITH BAYONETS AND THOSE 3 DAYS ARE BETTER SPENT LEARNING OTHER THINGS
B) The pugil stick training used to simulate bayonets not only gets recruits hurt, but also tends to get Drill Sergeants in trouble

Your pastor used to be in the army and did not know how to shoot? How is that even relevant?

As far as soldiers not learning "hand-to-hand," the gay fake karate they trained us on until the late 1990s was ineffective and obsolete and was eventually replaced with Jujitsu-based combatives. Everyone at BCT and AIT and OCS gets basic, watered-down courses on those. Anything past that is completely voluntary because to be level 1 certified and higher you must complete a course during which you stand to suffer permanant, serious injuries. People have died. Making every single soldier down to support personnel attend these classes is a really good way to thin your ranks. The idea of US ARMY modern combatives is not to be a one-man unarmed killing machine, it is to be able to survive long enough for your friends to come help you.

I also find it comical that you use your "friends" at the university as an example of how the military is not physically fit. Maybe that is because they are at the university, and not at a military school or on a deployment. Soldiers gain weight, eat, drink and screw in between assignments. And please do not ever, ever, ever use ROTC cadets as an example of any military institution because they are not soldiers yet and many of them never will be.

I am really sorry that we, as a fighting force, cannot live up to your high expectations. If the military was full of Vuks, I'm sure Iraq and Afghanistan would have been won years ago

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Did you not say the US Army regulars are sub-par? Did you not say you have no faith in the US Army? You even tried to back this up by pointing out the removeal of bayonet training from basic, as if the physical condition initial recruits has anything to do with the overall, trained fighting force!

Here's some info your "friends" in the military didn't give you:
Bayonet training was removed because
A) NO ONE FIGHTS WITH BAYONETS AND THOSE 3 DAYS ARE BETTER SPENT LEARNING OTHER THINGS
B) The pugil stick training used to simulate bayonets not only gets recruits hurt, but also tends to get Drill Sergeants in trouble...

MRD:

Perhaps the military experience being cited in the criticism you refute above was garnered in MAG or CODMW2 where combatants regularly bring knives to gunfights...and win hands down. ;-)

[Beskar]

Biggest issue with American troops is how they are really "gunho" and keep firing at their allies instead of the enemies.

[gaelic cowboy]

All of this worry about fighting is not much use anyway sure when the WW3 happens our Irish soldiers will be safely in the basement of Dolans in Temple Bar downing vodkas to prevent radiation sickness.

Edit it's well know that WW3 is pencilled in for Paddies Day 2012, sure it's an American and French tradition

[Vuk]

Did you not say the US Army regulars are sub-par? Did you not say you have no faith in the US Army? You even tried to back this up by pointing out the removeal of bayonet training from basic, as if the physical condition initial recruits has anything to do with the overall, trained fighting force!

Here's some info your "friends" in the military didn't give you:
Bayonet training was removed because
A) NO ONE FIGHTS WITH BAYONETS AND THOSE 3 DAYS ARE BETTER SPENT LEARNING OTHER THINGS
B) The pugil stick training used to simulate bayonets not only gets recruits hurt, but also tends to get Drill Sergeants in trouble

Your pastor used to be in the army and did not know how to shoot? How is that even relevant?

As far as soldiers not learning "hand-to-hand," the gay fake karate they trained us on until the late 1990s was ineffective and obsolete and was eventually replaced with Jujitsu-based combatives. Everyone at BCT and AIT and OCS gets basic, watered-down courses on those. Anything past that is completely voluntary because to be level 1 certified and higher you must complete a course during which you stand to suffer permanant, serious injuries. People have died. Making every single soldier down to support personnel attend these classes is a really good way to thin your ranks. The idea of US ARMY modern combatives is not to be a one-man unarmed killing machine, it is to be able to survive long enough for your friends to come help you.

I also find it comical that you use your "friends" at the university as an example of how the military is not physically fit. Maybe that is because they are at the university, and not at a military school or on a deployment. Soldiers gain weight, eat, drink and screw in between assignments. And please do not ever, ever, ever use ROTC cadets as an example of any military institution because they are not soldiers yet and many of them never will be.

I am really sorry that we, as a fighting force, cannot live up to your high expectations. If the military was full of Vuks, I'm sure Iraq and Afghanistan would have been won years ago

The Jujitsu based junk that the Army is taught in basic courses is total BS. They might as well not teach them anything rather than teach them that. You seem to not think it is important, nor that it is possible without killing half your soldiers. Funny, the Marines have a real fighting system (not a bunch of BJJ BS) that ALL Marines must be certified in the first level (tan belt) of their martial art.
You know, I am not saying that I would be a better soldier (in the state I am) than the average Army soldier, but if I was to join the military I would sure as heck hope that I was given the best training possible to survive, and that the people watching my back were as well. ie, if I joined the military, I would much rather join the Marines than the Army.
I am sorry if you find that offensive or pretentious, I do not mean it that way. It is meant as simple an objective statement of fact.

[Vuk]

MRD:

Perhaps the military experience being cited in the criticism you refute above was garnered in MAG or CODMW2 where combatants regularly bring knives to gunfights...and win hands down. ;-)

No, not at all. First of all, the larger the engagement, the more chance of melee combat. In a large war, esp in urban areas, the chance goes up. Why even give our troops bayonets if we do not show them how to use them? They are just as likely to hurt themselves as they are to use them effectively.
Also, as I said in my above post (2 above), the rational behind teaching melee combat is to condition troops to stressful circumstances where split second decisions matter. To get them used to feeling consequences for their actions, taking hits, being aggressive, etc. It is considered by many to be one of the best preps for actually sending soldiers into combat. That is why it is important a lot more than the practical side of melee combat in modern warfare.

[Strike For The South]

I toatly have a buddy in the core who claims to steal his British commarades lunch money removed
Vuk is what is wrong with America, a fat slob sitting on his couch claiming America is teh best and can't be defeated because of some intrinsic awesomeness, when in reality the people who serve in the US military are just that, people. Putting this rediculos onus on them is why Americans supports retarded ventures that get my friends killed because when I see a guy who I once talked to for 4 staight hours because his best girl broke up with him the night before the big game, Vuk sees some caricuture out of a Michael Bay movie

You'd better pay your damn respect and think long and hard before commting to anything because its not your ass or even your creature comforts that are on the line. Its someone elses and chances are he is just like you.

Removed

[Vuk]

*ranting and BS*

And where do you get the idea that I glorify war or think that we should be going overseas doing this and that? Am I not the one that is always arguing that we should keep our nose out of this happening abroad as much as possible (and much more so than we have done)?
Don't pretend you know anything about me, because you don't. The only reason that I did not join the Corps (and that is how it is spelled BTW my educated intellectual individual) is because I was turned down by recruiters because of a pre-existing condition that greatly limits what I can and cannot do. (and which is none of your business)
Also, many of the opinions that I have expressed were either based on things told to me by friends who are in the military, or opinions expressed by friends in the Corps.
You don't know what you are talking about, so mind your business and go do something more your speed...like lifting weights...

[Subotan]

No, not at all. First of all, the larger the engagement, the more chance of melee combat. In a large war, esp in urban areas, the chance goes up. Why even give our troops bayonets if we do not show them how to use them? They are just as likely to hurt themselves as they are to use them effectively.
Also, as I said in my above post (2 above), the rational behind teaching melee combat is to condition troops to stressful circumstances where split second decisions matter. To get them used to feeling consequences for their actions, taking hits, being aggressive, etc. It is considered by many to be one of the best preps for actually sending soldiers into combat. That is why it is important a lot more than the practical side of melee combat in modern warfare.

You sound like a Marshal of France circa. 1913.

I toatly have a buddy in the core who claims to steal his British commarades lunch money and then rape them in the lunch line

Vuk is what is wrong with America, a fat slob sitting on his couch claiming America is teh best and can't be defeated because of some intrinsic awesomeness, when in reality the people who serve in the US military are just that, people. Putting this rediculos onus on them is why Americans supports retarded ventures that get my friends killed because when I see a guy who I once talked to for 4 staight hours because his best girl broke up with him the night before the big game, Vuk sees some caricuture out of a Michael Bay movie

You'd better pay your damn respect and think long and hard before commting to anything because its not your ass or even your creature comforts that are on the line. Its someone elses and chances are he is just like you.

You mouth breathing philistine

[a completely inoffensive name]

I toatly have a buddy in the core who claims to steal his British commarades lunch money and then rape them in the lunch line

Vuk is what is wrong with America, a fat slob sitting on his couch claiming America is teh best and can't be defeated because of some intrinsic awesomeness, when in reality the people who serve in the US military are just that, people. Putting this rediculos onus on them is why Americans supports retarded ventures that get my friends killed because when I see a guy who I once talked to for 4 staight hours because his best girl broke up with him the night before the big game, Vuk sees some caricuture out of a Michael Bay movie

You'd better pay your damn respect and think long and hard before commting to anything because its not your ass or even your creature comforts that are on the line. Its someone elses and chances are he is just like you.

You mouth breathing philistine

The cancer that is killing /USA/

[Vuk]

The cancer that is killing /USA/

lol, oh yes, Vuk the cancer...says the self-proclaimed "Professional Internet Troll"...

[a completely inoffensive name]

lol, oh yes, Vuk the cancer...says the self-proclaimed "Professional Internet Troll"...

Trolls don't cause cancer, they provoke the cancer for lulz. This is internet 101. I'm sorry, you were saying something about how some guys you know told you that they think soliders from New York and Europe are pussies?

I know some guys who knew a guy who wanted to join the marines who apparently said that the Air Force might as well be 16 middle aged men taking baby boomers on tourist flights over the grand canyon because they were so undisciplined.

Why is our military neglecting to teach our soldiers the practical art of swordsmanship on the battle field? You can't cut off a terrorists head with a tactical knife, you need an Irish Claymore. God, I swear, no wonder our military is so ineffective.

EDIT: AND WHY ARE ALL THE CLAYMORES BEING MADE IN IRELAND!? WHERE ARE THE GOOD OLE AMERICAN MADE CLAYMORES THE GREATEST GENERATION USED TO GUT NAZIS!?!

[Fisherking]

Gents, You all know the rules on personal attacks.

This is not my forum but anyone can report a post.

I suggest that you all put away the verbal clubs and take cover under a near by bridge and rethink your positions.

I recommend you use your edit functions and reassess what you would say. To include those who have quoted those words and applauded the matches...

Else a number of people are going to spend some time on the beach, in a manner of speaking.

[a completely inoffensive name]

A better choice would be to lock this joke of a thread.

[Fisherking]

Take it as a lasts opportunity to at lest avoid further difficulties. Once it is locked nothing can be changed.

And those quoting such are as culpable as those who said it, in these instances.

Use EDIT.

[Kagemusha]

My apologies. This thread was supposed to be something else it turned out to be.My mistake.

[Vuk]

My apologies. This thread was supposed to be something else it turned out to be.My mistake.

You started a thread off as a personal attack on another member and expected it to turn into something good? Yeah...right...