By recently i mean 6 months ago.WoSL ChemWarrior wrote:
After 9 years in with 2 of those served with a Ranger Bn, I can tell you that most of what you must have been around was probably Reserve and National Guard. That is most of what is over there now. That and the Brits who stay in the rear with the gear...LostFate wrote:
i get it because I'm a British solider in the royal guards division and i recently did my first tour of Iraq an we were stationed with some American troops an if you seriously think there one of the best trained army in the world you need to think again, they were undisciplined an not aware of the situation at all.Fancy_Pollux wrote:
Looks like the kids are home from school for their winter break...
Wow. You think the U.S. army is poorly trained? Are you kidding me? And you're actually suggesting that we do not have superior technology, but rely on numbers instead?
The U.S army is one of, if not the best trained military in the world.
As for technology, the list just goes on and on and on...
F-22s, Stealth fighters/bombers, space program, Aegis combat system, mirvs, cruise missiles, ohio class submarines, Mk-48 ADCAP torpedoes, Supercarriers, etc etc etc etc.
To argue that the United States does not have the best technology and say that "the American army is just a bunch of poorly trained cowboys" is a quick way to make yourself look foolish. Seriously, where do you get your information? It is the training and the technology that makes the United States military number one...the numbers only complement it.
By being in I mean I was there when it was a war, not babysittingLostFate wrote:
By recently i mean 6 months ago.WoSL ChemWarrior wrote:
After 9 years in with 2 of those served with a Ranger Bn, I can tell you that most of what you must have been around was probably Reserve and National Guard. That is most of what is over there now. That and the Brits who stay in the rear with the gear...LostFate wrote:
i get it because I'm a British solider in the royal guards division and i recently did my first tour of Iraq an we were stationed with some American troops an if you seriously think there one of the best trained army in the world you need to think again, they were undisciplined an not aware of the situation at all.
Didn't want to insult all Brits that are there. The SAS and the Mech Infantry guys I met there were top notch. But honestly, most of the Royal Guards that I met (and this is just my impression from while I was there, no offence to anyone) were more worried about keeping their uniform clean
Last edited by WoSL ChemWarrior (2006-12-15 09:25:00)
This is a PM I just received from LostFate:LostFate wrote:
i get it because I'm a British solider in the royal guards division and i recently did my first tour of Iraq an we were stationed with some American troops an if you seriously think there one of the best trained army in the world you need to think again, they were undisciplined an not aware of the situation at all.
Is it just me, or does an insult really lose its effect when you deliver it like an illiterate dumbass?LostFate wrote:
Grow up !
your really stupid then again, you are American
You represent your country well.
The Allies won the war. I remember a saying "British brains and American brawn"
Anyway thanks to all the countries and peoples who fought the tyranny of Nazism, The US, The Soviet Union, The British Empire and all the rest of the free people of the world.
We owe you.
On the other things, to me no one country has the best of anything, if you look hard enough you'll find shit and gold in every country.
Anyway thanks to all the countries and peoples who fought the tyranny of Nazism, The US, The Soviet Union, The British Empire and all the rest of the free people of the world.
We owe you.
On the other things, to me no one country has the best of anything, if you look hard enough you'll find shit and gold in every country.
American resources, Russian meatshields won the war.
Uhm, US elite troops are certainly being trained well. Some of them even participate in our Austrian Gebirgsjäger-trainings ;-)Fancy_Pollux wrote:
Wow. You think the U.S. army is poorly trained? Are you kidding me? And you're actually suggesting that we do not have superior technology, but rely on numbers instead?
The U.S army is one of, if not the best trained military in the world.
But for the rest? Well, you can't say they're all dumb and there of course will also be the ones that are of more than average intelligence, but who are the people who have been doing raids for no to hardly any reason in the nights, scaring Iraqi women to death who had to see their men and children dying? Where are they? They also belong to the US Army, you can't deny that. Of course, your Army will be measured by the faults of these - as your fault will always be of higher value for criticism, than your virtues will.
I think, for once also those should be mentioned, that did not join the German Army but escaped somehow, as we should mention those who brought inner instability to the system. If the Nazis had had full support of each and every citizen of Germany at this specific time, maybe they wouldn't have given up - because their soldiers wouldn't have given up (And the staff around Mr. H. at that time would for sure not have given up with any remaining forces to waste).commissargizz wrote:
The Allies won the war. I remember a saying "British brains and American brawn"
Anyway thanks to all the countries and peoples who fought the tyranny of Nazism, The US, The Soviet Union, The British Empire and all the rest of the free people of the world.
We owe you.
Uuuh..didn't the British have their hands full on the Germans..? In Afrika and Europe, I mean how much do you expect them to give when they can barely held out on their own. And for the Russians they helped the Allies to defeat the Axis Forces in Europe.JG1567JG wrote:
The allies won the war. None could have done it on their own.adam1503 wrote:
Okay, so this is a pretty big question. A lot of Americans seem to believe that their country was solely responsible for saving Europe from Nazi occupation during WWII. They claim to have single-handedly won the war and to have saved everyone.
On the other hand, many Europeans (infact, most of the rest of the world) believe that America didn't play as crucial a role as they lay claim to. America joined the war more than half-way through, and only after they were bombed at Pearl Harbour. They also were responsible for introducing the fission bomb to the world, and for using two on Japan.
Is it just me, or are many Americans full of crap? How can they claim to have won the war and to have saved Europe from the Nazis? Who liberated much of mainland Europe from Nazi occupation? Who was able to fend off the Nazi war machine from invasion during the Blitz years?
We should clear this up once and for all: the US cannot claim to have saved Europe from the Nazis. The US did not win the war alone.
(EDIT: I wanted to add a poll here, but there doesn't seem to be an option for it...)
I was just wondering and I don't know the answer. How much help did the british give us in the Pacific?
I do know that the Soviet Union provided alot of pressure on the Japanese as help.
And that why Dutch Militaire Pilots are usually better trained then American ones..Fancy_Pollux wrote:
Wow. You think the U.S. army is poorly trained? Are you kidding me? And you're actually suggesting that we do not have superior technology, but rely on numbers instead?
The U.S army is one of, if not the best trained military in the world.
Last edited by RDMC(2) (2006-12-15 09:55:20)
without britain, noone would have won the war, the german navy would have blockaded the us ports and russian ports, the americans wouldnt have been able to launch a attack on the western front, and if it wasnt for the british, who would have defeated rommel in africa??
the luftwaffe would have had all its planes against russia, thus kick their asses.
id say if it wasnt for the early efforts of the british, the outcome may have been a whole different story.
the luftwaffe would have had all its planes against russia, thus kick their asses.
id say if it wasnt for the early efforts of the british, the outcome may have been a whole different story.
I think Jesus won the war. FTW
That has nothing to do with poor training. I want to hear an explanation of why, exactly, the US army is poorly trained. I want examples and arguments based on rational thought, not mindless bitching about how much you hate the US and its policies. Perhaps you'd like to start with the basic training program and take it from there?Stormscythe wrote:
but who are the people who have been doing raids for no to hardly any reason in the nights, scaring Iraqi women to death who had to see their men and children dying? Where are they? They also belong to the US Army, you can't deny that. Of course, your Army will be measured by the faults of these - as your fault will always be of higher value for criticism, than your virtues will.
Last edited by Fancy_Pollux (2006-12-15 10:03:34)
Well, maybe I expressed myself not clearly enough. The training may be well, but the execution of what has been taught may not work properly from time to time.Fancy_Pollux wrote:
That has nothing to do with poor training. I want to hear an explanation of why, exactly, the US army is poorly trained. I want examples and arguments based on rational thought, not mindless bitching about how much you hate the US. Perhaps you'd like to start with the basic training program and take it from there?
http://video.google.de/videoplay?docid= … amp;q=iraq
Here's one example. I'm pretty sure this guy was trained just like everyone else.
This may be only one example and you may argue that this vid is faked, that war crimes happen everywhere - but once they're commited by the US, they're instantly conveyed to the rest of the world. However, where discipline, and thus a training content of highest priority, fails, also the training fails.
As a sidenote: I don't bitch mindlessly about, why I hate the US. I don't hate the US - but of course that'd be a good explanation why I doubt your methods...
Last edited by Stormscythe (2006-12-15 10:09:34)
That video was already posted here before and it was proven fake. There is no "arguing" that it is fake. It is fake.Stormscythe wrote:
Well, maybe I expressed myself not clearly enough. The training may be well, but the execution of what has been taught may not work properly from time to time.
http://video.google.de/videoplay?docid= … amp;q=iraq
Here's one example. I'm pretty sure this guy was trained just like everyone else.
This may be only one example and you may argue that this vid is faked, that war crimes happen everywhere - but once they're commited by the US, they're instantly conveyed to the rest of the world. However, where discipline, and thus a training content of highest priority, fails, also the training fails.
As a sidenote: I don't bitch mindlessly about, why I hate the US. I don't hate the US - but of course that'd be a good explanation why I doubt your methods...
http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?id=40899
Proof that it is fake:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesse_Macbeth
Still, this is straying away from the topic. If you're going to accuse the US army of being poorly trained, provide an argument, not a change of subject. War crimes have nothing to do with training. Even the most elite soldiers of any rank or branch can commit war crimes.Jesse Adam Macbeth (born Jesse Adam Al-Zaid,[1] 1984) falsely claimed to be an Army Ranger and veteran of the Iraq War. He lied in alternative media interviews that he and his unit routinely committed war crimes in Iraq.[2][3] Macbeth began to attract significant attention after the release of a video containing his allegations;[4] transcripts of the video were made in English and Arabic.[5] According to the U.S. Army, there is no record of Macbeth being a Ranger,[6][7] or serving in a combat unit: he was discharged from the service after having been declared unfit or unsuitable for the Army, or both,[8] before he could complete basic training.[9]
After his release from the Army in 2004, Macbeth purported himself to be a veteran, telling war stories and garnering attention from mainstream,[10] alternative[11] and student media outlets. He joined Iraq Veterans Against the War in January of 2006,[12] and represented, or was scheduled to represent them publicly at various events throughout the country;[13][14][15] the organization has since said it does not endorse Macbeth or his accounts of military service.[12] Accounts in Macbeth's name appear on Military.com and Myspace.com, and both were used to post claims about military service in Iraq.[16][17]
Last edited by Fancy_Pollux (2006-12-15 10:18:23)
Not that guy again... He's not even in the Army, You can tell about how skinny he is and he does not state his MOS. Gungslinger would know more about this.Stormscythe wrote:
Well, maybe I expressed myself not clearly enough. The training may be well, but the execution of what has been taught may not work properly from time to time.Fancy_Pollux wrote:
That has nothing to do with poor training. I want to hear an explanation of why, exactly, the US army is poorly trained. I want examples and arguments based on rational thought, not mindless bitching about how much you hate the US. Perhaps you'd like to start with the basic training program and take it from there?
http://video.google.de/videoplay?docid= … amp;q=iraq
Here's one example. I'm pretty sure this guy was trained just like everyone else.
This may be only one example and you may argue that this vid is faked, that war crimes happen everywhere - but once they're commited by the US, they're instantly conveyed to the rest of the world. However, where discipline, and thus a training content of highest priority, fails, also the training fails.
As a sidenote: I don't bitch mindlessly about, why I hate the US. I don't hate the US - but of course that'd be a good explanation why I doubt your methods...
Just to give you a little to use as background, I did my basic training in 1997, so there may be new training updates since then, but here is the run-down. Basic training is 12 weeks from arrival at the reception BN until graduation. you receive Basic hand-to-hand combat training, Basic rifle marksmanship, code of conduct training, military drill (marching and the like), and much physical training. Before I went to Basic I was 5'9" and weighed 145 lbs. I left Basic at 5'9" 182 lbs and a BMI of less than 2.5%. I was more disciplined than ever before and could work as a team of anywhere from 3 (fire team) - 35 (platoon) soldiers.Fancy_Pollux wrote:
That has nothing to do with poor training. I want to hear an explanation of why, exactly, the US army is poorly trained. I want examples and arguments based on rational thought, not mindless bitching about how much you hate the US and its policies. Perhaps you'd like to start with the basic training program and take it from there?
I then went to AIT (Advanced Individual Training) as a Chemical operations specialist. I spent 12 weeks learning everything involved with that job, which I will not get into on this forum, since most is not something that should be public knowledge. I can tell you that I had to get at least an 85% on every single test that I had to take throughout AIT. That is higher than any college requires of its students. I would also like to point out that every other country uses our facilities and our trainers for this specialty.
So tell me again how much we suck
Read again what I wrote about training.Fancy_Pollux wrote:
If you're going to accuse the US army of being poorly trained, provide an argument, not a change of subject.Stormscythe wrote:
Well, maybe I expressed myself not clearly enough. The training may be well, but the execution of what has been taught may not work properly from time to time.
Have you ever questioned why war crimes happen? It's because people can't cope with the situation they're being put into. They lose control over themselves. Again, this might not be a matter of training but more of a selection fault.Fancy_Pollux wrote:
War crimes have nothing to do with training. Even the most elite soldiers of any rank or branch can commit war crimes.
Oh, and please explain me why the US Army is among the best trained armies in the world, that's what you've stated before, I'd like to know more about it.
PS: Now that I know this guy faked the vid, I have to excuse myself for bringing this into discussion.
IMO, if the US never entered the European theatre, the Russians would have won anyway, it would just have taken a longer time for them, might have prolonged the war for a couple of years.
The one thing that you are kind of missing does seem to be that this whole thing is kind of off topic. Present day, yes, the US military is one of the best trained in the world. UK, Netherlands, and Israel are probably on par with us. But during WWII I really don't think that was the case. Most of the experienced fighter pilots for all the European countries were killed before the US entered the war. I do feel the need to ask why the US catches flak for not entering until half-way through the war, and countries like Switzerland stayed neutral throughout and no one says anything. I haven't been able to find a thread calling them chickens or saying anything at all.
If you want my totally honest opinion I have the greatest respect for anyone who fought in either of the world wars. I wouldn't have wanted to fight in the trenches and I was told all through Basic Training that if I had to use my hand-to-hand training I screwed up. So the people that did the hand to hand fighting and the resistance fighters in the Netherlands and France and Sweden... Basically all the European nations that had them. Not sure if I could have done that. Who cares who won which war.
If you want my totally honest opinion I have the greatest respect for anyone who fought in either of the world wars. I wouldn't have wanted to fight in the trenches and I was told all through Basic Training that if I had to use my hand-to-hand training I screwed up. So the people that did the hand to hand fighting and the resistance fighters in the Netherlands and France and Sweden... Basically all the European nations that had them. Not sure if I could have done that. Who cares who won which war.
neat how we went from discussing WWII to who is better trained and doing what in iraq....
if the US wouldnt have entered the war, somehow i think the russians would have beaten germany on its own. yes i know the US gave alot of supplies to the russians but as has been said before, it wasnt some incredible ammount that tipped the scales immediatley.
if the US wouldnt have entered the war, somehow i think the russians would have beaten germany on its own. yes i know the US gave alot of supplies to the russians but as has been said before, it wasnt some incredible ammount that tipped the scales immediatley.
I love iraq
We could have finished Germany all by ourselves and conquered Russia as well. Now what?
can a mod close this
I wonder who will start WWIII.....
true but if the u.s stayed out of the war all the allies they had during ww2 would have been wiped out and i dont think the u.s could of single handedly held off a full scale nazi invasion without any help (sorry im tryin to state my opinion which i think is well thought out and fair its the spelling and grammar that makes it look stupid!)ReDevilJR wrote:
If the US didn't join the war, Germany would've taken over. Everyone was evading to England, hadn't it been for US. Germany would've conquered the world. The US DID play a crucial role. End of story.
I don't think that there'll be necessary to start one, it will, if so, just happen. People tend not to declare war anymore, but rather 'fight the axis of evil, the terrorists' etc. In my eyes, this is some kind of war already, just not the whole world all-out, but we've come to some sort of stalemate, already.--->[Your]Phobia<--- wrote:
I wonder who will start WWIII.....