US Army vs Aus/NZ Army (split from Stewart at SDI)

[phongn]

On Equipment:
All vehicles and infantry was equipped with Laser attachments to the Weapons and receptors to know when hit (Dunno how the system is called in the US, here its FLAR), but i guess you know what i mean.

IIRC, the US system is called MILES.

Btw, i am now 5 years in the German Army. I am trained for Deep Recon and visited Sniper School. I am serving in an Airborne division and i did my tour of duty in other countries. Btw. I was in the Enemy team. It was funny .

I think the resident infantrymen will be along to quiz you, just to make sure you're legit (We've had fakers before).

[Myrmidon]

The US Army is composed of many units. Some are combat units and are pretty good, some are support and guard units that are absolutely dismal. The Australian Army is composed of a very few active units using mostly foriegn equipment. They can afford to spend the bulk of their money on training. Further, they are not stuck with the cancer of 'Affirmative Action,' women rights and racial tensions tearing apart their units. They can simply discharge troublemakers and apply the boot to loudmouths.

The US Army is as good as it has to be, given the difference in firepower it has. The Clinton era was a terrible time for the Army, but things are getting better. With action, the weak are getting out.

That dependance on technology might have to change soon if the pending introduction of the megawatt solid state pulse laser makes the battlefield a truly missile and aircraft free zone. Without the nuclear and MLRS threat, it may come down to soldier vs soldier again. Then we'll see if we want a bunch of NFL 'gangstas' making their home in the Army.

[Sea Skimmer]

IIRC, the US system is called MILES.

Yup, MILES, stands for Multiple Integrated Laser Engagement System.

[Butterbean569]

This has no factual backing at all, just putting it out there for you guys to discuss....

Is it possible that, the larger an army is, the quality of training the "average" soldier receives may go down? Just wonderin

[CRUCIBLE]

I never said that the US Army is a bunch of incompetent loosers.

But it stands that the Doctrine IS flawed (Lack of cross training, structure of orders)
These flaws stand, and they are over 40 years old, i would need to do a research on it to back it up.

I agree on the size of the Army and the lack of training because of it. In addition, the more Equipment you have, you train less, just because the Equipment can balance it out.

Btw, the Doctrine flaws are not representative for all branches of the US Army, as Rangers i met dont follow these (ecxept for lack of weapon cross training).
But Special Units anywhere tend to have extensive cross-training anyway, despite their usual habit to specialize.

[harbringer]

Ok I did some work with RAAF (base security and no not an adgie) most of them and the other members of the armed forces I have met were very professional. The truth be told it is only in certain areas where the armed forces of any country are better than their opponants. The forte of the American military machine is what it was equiped for - high tempo armoured or mechanized infantry comabt. Essentially where they have been sucessfull since Vietnam. In either any commonwealth country is "owned". In a skirmish war where american airpower was limited and mechanization of dubious value then diggers, kiwi's or canadians might kick their butts. But the biggest problem is scale the U.S. forces have maybe a million men under arms in Australia we have approximately 4,000 this is obviously a problem. But it means our people are better trained on average (but only there - US special forces are just as good as anyone's).

Just my opinion, you don't have to like it just respect it.

[harbringer]

Oh and Crucibal bauhaus suck capitol rule especially under first edition lmao. Glad to see someone else played

[BlkbrryTheGreat]

An article that should shed some light as to why the US performed poorly in the previously mentioned excercise.

[Ma Deuce]

Hello, I'm new here, but I thought I would drop in my two cents...

It occurs to me: Even if the training of US troops lagged behind the training other NATO countries, would they have any incentive to close that lag, given that their training is still far superior to any remotly likely enemy? (for example, the Chinese PLAAF invests only a third the time and resources to train each pilot as the USAF, IIRC).

[phongn]

An article that should shed some light as to why the US performed poorly in the previously mentioned excercise.

...

Lind is seriously arguing that the US is only "Second Generation" and not "Third Generation" warfare? Bullshit. We didn't get the concept of "pouring steel" on some poor enemy from the French in WW1, we got it from our own Civil War, when we discovered that using up material was better than using up men.

He also doesn't quite understand why line and column tactics were formed. Yes, there were discipline requirements, but they were also the only way enough firepower could be concentrated. Around the time of the ACW, that changed, hence how the American armies started changing their own tactics (whereas the European armies did not)

Consider that the US does prize maneuver warfare (see: Patton, WW2, Schwartzkopf, ODS, Frank, OIF) for her armored forces. Lind argues that we do not, but historically, we have used it when applicable.

[CRUCIBLE]

Oh and Crucibal bauhaus suck capitol rule especially under first edition lmao. Glad to see someone else played

Hehe


Back on the topic, or better back to the article writen by Lind.

At first, i have to say that i dislike his "Generation Style". This where just primary tactics used by nations.
The Introduction of Firearms or Planes were more like a Generation change for me.

As i have to agree to a little portion on his text (lack of initiative and flexibility in the US Army), most of it is quite BS.
For example the comparision of todays US Specs to march "just" 15km a day and German Infs march 40km.
There is a little difference between these two examples as the US Specs march is usually a combat march (displacement and stealth) and the German Infs march was just a " we need to be there in one day, but have no vehicles at hand" march, possibly no even through enemy territory.

And by the way, WHO is this "we" who take these estimations(sp again?).

As far as this "putting lead into the target" thing comes, it is right indeed. Because its better to waste bullets then men after all.
Everyone (Americans, Germans, Aussies ) would first soften targets up with Artillery or Airstrikes before sending anyone in. This tactic is in use with every nation today, not just the Americans. So after Lind´s logic, every single nation who can wield "soften up" weapons is a 2nd Gen War Nation.

Again, i really dislike the this Generaton thing, as its just not fitting. The Line of Orders and the flexibility allowed in it, each come from the Military doctrine, which is unique to each Nation and is usually followed. You just cant build a "Generation scheme " out of that.
The tactics of the different Nations (Artillery, Blitzkrieg)were just a product of the Equipment they had at hand at that given timeframe, if they had other means, they would have used them. As they did btw, when new equip became available.

I learned that inflxiblity in tactics (not the line of order or cross-training thing) is certain death. You need to use every means possible to "win". Be that use of Artillery or just a small unit of Infantrists.

[Solid Snake]

Army Infantry Training is being redone.

http://www.ajc.com/news/content/news/0204a/03basic.html

Speaking of Army Infantrymen, I wonder how Coyote is doing?

[harbringer]

Again, i really dislike the this Generaton thing, as its just not fitting. The Line of Orders and the flexibility allowed in it, each come from the Military doctrine, which is unique to each Nation and is usually followed. You just cant build a "Generation scheme " out of that.
The tactics of the different Nations (Artillery, Blitzkrieg)were just a product of the Equipment they had at hand at that given timeframe, if they had other means, they would have used them. As they did btw, when new equip became available.

I learned that inflxiblity in tactics (not the line of order or cross-training thing) is certain death. You need to use every means possible to "win". Be that use of Artillery or just a small unit of Infantrists.

The Iraqi's and Russians learned this big time in the gulf war and Afgahnistan. The reason blitzkrieg worked for both the germans and the US in WW2 was flexability derived from "saddle orders" and ad hoc units. The British tried blowing through on their front and were basically ruined by too much GHQ planning (hint : 4-7 armoured divisions do not fit into 6km) usually ending up with tanks way out in front faced by a battery of 88's and some tanks. Micro management doesn't work. Equipment plays a part since it defines what your able to do. A M1A2 Abrams main battle tank wouldn't be much use in jungle that restricts vision to 5 feet - under such circumstances it might be a liability. This is why the US trains it's people the way it does. Most of the time they will fight the battle they were ment to, and when they don't they can use their allies expertise to help them balance things out. The US Armed forces don't have to be good at everything.

[harbringer]

Now for Linds article a separate issue in some ways since it doesn't address whether US or their allies produce better soldiers. Generally as a unit increases its ability to project fire and "control" more ground the frontage that unit occupies will increase. As a unit increases in its ability to co-ordinate it's effective mobility increases. To say a rifled barrel made columns obsolete is correct to say they made them suicidal is a little more vague. A rifled barrel allowed a man(or unit depending on your veiw...) to control more ground instead of being able to accurately shoot someone out to say 100m it allows say 500m (I dont have the exact figues on hand). So in one step a company increased its frontage by 5x this only ment that you could outflank your opponant more easily or control the same area with 20% of the men. Note however terrain will affect this. So it simply made columns oudated becuase they became in-efficient.

So I would argue some of his points but as regards the problems cropping up I agree sadly.

[Chris OFarrell]

Just to make a comment, there was a similar thread going on at SB where its preaty much everyone trying to beat up on a guy claiming FAC's could take down a CVN battlegroup...

Anyway. A guy over there nammed Trapspringer who is in the RAR had this to say, which is quite relevent to this thread:

The thing is this, US soldiers are too specialised in what they do. They will carry out their assigned task well enough, however, anything outside that the typical U.S Army soldier shuns or just doesn't attempt to do it because he simply doesn't know how. This translate to bad initiative on the the field and can be, and has been disastrous, in wartime.

Over here and in Britain, knowing how to use a LMG (in our case the Minimi) is a MUST and every recruit going through basic has to be proficient in it's use before getting out of basic. This translates to every soldier in the Australian Army having the capacity to be the section (or what yanks call squad) gunner. The U.S Army on the other hand, trains soldiers how to use MGs only if they decide to specialise in thus gaining the rank 'Specialist', and it was quite a suprise when a friend from my unit went over to train with U.S. Army's 25th Infantry 'Tropic Lightning' Division.

The U.S. Army grunts were suprised that my friend was not not only qualified on the Steyr and the Minimi, but that he was qualified in all 8 positions of the 105mm British Light Gun, 84mm Carl Gustav, Grenades, Claymores, Combat Medic and Combat Signals (Artillery comms) nad that further more, the equipment he not only knew how to use but maintain and sometimes fix as well. To the greatest suprise of the 25th Infantry grunts was that my friend is still only a Gunner (Artillery Private) when in the U.S Army system he would easily make Cpl. with his qualifications.

Equally, my friend was suprised that only a limited number of people in the section can be trusted as LMG gunners. The truth is, Australian Army personnel on a basic level a far more cross trained than that of their U.S. Army counterparts due in no small part to one reason ---- we have a bloody small army and therefore don't have the luxury of numbers.

And

Originally posted by jegs2
Cannot speak for US forces outside the Army, but the CTC's (Joint Readiness Training Center, National Training Center) offer rotational units an uncooperative OPFOR in extremely battle-focused scenarios in which it is unusual for the majority of US units to win. A draw is generally considered a victory during a rotation through a CTC. Through such realistic training, US Army TO&E units are kept battle-focused and ready for war at all times.

http://www.irwin.army.mil/
http://www.jrtc-polk.army.mil/about-polk.asp

Actually 5/7 Battalion Royal Australian Regiment (Mechanised Infantry) got posted to JRTC Fort Polk back in 1998. The OPFOR had a kill ratio of 12-1. 5/7 RAR brought the kill ratio down to 1-1. I believe that says it all.

Source: ARMY Magazine (Australian) No.37 Dec.98

I agree with a lot of what is said here. I've always thought that a lot of the US armed forces was too focused. The typical soldier doesn't have a very good understanding of anything but what he was explicitly trained for. In Iraq its been shown that a lot of the US ground forces lack subilty when its called for. While sure its great to be able to bring a massive club to the bat, you have to know when they bunt and when to hit a grand slam.

I remember an after action report I read about our SAS guys on the ground. How they would use certian types of weapons in certian situations. For example once when a patrol was taking fire from some building, they used precise fire from an M-60 or a sniper rifle or such to eleiminate the threat. In a similar situation they witnessed for whatever reason...the US forces called in an airstrike, arty, armour and just blew the whole area into the ground. I'll have to see if I can find that artical...