StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Stewart from SDI wrote:I like your analisis of ground combat capabilities and find that it meshes well with WW-II tactics and technology, but has little to do with post RVN combat.

The current state of the art is such that restricting non optical sensors would blind our army by maby one third. EW, ECM and other sensors would make combat between the US Army and the Imperial Army as depicted a wholesale slaughter. No other army on the planet is as well equiped and trained as we are. The British were/are very poorly equiped and trained in compairison. (they just can't afford it!)

*Snort, snigger*
I love this..Every Brit/Aussie/NZ officer or NCO I have ever met active or retired from a number of wars, have all uniformly aid that the US army is very well equipped and badly trained..could it be that Steward has started to beleive the propaganda and not what actual happens?

Stuart Mackey wrote: *Snort, snigger*
I love this..Every Brit/Aussie/NZ officer or NCO I have ever met active or retired from a number of wars, have all uniformly aid that the US army is very well equipped and badly trained..could it be that Steward has started to beleive the propaganda and not what actual happens?

Are you suggesting that British/Australian/NZ military officers are qualified to judge the relative training of US troops, especially given an extremely biased point-of-view?

The Kernel wrote:Are you suggesting that British/Australian/NZ military officers are qualified to judge the relative training of US troops, especially given an extremely biased point-of-view?

That depends. An external observer can often more easily see things that an internal observer cannot.

According to an ASVS Brit (I think it was Rob Wilson,) US forces are roughly a step down from the Brits, like this:

US Army: Conscripts (or something similarly useless in a relative sense - it had been years since I read that post.)
Marines: Regular Infantry
SEALS and the like: Paratroopers

Take it as you will

Kazuaki Shimazaki wrote: That depends. An external observer can often more easily see things that an internal observer cannot.

According to an ASVS Brit (I think it was Rob Wilson,) US forces are roughly a step down from the Brits, like this:

US Army: Conscripts (or something similarly useless in a relative sense - it had been years since I read that post.)
Marines: Regular Infantry
SEALS and the like: Paratroopers

Take it as you will

It's still an appeal to authority. Not to mention an assertion I've heard made far too many times without any sort of evidence to back it up.

The Kernel wrote:It's still an appeal to authority. Not to mention an assertion I've heard made far too many times without any sort of evidence to back it up.

For sake of argument. What kind of evidence do you want?

Most major armies can look reasonably good in a drill to an outsider. I do hear the occasional story where a Tornado (hardly the most maneuverable aircraft in the world) beat a F-16 (probably an American.) Other than that?

If it helps any, the opponent at the time (Wilkens) actually agrees, at least for US light infantry. IIRC, he says something about it having to do with Clinton.

Kazuaki Shimazaki wrote: For sake of argument. What kind of evidence do you want?

Most major armies can look reasonably good in a drill to an outsider. I do hear the occasional story where a Tornado (hardly the most maneuverable aircraft in the world) beat a F-16 (probably an American.) Other than that?

If it helps any, the opponent at the time (Wilkens) actually agrees, at least for US light infantry. IIRC, he says something about it having to do with Clinton.

This should really be split if we want to continue this, but I should think that a study performed by an independent organization would be pretty strong evidence. This means that any comments by the GOP about the weakness of Clinton's military without any hard numbers or study is out, as is anything about US military equipment (since the assertion was training, although I imagine that this helps your side more than mine).

The Kernel wrote:

Stuart Mackey wrote: *Snort, snigger*
I love this..Every Brit/Aussie/NZ officer or NCO I have ever met active or retired from a number of wars, have all uniformly aid that the US army is very well equipped and badly trained..could it be that Steward has started to beleive the propaganda and not what actual happens?

Are you suggesting that British/Australian/NZ military officers are qualified to judge the relative training of US troops, especially given an extremely biased point-of-view?

Who said they were biased? and I would say they were veryy well qulified to judge the training of US troops esp if they were in the same line of work.
All I can say is that with out exception every officer and NCO I have ever met from these nations has had a very low opinion of the training standards of the US army.
I have spoken to two chaps, one who has not long been back from Afganistan and the other a Veitnam vet who both said that they and there respective units in theatre regarded that operating with US army units was hazerdous to the hath.

Kazuaki Shimazaki wrote:

The Kernel wrote:It's still an appeal to authority. Not to mention an assertion I've heard made far too many times without any sort of evidence to back it up.

For sake of argument. What kind of evidence do you want?

Most major armies can look reasonably good in a drill to an outsider. I do hear the occasional story where a Tornado (hardly the most maneuverable aircraft in the world) beat a F-16 (probably an American.) Other than that?

If it helps any, the opponent at the time (Wilkens) actually agrees, at least for US light infantry. IIRC, he says something about it having to do with Clinton.

That sounds like garbage, and even then, as one incident, is probably a fluke.

Stuart Mackey wrote:I have spoken to two chaps, one who has not long been back from Afganistan and the other a Veitnam vet who both said that they and there respective units in theatre regarded that operating with US army units was hazerdous to the hath.

You expect me to swollow some foriegn officer's nugget that U.S. troops are a threat to their health?

Hint: sensationalist hyperbole doesn't bode well for a point.

The Kernel wrote:

Kazuaki Shimazaki wrote: For sake of argument. What kind of evidence do you want?

Most major armies can look reasonably good in a drill to an outsider. I do hear the occasional story where a Tornado (hardly the most maneuverable aircraft in the world) beat a F-16 (probably an American.) Other than that?

If it helps any, the opponent at the time (Wilkens) actually agrees, at least for US light infantry. IIRC, he says something about it having to do with Clinton.

This should really be split if we want to continue this, but I should think that a study performed by an independent organization would be pretty strong evidence. This means that any comments by the GOP about the weakness of Clinton's military without any hard numbers or study is out, as is anything about US military equipment (since the assertion was training, although I imagine that this helps your side more than mine).

Indeed, it should probably be split.
As a side note, the comments I have heard refers not only to Clinton era army but also earlier and present day.
In general, however comments about American equipment are pretty good

Stuart Mackey wrote: Who said they were biased? and I would say they were veryy well qulified to judge the training of US troops esp if they were in the same line of work.
All I can say is that with out exception every officer and NCO I have ever met from these nations has had a very low opinion of the training standards of the US army.
I have spoken to two chaps, one who has not long been back from Afganistan and the other a Veitnam vet who both said that they and there respective units in theatre regarded that operating with US army units was hazerdous to the hath.

Even if I grant that there is no bias (a ridiculous assumption given the nationalistic pride and competativeness involved) it is still an appeal to authority, and not a very good one either since these men you spoke to are not qualified to make a statement on the relative training of a foriegn military.

Illuminatus Primus wrote:

Kazuaki Shimazaki wrote:

The Kernel wrote:It's still an appeal to authority. Not to mention an assertion I've heard made far too many times without any sort of evidence to back it up.

For sake of argument. What kind of evidence do you want?

Most major armies can look reasonably good in a drill to an outsider. I do hear the occasional story where a Tornado (hardly the most maneuverable aircraft in the world) beat a F-16 (probably an American.) Other than that?

If it helps any, the opponent at the time (Wilkens) actually agrees, at least for US light infantry. IIRC, he says something about it having to do with Clinton.

That sounds like garbage, and even then, as one incident, is probably a fluke.

a fluke thats repeated time and again across multiple decades and continents by people who have never met?

Illuminatus Primus wrote:

Stuart Mackey wrote:I have spoken to two chaps, one who has not long been back from Afganistan and the other a Veitnam vet who both said that they and there respective units in theatre regarded that operating with US army units was hazerdous to the hath.

You expect me to swollow some foriegn officer's nugget that U.S. troops are a threat to their health?

Hint: sensationalist hyperbole doesn't bode well for a point.

I dont give a rats bum what you are prepared to swallow, but when multiple people who have never met, and are well qulified to judge, all say the same thing it tends to raise a few questions that are a bit more than sensationalist rumours..

The Kernel wrote:

Stuart Mackey wrote: Who said they were biased? and I would say they were veryy well qulified to judge the training of US troops esp if they were in the same line of work.
All I can say is that with out exception every officer and NCO I have ever met from these nations has had a very low opinion of the training standards of the US army.
I have spoken to two chaps, one who has not long been back from Afganistan and the other a Veitnam vet who both said that they and there respective units in theatre regarded that operating with US army units was hazerdous to the hath.

Even if I grant that there is no bias (a ridiculous assumption given the nationalistic pride and competativeness involved) it is still an appeal to authority, and not a very good one either since these men you spoke to are not qualified to make a statement on the relative training of a foriegn military.

who the hell are you trying to kid? As to qulification to judge..an infantry NCO of ten years standing is very well qulified to judge his proffetional opposites in the American army based on what he has seen in combat. The same holds true of officers in similar situations from a different army, in a different war with differnt units. The US army is not above critisism from others.
As to national proide and bias..that tends to go out the window when you are engaged in your duties..be that as a soldier or in anything else. nationalist bragging is reserverd for cold ones in the pub.

Stuart Mackey wrote: who the hell are you trying to kid? As to qulification to judge..an infantry NCO of ten years standing is very well qulified to judge his proffetional opposites in the American army based on what he has seen in combat. The same holds true of officers in similar situations from a different army, in a different war with differnt units. The US army is not above critisism from others.
As to national proide and bias..that tends to go out the window when you are engaged in your duties..be that as a soldier or in anything else. nationalist bragging is reserverd for cold ones in the pub.

Excuse me but what the fuck are you talking about? How is an Australian military NCO qualified to judge the training of the United States military? That's like asking a Japanese manufacturing worker to judge the efficency of an American assembly line. The United States Military trains their troops in an entirely different manner then the Australian, and to an outsider it may seem strange, and I don't see you coming up with any numbers to prove your ridiculous appeal to authority.

The Kernel wrote:

Stuart Mackey wrote: who the hell are you trying to kid? As to qulification to judge..an infantry NCO of ten years standing is very well qulified to judge his proffetional opposites in the American army based on what he has seen in combat. The same holds true of officers in similar situations from a different army, in a different war with differnt units. The US army is not above critisism from others.
As to national proide and bias..that tends to go out the window when you are engaged in your duties..be that as a soldier or in anything else. nationalist bragging is reserverd for cold ones in the pub.

Excuse me but what the fuck are you talking about? How is an Australian military NCO qualified to judge the training of the United States military? That's like asking a Japanese manufacturing worker to judge the efficency of an American assembly line. The United States Military trains their troops in an entirely different manner then the Australian, and to an outsider it may seem strange, and I don't see you coming up with any numbers to prove your ridiculous appeal to authority.

First off, in the case of the NCO in question, he is a New Zealander, as am I. you will aslo note that I pointed out that I said he quite well able to judge his 'proffetional opposites' as observed in combat.

As for appeal to authority..I will say it again, as you might have missed it in other replys. When numerous officers and NCO's who have never met, are from different armies, and say the same things about the US army, in different wars in different parts of the world, this does raise relivant questions.
Given this, its hardly an appeal to authority, more like the repeated obseravations of people who are qulified to judge.

No other army on the planet is as well equiped and trained as we are.

Given what I responded to {above} as a grossly unsupported statement , I mearly pointed out that not everyone agtrees with such a genralisation. That America is the most poerfull nation on the planet, does not mean they are without faults or above critisism.

You compared guys from Vietnam to other guys.

That right there kills your reliability and consistency--comparing a conscript army forty years ago to the modern volunteer army.

Stuart Mackey wrote: First off, in the case of the NCO in question, he is a New Zealander, as am I. you will aslo note that I pointed out that I said he quite well able to judge his 'proffetional opposites' as observed in combat.

As for appeal to authority..I will say it again, as you might have missed it in other replys. When numerous officers and NCO's who have never met, are from different armies, and say the same things about the US army, in different wars in different parts of the world, this does raise relivant questions.
Given this, its hardly an appeal to authority, more like the repeated obseravations of people who are qulified to judge.

You think they raise relevent questions? Fine, then back them up with the appropriate evidence. Oh wait, you can't do that can you?

Illuminatus Primus wrote:You compared guys from Vietnam to other guys.

That right there kills your reliability and consistency--comparing a conscript army forty years ago to the modern volunteer army.

yet the same comments are made about the modern proffetional army.

Stuart Mackey wrote:

Illuminatus Primus wrote:You compared guys from Vietnam to other guys.

That right there kills your reliability and consistency--comparing a conscript army forty years ago to the modern volunteer army.

yet the same comments are made about the modern proffetional army.

Do you even understand why an appeal to authority is a logical fallacy?

The Kernel wrote:

Stuart Mackey wrote: First off, in the case of the NCO in question, he is a New Zealander, as am I. you will aslo note that I pointed out that I said he quite well able to judge his 'proffetional opposites' as observed in combat.

As for appeal to authority..I will say it again, as you might have missed it in other replys. When numerous officers and NCO's who have never met, are from different armies, and say the same things about the US army, in different wars in different parts of the world, this does raise relivant questions.
Given this, its hardly an appeal to authority, more like the repeated obseravations of people who are qulified to judge.

You think they raise relevent questions? Fine, then back them up with the appropriate evidence. Oh wait, you can't do that can you?

And what kind of evidence would you like? an all expences paid trip to Afganistan to see for yourself? would you like the Corporal in question to send you a mp3 of his observations of Americans under fire?
Perhaps you think I am lying?
Did you even read what I posted?
The American army is not above critisism, if this SDI guy wants to make unsupported genralisations, fine, but he, and you perhaps, should realise that there a hell of a lot of millitary types who do not agree.

All I have pointed out that other millitaries, or rather their personell, do not think that the US army is the worlds best trained, why is this so hard to grasp?

Stuart Mackey wrote: And what kind of evidence would you like? an all expences paid trip to Afganistan to see for yourself? would you like the Corporal in question to send you a mp3 of his observations of Americans under fire?
Perhaps you think I am lying?
Did you even read what I posted?
The American army is not above critisism, if this SDI guy wants to make unsupported genralisations, fine, but he, and you perhaps, should realise that there a hell of a lot of millitary types who do not agree.

All I have pointed out that other millitaries, or rather their personell, do not think that the US army is the worlds best trained, why is this so hard to grasp?

Funny, you come back against SDI's unsupported generalization with one of your own and suggest that we simply accept your appeal to authorities instead of hard evidence that proves your point.

I've already made it clear what sort of evidence you would have to provide to prove your assertion. The fact that you seem indignant to it is not my problem; the onus is on you to prove your statements and so far all you have is the word of a NZ NCO without any specifics to back it up.

The Kernel wrote:

Stuart Mackey wrote: *Snort, snigger*
I love this..Every Brit/Aussie/NZ officer or NCO I have ever met active or retired from a number of wars, have all uniformly aid that the US army is very well equipped and badly trained..could it be that Steward has started to beleive the propaganda and not what actual happens?

Are you suggesting that British/Australian/NZ military officers are qualified to judge the relative training of US troops, especially given an extremely biased point-of-view?

Well the US Army's own standards lable Australian regular infantry as 'special forces', you guys have had the snot beaten out of you for the past few years in training simulations (operation Croc '03, Kangaroo '02) even when you had the full use of survelliance satellites.

I am sorry. The best equipt Army in the world is the US Army hands down, bar none, and by a wide margin ... but best trained? *snort*

The Kernel wrote:

Stuart Mackey wrote: And what kind of evidence would you like? an all expences paid trip to Afganistan to see for yourself? would you like the Corporal in question to send you a mp3 of his observations of Americans under fire?
Perhaps you think I am lying?
Did you even read what I posted?
The American army is not above critisism, if this SDI guy wants to make unsupported genralisations, fine, but he, and you perhaps, should realise that there a hell of a lot of millitary types who do not agree.

All I have pointed out that other millitaries, or rather their personell, do not think that the US army is the worlds best trained, why is this so hard to grasp?

Funny, you come back against SDI's unsupported generalization with one of your own and suggest that we simply accept your appeal to authorities instead of hard evidence that proves your point.

I've already made it clear what sort of evidence you would have to provide to prove your assertion. The fact that you seem indignant to it is not my problem; the onus is on you to prove your statements and so far all you have is the word of a NZ NCO without any specifics to back it up.

Well what the fucking evidence do you want? hmm? want me to have NZ to delcare war on the US? or get you over there to see for yourself?
Jesus mate, these are the observations of people under fire.. what do you want a blow by blow discription from the people in question? well short of breaking into defence force property to get the reports , that aint going to happen.

There are some times when you have to accept that not everything can be broken down into a nice set of facts and figures to prove or disprove something. I repeated the opinions of serving people who do not think that the US has the best trained army in the world, thats all.
Can I prove they said it? no, can you prove the US has the best trained army in the world? no. The US army is not above critisism, and there are plenty of soldiers in other armies who think so. This is not a winnable debate, just a matter of opinion, beleive it or not thats allowed here to.

Crown wrote: Well the US Army's own standards lable Australian regular infantry as 'special forces', you guys have had the snot beaten out of you for the past few years in training simulations (operation Croc '03, Kangaroo '02) even when you had the full use of survelliance satellites.

I am sorry. The best equipt Army in the world is the US Army hands down, bar none, and by a wide margin ... but best trained? *snort*

Could you provide some links? I've found plenty of info on the nature of the operation, but I can't seem to find anything on the results.