Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
American combat veterans deserve our respect and admiration.Being 11B myself, I admit that I have a bias, but it is a conclusion that the overwhelming evidence.
Americans that volunteer for the infantry tend to come from a rural background with familiarization with rifles in their DNA it seems. Many families teach their sons to be proficient with weapons of many kinds, from the hunting knife to the bolt action rifle to the crossbow, and to also stalk and track deer. Moving with sound suppressed and avoiding sight lines is also common among these folks as regular hunting skills. This starts the American infantryman with years of experience that his conscripted counter-parts in Europe and Asia have nothing to compare to. With the exception of the Pashtun and the Ghurkas, no other civilian population is quite so handily capable of producing top tier infantrymen.
The historical record backs this up as well. When Americans fought the Amerindian tribes many of those tribes were among the best small unit tacticians ever born. The Comanche, Apache, Cherokee and Lakhota are just a few of the excellent fighting tribes that gave the US Army a solid run for its money. By the time the US entered World War 1, the Americans had a long history of fighting in unconventional settings and had adopted training methods that left the Germans amazed. At Belleau Wood the US Marines established a firm reputation for fighting skill that the nickname 'Devil Dogs' pays tribute to to this day. The Battle of Chateau-Thierry was a victory achieved by Marines and US Army 3rd division forces working on concert to stop the Germans in the Second Battle of the Marne a mere 50 miles from Paris.
In the Second World War the American infantryman was again the cornerstone of American victory in battle after outnumbered battle, the fulcrum that balanced the odds for American forces led by inept commanders who were often caught flat footed or unprepared due to circumstances, though officers gladly took any credit for victory. At Guadalcanal, Normandy, Iwo Jima, Bastogne, and countless more battles the American infantry overcame overwhelming odds in almost Hellish environments.
We see this continued pattern today as American infantry rip victory from the gaping maw of Defeat in war after war, from Chosin Reservoir to Heartbreak Ridge American infantrymen held their ground and retained good order in the teeth of ridiculous circumstances.
This record of exceptional performance above and beyond that of other forces continued into the Vietnam War. Operation Hump exemplified the ability of American forces to withstand attack against overwhelming odds as 1200 NVAR attacked a platoon of American infantry and were completely defeated and suffered extraordinary devastating casualties. At Khe Sanh a few thousand US infantry held out against nearly 40k NVAR. At the battle of Hue American infantry again rose tot he occasion balancing out severe intell failures to save the military strategy of West Point numb skulls.
To this day, US infantry out perform every other nation and are the salvation of so many desperate nations that beg for our troops on the ground, from Germany to the Ukraine to Afghanistan.
When you talk about US infantry, you speak of the best the world has ever seen.
American combat veterans deserve our respect and admiration.Being 11B myself, I admit that I have a bias, but it is a conclusion that the overwhelming evidence.
Americans that volunteer for the infantry tend to come from a rural background with familiarization with rifles in their DNA it seems. Many families teach their sons to be proficient with weapons of many kinds, from the hunting knife to the bolt action rifle to the crossbow, and to also stalk and track deer. Moving with sound suppressed and avoiding sight lines is also common among these folks as regular hunting skills. This starts the American infantryman with years of experience that his conscripted counter-parts in Europe and Asia have nothing to compare to. With the exception of the Pashtun and the Ghurkas, no other civilian population is quite so handily capable of producing top tier infantrymen.
The historical record backs this up as well. When Americans fought the Amerindian tribes many of those tribes were among the best small unit tacticians ever born. The Comanche, Apache, Cherokee and Lakhota are just a few of the excellent fighting tribes that gave the US Army a solid run for its money. By the time the US entered World War 1, the Americans had a long history of fighting in unconventional settings and had adopted training methods that left the Germans amazed. At Belleau Wood the US Marines established a firm reputation for fighting skill that the nickname 'Devil Dogs' pays tribute to to this day. The Battle of Chateau-Thierry was a victory achieved by Marines and US Army 3rd division forces working on concert to stop the Germans in the Second Battle of the Marne a mere 50 miles from Paris.
In the Second World War the American infantryman was again the cornerstone of American victory in battle after outnumbered battle, the fulcrum that balanced the odds for American forces led by inept commanders who were often caught flat footed or unprepared due to circumstances, though officers gladly took any credit for victory. At Guadalcanal, Normandy, Iwo Jima, Bastogne, and countless more battles the American infantry overcame overwhelming odds in almost Hellish environments.
We see this continued pattern today as American infantry rip victory from the gaping maw of Defeat in war after war, from Chosin Reservoir to Heartbreak Ridge American infantrymen held their ground and retained good order in the teeth of ridiculous circumstances.
This record of exceptional performance above and beyond that of other forces continued into the Vietnam War. Operation Hump exemplified the ability of American forces to withstand attack against overwhelming odds as 1200 NVAR attacked a platoon of American infantry and were completely defeated and suffered extraordinary devastating casualties. At Khe Sanh a few thousand US infantry held out against nearly 40k NVAR. At the battle of Hue American infantry again rose tot he occasion balancing out severe intell failures to save the military strategy of West Point numb skulls.
To this day, US infantry out perform every other nation and are the salvation of so many desperate nations that beg for our troops on the ground, from Germany to the Ukraine to Afghanistan.
When you talk about US infantry, you speak of the best the world has ever seen.
Sadly, they fought wars primarily for the benefit of the State. War is about the health of the State. With the exception of the American Revolution and the Confederacy, all our wars were to benefit the State.
You may have to think about others before you claim the U.S. has the best infantry.
The British infantry.
The Spartan infantry.
The Roman infantry.
The Confederate infantry.
The German infantry.
The Japanese infantry.
Please explain why the U.S. infantry is better than all of these.
Germans are great at team sports where they work with volunteers and have to perform to stay.Now this is an example you definitely cannot project.
For example, Germany was the most common winner of the Canadian Army Trophy.
Canadian Army Trophy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Nobody wants to be in war. However, I don´t understand your conscript thingy. In WWII, the US soldiers were conscripts, too.Germans are great at team sports where they work with volunteers and have to perform to stay.Now this is an example you definitely cannot project.
For example, Germany was the most common winner of the Canadian Army Trophy.
Canadian Army Trophy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Working with massive numbers of conscripts many of whom dont want to be there; that is very different.
Yes, we had a lot of conscripts, but they were mostly local militia units from each state called 'National Guard'. The rural hunting civilians typically take the lead for their urban conscript fellows, doing the more dangerous jobs and protecting the rest of the men. They tend to come from Southern and Western states also. American Infantry have always been over-represented by Southerners and westerners.Nobody wants to be in war. However, I don´t understand your conscript thingy. In WWII, the US soldiers were conscripts, too.
You may have to think about others before you claim the U.S. has the best infantry.
The British infantry.
The Spartan infantry.
The Roman infantry.
The Confederate infantry.
The German infantry.
The Japanese infantry.
Please explain why the U.S. infantry is better than all of these.
Particularly the education of the Third Reich hailed the self-sacrifice in war. With the beginning of the war, HJ-membership became mandatory. But the misery of the war was only overshadowed by the prospect of the conditions in war captivity and later also by the cruelties the civilians suffered when the Red Army stormed Germany.Yes, we had a lot of conscripts, but they were mostly local militia units from each state called 'National Guard'. The rural hunting civilians typically take the lead for their urban conscript fellows, doing the more dangerous jobs and protecting the rest of the men. They tend to come from Southern and Western states also. American Infantry have always been over-represented by Southerners and westerners.Nobody wants to be in war. However, I don´t understand your conscript thingy. In WWII, the US soldiers were conscripts, too.
You may have to think about others before you claim the U.S. has the best infantry.
The British infantry.
The Spartan infantry.
The Roman infantry.
The Confederate infantry.
The German infantry.
The Japanese infantry.
Please explain why the U.S. infantry is better than all of these.
I think the Americans have the best command and control structure with more decisions being relegated to the lower level NCOs and infantrymen. Rather than wait for instructions, they are empowered to react quickly and decisively.
Our infantry is also the best trained, has the best communications structure and the best equipment
Looks like it is working out: Obama´s favorite band is still playing.You may have to think about others before you claim the U.S. has the best infantry.
The British infantry.
The Spartan infantry.
The Roman infantry.
The Confederate infantry.
The German infantry.
The Japanese infantry.
Please explain why the U.S. infantry is better than all of these.
I think the Americans have the best command and control structure with more decisions being relegated to the lower level NCOs and infantrymen. Rather than wait for instructions, they are empowered to react quickly and decisively.
Our infantry is also the best trained, has the best communications structure and the best equipment
Prior to Obama, that was the case. Most decisions could be made at a company or even platoon level.
Suddenly, for political reason, the US Military found itself bogged down by Rules of Engagement. Those issued because of our inept Bumbler-in-Chief have gotten far too many killed and maimed.
We are losing control everywhere our troops are stationed due to the current administration.
I would love to see our military return to the form of dealing with conflicts just like the Israelis do.
You may have to think about others before you claim the U.S. has the best infantry.
The British infantry.
The Spartan infantry.
The Roman infantry.
The Confederate infantry.
The German infantry.
The Japanese infantry.
Please explain why the U.S. infantry is better than all of these.
I think the Americans have the best command and control structure with more decisions being relegated to the lower level NCOs and infantrymen. Rather than wait for instructions, they are empowered to react quickly and decisively.
Our infantry is also the best trained, has the best communications structure and the best equipment
Prior to Obama, that was the case. Most decisions could be made at a company or even platoon level.
Suddenly, for political reason, the US Military found itself bogged down by Rules of Engagement. Those issued because of our inept Bumbler-in-Chief have gotten far too many killed and maimed.
We are losing control everywhere our troops are stationed due to the current administration.
I would love to see our military return to the form of dealing with conflicts just like the Israelis do.
I know it is against the common wisdom, but I think Germany could have defeated Russia in 1942. The Russians were upgrading their corps organization to form Guard units, but it hadnt gone very far at that point and the Red air force was still in its infancy, in the midst of rebuilding from the collossal destruction they suffered in 1941. The Red Army was also still suffering from the effects of Stalins purges.Particularly the education of the Third Reich hailed the self-sacrifice in war. With the beginning of the war, HJ-membership became mandatory. But the misery of the war was only overshadowed by the prospect of the conditions in war captivity and later also by the cruelties the civilians suffered when the Red Army stormed Germany.Yes, we had a lot of conscripts, but they were mostly local militia units from each state called 'National Guard'. The rural hunting civilians typically take the lead for their urban conscript fellows, doing the more dangerous jobs and protecting the rest of the men. They tend to come from Southern and Western states also. American Infantry have always been over-represented by Southerners and westerners.Nobody wants to be in war. However, I don´t understand your conscript thingy. In WWII, the US soldiers were conscripts, too.
The German soldiers knew early that the war could not be won but they had no reason to give in given that their cities were being reduced to ashes and their families were being abused, tortured and murdered.
On the other hand, culture and live prospered (not for Jews) in France under the German occupation to such an extent that the Germans claimed they restored culture in France.
NVA relied on numbers and human wave tactics. Operation Hump showed how they were so reliant, as a 1200 man NVA force was defeated and pushed back by a 30 man American infantry platoon.What about the NVA Infantry? From what I've studied they seemed to be some pretty badass little muthafuckas. "Cling to their belts" was their slogan when fighting Americans. This minimized the effect of our firepower. Also any country China, Japan, France and The US who went into that country always regretted it.
I don´t think so. The sheer masses of red army soldiers literally bunged up the long frontiers. If Stalin was about to attack Germany, it would have been better to destroy the spearheads and then fall back to a well fortified defensive line.I know it is against the common wisdom, but I think Germany could have defeated Russia in 1942. The Russians were upgrading their corps organization to form Guard units, but it hadnt gone very far at that point and the Red air force was still in its infancy, in the midst of rebuilding from the collossal destruction they suffered in 1941. The Red Army was also still suffering from the effects of Stalins purges.
True, SS and SD did not good and helped turning the public opinion in favor of Stalin.The factors that caused the Germans to lose, IMO, were:
1. Himmlers death squads completely alienated the Ukrainians and Baltic states who had viewed the Germans as liberators. As a result the Germans had to fight partisans for the next three and a half years, and this tied down loads of badly needed troops.
The plan was clear. Only the Stalingrad front reached the goals (Stalingrad). Stalingrad was an important industrial hub.2. Hitler should have continued his focus on taking Moscow, even though it had been fortified. The use of concentrated air power could have made the difference and once Moscow was taken, the Germans could have rolled the whole front down to the south all the way to Stalingrad and the oil fields.
The plan was to defeat Russia before the winter approaches. This did not work out. In Germany, the government started a donation campaign for winter clothes.3. Hitler forbid winter supplies from entering the logistical network properly, and the germans were lacking badly needed supplies when that very harsh winter rolled in.
Hitler was a big opponent of jet planes. But the series production of the Me 262 in 1943 would have limited the output of Bf 109 fighters. This was a serious concern. When the Me 262 entered series production in 1944, Hitler ordered to convert this fighters into "Blitzbombers" and even forbade to speak of the Me 262 as a fighter. This caused many of them to be destroyed by the allies on the ground.4. Hitler should have given priority to putting the ME 262 into full production and roll out. This would have guarranteed the germans control of the air and would have stopped the bombing campaigns much earlier.
There was no choice. Not only have the Americans already started to shoot at German ships (like usual without declaration of war) but the declaration was necessary in order to continue to attack the ship convoys supplying Great Britain.5. Hitler should not have used a declaration of war on the USA as a gambit to prod the Japanese into going to war with Russia in the east. Not sure why he thought that was anywhere close to an even trade with the Japanese. We would have eventually entered into the war, but this would have bought the Germans more time to finish Russia as FDR would have had to cajole an American public focused on revenge for Pearl Harbor and did not see the Germans as a relevant threat. Hitlers declaration of war put an end to that debate and brought the US into the war a couple years earlier than we might have had we not been molested..
I don´t think so. The sheer masses of red army soldiers literally bunged up the long frontiers. If Stalin was about to attack Germany, it would have been better to destroy the spearheads and then fall back to a well fortified defensive line.
There was no choice. Not only have the Americans already started to shoot at German ships (like usual without declaration of war) but the declaration was necessary in order to continue to attack the ship convoys supplying Great Britain.
I said you can project the number. But I did not.1. Any statistic can be projected, but that doesnt prove it should be or is legit if one does project it. Back in September I had 3 inches of leaves fall in one week. Projecting that my house would be covered in 80 weeks, or one year and seven months.The number can be projected.1. that comparison is for German vrs US and BritishI would say, the US infantry is not the best infantry.
US soldiers were mostly deployed in areas they had nothing to do with and told to fight people they never knew and who aren´t their foes.
Alone from 21th - to the 28th January 1945, the US army suffered 26450 casualties against the Wehrmacht.
Although the western front was a funny BBQ compared to the eastern front, the battles were fierce and both parties suffered high casualties.
"German troops that faced British and American troops under all combat conditions (for assaults with the usual factor of 1.0 – in the defense in carefully selected positions with view by a factor of 1.3 – in prepared defense positions 1.5 – in fortified defense positions by a factor of 1.6) cause approximately 50 percent higher losses than they suffer."
Fighting Power of Wehrmacht in comparison to US Army in WW2.
2. For the time period, it was during the Battle of the Bulge when the Germans had launched a surprise attack
3. Overall the Germans fought on the defensive against the US forces and so of course they had a lower ratio of casualties.
4. And that was why they took Bastogne,....ooops they did not take Bastogne!
The US casualties at the western front (26 January 1945): 676000
Also, the Germans were not always in the defensive. There was the Ardennenoffensive for example. Additionally, the battles were not single-sided assault and defense but flexible.
2. Never said that the US infantry never took casualties. I said they have the characteristic of retreating from high casualty rates then self rallying, rather than routing. This is a preferable way of operating rather than ordering troops to die in place.
For example, say that a squad is ordered to hold a church and its steeple in the middle of a town. If while holding that strategic location, they took on artillery fire, they would react differently. The Germans would dig in till the bitter end, following orders. Americans would hold the church untill they considered it suicidal, then they would retreat to an over watch position and re-enter the church to hold it when the bombardment had ended.
3. Of course the Germans were not always on the defensive, I did discuss the Battle of the Bulge where they were on the offensive, didnt I? But what I did say was that that offensive was stopped by US infantry and at Bastogne one little infantry division, the 101st held off an entire corps of Hitler's finest veterans from the Eastern Front without air or artillery support. They held out after being surrounded and isolated for a week.
I will give you that the Germans once had the best officer corps and armored units in the world.
But their infantry has never been better than American infantry for the many reasons given. We have had tricks and tactics that were undefeated, like the Dupree Bunker System that had never been over run, ever, and it could be built in a few hours with just shovels. They dont even train troops to use it any more as weaponry has changed and they now use something else instead.
While Europeans were fighting in lines of infantry marching shoulder to shoulder, we were learning from Amerindians to snipe, move and strike again, seeing the battlefield as merely one part of a more fluid whole. We learned the value of aggressive night patrols, reconnaisance and making a stand when the enemy would least expect it, then fading away as the situation changed if need be.
And most of this is generational knowledge from the finest militia man pool on the globe, ever.
However, US infantry has no history of victories. In the world wars, the US entered the battles when the European powers were already exhausted. In WWII, most German forces were bound at the eastern front.
There is also a big myth saying German soldiers never withdrew - big nonsense.
Again, US infantry is not better or worse than others. It is fully depended on the infrastructure provided by the army. GIs did not get anywhere in Korea or Vietnam - they fought enemies with superior knowledge of the territories and - in the consequence - better use of it.
Only a big war in the US could show the real performance of the US infantry. For example, if China would attack the US, the US soldiers would have a personal reason to fight for the first time since the independence war. Moral is a major factor and the average US soldier deployed in countries far away from home has a low fighting spirit - he has nothing to win and can lose his life in exchange.
He is the average poor American guy, who was persuaded to join the army when 18 for some cash he gets now. And if the war did not kill him, depleted uranium will.
I have enjoyed this discussion, and I agreed with your response except for these two items.
I don´t think so. The sheer masses of red army soldiers literally bunged up the long frontiers. If Stalin was about to attack Germany, it would have been better to destroy the spearheads and then fall back to a well fortified defensive line.
I am saying that as of June 1942, Hitler still could have led a successful war in the Soviet union. The Soviets began running out of able bodied men toward 1945 and started making units composed of all women.
Very strange. Soviet Union mobilized in army about 16% of population. It was a terrible for the industry - many vacations was filled by women and teenagers - but there no was any needs to recruit women in army. USSR used only professional women soldiers - pilots, gunners, snipers. And - yes - used women previously in special, 100% womens units.This bleeding out could have happened earlier, with most of the Russian population under German control had Hitler focused on taking Moscow. Had that happened the Germans could have flanked Soviet lines by going to the east and then south to cut them off. This would have forced Soviet withdrawal to the south to avoid encirclement. This is what I meant when I spoke of rolling up the Russian line.
Leningrad would have fallen of its own accord as it would then have been completely out of supply. With no Moscow, Leningrad, or Stalingrad population or any of the European Russian population west of those three cities, the Russians would have started runing out of people much earlier and Germany would have won.
But it was a Russian Infantry ))
Soviet women in World War II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaI have enjoyed this discussion, and I agreed with your response except for these two items.
I don´t think so. The sheer masses of red army soldiers literally bunged up the long frontiers. If Stalin was about to attack Germany, it would have been better to destroy the spearheads and then fall back to a well fortified defensive line.
I am saying that as of June 1942, Hitler still could have led a successful war in the Soviet union. The Soviets began running out of able bodied men toward 1945 and started making units composed of all women.
This bleeding out could have happened earlier, with most of the Russian population under German control had Hitler focused on taking Moscow. Had that happened the Germans could have flanked Soviet lines by going to the east and then south to cut them off. This would have forced Soviet withdrawal to the south to avoid encirclement. This is what I meant when I spoke of rolling up the Russian line.
Leningrad would have fallen of its own accord as it would then have been completely out of supply. With no Moscow, Leningrad, or Stalingrad population or any of the European Russian population west of those three cities, the Russians would have started runing out of people much earlier and Germany would have won.
Best German generals thought the same, building the Barbarossa plan
I have enjoyed this discussion, and I agreed with your response except for these two items.
I don´t think so. The sheer masses of red army soldiers literally bunged up the long frontiers. If Stalin was about to attack Germany, it would have been better to destroy the spearheads and then fall back to a well fortified defensive line.
I am saying that as of June 1942, Hitler still could have led a successful war in the Soviet union. The Soviets began running out of able bodied men toward 1945 and started making units composed of all women. This bleeding out could have happened earlier, with most of the Russian population under German control had Hitler focused on taking Moscow. Had that happened the Germans could have flanked Soviet lines by going to the east and then south to cut them off. This would have forced Soviet withdrawal to the south to avoid encirclement. This is what I meant when I spoke of rolling up the Russian line.
Leningrad would have fallen of its own accord as it would then have been completely out of supply. With no Moscow, Leningrad, or Stalingrad population or any of the European Russian population west of those three cities, the Russians would have started runing out of people much earlier and Germany would have won.
There was no choice. Not only have the Americans already started to shoot at German ships (like usual without declaration of war) but the declaration was necessary in order to continue to attack the ship convoys supplying Great Britain.
OF course Hitler had a choice. The USA and Germany were in a campaign of harsh harassment with each other, but our Congress wanted blood, Japanese blood, for the Pearl Harbor sneak attack. They had no desire at all to diverting our attention to a second war, forcing us to fight on two fronts simultaneously.
Hitler brought us into the war at least two years earlier than we would have, probably.
If you knew history Leftnutter, you would know that is ridiculous.I have enjoyed this discussion, and I agreed with your response except for these two items.
I don´t think so. The sheer masses of red army soldiers literally bunged up the long frontiers. If Stalin was about to attack Germany, it would have been better to destroy the spearheads and then fall back to a well fortified defensive line.
I am saying that as of June 1942, Hitler still could have led a successful war in the Soviet union. The Soviets began running out of able bodied men toward 1945 and started making units composed of all women. This bleeding out could have happened earlier, with most of the Russian population under German control had Hitler focused on taking Moscow. Had that happened the Germans could have flanked Soviet lines by going to the east and then south to cut them off. This would have forced Soviet withdrawal to the south to avoid encirclement. This is what I meant when I spoke of rolling up the Russian line.
Leningrad would have fallen of its own accord as it would then have been completely out of supply. With no Moscow, Leningrad, or Stalingrad population or any of the European Russian population west of those three cities, the Russians would have started runing out of people much earlier and Germany would have won.
There was no choice. Not only have the Americans already started to shoot at German ships (like usual without declaration of war) but the declaration was necessary in order to continue to attack the ship convoys supplying Great Britain.
OF course Hitler had a choice. The USA and Germany were in a campaign of harsh harassment with each other, but our Congress wanted blood, Japanese blood, for the Pearl Harbor sneak attack. They had no desire at all to diverting our attention to a second war, forcing us to fight on two fronts simultaneously.
Hitler brought us into the war at least two years earlier than we would have, probably.
Hitler should have ignored the USSR and strengthened his hold on Western Europe
