US Infantry; the best in the History of the World

[JimBowie1958]

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.

 

[Spinster]

That's my feeling too, but being raised by a WWII Marine (Soth Pacific theater) who endured incredible things, I'm a little prejudiced. Okay, a lot! He always was, and will be until I draw my last breath, my hero. What an amazing warrior!

 

[the_human_being]

Well, I'm not going to say anything except I'm a Seminole, the only tribe that has never surrendered to the American military machine and a former member of the Screaming Eagles in Viet Nam. The Seminoles knew a little bit about swamp fighting.

 

[Obiwan]

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.

11H20 here...

That's the old designation for Heavy Anti-Armor Weapons Infantryman (TOW Gunner), before it was rolled back into a standard skill for 11B...

You're right...

The "grunts" are the backbone of the Army (and the guys who "git 'er done")!!!

 

[regent]

When I was at Percy Jones waiting to be discharged the fashion of the day seemed to be only two decorations; one was the combat infantry badge and the other the division shoulder patch. The division patch told us the theater and the CBI badge, the rest of the story. Only saw purple hearts and other ribbons on the newbies or those going on leave. Most of us did not stand when an officer entered the room despite someone calling attention. Later I learned this was not a put-down to the officers but in deference to the amputees. The officers never said a word about our lack of military etiquette.

 

[Blackrook]

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.

 

[JimBowie1958]

You may have to think about others before you claim the U.S. has the best infantry.

Oh, I have. I am a bit of a military history buff, given my Aspergers I guess that means I am obsessive.

The British infantry.

The British were the best quality infantry in Europe during the Napoleonic era, as their infantry had the highest rate of musket fire, about 50% faster than the french. The Scot Highlanders they recruited as units were the best of them and that is saying quite a lot.

But even in the heyday of the British infantry, they had a particular vulnerability to American infantry and that was that we were masters of the *rifle* and developed unconventional tactics for fighting the best musket infantry in the world. The Battle of Kings Mountain where Colonel Ferguson, inventor of the Ferguson breach loading rifle, led the 71st infantry against several contingents of American militia and lost in a gallant fight, this battle was the epitome of the conflict between American infantry and British musketmen. The Brits routed the Americans over and over with bayonette charges, shoving them down the hill and the Americans would self-rally and resume the attack. This went on long enough for a couple of American units to scale the mountain from the back side and hit the Brits decisively from the rear.

While American infantry evolved and adapted to the opponent and terrain, the Brits played by the book and lost the Revolutionary War despite having the best musketmen and best fleet in the world.

The Spartan infantry.

The Spartans were an elite that lived of the sweat of the Helots. And while they were among the best of the world at the time, they too were very conventional and lost to the Theban army at Leuctra because they did not recognize the danger of a heavily augmented left flank by the Thebans.

The Roman infantry.

The Roman legions were among the best for their time, but they were always a mixed bag. While they were resilient and resourceful, their primary advantage during the years of the Republic, was that they were cheap and easy to raise. While Hannibal smashed and scattered one legion after another, the Romans could easily draw up new legions to fight the exhausted Carthaginians repeatedly. Eventually Rome felt secure enough, despite Hannibals presence on Rome's home peninsula, that they sent large numbers of troops to Spain and Africa to destroy Carthage's base of supply.

While the Roman soldiers were very good, they did not have the depth of adaptability in battle that Americans have had and the Romans did not have the success of the American Army per battle, relying on shear numbers to make up for their lack of quality.

The Confederate infantry.

The Confederates were American forces and they have been accepted as American veteran forces by law.

The German infantry.

The Germans had an excellent officer corpse, probably the best the world has ever seen. The German infantry were well trained and equipped, but were still conscripts taken into a very conventional European army that fought in conventional ways. They had a habit of, once breaking and losing moral, to route and not return to battle unless rallied by officers.

Case for comparison is the siege of Bastogne and the Battle of the Bulge. The Germans used the cream of their army to attack during winter during a time of bad weather that kept our air forces grounded and our land forces without air cover. The 82nd Airborne held out against an overwhelming number of German elite forces including SS Panzer veterans of the Eastern front.

Our infantry fought them toe to toe, outnumbered and caught by surprise and won through sheer determination and grit.

The Japanese infantry.

The Japanese infantry was geared for a different kind of war of hidden snipers and banzai charges the latter which saved us a lot of men in that ugly war. The Japanese fought for honor and were highly trained, but their methods were often their own undoing.

Please explain why the U.S. infantry is better than all of these.

Well, I gave it a good effort. While I think it is a record second to none and overwhelming in its string of victories and desperate stands, we owe so much to the Amerindians here that taught us how to fight a new kind of small unit warfare and we learned our lessons well.

 

[shadow355]

2nd Infantry Division - Camp Casey, Korea : 1989 - 1990

"Why is the sky blue? Because God loves the Infantry !"

"Hooa - Its an Army thing."

Shadow 355

 

[Bleipriester]

I 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.

 

[JimBowie1958]

I 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.

1. that comparison is for German vrs US and British
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!

 

[Bleipriester]

I 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.

1. that comparison is for German vrs US and British
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 number can be projected.
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.

 

[Claudette]

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.

11H20 here...

That's the old designation for Heavy Anti-Armor Weapons Infantryman (TOW Gunner), before it was rolled back into a standard skill for 11B...

You're right...

The "grunts" are the backbone of the Army (and the guys who "git 'er done")!!!

Yup. My whole family was military up till this last generation.

The guys and gals in WWII were the best. The average age was 19 and those people saved the world.

Both my cousin and my brother are Viet vets and I couldn't be prouder of them.

Our military is the most experienced in the world and the best in the world. Anyone who doubts that is a clueless idiot.

 

[JimBowie1958]

I 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.

1. that comparison is for German vrs US and British
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 number can be projected.
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.

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.
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.

 

[Bleipriester]

I 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.

1. that comparison is for German vrs US and British
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 number can be projected.
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.

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.
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.

I said you can project the number. But I did not.
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.

 

[JimBowie1958]

I said you can project the number. But I did not.
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.

Nonsense, I listed the battles won by American infantry almost single handedly.

Bastogne is the primary example but there are others as well from Chateu Thierry, to Guadalcanal, to Heartbreak Ridge to Operation Hump to daily exercises against the Pashtun, his closest competitor for natural superiority in infantry warfare.

But its OK, you Germans were great once, before the Bundeswehre.

 

[Bleipriester]

I said you can project the number. But I did not.
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.

Nonsense, I listed the battles won by American infantry almost single handedly.

Bastogne is the primary example but there are others as well from Chateu Thierry, to Guadalcanal, to Heartbreak Ridge to Operation Hump to daily exercises against the Pashtun, his closest competitor for natural superiority in infantry warfare.

But its OK, you Germans were great once, before the Bundeswehre.

I did not say the US infantry lost all battles.
The Bundeswehr was a strong force some decades ago. It operated almost 1000 Starfighters at a time for example. Now, it is a joke that is unable to protect the country.

 

[JimBowie1958]

I did not say the US infantry lost all battles.
The Bundeswehr was a strong force some decades ago. It operated almost 1000 Starfighters at a time for example. Now, it is a joke that is unable to protect the country.

When we trained as OPFOR against the Germans in Reforger exercises, the Germans had very low morale, low discipline and ignored tactics.

Four of us eliminated an entire company of Germans who were walking down a road with no sound suppression, dragging their rifles, literally dragging them and they walked in a packed dense group that two machine guns took out and that was in 1979. I have heard it is much worse now.

 

[Bleipriester]

I did not say the US infantry lost all battles.
The Bundeswehr was a strong force some decades ago. It operated almost 1000 Starfighters at a time for example. Now, it is a joke that is unable to protect the country.

When we trained as OPFOR against the Germans in Reforger exercises, the Germans had very low morale, low discipline and ignored tactics.

Four of us eliminated an entire company of Germans who were walking down a road with no sound suppression, dragging their rifles, literally dragging them and they walked in a packed dense group that two machine guns took out and that was in 1979. I have heard it is much worse now.

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

 

[mustang66]

2nd Infantry Division - Camp Casey, Korea : 1989 - 1990



View attachment 58865
View attachment 58864



"Why is the sky blue? Because God loves the Infantry !"

"Hooa - Its an Army thing."

Shadow 355

Casey 87-88 122 Signal.

 

[mustang66]

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.