America isn't fighting wars right - General

[QUOTE=SkinkYEA;27599627][img_thumb]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/19/William-Tecumseh-Sherman.jpg/472px-William-Tecumseh-Sherman.jpg[/img_thumb] We should fight wars like this guy does. Sherman's Total War.[/QUOTE] [i]Scorched Earth.[/i] Bitches. But yeah, I think we need to get the fuck out of Iraq and Afghanistan. We need to stop being the god damn World police and fix our economy/job market/immigration/Health care system/ect. [editline]22nd January 2011[/editline] Also, who's the enemy in the "[b]War on Terror[/b]"? As soon as we kick the shit out of one guy we don't like we move on to the next country and kick the shit out of them.

[QUOTE=Gmod_Fan77;27601812]Side-note again, statistics show the UK has one of the best, if not the best-trained armed forces in the world. Every army training regimen we have is several weeks/months longer than those of other majors like US, Russia, or China. Just a side-note.[/QUOTE] Sort of. This argument has been had on many military community forums a number of times. It's generally agreed that the UK has some of the best infantry training in the world, with Australia perhaps being a close 2nd (smaller country allows for more consistent levels of training provided to soldiers), especially when it comes to their jungle warfare schools. However, as far as mechanized combat goes, it's generally agreed America still holds the title (keep in mind all of this is very hard to qualify, you can't really say "oh this country's <insert> is the best" because in the end it comes down to so many variables) As an aside, the US Marine infantry training actually lasts longer than UK infantry training IIRC. [editline]23rd January 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=RebeccaChambers;27602158][b]US Allies in the War on Terror[/b] [/QUOTE] This is really terrible list because the "war on terror" is a global thing, not just Afghanistan. There are smaller conflicts we have never even seen a news report on in other countries against terrorist groups right now. Also, a lot of those countries are only committed in the form of advisory staff and information supply. [editline]23rd January 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Del91;27602389][i]Scorched Earth.[/i] Bitches. But yeah, I think we need to get the fuck out of Iraq and Afghanistan. We need to stop being the god damn World police and fix our economy/job market/immigration/Health care system/ect. [editline]22nd January 2011[/editline] Also, who's the enemy in the "[b]War on Terror[/b]"? As soon as we kick the shit out of one guy we don't like we move on to the next country and kick the shit out of them.[/QUOTE] Well yeah, at one point I may have argued that A-stan was, arguably, a war worth fighting if the end result meant removing the Taliban from their oppressive position of power, and raising a competent Afghani government, but even that would not be worth the cost, both human and monetary the war has sucked away so far. Now with the economic issue, that seems to be much more relevant than fixing some other country's problems right now. As for the war on terror, contrary to popular belief, America isn't the only country who has terrorist cells on their shit list. [img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/27/Battlefields_in_The_Global_War_on_Terror_-_edit02.png[/img]

[QUOTE=not_Morph53;27599671]"War does not determine who is right - only who is left." -- Bertrand Russell[/QUOTE] So everyone becomes liberal?

[QUOTE=JaegerMonster;27602776]However, as far as mechanized combat goes, it's generally agreed America still holds the title (keep in mind all of this is very hard to qualify, you can't really say "oh this country's <insert> is the best" because in the end it comes down to so many variables)[/QUOTE] And what factors do you believe makes the US and US doctrine the "best" for armored warfare? I'm interested in hearing your thoughts. Out of the 12 years that the United States competed in the Canadian Army Trophy tank gunnery competition, it only won just once in 1987, because they built a computer simulator system for the crew and constantly drilled them to hit all the targets. In all the other years they were being beat by Canadian, Dutch, Belgian and West German tank crews and for the last three nations, they were conscripts and none of these nations had any fancy computer simulation systems for their tank crews. In the 1989 CAT competition the organizers no longer allowed the US tank crews to have the battle run data and they lost again. There's also the fact that in the 1990s, members of the National Training Center Opposing Force, trained in Soviet battle drills and taught in Soviet doctrine had kicked the ass of units coming in for training (these guys coming in to the NTC were Desert Storm veterans, equipped with the latest M1 tanks, Bradleys, AH-64Ds and what-not) countless times. I'm not saying that the US military is absolutely shit at armored warfare - far from it - but recent history has shown that they have not always been the absolute "I'm gonna run you down" best against foes with comparable equipment, training, leadership, and doctrine (It's more or so equal if put abstractly)

Better that America went into Afghanistan then staying out of it.

Industrial warfar complex look it up.

[QUOTE=Tac Error;27602934]And what factors do you believe makes the US and US doctrine the "best" for armored warfare? I'm interested in hearing your thoughts. Out of the 12 years that the United States competed in the Canadian Army Trophy tank gunnery competition, it only won just once in 1987, because they built a computer simulator system for the crew and constantly drilled them to hit all the targets. In all the other years they were being beat by Canadian, Dutch, Belgian and West German tank crews and for the last three nations, they were conscripts and none of these nations had any fancy computer simulation systems for their tank crews. In the 1989 CAT competition the organizers no longer allowed the US tank crews to have the battle run data and they lost again. There's also the fact that in the 1990s, members of the National Training Center Opposing Force, trained in Soviet battle drills and taught in Soviet doctrine had kicked the ass of units coming in for training (these guys coming in to the NTC were Desert Storm veterans, equipped with the latest M1 tanks, Bradleys, AH-64Ds and what-not) countless times. I'm not saying that the US military is absolutely shit at armored warfare - far from it - but recent history has shown that they have not always been the absolute "I'm gonna run you down" best against foes with comparable equipment, training, leadership, and doctrine (It's more or so equal if put abstractly)[/QUOTE] Well here's the thing - I don't think that. I'm only repeating what the general consensus has been on boards with verified military personnel having these exact same discussions. However you've always got to take these with a grain of salt, as on many of these boards there is always more American personnel than there is other. It most likely stems from the fact that the Americans have had arguably the most deployed experience with mechanized warfare (but then again this deployed "experience" hasn't really been against other countries with mechanized capability). In as far as Iraq, the US has probably learned a lot of lessons about mechanized warfare in urban environment and against unconventional threats, but you could say the same for Russia in the Chechen wars. Personally I've only just started to be interested in the history and development of mechanized warfare, I've always been more interested in the man on the ground.

Worrying about collateral damage is just how international politics work these days; public image and such. Its easy for you to just say "oh its okay if some people die", why should we be allowed decide whether some random citizen dies?

[QUOTE=JaegerMonster;27602776]Sort of. This argument has been had on many military community forums a number of times. It's generally agreed that the UK has some of the best infantry training in the world, with Australia perhaps being a close 2nd (smaller country allows for more consistent levels of training provided to soldiers), especially when it comes to their jungle warfare schools. However, as far as mechanized combat goes, it's generally agreed America still holds the title (keep in mind all of this is very hard to qualify, you can't really say "oh this country's <insert> is the best" because in the end it comes down to so many variables) As an aside, the US Marine infantry training actually lasts longer than UK infantry training IIRC. [editline]23rd January 2011[/editline] This is really terrible list because the "war on terror" is a global thing, not just Afghanistan. There are smaller conflicts we have never even seen a news report on in other countries against terrorist groups right now. Also, a lot of those countries are only committed in the form of advisory staff and information supply. [editline]23rd January 2011[/editline] Well yeah, at one point I may have argued that A-stan was, arguably, a war worth fighting if the end result meant removing the Taliban from their oppressive position of power, and raising a competent Afghani government, but even that would not be worth the cost, both human and monetary the war has sucked away so far. Now with the economic issue, that seems to be much more relevant than fixing some other country's problems right now. As for the war on terror, contrary to popular belief, America isn't the only country who has terrorist cells on their shit list. [/QUOTE] British infantry training lasts over a year, training for the Royal marine Commandos is 15 months long and it is brutal, paratrooper training is a year and a half IIRC and I fucking should I intend to join em, and Basic Officer training for standard infantry is a year and IIRC again you get a few months operational deployment to get battle experience and weed out the officers who aren't up to the task.

[QUOTE=Earthen;27603364]Worrying about collateral damage is just how international politics work these days; public image and such. Its easy for you to just say "oh its okay if some people die", why should we be allowed decide whether some random citizen dies?[/QUOTE] It's not about collateral damage, collateral damage is a consideration in every war. Here's part of what I posted earlier: "However, this is what Special Forces excel at. Unfortunately in Iraq and A-stan, almost every countries forces are held up by retarded ROEs and political red tape. There have be so many cases in A-stan where various SF units were close to capturing high value targets, but couldn't because they have to wait to be cleared and given the go ahead. As someone else said, these wars are in effect, being controlled by politicians."

There cannot be war without peace etc... I hate all this Limited war Bullshit, Who cares about the losses as long as we win. Stalin had the right idea.

[QUOTE=The mouse;27603485]There cannot be war without peace etc... I hate all this Limited war Bullshit, Who cares about the losses as long as we win. Stalin had the right idea.[/QUOTE] I sure do hope you're in the first wave. All for the greater good yeah?

[QUOTE=bravehat;27603442]British infantry training lasts over a year, training for the Royal marine Commandos is 15 months long and it is brutal, paratrooper training is a year and a half IIRC and I fucking should I intend to join em, and Basic Officer training for standard infantry is a year and IIRC again you get a few months operational deployment to get battle experience and weed out the officers who aren't up to the task.[/QUOTE] LOL. No it doesn't. We're talking about infantry training schools, i.e the first time you will be taught individual skills, field craft and small unit tactics. OF COURSE you continue training when you get into your unit, that's a given. Most commonwealth nations do share the philosophy that an infantry soldier isn't really "ready" until he's been with his unit for a year. British infantry training is 26 weeks long Even the RMC training is only 32 weeks long. After that, just like US Rangers and Australian Commandos, they undertake specialist courses.

[QUOTE=The mouse;27603485]There cannot be war without peace etc... I hate all this Limited war Bullshit, Who cares about the losses as long as we win. Stalin had the right idea.[/QUOTE] The reason we advance militarily is for the sole purpose of a higher kill ratio, if we didn't do that we would still be content fighting tooth and nail in brutal close combat with swords and axes. The modern world is casualty averse, most people don't enjoy getting a letter home telling them there son died in a fucking battle. Total war is sometimes required but it's a brutal, harrowing and bloody affair, even by medieval standards, so it's avoided at all costs. [editline]23rd January 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=JaegerMonster;27603506]LOL. No it doesn't. We're talking about infantry training schools, i.e the first time you will be taught individual skills, field craft and small unit tactics. OF COURSE you continue training when you get into your unit, that's a given. British infantry training is 26 weeks long Even the RMC training is only 32 weeks long. After that, just like US Rangers and Australian Commandos, they undertake specialist courses.[/QUOTE] I thought you meant full training not Phase 1 training.

[QUOTE=The mouse;27603485]There cannot be war without peace etc... I hate all this Limited war Bullshit, Who cares about the losses as long as we win. Stalin had the right idea.[/QUOTE] You are being... sarcastic.. right?

[QUOTE=Stupideye;27603542]You are being... sarcastic.. right?[/QUOTE] It's often hard to tell with adolescent armchair generals, as nearly all of this thread clearly demonstrates.

[QUOTE=Mane;27603564]It's often hard to tell with adolescent armchair generals, as nearly all of this thread clearly demonstrates.[/QUOTE] Most youth today just think "Let's just shoot a big nuke over there and blow up all those ragheads so we don't have to deal with them". It's quite sad really.

[QUOTE=Stupideye;27603580]Most youth today just think "Let's just shoot a big nuke over there and blow up all those ragheads so we don't have to deal with them". It's quite sad really.[/QUOTE] You seem to have confused todays youth with chronic retards, albeit similar there are crucial differences.

[QUOTE=bravehat;27603638]You seem to have confused todays youth with chronic retards, albeit similar there are crucial differences.[/QUOTE] When it comes to the Facepunch forums, I think you can conflate these two populations together.

[QUOTE=bravehat;27603638]You seem to have confused todays youth with chronic retards, albeit similar there are crucial differences.[/QUOTE] [b]Lots[/b] of today's youth have this kind of thinking. I see it quite a bit.

[QUOTE=Mane;27603699]When it comes to the Facepunch forums, I think you can conflate these two populations together.[/QUOTE] Unfortunately true for the most part but still, you occassionaly get the odd blindingly retarded pensioner, and the unfathomably smart kid. So rare, but they do happen.

[QUOTE=SkinkYEA;27599627][img_thumb]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/19/William-Tecumseh-Sherman.jpg/472px-William-Tecumseh-Sherman.jpg[/img_thumb] We should fight wars like this guy does. Sherman's Total War.[/QUOTE] As effective as it is, it's kind of a bitch way to wage war. He basically just walked up to the south and kicked him straight in the hillbilly nads with steeltoe boots. Plus you know if we burned all that opium shit wouldn't go that well.

You guys know that scorched earth is over 2 thousand years old right? it was used by the gauls against Caesar and ended up with the gauls put under seige at Alesia.

Yes the American's have been doing it wrong, but what you guys are suggesting, to just go in and obliterate the place, and act with extreme retaliation will not work either. These recent wars that the USA have lost have been fought against an enemy without a uniform, hidden amongst ordinary citizens, who actually [i]are[/i] ordinary citizens and are aiming to defend their homes/ideals. Now I take an example from earlier, "if they blow a Humvee, blow up one of their villages". Now, think for a minute. You are fighting a guerilla force recruited from the local population, and you have made a direct attack on the local population, many of which may not have been actively opposing you. But what's Mr. Average Ahmed going to do the next time he sees the yanks roll past, after hearing his parents have been bombed in the next village? He's going to pull his rifle out and take shots at them. Well done general Gung-ho, your policy of aggressive retaliation has only swelled the ranks of your guerilla enemies. Americans forces have being making the mistake of being too aggressive towards the local population for a while now, a good example is Vietnam, where they slaughtered whole "viet cong" villages full of women and children, and yet found only a few weapons. A good example of how to do it right is the Malayan emergency in 1948, the British General Sir Harold Briggs came up with the idea that to defeat a insurgency was to cut the insurgents off from their supporters amongst the population. The British troops relocated around 900,000 people into newly constructed camps guarded from guerillas.People resented this at first, but soon realised they had been given a better place to live, and were given ownership of the land and money. The Permanent Secretary of Defence for Malaya, Sir Robert Grainger Ker Thompson, had served in the Chindits in Burma during World War II. His vast experience in jungle warfare proved valuable during this period as he was able to build effective civil-military relations and was one of the chief architects of the counter-insurgency plan in Malaya. In 1951, some British army units began a "hearts and minds campaign" by giving medical and food aid to Malays and indigenous tribes. At the same time, they put pressure on the guerillas by patrolling the jungle. The guerrillas were driven deeper into the jungle and denied resources. The guerillas extorted food from the locals and earned their enmity. Many of the captured guerrillas changed sides. The British succeeded in conditions very similar to Vietnam, with only 35,000 troops over a larger area, compared to the 0.5 million in Vietnam. This was mainly to do with winning over the local population and the British Army recognized that in a low-intensity war, the individual soldier's skill and endurance was of far greater importance than overwhelming firepower (artillery, air support, etc.) Even though many British soldiers were conscripted National Servicemen, the necessary skills and attitudes were taught at a Jungle Warfare School, which also worked out the optimum tactics based on experience gained in the field.

Oh GD, you never fail to disappoint.

[QUOTE=RebeccaChambers;27599474]Pretty much every war since World War II has been fought incorrectly. America is just fighting lightweight wars, which is terrible. This is the reason we see wars last a long time (Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc.). If we actually invaded our enemies, things would be different. Right now we worry more about collateral damage than we do about winning the war. It's supposed to be a war, bad things happen from time to time, we have to roll with the punches. Had we launched a full scale invasion of Iraq, I guarantee you the war would be have been over almost instantly. Same goes for all of the other wars America has fought in since World War II. Politicians are making military decisions, and that is why we are stuck in unnecessarily long and bloody wars that last 5+ years. It's gotten so ridiculous now, if a soldier is being shot at by a terrorist, but the terrorist sets his gun down and just walks away (but doesn't surrender), you aren't supposed to kill him anymore, despite the fact that he was trying to kill you a second ago, and will most likely try to kill you or another American later.[/QUOTE] Implying everyone can automatically conform to America's way of life through occupation.

The best part was America invaded Iraq for Oil. Its so fucking stupid. And that 911 was set up to invade afghanistan. How stupid can conspiracy theorist be? Someone kill them off please. Also, isn't there the idea of 'in order to win, you must fight and think like the enemy' Doesn't this mean sending CIA/special forces to infiltrate the taliban?

[QUOTE=PvtCupcakes;27602248]Now post the ones supplying more than 5,000 troops. Your list will look like this:[/QUOTE] The UK has 10k+ troops in Afghanistan.

OP this is off topic but can I have a source to your avatar?

[QUOTE=shian;27605796]The best part was America invaded Iraq for Oil. Its so fucking stupid. And that 911 was set up to invade afghanistan. How stupid can conspiracy theorist be? Someone kill them off please. Also, isn't there the idea of 'in order to win, you must fight and think like the enemy' Doesn't this mean sending CIA/special forces to infiltrate the taliban?[/QUOTE] I can't tell if you ARE one of those tinfoil hat retards or mocking them, I really can't. And no the best way to do it is a Hearts and Minds campaign.