US infantry individual infantry skills

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title Newest to Oldest

Pages: PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 NEXT

joe6pack John B 11/19/2004 12:58:44 PM

"If US infantry skills are lacking compared to the Commonwealth forces whats the main reason?" I've only ever worked with Australians as far as the Commonwealth goes and then on a limited basis. The couple of big differences that I noticed: The military is seen as more of a career for commonwealth troops. Your average squaddie seems to plan to stay in the force. While US troops for the most part, decide they want to serve their enlistment (or two) and move on. So you get troops that have a 2 or 3 year enlistment and just as they are coming along, they get out of the military. Things even out a bit as US NCO's continue to re-enlist and you get more of a professional cadre. Obvious differences would be in the number of slots needed to be filled. The UK and Australia can afford to be more selective. Up until recently (Post 9-11) commonwealth troops on average, probably had far more "real world" experience. Smaller militaries that are actively engaged in the world of course means more experience. That's my 2 cent evaluation anyhow..

Quote Reply

joe6pack RE:John B 11/19/2004 12:59:53 PM

Oops.. left out Canadians, I've worked with them as well.. But they were serving in the US army ;-) Long story..

Quote Reply

Ehran RE:Career Choices 11/20/2004 11:17:12 PM

In canada i have been told by friends in the forces that they don't really consider an infantryman "qualified" until he has 3-5 years in depending on what he has been assigned to during that time.

Quote Reply

Aussiegunner RE:US infantry individual infantry skills, ref: Aussie gunner 11/21/2004 12:11:39 AM

Quote Reply

Aussiegunner RE:US infantry individual infantry skills, ref: Aussie gunner 11/21/2004 10:11:12 PM

"Do I detect a tad bit of artillery parochialism? As I stated previously I am a former Marine and I find it hard to fathom how you have gotten an accurate breakdown as to how all the various casualties of our enemy were generated. Yes usually its artillery (and for Marines Air) that does the preponderance of the damage but its the Infantryman that has to put his A$$ out on the line to give the Artillery and Air something to shoot at." I'm not being parochial at all. I was not suggesting that any part of the combined arms team is less important. However, it has historically been recognised that artillery causes the vast majority of casualties, other than non-combat causes like disease, with a figure in the order of 70% of all killed and injured. I guess you would combine the effects of artillery and air support, in modern operations. That is why you cannot attribute a 50 to 1 kill ratio to the infantry in Falluja, which had to be clarified in the context of this discusssion. "As to troops standing around in a circle jerk; yes that occurs and it shouldn't but the overall casualty ratio would indicate to me that it doesn't happen much or is even a contributing factor in what casualties do occur (It is somewhat reminiscent of some old Soviet doctrine about channelizing enemies into defensive Kill zones). From the description of the action that I have seen the enemy is incapable (For fear of artillery and Air probably) of mounting anything larger than a squad counter attack (~platoon maybe)." Just as well they aren't a more capable enemy. Just because they aren't that good, is no reason to be slack.

Quote Reply

Aussiegunner RE:John B 11/21/2004 10:32:50 PM

Apart from the reasons for Commonwealth infantry skills being better that John has recognised, I think there are some basic doctrinal differences that have to be considered. From talking to Commonwealth soldiers who have worked with the US, they identify the US has emphasising massed firepower over individual skills. Commonwealth forces took much longer to adopt automatic individual weapons and in training you never get to fire your rifle on automatic(under pain of a charge for unauthorised discharge). They also used to only have one MG per section(what we call a squad), though they seem to be moving towards more firepower with two nowdays. This emphasis was demonstrated in Vietnam, with Australian infantry perfering to close on contact and engage with superior individual skills, whereas the US tended to call in the artillery far earlier. Apparently the VC would just slip away into the jungle or they would move right up close, so that the artillery couldn't be used safely. The Australian force in Vietnam completely cleared its AO of VC by the time it was withdrawn, which is pretty strong testament to its effectiveness in this type of war. That is is not to say that overwhelming firepower doesn't have its place, but that place tends to be in conventional conflicts, rather than gurrilla war. There are also some differences in the amount of training and responsibility given to junior leaders(eg, a Corporal commands a Commonwealth rifle section(squad), rather than a Seargent) and the emphasis put on drill to install discipline (a BIG part of Commonwealth basic training). The British model has also emphasised aggressive patrolling, to give superior tactical awareness while denying it to the enemy and to sap their moral, and provide a visible presence to the civilian population in a counter-insurgency campaign. This, combined with more discriminatory use of firepower near civilians, goes a long way towards winning the hearts and minds. I believe these factors combine to produce a more capable unit at squad level, the key to success in counter-insurgency type warfare. However, in a major conventional war, the US forces sum to greater than the value of their parts and are extremely effective.

Quote Reply

JohnBarry RE:US infantry individual infantry skills 11/22/2004 2:41:34 PM

?That is is not to say that overwhelming firepower doesn't have its place, but that place tends to be in conventional conflicts, rather than gurrilla war.? The other side of the coin- how are the British and Commonwealth forces at integrating ?overwhelming? firepower into operations. No other country has to make the choice the US has to make because obviously no other country has remotely the firepower of the US. British and Commonwealth forces can?t call down AC-130 gunships, B-1?s, B-52?s and until a few year ago 16in Battleships. Is the reason any deficiencies of leaderships and training can continue is because its not like any US unit is going to be wiped out, they can always call down the wrath of God if they get into really trouble- they may die the death of a thousand cuts but they?ll never be wiped out. British and Commonwealth infantry may be better for the simple reason that they have to be- they don?t have the resoures of the US military. With the US- Is it a choice of making the doctrine and training changes but most of all the leadership and mindset changes to bring American infantry up to British standards. Would we be better at counter-insurgency operations but would we pay somewhere else? Would we still be as good at absolutely devastating any conventional force on the battlefield with minimal casualties? If you did have reforms would they stick or would the massive ?overwhelming? firepower the US has on tap be just too tempting? Can we have our cake and eat it too.

Quote Reply

Aussiegunner RE:US infantry individual infantry skills 11/22/2004 10:10:59 PM

"The other side of the coin- how are the British and Commonwealth forces at integrating ?overwhelming? firepower into operations." Commonwealth forces are equally at home in small unit operations and in combined arms actions. The recent British actions in Iraq should be evidence enough of that, though historically there are plenty of other examples. For instance, the set-piece battalion attacks in the Falklands combined artillery, mortars, naval gunfire support, airstrikes, light-armour and anti-tank missile fire from helecopter gunships and crew-served Milan launchers. The troops involved moved seamlessly from small-unit patrolling and raiding into combined arms work. They won all the battles with less casualties than the Argenineans. The Australians in Vietnam also worked extensively in combined arms operations. The big battles of Long Tan and Coral involved the use of artillery, mortars and light-armour, with company sized units of Aussies defeating much larger Vietnamese formations. They also worked in search and destroy operations with heavy armour and APC's and made good use of air support. These are examples of how good small unit training is complementary, not competitive with good combined arms work.

Quote Reply

stratego RE:US infantry individual infantry skills--USN-MID yahoo ref 11/22/2004 10:38:31 PM

We have got to get Al Jazeera out of Iraq immediately. What folly to let them in! They are nothing but propagandists, and these ignorant Arabs believe waht they say. Letting Al Jazzera in Iraq is like giving our enemies guns to shoot at our troops.

Quote Reply

AlbanyRifles RE:US infantry individual infantry skills--USN-MID yahoo ref 11/23/2004 10:35:35 AM

The term of enlistment for a first term soldier in the US is 3 years (on average). This is to fill out 10 divisions and 6 separate brigades in the active component. As I understand it, the options for the UK are at least 4 years of service at enlistment, with most soldiers opting for longer periods of service....I would imagine most of the other Commonwealth nations have the same. Also, I believe the British Amry is now 1 corps (2.5 divisions) and about the same for the others. Also, those soldiers enlist in a unit while in the US you enlist for a career field. So the Commonwealth nations are smaller (always have been) but have a tighter knot group which allows for longer training together. US commitments are much larger and we are looking to stabilize our forces as much as possible but it is hard (ever been to Fort Riley, Kansas or FT Irwin, California?)

Quote Reply

PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 NEXT