In one of my NAM books it says that when the Aussies first arrives in country and set up base alongside an American unit, the Americans put in a golf course and the Aussies put in a beer stocked wet canteen and apparently the only flushing dunny /thunder box (toilet) in the whole of South Vietnam!

 

The unofficial motto of the Oz Army: Two cans per man per day perhaps.

OK, well the great OZ and British militaries can claim to be the best infantrymen. Who really cares? While yall are off getting shot up by a group of insurgents 200 yards away, we will call in CAS and send them to Allah. Performing pure infantry tactics for the sake of performing pure infantry tactics will get you beat in exercises, and killed in real combat. You guys go ahead and perform your great infantry tactics on a terrorist compound...get 2-3 of your guys shot or killed, and get style points (that way you can claim to have the best infantry on ). We are going to simply laser the compound, call in a F-16, and the compound will get destroyed with a JDAM.

The bottom line is: Our infantry is extremely well trained at everything, but especially good at CAS. The US fights Combined Arms warfare, NOT top notch infantry tactics. The Airforce and Armored forces are what do the most damage (1 tank has as much firepower as a whole infantry company), so whoever can vector those guys in and use them the most effectively, wins. I don't think your great infantry tactics mean anything if you are staring down the barrel of a M1A1 (which ride into battle beside our second rate infantry). I also don't think your great infantry mean anything if they are struck by a JDAM or MOAB (called in by our second rate infantry).

GOP, you are getting far too defencive over this.  Nobody has called American infantry second rate here

 

Concerning laser designators and CAS dropping SDB's etc though, what do you think this achieves?

 

Does it eliminate the enemy?  Sure it does.  Although that means little in itself, despite preventing the enemy from eliminating you, it does allow you to follow on and take posssion of the land the enemy occupied.

 

What it doesn't do however, is give you prisoners of war, nor does it allow you to take documents off enemy dead (their being near incinerated).  Both of these are sources of intelligence which can have far greater war-winning properties than blowing up the Jihadist carrying them.

 

After all, we are not fighting some second rate Arabic power in conventional warfare, we are fighting terrorists and guerillas.

 

I don't really see why an officer needs a degree (in perhaps Media-Studies, Sociology, or some other airy-fairy Micky Mouse subject).  British officers don't need a degree, and our officers arn't all that bad.

 

 

Ok I wanted to respond to this earlier and now I have some time:

 

 

I'd agree that there isn't a whole lot of difference on what an 18 year olds.  However, I think the Commonwealth nations do have something of an advantage in lower ranks and at the squad and maybe platoon level.  While we all have  long term proffesional NCO's the US has a lot of turn over in the lower ranks. We have a significant number of troops that do their 3-4 years and get (right at the point I sort of view them as really just having learned their craft).  So depending on when you run into a US unit in regards to replacements and training, they may have a higher percentage of 18 year olds than 22 year olds.  The Commwealth nations seem to view the military as a more long term thing in general.  The smaller number also equal slower promotion so your average squadie is perhaps a bit more "seasoned"   However, you lot aren't trying to maintain 10 divisions and a variety of seperate brigades either. 

 

Who said it was a fair competition?  Score one for the US tax payer. 

 

This is one of these topics that continue to bug me. The implication that US troops can't function without tons of support and fancy gadgets simply isn't true.  Keep in mind the US Army (in recent history) was engineered to fight the Red Hordes pooring through the Fulda Gap.  We did not come anywhere close to matching them in numbers so the theory was we would compensate with fire power (and lots of it).   That being said, your US army light infantry division does not have heavy armor and it's not loaded neck deep in artillery.  We do tend to have more helo's than other people, but hey, light divisions spend most of their time walking.  I've gone through a JRTC (think infantry version of the NTC) with some Aussie troops attached.  I honestly can't say that either group (American or Aussie) out performed the other significantly.   

 

I think we can make a good run at this.  Officers are required to have a degree and enlisted are required to have High School diploma or equivalent.  But most significantly I think is the way the US promotion system works enlisted and officers pretty much have to continue their educations in order to be compeditive.  I think you would find a significant number of senior NCO's with degrees and some with masters.

 

Not sure how our experience in 1812 would be relavent to todays military.  I'd say the US could make an argument for have the largest number of experienced troops over the las 20 years or so.  Ranging a whole gambit of operations from small scale peace keeping (which I concede we aren't great at) to large scale corp operations.

 

I agree with you here, how do judge something like that?

 

Agree with you here as well.  Lots of people are motivated by all sorts of different factors, how do you compare them?  Bottom line is all troops are there by personal choice.

Joe, what are your thoughts on the rate of promotion in the US forces?

 

For instance, it is common knowledge that in the US you get promoted far faster than in the Commonwealth.

 

Most dedicated.  How is the dedication more than anyone else?

 

I agree with you here, how do judge something like that?

wouldn't turnover or churn rates be a good start for that?  the percentage of career military should make a good marker for that sort of thing cause i don't know anyone who's in the military because the money is good hehe.

Since Joe isn't here but I am, let me take a shot.

Our promotion system for enlisted personnel is faster to sergeant than your army....but a sergeant tin our army usually has the job of  what a corporal does in yours.  The promotion is mainly for pay purposes.  After that, things even up.  And don't forget your warrant officers (RSMs and such) have a different standing than our First Sergeants and Command Sergeants Major.  Ours are still NCOs, not warrant officers.

 

Your base pay is better starting out than the American system so promotion is a way of giving soldiers pay raises.  Great idea?  Don't know but it works.

As for officers, it takes about 11 years to reach the rank of major from the day you are commissioned.  In your army that is when you command a company.  In the American Army (and Marine Corps as well as a lot of other countries) captains command companies.  In both armies, you reach LTC about the same time and command a battalion at aboput the 17th year of service.

 

So are the systems that muc different?  Only at the begining at the lower ranks. 

 

Also as for degrees, the earning of a degree is one way of showing the ability to accomplish a long term goal, which is an important requirement for an officer to be able to do.  Also, it is pretty normal for a US officer to have earned a masters degree before he/shi is promoted to major....something they do in their off hours, not on duty time.