Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Infantry Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Best Infantry : The Viet Cong?
GreyJackal    10/29/2006 8:59:06 AM
I saw this documentary on the History channel where they said during hard times in the Vietnam War, Viet cong were able to march upto 30 miles a day on one meal(usually a bowl of rice). They also were known to be very effective in mannually clearing out roads through jungles, dig lots of underground tunnels many over 50 miles long. They also pulled heavy artillery up difficult mountains mannually. It seems that these guys were very dedicated, obedient and durable infantry. Could they be the best infantry ever?
 
Quote    Reply

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
Ehran       11/8/2006 3:31:11 PM
jordan has held onto a lot of it's british army traditions etc which leaves them much better off than pretty much any of their neighbours other than israel.
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       11/8/2006 3:51:57 PM



sometimes rep is a faulty guide to how good or tough a unit is.  when you have earned the rep the ghurkhas have over the last what 300 years you've got to know it's not just good PR. 



my comment wasn't emphasising "fearsome rep" as a measurement - it was an example of how they visibly changed the temperature of their arrival in their AO.
admittedly ADF deliberately took a specific marketing approach when they announced their arrival - but it was very useful and effective in controlling the "mob element".  (ADF organised footage of them demonstrating theirs skills with a kukri as promo material -  it would have had a sobering effect)
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       11/9/2006 6:18:16 PM
 
just as an adjunct to the flexibility of the ghurkas - 
 
maritime security companies (esp those operating out of singapore) tend to only want exp staff if they're contracted for anti-piracy jobs.  that means ex marines (usually UK, French or Dutch), ex  coast guard, ex fisheries officers, ex spec water ops (SBS, SAS water), water police, craft trained etc....  the minimum being that they usually only want people who have "opposed boarding" real time experience. 
 
the only group who I've seen who get a regular exemption to the "must have opposed boarding" experience requirement are the ghurkas.
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

FAMAS       11/10/2006 5:48:08 AM
Best infantry?
 
FFL, Royal Marines, US army Rangers.
 
 
Darth, the average US infantryman is not so good, compared to his british or french counterparts. Lack of professionalism and soldier spirit...
 
Quote    Reply

dogberry       11/10/2006 12:13:45 PM
Until recently wasn't the average French soldier a conscript?   How many countries instill a professional attitude in a conscript army?  Just curious.
 
Quote    Reply

Ehran       11/10/2006 1:04:13 PM




 

admittedly ADF deliberately took a specific marketing approach when they announced their arrival - but it was very useful and effective in controlling the "mob element".  (ADF organised footage of them demonstrating theirs skills with a kukri as promo material -  it would have had a sobering effect)


funny how there seems to be a much more visceral reaction to being cut than the thought of being shot evokes.  the order to fix bayonets has cured an awful lot of unruly crowds over the years.
 
Quote    Reply

joe6pack       11/10/2006 1:26:54 PM
"... the average US infantryman is not so good, compared to his british or french counterparts. Lack of professionalism and soldier spirit..."
 
**sigh**
 
Cultural differences aside, can you point to.. oh some say infantry skill sets? some poor performance on the battlefield?  some lack of ability?
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

GOP       11/10/2006 2:08:37 PM

"... the average US infantryman is not so good, compared to his british or french counterparts. Lack of professionalism and soldier spirit..."
 

**sigh**

 

Cultural differences aside, can you point to.. oh some say infantry skill sets? some poor performance on the battlefield?  some lack of ability?

 

 



Joe, don't worry about it. These idiots will not respond with anything in the way of proof...although they will probably say something like: "Everyone knows this fact..." or some other comp out when they know they are wrong. There must be some European arrogance going on here ("The US infantrymen is not so good compared to his British and >>>FRENCH???<<< counterpart")...where in the heck did he get that the French were even on the same level as the British or US? I wouldn't be suprised to see someone from the Congo saying "US infantrymen don't compare to British and Congolese infantry". It's all about nationalism. It's not at all about facts. The US basically has the same training methods as every Western nation, who is to say that one military is better than the other...they are all filled with primarily 18-22 year old kids ("US 18-22 year old kids don't compare to their British and French counterparts"?).
One thing to remember: Our military is now one of the most experienced militaries in the world, moreso than France (obviously), Australia, and Britian (overall % wise, we have more experience as far as number of soldiers in Iraq and A'stan), and 90% of other countries. It's funny how they forget this and write this off. One year in battle is worth 7 years of training...but according to FAMAS and many other posters, the British and French are still better trained than we are, and nothing anyone says will prove otherwise (can't you see the ridiculousness of this whole argument?). I guess the Strategypage keyboard warriors have written us off...I'll try not to lose sleep over it.
 
Quote    Reply

joe6pack       11/10/2006 2:29:00 PM
Joe, don't worry about it.
 
I try not to. I have my been there, done that T-Shirt.  (although, it's definetly small sized considering the level of experience of some of the US posters here)
 
"US infantrymen don't compare to British and Congolese infantry".
 
The truth of it is that we don't.  We are Americans and thus different than British or Congolese infantry.  I do have some of the same issues with the whole concept of a generic "best" with infantry, just like I do with tanks (or the like).  I think the US is perhaps the best at some aspects, but certainly not at everything.  What frosts me are the statements along the lines that we are all about gadgets and without a B-2 overhead we suck.
 
"It's all about nationalism."
 
That seems to be the case much of the time.  The infantry board at least, for a long time seemed at least more devoid of it than some of the other pages.
 
"One year in battle is worth 7 years of training..."
 
I have to disagree with this analogy.  If that were the case the Iraq of 1991 should have cleaned our clocks.  Their army had all sorts of battle experience.  No, I think it's a combination of excellent training with actual combat that provides for a well prepared and trained army and troops.
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

dogberry       11/11/2006 12:28:19 PM
Do all British troops sign long term contracts?   Are they held to the contracts?   What percentage of American, Australian, British, Canadian, Chinese, French, German, Indian, Israeli, Italian, Japanese, Jordanian, New Zealand(ers?), Russian troops finish out their 20 +/- years?  Special emphasis on infantry as opposed to other military sub groups.
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics