US infantry individual infantry skills

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: US infantry individual infantry skills
Aussiegunner 11/11/2004 10:42:57 AM

I saw a TV news report tonight of a contact by a USMC foot patrol, which had just been bumped by a group of insurgents in Falluja. I have to say I was extremely un-impressed with the indivudual skills the Marines displayed on the contact. This corrosponds with actions I have seen on previous reports, though they have usually involved US Army personal. I'm suprised about this, because Marine Infantry training is generally more highly regarded than that of its army counterparts. Anyway, the specific concerns were, 1. On contact the soldiers bunched together, didn't take cover or move near a wall to limit their exposure to fire and didn't crouch or lie prone with nearly enough of a sense of urgency. 2. When they were scanning for the enemy, they didn't allow their weapons to follow their gaze, ie, "patrol their arcs" for an immediate shot on identification. 3. One USMC rifleman based on a roof to provide covering fire, did so by holding his rifle above his head while remaining under cover. There was no chance of proper target identification, let alone an aimed shot, so it was just pissing away ammunition while giving away his position and risking ricochets against any bystanders for no good reason. Note that there was a GPMG based on the same roof providing effective aimed fire, so there was really no excuse for the rifleman not to do the same. 4. One soldier sent around a corner to investigate where the fire came from described his experience. It went something like "I went around the corner and the insurgent in that garage took a shot and threw a frag at me. I ran back, tripped over a dead body(one of theirs, not ours), and came back here. For Christ sake, hadn't he ever heard of looking around the corner with a mirror, before walking around!?! Lucky the insurgent was a rotten shot! 5. An insurgent ran across a roof, bobbing above a ledge, about 100 metres away from our rifle squad. The Marinesl, still bunched together so one RPG would kill about six of them, fired with half aimed automatic bursts and some semi-automatic fire from their M-16's. At this point I must say that I've never seen a properly aimed shot from anything smaller than a 120mm tank gun from the US military in these reports. Do they teach proper marksmanship during US basic training nowdays? 6. Anyhow, something managed to hit the insurgent, because he ended up wounded between two buildings behind some sort of a barrier. So, one of the Marines pops his head over the barrier and shoots the insurgent. He's lucky he didn't get his head blown off. A grenade is the weapon of choice in such a situation, IMHO at least. I note that the news reports are claiming about a 3 to 1 kill ratio in favour of the US in Falluja at the moment. That isn't that flash giving a large numerical and a huge technological advantage. If this report is an indication of the general standard of individual infantry skills amongst US troops, no wonder this is the case. As citizen of an allied nation, I'm not trying to be smart or play one upmanship, but the US really needs to look at the way it trains its troops. Try looking at a few nations that use the British model, if you want some tips. It would be better at keeping your boys and girls alive, than all the high-tech wizardry you buy for them.

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

JFKY 5/23/2007 10:38:03 AM

This whole opening smacks way too much of a sniffy, "Well we in the Canadian/British/Australian Lord Strathcona's/North Cornish/Tasmanian Royal Sheep Buggerer's Regiment, were trained SPECIFICALLY not to do x,y, or z"

Yeah right whatever, the Non-US unit is ALWAYS better....and all on the basis of watching a news clip?

How about this, the news clip may not show the ENTIRE tactical situation, mayhap those 6 Marines were clustered together because that was the ONLY cover for metres about?

And please note, we never see the Canadian/British/Australian Lord Strathcona's/North Cornish/Tasmanian Royal Sheep Buggerer's Regiment on TV, see we just have to take your word that in the same situation, YOU'D NEVER behave like that.

Sorry too much like shooting fish in a barrel....send in the home video of your most excellent Infantry Unit on patrol in Iraq and in a firefight or at the AAR of their FTX prior to deployment and we'll see.

Quote Reply

JFKY 5/23/2007 10:43:33 AM

And to be lectured on infantry and unit abilities from a French dude, uh how's that whole 1940, Indo-China, Algeria, thing working as proof of ability? Or from Anglo nations that performed so well in 1940-1941, France, Singapore, North Africa, just is a little galling.

Admittedly, the Australians were ALWAYS good, if poorly equipped and with poor doctrine (mostly British kit and ideas), and that post-WW II Australia and Britain have fielded excellent formations, but always in brigade or smaller size. You're good, but it wasn't the ANZACS or BAOR that was holding the line from 1945-1989, it was that big old clunky US Army and USMC. Thank you for your help, but whilst you'd have given a good account of yourselves, after about a week of combat there really wouldn't have been much left of your armies....I guess size and firepower count.

Quote Reply

Ehran 5/23/2007 1:19:01 PM

if you want to see canadians in action in 'stan there are a number of vids posted on youtube. shouldn't be hard to find if you want to see them in a day at the "office".

Quote Reply

dirtykraut 5/23/2007 2:36:04 PM

I have direct answer of NATO officers europeans but also including a Morrocan colonel trained in USA and French armies.

I will compare to best infantries in Europe (British, French and Nederland Marines which are the best, then German, Swedish)

Overall general views is that overall US infantry is below man for man for different reasons:

*US army is very process oriented and rigid, and that they have difficulties to change schema when needed at on low level - their tactics are very stereotyped

*US army is very rich:

-so they rely a lot on their expensive tools: (for example to use helicopter to cross a ravine instead of old mean with cables)

-They spend too much ammunitions for a given result

-They rely much more on air support

*Units are less cohesive, has less disciplin, and train less on physical fitness:

again motivation of people who enter armies are different.Too much US army soldiers have entered for a question of money, education and so on.

Euro welfare system don't incentive this kind of people to go to armed forces .

So armed force recruit a bigger proportion of military minded soldiers.

Retention rate are also bigger in Europe and carreer are longuer in average.

US army which is larger in proportion of population, do not push training to Europe level because they are afraid they do not gain enough recruits or loose them.

I would point out that UK is 5 time less numerous and its army 7 time.

Old traditions of disciplin are also more maintained and enforced in Europe since there is far less liability problems and risk for the army to face a soldier (family) prosecution and mass media attacks.However it is not true for US Marines as their culture is close to a European army.

A last point is that US army is more concerned to human losses at war or training and think it is not necessary to drill soldier to the point they have to obey blindly to their officers or to assault a position relying only on baionnets and.guts and without air support.A french officer would not hesitate to sacrify a whole company of infantry in order to get a tactical advantage while it is almost unthinkable in USA.It doesn't mean they don't car of their men lives like in Russia, (they try to give the better training to save lives) but if necessity arise, they would do it.

SO at least 4 main factors which lead to a inferiority compare to best forces:

US army is too process oriented and rigid on tactics

US army officers corps has not the (militaristic) traditions and culture of Europe officers corps which still exist

US army is too rich and so too reliant on US techo/number superiority

US army is afraid to impose a too military minded way of life due to recrutment motivation, bigger turn over necessities of retention and too avoid liability problems

It is false that US army spend more on infantry training.Bigger spending is done for heavy weapons (fighters, SSN , tanks etc..) which cost far more than infantery.The annual training cost of a single fighter is on the same magnitude of an infantry company.

French Stratage, you completely ignored my post. As I said, educational benefits and military oppurtunity in the US is largely a myth. Remember 2/3rds of these men and women don't see a dime of that money. And as I said, when comparing the UK and US military for example, the UK does have a higher (per capita) retention rate, but by a miniscule amount. In both militaries, 60+% of the men and women able to reenlist, reenlist. Few people however, in any military, stay over 20 years. For example, only 8% of the UK armed forces serve the full 22 years in contract. And as for the US army being "too rich", how can that be a disadvantage? Are you telling me that if France were to go to war, that they would not use everything in their arsenal to minimize casualties for political reasons? Considering the amount of leftys in France, one would conclude that the French are even more casualty conscience than Americans. Every modern military will use air support when feasable, and when not feasable, guess who they call? The USAF. A perfect example is to look at operation Iraqi Freedom in the beginning stages, and look at B

Quote Reply

dirtykraut 5/23/2007 2:46:26 PM

if you want to see canadians in action in 'stan there are a number of vids posted on youtube. shouldn't be hard to find if you want to see them in a day at the "office".

I have seen actions of Canadians in A stan. There are only a few videos out there, however. There are hundreds of videos of US soldiers out there. It is also a different environment. There are few videos of Americans in Afghanistan, most videos of Americans are in Iraq, which requires different tactics and a different approach.

Quote Reply

dirtykraut 5/23/2007 3:05:30 PM

"I have direct answer of NATO officers europeans but also including a Morrocan colonel trained in USA and French armies."...You mean your info about US infantry does not come from experience? Might you take into account that there may just be a wee bit of professional rivalry between other NATO countries and the US, with a little anti-Americanism thrown in the mix? Pray tell, how did these officers get their opinions? I know from my experience in the infantry, that cross training is something that is not done as often as people think. Most people will cross train with 2-3 different nations in an 8 year period. When they do cross train, they don't spend enough time with eachother to even make a judgement about that particular unit, let alone an entire army or even military of any particular nation. I do know however, that many officers and NCO's from different countries love to have a few of their guys go to NTC and JRTC. And like I said, the US spends 300,000 dollars per soldier. This 300,000, French Stratage, is not spent on M1A2's, F-22's, and Virginia class submarines. This is the per soldier spending. And I highly doubt that there is a significant difference in the cost of kit for the individual soldier. France may be spending 47 billion dollars on a military with 260,000 personell, but the US is spending 522 billion on a military with 1.4 million personell. Which means if France had a military of 1.4 million, they would be spending half that of the United States. You may retort, that the money being spent in the US is not on the individual soldier (even though I gave you the actual cost per soldier), that it is being spent on Virginia Class submarines, M1A2 SEP's, and F-22 Raptors. I say that the French army is spending their money on Leclercs, and Dassault Rafales.

Quote Reply

Ehran 5/23/2007 3:08:36 PM

You're good, but it wasn't the ANZACS or BAOR that was holding the line from 1945-1989, it was that big old clunky US Army and USMC. Thank you for your help, but whilst you'd have given a good account of yourselves, after about a week of combat there really wouldn't have been much left of your armies....I guess size and firepower count.

a bit of a fact check before the ego gets totally out of control.

Northern Army Group (NORTHAG) covered the crucial North German Plain with four corps, of which the Netherlands, West Germany, Britain, and Belgium provided one apiece. Central Army Group (CENTAG), in sharp contrast, was positioned on far more defensible terrain and possessed far greater combat power that included two U.S. corps, two more that belonged to the West German Bundeswehr, and a Canadian mechanized brigade in reserve.

2 of 8 corps isn't exactly hiding behind especially if the worst of the fighting was expected to be north of the american positions.

Quote Reply

JFKY 5/23/2007 3:24:07 PM

And Ehran the North German area had about one WEEK worth of combat consumables, meaning that the NORTHAG commander was going to have to resort to the use of Tactical/Theatre nuclear weapons inside a couple of days. AND the US stationed III Corps in NorthAG in response to that, to provide the NorthAG commander with a non-nuclear depth to his battlefield.

I'm not trying to say the US is King, but rather that this sort of posting is all rather tedious, again where someone CLAIMS that the Royal Sheep Buggerers are just ever more superior to the US, simply on the basis of a TV clip and their claim that it is so. And I will point out from Aussie's original posting that the kill ration was not 3:1 US but much more lopsided. And it further galls me to hear about how the Royal Sheep Buggerers, representing all of one battalion regiment is so great, but ignoring the fact the RSB's are only ONE battalion and the US is fielding 35 battalions in a given theatre.

And lastly when someone from France presumes to talk about military competence, considering that France has failed in every major campaign it has launched since 1940, I guess I expect a little humility from that gallery. Sure France has good units, good equipment, good ideas, but I prefer the French a little more humble, because let's be honest the French track record is not world class.

And finally French Stratege you mention that US officers are not as "militaristic" as European officers. Here's a news flash, that's good! German was very militaristic, but it was not so great at managing it's war effort. The result was that Germany performed much worse than even the economic disparity between the Allies and Germany would have suggested. Why the US realized that modern war is as much about production, management, transportation, and logistics as it is about, "taking that hill". In fact, for the US ground forces, the logistics questions are paramount, because the US requests the ability to move hundreds of THOUSANDS of troops into a theatre. France, and Britain, strain to move much beyond two brigades into a theatre. So the US military IS focusing on important issues, the issues that won the Second World War, Desert Storm, AND OIF for the US.

Quote Reply

dirtykraut 5/23/2007 6:18:18 PM

Wasn't it Patton that said he would rather have a German division in front of him than a French division behind him?

Quote Reply

french stratege 5/23/2007 8:55:05 PM

The last world from Patton has to be proven.It seems an heritage from french bashing .LOL

Now to be serious

This 300,000, French Stratage, is not spent on M1A2's, F-22's, and Virginia class submarines. This is the per soldier spending. And I highly doubt that there is a significant difference in the cost of kit for the individual soldier

.I guess you did not forgot that US army has a lot of helicopters.

About cost of kit, those in France are a little smaller but quite close.

And you figure of 300 000 is unexact.It is not the figure of spending on hardware on US army soldiers which is more than ten time smaller for manufacture of new equipement.Check your data with last budget figures on DOD site.

I stick with what believe most NATO officers who have work with US forces.

Quote Reply

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