Yet Again US A10s Attack Brit Soldiers

[anthony]

No no Scott, I said Marine level of training, not marines in general... not basic US Army enlistment. Any soldier in the US forces with training equal too, or above, marine level, is what I believe the minimum requisite for the US to be sending into war. I dare say the groups you mentioned above, are more disciplined than regular US army?

Your absolutely right though mate... war and politics are hot potatoes, but I as you, believe they can be discussed, as long as we all keep discussions factual.

I think this is a very good discussion actually... quite thought provoking.

 

[anthony]

Cathy, is that the general consensus within the US about Hiliary Clinton?

 

[Scott_Fraser]

Hi Anthony. I only mentioned about the US Marines as they are the best that the Americans have, but they are increasingly used as infantrymen now. Their training is second to none, same as our Royal Marines, who I think are the best in the world. I mean 35 weeks training. I thought 18 weeks was tough.
Yes this is a good topic for discussion.
Cathy. Who is popular in the US for President, as I think that Hilary Clinton is to much tarnished by her husband. Or put it this way, if Tony Blair was running for president, (Give him time) would you vote for him.
Cheers
Scott:hello:

 

[cookie]

ha, i don't know enough about tony blair to vote for him, but his is not a citizen here, so he couldn't run anyway.
who is popular is up in the air right now, hil is popular in some circles, there is a plethoria of presidential hopefuls right now.
cathy

 

[ranger2_75]

Anthony
"Those guys" ARE regular U.S. Army! The only diference in the 82nd and any other Army unit, Except spec ops, is that they jump from airplanes. I know from first hand experiance. I was in the 82nd for a while. All the worlds forces have idiots in leadership positions. I have a friend who was 101rst in Afganastan and watched as two F-16s droped six five hundred pounders on a ground platoon. 43 U.S. 101rst troops killed by their own bad call for close air support. Yes they called it in on themselves. My buddy could not get his SATCOM up in time to intervien.
It sucks but it happens in all conflicks. I worked with some Royal Marines on a joint training operation on Ft. Lewis Washington U.S.A. They called our mortar fire on themselves. Once again training, artillery sims were used to simbleize incoming rounds and yes they went off all around Her Majesties Marines. It can happen to any one at any time. Stress is a bitch. It gets people killed frequently even in civilian life.

BTW I do believe some of the coments made about the U.S. would not have made it to the bord if the rolles were reversed.

 

[mac]

Seems everyone has posted a lot of good points here, even if it has slipped away from the main topic. I can't continue to argue here because I can't demonstrate proof... I can only say what I believe/know/experienced to be true and my opinion's on such (and not having any inclination to dig up news articles and the like), only this as evidence of fact.

 

[anthony]

Hey Ranger, oh no mate, don't exempt Australia from mistakes, they do get made, as with the UK. The thing is though, is that when you look at the data for friendly fire, the US lead the way over all other countries on a statistical basis, per man compared to total force. That is unacceptable IMHO, and that is at the higher level where training is either not being instilled long enough, well enough, or soldiers are simply ignorant and want to die. I doubt very much it is the later, which means US military training must change.

Let me compare training... the US soldiers are trained to do one job, and one job only, nothing more, nothing less. Now whilst this may sound good, its actually what I believe kills more soldiers than does good. Most armies cross train their troops, so they have a variety of skills across the board. In the Australian forces, every soldier, sailor and airforce member are trained to be the basic roles first, and trained highly in that role. Then they are cross trained in many many roles, so they can assume many positions, have many skills, all in order to help any soldier stay alive by knowing what to do under multiple conditions. I believe this is a major issue where the US let down their soldiers, attempting to make numbers that are off a majority, less than adequate for combat roles. As you state, this doesn't apply to everyone, and I have trained with US soldiers, and within those I have met some that are very clever, use a lot of commonsense and I have no doubt would survive war, but the majority where twits when it came to soldierly techniques, and couldn't be sneaky bastards if they tried. Why? A lot where simply too loud, didn't care, undisciplined. They where too busy yahooing, yes, even here in Australia, they where yahooing, and they wondered why they got their arsed kicked each and every single time. Its not because of any advantage, merely because you can find them without really having to look, they just stand out and you can hear them a long way away.

Malaysian soldiers whilst not so noisy, are very messy also, and you just have to follow their garbage collection they leave along the way... not real challenging stuff. Is any country doing their troops any favours by not training their soldiers to a high level? Lets face facts, training means survival. If Australia sends 10,000 troops into a war zone, we expect to bring home 10,000 troops. If we lose one or two, that is a tragedy. The US send 10,000 troops into a war zone, they estimate losses around 20%... why? Why would any country already expect to send in 10,000 troops, yet only get 8,000 back, and accept that rate? That is not acceptable, these people have families, they have lives... and smart tactics ensures soldiers come home. I just don't get that mentality to be honest... I wouldn't join an army that didn't care about me as a human life, the basic level of existence.

 

[Scott_Fraser]

Hi Ranger. The RAF have made the same mistakes as well as the US Airforce, but it gets covered, just like this latest incident has been, its been covered up for 3 years and that is what upset the families of the guys killed by the A10s. If they were only told the truth in the beginning, then I think all of this would have been resolved. But the MOD and The Pentagon are both to blame for this secrecy.
Don't get me wrong, the average GI is a good soldier, but its their officers that let them down on many occaisions. Our own officer training is good but it could be better. They spend 35 weeks at Sandhurst being trained, I don't know how long they spend at West Point. But I think that all officer candidates should spend a year in the ranks, especially in a unit of the line as we call it. (Infantry or Armoured). Before they go to Military Academy. And that would give them a taste of what its like.
But I now say that its time to bring the boys home, enough is enough, its becoming a grinder out there in Iraq. Afghanistan is the main danger point, especially the Taliban.
Cheers
Scott

 

[mac]

"I wouldn't join an army that didn't care about me as a human life"

Money and Benefits lend themselves to be huge motivators of any decision.

Also, IMO, it seems almost suicidal (or a severe lack of common sense) to operate vehicles up and down roadways potentially laced with IEDs.

 

[anthony]

Yer, Australian officers are trained for 18 months at Duntroon before being commissioned, and I too am a big believer they should all spend 12 months as a private soldier before being able to attend officer training, just so they know what its like to be a soldier, before they attempt to command them.

 

[ranger2_75]

I guess that we are all in agrement than that officers should spend time as enlisted before going to Officer Candidate Scool as it is termed in the US. OCS is mandetory upon entry no mater if they went to the acedemy or not. How ever I think that they need more than a year, I like 3-4 myself, befor being acepted to OCS.
Cross training, it happens a lot. I was cross trained as infantry, indirect fire, and demolition. Furthermore I had to have a working proficiancy of every weapon in the Battalion arsenal ie. Carl Gustove, AT4, sniper rifles both 7.62mm and .50 cal(12.7mm), 40mm grenade launcher, 12 guage shotgun, variouse anti personel and anti armore mines, Sattalite and am/fm comunications, calling indirect fire as well as close air support, and Naval fire. Every soldier, at least in the Army, is cross trained.
Yes it is not a warm fuzzy feeling to know that there are 15% casualties expected, but reality is people die in combat. The U.S.A. has had more problems with fratrisie than other countries. They also commit more troops than any other country so just maybe there is a corolation?
I also agree that there is more training that could be done. Training costs money and the American people don't want to spend money on training as much as they do saving some damned spotted owl or redeaded woodpecker. You are corect in that there has never been a millitary on earth that has had enough training,....Has there?

 

[anthony]

Absolutely mate, no military can fully prepare any soldier for war the first time, only experience itself can do that. They can prepare a soldier though fairly well if armed with all the right training, education and as much field experience as possible. Anything less IMHO, is sending any soldier in to be murdered.

Its interesting though isn't it, how the civilian population view how money is spent within their countries military? They are happy to push for their country to step into other countries and help them, yet when in peace time, they aren't happy to have the money spent, however; when troops are sent into conflict, and deaths occur at high rates, they really have to weight up the cost of life! Is it cheaper to train a less effective soldier and roll the dice on their life, or is it actually more economical to the civilian population to spend more money on training less troops, achieving the same outcome, then bringing home the majority of lives intact??? We know the answers, but I see it here with the news and when Australians are in a zone of conflict, they change their mind near as much as their underwear, without fully understanding the full scope of military force and conflict zones. Lets be honest, if you have been on peace keeping, war itself, humanitarian aid even, they all resemble one another really, its only the rules of engagement that seem to change, as the threats are still pretty high, some obviously higher than others.