[papa moose]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Cloud9', 'I')f you are worried about China, remember that they have to get here across the bearing straights which will be more than likely glowing in the dark.

[evgeny]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Cloud9', 'A')nyone can be taken unawares. That being said, we have eleven Nimitz class carriers any one of which could turn a country the size of France into a parking lot. Then we have a fleet of nuclear submarines and then last but not least we have about thirty million rednecks that would like nothing better than open season on pick an enemy.

If you are worried about China, remember that they have to get here across the bearing straights which will be more than likely glowing in the dark.

[evgeny]

In addition to the ideology of amateurism in the power sector, Anglo-Saxon culture has and is totally unacceptable to the military affairs of the ideology of self-love, and full-non-self-criticism, even as an abstract concept. As the song from the movie "Mary Poppins": Ah, what bliss. Know that you are perfect. Know that you are ideal! "

In fact, this quality is inherent in the whole of western civilization, which, according to N. Danilevsky, "sees in himself all but nothing outside of itself and does not want to know." But the Anglo-Saxons is very salty.

As a result, if the ordinary member, as a rule, there are two stories: the ideological (for cattle) and more or less real (the elite), then in the U.S. - the history of the cattle and the elite one. And therefore not only an American lieutenant or captain, but Gen. piously sure what the American army has won, for example, World War II and that it is the best in the world.


Once again I quote from the Russian consul in New York in 1898, VA Teplova: "The usual arrogance of Americans continues to hold at a level not reached an appropriate result."

And one result of this conceit was, for example, an unusually wretched system of training officers and generals for the American and British armies, which the coffin on the battlefield of their soldiers.

75% of the officers of the armed forces of the United States by the nature of their training, are not regular officers. They are graduates of civilian universities, institutes, colleges, who, during his primary school received additional education at the so-called "military training courses, reserve officers. According to russian terminology - "military department". These courses are in 1200 U.S. universities. The educational program includes 480 hours of them for 4 years, including 180 hours in the first 2 years of training and 300 hours in the next 2 years. After completion of course 6-week (six weeks), camp fees.

To evaluate the wretchedness of this system of training 75% of American officers, who were to compare it with similar Soviet system of military departments. The Soviet military departments training lasted for 5 years, 200 hours per year about a thousand hours of study. Camp fees - after each academic year.

Price enrollment in U.S. higher education - the highest in the world. And for students there are only three ways to avoid paying the fees: either immediately begin to show good results at school or in sports or do a course reserve officers. In this last case cost for higher education will pay the state. Instead, after graduation, students are required to serve three years as an officer in the armed forces.

Thus, the American officer corps is 75% comes from the stupid, lazy, non-sporting people from poor families. That is not a best foundation for army officers .

example of the British army:

If secular amusements gentleman bored, and he suddenly wants thrills, such as war, there is no problem, its services system purchase officer ranks. Please, if you have money, become an officer of any rank, even if you do not have military training or experience in the service.

As a result of buying the officer ranks in Britain existed for several centuries until the end of the Crimean War of 1853-1856. was canceled due to the fact that in this war, each time entering into a separate battle with Russian troops British began to suffer defeats, and from the imminent defeat every time saved only the help of French troops.

Consequences of such traditional incompetence of British officers affected British army in the future. 15 years after the Crimean War, the British launched a war in South Africa with the Zulu tribe. Zulus have a regular military structure. They built their military orders to the system or the legions of the phalanges, but were armed only with machetes. Despite this glaring inequality in several battles Zulus entirely destroyed the British infantry regiments, though against their spears and axes, the English used rapid-fire rifles with breech-loading gilzovym and theoretically should have been shot entirely Zulu, preventing them from a distance of close combat.

[dorlomin]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('evgeny', '
')And one result of this conceit was, for example, an unusually wretched system of training officers and generals for the American and British armies, which the coffin on the battlefield of their soldiers.

[dorlomin]

Tsushima

[americandream]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('seahorse3', 'e')vgeny,

You're only problem is you believe any hype about "superior" militaries. War is nothing but loss. There are no heros. Even your beloved Russians have embarrassed themselves in Grozny, 2000, shooting each other, poor training, poor hygene, the list goes on. Just do an internet search for Lessons Learned in Grozny.

http://www.artofficial-intelligence.com/Grozny.html

Then, the infamous "Custer's Last Stand" by those Russian paratroopers was viewed by every outside observer as a horrible defeat brought about by incompetence, even initially by the Russian military, but now they paper over that defeat by awarding medals and re-writing history as a big victory - this shouldn't surprise anyone, every military does it. Those guys got massacred. Only seven soldiers survived. For anyone interested, just do a wiki search.

[seahorse3]

This thread isn't to justify any war. It's merely debating whether the American Army, more correctly "military" is a myth. Evgeny says that Russians being surrounded and all being killed is testament to the Russian soldier. Well, as Patton said, no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other bastard die for his. So, dying isn't prove of military might. The Russians are known for dying in mass, the unfortunate slaughter of Russian paratroopers by the Chechnians just proves that a whole company of men died at the hands of muslims that don't take prisoners.

Now, don't get me wrong, I'm on the Russians side in their fight against these nuts, but that slaughter of those paratroopers only proves Patton right, you can't win by dying, for they died and lost. You win by killing, not dying. Unfortunately, the Russian military has forever been plagued by poor training at all levels and poor equipment. It's only hope of living was sacrificing men, the numbers game. It was true in WWI, WWII, and now Chechnea.

Russian soldiers are very brave, but so are most other men on the battlefield. There is very little difference between men in battle. Muslims, Russians, Europeans, Africans, even Americans are very brave on the battlefield, but unfortunately, bravery doesn't win wars. Unfortunately, personally bravery plays second fiddle to other aspects of war, namely, logistics. If bravery won wars, those Russian paratroopers would still be alive. The American Indians would have won, and any number of indigenous people over the centuries, but they don't, because bravery doesn't win wars. Rommel once said that he who wins the war of logistics, wins the war. You need to study that.

Like it or not, the American military is the most dominant military in the world today and has been since WWII. During that time, it has fought countless wars, which keep officers and soldiers trained in the art. They have experience in modern war that can't be matched by any other country, bc experience is the best teacher. The weapons, training and equipment, tactics are all constantly evolving. They defeated the highly touted, battle tested, Iraqi army in the early 90s which had all the latest Russian equipment and training. It didn't hold up. Same was true in 2003.

So, until the Russians or any other country can take and hold ground, any idea that they are the better army is just a fairy tell, wishful thinking. If they are brave enough, then they should take back the oil fields that they had leased in Iraq which are now under the control of the US military and being leased to Western oil companies.

BTW, as an aside, 3000k soldiers didn't die in Grenada. I wasn't in Grenada, but I was in the 82nd at the time, and if it makes Russians feel better to think that happened, let them believe it. My brother was in the 2nd Rng Bn which was in Grenada. His platoon was ferried on one of the helicopters that got shot down, but only 2 died, not the whole load. Opinions should mirror facts, but they often don't. The US military doesn't lie about its own casualties, it would be almost impossible to do so with conventional forces (Delta is an exception). But, anyone who hasn't lived in the US wouldn't appreciate that aspect of openness. Now, the US may lie about how people die, Pat Tillman comes to mind, but I can't think of any single example of lying about which Americans got killed. the list are public and always have been.

The only reason the Russians gave up their oil interest in Iraq to American invaders was bc they didn't have the military muscle to do anything about it, not conventionally anyway.

[evgeny]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('seahorse3', 'T')his thread isn't to justify any war. It's merely debating whether the American Army, more correctly "military" is a myth. Evgeny says that Russians being surrounded and all being killed is testament to the Russian soldier. Well, as Patton said, no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other bastard die for his. So, dying isn't prove of military might. The Russians are known for dying in mass, the unfortunate slaughter of Russian paratroopers by the Chechnians just proves that a whole company of men died at the hands of muslims that don't take prisoners.

Now, don't get me wrong, I'm on the Russians side in their fight against these nuts, but that slaughter of those paratroopers only proves Patton right, you can't win by dying, for they died and lost. You win by killing, not dying. Unfortunately, the Russian military has forever been plagued by poor training at all levels and poor equipment. It's only hope of living was sacrificing men, the numbers game. It was true in WWI, WWII, and now Chechnea.

Russian soldiers are very brave, but so are most other men on the battlefield. There is very little difference between men in battle. Muslims, Russians, Europeans, Africans, even Americans are very brave on the battlefield, but unfortunately, bravery doesn't win wars. Unfortunately, personally bravery plays second fiddle to other aspects of war, namely, logistics. If bravery won wars, those Russian paratroopers would still be alive. The American Indians would have won, and any number of indigenous people over the centuries, but they don't, because bravery doesn't win wars. Rommel once said that he who wins the war of logistics, wins the war. You need to study that.

Like it or not, the American military is the most dominant military in the world today and has been since WWII. During that time, it has fought countless wars, which keep officers and soldiers trained in the art. They have experience in modern war that can't be matched by any other country, bc experience is the best teacher. The weapons, training and equipment, tactics are all constantly evolving. They defeated the highly touted, battle tested, Iraqi army in the early 90s which had all the latest Russian equipment and training. It didn't hold up. Same was true in 2003.

So, until the Russians or any other country can take and hold ground, any idea that they are the better army is just a fairy tell, wishful thinking. If they are brave enough, then they should take back the oil fields that they had leased in Iraq which are now under the control of the US military and being leased to Western oil companies.

BTW, as an aside, 3000k soldiers didn't die in Grenada. I wasn't in Grenada, but I was in the 82nd at the time, and if it makes Russians feel better to think that happened, let them believe it. My brother was in the 2nd Rng Bn which was in Grenada. His platoon was ferried on one of the helicopters that got shot down, but only 2 died, not the whole load. Opinions should mirror facts, but they often don't. The US military doesn't lie about its own casualties, it would be almost impossible to do so with conventional forces (Delta is an exception). But, anyone who hasn't lived in the US wouldn't appreciate that aspect of openness. Now, the US may lie about how people die, Pat Tillman comes to mind, but I can't think of any single example of lying about which Americans got killed. the list are public and always have been.

The only reason the Russians gave up their oil interest in Iraq to American invaders was bc they didn't have the military muscle to do anything about it, not conventionally anyway.

[americandream]

America and the Brits have long used proxies, then moving in for the kill when the prey was suitably weakened. In the Middle East, the client nature of the regimes and their general lack of sophisticated thinking and grasp of modernity has left them open for opportunistic armies with big well fed men and armour to go. Saddam was one sole Arab who took on the might of the West with a bunch of corrupt kleptocracies around him and no back up to fall back on as was provided by the Soviets in a past era. The West feared the Soviets for good reason. They had the discipline and will to take on conventional armies. They weren't prepared for the Pakistani and Arab guerilla proxies the West unleashed on them in socialist Afghanistan. It's hardly surprising that they have since suffered a set back in terms of their martial capabilities. Couple this with the fact that Russia is now a decadent oligarchy and it's most unlikely that we shall see the former discipline of the Red Army restored.

[evgeny]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('seahorse3', 'T')he US military doesn't lie about its own casualties, it would be almost impossible to do so with conventional forces (Delta is an exception).

[seahorse3]

E, very little time to post right now sorry, but ur casualty figures are all wrong. I was in the 82 nd Ann div during Grenada. Only 1 of 3 brigades deployed. There was far less tha 3k in each brigade. Only 2 ranger bn deployed with less than 600 each. If 3k died as u believe no one would have returned to post, but they did. The pictures of the dead still hang on post today which if memory serves was 18 or less.

Delta is different bc they r treated like private contractors. The units r secret and no info is reported although they r stationed at ft Bragg with the 82nd

[dorlomin]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('seahorse3', 'W')ell, as Patton said, no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other bastard die for his.

[seahorse3]

Don't confuse winning wars with winning battles. Battles r often won through bravery, but war is the extension of politics. If the political will is not there, no amount of bravery and sacrifice will fill that void

[americandream]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('seahorse3', 'D')on't confuse winning wars with winning battles. Battles r often won through bravery, but war is the extension of politics. If the political will is not there, no amount of bravery and sacrifice will fill that void