Why do people still overrate this absolute meme army?
Why do people still overrate this absolute meme army?
No competition
TWO
The US military has never been defeated in conventional warfare.
Ground to a pulp by war of attrition and lost the will to fight? yes. a few times. Made some serious blunders that cost lives? Yes, several times. But never defeated by a near-peer enemy in conventional combat.
That being said, as a former soldier I can tell you that asymmetrical warfare is the achilles heal of the US military.
Training in basic, AIT, daily training and drills in unit (active duty), urban warfare training, fm-3-06, etc. NONE of it really prepares to for the reality of "gorilla" type tactics.
I'm not sure why. Its as though we endlessly trained for the kind of war we're probably never going to fight.
boggles the mind. and yeah, I realize this is probably just bait, but think it's a good topic for discussion
Iraq wasn't asymmetrical and that was fairly recent.
refreshing that someone can still shit some retarded garbage onto Jow Forums and draw out a sober insightful post in response
The conventional warfare of the initial invasion was a swift and decisive victory... the country's entire military force was effectively defeated in about a month.
After that, the occupation and continued combat operations were the very definition of asymmetrical warfare.... so.... what exactly are you talking about?
Warfare is always being unconventional and having the upper hand. The era of armies clashing at each other ended with Napoleon
The obvious answer for a foe of the US is to let the US crash into a token force, having prepared the insurgency to be more effective.
I don't think that's even nearly true. Clausewitzian strategy ruled the day until Vietnam. It worked again in the Gulf War, and Iraq II: Electric Boogalo part I the invasion. While winning war, and especially tactical competence in the face of piss poor odds required unconventional tactics, unconventional tactics =/= unconventional warfare.
>'gorilla' tactics.
*Guerrilla*
I'm not sure you fully understand the meaning of "conventional warfare"
it is two organized military forces using somewhat standardized tactics with clearly defined territories/uniforms/fronts
You're talking about napoleonic warfare, which is it's own thing, not related to the topic at hand.
I'm starting to think a 'serious' discussion isn't going to be possible here... shame... people on Jow Forums used to know their stuff
thanks - didn't even realize it
How would any of those conflicts not measure up to that standard? WWI, II, Korea, Gulf, the Iraq invasion? All had defined territories, uniforms, and fronts.
The Iraq invasion, 2003
>In the invasion phase of the war (19 March – 30 April), an estimated 9,200 Iraqi combatants were killed by coalition forces along with an estimated 3,750 non-combatants, i.e. civilians who did not take up arms.[129] Coalition forces reported the death in combat of 139 U.S. military personnel[130] and 33 UK military personnel.[131]
Talk all the shit you want, but the US blew through one of the biggest and well equipped armies in that region on their home turf. The Iraqis had previous fought a protracted war with Iran-- another well equipped regional army--to a standstill, so they seasoned combatants, not just scared conscripts. You can bet China, Russia, and other countries watched that event very closely and most likely didn't like what they saw. As it stands, the US and the Brits have experienced combat troops and a seasoned cadre of NCOs. China and Russia have untested conscripts that might have to be forced into advances at gunpoint like the last times they fought.
>The US military has never been defeated in conventional warfare.
I'd say 1812 was a solid American defeat, and the United States came dangerously close to losing in the Civil War
The 3.5 years I've been in the army have been the worst time of my life.
Borderline suicidal nearly the entire time. The army is an absolute joke.
>The Iraqis had previous fought a protracted war with Iran
And that war with Iran basically bled the Iraqi Army white, sapping it of its finest equipment and minds. It should be less of a surprise that the US was able to roll over Iraq in 2003 than Germany was able to roll over France in 1940.
By War of 1812 terms then that means the US never lost the Vietnam War
What's your MOS and where are you stationed?
Hard pass on that fagot. At best the British tie the United States and end the war before the Americans can get their absolute shit bag army whipped into some kind of shape.
People say the US Army overrated but fail to name a better one.
>Inb4 vietcong and Taliban meme
By God you are right...
13b (airborne) up in Alaska
It's not like the army is hard. But leadership is determined to make everyone as miserable as possible at all times
Aww poor baby gotta ruck in the cold? Poor baby maybe momma can swing by and make you some hot coco? Don't worry baby we know those Ruskies you are training to fight have it much better. Poor little baby.
It's actually impressive how well the US did in Afghanistan. They basically achieved everything they set out to do. Remember the British and Soviet occupations?
ABCDEFG, gonna hang a nigger on a big oak tree.
Thanks man. Hot cocoa actually sounds really nice
>I'd say 1812 was a solid American defeat
treaty of ghent was a textbook case of status quo ante bellum, no major change from state of things from before the war
but, while a military stalemate, it was a minor political victory for the US
as american maritime rights werent violated by the british after it
>and the United States came dangerously close to losing in the Civil War
union side was fighting the war one-handed, there was never a serious hope of a southern victory once the emancipation declaration ended any realistic chance for foreign intervention
Gonna finish that thought?
Would you think it be better to cut some of the conventional training and focus on counter gureilla warefare? We may lose some of our edge in a near peer fight but I feel that we wont be having one of those for a very long time
Is that training before or after the appointment for HIV treatment?
>never a serious hope of a southern victory once the emancipation declaration ended any realistic chance for foreign intervention
There is a scenario wherein heavy losses in 1864 absent any offsetting victories cause a sufficient segment of the population to sour on Mr. Lincoln's War and elect McClellan in the 1864 election.