In a recent post, TheChosen claimed the USA's military have the toughest training in the world. Now, having worked with the military forces of several nations, from my own personal experience, I would have to disagree.

I once spoke to a chap who joined the US army, did 3 months basic training there, then did marines basic training for another 3 months. He considered that quite a lot fo training. I myself in full time training for 9 months before I was allowed anywhere near a real job; that's 50% more initial training than a US soldier who had done both army and marines training. Of course the real learning starts when you're actually on the job.

I found while on the job that the US people I worked with were undoubtedly far better trained than nearly every other country in the world, but personally I found my own bunch and the British more adept, better trained. Why would this be so? Well, the British have a history of success; their Isles have never faced a successful invasion since the formation of the Royal Navy. In Australia, we have almost as much territory as the entire USA, protected by only 70,000 military personel, so of course a great emphasis is placed on training. We simply don't have access to the numbers, funds, and equipment available to the US services. And of course there is a very good reason why the USA, when it goes to war, always requests the services of Australia's SAS.

There are several ex-military people here, from various nations, such as Wet1 and Fukushi. I'm eager to hear your opinions. Thanks.

You think Australia has a better trained military than our:

US Coast Guard
Marine Special Ops
Navy Seals
Delta Force
Green Berets
Army Rangers
Task Force 160
Etc.?

Dream on man. :cool:

Any informed opinions?

Basic military training(boot camp) has, I(and my TIs) believe, suffered in the last few decades. It's mostly because of some mother writing to her congressman about the "horrible things(you can go figure on that one)" that her precious son encountered in basic(and I've heard that Russian marines do PC outside, no matter the weather). My technical training I believe is very good. No doubt there is room for improvement, but the way our government works prevents the implementation of a better system. I believe that we have one of the best training systems in the world, be certainly not the toughest.

USAF training is inside or outside depending on the weather?

Well, as far as training goes, I never thought that the schools were the end of it. Only the start because you had to know enough in order to particpate and use the equipment. It seemed I never, ever, got properly out of school. When I did, it wasn't long before we were out "training" to use it.

One of the more interesting things was that we aways particpated in Reforger. Reforger was the NATO games held every year. One year we would be support for the logistics to carry it off and the next we would be part of one of the teams. As such, you teamed with and against other nations. On the whole, I found that the other nations had damn good military units. While the equipment was not always up to par with our standards, I am not sure that was always a good thing. You see, sometimes our bigger and better were just to complicated and broke down under real usage. While simpler kept on going.

I had many oppurtunities for schools while in the military. For the largest part, I took them. Never did figure that you could know enough. I didn't particulary care for some of the duties or some of the things I found myself involved in or how close I came to being involved in.

I think that better than half the time I spend in the military was training in one form or another. I consider having to give instructions or a class a form of training also. You have to know your subjects for you will certainly get hard questions if you don't. It usually required that you brushed up on the manuals in order to be prepared. I don't know about you, but I was always prepared.

Three out of ~The_Chosen~'s list have I not had any dealings with while in the military. For the largest majority, you would be surprised at what some of them go through.

As far as toughest, no I don't think that the US's methods of teaching are the toughest as anyone who has the grit and the will can do it. After all, it is designed to pass those truely worthy individuals. You do not have to be a sadistic moron and in most cases those won't pass the course. The weed out process will eliminate those. You do what you have to do. In the doing you find out the many abilities you have that you never knew you did. What you have never had the need to do and therefore never knew you could. In some cases it is an eye opener to gain the selfconfidence of "you can do that".

One of the challenging things I always looked forward to is the confidence courses. You are presented with an objective and a scenerio. How you and your team accomplish that is up to you. It teaches you how to become a leader, how to use what is around you to your advantage, and how to use the groups skills to accomplish the task at hand, to think under pressure, the ability to use leadership (and the realization of just how important it is to the completion of the task), ability to meld a team into something that can preform. It can be both physically and mentally challenging as all sorts of problems pop up that were not mentioned at the start. How you overcome these problems give you tools to work with later.

I have also had the oppurtunity to qualify with German personal weapons. I found that interesting. Have a certificate of that somewhere.

While overseas, I spent more time in the boonies than I did with walls around me. Weather didn't ever seem to be a factor in the prevention of this. When the civilian populace was shut down because of weather, we were still going into the feild. Had a light case of frostbite to prove it (after 3 weeks in subzero weather without heaters)

Military training is an ongoing pocess. It doesn't stop after Basic or AIT. It continues throughout your term of service. I spent more time in the field and on the firing ranges after boot camp.

It's my understanding that Canada's elite force (JTF-2) is one of the top military organizations in the world. However, I have little knowledge of our basic training. While in Israel I got the impression that the elite members of the Israeli army were extremely well and hard trained.

And by the way, Chosen, saying "You think you're right?" is not exactly a primo arguement.

i dnt think most of our military training is tough..... especially not basic training.
however... a Navy Seal's training is verrry different. :( sure as hell wouldn't cath me signing up. during most military training, they push you to your limits. during Navy Seal training they push you to their limits, if you fail: they work you harder. If you die: damn.

It's my understanding that Canada's elite force (JTF-2) is one of the top military organizations in the world
i would imagine canda would have a pretty tough military.. they've had alot of time to train.. haha.

i would imagine canda would have a pretty tough military.. they've had alot of time to train.. haha.

HAHAHA

touché for Canada

Every year quite a few young men die trying to make it into the SAS SBS over here!
So the training in Britain is tough!

PS SBS is the special Boat Service Equivalent to the American Navy Seals.

& thought it very relevant!

http://www.reuters.com/news_article.jhtml?type=politicsnews&StoryID=1343114

My vote goes to the SAS. Be it British or Austrailian. They are difinatley Badasses and train all the time. They aren't slackers

my vote goes to Predator- the most high tech professional out there;):)


http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu/~werdna/pics/People/Arnold/Predator.jpeg

What a heck of a coincidence that I happened to be too lazy to get out of my lazy boy recliner last night, & change the channel after watching Arlee Ermie's (Army Ernie), "MAIL CALL," on the History Channel!

<font color="drab"> Basic Training?Good Heavens, what a bunch of woosie Drill Instructers!

Sixty-three days, thirty-five push ups & 50 situps to graduate basic training! I almost fell out of my recliner laughing. Well, there was some other requirements such as running a mile in 5 hours & learning, "The Pledge of Allegiance, before going to bed every night." :D O' but let us not forget that a raw recruit had to memorize that (s)he had to have something like: 2 pairs of BDU's, 7 underwears, 7 socks, 7 tee shirts, kevlar headbands (why does a headband have to be kevlar???), ...ect... in their official Army Duffle bags ! ! !]</font color>

Good god, when I was 18 I got up at 5 AM, took a shower, got dressed, drank a quart of coffee, and worked at my blue collar construction job until 4:30 PM. After, I ran 5 miles every day, then worked on a hotrod car or other projects until 9PM. Twice a week, I went to karate class and practiced GoJu Ryu. Once during the same week, I went to a vocational class in sheet metal pattern making.

At the time, I could easily do 75 marine pushups & run 5 miles. I hated situps though. Best at a time was only around 40 or so, although if I had intended to become an Army recruit, I would have damn well made myself capable of at least getting in the minimum 50 ! ! !

I just couldn't get over the lack of leadership that was exhibited by the Army DI's!

I half expected that the Drill Instuctors were going to hold a seminar on "learning to co-exist with the enemy"--an emotionally oriented class instruction on the valor and honor of a US soldier, as long as no one had their feelings hurt ! ! ! !.

I'm not saying that all Army people are like this, but godamn, .....:rolleyes: ........if these people ever are forced to fight (without a computer console) hand to hand, they are going to be in deep shit!

Hell, I knew "The Pledge of Allegience" before I was 8 years old! My third grade english teacher (Mrs. Keck) was a hell of a lot meaner than the drill instuctors that I saw on "BASIC TRAINING" last night. And let me tell you bubba, that mean 60 yr. old woman could swing a paddle & probably beat down a full regimen of todays' drill instuctors ! ! !:eek: Mean, hateful old bitch!God rest her sweet soul.


The last time that I watched any kind of basic training military episode like this was a couple of years back. I think it had to do with Marine Corp basic training or maybe it was the NAVY Seals. Now there were some hardcore, mean bastards!

I'm quite annoyed by our training in Australia now. When I went through basic, we weren't allowed to walk, except in formation, and that was usually at the run anyway. We weren't allowed to stand still or lean against things. We had to run from one place to another, and if we weren't going anywhere we had to be exercising or reading. The running test at the end was for speed; we had to do 3.2 km in 15 minutes. At the start, I could do it in 14:46 (my first time for that run in basic). By the end, I did the run out and back, then half way out and back in again, in under the 15 minutes mark. Also by the end I could run all day with a 30 pound backpack, 8 pound rifle (L1A1), and water bottle.

What helped me a lot was that one of the other recruits in my class was a monstrously tough gorilla who decided all on his own that he would be my personal trained. This guy was shorter than me but about twice as big. He ate, slept, and breathed fitness work. After basic training and seamanship school he went straight into our Clearance Divers, which is the same as the USA's SEALs (but I think better :p ). This dude would literally drag me out of the barracks after a hard day of work to go for runs and do push-ups and such. Like the class would get back from doing training all day and I'd just get in and flop on my bed and this chap would burst in and say "Get up! Time for a run!" And I could either get up immediately or he would say "If you're not up and moving in 5 seconds I'll hit you!" He would have too. I actually enjoyed the exercise, and it paid off. By the end of basic I was ridiculously fit.

Now, basic has gotten easy. Recruits are actually allowed to walk now, which I find quite pathetic. The final fitness requirements have gotten easier too, so I hear.

Wish I had it so easy as a measley 50 pushups. The 5 mile run was a daily occurance (after 45 min's of intensive PT). If you couldn't do the run then you got to do it again in the evening on your time. Same for the PT. We had to be able to tote the equipment we had, plus 'chute, harness, reserve, ect and scramble off the DZ before the heavy stuff came down. You don't want to be there packing a 'chute in a bag when the heavy drops come. Of course if it was a bit windy I have seen times when you had to chase someone down because their 'cute filled with air and pulled them along for the ride.

Try walking 12 miles in 3 hours fully loaded with equipment. Doesn't sound to bad until you realize they measured it on the map not the mountainous ground.

Even had the pleasure of walking around on top of someone else's 'chute at 1000' when they stole my air and my 'chute collapsed. Try walking to the edge, looking down and all the ants pointing up at you, and doing a swan dive off of it. You either got balls or you're dead. Take your pick...

The Rangers, Seals, and Beret were all lumped together, one big mass. Just like Adam weren't no such animal as walking. You ran, all the time, everywhere you went.

What group where you in please???

HHQ, 3rd 325. 82nd.

Originally posted by Tyler
And by the way, Chosen, saying "You think you're right?" is not exactly a primo arguement.

It's unquestionable that we have the best-trained military in the world. We are the lone superpower, what would you expect?

I wanted to see everyone's opinions first, then I'll slam in the facts. :cool: I love debating this way.

"Our military is the strongest and the best in the entire world," Bush told a Veterans of Foreign Wars gathering last month. "And I will make sure our military continues to be the best-trained, best-equipped, best-led fighting force in the world."

"No one questions that our military is strongest in the world," Bush said at a recent appearance before the American Legion.

The USA spends OVER $2 trillion worth of defenses alone per year.

Defense, diplomacy and development: Together, these are the tools with which we maintain our security and protect our national interests abroad. America's military and foreign service officers rank among the best-trained in the world. Their outstanding record speaks for itself. Not so with development, a field not unacquainted with distinction but one whose constant uphill battle against great odds generally hampers maximum effectiveness.

The military spends more than $1 million to train a single pilot in the operation of some of the more advanced high-speed aircraft. The four years of officer training at our service academies are marked only by excellence. No officer can be graduated until he meets every requirement.

Source (http://www.africare.org/news/editorials/workers_fail.html) - it's old, so I'll find more up to date facts later, my family is military related, so I'll just ask my dad for info.


Need I link America's record too? :rolleyes:

Now, why do you *think* a private school has a much better education than public schools? Why is Harvard, Yale, MIT so expensive?

They are well-funded, now compare that to all the countries all over the world.

Peace :cool:

hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

who ever said that private schools were better than public?

Americans have the best technology money can buy and one of the largest, numbers wise, miliatary in the world.

That's all you've proved. And the topic at hand is training and the difficulty/effectiveness of.

Originally posted by Tyler
Americans have the best technology money can buy and one of the largest, numbers wise, miliatary in the world.

That's all you've proved. And the topic at hand is training and the difficulty/effectiveness of.

What other country spends over $1 million per pilot? :rolleyes:

Money provides better education/training and that is a fact.

The Top Militaries in the World...gee...look at the spending :rolleyes: USA spends more than all of them put together!

1. China
Active: 2.09 million
Reserves: 1.2 million
Spending: $37.5 billion

2. U.S.
Active: 1.36 million
Reserves: 868,400
Spending: $293.3 billion

3. Russia
Active: 1.2 million
Reserves: 2.4 million
Spending: $55 billion

4. India
Active: 1.17 million
Reserves: 258,400
Spending: $14.1 billion

5. North Korea
Active: 1.05 million
Reserves: 4.7 million
Spending: $2 billion

Source: Periscope (http://www.periscope.ucg.com/)

Common sense man.

does that mean if u spend that much on me i will be the best in the world in spite of the fact that i wouldn't kill someone if they DID shoot me?

so fighter pilots?
everyone knows that Israel has got the most top noch pilots in the world. at lest those who know about these things. Israel's force lies in it's fighter planes.
.
.
and ground assault training doesn't need billions of dollars- high tech combat and equipment does- not people.

So then it is a logical conclusion?

If you spend more money on military in general - the training will be more physically and mentally demanding. Personally, I see no link between the two. I could take $20,000, take two guys out to a cabin in northern Ontario and train the fuck out of them for a half a year. The fact that i iddn't spend $1,000,000 on each of them has nothing to do with how hard they were trained.

Common sense is fine for some. For the rest of us, a logical arguement is a nice idea.

Quadrennial Defense Review Report - September 30, 2001 (http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/qdr2001.pdf)

Found it.

Active, Reserve, and National Guard forces - remain the best trained, best equipped, and most capable in the world, there are significant challenges that are eroding the advantage the United States currently enjoys. These challenges affect the readiness and tempo of personnel and units, the major weapons systems of the Armed Forces, and the defense infrastructure.

Now, anything other about the SAS and whatever are only opinions.

I want to see Canada's military record, Australia's military record.

Up to it? :cool:

Active, Reserve, and National Guard forces - remain the best trained, best equipped, and most capable in the world, there are significant challenges that are eroding the advantage the United States currently enjoys. These challenges affect the readiness and tempo of personnel and units, the major weapons systems of the Armed Forces, and the defense infrastructure.
I suspect this report was done by the USA :D:D:D:D:D


I have read Russian reports. they were simmilar;):D

oh and btw- how does USA know that they have the best trained forces? just because they beated some small group of terrorists?
(which they haven't- all wet job in Afghanistan was done by the rebel North Front...of course I don't know what CNN has told you;) )

That it was Avatar.
I'll go look for some online resources on the JTF-2.

First of all, we all know we have capable people to train.

Since every country doesn't have dumbasses training, we are basically equal in terms of individual potential.

Now, rule that out.

Next is the spending on the training they get. This is an important factor in the training. Those that get to train with more advanced technology are better trained. Don't even dare to use the "proportional" argument with me.

Sure Harvard may have some dumbasses that don't use their well-funded education, but let's look at reality...how many of them are ACTUALLY like that?

Now we take a look at a regular public school. Sure there are bright people that fully take advantage of their education...but how many of them are ACTUALLY like that?

It's reality, it's common sense.

Overall the USA has the best-trained military.

But in certain aspects, Israel's airforce could be better.

"JTF-2 is so secretive that it's size, location, and training regiment aren't known. But details have slowly began to appear. It is guessed that their strength is around 200-250 operators. Each member is a volunteer from one of the three services in the Canadian military; creating a unit that is self-sufficient and able to deploy itself and act with a minimum of dependency on other units. JTF-2 is commandeered by a Lt. Colonel of one of the branches."
- http://www.blarg.net/~whitet/jtf2.htm

"The Canadian Armed Forces unit Joint Task Force 2 is a shadowy, highly skilled counter-terrorist force of undetermined size, based somewhere near Ottawa with an anonymous commanding officer.
And that's the way the military wants to keep it."
- http://www.blarg.net/~whitet/jtf2art.htm

We don't know why they're JTF 2. Nobody really knows about JTF 1 at all.

you also have to look at WHAT the money is spent on.. they may have top of the line technology... but not enough money to get an instructor to teach how to use it..

Originally posted by nightfall
you also have to look at WHAT the money is spent on.. they may have top of the line technology... but not enough money to get an instructor to teach how to use it..

That is true. I'm sure every country has capable teachers/instructors.

It would be moronic to not have a very well-qualified instructor. You can't really weigh individual potential, it has to be ruled out, every country is equivalent in this area.

sorry, i was going more for navy/army ect. didn't mean to confuse... sometimes my posts ust dont make sense in the first place. :(

and i know that the airforce has more equpiment than instrucors.. my father is one. (an instuctor that is), and they bounce him all over the place cuz they're short handed..

TheChosen


It's unquestionable that we have the best-trained military in the world. We are the lone superpower, what would you expect?

"Unquestionable"? Why? You actually have a reason for saying that? Or is this the same as saying "God exists because he does!"?

The fact that the USA has nukes and a gigantic economy does not necessarily make their troops the best trained. You have yet to explain why you believe this.


The USA spends OVER $2 trillion worth of defenses alone per year.

This does not give any indication of the expertise of US soldiers.


Need I link America's record too?

Somalia? Vietnam? Or the many times over the past fifty years that the USA has gone up against vastly inferior forces?

TheChosen, all you have demonstrated is that the USA spends lots of money. And from my experience, they spend it stupidly.


Active, Reserve, and National Guard forces - remain the best trained, best equipped, and most capable in the world, there are significant challenges that are eroding the advantage the United States currently enjoys.

HAHAHAHA!!! Dude, you're quoting a marketing report from BMW and using that as proof that BMW is better than any other car. You're trying to tell me that your National Guard weekend warriors are better trained than me, when I had 50% more training time than a US soldier who had done both army and marines training? Weak.


Those that get to train with more advanced technology are better trained.

Tell that to the Ghurkas.

Yes, the USA spends lots of money. You know what? They lose about four hundred million dollars or equipment each year. That's just bits and pieces falling between the cracks. You know what else? They pay billions on defence contracts which deliver very little, such as the OICW and OCSW.

Again: you have yet to display anything except that the US military knows how to waste money.

Avatar


everyone knows that Israel has got the most top noch pilots in the world. at lest those who know about these things. Israel's force lies in it's fighter planes.

I would have to completely disagree. The IDF's fighter pilots have no competition in their theatre. Israel's air force was a major deciding factor in the Six Day War. Quite simply, Israel got enough planes up and moving early enough that they crapped all over the opposition. Nobody else had any air power in that conflict. Israel's air power has never been tested against other air power or equivalent force. I see no reason to rate the IDF pilots so highly.

All

Okay, time for a bit of grandstanding. In every wargame my ship ever did against the USA, we won. My ship was 25 years old, using obsolete equipment. One example was a shore bombardment exercise off Western Australia, my ship playing with a US surface group of about a dozen modern warships. We were targeting radar reflective targets on the coast. My own ships scored over 90% of hits within 100 feet of the target. No US ship scored higher than 40%. I could list many examples, but this one is quite clear I think.

Personally, I think the US military is better than most in the world. That's because most nations have gangs of untrained dumb punks with AK-47 rip-offs, or have professional military forces which are simply small and more traditional than practical. But the USA is not the best, I would think, in training. They sure do win in terms of expediture and the ability to ship huge amounts of firepower all over the world.

Originally posted by Adam
"Unquestionable"? Why? You actually have a reason for saying that? Or is this the same as saying "God exists because he does!"?

Bad analogy.

The fact that the USA has nukes and a gigantic economy does not necessarily make their troops the best trained. You have yet to explain why you believe this.

Trained in what? Physical, mental, technological? What?

Let's get rid of the blankets and get to the point.

This does not give any indication of the expertise of US soldiers.

You have not given any indication of the expertise of the Australian soldiers smart-ass.

Before you set any standards upon what I state, critically evaluate yourself also.

Logically, a well-funded military equals more morale, better education/technology, higher standards of living, etc. and they will all add up to a "better trained" individual.

Somalia? Vietnam? Or the many times over the past fifty years that the USA has gone up against vastly inferior forces?

As a Vietnamese myself, Vietnam kicked USA's ass. Because the fact that Nixon sent the most "under-privileged" military units there. Most of them were not what the USA military was suppose to be, that is why they lost in guerilla warfare.

TheChosen, all you have demonstrated is that the USA spends lots of money. And from my experience, they spend it stupidly.

Ok, show me some proof.

HAHAHAHA!!! Dude, you're quoting a marketing report from BMW and using that as proof that BMW is better than any other car. You're trying to tell me that your National Guard weekend warriors are better trained than me, when I had 50% more training time than a US soldier who had done both army and marines training? Weak.

Show me something where Australia declares that it has the best military in the world :rolleyes:

Tell that to the Ghurkas.

Yes, the USA spends lots of money. You know what? They lose about four hundred million dollars or equipment each year. That's just bits and pieces falling between the cracks. You know what else? They pay billions on defence contracts which deliver very little, such as the OICW and OCSW.

Proof?

Again: you have yet to display anything except that the US military knows how to waste money.

Depends on what you mean by "waste." Why don't you detail on what you think they wasted their money on?

Okay, time for a bit of grandstanding. In every wargame my ship ever did against the USA, we won. My ship was 25 years old, using obsolete equipment. One example was a shore bombardment exercise off Western Australia, my ship playing with a US surface group of about a dozen modern warships. We were targeting radar reflective targets on the coast. My own ships scored over 90% of hits within 100 feet of the target. No US ship scored higher than 40%. I could list many examples, but this one is quite clear I think.

Wow, what a stupid comparison. Just because I did better than one guy from Harvard, means that my school is better than all of Harvard!! :rolleyes:

Personally, I think the US military is better than most in the world. That's because most nations have gangs of untrained dumb punks with AK-47 rip-offs, or have professional military forces which are simply small and more traditional than practical. But the USA is not the best, I would think, in training. They sure do win in terms of expediture and the ability to ship huge amounts of firepower all over the world.

Training, in what aspect? Overall, we kick any other countries butt.

China has ground superiority but we have air superiority.

Where one country will lack, we will have the upper hand. We're the most well-balanced and best-trained military.

Chosen you're turning this into a "cock waving contest" (to borrow a term from Carlin). Now, do you ahve any proof that America has the hardest training?

Adam - do you have any proof besides that which you gave on your navy experiences that another nation trains harder?

Originally posted by Tyler
Chosen you're turning this into a "cock waving contest" (to borrow a term from Carlin). Now, do you ahve any proof that America has the hardest training?

Adam - do you have any proof besides that which you gave on your navy experiences that another nation trains harder?

So is everyone talking about physical training here? Or mental? What?

If its physical, I won't bother to argue about it anymore. You can't really judge that and it would be only mere opinions.

My own opinions of various forces, of who is tops in what:

Ability to project large amounts of firepower around the world: USA.

Spending: USA.

Physical fitness: The Ghurkas.

Expertise: Britain/Australia (for those who don't know, the Australian military was built by the British, and continues joint training today).

Technological devlopments: USA (for sheer amount of money poured into it.

---------------------------------------

Okay, I've been reading through a document I have here on my computer. It's a declassified report from the Vietnam war, which I borrowed from the Defence Force libraries in Sydney and scanned into my system. The document is:


Australian Army Operational Research Group
Memorandum M36

Analysis Of Australian Army Contacts In South Vietnam During 1967-68


Location in the ADF library is: CP-AR-007-292V
File reference is: DST-84/26156/P2

A few interesting details from the report...

During Australia-Enemy encounters, 84% of first shots were fired by Australians. In other words, Australia had the initiative 84% of the time.

In only 7% of encoutners were Australians grouped as platoons. In 54% they were from section to platoon sized groups. In 39% Australians were in less than section-sized groups.

48% of contacts were less than 5 minutes duration. 72% were less than 15 minutes.

Blah. Heaps of figures in there, and I'm drunk now. I might upload the enitre thing to my website some time for people to look at.

People have made interesting points. I found this illuminating. There was one thing that surprised me, and maybe yo uguys can help me. How much of sciforums is military?

Im not and never will be

i HATE guns

You know Adam, I can't even see why you bother arguing with this idiot.

You know Adam, I can't even see why you bother arguing with this idiot.

Mistress Helga is out of town, I think.

The quality of training depends on a soldier's ability to survive and to kill. American troops are well trained in both. Our technology is just a bonus which makes us more efficient killers.

First of all, you cannot make a stupid blanket statement that Australia or whatever country has a better trained military than the USA.

Military encompasses all of the armed forces. You need to be alot more specific Adam :rolleyes:

Sure the SAS could be equivalents of the US Navy Seals, anyone can argue which is better or not, but it then boils down to opinions. There is no testable competition/confirmations.

OVERALL the USA ranks as the most-funded, best-trained, and best-equipped military in the world.

If we did not have the best military overall, we are not the world's #1 superpower, common sense.

Here's a logical analogy.

Princeton University (http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/college/rankings/natudoc/tier1/t1natudoc.htm) is a very well-funded school. Sure a school like Babson College (MA) (http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/college/rankings/business/entrep.htm) may have the best rated undergraduate business specialties, but you cannot flat-out state because of that Babson College has higher educational standards over Princeton University.

That is completely absurd and bullshit and you know it.

Why do people say the USA is arrogrant?

Because we have every fuckin right to be arrogant!! :cool:

Nuff' said. :rolleyes:

Originally posted by Adam
My own opinions of various forces, of who is tops in what:

Expertise: Britain/Australia (for those who don't know, the Australian military was built by the British, and continues joint training today).

It's just that, your opinions. What I have laid out are facts.

I say the USA has more expertise :D

And you can't say nothing about that. But if I say we have the best military in the world, you can't argue, I'm right.

Originally posted by ~The_Chosen~

OVERALL the USA ranks as the most-funded, best-trained, and best-equipped military in the world.

The funding bit I agree with. But best-trained? You say this based on...?

Originally posted by Adam

The funding bit I agree with. But best-trained? You say this based on...?

Say Australia's SAS "could be" better trained than USA's.

What about the Navy? Army? Coast Guard?

Did you take all of them into account?

Military doesn't = SAS only

It = all armed forces.

Originally posted by ~The_Chosen~

Military doesn't = SAS only

It = all armed forces.
Are you going to surprise us all by declaring the sky is blue next?

In four pages of ranting, you have yet to declare anything except "The USA spends lots of money!"

Search anywhere,

I type in "Australia is the best trained military in the world"

Nothing pops up.

If I type "USA is the best trained military in the world"

Lo and behold, a couple of articles all say it.

It's not solid proof, but it does tell you something. Why don't we ask all the governments? :D :p

Actually, what that tells me is that more kids have more free time to waste on making personal webpages in the USA than in most other places.

Originally posted by Adam
Actually, what that tells me is that more kids have more free time to waste on making personal webpages in the USA than in most other places.

Kids' webpages? WTF are you talking about?

Many news sources state it. Thing is, no one dares to mention that australia has the best trained military, because its a fact, they don't.

Meanwhile their SAS could potentially be the best in desert combat.

Desert combat? WTF did that come from? Dude, you clearly known jack diddly about anything military. Just leave it alone or get something credible.

Originally posted by Adam
Desert combat? WTF did that come from? Dude, you clearly known jack diddly about anything military. Just leave it alone or get something credible.

LMAO!!! Your SAS are world renown in Desert and Jungle combat.

Special Tactics (http://www.specialtactics.com/overview.shtml)

Special Operations (http://www.specialoperations.com/)

All detailed special forces of the USA and a couple of other countries.

Oh looky, the USA has so much more capabilities = better trained

You're the one that doesn't know any common sense.

This is what I mean when I say you know jack diddly. You've read a website or two. Yay for you. Our SAS are equally well trained in every type of terrain. Pointing out specifically desert or jungle is absolutely pointless and serves no purpose at all in this discussion. Thus, pointing out the desert combat bit was silly. It's like saying I'm particularly good at walking westward (when I'm equally good at walking in other directions too).

Originally posted by Adam
This is what I mean when I say you know jack diddly. You've read a website or two. Yay for you. Our SAS are equally well trained in every type of terrain. Pointing out specifically desert or jungle is absolutely pointless and serves no purpose at all in this discussion. Thus, pointing out the desert combat bit was silly. It's like saying I'm particularly good at walking westward (when I'm equally good at walking in other directions too).

LOL @ Adam. I may not know as much as you (since you had military experience yourself) and I doubt you made the SAS.

Look at Australia's geography, how many deserts are there?

Why do you think I formed that opinion, and from such an opinion you state I know jack diddly squat? LOL

Why don't you track the history of the SAS? Smart ass

They were initially created as a desert raiding force to weaken Rommel's North African logistics network as well as hinder aircraft operations. :rolleyes:

LMAO!! You amuse me :cool:

Originally posted by ~The_Chosen~

Look at Australia's geography, how many deserts are there?

Look at Australia's geography. We have deserts, alpine, deciduous forest, tropical rainforest, moors, swamps, pastures, scrubland, and more. For extra alpine training our SAS also train in Sweden, for extra desert training they go sometimes to the USA, and they get quite a lot of traning in England as well. They get almost every terrain here, and more overseas.

Give up. Go read a comic book or something.

Originally posted by Adam
The fact that the USA has nukes and a gigantic economy does not necessarily make their troops the best trained. You have yet to explain why you believe this.

Chosen stated best trained overall. IF you compare you're SAS with a certain elite of the US's, then that's valid.

Somalia? Vietnam? Or the many times over the past fifty years that the USA has gone up against vastly inferior forces?

Now here, you are debating about many regular soldiers going into combat.

You, Adam, is comparing Australia's military elite, SAS. So this fact is somewhat useless.

Besides, many US soldiers didn't have the spirit to fight Vietnam, a war many US citizens believed wasn't worth fighting. It is a fact that patriotism and spirit alleviates and causes soldiers to do better in combat. Why fight for something you do not believe in???

Also I believed many of the soldiers were young and drafted right out of high school, which the majority of the soldiers were poor in education. For example, if you were to attend college, you would not be chosen to be drafted to war, they will pick a person of lower education over you, or in a sense, of more use in that area. Or if you held a job right out of high school, they would rather choose someone who isn't occupied. But only 25% of these people were drafted to the war, the rest went on to join the branches of military service.

But now, the US sent many Green Berets into Vietnam. And if you are comparing Australia's SAS, then you must compare an elite of the US. I can't recall where I read this information, but I read that out of every one Green Beret that died in Vietnam, 300 Vietnamese soldiers were killed. Maybe less or a little more, but I'm not sure.

TheChosen, all you have demonstrated is that the USA spends lots of money. And from my experience, they spend it stupidly.

Would you put that money to better use?? People always criticize what a government does, but these people are pretty much well-educated and sometimes go into a lot of stress making decisions for their country and they try to make the best decision for their country. A lot of opinions and decisions are in their mind, and yes sometimes they make a mistake, but not all the time. And it is hard to solve those loopholes in money being spent, as in they expect a good outcome, but the organization uses it wrong. Anyways, so what if we got money to waste. :D

I would have to completely disagree. The IDF's fighter pilots have no competition in their theatre. Israel's air force was a major deciding factor in the Six Day War. Quite simply, Israel got enough planes up and moving early enough that they crapped all over the opposition. Nobody else had any air power in that conflict. Israel's air power has never been tested against other air power or equivalent force. I see no reason to rate the IDF pilots so highly.

I would rate them highly because they have much experience in real-life combat. You said which military has the best trained right? Well I think there is NO better training then real-life training. So Israel probably has the best trained pilots in the world.

But the USA is not the best, I would think, in training.

In training...hmmm...what type of training? Surely you are not trying to compare the US's basic training to Australia's SAS. :bugeye:

I would rate them highly because they have much experience in real-life combat. You said which military has the best trained right? Well I think there is NO better training then real-life training. So Israel probably has the best trained pilots in the world.

The IDF's pilots do indeed have extensive experience attacking unarmed civilians on the ground. That does not make them good combat pilots in any way.


In training...hmmm...what type of training? Surely you are not trying to compare the US's basic training to Australia's SAS.
Actually, if you'd care to read through the thread properly, you'd notice I compared regular Australian training to regular US training several times.

Originally posted by Adam
Look at Australia's geography. We have deserts, alpine, deciduous forest, tropical rainforest, moors, swamps, pastures, scrubland, and more. For extra alpine training our SAS also train in Sweden, for extra desert training they go sometimes to the USA, and they get quite a lot of traning in England as well. They get almost every terrain here, and more overseas.

Give up. Go read a comic book or something.

You're nothing than a big damn baby.

Admit it, USA has the best-trained military in the world. I linked sources.

What the hell have you linked? You have just put down opinions that aren't worth much.

LoL, you are still attacking my opinion. I believe SAS are one of the best in desert combat, they were initially created for it.

Where can you show me I lacked knowledge of them being well-trained in other aspects also? You can't :rolleyes:

Now you're just acting like a big baby. End of discussion.

Well, that's nice. There go those well-honed debating skills again. :rolleyes:

Anyone got anything reasonable to add?

Originally posted by Adam
Actually, if you'd care to read through the thread properly, you'd notice I compared regular Australian training to regular US training several times.

Uhhhh..yeah, I knew that, it was a joke sorta. Why did you think I said "surely you are not?" Maybe you need to read properly. :)

Let's have a look at TheChosen's idea that the USA having more money would obviously produce better results in training and education and such:
http://www.sciforums.com/t7090/s/thread.html

Originally posted by Adam
Let's have a look at TheChosen's idea that the USA having more money would obviously produce better results in training and education and such:
http://www.sciforums.com/t7090/s/thread.html

Well, how many countries actually do get an education system?! :D

I have lived in Korea and they go to school over 10 hours a day.

8:00 AM - 6:00 PM

Then back at 10:00 PM - 12:00 AM

Freaky eh? But they do so good in high school, that most of them don't go to college anyway.

Now if you want to compare education, compare the college education, we all know high school is just a game.

I'm there in my school taking the Terra Nova test (measures education level of students and compares schools over the nation) and half the students in my class don't even finish the book or bother to do it.

That's how damn lazy they are and that pisses me off, but then again they aren't going to college, they will just live the average lives.

In my AP US History class, my teacher said only 3 of us will graduate from college. And there were 12 of us...of course most likely we will all attend college since we are taking the advanced courses.

Top mathematics countries at the High School Level.

Korea
Japan
China?
USA :D

This is what the countries THOUGHT they would get:

USA :rolleyes:
China
Japan
Korea

But the actual results are reversed!! LOL :o

But one thing I will mention about the Korean education system. They are all about taking tests and over-working their students.

Do you know how many suicides occur nationally in Korea? And I'm dead serious also, they barely have a social life (or lack of). I need to find my sources.

But the reason why American students that are COLLEGE-BOUND are more successful in life is because of one fact of the American education system.

We don't focus on "memorization techniques" we focus on "creative critical thinking"

Koreans do too much memorizing, and life isn't all about that, it more about critical thinking. That is why they spend so much time in schools, they memorize way too many things. That's their life, whatever the school instills in their brain. Memorize..

To be simplistic...

Korean: 1 + 1 = 2 (the answer is always 2 that is how it is)

American: 1 + 1 = 2 (because of the addition properties, I know how to get that 2)

Fact: Most Korean schools' summers are 1 month long.

The news here reported a few months ago on the results ofa worldwide survey of people from primary school to university graduates. This particular survey found I think Norway #1 for literacy, followed by Australia, and Japan #1 for numeracy.

I'm sure the Australians are well trained, but they just don't have the experience as do the Americans. America is involved in two or more conflicts every decade. Let's face it, the Ozzies need an invitation before they can participate in a war. They just don't have adequate experience to properly train their boys.

http://www.cdi.org/issues/wme/
http://www.army.mil/
http://www.defence.gov.au/army/

Originally posted by Bowser
I'm sure the Australians are well trained, but they just don't have the experience as do the Americans. America is involved in two or more conflicts every decade. Let's face it, the Ozzies need an invitation before they can participate in a war. They just don't have adequate experience to properly train their boys.

That was what I was trying to prove, but I never could find the sources for it.

Notice the counters they had against my statements, mostly of this deviance: USA wastes their money. :rolleyes: (And their country doesn't? :rolleyes: )

CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING
At $396 billion, the U.S. military budget request for FY'03 is more than six times larger than that of Russia, the second largest spender.
It is more than 26 times as large as the combined spending of the seven countries traditionally identified by the Pentagon as our most likely adversaries (Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Sudan and Syria).
It is more than the combined spending of the next 25 nations.
The United States and its close allies spend more than the rest of the world combined, accounting for more than two-thirds of all military spending. Together they spend over 39 times more than the seven rogue states. ("Allies" includes NATO, Australia, Japan and South Korea.)
The seven potential "enemies," Russia and China together spend $117 billion, less than one-third (30%) the U.S. military budget.
Global military spending has declined from $1.2 trillion in 1985 to $812 billion in 2000. During that time the U.S. share of total military spending rose from 31% to 36% in Fiscal Year 2000.


U.S. Military Spending vs. the World: $ in Billions
http://www.cdi.org/issues/wme/USvsWorld2002.jpg
NOTE:
"Allies" refers to the NATO countries, Australia Japan and South Korea.
"Rogues" refers to Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Sudan and Syria.

Source: http://www.cdi.org/issues/wme/

Like I said, common sense.

And also USA would not be the #1 power if we did not have the best military. :cool:

I'm sure we would spend less if we could get stuff cheaper(one of the failures of American-style capitalism).


We don't focus on "memorization techniques" we focus on "creative critical thinking"

They could have done better with me.

BTW, I believe we were studying training, not budget. Budget is only concerned as far as purchase of equipment and paying instructors.

Originally posted by Bowser
I'm sure the Australians are well trained, but they just don't have the experience as do the Americans. America is involved in two or more conflicts every decade. Let's face it, the Ozzies need an invitation before they can participate in a war. They just don't have adequate experience to properly train their boys.

I suggest you take a closer look at US actions since WW2. They have "invited" Australia to take part nearly every time. We were in Vietnam, Somalia, and most other places where the US saw action.

Once again, TheChosen, we see that the US is capable of spending huge amounts of money. Yet again, that's all you have. And I believe the thread I linked to shows quite clearly that massive US spending does not produce the best results in terms of training.

Originally posted by Bowser
I'm sure the Australians are well trained, but they just don't have the experience as do the Americans. America is involved in two or more conflicts every decade. Let's face it, the Ozzies need an invitation before they can participate in a war. They just don't have adequate experience to properly train their boys.

http://www.cdi.org/issues/wme/
http://www.army.mil/
http://www.defence.gov.au/army/

Hmmm... yes... and you got stopped stone cold in Korea, got your asses handed to you on a plate in Vietnam, and since then have proved your selves in combat against... well let me see... a few thrid world nations, and in places like Somalia have been outfought by tribesmen with antiquated AK's.

In addition to that, your comment about us needing an invitation.. did it ever occur to you, that the attitude of our government might be "well, we're willing to help, but if you need us so badly then you can fucking well ask!"

and you do... every... single... time.

Originally posted by Adam
Once again, TheChosen, we see that the US is capable of spending huge amounts of money. Yet again, that's all you have. And I believe the thread I linked to shows quite clearly that massive US spending does not produce the best results in terms of training.


When comparing the military capabilities of countries, looking at budgets and ships, aircraft and tanks tells only part of the story. It takes more then numbers to make a powerful military; quality personnel, extensive training, experienced leadership, adequate supplies and other factors are in many ways as important as sophisticated weaponry.
For example, prior to the 1991 Persian Gulf War, Iraq had 1 million active duty troops and over 5,000 tanks. The U.S. and its allies had roughly 600,000 troops deployed in the region, and less than 2,000 tanks. Yet the allies achieved an overwhelmingly lopsided victory, suffering less than 200 combat-related casualties, while the number of Iraqis killed was in the tens of thousands.

The United States and its allies — NATO, South Korea and Japan — possess a vast qualitative military advantage over any other nation or group nations in the world. And while such superiority doesn't come cheap, when compared to the rest of the world the amount the United States alone spends on its military is simply staggering.

Source: http://www.cdi.org/issues/wme/

Plus the USA sends in the most troops anyhow, that clearly indicates these troops get the "real thing."

Yes, it mentions the amount of money spent on the US forces for the 1991 Gulf War. The US had, in that conflict, absolute air superiority over mainly open terrain. Also, the US tanks were vastly superior to the antiquated second-hand Russian tanks the Iraqis used. The US forces are undoubtedly far better trained than Iraq's military, and in addition to that superior training had absolute air power and far better equipment bought with that whopping great big economy. However, this does not indicate that the US forces have the best training in the world.

Originally posted by Squid Vicious
Hmmm... yes... and you got stopped stone cold in Korea

Do you actually know the history of what happened? :rolleyes:

, got your asses handed to you on a plate in Vietnam,

Umm, you know the history of this war also?

You do know I am Korean and Vietnamese, so let's see your answer.

and since then have proved your selves in combat against... well let me see... a few thrid world nations, and in places like Somalia have been outfought by tribesmen with antiquated AK's.

And can you show me where Australia has proved themselves?

In addition to that, your comment about us needing an invitation.. did it ever occur to you, that the attitude of our government might be "well, we're willing to help, but if you need us so badly then you can fucking well ask!"

and you do... every... single... time.

LoL!! The USA does most of the work anyway and they get blamed for most of the crap.

Like I said, America walks the walk, some other countries talk the talk.

The history? you're going to come up with all sorts of "reasons" why you didn't do as well as you should have, given your "obvious" military superiority. You're going to quote webpages, youre going to show facts and figures, you're going to attempt to pull the wool over peoples eyes talking about how your government wasnt given a free hand, how your soldiers (your "superbly trained fighting machines") didn't have the will, how your people were against it, ad nausea...

But in the end, your excuses amount to nothing... the simple fact is you lost. You got your asses handed back to you by a bunch of guys wearing black pajamas, carrying one AK with maybe a spare mag or two. As for Australia's involvement in that little episode, ever hear of a place called Long Tan? Probably not. We left that miserable hole a couple of years before you did... probably got bored waiting for your guys to get your shit together and actually win it.

And yes, recently (you may not have noticed) Australia went into East Timor and risked going up against a nation who, in addition to being one of our nearest neighbours (something I've noticed The US avoids assidiously), has a standing army roughly equal to the entire population of Australia, in its own territory. They failed to turn up, but we did manage to drive out a few of their local militias.

See, we threw a war once, but nobody came - you guys were invited, but one can only assume you had better things to do?

*shrug* in a nutshell, you're full of shit.

PS.. my apologies to any more sensible Americans out there... this guy just needs a bit of a slap around the ear ;)

edit to add... I dont give a flying fuck where you're from chosen. Being asian does not exempt you from being an idiot. Am I supposed to back down now in the hope I don't offend your tender sensibilities? Or are your attempting to say that because of an accident of birth you're a fountain of knowledge?

Originally posted by Adam
And I believe the thread I linked to shows quite clearly that massive US spending does not produce the best results in terms of training.

Yes, maybe not the best results, but the chances are that the United States troops are better trained. And if you are talking about regular troops, those are basically nothing.

If you want to debate about best results, debate about the elite teams of each country.

So basically you all are retarded and are arguing for no reason. We can't compare each and every soldier, they all have different capabilities and potential. You all are debating on a topic too broad, why don't you guys narrow it down.

Originally posted by Squid Vicious
The history? you're going to come up with all sorts of "reasons" why you didn't do as well as you should have, given your "obvious" military superiority. You're going to quote webpages, youre going to show facts and figures, you're going to attempt to pull the wool over peoples eyes talking about how your government wasnt given a free hand, how your soldiers (your "superbly trained fighting machines") didn't have the will, how your people were against it, ad nausea...

Read my thread I posted earlier about the soldiers that went into the Vietnam War. And these regular soldiers were not superbly trained. And what do you think? Regular soldiers VS regular soldiers. Regular soldiers of the US did not have the best weapons. They went into combat with M-16's I believe.

And who most likely has HOME advantage?

Spies all over the area? The Vietcong was basically in South Vietnam and the United States couldn't kill any of the civilians, so information leaked everywhere to the North Vietnamese.

The United States sought to minimize and prevent attacks on civilians while North Vietnam made attacks on civilians a centerpiece of its strategy. Americans who deliberately killed civilians received prison sentences while Communists who did so received commendations.

The National Liberation Front assassinated 36,725 South Vietnamese and abducted another 58,499.

The US was fighting with a disadvantage and no spirit. And these are regular soldiers, not the best. Our Green Berets hella kicked ass in that war. Out of every one Green Beret that died, 300 something Vietnamese died. (less or more I'm not sure, can't remember clearly and too lazy to search for it) You see, it is the Green Berets that have the best training and best weapons. Who would give a bunch of regulars expensive weaponary?!?

82% of veterans who saw heavy combat strongly believe the war was lost because of lack of political will.

Hostile deaths: 47,359

http://www.eiis.net/cmart/vietwarstats.html

What were the casualties of the North? I can't seem to find that anywhere...

But in the end, your excuses amount to nothing... the simple fact is you lost. You got your asses handed back to you by a bunch of guys wearing black pajamas, carrying one AK with maybe a spare mag or two.

And spirit does count, but the fact is we were fighting to a stalemate. The fall of Saigon happened 30 April 1975, two years AFTER the American military left Vietnam. The last American troops departed in their entirety 29 March 1973. We fought to an agreed stalemate. But you could say we lost.

I want to see some other country fight in a foreign territory, based on regular troops against regular troops, whoever is home has advantage.

Are you trying to say Vietnamese troops are not trained well enough??? Is that what you are implying? :bugeye: To me, they are smart enemies, using hit-and-run tactics. Along with many underground bases to launch an attack from. In Vietnam's past they even kicked the shit out of the Chinese out of their territory, and look at how big and powerful China was. And they even kept the French out, well after the French occupied Vietnam a bit. I bet if Australia sent their troops into the Vietnam War, the SAME would've happened. :D

So please, there's no point in talking trash about America and it's military and how we did so bad. You make like another country could've won the Vietnam War for South Vietnam. :rolleyes:

Look at Afghanistan and the Soviet Union? The Afghanistans kicked the Soviets asses.

In America's past, look at how the "mighty" British were defeated by us. We lacked everything, but we had one thing, spirit in that war. Look at how all the powerful European powers lost to us in the past trying to control America. :rolleyes:

One of the things the U.S. was lacking in Vietnam was proper management. I'm sure everybody here will agree that for most of both Vietnam and Korea, micromanagement prevented effective use of forces for most of the war.

Yes indeed. Although I do not think the US (or AU) should have been there, I do feel sorry for the soldiers who were screwed oer by idiotic politicians and such.

true.

Let us all salute the soldiers of Nam with the soldiers of Ghan.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Dark Master
Yes, maybe not the best results, but the chances are that the United States troops are better trained. And if you are talking about regular troops, those are basically nothing.

Read my thread I posted earlier about the soldiers that went into the Vietnam War. And these regular soldiers were not superbly trained. And what do you think? Regular soldiers VS regular soldiers. Regular soldiers of the US did not have the best weapons. They went into combat with M-16's I believe.
I'm sure the likes of the first air cav would like to be described as "not superbly trained". Adam's whole thread was initially saying that he thought aussie regulars were better trained than the americans. So, in effect, you're saying you agree.

And fancy sending those poor boys in with only M-16's (we'll ignore the M-60 and M-40 (?) backup shall we?) against AK-47's. Oh, the tragedy. An even fight? Cant have that!!

In other words, your guys can't compete without a major technological advantage. OK, thats a well trained army...


And who most likely has HOME advantage?

What, it's a football game now? and your guys are useless unless they're playing at home? what sort of professional organisation is that?


Spies all over the area? The Vietcong was basically in South Vietnam and the United States couldn't kill any of the civilians, so information leaked everywhere to the North Vietnamese.

The United States sought to minimize and prevent attacks on civilians while North Vietnam made attacks on civilians a centerpiece of its strategy. Americans who deliberately killed civilians received prison sentences while Communists who did so received commendations.

Mommy!! we wanna go home, they're not playing Faaaaiiiirrrr!!!


The US was fighting with a disadvantage and no spirit. And these are regular soldiers, not the best. Our Green Berets hella kicked ass in that war. Out of every one Green Beret that died, 300 something Vietnamese died. (less or more I'm not sure, can't remember clearly and too lazy to search for it) You see, it is the Green Berets that have the best training and best weapons. Who would give a bunch of regulars expensive weaponary?!?

Battle of Long Tan.. one Australian Company (108 men) with artillery support from a nearby base, ambushed by a VC regiment and a battalion, consisting of approximately 2500 men.

Result? One VC regiment running with its tail between its legs. 18 Aussie troops killed, 24 wounded. Bodies of 245 Viet Cong counted after the fight... those that were found.

This was an Australian REGULAR unit... "D" company of 6th battalion. Ambushed by an enemy unit nearly 25 times as large.

Ths US army had no spirit because it went into a war expecting to whip a little Viet butt, but instead discovered that the enemy were actually fighting back. This was a shock of epic proportions from which they never fully recovered ;)


And spirit does count, but the fact is we were fighting to a stalemate. The fall of Saigon happened 30 April 1975, two years AFTER the American military left Vietnam. The last American troops departed in their entirety 29 March 1973. We fought to an agreed stalemate. But you could say we lost.

"agreed stalemate?" You arrived, they fought back, you left. Thats not a stalemate... you lost.


I want to see some other country fight in a foreign territory, based on regular troops against regular troops, whoever is home has advantage. I bet if Australia sent their troops into the Vietnam War, the SAME SHIT would've happened.

errr... we did. See Long Tan, above.

So please, there's no point in talking trash about America and it's military and how we did so bad.
Why not? Chosen's "best trained and equipped army in the world" got its butt kicked by a bunch of guys in black pyjamas. It got fought to a standstill in Korea in the 50's, and lately has only managed to salvage some pride by beating up on Kosovo, Afghanistan and Somalia. Oh wait... you bugged out of
Somalia too, didn't you...


Look at Afghanistan and the Soviet Union? The Afghanistans kicked the Soviets asses.

Yes, they did. The soviet troops were not trained well enough to fight in the conditions it found itself in, and went in fully expecting to roll over the towel heads without too much resistance. Sound familiar?


In America's past, look at how the "mighty" British were defeated by us. We lacked everything, but we had one thing, spirit in that war. Look at how all the powerful European powers lost to us in the past trying to control America. :rolleyes:
[/B]
Powerful European nations trying to control America? When?

Oh, and the war of independance.. dont kid yourself. You had two armies, neither of which had any major techonological advantage, (the british might be seen as having one, but when you get right down to it a musket is a musket and there was no such thing as air support) unlike your army of today. The British, morover, had to resupply their armies over thousands of kilometres of ocean using sailboats... a difficult proposition at best. However, they were, initially at least, far better trained... and they won the vast majority of the early battles. The tide did not really turn until after Valley Forge, where the Americans were trained during the winter into a far more effective fighting force, and also an alliance was entered into with the French. Again, spirit or no spirit, the Americans were defeated time and time again by a VASTLY better trained army. They emerged from Valley forge a far more effective fighting force due to additional training more than anything else. The spirit was always there, but it did not help much in the early battles. Not to mention the French factor towards the end.

I've never used either the AK-47 or the M16, but I think I would prefer the M16 for accuracy. The M16 is a 5.56x45mm, the AK is only a 39mm cartridge.

Actually, I have a huge respect for the American military in general... I'm just winding these two up, because they're being ridiculous.

Originally posted by Squid Vicious
The history? you're going to come up with all sorts of "reasons" why you didn't do as well as you should have, given your "obvious" military superiority. You're going to quote webpages, youre going to show facts and figures, you're going to attempt to pull the wool over peoples eyes talking about how your government wasnt given a free hand, how your soldiers (your "superbly trained fighting machines") didn't have the will, how your people were against it, ad nausea...

LoL...let's take a look at the "reasons" shall we? :)

The Korean War
United Nations Command casualties reached more than 550,000, including 95,000 dead
American losses included 33,686 killed and 103,284 wounded.
The estimate of enemy casualties, including prisoners, exceeded 1,500,000 of whom 900,000 were Chinese.
Truman relieved MacArthur as United Nations Forces commander on April 11.

Gee, look at the comparison of the casualties :D We "lost"?

Estimated Number of Foreign Military Personnel who Served in the Korean War
Australia 17,164
Belgium 3,498
Canada 27,000
Colombia 6,200
Ethiopia 3,518
France 4,000
Greece 5,000
Luxembourg 89
Netherlands 5,300
New Zealand 4,500
Philippines 7,420
South Africa 811
Thailand 6,500
Turkey 15,000
United Kingdom 60,000

The thing is, North Korea lauched a surprise attack on June 25, 1950. They pushed the ROK's back in a tiny perimeter at Pusan.

With a surprise attack
In their OWN territory
With the USA being a couple thousands miles away
at the time of the attack only 500 US soldiers were in Korea
Point is, we came in with the amphibious assault at Inchon, kicked their butts and reclaimed South Korea and took most of North Korea at the command of General MacArthur. :cool:
Then the Chinese came in with overwhelming numbers...300,000 to be approx. - then there was a "static war" at the 38th parallel. Even though we were couple thousands of miles away, with far less numbers than the Chinese and North Koreans, we were able to defend and keep the peace. So I don't know what the hell you are talking about being "stopped"
Our mission was not to take over North Korea or attack China, we only wanted to defend and keep the peace, that was why the UN was involved.
MacArthur wanted an invasion of China, Truman relieved him because of such battle strategy, the US doesn't want another war to erupt, that would be insane.

Notice even though so many other countries participated, we take all the crap and blame for everything. Why? We simply put in the most and helped the most, as the alpha nation, that is our job, so much responsibility falls upon the world's most power nation :cool:

But in the end, your excuses amount to nothing... the simple fact is you lost. You got your asses handed back to you by a bunch of guys wearing black pajamas, carrying one AK with maybe a spare mag or two. As for Australia's involvement in that little episode, ever hear of a place called Long Tan? Probably not. We left that miserable hole a couple of years before you did... probably got bored waiting for your guys to get your shit together and actually win it.

The great question is: How can we win America's peace? (http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/episodes/11/documents/nixon.speech/)

A year after he was elected, President Nixon gave the following address on the situation in Vietnam. The war was unpopular and seemed pointless to many. Protests were rampant, so in this speech Nixon defended his decision to keep U.S. forces in Vietnam and explained why negotiations had failed so far.

The thing is, America had no chance to win the Vietnam war. Here's why.

Lack of morale
Corruption in South Vietnam (http://www.ford.utexas.edu/library/exhibits/vietnam/720719a.htm) - Not only did America lack support from its own nation, the South Vietnamese government was falling under deep corruption and embezzlement, I'm so disappointed in my fellow "democratic Asians."
April 1960 - Eighteen distinguished nationalists in South Vietnam send a petition to President Diem advocating that he reform his rigid, family-run, and increasingly corrupt, government. Diem ignores their advice and instead closes several opposition newspapers and arrests journalists and intellectuals. The youthful Kennedy administration is inexperienced in matters regarding Southeast Asia. Kennedy's Secretary of Defense, 44-year-old Robert McNamara, along with civilian planners recruited from the academic community, will play a crucial role in deciding White House strategy for Vietnam over the next several years. Under their leadership, the United States will wage a limited war to force a political settlement. - You do know what it means by "limited war" right?
Most of the forces in the Vietnam War were under-trained, they were the under-privileged Americans, (high school drop outs and poorly trained)
The USA did lose because of how stupid the war was.
Protesting in America, lack of national support.
Not enough funds were allocated and dedicated to the war effort to make it a success.
Fighting in unknown territory, the Vietnamese had underground bases, clearly our guerilla forces were no match. They could resupply in no time, do hit-and-runs easily.
How far away is the US from Vietnam again?

Source: History Place (http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/vietnam/)

The war was a lost cause, Nixon was an idiot. Tricky Dick should've never got involved in the war, and if he did, make sure we get full national support, send in our best soldiers and carefully watch the corruption that was impeding our success.

And yes, recently (you may not have noticed) Australia went into East Timor and risked going up against a nation who, in addition to being one of our nearest neighbours (something I've noticed The US avoids assidiously), has a standing army roughly equal to the entire population of Australia, in its own territory. They failed to turn up, but we did manage to drive out a few of their local militias.

Wow, drive out a local militia, you must have very skilled soldiers!!! :D :rolleyes:

How much battle experience does you country actually have?

See, we threw a war once, but nobody came - you guys were invited, but one can only assume you had better things to do?

*shrug* in a nutshell, you're full of shit.

WTF are you talking about anyway? What "nation" were you trying to have war with? You requested help??

Are you the one full of shit here?

PS.. my apologies to any more sensible Americans out there... this guy just needs a bit of a slap around the ear ;)

edit to add... I dont give a flying fuck where you're from chosen. Being asian does not exempt you from being an idiot. Am I supposed to back down now in the hope I don't offend your tender sensibilities? Or are your attempting to say that because of an accident of birth you're a fountain of knowledge?

LoL, that just means I study my own nations' histories, I have relatives that talk about the war and were in the war.

Statistics about the Vietnam War (http://www.vhfcn.org/stat.htm)

http://www.vhfcn.org/pics/recom2.gif :D

Myth: The United States lost the war in Vietnam.

The American military was not defeated in Vietnam. The American military did not lose a battle of any consequence. From a military standpoint, it was almost an unprecedented performance. (Westmoreland quoting Douglas Pike, a professor at the University of California, Berkley a renowned expert on the Vietnam War) [Westmoreland] This included Tet 68, which was a major military defeat for the VC and NVA.


THE UNITED STATES DID NOT LOSE THE WAR IN VIETNAM, THE SOUTH VIETNAMESE DID.

Personal opinion: I'd say the USA lost :cool:

Already had my say on most of this, but this bit cant go ignored...

[QUOTE]Originally posted by ~The_Chosen~

Wow, drive out a local militia, you must have very skilled soldiers!!! :D :rolleyes:

How much battle experience does you country actually have?


About as much as you... we sort of tag along with you most of the time when you guys get into another fight. In addition to that, we've had a few tussles of our own... but you wouldn't even know about most of them.


WTF are you talking about anyway? What "nation" were you trying to have war with? You requested help??

Are you the one full of shit here?


Again, Chosen displays an abysmal lack of knowledge of anything happening outside his own backyard.

Although Australia was (and still is) the primary peacekeeping force in East Timor, other nations, including Singapore, New Zealand and the Netherlands (from memory, there were others) contributed. The US were approached and refused to participate.

Indonesia (grab a map chosen, you might need it), to encapsulate the situation, basically wanted to annex East Timor. They sent soldiers in to train and equip East Timorese militia forces. There is speculation that most of these "militia" were in fact Indonesian soldiers themselves but I do not know how much proof there was of this. Adam may be able to help out with that one.

The East timorese appealed to the world for help (mostly directed at Australia, us being their nearest neighbour). After a bit of a delay we did exactly that... sent Australian troops into the region and occupied parts of East Timor as a peacekeeping force. there were several small skirmishes with the militia groups but most of the time they bolted when they saw us coming, back over the border to Indonesia. We were not allowed to pursue them, and the Indonesian government flatly refused to stop them from doing so, and in fact set up replenishment camps for the militias inside their own borders. We shot a few of them and so far they havent been back.

What is most relevant about all this, Chosen, is that Indonesia made no secret of the fact that they wanted East Timor. We went in anyway... risking a war with, as I said, a nation which has a standing army larger than our entire population, and which I believe is ranked as the fourth largest in the world. Fortunately, no war ensued... but the risk was huge, for us. The situation was getting rather ugly.

America, on the other hand, has never been in a situation like this in recent history. Your wars have been fought mostly against inferior opponents. This situation is similar to the US sending one battalion into China on a peacekeeping mission and expecting it to do the job without external support, with the rest of the US army saying "Nah - you guys should be able to handle it by yourselves, we got other things to take care of".

So who's got the guts?


LoL, that just means I study my own nations' histories, I have relatives that talk about the war and were in the war.


Then why mention it? oh, and for the record... I do too... most people here do, as far as I can see.

Any country the US goes to war with are inferior compared to the US of course :D

Well I don't know much history about Australia, even though I do Model United Nations - ECOSOC and the Security Council, never heard of such. But I'm glad you informed me :)

But still, that doesn't mean jack crap, you guys have never been deeply involved in a full scale and serious war.

Only send "help"

Originally posted by Squid Vicious

They sent soldiers in to train and equip East Timorese militia forces. There is speculation that most of these "militia" were in fact Indonesian soldiers themselves but I do not know how much proof there was of this. Adam may be able to help out with that one.

I'ev never seen any proof of this either, but everyone does it. In fact it was the CIA together with Australian intelligence gruops who did that in the 70s to screw over East Timor in the first place. They armed militia groups, trained them, encouraged gangs to burn down villages and such, much as we've seen in the past couple of years throughout Indonesia. The guys behind it did such a great job of it that the entire project was turned into a book, which became a standard text in Western intelligence on how to destabilise a developing nation. So I guess Australia sort of had a responsibility to go in this time and sort it out. That, and we got a cut of East Timor's oil and gas out of it.

Squid Vicious, were you watching the news a lot prior to Australia's official landing in East Timor? Three weeks before the landing, that huge grey catamaran was in Darwin harbour. Around dusk it was loaded with soldiers. Over night it left, and returned in the morning empty. For about three weeks prior to our official arrival there, special forces chaps were scouting around all over, and not one incident was reported. Very sneaky sneaky.

Anyway, I have no doubt that those militia groups were often composed entirely of Indonesian regulars, or were at least headed by Indonesian officers. Although, as I said, I've never seen any proof of this.

Originally posted by ~The_Chosen~

But still, that doesn't mean jack crap, you guys have never been deeply involved in a full scale and serious war.

ARE YOU FUCKING INSANE???

1) Australia has been involved in the following wars [Australian deaths]:

New Zealand (Anglo-Maori) - 1860 to 1861. [Accurate figures not available]
Sudan - 3/3/1885 to 8/5/1885. [9]
South Africa (Boer War) - 11/10/1889 to 1/6/1902. [606]
Boxer Rebellion (China) - 6/8/1900 to 25/4/1901. [6]
First World War - 4/8/1914 to 11/11/1918. [61919]
Second World War - 3/9/1939 to 8/5/1945 (VE Day) and 15/8/1945 (VJ Day). [39366]
Korean War - 29/6/1950 to 27/7/1953. [339]
Malayan Emergency - 31/5/1950 to 31/7/1960. [36]
Indonesian Confrontation - 10/10/1963 to 1/10/1966. [15]
Vietnam War - 3/8/1962 to 1/1/1973. [520, including 4 missing]
Gulf War - 17/1/1991 to 28/2/1991. [0]
Source: Australian War Memorial - Roll Of Honour Cards.



2) Australia has been involved in the following disaster relief and peacekeeping operations from 1990 to 2000:

Lebanon/Syria/Israel - UN Truce Supervision Organisation, 1956 -
Sinai - Multinational Force and Observers, 1993 -
Iran/Iraq - UN Military Iran-Iraq Observer Group, 1988 - 1990.
Namibia - UN Transition Assistance Group, 1989 - 1990.
Red Sea/Gulf - Maritime Interception Force, 1990 -
Kuwait - Desert Shield/Storm and Operation Pollard, 1990 -
Western Sahara - UN Mission for the Referendum in Western Sahara, 1991 - 1994.
Cambodia - UN Advance Mission in Cambodia and UN Transitional Authority in Cambodia, 1991 - 1993.
Somalia - UN Operation in Somalia (1 & 2) and United Task Force Somalia, 1992 - 1994.
Rwanda - UN Assistance Mission in Rwanda, 1994 - 1995.
Bougainville - South Pacific Peace Keeping Force, 1994.
Bougainville - Truce Monitoring Group and Peace Monitoring Group, 1997 -
East Timor - UN Assistance Mission to East Timor, International Force East Timor (INTERFET), UN Transitional Administration in East Timor (UNTAET), 1999 -
Solomon Islands - International Peace Monitoring Team, 2000 -
Afghanistan/Pakistan - UN Mine Clearance Training Team, 1983 - 1993.
Cambodia - Cambodia Mine Action Centre, 1992 - 1999.
Mozambique - Mine Clearance Operations, 1992 -
Papua New Guinea - PNG drought relief and humanitarian relief for tsunami victims, 1997 - 1998.
Irian Jaya - Drought relief, 1998.
Cambodia - Evacuation of civilians, 1997.
Solomon Islands - Evacuation of civilians, 2000.
South Pacific - Periodic disaster relief and other assistance.
Source: Australian Defence Force - Minister's White Paper 2000.


Additionally, Australia has been involved in many covert actions at the specific request of the USA. I know this because I have friends who have been involved. As I've said before, every time the USA goes to war, it requests Australian special forces and intelligence.

Originally posted by Squid Vicious
I'm sure the likes of the first air cav would like to be described as "not superbly trained". Adam's whole thread was initially saying that he thought aussie regulars were better trained than the americans. So, in effect, you're saying you agree.

I didn't bother to read everything throughly because that would be a waste of my time, so I'm not sure Adam's whole thread was initially for that. But what I did see is the Australian SAS mentioned, but never compared with Green Berets or Navy Seals. And these two are arguing about the best trained. :rolleyes: Could've just simply put in ONE sentence, Australian regulars have better training then US regulars, instead this thread has stated information implicitly. Look at what they are arguing about, it's not very clear there. Anyways, US regulars are nothing to brag about, if Australia has better regulars, then that's great. :)

And fancy sending those poor boys in with only M-16's (we'll ignore the M-60 and M-40 (?) backup shall we?) against AK-47's. Oh, the tragedy. An even fight? Cant have that!!

In other words, your guys can't compete without a major technological advantage. OK, thats a well trained army...

This world is not about fighting fair, it's never fair anyways. It's about fighting for what you believe is right. And yourrrr point??

What, it's a football game now? and your guys are useless unless they're playing at home? what sort of professional organisation is that?

It's obvious if you attack someones territory the enemy has the upper hand. :rolleyes: And no, we aren't useless unless we play at home, we can still do damage. :) We do become less useful when we fight for something that we don't believe in.

Mommy!! we wanna go home, they're not playing Faaaaiiiirrrr!!!

What was the point in that you big baby??? :bugeye:

Battle of Long Tan.. one Australian Company (108 men) with artillery support from a nearby base, ambushed by a VC regiment and a battalion, consisting of approximately 2500 men.

Result? One VC regiment running with its tail between its legs. 18 Aussie troops killed, 24 wounded. Bodies of 245 Viet Cong counted after the fight... those that were found.

This was an Australian REGULAR unit... "D" company of 6th battalion. Ambushed by an enemy unit nearly 25 times as large.

That is amazing... I don't believe Australian forces encountered many enemies but they did a excellent job in this one, but in the end of the war, Australia lost about 600 men. That is what I found at a website, how many North Vietnamese did the Aussie's kill? It's 600 to 245 now...so let's see the statistics shall we. Show me. :)

So.......you're implying that if Australia sent all their regulars in place of American regulars they could win the war for South Vietnam?? :eek:

Still no good reason to talk trash about America. NO other country was up to the job.

Ths US army had no spirit because it went into a war expecting to whip a little Viet butt, but instead discovered that the enemy were actually fighting back. This was a shock of epic proportions from which they never fully recovered ;)

Yes true, and that is what you get if you are prideful. As the Soviets it happened the same. We had no motivation to do so anyways, it's like sending depressed people who don't want to kill into war.


"agreed stalemate?" You arrived, they fought back, you left. Thats not a stalemate... you lost.

If YOU look at it that way. We had other motives to leave. Germany and Japan were catching up in industry and the United States was falling behind. A lot of money was being poured into Vietnam and nothing was getting anywhere, so we decided to leave. And there were many protests against the Vietnam War. The South Vietnamese government was corrupt which made matters worst. The Viet Cong praticially had everything marked in South Vietnam through many loopholes, corruption, and spies. The North Vietnamese had an inspirational leader, Ho Chi Minh, and many Vietnamese appealed to Communism, since democracy is very weak in it's early stages. China and the Soviets sent reinforcements and supplied the North Vietnamese with weapons etc. So if we stayed in the war, we would've screwed ourselves over because NO one else was doing much but US.

So go ahead and say we lost, we had our reasons and it's not all about winning the war. :rolleyes:


errr... we did. See Long Tan, above.

Ohhhh wowwww, one little thing. I want to see Australia put it's efforts into the war and see what the outcome would be. With China and the Soviet Union backing up North Vietnam, Australia would have the same fate as the US.

And the casualties is still 600 Australians dead to 245 North Vietnamese.....soooo I want to see how well they really did overall. If they did so "great" in this Battle of Long Tan, I want to see if that is consistent.

Why not? Chosen's "best trained and equipped army in the world" got its butt kicked by a bunch of guys in black pyjamas.

Doesn't mean you are the "best trained and equipped army" you would instantly win. North Vietnamese soldiers were pretty much well-equipped (by China and the Soviet Union) and trained in their OWN battle ground. And you saw my reasons above why America was at such a disadvantage.

Oh wait... you bugged out of Somalia too, didn't you...

I don't know much of the Somalia incident...but I did see that movie Black Hawk Down, and the casualties at the end of that battle. But still, I do not know much but it seems from others that America did bad.


Yes, they did. The soviet troops were not trained well enough to fight in the conditions it found itself in, and went in fully expecting to roll over the towel heads without too much resistance. Sound familiar?

Hah, Afghanistan back then was backed by America. We gave them the stinger missles that gave them to advantage to take out Soviet helicopters like nothing. And the rest was land battle in which the Soviets were not used too, and the Afghans knew it very well. If you know how the Soviets were defeated, the Afghans buried weapons and water underground and carried what was essential to fight. So to sum it up, they could move twice as fast as the Soviets could with all their equipment, and therefore hit-and-run and beat on the Soviets easily. And plus air was nothing if you had heat seeking stinger missles provided from the United States.

So home advantage DOES make a difference. So cut out that football crap. ;)

Powerful European nations trying to control America? When?

Control land or take land from the US, that was what I meant, and in that way trying to control America for themselves But we still kick their asses out of there.

Oh, and the war of independance.. dont kid yourself. You had two armies, neither of which had any major techonological advantage, (the british might be seen as having one, but when you get right down to it a musket is a musket and there was no such thing as air support) unlike your army of today. The British, morover, had to resupply their armies over thousands of kilometres of ocean using sailboats... a difficult proposition at best. However, they were, initially at least, far better trained... and they won the vast majority of the early battles. The tide did not really turn until after Valley Forge, where the Americans were trained during the winter into a far more effective fighting force, and also an alliance was entered into with the French. Again, spirit or no spirit, the Americans were defeated time and time again by a VASTLY better trained army. They emerged from Valley forge a far more effective fighting force due to additional training more than anything else. The spirit was always there, but it did not help much in the early battles. Not to mention the French factor towards the end.

Yeah yeah, spirit or motives, does make a difference in battle. You know history pretty good, but I'm too lazy to go look it up now. Forgot most of it.

Originally posted by Squid Vicious
Actually, I have a huge respect for the American military in general... I'm just winding these two up, because they're being ridiculous.

Yeah yeah hypocrite. :o

And where have I been ridiculous? :bugeye:

You're the one saying, "Mommy! Mommy!" So just go home ridiculous lil boy :D

The things I see ridiculous is Adam and Chosen being unspecific in arguing, which is going nowhere. Chosen has a point, then Adam has a point, it's not really going anywhere.

Originally posted by Adam

ARE YOU FUCKING INSANE???



No :D

I'm talking about Australia being "put on the spot"

USA is always perceived to be the "lone one" responsible for this and that. Since the rest of NATO and the UN sends in so little forces that they "really" don't count.

I'm not great with Australia's history, but I'm guessing they have not fought a war ON THEIR OWN. But you can enlighten me :) Link the source.

What major war has australia been apart of in where it receives little or no support from other nations?

Originally posted by Dark Master

It's 600 to 245 now...so let's see the statistics shall we. Show me. :)

And the casualties is still 600 Australians dead to 245 North Vietnamese.....soooo I want to see how well they really did overall. If they did so "great" in this Battle of Long Tan, I want to see if that is consistent.

You have just compared the total Australian dead for the whole Vietnam war to the Vietnamese known dead from one battle.

Now, I will give numbers again from the declassified report I quoted earlier in this thread.

For the year 1967-68:

Australia vs Viet contacts: 253 reported. Of those, Australians fired the first shot 84% of the time, indicating who had the intiative.

In that year alone, the Australian forces inflicted 410 enemy dead, 70 enemy wounded, and 12 enemy captured. The enemy inflicted on us 11 dead and 114 injured.

It is also interesting to note that in that year, 24% of all Australian contacts were made by our SAS, and 52% of their arsenal usage was the L1A1 rifle (my favourite).

------------------

This stuff below is from a chap at the Australian National University who is totally obsessed with Australian military history.

Index: 2422 Reference:
From: Brian
Subject: Australia's Military Involvement in the Vietnam War
Date: 9 Sep 1995 23:28:16 -0400
Organization: Australian National University
Keywords: Australia; RAR; Canberras; RAN; AATTV; 1 Australian Task Force.

This posting is the first of two intended to provide an
overview of Australian military operations in Vietnam, commencing from the
deployment of the Australian Army Training Team Vietnam in 1962 until
1969, when Australian forces began withdrawing, consistent with the Nixon
Doctrine of phased withdrawal from the mainland of Asia and the policy of
Vietnamization.

While the second will deal primarily with the political decisions
to become involved in the Vietnam war, suffice to say for the moment, that
the Australian commitment to Vietnam was largely dictated by political
concerns and was therefore limited by the same concerns. The
predominant theory of defence during the sixties was the containment of
communism and "Forward Defence". Both of these policies relied heavily on
the presence of America in Southeast Asia combating the perceived Chinese
threat. In Vietnam, this translated into the policy of supporting
American military involvement and encouraging the continuation of this
involvement until such time as China was sufficiently dissuaded from any
further adventurism or Australia could more capably defend itself.


Australian Army Training Team Vietnam

Australia's initial commitment to supporting the American stance
in Vietnam consisted of the deployment of a team of military advisers. On
26th July, 1962, the Minister for Defence announced Australia's intention
to send 30 instructors to the Republic of Vietnam, 4 going to the Military
Aid Council Vietnam (MACV) Headquarters in Saigon, 22 to regional
locations in the Hue area and 4 to Duc My.(1) This team would be headed
by Colonel F.P. Serong, previously the Commanding Officer at the Jungle
Training Centre, Canungra, Queensland and would fall under the command of
the Australian Army Forces, Far Eastern Landing Forces Headquarters in
Singapore.(2) The AATTV arrived in the Republic of Viet Nam in August,
1962.

AATTV advisers served with ARVN (Army of the Republic of Vietnam)
units, including infantry, artillery and armoured divisions, independent
regiments in the I Corps area (the northern province of RVN),regional and
provincial headquarters, the Viet Nam Police Field Force, US Special
Forces, Montegnard Special Forces and CIA operations.(3) with the
escalation of Australian forces in Vietnam in 1966, Australian advisers
also served with 1 Australian Task Force (1ATF) at Nui Dat.

The primary role of the AATTV was to train ARVN and other forces
in the use of weapons, jungle warfare, tactics and strategy. In addition,
especially after the Australian government allowed them to serve in
battalion and smaller size formations, they took liaison roles, calling
for airstrikes and arranging logistical support and medevac facilities.(4)
They usually operated as individuals or in small groups of two or three.
After 1963, the AATTV came wider the operational control of MACV HQ in
Saigon.

It was intended that the AATTV would represent Australia's
commitment to the American operations in Vietnam, and as such, would not
have a significant military impact, however, the success of Australian
advisers, not the least Captain Peterson's training of the Montegnard
Special Forces in Dar Lac Province, became quickly known throughout
Vietnam. Peterson established Armed Propaganda and Intelligence Teams
(APIT)from amongst Montnegard tribesmen in Ban Me Thout, designed to
disseminate propaganda, collect information and establish a network of
informers, disrupt Viet Cong infiltration and supply routes, conduct small
scale raids, ambushes and similar minor operations and to conduct long
range patrols into Viet Cong 'safe areas', rescuing captured Monteg nards
and liberating equipment and ammunition.(5) Building on these gains,
Peterson established a 'People's Army' just prior to his departure, which
at that stage had effectively regained control over much of southern Dar
Lac. Despite the inadequacies of the ARVN forces in protecting pacified
areas, and the racial problems between Montegnards and ARVN personnel,
Peterson had succeeded in regaining the upper hand in the Ban Me Thout
region.

AATTV techniques and method of operations were significantly
different to many of those employed by their American allies. Experience
in the jungles of Malaya and Borneo and limitations on the number of and
facilities available to personnel had combined to produce very different
tactics. Whilst American instructors expounded the virtues of the rapid
deployment of large numbers of troops, massive fire power and decisive
battles, Australians concentrated on individual marksmanship, the
independence of platoons from battalion HQs, small scale patrols and
ambushes. These differences frequently bought Australian advisers into
conflict with their American superiors. The Australian policy of 'economy
of effort' was directly opposed to the American idea of 'concentration of
force'.(6)

The AATTV served with distinction in Vietnam. During AATTV's tour
of duty, members were awarded two Victoria Crosses, several Military
Crosses and several Military Medals.(7) It was the first Australian force
to arrive and the last to leave. After the initial deployment of 30
instructors, it was increased in size by 30 in May 64, by 23 in June 64
and then by 17 in January 65, bringing it to a total strength of 100. It
was restricted from further increases by the introduction of a National
Service Act ( 1965) in Australia which required large numbers of
instructors. The last instructors were withdrawn from Phuoc Tuy Province
in December 1972.


The First Deployment of Australian Ground Forces

In April 1965, consistent with President Johnson's deployment of
US Marines to protect airforce bases in Vietnam, Prime Minister Robert
Menzies announced his intention to send 1 Battalion, Royal Australian
Regiment (1 RAR) to assist in the defence of American bases. 1 RAR was
restructured into a tropic warfare organisation, similar to that employed
by the American army and was to serve under the US 173rd Airborne Brigade
(Separate) (US 173 Abn Bde)defending Bien Hoa airforce base.(8) Initially
it was intended that 1 RAR would only be used in defence of the base but
by December offensive operations had begun in conjunction with 173 Abn
Bde.(9) During 1 RAR's tour of duty, 22 major operations were conducted,
usually within 10-20 miles from Bien Hoa.

Like the AATTV, significant problems were encountered in operating
with US forces. These were compounded by poor equipment, including WWll
Owen machine guns and boots, and no decent preparation before
embarkation.(10) The operational problems they encountered will be
discussed below, suffice to say here that they were not sufficiently
resolved until 1 ATF was established with its relative independence.
Despite these limitations, however, the Australian regiment was
successfully integrated into the 173rd Abn Bde until it's tour of duty was
completed in June 1966.


1 Australian Task Force, Phuoc Tuy Province

In March 1966, the Australian government announced its intention
to create a single and relatively independent Australian Task Force. This
came largely as a result of political pressure on the Australian
government by Washington but was also consistent with the dominant
foreign and defence policy trends within Canberra at the time. However,
there was good reason to create the Task Force from a military point of
view also. Not only would Australians regain some control over their
troops, they would also b e permitted to conduct operations in a manner
consistent with their experiences and techniques. Consideration was also
given to the limited resources available to the Australian command in
Vietnam and the need to pool these in order to have a more visible
effect.

Phuoc Tuy Province was situated in III Corps Tactical Zone and had
a population of 160,000. At the time the Australian Task Force arrived, it
was a relatively wealthy province, agriculturally rich and had a
comparatively prosperous costal economy.(11) It had been a base for
anti-French activities after WWII and was familiar with the Viet Minh
presence that accompanied these activities. Despite having two large
Catholic migrant towns, it was also a popular base for Viet Cong
activities throughout the peri od of Diem's authority.(12) Operational in
Phuoc Tuy were the 274th and 275th NLF Regiments and D445 Provincial
Mobile Battalion, a local force with strong links to the population, an
intimate knowledge of the area and assured supplies.(13) Phuoc Tuy was
chosen because there was a reasonable amount of enemy activity, no risk of
border violations in the pursuit of the enemy and it had excellent air and
sea access ensuring adequate supplies and an assured evacuation route. The
terrain was not dissimilar from that often encountered by Australians in
Malaya and Borneo.(14) In addition to this, the pacification of Phuoc Tuy
was essential to the Republic of Viet Nam because of it's wealth and to
the MACV because of the significance of Vung Tau port and the supply line
(Route 15) to Saigon and Bien Hoa.

The exact placement of the Task Force was to be Nui Dat, a hill on
Route 2, heading north through the centre of the province, and was an
obvious challenge to the NLF and NVA forces