tmac
Posts: 160
Joined: 4/16/2003 From: Syracuse (Home of 2003 NCAA Basketball Champs) NY Status: offline
|
Guys- I almost fell out of my chair reading this thread. The mis-information in it is staggering, and I can only attribute it to opinions from folks who never served in the US Army, and bullsh*t from ages ago like Vietnam. Les. I have to take issue with you in particular. You quote Carl Sagan about the average US citizens ignorance, then utter total cr*p about how the US Army is trained and fights, and then run for cover with a "this is no slag intended" comment. Some of what you claim is totally ignorant, so what should we infer about the average Canadians intelligence? The M-16 IS NOT used as a suppressive weapon, the older M-60 and now the SAW are, as are other crew served weapons like the Mark 19 and M-2 .50 cal. All US Army soldiers are taught to shoot aimed shots not fire indiscriminently. The only time riflemen should shoot suppressive fire is to cover movement of another element of their unit (which I would believe is doctrine in all modern armies). Where do you get this total bs about US soldiers not being trained in marksmanship? I have to qualify very year, and I am a total REMF. The troops going into combat get much more sustainment training. I use "sustainment" intentionally, because all soldiers are taught how to shoot correctly, and must prove it to even get out of basic training, and get follow on training for the rest of the time they serve. Does this mean it always happens this way? Of course not, that is a function of training and experience, but that is true of all armies. Studies I have read cited historical data that many soldiers either don't fire aimed shots or don't fire at all in combat, regardless of nationality. BTW, it is IMO a cheap shot to say the US hasn't faced a real opponent since Nazi Germany when your armed forces haven't faced ANY opponent since maybe Korea. To snidely refer to what my fellow soldiers are experiencing right now as not "real combat" angers me and is ignorant. Should we only refer to combat as "real" when we are forming squares or going over the top? Warfare changes over time, and is certainly different now than WWII or even Vietnam. Weapons, intelligence gathering, mechanization, and more all change how it is fought, but it always boils down to guy with a rifle holding or taking a piece of ground. Don't put down these guys who are dying by saying they are not being killed in combat, especially when you never faced what they are going through. This is from a serving member of the US Army, in now for over 20 years, and I cannot stand by and listen to such odious garbage tossed my way. If you have a problem with this, let me know. Otherwise, put a sock in your put downs of me and my fellow soldiers. Tim
< Message edited by tmac -- 5/1/2004 1:36:30 PM >
|