The players on the BF2 batlefield has the most skild infintry..........
Yeah. That's what we said in the late 1700's...not.Jibbles wrote:
5.) I would never rebel against the military.
1.)Unknown
2.)Training, equipment, history, and moral.
3.) If WWIII broke out, I would not run away. If it was for something I believed in, I would sign up, if I didn't believe in the cause, I may just wait out for a draft.
4.) ^
5.) ^
2.)Training, equipment, history, and moral.
3.) If WWIII broke out, I would not run away. If it was for something I believed in, I would sign up, if I didn't believe in the cause, I may just wait out for a draft.
4.) ^
5.) ^
Me.
1) The USMC, They have the most Experience and the best equipment.blademaster wrote:
1.)According to your sources or experience serving in army, which infantry would dominate the rest?
2.)What makes any military units so skilled, toughness, skills, intelligence or something else?
3.) if WW3 broke out, and you were drafted to go war, would you give your life for your country or run like a bitch?
4.) If you were forced to serve in military would you still serve?
5.)If you were to rebel against going to the army and your only chance to stay alive was to get tortured? would you still go to the war, and be exposed to some horrific stuff which would make you mentally unstable for the rest of your life.
2) Training, and the economy to support the troops.
3) I would give my life for my country, I would not give me life for another country.
4) If I'm forced, what choice do I really have, go to war, or go to Jail.
5) I'd go to war, I'd rather know that my pain and suffering at least had a meaning then just get tortured cause I didn't want to do something.
1. The Marines of Course!blademaster wrote:
1.)According to your sources or experience serving in army, which infantry would dominate the rest?
2.)What makes any military units so skilled, toughness, skills, intelligence or something else?
3.) if WW3 broke out, and you were drafted to go war, would you give your life for your country or run like a bitch?
4.) If you were forced to serve in military would you still serve?
5.)If you were to rebel against going to the army and your only chance to stay alive was to get tortured? would you still go to the war, and be exposed to some horrific stuff which would make you mentally unstable for the rest of your life.
2. duh, The marines do I have to tell you how tough we are now as well? , ok we are the best!
3. I'll be the one standing in the first lines
4. Yup
5. would never happen
1 the USMC, we kicked your ass in combat training last year, but yeah you do have the best equipment.LT.Victim wrote:
1) The USMC, They have the most Experience and the best equipment.blademaster wrote:
1.)According to your sources or experience serving in army, which infantry would dominate the rest?
2.)What makes any military units so skilled, toughness, skills, intelligence or something else?
3.) if WW3 broke out, and you were drafted to go war, would you give your life for your country or run like a bitch?
4.) If you were forced to serve in military would you still serve?
5.)If you were to rebel against going to the army and your only chance to stay alive was to get tortured? would you still go to the war, and be exposed to some horrific stuff which would make you mentally unstable for the rest of your life.
2) Training, and the economy to support the troops.
3) I would give my life for my country, I would not give me life for another country.
4) If I'm forced, what choice do I really have, go to war, or go to Jail.
5) I'd go to war, I'd rather know that my pain and suffering at least had a meaning then just get tortured cause I didn't want to do something.
i wanna know why people are saying the US marines, just curious as why.
Answer to question No.1 ISRAEL- No doubt about it. They are in harms way, and have been every day since inception of the country. Their infy units constantly patrol the cities, and are probably the most cohesive military out there. They are also on the leading edge for weapon developement for tight quarter combat. Anybody remember the UZI, and it's uses in suck quarters?
A better topic would be who has the best pilots in the world.
We would get some good action there. Lots of arguments.
We would get some good action there. Lots of arguments.
since when did conscripts perform better than volunteers??howler_27 wrote:
Answer to question No.1 ISRAEL- No doubt about it. They are in harms way, and have been every day since inception of the country. Their infy units constantly patrol the cities, and are probably the most cohesive military out there. They are also on the leading edge for weapon developement for tight quarter combat. Anybody remember the UZI, and it's uses in suck quarters?
British Army
blademaster wrote:
1.)According to your sources or experience serving in army, which infantry would dominate the rest?
IT'S SPARTA!
1.pinguins
2.they can "fly" under water, and are always prepared to do the fight for freedom
3.run like a bitch, imagine having to fight the wrath of the penguins
4.yes, but nowhere i could come in contact withe the penguins
o shit they are planning for an insurgency, they are inspecting the troops
2.they can "fly" under water, and are always prepared to do the fight for freedom
3.run like a bitch, imagine having to fight the wrath of the penguins
4.yes, but nowhere i could come in contact withe the penguins
o shit they are planning for an insurgency, they are inspecting the troops
Last edited by herrr_smity (2007-04-14 15:08:33)
Maybe people like to cheer for the underdog?GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
i wanna know why people are saying the US marines, just curious as why.
The USMC are the "underdogs" of the US military. Less people, a very small budget, yet can get the job done just as well. Plus, it is more exclusive in a way. If you look at their commercials, they do not sell a job like the other services do.
1. Either the Israeli's or the USMC.blademaster wrote:
1.)According to your sources or experience serving in army, which infantry would dominate the rest?
2.)What makes any military units so skilled, toughness, skills, intelligence or something else?
3.) if WW3 broke out, and you were drafted to go war, would you give your life for your country or run like a bitch?
4.) If you were forced to serve in military would you still serve?
5.)If you were to rebel against going to the army and your only chance to stay alive was to get tortured? would you still go to the war, and be exposed to some horrific stuff which would make you mentally unstable for the rest of your life.
2. Training, training, training, experience, experience, experience.
3. Or hows about instead, fight for my country and not die. Don't die for you country, make the other guy die for his.
4. Yeah, if it came to that I wouldn't have a problem. Probably not before it came to that however. Been there and done that, no need to try it again.
5. Torture or war...hmm. Gee Idk, War?
We didn't rebel against the military, we rebelled against the rule of England, who would not give the Colonies fair representation in Parliament. We fought the military.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Yeah. That's what we said in the late 1700's...not.Jibbles wrote:
5.) I would never rebel against the military.
And also, I have enough pride to the point where I could not rebel against something I swore to possibly lay down my life for in order to protect and uphold.
The only reason there are only about 200,000 (very rough estimate) Marines, compared to the Army's numbers (of which I can't recall) is that the Marines are trained so much harder and it takes a lot longer. Army boot camp is about 8 weeks long, as opposed to the Marines length of 13 weeks. While the Marines may be better trained than the Army, they're all part of the Armed Forces, all fighting and dying for us. Although, the ARMY acronym is kind of funny...usmarine2005 wrote:
Maybe people like to cheer for the underdog?GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
i wanna know why people are saying the US marines, just curious as why.
The USMC are the "underdogs" of the US military. Less people, a very small budget, yet can get the job done just as well. Plus, it is more exclusive in a way. If you look at their commercials, they do not sell a job like the other services do.
A.R.M.Y - Ain't Ready for Marines Yet
MARINE. Muscles Are Required, Intelligence Not Essential.Jibbles wrote:
A.R.M.Y - Ain't Ready for Marines Yet
you are grossly misinformed in regards to the army my friend.Jibbles wrote:
The only reason there are only about 200,000 (very rough estimate) Marines, compared to the Army's numbers (of which I can't recall) is that the Marines are trained so much harder and it takes a lot longer. Army boot camp is about 8 weeks long, as opposed to the Marines length of 13 weeks. While the Marines may be better trained than the Army, they're all part of the Armed Forces, all fighting and dying for us. Although, the ARMY acronym is kind of funny...usmarine2005 wrote:
Maybe people like to cheer for the underdog?GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
i wanna know why people are saying the US marines, just curious as why.
The USMC are the "underdogs" of the US military. Less people, a very small budget, yet can get the job done just as well. Plus, it is more exclusive in a way. If you look at their commercials, they do not sell a job like the other services do.
A.R.M.Y - Ain't Ready for Marines Yet
AHHHHH FUCK IT, im not a recruiter, SEMPER FI devil dog
any marine would know how hard it was for me to type that
Last edited by GunSlinger OIF II (2007-04-14 15:35:56)
usmarine2005 wrote:
You're. Idiot.gCASEy200 wrote:
your an idiot.
What is with the repitition of Israel? Yeah they've snotted the Arabs for the last several real wars, but that's because they've got a highly motivated, professional army with the best weapons in the world available on order from Uncle Sam!!!!
And they didn't come out too well int heir last incursion into lebanon. Mind you they did have some handicaps of a heavily entrenched opponent on home territory, who was willing to sacrifice its men and civilians to get a body count up that looked bad. Plus they an AF Chief of Staff, and a PM wanting to look tough ....
Having never served, I can't say on training, but from what I have seen in the media there are questions being asked about the US Army training and requirements, and perhaps dropping them too low to ensure there's enough fodder, sorry ... recruits.
The USMC has kept its rep because, as I understand it, they have never compromised on their standards. You still have to be a tough hombre because at the end of the day the leathernecks are just stored in a glass box marked "Break in case of War".
I was talking to an Australian Navy trainer last year and their complaint was they had to handle recruits with kid gloves. All this politically correct namby pamby handle them with kid gloves will bite them in the ass. If they wash out they weren't good enough. This trainer was copping pressure not to wash too many kids out, and was essentially being asked to pass kids who needed major attitude readjustments, or were quitters, or fark ups. They were being asked to pass people who would then go on to serve on ships with people they knew, so when they stuffed up and let the side down, people would get killed.
A lot of what makes a good army is the training. There was a great documentary on a couple of years ago about the NCO school the British army runs, ensuring senior sergeants can run small unit tactics in all sorts of tough conditions. They can fight horribly outnumbered after a week with no sleep and half forces, because they sometimes train like that. Proper professional armies are like professional athletes - as much as possible they train like the play. There the ones who will perform best.
And to destroy the mystique of my own army's rep, I don't think our regular infantry train like Delta Force like someone said. Australian SAS = SEALs, Delta, Green Berets (roughly).
Regular Aussie grunts = USMC hahahahaha
And they didn't come out too well int heir last incursion into lebanon. Mind you they did have some handicaps of a heavily entrenched opponent on home territory, who was willing to sacrifice its men and civilians to get a body count up that looked bad. Plus they an AF Chief of Staff, and a PM wanting to look tough ....
Having never served, I can't say on training, but from what I have seen in the media there are questions being asked about the US Army training and requirements, and perhaps dropping them too low to ensure there's enough fodder, sorry ... recruits.
The USMC has kept its rep because, as I understand it, they have never compromised on their standards. You still have to be a tough hombre because at the end of the day the leathernecks are just stored in a glass box marked "Break in case of War".
I was talking to an Australian Navy trainer last year and their complaint was they had to handle recruits with kid gloves. All this politically correct namby pamby handle them with kid gloves will bite them in the ass. If they wash out they weren't good enough. This trainer was copping pressure not to wash too many kids out, and was essentially being asked to pass kids who needed major attitude readjustments, or were quitters, or fark ups. They were being asked to pass people who would then go on to serve on ships with people they knew, so when they stuffed up and let the side down, people would get killed.
A lot of what makes a good army is the training. There was a great documentary on a couple of years ago about the NCO school the British army runs, ensuring senior sergeants can run small unit tactics in all sorts of tough conditions. They can fight horribly outnumbered after a week with no sleep and half forces, because they sometimes train like that. Proper professional armies are like professional athletes - as much as possible they train like the play. There the ones who will perform best.
And to destroy the mystique of my own army's rep, I don't think our regular infantry train like Delta Force like someone said. Australian SAS = SEALs, Delta, Green Berets (roughly).
Regular Aussie grunts = USMC hahahahaha
Last edited by pj666 (2007-04-16 04:18:22)
not to mention conscripts make shitty soldiers in the long run.pj666 wrote:
What is with the repitition of Israel? Yeah they've snotted the Arabs for the last several real wars, but that's because they've got a highly motivated, professional army with the best weapons in the world available on order from Uncle Sam!!!!
Conscripts=Shitty solders always.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
not to mention conscripts make shitty soldiers in the long run.pj666 wrote:
What is with the repitition of Israel? Yeah they've snotted the Arabs for the last several real wars, but that's because they've got a highly motivated, professional army with the best weapons in the world available on order from Uncle Sam!!!!
Thats why a war with Iran does not worry me, they're mostly conscripts.
Last edited by Cougar (2007-04-16 08:41:12)