The boast-about-your-fave-fighting-force-thread

[Oligo 1]

"Let me start by paraphrasing what I said in my first post: It is not my intention to insult other services of my country or any other."

I certainly took no insult from your post. Don't mistake me to the flaming morons you find sometimes in this forum.

"I don’t think stating battle results or what our previous enemies have said or done constitutes "boasting." If I wanted to brag, I’d post what we say about ourselves."

Ok, you weren't boasting, but you were describing glorious battle results in WWII. And I just pointed out that somebody did even better in WWII. But I do believe that the finnish soldier of today is nowhere near where we used to be, because of couple of reasons: Our society has urbanized (most of the men are a bunch of comfort-seeking weaklings) and our current officers have not fought in any actual wars. Also our equipment is antiquated and our tactics have not been honed in conflict for ages.

"However, I am reasonably familiar with the Winter War, as some of us Jarheads take the “professional warriors study military history so as not to repeat mistakes, etc. etc. stuff†seriously. Finland’s use of geography and small-unit tactics to break up and then destroy a large part of the invading Soviet force was a brilliant example of unconventional warfare. If I’m not mistaken, some historians think that Finland’s resistance actually convinced Hitler that Germany could successfully invade Russia. But you also need to consider the caliber of the enemy: In ‘39-’40 the Soviet army consisted of conscripted farmboys untrained in Arctic warfare. These soldiers were “led†by an officer corps that had been gutted of creativity and initiative during Stalin’s purges of the 30’s. Pit these troops against the unorthodox tactics and high morale of the Finnish, who were fighting for their national survival. Throw in one of the coldest winters of the century. The end result: A meat grinder, or a target-rich environment, depending on your perspective."

It is true that the russians were hopelessly undertrained (finns weren't professional soldiers either). regardless of this, the achievements of our troops in the winter war were still unbelieveable, considering how under-equipped and outnumbered our troops were.

In the Continuation War we faced a far better equipped and trained enemy. Still, some of the achievements of our soldiers were downright unbelieveable.

"Again, this is not an attempt to slight the Finnish soldiers. Putting up a good fight against 50-to-1 odds is incredible, but strategically speaking, I have a problem accepting a loss as an achievement, especially if you’re attempting to compare it to the USMC’s performance in WWII."

You have to consider the 'loss' a little more: In the Winter War, Stalin set out to take Finland in a couple of weeks. After over 100 day of fighting, they had managed to take very little of our land. The war ended and they kept that land, 'just enough land to bury their dead in'. Now let's consider the goals: You stated that the finns were fighting for our nations survival. That goal was achieved with very little of our land lost. Stalin set out to take Finland. That goal was not achieved. Now who lost the war?

"Regarding snipers: I’m also curious about your criteria for judging the two Finns as the best snipers in history. It's only my opinion, but I don't think it's realistic to specify anyone as "the best," because environments, enemy skill, equipment, training, and other factors will always make it "apples to oranges.""

My criteria was purely the number of kills. With that variable, you can partially compare 'apples to oranges'. Also, both Simo and Suko took out russian snipers, who at least I consider to be very good in their craft (like Zaitsev). Here is an example by Simo:

The book describes in detail an incident when Häyhä was hunting a Russian sniper that had killed several Finnish soldiers, among them 3 officers. The Russian belonged to the Red Army's 56 Infantry Division, and was even a Communist Party member. He was equipped with a Mosin-Nagant M91 rifle with a 3x scope. He had made one sure kill that day, and now he was waiting for another target to show itself. The sun was setting, he was tired and rose to his knees. Häyhä, who had been waiting patiently, saw the sun reflecting in the Russian's scope lens. The distance was about 450 meters. Häyhä had been ordered to try to eliminate the Russian sniper, and he did not fail. His bullet struck the Russian in the head, killing him instantly. Häyhä could have used a scope-equipped rifle, but he liked the open sights because he was used to them and he was able to keep his head lower and present a lower profile and target.

[E6Hotel 0]

Oligo:

Regarding the “weakening†of society, most Western societies could say the same.  However, I don’t think it’s necessarily a bad thing, as long as there are people willing to sacrifice to provide that blanket of security.  That is the warrior’s mission – to protect civilians by keeping barbarians away from the gate.  To quote an old USMC recruiting tagline, “No one likes to fight, but someone has to know how.† 

Comparing the Winter War and the Pacific Theater: Obviously, I’ll never change your mind and you won’t change mine.  I will, however, present the facts that I believe support my opinion.

-- With the exception of Wake Island and the defense of Guadalcanal, Marines spent 3 Ë years conducting amphibious assaults.  No statistics (sorry), but I feel comfortable in saying these are traditionally the most difficult types of attacks and result in the highest casualty rates.

-- The Japanese army and navy spent years preparing defenses on these islands.

-- The Japanese were prepared to fanatically fight to the death for their warrior code, their Emperor, and their homeland.

The incredible determination of Japanese soldiers can be seen in the sample of KIA rates below. These are the numbers of Japanese soldiers KILLED, either by Marines or suicide (per Bushido).  These are not “mere†casualties.  (I found these figures after poking around on the ‘net for a few minutes.  If you find conflicting data, hey, I’m not surprised.)

Iwo Jima: 1,083 POWs and 20,000 estimated killed -- 94.86% fought to the death.

Tarawa: Less than 150 POWs*, 4,700 estimated killed -- 96.30% fought to the death.

Peleliu: 300 POWs*, 12,700 estimated killed -- 97.69% fought to the death.

* The POW figures for Tarawa and Peleliu included Koreans used as slave labor by the Japanese.

When comparing these campaigns, I submit there’s much more to consider than body counts.  Amazingly enough, that leads me to my next topic, snipers.

I know it’s repetitive, but enemy skill and the sniper’s environment are huge variables that make it impossible to draw any meaningful comparisons.  For example:

-- The two Finnish snipers (apparently my keyboard doesn’t support Finnish characters) had very impressive kill totals.  But as we’ve already discussed, the Finns were operating in a familiar environment against (usually) mediocre troops.  

-- In contrast, USMC scout/snipers in Vietnam operated in two-man teams for days at a time, hunting an enemy renowned for their fieldcraft and cunning -- in the enemy’s own territory.    

   

Gunny Hathcock’s 93 confirmed are EVERY BIT as impressive as the Finns’ kills, if you take the time to learn about sniper warfare in Vietnam.  I won’t presume to know what you do or don’t know about the subject, but two books I’d recommend are Marine Sniper (Gunny Hathcock’s biography) and Dear Mom: A Sniper’s Vietnam (Sergeant Chuck Mawhinney’s biography).  Although Gunny Hathcock is better known, Sergeant Mawhinney actually had the most confirmed kills of any USMC scout/sniper (103).

Your earlier sniper statistics link had some basic data about Gunny Hathcock, but it was just the tip of the iceberg.  Did you know that the .50 caliber shot mentioned in your link was made from over 2,500 yards?  Remember the scenes in “Sniper†and “Saving Private Ryan†where one sniper shoots the other through his telescopic sight?  Those scenes were based on an actual encounter between Gunny Hathcock and a NVA sniper sent specifically to kill him.  Let me just say that Gunny Hathcock may not have had the highest body count, but he was as good at his job as anyone.  

Rest in peace, Long Tra’ng.

Semper Fi

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (E6Hotel @ April 06 2002,07:58)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">our budget is PROPORTIONALLY small – in the neighborhood of 5% of the total U.S. defense budget.  <span id='postcolor'>

.. that 5% is generally larger then the entire GNP of the countries that US goes to war with

It is really hard to evaluate the performance of the Marines. WW2 is not a convincing example, since you can name a lot of other units that performed just as well. Vietnam? Well, you lost that one, didn't you?

As for more modern examples it is impossible to say anything since the Marines have always been backed up by the rest of the military with superior logistics, air support etc. How hard is it to take enemy positions that have been leveled to the ground by carpet bombing?

You could look at joint NATO excersises and see who performed best. Now, the cases that I know of the Marines have certainly not been the best scoring unit. But that isn't quite the same as the real thing, now is it?

[Oligo 1]

"Regarding the “weakening†of society, most Western societies could say the same. However, I don’t think it’s necessarily a bad thing, as long as there are people willing to sacrifice to provide that blanket of security. That is the warrior’s mission – to protect civilians by keeping barbarians away from the gate."

But it's a little different for us. There are only 5 million of Finns and the only 'barbarians' that could be knocking on our gate would come from the east (and I'd call even that scenario completely unlikely). To counter that threat (so our officers claim) we have a conscription army, thus every man needs to be a warrior. Back in WWII, almost every finn had grown up in a rural society, so the physical fitness, skiing skills and fieldcraft of our troops was almost automatically elite. All you needed was weapons skills on top of that. But nowadays, most men have grown up in cities. I heard it in the army enough times: "Eggh! We have to sleep in a tent?! How barbaric..." <sigh>

"The incredible determination of Japanese soldiers can be seen in the sample of KIA rates below. These are the numbers of Japanese soldiers KILLED, either by Marines or suicide (per Bushido). These are not “mere†casualties. (I found these figures after poking around on the ‘net for a few minutes. If you find conflicting data, hey, I’m not surprised.)"

Are these the same japanese that the russians rolled over in the end of WWII? If so, these same russians didn't roll over us. The question remains: Could the marines have rolled over us?

Also remember that your troops were well equipped, whereas our troops had to requisition most of our tanks from the Soviet tank yards among other things. Which BTW reminds me of the finnish sniper who shot a russian tank commander in the head through the commander's view slit. The rest of the crew deserted and finns got the tank.

"Your earlier sniper statistics link had some basic data about Gunny Hathcock, but it was just the tip of the iceberg. Did you know that the .50 caliber shot mentioned in your link was made from over 2,500 yards? Remember the scenes in “Sniper†and “Saving Private Ryan†where one sniper shoots the other through his telescopic sight? Those scenes were based on an actual encounter between Gunny Hathcock and a NVA sniper sent specifically to kill him. Let me just say that Gunny Hathcock may not have had the highest body count, but he was as good at his job as anyone. "

Ahh, this reminds me of the time Suko Kolkka wasted an enemy sniper sent after him after a running battle (duel) of several days in the no man's land.

I'm not claiming that Häyhä and others were best snipers in the world. It's just that funnily enough they still have the most kills.

[KingBeast 0]

How about the Royal Marines? They have proved just how good they are in recent times.

My fave fighting force would probably be the British Para's, because they have most DEFINATELY shown that they can handle themselves in combat.

[Fenna 0]

<span style='font-size:11pt;line-height:100%'>There are now more British ground troops in Afghanistan than American</span>

[Shabadu 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Fenna @ April 09 2002,16:09)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span style='font-size:11pt;line-height:100%'>There are now more British ground troops in Afghanistan than American</span><span id='postcolor'>

damn.

[KingBeast 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Fenna @ April 09 2002,15:09)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span style='font-size:11pt;line-height:100%'>There are now more British ground troops in Afghanistan than American</span><span id='postcolor'>

And those are pretty much all Royal Marines

The Royal Marines have gone deep into the Afghan mountains seizing cave complexes in the Zawa Valley along the Pakistan border.

It was the biggest operation mounted so far by British forces in Afghanistan.

The aim was to make the area safe for American infantry who are trying to flush out pockets of Taleban and al-Qaeda resistance.

When the 44 Royal Marines supported by a mortar unit from the Parachute Regiment arrived at the caves, the al-Qaeda fighters had fled.

The valley was handed over to 500 infantrymen from the US 101st airborne division, it has been reported.

[E6Hotel 0]

Oligo:

"Are these the same japanese that the russians rolled over in the end of WWII?"

Perhaps the competent ones had already been roasted in their Pacific island pillboxes.  Toward the end of the war, Japanese manpower was so depleted that "Georges" were used as manned missiles.  It seems a shame to waste such a good plane because you've expended all your capable pilots.

"The question remains: Could the marines have rolled over us?"

Pardon me sir, but you seem to have dropped your flame bait.  Heh.

Denoir:

WWII is not convincing, but you will make judgements based on NATO exercises?

<<Dr. Evil voice on>>  Riiggghhht.  <<Dr. Evil voice off>>

As for Vietnam (God, this is a tired argument):  Political loss?  Yes.  Military loss?  No.

".. that 5% is generally larger then the entire GNP of the countries that US goes to war with"

In case you missed it, I made a similar statement in my last post.  Once again, my point is that you will have a hard time finding another organization that can provide the same capabilities we have, for less money.  Just a reminder -- that organization would need:

-- Approximately 35,000 combat arms troops (infantry, armor, and artillery),

-- Approximately 138,000 support troops (that gives us a 1 in 5 "tooth to tail" ratio),

-- Organic armor (heavy and light), artillery, and aviation (carrier fixed,

STOVL fixed, and rotary wing),

-- Special operations capability, and   

-- A minimum of 2 continuously deployed expeditionary units, each capable of responding with 2,200 troops and conducting self-sustained combat for 30 days.

BTW:  In case you still don't "get it," my original post was in response to a comment from an American soldier who said that Marines complain about a lack of funding.  As I admitted, he has a point, and I think it's jealousy on the part of some Marines because of our different spending priorities.  In the American military, the current catch phrase is "quality of life" -- some of the services interpret this as improved housing, nicer chow halls, and other creature comforts.  In the Corps, "quality of life" means HAVING a life when and if you are faced with combat.  Our money is more likely to go to a new weapon system, or an improved combat boot.  As a result, we often envy the conditions the "other guys" live in.  But we are also trained very well, and adequately equipped for our missions.      

Of course, it takes more than money to create an elite fighting force.  It also takes Esprit de Corps, which comes from an appreciation of your heritage and the willingness to uphold it.  I would be interested in any example you can provide where we've failed to "keep our honor clean" in combat.

Semper Fi

[barret 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ April 03 2002,16:53)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RalphWiggum @ April 03 2002,11:20)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ April 03 2002,00:53)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ April 03 2002,00)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And btw, Id put Recon Marines up against anybody in the world.<span id='postcolor'>

When I was in the service (1998), we had an exercise with NATO (Partnership for Peace) in Norway. The different units and countrys were ranked.

We from A-dyk (Swedish attack divers) came in first.

Our comrades the Kustjägarna (Swedish marines) came in second.

I think some Italian alpine guys came in third.

The US Marines were among the last, since they got lost in the woods <!--emo& We had some good laughs about that.

I heard that last year some unit from Croatia ( sic! ) came in first.

But to be serious, the US Marines that I have met seemed to be competent chaps, so there is nothing wrong with them. You just shouldn't leave them alone in a Norwegian forrest <span id='postcolor'>

are you sure USMCs were lost? they could be taking their leisure time. They don't know the beauty of Norwegian forrest, so when they started that competition, they could have thought "Screw competition! we'll enjoy this beautiful place!" <span id='postcolor'>

Hehe, I'm sure that that was the case. "Screw the officers! We're going fishin'!

Here are some pictures (from the excersise) of us and kustjägarna showing the marines how a beach landing is supposed to look:

Some US Marines. I never knew you Americans were such treehuggers

<span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">http://www.student.nada.kth.se/~e98_tcr/treehug.jpg <span id='postcolor'> U sure those are marines? Look at the url

[Guest]

Yes, that is from my university's server. They are my pictures. I put them there.

Recognise this?

http://www.student.nada.kth.se/~e98_tcr/avtar.jpg

The pictures are from an excersise in Norway (NATO Partnership for peace) from a couple of years ago when I did my military service.

And yes, those on the pictures are marines.

Read the text in the post next time

[USSoldier11B 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">BTW: In case you still don't "get it," my original post was in response to a comment from an American soldier who said that Marines complain about a lack of funding. As I admitted, he has a point, and I think it's jealousy on the part of some Marines because of our different spending priorities. In the American military, the current catch phrase is "quality of life" -- some of the services interpret this as improved housing, nicer chow halls, and other creature comforts. In the Corps, "quality of life" means HAVING a life when and if you are faced with combat. Our money is more likely to go to a new weapon system, or an improved combat boot. As a result, we often envy the conditions the "other guys" live in. But we are also trained very well, and adequately equipped for our missions.

<span id='postcolor'>

Nope, I'm talking about field gear as well. Face it, the Corps is underfunded. I'm not bragging that the army is better. I think it is unfortunate that our "first to go" has old, unservicable gear. Don't believe me? Let's compare my gear to yours. Granted I am in a Spec Ops unit and we get priority funding. Still, we are a National Guard unit, and have better gear than active Marines.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">There are now more British ground troops in Afghanistan than American<span id='postcolor'>

So what? That's a first.

[LordZach 0]

it's really sad that the U.S. can't take more of a ground role in the war because they're afraid of casulties. can't blame them. everytime a soldier dies media "experts" are on the air questioning if this was a "good idea"

i don't know who bothers me more, the "experts" or the people who watch them

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (LordZach @ April 11 2002,14:05)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">it's really sad that the U.S. can't take more of a ground role in the war because they're afraid of casulties.  can't blame them.  everytime a soldier dies media "experts" are on the air questioning if this was a "good idea"

i don't know who bothers me more, the "experts" or the people who watch them<span id='postcolor'>

Yes, they still remember Vietnam and those are no fond memories. Since then death of US servicemen has been more or less unacceptable to the public.

[madmike 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">So what? That's a first.

<span id='postcolor'>

It's a first for the US as well to go into Afghanistan and just becuase we have to help out you again.

I take it that you must be jelous that the US troops are incapable of doing their job

I dont want to start a flame war but it's true, their making the area safe so that the US troops can go in an kill the injured and whats left then say "look at us and our war on terrorism".

[scout 0]

it seems that some ppl here have a hard case of "we are the best, and crap with the rest"

[Black Knight 0]

I say JTF2:

Joint Task Force Two (JTF2) is the Canadian Armed Forces elite counter-terrorist/special operations unit. Although the Joint Task Force is trained in counter-terrorism, it is believed that the unit operates more like an SAS-type special operations force. JTF2's exact roles and missions, however, are not made public.

JTF2 is so secretive that it's size, weapons, training and force commander are not made public. In fact, members of the Canadian Forces know very little information about the Joint Task Force themselves.

Joint Task Force 2 Information:

Activated:

April of 1993 following the hand-over of counter-terrorist duties from RCMP to the Canadian Armed Forces. The JTF2 replaces the RCMP's SERT (Special Emergency Response Team).

Headquarters:

Dwyer Hill Training Center, Ontario believed to include a CQB (close-quarter battle) facility, an 8-story building for hostage-rescure, a DC-10, a bus, a multi-million dollar shooting range, gymnasium, and Olympic-sized swimming pool.

Start-up costs:

Believed to be around $20 million Cdn. Reports recently indicate that JTF2's budget is closer to $40 million Cdn. However, actual figures remain classified.

Team Composition:

The actual size of JTF2 remains classified. However, it is believed the unit is 250 operators strong. JTF2 is commanded by a Lieutenant-Colonel and members are selected from volunteers in the army, navy, and air force. Only the fittest and most capable armed soldiers were approached by unit CO's for tryout into JTF2. They are organized into 2 or 4-man teams known as "bricks". Each "brick" has a specialty (communications, sniping, etc.) A 20-30 man troop is commanded by a Captain.

Miscellaneous:

JTF2 is deployed on each and every single large scale peacekeeping mission, although it is not clear as to their roles classified. Reports indicate that the Canadian government has secretly expanded JTF2's counter-terrorist role to include roles similar to those conducted by other special operations units. It has been discovered that JTF members reportedly train Canadian military snipers for overseas missions.

Equivalent Organizations:

British SAS

American Special Forces (SEALS, Delta Force, etc.)

Germany's Grenzschutzgruppe 9 (GSG-9)

Australian Special Air Service Regiment

French GIGN

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

btw our clan is named after these guys:   http://www.geocities.com/jtf2ofpclan/

[scout 0]

if we're talkin only CT, i'd say the YAMAM has is the best one, if only because it has the most exp. in this area, and brought a sheer 95% success rate.

it tends to help if u do have to use ur skills, no?

[E6Hotel 0]

USSoldier11B:

“...I'm not bragging that the army is better....â€

Glad we agree that having pride in your service doesn’t translate into trying to badmouth the others.  After all, “Marines win battles, but soldiers win the war.† 

“Nope, I'm talking about field gear as well…Face it, the Corps is underfunded. I think it is unfortunate that our "first to go" has old, unservicable gear.â€

Buddy, you’re preaching to the choir with that one.  Our trash is barely adequate, and there’s a reason we stress “Improvise, adapt, and overcome.â€

“Don't believe me? Let's compare my gear to yours. Granted I am in a Spec Ops unit and we get priority funding. Still, we are a National Guard unit, and have better gear than active Marines.â€

I believe you 100%.  Little story: A few years ago I was with a Marine unit called FAST Company (for any Brits out there, FAST is roughly equivalent to the Royal Marines’ Commachio Group).  We were considered a fairly high-speed, low-drag outfit, and got to play with a lot of toys the typical grunts never get to see (MP5Ns, Mossbergs, DM rifles, etc.).  Anyway, I got orders to attend the Close Quarters Battle school, and went to our company supply to draw the standard CQB load-out (flight suits, body armor, etc.).  You would not believe the condition this stuff was in.  The tactical vest was modular, with snaps and velcro so that you could change how your pouches were laid out – the only problem was that all the snaps were either bent or missing, and the velcro was so old it wouldn’t stick.  I ended up using zip-ties to attach my subgun mag pouches.  Same story with the body armor – the velcro wouldn’t hold.  Oh well, there’s nothing a little rigger’s tape won’t fix.  Fortunately, the instructors hooked us up with thigh pouches for the mags.  They didn’t like the looks of the body armor a bit, and also swapped those out.  This was particularly nice, as we got to use 3-lb Point Blanks instead of our 20-lb (with 2 ceramic shock plates) issue vests.  Just remember that despite all the garbage we get stuck with, any tangos that want to try their luck in a straight-up fight are going to get body-bagged.  End of story.          

LordZach and Denoir:

The truly sad thing is that politicians sometime give us missions and then cut our legs out from under us by imposing idiotic ROE’s (Vietnam) or denying us the use of needed assets (Somalia).

madmike:

“I take it that you must be jelous that the US troops are incapable of doing their job   I dont want to start a flame war (Well that’s obvious. – E6) but it's true, their making the area safe so that the US troops can go in an kill the injured and whats left then say "look at us and our war on terrorism".

Did your parents have any children that lived?  Just kidding; I know you can’t help it.

[scout 0]

hey E6H thats what politicians are for, a sorry bunch of REMF's who, after sending forces to the field, dick around wether to give us the freedom to do our jobs, i totally agree, we suffered from this kind of probelms too, hell what soldier didnt?

and about equipment problems.....well i u sometime arrive israel, ill show couple of things that'll make your jaw drop!