Historically, do American soldiers stand out from other nations in terms of bravery?

That one time the blue helmets had to come bail the Americans out tho

Blue helmets are a joke though, and they call the Americans because they being imperalists means they have massive amounts of troops every fucking where. Maybe the Slovenians would be braver for all we know, but somehow no one ever thinks of calling them?

Pointless thread and question, but probably no.

Out of topic, eventhough the French do love cavalry charges. It's a wonder the light brigade was British. Probably with the supplex they have, they wanted to imitate

>imperialists
lmao

French cavalry during the 100 Years War were fucking stupid, not brave, and I'm a continentaboo to the core.

>lost to literal rice farmers
>currently losing to literal goat herders
>all while possessing the strongest, most technologically advanced military on Earth

No

The US goal wasn't to occupy Somalia though? It was to kill the warlord leading the militia that was carrying out the humanitarian crimes that the UN wanted to stop. US just went in on point, and the total losses were only 20 men.

>were fucking stupid, not brave
Sometimes they're indistinguishable.

>warlord leading the militia that was carrying out the humanitarian crimes that the UN wanted to stop

>being this brainwashed

Confederate flag is so cool i wish to one day be in american military with my american friend and we win the war for the americans best country in the world for the free and brave.

>losing
Vietnam was a fucked situation, since we went in with no real achievable goal, but when we left it was because of domestic attitude against the war, not because the Vietnamese drove us out of the country. If the bombing campaign had continued for another year there would have been a major collapse of VC infrastructure (that wouldn't necessarily change the situation on the ground though).

As far as the War on Terror, we've managed to kill almost every major leader figure of the domestic secular and extremist forces we've been fighting, and more than anything we've kept OPEC happy up until very recently - though unless we shift gears into a formal war with Daesh we're setting ourselves up for a Vietnam 2.
But again, we haven't been run out of the country, we've started pulling out because of domestic opinion of the wars.

Anytime you're fighting an asymmetrical war you have to go in with a disengagement plan, and America has never really done that except maybe in Korea.

American troops are infamous for being overly cautious.

>Aidid's faction openly attacks UN aid trucks, trafficking the captured food to prevent dispersion of foreign aid among certain groups and fund his civil war against the Somalian president
>this somehow isn't a human rights violation and direct contradiction of UN authority
hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

this
since at least WWII, America has been known as the guys who see an enemy and five minutes later the entire countryside is lit up with artillery barrages/bombing runs/drone strikes

>The US goal wasn't to occupy Somalia though?

No it was not. But a lot of Somalis didn't see it that way. Especially after a Cobra gunship put a Hellfire missile into a meeting of Aidid's opposition.

>It was to kill the warlord leading the militia that was carrying out the humanitarian crimes that the UN wanted to stop.

Goal was to arrest, not kill. We needed him alive if he was going to order his militia to stand down. Also the humanitarian crimes part is overhyped because of the movie, Black Hawk Down. Aidid was no worse than most of the other warlords in Somalia. He just got into a pissing contest with the UN because he felt like they weren't giving him a proper seat at the table. It was more of a misunderstanding that had tragic results than anything else.

>Aidid was no worse than most of the other warlords in Somalia.
Not here to defend the UN's motives or anything, but I'd be willing to bet those other warlords were also carrying out humanitarian crimes

>effectively outmatched
>France, Spain and the unite provinces back your independence
This is why South Africa and Louisnia are rightful british clay
>shipping a whole continent how
Wooden stakes hedged in their dismounted charge through the mud, that’s what they were for, because no one would actually charge through all that mud and the narrow forest nearby

The blue helmets rarely shoot back, and no, Americans are valued up front because our rifle doctrine is one of the most suited for frontline engagement, most other nations utilize support roles
T. American blue helmet

>our rifle doctrine
That's an interesting observation, especially since back in WWII we had a completely backwards infantry doctrine (muh EVERY SOLDIER A RIFLEMAN)

In general our rifles are better at staying calm and returning fire while under active fire. Doesn’t hurt that the usual suspects for blue helmets probably spent some time shooting at locals in the Middle East.
I dunno if you’ve noticed, but most other militaries don’t get shot at on a regular basis like we do. Just a psychological thing I guess.
Russians are a close second to be honest. Guys are scary serious

>but when we left it was because of domestic attitude against the war
>we've started pulling out because of domestic opinion of the wars.
That literally still counts as getting defeated by them.

No it doesn't. It counts as your populace getting sick of the conflict and wanting the soldiers back here.

Besides, Iraq didn't fall to Isis, so even by this definition I would say the war has been effectively won.

No there is a major difference from a political defeat and a military defeat.

The US Military was not defeated or even performed poorly in Vietnam.
The US Military was almost inflicting genocide level casualties on the North Vietnamese and with all the hoopla of the Tet Offensive the US military defended almost all of southern Vietnam for the entire war.

Dont mix politics into a discussion about military performance.

>No it doesn't. It counts as your populace getting sick of the conflict and wanting the soldiers back here.
And why did they get sick of the conflict? I guess it is completely unrelated to the costs of war then; freaking american exceptionalism.

You yanks have your moments. Siege of Bastogne in '44 during the Battle of the Bulge comes to mind. "Vill you surrender?" "Nuts!" Lol.

The US military is huge and very very (very) well equipped, thats it. You can cherrypick examples of bravery in combat from most countries, its not an indicator of the armed forces as a whole.

Iraq wasn't actually all that costly and I will say again that the post saddam government is still in place and ISIS ultimately lost it's bid for power in the country. I mean if you want to criticize the handling of the Iraq mess it would work a lot better for you if you were pointing out how we basically handed the country to Iran on a silver platter.

Of course

>but when we left it was because of domestic attitude against the war,
Because the Vietnamese were winning the war.

>It counts as your populace getting sick of the conflict
Because they were losing the war

Nope. We weren't losing vietnam when we left and we weren't losing in Iraq either. Furthermore, and I keep repeating this, but the post-Saddam government in Iraq is still in place, ISIS failed.

The battles of the American Civil War are all you need to look at for an appraisal of the bravery of American soldiers. Europeans observers were quick to note the lack of professional cavalry corps, citing it as the reason for the battles turning into affairs of attrition, men lining up to be mowed down again and again.

Not at all.

>We weren't losing vietnam
Then why is the whole of Vietnam under a single state, and why is that state "communist"?

This is just sad.

If you start a war to get rid of an enemy, and leave without defeating that enemy, you lost the war. I can't even imagine where you've gotten the notion that politics are not a factor in war. War IS politics. Any factor crucial to your ability to prosecute the war IS a military factor, and if that factor easily turns against you then that's a military weakness. The vietnamese were not culturally disposed or civically organized in such a way as to mirror this weakness, and this is one of the reasons they won.

The United States military faced military opposition, and as a direct result they FAILED to achieve their objectives within a time frame and in such a manner as to maintain enough domestic support they NEEDED to continue the war.

By this very logic Britain did not lose the American War of Independence. They simply made a pragmatic decision to withdraw and stop putting resources into the conflict, in line with how popular support had turned against it. The American War of Independence was a draw.

Because the Congress prevented Nixon from providing any sort of support to the South Vietnamese military once the North started pushing south again.

>>If you start a war to get rid of an enemy, and leave without defeating that enemy, you lost the war.
Under your definition maybe.

>>Britain during the war of independence
Was beaten on the field decisively in conventional warfare and was having to fight france and spain at the same time as the colonies. Not a comparable situation.

>Was beaten on the field decisively in conventional warfare and was having to fight france and spain at the same time as the colonies

The British had every capability of going further than they did, fighting longer, and pushing their vast assets much further than they did, much more re-investing resources into a new North American front.. Ending the war with France was the standard, pragmatic settlement between European powers that was common before the 20th century fuck-shows.

On the other hand, the United States literally could not continue the war in Vietnam, and had put off fleeing as long as it possibly could.

Seeing the first as defeated but not the second is ridiculous.

And why was that? Because Americans lost the first war with the viets, and they didn't want to enter into another one. Ergo America lost the war

>bravery
>so pussy they wont let a nation invade them

Not particularly, although the concept of "Never leave a man behind" is somewhat unique among the armed forces of the world.

As opposed to the brave Russians who drove their tanks and APCs right at an American FOB a few weeks ago and lost 2-600 to zero American injuries lol.

Being brave isn't good if you're also shit tier and retarded.

No they didn't. The war in vietnam ended in an armistice. The failure to provide proper support to south vietnam after the war was the fault of the congress.

>>On the other hand, the United States literally could not continue the war in Vietnam, and had put off fleeing as long as it possibly could.
Oh the war could have continued for years, the hippies could have been broken up by the FBI using their little dirty tricks. It's just that North Vietnam could not be defeated conventionally because of the risk of dragging the Soviets and Chinese into the conflict. Hence the armistice.

Now this is juicy, got a link?

Also

>"They are in front of us, behind us, and we are flanked on both sides by an enemy that outnumbers us 29:1. They can’t get away from us now!”

– Lewis B. “Chesty” Puller, USMC

>When the Marines were cut off behind enemy lines and the Army had written
the 1st Marine Division off as being lost because they were surrounded by 22
enemy divisions. The Marines made it out inflicting the highest casualty
ratio on an enemy in history and destroying 7 entire enemy divisions in the
process. An enemy division is 16500+ men while a Marine division is 12500 men.

China and Soviet equipment btfo.

businessinsider.com/russia-leaked-audio-humiliating-defeat-by-us-forces-2018-2

"Leaked audio recordings said to be of Russian mercenaries in Syria capture expressions of lament and humiliation over a battle in early February involving US forces and Russian nationals.

---first clip
"The reports that are on TV about ... well, you know, about Syria and the 25 people that are wounded there from the Syrian f--- army and — well ... to make it short, we've had our asses f--- kicked. So one squadron f--- lost 200 people ... right away, another one lost 10 people ... and I don't know about the third squadron, but it got torn up pretty badly, too ... So three squadrons took a beating ... The Yankees attacked ... first they blasted the f--- out of us by artillery, and then they took four helicopters up and pushed us in a f--- merry-go-round with heavy caliber machine guns ... They were all shelling the holy f--- out of it, and our guys didn't have anything besides the assault rifles ... nothing at all, not even mentioning shoulder-fired SAMs or anything like that ... So they tore us to pieces for sure, put us through hell, and the Yankees knew for sure that the Russians were coming, that it was us, f--- Russians ... Our guys were going to commandeer an oil refinery, and the Yankees were holding it ... We got our f--- asses beat rough, my men called me ... They're there drinking now ... many have gone missing ... it's a total f--- up, it sucks, another takedown ... Everybody, you know, treats us like pieces of s--- ... They beat our asses like we were little pieces of s--- ... but our f--- government will go in reverse now, and nobody will respond or anything, and nobody will punish anyone for this ... So these are our casualties."

>The war in vietnam ended in an armistice.
WW1 also ended in armistice. So can we say that Germany and AH did not loose the war?

Point is that USA entered the war to preserve Sout Vietname independence. 2 years after the americans were forced out, Vietnam was reunited under North Vietnam.

>WW1 also ended in armistice. So can we say that Germany and AH did not loose the war?
Different circumstances involved, so no. The US wasn't about to starve because of North Vietnam, and the US military was in no danger of being defeated by them in the field. So no, the comparison doesn't work.

>>Point is that USA entered the war to preserve Sout Vietname independence. 2 years after the americans were forced out, Vietnam was reunited under North Vietnam.
That has nothing to with the military, and has everything do with the congress refusing to allow support to the South Vietnamese. When the US left, South Vietnam still existed, and the North was simply not capable of overruning them because we would bomb the shit out of them if they tried.
That arrangement failed due to the congress and we weren't even at war with the North anymore when they finally overran the South anyway.
So no, the US military was not beaten in South Vietnam.

The US entered the war to prevent communist domination of East Asia.

When the US first got involved, it seemed like the Soviets and China were a solid bloc extending power through the rest of Asia.

By the end of the War China had split from the USSR and Nixon rightly judged that it was more in America's strategic interest to pivot to China and continue the split than to go all in on Vietnam.

Notably, by the time the US pulled out communist insurgencies in the Philippines and Indonesia were far weaker. The goal was met. It's questionable though if so much blood and treasure was necessary to meet the goal though.

In a few years after the South fell Vietnam had split from China and was fighting a war with them. This again only helped US strategic goals.

Vietnam and Afghanistan were strategic engagements in a 44 year war between the Soviets and Americans and the Yanks won that war decidedly.

>implying it isn’t the British
>lions led by donkeys
>officers refusing to cower
>modern bayonet charges
>charge of the light brigade
>St Nazaire Raid

Is there a peoples more deluded about their military 'accomplishments' than Americans?

Alright to move this away from the slapfight over vietnam that will go nowhere, I have one question about this.

>>The Yankees attacked ... first they blasted the f--- out of us by artillery, and then they took four helicopters up and pushed us in a f--- merry-go-round with heavy caliber machine guns ... They were all shelling the holy f--- out of it, and our guys didn't have anything besides the assault rifles ... nothing at all, not even mentioning shoulder-fired SAMs or anything like that ...
Now I know this is somewhat off topic from the US military, but I distinctly remember reading something about the Soviet and later the Russian military making a big fucking deal at having lots of Air Defense stuff available for soldiers all the way down to MANPADs and such at the squad level. Why were these PMCs sent in without that equipment when the odds of them having to deal with enemy aircraft were quite high?

>Crassus' invasion of Parthia was actually a success because eventually Parthia collapsed 250 years later.

There's more nuance than hurr durr Yanks versus da Rooskies!

These are semi-legal Russian PMCs, which are technically illegal, yet kind of condoned. They are neither equipped nor are an actual Russian Federation military arm. And the Americans were in an advisory role. There's no way our armor or mech infantry are "boots on the ground," in that scenario (at least in an official capacity) which leaves us with our air assets and artillery. They were both technically Syrian forces, one with a large contingent of national Russian PMCs, and the other with American advisers. I don't think the Russian side knew that the FOB was defended by Americans, because then they wouldn't dare touch it, and I honestly also doubt the Americans knew who exactly they were exploding the fuck out of. It's not fair to say that this is Russian doctrine, as they were heavily underequipped and without needed combined arms support.

I'm probably a little off on a few things, but that's the gist right there.

Hmm. So a combination of inadequate intelligence and equipment led to them getting slaughtered? These Russian PMCs don't have access to shoulder-launched SAMs?

>The US wasn't about to starve because of North Vietnam
So war is won/lost by comparing which people is starving?

>and the US military was in no danger of being defeated by them in the field.
But it was. When a major power enters into a confrontation with a much smaller power, the mere survival of the smaller power can be equated with a victory. But North Vietnam did not just "survive".

>That has nothing to with the military, and has everything do with the congress refusing to allow support to the South Vietnamese.
Because Americans were fighting the vietnamese for years prior to this, and did not accomplish anything other then to raise the support for North Vietnam.

>When the US left, South Vietnam still existed
But it was left in a precarious state. It was left for the wolves.

>and the North was simply not capable of overruning them because we would bomb the shit out of them if they tried.

But that is not what happened. Just 2 years after the country was united

>Being brave isn't good if you're also shit tier and retarded.

I doo agree, but OP´s question was

>Historically, do American soldiers stand out from other nations in terms of bravery?

The answer is no. There is no shame to that. Come to think about it, the first three people that come to my mind when thinking about soldiers with a reputation of bravery (scots, sikhs, gurkhas) aren´t even independent. That might not be a coincidence.

>The US entered the war to prevent communist domination of East Asia.
No, that is called the cold war. The objective of the vietnam war was to protect the independente of South Vietnam, something that was not achieved

>So war is won/lost by comparing which people is starving?
Not what I said, I said the two situations aren't comparable due a variety of different factors.

>>But it was. When a major power enters into a confrontation with a much smaller power, the mere survival of the smaller power can be equated with a victory.
I disagree that such an equation is valid here.

>>But North Vietnam did not just "survive".
That has to do with congress, not the military and only happened after the US military was no longer properly involved in the war.

>>Because Americans were fighting the vietnamese for years prior to this, and did not accomplish anything other then to raise the support for North Vietnam.
Killing fucktons of communists and keeping South Vietnam independent is not nothing.

>>But it was left in a precarious state. It was left for the wolves.
No it wasn't, they would have survived if the congress had been willing to allow Nixon to give them the air support their ground forces needed.

>>But that is not what happened. Just 2 years after the country was united
Because of congress, not the military, and the war was already over for the US when that happened.

>the concept of "Never leave a man behind" is somewhat unique among the armed forces of the world.
The Israelis literally traded hundereds of prisioners for the bones of one dude.

Not the previous guy, but I don't know what you guys misunderstand here. Yes, America lost the Vietnam War. However, they did not lose the war due to the weakness of our military, it was lost due to politics. The failure of the Vietnam War is not a reflection on the capabilities of the US military is the point.

IDK. It sounds like they had tanks and were decently armed. Basically they reflagged some Russians like they always do in Ukraine and drove up hoping America would back down and got instaraped instead.

"Second clip:

"Out of all vehicles, only one tank survived and one BRDM [armored reconnaissance vehicle] after the attack, all other BRDMs and tanks were destroyed in the first minutes of the fight, right away."

Third clip:

"Just had a call with a guy — so they basically formed a convoy, but did not get to their f--- positions by some 300 meters. One unit moved forward, the convoy remained in place, about 300 meters from the others. The others raised the American f--- flag, and their artillery started f--- ours really hard. Then their f--- choppers flew in and started f--- everybody. Ours just running around. Just got a call from a pal, so there are about 215 f--- killed. They simply rolled ours out f--- hard. Made their point. What the f--- ours were hoping for in there?! That they will f--- run away themselves? Hoped to f--- scare them away? Lots of people f--- so bad [they] can't be f--- ID'd. There was no foot soldiers [on the American side]; they simply f--- our convoy with artillery."

No, they have an reputation for overwhelming tactical awareness, cautiosness, kick ass logistics and explosive overkill.

Mainly because your military has so much cash, it can afford to just piss away ammo.

Not at all. The soldiers themselves have a reputation for being fairly sloppy, but they're so well equipped, and have so much air support it doesn't really matter.

Within NATO they have a reputation of havng all the fun toys. And we sort of pitty the grumps, because they tend to be treated like kids on a field trip. Thats mainly because they are not allowed to drink though.

It was Wagner. They are funded by the Russians. They are used for plausible deniability. In Ukraine there are examples of people claiming to fight as Russians and Wagner alternatively in the same month. Remember that originally "absolutely NO Russian ground forces in Ukraine or Syria, just PMC and partisans!"

I don't know why they didn't have SAMs but American counter measures are decent on those. I know 100% why they had no air support and got raped by the AC-130, it's because:

1. No deniability if Russian fighters come in to cover

2. The likelihood of Russian fighters getting raped by American ones and making then look even worse.

Reminds me of a wwii joke.

If you come across a unit, and don't know who it is, fire on them.

If they respond with machine-gun fire, they're German.

If they respond with a barrage of precise rifle fire, they're British.

If they don't respond, and five minutes later your position is obliterated with artillery, they're American.

This whole situation just seems very confusing to me. You say here that
>>I don't think the Russian side knew that the FOB was defended by Americans, because then they wouldn't dare touch it, and I honestly also doubt the Americans knew who exactly they were exploding the fuck out of.

Which would seem to contradict this:
>>Basically they reflagged some Russians like they always do in Ukraine and drove up hoping America would back down and got instaraped instead.
Not trying to be excessively contradictory here, it's just that this whole encounter seems really odd to me. Odd and really dumb.

If they yell URRA and charge you they are russian

If they surrender they are french

If they change sides they are italian

jokes aside: The germans where actually mindblown on how well the americans could direct their artillery fire. As I understand, this was mainly because they had good communications equipment and good maps and training.

A quick search for "Russian PMC Wagner" brings up this article.interpretermag.com/fontanka-investigates-russian-mercenaries-dying-for-putin-in-syria-and-ukraine/
There's other articles too but one thing about this one stuck out to me.

>>At the center of the group is 46-year-old Dmitry Utkin, a lieutenant colonel who finished his professional service in the 700th Independent Spetsnaz Detachment of the 2nd Independent Brigade of the GRU (military intelligence) in 2013. Utkin then went to work for the Moran Security Group, a shady, Moscow-based PMC whose offshore ownership structure leads to Belize and the British Virgin Islands.

>>Utkin survived the disastrous Slavonic Corps mission to Syria in the fall of 2013 and reappeared in Ukraine’s Lugansk region in 2014.

>>An aficionado, as Fontanka puts it, of the aesthetics and ideology of the Third Reich, Utkin assumed the nom de guerre of Wagner in tribute to Hitler’s favourite composer, and became the commander of his own, eponymous unit. In Lugansk, he was known for eschewing a modern Russian battle helmet for a Second World War Wehrmacht coal-scuttle type.

A motherfucking Russian neo-nazi LARPer, and I'm not normally the sort of person who throws around the word LARPer as an insult.

lol

Well, there's not a full AAR that I know of out yet (not that the Russians would ever release one about a pseduo-shadow army) so what has come across is somewhat speculative. But if the U.S. has ground "advisers," and a detachment of artillery, there's no way that they could just up and leave at the sight of an advancing mechanized infantry column, and instead unleashed all assets including fixed wing and rotary to utterly annihilate this woefully unprepared unit.

That's not to say the US intelligence and brass wasn't playing fuckfuck games that resulted in both sides' boots on the ground basically playing the world's most dangerous game of chicken.

Russia lost more men, prehaps more than twice as many by several estimates in Chechnya as the US lost in Iraq and Afghanistan. This includes the US having to invade Iraq and the much larger supply line. The Chechens were vastly numerically inferior and less well funded and the Russians had far looser ROE.

They aren't exactly the A team.

As an Englishman I'd have to agree, the French have shown they have a great deal of courage within them, it's a shame their reputation has been tarnished by the surrender monkey meme.

Never said they were, but the War in Iraq, the occupation of Iraq, the War in Afghanistan, Russia's War in Afghanistan, the First Chechen War, and the Second Chechen War are all different things, and especially different as opposed to a Fulda-Gap deep battle theoretical scenario.

And tables. Lots and lots of tables.

Americans have never made particularly outstanding soldiers on a whole, but neither have many other western democratic states. We aren't really born into a system that forces us from day one to learn that we may need to fight. We don't do mandatory conscription stints like a lot of other nations (although it could be argued that we should, it does run in direct contrast to the principles that the nation was founded on).

Our military is viewed like any other career rather than something special really. It's a place to go learn to do things or use your education, killing people is actually not really expected a lot of the time. Its literally marketed this way to the civilian populace, since its an all volunteer force and the idea of another Vietnam era draft is so alien to the average citizen that they literally don't even think about it when they have to submit their Selective Service form at 18.

Really what we're the best at is logistics, support and supply. We want the soldiers to always have enough food, enough ammunition, the right clothes, and plenty of artillery and air cover at all times. Losing men is considered unthinkable, even one dead soldier will make national news.

In the end this turns out mostly average soldiers that are backed up by second to none support infrastructure. Its been this way since the end of WW2.

Well the US saved Europe twice from self destruction. I think if they had not done it i would not be sitting in front of my computer after a good dinner with a beer writing this and exchanging views with the rest of the world freely.

I agree with you, except about this part
>Our military is viewed like any other career rather than something special really.
The amount of worship directed at american troops from their own people is something that I have not encountered in any other country.

I was about to write some post about how this reminded me of the old "soldiers from democratic republics in general make sucky soldiers meme" but then I thought about it a bit and most of the counter examples I can think of that aren't against a woefully outclassed enemy were from WW2 and your post says this situation of American(and by extension other Democratic states I would guess?)being just average with good support has been the case since WW2.

So never mind I guess. I gotta get some sleep anyway, I only got an hour or two last night.

I thought that was clear from your post. Interestingly, this is also a point of pride for Russian military enthusiasts. I heard an accordion song (called "Russian Roads" I think) about how when they retreat, they're really advancing, because Russian roads and Russian cold makes the chase so deadly to their enemies.

I think it's a primitive mind that calls "escape" by the name of "cowardice." There are certainly cowardly ways to run away, but there are better ways to serve your flag than by rotting in a camp.

I guess I'm kinda just used to it from living here. There will always be those ultra-patriotic types, but most people I talk to just view it as a career choice or a way to afford going to school.

The Germans in WW1 thought they were incredibly brave and admirable in character. This was because they hadn't been broken down by years in the trenches, and that reputation was only sullied by the Americans' use of shotguns, which the Germans considered illegal.

But i must point out i am a little proud of the Swedish 30 years war army lead by Gustavus Adolphus.

Sweden attacked by Russia, Denmark and Poland at the same time realized the only way to win was a new battlefield tactics.

So in in the early 1600 century the shock tactics evolved. All 3 enemies were disposed of quickly.

Whats more amazing is that the Swedish king Gustavus Adolphus is internationally recognized as the father of modern warfare.

His battlefield tactics from the 1600 century is still being used in the modern armies of today.

>that reputation was only sullied by the Americans' use of shotguns, which the Germans considered illegal.
That's as big of a myth as the sawtooth pioneer bayonet one from WWI. Up there with the pope banning crossbows.

>That has to do with congress, not the military
You seem to think that those two things are separate. THey aren't. Congress did not act because the army could not achieve its objectives.

>Killing fucktons of communists and keeping South Vietnam independent is not nothing.
So wars are won due to having a larger K:D ratio? So why did the USSR won?

>No it wasn't,

Viet Cong was still armed.

>they would have survived if the congress had been willing to allow Nixon to give them the air support their ground forces needed.
So you are saying that the only way that South Vietnam could survive was for USA to prolong the war for more years? It's not like the previous decade taught nothing to the americans.

>they did not lose the war due to the weakness of our military, it was lost due to politics.
Military is a extension of politics. They aren't separate. America lost the war "politically" because the armed forces routinely failed to achieve their goals.

It is actually quite pathetic that americans have to redefine concepts so they can claim that USA did not lost to rice farmers.

Best soldiers how?

In WWII Americans certainly did better against the Germans than any other power, although weren't as effective as them.

However, Japan had a warrior culture and years of experience from China while the US had a tiny military in 1939 and the US mopped the floor with them.

For special forces I'd put American soldiers over anyone.

Our non-sigint sucks though.

>Vietnam War is not a reflection on the capabilities of the US military
Absolutely correct. It's a reflection of its limitations. And of the idiocy of counting "capabilities" as hatched eggs.

It wasn't always so, but the victory of kutuzov over the grande armee was a big deal for the lot right up to the end of the tsar.

The US military had the capabilities to handle the North. It lacked the capabilities to make the South adopt a viable government. Then again, the military's role isn't to do state building