Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 1/10/2006 9:10:58 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/10/2006 9:18:32 AM EDT by bfieldburt]
This is my third semi-related thread on this. www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=423455
and www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=425706 I've got some really good responses. Thanks.

I'm still on my quest to find out noticed differences between our guys and the foreign troops you trained with or fought alongside.

I'll get it started: "I noticed, when training with those Brits, that our guys had pretty good teeth, but their teeth were really phuqed up ".

As you can see, I've got nothin'.

If anyone here has trained with foreign troops, tell me some differences you noticed between our guys and them as far as tactics, training, the way they hold their weapons, the way they march...anything that was different than how our guys are and the way our guys do things.

Help my Obi-won....you guys here at ARFCOM are my only hope.
Link Posted: 1/10/2006 9:13:16 AM EDT

Originally Posted By bfieldburt:
This is my third semi-related thread on this. I've got some really good responses. Thanks.

I'm still on my quest to find out noticed differences between our guys and the foreign troops you trained with or fought alongside.

I'll get it started: "I noticed, when training with those Brits, that our guys had pretty good teeth, but their teeth were really phuqed up ".

As you can see, I've got nothin'.

If anyone here has trained with foreign troops, tell me some differences.

Help my Obi-won....you guys here at ARFCOM are my only hope.



All the furriners I have trained with have been wonderful people, but I wasn't doing .mil training.
Link Posted: 1/10/2006 9:14:21 AM EDT
The Brits in the 70s.

Actually I didn't rtrain with them per se, I was assigned as a laison NCO to show them around post and help them where ever I could, and to keep them out of trouble down town.


They seemed pretty squared away.
Link Posted: 1/10/2006 9:16:54 AM EDT
I was Navy and the ship I was on trained with the Japanese Navy quite a bit. They were well trained, had good ships, and were very professional.
Link Posted: 1/10/2006 9:21:37 AM EDT

Originally Posted By MiG-21:
I was Navy and the ship I was on trained with the Japanese Navy quite a bit. They were well trained, had good ships, and were very professional.



But what operational differences did you notice? Did they do some things that you guys did but in different ways? Can you think of any noticable and maybe odd or surprising differences?

HUMOR: "I noticed that our guys seemed to have oval or round shaped eyes, and their eyes were thinner...kinda like they were squinting or something. It kinda scared me. "
Link Posted: 1/10/2006 9:24:13 AM EDT
I trained with some Canadian AF dudes at Lackland AFB back in the 80's.

Cry-eye-eye would those maniacs drink! They said the key to invading Canada would be to do it on a Sunday morning.
Link Posted: 1/10/2006 9:34:42 AM EDT
Dutch troops don't have to salute their officers and thus usually don't.
Link Posted: 1/10/2006 9:38:23 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Dolomite:
I trained with some Canadian AF dudes at Lackland AFB back in the 80's.

Cry-eye-eye would those maniacs drink! They said the key to invading Canada would be to do it on a Sunday morning.



Cool, there's a difference. They drink more.

Now, to get real specific (maybe that's been my problem all along in not getting the exact responses I've been looking for). The story I'm working on involved an international peacekeeping force who are in the middle of a war in Europe--it's set 20 or 30 years in the future. One of my characters, via lots of video footage from the warzone, is able to identify which of the peacekeepers are Americans even though all the peacekeepers are dressed alike and part of integrated, international units. The footage the character has doesn't have sound. So, how would the character identify them? It needs to be through specific movements or mannerisms or actions that are very particular and unique to the Americans as compared to the peacekeepers from different nations.

An added note:

1) The peacekeepers were regular army/military troops in their respective countries before being sent to be part of the peacekeeping force.

2) The footage the character has is all conflict footage related to fighting and peacekeeping duties in the conflict zone.

So, the BIG question. How would the character be able identify who the Americans are?

Again, as always, any ideas are greatly appreciated.

NOTE: with the responses I've already gotten, I've very, very close to having it all figured out. Five or six more good responses and I think I'll have it.
Link Posted: 1/10/2006 9:40:58 AM EDT

Originally Posted By BillSouthCarolina:
Dutch troops don't have to salute their officers and thus usually don't.



I heard reports as far back as the late 1980s that the Dutch military had essentially become a complete joke, with a total breakdown in discipline and any serious attempt at soldiering. It was like a "band camp" kind of experience, apparently.

The exceptions were the few Dutch units that were still pretty hard-core, like the Dutch Marines. Those guys are apparently still pretty badass.

In my presonal experience, I was very disappointed with the Dutch units I'd seen (although in fairness, my unit only trained briefly with some Dutch tankers, in their shiny new Leo II's back in 89 I think). However, my buddies that have served in Bosnia Dutch officers continued to be very unimpressed.

Link Posted: 1/10/2006 9:41:04 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/10/2006 9:45:24 AM EDT by bfieldburt]

Originally Posted By BillSouthCarolina:
Dutch troops don't have to salute their officers and thus usually don't.



Excellent!

Now that's a difference I can use.

I'm sure that saluting or not saluting becomes pretty involuntary after a while.

I sure that American soldiers, even if put into a peacekeeping force, would do this once in a while without thinking even if not required to in the peacekeeping force.

What are the different ways that different nations salute? I'm sure that not every nation does it the same way.
Link Posted: 1/10/2006 9:46:42 AM EDT

Originally Posted By DK-Prof:

Originally Posted By BillSouthCarolina:
Dutch troops don't have to salute their officers and thus usually don't.



I heard reports as far back as the late 1980s that the Dutch military had essentially become a complete joke, with a total breakdown in discipline and any serious attempt at soldiering. It was like a "band camp" kind of experience, apparently.

The exceptions were the few Dutch units that were still pretty hard-core, like the Dutch Marines. Those guys are apparently still pretty badass.

In my presonal experience, I was very disappointed with the Dutch units I'd seen (although in fairness, my unit only trained briefly with some Dutch tankers, in their shiny new Leo II's back in 89 I think). However, my buddies that have served in Bosnia Dutch officers continued to be very unimpressed.


It is said to be a bit better now that conscription is no longer around though, having a pony-tail was for some time perfectly legal too.
Holland is also the only country to have a union for it's military.
As for officers well.. Holland is said to have the most officers in Europe per head of the military.

I'm Dutch, well my mom is so I'm sort of too
Link Posted: 1/10/2006 9:48:27 AM EDT

Originally Posted By bfieldburt:

Originally Posted By BillSouthCarolina:
Dutch troops don't have to salute their officers and thus usually don't.



Excellent!

Now that's a difference I can use.

I'm sure that saluting or not saluting becomes pretty involuntary after a while.

I sure that American soldiers, even if put into a peacekeeping force, would do this once in a while without thinking even if not required to in the peacekeeping force.

Thanks.

They are thinking of introducing it again though, as it creates misunderstandings among allies that do have to salute their officers while serving together.
Link Posted: 1/10/2006 10:00:32 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/10/2006 10:01:12 AM EDT by osprey21]
I never trained with any foreign troops per se, but I have fought alongside ARVN's and CIDG's, and IMO.. the ARVN's were slackers and the CIDG's were warriors.
Link Posted: 1/10/2006 10:25:07 AM EDT

Originally Posted By bfieldburt:
One of my characters, via lots of video footage from the warzone, is able to identify which of the peacekeepers are Americans even though all the peacekeepers are dressed alike and part of integrated, international units. The footage the character has doesn't have sound. So, how would the character identify them?


I knew a lot of service people that were very, very fond of snuff (chewin' tabacky). Not sure if folks in other parts of the world are into chew.
Link Posted: 1/10/2006 11:04:26 AM EDT
Sidebar:


As Liason NCO, I got in the habit of saluting Brit officers palm out and, of course, our officers palm down, as I was trained.

The DivArty CO noticed that and asked me about it.

I just told him that I thought it might make our guests feel more at home. He just nodded, said OK, and I kept right on doing it. Bigger'n shit, the next day, some damned Major asked me the same thing and got pissy about it. When I pointed out it had the DivArty CO's OK he STFU.


TRhere's always one, and when i served, it seemed most were majors.
Link Posted: 1/10/2006 12:23:25 PM EDT
I was an advisor to the ROKAF for three years.

Don't think you would interested in hearing about them though.
Link Posted: 1/10/2006 12:26:47 PM EDT

Originally Posted By BillSouthCarolina:
Dutch troops don't have to salute their officers and thus usually don't.



Doesn't the Dutch military have a union?

I think they all look like hippies.
Link Posted: 1/10/2006 12:28:06 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/10/2006 12:34:22 PM EDT by Manic_Moran]
The British appear to have a much greater separation between officers and enlisted. I found it amusing that the lunchtime routine for officers was to head for the mess, eat lunch, then 'adjourn to the ante-room' which was a plush wood-panelled, leather-chaired room, with newspapers and tea/coffee before going back to work.

I was also somewhat surprised to discover that all company-grade officers are on first-name terms with each other as a matter of routine. A 2LT will call a Major by his first name, not 'Sir.'

For whatever reason, American NCOs never really scared me. Maybe it was because I was a little bit older and wiser when I went through the American system, or maybe it was because stripes come at Americans hard-and-fast. An E-6 (Staff Sergeant) in the US Army does the job of a corporal in the British or Irish army, for example. When I started out in Ireland, a corporal was the right-hand-of-God. The sergeant (one per platoon) was God. If you ever had to interact with the officer in garrison, you were DOOMED! There is something about the British NCO mentality and verbiage that when you are given a bollocking by a British sergeant, you know you've been bollocked by the best.

On a more doctrinal level, the fire-team concept the US has is not universally shared. The Irish squad (section) actually consists of three three-man groups. The fire support group, with a 7.62mm MG, and two maneuver groups which bound to the target under the cover of the machinegun. There seems to be a bit of a move towards the two-fireteam concept though. I niticed that in MOUT/FIBUA, the British have a more fluid two-man team system, as opposed to the American four-man-stack. I think the American system is safer and if well-practised, superior, but the two-man method I saw the Brits doing is faster and simpler for people that don't have Delta-Force amounts of time to train up for it.

It took me quite a while to stop raising my leg such that my thigh was parallel to the ground during drill movements. To this day, I still march with my arms swinging in the Irish/British style with the elbows locked, although I obviously don't swing them shoulder-high any more.

US Army also seems to manage to take all the fun out of shooting, with the micromanaging that goes on on the ranges.

NTM
Link Posted: 1/10/2006 12:33:55 PM EDT
Link Posted: 1/10/2006 12:34:59 PM EDT
I helped cross-train some Aussies and run them through our tacs lanes in Hawaii. Very squared away troops, knew their shit AND our shit as well...they trained with borrowed M16s/SAWs/M60s. They commented they liked the M16s better than the AUGs they were issued (the Australian-built AUGs had major QC problems).
We also had foreign troops cross-training at IOBC at Benning when I was there. In my platoon there was a Captain from Sierra Leon---intelligent, hard-working, good guy all around; probably dead now given what went on in Sierra Leon not too long after; a Captain from Argentina---quiet but very smart and squared away; and four Saudi Arabian officers. The Saudis, to a man, were lazy, insular and worthless.
Link Posted: 1/10/2006 12:40:46 PM EDT
Me in Spain 1985, on a 5 week joint aerial gunnery exercise with the Spanish Army Aviation. The Spanish military couldn’t grasp how us Officers, NCO’s and enlisted partied together. In their military it was strictly forbidden for enlisted to mingle and associate with NCO’s or Officers.
Sorry about the pic quality, cant expect much from 21 year old scanned 110 photos. This is me in front of my Spanish tent.



Me with some Spanish soldiers. I’m holding the rifle.



Link Posted: 1/10/2006 12:42:16 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/10/2006 12:45:48 PM EDT by vito113]
Link Posted: 1/10/2006 1:30:13 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/10/2006 3:52:05 PM EDT by bfieldburt]

Originally Posted By Manic_Moran:

On a more doctrinal level, the fire-team concept the US has is not universally shared. The Irish squad (section) actually consists of three three-man groups. The fire support group, with a 7.62mm MG, and two maneuver groups which bound to the target under the cover of the machinegun. There seems to be a bit of a move towards the two-fireteam concept though. I niticed that in MOUT/FIBUA, the British have a more fluid two-man team system, as opposed to the American four-man-stack. I think the American system is safer and if well-practised, superior, but the two-man method I saw the Brits doing is faster and simpler for people that don't have Delta-Force amounts of time to train up for it.

NTM



O.K. This just might be the total key to getting my story to work the way I want it to. Having never been an infantry soldier, let me make sure I understand this. NOTE: just ADDED and EDITED this after reading a MOUT manual and figuring a few things out.

Irish=one team (of three men) fires (called the "fire team"?) while the two other teams move.

...so explain the "there seems to be a bit of a move towards the two-fire team concept". Does this mean that two teams would fire while only one moves? EDIT/ADD: or just that they are leaning toward breaking the squad down into two man units instead of three man units (then probably change from nine to eight or six man squads)?

British=Q: "two-man team system" would mean that they are in groups of two men, right? But, what is the general ratio of fire teams (EDIT/ADD: or "support teams") (in two man groups) to those who move? The Irish ration would be 1 to 2 (one shooting while two move). What is the British ratio? ADD/EDIT: or maybe a better question is, "How big is a British 'squad'?"

American="four man stack" means that they are in four man teams? As compared to three men with the Irish and two men with the British. And, also with the Americans, what is the ration of fire teams to moving teams? (EDIT/ADD: no need to answer this. I got it figured out reading a MOUT manual).

NOTE: the peacekeeping units in my story are in five man teams called "hands"--and, "yes", there are all kinds of jokes in the book related to this.

P.S. Manic Moran. I'm sending you an IM with these same questions. Feel free to just post it here if you want. Thanks so much. This is EXACTLY what will help me finish the story up.
Link Posted: 1/10/2006 1:53:53 PM EDT
British Royal Marines - Kuwait, 92 - Very laid back as far as uniform standards and accountability of sensative items, but pretty hardcore guys when it comes to fighting.

Polish Infantry - Egypt, 93 - Refuse to keep their clothes on when not training. Speedo central! I wasn't impressed with their noise and light discipline or safety standards (zero muzzle awareness).

French Foreign Legion - Djabuti,94 - A flock of criminals in uniform. Disciplined only by fear of punshment from superiors. Very well trained tactically and motivated as well, but they stole our tents and a 5 ton truck with no fear of reprisal, rightfully so because none ever came (Sissified Command didn't want to start an international "incident").

Estonian Infantry - Iraq, 04-05 - Best friggin soldiers I've ever fought with. Like programmed war robots.

Iraqi Army - Guess where?,04-05 - Don't think I need to explain this one.
Link Posted: 1/10/2006 2:04:08 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/10/2006 2:38:31 PM EDT by bfieldburt]
Dang, just dove into a MOUT manual. A little more complicated then I was initially guessing. Anyone have access to (non classified, of course) British or Irish or an Israeli version of a MOUT training manual? That would make it very easy for me to see some tactical differences.
Link Posted: 1/10/2006 2:15:25 PM EDT
I've worked with Germans and Norwegians-


Germans- Very arrogant, smelled like armpit, lounged around in T-shirts, smoked non-stop, full of scornful glances. They were assigned an area, which they immediately razor wired off. It had the only building with a working phone for 30 miles. They would not let US troops in to use the phone regardless of the reason, or the fact that the US assigned them that area in the first place.

Norwegians- Very friendly, but radiating a fight to the last man, even if it's hopeless, attitude. And they had G-3's and Glock 17's, which I thought were a cool combo for deep in the evergreen woods.

Link Posted: 1/10/2006 2:20:55 PM EDT

Originally Posted By bfieldburt:
This is my third semi-related thread on this. www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=423455
and www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=425706 I've got some really good responses. Thanks.

I'm still on my quest to find out noticed differences between our guys and the foreign troops you trained with or fought alongside.

I'll get it started: "I noticed, when training with those Brits, that our guys had pretty good teeth, but their teeth were really phuqed up ".

As you can see, I've got nothin'.

If anyone here has trained with foreign troops, tell me some differences you noticed between our guys and them as far as tactics, training, the way they hold their weapons, the way they march...anything that was different than how our guys are and the way our guys do things.

Help my Obi-won....you guys here at ARFCOM are my only hope.



I won't comment on things like teeth or body odor, but as far as tactics here goes:

Canadians - surprisingly proficient. (sorry that I didn't expect much, credit to my ignorance.)
Jordanians - lacking in tactical proficiency and exceeding in shitty personality. Ok, I'll break myown rule, bad teeth and they stink. fuck em.
Australians - my fucking heroes. I'm glad they are on our side.
Various african forces including Kenyans, fairly impressive in austere conditions and with old equipment.

i will think of many others as soon as I hit "submit"
Link Posted: 1/10/2006 2:31:50 PM EDT
Canucks, They were very proud of being in the military and very motivated but their level of training was not up to ours. Also they were severly lacking in equipment where as we had everything with us including the kitchen sink.
Link Posted: 1/10/2006 2:33:07 PM EDT
Malaysian Navy and Army around 1999. We took our LCACs into a malay gator ship. I believe an old LST. All the sailors were wearing full FFE outfits on the catwalks, I have no idea why. It seemed they were better disciplined as they all were 5 year enlistes. There officer/enlistee relationship seemed about the same as ours (didnt really talk to or see them much except for quaters or inspection.
The food on the ship was horrific (fish slime every single day)

The malay army seemed squared away, but they seemed to not listen when I was trying to get them to shut their hatches befor taking off (not a good idea to have a hatch open on a moving LCAC) they wouldnt do it, May of been a comunication failure but it seemed like they were joking around. They had AUGs which were very cool and one of them let me drive his mini tank thing which was fun as hell.

For the Japanese navy I agree with the previous statements, but it seemed like they didn't get much experiance. (they spent alot of time in port) My opinion is that they are a good navy on paper but when it comes do actually fighting they will be found lacking.

Singapore navy seemed about the same as our, but less training.

Thai Marines seemed hardcore they were doing some crazy ass shit when they were rapeling.
Link Posted: 1/10/2006 2:37:23 PM EDT

Originally Posted By ED_P:

Norwegians- Very friendly, but radiating a fight to the last man, even if it's hopeless, attitude. And they had G-3's and Glock 17's, which I thought were a cool combo for deep in the evergreen woods.




I think that might be a bit of a Scandinavian attitude - brought on by small countries that saw in WW2 what happens if a big "superpower" wants their country. I'm sure other countries have this attitude too, but I've definitely seen it among the Swedes, and certainly among many Danish soldiers. (The Finns too, to the extent that you'd consider them scandinavain.)

During the Cold War, my regiment (and the entire brigade) KNEW that we'd pretty much be annihilated to the last man by WAPA armoured divisions if/when the war started. Our area was pretty much written off, and our job was to "slow down" the Polish and East German advance so that our armoured divisions, with the help of Brits and Americans, could make a stand in Jutland.
Link Posted: 1/10/2006 2:54:29 PM EDT
Link Posted: 1/10/2006 2:56:26 PM EDT
Link Posted: 1/10/2006 2:57:22 PM EDT

Originally Posted By vito113:

Originally Posted By DK-Prof:

Originally Posted By ED_P:

Norwegians- Very friendly, but radiating a fight to the last man, even if it's hopeless, attitude. And they had G-3's and Glock 17's, which I thought were a cool combo for deep in the evergreen woods.




I think that might be a bit of a Scandinavian attitude - brought on by small countries that saw in WW2 what happens if a big "superpower" wants their country. I'm sure other countries have this attitude too, but I've definitely seen it among the Swedes, and certainly among many Danish soldiers. (The Finns too, to the extent that you'd consider them scandinavain.)

During the Cold War, my regiment (and the entire brigade) KNEW that we'd pretty much be annihilated to the last man by WAPA armoured divisions if/when the war started. Our area was pretty much written off, and our job was to "slow down" the Polish and East German advance so that our armoured divisions, with the help of Brits and Americans, could make a stand in Jutland.




IIRC, the Norwegian Constitution prohibits the Army from surrendering if the country is attacked. That business with Quisling left a mark on the Norwegian collective conciousness.

ANdy



I believe the Danish consitution was also rewritten to allow Danish military units to assume they are at war and start fighting independently, without having to wait for govenment instruction. We also did not enojy the sudden influx of German tourists in 1941.
Link Posted: 1/10/2006 3:12:25 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Helldog40:


Remind me sometime to tell you about the week I spent in their NCO club in Willemstaad, Curacao without leaving except to shower and sleep. Even in 1980 it was 35 freaking cents a BOTTLE!





That does sound like a story worth hearing.
Link Posted: 1/10/2006 3:26:43 PM EDT
Joint ops with German MP's at Roving Sands '95 (I think?) very professional MP Corps, drank a TON (metric of course) of beer, and had the coolest squad tents ever, a large central area with four or five "spokes" radiating out. You could have a heller party in there!
Link Posted: 1/10/2006 3:44:21 PM EDT
A buddy of mine was in a Michigan National Guard Ranger unit, and they went to Brecon Wales to train with the British National Guard equivalent .

He told me that he had a ball , that it was like being beamed into a British WWII movie (in a very positive way) He went yomping with SLRs , Marching with their L1A1's .

He said if the guys started getting unruly , the British Sergeants would calm everyone down with a "No drama mates, no drama." The other funny thing was if someone screwed up the Brit Sgt.s would yell "Fantastic !. Fabulous. WHAT THE FUCKING HELL WAS THAT ?!"

He said they were great guys , great troops. This particular unit had veterans of Northern Ireland ops and that they weren't too fond of the Irish.
Link Posted: 1/10/2006 3:58:29 PM EDT
Swedish Bikini team.
Link Posted: 1/10/2006 4:32:01 PM EDT
+1 on the Estonians. Trained with them for three weeks in Germany. They were NG and generally they have to get by with so much less than their US conterparts. They love US gear and we hooked them up best we could with Camelbaks and our TA50. For example, they are rationed to one liter of water per day. We are supposed to drink that much every 2 hours almost. They have women in combat units too. There was one hot 6 foot tall blonde who is also a police officer and kinda hot but knew her stuff too. The guys who were regular army had ok teeth but the one's who were'nt had bad teeth.

They all smoke and drink like mofo's and when it comes to a fire fight they kill everything and sort non coms out afterwards. Good soliders and nice people!


Link Posted: 1/10/2006 4:46:48 PM EDT
Trained with Canadian EOD: Good guys, pretty high speed. They seemed to keep up pretty well with the Navy EOD guys (which operate pretty much at a Spec OPS level). They have awesome MRE's.

Trained Estonian EOD/Engineers/Recue Board: Some were old school commie officers and didn't give a rats ass about the training. They were getting paid to be there and nothing more. The younger guys were eager to learn and wanted badly to go to NAVSCOLEOD in the states. Never noticed any gross safety violations on their part, but we watched them like hawks. The communication was diificult at times.

Trained Nigerian Infantry (I guess they were the country's Army): Do what they're told but theyre pretty much rocks.

mil-to-mil with Georgia: We tell them all our cool guy techniques, they tell us nothing about EOD, but they have a lot of pride in their home.

Germany EOD: IMHO they're safety nightmares, arrogant, and have some pretty cool tools/equipment. As dudes they're great guys. We did a few ski trips with them (our German partnership unit) and had a blast with them. But I always got a weird vibe from the German mil in general. Like they always thought they were better than us or didn't trust us. I'd prefer they kiss our asses and be thankful we let them have their country rather than let Russia have it.
Link Posted: 1/10/2006 5:14:32 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/10/2006 5:15:31 PM EDT by Manic_Moran]
Originally Posted By bfieldburt:

Irish=one team (of three men) fires (called the "fire team"?) while the two other teams move.

...so explain the "there seems to be a bit of a move towards the two-fire team concept". Does this mean that two teams would fire while only one moves? EDIT/ADD: or just that they are leaning toward breaking the squad down into two man units instead of three man units (then probably change from nine to eight or six man squads)?


No, two four-man units, each called a fire team, as per the US model.

British=Q: "two-man team system" would mean that they are in groups of two men, right? But, what is the general ratio of fire teams (EDIT/ADD: or "support teams") (in two man groups) to those who move? The Irish ration would be 1 to 2 (one shooting while two move). What is the British ratio? ADD/EDIT: or maybe a better question is, "How big is a British 'squad'?"



I believe a British squad is nine men, if memory serves. You have the corporal, and two teams of four, each led by a lance corporal, methinks. Ordinarily, I believe they currently also use the American two-teams of four principle, but when they start house-clearing, they go around in teams of two. i.e. only two people will burst into a room, whilst the American system prefers to throw all four in at once. Each team is identical in composition in the US model, usually one SAW/Minimi/LSW and three rifles. The machine-gun concept such as Ireland uses is considered a little old-fashioned these days as it requires a different sort of ammunition (7.62mm vs 5.56mm on the rifles), and SAWs are small enough that single people can carry them around. Then again, there are also those who believe that the extra firepower of the 7.62mm MG in each section makes serious work of dealing with any enemy, especially if they're behing 5.56mm-proof walls.

NTM
Link Posted: 1/10/2006 7:40:49 PM EDT
I’ve worked with a few Central American armies.

Enlisted: Generally of a very low educational level. Tough as rebar. Fiercely nationalistic. Eager to learn. Won’t hesitate to run straight through a brick wall if ordered to do so. Courteous to a fault.

Officers: They’re binary. Either hard-ass, proficient enemy-killers or useless, blow-dried dandies. Nothing in between. Statistically distributed about 50/50.

The crippling disability which all of these banana armies face is their rigid class distinction between commissioned officers and non-coms. A product of their culture, they view their non-coms as highly paid privates. Grant them no tactical authority whatsoever. All, and I mean all, command decisions are made by officers. As you might expect, this severely limits their ability to function efficiently as war-fighting organizations.

No matter how many times we show them that using their sergeants and corporals effectively will multiply by orders of magnitude their ability to close with and destroy the enemy; no matter how many times we show them that a 15 year sergeant will produce vastly superior tactical decisions than a 15 month lieutenant, they just don’t get it. They’ll never let go of those class distinctions.

The good news is, they only have to fight (so far) armies afflicted with the same shortcomings.
Link Posted: 1/10/2006 7:42:00 PM EDT
Hey we have a vets forum

www.ar15.com/forums/forum.html?b=1&f=77
Link Posted: 1/10/2006 7:45:31 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/10/2006 7:49:50 PM EDT by WildBoar]
Went to Spanish Airborne School. Belgian Para commando school thing (got 2 blimp jumps) Did a jump exchange witht the Germans.

Live fires with Italian, French, Belgian, Spanish, Turkish, German, British, Morrocan, Scott and Lux.

My opinion.

The Spanish impressed me the most along with the Turks. The French were excellent and motivated soldiers as well as the Belgians.

The Italians were not very impressive at all, the Germans were not all that awesome either.

The Morrocans were the craziest.

The Scotts were the best drinkers and all around good dudes to hang with.

The Britts were the pompous arses I expected them to be. Probably good soldiers but they were pretty friggin smug. In the main camps all the NATO troops hung out and exchanged Leathermans for berets and gear while the Brits were all by themselves. They just rubbed everyone the wrong way.
Link Posted: 1/10/2006 7:53:41 PM EDT
Brits, Danes, Germans, and Canadians.

Operational differences? The Brits really get carried away in war games. They stripped our Lt naked and hung him by his ankles from a tree after they captured him. They also have a habit of planning their assaults around guesthouses.

The Danes. GOOOD looking nurses. Another thing, they don't really care about PR or how they look to the world. They blew a hillside in Bosnia to bits because some idiot was firing an AK into their motor pool. Danes also do not have much patience with the US military leadership/management model that specifies meetings every 20 minutes.

Germans? Ok, they don't mix much. German tankers are a hard nosed bunch of SOBs.
Link Posted: 1/11/2006 4:44:48 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/11/2006 5:37:44 AM EDT by vito113]
Link Posted: 1/11/2006 5:30:30 AM EDT

Originally Posted By ED_P:
Norwegians- Very friendly, but radiating a fight to the last man, even if it's hopeless, attitude. And they had G-3's and Glock 17's, which I thought were a cool combo for deep in the evergreen woods.


my experience to a t. hell on skis, very proficient. friendly in a reserved teutonic way (they actually struck me as more teutonic than the germans!).

spanish were locked on. neat, orderly, and rigidly disciplined.

i thought the french foreign legion was really unimpressive, surprisingly. their instr are proficient but your ave rank and file are tough as nails but not a very good fighting unit. i wouldn't wanna be forward of them.

the brits, con artists in cammies! friendly and insulting, undisciplined buncha yobbos who know their shit.

guats. tough, squat little monkeys. if they had a higher basic level of schooling and were trained by marine di's, i bet they'd be on a level of the ghurkas or rok marines, they're that fierce and disciplined. they can hump twice their own weight up and down mountains and finish smiling. if they actually smiled.
Top Top