Why are americans so bad at war?

Why are americans so bad at war?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/lIUX97O11Vk
twitter.com/AnonBabble

You're not so good at it yourself. *cough* gallipoli *cough*

Just because the US hasn't won a war in the past hundred years doesn't mean the US is bad at war. The US is great at war. Winning wars is where the US fails.

They are americans, what did you expect? They lost to 134 vietnamese rice farmers.

I dunno, ask the Japanese.

You can't lose if you didn't intend to win anyway.

America 100 x 0 World

sage

We're supposed to be the revolutionaries, not the imperials.

Too bad Peruvian forces weren't there, we would have been fucked!

...

Because our politicians won't let us win
We've got bombs that can destroy nations if we decided to use them

>Why are americans so bad at war?
This is coming from the country that lost a war to fucking EMUS!

>Iraq
>Afghanistan
>Vietnam
>Wars
The US is incredibly good at conventional war. We are fucking terrible at counter-insurgency and nation building.

Shock and awe was as close to war as we've been in a long time and it took less than a work week to completely destroy and entire nation's government and military.

Sticking around to nation build and attempt counter-insurgency operations is where we get into trouble.

Just a bunch of pussys ni siquiera pueden hacer que mi país pague el muro jajajajaja

Outright refusal to use any tactic outside of standard operating procedure. Everything to be done according to the book no matter what. The only way to improve is through new equipment. In-fighting amongst leadership due to over-bureaucracy. No foreseeable end goal, just endless occupation. ROE is shit. Too much media bias towards the conflict leaning towards the left to a point where the lives of civilians are more important than our troops although civilian casualties are inevitable, leading to surgical strikes that deplete the military of funding. Media bias swing when a mosque is a base of operation but can't attack because they haven't attacked us yet and "muh religious freedoms"

I'm so glad I'm out of the fucking Army.

Because the US is stuck with 2nd generation warfare while "everyone" else has moved on to 3rd generation warfare.
The US can't adopt 3rd gen because they don't have a homogeneous population and 3rd gen requires men that are willing to sacrifice themselves for the greater good, which opens up a lot of tactics that paid mercenaries just wont do.

2nd generation is basically French warfare where soldiers are "stuck in" and does not move forward until the position they are moving towards is shelled. Once it's shelled they move, rince repeat.

Ayo, yo hol on a minute
>throws toilet paper in trash because no running water
You'd sayin, ayo hol on a minute
>hides as narco convoy drives by
You be sayin that, ayo hol up
>checks per capita GDP of $9,000
What you sayin is, ayo what you sayin
>gets decapitated by local narcos
So what you be sayin is
>waves to family as they sprint across the border region trying to make it in to the US
What y'all be telling me is we wuz spics n shit?

Why are Emus so good at war?

t. a militarily incompetent retard

You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, that's not even debatable.

It is about losing some men to make few richer, not war itself and there is no interest in a real war anymore

is there any substantiation to this?

or just your own neckbeard input.

America has won wars because of massive firepower superiority. Without firepower superiority they are useless shit.

Keeps me up at night thinking on how many have lost thier lives thanks to the Jew's manufactured conflicts

How many good men sent to the grave for some shekels

I'll give him the benefit and say he's correct in saying current strategy is a little antiquated.

But what he lacks to understand is no one else really fights like a sand nigger does. It's effective but it's not conventional, and we need to learn to fight it effectively. The "hearts and minds" shit doesn't work. We can't pull out and we can't genocide them. It's a rock in a hard place because we don't have much recourse.

That's like saying that if Alexander the Great only had sticks instead of swords he wouldn't have won. We have superiority in most fields and that's because we are the shiiiiiiiiznit biaaaatch

We are the best in the world at counter-insurgency short of genocide. The simple fact is you cannot conduct counter-insurgency in a reasonable time frame while trying to respect collateral damage in a region where there is a near unlimited supply of insurgents and among a populace that doesn't share your goals or want you there in the first place. That applies to ANY military.

Our strategy for actual warfare is far from antiquated. We are on the cutting edge of combined arms warfare.

Everyone in this thread that criticizes the US' ability to fight ACTUAL wars are just angry foreigners looking to vent their hatred of US military superiority. They've never been within 500 miles of shots fired in anger and do not possess a shred of competent experience or knowledge in modern military capabilities or doctrine.

Don't you guys regularly get btof by literal poojabbing abos?

>her smile and optimism: gone

oh why kek why have you forsaken me?

a slow burn is more profitable.

Sure thing buddy, that must be why your veteran soldiers lose to conscripts in NATO exercises constantly.

The attitude is exactly the same as the Roman's.

>current strategy is a little antiquated.

Give me a better way to deal with mechanized or motorized infantry supported by armored assets and AT weapons besides hiding behind terrain features and hitting them with indirect or AT, then maneuvering on the remaining forces and pushing through your objective by force.

This is all modern conventional warfare boils down too in an age of unmanned drones, laser guided artillery and CAS. Infantry basically stand around waiting unless it involves urban operations or patrolling.

I agree. A lot of the shit that happens is to be expected from a sustained operation. And hearing from guys that were in the initial invasions we've come a long way. I feel like we could be down and dirtier like them. It's almost like half the time we're waiting to be attacked instead of on the offense and that doesn't sit with me well.

>exercises
You do understand most force on force exercises take place in a bubble with specific scenarios and restrictions, right? Like the F-22 that was "killed" in an exercise...after restrictions deemed 2 of its most potent systems could not be used.

We're far from invincible, but we are by far the most potent military on the planet. Your hatred of the US has no effect on that fact.

If you would like to provide specific examples of us losing "constantly" I would be happy to discuss them. The most impressive loss in an exercise in recent memory was a Swedish sub "killing" one of our carriers. That was legitimately impressive submarining by a competent Swedish naval commander using an advanced submarine.

Sherri Few is based
youtu.be/lIUX97O11Vk

>100 years
I think you spelled '1 year' wrong

A FUCKING DOT

They have the best high-tech equipment in the world but their men are incompetent faggots. Don't forget politicians also outsource half of the men and strategic command to private security firms such as AEGON to cover their tracks. This results into a huge clusterfuck where no one really has any idea what's going on.

Sherri Few isn't!
youtu.be/lIUX97O11Vk

>people die in war
Fucking shocking.

>the US is bad at war
We've had greater success than the Russians and Israelis in counter insurgency operations, like Afghanistian, the 2006 Lebanon War, or the Chechen Wars.

Damn look at all those times we were defeated as a nation, when the hordes of enemies occupied our land and humiliated our people, oh wait....

it seems to me that, like most things in America, there are a few very good groups of soldiers, like the navy seals, and then there are these multicultural, women-in-the-military, politically correct bureaucratically-run units that a few guys in flip-flops with 40 year old AKs and a bag of rice always seem to beat.

those niggers in your photo just want to get out of the hood. and that one white guy doesn't care much about his country anymore, because it's filled with niggers. there is really no loner any country worth dying for.

fuck you leaf.

there was a transitioning female in the CSH. Yeah I can't deal with that sort of bullshit

>Navy SEALs
>Very good group of soldiers
Leaf, I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt for never having been in a military environment, ever, but please stop posting.

If I wanted to take down a boat or oil rig, or potentially conduct a quick mission near a shore line I might call the SEALs. Outside of that they are one of the least useful groups of combatants we field.

They use the war thing as a form of eliminating unemployed persons, they don't really want to win wars, just doing the necessary to keep making weapons and giving jobs to stupid people who can't find any job outside of the army.

The same reason modern medicine never cures anything anymore. There's more money to be made in the treatment than the cure.

Winning wars don't generate as much money as fighting them.

kills 1.7 Million Iraqis
loses only 5000 of their own
"LOOOL AMERICA SO BAD AT WAR !"
get your numbers straight

butthurt burger can't handle the truth.

Fuck off burger.

Sup Forums is too dumb to understand modern conflicts. They subscribe to this elementary idea of "win or lose" like it's a sport.

That being said, I wouldn't qualify anything since WW2 as an actual war. War is where nations throw their chips on the table and put it all on the line.

Everything since then, from every nation on the planet, has been low intensity conflict. Russia didn't wage a war in Chechnya or Afghanistan just like the US hasn't waged a war in Vietnam, Iraq or Afghanistan. These have been clusterfuck nation building and COIN operations managed by hacks.

>Swoop in as a clean up squad when WW2 was already pretty much won by the Brits and Soviets to claim victory for yourselves
WW2 WAZ A REAL WAR GUYZ
>Proceed to fuck up any military conflit US is involved in
DOESN'T COUNT GUYZ

Not wrong though, emucuck

>claim victory for yourselves
Never understood where this meme come from. I was never taught this and no one outside of Sup Forums troll shitposters says that. We celebrate our part of the larger victory and sacrifices made by our troops.

>Proceed to fuck up any military conflit US is involved in
Not accurate. We actually succeed in the vast majority of the military conflicts we have been involved in. We shit the bed when it comes to attaining greater goals, as mentioned, such as counter-insurgency and nation building. As a matter of fact. Please tell me a which military engagements since WW2 the US sustained more casualties than they inflicted on their enemy?

We have a habit of getting involved in situations where the greater goal cannot be achieved without either a 30 year commitment or going total war mode, which the US public would not support.

The bombing campaigns of Germany and Japan represent war. Counter-insurgency and nation building in Iraq and Afghanistan do not.

Just because you lack the pedigree to comprehend modern conflict and military doctrine does not give your opinions weight.

Ok so because I tell you that you can't exert 3rd gen warfare and is stuck with 2nd gen because you have mercenaries means I automatically hate the US right?

And no I don't want to provide specific examples on a taiwanese basketweaving tutorial board where literally anyone can read it, for a few reasons, one of those is I care about the lives of your soldiers and teaching others how to defeat them is not in my best interest.

America would be average if fighting a matched enemy, but the problem is that we outmatch everyone

So destabilizing the middle-east and enabling the rise of Jihadist terrorism was all part of the plan then since that is all you've really achieved.

Where are you pulling this from?

We're on fourth generation warfare, as defined by any competent military analyst or commander in the world.

Second generation warfare came about in the 1800s. It still employed lines.

Third generation warfare came about after world war I. It was best defined by Germany and is also commonly referred to as fire-maneuver warfare.

Fourth generation is used to describe counter-insurgency where collateral damage is considered largely unacceptable. It describes low intensity warfare for the most part.

On the larger conflict scale, the current "generation" is known as combined arms and the US possesses an ability on that front more potent than any nation int he world.

If you're going to LARP as someone with some competent knowledge on the subject matter, know your audience. I'm a former military intelligence officer and now work as a private sector military analyst.

What does that have to do with our ability to close with and destroy enemies?

I'm not here to talk about politics and the reasons conflicts take place. Take your feelings out of it.

That was our fault.
Churchill landed them on the wrong beach.

>Modern conflicts has now devolved into who has the better 'K:D'

I didn't realise CoD was accurate.

How in God's Name does one manages to make a mistake on landing on ONE FUCKING BEACH

>What does that have to do with our ability to close with and destroy enemies?
Are you retarded? You've only made things worse. 9/11 was Mossad's doing to trick you faggots into removing Saddam, causing the spark that ignited the Arab Spring and dooming the entire region for decades to come while we catch all the fallout.
wew lad

What's the difference?

Let me tell you a little secret as to why...

He was drunk. Yep, it's that simple - Churchill was always a bit loopy with the alcohol; just turns out he was still loopy when making the decisions then.

Remember Cuba, you're nothing now

What, still, does that have to do with our ability to close with and destroy enemies in conflict? Have I said a single word that supports these conflicts? I've actually said the opposite.

The hacks running the Vietnam war actually did make that their goal. That's the sad part. In light of clearly achievable military goals and strategy, they based our success on K:D ratios. Hence why we'd kill a few thousand NVA and VC, take territory, then abandon it two days later while a couple thousand more enemy combatants came off the Ho Chi Minh trail and replaced the dead from earlier in the week.

People who are too stupid to separate military capabilities with the outcome of nation building and counter-insurgency campaigns really should not comment.

Please don't be stupid enough to equate the above with me arguing we "won" Vietnam.

Wrong

for all americows talking shit about japan and how great their victory was

I know why the caged bird sings

>1000:1 kill ratio
Don't blame Americans just because Muslims are so low IQ they can't into democracy.

>The hacks running the Vietnam war actually did make that their goal.

They made that their goal mid-way through the war, after it had become clear America could never win as the South Vietnamese govt. was too unpopular, and communism too popular.

You failed to hold onto territory because the South Vietnamese never helped you and the North Vietnamese were too cunning and skilled.

Japan got it bad by the end. We killed ~250k people in 5 days of bombing on the mainland with 0 casualties (~100k in a night of conventional bombing, ~70k with one nuke, ~80k with another). Not something to be proud of either, but those stubborn bastards shouldn't have waited until Russia was pushing through Asia to sign a conditional surrender to the US.

pic related is the average burgerfat

US left in '73

Commies took over in '75

ARVN lost, not US forces

...

I don't even know if I would describe it as cunning and skilled as much as tenacious and dedicated.

It also didn't help that the US made no attempt to actually destroy their enemies. Aside from a few small scale special operations, we stayed out of neighboring nations the Ho Chi Minh trail ran through. That's the surest sign of the complete hackery in charge of strategy. If you don't cut off supply and logistics, you are never going to have any lasting victory. The second was the unwillingness to ruthlessly attack North Vietnam. For the apocalyptic amount of ordnance dropped in Vietnam, there was no dedication to decapitating the North's ability to command, control and produce. Complete clusterfuck from beginning to end.

>sticks instead of swords

>Alexander
>Swords
>Not knowing the Macedonians used pikes as main battlefield weaponry
>Pikes are literally sticks with a metal pointy end
>He thinks he did it with muh swords

How?

Your country is almost a failed state with regular internecine violence. You don't even know what real nationalism is unless you're T*rkish in the Middle East.

Say hello to your Hezbollah masters once you're done kissing the soles of their shoes for me would you?

They're just having fun with us m8

Remind them of the failures of their countries

>you will always be an amerifat
>you will never actually win a war

>300 causalities
>125k casualties from 1 bomb
lol k. go back to pounding goats, sand nigger

Not really. Brit bro isn't dead wrong in his assessment by any means.

I have no reason to make fun of their countries. Especially not the UK. They are a very militarily competent and capable nation and ally.

saved
/thread

1v1 me in some war right now bitch!

ya, that's what I thought

Never fought a real war so they die a lot whenever they're sent somewhere

1) understand who actually runs the USA
2) Read the protocols of the elders of Zion
3) Everything makes sense

SEALs are the best trained military unit we have, and DEVGRU gets all the cool new equipment. That said you wouldn't send a SEAL team to do the same mission you would send a platoon of Marines to do and vice versa

we actually didn't
we killed more of them considering they had home field advantage and Vietnam is now a capitalist country

>killed more
>didn't achieve strategical goals
>retreat
>won
lol

this

Because we've had to fight all of them for the rest of you

>SEALs are the best trained military unit we have
Wrong. They are specialized commandos with some unique capabilities, especially where the sea is concerned.

>DEVGRU
They are an SMU and are definitely among the most highly trained guys we have, however I would go with the Army's SMU for most anything not involving the sea if given a choice.

I spent years in a TOC working for JSOC on the intelligence side. I've seen these guys do their thing. Might surprise you to know that the Ranger Regiment has been the most potent asset in the war on terror, by a fucking huge margin.

SEALs, as dedicated as they are, are not supermen. They fuck up, and often. I can't tell you how many times they've left messes for conventional units to clean up or have tried to execute poorly planned ops resulting in deaths, from their own ranks as well as the attached units that were running blocking or QRF for them.

This isn't a video game or Hollywood movie and the SEALs have largely been a solution looking for a problem in GWOT.

Because the U.S. doesn't really fight wars, we send our military out to be police instead.

If it gets close to being an actual war, our troops are made to fight with kid gloves and one hand tied behind their backs.

If it the U.S. military ever again waged all out war, not much could stand in it's way.

Those digits....
>wasted

You lost a war to Emus m8

>'''''''Retreat'''''''
ill admit we may have by definition ""lost"" but we did not get destroyed like the germans did in ww2
We killed more of them, we burned down their country, and Vietnam is a capitalist country, that's more than you can say for Poland

I wonder why you had to leave? I'm sure it's got nothing to do with the fact that it was to difficult to establish a strong military in the country, for Vietnam - for the most part - wanted to be communist (and it was the media too).

>They won after we left. That meant we won.
No, no, no - that makes no sense. If I play a game of rugby and my team loses despite me being off for half the time - does that mean I won or simply didn't lose? No. Same applies with war. You failed to contain communism - not because you're military weak as the euros would have you assume - but because you were destined to lose. There is no way - in hell - that you could have won Vietnam.

More like:

>Wastes trillions of dollars losing wars in a dozen different countries against the poorest people in the world.

>China's GDP growth has been 10% for the past decade while the U.S. has been stuck at 2%.

Fixating on these losing conflicts is costing the U.S. everything.

>You failed to cut off supply and logistics
That's because it was difficult. The beauty of the Ho Chi Minh trail is that it was adaptable. Even if you patrolled the trail as well as you patrol your southern border (that was sarcasm, but I'm still being serious here) you wouldn't have cut off their supplies and logistics, as they would have just made a detour.
That, and they would have gone through a neighbouring country as they were friendly to Vietnam (Khemer Rogue, etc.).

>Unwilling to ruthlessly attack North Vietnam
That's because you were scared China and Russia - but especially China - would see that as an aggressive move and ally with the North.
That, and you were quite ruthless in some areas, with the My Lai Massacre and all, which led to your foreign policy losing support abroad, and at home, FAST.