[SolarCross]

I was thinking more about hunting, but yes, if the US ever invaded Canada, the huge number of rural folk with good hunting rifles will be a problem for you guys.

I think a re-run of the war of 1812 is highly improbable while NATO exists and the US, Canada and the UK are all members.

The rural folk of Canada might yet live long enough to take pot shots are Russian or Chinese invaders though.

[Demosthenes]

Actually rifle platoons are quite valuable militarily speaking, but in the modern age they take too long to train, are too expensive, and the powers-that-be aren't patient enough to develop them. There was a colonel or something in the Vietnam war who wrote extensively about their combat effectiveness. I read it just out of high school though so I can't recall the details anymore.

[Cartertonian]

Actually rifle platoons are quite valuable militarily speaking, but in the modern age they take too long to train, are too expensive, and the powers-that-be aren't patient enough to develop them. There was a colonel or something in the Vietnam war who wrote extensively about their combat effectiveness. I read it just out of high school though so I can't recall the details anymore.

I don't know about the US military in this respect, but in the British Army every single soldier is trained first and foremost to be an infantryman, irresepective of their particular trade or specialism, so forming an effective rifle platoon would be relatively easy and cost-effective.

[Godstud]

I think a re-run of the war of 1812 is highly improbable while NATO exists and the US, Canada and the UK are all members.

You mean the war the US lost? You'd think they wouldn't want to repeat that mistake.

I don't know about the US military in this respect, but in the British Army every single soldier is trained first and foremost to be an infantryman, irresepective of their particular trade or specialism, so forming an effective rifle platoon would be relatively easy and cost-effective.

Most militaries(Canada for one) have basic training which teaches these skills. Granted, most infantry are specialists, but it doesn't take much to train them from their basic training to be infantry. They've already learned the basics.

[SolarCross]

You mean the war the US lost? You'd think they wouldn't want to repeat that mistake.

Aye they lost and we (Britain & Canada) even burned their precious whitehouse down.. However the US military is quite a different beast these days. Canada's Armed Forces are apparently being severely denied cash (even though Canada is rich) and the US military is.. well what it is. In a purely conventional war they could roll Canada's cities in an hour or two. Of course the UK still has a nuclear deterrent and a mess of diplomatic interdependency with the US, not least NATO so the US isn't about to do that but that isn't because they would fear Canada's Armed Forces even if combined with UK Armed Forces (excluding the nuke card).

[jessupjonesjnr87]

I don't know about the US military in this respect, but in the British Army every single soldier is trained first and foremost to be an infantryman, irresepective of their particular trade or specialism, so forming an effective rifle platoon would be relatively easy and cost-effective.

It is the same across much of Europe. I suspect in America rather than train and educate much of the recruit and three star training is comprised of activities that centre around mental conditioning and reprogramming of the soldiers.
Infantry are the backbone of any army however the one true weakness in the US military is their incapability of taking casualties, this will no doubt intensify their reliance on proxy armies to carry out the ground work for their tech heavy armies in the future.

I joined a local reserve company for a couple of years. We were a support company and got to train on the 81mm mortar, Steyr AUG and the medieval Bren gun.

[Drlee]

It is the same across much of Europe. I suspect in America rather than train and educate much of the recruit and three star training is comprised of activities that centre around mental conditioning and reprogramming of the soldiers.

Just your usual horseshit. Not a shred of truth to it. Basic training for US soldiers is essentially infantry training.

Infantry are the backbone of any army however the one true weakness in the US military is their incapability of taking casualties, this will no doubt intensify their reliance on proxy armies to carry out the ground work for their tech heavy armies in the future.

More horseshit.

I joined a local reserve company for a couple of years. We were a support company and got to train on the 81mm mortar, Steyr AUG and the medieval Bren gun.

Another chicken hawk know-it-all.

[Rancid]

Remember folks, when defending your home, make sure you shoot at all sounds and shadows.

[Decky]

True.

[Drlee]

[/quote]

Cheater.

[jessupjonesjnr87]

Another chicken hawk know-it-all.

I looked it up on wikipedia and I'm the exact opposite of a chickenhawk.
"Chickenhawk (also chicken hawk and chicken-hawk) is a political term used in the United States to describe a person who strongly supports war or other military action (i.e., a war hawk), yet who actively avoids or avoided military service when of age."
I oppose wars and military actions but I did voluntarily serve with a local reserve company.

[mikema63]

In the US reserves have a bad rep for being what people sign up for to not actually go to war. It's basically something you do on weekends.

[jessupjonesjnr87]

Reserves are an important part of any army.

[mikema63]

I'm just telling you how Americans perceive them, rightly or wrongly.

[Drlee]

JJ. You may choose to ignore my comments about chickenhawks. That to which I object is you are either trolling (my choice) or pathetically ignorant of the US military. Or both.

For example:

Infantry are the backbone of any army however the one true weakness in the US military is their incapability of taking casualties, this will no doubt intensify their reliance on proxy armies to carry out the ground work for their tech heavy armies in the future.

This is nonsense. There is no "backbone" of any Army. The combined arms team is what wins wars. The infantry is one part of that team. We did not defeat Iraq with a "proxy Army". Quite the opposite. We are not fielding our infantry in the ME right now simply because it is not in our best interest to do it. The Iraqi army is not a "proxy army" it is the army of the recognized country doing the fighting. The idea is preposterous. Are you calling the various militias in Syria US proxy armies? That would be even more absurd.

The US Army is the best in the world. There is no question about that. It could, and might some day, impose our will on the Middle East. That would not be a hard task at all. What IS important, and what you seem incapable of understanding is that the way to a lasting peace in the Middle East is to raise up countries that can impose peace on the region. We have no desire to occupy the ME for decades. We don't even like those people.

[Godstud]

I'd argue the US army is among the best in the world, and it certainly is the biggest/most technologically advanced. I'd say there are some better trained armies who would be better on a soldier to soldier basis(training, etc.), but that's generally not how wars are fought. The sheer size of the US war machine is pretty damned impressive, especially in a world where they really don't need it, anymore.

[Decky]

The Yanks just have more expensive toys. That's it. The commonwealth armies and of course the glorious party army of the DPRK are far better than the yanks.

[Godstud]

DPRK?

Canada has 3x their military budget!

[Decky]

Results speak for themselves. The Yanks did their best to conquer Korea and the DPRK held them off. It wasn't a total victory against the Yankee empire like in Vietnam where Yankestan was crshed of course but the Yanks were given a bloody nose.

They Americans have money but Marxist south east asians have balls.

[Demosthenes]

Let me clarify that I was talking about single shot rifle platoons (using either bolt action or semi-auto), as opposed to the almost universal use of light carbines (using automatic assault rifles capable of firing either full auto or in three shot bursts) as standard weaponry among infantry forces. Infantry training is almost always included in a soldier's training AFAIK.