Perhaps because they are a large size unit, and not just a small elite force?
Whats the best type of soldier ever
- Thread starter holiday_hawk
- Start date
nonconformist
Miserable
Well then, what about the Rangers, Airborne, Foreign Legion, Royal Marines etc?
BTW, who are these "people"?
It seems that only one poster said US Marines for modern times.
And strangely enough, he's american...
It seems that only one poster said US Marines for modern times.
And strangely enough, he's american...
nonconformist
Miserable
Just preempting the deluge of "UNAHTED STATES MAHREENS, MOTHER. .. .. .. .ERS"
Cheezy the Wiz
Socialist In A Hurry
They certainly have an impressive combat record, to say the least.
North King
blech
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2004
- Messages
- 18,165
If you're asking for soldiers, then many of the nominations in here are flawed. A good soldier is not necessarily the one who can win in a 3 on 1 combat; it's the person who can bring victory to his army when coupled with his fellow soldiers: that requires discipline, organization, and obedience. Not special ops. Thus, I'd nominate the Roman legionary, the Mongol horse archer, and maybe a Swedish musketman from Gustavas Adolphus' armies.
holiday_hawk
King
Marines were able to take Mexico City the Mexican-American war, they were a dominate force during WWII, they stormed Tripoli when Pirates were attacking American ships, and there the the tip of the sword that is the American army today, they're elite and can fight in any terrain and if I was the enemy i know that one thing i would not want to hear is "oorah marines"
It doesn't just have to be foot soldier, with the Panzer the Germans were able to blitzkrieg and conquer half of Europe
Shekwan
Kim Chi Quaffing Celt
Maybe it should be Marines V Ninjas then! It would be about as constructive a topic as this thread.
Bugfatty300
Buddha Squirrel
1. They didn't capture Mexico City alone nor could they have with out the US Army.
2. They were not the dominate US force in WWII. At their highest strength there were around 130,000+ Marines compared to the US Army's 11,000,000.
3. There were only eight US marines at Tripoli IIRC, they had hundreds of mercenaries with them.
4. The US Army can also fight on every terrain. From the Past decade at least its been the US Army who leads the way into a war. Panama 89 was US Army paratroopers, US cav in Iraq 91 and again in 03. The first troops on the ground in Afghanistan weren't even Americans.
nonconformist
Miserable
Also, US MArines are pretty much unable to do occupation work, whcih is quite critical to the miltiary.
The Marines are very good. But if you look at their whole history, they are not exceptionally better than other military units. In some ways yes, in others, no. I would say better than most, but not the best as a whole.
holiday_hawk
King
There recruitment slogan is "The Few, The Proud, The Marines" so obviously there is not going to be a lot of marines but the marines are going to be better than the average soldier
holy king
Deity
the discussion is flawed anyway.
with the arrival of repetitive fire weapons training became much less important, while numerical and industrial advantage became everything.
nonconformist
Miserable
At Stalingrad, half the Red Army consisted of Workers' Militias formed from factory workers, who weren't even given firearms, but the odd grenade, and bayonettes, that kinda stuff. They were suppsoed to form a barrier to allow the Guards to regroup etc.
RedRalph
Deity
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2007
- Messages
- 20,708
Half? I dont think so... not what I read in the book Stalingrad anyway. In any case, that would make the result even more impressive.
Cheezy the Wiz
Socialist In A Hurry
Right, because other great soldier outfits were. The legionaries did an exceptional job of "occupying" Dacia
nonconformist
Miserable
Half was hyperbole, old chap
An army, or indeed a unit, that cannot occupy a territory adequately isn't worth a damn in any engagement that isn't some msort of blitzkrieg (e.g Gulf War I), especially when they are occupying. In fact, they are very usually detrimental.cheezy said:
Cheezy the Wiz
Socialist In A Hurry
Has there really been any outfit that was capable of dealing with an armed uprising, short of exterminating the populace?
scy12
Deity
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2007
- Messages
- 5,181
I consider those who provide medical services to the soldiers as part of the military like those who push buttons in ways to aid the troops. Infact today they are considered officially part of the army and people who have military careers can be people that provide medical services.
It is crucial and it is not mutually exclusive. You could say however that it has little to do with the quality of other soldiers and much to do with the quality of soldiers based on this field.
But i am not judging an individual here necessarilly without judging the advantages he gets from other individuals. Maybe that is wrong and not true to the question.
Anyway the modern soldier ,is the best because he gets the most support from weapons , medical issues , armor , name it and today it has been done better than 2000 or 1000 years ago .
Similar threads
