The Truth about American Infantry

User avatar
raventhefuhrer
Colonel
Posts: 2949
Joined: Wed 15 May 2013 08:47
Contact:

The Truth about American Infantry

Postby raventhefuhrer » Tue 16 Dec 2014 01:48

The Charge: American infantry are only good in Hollywood

The Reality: http://www.warriorlodge.com/blogs/news/ ... fghanistan

I thought about quoting the article linked above, but for the sake of saving space I will not. Click the link, it's a great read. Credit to ace529321 of Reddit for posting it there.

So why am I posting this? Well, it's a really interesting read. The American soldier of the 2000's isn't terribly different from the American soldier of the 1990's, which is when this game is supposed to take place. I'm not asking for any buffs or nerfs, I'm just relating an interesting read and pointing out that, in the opinion of a French soldier, the American infantry are some highly skilled, highly professional soldiers.

A lot of people, myself included, feel that the American infantry kind of get the shaft in Wargame and maybe this article can be the starting point of an argument to re-evaluate some of the problems with the American infantry lineup.
My YouTube Channel is Raven Wargaming. Message me to request videos on certain topics.

User avatar
Xeno426
Carbon 13
Posts: 11965
Joined: Tue 13 Mar 2012 21:27
Location: Acheron, Hadley's Hope
Contact:

Re: The Truth about American Infantry

Postby Xeno426 » Tue 16 Dec 2014 02:03

I think the big problem with the US infantry, aside from M60 suckiness (which has hopefully been smoothed out) is the lack of options, plus a few boneheaded pidgeonholing of capability.
Image
CloakandDagger wrote:And you're one of the people with the shiny colored name. No wonder the game is in the state it's in.

Lord Helmchen
Major-General
Posts: 3887
Joined: Tue 5 Mar 2013 00:23
Location: Germany
Contact:

Re: The Truth about American Infantry

Postby Lord Helmchen » Tue 16 Dec 2014 02:06

The truth about American Infantry in RL?
Well trained standard infantry neither superior nor inferior to other nation's infantry.
The truth about American Infantry ingame?
They suck.
Image

User avatar
K98-Schütze[GER]
Command Sergeant Major
Posts: 303
Joined: Tue 5 Mar 2013 23:59
Contact:

Re: The Truth about American Infantry

Postby K98-Schütze[GER] » Tue 16 Dec 2014 02:11

@opener
Well,....for the sake of forum peace - I will not tell about my (our) experiences with regular US soldiers :lol:
(the special forces are still great I admit - like in every country)

EDIT:
In game terms the US Army needs really something to fill 1 or 2 gaps....
Last edited by K98-Schütze[GER] on Tue 16 Dec 2014 02:15, edited 1 time in total.
Image

User avatar
Mitchverr
More than 10 000 messages. Soldier you are the leader of all armies!
Posts: 10646
Joined: Sat 24 Mar 2012 18:08
Contact:

Re: The Truth about American Infantry

Postby Mitchverr » Tue 16 Dec 2014 02:13

Must say i do think it funny how they talk about not understanding american soldiers and the americans admit having issues understanding each other :lol:

I suppose thats why the british forces put such a strong force into making soldiers and officers speak properly, upper class like etc.

Very interesting read.
Image

User avatar
Flieger
Lieutenant General
Posts: 4294
Joined: Fri 15 Mar 2013 19:44
Contact:

Re: The Truth about American Infantry

Postby Flieger » Tue 16 Dec 2014 02:14

I don't think any underestimation or vilification of the historical US infantry is the reason for its bad performance in game. The way I see it, the weakness is best attributed to design decisions first and foremost:

    - lack of 10-men shock troops: all nations that have to rely on 15-men shock troops are in a very bad spot due to the price inflation the 5 extra men bring (which may not always be worth it; I feel 15-men squads are good supplements, but not more)
    - lack of 90ies SF: it may not be mandatory but it should be when the 75ies SF is comparatively weak
    - lack of 'classic' ATGM

At least two of these points could be addressed: reroll the Rangers to 10-men shock infantry, and buff the Delta Force. This is done with relativ ease, especially seeing how quickly the Canadian Airborne got their CG M3 within a matter of days after being proposed.

Other problems are either secondary or meta issues. I mean, I could imagine a lot of US infantry buffs (Marines '90 price reduction e.g.) and especially new US infantry that would add to the line-up, but I think the US infantry as whole is best served if the Rangers are being rerolled and the Delta Force is being buffed.

User avatar
KittyKitsune
Captain
Posts: 1716
Joined: Thu 23 Feb 2012 22:43
Contact:

Re: The Truth about American Infantry

Postby KittyKitsune » Tue 16 Dec 2014 02:16

While i agree the US troops are weak in wargame, well both Soviet and US. Not quite sure, what the article has to do with it, or if it's actually real, I don't really wanna start a flame war so i'd better not recount my own experiences with them.

I would like to see the primary factions infantry be more viable though.
Image
SUFNEP - Superior Unit For No Extra Points
WUWME - Worse Unit While More Expensive

User avatar
Xeno426
Carbon 13
Posts: 11965
Joined: Tue 13 Mar 2012 21:27
Location: Acheron, Hadley's Hope
Contact:

Re: The Truth about American Infantry

Postby Xeno426 » Tue 16 Dec 2014 02:17

Rangers become shock, Delta become recon with the M21. Done and done.
Image
CloakandDagger wrote:And you're one of the people with the shiny colored name. No wonder the game is in the state it's in.

User avatar
I WUB PUGS
Lieutenant
Posts: 1225
Joined: Tue 30 Apr 2013 18:40
Location: Monterey California
Contact:

Re: The Truth about American Infantry

Postby I WUB PUGS » Tue 16 Dec 2014 02:20

Delta. :roll:

US Marines nerfed. :?:

Still no shock troops for anything other than Marine or non-specialized. :?

Cavalry Scouts. :evil:




LOL Kitty. Soviets do not have weak infantry what is this madness? I'm taking VDV and Spetz all day over anything the US or what most nations can put out. With the US Marines nerf I'll have to re-examine who has the worse Naval Infantry between USSR and USA.
Image

User avatar
panzersaurkrautwefer
Major-General
Posts: 3906
Joined: Fri 15 Feb 2013 16:48

Re: The Truth about American Infantry

Postby panzersaurkrautwefer » Tue 16 Dec 2014 02:32

Must say i do think it funny how they talk about not understanding american soldiers and the americans admit having issues understanding each other :lol:


It's less that and more just a sign of the vast array of different sub cultures to the American people. When I was just a cadet some old Master Sergeant wandered up and said "ya'll have any kin to <name a lot like mine>"

Imagine that in the deepest, slowest, most 300 pounds of man, muscle and fat all evenly distributed into thirds voice and I had not a clue what he was saying at first, and it took me a spell to figure out what "any kin to" meant.

On the other hand it's fascinating to see something dudes from totally different parts of the country, economic and social background, all speaking Army. We sound different when talking about "Things" but when talking about army stuff it's that blend of profanity, acronyms and technical jargon.

Re: Deutchbags

I'll simply imply that I was greatly embarrassed for the German soldiers I watched. I think we all have our off days though. Not to mention there isn't a good reason for US infantry to be BAD in game, simply that they should measure up to all line infantry, which they definitively do not.

Re: Historicalness

Wargames oddly enough covers a sort of period of rising US basic soldier quality. Circa 1970-1979ish was a period of great change, and a decline. The end of Vietnam put the American soldier in the same shoes that his German counterparts suffer through today, in that he had no friends in the civilian world, nor in government, so the money for training, new equipment, and basic living sort of things simply did not exist. Further the transition to a all volunteer force greatly impacted the way the Army ran, in that:

1. People had to actually want to join the Army now. Just okay living standards weren't going to draw in anyone with talent.

2. The Army had a pretty loser reputation after being dragged through the mud post Vietnam. It didn't help that the money to fix anything training, equipment, or otherwise did not exist.

3. Some experiments in making the Army more "democratic" failed terribly by instead undermining morale, and making it safe to basically be a terrible performer as long as your buddies had your back.

President Carter's administration also made deep cuts into the military, projecting the possibility of an actual conflict in the near future were about nil, so it was entirely safe to do so (this of course came back to bite him in the butt with Iran).

On the other end of the pendulum swing however, towards the end of Carter's administration some of the improvements that had been pending for some time in terms of new equipment and doctrine started to bear fruit (M1, F15, Air-Land Battle etc). Further most of the remaining leadership at this time was the folks who'd survived Vietnam, stayed through the crappy parts of the 70's, AND STILL WANTED TO BE IN THE ARMY, resulting in a class of leaders who were both battle hardened, and had at least some attachment to the Army succeeding vs simply having a safe career.

This modest uptick was simply blown up through the roof by the fact that when Ronald Reagan showed up as president, he simply dumped money by the metric ton into the DoD leading to a force that could afford to train hard, update new equipment fairly rapidly, and was backed up at the highest levels of government as a top priority. The culmination of this would be the gross imbalance in quality and system capability between East and West when the wall fell, and was in no small part why the Soviets switched from "offensive defense" to "ohgoddefense" in the 80's.
Do I look like a reasonable man to you, or a peppermint nightmare?

Return to “Wargame : Red Dragon”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 37 guests