Ok I didn't got it about the regular infantry man. Both Falloudja and Beyruth saw more destruction than needed but that is a personnal opinion from what info I got (I might be wrong then). On both, I was not clear enough, then, I didn't mean to compare them with the amount of destruction found in WWII, but both had to face air and artillery attacks that might have helped the defenders more than the attackers (more like Monte Cassino). I could have sited Vietnam as another exemple or Okinawa (then you right again: WWII).
I agree about U.S. emphasizing on marksmanship as much as it can. But that's valid only when you control the ground and more or less the war. Nevertheless, I was talking about T2K not about IRL and in T2K, I don't expect U.S. to field only well trained troops. Casualties are too high and you need to replace the losses in a hury. I understand that many among you are playing very experienced soldiers; I usually have less experienced groups that get better from "field training" if they survive of course
.
If you look closely at the Russians, the russian army never numbered much more than 400.000 troops. These are the well equipped core and they are reinforced by less trained and effective troops that would come in much larger numbers. Usually, the less trained one are entering the field first, when the ennemy get to the core, it has exhausted its best forces. Standard Russian procedure from way before the soviets.
About Marksmanship, I would think that U.S. entered the war in Iraq baddly prepared with inadequate equipments and command. Things certainly have changed today. For my campaign, I'm now over with Russia and got on U.S. and Britain. As a result, I get more info on new equipments fielded by both armies. Things have changed a lot. It just goes to an old idea: an army is always well prepared for the previous war and unprepared for the next.
About these vehicles I think they are developped for the same purpose than similar vehicles made by Israel.