US Army Combat Medic loadout

[jester]

Huh? When have I slighted or personaly or even intentionaly attacked you? I even prefaced ALOT of what I said and tried to so in a comical manner using terms like "in the olden days." Lighten up! Don't take out whatever it is on me. If I were to attack or make infrences I would be direct. I haven't and never intended so please don't jump to conclusions.

Originally Posted by Eddie

So what you're saying is that you were just as there as the rest of us, right? Okay, no problem.

You posted choke, gasp etc about putting words in your mouth. Don't do so here. Marines landed first. We were there for some time on two occassions before it went political and the UN went in. My unit alone had four drafts for personel to ship over. And I requested mast after the second. Please knock the chip off your shoulder. I was using that as an example of the times, to have been in uniform at that time, and be held in check. But also at a time when equipment was not being replaced or maintained, numbers were reduced and folks were having to do more with less. A freind of mine put it, "I served when clinton was in office, I've used duct tape to hold my equipment together." But, you failed to post the context in which the post was made as well, and then throw out names. Remember, freshman debate class. When you attack the oponenet directly you loose credibility. I have not started any venom, I asked some questions and you feel threatened? Dude, CHILL!

If you guys want, I can invite Chaplain Struecker, Keni Thomas, or a host of other people who were actually there to the forum. I mean, if we're going to throw around pedigrees and justifications, I'd say the guys that were there have the best ones, right?

My pedigree was what? Huh? You asked if I was a Marine, I responded I was. I posted a time frame when I was in. As was posted earlier, different strokes for different folks. And that applies, different times and different units. Again, when did I prompt such an agressive response? Chill


Let's just agree to disagree on priorities of planning and micromanagement vs. doing your job.

To short to really reply. But it seems civil so okay.

Well, if it is snowing it means it's cold, right? Is that in itself not enough reason to have a jacket? I don't know, that's just me thinking about mitigating the accidental risk of cold weather injuries...

You misunderstood the point! Anything can happen. Can you plan and have your personel hump every item of kit for each and every possible situation that may go down? You know, the more you load your troops the slower they go, the more a chance of injury of your personel etc. And that is why I made an almost absurd example of cold weather gear in the desert, or a zodiak because there is a river in the area.



Absolutely, no one has said anything about not using common sense. In fact, since you joined this thread you've been nothing but derisive and argumentative. I'm wondering is it me, officers in general, or me as an officer?

Argumentatvie? I asked some questions simply that, and added "back in my day in the stoneage" Again trying to illustrate times and situations as well as organizations are different. As for officers, honestly, at this point, you are helping foster that idea. I am also thinking along the lines of obsesive and control from what you post here being so defensive, passive aggressive with me, and your posts about your control of your personel.

I started posting on this forum again after a long hiatus to cool down and some other reasons, but I gotta say, I'm not feeling too welcome right now.

Dude, chill. I was really asking about the differences and such. I have not meant nor said anything as a personal attack. If it comes off that way, that was not the intent. Relax.



I don't understand the purpose of this part of your post. Eighteen hours of combat tends to eat through ammo and medical supplies. Is that the point you're trying to make?

No, I answered it above, but again the point and I am guessing it was missed. Clear the anger or idea I am attacking. I was trying to say, and you are a senior company grade, so you have a different view, so really I'd love to get a different perspective. An operation that was planned to last as a quick snatch and grab lasting no more than an hour in broad daylight, where it was not planned nor expected to turn into a long drawn out fight where you are surrounded and facing an entire town of hostiles. It wasn't planned, it wasn't expected, it wasn't prepared for. I mean, when you prep your personel for a "routine" patrol supposed to last for four hours or so, do you outfit them with enough ammo and other gear to sustain them for a week? But, as they say, shit happens.

The point, just because it is possible, though not likely, do you prepare for it?

To be specific, a hour boots on the ground op. Do you equip them to have enough to sustain them for several days unsupported? Of course not.

As for me and officers, some are stellar, some are less than stellar. Do you have a thing against Marines?

[StainlessSteelCynic]

While I see a lot of passion in Eddie's responses at times that may come across a little aggresively (I don't mean that in any derogatory sense) I do agree with his sentiments.
It's all fine and well to say you should place your trust in the people you command so that they can step up to the task and prove themselves reliable but how do you actually establish that they can be trusted to be reliable?
You check on them, just like Eddie said.
On the issue of packing lists for equipment, I remember one NCO saying that packing lists were for the benefit of the Section (Squad in the US), not for the benefit of the individual. He went on to say something along the lines of (paraphrasing badly) "Sure you can pack your spare socks where ever the f*ck you want but your ammo better be in the same place as everyone else in case we need to grab it fast if you get your fool-arse killed"

[Eddie]

Originally Posted by jester

Huh? When have I slighted or personaly or even intentionaly attacked you?

You never attacked me personally. But in post #27 you took a distinctly condescending tone about officers trying to do the right thing and likened it to micromanagement and not knowing their place. Then in a subsequent post, you lumped me into that category by asking how I was preparing my men to survive without me. Singly, either one is not bad and both are written in an dual-toned mannerism.

I even prefaced ALOT of what I said and tried to so in a comical manner using terms like "in the olden days." Lighten up! Don't take out whatever it is on me. If I were to attack or make infrences I would be direct. I haven't and never intended so please don't jump to conclusions.

You generalized a group of people of which I'm a part of. How does that not pertain to me? That's like me saying all NCOs are lazy or all Marines are robots.

You posted choke, gasp etc about putting words in your mouth. Don't do so here. Marines landed first. We were there for some time on two occassions before it went political and the UN went in. My unit alone had four drafts for personel to ship over. And I requested mast after the second. Please knock the chip off your shoulder. I was using that as an example of the times, to have been in uniform at that time, and be held in check. But also at a time when equipment was not being replaced or maintained, numbers were reduced and folks were having to do more with less. A freind of mine put it, "I served when clinton was in office, I've used duct tape to hold my equipment together." But, you failed to post the context in which the post was made as well, and then throw out names. Remember, freshman debate class. When you attack the oponenet directly you loose credibility. I have not started any venom, I asked some questions and you feel threatened? Dude, CHILL!

My pedigree was what? Huh? You asked if I was a Marine, I responded I was. I posted a time frame when I was in. As was posted earlier, different strokes for different folks. And that applies, different times and different units. Again, when did I prompt such an agressive response? Chill

And my point was that for you to spectate and speak about Mogadishu is about as potent as me to speak about it. I was in the Ranger Battalion that was involved in that incident. I name-dropped to point out to everyone that if we want to debate the BHD Incident, I can get the personnel involved in it on here. I speak to a bunch of them almost every day on Armyranger.com.

And I served in the Clinton Years as well, brother. I remember what it was like to go do a PLT LFX with 1000 rounds of live ammo for the whole PLT.

You misunderstood the point! Anything can happen. Can you plan and have your personel hump every item of kit for each and every possible situation that may go down? You know, the more you load your troops the slower they go, the more a chance of injury of your personel etc. And that is why I made an almost absurd example of cold weather gear in the desert, or a zodiak because there is a river in the area.

For the record, I was in Iraq and got snowed on. My point is that your strange variables don't exist in a vacuum. Other conditions have to be present for your crazy stuff unless the enemy has captured the HAARP Array. A Gore-Tex jacket isn't an anti-snow jacket, it's a cold weather jacket. If it's cold enough to snow, that means it's below freezing, right? Or at least close. Mitigate the risk.

Argumentatvie? I asked some questions simply that, and added "back in my day in the stoneage" Again trying to illustrate times and situations as well as organizations are different. As for officers, honestly, at this point, you are helping foster that idea. I am also thinking along the lines of obsesive and control from what you post here being so defensive, passive aggressive with me, and your posts about your control of your personel.

No, you didn't just start out posting simple questions. You posted how you browbeat and embarrassed officers into knowing their place essentially and now you are calling me obssessive and controlling for wanting to spot check and verify that my NCOs are doing the right thing. Why are NCOs above reproach? Can they not make mistakes and have bad days and just be idiots?

When have I said that I control my personnel? In combat? You never received orders to assault that building? You were never told to lay down a base of fire oriented from X to Y? Never assigned sectors of fire? Why is it an NCO's job, but an officer is micromanaging if he does it?

Dude, chill. I was really asking about the differences and such. I have not meant nor said anything as a personal attack. If it comes off that way, that was not the intent. Relax.

I've demonstrated with perardua that I'm not here saying one way is better than the other. But when I'm told that a guy bullies people into knowing their place because we have no business ensuring the safety of our people, and then that I hand hold and baby my people, yeah, I tend to get a bit defensive. I didn't realize I was being passive aggressive though.

No, I answered it above, but again the point and I am guessing it was missed. Clear the anger or idea I am attacking. I was trying to say, and you are a senior company grade, so you have a different view, so really I'd love to get a different perspective.

Alright, fair enough. I ask you to cease the snarky comments about LTs and officers knowing their place and sticking their noses where it doesn't belong until they get taught by an E.

An operation that was planned to last as a quick snatch and grab lasting no more than an hour in broad daylight, where it was not planned nor expected to turn into a long drawn out fight where you are surrounded and facing an entire town of hostiles. It wasn't planned, it wasn't expected, it wasn't prepared for. I mean, when you prep your personel for a "routine" patrol supposed to last for four hours or so, do you outfit them with enough ammo and other gear to sustain them for a week? But, as they say, shit happens.

Exactly. And the point is not to assume that anything is going to go smoothly and you'll be in and out in 10 minutes. Hope for it. But don't count on it. Because as a Senior Company Grade officer, it's my job to understand that the bad guy doesn't want you to accomplish your mission and he's going to find ways to take away the advantages that you have.

To be specific, a hour boots on the ground op. Do you equip them to have enough to sustain them for several days unsupported? Of course not.

What is the threat assessment? What is the enemy's historical pattern of attack? What kind of enemy am I facing? A group of hillbilly insurgents or the North Korean hordes waiting to cross the DMZ? What is their mission that requires them to "sustain for several days unsupported" if it goes south? A LRS team surveillance mission? A squad movement to contact? A platoon raid on a hajji house? Each one of those would be tailored to a different purpose, but all of them would have contingency planning involved. I can't say that it would be several days, a day, a week, or an hour without knowing more variables.

Do you have a thing against Marines?[/B]

Actually as a generalization, yeah, I don't get along with them well. As a generalization, Marines in my experience have tended to be loud-mouthed braggarts that would rather latch on to a fight like a pit bull than use their brain for more than a resting place for their high-and-tight.

I've been pleasantly surprised by the two Marine Captains that have been in my two small groups in the Career Course here. Had some good doctrinal debates with them and gotten a little insight into your doctrine as well as some of your pubs to go over and compare to ours.

But the groupthink of the Corp still irritates the shit out of me.

[HorseSoldier]

Wow -- maybe everyone should dial it back a notch or two.

[Eddie]

Don't worry, we took it completely off of the forums and went to email. We're both big boys and not here to mess up the forums.

[perardua]

Glad I missed out on that! Anyway, I think this has been a very informative thread, even if I disagree with some of the points made, especially that US NCOs are unequalled in terms of education compared to NCOs of other first world armies, especially those based on the British/Commonwealth model - I think that's probably not an accurate statement. Of course, to get an accurate statement we'd have to ask someone who's had some experience of both, and then we get into the realms of anecdote and personal preference. Maybe we should agree to disagree on that one, rather than do what my first instinct was, which was to start comparing the length and content of training courses, etc. That sort of thing invariably turns into a 'my training is tougher than yours' penis length contest which doesn't get anyone anywhere.

[Abbott Shaull]

Wow what a civilizing thread. I find it both appalling and shocking that person who claims to be a Company Grade Officer material in the U.S. Army would take such offense and say such things in an open forum. You, Sir, and I use that term loosely, should be ashame for the public showing that you display today. It is one of the most disrespect of someone in your position can do. Surprise no one of the former NCOs didn't come up wipe you nose and tell you do shut up and sit down.

Surprise that none of the moderators closed this thread down either. Then looking at the time stamps, it could be one of the few times when they were all busy with real life.

Okay getting off my soap box now! *shakes head, just because you have the rank doesn't mean you will always get the respect that rank believes you deserve...It only goes so far, your actions and how you conduct yourself can earn or lose respect much faster than having commission.* Welcome to iggy...

I feel so much better now.

[Webstral]

Originally Posted by Eddie

Webstral, your thoughts? You were an officer as well.

My first time down the enlisted path taught me that as a lieutenant, the smartest response to almost any situation or challenge was to look over my shoulder and say, "What do you think, sergeant?"

When I first got in, the last of the Vietnam era guys were retiring. In general, I thought the Vietnam-era guys had the right attitude. I got some great wisdom on being a new lieutenant from a few sergeants major wearing on their right sleeves the insignia of units that did not fight in the Gulf.

The post-Vietnam senior NCOs were not as uniformly impressive. In my limited exposure to the combat engineering world, the officers expected the NCOs to do a lot. Some of them delivered. Some of them did not. The ones who don't deliver out themselves fairly quickly, but, as has been said, they can't always be gotten rid of. Following a six-week rotation to Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site (Colorado), all of the master sergeants in the battalion headquarters rotated out to the line companies, and all of the first sergeants rotated in to the battalion staff. At this time, I was on battalion staff. I was not favorably impressed with the guys being rotated in. (Clearly, neither was the sergeant major.)

[Total aside: the leadership in the 4th Engineer Battalion did not give a damn who wore what or who carried what where, except for a few specific items. However, the division missed Desert Storm and Somalia; and this was before the real grind in former Yugoslavia started. It's hard to say how combat--or at least peacekeeping--would have changed the unit's outlook.]

I had some very good experiences with the drill sergeants in MI. They were smart, motivated, and capable. I'm thankful that I had my enlisted time before taking an XO slot in an AIT company. I knew just enough to know who to ask.

The other NCOs were a mixed bag. Some were excellent. Some were not. For the officer leadership considering how to get things done, I think it's a matter of judgment. The superior people make their presence known quickly enough, and they can be given more rope. The less-superior people are given less rope.

I can't talk to what other nations expect from their militaries' NCOs first-hand. I can repeat what I've read time and again from people who do know: Western nations have a long-standing tradition of high-quality NCOs; Russian-model armies generally don't have the same tradition. It's been a generation since the end of the Soviet Union, plus several military actions along Russia's periphery. Things may have changed for them. The Chinese have a long military history, although the benefits thereof seem largely to have been absent in WW2. How well the PLA did in Korea depends a good deal on whose accounts one reads. The older I get, and the more I read, the more I come to see that the exchange rate may not have been as favorable for the West as I grew up believing. The better the PLA did, given their circumstances, the better we must believe their NCOs performed.

I do know that we expect a lot from our platoon sergeants. I think these guys are even more important than the first sergeants, critical as good first sergeants are. Unless the squad leaders and platoon leader collectively are VERY strong or VERY weak, in my experience the platoon goes the way of the platoon sergeant. The platoon leader may lead in the field, but he leads the platoon sergeant's platoon. I've seen a couple of promising lieutenants face-plant because the platoon sergeant wasn't doing his job. I've seen more promising and not-so-promising lieutenants seriously get propped up by their platoon sergeants until the PL could learn to walk on his own.

It's a complex picture.

Webstral

[Webstral]

Clearly, I missed an empassioned discussion. Thank you, gentlemne, for seeing that the passions work themselves out in a more private venue.

Webstral

[Targan]

Originally Posted by Abbott Shaull

Surprise that none of the moderators closed this thread down either. Then looking at the time stamps, it could be one of the few times when they were all busy with real life.

I was asleep. Glad it didn't get any more heated though.

I was only ever in the Army Reserve but I have to say that Commonwealth and British Army NCOs are given a hell of alot of responsibility. And promotion as an NCO seems to be slower than in the US Army. From what I've seen Sgts and higher ranked NCOs in Commonwealth armies are often given levels of command and responsibility equal to what the US gives its new LTs. The modern US military is obviously highly effective so its not like the on-the-ground US military (Army & USMC) is a complete cluster f*ck or anything, but I'd be very surprised if the average US Army Cpl or Sgt is better trained and/or more experienced than the average Commonwealth Cpl or Sgt.

Eddie I understand that you feel you may have been personally slighted by comments on this forum. Please keep posting here because as a source of current US Army on-the-ground combat thinking on this forum you are pretty much unique. Also, irrespective of whether I agree with all of your opinions I have the utmost respect for the amount of time you have spent on active combat duty.

[Eddie]

Originally Posted by Abbott Shaull

Wow what a civilizing thread. I find it both appalling and shocking that person who claims to be a Company Grade Officer material in the U.S. Army would take such offense and say such things in an open forum. You, Sir, and I use that term loosely, should be ashame for the public showing that you display today. It is one of the most disrespect of someone in your position can do. Surprise no one of the former NCOs didn't come up wipe you nose and tell you do shut up and sit down.

Surprise that none of the moderators closed this thread down either. Then looking at the time stamps, it could be one of the few times when they were all busy with real life.

Okay getting off my soap box now! *shakes head, just because you have the rank doesn't mean you will always get the respect that rank believes you deserve...It only goes so far, your actions and how you conduct yourself can earn or lose respect much faster than having commission.* Welcome to iggy...

I feel so much better now.

No, I don't feel ashamed and nor should I. My PM explains my reasons. I suggest you and I move all further communications off of the boards as well.

[jester]

Targan;

Having worked with several commonwealth troops, and their NCOs and operated as a liason for such more than once. Nope, they aren't better or worse, I feel most are pretty much equal, different, strange sure, but over all I considered them on equal terms with us in the MC. I must say this, I have often felt that the NCOs of the Army were not equal to us. Not being arrogant or ego or service centeric here. But in my view and expereince as well as discussions with others from the army.

One big reason is the US Army, is a larger structure with greater funding they have a larger manpower pool to draw from and this includes their NCO's and Officers. Whereas the MC <In my day> and the commonwealth forces are smaller, with smaller personel pools and budgets so they have to do more with less. And often that means people filling positions above their pay grade, so these people need to step up to the plate and preform. As well as promotions comming at glacial speed so again the personel often don't get the rank to go with the job but the task must be accomplished reguardless.


Again, I also say some of it is the organization structure the Army is in a mindset that is now going from Division to Modular Brigade, whereas for most Common Wealth and the MC the Regiment was the prime organization with some going to Brigade, so its a smaller closer organization.

I have often thought about allies and foes, and it is a fool who thinks they are less than they, this leads to under estimation and often a rude awakening. Just because your oponent grew up without plumbing or electricity and sleeps in a hut in the jungle does not mean he is not as smart or dedicated as us. I have never done that. Let the facts be shown, if they turn out to be inept then they get the label, some with allies, they don't operate like us, well thats cool because they aren't us. Let their actions and results determine opinions.

Originally Posted by Targan

I was asleep. Glad it didn't get any more heated though.

I was only ever in the Army Reserve but I have to say that Commonwealth and British Army NCOs are given a hell of alot of responsibility. And promotion as an NCO seems to be slower than in the US Army. From what I've seen Sgts and higher ranked NCOs in Commonwealth armies are often given levels of command and responsibility equal to what the US gives its new LTs. The modern US military is obviously highly effective so its not like the on-the-ground US military (Army & USMC) is a complete cluster f*ck or anything, but I'd be very surprised if the average US Army Cpl or Sgt is better trained and/or more experienced than the average Commonwealth Cpl or Sgt.

Eddie I understand that you feel you may have been personally slighted by comments on this forum. Please keep posting here because as a source of current US Army on-the-ground combat thinking on this forum you are pretty much unique. Also, irrespective of whether I agree with all of your opinions I have the utmost respect for the amount of time you have spent on active combat duty.

[Webstral]

Without making reference to any other idea in this thread, I agree that underestimating the enemy and/or overestimating ourselves is a constant danger to the US military and probably Western militaries in general. Misjudging the enemy and/or ourselves is a battle that must be fought constantly. Like the dark side of the Force, the temptation to underestimate the enemy's intelligence, determination, ability to adapt, and so forth exists at all times for all people at every level of command. While I'd feel safe putting down money that 90% or so of the rifles on the ground in Afghanistan understand that they are up against an enemy with some undeniable strengths on his side, I feel equally safe putting money down that folks much further up the chain have failed to take the challenge as seriously as it needed to be taken.

There was an article in Newsweek a little while back about the absence of a centralized, standardized, and properly-funded effort to build the Afghan police after a mere eight years of war. NPR and CNN commented on the President's reaction to the revelation. This is a failure of leadership at the highest levels, since efforts were being made on the ground to train Afghan police with whatever resources lower-echelon players could accumulate. Our leadership underestimated the challenge of putting together a proper police force, underestimated the importance of the police in fighting an insurgency, and overestimated the ability of conventional military forces to come to grips with the enemy at the force levels we were willing to maintain in Afghanistan.

Going along with your sentiments about the enemy's level of wealth and standards of living, Jester, we should remember that Western forces have been defeated or fought to a stalemate by poorer people who were willing to accept an unfavorable exchange rate. The French and the Americans failed to defeat the Vietnamese Communists, despite inflicting very serious damage and achieving a very favorable exchange rate. The Zimbabwean Communists eventually brought down Rhodesia, despite a very favorable exchange rate for the Rhodesians. The Taliban endure.

Of course, there are recent examples of triumph by Western forces--Malaya being salient. We need to do a better job at all levels of command in our efforts to learn the right lessons from Malaya, Kenya, Rhodesia, Korea, Vietnam, El Salvador, Columbia, the Soviet experience in Afghanistan, etc. Each of these wars has a distinct identity, but all have something to teach us about how those with technical inferiority fight enemies with more money and more flushing toilets.

Webstral

[Targan]

Originally Posted by jester

Having worked with several commonwealth troops, and their NCOs and operated as a liason for such more than once. Nope, they aren't better or worse, I feel most are pretty much equal, different, strange sure, but over all I considered them on equal terms with us in the MC. I must say this, I have often felt that the NCOs of the Army were not equal to us. Not being arrogant or ego or service centeric here. But in my view and experience as well as discussions with others from the army.

I've never served alongside soldiers from other nations but friends who have served in the Australian Army and have worked alongside US forces have said that the NCO structure of the USMC has more in common with the Australian Army than the US Army does.

[pmulcahy11b]

My first sensei said it best: "When you get in a fight, assume your opponent can defeat you."

[headquarters]

I am glad there seem to be grown ups debating here ,people who have the insight into themselves to know when to go PM /email and who manages to keep language civil eventhough opinions vary and the discussion is heated .

Several posters here got a little hot , but I dare say you reeled it in satisfactorily.As a moderator I was busy with RL and not up to speed,and possibly I would have acted at an earlier stage if I had been with it .But when that is said I think you have managed to cool off sufficiently.

But I would like to ask that everyone involved in the exchange here continue to ,or start to put their GOOD WILL into reading other peoples posts so that controversies that are not really there need arise.

Lets keep it a forum and not turn it into an arena .

As for the debate NCO vs Officers -well I have to chuckle a bit .No doubt both sides have a point in my HUMBLE opinion .( served as both myself)

Now,remember this is just one guys opinion and shouldnt really be enough to rile anybody ?

[headquarters]

Originally Posted by Eddie

We give them a lot more professional education than anyone else.

I'm just saying.

Your opinions may vary.

Not that the US NCOs arent put through a good education - but that it is better than ANYBODY elses..

I think this vary greatly .From branch to branch ,nation to nation and changing situations regarding funding etc etc .

As you said -different opinions are bound to be aired about this one .

All in my humble opinion of course

[Eddie]

Originally Posted by headquarters

Not that the US NCOs arent put through a good education - but that it is better than ANYBODY elses..

I think this vary greatly .From branch to branch ,nation to nation and changing situations regarding funding etc etc .

As you said -different opinions are bound to be aired about this one .

All in my humble opinion of course

Just to be honest, I'm beyond the point of caring about this. I'm not an instructor at any of the NCOA Courses, nor have I been to any foreign courses in that realm. I've talked to other personnel who were, I was told that in PLDC, I've talked to graduates and students of the Sergeants Major Academy, even talked to my old BN XO who taught at West Point for three years. Whenever the subject came up, I was told the same thing. However, I didn't care enough then to ask why or how. I can't answer it now. I'll publicly admit that and let you go on believing what you guys want to.

[perardua]

I am suddenly reminded of something that is repeated endlessly in British NBC training - "British NBC equipment is the best in the world." I have no idea if that's true (and don't wish to be put in a situation where I can truly find out), but it's been relentlessly drummed into me by instructors.

I suspect most militaries have a similar thing with regard to being told that "our x is the best in the world", and most people probably won't ever be in a position to objectively judge otherwise.

[jester]

Originally Posted by perardua

I am suddenly reminded of something that is repeated endlessly in British NBC training - "British NBC equipment is the best in the world." I have no idea if that's true (and don't wish to be put in a situation where I can truly find out), but it's been relentlessly drummed into me by instructors.

I suspect most militaries have a similar thing with regard to being told that "our x is the best in the world", and most people probably won't ever be in a position to objectively judge otherwise.

That is quite common, it builds confidence and Esprit De Corps and all of those other cool words. But in the end it is simply a tool to help your troops/organization build on. And honestly I doubt the instructor has compared every other "system" in use by other nations to really see. Kind like how I posted earlier,

"doing/saying things because they have always done/said it that way withouth thought." In turn, it is kinda like being robots or simply parroting the training manual automaticaly reguardless of it being true or not. Heck, we all do such things at our jobs.

[headquarters]

Originally Posted by Eddie

Just to be honest, I'm beyond the point of caring about this. I'm not an instructor at any of the NCOA Courses, nor have I been to any foreign courses in that realm. I've talked to other personnel who were, I was told that in PLDC, I've talked to graduates and students of the Sergeants Major Academy, even talked to my old BN XO who taught at West Point for three years. Whenever the subject came up, I was told the same thing. However, I didn't care enough then to ask why or how. I can't answer it now. I'll publicly admit that and let you go on believing what you guys want to.

OK. Same

[Webstral]

Originally Posted by perardua

I am suddenly reminded of something that is repeated endlessly in British NBC training - "British NBC equipment is the best in the world." I have no idea if that's true (and don't wish to be put in a situation where I can truly find out), but it's been relentlessly drummed into me by instructors.

I suspect most militaries have a similar thing with regard to being told that "our x is the best in the world", and most people probably won't ever be in a position to objectively judge otherwise.

The US Army landed in North Africa in 1942, having been told the same sort of thing. While there were some areas in which the US Army performed better than the Germans, even at this point in time, the Germans in North Africa were a better force. Experience counts for something. History has taught us to be suspicious of claims to the effect that our force has the best/is the best in any broad area. Sun Tzu teaches us to be aware of ourselves and our enemy, so it's important to make an honest assessment.

Webstral