Librarium Online Forums banner

Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 20 of 23 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
48 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
im not shore if this has already been posted but ether ways it is just a bit of fun.

i want to know what doctrines people think would best soot the armies of the real world.

Australian army

Special weapon squadrons; representing the fact the since there are so few of us our solider tend to the best weapons they can be given.

Drop Troops; the majority of our army is trained to drop from helicopters

Light infantry; because that is what our army is made of

Sharp Shooters; the Australian army is train the be the best because it is so small

Veterans; same as sharp shooters


US army

Strom Troopers; the USA dose have its elit troops

Conscripts; most of their army is not that good (no afence I’m just sick of them shooting our journalists)

Meconized; the US always seems to have a lot of tanks and transports

Die-hard and Iron Dropline; WWII has proved that the US is not very good at leaving hopeless battles strong in the knowledge that they have lot more troops were they came from

UK army

Storm troopers and Grenadiers; the armies of the UK are highly skilled and well equipped

Sharp shooters; the English have always had the best marks men

Ratling; as above

Xeno-fighter; they always seem to have a squad specialised for the enemy they are fighting
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
215 Posts
Are you kidding?
Conscripts are for the WWII era Russians not modern day American soldiers!
You’re journalists have nothing to do with the training of our military. Bush may not use the Military right (He's obviously the devil or something like that!) but there is no way you can say we are trained like conscripts. America soldiers can go toe to toe with any other army on in the world. It’s the unconventional tactics that are getting us. Sad really. Although the best trained and disciplined army is either the Israelis, or the Swedish (believe it or not).

But if poop hits the fan and western civilization (That means you!) was up against some country like China, who do you think would do the large majority of the fighting? Ill let you answer that your self.

The fact is compared to every other conventional army America's is the best. Our Intel is what is lacking.
No conventional army will ever be able to successfully take and hold a hostel country with out Intel and the support of the people.


Please don't start a whole Bush is evil thing with me, because I already no that. I'm pro Military. A pro Military president would never put soldiers in danger unless it was absolutely unavoidable. Bush is NOT a pro Military president!

Now back on topic.

Americas army

Grenadiers
Vetren squads
Vetreans
Sharp shooters
Any of the regimental doctrains, we have the Ranger who use helicopters/planes ETC and the normal army wich is oftin mechinized.
Also Armoured Companys would fit.

What about Cuba? They have one of the larges Militarys in there theater and are know for causing trouble in other states trying to star revolutions and what not. Really Castro just likes to play army. Lets see who elss, theres Pre gulf war Iraq wich actully was conscripted backed up by the Mechanized Republican Guard. Iran is also largely conscripted. How about China?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
582 Posts
Well fallout you are oviosly being lied to because in the Invasion of Iraq along with the journalinst the Americans shot thier was thirtyish Britsh solders shot in blue on blue form American aircraft and positions so my advise to any one going to war along side the Americans is to fight in the otherside of the fecking country to them that way your not going to get shot by them of atleast a few weeks.

and by the way although you dont think it you are PART of weastern civilization
so I would have Americas army

Grenadiers
Mechinized.
Armoured Companys
Drop troops
Conscripts
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
186 Posts
"The fact is compared to every other conventional army America's is the best."
Not true. Everything which Kharard said is true, also the so called best of the best, the US delta Force sent a squad of thier troops over to scotland in britain to see if they could complete the same training as the SAS in the late 90s. Out of a months training, which is required by the SAS, the Americans didnt even last 7 days.
nuff said.
 

·
Senior Member
Joined
·
646 Posts
Hey guys, this is getting a bit off topic and too political. I don't know about you, but I play this game for enjoyment - I think we should all leave out respective political views at home.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
383 Posts
1st drop the concripts issues. American infantry never dog pile on the enemy. During the last three conflicts (Desert Storm, Enduring Freedom, Iraqi Freedom) loses to our infantry has been minimal.

Most of our kills come from combined fires: artillery, airplane, helicopters in direct support/over the shoulder mode, and tanks/APCs. Even our special operations troops will have direct air support during their most critical part of the mission ... hence the AC-130s etc...

Grenadiers
Veterans
Drop Troops
Mechanized
carapace armor

or

Armored Companies

Now our support troops are decently trained and our equipment issues are bringing them online with better weapons and equipment than most nations standard infantry. Everyone wears protective gear (vest, helmets, protective masks and chemical suits if the mission is required.)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
182 Posts
Two things:

If you want to talk politics go to a political forum and start a thread called: "Which armies would use what IG Doctrines"... don't come here and post about politics. If any of us wanted to read about anyone else's political views we'd go to a political website.

Second:

LEARN ENGLISH OR USE A SPELLCHECK... downt spill lyke a reeetaurd iph ewe wand peeepol to reespekt end lyssen two ewe.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
552 Posts
You guys are ridiculous. Conscripts refers specifically to conscripted soldiers. The U.S. has not drafted troops since Vietnam, so by definition, conscripts is inapplicable except for the purpose of taking cheap shots at U.S. armed forces.

It's clear that the main reason for claiming the inferiority of American armed forces is because of a political disagreement with the war in Iraq. Regardless of what you may think about this conflict, your opinion about the politics does not change the overall quality of training and materiel in the U.S. armed forces.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3 Posts
Too bad this degenerated so fast...

I was really interested in hearing different _informed_ views of various modern military forces. It's good food for thought when developing your tabletop armies.

IF anyone wants to keep posting info, without all the "those guys suck, we're the best" rhetoric, I would be most grateful.

Regards,
P'Shar
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16 Posts
ok well now that we discoved that America is going to lose every war from now on. (lol)

Americas army is now to "advanced" for ground troops, Its now more relient on Mechanised, and special forces. (Rangers, Seals, Marines, Nightstalkers "the major SP") The Army on its own is not one of the best in the world, the award for that would be the Swedish. Our Army does little more that mop up and hold postions. In general the Marines, and tanks take a posistion fast, then the army comes in to hold it. The army also helps with information Relaying enemy positions and such.

Zezza said:
"The fact is compared to every other conventional army America's is the best."
Not true. Everything which Kharard said is true, also the so called best of the best, the US delta Force sent a squad of thier troops over to scotland in britain to see if they could complete the same training as the SAS in the late 90s. Out of a months training, which is required by the SAS, the Americans didnt even last 7 days.
nuff said.
And in relation to the SAS being better than Delta. (Delta doesnt exist lol) and delta specializes in CQ fighting. The SAS acts more like Navy Seals than Delta. If you go to Delta stats they are about 65% successful which is extremly well in the situations they are put into. Dont get me wrong British Special forces are some of the best in the world.

Americas Army
Grenadiers
Veterans
Drop Troops
Mechanized
carapace armor

China's Army "IN General"
Conscripts
Close Order Drill
Iron Disipline
Heavy Weapons
Light Infanty

Who would win in a battle America or China (NO NUKES)
My money would be on China
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
101 Posts
Canadian:

Grenadiers + Veterans - Since Canadian troops are one of the best trained (supposedly) since it's so small.

Close Order Drill, Iron Discipline, Sharpshooters as well

Of course, we'd be limited to 500 pts per battle :O
 

·
I hate Ultramarines
Joined
·
1,297 Posts
For a UK version I think it would be:-

Mechanized - The British have got some extremely good armoured divisions (the basilisk would be represented by the FV433 Abbot because the FV433's range is 390km lol...there would probably be a few lemons in there to represent the challenger 2)
Sharpshooters - The British have always been pretty good with ranged weapons e.g. Longbowmen
Xeno-Fighters - They are always prepared for the environment they are going into
Hardened Fighters - In particular the SAS and Royal Marines due to the extreme training they do
Grenadiers - Apart from the special forces, the entire army is based
Iron Discipline - For anyone who seen the picture from Iraq of the British soldier leaving the tank on fire, should work out why i said this
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
48 Posts
I hope this thread gets locked and deleted, its pointless and its been said already but honestly, you're just gonna say the country you're from has the best Army. I also want to say that the United States Marine Corp is not a special forces unit, they have they're own special forces unit called Force Recon. And thats my rant, thank you.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
283 Posts
This appears to be an interesting idea from a thread that either has or will soon degenerate into a national pride/hate war. Too bad. That being said, I thought I would point out a few things.

The IG already have national stereotypes in current armies- take a look at the undeniable similarities:

1. Cadians = modern US
2. Steel Legion = WWII Germany
3. Valhallans = WWII Russia
4. Preatorians = Colonial British
5. Mordians = Continental French
6. Catachan Jungle Fighters = Vietnam US

No modern western powers would use conscripts. Even if whatever country in question had a draft, they still recieve solid training and are well equipped. Conscripts as described in warhammer would be more of a "you are in decent shape- here is a gun, run over there and try to shoot someone" as opposed to someone who has a few months of training.
 

·
Master of Those Damn Durable Swords
Joined
·
646 Posts
Yeah I agree that this thread had a good intention originally but began to degenerate. Personally I think a lot of modern Army's have their own strengths and weaknesses. And yes even the French. (The Foreign Legion is one of the elite infantry forces around). The Germans, US, British, Australian, Israelis, and Swedish all have superb fighting forces.

End off topic rant.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
182 Posts
I think Djibouti should be represented like this:

Warrior Weapons: Because Warrior Weapons are cool, and Djibouti is a cool name
Sharpshooters: Because I like this doctrine
Independant Commissars: So you can make a "Der Kommissar's in town" joke
Grenadiers: Because I like the Kasrkin models
Veterans: Because they make useful squad choices

Now, I know that Grenadiers and Warrior Weapons can't be mixed, but I decided that because Djibouti is such a cool name they should be allowed to do it. I checked with Games Workshop, and they said I was right, because I'm awesome. Well, they haven't replied yet, but I know they'll agree with me.
 

·
Son of LO
Joined
·
4,529 Posts
Drop the conscripts guys, almost no modern force uses them (israel and a few others.) Even the largest army in the world, the Chinese PLA, now consists of professional full time soldiers (it just has 2.25 million of them) with modern era weaponry. The image of them as a soviet era force thrust into the modern world should be rightly thrown in the dustbin..

By the way, since someone bought this up, China is by far my favourite to win in a war against the US.. I don't care how good the US army is individually, half a million dudes with modern weaponry aren't going to beat over 2 million dudes with slighlty less advanced modern weaponry. That's just frontline forces, of course, but I don't want to know what the PLA reserves are like..

However, by the same vein every country has its elite troops, and we're not talking about the elite here. We're talking about the standard. Just because the US army has Delta Force doesn't mean they should get the veterans/grenadiers traits.. The same goes for everyone, I'm not picking on America here. Special forces aren't the norm.

In fact, there's actually very little variety in modern forces. Just size and equipment, really.
 
1 - 20 of 23 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top