I'm curious how that proves anything at all? Are they trained better in their respective mission profiles is what I'm concerned about. And you wouldn't have any way of knowing THAT. because that information is not given out to civilians.
That family is not one of civilians, firstly. That soldier's father is in the military, and he himself is one of the better soldiers, and has actually risen through the ranks quite quickly, as he is apparently a very capable soldier, and a good leader. And what I've been told, yes, they are incredibly well trained. I'm not quite sure what you mean by 'their respective mission profiles'; I'm assuming that you intend to say that each special forces has their own area of expertise, ie. Delta Force - counter-terrorism, SEALS - guarding ships in foreign harbours, Rangers - general special forces. That sort of thing. Well, as best I can figure, they're more like the SAS, who tend to do multiple things. Certainly it would not be specifically told to civilians, but I've heard that listing of special forces given in multiple sources, so I think it can be taken as reliably accurate. It also fits in more with the Canadian mindset. We know we're smaller, so we excel at smaller, more precise things, with better training. The Americans know they're big, and do things that way, with less training and more might of numbers. Canada as a whole, I think, had always been something of a general special forces army under the British, at least if WWI is looked at.
It was a contingent of Royal British Marines that offloaded from a ship that burned the White House. And that was during the War of 1812. I'm not sure where you got this info that CANADIAN soldiers burned the White House.
By the way, citing American military performance from almost two hundred years ago doesn't prove anything about the state of affiars now.
Well, it does, in some regard. The mentality of the American people hasn't really changed or, if it has, it stems from earlier ideas in history. To examine something earlier to make a judgement on something later is like looking at water upstream to have an idea of it downstream.
The point I was making is that the Americans were too expansionist and incautious, and could not take the territories it wished to in its 'Manifest Destiny'. The same thing happened in the south. They tried to march on Mexican territory, and Santa Anna struck back, the stand at the Alamo being one of the most remembered segments of that war - though one must remember that technically the poeple defending the Alamo were invaders. I'm not sure how far the Americans got in the south, but Mexico remained free, so they lost. Once again, the Americans seemed to be quite bombastic and grand in its military exploits, with great vision, but were thwarted. Later, it was only the overnumbering might of their armies, for the most part, that gave them victories. When the battle is in a terrain their straight-forward, direct assault tactics, are ill-suited for, such as in Vietnam, they lose. Americans have a lot of might, and a lot of drive and zeal with their armies, but aren't very flexible or inventive tactically. As a matter of fact, they're similar to the Romans in that regard. The Romans had a strong empire, but likely lost more battles than it won. Pyhrrus, invading from Macedonia on behalf of Greek holdings in Italy, soundly defeated the Romans twice. But Rome would not submit to any peace terms, kept fighting, and Pyhrrus withdrew, having lost 2/3 of his army in time, and being utterly spent. So I think that is how the Americans are, in some regard, and even as the Romans under Marius, are reforming their tactics a little. The major difference is that the Romans were mentally tougher than the Americans, as the latter are actually a quite easily frightened people. Celts invaded the Romans 300BC, and the Romans bounced right back; Hannibal marched upon Italy in 218, but the Romans would not submit. They were a stern and resiliant people, qualities the Americans lack. When the towers were destroyed in New York, it unsettled the entire nation. Two towers, the idea that they were NOT invincible, set fear upon the entire populace! What were to happen, as likely will in time - as all empires fall - if there is an actual war upon American soil? Will they be able to steel themselves up and bear the hardship? Look at the manifold bombings London encountered in WWII, but the British people were so stubborn-valiant, they essentially looked to Germany and said: 'do your worst!'. Yet the Americans are hit, by wartimes standards by an insignificant strike, and it is made the most terrible thing of a decade. That is why terrorism works, because the people are easily frightened. If they want to endure for centuries to come, they have to have less bravado, and more resiliance.
Are you kidding me? When the Americans arrived, the German 1917 gains in territory were wiped out instantly. Something the Canadians weren't able to stop. And when did the British ever do something that stupid? If they did, they did it once and once only. Being showered with bullets tends to learn a person up real well. I hope you aren't forgetting about the American stand at Bastogne when one American infantry division was under assualt by multiple converging SS Panzer divisions during the Battle of the Bulge. And if you want to talk about "holding their ground when vastly outnumbered" the Germans definitely deserve more props than anyone else. In WWI and WWII they would WIN when outnumbered, and they threw up the most tenacious defense imaginable.
That has nothing to do, however, with a matter of skill or bravery in combat. The war in Europe had come to a stalemate, for the most part. Even major conflicts like Verdun, the Somme, and Ypres, were doing very little. You cannot stop an army based simply upon skill, and there is no way the tiny Canadian army could have conclusively pushed things either way. THe reason that the isolationist America was able to shift the tides was because, at the suggestion of General Pershing, brought in a vast number of soldiers, with the purpose of being there 'to be killed', as Pershing said. Quite a gallant stroke on the side of the Americans, I suppose, to just throw themselves into the fray like that, but they were quite hands-off before. Had they joined in 1915, the great battles of the Somme would have been largely avoided. But it took an admission, from the German ambassador, that Germany was making a pact with Mexico to invade the US, and led the Americans finally into war. They've usually been like that: they only enter a war if they see some benefit for themselves, or if they themselves are threatened. Look at WWII.
And as far as the British doing something stupid... it was indeed times without count. Montgomery was not that brilliant a general, and one need only to look at the ill-fated assult upon the Dardanelles, upon Gallipoli, to see how the British were often tactically poor. How else could one country, Germany, hold back the onslaught of the allies for so long (their allies were very poor - Austria could not even defeat Serbia, and the Turks were ill prepared for war.) And almost victor! Hand Moltke not been a fool and followed the Von Schlieffen plan, the war would have ended in victory for them in a matter of months. A tactical error on pensive Moltke's part, to be sure, but the British were far worse in terms of battle-field tactics at that time - probably only the French had it worse. This is not to say the soldiers themselves were stupid, it was their generals and leaders, as is so often the case. For the British, their leaders were very often Lords, nobility with no battle-field experience. In such a scenario as that, you can expect a lot of stupid things to happen. Another reason, I think, that the Americans did so much better when they arrived. Unlike the Canadians who were being led by such British, the Americans were led by Pershing, who was, if I remember right, a capable and determined old soldier.
As far as Americans holding their ground... yes, it did happen, I know that. There were many courageous Americans, and many brave stands. But I'm talking the overall way in which they fought. The ANZACS and Canadians were particularally known for being sent on suicide missions by the British, and holding their ground to the last. The Americans... well, they've always been cowboys to some extent, a little more roudy and less diciplined. Their military works, to be sure - they're the most powerful in the world - but I wager had they more dicipline and the like, they would have equal power with half the numbers.
And the Germans... well, I was speaking of the Allies. The Germans, I think, are naturally more warlike in their blood than are the British or French, or even the Americans. They have always seemed to have had brilliant commanders (though this should not belie the fact that there were some masterful tacticians for the Americans, as well), if inane political leaders - Göring, anyone? - fought stubbornly against all of Europe when outnumbered, and had far better technology, even if they did not have the infrastructure to support it. After all, a Tiger tank could, head to head, take on multiple Shermans - the shells of the lighter tank couldn't penetrate its forward armour. But the Shermans were built in such numbers, they just overwhelmed the enemy. The Germans built the first jet-fighters, and things of that sort, as well. In fact, one of the only reasons America was so technologically adept in the postwar period is that many of Germanies top scientists emmigrated there, and basically gave their skills in the service of that country. Things like the space rockets, and the B-2 Stealth Bomber, are inherently built with technology pioneered by the Germans or German scientists.
