Guest

British Take On The US Military In Iraq

Sat Apr 05, 2003 10:08 pm

from www.news.com.au

US heavy-handedness baffles British
By Daniel McGory
April 03, 2003


THE American infantryman controlling the checkpoint on the road to Nasiriyah was clad in so much body armour he looked like Darth Vader.


US soldier patrols in Northern Iraq


Dark goggles covered most of his face, and a khaki scarf was wrapped around his nose and mouth. His M16 assault rifle was pointed at the windscreen of the car, which was clearly being driven by a young woman who had young children in the backseat.

This did not stop the young soldier from screaming at the occupants to "step out of the vehicle and move to the side of the road". How much of that muffled command the frightened woman understood was unclear, but as she hesitated and tried to comfort the youngest of her children, who was trying to clamber over the seat towards her, the infantrymen yelled even louder.

It was difficult to tell who was the more nervous. Rifles remained trained on the mother and children, who were made to stand 20m away from their car while it was searched. American patrols now appear to treat everyone as if they are suicide bombers.

British troops who have witnessed the Americans at close quarters in this war are baffled at their approach to Iraqi civilians. One captain in the Royal Marines, watching a US unit monitor a checkpoint, said: "The Americans are still behaving like invaders, not liberators. They behave as if they hate these people."

Many American troops speak as though they do.

You often hear them describe "Eye-rakis" in disparaging language. One US officer in charge of delivering humanitarian aid earlier this week likened the crush of people waiting to get hold of food and water to a pack of stray dogs.

His troops lashed at those pushing to the front with fists and rifle butts, even firing shots into the air.

When Irish Guards were nearly mobbed by a crowd trying to grab the food they were delivering to Zubayr this week, Major David Hannah urged his men to keep calm and get the people to sit down.

"They need to have their dignity respected," he said.

British commanders are appalled at how the Americans pulverise anything from afar before daring to set foot out of their armoured vehicles.

This was no better illustrated than in the first skirmish of the land war, where the American 15th Marine Expeditionary Unit was handed what should have been the easy capture of the port of Umm Qasr.

Royal Marine officers watched incredulously as their US compatriots bombed and shelled the town for five days. The experience of nearly 30 years policing Ulster has taught British forces that the only way to root out gunmen is to patrol on foot, searching house by house.

The rhetoric of US soldiers is often provocative. An American colonel, asked what the role of the Fifth Corps would be, replied: "We are going in there. We are going to root out the bad guys and kill them." His men whooped and punched the air as if they were watching a football match.

A British officer who witnessed this exchange shook his head, saying: "We are working from a different script but you won't get anyone in Whitehall to admit it."






This is a legitimate Australian news agency, and the comments are from the Brits in Iraq, not sure if you guys are getting these reports so i've put it here for you to read.



ADG
 
L-188
Posts: 29881
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 1999 11:27 am

RE: British Take On The US Military In Iraq

Sat Apr 05, 2003 10:16 pm

Doesn't surprise me. The Brits and the Americans do have differenc Motus Operandi.

Patton didn't think much of Montgomery either.

OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
 
Guest

RE: British Take On The US Military In Iraq

Sat Apr 05, 2003 10:19 pm

I don't really have an opinion either way on this report at the moment but I do know that many Americans are not seeing these type of reports and hence the post.

Draw your own conclussions.

Check the picture though, it's like watching Star Wars  Laugh out loud
http://www.news.com.au/common/imagedata/0,3600,246597,00.jpg




ADG
 
IndianGuy
Posts: 3126
Joined: Fri Jul 07, 2000 3:14 pm

RE: British Take On The US Military In Iraq

Sat Apr 05, 2003 10:20 pm

This is one story we arent going to hear on American news channels!

They can only report what the Pentagon allows them to!

-Roy
 
Glenn
Posts: 1454
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2005 8:33 pm

RE: British Take On The US Military In Iraq

Sat Apr 05, 2003 10:24 pm

Looks like a Knight on a horse with lance and shield
 
L-188
Posts: 29881
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 1999 11:27 am

RE: British Take On The US Military In Iraq

Sat Apr 05, 2003 10:29 pm

It is a guy with a 50 and a Bacalava on.

Whats the big deal?
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
 
KLAX
Posts: 1568
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2007 7:59 am

RE: British Take On The US Military In Iraq

Sat Apr 05, 2003 10:41 pm

/ignore Indianguy on

I hope the troops arent all that bad. I'm sure there are some buttholes in the U.S. army, but there are alot of good people too.

-CLovis
 
L-188
Posts: 29881
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 1999 11:27 am

RE: British Take On The US Military In Iraq

Sat Apr 05, 2003 11:41 pm

I wouldn't call them buttholes either.


It is just that the british, generally, are a much more reserved people then Americans.

It isn't right, or worng. It is just a general trend.
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
 
jwenting
Posts: 9973
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2001 10:12 pm

RE: British Take On The US Military In Iraq

Sun Apr 06, 2003 12:24 am

After the suicide bombers disguised as pregnant women I don't see what's wrong with paranoia towards civilians at roadblocks...

Better safe than sorry, if there's explosives in the car you're dead if you let it get close.
I wish I were flying
 
Alpha 1
Posts: 12343
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2001 12:12 am

RE: British Take On The US Military In Iraq

Sun Apr 06, 2003 1:28 am

Actually, there has been commentary on the differences between the Brits and the Yanks. That's nothing new. Some Saddam sympathizers (and that is NOT intended at the author of this post), would make a big deal out of this, but like L-188 said, there are differences in opinion and M/0 here. And, as he said, this kind of thing went on for almost 3 1/2 years when the Brits and Yanks were fighting the Nazis. Patton and Monty was the most famous of those tiffs. It did not deter anyone from finishing the job.
 
GDB
Posts: 12653
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

RE: British Take On The US Military In Iraq

Sun Apr 06, 2003 2:16 am

Make no mistake, on initial operations against places like Basra (and the UK forces are still doing aggressive raids into town against Saddam's fighters), it was all arms, full equipment, body armour and helmets, the lot.

Where the differences are is right afterwards, it is felt that the best intelligence will come from the Iraqi people, so 'hearts and minds' swings into action, helmets off, berets on, sunglasses off, look these people in the eye, look less intimidating, interact, get the Arabic speaking personnel on patrol too.
They still have to be alert, but most of the troops would have done Ulster tours so they will be used to 'nonchalant-looking alertness'.
The current policy on Basra is called 'aid and raid', help the civil population, deal with the fighters, keep this up until Basra is pacified.

In truth, in general M.O. terms, the USMC are closer to the British Army.

However, I don't think it is really about differences between armies, it more about recent experience and politics.
UK forces have conducted 'raid and aid' since WW2 in places like Cyprus, Aden, Borneo, Malaya as well as the 'aid to the civil power' in Northern Ireland and 'muscular peacekeeping' in places like the former Yugoslavia.
Jungle operations in Malaya and Borneo against insurgents were all about interacting with and winning the support of the locals, denying their villages to the enemy, gaining intelligence, then taking the fight to the insurgents, both of these campaigns were very successful, low key, with relatively small numbers of troops involved.

The US experience has been less happy, Vietnam, Lebanon, Somalia, the body politic has a policy of minimum risk to service people, plus it is felt that these sort of operations degrade effectiveness in 'war fighting', however the same forces that have conducted the UK operations above also did Korea, Suez, The Falklands and Gulf War 1, as well as having the bulk of the army geared to heavy armoured warfare in defence of Europe during the Cold War.

Also, the British Army tends to put NCO's in the firing line more with greater responsibility, a 21 year old corporal may well have led 4 or 8 man sections in the streets of Northern Ireland and the potentially more dangerous rural border areas on a couple of tours, also this is felt to help in the confused, frantic full urban warfare conditions, when communications from the command to the troops in action will be problematic.

Another factor is size, the UK forces in manpower to general population terms are small, they were by no means the biggest even during the Cold War, no conscription for over 40 years.
The US forces are part of a vast war machine.
The British Empire's influence on military culture still cannot be ruled out even now, for the most part, the forces defending and policing this far flung expanse of colonies was small.

However, I would not be surprised in 'raid and aid' is used on Baghdad if and when possible.
Apart from anything else, half the population of that city are under 15, never underestimate the P.R. front, this war is controversial enough as it is.




 
CX747
Posts: 5576
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:54 am

RE: British Take On The US Military In Iraq

Sun Apr 06, 2003 3:26 am

I really don't see what the big commotion is. The photo doesn't show a guy "All Armored" up. He is wearing your basic flack jacket and has his face covered from the sand. After what has happened at checkpoints during the least week, I'm not surprised by the soldiers actions. When pregnant women stop blowing themselves and GIs up, the tensions will subside. Also, the title of this post is extremely misleading.
"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
 
Banco
Posts: 14343
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2001 11:56 pm

RE: British Take On The US Military In Iraq

Sun Apr 06, 2003 4:39 am

Yes, it certainly is misleading. As GDB said, the experiences of the UK and US armed forces are rather different, and this will naturally be reflected in the way they work. It was noticeable that a number of senior US officers have commented publicly that the British operations around Basra are ones that they will seek to emulate and learn from. That doesn't make them worse, if anything, admitting someone else is better at a certain type of action and trying to learn from them shows great professionalism and willingness to learn in senior US ranks. It works the other way around for British forces who try to learn techniques in other fields from the US.

Far from being a confrontation, the UK forces are doing one of the things they are best at very well indeed, and the US are trying to emulate them. Good on the US I say, if they took the view that they were always the best at any particular technique that would be worrying. Neither army has that view, and it is one of the reasons they work so well together.
She's as nervous as a very small nun at a penguin shoot.
 
Guest

RE: British Take On The US Military In Iraq

Sun Apr 06, 2003 8:44 am

There is no "big issue" here, the article is nothing more than the poms pointing out the difference between themselves and there american counterparts. They do feel that the US soldiers are overdoing it, this is a matter of conjecture, there are valid points on both sides of these issues.

It's an interesting discussion point and good to see that people have stuck to the topic.

Personally I don't go for the overdone yelling and screaming and pointing guns at children, but then i don't go for soldiers being blown up in suicide bomb attacks either. So I don't really have a final opinion on the behaviour of the soldiers at the checkpoints.





ADG
 
DC10GUY
Posts: 2590
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2000 5:52 am

RE: British Take On The US Military In Iraq

Sun Apr 06, 2003 9:35 am

Don't surprise me none... Remember Vietnam ? We would bomb the "gooks" then bandage them up only to bomb them again, then we would burn down their huts and wonder why they hated us ??? When you start out with a wacked war plan wacked things happen....
Next time try the old "dirty Sanchez" She'll love it !!!
 
CX747
Posts: 5576
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:54 am

RE: British Take On The US Military In Iraq

Sun Apr 06, 2003 10:06 am

Screaming and yelling during war, I would never have thought it would happen. While this article does have some good points, it is basically an anti-American jab that really has no point. Could it be possible that your "news" sources are just as jaded as your beloved FOX news?

"Dark goggles covered most of his face, and a khaki scarf was wrapped around his nose and mouth. His M16 assault rifle was pointed at the windscreen of the car, which was clearly being driven by a young woman who had young children in the backseat."

Ah yes, the car is clearly being driven by a young woman. Just like the car that was clearly being driven by the pregnant woman a few days ago. I guess you forget about the great Iraq trick called "I'll pretend to surrender and then shoot the G.I.s". I have followed this conflict very closely. British and American troops are doing the best they can.

Each service or country has a different way of "preparing" the battlefield. Could it be that the U.S. has greater precision weapons or stand off munitions than the U.K.? Henceforth they allow those munitions to go to work before they put themselves in harms way? I happened to see a news clip this morning with British troops throwing some fellas around inside a house then slamming bags down over their heads and leading them outside. Personally I see nothing wrong with it. They are doing dangerous jobs and lecturing from a 35+ year old woman who more than likely has never been in the military is ridiculous.

Your veiled anti-Americanism grows more hilarious by the hour.
"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
 
Guest

RE: British Take On The US Military In Iraq

Sun Apr 06, 2003 10:48 am

I can't see the "anti-american" slant that you complain of unless you believe people should say nothing but good things about america only.

The article isn't anti-american, it just highlights the difference between the 2 forces and the fact that the british interviewed feel that the behaviour is overhanded. The article lets you draw your own conclussion.

There is no dishonesty in the article that I can see as it merely passes on the opinions of the soldiers, and unlike many articles it is based on talking to those on the scene rather than those who fought in the last gulf war or didn't fight at all.

You are simply being overly defensive.




ADG
 
CX747
Posts: 5576
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:54 am

RE: British Take On The US Military In Iraq

Sun Apr 06, 2003 10:51 am

You are correct, the article doesn't come right out and say the America and its forces are bad but it IMPLIES it. Then again, almost all of your posts on this subject imply anti-americanism.
"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
 
Guest

RE: British Take On The US Military In Iraq

Sun Apr 06, 2003 12:45 pm

Seems to me that you only what to hear what you agree with and nothing more. Discussion doesn't work that way.

My posts don't imply anti-americanism at all. A small minded minority looking for an argument can find that in there. As can be clearly seen here the only negative I have with this thread is that this type of media report isn't being seen in the US.

The rest of it, as i've stated, is a matter of opinion.

It really says more about you than me when you react as you do to these threads.

There isn't a single country that can boast perfection, but threads such as this one are here to discuss. A normal person would say something "yes, it does seem harsh but given the circumstances I feel it is justified" as some have done above. Not have a big whine everytime they see something they'd prefer to have swept under the carpet.







ADG
 
CX747
Posts: 5576
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:54 am

RE: British Take On The US Military In Iraq

Sun Apr 06, 2003 1:05 pm

I don't prefer that it be swept under the carpet. I just find it quite disheartening that you and several others only post material like this. The material that you find IMPLIES that the United States is not doing the best job and is out of control. Your right in stating that the article doesn't actually say that, but it IMPLIES it. If you can't see or read that, then we have bigger problems.

It seems that your only purpose in life is scrounging around the net for information that shows the U.S. is bad lighting. Obviously the United States is not perfect and neither is its military. Some things are handled in the best way possible while others are not. So here is my opinion on the subject matter in the article. The United States Marine Corp and British Marines are doing outstanding work under tough conditions. Each has its own way of fighting and protecting. As for your posts not being anti-american, I can only laugh.
"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
 
Guest

RE: British Take On The US Military In Iraq

Sun Apr 06, 2003 2:06 pm

I don't prefer that it be swept under the carpet. I just find it quite disheartening that you and several others only post material like this.

Only post information like what?

The material that you find IMPLIES that the United States is not doing the best job and is out of control.

It implies no such thing anywhere but in your mind. By the way, http://www.news.com.au is mainstream Australian media.

Your right in stating that the article doesn't actually say that, but it IMPLIES it. If you can't see or read that, then we have bigger problems.

I don't see it, and I don't have a problem you do. There is a growing number of people in these forums that read the worst into everything, do you want to be one of them?

It seems that your only purpose in life is scrounging around the net for information that shows the U.S. is bad lighting.

Yes, I scrounged all over the internet to choose this piece, all the way to my locally owned media outlet.

Obviously the United States is not perfect and neither is its military.

Well if you think this, what is the issue? Surely it's best to discuss and improve on things than spend your day whining over things you could change?

Some things are handled in the best way possible while others are not.

There is no inference otherwise in this article. In fact, the inference was that they were handled DIFFERENTLY and not in a way the soldier quoted would have dealth with them. Nothing more.

So here is my opinion on the subject matter in the article. The United States Marine Corp and British Marines are doing outstanding work under tough conditions. Each has its own way of fighting and protecting.

Well, finally a statement on the article.

As for your posts not being anti-american, I can only laugh.

in your mind....



ADG
 
CX747
Posts: 5576
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:54 am

RE: British Take On The US Military In Iraq

Sun Apr 06, 2003 2:09 pm

Here is some homework for you. I want you to find an article on the war that is positive and upbeat. Then I want you to say something positive about America's involvement in the war. I'll be waiting.
"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
 
Guest

RE: British Take On The US Military In Iraq

Sun Apr 06, 2003 3:35 pm

Cx,

Here is some homework for you .. you will already see them in this very forum, it's just that you've ignored them. (the top of my had would be the absolute respect I have for Pfc Lynch and my relief that she is back where she should be). Just goes to show you don't need to go back that far to find what you say isn't there.

I do not agree with this war, I do not think it's been handled very well. You will find nothing in these forums in which I have supported the US Government or even my own for making a decision to put the lives of their military at risk. However, that doesn't mean that I don't support the soldiers themselves, quite the opposite in fact (another issue you choose to ignore).

Indeed, much of what people accuse me of saying cannot be found in these forums, but that doesn't stop them saying it. I don't have to prove anything to you, because i'm not the one throwing around unjustifiable accusations. Be careful that you don't turn into another yyz, who needs ot post lies to make his point.





ADG
 
CX747
Posts: 5576
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:54 am

RE: British Take On The US Military In Iraq

Sun Apr 06, 2003 3:42 pm

Well, it is getting late so I leave the debate for another day. Be careful though as Yz717 is a regarded as a close friend. I do have to say though that my opinion on Australian women has changed. Can you at least tell me that your attractive?  Wink/being sarcastic
"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
 
User avatar
yyz717
Posts: 15689
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2001 12:26 pm

RE: British Take On The US Military In Iraq

Sun Apr 06, 2003 3:59 pm

Be careful that you don't turn into another yyz, who needs ot post lies to make his point.

If daring to challenge the left-wing socialist trite of the high & mightly ADG makes me a liar, then yes I'm a liar.

Be careful though as Yz717 is a regarded as a close friend.

And back to you CX747.  Big thumbs up




I dumped at the gybe mark in strong winds when I looked up at a Porter Q400 on finals. Can't stop spotting.
 
VC-10
Posts: 3546
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 1999 11:34 am

RE: British Take On The US Military In Iraq

Sun Apr 06, 2003 4:12 pm

I have to say the report only proves the US learnt nothing from Vietnam.

In that conflict they tried to win over the "hearts and minds" of the peasant villagers by moving them out of their ancestral homes where, as far as the villagers were concerned, the spirits of their dead parents, grandparents etc lived and then burnt the village down.

I understand why the U.S. are taking the approach they are, but given all the anti-US propaganda the Iraqi people will have been fed over the years by the Iraqi government this is not the way to win friends and allies.

Before you say I am anti-American, my source for the above are books by U.S. Army Col's John Paul Vann and David Hackworth who both fought in Asia.
 
Guest

RE: British Take On The US Military In Iraq

Sun Apr 06, 2003 5:10 pm

yyz717 says:

"""If daring to challenge the left-wing socialist trite of the high & mightly ADG makes me a liar, then yes I'm a liar."""


I have never found anything *left-wing* or *socialist* or *trite* about Bronny.

The reason she gets up your noses is because she is not afraid to call a spade a spade and tell it how it is without resorting to *patriotism* - *right wing zealotry* or pointless diatribe.

This thread is from the Australian media, simply reporting what British allies comments are about their compatriots. Sadly though the reports are not that complimentary to certain US forces. Have we heard reports of US forces criticising the British or Australian miliatary?

I am certainly not going to get into a bitch fight about how *bad* everyones forces are. We can hardly expect our forces to not act with caution or not be afraid.

None of us are in the field anyway - nor would we want to.

Lets hope it sorts itself out very soon. And safety to our troops, the Iraqi civilians and everyone else involved.

mb

clowns=some a.net members  Big grin
 
Guest

RE: British Take On The US Military In Iraq

Sun Apr 06, 2003 5:51 pm

Actually yyz, it's the posting of lies that makes you a liar. You don't challenge any views, you've dropped all pretence of reasonable discussion about 3 days ago, now all you are posting is pathetic "me toos" that the others you claim to speak for do not support.

*clever as a clown*

*yay*



ADG
*bandwagon jumper*
 
VC-10
Posts: 3546
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 1999 11:34 am

RE: British Take On The US Military In Iraq

Sun Apr 06, 2003 6:19 pm

This thread is from the Australian media

Actually it is part of a report that appeared in the British media a few days ago.

The Uk version goes on to say that British Commanders have ordered their troops to wear berets, rather than hard hats, and have their weapons down at the check points and in the towns, so as to look like liberators rather than invadars.

The British have long chicanes on the approaches to their checkpoints to slow traffic down to a crawl and once in the chicanes it is impossible to reverse out. The idea is to give the troops time to sus' out who is in the vehicles and prevent incidents similar to where that family of 15 were shot up.
 
L-188
Posts: 29881
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 1999 11:27 am

RE: British Take On The US Military In Iraq

Sun Apr 06, 2003 6:24 pm

The Uk version goes on to say that British Commanders have ordered their troops to wear berets, rather than hard hats, and have their weapons down at the check points and in the towns, so as to look like liberators rather than invadars.

And there in lies the difference.

US commanders simply aren't going to risk their forces by switching to soft hats in a war zone. They are really into force protection.

At the risk of sounding too harshly, I wouldn't want my life risked by my commanders by prohibiting the wearing of safety equiptment for the sake of appearances.
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
 
VC-10
Posts: 3546
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 1999 11:34 am

RE: British Take On The US Military In Iraq

Sun Apr 06, 2003 6:30 pm

One question then.

How many troops and locals have been killed at US Checkpoints compared to U.K. Checkpoints?
 
TSV
Posts: 1604
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 1999 12:13 pm

RE: British Take On The US Military In Iraq

Sun Apr 06, 2003 7:32 pm

Good point. Obviously they have learnt from their NI "experience".

Had to laugh when they interviewed an Aussie landing craft grunt - said he preferred working with the Poms rather than the Yanks as the Poms are "more professional".
"I told you I was ill ..." Spike Milligan
 
L-188
Posts: 29881
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 1999 11:27 am

RE: British Take On The US Military In Iraq

Sun Apr 06, 2003 7:53 pm

Well that makes sense, both the Aussis and the Tommies have those funny little accents  Laugh out loud

TSV, you do bring up the point that the Brits do have a pretty good basis of experience from NI that the US simply doesn't have, to build upon and work from.

OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
 
Banco
Posts: 14343
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2001 11:56 pm

RE: British Take On The US Military In Iraq

Sun Apr 06, 2003 9:04 pm

Exactly, L-188. Which is why the US has openly come out to say that they intend to learn from the British tactics. Nothing wrong with that, as I say, the British learn from US tactics in other areas, it's called working together.
She's as nervous as a very small nun at a penguin shoot.
 
L-188
Posts: 29881
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 1999 11:27 am

RE: British Take On The US Military In Iraq

Sun Apr 06, 2003 9:08 pm

No problem with that, but you just know that there are people that are playing it up.

Only had brits on our base one time when I was in the service that I got a chance to talk to. They had a rover parked in front of the bowling alley.

Anybody know why the radio matching units they use are so damm big???
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
 
Arsenal@LHR
Posts: 7510
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2001 2:55 am

RE: British Take On The US Military In Iraq

Sun Apr 06, 2003 10:28 pm

Man to man, the British soldier is the best in the world, when it comes to special forces the UK is in a different league, SAS, SBS, Royal Marines, better trained and more skilled than any other special forces. But when it comes to size, firepower and technology, the US is ahead.
In Arsene we trust!!
 
GDB
Posts: 12653
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

RE: British Take On The US Military In Iraq

Mon Apr 07, 2003 3:45 am

The relaxed, or relaxed looking, posture and appearance are for pacified, or semi-pacified areas where interacting with the populace is the task.
The footage CX747 saw was a combat operation, Ba'ath party goons were attacked and the survivors lifted, how did the troops know who to go for? Local intelligence, the Ba'th members were fingered by the locals, the much discussed wearing of regimental berets, delivering aid, football matches with the youths (Iraq beat the Royal Marines 9-3!) etc, is not for pure appearance. Hearts and minds makes tongues loosen.
The UK forces have plenty of precision weapons in theatre, the new Storm Shadow cruise missiles fired by RAF Tornados made their early debut, Tomahawks from RN subs, Laser/GPS bombs from RAF aircraft, Mavericks from RAF Harriers, TOW missiles from Lynx choppers, Milan and Swingfire AT missiles from the Army/Marines.
 
GDB
Posts: 12653
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

RE: British Take On The US Military In Iraq

Mon Apr 07, 2003 5:10 am

To illustrate the different operations, here is a good selection of images of UK ground forces in action in Iraq:
http://www.operations.mod.uk/telic/photo_gallery_ops_land.htm
 
CX747
Posts: 5576
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:54 am

RE: British Take On The US Military In Iraq

Mon Apr 07, 2003 2:34 pm

Well, now that the Brits are actually going into Basra, we will have to see if they continue to wear their berets or switch back to their Kevlar. Hats off to them all as they have done an outstanding job.
"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
 
L-188
Posts: 29881
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 1999 11:27 am

RE: British Take On The US Military In Iraq

Mon Apr 07, 2003 4:01 pm

this isn't ment to be insulting and I hope it isn't.

The other thing about the British is that their doctrine is based on the way they have generally had to fight their wars in the last century.

In a word that would have to be conservative.

World War II they where short on resources, especially in the begining. In the Falklands they where at the end of a very long supply line. The battle doctrine seems to be built on conservation of their forces, sometimes at the expense of operational tempo. That may be one of their reasons their special forces are so good, there would be difficulties hitting a target with a large number of regular troops.

Which was one of the things that pissed Patton off.

Generally the US Army comes into a war with much greater reasources.

There is a Bill Maulding cartoon from WWII that had a tommy sitting in a field of discared American equiptment and gear, Willie and Joe walk up and the tommie says, "You blokes sure leave one messy battlefield."
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
 
Glenn
Posts: 1454
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2005 8:33 pm

RE: British Take On The US Military In Iraq

Mon Apr 07, 2003 4:14 pm

True, The Americans decided that they could pulverize Germany druing the day. Cost them a lot to realise that they needed to modify their tactics.

 
GDB
Posts: 12653
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

RE: British Take On The US Military In Iraq

Mon Apr 07, 2003 10:34 pm

Despite the long supply lines, the 'don't assume you'll have everything to hand' doctrine worked in the Falklands, that's how they were soon able to dominate the battlefield despite the enemy being more numerous, well dug in, with only patchy UK air cover and more heavily armed, even after a 50 mile march across the Islands.
As for Basra, it's a full scale battle, armour (including body armour), artillery, all arms, (including support from USMC AH-1W choppers). the berets will wait until the main battle is over, the reception the locals have given them seems to show the aid and raid policy worked, plus 'Chemical Ali' apparently being no more, many of the enemy fled, those that did not are no more. 3 British troops killed in separate actions, probably the house to house fighting.
Here is an account of the experiences of some US personnel working with the recce vehicles of the Household Cavalry;
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,931139,00.html
 
Krushny
Posts: 756
Joined: Sun Dec 24, 2000 4:22 am

RE: British Take On The US Military In Iraq

Mon Apr 07, 2003 11:20 pm

D-Day was one battle where the different British and US approaches to war was seen. The British developed a whole brand of funny vehicles for the occasion, specialised in things like mine sweeping, making roads in the sand, etc. which they used extensively in the disembarking. On the other hand the Americans declined to use such devices and prefered a more conventional assault. At the end of the day most of the casualties were American, perhaps the carnage in Omaha beach could have been avoided if Bradley had took some advice from the British.

BTW, just saw in the BBC that Basra was in British hands. Let's hope that this is definitive !!


 
tbar220
Posts: 6706
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2000 12:08 pm

RE: British Take On The US Military In Iraq

Tue Apr 08, 2003 4:34 am

What a great pic  Smile

NO URLS in signature
 
CPH-R
Posts: 6059
Joined: Thu May 03, 2001 5:19 pm

RE: British Take On The US Military In Iraq

Tue Apr 08, 2003 4:53 am

Krushny,
I believe the Americans did borrow the DD tank, but they were launched way to far out, so they never became an asset. The difference between Omaha and the British beaches, were that the British beaches led directly into a town, which meant that tanks had a somewhat easy way to go. At Omaha, there was a very tall seawall, which meant that any vehicle had to make their way to the exits, which were defended beyond sanity.
 
Banco
Posts: 14343
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2001 11:56 pm

RE: British Take On The US Military In Iraq

Tue Apr 08, 2003 7:38 pm

L-188, I've been thinking about your observations about the British military and I must admit you surprised me a little there. It's certainly true that historically (much less so recently) the top brass have very often been out of step with what the cirumstances actually were, but I'm not sure I'd go as far as saying that the British military were just conservative. It's true that in certain situations they have been, for example at the Battle of Jutland Admiral Jellicoe was quite aware that a full victory over the High Seas Fleet would be meaningless in terms of the war's outcome, but a defeat would be absolutely catastrophic.

On the other hand, Operation Market Garden was anything but conservative, as it was an attempt to win the war a year early, in fact it was possibly reckless if anything. In the Falklands, the lack of fleet minesweepers in the tast force meant that the method of testing for mines was to take an old destroyer and ask the ship's skipper to do a bit of zig-zagging in Choiseul Sound, whilst the landings at San Carlos Water were dangerous and possibly unnecessary, resulting in the loss of several ships! On the other hand, keeping the carriers out of range as much as possible in that conflict was just good sense, losing the Invincible would have severely jeopardised the mission, losing the Hermes would have finished it. Perhaps you have more of a point with respect to the army than the navy. The decision to sail the Repulse and Prince of Wales in support of Singapore, without any air cover, was frankly mad, and taking the (rather ill-fated) Prince of Wales into attack the Bismarck, alongside Hood, was also less than cautious.

I don't think you could say that this was part of any hidebound thinking. Certainly, the Navy's policy has pretty much always been to attack, witness the episodes with the Jervis Bay and Glowworm to name but two.

Nor would I allow your thinking to be coloured by the very public dislike that was evident between Montgomery and Patton. Neither thought much of the other, but in truth both were excellent generals. Do not forget that even Eisenhower had a less than auspicious start to the war, the difference there was that the US allowed their generals to learn from their mistakes, the British tended to fire them. As a result, in the army, only Montgomery and Slim out of the British generals came out of the war with enhanced reputations.

Even so, keeping forces intact, when your forces are small just strikes me as good sense. the British army has always been small, with the exception of the period of the two world wars, so adaptation and tactics have always been important. Perhaps this is what you mean.

I'd welcome your comeback on this.
She's as nervous as a very small nun at a penguin shoot.
 
Guest

RE: British Take On The US Military In Iraq

Tue Apr 08, 2003 9:46 pm

You only need to watch Black Hawk Down to see a classic example of a leader who would have faced disciplinary action had he been in another mans army.




ADG
 
L-188
Posts: 29881
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 1999 11:27 am

RE: British Take On The US Military In Iraq

Wed Apr 09, 2003 6:39 am

Banco. I was really trying to be careful on how to phrase what I did. It certainly wasn't meant to be a jab at the Brits.

The only two real cases that I can think of where the US was fighting a war behind the 8 ball in terms of supplies, was the 18 months in the pacific immediately after Pearl Harbor culminating in the Battle of Midway, and possible the retreat from the Chosin Res. during the Korean War.

An overabundant supply line is something that the US puts a high emphasis on. And the fact that the mainland really hasn't been subject to enemy attack since the civil war has enable to the US to keep that luxury.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
 
Banco
Posts: 14343
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2001 11:56 pm

RE: British Take On The US Military In Iraq

Wed Apr 09, 2003 5:39 pm

I never thought for a moment that you were having a jab, L-188, I'm sorry if you thought I meant it that way. I thought you raised some interesting points that greatly intrigued me. British military history is full of enough disasters to be criticised anyway, though somehow they seemed to muddle through in the end. What I was wondering was whether you had any observations about my response. Don't hold back for fear of offence, you won't do, but I think your points are worthy of discussion. Would you care to expand on them?

I suspect that the US has never been in a position to really lose a major war where the homeland was under threat, which explains some of it.
She's as nervous as a very small nun at a penguin shoot.
 
cfalk
Posts: 10221
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2000 6:38 pm

RE: British Take On The US Military In Iraq

Wed Apr 09, 2003 5:59 pm

An overabundant supply line is something that the US puts a high emphasis on.

I'll phrase it somewhat differently. Th U.S. has developed as a policy to expend massive ammounts of ordinance and machinery in order to preserve the lives of its soldiers. It is the complete opposite of the human wave tactics of Russia and China in the past, and even the U.S. in the Civil War.

It takes a day or two to build a new tank or a missile. It takes twenty years to replace a soldier.

Charles
The only thing you should feel when shooting a terrorist: Recoil.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Pyrex and 19 guests