Wars and ConflictsÌý permalink
The Best Of The Best
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Ìý
Posted by U1969296 (U1969296) on Wednesday, 14th September 2005
Hi
So Who has the best armed forces now?!
and I dont think size has anything to do with it! -
Message 2
Posted by Battlegroup (U1908324) on Wednesday, 14th September 2005
Hi Stan,
Goes with out saying the British Army best in the World bar None, but being hampered by the Penny Pinching Politicians who keep cutting and cutting supplies of all types, when will it all ERUPT I ask myself ?? -
Message 3
Posted by Lord Ball (U1767246) on Wednesday, 14th September 2005
I think that the British Armed Forces are by far the best trained in the world, and that's a fact widely acknowledged. The Royal Navy, though numerically inferior to France, the US and China, is by far the best trained and even with some of the outdated equipment they are being forced to use, could match an American ship. The RAF is receiving the best fighter/bomber in the world (the Typhoon), yet again is woefully underequipped. The Army is by far the best trained of any army in the world and by far the best when it comes to getting a job done.
-
Message 4
Posted by Tim of Acleah (U1736633) on Wednesday, 14th September 2005
I agree about the British armed fiorces being the best but we actually spend more on defence than any other country bar the USA and Japan. The trouble is the MoD who could not manage the proverbial booze up in a brewery wasting money everywhere and there being far too many civil servants. It would be interesting to know what the ratio of troops to civil servants was in 1950, 1960, 1970, 1980, 1990 and 2000.
-
Message 5
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Wednesday, 14th September 2005
I'd have to say if we're picking on individual units, then my votes go for-
British 1st Armoured division - the best armoured force in the world, without doubt (lots of bias though from an ex tankie).
22nd SAS Regiment- the best Special Forces unit in the world, lets face it they invented counter-terrorist ops.
But sadly, The US Air Force beats ours any day, we have no stealth capability, no intercontinental aircraft, no heavy bombers. The F22 Raptor is a far superior aircraft to the new Typhoon, sorry.
And even more sadly, the US Navy has my vote too, it has far more carrier power, many times our submarine capability, and unfortunately, the main expression of a navy's power these days is the Carrier battle group, and we don't even get in the same league as them. Sad state of affairs, and the result of decades of cutbacks.
Cheers
-
Message 6
Posted by colonelblimp (U1705702) on Thursday, 15th September 2005
Try checking the ratio of REAL soldiers - the ones actually in combat units - to all the professional noncombatants. It may surprise you to know that the MOD is stuffed with Service personnel, particularly high-ranking ones, mostly doing jobs that could be carried out more effectively by civil servants at half the cost and presiding over your "proverbial booze-up in a brewery".
Then google for "Defence Analytical Services Agency", and look at the ratio of officers and NCOs to other ranks - which works out at about 1:4. This is the sort of thing we once laughed at in the comic-opera armies of banana republics, and is the real reason why the minority of genuine fighting units is so overstretched. -
Message 7
Posted by Tim of Acleah (U1736633) on Thursday, 15th September 2005
I am fully aware that there are far to many military doing civilian jobs. I have had to deal with them for many years!
-
Message 8
Posted by expat32 (U2025313) on Thursday, 15th September 2005
BEST LIGHT INFANTRY : 1/ CHINA./VIETNAM 2/ Turkey. 3/ NORTH KOREA.
BEST SPECIAL FORCES : 1/ AUSSIE S.A.S.2/UNITED STATES 3/ BRITISH S.A.S.
BEST ARMOURED/ARMORED DIVISION : ISRAEL/UNITED STATES. M1A2 Abrams Main Battle Tank, Bradley Fighting Vehicle. (sorry DL ) Men of steel in antiquated equipment don't cut it in todays world.
BEST AIRBORNE INFANTRY DIVISION : UNITED STATES ( 82ND AIRBORNE DIVISION)
BEST AIRBORNE INFANTRY REGT : BRITISH PARA/505th UNITED STATES.
BEST AIRMOBILE INFANTRY : UNITED STATES. (101ST AIRMOBILE DIVISION )
BEST ARMY DRILL AND CERIMONIES : BRITISH ARMY.
BEST AMPHIBIOUS ASSULT INFANTRY : UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS.
BEST NAVY : UNITED STATES.
BEST AIR FORCE : UNITED STATES.
BEST TRAINED AT THROWING ROCKS : teenage Palestinian kids. -
Message 9
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Thursday, 15th September 2005
Hmmm expat...
You just know I don't agree!!
OK,
Light infantry, I'd say Vietnam without doubt! China, maybe but I'm not up on their tactics these days. In the past they always opted for the Human Wave assault, which would be impossible these days (MLRS, Fuel Air Explosives, etc-they'd never reach the jump off point!). Same applies to North Korea, but they stand less chance-you need to be able to feed your army as well as fight!
Special forces, no chance! I think you got the Aussie SAS and the original article the wrong way round. The SAS have much more in the way of experience in all environments, and as I said, they wrote the manual on counter terror ops in Malaya, Aden and Northern Ireland.
Armoured units, Israel? Not an offensive force, and armour used in defence is no defence with today's air weapons. The US? Equipment is all very well, but in the hands of half-trained National Guardsmen (who appear to be the US's combat troops in Iraq these days), then they would still lose. I took part in many exercises against the US Army, and we used to absolutely slaughter them and they were regular troops, not part-time National Guard. Great equipment, wish we had it, but tactically poor, and badly trained troops these days. Your quote Men of Steel in antiquated equipment.... Well I disagree, they do cut it when compared with trigger happy badly trained weekend warriors, no matter how good their equipment!
Best Airborne division -agreed! Don't know anyone else who has active airborne divisions! Airborne Brigade? I would say the British 5 Airborne would be a match for any equally sized force.
Airborne Regiment- The Paras every time.
Best Drill? The US Army Rifle Drill team, have you seen them? Incredible precision.
Best Amphibious? US Marines.
Best Navy US Navy again.
Best Airforce, the US.
Best at throwing rocks? 1 Palestinian kids, 2 Ulster Loyalists!
I still stand by the old statement that if you had a Corps sized unit of British troops and NCOs, with US equipment, led by German officers, you would be unstoppable!!
Cheers -
Message 10
Posted by Ninja-Badger (U1689794) on Thursday, 15th September 2005
Why does everyone always seem to forget the SBS in favour of the SAS? I know they don't court publicity the way the SAS do, but from what I've read their training, equipment and tactics are at least on a par with the SAS.
And this is a slight diversion, but I've always had an interest in the history of the Foreign Legion but I must admit I don't know how they measure up as a modern force. Anyone care to comment? -
Message 11
Posted by expat32 (U2025313) on Thursday, 15th September 2005
Hi DL,
Don't get me wrong, I'm not knocking your special forces. Please be aware that any kind of research on the British S.A.S. is difficult. May I comment on Bravo Two Zero's mission during Desert Storm. I know that can't be typical, but that should be taught in military academies on how not to conduct special op's. The North Korean army is well fed. The rest of the country is starving. I enjoyed your comments about your branch of combat arms. You're proud of the British 1st Armoured division , and so you should be. On Israeli armor. I can't believe you really think they are not an offensive force. The present day German officer corps is of no consequence.
My comment on best trained rock throwers was a subtle remark on previous posts. I'm enjoying your point of views, bye for now. -
Message 12
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Thursday, 15th September 2005
Hi expat,
No worries, the best thing about this message board is that most posters can quite happily argue their points, and never agree, yet it isn't personal!
Let's face it, a debate would be rather dull if everyone agreed!
With regards to the Bravo Two Zero mission, IMO the mission was a total mess, and setting out on a patrol in the middle of the desert ON FOOT was utter madness! There were several other SAS scud-hunting missions in Iraq in the first gulf war, but they were all highly mobile, and had heavily armed Land-Rovers for transport. To go so far behind enemy lines in a desert where cover is minimal is bordering on suicide! I agree that the whole mission is an excellent example of how NOT to do a long range covert patrol. The SAS are much more capable than this mess of a mission would show. In fact the Iranian Embassy siege in London is the textbook example of a counter-terrorist assault.
With regards to Israeli forces, they have always done very well in defence battles and even better when counterattacking, but they have only really faced out-dated Russian equipment, and we saw the effectiveness of the old Soviet tanks in Iraq in 1991.
Best wishes,
DL -
Message 13
Posted by SDG (U2050287) on Thursday, 15th September 2005
In terms of Technology we all know that answer. But in terms of using the resources givin (and this is big coming from an irishman of the republican persuasion) It is without a shadow of a doubt the British Armies.
The RAF worldwide regarded as the best Airfoce. think British Pilots in Apache Helicopter gunships scary thought.
The Royal Navy although no longer the largest it is still the best trained and this is only through years of experience on the seas.
then we have the infantry and armoured divisions how many armies can say that they the most commited the best trained and the toughest sons a b**chs in the world.
I leave the best to last. The SAS and SBS commonly know to the best anti terrorist organisations in the world.
to prove my point about the Brits just take a look at Iraq. the us are getting hammered. But the british region is relativly calm in comparison.
Also why if the USA beleives its army to be superior to any other in the world do they always look to the British Army for help and assistance in any conflict they chose to get involved in?!?
I have a simple answer this the Usa doesn't, and it knows this, have the commitment to fight the long battles. Enough said. -
Message 14
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Thursday, 15th September 2005
Hi Shane,
Coming from an Irish Republican, that is some statement, and lots of respect from me for your objectivity!
Agreed whole-heartedly on all counts, and in particular on the US's problems. IMO their problem is that they have the best equipment but for some reason or other they keep putting part-time troops (National Guard) in combat situations!
All the best.
DL -
Message 15
Posted by Hasse (U1882612) on Thursday, 15th September 2005
I first thought to stay out of this discussion since its IMO impossibble question too answer,but their is so many cocksure that the britts are the best and the world bow down to tha fact,I just have put a bee in your bonnets.
First at all its a question training,morale, equipment,terrain,logistic etc etc,how a team works out.
I have all respect for the proffesionality of the GB army and officers.
As previously stated,is probably on a manouvre,a brittish division (personally do I think that operational units based on the brigade is superior),beats an US one 9 out of ten,as it mostly was in Germany.
In a real war is it another question,my guess is that it would be the opposite,not because suddenly the US troop would be more proffesional,but they have bigger support.
The US tactic has for the 100 years been to put so much mettal`garbage`over the enemies head so when it came to actuall fighting,its for all purposes already over,look at first gulf war,its a tactic only a very rich nation can have.
So an US division has more planes,more choppers and more artillery,more logistic as support than a GB one has,that will make the decision.
About equipment IMO is the Leopard 122 the best main battle tank today,for bmps are the Bradley old and not up to the class of the Hägglund 2000 serie.
Another thing is terrain,look at Vietnam or Afghanistan.
A military unit is a compromise to function in most climate and terrains but are mostly made after the most likly.
Put your GB armored division in a wodded hilly terrain with over a meter of snow and a temperature below 20 zero,my opinion is that a Canadian,Finnish,Norwegian or Swedish equal siced detachment would beat them quite easily.
No I´m not forgetting Russia they have artic training but their equipment isnt good enough,altough in an attack of Rodina they will make a good show.
In middle east,would the battle hardened Israelis win.
The enviroment and temperature has more to do with effectivness than most think,when I was on duty in Lebanon and the Sinai had we to send home boys mostly from northern Sweden that just couldnt cope with the heat,the same for some of the equipment.
The defender has the odds on his side in a near equal situation,if he acts and not just reacts.
Same for morale,a party defending their own country has mostly the edge in morale and can stand higher causualities.
Where do you think the GB soldier will fight the grimmest,outside Salisbury or Basra.
So altough questions like this is intelectual stimulating is the flagwawing hooray we are the best decedely not so.
Its a bit last world cup,about a fortnight before the start where we visting my niece in Chessire when out taking some beers did we naturally speak about the coming games and the death group,Argentina,England Nigeria and Sweden.My nieces husband asked well how much do you think England will beat you with.
His face looked a mile long when I said,a draw is possible but why should you beat us you havent won a game over our national team for over 30 years so why now
.
Hasse -
Message 16
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Thursday, 15th September 2005
Hasse,
Excellent post and many truths in it!
I think the phrase that describes your analysis of US tactics has to be the old "Peace through Superior Firepower".
Given an arctic climate, I would have no doubt that a Finnish, Swedish, Norwegian or Russian force would find it quite easy to defeat a British force of equal size, and as for fighting on home ground, this is an advantage to all forces!
I am admittedly biased in favour of the UK's armoured troops( every ex-soldier is always proud of their old unit!) but I can admit defeat with regards to the Leopard! It is in my opinion the finest main battle tank in use today. Unfortunately I have no knowledge of the Hagglund, so can't really comment on that one.
I think I read previously on an old post that you were (or are) an officer of armoured troops, so, just to go off on a tangent completely, do you think that the day of the tank is almost at an end? My view is that the tank as we currently know it is losing its practicality on the battlefields of the 21st century due to its vulnerability to modern anti-tank air to surface weapons.
Back in the first Gulf conflict, I imagined how it would have felt to be on the receiving end of all the air power that was unleashed, and figured that you would find yourself looking at your tank, that huge almost invulnerable looking piece of armour and steel, and instead of confidence and safety, seeing a coffin on tracks instead!
I realise it is off-topic Hasse, but would welcome your opinion.
Best wishes,
DL -
Message 17
Posted by Hasse (U1882612) on Thursday, 15th September 2005
DL
We had a discussion about this a year ago.
As much that its sorry for me am I sure you are right,the tanks have had its heydays.
At least against a tecnological nearequal foe.
The antitank weapons are getting more and more effective,a couple of men in a jeep or a small armored car 4 km away sends away a missile and are away before it hits.
Or an artillery over 40 km away sends away grenades with simple end seeking devices that penetrates the roof of the tank.
Not to mention airpower,IMHO is the armored gunships next generation tanks.
The tanks are a bit like the old battleships probably soon obsolete,exept in conflicts against the third world like Iraq.
Yours
Hasse
P.S.
About Hägglunds trye www.haggve.se,its in English -
Message 18
Posted by expat32 (U2025313) on Thursday, 15th September 2005
"The RAF worldwide regarded as the best Airfoce."
That's correct. Unfortunately its only a British opinion.
"then we have the infantry and armoured divisions how many armies can say that they the most commited the best trained and the toughest sons a b**chs in the world."
Evidently despite the glaring evidence to the contrary the insecure segment of British society like yourself can.
"The SAS and SBS commonly know to the best anti terrorist organisations in the world."
What on earth are you basing this on, other that the usual ( we are great) lament from the disillusioned.
Is it the sorry record of British counter terrorism agonized the I.R.A. They near killed your Prime Minister and blew a member of the royal family thru the gates of hell, and if they want a Scud they best go to Kabul and buy one.
" to prove my point about the Brits just take a look at Iraq. the us are getting hammered. But the british region is relativly calm in comparison."
A people liberated and 2000 dead is getting hammered.
You bet the British region is quiet. That's because they have their butts nice and cozy in Basra where Blair can bear the heat.
"they always look to the British Army for help and assistance in any conflict they chose to get involved in?!? "
Are you on drugs ? You try keeping Brits out of a fight. They would rather fight than have sex and drink.
Now grow up a bit Mr. Your military is awesome, but knocking us yanks is not the balm you need to sooth your battered ego. -
Message 19
Posted by Bishwarrior (U1759943) on Thursday, 15th September 2005
expat, so what makes the US the best Navy and best airforce. being the most powerful and being the best are two different things. If your guys are so good, how come when two British helo pilots, both new to Apache, went over to the states, they wiped the floor with the opposition.
Yes, it true the Brits have a safer area than the US. But part of the reason the US area is so bad is because of the way the US does things.
The US can't, and this has been admnitted by US troops, do peace keeping. Yoyur fine when it comes to blowing everything up, including your allies. But when the war is over and we need peace, you guys are lost.
What makes the British army so good, and yes i to am biased, is that we are able to operate at both ends of the scale, from full on war fighting to peacekeeping and everything in between.
And you must be the first person i've meet to doesn't think the SAS/SBS are the best in the world. What do the US have, SEALs who drown.
I can imagine the US clearing out the Iranian embassy. talk about a bloodbath. -
Message 20
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Friday, 16th September 2005
Gentlemen please!!!!
This is a seriously passionate subject for all concerned, but if you look at things objectively, the US and UK's armed forces are totally different, but designed to complement one another. The Brits have the advantage in professionalism and training, but lag way behind when it comes to quantity and equipment. The US Army is designed for mobile, fast manoeuvring warfare (as a possible war against the Soviet Union in Europe was envisaged), and its tactics are almost Blitzkrieg like (Desert Storm, prime example almost Manstein-like in execution). Whereas the UK is much more suited to peacekeeping ops, with decades of experience in Northern Ireland, Cyprus, Bosnia, Kosovo, Sierra Leone. Its recent history has prepared it much better to be an occupation force in a hostile area, and the results are there for all to see in Iraq. The years of experience in patrolling the streets and fields of Northern Ireland has resulted in an army that can keep the peace in a hostile area without antagonising the entire population.
Hasse,
Many thanks for your thoughts on the issue of whether tanks are becoming obsolete.
All the best,
DL -
Message 21
Posted by expat32 (U2025313) on Friday, 16th September 2005
Hi Bishwarrior,
Ok you got me. The British Army makes marvelous policemen. In fact the big deal about the Iranian Embassy proves it for you. It was well done. A regular S.W.A.T. team police action. As for U.S. Special Forces. Seals/Delta/Rangers/Recon Marine/Green Berets I will leave it for someone with a little more patience than myself to relieve you of your ignorance.
How am I doing DL...A bit too abrasive perhaps *wink* -
Message 22
Posted by Ninja-Badger (U1689794) on Friday, 16th September 2005
I recently read Task Force Dagger, which detailed the exploits of the Green Berets in Afghanistan. The Green Berets come across as being very proficient and skilled at surveillance, calling in airstrikes, liaising with the locals and tackling troops at long range on open ground. But on the two occassions where they tracked hostiles down to fortified cave complexes they called in the SAS to assault them.
Now maybe they were the only troops in the area with the right equipment, but it showed an acknowledgement by the US forces that the Brits could do something they couldn't do, and the two forces worked together to compliment each other. -
Message 23
Posted by Hasse (U1882612) on Friday, 16th September 2005
Bishwarrior
I started my carrer as an artic ranger,in our troops and later had the privilige to be out with your rangers in a training camp in US,and a quick look at your seals.
They where real good,not better than us
,but real good.
Hasse -
Message 24
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Friday, 16th September 2005
Hi expat,
No comment from me on this one!
Bishwarrior is a passionate supporter of the British Army, and it is understandable given that he is a current serving regular soldier, recently returned from Iraq ( if I remember correctly he is a Warrior Driver or gunner, can't remember which!). In my opinion, that would make him better qualified to report on the performance of the various countries involved in Iraq at the moment, so whether you agree with him or not, you have to respect the fact that he knows what he's talking about since there is no substitute for actual front-line combat experience!
I have tried to stay objective in this one (despite my bias) but I have to say ( and do not take this personally) that as an ex-NCO who fought alongside the US in the first Gulf War with 7th Armoured Brigade, my own experience of the US armed forces was that we whenever we saw their aircraft or Apaches, we tended to keep them in the sights of a couple of 50 cal machine guns after the USAF managed to kill more Brits in a single day than the Iraqis did in the entire war! Maybe that will explain the British opinion that the US armed forces are somewhat careless about who they are shooting at!
Cheers
DL -
Message 25
Posted by Hasse (U1882612) on Friday, 16th September 2005
Bishwarrior
I started my carrer as an artic ranger,in our troops and later had the privilige to be out with your rangers in a training camp in US,and a quick look at your seals.
They where real good,not better than us,but real good.
±á²¹²õ²õ±ðÌý
Sorry my message is naturally for expat -
Message 26
Posted by Bishwarrior (U1759943) on Friday, 16th September 2005
-
Message 27
Posted by Bishwarrior (U1759943) on Friday, 16th September 2005
Bishwarrior
I started my carrer as an artic ranger,in our troops and later had the privilige to be out with your rangers in a training camp in US,and a quick look at your seals.
They where real good,not better than us,but real good.
±á²¹²õ²õ±ðÌý
Not sure who you mean by SEALs or rangers, the UK doesn't have any units by this name. -
Message 28
Posted by U1969296 (U1969296) on Friday, 16th September 2005
Hi guys
Thank you for your enlightened thoughts on the subject I orignaly raised and looking through the posts nobody actualy mentioned a very important factor on the British Armed Forces.Their approach called HEARTS and MINDS nobody does it better............
As far as heavy armed vehicles are concerned the awesome power of the Apatche Heliocopter would surely knock out tank couloms from a great distance.
it is interesting to hear so many views
My personal view is given the size the army of Israel is probibly near the top
KEEP THE PEACE
STAN -
Message 29
Posted by Bishwarrior (U1759943) on Friday, 16th September 2005
Maybe that will explain the British opinion that the US armed forces are somewhat careless about who they are shooting at!
Cheers
¶Ù³¢Ìý
I was on OP TELIC 2, and the standard joke was that we would be safer if we carried Iraqi flags on our back decks. Didn't fancy the idea of a US 2,000Ib LGB coming through my back door.
But seriously expat, the Brits are good policemen, are you takeing the p**s. I'll tell you what makes the british army the best in the world. We are the only army that isd capable of operating at all stages of war. Some armies are good at killing everyone and blowing things up, like yours and Israel. Most armies are fine when it comes to showing force as long as theres not much chance of fighting. Only the British are capable of doing both and everything in between.
The current problems the US are faceing in Iraq are down to 2 things. 1, their area is tougher than Basra and the South. 2, you bring it on your selves. Your troops appear far to aggresive, they don't have an enemy they can see and kill, and they are lost. I've seen your guys in Bosnia, paranoid as hell and always waiting to get shot at. And this was in 2000.
I look at US patrols in Iraq and i'm amazed. You ahve a large clump of men, upto 12, all grouped round one vehicle. Not only is this aggresive, its a nice juicy target. You lose 12 men and a wagon when we would lose 4. -
Message 30
Posted by Bishwarrior (U1759943) on Friday, 16th September 2005
Hi guys
My personal view is given the size the army of Israel is probibly near the top
KEEP THE PEACE
STAN
Ìý
The problem i find with Israel is that it is designed for one purpose, to defend Israel. Their equipment is designed to operate in the desert. How would they cope, say, in North western Europe. The US and UK have proved they can operate far from home and in different climates, not to sure if Israe could cope. -
Message 31
Posted by expat32 (U2025313) on Friday, 16th September 2005
Goodmorning DL, 0716 local, and on my way to work.
" he knows what he's talking about since there is no substitute for actual front-line combat experience! "
He knows what he is talking about given the individual soldiers limited scope of vision.
DL fratricide is a sore subject, unfortunately its as old as man. It's my understanding The Brits were in a kill box. That's not an excuse, just a sad fact.
I wish I could find something to disagree with Hasse about. Kudos Hasse. -
Message 32
Posted by expat32 (U2025313) on Friday, 16th September 2005
Bishwarrior, you guys are making me late for work.
I agree with a lot of what you are saying. Our military makes lousy cops. In my opinion thats not a soldiers job. If some dude was trying to put daylight thru my sweet ass I would be a tad paranoid also.
Bye for now you guys. -
Message 33
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Friday, 16th September 2005
Hi expat,
That's far too early to be posting!! Sadly I am at work, and killing time on a Friday afternoon...
With regards to the blue-on-blue incident in the first Gulf, my own view is that it was a tragic error, but one that happens in war all the time, it always has, and always will. It did have an effect on British opinion, and sadly this view has remained. It was an accident, but one which should have been avoided. I raised this event as an attempt to explain why British soldiers have the opinion that the US are somewhat less careful with their targetting!
The US and UK are however very strong allies, and despite many people's comments that the UK is the US's lapdog, and various other comments, this alliance is one of the strongest international bonds in the world, for better and for worse. The UK needs the US as an ally, and vice versa.
Best Wishes,
DL -
Message 34
Posted by Bishwarrior (U1759943) on Friday, 16th September 2005
If some dude was trying to put daylight thru my sweet ass I would be a tad paranoid also.
Bye for now you guys.Ìý
Well there wasn't anyone trying to put any holes through their buts. As i said, this was in 2000. I've seen US troops throw a mag on and cock weapons to go to a shop across the road. Yet it was that dangerous around there that we used to go in shorts and trainers.
But it is not a case of being coppers. Peacekeeping and law enforcment are two different things. With peace keeping you need to be able to operate at a level thats in accordance with the threat and to do everything possible not to increase that threat and to lower it if possible. But at the same time, you need to have the ability to up your game if the natives get hostile. Yopu need to win the hearts and minds while at the same time not letting them walk all over you. The phrase 'walk softly but carry a big stick' springs to mind. maybe that why of the problems you guys have. You just see it as being a police action, and not the job for soldiers whos only purpose to to kill people. -
Message 35
Posted by Bishwarrior (U1759943) on Friday, 16th September 2005
With regards to the blue-on-blue incident in the first Gulf, my own view is that it was a tragic error, but one that happens in war all the time, it always has, and always will. It did have an effect on British opinion, and sadly this view has remained. It was an accident, but one which should have been avoided. I raised this event as an attempt to explain why British soldiers have the opinion that the US are somewhat less careful with their targetting!
¶Ù³¢Ìý
Am i correct in thinking that you were in the Gulf at the time. If so you probably know more about the incident than me. But i have spoken to guys who were close to the incident. As i understand it, the British force had halted, one of the Warriors even had its back door open and one guy was takeing a leak. I don't see it as being an accident, i see it as pure negligence. Surley these pilots are given lessons in AFV regignition. And the only thing that looks remotly like a Warrior is the M2. I used to be in MILAN Plt and we concentrated alot on being able to tell one vehicle from another from upto 2,000m. Surley guys flying multi million dollar aircraft should have at least the same level of training as us.
And what makes it even worse it that its not just a one off. Just after that war, two F-15s shot down a US blackhawk. Ok, the Brits have a few of them as well, the chally shooting another chally in OP TELIC. Its just the yanks are proffesionlas at it, and it ain't just us they target either. -
Message 36
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Friday, 16th September 2005
Hi Bishwarrior,
Yep was with 7th Armoured in the first trip to the beach. From what I heard at the time, they had just taken a position and were sat around waiting for orders, but they weren't in my lot so couldn't be sure. We also heard that they had got too far ahead of the advance which could easily be true, since this happened many many times, since the sweep into Iraq was so rapid and their defences collapsed so quickly. On one occasion we were out in front of some hills (a troop of Warriors with a couple of support AFV436s) and looked behind us to see the RSDGs Challengers about 5 miles behind us heading towards us at high speed-we were supposed to be directly behind them! Scary moment, but luckily they HAD done their AFV recognition, and no shots were fired (although our RSM reckoned we deserved to be blown up for getting lost!)
Incidentally, there was another friendly fire incident in the early days of Telic, when an RAF Tornado was shot down by a US Patriot battery.
All the best,
DL
PS So you've not wangled that posting to Cyprus yet then? -
Message 37
Posted by Bishwarrior (U1759943) on Friday, 16th September 2005
PS So you've not wangled that posting to Cyprus yet then?
Ìý
No, not yet. Here for 3 more years, then my Regiment could be off there. Not to keen on the idea myself, been armoured for 10 years and i love it. Driving a Warrior beats tabbing any day.
I had heard, and not sure how true this is, that the yanks method is to draw a line in the sand, so to speake, and anything on the wrong side of that line is FUBAR, thats why those two wagons were taken out. In a fast moving battle, especially one where the enemy are retreating faster than you can advance, this idea is absurded.
P.S. Some should tell the RSM that if every officer who got lost was blown up, the army wouldn't have any -
Message 38
Posted by Lord Ball (U1767246) on Friday, 16th September 2005
"That's correct. Unfortunately its only a British opinion"
Expat, I think you'll find that one of your most prolific military writers, Tom Clancy, acknowledges that Britain has the best armed forces in the world. He states that although countries are at awe at American military might, but FEAR the British services.
"What on earth are you basing this on, other that the usual ( we are great) lament from the disillusioned.
Is it the sorry record of British counter terrorism agonized the I.R.A. They near killed your Prime Minister and blew a member of the royal family thru the gates of hell, and if they want a Scud they best go to Kabul and buy one. "
Erm, it's based on the fact that the SAS is the most successful special ops regiment in the world and is regularly consulted by American and other countries' special forces for how to deal with terrorism and special ops. Ask around the old IRA members, and you'll find that the only people within the British Army in Northern Ireland that they feared where the SAS because the SAS went straight through the IRA in the 1980s, when intelligence and politics allowed them to do so. The Royal Family and the Prime Minister are protected by Special Branch and MI5, not the SAS who are military.
"A people liberated and 2000 dead is getting hammered.
You bet the British region is quiet. That's because they have their butts nice and cozy in Basra where Blair can bear the heat"
"Are you on drugs ? You try keeping Brits out of a fight. They would rather fight than have sex and drink."
2000 dead after a war is over and being killed by people who have crude bombs and 60 year old weaponry is getting hammered, expat. The British region is quiet because of the professionalism of the British Army, who don't go pointing guns at children to make them pose for pictures for back home and then when the soldiers are challenged make up claims of War Crimes against the questioning officer! Britain controls all of Southern Iraq, not just Basra and we have sent the Black Watch to cover in the North for American forces, so think before you speak little man. -
Message 39
Posted by Hasse (U1882612) on Friday, 16th September 2005
Bish
Thats one of the problems working with allied troops,from the second generation electronic finding devises,like IVIS where you see your own in every wagon and plane and the enemy is also outdecked.
The problem is that its quite often misstakes your allies espesially when they are "out of place",nearly killed of a supporting Finnish mortar battery in a joint wargame by this.
So if you take to much trust in the electronics and dont always back it up with "grey matter",things can go really wrong.
Since you are a veteran do you also know to hesitate,a halv second can spell disaster,so it always to chose between pest or cholera.
Its not an easy job we chosed.
Hasse
PS
Cyprus is a nice place,the only UN turn I have don that was more like a holliday. -
Message 40
Posted by expat32 (U2025313) on Friday, 16th September 2005
Ball, Begging you're pardon SIR. Lord Ball, When you can offer anything of substance other than fantasy, fiction writers opinions and childish name calling, I will entertain your posts with the courtesy they deserve. Until such time I'm headed north. Feel free to kiss the southern portion of my anatomy with relish. SIR.
-
Message 41
Posted by expat32 (U2025313) on Friday, 16th September 2005
Hi expat,
That's far too early to be posting!! Sadly I am at work, and killing time on a Friday afternoon...
With regards to the blue-on-blue incident in the first Gulf, my own view is that it was a tragic error, but one that happens in war all the time, it always has, and always will. It did have an effect on British opinion, and sadly this view has remained. It was an accident, but one which should have been avoided. I raised this event as an attempt to explain why British soldiers have the opinion that the US are somewhat less careful with their targetting!
The US and UK are however very strong allies, and despite many people's comments that the UK is the US's lapdog, and various other comments, this alliance is one of the strongest international bonds in the world, for better and for worse. The UK needs the US as an ally, and vice versa.
Best Wishes,
¶Ù³¢Ìý
DL that post gave me goose bumps. -
Message 42
Posted by U1969296 (U1969296) on Friday, 16th September 2005
Oh Dear
Expat Be a bit kinder everone is entitled to their views -
Message 43
Posted by expat32 (U2025313) on Friday, 16th September 2005
Oh Dear
Expat Be a bit kinder everone is entitled to their views
Ìý
Hi Stan, my post to DL is a heart felt compliment. My post to his lordship stands.
He is indeed entitled to his opinions, but I have no intention of letting an ignorant post directed at me about my countries armed forces go unanswered.
bye for now Stan. Cheers. -
Message 44
Posted by Tim of Acleah (U1736633) on Saturday, 17th September 2005
This is not to anyone in particular.
A book I have called 'The Battle of Normandy' 6 shillings so one can tell I have had it a while, relates how when the RAF bombed the Germans ducked, when the Germans bombed (which they did at night) the allies ducked and when the USAFE bombed everyone ducked! -
Message 45
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Saturday, 17th September 2005
TimW, americans had always the tradition of doing whatever in battle and they still continue:
In the shameful war against Serbia, they claimed to have destroyed around 300 Serbian armoured tanks while they had destoyed only 13, the rest were false ones! Serbians tricked them well. Not only they were ridiculously spending their expensive bombs on tanks cartoon simulations but they were bombing albanian farmers on their tractors also (I do not know if their GPS shows as farmer tractors as tanks!), perhaps they thought Serbians were so tricky to mask their tanks as farming equipment!!!
In the first shaleful war against Iraq, Americans devised a plan (like in those cartoons where the that wolf devises plans to catch the Bip Bip). The ... satanic plan was to forward british vehicles and tanks in front (as usual nowdays) but masked in the colours of the Iraqian army so as to trick the enemy. Sadly they only tricked American pilots who next moment started bombing them. Poor British had to paint their tanks a flashy orange (disco style! poor them! the only thing they did not put was strobo-lights), then they called the americans and told them 'please take care, when you see orange its ours! Do not bomb it'. -
Message 46
Posted by expat32 (U2025313) on Saturday, 17th September 2005
-
Message 47
Posted by expat32 (U2025313) on Saturday, 17th September 2005
TimW, americans had always the tradition of doing whatever in battle and they still continue:
In the shameful war against Serbia, they claimed to have destroyed around 300 Serbian armoured tanks while they had destoyed only 13, the rest were false ones! Serbians tricked them well. Not only they were ridiculously spending their expensive bombs on tanks cartoon simulations but they were bombing albanian farmers on their tractors also (I do not know if their GPS shows as farmer tractors as tanks!), perhaps they thought Serbians were so tricky to mask their tanks as farming equipment!!!
In the first shaleful war against Iraq, Americans devised a plan (like in those cartoons where the that wolf devises plans to catch the Bip Bip). The ... satanic plan was to forward british vehicles and tanks in front (as usual nowdays) but masked in the colours of the Iraqian army so as to trick the enemy. Sadly they only tricked American pilots who next moment started bombing them. Poor British had to paint their tanks a flashy orange (disco style! poor them! the only thing they did not put was strobo-lights), then they called the americans and told them 'please take care, when you see orange its ours! Do not bomb it'.Ìý
Tim, teenage chat is down the hall. -
Message 48
Posted by expat32 (U2025313) on Saturday, 17th September 2005
Sorry tim, my message # 47 was of course for E_Nikolaos_E
I was confused as I hope you can understand because my tummy is still sore laughing at his post. -
Message 49
Posted by expat32 (U2025313) on Saturday, 17th September 2005
A few thoughts about the Australian S.A.S. If you want to talk about experience try the better part of a decade's worth of combat related special OP's in South East Asia. These guys were small in number, but when they were handing out professionalism and testosterone they were at the head of the line. The Australians performed magnificently in, South Vietnam, North Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, to name a few locations.
Their exploits would take your breath away. In my opinion the student has long outperformed the professor.
It goes without saying they continue on in various parts of the world. May God bless them. -
Message 50
Posted by expat32 (U2025313) on Saturday, 17th September 2005
On target identification in today's world. Please bear in mind Iraq had purchased its armour/armor from several countries including the U.K. For the most part it was I agree Soviet issue. Our military is trained to do as much fighting during the hours of darkness as possible. That does not leave much room for a visual identification. When a modern aircraft sets up for a kill chances are the pilot or weapons officer sees an electronic symbol. its not like a T.V. screen. The idea is to make your kill before your opponent even knows you are in the area. As for peeking out the window during daylight and making a visual I.D. Not lately. Ours and allied electronics must be continually updated, integrated, and accurate. If you have the habit of weapon tracking our aircraft in a combat zone, I strongly suggest you do it with something that does not leave an electronic signature. Well I'm off in an attempt to slaughter the local wildlife. I can hear it now. "darn yank, he's probably going to shoot a neighbors cow " *wink* Have a great weekend ya'll.
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Ìýto take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Â鶹ԼÅÄ iD
Â鶹ԼÅÄ navigation
Â鶹ԼÅÄ links
Â鶹ԼÅÄ Â© 2014 The Â鶹ԼÅÄ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.