Wars and Conflicts permalink
What's wrong with the US Armed Forces?
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Â
Posted by Lord Ball (U1767246) on Sunday, 25th September 2005
Seeing that expat32 finds it so enjoyable to be critical of the brave troops of the British Armed Forces, it's only fair that there should be a board to point out the faults of his nation's armed forces. Feel free to go ahead anyone who wishes to note the inadequacy of America's military might.
-
Message 2
Posted by Stepney Boy (U1760040) on Sunday, 25th September 2005
Hi Lord Ball,<BR /> Is it me or do the americian armed forces seem to have one eye on the last war movie and one eye on the next one.<BR />Regards<BR />Spike<QUOTE' USER='Lord Ball' USERID='1767246'>Seeing that expat32 finds it so enjoyable to be critical of the brave troops of the British Armed Forces, it's only fair that there should be a board to point out the faults of his nation's armed forces. Feel free to go ahead anyone who wishes to note the inadequacy of America's military might.</QUOTE>
-
Message 3
Posted by Lord Ball (U1767246) on Sunday, 25th September 2005
I think they might. Ask expat, he'll probably know in his infinite knowledge.
-
Message 4
Posted by Stepney Boy (U1760040) on Sunday, 25th September 2005
Hi expat, any input?
Regards
Spike -
Message 5
Posted by expat32 (U2025313) on Sunday, 25th September 2005
<QUOTE' USER='spike' USERID='1760040'>Hi expat, any input?<BR />Regards<BR />Spike</QUOTE><BR /><BR />Hi Spike, you are right on, I love a good war flick.. Don't you...What's your fav. Have you seen Zulu. It's an oldie but goodie.<BR />As for his Lordship who started this string, he is a terrible waste of good cyberspace. I believe he is aspiring to be a pompous ass, but has such a long way to go. Cheers Spike
-
Message 6
Posted by Lord Ball (U1767246) on Sunday, 25th September 2005
Nobody can beat you on that account, expat.
-
Message 7
Posted by henrylee100 (U536041) on Monday, 26th September 2005
the impression I get of the US forces from what I've read abt their campaigns is that their main drawback seems to be that they have too much gear and ammunition at their disposal and so they tend to think that anything can be solved by firepower alone. The result is that in spite of smart and balanced solutions they always tend to choose solutions that involve the use of the most firepower. Sometimes this approach works and sometimes it doesn't. It works against highly organized and "civilized" regular troops like ze Germans in WWII but it usually fails miserably in counterinsurgency yet they seem to be ignoring the lessens they were supposed to have learned in Vietnam.
Another drawback is that since they're so used to fighting with comfort, potentially they can be quite vulnerable in situations where logistics gets cut off and it's impossible to call in air strikes. There's a joke, supposedly with a grain of truth to it, that goes : in order to disable US marines all you have to do is steal their toiletpaper.
In other words the availability of the best equipment in the world's downside is that it makes the soldiers soft and too dependent on their equipment always being there. -
Message 8
Posted by expat32 (U2025313) on Monday, 26th September 2005
I don't agree with all Henry's post, but he can teach us all about a balanced presentation with personal intelligent insights.
-
Message 9
Posted by Bishwarrior (U1759943) on Monday, 26th September 2005
Well, were do we start. And this is all from personal observations, not the TV or war movies.
1. Un-proffesinal. Maybe this is just a British thing. But walking round camp, with a fag (thats a cigerette for you yanks) hanging out of your gob is just not done. And putting your GPMG ( M60 in the US case) on the ground resting on its bi-pod and barrel, end of barrel in the dirt. Thats just bl**dy slack.
2. Paranoid. Think i have already covered that in another post.
3. Trigger happy. US tactics are basically fire enough bullets/shells/bombs/rockets at the enemy and your bound to hit something, even ifs its your allies.
4. There always has to be a bad guy. Example, Bosnia. Sebs killing Muslim and Croats. Croats killing Muslims and Serbs. Both sides commiting murder, ethnic cleanseing and all the usual stuff. But to the Yanks, the Serbs are the baddies. They are the ones that are bombed. The Serbs are ignored, even though we are there to help everyone. And its the Croats who were being armed to the teeth and trained by the US, while the Sebs were recruting boys and their kit was rusting to pieces. So, if it ever did kick off again, the Croats would go through the Sebs like a dose of salts and murder every Serb they saw. And would the US do any thing to stop it, cause not. Just like they didn't stop saddam gassing Iranians and Kurds. But got rather upset when he invades the wests ally Kuwait.
5. Over reliance on technology and haveing all the gear. The US must be the only Army that have a Pizza Hut and a MaCdonalds following the troops, and i ain't kidding either. And the US is logistics heavy. Ok, its great haveing all the kit, it makes your job easier. But if you rely on it to much, then when it ain't there, your bu**ered. Now, we Brits don't always have the kit. And i tink alot of that is our own fault. The politicians figure that we will do the job anyway, so why spend loads of cash on stuff just to help us do it easier. But without it, the Yanks would come to a standstill. I'm not sure on the figures, but i believe i'm right in saying that a higher percentage of US forces troops are support staff than any other army. -
Message 10
Posted by expat32 (U2025313) on Monday, 26th September 2005
You forgot TacoBell
-
Message 11
Posted by Lord Ball (U1767246) on Monday, 26th September 2005
He did. I always thought that there was a Dennys there as well.
-
Message 12
Posted by Bishwarrior (U1759943) on Monday, 26th September 2005
<QUOTE' USER='expat32' USERID='2025313'>You forgot TacoBell</QUOTE><BR /><BR />Well, as i never saw one with my own eyes, i didn't mention it. Wouldn't want to be accused of makeing things up.
-
Message 13
Posted by expat32 (U2025313) on Tuesday, 27th September 2005
C'mon Bish, you can do better than this. A fag/cigarette hanging from your lips ? Sorry, this is a British mannerism. An infantryman shoving the muzzle of his weapon into the dirt. You may be using these as general expression to make a point. I concede the point your troops look sharp.You have a bit of a habit of taking an incident and painting our military with it using a broad brush. Now then, our tail is too heavy for our bite. I think that comes down to troop moral and supplying our troops with the tools to do what they do so well. Its our governments policy to spend money instead of blood. On one hand you say we have way too much, and then you complain your army is ill equipped. I'm sorry bish this is envy and jealousy. That's something we are familiar with. no biggie. Well I best get to work. Have a great day.
-
Message 14
Posted by Bishwarrior (U1759943) on Tuesday, 27th September 2005
I didn't say we were ill equipped, i said that we don't have all the kit we would like, but we still get the job done. As for paying with money instead of blood. Well you just compare your loss rates in Iraq to ours. I would much rather know that i am able to still do my job if all the support ain't there than worry that if things go wrong i can't do it because i so rely on support. And i would also rather have 10 British proffesinals beside me than 100 US Rambos.
No arguments from you on my other points though. -
Message 15
Posted by Bishwarrior (U1759943) on Tuesday, 27th September 2005
6. Inability to operate at the various levels that modern war requiers. Ok, a bit unfair, as theres only one army in the world that can do this properly. How ever, with the US there is a difference. Most armies are fine at the lower levels, thats peacekeeping and the like. They are great at helping those in need when the fighting is over, but still be able to protect themselves and at lest show force should the need arise.
But the US is only able to operaate at the higher level. Thats full on war. When the war is over and the peace needs to be one, they don't have a clue. They still come across as though they are at full scale war. Overly aggresive and trigger happy. And because of this they upset those they are there to help and they aid the enemy in creating such a high boby count among US troops. Just compare a British foot patrol with an American one. Our guys would patrol in 4 man teams. The US patrols in teams of upto 12, who take up the same amount of ground as a Brit 4 man brick, and the US troops has a HUMVEE in the middle. Result of one bomd going off in the middle of each patrol. Brits lose 4 men, yanks lose 12 and a vehicle.
One American, who admitted that they cannot do peace keeping, suggested this idea to me. The US/UK fight the war. Once the war is over, the US pulls back. Far enough away that they don't upset the locals, but close enough should the s**t hit the fan. The Brits stay in and calm things down, with other countries then moveing in to help out as things ease up.
Of course, we don't have enough manpower for this, not with our present commitmets. And it would also mean British troops haeving to clean up any mess the US makes. But then i guess we are getting pretty used to that anyway. -
Message 16
Posted by expat32 (U2025313) on Tuesday, 27th September 2005
You have the darn habit of making me late for work. its ok though, (one of the bennies of self emlpoyment) I was sitting there nodding my head all thru your last post, untill I got to your last paragraph. You almost had me.
Your right about so called peacekeeping. we suk.
I like that because I like our soldiers aggressive. bye again. -
Message 17
Posted by Bishwarrior (U1759943) on Tuesday, 27th September 2005
And you like your soldiers dead.
-
Message 18
Posted by Bishwarrior (U1759943) on Tuesday, 27th September 2005
<QUOTE' USER='expat32' USERID='2025313'><BR />Your right about so called peacekeeping. we suk.<BR />I like that because I like our soldiers aggressive. bye again.</QUOTE><BR /><BR />Do me a favour, learn to read properly. I didn't say aggresive, i said OVERLY AGGRESIVE. One is good, the other is not. And when the war is over and you want to win the peace, to much aggresion is not good.<BR /><BR />THATS WHY SO MANY OF YOUR COUNTRYMEN ARE DIEING.<BR /><BR />Do you like that.
-
Message 19
Posted by Lord Ball (U1767246) on Tuesday, 27th September 2005
Expat, I admire your resilience in overwhelming odds (quite a British Characteristic) but for your own sake, give up. You're like the metaphorical army that the US likes to come up against. Under-equipped, mis-managed and outgunned. Just stop antagonising people.
-
Message 20
Posted by expat32 (U2025313) on Tuesday, 27th September 2005
Did I reference your OVERLY AGGRESSIVE remark when I said " I like our soldiers aggressive ? "
"And when the war is over and you want to win the peace, to much aggresion is not good."
If you haven't won the peace the war is not over.
We did just spiffy with Germany and Japan, quit throwing bouquets at yourself. The fact of the matter is the British Army is incapable of even taking on a country like the loathsome French. You can't even furnish a Carrier battle group. Your little flat tops are near worthless. If you want marine support they are ok, that's it. The Argentine pilots were taunting the R.A.F. to come up to altitude and fight, but they knew better. The Iraqis were knocking your Tornados out of the sky like it was the first day of Dove season. In fact they ultimately had to stand down. So what does that leave you ? "we are the best trained in the world" By the way that opinion is not at all shared outside of your borders. Your tankers are so well trained they get lost, end up in a kill box and its them bloody yanks fault. You are the best trained army with a bunch of cold war junk. Any equipment that you have that isn't junk you got from us. If you are such great peace keepers ( what a title for a soldier) how come the I.R.A. was steady kicking your backsides. You think your helping US out. You are kept around to give our Pres political cover.Just like Romania, Holland, e.c.t. e.c.t.
Never mind, we will still let you hang onto our coattails for a little reflected glory. Oh yes, no wonder its hard to read your posts, your an N.C.O. in the British army and you spell like 10 year old. No wonder your troops get lost. By the way, I saved the best for last. Your officer corps would not look out of place at a San Francisco gay pride parade. Cheers. -
Message 21
Posted by Bishwarrior (U1759943) on Tuesday, 27th September 2005
Well expat, lets just see. Our tanks are newer and better than yours. Our IFVs are newer and, automtavly, better than yours. Our rifles are newere, and from what i have heard from US vets, no worse than yours.
Your aircrew are so well trained they can't tell a Warrior from a BMP, and they obviously can't tell which way the enemy should be faceing. O, and by the way, they weren't tankers they were Infantry, and as far as i know, they were not lost.
And if you knew the slightest about modern war, you would know that you do have to win the peace and that comes after winning the war. You did spiffy in Germany and Japan because there was no one left with the stomach to resist. You didn't do so well in Somalia, or Vietnam for that matter.
And your comment about the IRA shows just how ignorant you are about this sort of thing. Its impossibble to win that sort of war by military means. All you can do is keep a lid on it. And Ulster was not peacekeeping. -
Message 22
Posted by Bishwarrior (U1759943) on Tuesday, 27th September 2005
<QUOTE' USER='expat32' USERID='2025313'> <BR />The fact of the matter is the British Army is incapable of even taking on a country like the loathsome French. <BR /></QUOTE><BR /><BR />And how is this a fact exactly. We haven't be to war against the French for nearly 200 years. And if i recall correctly, we won. As we have done in almost every other war we fought against them.<BR /><BR />But what is a fact is that with all your military might, you couldn't beat the North Vietnamese.
-
Message 23
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Wednesday, 28th September 2005
Whoa there Expat, getting a bit out of hand there!
"We did just spiffy with Germany and Japan"
Really? Thought that was a joint effort- and considering the Russians took care of 70% of the Germans, and the Japanese never had a chance from day one (even Yamamoto knew that), not much of a claim there.
"The Argentine pilots were taunting..." Utter garbage mate sorry. Their pilots were shot out of the sky when engaged in air-to-air combat, that's why they had to resort to flying low level when they got near to the Falklands so as not to be intercepted on radar.
"The Iraqis were knocking Tornados..." agreed, low level attacks on airfields are a stupid tactic. However, we did only lose a couple, and please note that a change in tactics meant in the second Gulf war this didn't happen again (our only lost Tornado was-you guessed it-shot down by a trigger happy US Patriot operatot). Incidentally, once they reverted to high altitude attacks instead of flying at 50ft over mountainous terrain directly over heavily defended targets, no further aircraft were lost. For a good example of jets being shot out of the sky, google North Vietnam. Enough said.
Agreed our navy is crap.
Last rant, how did the IRA keep on blowing up civilians for so many years? Because of a little organisation called NORAID who funded them for so many years. Where did NORAID get their money from? The citizens of the good old US of A. So, considering the US's "War on Terror", how about invading Ulster and locking up Gerry Adams, Martin McGuinness and co in Guantanamo? That would be in line with current US doctrine surely?
Funding Terrorism is nothing new in US policy, I mean come on, Osama bin Laden was on the CIA payroll for long enough!
And as for your excuse for why your A10s bombed us in the first Gulf War, "Free Fire Zones" aren't exactly in use these days, I thought the US left that tactic in Vietnam (along with a load of Agent Orange). That is not an acceptable answer, since if correct, proves clearly that the US do not look at what they are dropping weapons on! A Warrior APC looks nothing like any armour being used by the Iraqis, if anything it looks like an M2 Bradley!
As for your comment on British Officers, I can't say I hold officers in high esteem, they simply made life more complicated for me, but you are way out of line with that comment! From what I understand these days, your officer corps is currently made up of un-educated rednecks, so nothing to be proud of there. I mean, why would the US send its brightest and best to be cannon fodder in Iraq, when it can send the lower end of the social food chain (just like Vietnam again). Your country consists of 300 million people, in a world of 6 billion, yet you create 40% of the world's pollution, consume every resource on the planet with total greed, and stomp around the planet like you own it, and then look shocked when people get p***ed off with you!
Rant over.
DL -
Message 24
Posted by expat32 (U2025313) on Wednesday, 28th September 2005
"We did just spiffy with Germany and Japan"
Really? Thought that was a joint effort- and considering the Russians took care of 70% of the Germans, and the Japanese never had a chance from day one (even Yamamoto knew that), not much of a claim there."
I agree with all the above.
"The Argentine pilots were taunting..." Utter garbage mate sorry. Their pilots were shot out of the sky when engaged in air-to-air combat, that's why they had to resort to flying low level when they got near to the Falklands so as not to be intercepted on radar. "
Sorry DL the threat was your air defense (Rapier I think ? ) At anything other than low level the Harriers were and still are totally outclassed.
"The Iraqis were knocking Tornados..." agreed, low level attacks on airfields are a stupid tactic. However, we did only lose a couple, and please note that a change in tactics meant in the second Gulf war this didn't happen again (our only lost Tornado was-you guessed it-shot down by a trigger happy US Patriot operatot). Incidentally, once they reverted to high altitude attacks instead of flying at 50ft over mountainous terrain directly over heavily defended targets, no further aircraft were lost. For a good example of jets being shot out of the sky, google North Vietnam. Enough said."
You are trying to draw a correlation between the most heavily defended airspace in history and The Falklands
"Agreed our navy is crap."
Your navy is not crap. You're navy has a sub surface cruise missile launch capability.
"Last rant, how did the IRA keep on blowing up civilians for so many years? Because of a little organization called NORAID who funded them for so many years. Where did NORAID get their money from? The citizens of the good old US of A. So, considering the US's "War on Terror", how about invading Ulster and locking up Gerry Adams, Martin McGuinness and co in Guantanamo? That would be in line with current US doctrine surely?
Funding Terrorism is nothing new in US policy, I mean come on,"
NORAID is a civilian Irish/American organization.
"Osama bin Laden was on the CIA payroll for long enough!"
Indeed he was, when he was fighting the Soviets
"And as for your excuse for why your A10s bombed us in the first Gulf War, "Free Fire Zones" aren't exactly in use these days, I thought the US left that tactic in Vietnam (along with a load of Agent Orange). That is not an acceptable answer, since if correct, proves clearly that the US do not look at what they are dropping weapons on! A Warrior APC looks nothing like any armour being used by the Iraqis, if anything it looks like an M2 Bradley!"
The above paragraph illustrates the massive gap in your country's technology. Targets are not identified by peeking out the window.
"As for your comment on British Officers, I can't say I hold officers in high esteem, they simply made life more complicated for me, but you are way out of line with that comment! From what I understand these days, your officer corps is currently made up of un-educated rednecks, so nothing to be proud of there. I mean, why would the US send its brightest and best to be cannon fodder in Iraq, when it can send the lower end of the social food chain (just like Vietnam again). "
Plenty of food for thought in the above paragraph.
"Your country consists of 300 million people, in a world of 6 billion, yet you create 40% of the world's pollution, consume every resource on the planet with total greed,"
With China and India's economic juggernaughts in high gear you guys want to give them a free ride as per the agreement ( Kyoto ? I'm not sure) we will not be a part of.
Rant over.
DL
I like rant, an excellent post as usual DL. Cheers. -
Message 25
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Wednesday, 28th September 2005
Hi Expat,
OK, first one-
Sorry DL the threat was your air defense (Rapier I think ? ) At anything other than low level the Harriers were and still are totally outclassed.
Not true my friend, there are several examples of Harriers shooting down Argentine fighter-bombers in air to air engagements, not one the other way round.
The Argentinians were flying Mirage and Super Etendard jets, both faster than the Harrier, but less manoeuvrable (and still in service I think), and if they outclass the Harrier, then why does the US Marine Corps fly Harriers? Hmmm, surely if our equipment is so poor then why do the Marines use Harriers?
Second point, I was referring to the Gulf not the Falklands, and yes admittedly North Vietnam had the most heavily defended airspace ever seen, but an airfield in Iraq isn't exactly defenceless, there would be Radar guided AAA all over the place, and the Tornados in the first Gulf War were lost attacking airfields with the JP233 cluster weapon (a runway denial weapon-you fly along the runway and this thing sprays the entire runway with bomblets-great idea, but suicide in practice).
Third point, NORAID was providing direct funding for the Provisional IRA from US Irish-Americans, and as an interesting sideline, Colonel Gaddafi was also funding them at the same time as NORAID, and at the same time F111s were flying airstrikes against Libya from UK airbases. Double standards anyone?
Last point, no, targets on the ground are no longer identified by looking out the window, they are identified by Head up Displays, which have zoom capability, and if I remember watching laser guided bombs go in on the news, the pilot keeps the zoomed-in target in the crosshairs to guide the bomb in, so even less excuse there! I believe the process is the same for the Hellfire missile, you have to keep looking to hit the target, and they usually zoom in close enough to see individual men, so unfortunately, blame lies totally with the A10 pilots and their pathetic AFV identification skills.Oh and as an afterthought, our guys don't just look out the window either, we also have HUD, laser-guided weapons and anti-tank missiles, we are just better at not dropping bombs on friendlies!
Cheers, keep em coming!
DL -
Message 26
Posted by Bishwarrior (U1759943) on Wednesday, 28th September 2005
<QUOTE' USER='expat32' USERID='2025313'><BR /><BR /><BR /><BR /><BR /><BR />The above paragraph illustrates the massive gap in your country's technology. Targets are not identified by peeking out the window. <BR /><BR /> </QUOTE><BR /><BR />And that illustrates your countries over reliance on technology. When it isn't there, your screwed. I'd rather be able to use it when i have it but not have to rely on it than. Theres always going to be a time when it isn'tr avalible.
-
Message 27
Posted by Lord Ball (U1767246) on Wednesday, 28th September 2005
Oh yes, no wonder its hard to read your posts, your an N.C.O. in the British army and you spell like 10 year old. No wonder your troops get lostÂ
It's also terribly hard to read your posts, Expat. I mean you should have wrote YOU'RE an NCO not your an NCO. Also, you should have told Bish he spells like A 10 year old, not like 10 year old. As I've told you before, look closer to home before being critical of others. -
Message 28
Posted by expat32 (U2025313) on Wednesday, 28th September 2005
"The Argentineans were flying Mirage and Super Etendard"
Indeed they were, just ask the crew of The Sheffield.
I was referring to their Skyhawks.
"if they outclass the Harrier, then why does the US Marine Corps fly Harriers? Hmmm, surely if our equipment is so poor then why do the Marines use Harriers?"
I told you already. The Harrier is an excellent aircraft for MARINE operations. (despite the fact we had to make it work for you)
You want to land on a beach, get a Harrier, you want marine low level air to ground infantry support, same thing. An excellent weapon for our Marine Corps.
"Third point, NORAID was providing direct funding for the Provisional IRA from US Irish-Americans, and as an interesting sideline, Colonel Gaddafi was also funding them at the same time as NORAID, and at the same time F111s were flying airstrikes against Libya from UK airbases. Double standards anyone?"
NORAID = civilians
F111s = U.S.A.F. DUH !!
I think you underestimate the resilience of the I.R.A. Despite the fact they were on a hunger strike they still managed to decorate their cells with poop. It's been said Gaddafi had a personal contribution smuggled in under a guards turban. Some of their works were rumored to be rather artistic. Celtic Shock & Awe ?
No offence DL, but you're points on target I.D. are cracking me up.
You make many super points as usual though.
Cheers -
Message 29
Posted by expat32 (U2025313) on Wednesday, 28th September 2005
Bish, get a hold of Lord sans Balls by the scruff of the neck and take care of my light work.
Cheers. -
Message 30
Posted by Lord Ball (U1767246) on Wednesday, 28th September 2005
Expat, stop rattling the proverbial sabre and get on with everyone. Don't deliberately provoke people.
-
Message 31
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Thursday, 29th September 2005
Expat,
Perhaps Oh Great One, you would care to share with us your level of military experience? Or is it just a case of trolling as I'm starting to suspect?
Oh, and just one point, if NORAID was funded by US civilians, then would your government stop being hypocritical and lock up the contributors in Guantanamo please? No? Thought not, since they aren't asian or Muslim, then they can't be supporting terrorists can they!
I'm sure it was your current President who stated that the US would make war on those who carry out and support terrorism wherever they were.
You are really embarrassing your country at the moment with your level of ignorance. If you are truly representative of your nation, then it is no wonder that so many people around the world despise the US. Please feel free to carry on making yourself look foolish, it is most entertaining!
Cheers
DL -
Message 32
Posted by rafginger (U2126175) on Thursday, 29th September 2005
I heard something the other day that seems relevant in this discussion and that was that the main difference between US and British troops was; "The Americans man the equipment and the British equip the man". This coming from an Australian was praise indeed.
ATB Mike. -
Message 33
Posted by expat32 (U2025313) on Thursday, 29th September 2005
<QUOTE' USER='DL ' USERID='1683040'>Expat,<BR /><BR />Perhaps Oh Great One, you would care to share with us your level of military experience? Or is it just a case of trolling as I'm starting to suspect?<BR /><BR />Oh, and just one point, if NORAID was funded by US civilians, then would your government stop being hypocritical and lock up the contributors in Guantanamo please? No? Thought not, since they aren't asian or Muslim, then they can't be supporting terrorists can they!<BR />I'm sure it was your current President who stated that the US would make war on those who carry out and support terrorism wherever they were.<BR /><BR />You are really embarrassing your country at the moment with your level of ignorance. If you are truly representative of your nation, then it is no wonder that so many people around the world despise the US. Please feel free to carry on making yourself look foolish, it is most entertaining!<BR /><BR />Cheers<BR />DL</QUOTE><BR /><BR />Well there it is. The old British standby. If you have nothing left of substance, try a personal attack. In case you never noticed, you just crashed and burned.
-
Message 34
Posted by Mark E (U204575) on Thursday, 29th September 2005
<QUOTE' USER='expat32' USERID='2025313'><BR />Well there it is. The old British standby. If you have nothing left of substance, try a personal attack.</QUOTE><BR />Something you have used several times on this board from my recollection, and once on me.
-
Message 35
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Thursday, 29th September 2005
Expat,
I don't see that as a personal attack at all, just a mere statement of fact.
Some more history for you (since this is the purpose of the board).
The IRA "Dirty Protest" back in the 80s, the one where you stated that the hunger strikers were smearing walls with cr*p. Once again, an error on your part. The hunger strikes were started after the "dirty protests" had run their course and failed. Since several of the hunger strikers succeeded in starving themselves to death, they aren't exactly going to be able to smear cr*p on a wall now are they!
Might I suggest a little research before your next "My Dad's bigger than your Dad" outburst?
By the way, you didn't answer the question as to the source of your military knowledge, and i would like to know whether you are speaking from actual experience and first hand knowledge, or just whatever the US TV networks are drip-feeding you.
Secondly, I noted in an earlier post that you addressed Mark as being "out of his depth", which is a remarkably brave statement when (and I may be incorrect here) if I remember correctly, Mark is a former board moderator, so has no doubt amassed plenty of knowledge in his time. Try to respect your fellow board users, and they will do the same for you. Treat them as idiots, and they will do the same to you.
DL -
Message 36
Posted by Mark E (U204575) on Thursday, 29th September 2005
<QUOTE' USER='DL ' USERID='1683040'><BR />Secondly, I noted in an earlier post that you addressed Mark as being "out of his depth", which is a remarkably brave statement when (and I may be incorrect here) if I remember correctly, Mark is a former board moderator, so has no doubt amassed plenty of knowledge in his time. </QUOTE><BR /><BR /><SMILEY TYPE='laugh' H2G2='Smiley#laugh'/> many moons ago I was a host round these parts. Of course, that doesn't mean I wasn't, or still am not, an ignorant idiot out of his depth! Back in the day Mad Mike would often leave me floundering!<BR />On that particular post, I felt I was still swimming ably. Expat did not. That's fine, although I didn't care for the ad hominem comments. Personally I feel all the [flame] bating is becoming tiresome. I will try and involve myself in threads where I feel I can bring something to them, most often on expat's threads asking or offering points of clarification. It does seem that many of us recent posters on here are taking the 'conflict' part of the title too literally!
-
Message 37
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Thursday, 29th September 2005
Hi Mark,
Agreed on recent posts and "conflicts"! I must admit to liking a good debate and argument, but only when backed up, and not just based on gossip!
All the best,
DL -
Message 38
Posted by Bishwarrior (U1759943) on Thursday, 29th September 2005
Given their love of guns, you would think the yanks would be able to shot. But then i guess this proves the claim that the Yanks way of combat is to fire as much ammo as possible and hope you hit the target.
US forced to import bullets from Israel as troops use 250,000 for every rebel killed
By Andrew Buncombe in Washington
Published: 25 September 2005
US forces have fired so many bullets in Iraq and Afghanistan - an estimated 250,000 for every insurgent killed - that American ammunition-makers cannot keep up with demand. As a result the US is having to import supplies from Israel.
A government report says that US forces are now using 1.8 billion rounds of small-arms ammunition a year. The total has more than doubled in five years, largely as a result of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as changes in military doctrine.
Article Length: 593 words (approx.)
-
Message 39
Posted by jberie (U1767537) on Thursday, 29th September 2005
The main problem that I see is that the US gets into wars that do not have clear and definable objectives. The citizenry will spend money and blood on a war they believe is neccessary and winable. Iraq is niether.
-
Message 40
Posted by jberie (U1767537) on Thursday, 29th September 2005
A war is winable if a nation is willing to use the tactics of Germany in its two major wars of the last century.
-
Message 41
Posted by expat32 (U2025313) on Friday, 30th September 2005
<QUOTE' USER='DL ' USERID='1683040'>Expat,<BR /><BR />I don't see that as a personal attack at all, just a mere statement of fact.<BR /><BR />Some more history for you (since this is the purpose of the board).<BR />The IRA "Dirty Protest" back in the 80s, the one where you stated that the hunger strikers were smearing walls with cr*p. Once again, an error on your part. The hunger strikes were started after the "dirty protests" had run their course and failed. Since several of the hunger strikers succeeded in starving themselves to death, they aren't exactly going to be able to smear cr*p on a wall now are they!<BR />Might I suggest a little research before your next "My Dad's bigger than your Dad" outburst? <BR />By the way, you didn't answer the question as to the source of your military knowledge, and i would like to know whether you are speaking from actual experience and first hand knowledge, or just whatever the US TV networks are drip-feeding you.<BR />Secondly, I noted in an earlier post that you addressed Mark as being "out of his depth", which is a remarkably brave statement when (and I may be incorrect here) if I remember correctly, Mark is a former board moderator, so has no doubt amassed plenty of knowledge in his time. Try to respect your fellow board users, and they will do the same for you. Treat them as idiots, and they will do the same to you.<BR /><BR />DL</QUOTE><BR /><BR />"I think you underestimate the resilience of the I.R.A. Despite the fact they were on a hunger strike they still managed to decorate their cells with poop. It's been said Gaddafi had a personal contribution smuggled in under a guards turban. Some of their works were rumored to be rather artistic. Celtic Shock & Awe ? "<BR /><BR />....( Only a person totally devoid of any perceptive humor whatsoever could possibly have taken my I.R.A. paragraph seriously)<BR /><BR /> "By the way, you didn't answer the question as to the source of your military knowledge, and I would like to know whether you are speaking from actual experience and first hand knowledge,"<BR /><BR />That's right DL, I have lead my armies in WW2, Korea, Ireland, The Falklands,<BR />Desert Storm. What a bone question. Are you under the impression that driving around in an antiquated pile of junk makes you some kind of military expert. If I had been in the military I have more than sufficient education than to be relegated to the abysmal strata of responsibility as a tank Battalion N.C.O. <BR /><BR />"Secondly, I noted in an earlier post that you addressed Mark as being "out of his depth", which is a remarkably brave statement when (and I may be incorrect here) if I remember correctly, Mark is a former board moderator, so has no doubt amassed plenty of knowledge in his time."<BR /><BR /><BR />expat32.. These were purchased from the legal owners at that time in history...<BR /><BR /><BR />Mark..In which case, dear Expat, no payments need to be made to '3rd world countries' as Britain was the legal owner at the time.<BR /><BR />If Mark is under the impression England was ever the legal owner of Alaska or anything west of the 13 colonies he is out of his depth. In addition invasion and occupation is hardly legal ownership of 3rd world countries.<BR />By the way, Native Americans are loaded with Casino profits, Real Estate rentals, Hunting leases, and oil revenue.They do not pay taxes. I think Mark is more than capable to take care of his own issues with me or anyone else.<BR /><BR />" Try to respect your fellow board users, and they will do the same for you."<BR /><BR />That would explain all the respect my country was getting when you thought no Americans were reading your smug posts.<BR /><BR /> Might I suggest a little research before your next "My Dad's bigger than your Dad" outburst?"<BR /><BR />It's a well know fact American Dads have the biggest winkies in the world.<BR /><BR /><BR />
-
Message 42
Posted by Mani (U1821129) on Friday, 30th September 2005
"Sorry DL the threat was your air defense (Rapier I think ? ) At anything other than low level the Harriers were and still are totally outclassed."
The Rapiers weren't working correctly, especially at San Carlos Waters.
The problems the outclassed Argentinean Airforce had was not the Rapier system, their training or even their aircraft, granted, the A4's were outdated by then, but it was their tactics. They were instructed to avoid contact with the Harriers at all costs, in reality; their tactics should have been to engage the Harriers whenever possible. We had a limited number available, and they should have used every resource to remove the Harriers, therefore air cover from any stratagem.
But when faced by the RAF, they were second best every time.
Incidentally, the RAF never lost a single aircraft during combat, so could you explain how exactly they were outclassed? -
Message 43
Posted by expat32 (U2025313) on Friday, 30th September 2005
Hi Mani, Was is Rapier or Roland you guys had ? The point I was trying to make about the Harriers was at, medium to high altitude they are at a disadvantage with modern aircraft. Not that I consider the Skyhawks very modern. A super post, Thanks.
-
Message 44
Posted by expat32 (U2025313) on Friday, 30th September 2005
"Incidentally, the RAF never lost a single aircraft during combat, so could you explain how exactly they were outclassed? "
True but the Argentinians sunk a modern warship " The Sheffield" and a cargo ship ( The Sir Gallahad ? ) with most all the choppers on board. Among other problems this caused the Paras to hump across country.They hit a lot more targets but I recall something about an arming problem with their ordinance.
Cheers. -
Message 45
Posted by Mani (U1821129) on Saturday, 1st October 2005
It was the Rapier system... My old man was in 2 Para in the Falklands, a few years before I joined up, he says that the Rapiers weren't working correctly....
"The point I was trying to make about the Harriers was at, medium to high altitude they are at a disadvantage with modern aircraft" I'd agree with you to an extant, but at the time, they weren't only used for ground support, the aircraft they faced weren’t the same aircraft they face today, and it depends what you mean by ‘at a disadvantage’; No, they weren’t supersonic, but they were capable of manoeuvres that any other aircraft couldn’t even hope to do. Also, the advantage at the time was that no other pilots knew of their practical capabilities, which according to Sun Tsu, is half the battle.
There was much anticipation at the time as to the performance of the Harrier and Sea Harrier, the various schools of thought deemed that it would either be a disaster, or a complete success, fortunately, thanks to the ability of the RAF pilots, the Neolithic incompetence of Argentinean planners and tacticians (Not the actual pilots who were utterly professional to the end) it was the latter. -
Message 46
Posted by Mani (U1821129) on Saturday, 1st October 2005
<QUOTE' USER='expat32' USERID='2025313'>"Incidentally, the RAF never lost a single aircraft during combat, so could you explain how exactly they were outclassed? "<BR /><BR />True but the Argentinians sunk a modern warship " The Sheffield" and a cargo ship ( The Sir Gallahad ? ) with most all the choppers on board. Among other problems this caused the Paras to hump across country.They hit a lot more targets but I recall something about an arming problem with their ordinance.<BR />Cheers.<BR /></QUOTE><BR /><BR />They Argentinean airforce actually sunk the Coventry as well as the Sheffield... There was a documentary on the Discovery channel over hear not too long ago about the sinking of the Sheffield, I don't recall the precise conclusions, but it was mainly down to error on our part rather than the success of the Argentinean 'Armada' pilot. There were several instances when the exocets didn't explode, as you said, I think it was a fusing problem...<BR /><BR />The Galahad was a troop ship, you're thinking of the Atlantic Conveyer. But apart from that the rest is correct, my old man was one of the troops that had to 'Yomp' or 'Tab' as we'd prefer to say across the Falklands.. (Yomp is a Royal Marine term, not a Parachute Regiment term - Marines are the scum of the earth, although they'd say that we're brain dead for regularly jumping out of perfectly sound aircraft)<BR /><BR />Mani<BR />
-
Message 47
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Saturday, 1st October 2005
Hi Mani,
Hope you're well, long time no hear!
Expat (incidentally where are you an expat from?)
After your previous moan about personal insults your reply is pretty poor. Basically all you are saying is "I have no military experience but if I did have I'd have done better than you" which is just pathetic.
You seem to think that the whole point of this board is to have a slanging match, well personally, I can't really be bothered with that.
Cheers
DL -
Message 48
Posted by expat32 (U2025313) on Saturday, 1st October 2005
Marines....please don't confuse my post with Mani's. I can get in enough trouble all on my own.
Once again a super post Mani.
Cheers. -
Message 49
Posted by Mani (U1821129) on Saturday, 1st October 2005
Hi DL,
How's tricks? I'm not too bad cheers... Work's been somewhat hectic... Plus holidays! -
Message 50
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Monday, 3rd October 2005
Hi Mani,
Good cheers, a bit too busy for my own liking, but never mind, it pays the bills.
Expat,
Just to go off on a tangent, there is considerably rivalry (and often worse) between many different units in the British Armed Forces.
You have so many stereotypes it is quite funny.
THe Paras (Mani's old lot) consider everyone else to be "Crap hats" (He can explain the phrase!), tank units consider everyone else mad for walking everywhere, Infantry consider paras mad for jumping out of perfectly good planes and so on...
Does the same thing happen in the US?
Cheers
DL
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  to 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.