Well done to UK senior officers!

[Jackonicko]

Many acquaintances have been shocked by the gung-ho knuckle draggers paraded on the media as representatives of the US 'brass'. (You know, the shaven headed jug-eared inarticulate chap and he of the 'It's Hammer Time' exhortation).

What a contrast our senior blokes provide. Calm, measured, dignified, professional and 'sensitive'. Blokes like Major General Brimms, Air Marshal Burridge and Group Captain Al Lockwood reassure the civilian population hugely - especially the semi-peacenik ones who are uncomfortable if they sense that war is being 'glorified'. And I suspect that they make the rest of us damned proud to be British, too!

But could someone tell Al Lockwood that it's Iraq (with the I like the i in if, and preferably with a nice long a) and not Eye-raq?

[Stonca]

Couldn't agree more!

I couldn't believe a senior US Officer in front of the worlds press used the words "its hammer time!"

I think he should have remembered that we are going there to liberate, not conquer!

[Scud-U-Like]

What's this, Pick on the Yanks Day? Yes, thus far, our brass have been very good presentationally, but we Brits are naturally more reserved than our US cousins and, if I may say so, occasionally a little duller. The US brass have generally performed well during press conferences too.

The Admiral ('hammer time' etc) was motivating his guys and girls, not giving a press conference. Besides, I noticed his speech was cut differently by different TV networks, some making the whole thing look more frenzied than others.

[Jackonicko]

No it's not 'pick on the yanks day', it's 'credit where credit's due day'.

The yanks used to be absolute masters of this presentational stuff - we all remember Colin Powell from last time. Even Stormin' Norman and the Air Commander (name forgotten) came across better on TV than in real life, and had clearly been carefully briefed on how not to appear like gung-ho cowboys. But this time, we've seen very little of the more thoughtful and articulate US officers who must be there somewhere.

It may be an inevitable consequence of the generally higher levels of intellectual and educational achievement in the British forces, it may be about training, it may be a combination. But these chaps deserve a round of applause, and deserve some differentiation from their US colleagues.

[BEagle]

".....I was concerned by the idea of our forces going into battle with the US Marines, for not only had they been placed in the sector opposite the most heavily fortified Iraqi positions, they had also had the reputation of being exceptionally gung-ho....."

General Sir Peter de la Billiere - from 'Storm Command - a personal account of the Gulf War'.

[Jet II]

I am a bit concerned about the amount of US bashing that is now going on in these threads.

My father served in the British Army from 1941 to 1945 and although he tells the old joke about

When the RAF come over the Germans take cover,
When the Luftwaffe come over the Allies take cover,
When the USAF come over Everyone takes cover.

He also tells of when he was involved in the Arnhem operation. The painfully slow progress made by the Guards Armoured Div towards Arnhem was influenced by a great desire to avoid heavy casualties. My father, and many of his contempories, believe that if the US Army, with their 'Gung-Ho' attitude were used instead then there would have been a much better chance of relieving the Para's holding the Bridge.

And as for De La Billiere - he has made it almost impossible to stop ex-memebers of the special forces from writing their memoirs as, if its good enough for the boss, why not everyone?

[kbf1]

When the USAF come over Everyone takes cover.

There's a reason for that, and not one you probably want to hear either.

I have just been watching the most apalling images of our "allies" whooping and screaming like deranged sports fans when a building was taken out in Um Qasr. It seemed to me entirely inappropriate behaviour. Regardless of whose side they were on, the Iraqi soldiers were still human beings and deserved to be treated with some degree of respect in death.

To quote Lt Col Tim Collins of RIrish:


But if you are ferocious in battle remember to be magnanimous in victory...... "It is a big step to take another human life. It is not to be done lightly.


Perhaps we are operating by a different set of values?

[Flatus Veteranus]

Kbf1

Aren't you being a little pompous? I saw the same video sequence and got the impression that the US Marines were showing natural exhilaration at what appeared to be a very accurate shot with some sort of shoulder-launched missile. Right through the front door, the commentator said. When I was young and silly I made similar noises when I shredded a towed glider target with a burst of 20mm. Lighten up on the Yanks for Gawd's sake!

[Jackonicko]

I'm sure anyone would feel the urge to whoop with exhileration, FV. But in this PC day and age, as KBF suggests, it looks very tasteless and insensitive to be whooping like 'deranged sports fans' (good description, KBF1) at what was the death of fellow human beings who did indeed deserve to be treated with some degree of respect and dignity even in death. They were not paper targets, after all.

As well as being wrong to glory in death, it's unhelpful, in that it helps drive a further wedge between the military and the civilian society it serves. This is dangerous and unnecessary.

And to point out this one failing is not necessarily Yank-bashing, any more than it is to draw a comparison between the often bright and articulate UK troops being interviewed and their US counterparts. It's just observation and opinion.

I happen to believe that we are lucky enough to have the very best armed forces in the world. It's not very British to say so, I know, but still....

They are not the best equipped, but do seem to have the best raw material and seem to be the best trained, so any comparison will always make the subject of a comparison with the Brits look second best. :D

Our US allies have many strengths, and I'm sure few British servicemen would not far sooner have them on our side. I'm sure they have criticisms of us, too. Elucidating these may be unhelpful, but it's not so very serious, surely.

Perhaps KBF 1 is right, perhaps our two nations do operate according to a different set of values. Certainly many Brits find the American's full on "God Bless America" hand-on-breast patriotism unfamiliar and disconcerting - even embarrassing. And they do tend to get rather excited and they do holler and whoop more than we do. But at the end of the day who's to say who's right and wrong?

[G.Khan]

kbf1In the Army for only nine years, never seen any action I would guess, about 27-30 years of age. Of course the troops whooped and yelled when the missile found it's target, the same target that was quite possibly responsible for the deaths/wounding of their colleagues that these same troops had recently suffered, it is a natural human response and not confined to the Americans.

My family come from a very famous Scottish regiment who were taught to scream as they went into battle to un-nerve the enemy and boost their own moral, exactly what these lads were doing having fought a hard battle against a determined foe and lost some of their comrades, for heavens sake kbf1 get real!!! You have made a complete fool of yourself on another thread concerning 'blue-on-blue' and now you appear determined to do the same here.
As you are a professional soldier I am disturbed by you attitudes.

Yes I have been in the front line, under fire so do know what it is like, especially the relief when you know you have just effectively stopped the source of your own concern and deaths of your colleagues, and yes, we whooped and yelled too!

Jacko Great disappointment that you don't understand what really happens in times of conflict, it is your job to, you should not be supporting kbf1 in this issue if you want to be taken seriously.

[moggie]

I'm with KBF1 on this.

I was a little disturbed to see US troops screaming with delight as some poor sods who were only obeying orders too got taken out by airstrikes in Umm Quasar (I put the "U" because the Iraqi roadsigns show it).

I recall GW1 - when after the first night of strikes US aircrew being interviewd were all "we whupped those ayrabs real good" and"yeeehaaaah" and in contrast an RAF pilot said "I was scared sh1tless for the whole trip!" (his exact words).

Delighting in the deaths of other soldiers/sailor/airmen is always in bad taste as they were just doing their job. Now, when a terrorist cops it.............(I did smile when the SAS did the job on the IRA ASU in Gib!).

As for PR - I do hope the American senior officers on show are smarter than they sound . Most sound like they would need help to get their underpants on the right way around in the morning and have been reading the "US DoD Guide to Sounding Tough" as a means of getting to sleep.

[Scud-U-Like]

Well said, G Khan. There has been just a little too much sanctimonious bull$hit posted about the whooping USMC guys.

[Jackonicko]

G Khan,

I quite understand what goes on. You seem not to. Blood curdling screams like those of the Highlanders and Gurkhas (with the specific purpose of undermining enemy morale) as you charge are one thing while whoops of triumph (especially when you know there's a news camera rolling) as you destroy an enemy target some distance away are quite another. Yes they are entirely natural, and yes they are entirely understandable, but so is shooting prisoners in revenge after a battle. Our natural and understandable instincts are perhaps sometimes best repressed.

There is a particular imperative for the military to act appropriately in the media-covered total wars which we now undertake, in which civilian support is so vital. Coalition warfare makes things even more complex, since I suspect that public reaction to the footage in question would be very different in the US and in the UK.

And it's interesting that US troops and personnel seem so prone to such displays of exhuberance and hyped up emotion when UK forces seem to react more calmly. Listening to the difference between US and RAF RT in action over the Balkans showed some very stark differences, and made me wonder if these differences contributed to what made the recent F-16/Canadian blue on blue more likely.

[HAL Pilot]

You Brits are a bunch of pompous sideline commentators.

In WW2, Montgomery was so plodding and gun shy that the war would still be going on if he'd been in charge instead of Eisenhower. One of the best things Patton did was to constantly poke him with a stick (figuratively) to get him moving. The best warfighters are aggresive. The US forces are aggressive. It may cause a few extra casualties or blue-on-blue in the short term, but history shows agressivenes reduces both overall casualties and the length of a conflict in the long term.

Keep Yank bashing. We could have done both Desert Storm and this war without you. You could not even begin about thinking of doing this without us. While you pump up your egos by busting on us, just remeber all the sacrafices US servicemen and women have made for YOUR country.

BTW, I am not bashing either the commitment or ability of your armed forces. They are well trained and outstanding warfighters. I participated in many operations with British forces and was always impressed. What I am commenting on is the pompous holier-than-thou attitudes of those posting here.

Oh, excuse me...I'm not "calm, measured, dignified, professional and sensitive". We have a saying in the US about someone being so uptight that if you stuck a lump of coal up his ass, you'd get a diamond back out. I think that applies here perfectly.

[G.Khan]

Well Jacko The answer is pretty simple then isn't it?, get rid of the TV camera crews at the front line.

Your idea that the troops should in any way curb their natural reactions so as to comply with some stupid PC protocol for TV is quite beyond reason. When under fire most of the troops won't even know there is a camera in attendance.

After four of five days crawling around the desert, living in foxholes and, when extremely lucky, the back of or shelter of a truck, wearing the same clothes, eating compo rations, going without a proper wash and being shot at whilst watching one's comrades die/get wounded tends to concentrate one's mind on the foe and where they are shooting from, the average soldier couldn't give a toss about the location of the TV camera and nor should he.

[DESPERADO]

The yank bashing here is beyond belief.

Moggie, Jacko, Kbf your comments are meaningless drivel which totally misses the point. Your sense of self importance shows how little you understand. I can tell you all as a fact, that there has been some whooping and hollering British style during the destruction of Iraqi targets. I am saddened by what I have done over the years, but not ashamed. Don't you dare judge those soldiers who are fighting on the frontline from the comfort of your PC.

I am British and would like to assure our American cousins that the Dickheads who are complaining here are not representative of us as a nation or our armed forces.
The smart-arse pompous, sanctimonious gits who are criticising have clearly never been in battle and experienced the fear that you can have from being shot at.

Jacko, you and your kind want it all ways, you want to be there with the troops so that you can earn your war correspondants pay and show everyone your great tv pictures back home, but you find their obvious excitement and relief at still being alive, distasteful. They are doing a job, and they are at war. I imagine that much of the whooping was out of a sense of relief that they are still alive. This isn't a war put on for the benefit of the media despite what you may think.

Killing people is not pleasant, but the politicians have sent us to do a job for them. The Iraqi's are the enemy at the moment, you forget that at your perrill, you have to treat them as an enemy and if that means that in the heat of battle that you are happy that they are dead and you are not, well thats tough for them.
I will say it again, we are at war.

The marines are fighting, and some of them are dying so get the f^^k of your high horse and get down into the trenches and see what it is really like.
You appear to have been brought up on a diet of clinical war where nobody actually really gets hurt. Nobody gets frightened, nobody gets excited at having done a good job and defeated or killed the enemy.

Sometimes the pontificating on this site from people who have absolutely no idea what they are talking about makes me sick.

[Jackonicko]

I'm immensely glad that these soldiers, Brit and American are prepared to go to war and to put their lives on the line on all of our behalf. But it is on our behalf and our armed forces will inevitably (and should quite rightly) reflect our societies. The differences between how Brit and US forces operate are thus interesting. The bottom line is that Brit senior officers, troops and pilots can do their jobs without all the overblown gung ho rhetoric, the whooping and hollering and when interviewed show bright, enthusiastic and intelligent competence. The thread began simply as a salute to Brimms and Burridge and their like, and though the gung ho attitudes of some of the US officers (who happen to be those pushed forward to appear on TV and who may be unrepresentative) may discomfort me, it wasn't intended as Yank bashing more generally.

At the end of the day the rhetoric, Arnie-style simplification and whooping is clearly not NECESSARY for military success. (Some would suspect quite the reverse).

Desparado
There's nothing at all wrong with excitement and 'relief at survival', and as I've said I can quite understand the desire to whoop if you kill enemy troops who've delayed your advance, killed your mates or scared you to death, or even to shoot the ba$tards if you capture them. If all troops acted the same on the battlefield, one would naturally assume that this was just an inevitable human reaction, but they do not all act the same, and this reaction does seem to be characteristically American. It sickened me when I saw it, whereas now I'm inclined to chalk it up to my inability to understand people from a very different culture.

HAL pilot
I like your grasp of history as much as I admire your spelling, and I'm sure that many will be amused by your implied characterisation of Monty (and Brit forces more generally) as a timid, gun-shy nervous fop by comparison with Patton (!) and by comparison with the man who wanted to nuke the Koreans.

[maxburner]

The initial observation in this thread may have had some merit, but some of the subsequent contributions have been dire. I would guess that this forum for military aircrew has been hijacked by a bunch of arm-chair generals who delight in bashing our allies simply because the opportunity presents itself.

The incident where the marines yell when their missile hits a building was unfortunate. Unfortunate because a camera was there to capture the moment. Anybody who had been under gunfire for a while, who scored a hit and settled the skirmish would have celebrated a job well done. As the the admiral addressing his men, the remark about hammer time was taken out of context completely.

Have some respect for the US miltary and its leadership. Its not perfect, and sometimes the choice of words plays badly over here, but we are at war, in a combined and joint operation. Carping serves only to support the other side.

[Danny]

Jackonicko, you have absolutely no idea. You are full of such pompous, self importance but do a great diservice to the the very few real reporters who know how to report a war. Every one of the people on here who have sickened me and many others with their hand-wringing, liberal, knicker wetting shock and horror at the pictures of the US troops whooping at the hit of the missile have never, ever, (obviously) been in the military in the front line as a combat soldier.

G.Khan summarises it best. Jacko and the others who are so far up their own backsides with their pompous pontifications about how the soldiers should behave. Just because there is some teat sucking reporter present with a camera who has very obviously no idea about what is going on around him, the soldiers are expected to alter their behaviour so as not to offend the sensibilites of the Nintendo audience.

War is horrific, and I don't mean those skirmishes that we witnessed yesterday, yet we have the hand wringers who spout off about the freedoms they have thanks to the young men and women who are out on the front lines and they still try and tell us how put out they are at the typical behaviour of ANY front line combat soldier who is in action and on the winning side of a skirmish just like we saw yesterday.

Just keep the reporters with the back up/logistics troops. To have anal retentive, sanctimonious reporters preach about the actions or morals of our allied troops behaviour in the middle of a skirmish is just the limit. :*

[Ralf Wiggum]

Only have a couple of points I'd like to make on this subject.

Some people see our senior officers as being pompous and out of touch. This is not true at all, but that's how their accents and queen's English comes accross. The senior Officers of our Allies often come accross as ghetto types with a gung-ho attitude. I would suggest that all sides are communicating in the way the troops and they know best. Cultures are funny things and I for one would not expect our allies to know our culture perfectly, as a few individuals here (including me) would expect to understand the American culture totally.

The second point I'd like to make is that whooping & hollering is somewhat better than parading POWs on camera and firing wantanly into a river where it is believed an enemy may be hiding. A little vocal acknowledgement of success is not against the Geneva Convention so I would suggest that while we may not agree with this type of celebration, folks like Jacko and the rest should look at more important factors in this conflict.

I for one would like to thank our colleagues and allies for their commitment and for giving me a safe umberrela under which to live. If you want to get cheap points from our allies, then please have the good manners to back it up by saying it say it to their faces!

If I've made any spelling or grammar mistakes Jacko, please feel free to point them out, as I'd feel better if you took cheap shots at me rather than my colleagues in the front line.:mad:

[kbf1]

Danny, I don't disgree with you often, but i am going to on this one for a whole number of reasons.

I will quote what i said on my one and olnly post thus far on the subject:

I have just been watching the most apalling images of our "allies" whooping and screaming like deranged sports fans when a building was taken out in Um Qasr. It seemed to me entirely inappropriate behaviour. Regardless of whose side they were on, the Iraqi soldiers were still human beings and deserved to be treated with some degree of respect in death.

This isn't pompous pontification, in fact it goes no further than to express a concern that the lives of those taken in this war should not be taken lightly. I am not going to try and put myself in the minds of the USMC at Umm Quasar, but I can comment on what I see. Thomas Aquinas, a greater mind than any who post on this forum, addresses just this issue in his treatise regarding Jus a Bellum, (Justice in War) where he goes to great lengths to understand the morality of taking life in conflict. He argues that none should rejoice in taking the life of another.

In more practical terms it must be asked "what message does this send"? Perhaps, if used in such a way, the images of American troops celebrating the death of Iraqi soldiers can be presented with the subtext of "this is the behaviour of the invading infidel". Perhaps those images could be used as Iraqi propoganda.

This issue goes beyond personal feelings. I would have said the same thing if it had been British troops hollering and whooping. The allied command has invested a lot of effort in the build-up to this campaign to send the message that they come to liberate and not conquer. Images such as these can be used to send an entirely different message. The presence of media reporting in real time is a real double-edged sword. It can convey a message to the Iraqi regime that may lead to it capitulating before Baghdad is levelled and lives on both sides lost. I would hope that it does, which is after all the purpose of the concept behind "shock and awe". However, all it takes are a few unguarded moments to spin that message away from the intended purpose. If you look at the images and words being used by saddam in his rhetoric it is far more emotive and almost prophetic than anything that the more clinical western commentary produces. His words are designed to whip up public support and plays to the arab culture more than our more clinically accurate, and often statistcs driven presentation. Added to this images such as the US Marines at Umm Quasar, it could make a pretty striking package that builds the Iraqi morale that the coalition has tried to erode.

A final word on personal attacks. I don't lose sleep over them so I'm not too concerned at some of the things that have been said towards me. I have no need to justify myself to the readers of this forum or any other. What I will say is that the views of the contributors of this thread do not reflect those of all of the British forces any more than mine do. There is a vocal and collective majority here at the moment that seems to jump on anyone who dares hold a view that does not conform to theirs. Everyone's feelings on the subject of warfare are running high, mine included. Because I am taking a position some of you disagree with I am attempting to argue without inflaming. I mis-judged that already in another thread. What I will say is that these issues should come out, and should be discussed. I have no problem with going against the flow where I think it is right to do so. I expect that some of you will probably come back and rip into me again. So be it.

[Scud-U-Like]

kbf1

I notice you paraphrase Thomas Aquinus, but quote yourself verbatim. Nothing pompous there then :rolleyes:

Stop trying to justify your ridiculous and increasingly manic postings.

[moggie]

Now this may get me editied or deleted but................

It is possible that some of the vitriol aimed at the US Senior Brass by posters here is a reaction to the fact that a US missile shot down an RAF Tornado? Perhaps it's just a little anger transference taking place? It also acts as a pressure release for people who need to vent pent up feelings.

I am not blaming anyone for the tragedy - at least not until the investigators can tell us what happened. The if someone is to blame I want their b*lls in a vice (but that is a different story!).

Anyway, just my attempt at psychology

[Chronic Snoozer]

kbf1

I have no need to justify myself to the readers of this forum or any other.

What is the point of joining the debate if you aren't prepared to back your arguments?

This thread wouldn't have started if the media were simply prepared to let the military do their thing in peace. Letting every armchair general get an idea of what really goes on just makes it tougher on everyone.

What about those Aussies? Best of both worlds, articulate and cultured but with a real 'can-do' attitude. ;)

[kbf1]

Snoozer, I don't feel the need to justify what I have or have not done in my time in the army. It seems disagreement with the opinions voiced by some on this forum has led to personal abuse. I am not so concerned with your credentials or those of anyone else, if a point is worth debating then I am content to debate it irrespective of background. The point I make is that anyone making a point on here at the moment that is disagreed with is derided, insulted, and generally abused. It is the first time I have seen it happen with such viscious antagonism, and that is a pity. It isn't the first time that I have seen words put in the mouths of others, but it is happening in a nasty, personal manner like never before right now. I am happy and willing to debate with you, but it is proving impossible when all I see is a barrage of abuse. Ultimately it is the internet, it happens and if i couldn't take it I wouldn't be here.

Scud, my comments were available to paraphrase, I don't have a copy of Suma Theologica to hand. You have read something into the post that wasn't there and placed on me an intention I never had when i wrote what I did.

[Danny]

kbf1, I have already said it once, you are not and never have been a front line soldier in combat. That in itself shows me that you are so out of touch with what really happens when in actual combat. If you don't like the images you saw then as a military man you should know that it is best to get rid of the embedded reporters from front line units or else only let them send edited packages out.

In more practical terms it must be asked "what message does this send"? Perhaps, if used in such a way, the images of American troops celebrating the death of Iraqi soldiers can be presented with the subtext of "this is the behaviour of the invading infidel". Perhaps those images could be used as Iraqi propoganda.

When you and all the other military 'experts' have been in actual front line combat then I will respect your views on this subject but until then I will read it with the contempt it deserves. American, British, Australian and even Iraqi troops will always 'whoop it up' whenever they have a success in battle.

If we were to run this war with all the bleeding heart liberal PC that some of you expect then we may as well give up now and withdraw. It's about time that some of you realise that what you consider to be the norms of civilian life don't apply when in combat. If you have never been a combat soldier in action on the front line then register your disquiet about the etiquette of the troops and leave it at that. I and any of the others who do have combat experience as soldiers in battle will have every right to tell you where to get off your pedestal without getting more claptrap and watching you put down our allies with such sanctimonious pontification!

It is the first time I have seen it happen with such viscious antagonism, and that is a pity.I seem to remember on the Tornado/Patriot thread that you were the first to introduce that "viscious antagonism" with your poster and conclusion that the US patriot crew had probably just let one rip for the gung ho hell of it without knowing ANY facts! :*

[SirPercyWare-Armitag]

Hal Pilot
What utter rot. Patton was an over rated, over promoted Brigade commander. Monty had his faults but he was a product of the First World War (which started in 1914 not 1917….cheap shot but accurate). He was methodical and careful because of the carnage he witnessed in 14-18 and because Britain didn’t have the manpower to be careless with mens lives and Monty was loved for it. Even when Monty helped with the Ardennes commanding US units, he won the respect and admiration of the American forces. Don’t forget that it was Monty who altered the OVERLORD plan and that he was the commander in the field for that operation.
Funnily enough, its American forces nowadays who we find up-tight and inflexible with no grasp of political realities. They are brave, courageous, open and friendly as well but then, we all our have faults don’t we?

[kbf1]

Danny you are an ex-Isareali soldier. Happy that you have been down in the mud and bullets, never disputed that and not knocking it, but your comments also show a lack of understanding of the British Army Orbat, but in spite of that I am not writing off what you say as irrelevant. Not having been in the front inf line of a war fighting operation does not immediately strip me of any and all knowledge of tactics, though you may think so.

As for being a liberal? Piss off! You know full well I am not. As for the other thread I held my hands up and apologised. I'll do it again, i am sorry that I caused offence. I ranted and shouldn't have, and have tried in spite of the comments flung at me not to go back into that frame of mind. I am being more cautious now about my comments so as not to compound matters.

My views diverge from yours. There are a lot of things I would gladly say here in support of some of the arguments I have made, but I think in the current climate these things are best left unsaid as they involve the working procedures of both US and British forces.

I know you are as prone as any of us to your outbursts, but that doesn't mean i am morally obliged to fall into line with your opinions because you have been involved in operations in the west bank that I haven't been. I disagree with you but still take on board what you say. I am entirely supportive of the coalition forces, but that is not to say i cannot and will not point out where I think we have got it wrong.

I am content that we will have opposing views and that neither of us will be entirely won over by the other. I think the best thing is to accept that before things deteriorate further.

[smartman]

Jackonicko

You seem, rightly in my view, to be shedding much cred over your comments in this thread. To preserve what's left and to safeguard your downstream reputation, do leave the stage old chap.

[solotk]

There seems to be some disagreement, as to whether or not, "a-whooping and a-hollering" is acceptable war practice.

Personally, I'd have been more upset, that after having been pinned down by a strongpoint, in 30 degrees+ in my NBC kit, that it hadn't occured to my Boss, to just zap the building off the face of the planet. So, whistle up a Bradley or an M1, get some suppresive down, or better still, get an A-10 or a F-18 to deliver the good news.

Whooping and hollering can be seen as being distasteful, and sometimes, is associated with American mistakes, which may be why some posters are getting upset.

The missile directors on the Vincennes (?) were whooping and hollering after they succesfully engaged the target.

I remember vividly, 2 A-10 pilots, pumped up and celebrating, with whooping and hollering , as they described to the reporter, how they had killed 2 tanks in the desert, trying to escape from the "Road o' death". Unfortunately, the two "Tanks" were British IFV's. I have said more than enough in the past on that incident, it is personal to me, and I had friends involved in that.

Yes, there is going to be a fair amount of "spam-bashing" a lot of it, is "Our army is better than yours" , some of it masks genuine anger, some of it, is delivered by people who always have an open season on Americans.

Yesterday, a retired US admiral was interviewed on the BBC. When questioned about the Tornado incident, he said "Well with the Prisoner story breaking, that will be consigned to Page 684 , beside the byline of an American officer going postal in Camp Penn"

Blue-on-Blue , are the serving soldiers biggest fear, the fear of dying for nothing. Already, we have seen too many of them, before the task of war proper even starts. My heart is in my mouth, watching members of my Regiment, friends and colleagues getting ready for OBUA action that a lot of you ,(excepting Danny, who's been there) will never ever understand.

It's bad enough on the streets of Northern Ireland, or patrolling in Bosnia, when the other side aren't trying to zap you en-masse.

A lot of people will die, there will be more Blue-on-blue, if we use heavy kit. This is now the sort of action, that can only be fought, with the bayonet, rifles and grenades.You can't get an Abrams or a C2 up some of those streets, they are natural tank traps. The distinction will be even more blurred, with Arab irregulars, poorly clothed Iraqi soldiers, and civilians all taking up arms. Who the hell do we engage, in a street full of smoke, in the heat of battle?

This war, is being prosecuted in entirely the wrong way. You cannot simultaneously seek to win hearts and minds and bomb. It doesn't work. You can't engage in OBUA, with a city still full of civilians, in recent times, Somalia and Jenin haved proved that. If civilans are in the way when the bullets are flying, they will die.

Closer co-ordination, must be the order of the day. We have seen evidence, that when a formation operates on it's own (Royal Marines) it achieves it's objectives. The entire way different commands operate in this theatre, must be subject to a rolling evaluation, even a pause if necessary. Even on peacetime exercises, I have seen basic mistakes made, when operating with other NATO formations, it is the nature of the beast.

In conclusion, communication is the key. If communication is allowed to break down, then Blue-on-Blue will keep happening.

[steamchicken]

Solotk, it's bloody impressive how your predictions on this war as posted on here and other forums seem to come true with depressing frequency. (depressing as you've mostly predicted the problems, ballsups, dirty tricks..) Comparison with Battle of Khafji, Iraqi close defence of urban areas with co-ordinated artillery, anti-tank and small arms, supply issues....all very prescient. Good work!

.....but can you tell me next week's pools?

[Lt Gen Pprune OBE]

I think you lot ought to learn about something called opsec!

The hoods will be watching you lot!


woe betide etc


toodle pip

[Check 6]

Danny and Desperado, thank you, well said.

[solotk]

Steamchicken :)

I can't tell you this weeks results, because I need the money to make an offer for that slightly used Apache that will be appearing in the Baghdad edition of Trade-a-Plane. :)

In my opinion , Saddams believes his best chance, is to let Allied heavy formations roll as quickly as they can, stretching their supply lines , increasing the frequency of breakdowns, decreasing the frequency of troop re-supplies etc.

As the supply lines stretch, that's when the small "stay behind" elements, or larger, hidden forces , operating up and down the MSR, will start to pick off targets.

In this sort of war, a high value vehicle, is not an Abrams, a C 2 or an IFV. It's the Breakdown truck, the fuel tanker , the scoffwagon etc. Nice soft targets , critical to an advance and resupply.

The MSR should have a series of "Fighting Forts" established along the route. These need be no more than reinforced sangars, with perhaps a section of infantry, equipped with Anti-Tank missiles, and heavy machine guns, and of course, secure phone links, to the next Sangar, half a mile, to a mile up the road, with at least one Apache/Cobra/Armed Kiowa , no more than 5 minutes flying time from the post.

As our supply lines get longer, Iraqi irregulars and insurgents will be looking for targets of opportunity, and we have to keep that road open. Of course, other people will say, "But we can supply them by air"

Yes we can, but you can't repair tanks by air, you can't recover broken down wagons by air. The Iraqis are going for maintenance crews and Engineers. If you kill or capture them, then how many tanks have you disabled? How many Bridges won't get built, or minefields cleared?

The Iraqis, are fighting with the benefit of experience in warfare in this terrain. I've watched a lot of the talking heads , going on about "Our equipment is superior"

Of course it is. The poor old Iraqis only have T-55's and T-62's and T-72's in the RG. Look at the other side of the coin. They're updated and upgunned, some of them MAY have Czech Fire control equipment. Very capable, very nasty. One thing is sure, the T-55's, 62's, 72's and I suspect, though we haven't been told yet, T-80's function very well in the desert.

As for these reports of "Little bands of fanatics and die-hards" . No they are not. The news is banging on about "An entire division surrendered" An entire division is a lot of men, a typical Iraqi division, (pre-war) could be composed of 2 Tank Brigades ,3 Tank Battalions , 1 Mechanized Infantry Battalion ,1 Motorized Special Forces Company , 1 Engineering Company ,1 Reconaissance Platoon 1 Medium Rocket Launcher Battery (Or Artillery)

Now Mr.Blair announced we had captured 3000 Iraqis all told. So where are the rest of them? We have heard, they've deserted. What, all of the rest? That's the best part of 5,000 troops. If I deserted my unit in wartime, the last place I'd be gong , is anywhere, where there were ba'ath party officials, looking to shoot me. So is it possible, that at least some of them, left a unit that was going to surrender, to join one that will fight?

There is a lot of crap getting spouted , about "Irregulars, stay behinds, fanatics" etc etc. These are the only people who want to fight us. Wrong. Irregulars, stay behinds and fanatics, do not have carefully co-ordinated fire plans, or Artillery and Mortar platoons.How many of these irregulars, are actually REGULAR Iraqi personnel, told to go home, melt into the background, but keep the RPG's and the AK's handy? Why keep them in massed formations in the desert, to be bombed to ******* by B-52's? Do we think he hasn't learnt his lesson from last time? I'd be interested to know, if the formations we have been bombing, are the same size as compositions in GW1? How do we know, that his Tanks and BDR's/BMP's arent parked in domestic garages in towns? Am I the only one, concerned about the deliberate and studied lack of preparations in Baghdad, and other CHOKE points?

I'm afraid the US high command, is going to have to face a simple couple of truths.

1. Not every Iraqi is overjoyed to see us, as evidenced by the fighting, the lack of refugees, trying to meet Allied Forces for safety and liberation, and the numbers of refugees returning home to fight.

2. You can't make an omlette, without levelling a town. Sorry, but there it is. if that building is a strong point, level it, not fart about for the cameras.

Saddam is playing for time, he hopes for some things (Arabic uprisings, volunteers, resupply from Iran and Syria) , but he knows he will get one thing. The Gulf 30/40 day sandstorm. He knows it's coming, and that's when he'll use his Arab irregulars in partisan activities.

[Jackonicko]

Danny,

Pompous self importance? Yes, how right you are. How dare I ask a question or express an opinion, especially if it differs from your own.

Your own experience in the IDF gives you enormous credibility, naturally – any member of the world’s most experienced army (and arguably the best) will of course know what it’s all about. I don’t doubt that for a moment. The IDF has seldom (if ever) been beaten on the field of battle, after all. Any soldier will always have more insight into these matters than a REMF or even worse a civilian. But anyone’s entitled to an opinion, and sometimes (where there is an extra-military dimension) they may even have a valid argument. It’s a tad arrogant to dismiss anyone’s opinions just because they don’t have your combat experience. I’m not talking about me – I am just a hack, but KBF is a trained military man with experience of the British Army (and working with the US), even if he hasn’t seen combat. I’m astonished that you see fit to dismiss him with quite such vitriol and venom.

And perhaps not all wars are the same. Perhaps KBF wants the Allies to win the war of world opinion and public opinion as well as the military battle. I hope you won’t leap to accusations of anti-semitism if I question whether Israel has done all that well in winning the propaganda war, however brilliantly it has fought militarily. Perhaps to do better on the former front it’s right (or necessary) to pay more heed to civilian mores?


Ralf,

No cheap shots at you. I’m increasingly inclined to agree with your first paragraph, and never disagreed with your second. This thread was intended as no more than a congratulatory note about Britain’s senior chaps, who (in my view) shine by comparison with the US senior chaps who’ve appeared in the media. I am incredibly impressed by what I’ve seen of the UK forces in this war, as a civilian, while I find some of what I see of the Americans as being very foreign. That’s not Yank-bashing, and I make no apology for praising what seems (from my civvy perspective) to be good practise.


I’m sorry that it’s been diverted into an argument about the rights and wrongs of the USMC’s over-the-top and arguably distasteful display at the deaths of their enemies. I’m also sorry that to question such behaviour invites abuse and accusations of ‘santimonious pontification’.

But there does seem to be a contrast between how we see US and UK personnel behaving and this perhaps invites comment and debate. Danny avers that “American, British, Australian and even Iraqi troops will always 'whoop it up' whenever they have a success in battle.” While others of us can see a difference in the way in which soldiers do that ‘whooping’.

What a pity that it can’t remain calm on this thread.

It’s a shame above all, because the nature of the debate makes us concentrate on one narrow aspect of our US allies. But because we can isolate and describe some minor failings doesn’t necessarily mean that we’re anti American. As Sir Percy said: “They are brave, courageous, open and friendly as well”. (And efficient, superbly equipped, very highly motivated, admirably patriotic, tough, disciplined, generous, likeable, etc. etc.)

At the bottom line, I’ll admit that I would use phrases like ‘occasionally trigger happy’ and ‘sometimes gung ho’ if asked for 50 phrases to describe the US military, but they’d be down at No.47 and 48, way behind 46 much more complimentary adjectives.

[Ali Barber]

Solotk,

Very impressive reasoning and a little worrying. I voiced similar concerns, but nowhere near as well expressed, on the shock and awe thread so I won't repeat it here. One of your acronyms from an earlier post has passed me by - can you decode OBUA please.

[solotk]

OBUA= Operations in Built up areas... Like the old FIBUA

Except nowadays, we don't fight , we "Operate and Liberate":rolleyes:

[RubiC Cube]

Several posts on this thread are falling into the classic intelligence trap - judging other nations by our own standards. Each nation has different characteristics, we may not like all of them, but we shouldn't try to impose our own standards. Just look where its got us in the past (and present?).

[Tourist]

Does anybody else find it a little strange that some people apparently consider killing people acceptable but whooping unacceptable? Wouldnt want to go drinking with some of you guys.


:rolleyes:

[BOAC]

solotk- chilling - and I really DO hope you are wrong!

I fear you are right.

[Danny]

Jacko, the Israelis learned very early on that it' one thing to win the military battles and another one to win the PR battle. There is no way the coallition is going to win the PR battle in this war, especially with the liberal, lefty, hand wringing media we have at the moment, of which you are fine example.

It appears to me that you would have us warn the enemy that "this is going to hurt me more than it hurts you" and apologise profusely before we go in and try to kill them. :rolleyes:. As Solotk mentioned, you can't run this war with all the pussy footing around just because the media luvvies are embedded with you. If you are pinned down under fire you should be calling all your available firepower to bear on the problem, If there are civilian casualties as a result then it is very tragic but a fact of war.

Witterting on about the "USMC’s over-the-top and arguably distasteful display at the deaths of their enemies" just proves to me that the coallition has absolutely no chance of ever winning the PR battle when reporters interpret it as bad taste. What on earth did you expect? "Oh my oh my, I am so sorry, boo hoo! Pass me another missile." :rolleyes:

Solotk, you are right about the 'pussyfooting' that appears to be going on in units with embedded reporters. How the decision makers can justify adding to the risks their troops have to take just because it wouldn't look good for the Nintendo audience back home for those under fire to call in 'overwhelming' firepower to get out of the mire.

[saudipc-9]

I'm more than a little surprized at those people here who are expressing their disgust at the US solidiers. You say that "whooping" after destroying an Iraqi position is not "Politically Correct". Why then have you not commented on the Iraqi soldiers dancing and waving rifles about over the bodies of the US soldiers killed in the ambush?
I'm sure that if you had been in the US soldiers position of having killed those who were trying to kill you, a certain amount of relief and elation would be warranted.
It's fine to sit infront of your computers and criticize. However, those soldiers are the one's whose lives are at risk and they can "whoop" as much as they d@mn well please!!!!!!!

[Woff1965]

Its unfortunate that Solotk was not doing Rumsfelds job.

As I recall he wanted to go before Xmas 2002 with light forces only - after all with all that air delivered "shock and awe" the Iraqi's would have just folded, right?

[Flatus Veteranus]

Here is a little background on the "whooping and hollering" incident, which seems to have upset some people. It is drawn from an article by Daniel McGory and Tim Butcher in the Times of 24 Mar:-

"Like a maestro conducting an orchestra, Staff Sergeant Lerma spent most of yesterday striding on an earth berm 900 yards from the target, egging on his young troops from 1 Platoon, Fox Company. Urging them in the bluest of language to stay behind cover and to don helmets, he stalked behind them, talking one moment into his radio microphone, and shouting commands the next. "I have got a bunch of young men here just out of training and they are like a load of young dogs all straining at the leash, so they take some handling."

It was Staff Sergeant Lerma who called for the deployment of two Javelins to launch rockets to destroy the target. One missed but the other slammed into the building... At around midday two RAF Harriers dipped towards the rusting storage depot where the main group of Iraqis was holed up. The first 500lb bomb fell just wide of the mark, but moments later the second went home, shaking buildings up to six miles away... By late last night the US Marines were thinking of calling in yet more weaponry, this time Cobra attack helicopters, but they had too little time to organise the mission... If the display of firepower had not been so devastating the whole operation might have been comical.

"... if the Americans are like this when they have one building to deal with, what are they going to be like when they get to Baghdad?" a British officer asked."

I still think that a display of exuberance by young, green troops is forgiveable, and the final comment by a British officer was a bit snide.

How come a rusty old storage shed withstood a direct hit from a 500lb bomb?

:confused:

[Smoketoomuch]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,1-622136,00.html
THE SOUTH
Al-Nasiriyah
The soldier added that the United States and Britain would put 4,000-5,000 troops into battle. Earlier troops had evacuated the dead and wounded from the overnight fighting, which one medical corpsman said took a heavy toll on allied forces.
He continued: "They (US and British troops) are taking a lot more casualties than they (senior officers) are telling the press. This morning troops are still meeting pockets of resistance - cells of snipers - and they're causing a lot of problems. It is a hairy scene and the Iraqis have put up a good fight."

[Jackonicko]

"What on earth did you expect? "Oh my oh my, I am so sorry, boo hoo! Pass me another missile."

No. Just calm professionalism. Even a satisfied grin. Even slapping the guy who scored the hit on the back. Even a cheer. Just not a great outburst of Super-bowl type celebration, especially if it can appear to be celebrating the enemy's death rather than our success.

If the Brits can do it (or can appear to do it) calmly and professionally, then why can't everyone? Public perceptions are important, and the degree of pride which most Brits have in their armed forces is enhanced by the professionalism and steady nerve which they see on the TV news. Perhaps NI gave the British Army an unusually useful amount of experience in operating in the glare of media attention? The Brits, in other words, seem to be winning the PR battle (at least back home) despite overwhelming hostility to the war before it was launched. And no-one is suggesting that they are any less effective in fighting the enemy, I trust?

Perhaps the coverage of US forces which I might find disturbing plays so well at home that its effect overseas is irrelevant.

(Danny, I'll bet the discipline of IDF units on the West Bank was icy cold, however joyful they might have been at getting rid of their enemies!).

(And SaudiPC9 of course I condemn the Iraqis who go hunting unarmed downed aircrew, who beat and threaten POWs, who desecrate our dead, and who oppose us at all, in fact).

[smartman]

Jacko - your mailbox is full!

[Archimedes]

<dons protective gear, steps into thread>

Freely admit to being a civvy interloper here with no idea of what it's like - all my impressions are second hand through my workplace, with the over-riding impression being one of relief that I've never had to experience some of the things discussed here.

So forgive me if this small query is mis-placed:

The Times article cited by FV suggests that the 'whooping and a' hollering' Marines are fresh out of training. Is it at all possible that these young men, lacking experience (but gaining it all too quickly) are a) still not quite fully aware of some of the more horrific aspects of war, leading to their being less 'sober' in their reactions and

b) because of their lack of experience, of which they are very well aware, are at a very high pitch of nervous energy (NOT that the other troops aren't) and anxious not only to do well but to show their enthusiasm?

Combining these two aspects, would this not perhaps help to explain their response?

I agree with Jacko that it doesn't look good on TV, but given that the troops in question are out there facing in a few days the sort of circumstances that most others (including me) won't face in a lifetime, I frankly don't give a **** how it appears on the telly.

When troops in contact have to think 'Oooh - how's this going to look on the news? Will Sophie Raworth be critical?' , then I'd suggest that we will have a major problem (and dead men). Far better that some sensibilities are mildly offended than young men wind up dead or badly wounded, surely?

Sorry for interrupting with me 4 penn'orth.

[kbf1]

This letter was published in today's Daily Telegraph (which for o/s readers not familiar with it is a "conservative" paper favoured by the establishment):

Re: The war is being televised
Date: 24 March 2003

Sir - Whatever its rights and wrongs, the war has highlighted the frightening pace at which telecommunications have advanced, even since the last high-profile conflict with Saddam Hussein.

The terror of a Baghdad skyline lit up with digitally programmed bombs is now witnessed as it unfolds. The sight of Jon Sopel delivering his broadcast from behind a gas mask is shocking, no matter how much the use of chemical and biological weapons has been mooted.

And with live videophone links allowing us to ride side-saddle with the 7th US Cavalry through desert plains, the horrors of war spilling out of our screens really could be courtesy of Steven Spielberg. Unfortunately for millions of innocent Iraqis and thousands of our own troops, these scenes are all too real.

What a very grave pity then, that America cannot match the advancement of telecommunications with any thought for how their message is being received by the outside world. The image of Vice-Admiral Timothy Keating striding on stage to address troops aboard USS Constellation, accompanied by the thumping sound of We Will Rock You by Queen, was utterly abhorrent. Not content with that, he plumbed the depths of bad taste, trumpeting that, "when the President says, 'Go', look out! It's hammer time."

The American forces who planted the Stars and Stripes on Iraqi soil at Umm Qasr while advancing to the capital were following suit (report, Mar 22). How did they think this gung-ho aberration looked to others - those back home, the doubters of the UN, not least, the Iraqi people?

The self-made mandate of the coalition forces was not only to rid the world of a despot, but also to allow these poor people to start afresh - in a democracy, we hope. Would it not be more prudent, and a clear communication of their righteous intentions, for American troops to plant in the ground the three stars and three stripes of the Iraqi flag as they advance to free Baghdad?

From:
Larner Caleb, Leeds

I think that it is fair to suggest that opinion is divided on this subject, and to suggest that it isn't is to distort the complexities of public opinion.

JDSC now sprends a considerable proportion of the JCSC dealing with media ops at the Coy HQ level. Officers are taught how to handle situations where there is intense media interest and how to fight and/or conduct an operation in this environment. At no point is operational effectiveness to be compromised, and where it is likely SOPs are in place to handle the media presence in such a way as to minimise the risk of compromise and any serious and unnecessary risk to the film crew. JDSC have managed to address this problem sufficiently well to ensure a compromise between freedom of reporting and operational effectiveness where operational effectiveness is the overriding factor.

It would be interesting to understand what, if any, consideration the US forces give to this issue, and how much latitude sub-unit commanders are given to decide on how to apply those procedures.

just proves to me that the coallition has absolutely no chance of ever winning the PR battle when reporters interpret it as bad taste

Not necessarily. In fact the JCSC module on media handling is designed to manage the media at Coy level. Thus far (and there is always room for error) the British have not been shown in a bad light in the way that the Americans have. Perhaps there is a degree of nievety on tha parts of some that the rest of the world views events in the same way as those at home in America do, and see the world "through American eyes".

As for the images of a grinning sadist standing over the body of a dead American, words of disgust fail me. I believe in a God of infinite justice. I have faith that that man will meet his judgement in the next life if not in this.

[G.Khan]

The content of Caleb's letter and your comments, kbf1, that follow it clearly indicate that many people have no conception whatsoever of what war/military action is all about. It is coming home to them now via 'embedded' reporters - the very idea that there should be some PC way for troops to react because they may be on camera is ridiculous in the extreme. Clearly the idea of 'embedded' reporters is a mistake if people are going to be offended when they see what is a quite normal and justifiable reaction by the soldiers to their success, or COs beefing up the morale of their troops, ("It's Hammer Time").

By the time this war is over you will have all the material you need for a paper at Staff College on the inadvisability of embedded reporting, kbf1.

[DESPERADO]

JDSC now sprends a considerable proportion of the JCSC dealing with media ops at the Coy HQ level. Officers are taught how to handle situations where there is intense media interest and how to fight and/or conduct an operation in this environment. At no point is operational effectiveness to be compromised, and where it is likely SOPs are in place to handle the media presence in such a way as to minimise the risk of compromise and any serious and unnecessary risk to the film crew. JDSC have managed to address this problem sufficiently well to ensure a compromise between freedom of reporting and operational effectiveness where operational effectiveness is the overriding factor.

What planet are you on? What relevance is this to a war several thousand miles away where the troops are getting shot at and killed. Do you think any of them give a cr@p about JCSC. Mr Caleb's letter that you use to back up your argument is only relevant in so much as it is obvious that you and he are equally unable to separate your prejudices for how you believe war shouild happen in a civilised society.

It is f^^king dangerous. It is f^^king frightening, it is not like it is in the movies or the text book that you were given at JCSC. I agree that the pictures themselves were unfortunate, but I wouldn't have had the camera there in the first place. You talk about operational effectiveness not being compromised, well this isn't an argument about that is it? Operational effectiveness doesn't change whether they whoop and holler or not. What does affect their operational effectiveness is when they are critcised from thousands of miles away by armchair warriors who wouldn't know a Kalashnikov if it was stuck up their arse.

And thanks soooo much for quoting St Thomas. After all, he died only 700 years ago, so his opinion at this moment is truly useful. How arrogant and patronising can you be. I don't know anybody who delights in the death of another human being, for you to suggest that those soldiers won't feel the after effects of what they have had to do is insulting in the extreme. If that isn't pompous self-superiority I don't know what is. Just because you know a bit about the Army (I am assuming that you have a uniform) and a bit about the US army doesn't mean that you know squat about what it is like to be in battle.

These men will have to live with what they are doing for years to come. At the moment they are excited to have done their job well, and to still be alive. Who the f^^k are you to take that away from them?
Oh, if you want to interpret my opinions as a personnel attack on you, then that is up to you. My 'vitriol' may be emotive, but I am afraid that I am allowed to get angry and pissed off at those who criticise and judge without any experience of what they are talking about. I don't even know who you are so I am unable to attack you personally, I just think that you are talking rubbish!

Jacko,
as I said before, you just can't have it both ways. You want the media involved, but you don't like it when the cameras catch something that offends your weak sensitivities. Perhaps the best thing for all concerned would be to have the TV news teams in Kuwait.

I am getting sick of the superiority complex that you are fostering over the Americans. I tell you again, there has been some British whooping and hollering, you just haven't seen it on TV, so don't keep telling everyone how we have the morale high ground in the whooping and hollering stakes, it is an insult to us and the Americans.

And stop going into a Jacko "well, I'm not allowed to talk then, hmmph, nurr" sulk every time Danny flattens your argument. It's kind of childish.

[Jackonicko]

Desperado,

There's no question of superiority, overall. Just difference. Including different strengths and weaknesses.

And I don't want it both ways. You say: "You want the media involved, but you don't like it when the cameras catch something that offends your weak sensitivities. Perhaps the best thing for all concerned would be to have the TV news teams in Kuwait."

It may surprise you that I agree that the camera shouldn't have been there in the first place. I can quite see that Operational effectiveness doesn't change whether or not they whoop and holler. I can see that criticism "by armchair warriors who wouldn't know a Kalashnikov if it was stuck up their arse" might undermine morale. (AK 47 or AK 74 or AKM, though? I wouldn't be able to differentiate by feel - especially not there, but I have had one shoved up my left nostril). But in a modern campaign like this one, which deliberately includes an information/propaganda element, there are considerations beyond the frontline. Perhaps there should not be.

In many ways I think it would be much better if the UK Forces had service photographers and video teams (combat camera style) providing imagery to the media (who would stay well back), with the MoD providing material in a managed way to the media. I'm atypical among journos here, I suspect, but I can see that the Frontline is no place for civvies to be (they can only get in the way), nor even for civilians to see in an uncensored, full-on way. But if we are going to see it, then account has to be taken of this information war and its requirements.

And sorry about the "Jacko "well, I'm not allowed to talk then, hmmph, nurr" sulk".....:O

[BlueWolf]

solotk, these "fighting forts" you refer to were once known as "Redoubts", and were successfully used by the British in both Africa and India, and latterly in New Zealand (where they also learnt the art of trench warfare from it's Maori inventors).

In all cases, the Imperial British Forces were a regular Army fighting an irregular geurilla army which refused to confront them on the terms with which they were familiar. The established tactics of European battlefields did not work, so they were forced to develop new ones.

The concept of garrisoning a supply road at regular intervals while the forward force advanced towards its objective was costly in terms of its requirements in materiel and manpower, but it proved effective against an enemy which employed the tactics of hit, run, and hide.

Perhaps your wisdom from the past could be of use to the planners of today; it does appear to be the situation they are facing.

Just a thought...

[steamchicken]

I'm actually quite strongly in favour of having the press with the forces. It strikes me that much of the reporting has carried a great deal more reality than in other recent conflicts, where war really has been presented as antiseptic, clean high-tech jousting with TV graphics and gun camera footage presented by friendly PIOs a long way from the battlefield. It's probably better for all concerned if the bull**** level is kept down. One thing which it certainly has shown up is the distinction between different papers and broadcasters - some of Sky News's coverage has been frankly sickmaking, reams of rubbish about "roaring spectacularly across the desert" and the like, and the BBC have been a sight better. The broadsheet press is doing a good job, but the redtoppers have managed to top even their own recently increased standard of vulgarity. The "Mid Market" papers - i.e. Mail and Express - have been deeply poor. Headlines like "SURRENDER!" in the Express a few days ago had no place at that time. (Bet the bloke who wrote that one feels like a right arssenow..) The Slime Trail hasn't been much better.

[tommee_hawk]

Like the Patriot issue, this is another thread that has turned into a predominantly UK-US slanging match. So what if different cultures have different methods of motivating their troops? So what if US troops seemed excessive in their response to the "end" of an extremely tense and frightening stand-off?

Let's not forget that these guys are out there, risking their lives as we sit pontificating about the niceties of their PC, or non-PC, responses. Let's show a little compassion for our troops as well as the Iraqis. Like many others, my war's being fought from a long way off.

Most importantly, let's not forget that we're in this together.

Everyone's entitled to their opinion, but some of these posts are a disgrace.

[Big Cheese1]

I instinctively remember a UK pilot screaming ' gotcha u ba$tards!!' when he hit an Iraqi transport in the last gulf war, which was shown a few years later in a docu.

And to be honest, so what!!!!

The torch has been passed to the guys out there, and they'll conduct their business how they feel appropriate!! They're professionals

Lets not make this a UK/US slanging as others have said!!!

[solotk]

So maybe if we constructed Sangars, with a proper fortification every so often Blue?

The planners have to be aiming off for a guerilla war. There are simply far too many historical examples, of how Saddam will prosecute this war

Antony Beevor said Saddam is an afficianado of Stalins tactics against the Germans.

There have been too many assumptions made, that we are fighting a ragtag bunch of Ay-rabs, and this will be over in 10 minutes flat. I think the IDF could have told you otherwise. Some of the reports getting shown, are of the officers at the sharp end, confused and dismayed, that the Iraqis aren't throwing flowers, but are throwing everything but the kitchen sink at the forces of liberation.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2883225.stm

British military spokesman Group Captain Al Lockwood said: "We are meeting resistance from irregulars, members of the Fedayeen, who are extremely loyal to Saddam Hussein's regime.

"They are terrorising the citizens of Basra and we will probably need to go in," he told CNN.

------------------------------------------------

Really ? The first British Soldier was killed by rioting CIVILIANS. You remember, the same people who will throw flowers at us. Not fanatics or irregulars, but the "Oppressed people we're liberating"

As long as the planners and headsheds won't face the truth, this is going to grind on and on. It is not just diehards, fanatics and irregulars, it's the Iraqi people we're fighting here, because we invaded their country. When Germany invaded Russia, there were a great many Russians, who had an axe to grind with Stalin, they still fought the invaders for "Mother Russia" When the Americans tried to snatch Aideed in Somalia , they were stunned at the ferocity of the defence. it wasn't just members of Aideeds clan resisting, it was just about the whole city. They resisted, because "Foreigners" were trying to take one of their own. Nationalism has been seriously underated in Iraq's case, the planners HAVE to be saying to themselves, let's act on the worst case, the entire nation hates us, let's plan accordingly"

Dangerous assumptions have been made about the preparedness of the Iraqi Army to fight. Yes we have seen surrenders, we could do with seeing more. I notice there is now a lot of airtime devoted to "Why are they fighting us? Don't they understand, we just want to give them humanitarian aid?"

What they understand, is a foreign nation is invading them, and for their own, nationalistic reasons and Arab pride, they are fighting, and as much as it pains me to say it, fighting well. The sandstorms and appaling weather season has started. Our technological advantage, will be eroded, as Aircraft can't fly, and Tanks and IFV's start choking in the dust and heat. Then, we will be fighting on their terms, which is exactly, what we didn't want to do. I think you had better move the "Hearts and minds" programme to the top of the agenda, and start installing an "Arms for food and building materials programme"

Is it just possible, that the poor Iraqi people, weren't quite as oppressed as we have been led to believe?


Sorry, bit of a ramble, doing several things at once here....:D

Just a thought,

Should we go firm with what we've achieved, and call the UN inspectors back into the areas we control, as a prelude to supplying humanitarian aid?

Two advantages

1. We get the UN back in the frame
2. We can get the humanitarian Program underway, before the rest of the Arab world gets on the bus to join the fight against the infidels

Just a thought

[PLovett]

solotk

I think the fort idea was also tried by the French in Indo-China but with less success. They may also have been less a fort than a fortified post but the principle was the same.

An interesting thought about getting the UN back but cannot see the US agreeing to that given the statements about "liberating" the country and it would surely be regarded as a victory for Saddam Hussein if the US-UK forces drew stumps at this point no matter how the spin-doctors tried to dress it up. :*

[kbf1]

Solo

The issues I see emerging from that are:

1. The holding off of coalition forces would allow Saddam to consolidate his forces and bolster his defences around known lines. Any coalition troop movements would give an early warning of where the next line of advance may come from and give Saddam more of an opportunity to counter-attack as well as harass forces near the front line. The division of the mainly Sunni north and Shia'a south would mean that the coalition forces would quickly be drawn into a policing and humanitarian quagmire that would draw away anything up to 50% or more of the forces to contain small pockets of militias loyal to Saddam, while attempting to restructure the connurbations and infrastructure around them so that the people do not become hostile.

Diplomatically the UN will not sanction the effective division of the country as the French and Germans would see it as territorial gains which they would argue is sanctioning the initial use of force by other means. Coalition forces would see this as a loose-loose situation as it does not achieve the objective of the removal of Saddam and a unified, more democratic Iraq which is western facing.

The Russians are already nervous of the $3bn contracts awaiting payment on the lifting of sanctions being declared null and void if a colaition-led administration is in place. They would prefer either the current regime staying in place, or an American led on that they can bargain with. A split country with 2 administrations, 1 western coalition, the other Saddam in a state of siege does not suit their objectives.

(2) Agreed, however this should be done under the banner of the UNHCR and ICRC with military support. Already the US are asking for an extra 4000 troops to support humanitarian operations to free 7th Arm Bgde from looking after refugees and POWs.

The only way we can now secure a desirable outcome is to maintain momentum into the fight and as the MSR becomes extended establish FMAs (as is happening) with a rolling FFMA. A seperate LogOp for humanitarian aid should be opened using the exisiting aid organisations and their infrastructure until such a time as the objectives are won and the transition is made from offensive to peace-keeping operations begins, at which point the UN should be encouraged to take control of the aid programme with jiont US/Arab funding.

[solotk]

Why keep them in massed formations in the desert, to be bombed to ******* by B-52's? Do we think he hasn't learnt his lesson from last time? I'd be interested to know, if the formations we have been bombing, are the same size as compositions in GW1? How do we know, that his Tanks and BDR's/BMP's arent parked in domestic garages in towns?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2897327.stm

Sergeant Duane Gardner, of the Queen's Royal Lancers, said: "Civilians tell us that the militia have piled into Basra.

"All their kit, their army - apparently the tanks are hidden in the shop windows and under car parks."

KBF

Point 1, agreed to some extent, but I think Saddam, or whoever is really running the show, will just give the impression of bolstering around known lines. I think he's using the sandstorm to move not armour, but light columns, in commercial vehicles. Have you noticed how much traffic is still rolling around Iraq? the armour is staying where he needs it. yes, elements of the 3rd line are getting sacrificed T-55's et al , but I think that's to maintain the illusion. The best troops and equipment, are still to be committed. Agreed about the force commitment to policing at this stage too, but I suspect, it would be a bit higher than 50%

Point 2.

Agreed, but time is a constraint. The rabble rousers are busy around the Middle East. how long, before we see truckloads of volunteers? I believe the first buses have already left, with the martyr volunteers. An arab led humanitarian effort, has to be started, and well publicised, not the disgrace we saw in Safawan the other day.

The bare facts are, we haven't got enough troops in theatre , to comfortably achieve the stated objective, whatever it is this week, be it Regime change/WMD removal/Humanitarian aid. We just haven't got enough bodies on the ground. You and I know people are getting frustrated, with what is rapidly turning into a hot sandy KFOR operation. Get the UN involved now, let's get some Arab blue berets on the ground in small numbers, to gain some trust, and move the focus back on to ending this.

Sorry, bit simplistic, but the Cider is going down well :)

[ORAC]

It's not going to happen. This is only going to end when Saddam's gone. Any other option flies in the face of the repeated direct comments of Bush, Blair and all their subordinates.

[Naafi VanDriver]

I've skipped through this thread and haven't taken in the full gist of it, however I want to back up KBF1. On the clip of the Americans whooping, they displayed themselves as totally unprofessional. Even during this conflict the Americans have had a few blue on blue already, just imagine the whooping and wopping going on as an anti tank missile strikes home only to find it was one of their own.

[kbf1]

Solo:

I think at the moment the UN lacks the credibility that the Red Crescent would bring in Arab eyes, as some see it as a US led talking shop. The humanitarian operation can never be risk free, but there are some questions to which there are no effective answers at this stage:

1. If the UN undertakes humanitarian support before the FMA is secure then who has responsibility for securing it when they have no madate for war-fighting operations? (ergo Bosnia 1993-95)

2. What happens if the UN troops have an agenda that frsutrates the effective prosecution of warfighting aims?

3. If we end up in OBUA, then how will the UN react to extra-ordinary operations when they would have entirely different RoE? and what impact might this have on the coalition forces who would have to defnd them given that the UN will not deploy heavy arty/arm support?

The CSS element will have to evolve in an OBUA envirnment from GSLogSupp to CSLogOp combined with effective and real-time G2 just to support the echelons. If they also had to support de facto UN soldiers operating independantly from the C3I environment then it becomes a nightmare. Also, if the Americans can't keep out Islamic militants from their own forces, how do we ensure the security of coalition forces when there is an unknown and un-controlable (relatively) body of men who may see the US/UK as the enemy operating under the UN banner.

At this stage it would confuse the issue too much. I advocate getting the key objectives won and secured before getting the quasi-governmental UNHCR and Red Crescent in first before the transition to peacekeeping begins. Then let the Arabs reconstruct their own region.

[West Coast]

I believe the fratricide isn't limited to just us. I believe I read about a Challenger firing on another Challenger. I hope its just a bad press report.

[SASless]

Now that I have cooled down.....thank goodness the computer lost my post I intended to send. Not withstanding that....West Coast has made the first notice of a Royal Blue on Blue incident. Two lives lost.....Brits killing Brits.....now twist that one onto us chaps.

Where is the outrage over the Iraqi's executing prisoners....and then broadcasting a video tape of the bodies? As long as they shoot Yanks it will be okay will it? What of the two British squaddies reported to have been murdered as well?

You chaps that think so poorly of the Yanks might just want to go back through this thread and read the posts......I read every single one of them.....and the arrogance....and smug attitudes portrayed are shameful. Hang on sports fans....your turn is coming!

If these issues were not so important....I would make some snide comments about Seakings and Challengers....but as I have said in other threads.....such comments are not in any way proper. They demean brave men who died fighting a hostile armed enemy and they serve no purpose what so ever beyond exposing the poster's ignorance and prejudice.

I would suggest some of you need to re-think your trite comments and maybe learn something from those that try to conduct a geniune transfer of ideas.

[kbf1]

SASless:

I think the key issue is that the Challenger crew, and the Sqn Commander and CO of the Regiment will be subject to a BOI on their return to the UK. If the BOI finds that ther has been culpable negligence on the part of anyone involved in the incident then they will most certainly face a Court Martial, and quite rightly so. Where the cause of anger eminates in the British forces is the perception of the way in which the Americans are not subject to the same rigours (note I say perception, there are probably cases that can be quoted where this is not the case).

Take the last GW when the A10 attacked the Warriors from the Cheshire Regt. The UK wanted to see a BOI set up and the pilots to be questioned. Tapes of the conversation between the pilots and "magic" had highlighted a few concerns about the id process and how stringently the pilots had applied the RoE in force at the time, all valid concerns I would argue. The pilots were sent straight back to the US and were effectively "lost" in the system for a while. There were a number of diplomatic efforts made to have the pilots identified and made to answer for their actions before some sort of competent tribunal (be it a BoI or Court Martial, or Civil tribunal/trial). The USAF claimed that it did not know the whereabouts of the pilots at that precise time (they were back in the US though the USAF claimed they were in Kuwait, whereabouts unknown for operational reasons). The pilots never faced any sort of formal, competent inquiry of any sort, and in one case was promoted soon after the end of the GW.

You can argue the rights and wrongs of the actions of the pilots at the time, including the circumstances, and all of the surrounding factors in mitigation. I accept that to a degree. The cause of the issue with the army is not so much what happened and why, but that nobody was ever made to account for what happened and the way in which the process was handled.

The net result is a real sense (perception if you will) of "them and us" within the British army, that the Americans get away with quite literally murder, while we are made to account for our actions. To a degree I share the view that US servicemen are protected from the consequences of their actions in a way that a British serviceman would never be, I cannot help thinking that this is wrong.

The view in this forum is not representative of the views of the British Army. This forum is dominated by RAF aircrew, not soldiers, and it is fair to say that the cultures between the 2 services are very, very different, and I am not just talking about the AAC. What you will not get from this forum is the feeling of mistrust that lies under the surface with a lot of soldiers in the British Army towards their American counterparts. I am going to make the point now that this is not American bashing, this feeling really does exist and it eminates mainly from the political handling of incidents after the event, not so much from the fact that they happen.

You could make comments about the Sea Kings which crashed. 1 American life was lost, so it would not be a surprise to me if there was some sort of feeling about that (I have already had the flung in my face in conversation with a USN officer). The difference to remember there is that the 2 helicopters collided, they were not shot down by the Ark Royal's defences. In the same way I would not be critical of the fact that 8 Royal Marines died when the CH46 crashed because it was an accident of no-one's making. It could equally have happened on a training exercise.

I think that the US contributers to this forum should recognise that there will be criticism of US actions by some of us here, just as I accept that there may well be criticism of the actions of the British Forces when they do something wrong. It should also be recognised that criticism is not akin to "American Bashing".

I want to say a word on the accusation of smugness and arrogance. I had words put in my mouth, and intentions attached to them that were not mine when I wrote what i did. When I challenged one contributers comments by quoting verbaitm what I had written I was accused of being smug and arrogant. When I paraphrased Aquinas I was accused of being arrogant for quoting myself and paraphrasing Aquinas. I was accused of being arrogant for daring to consider that Aquinas had written about such matters centuries before. I was damned for supporting my view with reference, I was damned for trying to support it without. I was not alone in this, others were condemned in the same manner. It will be interesting to see what comments come out of this, as i am certain that others will read more into this post than was ever intended.

[SASless]

KBF....the key issue is.....even the Brits have Blue on Blue events. When you do....you Teabags (derisive term attached to Yank Bashers...not our kindly cousins) remain silent about the lack of professionalism...the cowboy shoot first and ask questions later kinds of comments you make when an American unit is involved. That is the point. When it is the Home Team that drops a clanger...then it is no big deal in the thread....quite unlike when an American unit hits the wrong target.

Read the posts.....and compare it to the current lack of discussion of the Challenger event. That is the point......it is plain to see even to we under-educated....un-sophisticated.....cowboy shoot'em up hip shooters. That is the point!

In the words of the Red-Green Show...."Remember....we are all in this together!" If you had ever been involved in combat you would understand the confusion that goes on and no amount of modern technology is going to eliminate killing our own guys....no matter how hard we try. War is a nasty, dirty, messy business....in which people die.

[Danny]

kbf1, your unedited comment below with the damning accusation about deliberate intentions of the US pilots to kill our servicemen will be taken as bashing!The net result is a real sense (perception if you will) of "them and us" within the British army, that the Americans get away with quite literally murder, while we are made to account for our actions.you are being contradictory when you mention:I am going to make the point now that this is not American bashing, this feeling really does exist and it eminates mainly from the political handling of incidents after the event, not so much from the fact that they happen.Now, you are either calling the pilots murderers or you aren't. From what I can see you called them murderers and in this instance that appears to me to be American bashing. The fleeting comment that these feelings eminates from political handling do not justify the emphatic language you used. The impression I percieve from your posts is that you have a problem when having to deal with your US counterparts and you have not come to terms with the unintentional blue on blue incident that you keep referring to from GW1.

[Ali Barber]

This is war and bad things happen in war. I do not for one minute think that anyone is deliberately out to commit a blue on blue. They will have to live with their actions and that is probably punishment enough given that the incidents happen under the fog of war.

If kbf1 wants "culprits" held accountable, shouldn't they also be accountable for civilian collateral deaths when the laser was 20 ft off the DMPI? Of course not.

I watched the ceremony today of the first 10 bodies of British Servicemen being returned to RAF Brize Norton. Very moving it was and especially as none of them was killed by enemy action (8 accidental and 2 blue on blue). During the commentary on Sky News, the retired Colonel ex-tanky from GW1 offered a staggering statistic. He stated that the typical blue on blue casualty rate throughout all conflicts in the 20th century was around 25% and had been as high as 40%. He offered no evidence for the statement, so I repeat it only for what its worth which is to say that blue on blue happens; it is rarely intentional (fragging Vietnam-style being the only exception I can think of).

We are all on the same side and trying to kill the enemy, not each other and not the civilians. That is a tough job so let them get on with it without the 20/20 hindsight comments.

[solotk]

Good point Ali

However, now is the time to spend as much money on developing good IFF kit/procedures, as we spend on developing "Smart" missiles and bombs.

It costs £2,000,000 + to train an FJ Pilot/Navigator.It costs (estimated) It costs £10,000+ to train an Infantry soldier. Add the cost of his aircraft,or IFV or specialist equipment destroyed in a BonB and there's a major part of the development costs of suitable IFF systems right there.

The frustrating thing, is that with no Iraqi manned air threat, there are simple solutions that could be used.

Does anyone have any idea of the cost of building a simple IFF encrypted system?

[northernmonkey]

But does the system really need to be encrypted for a scenario and theatre such as this.

Just a regular frequency change, if it does fall into the wrong hands for a couple of hours, so they get to live to fight until tomorrow.

Even cheaper, and can be in place almost immediatley

[ORAC]

The kit's there, it's spending the money.

You fit aircraft with L16/MIDS/SADL terminals. These integrate with U.S. army units reporting friendly forces via EPLRS.

Of course the RAF has only fitted L16 to the F3; and the army isn't EPLRS equipped. Cheaper to lose the odd aircraft or APC.

[griffinblack]

Septic speak - "It's Hammer time"

Pommy speak - "I say chaps. We seem to be in a spot of bother...what, what. The blighters have put on a bit of a show, don't you know. Now chaps, follow me, over the top, think of queen and country and keep a stiff upper lip. Toodle pip"

Same message, different words.

[Scud-U-Like]

Not only is stereotyping nationalities a no-brainer, griffinblack, but stereotyping them 60 years out of date shows no savvy at all.

[A and C]

Griffinblack may be out of date with the wordage but having worked with the americans in a civil aviation enviroment I have come to the conclusion that what you say and what the other side thinks you mean can be two very different things.

This is not a dig at anyone just a fact of life when dealing with another people from another culture , the biggest problem with the USA/UK interface is that the words are the same but the meaning can be so different.

This was a real flight safety issue that could have turned into a brit/yank bashing bun fight ( had it been left to SOME of the ex RAF in the company ) but fortunatly wiser council prevaled with an attitude of trying to understand the other sides way of doing things rather that just slagging them off and taking the pi$$.

I found my time working with the Americans enjoyable and I admire the "can do " attitue that they have , when this is tempered with a little of the british reserve it makes for a very effective team.

[griffinblack]

Scud-U-Like. I think that was my point.

[SASless]

That was exactly I took from Griffin....from many years of working and living in the UK or working for a British company while overseas....I saw repeatedly the difference in language when discribing the same event. I distinctly recall returning to Sumburgh one very ugly afternoon.....having hovered down the shoreline looking for the airport or some green flat place to land. Over tea, I described the weather in about 175 words.....my dear friend from Hull....merely described it as being "a bit dodgy!" Same weather...same problems....same artery clearing stress.....and so very understated by the one.

We are one people separated by a common language.

[kbf1]

SASless:

As yet there hasn't been a b-on-b where the British have engaged US forces. If we had and contributers in the US voiced anger at the British I could understand it.

Also, I wonder if Gen Sir Mike Rose or Sir Mike Jackson might agree with the assertion that only a soldier who has seen "combat" could understand these issues. Soldiers do find themselves in situations and circumstances where they are under duress, stress (both physical and intellectual/emotional), in danger, and under fire while not engaged in "combat". This was certainly the case in Bosnia where the UK/UN had not declared war and were not engaged in warfighting operations, yet we had been sent on an "operational deployment" where this was the norm. I and others had to act in the circumstances I describe while not actually at war, and therefore not engaged in "combat". Also, it is worth noting that not every Para/Guardsman/Inf et al has been under fire, but many AAC/RLC/RE/REME et al have.

Danny:

"getting away with murder" is a term my mother used when I was a child, usually when I did something that would otherwise earn a rebuke that I didn't get. She wasn't implying that I had actually killed someone with "malice aforethought" as defined in law. I have heard you use the term, and I am confident that you were not implying that somone close to you had unlawfully taken the life of another, or I am sure you would have called the police. You are putting intentions in my words that are clearly not there. You understand the context of that statement and are playing semantic differences.

I agree that the issue in GW1 was unintentional. My issue there is what happened subsequently. I don't have an "problem" with the US in the sense that you are implying, but I have experienced "problems" of the practical sense in operating alongside them for many reasons, as have a number of British servicemen. These problems and issues aren't personal, but stem from 2 institutions that are not the same attempting to be compatable.

If kbf1 wants "culprits" held accountable, shouldn't they also be accountable for civilian collateral deaths when the laser was 20 ft off the DMPI?

Ali: International law is already poised to do this in the form of the International War Crimes Tribunal. America has opted out of this framework by not ratifying the treaty that brings it into force when enough signature nations have been gained. Britian has signed up to it (foolishly in my view), and is applying the principles already. For some time now each commander in the British Army from Pl/Tp level up has to keep a diary of their actions and account in it for their decisions. In the event of an accusation of a war crime through causing colateral damage (which incidentally can now be applied to environmental damage as well as civilian deaths) this diary would be crucial in providing evidence that the act was justified. Without going into specifics, a smart bomb which goes off target could lead to a charge if the Tribunal feels there is a case to answer and the country in question falls under its jurisdiction.

Solotk:

I don't know where you got the figures for inf training from, but the combined costs of CMSR1 and 2 will be higher by a magnitude of at least 10. The salary and on-costs of employment for the recruit alone are higher than £10k.

While I do not disagree with your comments about IFF, there are some real issues to be ironed out before it can be effectively introduced. A discussion on this topic on another site led to this response which i copy for background as it highlights what those problems consist of:


It is easy to shout cries of yes . . .we must have IFF and of course in an ideal world we should. However like most things, the matter is quite complicated and there are many technical challenges that need to be overcome first.

To give you a flavour:

- IFF must be totally secure for allies and own forces, and at a very high classification. How do we change crypto over so quickly, easily and securely so that we do not adminstratively overburden ourselves ?

- Compromise of crypto and/or captured equipment ? How do we physically change crypto easily and how do we prevent the enemy ‘learning’ our IFF signal or using IFF equipment from captured equipment to spoof us ?

- IFF needs to be able to work in all weathers and line of sight. How do we cater for an infantryman with fleeting glimpses on an enemy through vegetation, and/or fog and rain ?

- What happens if the enemy employs jammers against our IFF wideband, or only when we ‘interogate’ them ?

- How do we stop the enemy learning our positions from our IFF emmisions ?

- IFF Equipment in AFVs and on all infantry weapons must be guarenteed to operate effectively 100% of the time . Can we achieve this – aircraft perhaps but on the ground with the grit of war? What happens if the IFF equipment breaks down or there is a loss power though damage or loss of battery power ? Remember wrong or no response from our IFF eqpt means that we are enemy, and our IFF eqpt could be being interogated without the host even knowing !.

- Training. Do we want the lives of our soldiers to be ruled by accurate identification by the human eye, or to rest with equipment that we are never quite sure is working 100% of the time, or the IFF might be compromised, or there might be loss of power, out of date crypto or etc etc.

Work is going on to address the points above, but I hope I have shown that there are many technical and training hurdles still to be overcome before we adopt a system that may cause more harm than good. Easy to say . . . we must have IFF . . . . but very hard (and costly) to achieve. No other coutries have achieved it yet. Food for thought.


ORAC: L16 is integrated into the FIST programme, however given the delays in rolling out the kit because of technical issues, the US are likely to have moved beyond L16 as the entry level C3I platform. The army may take the view to looking beyond L16 and the gains that can be made from employing it and developing their own system on a higher spec (multi-channel L32 possibly) platform that can accommodate whatever the US are using. Either way, there are no easy answers to inter-operability, and this is a long standing problem for 2 armies with entirely different SOPS. I am not convinced that being on the same comms platform will provide the answers we are looking for.

[ORAC]

kbf1,

That's the attitude that's ensured that, 12 years after GW1, we still have no kit whilst the U.S. forces do. The reason is always given that, if we wait, we'll get better equipment. The end result is that, instead, we get no equipment whilst the money is frittered away on programs that go nowhere.

L16/SADL/EPLRS is off the shelf and available, not blue sky. If you want future compatability buy JTRS radios and you can upgrade to L22, CDL or TCDL. But the answer is not to sit on our hands buying nothing and just throwing money at research.

Otherwise we'll be asking the same questions, again, during the next war.

[kbf1]

ORAC: I think you may have mis-understood me. I think we need to do something, and right now I don't care what because anything is better than doing nothing as is the case with Bowman.

What I meant with the comms platform comment is that even if we were using JTRS as a standard now, it would not solve the inter-operability issues which stem from the lack of "systems of systems" development between ourselves and the US/NATO. The complexity is getting harder and harder to manage and we are moving further away from the goal of operating together in a way that does not create confusion in the C3 process. There are also wider G2 issues, but those are easier to resolve.

[solotk]

KBF1

I'm aware of the cost of training an Infantry soldier, just wasn't aware if it was in the public domain...
As regards the IFF thread, it's active again, all suggestions I suspect, are eagerly awaited........

We need something fast, I think that much is understood. Orac makes an emotive, and supportable point

[Vfrpilotpb]

It is very sad when B on B occurrs, but when you are looking through a sight and taking incomming the human mind selects survival mode, and only later thinks about what has been done, so it will continue!

My feelings are that the American top brass should let the lady at the Pentagon briefings do all the talking and planning, boy has she got hard Balls!!:D

[steamchicken]

Speaking a different language - but we've got the Phrasealator

James Meek outside Diwaniya
Monday March 31, 2003
The Guardian

Yesterday afternoon a man in glasses and a large helmet stood by a ditch in Iraq, trying to communicate with a group of farmers. David Cooper's first language is Irish Gaelic. His second and main language is American English. Unfortunately, the only language the farmers spoke was Iraqi Arabic.
The object of discussion was an ancient, dust-clogged, diesel-powered water pump which the farmers wanted to start, with the help of the US marines, who control the roadside area east of the town of Diwaniya where the farmers have their fields.

The pump lies under the very guns of the marines, hunkered down in foxholes behind a high sand wall, scanning the landscape for signs of the elusive, intangible, incomprehensible enemy.

Cooper, a major in the military's civil affairs department, didn't have an interpreter, exactly. He had a handheld black plastic device the size of an eggbox called a Phrasealator.

Users run a stylus down a series of menus on a screen, pick a phrase in English, touch the line, and the Phrasealator squawks the equivalent in Arabic.

The machine lacks elementary social skills. It only covers a handful of situations, such as crowd control, law and order and emergencies. If you want to tell someone to get out of their car slowly or not to be frightened, it's great.

If you have to talk to farmers in rural Iraq about intimate details of their lives, families, crops and horticultural needs, and understand what they say back, it's useless, and while Major Cooper, a reservist who normally works for Sun Microsystems, oozed goodwill, he wasn't taking an active part in the dialogue about the pump.

The marines have brought the whole encyclopaedia of military technology with them to Iraq. From aircraft to x-ray machines, they have a myriad ways to kill, heal wounded, survey, spy, reconnoitre, communicate with each other, shell, defend, attack, enfilade. They have brought all the machines and all the skilled people trained to use them.

The equipment necessary to talk to Iraqis, understand their problems and respond to their needs, however, seems to have been left on the quayside in California.

Maj Cooper and his colleague, Major Mark Stainbrook, are part of a tiny number of civil affairs officers attached to the marines. Neither speaks Arabic, and their interpreter has poor English.

Even before Saturday's suicide bomb attack on US troops, the response of marines towards Iraqi civilians has been characterised by fear, suspicion and mistrust. While there is no sign of ill-treatment of civilians, there has been little attempt to actively make friends in Iraqi communities, to carry out foot patrols in villages to assure locals that the US is providing security, or to systemise the movement of Iraqi civilians across US-held territory.

Any fire on the marines has characteristically been met with overwhelming firepower in return, often involving artillery, air strikes by helicopters and the marines' own F-18 fighters. While there are genuine attacks by Iraqi irregulars on marines' convoys, it is impossible to verify whether all the "attacks" are genuine, and the light casualties and low loss of vehicles strongly suggest that some "ambushes" are simply civilians being shot at by jumpy marines.

Down at the pump yester day, the civil affairs men and the farmers were originally talking at cross purposes. Maj Stainbrook thought they wanted the water to drink. In fact they wanted to pump thousands of litres into irrigation channels to feed their thirsty fields of barley and melons. As ever when cultures clash, the conversation was full of non sequiturs.

"We are going to get a battery to start the pump. Do you have containers?" Maj Stainbrook said.

"We would like to cooperate with you to save us from this tyrant," said Khaled Juwad, one of the farmers.

"We're trying," said Maj Stainbrook, chewing flat bread the farmers had brought. "It may take a while."

US batteries were brought, but they still wouldn't do the job. The civil affairs people sent for a Humvee. As he left, Maj Stainbrook said: "They need to tell everyone never to approach US troops at night, and if they approach in daytime, not to come too close, and try to get someone to come to them, because it's dangerous."

Half an hour later, the American batteries, luck and the engineering skill of the farmers got the pump going with a roar and a puff of black smoke and water from one of the tributaries of the Euphrates gushed into the irrigation system.

If the farmers spoke the truth, and were not simply saying what they thought the marines wanted to hear, the resistance to the US-British invasion is, in this area at least, marginal and largely forced, and a more subtle, less civilian-fearful approach by the military, with less emphasis on firepower and more on getting local people on side, might deliver Saddam loyalists on a plate.

The centre of resistance, according to Juwad, was a paramilitary organisation called the Golden Troop of the Jerusalem Army, made up largely of local people forced to fight at gunpoint by army officers who had come into Diwaniya - a town under Iraqi control - from Baghdad before the invasion.

"They came here three days before you guys arrived and the shooting started," said Juwad, who normally lives in Diwaniya but fled to a small house on his farm when the fighting broke out. His family is still in the town.

Members of the Golden Troop had attacked a US convoy near their farm, Juwad added, but had fled immediately and scattered.

An hour's walk along the irrigation ditches, past the fields of green barley, through the red mud, with plovers flying overhead, led to the tent of Juwad's uncle, Abu Hamid.

Sticking in the ground outside was an old pole with a tattered piece of white sacking lashed to it, the universal Iraqi flag of these parts, the please-don't-shoot flag of "We surrender".

To demonstrate life in Saddam's Iraq, Abu Hamid kneeled down on the ground, as if sleeping, then jumped up again with his eyes and mouth wide open, staring in fright, then kneeled again. He repeated the sequence several times.

"This is how people sleep now," he said. "They are not secure."


Link (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,926225,00.html)

[ORAC]

Jane's:

"The UK is said so far to have been unique in pursuing the Battlefield Target Identification Device (BTID) in a fast-jet air-ground operations context. A preliminary study conducted by TME in 2000-01 concluded there would be no 'show-stoppers' preventing the incorporation of a BTID interrogator in an airborne targeting pod.

BAE Systems has since been awarded a feasibility study contract, addressing matters such as antenna integration and Doppler effects, as a potential enhancement to the multinational ASTRID (Airborne System for Target Recognition, Identification and Designation) pod development program, which in the UK's case is intended to lead to a replacement for the in-service TIALD system. In 2001 the UK allocated £91 million to cover the ASTRID concept phase through to integration into service of up to 40 systems from 2010."

So don't worry chaps, if ASTRID ever gets the go ahead, and enters service on time, and the upgrade is added to the baseline contract and not as a subsequent modification you only have 7 years to wait. I'm sure nothing will happen between now and then.

Won't help with A-10s of course since, as stated, the UK is unique in going down this path.

[Pindi]

Have just read this thread. I'm astronished at the meretricious claptrap which has been assembled by those sensitive souls whose life has been blighted by the reaction of a few American soldiers to a local tactical success. This seems to illustrate a firm grasp of the inessential.

We're at war,for God's sake. These folk are our allies, facing the same threat and fighting for the same cause and we should be rooting for them - not beefing about their psyche differing from our own.

Jackonicko, you say that you find "some of what you see of Americans as being very foreign." This is a thoroughly patronising observation. What on earth do you expect?
Of course they're foreign and it's one of their strengths. To believe otherwise is to identify yourself with that popular British misconception that Americans are really renegade Englishmen who have somehow gone wrong. The media are doing a splendid job in denigrating the coalition forces. They can manage very well without help from here.

[Boy_From_Brazil]

On a more positive note, I would like to praise the US Colonel, in the vicinity of the Shiite tomb in Najaf yesterday. By his leadership skills he was able to prevent a difficult and ugly situation from getting very violent and potentially damaging the 'Hearts and Mind' strategy of the coalition.

It takes a brave man to back off like he did, especially in front of the parasitic newshounds.

[Smoketoomuch]

Apologies if this is the wrong place to ask, but which do you think will fall first, Basra or Baghdad? Is it true the US has ordered UK to hold back on Basra - possibly until Baghdad falls?

[Grob Driver]

Jackonicko,

Normally you talk a lot of sense on these forums and I have respect for that you say, but on this one, I have to disagree with you!

I can tell you, that I’d be cheering like hell if I was there on the front line when that building was taken out! Not because I’m some gun ho America, but because I’d have been bl**dy relieved! The people in there were trying to kill the US troops (obviously, it’s a war!) I think they are allowed to show a bit of emotion at times like that! As for not being very PC… This isn’t parliament’s question time… It’s a war. You can’t expect them to watch what they say, just because it’s not very PC. Let them say what they want, if that helps to troops, and gets the job done, then I don’t have a problem with it!

Cheers,
Grob Driver

[PLovett]

Boy_From_Brazil

Have to agree with you 100%. If the decision not to respond to the fire coming from the tomb was the Colonel's then he has made one of the most significant decisions that will lead to the eventual success of this war.

My understanding that his actions led to the release of the senior Imam for the Shia in Iraq and this has led to a fatwa calling on all Shia to stay at home and not oppose the coalition advance.

Given that the Shia are the majority sect in Iraq, that fatwa will have far-reaching consequences.

[SASless]

Smoke too much....better check the content of yer ciggies my man....shades of WWII.... and Montgomery coming to the fore. Why yes chaps, the original plan was for us to hold off investing Antwerp until Berlin fell so that we could make our colonial cousins look good!

The British troops have a tough fight going on....with lots of potential negative feedback politically if they go at it hammer and tongs. Let's see how long it takes for the US troops to gain full control of Baghdad before we start this discussion. After Baghdad, we then have Tikrit to deal with too.

[laidbak]

As a colonial who lived 15 years in UK, and has been in US some 13 years, a couple of observations:

Brits are well known for understatement, and it's appreciated everywhere. It's merely a slight cultural diff. Also, not all Americans are 'loud'. It really is a big country, and there's a hell of a difference between folks from , say, Idaho and New York- just as I imagine there will be a difference in style between, say , a scouser and someone from 'the home counties'. I.e. - all this tuff about whooping it up is total bulls**t-one incidence of euphoric (understandable)reaction. .

It's real sad that a couple of clueless folks always get into US bashing, when most Americans have a very positive view of Brits. Prime Minister Blair scored a 72% approval rating amongst american public this week, above President Bush.

To all the sad sacks : Leave it out/Rotate on this !! (no need for the phrasealator).
F.I.D.O