Well done to UK senior officers!
 

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?

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!

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.

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.

".....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'.

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?

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:


Perhaps we are operating by a different set of values?

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!

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?

Rubbish!!!
 

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. :*

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:

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:

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.

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.

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

kbf1

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. ;)

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.

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.

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!

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! :*

Balderdash
 

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

The hoods will be watching you lot!


woe betide etc


toodle pip

Danny and Desperado, thank you, well said.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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?).

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:

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

I fear you are right.