ARmy Rumour SErvice

yes it is not news that the us armed forces weak spot is the low intensity conflict, but even before Iraq the US military was slowly reorganizing into a lighter force. the UK is a superior at counter insurgency i will give you that, but how much better do you think UK troops would do if they had control of Baghdad, al-anbar and the "triangle of death" the lake of helmets and such i don't think it would make that major of a difference.

I do dislike the comparison of the Malaysian emergency to Vietnam, i think it was Mao who said a supportive population is the sea insurgent fish swim in..or something to that effect. communism is not going to have great support in a Muslim country, that whole compulsory atheism thing did not go over to well. Vietnam as well was not lost on the battle field it was a ideological defeat and a political defeat but it like most other low intensity conflicts is neither won or lost on the battlefield.

please forgive me, i am not the most articulate writer, so i may have inadvertently come seemed to come across sounding like a know it all or armchair general

Originally Posted by midwesterner

yes it is not news that the us armed forces weak spot is the low intensity conflict, but even before Iraq the US military was slowly reorganizing into a lighter force. the UK is a superior at counter insurgency i will give you that, but how much better do you think UK troops would do if they had control of Baghdad, al-anbar and the "triangle of death" the lake of helmets and such i don't think it would make that major of a difference.

I do dislike the comparison of the Malaysian emergency to Vietnam, i think it was Mao who said a supportive population is the sea insurgent fish swim in..or something to that effect. communism is not going to have great support in a Muslim country, that whole compulsory atheism thing did not go over to well. Vietnam as well was not lost on the battle field it was a ideological defeat and a political defeat but it like most other low intensity conflicts is neither won or lost on the battlefield.

please forgive me, i am not the most articulate writer, so i may have inadvertently come seemed to come across sounding like a know it all or armchair general

I Think the big difference would be hearts and minds. References have been made to automatic grenades... Rocket launchers etc. Not to mention The countless air strikes being put in on a taxi full of choggis with to AK's between them. We are not big enough to play that card and even if we were I doubt we would. I dont think we would solve the problem much better but attacks of retaliation would reduce and combined services work would be more effective as Britfor will happily skive out of something if Choggifor wants to do it. & as all who have been there know, the choggi police get on with the people alot better than we do for obvious reasons.

But most importantly we do live off a reputation which is famous world wide. & every now and then we have remimded the world what we can do Falklands Sierra Leonne etc. But also whilst deployed in Iraq. We will be pushed and pushed until it goes to far and then they meet the British army at its best dismounted CQB With Maximum British Violence. There is nothing they fear more than getting into a close up scrap with the coalition (Septics included), because they know thats how we do things. Its just that we do it alot better...

In My opinion!

i do not know this group is there any truth to this or is it a left wing group?

iraq or not, anywhere in the Islamic world i think it is impossible for filthy infidels like us to truly "win hearts and minds" of Muslims

i do think the active US military should stick primarily to the high intensity conflict, with the National Guard being retooled and reorganized into a counterinsurgency force. there are several very valid reasons for this.



PS you forgot white phosphorus

Seems to be alot of truth and alot of bull.

We never pulled out but we did re-position so that camps could better mutually support eachother. As far as i am aware Patrols never stopped in MAK or Al am. No commander with any regimental pride could do that as to pull out would be to admit defeat... Even if only temporary. There may have been some sort of lock down but i doubt this would last more than a day or two.

The 100 day battle did take place but we did sustain casualties and I think one death. However what it keeps highliting is its similar to the problems you lot are having up north... But look at the difference in casualty rates even as a percentage.

It goes without saying that your boys are fighting a longer harder battle than us on the big scale of things. But back down at the bottom end of things its just a group of blokes with rifles shooting eachother up. & This is what we all need to improve on. So to get back on the point of the thread its a bout time your boys started working on weapon handling. Hopefully they will next work on the delegation of command rather than micro management!

Another reason why there is a higher intensity of banter across the atlantic than between other nations is the difference between 'allies' and 'friends'....we're 'allies with the French, the Germans, the Greeks. We're mates with the Yanks...which is why we rip the p1ss, and also wish them the best.

That said, big danger of getting decidedly cocky in the UK, especially with quality collective training at risk and the changing political climate at home.

military was slowly reorganizing into a lighter force.

Well, yes and no. If you look at the different units that converted to SBCTs, about as many used to be light infantry as heavy infantry. It all balanced out, and so the Army as a whole is about equally 'heavy.' The difference is in the weight of rapidly mobile forces, which has actually increased. (All those leg infantry types now being given Strykers)

NTM

GROWNUPS_BEWARE Makes a very good point. There will always be banter an p1ss taking. But hopefully we will get to the point one day where we are doing it with a healthy respect for our mates capabilities. In the same way that you tell your mate the heavy weight boxing champion you could waste him if you got the first dig in.

Iraq has highlighted lots of interesting problems in both US & UK forces training which is being adapted to suit the new style of campaign. I do believe that the septics should bite the bullit on some subjects and ask us for instruction. More exchange programs and Inter-Ex's are in order to create a happier working relationship so we can get back to the days of the cold war when our forces were familiar with the others and how they play the game of War!

it has also confirmed some worries and problems that some said before Iraq and A-stan. You have to understand there are basically to very different US armies you have the combat MOSs and the support MOSs. please understand that there is a much larger portion of the US army dedicated to support and logistics, and in this realm there has been concern about their martial skills, and all though there is the official(ish) statement soldier first and tradesmen second, well with jobs like "bath and Laundry specialist" or teletype repair or locomotive mechanic its going to be difficult to maintain their basic soldering skills, and you end up getting somewhat civilians in attitude.BCT is a joke, and needs to be improved.

another thing UK forces do not have is the massive miles of convoy routes, and the combat logistical patrols that rome iraq are a favorite target. good story