"Unlike the American troops, we look the Iraqis in the eye"

The Daily Telegraph U.K. ^ | 4-05-03 | Not attributed

[Ursus arctos horribilis]

What the hades is a fair fight in combat?

[Prodigal Son]

but write a courteous letter about these articles, and it disappears into a black hole.

LOL! Well, I think mine is probably already destined for oblivion but not because of its topic.

[stinkypew]

No need to resort to threats. Stick to the facts. I stand by my statement. Aside from defeatist, Popular-Front France getting whupped in 1940, I say they've done well. Even in 1870, Paris held out throughout the winter, and fresh armies were being raised in the provinces.

They were grossly outnumbered in Vietnam.

I'm weak on the history of the Algerian war, but I don't recall reading anything about the French regularly getting beat in the field. Were there even any pitched battles?

[WaterDragon]

Re Algeria: The French sent in troops earlier this year (without a UN resolution!!!!!) to protect French citizens during the civil war there, and to set up a government friendly to the French.

More recently, France asked the U.N. to send in troops, because French troops are cornered and need rescuing. The U.S. vetoed the resolution! Hah!

[AlbionGirl]

You know, the danger in responding to any and all criticism with hatred and bile is that one never improves.

You're absolutely right about that. I think the point the author makes that it's England's colonial history that gives it a leg up with the locals is right on.

Just like the subjects of the Roman Empire preferred Roman citizenship to the citizenship of their homeland, subjects of the British Empire felt much the same. Can you imagine how awful the situation in India must have been for a divided classes loving society like England to be appalled?

The article doesn't mention though that the Americans are loved in the North, where an appreciation of grit, tenacity and wariness are truly great.

It is to our credit that we're not bent on Empire, and that all we ask (in the words of C. Powell) is for enough land to bury our dead.

[WaterDragon]

Was that Algeria, or was it another of the French "former" colonies? Dunno. One of them. Whichever the French sent troops into recently.

[livius]

Geez! I don't think they're being "sensitive" enough...

[WaterDragon]

A newbie, or a new identity?

[stinkypew]

You asked what a "fair fight" is. You necessarily imply that one victory is as good as another; that "a win is a win," if you will. I don't care to argue that point.

But the comment was made in the context of an argument about relative military prowess. The other fellow brought up New Orleans, evidently as an example of a stunning American victory. My point was that we could hardly have lost that battle under the circumstances. The British frontally assaulted a very formidable position without artillery preparation. I don't think one can point to the holding of such a position as an example of exceptional military prowess.

[Citizen of the Savage Nation]

According to Matthew Cooper, "The German Army, 1933-1945," the Russians killed 214,000 Germans between June and November 1944. In the West, 54,000 Germans were killed. Now that picks up right after D-Day, yet the Russians inflicted 4X the deaths of the U.S. and Brits combined.

How many Germans total were in that theatre? Russians? Over what land area? What ocean did the Russians have to cross to get their troops to the battlefield? What fortifications did they face when they fought these obviously dug in and heavily supplied troops? Oh wait, it was the Americans and Brits fighting dug in, supplied troops while the Russians were fighting overextended troops far from supply.

You're providing excellent apples to oranges comparisons.

[Happy2BMe]

I worked with some British RAF in Saudi during Desert Storm and had nothing but the utmost respect for them.

They treated me at least as good as my own troops did and always offered any help they could give - and I did likewise.

My son is (still) in Iraqi Freedom and all the Brits from his area have vacated now for at least two weeks.

He felt the same way I did - "Great Blokes to have around in a pinch!"

I observed the Brits working with the Saudis, Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, Lebonese, etc. and their "soft-hand" approach really does go over very well in that part of the world.

We could learn a lot from them.

[Michael121]

I beg to differ. WE WON Africa. WE Won Italy. WE had 127,000 troops hit the beaches on DDAY. WE had 3,000,000 in England. Monte was in charge at the initial landings. Once the beachhead was secured control was turned over To SHEAF and IKE. Because as Churchill said and Monte could not argue. The Americans are commiting far more manpower and will take far more loses. It is only fitting that they be commanded by Americans. We took France, Belgium. And Germany. We let Russia take Berlin. We were ahead of them, we stopped and waited until the Russians did take Berlin.

It was fitting we felt that Russia be allowed to because of the people they had lost. It was Politics. We sat and waited, and waited. The German feeling at the time was we should move and hurry to get to Berlin first. We decided not to do so. WE destroyed the 15th, the 7th Armies and more. We destroyed PanzerGruppe one after the other.

The only thing Russia has was manpower to use as cannon fodder which Stalin was more than happy to use. And I might add, it was not the communist state for which they fought. Stalin pushed Mother Russia, and put communism in the background. So much for the utopia of a gov. that no one would fight for without being shot.

[Smedley]

I was thinking that, also. The Brits do have the advantage of years of patrolling Northern Ireland.

Yeah, and how universally loved are the Brits there?

[stinkypew]

Throughout the period June-November 1944, the Germans had on average about 3/4 of their divisions on the Eastern Front.

I can't believe anyone would seriously argue that the Russians did not carry the brunt of the ground war against the Germans.

You people seem to think that I'm denigrating our military. I'm not. The argument is primarily about British and French military history.

[stinkypew]

"The only thing the Russians had was manpower."

Jeez. This is exactly what I'm talking about. Russian armor was either the best in the war, or barely second to Germany. Their artillery was good quality as well. They also produced some top quality fighters in the last couple years of the war, as well as a top quality tank-buster.

[Criminal Number 18F]

Actually, the article has a point. The US conventional military does indeed keep the troops isolated from, ignorant of, and generally hostile to the population.

We saw it in Afghanistan. Anywhere the conventional forces of the 82nd Airborne went, any rapport we had with the Afghans was totally wiped out. We spent the next couple weeks getting our agents, or the local mayor who was working with us, and people like that out of custody because they were just grabbing people at random.

Young infantrymen, armoured like Star Wars storm troopers, have their time and their place. The reason they are still in Afghanistan is that the generals (1) don't understand unconventional war and (2) fear postwar budget cuts, so they want to keep their best units busy. In fact, when I left, one general was pushing to have Special Forces stop patrolling and lock down in firebases, and only go outside in armour, helmets and armoured vehicles.

Yeah, it's riskier to go out in a T-shirt and a Toyota but the key to this type of war, now that the big battalions are crushed, is to -- as the article says, look 'em in the eye. You need information and in a world where everybody does stuff only with his blood relatives, you have to talk to people and build on your common humanity. They guys who would be taking the risk don't have the problem with it, it's the generals. (Every time we had someone wounded, we had to answer a bunch of insistent questions from not just in-theater generals but stateside ones too. The implication was that it was the wounded guy's fault and he was risking some general's career by being so.. whatever).

That said, while I do agree with the general premise of the article -- you gotta get out and show your face if you want to control the ground -- one thing is kind of a laugh. The author says the Americans have no experience of peacekeeping. I would like to know what the hell we have been doing in the Balkans since 1993 (home by Christmas, the Bent One said) and for that matter in Sinai since seventy-something. (Of course, most of the troops in the Balkans also live in walled fortresses and only go out in full stormtrooper mode, and there ARE no people in the Sinai to interact with).

Anyway, that's my opinion. I think the way the Brits do it (and the way our SF does it, to the extent the overhead permits) is better than the way our conventional forces handle the peacekeeping & post-major-hostilities patrolling, strictly as a matter of professional opinion.

d.o.l.

Criminal Number 18F

[Citizen of the Savage Nation]

I can't believe anyone would seriously argue that the Russians did not carry the brunt of the ground war against the Germans.

Of course they did. That is because of geography. The Germans had a great many troops right in Russia's doorstep. Russia had millions of troops also. For them to kill a couple hundred thousand is not out of the ordinary when looked in that light. The Allies had a little bit harder time of it to get troops into the field, there was no way they could kill so many Germans as the Russians did because the Germans came to them en masse.

[Lancey Howard]

If we see one vehicle heading at speed towards a checkpoint we let it through.

So... is this stupidity, or wimpiness?

[AlbionGirl]

Neither really. I originally signed up in July of '01, and then asked that my account be deleted in August of '02. Then just recently when I went to re-register I did so under my original screen name and I got stuck in a loop. The system wouldn't let me re-register under my original username, so I registered with my current name.

I did send the websmaster a note letting him know all that I've reiterated to you, and asked him/her to let me know how to go about it if they wanted me to go back to using my original screename, but I never heard back, so I kept AlbionGirl.

[Michael121]

The "Tommy Cooker" or Sherman was a main battle tank that rivaled those of Germany up to the point of Africa. They were mass produced. 50,000 during the war.

We did not encounter Tigers or Panthers until we hit Europe. The new Pershing was a better tank. It could fire while on the move because the gun turrent had gyros. In one filmed battle a King Tiger was at the end of a street the gunner began to turn to fire at a Pershing coming towards them. The German expected the US tank to stop instead the driver hit the gas the gunner fired on the move hitting the Tiger. They fired again. The Tiger burnt for three days.

Our treads lasted 2,500 miles. Germans lasted 500. Russians about 500.

The USSR and its holdover, use numbers to win. They take out a gridsquare with arty we hit targets. They throw men at cannons and tanks we use small forces with support. Russia could not win in Afghanistan in 10 years, with thousand of men. We won in 8 months with 75 SF troops and airpower.