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

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

[stinkypew]

The British alone were outproducing the Germans in aircraft by 1941. It would have taken longer, but I have no doubt that the British and Russians, with U.S. material aid, would have beat the Germans.

[may18]

This is silly, all the reports from the military forums are of mutual respect, yet one silly article and everyone goes haywire

Basra was a different prospect to bagdhad, one thing people seem to forget is the uk commander on the ground recieved his orders from CENTCOM, ie orders of when to go in or not to go in was franks decision.

So, if the US command decided the best way was to provide water and food outside of basra and take it gradually, im prepared to agree with them, civilian casualties due to uk attacks were 91, obviously this tactic was not applicable to the much larger bagdhad, or it would have been used to minimise civilian death

[xJones]

Do you bother to read? The U.S. bypassed southern Iraqi towns and were also prepared to wait outside Baghdad. The commanders in the field sensed the opportunity was there and moved in. The Brits did an excellent job of handling Basra, their assigned target and the second largest city in Iraq.

Ivan, ignore any Brit bashing on this thread. Considering the major contributions by our stauch British allies ever since 9/ll, it's embarrassing.

[AndrewC]

I see the Telegraph has accomplished its mission.

[Pukka Puck]

"Anyway let the Telegraph show a little patriotic favoritism for their marines, if I remember correctly they got unfair criticism for waiting outside Basra until it cooled down."

That would be well-deserved criticism for sitting on their asses outside of Basra, waiting for the Americans to win the war before finally going into Basra only after we had taken Baghdad. With Baghdad in our grasp, resistance collapsed in Basra, making taking the city a snap for the Brits.

If, on the other hand, the Brits had taken Basra sooner, it would have helped to undermine the resolve of the Iraqi fighters to the north and would have made the American advance easier.

The Brits moved only thirty miles and then sat and waited while the Americans did all the heavy lifting.

[Happygal]

"The Telegraph, supposedly the most conservative newspaper in Britain, has published a series of drivel like this throughout the war."

Yes, the Telegraph is a very conservative newspaper. Indeed, it is.

To suggest otherwise, is nonsensical. I've been on liberal boards and said I was a DT reader and have been classed as a 'nazi' for reading same.

Do I like this article? No. But ~shrugging my shoulders~ over all, the Telegraph has been consistently supportive of the war on Iraq --- WELL BEFORE TROOPS WERE DEPLOYED, and well before other news media organs decided 'which way to jump' on the matter.

I'm in Ireland, and the Sunday Independent is the closest thing to the DT published in my country. In that I will see Gene Kerrigan giving me a liberal slant on an issue, and on the same page see Alan Ruddock lambaste him with good conservative ethic.

Nothing wrong with that.

After all, we are not sheep (at least, I hope we are not).

Pukka, if your critical thought lies on the basis of one article, I'm dismayed.

And besides...WHERE does everyone get off in not realising that this is a British newspaper, writing essentially to a British audience?

Friends, anyone who chooses to take lumps out of Allies does not see a bigger picture. It's like a cat fight in a gay bar!!!

The Daily Telegraph, is NOT the enemy. Believe me!

[Live free or die]

Ahh yes...I forgot!

Hitler didn't have an alliance with the Japanese (whom the Brits were also fighting) that caused him to make the idiotic decision of declaring war on the US after Dec. 7.

Oh wait..yeah he did!

[Happygal]

well said!

[Pukka Puck]

Because the Brits are all a bunch of soft socialists now and they were men then.

[stinkypew]

Whatever, man. The argument was about fighting Germans, not their allies.

[Hazzardgate]

I just got back from 10 days in the UK and I must admit this article is very representative of the cool Britannia wind that is blowing over there right now.

It's not surprising though, as every single train station/HMV/bookstore I went into there were mass quantities of Michael Moore's "Stupid White Men" and "George Bushisms Vol. 2" promenantly on display. Hard left anti-American Americans are very chic there at the moment.

[Michael121]

I am reading at this moment "Death Traps" by Belton Y. Cooper. An LT. Liason officer with an Armored Maint. Battalion with the 3rd Armor 1sy Army. He talks in depth about the shortcomings and all of the Sherman. As I said it was the best we knew of at the time. The Pershing came out of intelligence but the Sherman was numbers we had a turnaround time of 48 hours or less to replace damaged or destroyed tanks. No army before or since could match that. As a liason officer he had to make a report drive in the middle of the night in one jeep with a driver to get replacement tanks and bring them back. His men were repairing o in the field what they could.

But it is not the tank or armor but the TC (tank commanders)
the sherman was faster and the turrent was hydraulic or electric all the German tanks were manual traverse. Sit and fire and die. Move and shoot and live. All combat wins on shoot and manuever. The Germans master of the Blitzkreig, did not even understand this. The Blitz was about bypassing heavy defenses with armor and cutting its supply. Patton did that. We did that in Iraq. But the Abrahms shoots while moving. The Pershing was the first tank that could do that. The Sherman had to stop but technology came late for the Sherman. The later ones had 76mm higher velocity and ford V8 as oppossed to 75mm and radil engines.

The Pershings next gun would have been a 90mm high velocity but the war ended. The 105mm on mobile arty were good tank killers.

Germans used the all purpose 88's in arty and on tanks. More for uniformity. But the 88 was a hihg velocity round and a good one at that. The soviets on the other hand built then as they do now. The Ak47 Kal is made with tolerances so low that sand inside it does not effect it. Their planes and vehicles were made to take punishment of climate but had a dual effect of battle damage survival. It was not planned. It was residual. Build it to last winter in Siberia and it last longer in the field.

[Pukka Puck]

"this article says nothing suprising"

True, but is is full of anti-American spin.

[Pukka Puck]

"4. The British pussyfooted around Basra for two full weeks, scared to venture into battle."

Now that is the honest to God truth!

[may18]

nod this makes me very sad ;<

Our soldiers fought together, watched each others backs.
Its one of many times the us and uk forces have stood shoulder to shoulder, going all the way back to WW2 and chosin reservoir.

Yet we have one silly article In 1 paper and this is what happens.

Newspapers write silly articles, the writer sees an "angle" to sell papers and follows it up.

Im quite shocked at the anti british feeling here, i thought our countries, and people were friends

[mrsmith]

That was the plan.

If Franks had foolishly told them to force Basra they would have.

[gcruse]

BFD
The Telegraph is one of the very few quality conservative newspapers in existence. Give them slack.

[Grampa Dave]

Thanks for your feedback.

[stinkypew]

Where did you read that the German tank turrets were all hand-traversed? I'm certain that the Panther and Tiger were electric, and it would have been well-nigh impossible to hand crank the turret on the Tiger II.

[Pukka Puck]

"Do you think an article in the New York Times speaks for all of the United States. Trash the article, the source, but not the UK."

According to Madivan, the Telegraph is the best and most conservative paper in Britain. Have you read what the liberal British papers have written about us?

They are all a bunch of socialists over there now.