Poor Quality of British Troops

Ó Donnchadha

Well-known member
Joined
May 27, 2010
Messages
2,082
As part of the WikiLeaks information leak, we are learnig that what a lot off Americans suspected, that the British troops are not up to the task.

Irish Republicans take heart.

The Afghanistan President reportedly said British troops made the Helmand province less safe, the local governor pleaded for US troops, while one high-ranking American military figure said Britain was "not

The documents report conversations in which the Afghan President Hamid Karzai said Britain was "not up to the task" of securing the southern province of Helmand.
US General Dan McNeill, who led Nato forces in Afghanistan in 2007/08, was said to be "particularly dismayed by the British effort". He is reported to have said that "they had made a mess of things in Helmand, their tactics were wrong".

The Helmand governor Gulab Mangal is said to have criticised British troops for failing to get out of their bases and engage with local people. In January 2009 he said American forces were needed as British security in Sangin was inadequate. British troops "must leave their bases and engage with the people", he is reported to have said.

Harsh criticism for British military in US diplomatic cables - Channel4 News
 


TonyBird

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 24, 2010
Messages
2,236
Probably no poorer than the Russians had in the eighties . Whatever happened to those boys anyway ?
 

Cael

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 19, 2006
Messages
13,304
To be honest, no men reared in the West are a match for Pashtun warriors. We are all milksops. The only hope Westerners have is in their superior technology, but technology can only do so much against totally committed human beings.
 

Ó Donnchadha

Well-known member
Joined
May 27, 2010
Messages
2,082
To be honest, no men reared in the West are a match for Pashtun warriors. We are all milksops. The only hope Westerners have is in their superior technology, but technology can only do so much against totally committed human beings.
Your maoist politics aside, the Americans one every major battle in Vietnam. Tet, Khe Sahn, Dak To. In most battles the Americans were vastly outnumbered but prevailed. The politicians lost the war.

The same in Iraq, and Afghnistan
 

reknaw

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 3, 2009
Messages
3,841
to be honest, no men reared in the west are a match for pashtun warriors. We are all milksops. The only hope westerners have is in their superior technology, but technology can only do so much against totally committed human beings.
+ 10
 

DuineEile

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 29, 2010
Messages
14,658
It's not a game. Lives are at stake here. Particulaly Afghan lives.

"my army is better than your army" is for 5 year olds.


D
 

Kevin Parlon

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 4, 2008
Messages
11,750
Twitter
Deiscirt
To be honest, no men reared in the West are a match for Pashtun warriors. We are all milksops. The only hope Westerners have is in their superior technology, but technology can only do so much against totally committed human beings.
I disagree Cael. Their (US and British) training, marksmanship and discipline are vastly superior. Your last bit is correct tho: There is only so much these advantages can bestow against somone willing (wanting) to die.

There are many wily taliban no doubt, but mostly they are an ill disciplined lot given to spraying bullets wildly in combat and doing so mostly from ambushes.

There are many accounts of special forces ops meeting the taliban and the kill count is very often 10:1 or more on the "western" side. Technology plays a part, but your picture of weak allied forces who rely only on technology is a distortion of the truth.
 

Baggie

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 27, 2010
Messages
440
I think your "10:1" body count are mainly wedding parties and civilians.
 

DuineEile

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 29, 2010
Messages
14,658
I disagree Cael. Their (US and British) training, marksmanship and discipline are vastly superior. Your last bit is correct tho: There is only so much these advantages can bestow against somone willing (wanting) to die.

There are many wily taliban no doubt, but mostly they are an ill disciplined lot given to spraying bullets wildly in combat and doing so mostly from ambushes.

There are many accounts of special forces ops meeting the taliban and the kill count is very often 10:1 or more on the "western" side. Technology plays a part, but your picture of weak allied forces who rely only on technology is a distortion of the truth.
Kill count makes it sound like a video game. Each one of those counts on each "side" is an individual human being with hopes and history. Someone's son, or brother or father.

I know that no one one this site is advocating violence, but there is something sad about this kind of discussion. It has little enough to do with politics and lots to do with toy soldiers.

D
 

A view from England

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 14, 2010
Messages
2,056
As part of the WikiLeaks information leak, we are learnig that what a lot off Americans suspected, that the British troops are not up to the task.

Irish Republicans take heart.









Harsh criticism for British military in US diplomatic cables - Channel4 News
Perhaps not up to the task of killing their own side?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/defence/8185369/Soldier-killed-by-US-friendly-fire-was-a-New-Zealander-in-British-army.html

Another 'friendly fire' victim of the US Army. Can they not ************************************g shoot straight? And a Kiwi as well. Bad enough that soldiers are being killed by the Afghans but when your own side is too ************************************g thick to distinguish between allies and the enemy then questions need to asked about the quality of your average US soldier.
There was a saying in WW2
When the Germans shoot, The British duck
When the British shoot, the Germans duck
When the Americans shoot, everybody ducks.
Friendly-fire worries still plague military 12 years after Persian Gulf War

Perhaps if there was British solider who betrayed his country by copying thousands of secret documents then arranged for them to be shared with the world, the US may find itself being criticised?
 

Kevin Parlon

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 4, 2008
Messages
11,750
Twitter
Deiscirt

Kevin Parlon

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 4, 2008
Messages
11,750
Twitter
Deiscirt
Kill count makes it sound like a video game. Each one of those counts on each "side" is an individual human being with hopes and history. Someone's son, or brother or father.

I know that no one one this site is advocating violence, but there is something sad about this kind of discussion. It has little enough to do with politics and lots to do with toy soldiers.

D
Yes, they are people brothers sons daughters. I am not advocating violence. The topic though, is on the efficacy of the troops (usually measured in ability to kill without being killed), and the British and Americans (sons all, fathers many, brothers more) are not, IMO accuratley portrayed by for example, Cael.
 

bobbysands81

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 3, 2005
Messages
946
The Brit soldiers are neanderthals who get a hard on from violence and becoming trained murderers in their lust to invade foreign countries, they're a type of underclass.

Why would anyone want to choose killing and death as a career?

What type of person chooses killing and death as a career?
 

Prester Jim

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 3, 2009
Messages
9,978
I disagree Cael. Their (US and British) training, marksmanship and discipline are vastly superior. Your last bit is correct tho: There is only so much these advantages can bestow against somone willing (wanting) to die.

There are many wily taliban no doubt, but mostly they are an ill disciplined lot given to spraying bullets wildly in combat and doing so mostly from ambushes.

There are many accounts of special forces ops meeting the taliban and the kill count is very often 10:1 or more on the "western" side. Technology plays a part, but your picture of weak allied forces who rely only on technology is a distortion of the truth.
never believe kill rates for US troops, very unreliable, depends on mood, ambition etc of officers etc.
 

Ifor Bach

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2009
Messages
10,072
Website
golang.pl
The Brit soldiers are neanderthals who get a hard on from violence and becoming trained murderers in their lust to invade foreign countries, they're a type of underclass.

Why would anyone want to choose killing and death as a career?

What type of person chooses killing and death as a career?
They are far finer men than you will ever be.

What type of person names himself after a coprophiliac anorexic?
 

Ifor Bach

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2009
Messages
10,072
Website
golang.pl
Kill count makes it sound like a video game. Each one of those counts on each "side" is an individual human being with hopes and history. Someone's son, or brother or father.

I know that no one one this site is advocating violence, but there is something sad about this kind of discussion. It has little enough to do with politics and lots to do with toy soldiers.

D
That's true enough, but much military discussion is centred on this. What else should the military discuss. The purpose of a military is to kill.
 

Cael

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 19, 2006
Messages
13,304
Your maoist politics aside, the Americans one every major battle in Vietnam. Tet, Khe Sahn, Dak To. In most battles the Americans were vastly outnumbered but prevailed. The politicians lost the war.

The same in Iraq, and Afghnistan
What an eejit. You mean that the cowardly yanks bombed the natives every time from a great height - not that they won any battles. The politicians simply, EVENTUALLY, accepted the reality that they couldnt bomb the Vietnamese people into submission. They are already facing the same taste of defeat in Afganistan.
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top