British troops have poor hygiene and too many injuries - US commander

PatsytheNazi

Looks like the Americans aren't too impressed with the quality of British soldiers in Afghanistan. In an interview with the New Statesman, a US commander suggested that the British military “are cautious about the enemy and overestimate their strength”. The commander was quoted as saying: “Your standards of personal hygiene and field discipline aren’t good enough.” Maybe the British army should be training them in personal hygiene instead of square bashing ?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article6793971.ece

PirateShampoo

Maybe the British should follow America policy of "if it moves kill it"

Wagon

Winning wars has never been America's strong point though so the commander (like the rest of his army) is just another highly trained muppet.

Fallen Buckshot

...or maybe they should tell them to feck right off and withdraw all troops/support

mike65

Most of them are injured by American helicopters I think

My name is URL

The Americans know all about keeping their hands clean.. that's why they wore gloves while torturing those prisoners in Abu Ghraib. Pity they were too retarded to realise that taking pictures was a bad idea though innit

PatsytheNazi

Wagon wrote: »

Winning wars has never been America's strong point though so the commander (like the rest of his army) is just another highly trained muppet.

Off the top of my head America beat the British in 1776 and again in 1815 under Andrew Jackson. Beat the Mexicans a few times, beat the Spainish in 1898, where on the winning side in WW1 and WW2. In WW2 they were practically the side which defeated Japan in the Pacific. Don't know how you can say that winning wars has never been America's strong point

PatsytheNazi

PirateShampoo wrote: »

Maybe the British should follow America policy of "if it moves kill it"

So your telling me that the British never had a policy of "if it moves kill it" ? So gunning down innocent villagers in India, Africa etc doesn't count in your book ?

Fallen Buckshot

PatsytheNazi wrote: »

Off the top of my head America beat the British in 1776 and again in 1815 under Andrew Jackson. Beat the Mexicans a few times, beat the Spainish in 1898, where on the winning side in WW1 and WW2. In WW2 they were practically the side which defeated Japan in the Pacific. Don't know how you can say that winning wars has never been America's strong point

prolly ment Modern day wars .. Korea .. waste of time
Vietnam .. what was the purpose again ?
War on drugs ? Haha dont get me started
War on Terrorism ? America should go to war with itself .. its as big of Terrorist as any.
etc etc

CrazyRabbit

Being at war is 2nd nature to the American's. I think the UK should listen to them. After all, it makes sense to listen to advice from people who have almost 200 years experience in the area.

ejmaztec

PatsytheNazi wrote: »

Looks like the Americans aren't too impressed with the quality of British soldiers in Afghanistan. In an interview with the New Statesman, a US commander suggested that the British military “are cautious about the enemy and overestimate their strength”. The commander was quoted as saying: “Your standards of personal hygiene and field discipline aren’t good enough.” Maybe the British army should be training them in personal hygiene instead of square bashing ?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article6793971.ece

It's unusual for you to be dishing the dirt on the British army.:P

Fallen Buckshot

CrazyRabbit wrote: »

Being at war is 2nd nature to the American's. I think the UK should listen to them. After all, it makes sense to listen to advice from people who have almost 200 years experience in the area.

I think the Brits have been warring a lot longer .. they were at war with the French (at least 100yrs)or Spanish practically from the existence of the countries.

Agricola

I would have thought that in warfare "being cautious about the enemy and overestimating their strength" would generally be a fairly sound strategy. Better than being gung-ho and underestimating them anyway.

Fallen Buckshot

Agricola wrote: »

I would have thought that in warfare "being cautious about the enemy and overestimating their strength" would generally be a fairly sound strategy. Better than being gung-ho and underestimating them anyway.

hahah .. no no no .. its all about rushing in ... using all available ammo and calling it a day back to base for a tea/beer/wotever.

Princess Peach

I wouldn't say no to a dirty soldier

ejmaztec

Princess Peach wrote: »

I wouldn't say no to a dirty soldier

They play havoc with your boiled egg.

Princess Peach

ejmaztec wrote: »

They play havoc with your boiled egg.

Kinky

Agricola

Princess Peach wrote: »

I wouldn't say no to a dirty soldier

Would you let them go on manoeuvres................Ohhhhhhaaaaaaaaaahhhhh

Einhard

Princess Peach wrote: »

I wouldn't say no to a dirty soldier

All depends on the size of his gun, eh?!

pablomakaveli

The average american soldier probably thinks he'll respawn at the last checkpoint if he dies hence there gung-ho mentality.

Einhard

Einhard wrote: »

All depends on the size of his gun, eh?!

He'd have to make sure the safety was on though

biko

I don't see why what the Yanks think of the Brits personal hygiene would concern the Irish.
They're in the fecking desert, I would probably have BO* too.



*American for "body odor".

Princess Peach

Einhard wrote: »

All depends on the size of his gun, eh?!

Size of the gun doesn't matter, its how he uses it that counts

ejmaztec

The Americans are probably too busy checking their make-up in the Humvee mirrors too get involved in any fighting, and stinking like a polecat is probably safer than trailing a cloud of scent behind you everywhere you go.

Agricola

biko wrote: »

I don't see why what the Yanks think of the Brits personal hygiene would concern the Irish.
They're in the fecking desert, I would probably have BO* too.



*American for "body odor".

or bisexual orgies

Latchy

PirateShampoo wrote: »

Maybe the British should follow America policy of "if it moves kill it"

Indeed ,the British might err on the side of caution to prevent unnecessary kills ( civillians ) but GI yankee Joe will shoot anything and his mother that moves ...no wonder they have time to look all bright and shiney for the cameras and the American military deploys enough white trash soldiers into war zones as anybody .

Holybejaysus

PatsytheNazi wrote: »

Off the top of my head America beat the British in 1776 and again in 1815 under Andrew Jackson. Beat the Mexicans a few times, beat the Spainish in 1898, where on the winning side in WW1 and WW2. In WW2 they were practically the side which defeated Japan in the Pacific. Don't know how you can say that winning wars has never been America's strong point

Not to mention the most important victory in the history of mankind-the Americans won the Cold War. (Thus preventing an invasion by hostile Communist forces into Western Europe.) The anti-U.S. brigade are very quick to forget that...

Sugar Free

ejmaztec wrote: »

It's unusual for you to be dishing the dirt on the British army.:P

Using an article from August 2009...

The Waltzing Consumer

Princess Peach wrote: »

I wouldn't say no to a dirty soldier

Classy!

The Waltzing Consumer

Holybejaysus wrote: »

Not to mention the most important victory in the history of mankind-the Americans won the Cold War. (Thus preventing an invasion by hostile Communist forces into Western Europe.) The anti-U.S. brigade are very quick to forget that...

I am pretty sure that whole paragraph was taken from Team America :P

Princess Peach

The Waltzing Consumer wrote: »

Classy!

Its what I aim for

Holybejaysus

The Waltzing Consumer wrote: »

I am pretty sure that whole paragraph was taken from Team America :P

Read up on the nuclear tactics that the Russians planned to use in the event of the Cold war, you will understand what I mean then. It's not so well known in this country that the Soviet strategy in a full nuclear war was to annihilate all of the West, including lil' old Ireland (to preventing any rebuilding or assistance to Western nations.)

Also, listen carefully to what the KGB defector Yuri Bezmenov has to say. We would have faced a rather unpleasant time had the Commies won. It gave me a whole new perspective on the Cold War. So I didn't exaggerate one bit when I said it was the most important victory in history.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHgYPDvQFU8&feature=related

Coriolanus

Holybejaysus wrote: »

Not to mention the most important victory in the history of mankind-the Americans won the Cold War. (Thus preventing an invasion by hostile Communist forces into Western Europe.) The anti-U.S. brigade are very quick to forget that...

Neatly ignoring the fact that they handed Eastern Europe to the Communists on a platter and only realised what a bad idea it was after the deed was done.

Overheal

The British Book of Smiles?

Tubsandtiles

Maybe the US soldiers should concentrate more on not shooting their allies instead of keeping their teeth as white as a Irishman

Einhard

Nevore wrote: »

Neatly ignoring the fact that they handed Eastern Europe to the Communists on a platter and only realised what a bad idea it was after the deed was done.

The fact that the Soviets had millions of soldiers in Eastern Europe at the time probably had something to do with it...

Nodin

PirateShampoo wrote: »

Maybe the British should follow America policy of "if it moves kill it"

...as opposed to the time honoured tactic of prefering to engage in wars of rifle versus spear.....

Jonah42

Time to dig out that old phrase:

When the British shoot, the Germans duck.
When the Germans shoot, the British duck.
When the Yanks shoot, everyone ducks.

Nodin

Jonah42 wrote: »

Time to dig out that old phrase:

When the British shoot, the Germans duck.
When the Germans shoot, the British duck.
When the Yanks shoot, everyone ducks.

Its the use of overwhelming firepower. Subtle as a brick, but it works in a good deal of situations. Russians use roughly the same ideology, as far as I know.

Misanthrope

Obvious case of pot & kettle. US marines smell of roses don't you know.

Clawdeeus

I dont think the Americans are impressed by any of the NATO troops tbh, technology wise, doctrinolly and (obviously) with regard to numbers; the US has been in a different league from Europe for decades now, and the gap continues to grow. Not necessarily a bad thing (who wants to spend more money than you have to on the military?). And when you have a big hammer, problems all start looking like nails.

Whats up with the hygeine thing?

Clawdeeus

Fallen Buckshot wrote: »

prolly ment Modern day wars .. Korea .. waste of time
Vietnam .. what was the purpose again ?
War on drugs ? Haha dont get me started
War on Terrorism ? America should go to war with itself .. its as big of Terrorist as any.
etc etc

Really? you would consider the war on drugs an actual war? Or even the war on terror? I always assumed they were just rhetorical devices. seeing as though you cant actually fight a war against an object, or an idea.

Vietnams purpose was to prevent a communist take over by the communist North of the South, much like Korea, only they lost. Another objective was to keep the French in NATO, who threatened to pull out without American help in holding indochina.

Basically the only 2 wars that were "lost" were Vietnam and (maybe) some of the Indian wars, although the second is debatable.

PanchoVilla

Apparently the Brits have more problems to worry about.

cites a litany of concerns which the unnamed officer is said to have had about British allies in the fight against the Taleban.

In it, he is reported to have told the British they are “cautious about the enemy and overestimate their [the Taleban] strength”.

http://www.hmforces.co.uk/news/articles/1040-british-troops-cant-patrol-properly-are-ill-disciplined-and-injury--prone-says-us-commander

amacachi

If people thought the Brits were bad in NI can you imagine what the yanks would be like? FFS even in hostage situations they can't resist killing the other white people accidentally.

amacachi

Clawdeeus wrote: »

I dont think the Americans are impressed by any of the NATO troops tbh, technology wise, doctrinolly and (obviously) with regard to numbers; the US has been in a different league from Europe for decades now, and the gap continues to grow. Not necessarily a bad thing (who wants to spend more money than you have to on the military?). And when you have a big hammer, problems all start looking like nails.

Whats up with the hygeine thing?

The yanks can keep building their army, but everywhere is scaling back. Sure they'll be able to wipe most of the world away but they'll also wipe away the infrastructure and cheap labour that maintains their way of life. They've ****ed up with their military like China has with its foreign reserves, they have so much that its now useless.

Clawdeeus

amacachi wrote: »

The yanks can keep building their army, but everywhere is scaling back. Sure they'll be able to wipe most of the world away but they'll also wipe away the infrastructure and cheap labour that maintains their way of life. They've ****ed up with their military like China has with its foreign reserves, they have so much that its now useless.

No, not everywhere; Western Europe is scaling back, basically most countries here no longer have active combat capability without the US. Everywhere else is doing the opposite, or holding steady. Example, China's military expenditure has increased x6 in the last 10 years.

The military will never be "useless" but the US could probablly afford to cut their defence budget in half and still be completly dominant for decades. So wasteful, but hardly useless.

amacachi

Clawdeeus wrote: »

No, not everywhere; Western Europe is scaling back, basically most countries here no longer have active combat capability without the US. Everywhere else is doing the opposite, or holding steady. Example, China's military expenditure has increased x6 in the last 10 years.

The military will never be "useless" but the US could probablly afford to cut their defence budget in half and still be completly dominant for decades. So wasteful, but hardly useless.

Not useless if a monumental war broke out but it ain't gonna happen, globalisation has at least had one good effect that no-one can deny; there's little chance of a major war anytime soon.

Also Europe as a whole is still a decent force. I like Britain and France's increasing co-operation, can only hope it expands and the EU can get friendly with the Russians for their nukes.

PanchoVilla

amacachi wrote: »

Not useless if a monumental war broke out but it ain't gonna happen, globalisation has at least had one good effect that no-one can deny; there's little chance of a major war anytime soon.

Also Europe as a whole is still a decent force. I like Britain and France's increasing co-operation, can only hope it expands and the EU can get friendly with the Russians for their nukes.

I think the U.S. has more machinery (tanks, planes, etc.) than they have troops to actually operate them. Now they're concentrating more on arming their allies. Saudi recently purchased a few billion dollars of hardware and India is currently negotiating with the U.S., France, and some other European country.

amacachi

PanchoVilla wrote: »

I think the U.S. has more machinery (tanks, planes, etc.) than they have troops to actually operate them. Now they're concentrating more on arming their allies. Saudi recently purchased a few billion dollars of hardware and India is currently negotiating with the U.S., France, and some other European country.

It's hilarious who the US think they have on their side. :pac:

Clawdeeus

amacachi wrote: »

Not useless if a monumental war broke out but it ain't gonna happen, globalisation has at least had one good effect that no-one can deny; there's little chance of a major war anytime soon.

Also Europe as a whole is still a decent force. I like Britain and France's increasing co-operation, can only hope it expands and the EU can get friendly with the Russians for their nukes.

No doubt; European forces are vastly more effective than most in the world, however they are still a distant second to the US. Once you get to the very top end of the military equipment scale, the cost of military technology means no one can really afford it (to research or buy units) except for the states. Just for example, the UK has the second biggest budget in the world would have to spend their entire military budget for a year merely to research the B2 bomber technology.

The F 22 program cost twice that.

Another example is the US navy, your regular US aircraft carrier is twice as big as the next class down (the Russians, they have 1). The US has 11 of them.

The budget issues mean that UK troops are using APCs designed for the european, soviet era conflict in places like Iraq and Afghanistan, the US was able to (relativly quickly) design and develop new vehicles when it became obvious that the real threat in these arenas would be IEDs.

Coupled with this, the European countries havea much shorter tour of duty, nice for the families but it hamstrings anti insurgency strategy which depends on building a rapport with the locals. Other silly things like some European armies refusing to leave their bases at night hardly do much to make them seem like 1st class combat forces.

Im not implying that UK troops are less trained, motivated or brave than US troops (that would be stupid) but there is only so much manpower can accomplish nowadays, if its not backed up by doctrine.

Increased co operation would be good for everyone; money wise each european country having its own military bureaucracy is a waste, and is much less effective. But armies tend not to want to do that, for various reasons, not least of which national pride. Could you imagine the uproar if the UK/ French navy were to be proposed to roll into one? I can hear the Daily Mail crowds reaction already.

Clawdeeus

PanchoVilla wrote: »

I think the U.S. has more machinery (tanks, planes, etc.) than they have troops to actually operate them. Now they're concentrating more on arming their allies. Saudi recently purchased a few billion dollars of hardware and India is currently negotiating with the U.S., France, and some other European country.

Which is probably another reason the US spends so much on the military; when you can sell 40 year old jets to the Saudis for 60 billion, your onto something at least.