Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

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

Options
13

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    Coriolanus
    Registered Users Posts: 4,879 ✭✭✭Coriolanus


    PanchoVilla wrote: »
    I was watching a Channel 4 documentary about MoD spending and how they waste millions of pounds on chauffeured cars and housing for high ranking officers in Britain while regular soldiers in the field have to make do with outdated equipment.

    The documentary is called "Dispatches - How the MoD wastes our billions". It was on 4OD on Youtube but it's been taken down. Very interesting doc if you can find it anywhere.

    http://www.channel4.com/programmes/dispatches/episode-guide/series-58/episode-2

    Do I not remember similar stories about the Americans at the start of Iraq? Sub standard vehicles, families having to send out desert fatigues etc?


  • Options
    #63
    PanchoVilla
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,053 ✭✭✭PanchoVilla


    Nevore wrote: »
    Do I not remember similar stories about the Americans at the start of Iraq? Sub standard vehicles, families having to send out desert fatigues etc?

    Yeah, I don't think the U.S. military was really expecting a war in Iraq so they just weren't prepared. The main difference is the U.S. military took action to deal with the problems while the MoD largely ignored the problems British troops were facing.


  • Options
    #64
    Coriolanus
    Registered Users Posts: 4,879 ✭✭✭Coriolanus


    PanchoVilla wrote: »
    Yeah, I don't think the U.S. military was really expecting a war in Iraq so they just weren't prepared. The main difference is the U.S. military took action to deal with the problems while the MoD largely ignored the problems British troops were facing.
    ah, ok.


  • Options
    #65
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


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

    isn't that the same as....
    Nodin wrote: »
    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.

    anyway, since when did the French use spears? the vast majority of Britain's wars were fought against them
    PatsytheNazi wrote: »
    Those of you who are so pro Brit, maybe instead of buying poppies you should send them a bar of soap instead ?

    Poor old Patsy, desperately trying to turn this into an anti British army thread, but it just ain't working is it:D


  • Options
    #66
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    isn't that the same as....

    I was referring more to the British historical preference to expand overseas in what might be called the less developed parts of the world.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    LondonIrish90
    Closed Accounts Posts: 882 ✭✭✭LondonIrish90


    Nodin wrote: »
    I was referring more to the British historical preference to expand overseas in what might be called the less developed parts of the world.

    Thats slightly unfair. The Dutch, the Germans, the Belgians, the French, the Portugese, and the Spanish to name a few were all guilty of the same acts of colonisation as the British in the age of empires.


  • Options
    #68
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    LondonIrish90 wrote: »
    Thats slightly unfair. The Dutch, the Germans, the Belgians, the French, the Portugese, and the Spanish to name a few were all guilty of the same acts of colonisation as the British in the age of empires.

    Yes indeed they were. And if the thread juxtaposed the forces of those countries and the US, I'm sure it would have come up.


  • Options
    #69
    LondonIrish90
    Closed Accounts Posts: 882 ✭✭✭LondonIrish90


    Nodin wrote: »
    Yes indeed they were. And if the thread juxtaposed the forces of those countries and the US, I'm sure it would have come up.

    It would be nice to think so, but after reading around this forum and seeing some of the very obvious agendas of a small minority of posters, I somewhat doubt it! ;)


  • Options
    #70
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    I can't answer to your presumptions as regards others.


  • Options
    #71
    Orando Broom
    Registered Users Posts: 3,351 ✭✭✭Orando Broom


    ejmaztec wrote: »
    They play havoc with your boiled egg.

    I think the state of the egg may account for the absence of standards.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    karma_
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,798 ✭✭✭karma_


    After watching the recent dispatches program about US forces in Iraq, and given the choice who I would want occupying a city where I lived, I would literally take any other armed force in the world over the US.

    This may also be a controversial opinion, but there is no argument on who individually is the better soldier between the US and Britain, the British have historically been superior, in fact most European forces are individually better than Americans.

    I was once talking to a former British soldier, and the conversation drifted invariably to Iraq etc. He told me that the Brits have very little regard for the yanks fighting qualities, in fact they even have a saying about them; 'All gear, no idea', which I thought was apt, and funny.


  • Options
    #73
    jackiebaron
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,038 ✭✭✭jackiebaron


    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 :confused:

    Well let's see now....since the turn of the century (20th) the US hasn't won a single war on it's own. It joined the scrap in Europe in the dying seconds of the 12th round and don't kid yourself about the Pacific Theatre. Without the Anzac and British forces (not to mention hundreds of thousands of indigenous forces in Malaysia, Indonesia, Burma, etc) the US would never have beaten the Japanese.
    Sure they can send some tanks and bombers to defeat that superpower Grenada but still slope off, tail between legs from places like Lebanon, Somalia, Vietnam (and coming to a theatre near you) Afghanistan and Iraq.
    Incidentally this general talks a good lot of the usual US bluster but his soldiers are still issued with little laminated cards that read:

    "The British will be sharing your base. Do not drink with the British. Do not gamble with the British. Do not fight with the British. You will lose."


  • Options
    #74
    c_man
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,436 ✭✭✭c_man


    karma_ wrote: »
    I was once talking to a former British soldier, and the conversation drifted invariably to Iraq etc. He told me that the Brits have very little regard for the yanks fighting qualities, in fact they even have a saying about them; 'All gear, no idea', which I thought was apt, and funny.

    I really disliked the Brits attitude at the start of the Iraq War. That smugness summed up in "we know how to win hearts and minds...", patrolling without helmets, claiming experience from NI. Yeah a few years later they're sent packing from Basra.


  • Options
    #75
    Clawdeeus
    Closed Accounts Posts: 331 ✭✭Clawdeeus


    karma_ wrote: »
    After watching the recent dispatches program about US forces in Iraq, and given the choice who I would want occupying a city where I lived, I would literally take any other armed force in the world over the US.

    This may also be a controversial opinion, but there is no argument on who individually is the better soldier between the US and Britain, the British have historically been superior, in fact most European forces are individually better than Americans.

    I was once talking to a former British soldier, and the conversation drifted invariably to Iraq etc. He told me that the Brits have very little regard for the yanks fighting qualities, in fact they even have a saying about them; 'All gear, no idea', which I thought was apt, and funny.

    Well its strange then that UK forces pulled out of Iraq, pre fall in violence to leave the "all gear, no idea" yanks to clean up the mess they had both helped make.


  • Options
    #76
    Clawdeeus
    Closed Accounts Posts: 331 ✭✭Clawdeeus


    jackiebaron wrote: »
    Well let's see now....since the turn of the century (20th) the US hasn't won a single war on it's own. It joined the scrap in Europe in the dying seconds of the 12th round and don't kid yourself about the Pacific Theatre. Without the Anzac and British forces (not to mention hundreds of thousands of indigenous forces in Malaysia, Indonesia, Burma, etc) the US would never have beaten the Japanese.
    Sure they can send some tanks and bombers to defeat that superpower Grenada but still slope off, tail between legs from places like Lebanon, Somalia, Vietnam (and coming to a theatre near you) Afghanistan and Iraq.
    Incidentally this general talks a good lot of the usual US bluster but his soldiers are still issued with little laminated cards that read:

    "The British will be sharing your base. Do not drink with the British. Do not gamble with the British. Do not fight with the British. You will lose."

    Your honestly claiming the US is not the most powerful militarily (even relative to other world powers, at other times) of any nation in human history? That is the consensus of military analysts, bar none.

    This ridiculous claim that British soldiers are somehow inatley better, because of where they were born, is silly.


  • Options
    #77
    karma_
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,798 ✭✭✭karma_


    Clawdeeus wrote: »
    Your honestly claiming the US is not the most powerful militarily (even relative to other world powers, at other times) of any nation in human history? That is the consensus of military analysts, bar none.

    This ridiculous claim that British soldiers are somehow inatley better, because of where they were born, is ridiculous.

    He is saying that even though they spend trillions in their defence budget, he really can't believe how shíte they still are!


  • Options
    #78
    Clawdeeus
    Closed Accounts Posts: 331 ✭✭Clawdeeus


    karma_ wrote: »
    He is saying that even though they spend trillions in their defence budget, he really can't believe how shíte they still are!


    So, yes, he is claiming that. Interesting. You do know that there are objective ways to analyse militarys, that experts do this, and that their much better informed opinion can be found, read and taken into account when considering stuff like this?


  • Options
    #79
    jugger0
    Registered Users Posts: 1,453 ✭✭✭jugger0


    JupiterKid wrote: »
    The US military would do better to get its own house in order with respect to its own policies like its disgraceful refusal to allow openly gay men and women serve in its forces - a ban which was lifted in almost all other Western armed forces many year ago.

    Also, the US army could learn a thing or two from the UK troops. Like intelligence, restraint, informed judgement and proper discipline for starters.

    Yea because gays are such renowned warriors, have you ever met a gay? sure while were at it, lets let in 12 year olds with leukemia too, because everyone should be allowed fight in a war right?

    War is mens work, they should stick with the dont ask dont tell policy.

    UK troops with restraint!?! Northern Ireland comes to mind...
    Or what about this? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V6HS6jyxoFE
    The Americans are doing all the work in Iraq and Afghanistan, European nations including the Brits are just glorified spectators.


  • Options
    #80
    PanchoVilla
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,053 ✭✭✭PanchoVilla


    jugger0 wrote: »
    Yea because gays are such renowned warriors, have you ever met a gay? sure while were at it, lets let in 12 year olds with leukemia too, because everyone should be allowed fight in a war right?

    War is mens work, they should stick with the dont ask dont tell policy.

    UK troops with restraint!?! Northern Ireland comes to mind...
    Or what about this? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V6HS6jyxoFE
    The Americans are doing all the work in Iraq and Afghanistan, European nations including the Brits are just glorified spectators.

    I've seen a lot of stupid posts on AH. Hell, I've even made some pretty stupid posts myself, but that has to be the dumbest thing I've ever read on this forum. Seriously, congratulations.


  • Options
    #81
    jugger0
    Registered Users Posts: 1,453 ✭✭✭jugger0


    PanchoVilla wrote: »
    I've seen a lot of stupid posts on AH. Hell, I've even made some pretty stupid posts myself, but that has to be the dumbest thing I've ever read on this forum. Seriously, congratulations.

    Wow your so much better then me because you think gays should be in the army arent you? how can i be great like you?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    jugger0 wrote: »
    Yea because gays are such renowned warriors, have you ever met a gay? sure while were at it, lets let in 12 year olds with leukemia too, because everyone should be allowed fight in a war right?

    War is mens work, they should stick with the dont ask dont tell policy.

    Not the most informed, are you? The Israeli army - not my favourite people - have gays openly serving for years now. So do most European forces. And of course gays were serving without disclosing since time immemorial. I'd suggest you haven't a clue what you're on about.


  • Options
    #83
    KeithAFC
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,239 ✭✭✭✭KeithAFC


    PatsytheNazi wrote: »
    Those of you who are so pro Brit, maybe instead of buying poppies you should send them a bar of soap instead ?
    I'd rather we sent them the equipment they need to do the job. Im sure they can wash when they get home.


  • Options
    #84
    getz
    Registered Users Posts: 5,255 ✭✭✭getz


    the greeks,the romans all promoted gayness,even the once symbol of the catholic church, the knights templar encouraged homosexuality ,and made it part of their code,now you know, CHASE ME


  • Options
    #85
    PatsytheNazi
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,260 ✭✭✭PatsytheNazi


    jackiebaron wrote: »
    Well let's see now....since the turn of the century (20th) the US hasn't won a single war on it's own. It joined the scrap in Europe in the dying seconds of the 12th round and don't kid yourself about the Pacific Theatre. Without the Anzac and British forces (not to mention hundreds of thousands of indigenous forces in Malaysia, Indonesia, Burma, etc) the US would never have beaten the Japanese.
    Sure they can send some tanks and bombers to defeat that superpower Grenada but still slope off, tail between legs from places like Lebanon, Somalia, Vietnam (and coming to a theatre near you) Afghanistan and Iraq.
    Incidentally this general talks a good lot of the usual US bluster but his soldiers are still issued with little laminated cards that read:

    " since the turn of the century (20th) the US hasn't won a single war on it's own " And how many wars have the British won on their own in the 20th Century ( and before that the Napelonic wars along with Prussia, Russia, Austria and Spain, the Crimean war - when the French saved their bacon from teh fiasco's such as the Battle of Balaclava )

    Let me see.... er, emmm, the Boer War ( thanks to concentration camps) and the Falkslands !!! Which they couldn't land on without American satellite photos against a force of part time conscripts. America joined WW1 in 1917, they invovlement was the factor in ending in 1918 Einstein !!! America came into WW2 in 1941 two years into the conflict which dragged on for another 4 years. Hardly could be called " joining the scrap in the dying seconds of the 12th round " now is it. And ofcourse in WW2 the Brits really impressed at Dunkirk, Norway, Crete, Singapore etc

    The Brits were only a sideshow in the Pacific. All the major battles were won by America, Midway, Guadalcanal, Iwo Jema etc Stop deluding yourself buddy. The Brits are fine if their fighting men armed with spares, or vastly outnumbered - as we know in this country. Put them up against anything equal in numbers and equipment and their arrogance turns to cowardice pretty quickly.

    Are you going to tell me that the Brits could have landed in France without the Americans ?
    The British will be sharing your base. Do not drink with the British. Do not gamble with the British. Do not fight with the British. You will lose."
    Just the Brits declaring how wonderful they are :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #86
    PatsytheNazi
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,260 ✭✭✭PatsytheNazi


    getz wrote: »
    the greeks,the romans all promoted gayness,even the once symbol of the catholic church, the knights templar encouraged homosexuality ,and made it part of their code,now you know, CHASE ME
    A bit off topic but I believe Richard the Lionheart was gay. Then their was Alexander the Great. And Village People In the Navy :)


  • Options
    #87
    getz
    Registered Users Posts: 5,255 ✭✭✭getz


    PatsytheNazi wrote: »
    A bit off topic but I believe Richard the Lionheart was gay. Then their was Alexander the Great. And Village People In the Navy :)
    wasent nelson ?dident he say ;kiss me hardy?


  • Options
    #88
    getz
    Registered Users Posts: 5,255 ✭✭✭getz


    c_man wrote: »
    I really disliked the Brits attitude at the start of the Iraq War. That smugness summed up in "we know how to win hearts and minds...", patrolling without helmets, claiming experience from NI. Yeah a few years later they're sent packing from Basra.
    thats not what the facts say,www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/oct11/basra-iraq-oil-city-transformed


  • Options
    #89
    c_man
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,436 ✭✭✭c_man


    getz wrote: »
    thats not what the facts say,www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/oct11/basra-iraq-oil-city-transformed

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/oct/11/basra-iraq-oil-city-transformed

    I'm not sure what you mean. The city is doing well, I never said anything about that.

    The Brits went in with all manner of smugness about how they could get the job done. They pulled out early, leaving others to clear up the mess they couldn't handle.
    Iraq snubbed Britain and calls US into Basra battle

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article3671530.ece


  • Options
    #90
    getz
    Registered Users Posts: 5,255 ✭✭✭getz


    c_man wrote: »
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/oct/11/basra-iraq-oil-city-transformed

    I'm not sure what you mean. The city is doing well, I never said anything about that.

    The Brits went in with all manner of smugness about how they could get the job done. They pulled out early, leaving others to clear up the mess they couldn't handle.



    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article3671530.ece
    you must try harder,your quote is two years old


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    c_man
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,436 ✭✭✭c_man


    getz wrote: »
    you must try harder,your quote is two years old

    Yeah, there were no stories in todays paper about a battle that happened a few years ago. Sorry about that.

    So what was your point above?


Advertisement