LOSING SMALL WARS-British military failure in Iraq & Afghanistan

cruasder777

Border-Rat wrote: »

Sorry to interrupt your fantasy again, but the context the author gave was they were in fear of the South Armagh Sniper.

Attacks in South Armagh, statistically were increasing in the 1990's. For example, by 1994 helicopters were ordered to travel in pairs because of the increase in anti-air attacks. This was not the case before 1990. These are the findings of a respected author in a well-researched book.

Its interesting that in the book of the OP, the author speaks about an ego so huge within the British military, that it just mentally blocks out its own shortcomings and that so determined are they in the belief of their own superiority, it actually becomes a fault.

Helos paired up to stop ground to air attacks on them, they first started doing this in the early 90s. It was a clever strategy, it meant the PIRA had a good chance of being caught.

The fact you claim in the 90s attacks were up shows you are the one living in a fantesy world, yr on yr the death toll of soldiers deaths went down.

Border-Rat

cruasder777 wrote: »

Helos paired up to stop ground to air attacks on them, they first started doing this in the early 90s. It was a clever strategy, it meant the PIRA had a good chance of being caught.

It was to stop lone helicopters being shot down.

The fact you claim in the 90s attacks were up shows you are the one living in a fantesy world, yr on yr the death toll of soldiers deaths went down.

Attacks were decreasing in most of the 06 Counties, but increasing in South Armagh. But you forget, my point had nothing to do with statistics, the point was when the pressure was on - it was proven that Brits did not leave their barracks.

I'm sure I'll find more out about the overrated nature of the worlds self-declared finest armed forces as I read on through this great book. My suspicions of them being over-rated were confirmed years ago when I read real intel on how their faired against the regular Shi'ite army in Iraq in 2003. Hint: It was not flattering.

alex18

cruasder777 wrote: »

You obviosly havent Alex, if you had you would know Commanders sit up front in Bulldog not in visible contact with their troops, same with Mastiff 3, Wolfhound is just a varient of mastiff.

They are certainly not in visible contact with troops without having to get up and move into physical contact with them, which does not happen because commanders are harnessed in, all modern British APCs have SDU camera systems, rear, front, back etc with IR illuminastors like with warhog, communication is via headsets. Mastiff 3 has a partition.

I've worked in them you berk. In most of them, like Mastiff, the commander sits right infront of the troops. Just look on google or youtube and you find plenty of videos like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_xNAYNdLh4

Granted, that video is a Mastiff 2, but the Mastiff 3 basically has new cameras, different seats and special harnesses.

cruasder777 wrote: »

So Tims warthog claims of commanders not being able to communicate with troops because they are not visible are nonsense.

The difference with the Warthog is that the commander and driver are in one cab while the troops are in another.

Communication isn't just about shouting down a radio.

cruasder777 wrote: »

Tim referred to deaths and serious casualties, repeat this yr they are down. No where nr 25%

Considering that this year hasn't ended yet, I wouldn't draw many conclusions.

However, so far this year we have been averaging about 80 UK personnel being admitted to field hospitals every month for various reasons. Last year the average figure was 105 per month.

Saying that, I would maintain that infantry casualties remain at 20-25% per tour.

cruasder777 wrote: »

Bowman BCIP 5 does not have the same problems, have you ever used it ?

Yes, I have used it.

Border-Rat wrote: »

My suspicions of them being over-rated were confirmed years ago when I read real intel on how their faired against the regular Shi'ite army in Iraq in 2003. Hint: It was not flattering.

For every 1 British death during the invasion (March-May), 30 Iraqis were killed and 400-500 captured.

Yeh, terrible performance right there.

cruasder777

Mastiff 3 has a partion at the front with a gap, the commander is not in view, fact.

timhorgan

Border-Rat;Sorry to interrupt fantasy, but;

- - Bandit Country, Toby Harnden, p.401

This is from a different book in a different theatre, obviously. But the author of this book makes similar allegations.

Are you a former and/or current employee of the British military?

BR: Toby Harnden in his excellent book Dead Men Risen also describes officers in Helmand having problems getting troops to follow orders and to advance to contact. I have the book but unfortunately not the time to find the exact reference at present but the Toby Harnden website (below) on the first page does refer to "cowardice|" amongst some of the Welsh Guardsmen.


http://www.tobyharnden.com/reviews/

Excerpt

So too, in their way, are the moments when fear and, on occasion, cowardice seep through the Guardsmen’s defences…Dead Men Risen is a serious work, far removed from the blood-and-thrills of the Bravo Two Zero school of military literary campaigning. Such books may grip but they do not engage. Harnden’s does both.

goldie fish

timhorgan wrote: »

BR: Toby Harnden in his excellent book Dead Men Risen also describes officers in Helmand having problems getting troops to follow orders and to advance to contact. I have the book but unfortunately not the time to find the exact reference at present but the Toby Harnden website (below) on the first page does refer to "cowardice|" amongst some of the Welsh Guardsmen.


http://www.tobyharnden.com/reviews/

Excerpt

Actually timmmmmmeeeeeee, that quote is not by toby, but a review of the book by Alex Massie.
The quote in full:

…Toby Harnden’s Dead Men Risen (the first edition of which was pulped by the MoD, as the author described in The Spectator on 12 March) is a boots-on-the-ground account of the Welsh Guards’ experiences in Helmand Province in 2009. It made me think of Dr Johnson’s quip: ‘Every man thinks meanly of himself for not having been a soldier’. He was right, but Harnden’s fine book also made me thankful I never joined the army.
Still stung by the loss of 32 Guardsmen aboard HMS Galahad during the Falklands War, the Welsh felt they had been offered a chance to prove themselves anew in Helmand province. Instead, they would lose their commanding officer, Lieutenant-Colonel Rupert Thorneloe, who became the most senior officer to have died in the field since the Falklands. Thorneloe, leading from the front and by example, was killed by an IED on 1 July 2009.
Such are the wages of leadership. Harnden’s is an account of a regiment at war; there is heroism aplenty, and great camaraderie, but also much squalor and horror. Scenes depicting the repatriation of dead soldiers and their funerals back home are desperately moving. So too, in their way, are the moments when fear and, on occasion, cowardice seep through the Guardsmen’s defences.

Stop taking quotes out of context, you boring little man.

timhorgan

cruasder777 wrote: »

Bowman BCIP 5 does not have the same problems, have you ever used it ?

UK Special Forces rejected Bowman and all units including SAS do not use Bowman. I am sure you know that already.

xflyer

So some soldiers were reluctant to fight and risk their lives. Well, shock horror. Pick up any account of war in any period and you'll find the same. Does this mean the British army as a whole are overrated. No it doesn't. Read any study of men in battle and you instances of this. Unit morale varies for all sorts of reasons.


This war can't be won by troops on the ground. So discussing the failures or otherwise of the prosecution of the war, while all very interesting does rather miss the point. No amount of troops thrown at the problem will get rid of the Taliban. Like the IRA they can neither be completely defeated nor can they win. Like NI the only way to resolve it is by civil and political means.

cruasder777

timhorgan wrote: »

UK Special Forces rejected Bowman and all units including SAS do not use Bowman. I am sure you know that already.

UK SOF units use a much more expensive comms system which relies on military satellites for on the ground units to also be in direct communication with the UK. Its classified.

Bowman when it came out was first generation digital comms system, there were claims it was rolled out to soon, that was 7 yrs ago, since then those problems have been resolved.

The operational needs of SOF units are different then standard infantry.

timhorgan

cruasder : UK SOF units use a much more expensive comms system which relies on military satellites for on the ground units to also be in direct communication with the UK. Its classified.

Its classified: Really?- Made by Fujitsu, cost just under £1billion, Project name was J* and is compatible with Bowman but more importantly with US comms. I could tell you a lot more!.

Bowman when it came out was first generation digital comms system, there were claims it was rolled out to soon, that was 7 yrs ago, since then those problems have been resolved.

Not so, just about 2 years ago a young officer was killed because he moved out into the open to raise comms with his base just 500m away.

Read Dead Men Risen and note that even then you are not getting the full story because the MOD had the first print run pulped and the subsequent book censored. But the book does describe Welsh Guardsmen refusing to advance to contact because their comms were not working.

timhorgan

alex18; The difference with the Warthog is that the commander and driver are in one cab while the troops are in another.

Communication isn't just about shouting down a radio.

Alex18: You are obviously speaking from first-hand experience which is refreshing. The problem of course is is that it is always preferable for the commander to be in direct contact with his men in the vehicle. With Warthog the commander usually sits in the front passenger seat which is said to have very poor visibility. Further it is the commander who has to operate the heavy machinegun located on the front pod. This is hardly an ideal situation where the commander can be tied down with this task rather than directing the firefight. The other problem with t Warthog is the difficulty in reversing which makes it almost useless in narrow urban scenarios. The only other option would be for the commander to sit in the rear pod but this has severe drawbacks as well.
But thanks for the interesting and positive contributions.

cruasder777

timhorgan wrote: »

Its classified: Really?- Made by Fujitsu, cost just under £1billion, Project name was J* and is compatible with Bowman but more importantly with US comms. I could tell you a lot more!.





Not so, just about 2 years ago a young officer was killed because he moved out into the open to raise comms with his base just 500m away.

Read Dead Men Risen and note that even then you are not getting the full story because the MOD had the first print run pulped and the subsequent book censored. But the book does describe Welsh Guardsmen refusing to advance to contact because their comms were not working.

Wow Tim your an expert, you know it was made by Fujitsu because that was in the public domain.

Of course its classified and of course its compatible with Bowman :rolleyes:, once again your claims are false. UK SOF forces need for operational purposes a system which can also communicate with the UK.


I dont rely on sensationalist books Tim :rolleyes:

cruasder777

timhorgan wrote: »

Alex18: You are obviously speaking from first-hand experience which is refreshing. The problem of course is is that it is always preferable for the commander to be in direct contact with his men in the vehicle. With Warthog the commander usually sits in the front passenger seat which is said to have very poor visibility. Further it is the commander who has to operate the heavy machinegun located on the front pod. This is hardly an ideal situation where the commander can be tied down with this task rather than directing the firefight. The other problem with t Warthog is the difficulty in reversing which makes it almost useless in narrow urban scenarios. The only other option would be for the commander to sit in the rear pod but this has severe drawbacks as well.
But thanks for the interesting and positive contributions.

Commanders are always in the front Tim and if you knew anything you would know communication is via headsets.

Commanders do not operate the HMG Lol, there are up to 4 crew inc the commander in the front, not 2.


The reason only 2 men have been injured in 11 IED atacks on warthog is because the men are not in the front vehicle when its hit.

Warthog is not just an urban vehicle, rather an all terrain one, which can go to places other APCs cant, cause of its design.

Owryan

All this bowman good/****e arguing is giving me a strange sense of deja vu.

I m sure timhorgan was spouting the same anti brit crap on another site till people became sick n tired of his crap so now he is here doing the same thing lol.

Unless you ve actually used it or been in a warthog thingymibob then no matter what you say timmy will just try n outshout you. And when he is.proven to be a gross exaggerator he ll just off and start another arguement

BlaasForRafa

Border-Rat wrote: »

Sorry to interrupt fantasy, but;



- - Bandit Country, Toby Harnden, p.401

This is from a different book in a different theatre, obviously. But the author of this book makes similar allegations.

Are you a former and/or current employee of the British military?

And are you a Sinn Fein/IRA supporter? Because you continually show anti British army bias. You can't go accusing someone of bias if you yoursel are clearly showing bias.

alex18

cruasder777 wrote: »

Mastiff 3 has a partion at the front with a gap, the commander is not in view, fact.

Oh sorry. Only their legs, shoulders and feet are in view IF they decide to sit in the front right seat.

They are completely invisible, unless of course they shift 1cm to the left.

cruasder777 wrote: »

Commanders do not operate the HMG Lol, there are up to 4 crew inc the commander in the front, not 2

Have you ever even been in one?

cruasder777

alex18 wrote: »

Oh sorry. Only their legs, shoulders and feet are in view IF they decide to sit in the front right seat.

They are completely invisible, unless of course they shift 1cm to the left.


Have you ever even been in one?

Yes, you obviously havent.

Theres a partion in the mastiff 3 it has a small gap, about a foot wide, the commander is not in view.

Hes also harnessed in, to make out he has visibilty to communicate with his troops is bollox, communication is via headsets.


The warthog can fit 4 in the front, not 2 as Tim claims, it usually has 3.

Am I wrong ?

alex18

cruasder777 wrote: »

Theres a partion in the mastiff 3 it has a small gap, about a foot wide, the commander is not in view.

In your original post you said:

cruasder777 wrote: »

The commander sits up front with warthog like with all APCs and is seperated from his troops

By separated I would believe you to mean that there is a physical separation, like in a Warthog.

You yourself have just admitted that this isn't the case.

cruasder777 wrote: »

Hes also harnessed in, to make out he has visibilty to communicate with his troops is bollox, communication is via headsets.

Communication is generally by shouting at each other, headsets or no in my experience.

cruasder777 wrote: »

The warthog can fit 4 in the front, not 2 as Tim claims, it usually has 3.

Am I wrong ?

Yes. Warthogs can fit upto 6 in the front, although 3 is the norm. Vikings fit 4 in the front, although I think they are being phased out of service.

cruasder777

alex18 wrote: »

In your original post you said:

By separated I would believe you to mean that there is a physical separation, like in a Warthog.

You yourself have just admitted that this isn't the case.


Communication is generally by shouting at each other, headsets or no in my experience.


Yes. Warthogs can fit upto 6 in the front, although 3 is the norm. Vikings fit 4 in the front, although I think they are being phased out of service.

Now I know you have never been in any of these vehicles in your life.

Manic Moran

The difference with the Warthog is that the commander and driver are in one cab while the troops are in another.

Communication isn't just about shouting down a radio.

True, but the important stuff uses a mike. We use intercom systems on the HMMWV even though everyone's within arm's reach of each other. On the larger vehicles, we're all strapped in nice and tight in case of explosion, so the ability to have a friendly conversation without the aid of an intercom system, especially when the vehicle is moving, is all but impossible unless you want to resort to yelling at the top of your voice which has its own issues with trasmission of information. And in the Bradley, I can only 'see' my passengers if I drop down the turret basket and open the hatch, stopping the turret (which must be forward) or if the troops get out and walk into my field of vision. Otherwise... intercom systems.

I'm sorry, but I don't see the VC being separated from the passengers as being a particularly huge deficiency.

NTM

Border-Rat

alex18 wrote: »

For every 1 British death during the invasion (March-May), 30 Iraqis were killed and 400-500 captured.

Yeh, terrible performance right there.

Lol. Well, this sounds like the X-Me... I mean, SKY TV version of history. Lets have it then... source?

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

And are you a Sinn Fein/IRA supporter? Because you continually show anti British army bias. You can't go accusing someone of bias if you yoursel are clearly showing bias.

I am an IRA supporter, not a SF suppoter. Now then, provide evidence that I accused anyone of being biased, or retract the claim.

BlaasForRafa

Border-Rat wrote: »

Lol. Well, this sounds like the X-Me... I mean, SKY TV version of history. Lets have it then... source?



I am an IRA supporter, not a SF suppoter. Now then, provide evidence that I accused anyone of being biased, or retract the claim.

By asking another poster "Are you a former and/or current employee of the British military?" you implied bias. I retract nothing.

Busted Flat.

A lot to loose.
Before I get bashed this came up on Facebook, didn't search.

http://rt.com/news/military-drones-lost-uk-080/

Britain has lost 447 of its military drones in Iraq and Afghanistan. The aircraft have crashed, broken down or gone missing during operations, adding to international outrage over civilian deaths and debate over the safety of their use in Britain.
The UK’s Ministry of Defence (MOD) has reported that the loss of 447 unmanned drones was due to technical faults, controller error or not wanting to remove them from volatile enemy areas, according to the Guardian newspaper.
Small handheld devices, large UAVs, and a missile-carrying drone were all lost in the last five years.

cruasder777

Busted Flat. wrote: »

A lot to loose.
Before I get bashed this came up on Facebook, didn't search.

http://rt.com/news/military-drones-lost-uk-080/

Britain has lost 447 of its military drones in Iraq and Afghanistan. The aircraft have crashed, broken down or gone missing during operations, adding to international outrage over civilian deaths and debate over the safety of their use in Britain.
The UK’s Ministry of Defence (MOD) has reported that the loss of 447 unmanned drones was due to technical faults, controller error or not wanting to remove them from volatile enemy areas, according to the Guardian newspaper.
Small handheld devices, large UAVs, and a missile-carrying drone were all lost in the last five years.

Most of those lost are 4 inch mini helo drones used by infantry units, they are basically flying cameras. The article gives a false impression. They are actually a clever idea.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W4OKBNJn01A

Busted Flat.

cruasder777 wrote: »

Most of those lost are 4 inch mini helo drones used by infantry units, they are basically flying cameras. The article gives a false impression. They are actually a clever idea.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W4OKBNJn01A

The object of the Military always minimize their failures.

a missile-carrying drone were all lost in the last five years. :rolleyes:

Donny5

cruasder777 wrote: »

Most of those lost are 4 inch mini helo drones used by infantry units, they are basically flying cameras. The article gives a false impression. They are actually a clever idea.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W4OKBNJn01A

Even so, those Black Hornet drones unit cost is £125,000. Not cheap.

cruasder777

Donny5 wrote: »

Even so, those Black Hornet drones unit cost is £125,000. Not cheap.

2 billion spent on drones in 6 years is a drop in the ocean really.

Do you have a link.

I dont dispute the price, but how the hell does a tiny toy helo with a camera on it cost 125k

Donny5

cruasder777 wrote: »

2 billion spent on drones in 6 years is a drop in the ocean really.

Do you have a link.

I dont dispute the price, but how the hell does a tiny toy helo with a camera on it cost 125k

It's in your link, in the video description.