Originally posted by northwolf
Devilwasp, It was PeaceKeeping exercise, Both USMC and FRDF were part of the MNTF (in additon to forces from other countries) operating in the "crisis region"
One group of target personel wore the red armbands.. and winter camos, other groups were in civilian outfits... Our boys were wearing Green M91 camos... and a flag in their vehicle that parked about 150 yards away + they had their nationality flags on...
I'm not claiming that all US troops are idiots,just these morons who opened fire without even trying to identify their targets (SGT leading the patrol knew the passwords etc.)

Nationality flags on....thats the flag on the shoulder right?
If so how the blooming ell are you supposed to see that at 50 yards never mind a hundred.
Plus, if you park it 250 yards away from the aproaching squad do you honuestly think they will be able to identify you?

Come on you see guys walking towards you with guns and you cant identify them, are you ging to be jumpy or frosty?

Btw USMC took the highest "game casualities" in the exercise,mainly because they were exessively eager to use force, without even trying to negotiate... So i can partially see how US troops are not getting along in iraq...

You dont win a war through negotiations..its called being agreessive.

But Italians and french suffered serious freezing casualities from the cold (-30C), US too had some freezing cases, our battallion (Finns and swedes) had none...

Where were you guys like?

Devilwasp
Ever heard of Binoculars, you can pretty easily tell the difference with them... and these guys,like most troops in the world had a pair... and usual practise (at least our liason told this to us) is that you shout and ask for a freaking password...

And You're mixing WAR and PeaceKeeping operation, If the main order is to keep the area peaceful, shooting everyone who don't agree the first time you shout at them isn't the best way to handle things...
Later on the exercise things got harder and we did some offensive work too (building raids, protecting civilians from armored units...)
Me and my patrol stopped 4 CV9030 IFVs by making them think that they were heading to a minefield (a bluff, since we only had Rifles and a 4x4)

The exercise Battle Griffin '05 was held in Trondelaget Norway on February/March 2005

But i have to admit i liked to have those Dutch F-16s watching our backs at times, in Finnish army were trained to expect that all air activity is hostile...

Originally posted by northwolf
Devilwasp
Ever heard of Binoculars, you can pretty easily tell the difference with them... and these guys,like most troops in the world had a pair... and usual practise (at least our liason told this to us) is that you shout and ask for a freaking password...

Do you carry your bino's in your hand or your rifle?

Do you shout at 100 yards "OI! Squire! whats the passward?" Or do you wait until they are closer?

And You're mixing WAR and PeaceKeeping operation, If the main order is to keep the area peaceful, shooting everyone who don't agree the first time you shout at them isn't the best way to handle things...

No I'm not, I'm talking about how there trained.
They are trained to fight, not be peacekeepers.

Later on the exercise things got harder and we did some offensive work too (building raids, protecting civilians from armored units...)
Me and my patrol stopped 4 CV9030 IFVs by making them think that they were heading to a minefield (a bluff, since we only had Rifles and a 4x4)

Well would you have thought the same if you where driving them?

The exercise Battle Griffin '05 was held in Trondelaget Norway on February/March 2005

I believe the UK took part in that didnt they? Some of 45 I think took part in that..
[qoute]
But i have to admit i liked to have those Dutch F-16s watching our backs at times, in Finnish army were trained to expect that all air activity is hostile...
Same with the UK most of the time, hell we get taught it straight from the manual as cadets : "It doesnt matter who has superiority, they will bomb 7 diffrent shades of "poo" out of you".

One more addition: The US troops were on Guard duty at an outpost... to witch our men had ordered to visit... so they should have tried to contact...

And trained for war? I'm trained to wreack havoc in the middle of an attacking russian Mech Division... it doesn't mean i haven't been trained for Crisis Control ops too, and so should the US troops be too, since that's essentially what they do... CIMIC ops are still in infancy within US
military, when people are in need of help,you get down and dirty and help them, you don't drive by with a hummer... but this should have been done right after the invasion,it's hopelesly late now...

As for the air superiority, Finnish AF has 63 F-18 Hornets and our "training" enemy is Russia.. so quess how long they will last (i hope long enough for the initial deployment)

Originally posted by American Mad Man
Just as Canadians have hockey in their blood, so too does the US have riflery in it's blood.

At least something is, because ice hockey clearly isn't

lastly , you wrote : "US soldiers get all of their training enhanced by optics."

so what ???? are they partially sighted - and unable to see the target without enhancement ???

So what? Have you ever used Trijicon optics? I'm going to assume you haven't, because if you had, you wouldn't make yourself out to be so uninformed.

The big deal is how much these optics improve your accuracy AND reactionary time. I have one mounted to one of my own assult rifles. The difference is austounding

Yes, and all bootnecks and squaddies are issued with a thing called the SUSAT trilux sight. Which, from what I've read and been told, is a wonderful piece of equipment whose only problem is that it can fog up in extreme humidity. But I'll take Devilwasp's testimony on that one.

DOUBLE POST

[edit on 3-1-2006 by American Mad Man]

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
At least something is, because ice hockey clearly isn't

We have our fair share of hockey stand outs. Unfortunately we don't dominate hockey quite the way we do most other sports... But hey, we don't want to always take the gold medal in the olympics.

Other countries might resent us.

Yes, and all bootnecks and squaddies are issued with a thing called the SUSAT trilux sight. Which, from what I've read and been told, is a wonderful piece of equipment whose only problem is that it can fog up in extreme humidity. But I'll take Devilwasp's testimony on that one.

Yup, thats the MOD for you. They came out with perhaps the worst assult rifle in modern history, with an optics system that fogs up.

Here in the US, we get Trijicon, which do NOT fog up, and in fact have anti fogging systems. We also use Aimpoint optics, which also do not fog up.

Trust me. I own both of these systems and use them regularly. I lived in New Orleans for a few years, and never once had any problem with fogging in humidity. If New Orleans isn't humid enough, no place on earth is.

[edit on 3-1-2006 by American Mad Man]

Originally posted by northwolf
One more addition: The US troops were on Guard duty at an outpost... to witch our men had ordered to visit... so they should have tried to contact...

Can I ask why you didnt drive your vehicle up to the outpost instead of leaving 200+ yards away?

And trained for war? I'm trained to wreack havoc in the middle of an attacking russian Mech Division... it doesn't mean i haven't been trained for Crisis Control ops too, and so should the US troops be too, since that's essentially what they do... CIMIC ops are still in infancy within US
military, when people are in need of help,you get down and dirty and help them, you don't drive by with a hummer... but this should have been done right after the invasion,it's hopelesly late now...

CIMIC is not in the US curruculem I believe since there military is restricted to what it can and cant do when dealing with civilians.
(Notice hurricane katrina?)

As for the air superiority, Finnish AF has 63 F-18 Hornets and our "training" enemy is Russia.. so quess how long they will last (i hope long enough for the initial deployment)

Hey 63 hornets is better than 2 squadrons of typhoons..

Originally posted by American Mad Man
Yup, thats the MOD for you. They came out with perhaps the worst assult rifle in modern history, with an optics system that fogs up.

Hmmm care to explain why when I used the LSW on fully auto for 60 rounds solid I never got 1 jam?
BTW, I used the SUSAT and it is a great piece of kit.
[quote[
Here in the US, we get Trijicon, which do NOT fog up, and in fact have anti fogging systems. We also use Aimpoint optics, which also do not fog up.

Most US infantrymen dont seem to get trijicon nor aimpoints.

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
...
lastly , you wrote : "US soldiers get all of their training enhanced by optics."

so what ???? are they partially sighted - and unable to see the target without enhancement ???

all that means is that they will grow dependent on thier toys - and when they break - and murphy will make sure they do - the UBERSOLDAT who trained with his shiny toys will not have a clue what to do without them

True, every implementation of higher-grade technology raises the possibility of failure exponentially - BUT:
Lets draw an analogy here: I am sure that every well-trained WW2 pilot could overcome a modern fighter pilot in a down-and-dirty dogfight; still, which one would you perceive as the more effective or threatening one? The WW2-grade pilot that could chew you up in close fight with his cannon, or the modern pilot that can engage you with all his missile load before you even see him?

Same applies to rifles with accessories: Surely most soldiers used to advanced sightings will face a penalty if forced to use the iron sights again. But still the advanced sights, when they work as supposed, will give those soldiers a definitive edge over the basic iron sights. The switch in the german Army from the iron sighted G3 to the standard dual sighted G36 made the shooting results JUMP higher. So which is the more decisive argument? That this is proof of that soldiers are bad without "Gucci gear", or that the performance gain by "Gucci gear" is providing a definite combat edge?

I believe the latter one is more important.

Training with only optics is insane, you need to do both, at least on a range, but combat exercises should of course mainly be done with all aids available to unit in real thing...

In Urban combat (i've understood that it's mainly MOUT ops in Iraq..?) far more important thing than sights is the ability to naturally aim the gun and "reflex shoot" the threats... We were trained to hit head sized targets from 50m without using our sights (RK-95 has a hole and covered post type sights), when this is mastered it shortens the response time more than use of any optical sights... (so i can't see the big idea with 1x sights)
You can train troops to act this way with any weapon (AR, AK, G36...) some are more natural than the other, but none is impossible to master.


Combination of 1-4X optics and highly trained hand to rifle to eye coordination would be ideal for modern soldier..

all i will say to this is you mess with the big dog you get the big teeth so i dont think china would ever rattle the cage. if they do start something we have a DEFINATE edge in sea and air capabilaties. so ya wth are they gona do swim. so what if they have lots more people the dasy cutter II bigest dang non-nuclear bomb ever.

Originally posted by engenerQ
all i will say to this is you mess with the big dog you get the big teeth so i dont think china would ever rattle the cage. if they do start something we have a DEFINATE edge in sea and air capabilaties. so ya wth are they gona do swim. so what if they have lots more people the dasy cutter II bigest dang non-nuclear bomb ever.

But unfortunately can only be carried and dropped out of a huge, slow moving bomber or transport, which will be shot down.

Remember, China, Iran or whatever next poor country we ended up invading will not be the pushover Iraq was.

Pride comes before a fall........

Originally posted by stumason
Remember, China, Iran or whatever next poor country we ended up invading will not be the pushover Iraq was.

Pride comes before a fall........

I thought it goeth, but nitpicking aside I agree totally.

However, Iraq has just given the US army something the Chinese don't have, recent combat experience and something else they (the US, that is) have almost never had, urban combat experience.

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
I thought it goeth, but nitpicking aside I agree totally.

However, Iraq has just given the US army something the Chinese don't have, recent combat experience and something else they (the US, that is) have almost never had, urban combat experience.

Ahh, indeed.

But they will not be the only ones learning from Iraq. Whilst the troops themselves will get valuable expierience, if the Chinese, Iranians or Womble-fascists have any sense, they will be watching and learning too.

We all know the Iranians have their sticky fingers in the Iraq pie anyway, so they definately will be learning how to kill us alot better than they did.

Originally posted by stumason

Originally posted by engenerQ
all i will say to this is you mess with the big dog you get the big teeth so i dont think china would ever rattle the cage. if they do start something we have a DEFINATE edge in sea and air capabilaties. so ya wth are they gona do swim. so what if they have lots more people the dasy cutter II bigest dang non-nuclear bomb ever.

But unfortunately can only be carried and dropped out of a huge, slow moving bomber or transport, which will be shot down.

Remember, China, Iran or whatever next poor country we ended up invading will not be the pushover Iraq was.

Pride comes before a fall........

The "rich great briton" nowadays is also based on invading other countries when you have more advanced firepowder weapon.etc.
every year when you watch bonfire during new years eve don't forget the civilization brings it to human kind is recovering and it didn't forget what others have done when itself is in chaos age of history.

no offence, just hope my point of view could be reasonable to someone else...

[edit on 5-1-2006 by taobo33]

en, soy my post seems a little bit unorganised.
That link from bbc is to introduce the shire and nothing to do with japanese culture.

talk about japanese Bushido cult, A Shogunate or Samurai caste? Ronin.
i don't know much about Bushido but Shogunate should not be counted as a culture difference don't you think so? it's just a name of a certain type of government and anyother countries in the world all has similar kind of period.
As well as samurai caste it just the same thing but with a different japanese name. you can find similar thing not only in chinese history but also in west euro history.
Ronin is also comes from the same way, just the same thing with a different japanese name. pal you can't call a thing japanese unique culture just because it has a japanese name and a kind of mestry feeling.

"spoken Japanese and Chinese are quite different. Considerably more different than English and French are"

i agree with u on this one, but just "more different than English compare with French".

oh right, even the katana comes from tang danasty, if you have chance just go to japan royal palace and you can see the tang sward served in it. which is also the model of all kinds of japanese katana. The good thing japanese did is they really master and improve the way of making katana and tang sward is forbidden or not in use because of danasty change in china. so when people mentioned katana in the world nowadays nobody could even imagine it comes from china as origin.

BTW, i am not expert on all of them so i just post what i know. Thanks for the notice of leaving from main topic anyway.

[edit on 6-1-2006 by taobo33]

[edit on 6-1-2006 by taobo33]