It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Tension high between British, US military

page: 2
13
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 11:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Harlequin
 


I agree, although i am sure there are many in the province who wouldnt!!LOL.

The British soldier is the best in the world. They have to make do with the least amount yet are still the best trained and level headed troops ever to wear uniform. IN contrast, the american tactics has always been maximum firepower with no real tactical thinking except blow the crap out of everything. The brits however do the job using the least amount of firepower using expert fieldcraft techniques, fire and manouver onto the enemy position, speed, accuracy, agression and guts, and flexibility to change tac in the fluidity of battle. Tempared with years of operational peace keeping skills adding compassion to the mix. Also, with all of the skills requiered for the average infantry british soldier in terms of training, it is above par of even the US rangers, and that is just a normal infantry soldier! They are the best in the world, but they are lions lead by idiots




posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 11:19 AM
link   
I think the biggest differences (with a few exceptions on BOTH sides) are that us Brits treat our enemies as humans and didn't actively go to war with Iraq and treat them as somehow responsible for 9/11.

Obviously this is just a sweeping generalisation and yes there are major differences here but:

The US seem to rely too much on technology and gear, whilst us Brits are better at tactical and improvised warfare.

The US troops seem to try and avoid diplomacy with locals, whislt the UK would rather think and talk things through.

One of my mates once described the US troops as 'all the gear but no idea', although that's only his statement, not mine.

Uk troops are more level headed and don't seem to 'enjoy' war. Whilst US troops seem bloodythirsty.


As i say no offence intended here.

There are rotten apples on all sides.

[edit on 25-11-2009 by mr-lizard]



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 11:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Selahobed
reply to post by Harlequin
 


I agree, although i am sure there are many in the province who wouldnt!!LOL.

The British soldier is the best in the world. They have to make do with the least amount yet are still the best trained and level headed troops ever to wear uniform. IN contrast, the american tactics has always been maximum firepower with no real tactical thinking except blow the crap out of everything. The brits however do the job using the least amount of firepower using expert fieldcraft techniques, fire and manouver onto the enemy position, speed, accuracy, agression and guts, and flexibility to change tac in the fluidity of battle.


Too true.

Also agree with the fact that our troops are led by fools.



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 11:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by mr-lizard
One of my mates once described the US troops as 'all the gear but no idea', although that's only his statement, not mine.


That's pretty a standard description for US troops in the British Army. Heard it from many a squaddie, even my own Dad who was in from 1973, so it is an old saying. It is a generalisation, but has some basis fact, at least from my Dad's perspective as a member of REME.

For example, US tank breaks down. Tank crew contact their commanders and order a new tank. Crew drive off in new tank and old one is taken for repairs or blown up.

British tank breaks down. British tank crew attempt a fix, while using the built in tea brewer to provide much needed liquid sustinance. If crew cannot fix tank, they contact REME who will perform a field repair. They can completely change a tanks engine in battlefield conditions in under half an hour. Only after all options are exhausted in the field will they take it away for repairs.

What I am getting at is US troops are (generally) trained to perform one role. They have the cash to specialise and have long supply chains and lots of shiny toys. The UK does not, so every soldier has to be competant in multiple disciplines and know how to "make do".

EDIT: Oh yes, there is a big difference in tactics too. Since WW2, the US relies on a doctrine of overwhelming firepower and superior force, because they can. Again, the cash-strapped British rely on small team fire and maneuver, with emphasis on "supressing the enemies will to fight", rather than massive formations and "destroying the enemy", which is the US style.

[edit on 25/11/09 by stumason]



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 11:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by cavscout
I fail to see how this fits in BAN at all.

I think you are about 6 years late on this one. Am I missing something here that links this to any relevent modern news?


It's all about ideology.

The OP has an ax to grind and he's grind it till kingdom come.



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 11:57 AM
link   
This is in my opinion a disgruntled soldier with his own agenda. I can tell you that the tall tale this guy is spewing is a flat out lie! at least overall. I worked directly on the encrypted communications equipment specifically for British to American military during that time...hell, I personally built a lot of it for and still used in IRAQ!

We have and have had for decades now British troops training and living with our military in this country a well as vise a verse. Perhaps this particular soldier was on a need to know basis and felt slighted....it all sounds to personal to me. British and American troops have gotten along together very well for a long time.



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 12:32 PM
link   
reply to post by CaptGizmo
 


I highly doubt that the Commander of British Forces in Operation Telic and his Chief of Staff were on a "need to know basis". In fact, they are in a prime position to comment on relations between US and UK forces, better placed than any I might add.

What they are commenting on are ideological difference between the two militaries and the lack of reciprocation and co-operation. Again, these guys are the most likely to be best placed to know such things.

I don't doubt what you say, but that was probably much lower down the command structure between specific units operating together, but that doesn't rule out that the British were being "told" what to do and not having their opinions listened too, espcially when US operations directly impacted the area's we had command of without any notice or consultation.



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
For example, US tank breaks down. Tank crew contact their commanders and order a new tank. Crew drive off in new tank and old one is taken for repairs or blown up.


Wrong.


Originally posted by stumason
British tank breaks down. British tank crew attempt a fix, while using the built in tea brewer to provide much needed liquid sustinance. If crew cannot fix tank, they contact REME who will perform a field repair. They can completely change a tanks engine in battlefield conditions in under half an hour. Only after all options are exhausted in the field will they take it away for repairs.


That's what US tankers do, too. Including the "brew up".


Originally posted by stumason
What I am getting at is US troops are (generally) trained to perform one role.


Wrong again. Everywhere I've been, and other troops I have spoken to, know that they are trained at least one level up. Fire team leader is killed, one of his troops can take his place, and so on.


Originally posted by stumason
EDIT: Oh yes, there is a big difference in tactics too. Since WW2, the US relies on a doctrine of overwhelming firepower and superior force, because they can. Again, the cash-strapped British rely on small team fire and maneuver, with emphasis on "supressing the enemies will to fight", rather than massive formations and "destroying the enemy", which is the US style.


US forces practice both styles, but we do seem to enjoy the "overwhelming firepower" alot more.



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 04:51 PM
link   
reply to post by NightoftheComet
 


Hey ... speaking as a Britain , I can safely say that we do not have an anti american attitude. We are slowly becoming aware that businesses and monied men of power in all the western world , have too damned much power, and no responsibility.
We are against this, because it is not democratic to allow the few to control the many for merely the reason that they happen to be fiscaly superior. There must be moral superiority as well , and the morals of the powerful seem to be for sale , or at least deffinitly were during the Bush administration. This lead to our leader being corrupted , or having an outlet for his corruption , and lo and behold the Bush Blair bloodbath ensued. Many of us are very angry with that , and thats nothing to do with America the country , or Americans as individuals. Thats to do with the systems of both our nations, the multinational corperations that buy and sell death with cynical smiles on thier faces, and the fact that regardless of mass protest both here and in the states, there has been no backing off , from what many consider to be a war on terror that was started prematurely by men who were desperate to cover thier own asses after an incident that was never truely explained beyond reasonable contest.
Further to that, many of us Britains have a fair mind regards to americans as individuals , but it has to be said that whilst our GOVERNMENTS share the view that money is good for the world , and we'll have more of it thank you , many of us here in Britain would rather not have a whole bunch , most of us JUST want enough , and we are angry with ALL the rich folk of the world for ammassing pointlessly large fortunes as some form of metaphorical phallic compensation, without thought for the little guy.



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 05:33 PM
link   
Well all super-powers have had an ego problem at some point, so its natural for them to NOT GET ALONG when working within a coalition.

I would be suprised if the opposite were true. Brits and frenchies used to be the big bully pre-ww2 and now its USA and Russia. Wherever americans go they show contempt for local laws and culture, in fact the USA is probably the only country to NOT RECOGNISE the international court.

Not to mention all the turmoil and politcal instability the pentagon and cia have caused on every country on every continent. There might be some exceptions to the rule but not many. Sure the russians have done a lot too but mostly in eastern europe and western asia so unless you travel there you won't here about that.

It's always those "evil, arrogant americans" and they WILL LET THEIR FEELINGS BE KNOWN, especially if they don't like you as a person to begin with. Once alcohol is consumed and you get to bs with the locals on a friendly basis things change. I am not saying they hate you, just saying they are looking to vent anger over america's corrupt foregin policy and since they can't call Bush or Obama you become their victim.



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 05:40 PM
link   
This article is not the least little bit surprising in fact I would say its par for the course. Good old American ingenuity and know how simply can not be substituted with anything! If not for the profits to be made by England’s military industrial complex there was little reason for the token show of solidarity that a relatively small expeditionary force sent by the British to bolster America’s larger much more dominant and domineering force on the ground there.

The coalitions involved in Iraq and Afghanistan are little more than political showpieces to lend some credibility to an illusionary need to create regime change in these locals primarily for the profit of the military industrial complex as there were no real threats or goals involved in the criminal wars being waged in these places.

I am not ashamed of our soldiers who are just doing their jobs but I am ashamed of America’s behavior and unspoken motives in visiting so much violence and bloodshed on these nations and making them no safer and no more prosperous for that.

If the British think it’s a thankless and frustrating task being involved in these war efforts imagine just what the poor victimized Iraqi and Afghani citizens must be feeling…(cue theme music for anti-Islamic tirades as a form of rebuttal from the neoconservatives and Zionists).



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 06:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
I am not ashamed of our soldiers who are just doing their jobs but I am ashamed of America’s behavior and unspoken motives in visiting so much violence and bloodshed on these nations and making them no safer and no more prosperous for that.


I agree 100%! Never blame the GI's who are fighting overseas for their country because it is not their fault. The military-industrial complex of north america and europe are the only true winners in such unethical, immoral wars.

The PTB go out of their way to make it appear legit but anyone with an ounce of common sense knows better. Thank god for the free internet which apparently is going under attack as we speak.



posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 05:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Harlequin
look at the method`s the brits used in basra - they didn`t blow open houses constantly and try to make the locals hate them - which is what they learnt from the time spent in belfast (amoungst other places) direct and constant heavy handedness does not work.


VERY debatable, one of the things which brough the provos to the peace process was sustained and targetted attacks by special forces on their boys- the east tyrone brigade was practically wiped out at one point- if this had been started more effectively, and sooner, I believe they would have pushed for peace sooner



posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 06:11 AM
link   
This article is about british relationship with the US too but it talks more about obama's dithering.




Mr Ainsworth took the unprecedented step of publicly criticising the US President and his delays in sending more troops to bolster the mission against the Taliban.


News Article




Senior British Government sources have become increasingly frustrated with Mr Obama’s “dithering” on Afghanistan, the Daily Telegraph disclosed earlier this month, with several former British defence chiefs echoing the concerns.


[edit on 26-11-2009 by jonnyc55]



posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 07:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by blueorder
I feel embarrassed by our political leaders following along like little doggies with whatever Bush demanded-


Dont feel too bad. "israel" does the same to us. For now.

@ Dermo



(And I do, a lot, but the US and its people is not the US empire)


Yes they are, Without the idiot people, they couldn't have done it.
The only ones that aren't in on it, are doing our very best to starve the beast. It seems to be having an effect.

@ stumason



The British are experts at this...we did have the world biggest Empire at one point, so dealing with upstart locals is something we know.


There is one notable exception to that.
We beat you twice, and saved you twice. That was the American people, not the empire that was created.



You certainly don't deal with upstart locals by bombing them from 30,000 feet then sending in tanks.... They seem to resent that somewhat...


They "resent" their dead relatives. And I don't care what happens to their murderers and torturers. Juba and his brothers can have them, for all I care.
Dont even bring their bodies back here.

OP:

I like reading news like this. I dont care if its old news or not.
It just tells me that our empire is crumbling. And its about damn time.
This animosity is a shame though. The UK is on my (very) short list on places I'd like to visit. Even though you have a real police state, much worse than we have in the US.



[edit on 26/11/09 by PSUSA]



posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 07:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by PSUSA
There is one notable exception to that.
We beat you twice, and saved you twice. That was the American people, not the empire that was created.



We can debate about being "saved" all day, but it was only done in self interest in terms of furthering the US empire- not out of any specific desire to "save" the UK



posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 07:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by blueorder
We can debate about being "saved" all day, but it was only done in self interest in terms of furthering the US empire- not out of any specific desire to "save" the UK



That's a short sided view and narrow minded. There is no Empire....


COMMERCE!



posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 07:33 AM
link   
reply to post by blueorder
 


The US empire didn't bleed. The elites never bleed. The people bled.

But I see your point, and it was a good one. And probably true.



posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 07:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by SLAYER69
That's a short sided view and narrow minded. There is no Empire....

COMMERCE!


It is not narrow minded- quite the opposite- it is a fact, the US did not get involved because of some desire to "save" the UK, that is a short sighted view.

The US Empire dawned as the UK one declined, the US acts in it's own national interest, as nations do, and decisions are based on this.

This not to say that the US is some sort of Evil empire- it is infinitely preferable to some soviet empire prevailing

[edit on 26-11-2009 by blueorder]



posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 07:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by PSUSA

The US empire didn't bleed. The elites never bleed. The people bled.

But I see your point, and it was a good one. And probably true.






new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join