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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Originally posted by stumason
What I am getting at is US troops are (generally) trained to perform one role.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Originally posted by blueorder
I feel embarrassed by our political leaders following along like little doggies with whatever Bush demanded-
(And I do, a lot, but the US and its people is not the US empire)
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.
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...
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.
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
Originally posted by SLAYER69
That's a short sided view and narrow minded. There is no Empire....
COMMERCE!