Al Johnston
"Cheer up!" they said, "It could be worse!" So I did, and it was.
Posts: 1,453
|
Post by Al Johnston on Apr 21, 2006 19:36:28 GMT -4
And How many Vietnemese or Iraqis were killed by spent friendly ordanance? Those Soviet designed and built missiles are no joke. No idea about Iraq, but IIRC the Vietnamese operated a reasonably efficient system of individual shelters in their cities, so that a citizen was not far from one whether at home, at work or in transit between. While "bomb shelter" is something of a misnomer as they offered no protection from a direct hit, or even a near miss, they kept the population out of the way of spent rounds and falling shrapnel.
|
|
|
Post by bazbear on Apr 21, 2006 23:40:32 GMT -4
Phantom Wolf, do you have military experience, and in particular, first hand experience with American military people? (With the characterizations you've made, I think it's a fair question)
Edit: Sorry, that sounds awfully confrontational, certainly more so than I meant when I wrote it. I guess I'm just a bit puzzled about your strong feelings about U.S. friendly fire incidents. Maybe it's best to agree to disagree whether we Yanks have shown poorer tactics or strategy; and it 's probably a "chicken or the egg" argument anyway.
|
|
|
Post by 3onthetree on Apr 22, 2006 9:01:37 GMT -4
I think the Americans probably do get punished a bit . When the British were running the show and making mistake after mistake, Massacre after massacre they didn't have CNN to deal with. An interesting thing about gulf war #2 is that there doesn't seem to been an American General with the same ability as Schwartzkopf to deal with the politicians and set strict mission parameters.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Apr 22, 2006 10:03:45 GMT -4
Phantom Wolf, do you have military experience, and in particular, first hand experience with American military people?
Nope, I'm an armchair General. I've been interested in warfare as a subject of study, especially the tactics and stratagies for a long time and have looked into everythng from the time of the Greek and Romans through to modern day.
I think the Americans probably do get punished a bit . When the British were running the show and making mistake after mistake, Massacre after massacre they didn't have CNN to deal with.
Can't say I don't agree. On Tuesday it'll be the 101st anniversary of the attack on Gallipoli, remembered in both New Zealand and Australia as ANZAC Day (Australia New Zealand Army Corps), basically our Rememberance Day. This attack was a major disater by the British commanders, involving going to the wrong places, not knowing where their people were, demanding suicidal charges instead of attacking from the flanks, and bombarding allied positions. The way have seen it over time is that generally the US wins by superior firepower which overwhelms the bad tatics they adopt. Perhaps this is because they have the overwhelming firepower and thus can deploy bad tatics and still win. The Brits have been poor stategists for a long time, mostly I think due to their class system and that they would put nobles in charge even if they were an imbecile. The Brits did a lot better in WWII because they actually had some decent people in charge, not that they didn't make a mess of the early part of the war. Of most Nations that have conducted major wars in recent history, I think that the Israelis have displayed many of the best consistantly good tactics, militarially that is, not politically.
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on Apr 24, 2006 0:27:19 GMT -4
PhamtomWolf said:
Er, 91st anniversary (1915 - 2006).
Ooh yes. Agree with that in general.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Apr 24, 2006 3:09:04 GMT -4
91st anniversaryMath at 3:30am isn't my strong suite.
|
|
|
Post by bazbear on Apr 27, 2006 1:26:30 GMT -4
An interesting thing about gulf war #2 is that there doesn't seem to been an American General with the same ability as Schwartzkopf to deal with the politicians and set strict mission parameters. I think this more illustrates what the American military is good at and not so good at than it's leadership. That was a straightforward, military against military, liberate a place and people that wanted to be liberated situation. After April of 2003, the U.S. military in Iraq has been well outside of it's areas of expertise, temperment, or training. Schwartzkopf may have been the right man at the right time in the right job...but if you read his autobiography and compare it against what several well researched histories of the actual ground war say, you'll find yourself a bit perplexed how, even a couple of years after it was all over, he still understood so little of what transpired on the ground.
|
|
|
Post by 3onthetree on Apr 27, 2006 2:45:56 GMT -4
Can we call him Norm from now on as Shwartzcopf is a real keyboard full. I agree with you, Soldiers don't necessarily make good policemen and in an ideal world with a real functioning United Nations maybe there would have been a policing force on the ground after the major fighting had stopped. I hope they hang in there as i believe the Iraqi people have had enough crap and deserve a little prosperity. I wonder how Norm would have handled the nasty neighbours of Iraq ?
|
|