Posted on 12/25/2003 2:27:35 PM PST by Ranger
The Brit paras operating in Kosovo and Afghanistan didn't seem to have any problems in that respect, in vehicles lighter and slower than Hummvees, even. It's much less a matter of what vehicles the troops are in, than what sort of troops are in the vehicles.
These were very fast, lethal and effective fighiting machines against snipers and pockets of enemy troops bushwacking us.
It likely would have been M211 GMC trucks back then, if not WWII Dodge, Studebaker and Gimmy deuce and a half leftovers.The REO M35A1's weeren't real common through the 1950s, even the early mogas versions.
What "sort" do you suppose the paras to be, to account for their ability to shrug off grenades? Keep in mind that Afghanistan and Kosovo are not Iraq. If you persist in comparing unlike operating environments for the purposes of this slur, how do you account for the vast array of light armour used in Northern Ireland? Know what a Humber "pig" is? A Saracen? A Shorland? Were an inferior "sort" of British troops operating there?
What a cheap and stupid attempt to disparage American soldiers.
The sort who have taken casualties before, know what to do when it happens, take care of their wounded and recover their dead, and follow their Immediate Action procedures and make such an attack on them costly in the extreme for the attackers.
Keep in mind that Afghanistan and Kosovo are not Iraq. If you persist in comparing unlike operating environments for the purposes of this slur, how do you account for the vast array of light armour used in Northern Ireland? Know what a Humber "pig" is? A Saracen? A Shorland? Were an inferior "sort" of British troops operating there?
Just so, and Chechnya too has its own differences- and similarities. There are generalities to be disregarded only at the peril of paying the price for doing so, whether in a counterinsurgency or flat-out war of opposing forces. Mistakes are just as costly for those who pay for them.
As for the vehicles used durinjg *The Troubles* by the rotated Brit regiments and the UDR/RIR, the FV603 76mm gun Saracen was pretty well out of use when I was there in '85, but many vehicles purpose built or adapted were quite common; some enclosed and some open. The Short Brothers of Belfast could well be roughly be considered the Brit equivalent of O'Gara, Hess and Eisenhardt in Cincinatti now doing the work to armour-up the Humvee much as the Shorts armoured version of the Landy; the Humber pigs were of the same nature as the *Alabama Slammer* 6x6 gun truck now under development and evaluation, but which will probably be killed by the *Stryker Mafia*. I suppose the cancelled US Military Police ASV could be thought of as a Ferret equivalent, too, though a bit larger and better armed. They haven't given thwe Yank MPs red berets yet though...happily.
But so too were foot patrols, and stop groups outside the cities and towns used, sometimes delivered by helo insert, and sometimes not, and sniper teams, as well as active measures by the SASmen and the Det used, not just postings of guards in routine locations where they make easy targets, or patrols run on schedules so the hostiles know not only where to best lay their mines, but when.
What a cheap and stupid attempt to disparage American soldiers.
Well, it seems Secretary of Defence Rumsfield has had some similar thoughts. And has decided to take what he feels are the appropriate measures to fix things. But I'd think it much less a favour to American soldiers to sacrifice two or three a day and not shut that bleeding off right quickly, whatever it takes.
And for sure, I'd far rather sting a few REMFs with words than see them become casevacs in body bags. But it can hardly be considered the fault of the troops when the policy and directives that are costing them their lives are being dumped on them from on high.
-archy-/-
What evidence is there that American soldiers are less capable of this? It has nothing to do with the need for armour when circumstances cry out for it. As for the last point, we have seen very heavy losses among attackers when these were present. The problem is that many casualties in Iraq are caused by so-called "improvised explosive devices" that will shatter unarmoured vehicles regardless of who the occupants are, and that leave little opportunity for extracting a price from the attackers (though even this has been done).
It would appear that we are actually in agreement on the need for armour (not surprising given our common experience) but your original post seemed to indicate otherwise.
Your argument for a change in tactics is well made. In and of itself, this does not address the quality or capability of the troops, but has to do with their orders, disposition, ROE; and, ultimately, with political policy (as you indicate).
Since the paras are not SF in the same sense as SAS or SFG, I believe that our regular troops are at least as capable as the PR of handling their appropriate role in an altered mix of tactics. The perceived need for armour does not change that.
Jim, L/Col USAR
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.