Terrain Warfare: Who Fights Best Where?

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title Newest to Oldest

Pages: PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT

Aussiegunner1 RE:Terrain Warfare: Who Fights Best Where? 3/3/2005 10:44:24 PM

"Arctic - I know of the Royal Marines by reputation. I don't know much about the arctic capabilities of the Scandinavian countries, but it stands to reason they ought to be good, especially the Finns." It would stand to reason that the Scandanavians are better. The Royal Marine Mountain and Arctic Warfare Cadre is a specialised unit, whereas most if not all troops in Scandanavian armies are mountain and arctic warfare trained. Add to that that most of them could probably ski before they can walk and there is no way the poms are going to be better. I'd imagine that even the Scandanavians special forces units are better than the Royal Marines, given that they are drawn from such an awesome talent pool. If combat record counts for anything, look at all the trouble the Finns gave the much larger Russian force, in WW2. "Urban - Look at the Marines combat record: Hue 1968 and Fallujah 2004, for starters. It has been said the Marines took heavy casualties fighting an inferior enemy. For comparison, consider the Russian attempts to capture Grozny from the Chechens." I still say the Brits and the IDF. Both have impressive combat records over longer periods than the US, including Lebanon and the Palastinian territories for the Israeli's and Northern Ireland plus GW2, for the Brits. During the war in Lebanon, the Israelis had to go house to house with a comparitively stronger foe than the US faced in Fallujah and without all the PGM's and UAV's the Marines benefitted from and still came out on top. The Brits in Northern Ireland had to do their job amongst an often hostile civilian population, without killing them accidentally whilst killing the terrorists. That is a much more challanging task than rolling through a city where most of the civilians have left and putting a JDAM through the roof of any building where there is resistance.

Quote Reply

F22 Aussiegunner1 3/3/2005 11:49:05 PM

Good points. I think the Finns have to be outstanding arctic warriors, but you don't really seem to hear much about them. About the Brits in N Ireland, do you think it's a valid comparison? Certainly they are outstanding urban fighters, but is fighting the IRA the same as fighting the insurgents and terrorists in Iraq? It seems to me you have to measure the Marines' performance against the fact that they faced a far more brutal enemy than the Brits did. Also, the Marines were clearing out an entire city. Did the Brits ever have to do that? I'm not sure if they did. Besides, the Marines have to do the same mission today: taking out terrorist amongst a hostile population without killing civilians. And it's not always possible to use a JDAM. You may be right about the IDF. In fact, now that you mention it, I believe I read that the US military has applied in Iraq lessons learned from the Israelis against the Palestinians.

Quote Reply

Aussiegunner1 RE:Aussiegunner1/F-22 3/4/2005 1:42:58 AM

I think that if anything low-level ops require better skills than high-level ones. The skills gained on low-level urban ops, like the Brits gained in Northern Ireland, were readiliy transferable to the high-level ops they have been using in Iraq. From what I've heard anecdotally and seen from TV footage, the US Marines individual skills, all important during urban ops, have been far worse than those of the British. That said, I'm sure they have learned a lot in the last 2 years, but you have to remember that the Brits have been there the whole time and started off a higher base, so yes, I think they are likely to be better.

Quote Reply

Thomas RE:Aussiegunner1/F-22 3/4/2005 6:12:20 AM

I think no enviroment/terrain/climate is inherently more difficult than other, because nature is indifferent to sides. What you got to realise is that the conditions are different, thus gear/weapons and training must be different. There are severe limitations in High Mountain terrain, but they apply to your opponent as well. F22: About arctic warfare: I think the Danish Sirius Patrols in North Eastern Greenland are very hard to beat. They are 2 man teams on dogsledge patrolling a truly vast and desolate territory in patrols that takes months in the arctic summer: They have a WORKDAY of 2 months! To my knowledge there has not been any fighting in the area: The opposing forces haven't shown up: Cowards!!! The rifles they carry are mainly to ward off unwanted attention from polarbears!

Quote Reply

Mike From Brielle RE:Aussiegunner1/F-22 3/4/2005 11:06:43 AM

The US Marines are experts in Urban Warfare: Please referance the fights in Seoul, Hue and Fallujah. Within these fights the Marines obtained thier objectives in relativley short time spans with light casualties for themselves and as little as possible for the Civilian population. Contrast this to the operations in Basra where the British barely beat the US Army and Marines who were attacking Baghdad several hundred miles down the road against the vast majority of what was left of the Iraqi Army while the British were leaving the civilian population in Basra (a friendly te population) to the tender mercies of the Bathist. They did this until they were able to put a JDAM through the roof of Bathist HQ (something incidentily they could have done on the first day) with the assistance I believe of a US Marine Anglico team. The iniial breach in the Iraqi lines for the British in GW II had also been made by US Marines. Also please look into the performance of the British Army in the attacks on Le Harve and Antwerp during WW II in which the streets ran red with British and Canadian Blood.

I would also referance the performance of the US Marines for jungle warfare to the first battle of Khe Sahn (the Hill Fights) where essetialy two batalions of Marines thru back 2 Divisions of NVA regulars who had been allowed to get within a mile of the perimeter due to the irresponsible actions of other (non-Marine- CIA controlled forces) US Forces.

Quote Reply

Aussiegunner1 RE:Aussiegunner1/F-22 - Mike 3/4/2005 5:49:55 PM

If the clips we get on TV demostrating comparitive individual skills are anything to go by, I'd say the British Marines are far better operators than the US ones are. The clips I saw had their troops taking cover and spaced out correctly and applying graduated amounts of disciplined firepower to first try to get the enemy to surrender, but then to destroy them if need be. In contrast, I saw clips of US Marines in Falluja running around like chooks with their heads cut off in the first momemts of a contact, then bunching together and sending off long automatic bursts in the general direction of the enemy.

Quote Reply

EW3 RE:Aussiegunner1 3/4/2005 6:09:11 PM

No offense meant, but your description is almost exactly what happened on Battle Road in April 1775 between Lexington and Concord. The Brits came down the road all in order and disciplined while American rabble fired at them from all directions. Maybe it's just genetic for Americans and Brits to behave this way in fights :) "The clips I saw had their troops taking cover and spaced out correctly and applying graduated amounts of disciplined firepower to first try to get the enemy to surrender, but then to destroy them if need be. In contrast, I saw clips of US Marines in Falluja running around like chooks with their heads cut off in the first momemts of a contact, then bunching together and sending off long automatic bursts in the general direction of the enemy."

Quote Reply

Mike From Brielle RE:Aussiegunner1/F-22 - Aussiegunner 3/4/2005 6:34:54 PM

As we have discussed befor since I didn't see the film clips in question its impossible to comment on them in any way. I don't know if your talking about Army troops or Marines. As I commented the last time we had this discussion Marines normally don't travel in a combat area in groups of more than four, unless where talking about a company/ platoon assaulting on line and thats not whats going on. However, I think one should be very careful when viewing news clips for not only for what is seen but also because one does not know under what circumstances the pictures were taken. During the attack on the Fau penisula I saw some pictures of British Marines in land rovers fireing from what appeared to be an elevated road between two (rice? - something like that) patties into some kind of building that was directly adjacent to a wooded area. The rice patties (?) appeared to run parallel to the wooded area. Yes they were all on a nice straight line on top of the road fireing in a perpendicular fashion toward the target. To me this was not a strong tactical position but I wasn't there so I don't want to comment. Maybe surprise / initiative / momentum was judged more important however if enemy mortars had been pre-ranged onto that dike / road than they would have had problems. If they had tried to assualt thru that pattie (?) and got stuck there then they would have had real problems. Maybe we were both lucky we were fighting who we were fighting.

I don't think it is the job of infantry to induce an enemy to surrender but to close with and destrroy him. To me this argument of yours is just BS semantics. The British didn't breach thier own sectore of the line and they didn't take Basra in any where near the time they should have. Many Shiites died because of that and they had suffered to much already from SADAM (thats partially the fault of what we did in Gulf War I). When they did get into Basra they weere no more prepared for the looting then we were, thats a bust on both of us.

I notice you don't comment on Le Harve or Antwerp.

Quote Reply

Aussiegunner1 RE:Aussiegunner1/F-22 - Aussiegunner 3/5/2005 3:28:48 AM

"I notice you don't comment on Le Harve or Antwerp." Thats because I'm not familiar with those battles, no other reason.

Quote Reply

Aussiegunner1 RE:Aussiegunner1/F-22 - Aussiegunner 3/5/2005 3:30:23 AM

In relation to my last post though, I would make the point that I do know that those are WW2 battles and that the British have really gained their expertise in urban warfare, through their long war in Northern Ireland.

Quote Reply

PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT