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

EW3 RE:WJR try this again 3/8/2005 11:33:10 PM

Duty station #2 - it was the worse of the two. link

Quote Reply

wjr RE:WJR try this again 3/9/2005 12:02:46 AM

EW3, A real sailorman, I see. I used to like ships. No snakes and no (or at least not so many) bugs. I hear that the smallboy business down south was bad news and had a bunch of the same downside that we had up in I Corps -- plus you got the chance to drown if things worked out that way. Today when I rough it I am staying at Holiday Inn rather than Hilton! Best, wjr

Quote Reply

EW3 RE:WJR try this again 3/9/2005 12:12:12 AM

Duty station #1 had plenty of snakes and bugs. Went to take a swim one time and got out, took a shower, and was toweling off, and right where I had been swimming was this big ugly nasty poisonous (at least what they told me) snake. But the 1038 was good that way. No reptiles or bugs. Only concern was sinking. In that little sucker we hit one storm 80 ft seas and 100 kt winds. I actually slept in the radar room on the 01 level with a mae west as my pillow and 2 inflatables, one under each arm. Once the weather gets that way, no fresh water, breakfast/lunch/dinner is a bologna sandwhich with wet bread. But I'll tell you, it was a lot better than I Corps had it.

Quote Reply

Mike From Brielle RE:Aussiegunner1 3/9/2005 11:19:18 AM

WO=Warrant Officer; in the US Marines a WO5 is sometimes refered to as a Gunner (not to be confused with a Gunny which is a E-7)

The people in Fallujah were ether Bathists or the paid foriegn terrorists. Zarquawi had his HQ there who is in any case is a front for the old Bathists and the Mukhaburat etc... people. There was no way that place was ever going to be pacified except thru direct action, the Mukhaburat needed a stageing ground and that was it. Those people who wanted to get out of the city did get out.

Quote Reply

Aussiegunner1 RE:Aussiegunner1 3/9/2005 8:07:41 PM

I'm not suggesting that the USMC shouldn't have taken direct action in Falluja. That is not really what this thread is about. All I am saying is that I believe the skills of the British army(and the IDF) are better in an urban environment than those of anybody else and that factors in this include better indivudual skills, their greater caution in using heavy weaponry and there habit of making an allout assault only when necessary. Comparing one battle to another is interesting but has its limitations. I'll point out that I'm not the one who held up one battle against a vastly inferior force, as proof that the British Army are the best in the world, as has been done here with Falluja. Really, we need to be looking at all the actions, be they battles or smaller counter insurgency ops, that a force has made in recent history and looking at other factors like how broader training philosophies and doctrines transfer into an urban environment. That is what I am seeking to do.

Quote Reply

tony238 RE:Terrain Warfare: Who Fights Best Where? 3/10/2005 12:55:13 AM

"Arctic - British Royal Marines Specialists in arctic warfare" Really i wouldve thought the spetsnaz would be best in the arctic considering they're based there.

Quote Reply

Mike From Brielle RE:Aussiegunner1 3/10/2005 11:05:03 AM

I was comparing Basra and Fallujha. In both cases direct action had to be taken and nobody was going be sweet-talked out of the fight.

When I tried to ask you to compare the urban fighting that the British forces have participated in that is of the same scale of what?s going on now, Antwerp and LeHarve you demurred. The urban fights that the Marines participated in I gave an example of were Hue (where the Marines were fighting out numbered if not out gunned)and Seoul. I do not consider the actions that the British took in Belfast (how would this transfer to other commonwealth countries if they did not directly participate) to be a valid comparison to the current debate.

Quote Reply

Ad RE:Aussiegunner1 3/10/2005 11:38:22 AM

You ignore NI because it doesn?t suit your argument, which is a contradiction of your point about Aussiegunner1 ignoring your examples. NI IS relevant, as low ops (as must have been stated) does not equal an easy operation. If anything it is as equally demanding and far more difficult to judge; as you do not want to escalate the situation.

Quote Reply

Mike From Brielle RE:Aussiegunner1 3/10/2005 11:55:05 AM

Due to the participation of Mukhaburat elements amoung insurgents (dominating) with the support of foriegn elements (Jihadist mercenaries), there was never any chance that Fallujha would be sufficiently passified that it could be put into the NI category. I thought NI was a police action; did the IRA ever get POW status?

Quote Reply

Ehran RE:Mike 3/10/2005 11:56:04 AM

you do realize the british and the commonwealth do a lot of cross training and personnel exchanges specifically to spread the wealth of knowledge far and wide. the nice thing about long service pro's is that you can invest more time and energy in training them.

Quote Reply

PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6