Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Armed Forces of the World Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Has there been a change or Brit opinion of US doctrine
Angry    9/7/2009 8:23:19 AM
During my 8 years in the forces between 96 and 04, the general opinion of the US armed forces (that I heard) was: Damn good equipment. Bloody good people. Doctrine too reliant on numbers, kit and firepower. Very little sustained combat experience. Those last two points were what made the Brit armed forces superior assuming numbers were the same. An example was given by a Royal Marine Captain (he'd worked his way up from Rifleman to Sergeant before becoming commisioned as a pilot) friend of mine who had observed foot patrols in the mountains of Bosnia with both doctrines. US troops patrolled with heavy body armour but couldn't carry enough food therefore relied on logistics carried to them daily by humvee which often couldn't get through. Meanwhile the plucky Brits and Europeans were not encumbered so and could carry supplies without being tied to the roads. Another example was the failure to win over the hearts and minds of locals during peace keeping by walking around in sunglasses, helmets and body armour with weapons at the ready. This aspect (it was argued) had only one level of escalation of an incident. ie, if you don't do what I say, I shoot. The plucky Brit way of doing it would be to have the weapon carried on its sling, meaning escalation would have more stages. Hand on weapon, raising weapon, ing weapon then shoot. Thus giving the cause of escalation more chances to calm down. I have heard other examples over the years. Afterall the UK forces had been in action in NI for decades and also had the FI under their belts not so long ago. Reading some posts which go back to pre 2005, many Brit posters have the opinion of Brit methods being honed with years of experience being more effective than our US counterparts. I have two questions. The first is to the Brits who are so fond of proclaiming the UK Armed forces to be better than everyone elses. Knowing the UK did not cover itself in glory in Basra while the US achieved good results in Bagdad and knowing that the US and UK troops have been fighting side by side in Afganistan for 4 years, has the US finally proved themselves in this kind of combat? If so, can knock this yank bashing on the head? My questions to the more respected posters who know and respect each others armed forces are: Has the British army learned anything from the US Army through Iraq and Afganistan? Has the US Army learned anything from the Brits in the same period? Has the two armies doctrine's become more similar? Thank you. AJ
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
violentnuke       9/7/2009 9:57:21 AM
US forces complain that British ROE are too lenient. British soldiers agree and hate their officers as a result. This is not so good... not that US officers are super reliable in backing up their own soldiers either at the political level.
US forces do not like war as a sport, contrary to "hate that Cow Boy" popular culture. THere is no such conspiring "capitalist" consensus that exists in the US, contrary to communist propaganda belief. What there is, however, is, as you said, too much reliance on firepower and shielding instead of tactics.
It's not as bad but similar to MMA vs. Wrestling on TV. In MMA superior tactics are noted whereas in Wrestling it's not a sport but more a "ballet of shit talk", and the homo that wins is usualy the bigger, more material and better looking one every time. It's strange because in that respect the communist/Soviet doctrine of phallic like reliance on material superiority is really a fascist mindset that is still existing throughout Eastern culture.
THe US is more Wilsonian liberal and relying on industry and stand off professional type warfare. It has its merit. No one should be bothered by a bunch of hyppies putting their bodies in the way and expect every thing to stop at these "Ghandi" wannabe. Certain confinements are illicit and dangerous and ill intentioned, no matter how "peaceful" or "pacifist" they appear to be.
That being said, the US becomes spoiled by this because it cannot understand the enemy or figure the chess play behind progressism, and how it continuously tests boudaries and can waste moves. If comfort is your culture, than you will tend to waste, and there is nothing worse than the impression of comfort behind waste because you start to move too much and get too many little results. It's Effective but not Efficient, and, besides, when the enemy surrenders, he does not worship the American but his technology, and this is how the Astecs to this day keep making war against Columbus - ie. by faking worship orientation and flattery of "winning hearts and minds".
Quote    Reply

StobieWan       9/7/2009 12:02:50 PM

Not sure what you mean?  Reading Sniper One (I have no direct experiences to bring here) I got the impression that the ROE in Iraq were robust and quite effectively interpreted - in particular, one electrifying briefing by a senior officer to non-coms gave a fascinating insight into how much latitude they were being granted.
I definitely think that the UK force structure has taken a major leaf from the US in terms of firepower, and this can be easily seen in the TO&E plus the simple comparison of say, UK infantry in photographs ten or so years ago versus today - much heavier armament, body armour, good optics and radios.
What do you mean by "lenient"? 
US forces complain that British ROE are too lenient. British soldiers agree and hate their officers as a result. This is not so good... not that US officers are super reliable in backing up their own soldiers either at the political level.


Quote    Reply

Angry       9/7/2009 12:25:42 PM
Re reading my first post i've noticed lots of typos.  I'd have been crucified 5 years ago :-)  Please read it how its meant!
Quote    Reply