Did anyone read this? regarding us troops

[US Marine]

Been a while since I posted but here. Also, I got the scoop on operation telic from the US Marine who was attached to RM HQ. Regarding the RM not getting US helicopter support. Not to bring up the past but I got into it with A RMon here about that. Now, the guy I spoke with was the liason for the US Marines to the RM he was at RM HQ. and he admits that at first your CAS assets were not making it out to you guys. But in regards to leaving 40 commando high and dry, he said that your Div. CG said that British troops couldn't ride on US helicopters after the crash of the 46. SO thats why 42 commando wasn't allowed to us the US helos to help 40 commando. oops

London Daily Telegraph
July 25, 2003

American Soldiers Really Aren't Spoilt, Trigger-Happy Yokels

By Jonathan Foreman

Whether the deaths of Uday and Qusay Hussein were self-inflicted or not, the military operation to capture them was immaculate. There were no American deaths, 10 minutes of warnings were given over loudspeakers, and it was the Iraqis who opened fire. So sensitive was the American approach, they even rang the bell of the house before entering.

The neat operation fits squarely with the tenor of the whole American campaign, contrary to the popular negative depiction of its armed forces: that they are spoilt, well-equipped, steroid-pumped, crudely patriotic yokels who are trigger-happy yet cowardly in their application of overwhelming force.

And, unlike our chaps, none of them is supposed to have the slightest clue about Northern Ireland-style "peacekeeping": never leaving their vehicles to go on foot patrols, never attempting to win hearts and minds by engaging with local communities and, of course, never removing their helmets, sunglasses and body armour to appear more human.

As a British journalist working for an American newspaper, who was embedded with American troops before, during and after the conquest of Saddam Hussein's Iraq, I know this is all way off the mark; a collection of myths coloured by prejudice, fed by Hollywood's tendentious depictions of Vietnam (fought by a very different US Army to today's) and by memories of the Second World War.

The American soldiers I met were disciplined professionals. Many of them had extensive experience of peacekeeping in Kosovo and Bosnia and had worked alongside (or even been trained by) British troops. Thoughtful, mature for their years, and astonishingly racially integrated, they bore little resemblance to the disgruntled draftees in Platoon or Apocalypse Now.

Yes, American troops wear their helmets and armour even though removing them might ease local relations. But it's easy to forget that British troops in Northern Ireland have very often worn helmets when patrolling unfriendly areas. And the disaster that took the lives of six Royal Military Police officers in Majar may indicate that American caution - whether it means wearing body armour, or ensuring that soldiers have sufficient back-up or are always in radio contact with headquarters - isn't so foolish.

And it's simply not true that the Americans don't patrol at all, patrol only in tanks or never get out of their vehicles. I accompanied foot patrols in Baghdad as early as April 13, only days after Saddam's presidential palace was taken. The unit carrying out these patrols was also assigned to escort SAS troopers around the city. The SAS men told me how impressed they were, not just with the Americans' willingness to learn from them, but with their training and self-control.

The idea that American troops are lavishly equipped is also a myth, a fantasy bred out of resentment of American wealth in general. The battalion in which I was first embedded came to war in creaky, Vietnam-vintage M113 armoured personnel carriers, which frequently broke down in the desert.

The battalion fought in green heavyweight fatigues because the desert camouflage ones never arrived. And, though a shipment of desert boots turned up just before the invasion, many were the wrong size, so that these GIs had to make do with black leather clompers designed for northern Europe in December. Perhaps most resented by the troops, they were not issued with bullet-resistant vests, only flak jackets, making them vulnerable to small-arms fire.

Another myth is that the Americans are also softies who live and fight in amazing, air-conditioned comfort. The truth is that the GIs encamped in and outside palaces and Ba'ath party mansions not only lack air-conditioning but also running water, unlike most of the population they guard.

And, unlike their British counterparts, they have no communication with their families at home. Many British troops are able to use the "e-bluey" system to email their loved ones on a frequent basis. The only times most GIs in Iraq ever get to let their spouses know they are well is if a passing journalist lets them have a couple of minutes on the Satphone.

And I remember what a thrill it was when I got my hands on a British ration box after nearly three months on American MREs (meals ready to eat). GIs bored of endless variations upon chilli and macaroni were amazed to find that British rations included things such as chicken and herb paté. And they were willing to trade everything from boots to whole cases of their own rations to get some.

Though the US Army lacks our regimental system, different American divisions vary greatly in culture and experience. The Third Infantry Division - the unit that reached Baghdad first and took the city in a feat of great boldness - has been kept in Iraq because its soldiers are clearly better than newcomers at the difficult task of winning hearts and minds in a newly conquered country.

You could see this in the way the tank commander, Captain Philip Wolford, broke the rules and walked around the area his company controlled, alone and bare-headed, chatting with the locals and organising food, medical care and even employment. I wish that more British reporters had gone into the streets with 3ID men such as Sgt Darren Swain, a no-nonsense soldier from Alabama who is loved in the Baghdad area his men call "Swainsville" because, off his own bat, he takes humvees out every morning to provide security at local schools.

More recently, American soldiers have been charged with the sensitive task of searching those who enter the Palace district of Baghdad. One Shi'ite mullah felt it a great dishonour to be searched. The soldier responsible, Captain Wolford, agreed to take him round the back of the building and search him in private. Once there, the mullah agreed to be searched. Captain Wolford refused then to search him - the agreement to comply was enough. The gentlemanly approach much pleased the mullah.

It is because of this kind of sensitivity that the Americans have slowly and quietly achieved the intelligence triumph that led to the discovery and killing of the sons of Saddam Hussein.

[Tab]

Although both our Countries troops work well together there is a lack of understanding on how we each operate. It's a pity that there can't be a bit more of a mix of units then prehaps we would not see so much rubbish
being talked by those who do not understand the way each other operates.

[USARMY_]

F&ckin,' ROCK OF THE MARNE, Hooha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[US Marine]

Although both our Countries troops work well together there is a lack of understanding on how we each operate. It's a pity that there can't be a bit more of a mix of units then prehaps we would not see so much rubbish
being talked by those who do not understand the way each other operates.

I agree 100% Thanks for your reply. I was fully expecting this to turn into a bash session. Thanks again.

[davo141]

something as simple as a joint division would aide combat situations, a division of 5000 UK and 5000 US soilders based at the same base somewhere would be invaluable in stressful situations, reduce blue on blue incidents and be a great training excerise...

just a thought

cheers, dave

[DelD]

Good write up, I too dislike the over simplified Yank bashing which has gone on recently, as when I worked with them in the 90,s I found them to be loyal, honest hardworking and professional, and the only major differences were "cultural" ones, which would not have major effects on operational policy or performance. ( and I can say this despite many differences I have with them)
From personal experience I know a lot is made about this not wearing helmets and body armour to appear more human stuff,(we get this crap in the Police in NI alot) usually by those not in theatre/on the streets, and therefore who are uniquely "qualified" to comment and formulate policy and opinion. Anyone ever heard the song "The Bravery of being out of range by Roger Waters"?

[BenChug]

In my experience working with US Marines, is that all be it they are not always the brightest of people. But on that point not many reg force soldiers of most army's are all that smart (including me), if there is one thing you can say about marines is that they are motivated, they are far harder working soldiers than most.

The modern US military difference is far far from that of the image it produced in the Vietnam era, as it is no longer built on draftees. The whole thing of wearing personnal armour is far beyond the level of the soldier, that policy is created far higher than you or I will ever reach. Anyman who is brave enough to be there and not say "I didn't know I might see combat in the Army, let me go home!" is good in my books.

[Whitey]

Maybe our countries should stop building coalitions, and going on joint military adventures? Iraq is our problem, we shouldn't have gotten you all mixed up in it. About the Helicopter's I think the story is true, when I was a medic (Navy Corpsman in the Marine Infantry) everyone knew the ch-46's were a death trap, if I was a Brittish officer I wouldn't ride in one. Our helicopters suck, the 46 is just too old, the blackhawk is called a "Crash Hawk" by the troops, the Apache is too vulnerable to the elements and small arms, the Cobra is the only helicopter we have that seems to have a decent record. I've ridden in many of 46's that gushed hydrolic fluid.

As for quality of troops, I think considering the size of our military the troops are decent. Some units better than others, some trigger happy sure.
Most of our troops are very young though, and most joined to get some college money. Most non-Infantry units get very little combat training outside of boot camp. The 101st, 82nd Special Forces and the Marines get first grabs at the training budget, everyone else get's what is left.

As for great gear, only select units get the good stuff. I was in a unit once that was using Korean war era tactics and communications equipment when my previous unit had satalite communications and combined arms at the push of a button.

I do think the British troop is better with the bayonet, but we have some really great marksmen. Blue on Blue sucks, but modern warefare is fast and violent. American troops are taught to haul ass and shoot on the move constantly attacking. We kill eachother on accident just training this way back home, I almost got my head shot off at 29 Palms once when we advanced too fast. I don't have the answer to this one.

[Jason The Argonaut]

Good post US Marine, that's was an interesting article I was lead to believe that the US army was all well equipped.

[Artist]

As said a good post.

Ref CH 46 copters. They were old in the late 70's. Did a joint Ex with 37 MAU once and no one was to keen to climb on board. American or Brit.

They flew in 29 CDO's 105MM's in the Shetlands and dropped two as they left Fearless. One yank Marine told me the only new thing on them was the Paint! Really boosted everyones confidence that little gem did!

Artist