UK Soldier Gets Military Cross for Bayonet Charging a Taliban Fighter
287 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Morbo!!!;17336197]My original point is that warfare BACK THEN was way DIFFERENT to what it's like now, and comparing America's performance in the 1700s to their performance in the 1960s/70s is redundant. Then you went off on a random tangent, saying that it's more effective to stand in lines and fire all at once (When using C18 weaponry), but I disagreed with that, and America's victory over Britain back then proved me right in that case at least.
The reason I call it 'Gentlemanly' is because British commanders viewed guerilla tactics as underhanded, barbaric and uncivilised, and believed both armies should fight as they always had in that era (LET'S LINE UP AND SHOOT EACHOTHER). Then they wised up and started to adopt similar tactics.
And no, the Yanks probably wouldn't have fought a guerilla war if their numbers of men and equipment permitted (I never said they shouldn't have either, so I don't get why you're making points that I was never arguing against.), but they didn't have sufficient men/equipment and what I was saying is that that's the origin of modern infantry tactics.
[editline]02:51PM[/editline]
Let me sum up the few posts before mine for you:
You're an idiot, and so is your dad.
And no, people don't get awarded medals for "whining". Extreme circumstances forced him to use the bayonet.[/QUOTE]
It's nothing to do with the amount of men/equipment the americans had. As NoDachi said, the Americans had more.
It's the fact that the British had one of the most professional armies in the world.
And it is generally more effective using 18th Century weapons to fire in mass volleys. That's why it was done in every almost every single war in that period, not because it was gentlemanly, but it was the easiest way to control battles of such large scale and to inflict the most casualties.
[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;17337774]It's nothing to do with the amount of men/equipment the americans had. As NoDachi said, the Americans had more.
It's the fact that the British had one of the most professional armies in the world.
And it is generally more effective using 18th Century weapons to fire in mass volleys. That's why it was done in every almost every single war in that period, not because it was gentlemanly, but it was the easiest way to control battles of such large scale and to inflict the most casualties.[/QUOTE]
The first boer war would show differently. As I said in a previous post, the British had incredible trouble fighting Boers because they fired from prone positions or from concealment, they moved when under fire, and they utilized cover effectively. The Boers effectively pioneered basic modern infantry tactics: spacing, concealment, cover and mobility.
Part of the failure of British to adapt to guerilla tactics was the attitude or rather snobbery towards such tactics.
No.
It's because Britain had an army trained to fight another European army in conventional combat. You can't feasibility train soldiers to fight in both manners.
The Americans are facing a similar problem now in Iraq and Afghanistan.
[b]yea boi ![/b]
[QUOTE=NoDachi;17338133]No.
It's because Britain had an army trained to fight another European army in conventional combat. You can't feasibility train soldiers to fight in both manners.
The Americans are facing a similar problem now in Iraq and Afghanistan.[/QUOTE]
I wouldn't say so. If it is true the Americans used similar tactics in the revolutionary war (almost a full century before the Boer war), they would have adjusted their tactics and training accordingly. The tactics employed by the Boers are far more effective than the Line tactics model.
I don't agree with the statement on Americans in Iraq/Afghanistan either. The Vietcong used guerilla tactics in the Vietnam war, yet the Australians were very effective in their combative measures against the Vietcong, and that's not even counting the efforts of the SAS (Of which special forces are practically guerilla fighters themselves). Granted Australians were probably well prepared from their pre-deployment specific training in Jungle Warfare centers...
As for the Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan, they are making headway. The Insurgents and Taliban are capable of inflicting casulties on a tactical level, they aren't capable of winning strategically. Even so, on a tacitcal level, they don't win firefights. Usually, more casulties are inflicted on them, than they do on the Americans (I'm not counting IEDs and the like, I'm talking on a strictly force on force basis).
It was the opposite in the Boer war, the Boers inflicted far more casulties utilizing their tactics. I'm not sure what we are arguing though, are we arguing the effectiveness of such tactics against the British line model? Or are we arguing why the British failed to adapt?
[QUOTE=professional;17338467]I wouldn't say so. If it is true the Americans used similar tactics in the revolutionary war (almost a full century before the Boer war), they would have adjusted their tactics and training accordingly. The tactics employed by the Boers are far more effective than the Line tactics model.
I don't agree with the statement on Americans in Iraq/Afghanistan either. The Vietcong used guerilla tactics in the Vietnam war, yet the Australians were very effective in their combative measures against the Vietcong, and that's not even counting the efforts of the SAS (Of which special forces are practically guerilla fighters themselves). Granted Australians were probably well prepared from their pre-deployment specific training in Jungle Warfare centers...
As for the Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan, they are making headway. The Insurgents and Taliban are capable of inflicting casulties on a tactical level, they aren't capable of winning strategically. Even so, on a tacitcal level, they don't win firefights. Usually, more casulties are inflicted on them, than they do on the Americans (I'm not counting IEDs and the like, I'm talking on a strictly force on force basis).
It was the opposite in the Boer war, the Boers inflicted far more casulties utilizing their tactics. I'm not sure what we are arguing though, are we arguing the effectiveness of such tactics against the British line model? Or are we arguing why the British failed to adapt?[/QUOTE]
Difference is, America can't win the war in Iraq, much like America didn't win the Vietnam war.
Unless the US can convince the Iraqis that they are fighting on their side, then the insurgents will continue.
Or you could do what the British did in the Boer War.
Concentration camps.
This is why guerilla warfare is/was considered underhanded. Only the most unethical shit can really counter it.
Long story short, you aren't going to beat guerilla forces, usually.
Also I would agree though. By the Boer war, line warfare was dead and buried.
[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;17337774]It's nothing to do with the amount of men/equipment the americans had. As NoDachi said, the Americans had more.[/quote]
Point taken
[quote]
It's the fact that the British had one of the most professional armies in the world.[/QUOTE]
Not denying that
[quote]And it is generally more effective using 18th Century weapons to fire in mass volleys. [/quote]
This is where the dispute is. What I'm saying is in ANY case, no matter what weaponry is available, ambush wins against men standing in a block (So long as both parties have the same or similar weaponry). The ambush victims are concentrated in a group and most of the time exposed, meaning the entire ambush party only has to concentrate on one area; The ambush victims have to pick out targets in several different locations, which is made especially difficult if their targets are concealing themselves.
If it's a matter of free-form (I use this term very loosely) vs free-form, then differences in training, tactics and strategy majorly come into play.
[quote]
That's why it was done in every almost every single war in that period, not because it was gentlemanly, but it was the easiest way to control battles of such large scale and to inflict the most casualties[/quote]
You're missing the point of what I said. I'm not saying they only fought like that because they deemed it gentlemanly, I'm saying they called what I described above [b]un[/b]-gentlemanly, that's why I used that 'term' in the first place.
[editline]08:27PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=professional;17337919]The first boer war would show differently. As I said in a previous post, the British had incredible trouble fighting Boers because they fired from prone positions or from concealment, they moved when under fire, and they utilized cover effectively. The Boers effectively pioneered basic modern infantry tactics: spacing, concealment, cover and mobility.
Part of the failure of British to adapt to guerilla tactics was the attitude or rather snobbery towards such tactics.[/QUOTE]
This too.
[editline]08:29PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;17338852]Difference is, America can't win the war in Iraq, much like America didn't win the Vietnam war.
Unless the US can convince the Iraqis that they are fighting on their side, then the insurgents will continue.[/QUOTE]
Agreed, but I doubt that they can get most of the Iraqis on side, the islamic extremists especially.
[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;17338852]
Long story short, you aren't going to beat guerilla forces, usually.
[/QUOTE]
Which is why the UK forces are fighting a war on two fronts. Directly fighting the Taliban with guns, and trying to win over the support of the tribes. It becomes a war of attrition, winning towns over so that the populace won't shelter extremist forces.
Fucking Captain America
[img]http://www.imfdb.org/images/thumb/1/12/Genkill_AKb.jpg/500px-Genkill_AKb.jpg[/img]
If you've seen the show this is hilarious
[QUOTE=RichardNixon;17280607]The British are still using bayonets?
pft.[/QUOTE]
You know bayonet's are used for more then killing.
They are useful for:
-Opening cans
-Cutting meat
-An eating utensil(just don't stab yourself)
-In some cases a digging tool
-Cutting up clothing for bandages
[QUOTE=Kyle902;17345326]You know bayonet's are used for more then killing.
They are useful for:
-Opening cans
-Cutting meat
-An eating utensil(just don't stab yourself)
-In some cases a digging tool
-Cutting up clothing for bandages
-Killing arrogant Americans[/QUOTE]
Added one for you
^clearing mines
[QUOTE=Jack Bryce;17280699]I wonder what that taliban guy was thinking when he saw Adamson charging him...[/QUOTE]
ALLAH AKBAR!
oh shit
[QUOTE=Chippy!;17352116]Added one for you[/QUOTE]
Bayonets are useful for killing anyone, not specifically arrogant Americans.
[QUOTE=Adbor;17281632]Kick him in the nuts.
He's still a man.[/QUOTE]
Not after that...
[QUOTE=Chippy!;17352116]Added one for you[/QUOTE]
It also is useful to kill people who apparently cant differentiate a joke post from a serious one.
[QUOTE=BBC News]who is from the Isle of Man[/QUOTE]
That explains it.
[QUOTE=professional;17280906]Contrary to what you see in video games, infantry aren't issued sidearms usually.
The reason being is that Your rifle gets the job done a thousand times better, and that a pistol is just extra weight and space that could've been utilized for another magazine or greande. If they ever came across a situation where a pistol was actually "needed" (confined space like a crawlspace or tunnel for example) officers and occasionally NCOs are issued a pistol.[/QUOTE]
I'm not so sure of that, at least for the US armed forces; everyone I know in and outside of my company are issued M9s with magazines that fall apart.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.