UK Soldier Gets Military Cross for Bayonet Charging a Taliban Fighter
287 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;17303552]what are you talking about
gentlemanly warfare? They were still trying to kill each other, technological limitations made it far more effective just to stand in lines and fire mass volleys.[/QUOTE]
No, actually, as he said, the Americans beat the British back then by using guerilla tactics. They can still have the same number of guns but all firing from different positions, while their targets are all clumped up, making the Brits easier to hit and at the same time more difficult for them to react. That's how ambushes and guerilla warfare generally works.
[editline]07:40PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=GunFox;17303907]Yeah. Though American soldiers often wind up with stuff from home in addition to weapons issued.[/QUOTE]
I overlooked that detail too. Yeah, Americans can purchase weapons and bring them with them. But yeah, we're talking about a British soldier here where as you said, he had no alternative. So, those who are asking why he didn't use his sidearm still look dumb but maybe to a lesser extent
"He...he killed me with a sword! How weird is that?"
what kind of gun was he using that has a bayonette on it?
this dumbfuck
[img]http://i279.photobucket.com/albums/kk144/HSMW/Cavalaria/HPIM3167.jpg[/img]
you seem like a frenchie i hope you are not
[quote=doritobanditv2;17305987]what kind of gun was he using that has a bayonette on it?[/quote]
sa-80.
For the people who are still wondering why the chose to bayonet them instead of shooting them.
The mag he had in the gun was out of ammo, and a machine gun just over an embankment, a few metres away was shooting in the direction of his section. Rather than taking seconds to change his magazine, he climbed over the embankment into the Taliban machine gunners and proceeded to commit maximum fucking violence.
In real life you don't have a 1-30 ammo counter. If you suddenly find yourself face to face with an enemy with no bullets in your gun you can't just press R and wait a second.
[QUOTE=Anteep2;17306857]this dumbfuck
[/QUOTE]
says the person who just posted this
[QUOTE=Anteep2;17301756]no, UK have always fought wars a lot better than the american
however
US militia starting 1776 eventually beat british colonial forces
however
all US military failed to beat vietnam farmers[/QUOTE]
He is an idiot but he does raise an interesting point. Commonwealth (primarily UK and Australia) troops tend to be much better trained than US troops on average. I'm still not quite sure why, but I'm starting to think its a combination of A) the massive amounts of recruits being processed in the US army/US Marine Corps and B) Training cycles.
That, and USMC/US Army training seems to be inconsistent between units. You'll get units that have fantastic training and it's evident, then you'll get units that have abysmal training and look like they just got out of basic and skipped Infantry school.
[QUOTE=professional;17308697]He is an idiot but he does raise an interesting point. Commonwealth (primarily UK and Australia) troops tend to be much better trained than US troops on average. I'm still not quite sure why, but I'm starting to think its a combination of A) the massive amounts of recruits being processed in the US army/US Marine Corps and B) Training cycles.
That, and USMC/US Army training seems to be inconsistent between units. You'll get units that have fantastic training and it's evident, then you'll get units that have abysmal training and look like they just got out of basic and skipped Infantry school.[/QUOTE]
It's most likely the fact that the British military spends a lot more time training Soldiers than the US. Royal Marines for example have the longest training in the world. The British army trains regular infantry for a longer time than the US spends training US Marines (Who as far as I know have the longest training regime in the US). British Army training is 28 weeks, whereas USMC training is only 13 weeks. Hell, they're army traing for 11.
[QUOTE=Anteep2;17301756]no, UK have always fought wars a lot better than the american
however
US militia starting 1776 eventually beat british colonial forces
however
all US military failed to beat vietnam farmers[/QUOTE]
For a start that was back in the day that wars were usually fought on open land, and the English forces wore bright red. As combat evolved, UK forces learnt to fight an underhand war, whereas the art of subtly has been lost from American Forces. It's almost like the generals still believe in a 'nid rush, throwing men at the enemy until one side falls. Something that didn't help in Vietnam where anything and anyone could have been a target.
That is the war in Afghanistan right now, the difference being that we know how to fight a war like that. Partly it is about winning over the populice so the enemy have nowhere to stay, and nowhere to hide.
[QUOTE=Bad)-(and;17308914]It's most likely the fact that the British military spends a lot more time training Soldiers than the US. Royal Marines for example have the longest training in the world. The British army trains regular infantry for a longer time than the US spends training US Marines (Who as far as I know have the longest training regime in the US). British Army training is 28 weeks, whereas USMC training is only 13 weeks. Hell, they're army traing for 11.[/QUOTE]
That still doesn't explain the inconsistancies between units in the US. Like I said, some units display a high level of training, others, abysmal amounts.
[QUOTE=professional;17309857]That still doesn't explain the inconsistancies between units in the US. Like I said, some units display a high level of training, others, abysmal amounts.[/QUOTE]
I think that's just a symptom of having such a swollen orginisational body.
[QUOTE=David29;17306865]sa-80.[/QUOTE]
Also known as the L85 series.
No think about it, what if everybody just used swords
[QUOTE=azndude;17310050]Also known as the L85 series.[/QUOTE]
The SA80 was the project the L85 was developed under, so the weapon's actual name is the L85. It's informally referred to as the SA80 though.
[QUOTE=professional;17309857]That still doesn't explain the inconsistancies between units in the US. Like I said, some units display a high level of training, others, abysmal amounts.[/QUOTE]
Would the geographical location of a unit have an effect on its training?
Perhaps a better idea is maybe military funding varies from base to base, state to state.
[editline]09:28AM[/editline]
[QUOTE=Morbo!!!;17316442]The SA80 was the project the L85 was developed under, so the weapon's actual name is the L85. It's informally referred to as the SA80 though.[/QUOTE]
The programme was called Small Arms Project for the 1980's, hence SA80 :) Only the rifle is the L85, the carbine and LSW are the L22 and L86 respectively. So the term SA80 is used to cover the whole series as well as the programme.
[QUOTE=Darkhorse01;17316465]The programme was called Small Arms Project for the 1980's, hence SA80 :) Only the rifle is the L85, the carbine and LSW are the L22 and L86 respectively. So the term SA80 is used to cover the whole series as well as the programme.[/QUOTE]
Ah, I could never remember the name of the carbine. I was already aware that the SA80 project encompassed all three weapons systems, but people just refer to the L85 as the SA80 informally, not sure if they do the same for the LSW and carbine.
He shouldn't have run out of ammo in the first place, the government should stop making defence budget cuts.
[QUOTE=Anark;17317974]He shouldn't have run out of ammo in the first place, the government should stop making defence budget cuts.[/QUOTE]
... :/
There's only so much ammo one man can carry. Bigger defence budgets aren't going to change that.
[QUOTE=Anark;17317974]He shouldn't have run out of ammo in the first place, the government should stop making defence budget cuts.[/QUOTE]
There is so much ammo a man can carry, and if you read a few posts back, he did have additional ammunition.
[editline]09:03PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=Bad)-(and;17318015]... :/
There's only so much ammo one man can carry. Bigger defence budgets aren't going to change that.[/QUOTE]
HOLY SHIT! :D We think alike. :smug:
He had plenty of ammo on his person... he just didn't want to waste time reloading when he could be gutting taliban.
I think I found a picture of his what his son will be doing in the future.
[URL=http://filesmelt.com/][IMG]http://filesmelt.com/downloader/page011.jpg[/IMG][/URL]
[QUOTE=Morbo!!!;17304351]No, actually, as he said, the Americans beat the British back then by using guerilla tactics. They can still have the same number of guns but all firing from different positions, while their targets are all clumped up, making the Brits easier to hit and at the same time more difficult for them to react. That's how ambushes and guerilla warfare generally works.
[editline]07:40PM[/editline]
I overlooked that detail too. Yeah, Americans can purchase weapons and bring them with them. But yeah, we're talking about a British soldier here where as you said, he had no alternative. So, those who are asking why he didn't use his sidearm still look dumb but maybe to a lesser extent[/QUOTE]
Do you honestly think that the US would have fought a guerrilla war if they could have fought the British in proper open ground?
Yes the Americans beat the British back with guerrilla tactics, but that's the only way they could have to be honest.
and this is just further proving my point that this gentlemanly warfare thing is non-existent.
It's funny that the Americans had twice as many troops but still fought asymetrically, and on the defence.
[QUOTE=NoDachi;17320573]It's funny that the Americans had twice as many troops but still fought asymetrically, and on the defence.[/QUOTE]
Numbers are important, but just it shows you how training, tactics, equipment, morale, command ability, and logistics play a more important role.
[QUOTE=NoDachi;17320573]It's funny that the Americans had twice as many troops but still fought asymetrically, and on the defence.[/QUOTE]
Difference is, Britain has a professional army. Throughout history the point of the British army has been to have a marginally smaller number of troops, but have them trained better.
For the same reason that in World War 1, the BEF held up the German advance as long as it did.
[QUOTE=GoroMan;17301541]What a crappy battlecry.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, he should have shouted "SANDVICH AND ME GONNA BEAT YOUR ASS"
[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;17320704]Difference is, Britain has a professional army. Throughout history the point of the British army has been to have a marginally smaller number of troops, but have them trained better.
For the same reason that in World War 1, the BEF held up the German advance as long as it did.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, the Germans didn't even count Britain as a land power until during WW1, when they got a nasty shock in the Somme.
[QUOTE=NoDachi;17321477]Yeah, the Germans didn't even could Britain as a land power until WW1, when they got a nasty shock in the Somme.[/QUOTE]
Did you just muddle two sentences together?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.