Start of Civil War? Attacks Across Iraq!

[Arrian]

Sorry guys, AH is right. I've spoken to veterans of WWII, Korea, Vietnam and GW1 and all of them complained that US soldiers are trigger happy.

I don't know what it is that causes it, but you have been notorious for years for shooting first and thinking later.

Whether or not it's true, the stereotype sure is common. I've never been anywhere near the military, so I've no way of knowing.

My father served in the British Merchant Marine in WWII. As far as I know, he never had occasion to actually SEE any American "trigger happiness." Yet he always talks about how Americans are trigger happy.

When I asked him whether it was possible that the "friendly fire" incidents and whatnot might be the inevitable result of having a ridiculous amount of firepower, he had no real answer.

I have to wonder if the perception of American troops as trigger happy morons comes from the original performance of American troops in WWII (IIRC, they were really green and did quite poorly at first - Kasserine Pass, for instance), coupled with today's abundant firepower & extensive use of airpower.

But, like I said, I've no way of actually knowing. I'd suspect the same holds true for most Apolyton posters.

-Arrian

p.s. The only "trigger happiness" I can remember from my father's stories of WWII directly involved HIM and an AA-gun. They managed to strafe the deck of one of their own cruisers while trying to shoot down a Stuka (they had removed the safety guard that prevented the gun from tranversing in a full arc). Blasted trigger happy Brits!

[GePap]

The trigger happy accusation went back to WWI as well.

[Arrian]

Well, our troops sure were green then, too. So green, in fact, that the officers had to threaten to shoot them if they ran, didn't they?

-Arrian

[GePap]

The Brits going into battle in 1916 were as Green, since they had to raise a whole new army after the BEF got shot up-and a lot of German troops near the end of the war were also green.

I don;t know how much bieng green in the independent variable.

[Arrian]

Like I said, GePap, it's just an idea. I don't know. I wasn't there back then, and I'm not there now.

-Arrian

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
You see it every day - the Brits control their area so much better.

And you know what? Germany is WAY more peaceful than Iraq! If we swap in all the troops we have in Germany, I'm sure things will quiet down!

[Kuciwalker]

Gulf War One - this one's a win. Marred by the fact that you shot more of your own guys than the enemy did.

That says more about the relative quality of the Iraqi military (or rather, the lack thereof) than about American problems with friendly fire.

[Harovan]

Originally posted by Kucinich
And you know what? Germany is WAY more peaceful than Iraq! If we swap in all the troops we have in Germany, I'm sure things will quiet down!

Don't overestimate their number. The bulk left in the early 90's. There's some 70 thousands left, but I suspect this includes even civil servants.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Arrian


Whether or not it's true, the stereotype sure is common. I've never been anywhere near the military, so I've no way of knowing.

A lot of it is myth, a lot of it is just a soldier's inevitable *****ing, and a lot is selective memory. When fratricidal incidents occurred (far more in WW2 than nowadays), technology was very often the issue - air to ground communications was dodgy, and ground to ground communications between different forces was also limited both technically and procedurally.

As a percentage of total engagements, or of casualties inflicted, or as a function of ground taken, fratricidal casualties are extremely low. The equation is simple: Rapid movement + continuous operation + massive firepower + aggressive doctrine = ****'s bound to happen on occasion.

[Arrian]

The equation is simple: Rapid movement + continuous operation + massive firepower + aggressive doctrine = ****'s bound to happen on occasion.

The bolded part of the equation plays a role too. The Brits, having less manpower & firepower, tend to be more conservative with it, and think us reckless. Or that's the impression I get.

-Arrian

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
No sorry - that was the Russians.

Don't change the subject. There are so many examples of ill discipline and shoot first.

You need some professionals in there.

Sorry -- I doubt Western Europe would have been liberated by the Soviet Union's victory if United States had not fought in the war.

Western Europe would have gone from Hitler to Stalin.

[Arrian]

Why are you going down that road, MrnotFun? That's such a doubleplus ungood "debate" that's been done over and over and over...

-Arrian

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph


Don't overestimate their number. The bulk left in the early 90's. There's some 70 thousands left, but I suspect this includes even civil servants.

Wow! They must be really good if they can do it with only 70 thousand!

(I think you missed the sarcastic nature of that post, Sir Ralph )

[Harovan]

Originally posted by Kucinich
Wow! They must be really good if they can do it with only 70 thousand!

They can do what? Breathe valuable air? Because that's the only thing they do here. Besides brawls in the pubs, but your MPs are usually quick to fix it.

(I think you missed the sarcastic nature of that post, Sir Ralph )

Granted, I missed it.

[Kropotkin]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat You mean like when Julian Bond forced a river crossing (at over 50% casualties) to take the bridge over Nijmegen so Brit tankers could cross and then find a nice place to brew their afternoon tea while the Red Devils and Polish Airborne Brigade were being overrun just 18 km up the road?

We take the brunt of the fighting and deliver results.

Sure, just take a small part of a complex military operation from 50 years ago and spin it!