PDA

View Full Version : Britain faces Iraq rout



wendigo100
19th August 2007, 11:58
Britain faces Iraq rout (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article2284257.ece)
Some British officers believe they are facing a “humiliating” retreat under fire to Kuwait or the southern Iraqi port of Umm Qasr.

“I regret to say that the Basra experience is set to become a major blunder in terms of military history,” said a senior officer. “The insurgents are calling the shots . . . and in a worst-case scenario will chase us out of southern Iraq.”And the view from the bunker...
The Ministry of Defence said the British were not heading for defeat. “Although the militias are trying to claim credit for ‘driving us out’, they are failing.” :rollin:

Diver
19th August 2007, 12:24
They will have to pull in every bit of air support and artillery they can lay their hands on for a covered retreat.
At best it is going to be an enfiladed retreat and they are going to lose not a few men.
There best choice is a retreat through unpopulated area,s where greatest force of arms can be brought to bear with minimal risk to the civilian population.
A well armored diversionary force off from the main route could be used to draw enemy combatants and firepower away from the more vulnerable retreating main unit.
Whatever happens, it is not going to be pretty and a lot of our young men are going to die.

GreenerGrass
19th August 2007, 17:23
This is one of the many ironies of the invasion, the USA's no. 1 enemy Iran now has a Shia proxy state in all but name in the south of Iraq.
There aren't many Sunnis about, so the British serve no purpose whatsoever being there, other than to be shot at.
Unlike further north the "insurgents" are all rival Shia militias, not Al Queda or Sunni guerillas.

They need to stop peddling the whole "if we pull out now it will collapse" myth, no one wants them there at all.
Saving their lives and the lives of civilians in this country should take priority over military pride and national embarrasment.
There is no such thing as the "Iraqi people" anymore, if there ever was, its basically three different main tribes who can't stand each other thanks to history.

EternalOptimist
19th August 2007, 18:05
They will have to pull in every bit of air support and artillery they can lay their hands on for a covered retreat.
At best it is going to be an enfiladed retreat and they are going to lose not a few men.
There best choice is a retreat through unpopulated area,s where greatest force of arms can be brought to bear with minimal risk to the civilian population.
A well armored diversionary force off from the main route could be used to draw enemy combatants and firepower away from the more vulnerable retreating main unit.
Whatever happens, it is not going to be pretty and a lot of our young men are going to die.

You are, without doubt, a moron. What the heck is an 'enfiladed retreat', what the heck is ' not a few men', what the heck is an unpopulated area, and what the fying f*** is an armoured diversionary force ?????


i fkin despair





:rolleyes:

Diver
19th August 2007, 18:21
You are, without doubt, a moron. What the heck is an 'enfiladed retreat', what the heck is ' not a few men', what the heck is an unpopulated area, and what the fying f*** is an armoured diversionary force ?????


i fkin despair





:rolleyes:

With your wealth of ignorance you should fkin despair :laugh

Clippy
19th August 2007, 18:25
Saving their lives and the lives of civilians in this country should take priority over military pride and national embarrasment.

There is no such thing as the "Iraqi people" anymore, if there ever was, its basically three different main tribes who can't stand each other thanks to history.

Well said.

As an aside, why can't the good 'ol boys from Texas take over the Brits role so they can evacuate with the minimum of disruption/casualties?

Diver
19th August 2007, 18:28
Because they need us to draw the fire so that they can sneak out the back door? :D

Troll
20th August 2007, 07:26
As an aside, why can't the good 'ol boys from Texas take over the Brits role so they can evacuate with the minimum of disruption/casualties?I believe that was the reason for the original report - the Yanks recognise Gordo is going to pull out the troops no matter what & they will need to take over and protect the supply lines out of Kuwait & no doubt the yanks will be gleefull about saving our sorry asses again

Will be interesting to see what happens here when thousands of disillusioned troops return to the UK...

swamp
20th August 2007, 08:51
Will be interesting to see what happens here when thousands of disillusioned troops return to the UK...

The troops won't return to the UK. They'll go to Afghanistan :frown

sasguru
20th August 2007, 08:55
And contrary to popular belief there's only 5000 of them, down from a peak of 30000. A defeat by any other name.

daviejones
20th August 2007, 08:58
IT seems such a shame as there are millions of Iraqis that do actually want us there but we seem to have made such a hash of it. The theory was good but in practice...

We should have pulled out a long time ago and now I reckon we should get out and let them kill each other. We are providing no value there so let's get out.

The issue now is if we pull out, Saddam will be replaced by someone equally as bad and there will still be no free elections, no democracy and no peace...

I am no expert but is pull out the only option?

EternalOptimist
20th August 2007, 09:20
With your wealth of ignorance you should fkin despair :laugh

Well please enlighten me. You seem to be a bit of a blowhard Diver, mybe start with just one, explain , to an old soldier, what an 'enfiladed retreat' is






:rolleyes:

richard-af
20th August 2007, 09:27
The whole Iraq invasion/war/whatever was a huge mistake from the off. But it happened, nonetheless. That the UK could now even think of saying, "Ta-ra, luv! See ya!" is sickening, given that Iraq is now more unstable than it ever was under Saddam. The UK helped (willingly, blindly, arrogantly, etc.) initiate it; it should at least stay-on and see it through.

swamp
20th August 2007, 09:37
The UK and the US actually have far more 'troops' in Iraq, if you count all the private security guards/mercenaries they hire. If the real troops pull out, I expect the private hire guns will all leave too.

Moscow Mule
20th August 2007, 09:43
Well please enlighten me. You seem to be a bit of a blowhard Diver, mybe start with just one, explain , to an old soldier, what an 'enfiladed retreat' is
:rolleyes:

That's officer chat for when they're shootin' at the whole of the column - innit.

Mailman
20th August 2007, 10:19
This will go down with some of those other glorious British military victories, such as Dunkirk, Dieppe, Gate Pa, Isandhlwana etc :rollin:

Mind you this victory is the result of how soft the British have gotten over the years. Something gets a bit tough...feck lets pull out (or impose a tax! :D).

Mailman

richard-af
20th August 2007, 10:28
This will go down with some of those other glorious British military victories, such as Dunkirk, Dieppe, Gate Pa, Isandhlwana etc :rollin:

Mind you this victory is the result of how soft the British have gotten over the years. Something gets a bit tough...feck lets pull out (or impose a tax! :D).

Mailman

... and sell the story to Hello or OK! magazine.

Clippy
20th August 2007, 10:35
This will go down with some of those other glorious British military victories, such as Dunkirk, Dieppe, Gate Pa, Isandhlwana etc :rollin:

Mind you this victory is the result of how soft the British have gotten over the years. Something gets a bit tough...feck lets pull out (or impose a tax! :D).

Mailman

Unlike Aussie soldiers who from a young age are taught how to wrestle crocs.

sasguru
20th August 2007, 10:38
Well please enlighten me. You seem to be a bit of a blowhard Diver, mybe start with just one, explain , to an old soldier, what an 'enfiladed retreat' is






:rolleyes:

From his other posts I suspect Diver is a bit of a military wannabe :laugh

Unwitting Catalyst
20th August 2007, 10:45
Mind you this victory is the result of how soft the British have gotten over the years. Something gets a bit tough...feck lets pull out
Pray do tell us of New Zealand's contribution to the "War on Terror". Didn't your guys get a kicking in Vietnam - don't tell me, "we had to fight with one hand tied behind our backs, snivel snivel".

Rescuing South Sea islanders from disappearing atolls is very commendable, but you don't really need an army for that, do you?

wendigo100
20th August 2007, 11:55
The whole Iraq invasion/war/whatever was a huge mistake from the off. But it happened, nonetheless. That the UK could now even think of saying, "Ta-ra, luv! See ya!" is sickening, given that Iraq is now more unstable than it ever was under Saddam. The UK helped (willingly, blindly, arrogantly, etc.) initiate it; it should at least stay-on and see it through.You are right except for the last bit - see it through to what?

richard-af
20th August 2007, 11:59
You are right except for the last bit - see it through to what?

Good point - er - dunno! Changed my mind - let's pull out now and pretend it never happened!

sasguru
20th August 2007, 12:49
I'm no military historian except in an amateur way - I've read everything I could lay my hands on over the years. But even with my unschooled half-knowledge, I thought going into Iraq in 2003 was a massive mistake.
Do you think Dubya has actually read a book in his life?

daviejones
20th August 2007, 12:51
I'm no military historian except in an amateur way - I've read everything I could lay my hands on over the years. But even with my unschooled half-knowledge, I thought going into Iraq in 2003 was a massive mistake.
Do you think Dubya has actually read a book in his life?

I am sure that millions of Iraqis were glad we did, however we screwed it up very quickly.

Mailman
20th August 2007, 13:17
Pray do tell us of New Zealand's contribution to the "War on Terror".

NZ's only terrorist threat comes from supposedly friendly governments! :D

Mailman

AlfredJPruffock
20th August 2007, 13:27
I am sure that millions of Iraqis were glad we did, however we screwed it up very quickly.

When the war started I stated on this site that the biggest cheers when the bombing started would be heard from Tehran.

Iran has emerged from this War as the Middle East super power - without lifting a finger .

Given the recent invitations from Russia for Iran to join Warsaw Pact 2 (ie the new Russian and China millitary co-operation group ) any prospect of an attach upon Iran could escalate into WW3.

Which is fine is you are a fundamentalist Rapturist.


Insure NOW with Prudential

Nice work guys.

AlfredJPruffock
20th August 2007, 13:37
Pray do tell us of New Zealand's contribution to the "War on Terror". Didn't your guys get a kicking in Vietnam - don't tell me, "we had to fight with one hand tied behind our backs, snivel snivel".

Rescuing South Sea islanders from disappearing atolls is very commendable, but you don't really need an army for that, do you?

Interesting points UC , given that Mailman has for years lambasted all whom had the termerity to challenge the wisdom of launching the Iraq War - which by any account has now ended in a defeat for the British Army , I look forward to Mailman's robust defence of his homelands illustrious millitary history.

However perhaps all is not lost - just think of how motivated the troops would become if the man who fought tooth and nail to launch this War - Mr Blair - was to do his bit and help defend the Basra camp ?

Shoulder to Shoulder - Mr Blair said that himself.

We await your response with excited anticipaton Mailman.

sasguru
20th August 2007, 13:37
Eisenhower was right. Read this speech and marvel at it's wisdom and intelligence. Then compare with the current incumbent. From a true statesman to a monkey.

From:
Eisenhower speech (http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~hst306/documents/indust.html)

"This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together. "

sasguru
20th August 2007, 13:39
Interesting points UC , given that Mailman has for years lambasted all whom had the termerity to challenge the wisdom of launching the Iraq War - which by any account has now ended in defeat for the British Army , I look forward to Mailman's robust defence of his homelands illustrious millitary history.

We await your response with excited anticipaton Mailman.


I

Actually the Kiwis have an illustrious 2nd world war record. But then they wouldn't have had Mailman in the army except in a ShaunBhoy-like potato-peeler role.

Mailman
20th August 2007, 13:41
Actually the Kiwis have an illustrious 2nd world war record. But then they wouldn't have had Mailman in the army except in a ShaunBhoy-like potato-peeler role.

Even then that would have been more than you would have ever done...well apart from surrendering or maybe evening helping the enemy out eh? :rollin:

BTW, was the main character in "The Wave" based on you? :rollin:

Mailman

Mailman
20th August 2007, 13:46
However perhaps all is not lost - just think of how motivated the troops would become if the man who fought tooth and nail to launch this War - Mr Blair - was to do his bit and help defend the Basra camp ?

Why would blair fight shoulder to shoulder with soldiers when its his job to send the armed forces of this country off to fight the wars the government determines they should be fighting?

Your infantile arguement sounds like one of those whiney "oh its not fair them americans got all the big bombs and we should give terrorists the same kind of big bombs too...after all, its only fair" type of arguement :rollin:

Having said that, Britains defeat can be placed squarely at the feet of the anti-war movement. While the situation could be retrieved with a "surge" everyone knows Britain is in no way capable of doing this due to shortages, lack of funding and not having the collective balls to make it happen.

It seems you current day poms are much happier running and then holding countless pointless hearings in to your own failings than at actually finishing something! :D

Mailman

sasguru
20th August 2007, 13:47
While the situation could be retrieved with a "surge"

You really are a prize cretin, aren't you. A surge to achieve what exactly?
Moron.

Mailman
20th August 2007, 13:49
You really are a prize cretin, aren't you. A surge to achieve what exactly?
Moron.

To retrieve the situation and "impose" law and order...then again I guess its just easier to run after you are defeated! :rollin:

Mailman

sasguru
20th August 2007, 13:52
To retrieve the situation and "impose" law and order...then again I guess its just easier to run after you are defeated! :rollin:

Mailman

:rollin:

How do you impose law and order in a guerilla war? And even if it were possible do you propose the troops stay there indefinitely?
Keep digging, birdbrain of Auckland.:laugh

AlfredJPruffock
20th August 2007, 13:55
I must say Mailman I did expect a more robust defence than the rather unconvincing reply that you have constructed - the idea that the defeat in Iraq - and yes at least you have now acknowledged that we have been defeated - is due to the anti war camp can only be described as patently absurd.

Your notion that a 'surge' would somehow correct matters is as flawed asthe US attempts to win the Vietnam War by sending more troops to their death.


When will you concede that the Iraq War was the wrong War - in the wrong place at the wrong time ?

sasguru
20th August 2007, 13:56
When will you concede that the Iraq War was the wrong War - in the wrong place at the wrong time ?

When he gets a brain transplant?

daviejones
20th August 2007, 13:58
When will you concede that the Iraq War was the wrong War - in the wrong place at the wrong time ?

No. I think the principles behind the war i.e. removing Saddam were good. If anything, I blame the poor intelligence and advice given by the senior military officers.

richard-af
20th August 2007, 15:28
No. I think the principles behind the war i.e. removing Saddam were good. If anything, I blame the poor intelligence and advice given by the senior military officers.

The principles?

Diver
20th August 2007, 15:29
Well please enlighten me. You seem to be a bit of a blowhard Diver, mybe start with just one, explain , to an old soldier, what an 'enfiladed retreat' is

:rolleyes:

Just for the old soldier. (Saves me explaining in detail)

http://www.answers.com/topic/enfilade-and-defilade

By the way! did you ever study Military Tactics, Perhaps you misheard and thought that the instrucor said "The best defence is to try and cause offence" but sorry no offence taken.
By the way did you manage to rise to the heady height of PFC.

Just as one old soldier to another that is :rolleyes:

daviejones
20th August 2007, 15:32
The principles?

Yes, free the Iraqi people from tyranny etc...

richard-af
20th August 2007, 15:34
Yes, free the Iraqi people from tyranny etc...

Ba-doom, cha!

daviejones
20th August 2007, 15:43
Ba-doom, cha!

:spank::spank::spank:

wendigo100
20th August 2007, 15:55
No. I think the principles behind the war i.e. removing Saddam were good.IMHO no, they weren't. Saddam was able to control the "insurgents", and we aren't.

daviejones
20th August 2007, 15:58
IMHO no, they weren't. Saddam was able to control the "insurgents", and we aren't.

I agree...but the method he used was hardly ideal and the reason the opinion of the world was against him. The IRA were able to control crime in NI but the methods they used were hardly in keeping with the civilised world.

Diver
20th August 2007, 16:42
IMHO no, they weren't. Saddam was able to control the "insurgents", and we aren't.

Controlling insurgents for Saddam meant gassing villages full of women and children, torturing and killing anyone he didn't like and anyone who spoke out of turn.
If the British and US forces used the same tactics, there would be no insurgency problem, but to be honest, I would rather that we withdrew than go down that road.
Let the blood be on their own hands not ours, we tried to help and they have proved unworthy of that help.
Let Iran have Iraq.
That is exactly what will happen anyway.

Clippy
20th August 2007, 16:53
Let the blood be on their own hands not ours, we tried to help and they have proved unworthy of that help.

It's been said before but no harm in repeating it, you really are a tw@t.

Wtf does the above statement mean?

Diver
20th August 2007, 17:07
It's been said before but no harm in repeating it, you really are a tw@t.

Wtf does the above statement mean?

Just for your simple little mind I will explain.

The general populace of Iraq know full well who these insurgents are, if they want peace, then they should denounce or hand over these insurgents to the military authorities.
but they do not because the insurgents that they know about are the ones that they are related to, or go to mosque with. In other words they are on their side.
if all sides denounced the combatants that they knew of then the bombings and assassinations would be reduced to a manageable level, and fewer civilians and members of the armed forces would die.
And peace in the region could be restored to a point where an occupying force would no longer be needed.

I am sorry if I used too many big words for a dribbling puerile idiot to understand, but I refuse to Dumb myself down to your level :laugh

Clippy
20th August 2007, 17:46
Just for your simple little mind I will explain.

The general populace of Iraq know full well who these insurgents are, if they want peace, then they should denounce or hand over these insurgents to the military authorities.
but they do not because the insurgents that they know about are the ones that they are related to, or go to mosque with. In other words they are on their side.
if all sides denounced the combatants that they knew of then the bombings and assassinations would be reduced to a manageable level, and fewer civilians and members of the armed forces would die.
And peace in the region could be restored to a point where an occupying force would no longer be needed.

I am sorry if I used too many big words for a dribbling puerile idiot to understand, but I refuse to Dumb myself down to your level :laugh

You sir, are a first class moron with a tenuous grasp of reality.

Obviously, the rapid ascent from your last dive has resulted in your remaining braincells from giving up the ghost.

Your not related to mailman perchance?

Diver
20th August 2007, 17:52
You sir, are a first class moron with a tenuous grasp of reality.

Obviously, the rapid ascent from your last dive has resulted in your remaining braincells from giving up the ghost.

Your not related to mailman perchance?

Finally a response.

But alas, it seems that a philosophical or even slightly intellectual debate is far above the IQ level that mother nature has cruelly endowed you with.

I just added you to my buddy list in expectation of said debate, but alas ........

Stan
20th August 2007, 18:13
if all sides denounced the combatants that they knew of then the bombings and assassinations would be reduced to a manageable level, and fewer civilians and members of the armed forces would die.
And peace in the region could be restored to a point where an occupying force would no longer be needed.


Deep thinking there. Give up and they won't have to kill you. Somehow people don't seem to like just giving up to occupiers and don't seem to like handing in their family to them.

Diver
20th August 2007, 18:20
Deep thinking there. Give up and they won't have to kill you. Somehow people don't seem to like just giving up to occupiers and don't seem to like handing in their family to them.

On that point. what would you do if members of your family and friends were murdering women and children by blowing up shops and markets, and going out at night murdering policemen and such.

I know exactly what I would do - pick up a phone

Clippy
20th August 2007, 18:40
Finally a response.

But alas, it seems that a philosophical or even slightly intellectual debate is far above the IQ level that mother nature has cruelly endowed you with.

I just added you to my buddy list in expectation of said debate, but alas ........

I suggest you invest the time spent on here spouting b0ll0cks on learning a bit about politics.

Diver
20th August 2007, 19:10
I suggest you invest the time spent on here spouting b0ll0cks on learning a bit about politics.

Where in our conversation has the subject of politics raised it's ugly head.
You are perhaps confused! as is understandable I suppose with such a low IQ.
We were I think, discussing a need (militarily) for a safe withdrawal from Iraq.

Judging by the content and context of your posts, recent and past, it is patently obvious that you are neither a contractor or an adult.
I will assume then that you are a juvenile.

Possibly a young girl, Foulmouthed and not very intelligent.

Does your mother know that you are posting swear words on here young lady.:spank:

EternalOptimist
20th August 2007, 20:32
Just for the old soldier. (Saves me explaining in detail)

http://www.answers.com/topic/enfilade-and-defilade

By the way! did you ever study Military Tactics, Perhaps you misheard and thought that the instrucor said "The best defence is to try and cause offence" but sorry no offence taken.
By the way did you manage to rise to the heady height of PFC.

Just as one old soldier to another that is :rolleyes:

You prove my point quite neatly. It was quite possible to enfilade a napoleonic assault column, quite possible to enfilade a trench , or fixed position, quite possible to efilade a thin red line

it is totally impossible to enfilade an 'all round position' or hedgehog.
All modern units deploy in all round formation, so how the flying *****
we are going to suffer an 'enfiladed retreat' eludes me.

Mind you, i am guessing its beginning to elude you now as well. Resorting to the wiki is a bit lame diver. Enfilade means attack an unprotected flank, ie, kick him when he cant kick back, ie, the ultimate objective of military tactics.

do you really believe the british army is going to march out of Iraq in column ?




:rolleyes:

Diver
20th August 2007, 20:44
You prove my point quite neatly. It was quite possible to enfilade a napoleonic assault column, quite possible to enfilade a trench , or fixed position, quite possible to efilade a thin red line

it is totally impossible to enfilade an 'all round position' or hedgehog.
All modern units deploy in all round formation, so how the flying *****
we are going to suffer an 'enfiladed retreat' eludes me.

Mind you, i am guessing its beginning to elude you now as well. Resorting to the wiki is a bit lame diver. Enfilade means attack an unprotected flank, ie, kick him when he cant kick back, ie, the ultimate objective of military tactics.

do you really believe the british army is going to march out of Iraq in column ?

:rolleyes:

Your response is excellent :yay: (a considerable improvement on Clippy)

The enfilading of a static formation is possible but difficult when that formation is the ancient Hedgehog or all round position.
However, the purpose of a troop withdrawal is to withdraw the troops.
A hedgehog or ARP cannot be maintained when mobile, this is due to coordination problems, fixed position weapons such as Mortar, MG's and artillery. there is also the problem of terrain.
unless of course you are not going to withdraw those troops maintaining the static defense.
Sorry but you do show a distinct lack of tactical knowledge, which leads me to asume that you were of the ranks and not an officer.
please note the time taken to respond to your post. I did not have to google for mine :D

Diver
20th August 2007, 20:55
C'mon I've been waiting ten minutes for you to reply. :D

EternalOptimist
20th August 2007, 20:55
Your response is excellent :yay: (a considerable improvement on Clippy)

The enfilading of a static formation is possible but difficult when that formation is the ancient Hedgehog or all round position.
However, the purpose of a troop withdrawal is to withdraw the troops.
A hedgehog or ARP cannot be maintained when mobile, this is due to coordination problems, fixed position weapons such as Mortar, MG's and artillery. there is also the problem of terrain.
unless of course you are not going to withdraw those troops maintaining the static defense.
Sorry but you do show a distinct lack of tactical knowledge, which leads me to asume that you were of the ranks and not an officer.
please note the time taken to respond to your post. I did not have to google for mine :D

Your ideas are based on the second world war. MG's , mortars, infantry, big guns , engineers etc etc are all now 100% mobile.
A modern hedgehog is not only mobile, its usually air-mobile.


I say again, how is any withdrawal going to be enfiladed ???


Dont forget diver, there are a further three points of your stupidity that I intend to demolish.










:rolleyes:

Diver
20th August 2007, 20:56
google not coming up with anything :laugh

Clippy
20th August 2007, 21:06
I wouldn't bother EO.

Diver probably never got further than the TA's.

EternalOptimist
20th August 2007, 21:08
I wouldn't bother EO.

Diver probably never got further than the TA's.

I have to bother clippy, its the one area, in the whole of CUK, where I can sit on my hind legs and howl at the moon.
I studied this sh1t for 35 years :)










:rolleyes:

Gunnery Sergeant Highway
20th August 2007, 21:11
I wouldn't bother EO.

Diver probably never got further than the TA's.
Try asking Threaded. He was Chief of the Imperial General Staff.

Diver
20th August 2007, 21:14
Your ideas are based on the second world war. MG's , mortars, infantry, big guns , engineers etc etc are all now 100% mobile.

:rolleyes:


A modern hedgehog is not only mobile, its usually air-mobile.
I say again, how is any withdrawal going to be enfiladed ???
Dont forget diver, there are a further three points of your stupidity that I intend to demolish.

Oh! finally.
Take note of my first post. every bit of air support that they can muster for the withdrawal?


Point 1. Your "All round position" very effective and used usually when a small detachment of men comes under fire. either a squad or company.
Larger units usually use this defense from previously prepared positions.
How many troops are we withdrawing? :rolleyes:

Point 2. effective air cover can only be used where there is minimal risk to the civilian population.
Are we going to blow up every house or village where gunfire eminates from ? :rolleyes:

Point 3. at what point do the mobile weapons systems detach from the column. leaving said column to the mercies of the enemy. Trucks, APC's and even tanks are vulnerable to the enemy foot soldier that they can't see or can't attack because of the risks to the civilian population.
Armour requires foot soldier support in population centres :rolleyes:

Point 4. please note first post. "Retreat through an unpopulated area" :rolleyes:

Your lack of tactical knowledge, despite your obvious intelligence leads me to believe that you were a ranker either in signals or the engineers. :D

EternalOptimist
20th August 2007, 21:17
A modern hedgehog is not only mobile, its usually air-mobile.
I say again, how is any withdrawal going to be enfiladed ???
Dont forget diver, there are a further three points of your stupidity that I intend to demolish.

Oh! finally.
Take note of my first post. every bit of air support that they can muster for the withdrawal?


Point 1. Your "All round position" very effective and used usually when a small detachment of men comes under fire. either a squad or company.
Larger units usually use this defense from previously prepared positions.
How many troops are we withdrawing? :rolleyes:

Point 2. effective air cover can only be used where there is minimal risk to the civilian population.
Are we going to blow up every house or village where gunfire eminates from ? :rolleyes:

Point 3. at what point do the mobile weapons systems detach from the column. leaving said column to the mercies of the enemy. Trucks, APC's and even tanks are vulnerable to the enemy foot soldier that they can't see or can't attack because of the risks to the civilian population.
Armour requires foot soldier support in population centres :rolleyes:

Point 4. please note first post. "Retreat through an unpopulated area" :rolleyes:

Your lack of tactical knowledge, despite your obvious intelligence leads me to believe that you were a ranker either in signals or the engineers. :D


very nice

please explain what an 'enfiladed withdrawal' is

keep it succinct, stick to the point. thanks







:rolleyes:

Diver
20th August 2007, 21:22
very nice

please explain what an 'enfiladed withdrawal' is

keep it succinct, stick to the point. thanks
:rolleyes:

They will have to retreat under fire from the sides and rear where the enemy can bring to bear, fire along the length of the retreating column.

Simple enough for you or would you prefer more detail :rolleyes:

EternalOptimist
20th August 2007, 21:27
They will have to retreat under fire from the sides and rear where the enemy can bring to bear, fire along the length of the retreating column.

Simple enough for you or would you prefer more detail :rolleyes:

thank you,
but I thought we had already agreed that a mobile modern force is not a column, does not have a flank, does not have a rear and will probably air-lift anyway.

In 1815, the French Old guard were enfiladed at the battle of Waterloo, it hasn't really happened much since then




:rolleyes:

Diver
20th August 2007, 21:27
sorry I have to elaborate I can't help myself :D Fire from the sides ensures that the column is maintained and this gives the advantage to those firing along the legth of the column which means that accuracy is not the prime objective as the chance of a strike is greater when firing along the length of the column

EternalOptimist
20th August 2007, 21:30
sorry I have to elaborate I can't help myself :D Fire from the sides ensures that the column is maintained and this gives the advantage to those firing along the legth of the column which means that accuracy is not the prime objective as the chance of a strike is greater when firing along the length of the column

I dont want to get personal Diver, but, please refrain from posting when you have been drinking heavily






:rolleyes:

Diver
20th August 2007, 21:38
thank you,
but I thought we had already agreed that a mobile modern force is not a column, does not have a flank, does not have a rear and will probably air-lift anyway.

In 1815, the French Old guard were enfiladed at the battle of Waterloo, it hasn't really happened much since then
:rolleyes:

Sorry but you are totally wrong there.
It was used in the Napoleonic wars, Boer war, Sudan, ww1, ww2, in SA against SWAPO. & more recently Desert storm.

It is a standard military maneuver and can be carried out by air or ground forces.
Remember the horrifying pictures of the main road from Kuwait to Baghdad.
Air to ground against a column is more effective using an enfiladed attack.
The American A10 Warthog is capable of taking out a complete column of Armour using this method.

As for Air lift.
They have to get there to be airlifted. and what are they going to do with the billions of pounds worth of transport and Armour, most of it was shipped in and will have to be shipped out. No. they will airlift a small amount but the majority will have to be shipped out unfortunately.
And the terrain means retreating in column the best way they can god help them.

Diver
20th August 2007, 21:46
Can't wait any longer, need tea. back in a mo :D

EternalOptimist
20th August 2007, 21:47
Sorry but you are totally wrong there.
It was used in the Napoleonic wars, Boer war, Sudan, ww1, ww2, in SA against SWAPO. & more recently Desert storm.

It is a standard military maneuver and can be carried out by air or ground forces.
Remember the horrifying pictures of the main road from Kuwait to Baghdad.
Air to ground against a column is more effective using an enfiladed attack.
The American A10 Warthog is capable of taking out a complete column of Armour using this method.

As for Air lift.
They have to get there to be airlifted. and what are they going to do with the billions of pounds worth of transport and Armour, most of it was shipped in and will have to be shipped out. No. they will airlift a small amount but the majority will have to be shipped out unfortunately.
And the terrain means retreating in column the best way they can god help them.


Ok , fine, you dont really understand the concept of the enfilade.(the idea that the warthogs attack from a particular direction to achieve an enfilade advantage is laughable)

so thats one nil to me.

Next.

we will suffer 'not a few' casualties during this withdrawal. Please explain what that means. Are you saying the casualty rate will , double, treble, quadrouple, maybe we will lose 50, 100, 200 prisoners ???
Please clarify






:rolleyes:

EternalOptimist
20th August 2007, 21:59
Whilst he's checking his wiki's, for anyone who is interested, this is what enfilade is all about.

Imagine 500 Frenchmen in a column, 50 wide, 100 deep, heading towards 500 British redcoats, 250 wide, 2 deep.

Classic column against a line. French muscle, British firepower. Who will win ?

neither side has an enfilade advantge.

Now imaging Sharpe nipping in the side of the French, he can fire all day without being attacked. The French are facing the wrong way - THATS ENFILADE.

Now imagine a squadron of French currasiers appearing at the end of the British line. They can charge without getting shot at - THATS ENFILADE.

Kick the bugger when he cant kick back- THATS ENFILADE.


Nowadays, evey time a unit is in action, it faces 360 degrees. Its not possible to enfilade any more.
Sure a unit can get caught in a bad position, but its not the same thing.



sorry for being a bore, but this guy is annoying






:rolleyes:

Diver
20th August 2007, 22:01
Ok , fine, you dont really understand the concept of the enfilade.(the idea that the warthogs attack from a particular direction to achieve an enfilade advantage is laughable)

so thats one nil to me.

Next.

we will suffer 'not a few' casualties during this withdrawal. Please explain what that means. Are you saying the casualty rate will , double, treble, quadrouple, maybe we will lose 50, 100, 200 prisoners ???
Please clarify

:rolleyes:

To enfilade = to fire along the length of a column or trench to increase the chances of a hit. By air commonly known as strafing = 1 To me sorry :D

Who said anything about prisoners? :confused:

We will lose men to enemy fire!

An estimate of losses cannot be made due to insufficient intel.

ie.
How many enemy combatants.
Enemy having prior intel on the route
Weapons brought to bear

I am sorry but a close numerical estimate is impossible.
We will lose men though and it will be in double figures is as far as I will go.

The very fact that you asked the question though, indicates a lack of combat or tactical training.

wendigo100
20th August 2007, 22:06
I agree...but the method he used was hardly ideal and the reason the opinion of the world was against him. The IRA were able to control crime in NI but the methods they used were hardly in keeping with the civilised world.Is the current situation any better?

The people in that part of the world have a very different idea of a civilised world than we or the Irish do.

What happens when US forces eventually leave? Does anyone truly believe they will have successfully enforced democracy?

IMHO it was safer all round while we kept a rein on Saddam and let them evolve in their own way.

wendigo100
20th August 2007, 22:10
Imagine 500 Frenchmen in a column, 50 wide, 100 deep...Don't you mean 5 wide?

EternalOptimist
20th August 2007, 22:13
To enfilade = to fire along the length of a column or trench to increase the chances of a hit. By air commonly known as strafing = 1 To me sorry :D

Who said anything about prisoners? :confused:

We will lose men to enemy fire!

An estimate of losses cannot be made due to insufficient intel.

ie.
How many enemy combatants.
Enemy having prior intel on the route
Weapons brought to bear

I am sorry but a close numerical estimate is impossible.
We will lose men though and it will be in double figures is as far as I will go.

The very fact that you asked the question though, indicates a lack of combat or tactical training.

Strafing and enfilade ?? I remember reading a fascinating account of a coastal air command sutherland, and how they used to strafe the German mines in the heligoland bight. No doubt the mines were swimming in column formation and were making a tactical withdrawal to Kiel. :rollin:

ok, casualties. I detect three caveats above, a bit of a departure from the certainty of your original post.
(FYI prisoners are counted as casualties)

Two nil to me.

Now we are to withdraw through unpopulated areas, could you give me an idea of a route. One that leads to an exit point, that goes through low populated areas.


Thanks

EternalOptimist
20th August 2007, 22:17
Don't you mean 5 wide?

er no

it wasnt usually one battalion onto one, trying to illustrate the point and f*cked it up :emb

40 - 50 wide is about right







:rolleyes:

wendigo100
20th August 2007, 22:19
er no

it wasnt usually one battalion onto one, trying to illustrate the point and f*cked it up :emb

40 - 50 wide is about right







:rolleyes:So 10 deep then? I just want to picture how the 500 men are set up (50 by 100 would be 5000 men).

EternalOptimist
20th August 2007, 22:29
So 10 deep then? I just want to picture how the 500 men are set up (50 by 100 would be 5000 men).

sorry for being a bore wendigo, but,

the French would usually attack on masse, so it would be , 2,3,4 or more battalions on to one.

quite often it would be 50 wide and 100 deep.

They would come in fast, no shooting, smoke everywhere, visibility low, the brits would give them a volley , then usually run like *****. French casualties would be horrendous, British casulaties light. The British defenders are probably still running now :)

Then the British response would come, two or three reserve lines would close in on the disorganised Frogs, skirmishers would get round the flanks, and the French attack columns would be shot to bits.

After a couple of attacks like that the French would run out of steam.

Then of course, you have the cavalry and the guns to think about, comand control, communications, the prussians .......




:rolleyes:

Diver
20th August 2007, 22:32
Strafing and enfilade ?? I remember reading a fascinating account of a coastal air command sutherland, and how they used to strafe the German mines in the heligoland bight. No doubt the mines were swimming in column formation and were making a tactical withdrawal to Kiel. :rollin:

ok, casualties. I detect three caveats above, a bit of a departure from the certainty of your original post.
(FYI prisoners are counted as casualties)

Two nil to me.

Now we are to withdraw through unpopulated areas, could you give me an idea of a route. One that leads to an exit point, that goes through low populated areas.
Thanks


I did not mention either casualties or prisoners. You did.
I merely said that we would lose men. meaning KIA.

Strafing is a generic term (from the German as well :D). I should have said strafing a column which would have explained it in easier terms for you. so no point on that point. (how long did it take you to google it anyway?)

Once again check my original post. I said that they would have to find a route, the operative word here is THEY.

So no points for you at all I'm afraid.
You have done nothing but waste time disproving comments and observations that you have made not me. :D

wendigo100
20th August 2007, 22:33
Sorry matey, I get the drift now, but your numbers didn't add up:
Imagine 500 Frenchmen in a column, 50 wide, 100 deep, heading towards 500 British redcoats, 250 wide, 2 deep.50 wide by 100 deep is more than 500 Frenchmen - unless the other 4500 are Albert RNs!

Diver
20th August 2007, 22:34
Sorry matey, I get the drift now, but your numbers didn't add up:50 wide by 100 deep is more than 500 Frenchmen - unless the other 4500 are Albert RNs!

:rollin::rollin::rollin:

EternalOptimist
20th August 2007, 22:40
I did not mention either casualties or prisoners. You did.
I merely said that we would lose men. meaning KIA.

Strafing is a generic term (from the German as well :D). I should have said strafing a column which would have explained it in easier terms for you. so no point on that point. (how long did it take you to google it anyway?)

Once again check my original post. I said that they would have to find a route, the operative word here is THEY.

So no points for you at all I'm afraid.
You have done nothing but waste time disproving comments and observations that you have made not me. :D


In your opening post you claimed that we would lose 'not a few' men and that 'a lot' of our young men are going to die.

All I ask is that you clarify that, maybe quantify it, Is the casualty rate going to go up ?, is it going to rocket. Is it going to be a disaster?
You spoke with such certainty.

ok
you cant explain how we will be enfiladed whilst withdrawing
you have no idea what the anticpated casulty rates will be
you have no idea where these unpopulated retreat paths are to be found

Lastly

We will have to provide an armoured diversion..... What the flying ***** is that supposed to mean ???





:rolleyes:

Diver
20th August 2007, 22:54
In your opening post you claimed that we would lose 'not a few' men and that 'a lot' of our young men are going to die.

1. All I ask is that you clarify that, maybe quantify it, Is the casualty rate going to go up ?, is it going to rocket. Is it going to be a disaster?
You spoke with such certainty.
ok
2. you cant explain how we will be enfiladed whilst withdrawing
3. you have no idea what the anticpated casulty rates will be
4. you have no idea where these unpopulated retreat paths are to be found
Lastly
We will have to provide an armoured diversion..... What the flying ***** is that supposed to mean ???
:rolleyes:

1. Go up from what? we haven't started a withdrawal yet have we????
2. Any column of men retreating in column through enemy held territory is subject to fire along the length of it's column. How many ways can I explain this :rolleyes: (Look, just google it will you)
3. Not even the military have any idea on that (I googled it 5 minutes ago and they estimate it to be in double figures as well) I made no assumption as to figures in my original post (did you actually read it)
4. I stated that their best course would be to retreat through an unpopulated area. I made no inference whatsoever that I knew where that route was.
You have so far gone in a complete circle making assumptions based on facts and comments that were never posted except by yourself :rolleyes:

Diver
20th August 2007, 23:11
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/08/20/wirq220.xml

Diver
20th August 2007, 23:16
Twenty minutes you've been replying to the last post.
You must be p1ssed or googling (or both) EO :D

Diver
20th August 2007, 23:26
A valiant effort by EO but the demon drink got him in the end :D
An intelligent argument that finally lost to sobriety.
I thoroughly enjoyed the intelligent discourse, even though it started to degenerate into repetition (and slurred speech) towards the end. :laugh

Remind me not to get into a debate with you when you have your faculties about you EO :wave: Goodnight

Board Game Geek
20th August 2007, 23:36
TBH I'm not sure I'd want to either of you to lead a retreat...sounds like it would be complete carnage.

EO : Captain Darling

Diver : General Melchett

Guess that leaves me as Private Baldrick..oh well...story of my life.:ohwell

Diver
20th August 2007, 23:40
TBH I'm not sure I'd want to either of you to lead a retreat...sounds like it would be complete carnage.

EO : Captain Darling

Diver : General Melchett

Guess that leaves me as Private Baldrick..oh well...story of my life.:ohwell

Ahh! And it took you so long to post too. (Quarter of an hour?)

Should have been here hours ago, you could have joined in the fun.

Anyway, I'm off now. have to be up for 5 am :wave: goodnight

GreenerGrass
21st August 2007, 07:31
This could be like Dunkirk, they'd need civilian owners to donate a fleet of Cayenne Turbos and supercharged Range Rovers to get them out double quick. Ken Livingstone could help commandeer them.

Then the owners get them back, painted sand colour and with the odd bullet hole.

daviejones
21st August 2007, 07:33
But how many Range Rovers will still be runnning in 40 years for the celebreation party?

Mailman
21st August 2007, 08:36
:rollin:

How do you impose law and order in a guerilla war? And even if it were possible do you propose the troops stay there indefinitely?

Unfortunately it would require the same tactics as employed in Malaysia...ie hardening up and whacking the bad guys where ever they are.

Unfortunately surrender monkeys like yourself and alfred have ensured this can never happen. After all, its only fair when a bomb goes off and kills 100 innocent civilians and one british soldier YET the hounds of the war crimes commission should be unleashed if a British soldier dare look bad at a terrorist!

I guess its true, its just easier for you poms to roll over and have your bellies ticked than to actually finish something you started :rollin:

Mailman

wendigo100
21st August 2007, 08:39
Unfortunately it would require the same tactics as employed in Malaysia...ie hardening up and whacking the bad guys where ever they are.You sound like my son when he was seven years old.

richard-af
21st August 2007, 08:41
I guess its true, its just easier for you poms to roll over and have your bellies ticked than to actually finish something you started :rollin:


You're right! We should send all of our crap, trash and vermin to Australia. We got that right.

threaded
21st August 2007, 08:48
'War is Politics by other means'

If there was the political will to sort it out, it would be sorted out. TPTB want it this way. To think otherwise is to be rather dim.

Troll
21st August 2007, 08:50
Where is SB when you need a military viewpoint?

Mailman
21st August 2007, 09:41
You're right! We should send all of our crap, trash and vermin to Australia. We got that right.

Even then you couldnt finish it! That eye-talian head teacher murderer should be banished to Australia! But will it happen? :rollin:

Mailman

Mailman
21st August 2007, 09:42
You sound like my son when he was seven years old.

Then your son must be a gen...gin...really farken brainy! :rollin:

Mailman

richard-af
21st August 2007, 09:44
Even then you couldnt finish it! That eye-talian head teacher murderer should be banished to Australia! But will it happen? :rollin:

Mailman

Well, he could easily hop on a plane and be in Sydney... now. Happy days!

Mailman
21st August 2007, 11:26
Well, he could easily hop on a plane and be in Sydney... now. Happy days!

Cept them seppo's will bundle him back on the first plane to England! Cause unlike the UK, them CY (criminal yobs) actually have balls to kick people out that they dont want (well either that or plonk them in the middle of some big ***** off desert)! :D

Mailman

sasguru
21st August 2007, 12:52
Ahh! And it took you so long to post too. (Quarter of an hour?)

Should have been here hours ago, you could have joined in the fun.

Anyway, I'm off now. have to be up for 5 am :wave: goodnight

So you were in the army, Diver? What as?

Diver
21st August 2007, 15:08
So you were in the army, Diver? What as?

And who was it that insulted me by suggesting that I was in the army?

It certainly was not me. Although my wife was an army brat.

EternalOptimist
21st August 2007, 15:45
And who was it that insulted me by suggesting that I was in the army?

It certainly was not me. Although my wife was an army brat.

I suggest you direct your wisdom and comments to the strategic domination of wives and brats then. Leave the complicated stuff to those who know what they are talking about


thanks in anticipation





:rolleyes:

Diver
21st August 2007, 15:50
I suggest you direct your wisdom and comments to the strategic domination of wives and brats then. Leave the complicated stuff to those who know what they are talking about
thanks in anticipation
:rolleyes:

Sober now :D No hangover I trust.

Why is it that everybody assumes that military training is reserved solely for one branch of the armed forces, The army.

I find this annoying and extremely distasteful.

Let's play a guessing game.

Clue for clue

Here's mine = 1 pip

Ardesco
21st August 2007, 15:51
Well seeing as you are a diving type my guess would have to be....

"In the navy, laa di daa dii di di"

sasguru
21st August 2007, 15:51
And who was it that insulted me by suggesting that I was in the army?

It certainly was not me. Although my wife was an army brat.

I have to agree with EO. Your initial "enfilading" post was a pile of putrid poo.
I have nothing to do with the army but am a fan of military history and even I can see that.

sasguru
21st August 2007, 15:52
Well seeing as you are a diving type my guess would have to be....

"In the navy, laa di daa dii di di"

Ah explains it all: rum, sodomy and the lash.

Ardesco
21st August 2007, 15:52
"Under Water nobody can hear you scream"

LIES!!!!

Whales and dolphins most definetly can hear you scream underwater!!!!

(Along with most other marine life i should think)

Diver
21st August 2007, 15:55
Ah explains it all: rum, sodomy and the lash.

We all have our little foibles :rollin:

Diver
21st August 2007, 16:14
LIES!!!!

Whales and dolphins most definetly can hear you scream underwater!!!!

(Along with most other marine life i should think)

Ardesco, please try and stick with the program :D

Oh! and :spel

Diver
21st August 2007, 16:26
Ho hum (looks at watch) tum tee tum dee dum.
whistling
Scratching
Pacing
Nice cup of tea
Googling should not take this long surely!
Maybe he's gone and bought a book "military for Dummies" :rollin:
Looks at watch again :ohwell

Diver
21st August 2007, 16:28
Still not back :eyes

Playing three games of chess and one game of scrabble on line and still waiting :D

Diver
21st August 2007, 16:35
EO has gorn an gone away he has, blimey, the cheek of some people :D