U.S. versus British infantry

Trytostaydead · Post by **Trytostaydead** » 2003-10-27 03:08am

Here're the rules..

Equal number of troops on both sides.
Both start at opposite ends of a forest.

Infantry only, with only their standard issued weapons.
No air support, GPS, RPGs.. etc etc
No special forces.

Who takes the field?

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2003-10-27 03:12am

British rifles jam, causing US troops to shoot them dead with their
M-16A2s which (surprise!) work!

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2003-10-27 03:14am

MKSheppard wrote:British rifles jam, causing US troops to shoot them dead with their
M-16A2s which (surprise!) work!

Unless they're fighting Private Jessica's old unit in the desert, in which case it quickly becomes hand to hand combat as the M16A2's jam up.

Bill Door · Post by **Bill Door** » 2003-10-27 03:20am

The british rifles may jam, but the machine gus won't as regularly. This leaves the British in quite a bit of trouble when trying to attack, but will reduce the ability of the Americans to walk all over the Brits.

Faram · Post by **Faram** » 2003-10-27 03:25am

I am going to invoke the KISS principle here:

The side with the simpler uniform wins.

Darth Fanboy · Post by **Darth Fanboy** » 2003-10-27 04:36am

Americans win, because the brits are easily spotted with their ridiculous red coats and comitt mass suicide when they learn David beckham has started calling it "soccer."

InnerBrat · Post by **InnerBrat** » 2003-10-27 05:02am

Who has the shorter haircuts?

The Americans may have the superior weapons, but they kill half their own troops in 'friendly fire' incidents before they even lay eyes on a Brit, using up most of their ammo.

Darth Fanboy · Post by **Darth Fanboy** » 2003-10-27 05:06am

InnerBrat wrote:Who has the shorter haircuts?

The Americans may have the superior weapons, but they kill half their own troops in 'friendly fire' incidents before they even lay eyes on a Brit, using up most of their ammo.

Friendly Fire Incidents are at a minimum in this case due to a lack of Canadians on either side.

Bill Door · Post by **Bill Door** » 2003-10-27 08:17am

Darth Fanboy wrote: Friendly Fire Incidents are at a minimum in this case due to a lack of Canadians on either side.

Really? *mutters something about A-10 and APC in Gulf War 1*

Darth Fanboy · Post by **Darth Fanboy** » 2003-10-27 08:31am

Bill Door wrote:
Darth Fanboy wrote: Friendly Fire Incidents are at a minimum in this case due to a lack of Canadians on either side.
Really? *mutters something about A-10 and APC in Gulf War 1*

I did say "Minimum"

Zoink · Post by **Zoink** » 2003-10-27 11:16am

I think the British camo looks cooler. The Britons wins

Bill Door · Post by **Bill Door** » 2003-10-27 12:11pm

Darth Fanboy wrote:
Bill Door wrote:
Darth Fanboy wrote: Friendly Fire Incidents are at a minimum in this case due to a lack of Canadians on either side.
Really? *mutters something about A-10 and APC in Gulf War 1*
I did say "Minimum"

Really? So 9 britons killed by American fire, out of 14 KIA a minimum?
Or about a quarter of the Americans KIA due to friendly fire a minimum?
(both from Gulf War 1)

Sources:
Numbers killed by friendly fire, from 'Friendly fire' is all too common. from MSNBC news
British casulties in total Casualties Of Gulf War I (1990-91)

InnerBrat · Post by **InnerBrat** » 2003-10-27 12:18pm

*pokes*
I had to do that because your username is so cool.

While you're at it, what about Operation Iraqi Liberation (GWII)? I was actually keeping count of Brits killed by Iraqis vs Americans, before I lost coutn of the latter...

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2003-10-27 12:48pm

InnerBrat wrote:While you're at it, what about Operation Iraqi Liberation (GWII)? I was actually keeping count of Brits killed by Iraqis vs Americans, before I lost coutn of the latter...

#include <nitpick>

It's Operation Iraqi Freedom, and arguably GW3.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-10-27 01:06pm

Bill Door wrote:Really? So 9 britons killed by American fire, out of 14 KIA a minimum?
Or about a quarter of the Americans KIA due to friendly fire a minimum?
(both from Gulf War 1)

Sources:
Numbers killed by friendly fire, from 'Friendly fire' is all too common. from MSNBC news
British casulties in total Casualties Of Gulf War I (1990-91)

The percentages are really irrelevant, the Iraqi military didn't fight back much and when they did so it was infectively. What matters is the total number killed and for a military operation involving that many troops from that many countries freindly fire casualties are mininmal. The US is not more prone to friendly fire; it's simply the sheer number of sorties flown combined with the natural human prospensity for error.

Bill Door · Post by **Bill Door** » 2003-10-27 03:11pm

Stormbringer wrote: The US is not more prone to friendly fire; it's simply the sheer number of sorties flown combined with the natural human prospensity for error.

It is true that pilot fatigue will play a factor. However, this is not helped by the drugs the pilots are urged to take and the fact that pilots do not appear to be well trained in identifing allied equipment.

From:The Globe and Mail

Survivors slam friendly-fire 'cowboy' wrote: Mr. Tusa said the Americans initially said that they thought they were attacking Soviet-made Iraqi T-55 tanks. In fact, their target turned out to be the British Scimitars. The latter is about one-third the size of a T-55 and "looks nothing like it." The vehicles were also covered with identification symbols designed to avoid these incidents, including a Union Jack decal.

Mr. Tusa is identified in the story as a British Military analyst, so should have some idea of whats going on.

About the human error factor, there should be rules of engagemnt to limit these incedents. Whether or not these are being followed properly is another case.
From:The Globe and Mail

Survivors slam friendly-fire 'cowboy' wrote: Mr. Tusa said that British and U.S. pilots work by the same rules of engagement, but while the British insist that every condition be met, the Americans will go ahead and attack if four of six conditions are met.

From Navy League

Fratricide Mars U.S. Successes in Iraqi Freedom Conflict wrote: Marine Corps Brig. Gen. Richard F. Natonski, commander of the 2nd Marine Expeditionary Brigade and deputy commander of the II Marine Expeditionary Force, unequivocally said his service "lost Marines at An Nasiriyah due to [Air Force] A-10 [attack planes]. I don't know what the investigation is going to say," he continued. "Despite the [vehicle infrared identification] panels and the fact that there aren't too many countries that have AAVs [amphibious assault vehicles, a characteristic tracked vehicle used by the Marine Corps]," Marine units were attacked by allied warplanes.

Not too good eh?

Note:
The Pentagon, Department of Defence and Ministery of Defence do not appear to publish any data on friendly fire incidents, This may be because of the investigations into the incidents still being underway. This leaves the media as the only source.

Rye · Post by **Rye** » 2003-10-27 03:18pm

InnerBrat wrote:Who has the shorter haircuts?

Oh for a really world class psychiatrist[/kryten]

The Americans may have the superior weapons, but they kill half their own troops in 'friendly fire' incidents before they even lay eyes on a Brit, using up most of their ammo.

With this i would agree, i remember from the start of the war every few days we had "british troops blown up again by americans" in the news headlines.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-10-27 03:22pm

Not too good eh?

No friendly fire is good. It's definitely a bad thing but the fact is in large, multinational operations they happen.

There isn't any military out there that could do better under the circumstances. The sheer number of incidents stems from the simple fact that in the Gulf War, Afghanistan, and the Iraqi Freedom the US flew far more missions and thanks to politics in the latter flew the riskier missions as well.

Zac Naloen · Post by **Zac Naloen** » 2003-10-27 03:24pm

Stormbringer wrote:
Not too good eh?
No friendly fire is good. It's definitely a bad thing but the fact is in large, multinational operations they happen.

There isn't any military out there that could do better under the circumstances. The sheer number of incidents stems from the simple fact that in the Gulf War, Afghanistan, and the Iraqi Freedom the US flew far more missions and thanks to politics in the latter flew the riskier missions as well.

thats not the only excuse, i remember at one point they shot down a returning RAF aircraft...

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-10-27 03:25pm

Zac Naloen wrote:thats not the only excuse, i remember at one point they shot down a returning RAF aircraft...

Your point being what exactly?

Bill Door · Post by **Bill Door** » 2003-10-27 03:37pm

In "Operation Iraqi Freedom" (the US code name), the British losses through friendly fire appear to be:
2 aircrew to US Patriot Missle
2 tankcrew to British Challenger 2
1 tankcrewman to US A10
but i cant find the source, if there was just 1.

Ah the username. I blame it on a moment of madness after reading 'Reaper Man'. Not that i don't like it. The character is decidedly cool.

EmperorChrostas the Cruel · Post by **EmperorChrostas the Cruel** » 2003-10-27 03:37pm

If it was returning, then it was heading towards a carrier or airbase right?
A carrier in the same area as a US carrier, or airbase shared with US forces? This would put it on the "We might want to shoot this down" list.
Like it or not, the ability of the US soldier to decide "US or not US," is easier and faster and more acurate than "Enemy or Allied."
We kill more allies than our own.
True/false VS multiple choice.
You ALWAYS miss more multiple choice questions.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-10-27 03:40pm

Bill Door wrote:The british rifles may jam, but the machine gus won't as regularly. This leaves the British in quite a bit of trouble when trying to attack, but will reduce the ability of the Americans to walk all over the Brits.

The British L86 is one of the worst machine guns ever built; though jamming isn't so much the issue as the whole thing disintegrating.

The Americans may have the superior weapons, but they kill half their own troops in 'friendly fire' incidents before they even lay eyes on a Brit, using up most of their ammo.

Lucky the British don't have any Challanger II's running around...

Anyway American troops have a considerable advantage in electronics, in a night action they'd have a decisive advantage. In daylight an infantry only battle between any western forces can really go anyway easily.

Col. Crackpot · Post by **Col. Crackpot** » 2003-10-27 03:52pm

after stopping for a leisurely afternoon tea, British forces are overrun by the drunken rednecks of the Alabama National Guard. Also killed in the clash are several hunded small rodents which are subsequently gutted and pan fried on the warm engine block of a 1984 Chevy Suburban.

InnerBrat · Post by **InnerBrat** » 2003-10-27 03:52pm

phongn wrote:
InnerBrat wrote:While you're at it, what about Operation Iraqi Liberation (GWII)? I was actually keeping count of Brits killed by Iraqis vs Americans, before I lost coutn of the latter...
#include <nitpick>

It's Operation Iraqi Freedom, and arguably GW3.

Nah, the acronym OIF is a bit crap.