Re: Squat Army WAS Re: [Epic] Knights(Lil' bit off topic)

From: Los <los_at_...>
Date: Mon, 09 Feb 1998 11:00:45 -0800

Thane Morgan wrote:

> The other thing to remember from this is that commanders get
> over-confident in their high tech weaponry; a bunch of "trash" with
> automatic rifles can put out a lot of lead, and there is no full body
> armor in the real world that will take that kind of crap. In this
> case,
> the weapon was what determined the value of the troops, not the actual
>
> troop quality.
>

I have to disagree with you there. First off niether side had much in
the way of high tech weaponry, this was an rifle/machinegun grenade
launcher fight from beginning to end. Yes we did have a few gunships
too. Numbers and terrain were the overriding factor here. This was an
Ishlawand type situation.

Pl;anning was of course a problem, (dickhead staffs!) In particular
compartmentalization. Firsdt off there was no US reaction force alerted
ahead of time. One thing that the Somalia articlae doesn't cober was the
fact that an infantry company task force from the 10th ID fought a
seperate ten hour action through the city to get to the rangers and help
them escape. They lost a couple killed and about 15 wounded though this
was never reported. Turns out that a Pakistani battalion that was the
QRF (quick Reaction force) for that day, though alerted ahead of time,
refused to leave their billest becasue of the prospect of real action.

Cardinal rule number one when working with UN troops (have done this a
few toimes myself includiing 6 months i Haiti). YOU CAN NEVER rely on
any forces excpet those from your own country. From a US perspective,
this rule can be bent to include UK, French, Dutch troops but that's
about it. Pakistani, Bangladeshi, Middle Eastern and most of these other
third world armies are absolutely worthless in any real shooting
situation. In part because they make more money in a year of UN duty
thatn they'll amke in ten years of work at home so they will be set when
they get back to their country. This means no reason to risk your neck.

Sorry if this offends anuyone but I have been out there for twenty years
and my job has had nme living and working with foreign armies for a
great patrt of that time. It's my opinion, but it's also one shared
byvthe majority of my peers, both in US SF and in UK SAS. While any
third world country can be made into a proper fighting force with the
right training and motivation, the vast majority of the world's armoies
haven't got a clue. They may be good a killing, but are downright lousy
soldiers and can't poor piss out of a boot with the instructions
wriitten on the heel.

A few last thouights aboutthe Somalia thing. The US learned a hell of a
lot about coordination, and who can be relied upon in a crunch. Many of
these lessons were put to excellent use in the Haiti operation, which
could have gone the same way a few times. Also, starnge as it may seem,
the Somalia battle is looked upon with great pride with those that
fought there. Given the overwhelming situation they were in, and the
small forces involved, all the US forces there, SF, Rangers, Delta, and
10th ID rightly feel that they came out pretty good in what was one hell
of a long protracted firefight. Very much tactical training, methodology
and doctrine on the grunt level was validated in that fight. A lot more
valuable experience came out of that as oppposed to Desert Storm when it
comes to goof old grunt level house to house fighting. Most all
verterans of that fight are pretty much held in awe by their peers, sort
of like the roarke's drift survivors must have been.

As an aside, one of my medics was there in the fight, and he treated a
guy that took an RPG in the side. It penetrated his body armor (Not hard
to do in the side) and STUCK inside of him, fins out one side, nose come
out the otehr without detonating. He died anyway of course..


Los
Received on Mon Feb 09 1998 - 19:00:45 UTC