Video Of Us Soliders Shooting

[balamm]

Originally posted by FatBastard+15 December 2003 - 00:20--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (FatBastard @ 15 December 2003 - 00:20)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-balamm@15 December 2003 - 11:29
If your answer is yes, fuck off and stop wasting precious resources and other peoples time.

No, you fuck off arsehole&#33; What is it with you and other people&#39;s points of view? Or are your views worthier than others? You were a self opinionated crap mod who did this board a favour by resigning, you should consider the next step, or at least stay away from threads where people are likely to express an opinion. [/b][/quote]
When other peoples point of view is tainted by ignorance, racism, drugs, alcohol, or just general stupidity, then you will hear what I have to say. Like it or not.

I&#39;m not american but I enjoy every benefit of being an American (Indoor plumbing is rather nice) and I find the comments and blind accusations here just as offensive as I would if I were American.

I&#39;ve never been thrilled with the way europians, especially Brits, take over forums and throw their arrogant and offensive opinions around, forcing other users to move on or bite their tongue, But, I have never suggested you are ALL ignorant assholes because of it.

You may be, but I have never ever suggested it

[Lamsey]

Can we please keep the discussion above the stfu level?

And can someone also explain to me why the world&#39;s highest, or at least one of the highest, proportions (not amounts) of friendly-fire incidents doesn&#39;t imply a certain amount of &#39;gung-ho&#39; nature?

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by 3rd gen noob+15 December 2003 - 06:29--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (3rd gen noob @ 15 December 2003 - 06:29)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Alex H@15 December 2003 - 03:11
US soldiers are elite

that reminds me that the u.s. army had to ask the british special forces to do missions for them in the first gulf war. for what reason?
because the sas and sbs are better than delta [/b][/quote]
As I understand it they do fairly different jobs mate.

The SAS specialise in covert incursion, providing intelligence back to the main forces. They will be installed long term and will avoid contact with the enemy. They have some units who specialise in counter terrorist strikes etc, but from a military perspective they are primarilly an intelligence gathering service.

Delta, as I understand it are an elite strike force. They attack specific targets quickly and normally effectively. A sort of in, kill it and back out again thing.

It would be natural for the SAS to provide intelligence back to the commanders, which Delta, or someone like them, would then act on.

[J'Pol]

Before anyone gets on too high a horse. When dealing with terrorists, the SAS strike teams do not take prisoners. Armed or wounded, they are not taken alive. To do so would be considered a major failure (the last for boab).

[hobbes]

Originally posted by Lamsey@15 December 2003 - 13:01
Can we please keep the discussion above the stfu level?

And can someone also explain to me why the world&#39;s highest, or at least one of the highest, proportions (not amounts) of friendly-fire incidents doesn&#39;t imply a certain amount of &#39;gung-ho&#39; nature?

Because the total number of coalition force casualties was so incredibly low (I don&#39;t have the numbers, but from memory about 100-150 combat related deaths in the Gulf War, most by a single scud that actually made it.) any friendly fire deaths are going to be statistically magnified.

So to look at it another way, the battle was so overwhelmingly lopsided and so few soldiers were killed that the percentage of friendly fire deaths is simply a statistical aberration. Almost all friendly- fire deaths could have resulted from 1 or 2 incidents. A great example of how statistics can be used to mislead people.


WW2- combat deaths- 300,000
Gulf War 1- 150
http://www.historyguy.com/american_war_casualties.html

Sorry, a 3 minute post, no time to edit, late for work.

[MagicNakor]

I believe Lamsey was talking about the American ratio of friendly fire "incidents" overall rather than just in the Gulf War.

[hobbes]

Originally posted by MagicNakor@16 December 2003 - 06:29
I believe Lamsey was talking about the American ratio of friendly fire "incidents" overall rather than just in the Gulf War.

He specifically mentioned the "Gulf War 1" earlier in this thread. That is why I specifically mentioned that war.

Notice how he also stressed "proportion, not total" and that would certainly suggest that he was referring to the first Gulf War, as the data from that war can be totally skewed by even 1 or 2 additional deaths.

As for the US having a higher "friendly fire proportion" historically, I have no data on this. So many variables, so much speculation. I would say that expectation drives observation.

[MagicNakor]

I hadn&#39;t seen that post. Looking back on it though, it seems to me that he chose the Gulf War to illustrate the point of the American army having a higher percentage of friendly-fire incidents than other armies.

The number I have for the Gulf War is around 24% of casualities was due to "friendly-fire," and during the 100-hour Operation Desert Storm alone there were 27 seperate cases. The Pentagon&#39;s stance was (and may still be) "We&#39;re working on it."

From the Gulf War onwards, the American army has had a relatively low casualty toll (understandable, as "meat grinder" battles aren&#39;t terribly common anymore), so deaths from "friendly-fire" represent a significant proportion of the casualties.

[junkyardking]

When this lastest war in Iraq first started, the US seemed to be suffering more casualties from crashing there helicopters into one an other or into the ground, i got to wonder if the pilots are poorly trained or the US helicopters are just crap?

[james_bond_rulez]

Originally posted by junkyardking@15 December 2003 - 23:26
When this lastest war in Iraq first started, the US seemed to be suffering more casualties from crashing there helicopters into one an other or into the ground, i got to wonder if the pilots are poorly trained or the US helicopters are just crap?

oh oh oh i can fly&#33;&#33; i can fly US cargo jets if i am properly paid

I can fly&#33;&#33; really&#33;&#33;&#33;