UK Telegraph Reports on Canadian Troops

[FuzzyLogic]

The Telegraph in the UK just did a piece on Afghan forces that includes a great mention of Canadian troops. 

A sample:

The Taliban were out there, somewhere in the darkness to the north of the jagged peaks of Masum Gar, just the other side of the Arghandab river. They had fired one rocket. Now they were ready to fire again.

The light had faded about an hour earlier. Inside the compound only a few tiny chinks of light, spilling through the gaps in the doorway leading into the warren of vaulted underground cellars, betrayed the presence of the Afghan soldiers and their Canadian counterparts.

Suddenly, two huge explosions shook the night. And on the other side of the river to the north, where a moment earlier two men had been crouching down preparing the rocket, there was nothing left but the craters where the shells fired by the Leopard tank had detonated.

The entire piece can be found at: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/12/17/wagf17.xml

 

[ammo618]

Hmmmm...I guess the HESH rounds did their job... ;D

 

[Mike Baker]

Hmmmm...I guess the HESH rounds did their job... ;D

Always good when we do our job, and not just do our job, but do it great! 

 

[geo]

Good read!

 

[schart28]

great...

 

[Big Foot]

Wow, certainly better than most things we see about our troops in the Canadian media. Kinda sad when we need BBC to do this calibre of story. Excellent read though.

 

[FuzzyLogic]

Another great piece: This one is about UK Engineers and Medics take'n it to the Taliban:

http://cjunk.blogspot.com/2006/12/uk-medics-and-engineers-in-deadly.html

 

[geo]

A brilliant demonstration of UK daring do and stiff upper lip at it's best.

It is a sad situation when you have to get medics to take their place ont the front line with anything else than a FA kit and a stretcher.

WRT the UK sappers, I would have expected no less

Carry on

CHIMO!

 

[Kilo_302]

I  think one of the reasons that Western forces seem to do so well even without support and against larger forces is the type of training they receive. Studies conducted by the US Army in WWII showed that as little as 1/6 to 1/5 of soldiers were actually firing their weapons in the average engagement. This was because of the increased dispersion of forces. A soldier by himself was less likely to shoot at an enemy because he thought everyone else was shooting, and knew no one would notice if he was not. This is in contrast with past battles where everyone fought together so everyone knew if they didn't perform it would be noticed. Basic training was improved, with a greater emphasis on "killing" rather than simply shooting, and by Vietnam those figures were near 80%. Now I think its probably 100%. This would explain the aggressiveness with which the Brits in this story (as well as the fellow who won the VC), pursued the enemy. A British unit also conducted a bayonet charge in Iraq. Despite all their modern technology, the myth that Western militaries have lost their edge is dead wrong.

 

[GAP]

Another great piece: This one is about UK Engineers and Medics take'n it to the Taliban:
http://cjunk.blogspot.com/2006/12/uk-medics-and-engineers-in-deadly.html

Two interesting sentances

After eight days a Danish reconnaissance squadron arrived, but their rules of engagement prevented them from actually fighting the Taliban.

Then about four sentances later....

The Danish soldiers were soon interpreting their rules of engagement loosely, helping to clear enemy-held buildings with grenades and machine guns

.

 

[MarkOttawa]

As the Danish girlfriend I once had used to pronounce the word:  "wikings".  But not so soft after all.

Video of Danes in Afstan here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sd0osZoVjhU

Hm Yeah.  Indeed loose interpretation of RoEs.  And, holy crap, B-1Bs in action.

Mark
Ottawa

 

[a_majoor]

I  think one of the reasons that Western forces seem to do so well even without support and against larger forces is the type of training they receive. Studies conducted by the US Army in WWII showed that as little as 1/6 to 1/5 of soldiers were actually firing their weapons in the average engagement. This was because of the increased dispersion of forces. A soldier by himself was less likely to shoot at an enemy because he thought everyone else was shooting, and knew no one would notice if he was not. This is in contrast with past battles where everyone fought together so everyone knew if they didn't perform it would be noticed. Basic training was improved, with a greater emphasis on "killing" rather than simply shooting, and by Vietnam those figures were near 80%. Now I think its probably 100%. This would explain the aggressiveness with which the Brits in this story (as well as the fellow who won the VC), pursued the enemy. A British unit also conducted a bayonet charge in Iraq. Despite all their modern technology, the myth that Western militaries have lost their edge is dead wrong.

The figures (17% regular infantry 25% for "elites" like the Rangers and Airborn actually firing their weapons) comes from SLA Marshal's "Men Against Fire". The major exceptions according to Marshal were soldiers equipped with powerful weapons like BAR's, who felt they could influence the battle; and crew served weapons, where it was pretty obvious if you didn't fire. Marshal also felt that the presence of a comrade steadied soldiers and motivated them to fire. Even today, soldiers still have the age old need to bunch up just to be close to their friends.

As noted, training was changed after WW II, but the other thing which changed was the technology of personal weapons. A Canadian Infantry section today has vastly more firepower than their counterparts back in the 1980's (even when you remove the M-113 with .50 vs LAV III with 25mm from the equation), and exponentially more than WW II or Korean War vintage soldiers.

We have a potentially unbeatable combination, well trained, well equipped and most importantly of all; well motivated soldiers. We know why we are in Afghanistan and what we need to do to accomplish the mission, this brings out the best in everyone in theater. This may also explain what is happening on the home front; Canadians and their politicians do not know the why or what of the mission, and so don't have the same levels of motivation that "we" do.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I wonder how they like the MG3?

 

[MarkOttawa]

Wikings seen to:
http://world.guns.ru/machine/mg08-e.htm

Mark
Ottawa

 

[FuzzyLogic]

Off topic, but the comments above put me in mind of the following:

The book "On Killing" by Col. Dave Grossman is a great read as it is the first ever book to look at what it takes to "shoot to kill".  Grossman makes it clear that modern training techniques have made the aiming ratio in Western armies nearly 100% and the highest ever in history.  The UK article above shows what happens when a handful of guys actually aim, while the opponent sprays the air. It's all in the training.

At MediaRight.ca, on the righthand sidebar, we've got a bunch of the vids of this summer's combat ... I'm sure most have seen them.  What is facinating is watching the difference between the Afghan troops when they shoot and the Canadians.  There is hardly an Afghan actually aiming, while all the Canadians take very deliberate shots.  Amazing.

Grossman looks at a lot of studies that prove that very few humans can actually take aim at another human without training.  What's interesting, is that he also argues that video game shooters (fps) are good training as well.  He argues that you can have a room full of guys empty their rifles or side arms at each other and very few are hit; unless someone in there is trained or is part of the minority (2%) that can do it without training.  Apparantly in the past something like only 2% of the soldiers did all the aiming, and the damage.

I bet you guys in the modern Western combat arms never knew you were part of something that is so historic ... instead of 2% doing all the real damage it's now almost 100%.  That's bad news for the other side.  It's also why those people who go on about how Russia couldn't handle Afghanistan, so neither can NATO, really don't have a clue what they are talking about.  The Taliban have never faced an enemy like our combat troops.

http://www.amazon.com/On-Killing-Psychological-Learning-Society/dp/0316330116