Think about it for a minute...the Taliban have no artillery, no air cover and limited ammunition ....and they have the British basically pinned and funneled into a very narrow front. The ANA and the British are at odds with each other....the British have allowed the enemy to "grab them by the belt" which limits how much support they can get from mortars, artillery and aerial artillery...these guys need more training.
Not really, they are outnumbered and hardly know the area (unlike the Taliban). Also this was toward the start of the afghan war, where the ana was corrupt as hell and the Brits had little experience in how to deal with this conflict. The soldiers themselves fought and do fight with the skill and determination only found in that of professional fighting force.
Of course Trish you've fought in an area with stacks of civil pop and and a camera crew filming your every move? Get a grip! Air and artillery depends on it being available for a start and bombing civilians isn't going to happen. As for more training..the UK train more foreign army's than any other nation so I'm not sure what you mean? You don't get better trained soldiers outside of the UK
On the Brits defense Arabs have been fighting Imperialism for thousands of years. In fact the only people to resist Imperialism by the 3 biggest nations in the world. They know exactly what they're doing.
Three tours in Vietnam...yep, I know a little about fighting an unconventional style war. Eighteen months in Africa during the mid-70's advising, of all people, the Nigerians. CryingBranston you're not worth the skin you wear. The problem with today's war fighters is an over abudance of "risk prevention". Soldiers are trained to day to avoid casualities and if possible accomplish the mission. The mission of the "small unit tactic" is aggressive actions to find, fix, engage and then destroy the enemy...basically patrolling, raiding and ambushing the enemy. In small unit tactics when the enemy first engages is the moment of truth...the most important events are initial contact and reaction to contact, it sets the tone for the rest of the engagement....if you fail to aggressively respond to first contact then your options become limited quickly. The difference in this scenario was the Taliban gained the advantage immediately and the British lost the inititive....the Taliban were able to keep the Brits close which limits artillery and air support for fear of friendly fire...then it really becomes man versus man, who has the better and more aggressive infantry skills. Small unit tactics 101 moron.
Gosh, I've always been taught the primary mission is to find, fix, fight and destroy the enemy......
My father is what with this company in Afghanistan please help with my father
Why can't I see the video it's black
Think about it for a minute...the Taliban have no artillery, no air cover and limited ammunition ....and they have the British basically pinned and funneled into a very narrow front. The ANA and the British are at odds with each other....the British have allowed the enemy to "grab them by the belt" which limits how much support they can get from mortars, artillery and aerial artillery...these guys need more training.
Not really, they are outnumbered and hardly know the area (unlike the Taliban). Also this was toward the start of the afghan war, where the ana was corrupt as hell and the Brits had little experience in how to deal with this conflict. The soldiers themselves fought and do fight with the skill and determination only found in that of professional fighting force.
Of course Trish you've fought in an area with stacks of civil pop and and a camera crew filming your every move? Get a grip! Air and artillery depends on it being available for a start and bombing civilians isn't going to happen. As for more training..the UK train more foreign army's than any other nation so I'm not sure what you mean? You don't get better trained soldiers outside of the UK
@@mikel4663 found em. Theyre called Americans. We are bred to fight.
On the Brits defense Arabs have been fighting Imperialism for thousands of years. In fact the only people to resist Imperialism by the 3 biggest nations in the world. They know exactly what they're doing.
Three tours in Vietnam...yep, I know a little about fighting an unconventional style war. Eighteen months in Africa during the mid-70's advising, of all people, the Nigerians. CryingBranston you're not worth the skin you wear. The problem with today's war fighters is an over abudance of "risk prevention". Soldiers are trained to day to avoid casualities and if possible accomplish the mission. The mission of the "small unit tactic" is aggressive actions to find, fix, engage and then destroy the enemy...basically patrolling, raiding and ambushing the enemy. In small unit tactics when the enemy first engages is the moment of truth...the most important events are initial contact and reaction to contact, it sets the tone for the rest of the engagement....if you fail to aggressively respond to first contact then your options become limited quickly. The difference in this scenario was the Taliban gained the advantage immediately and the British lost the inititive....the Taliban were able to keep the Brits close which limits artillery and air support for fear of friendly fire...then it really becomes man versus man, who has the better and more aggressive infantry skills. Small unit tactics 101 moron.