RE: Vietnam and modern combat

--- Beth.Fulton@csiro.au wrote:
> > Yeah, during the first few weeks.  That stuff is
> > pretty unhealthy without the triple canopy to hide
> > under.  After all, how many Aussies were killed? 
> > Compared to how many hundreds of bad guys?
> 
> I must admit to being a little confused here. I was
> referring to our SAS
> in Iraq, but I think you're referring to Vietnam, or
> am I just getting
> stumble footed? As to Aussies killed its none, I
> don't know how many
> Iraqis they engaged or killed sorry.

I'm sorry.  What I meant was that unlike Vietnam, the
'guerillas' in Iraq do not have a triple canopy jungle
to hide under.	Therefore grouping in large units and
trying to duke it out with conventional troops is
distinctly unhealthy.  Never mind special operations
with entire squadrons of close air support on call.

> > Of course, my next question in the AAR would have
> been
> > "where was his flank security"?  Should have
> walked
> > more or less through your ambushing force.	Not
> > healthy, but would have woken up the main body.
> 
> He started off with two squads on the path and one
> squad either side in
> the jungle trying to look out for stuff hiding off
> the edge, but walking
> through jungle is slow going and he felt his troops
> on the path were too
> exposed creeping along at the same rate. End result
> he brought them all
> on to the path, trying to keep to the edges to be as
> "covered" as
> possible. I gambled he'd do something like that, the
> gamble paid off. 

Yet another point to bring up in the 15-6 for that
guy's Court Martial.  


John

	
		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs  
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/careermakeover