RE: Vietnam and modern combat

G'day,

> 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.

> 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. 

On to another post:

> The US deliberately puts troops from our
> client sta--"loyal allies" in lower-threat areas. 

I know you're doing this to bait John, but I would respectfully ask you
not to make these kind of comments. Regardless of how "client" out
governments may be acting the citizens of countries such as the United
Kingdom and Australia find such comments highly insulting.

Thanks

Beth