this is a question and not a critisism please answer according to facts and dont slag each other off............ oh ok then let rip.
2007-07-30 03:36:34 · 18 answers · asked by francis f 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
cheffy d hasnt anyone told you quality always beats quantity
2007-07-30 03:43:34 · update #1
Remember, when the Americans are your ally, you've got double the chance of being a casualty. That's not to say they have not been a valuable ally, unlike the French, for example.
2007-07-30 03:43:01 · answer #1 · answered by LEONARD W 4 · 2⤊ 4⤋
the UK has far fewer troops, thus fatalities are not comparable, currently the US forces are attempting a new strategy of actively clearing neighborhoods where insurgents(mainly Al-Qaeda) are known to operate from, and having the Iraqi forces hold it against reoccupation. If this works in Baghdad it could be replicated anywhere in Iraq, additionally we have begun working with some of the nationalist groups (Sunni groups and Shiaa groups) to hunt down Al-Qaeda; which is the main destabilizing factor as they indiscriminately target civilian from both religious sects.
Chef fatalities not causualties, a bit over 3000 for american troops, and thousands of wounded return to fight.
2007-07-30 03:44:02 · answer #2 · answered by ben s 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Hard to compare since the US is responsible for 90% of the boots on the ground. Heck even then I'm still gonna say the US, because all the other countries end up playing a support role to US Forces. The US could fight a war on its own, all the other countries in the Coalition don't have the resources like the US, that's why I respectfully say they act in a support role.
2007-07-30 04:56:21 · answer #3 · answered by JASiege 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
i think at the moment its all cocked up america do have far better equipment then we do and alot more money but i think the failings that the americans have is they dont have any experiances in built up areas(phibia) where the uk has been fighting in irland for the past 200 years in built up areas and very experianced in this field if they swaped around and the uk were in baghdad and the americans in the outskirts we would have a better chance at control and success the uk army are one of the most fantastics army in the world and i have so much respect for americans i would like to live there my self but i thing there egos blind the fact that the uk army is one of the best in the world and rather then trying to take over things and try and get recognition for them selves they should appreciate the heroics of the british because they wont get abetter army on there side then the uk
2007-07-30 04:23:09 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
Neither have. As soon as the coalition announced that they would be leaving (sometime) it gives the taliban and others a date in their diary to work to. Defending a withdrawal is always tough, and will result in casualties. Personally, I feel the Arab League should put troops in, during the withdrawal, until the final handover. Where are they come to that, They criticise enough, then disappear when wanted.
Once we have withdrawn, then its time to kick the asses of the politicians who backed this poorly thought out adventure. Maybe even have our own regime change at home.
2007-07-30 03:52:46 · answer #5 · answered by Mike C 3 · 0⤊ 2⤋
funny how the yanks cant have a battle anymore without us Brit's, the Americans are badly trained and very trigger happy they need the numbers of troops to win a battle whereas we(British) have to rely on our training and wits, we tended to make this comparison, the us national guard is like our cadet units, the regular army are like our t.a, and their special forces are comparable to our regular soldiers, we always have and always will be a more efficient army
2007-07-30 07:18:26 · answer #6 · answered by alanglenhay 1 · 1⤊ 1⤋
It is a matter of numbers and location,the Americans have more troops so more targets and they are in the more unstable areas.
2007-07-30 20:11:41 · answer #7 · answered by frankturk50 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Much like the American gen.Patton told the Brits "fight alone side me not behind me" Had to wait for days for them to march in Paris
2007-07-30 04:20:03 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
The British got the easy assignment. They do not have to do much fighting. The US has been routing terrorists everywhere in Central Iraq. The terrorists do not win any battles. Their only successes are suicide bombers and IEDs.
2007-07-30 03:42:38 · answer #9 · answered by regerugged 7 · 3⤊ 5⤋
In Iraq:
American troops: approx 160,000
UK troops: approx 8500.
I think that says it all no matter how you want to look at it.
2007-07-30 03:40:45 · answer #10 · answered by Chef 6 · 3⤊ 2⤋