There was an inquiry in the UK about the Iraq War, it's due to be published tomorrow. One of the questions is "Did the UK troops have the right equipment"?
Well, did they? Were they (and by extension, the US) really prepared for the war?
No. Equipment was mostly geared for the cold war and not a COIN, but I guess nobody expected a hypothetical insurgency to last that long. Lack of DMRs (Korea-era M14s don't count), mine resistant vehicles and armored vehicles suitable to withstand rockets. Lack of desert uniforms too in some cases.
Yes and no.
There was just enough of the right equipment for the invasion, but not enough for the COIN campaign afterwards. Lack of troop numbers as well, though that was politics and not due to a lack of capability.
>>30509639
>L85
>right
Yeah I guess, it's as "right" as it gets.
>>30509674
I think lack of DMRs and 7.62x51 rifles was more of an Afghanistan thing due to larger distance in firefights, but ok. How many times where GBUs were dropped simply because some fucker was rocking innaccurate fire with dshk from a kilometer away. I guess it was so in IRQ too.
>>30509639
I've heard that those are shit rifles, but goddamn I think they look sexy as fuck. I want one really bad.
>>30510090
You heard wrong. The A1 was shitty, the A2 is great.
>>30509639
>Well, did they?
Did they fuck
>>30510241
>the A2 is great
It's not great, it's just a huge improvement when compared to A1.
Being better than A1 is not exactly a great achievement though.
Not to mention it's not ambi, can't even be made ambi like other bullpups.
>>30510090
A great indication of just how "good" the L85: SAS and any other British SOF use the M4.
>>30509674
If equipment didn't work in Coin is sure as shit wouldn't have worked against russian armored/mechanized divisions.
>>30509723
It actually was a lack of capability. There were not enough dudes on the street to prosecute a COIN campaign
I love seeing the difference in kit, how it's evolved and upgraded over the years, from here in 2003
>>30510313
To here in 2016
>>30510310
The lack of dudes was caused by Tony Blair withdrawing troops. This being said, more was bitten off than could be chewd by the British.
>>30510395
I was referring to the US portion
>>30510324
I don't really see that much difference
>>30510410
One is a hot grill.
>>30510289
> sniper in a building
> against soviets: Flatten the building and block with artillery/air
> against durkas: Artillery and air causes too much collateral damage and civilian casualties. Need either a Carl Gustav or one of your own guys with a DMR.
>>30510280
I kinda love how every single time retards try to use this "arguement" and get corrected as to the reasons why, they immediately go back to screaming it all over again in the next thread they enter.
It's F-35 syndrome all over again.
For those who may not have heard it yet, the simple reasoning is when the UKSF had to change from the M16, only the L85A1 was available. Of course, no-one would use that at that time. So they chose the C8 instead. Also because they were very very used to the AR platform by that point because of the M16, and had a crapton of equipment and support based around it. Why change what you're used to for the last 20 years?
Since then, the L85A2 became available, but they'd already gotten the whole thing sorted much earlier, and sharing platform with the guys you work beside most (UKSF work alongside US forces much more than they do British ones when not in an active British deployed region) is very efficient. Not to mention it removes a very very obvious and recognisable weapon if you're photographed or seen. Cos people are hardly going to go "Holy crap a Jamacian operator!"
>>30510410
Then you're blind
>>30510289
Not really. Humvees for example are build to be lightly armored and mobile. This is good for open war, but a liability in an insurgency, hence the m1151/2 kits.
L85A2 was a massive improvement over the A1, and yet it's still garbage.
>>30510313
It's a little surreal. It's almost like looking at a Halo game, somewhat cartoonish and colorful
>>30510410
The truck in the second picture is more exploded.
Was it legal though?
>>30510682
They made it legal
>>30510535
>m1151/2
armored HMMWVs are fucking garbage.
slow and poor offroad capability due to all that weight and 40 year old diesel engine.
armor is only good for anything under a .50bmg. flies apart when hit by an explosion.
roll over is a bigger threat to the turret gunner than the enemy.
original issued sling seat for gunner was a too narrow strap. hours and hours of sitting in it caused circulation problems and nerve damage.
>>30510491
>guy with rpg
>against soviets: apc knocked out, major firefight ensues against large trained force
>against durkas: apc knocked out, muffled "allah akbar" heard in distance
whats the change here? if anything its ez mode
>>30510535
Humvees weren't meant for combat, so that's a bad example.
>>30509639
>right equipment
Not really. It's the same time and time again. Militaries gear up for the last war that they fought. The last shit the UK dealt with wasn't like the shit they're dealing with now. Over the course of the war, this gets correct and gear gets more correct, but still fairly generalized, and will likely be incorrect gear for the next war while still being general enough in use that it can get the job done, just not quite optimally.
>>30510748
Yep. But it's cheaper and quicker to slap some more armor on the vehicles you have than to wait for a new one to be designed, tested, and delivered.
The HMMWV is a big Jeep not a little Bradley. A point poorly understood after several decades.
>>30510878
Yeah, maybe a better one would be Strykers and how they all have slat armor now.
>>30510460
you sure?
>>30510913
Same with tactics.
The other big issue is that decision makers all want a one-size-fits-all approach, so you get guys going to the mountains of Afganistan with armor designed to protect against IED threats in urban Iraq. Part of this is making decisions for political purposes. Another part is you have leaders who saw two weeks on combat on another continent 20 years ago and base their decisions on those circumstances.
>>30510989
>The other big issue is that decision makers all want a one-size-fits-all approach, so you get guys going to the mountains of Afganistan with armor designed to protect against IED threats in urban Iraq. Part of this is making decisions for political purposes. Another part is you have leaders who saw two weeks on combat on another continent 20 years ago and base their decisions on those circumstances.
Also, leadership in another way, at least in the US armed forces. In the US military, you tend to get general officers from the same corps a lot. Like the guys who were generals during vietnam? Most of them came up through the arty corps, so the army thought like arty officers: firebases, firebases everywhere.
Iraq I most of the general staff came up through armor corps...I'll be fucked if that wasn't a mechanized maneuver war.
>>30510546
I hear this a lot, what's so bad about it specifically?
>>30510241
Can it use true M855 or are they still stuck with downloaded ammo with the same round?
>>30511455
*same bullet
>>30509639
>Well, did they?
No.
>>30511671
>People get their opinion of a gun from animu
Sums things up
>>30511680
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iv0_dK6WEiA
>>30511238
By "a lot" it's pretty much "that one guy on /k/ who regurgitates it every thread repeatedly."
>>30511803
>A1
Well there's your problem.
>>30510294
>no beards
>>30510854
>durkas
>apc
Yeah, you're retarded.
>>30510324
where is their ammo?
>>30511803
>He thinks the A1 is the same as the A2
>>30509639
Nobody was prepared for the rampant use of IEDs, that's for sure. But at the same time nobody could have predicted their use until after the insurgency started up.
>>30512604
Can you not see his magazines
If it's not too political, what are they expecting from the inquiry?
>>30512370
That's exactly what the anime refers to
No one saw the IED coming, to my knowledge.
>>30509639
>"Did the UK troops have the right equipment"?
>Well, did they?
Fucking
N O
O
t. ex angle iron squaddie circa op tellic 02
>>30512934
What are your thoughts on the whole thing?
>>30510324
Womam has ammo
Man has iron man arc reactor dock
>>30510748
>hours and hours of sitting in it caused circulation problems and nerve damage
This is damn true and I have lost a bit of feeling in my left leg. Feels asleep from the knee down. VA wont give me anything though.
>>30512986
Nobody in that image is a woman.
>>30513055
The one on the right is a grill bro
>>30510324
is that a women on the right?
>>30511455
SA80 series was designed to used SS109 from the beginning.
>>30510854
A major firefight means major air and artillery support, and a large trained force of your own steamrolling everything in your way.
Counterinsurgency patrols don't maneuver in the same strength, and can't call upon the same amount of indiscriminate supporting fire. Nor should they. For obvious reasons.
>>30513073
>>30513257
His body shape looks like a dude. He's either clean shaven or has blond hair so the 5 o'clock is not noticeable. I don't see anything that suggests woman aside from smooth face.
Results come out in 45 bings if you feel like reading 2.6 million words.
>>30519928
it's basicly:
tl;dr
Government fucked up
>>30519060
Eye shape, eye lashes, lip size, feminine facial features\shape.
It's like you've never seen a qt grill inna uniform
Tony Blair should face charges. Yay or nay?
I think so for just being a slimy cunt trying to impress his big pal dubya.
>>30521559
Yay.
The entire report was damning.
>>30521559
God damn yes. Nothing would please me more than seeing that twat in the dock at The Hague.
>>30521559
>>30521623
>>30521677
what did he do?
>>30521813
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jul/06/iraq-inquiry-key-points-from-the-chilcot-report
These are main points of what the Chilcot Enquiry found. The guy was basically a shit that took us to war just to impress his buddy George. He ignored all sorts evidence and counter opinions.
>>30521924
A lot of people are upset their loved ones died in Iraq due to his poor decision making and they believed they shouldn't have been there.
>they were soldiers, what did you think would happen when they went on deployment.
>>30521559
Yes and put Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz on trial too
>>30521947
fuck the soldiers, they got exactly what they signed up for: to be used as dispensable pawns for the foreign policy ambitions of politicians.
it is the iraqi victims who deserve justice
>>30521992
Edgy
>>30522017
He's absolutely right.
Way more iraqis perished but no one gives a fuck about sand niggers.
>>30521992
t. Jahib al cheddar cuck
>>30522017
Not that guy but really when you think about it, 179 British troops is utterly insignificant compared to 500,000 Iraqi civilians and millions more displaced.
I think the deployment was shit and the soldiers deserve sympathy for dying for fuck all but at the same time I'm certain many of them were keen to go over there. However, a very significant number of UK deaths in Iraq were suicides, with many of them likely horrified with what British forces had done there.
>>30510294
>PEQ 2
>>30522623
Yes?
>>30510280
They also used it over the SLR. British troops had AR type weapons before the US did.
>>30522042
>However, a very significant number of UK deaths in Iraq were suicides, with many of them likely horrified with what British forces had done there.
No they weren't you fantasist.
>Well, did they?
It doesn't really matter.
I had been out of the Regular Army for 35 years by the time Iraq was invaded. At the time I was working for a private security company on a very casual basis, but I still had some insight into the various intricacies and challenges that had come up with the campaign due to industry, MoD, HM Forces and overseas contacts.
My opinion on it is as follows:
1. The British Army had, from about 1960, been firmly of the opinion that any war it fought it could "scale" to. Equipment shortages and procurement mysteries have been an issue going back as far as you want to go, but the British Army had consistently prided itself on being able to produce more with less. This, by the time Iraq rolled around, was dangerously close to the bone. It wouldn't have mattered if we spent five times as much on each section, it would have still been a section doing the job of a platoon and a platoon doing the job of a company.
2. The promotion system in HM Armed Forces is rather odd. Essentially, you are promoted on your popularity and your face fitting. This is fine when you've got a gigantic Army as we did in the Cold War, as deadwood can be shuffled off elsewhere. When you have a lean force it is less effective. I'm not saying that we had bad people (though they did exist), just there were a lot of men trying to chase rank when they should have been focused on winning a war.
3. Speaking of winning a war, it wasn't a war that we could ever feasibly win. That includes the US. There was no real aim. A conventional force was then asked to provide the role of a police force. The infrastructure of Iraq was dismantled and the political realities ignored. We went from beating a dictator to trying to find his non existent weapons to attempting to force democracy on a people that didn't want or deserve it.
4. Chilcott spent seven years climbing and then sitting atop a fence. A complete waste of money, like the Butler report.
>>30512934
this, tony blair should fucking hang
>>30521992
butthurt paki spotted
>>30523275
nice
>>30522042
>expecting edgy teenagers obsessed with violence and jerking off over 100k dead iraqi civilians to think about anything
topkek
>>30510878
>Humvees weren't meant for combat
Humvees were meant for maneuver warfare, not COIN. They were fantastic in Desert Storm and Iraq2
>>30522022
>>30522042
No one cares about "500,000 dead Iraqis" because the vast majority of them were killed by other Iraqis.
>>30525607
>US/UK aren't responsible for the consequences of a war they started
government dindu nuffin
>>30525679
>muh strawman
You are very selective on who you hold responsible.
>>30525679
You're right Iraqis were all 100% innocent.
>>30525714
Politicians start wars, politicians get the blame.
>>30525679
>the US/UK started an insurgency months after the second Iraq war ended
>>30525743
Indeed, the insurgency is the direct result of:
>total lack of a occupation plan because Bush/Blair actually believed the Iraqis would welcome the occupation and the military would be out by 2004
>idiot decisions by the CPA which worsened the situation
>ham-handed moves by the military which was incapable to shifting to peacekeeping operations (especially the 4th ID)
Then there is the fact that the war was started on fabricated evidence, and Iraqi resistance against the occupation is only reasonable.
>>30525777
>Then there is the fact that the war was started on fabricated evidence, and Iraqi resistance against the occupation is only reasonable.
No the most reasonable thing to do would be to wait it out.
Nobody with half a brain would think it would be permanent.
>>30525802
By parity of logic, the French and Poles should not have resisted the Nazi occupations.
>Nobody with half a brain would think it would be permanent
>resistance should be predicated on the length of the occupation
ok
>>30525915
>Nazi comparison
>>30525987
>muh Godwin
implying historical comparisons cannot be drawn from Nazi occupations
>>30509771
I'd argue not having a good semi automatic sniper system in urban areas with high target densities isn't ideal. That's part of the reason why the UK bought all of those LMT 308s.
>>30521992
Most soldiers are tricked with nationalist propaganda and brainwashed from a very young age. It's not their fault they were deceived into thinking the military was good for them, and in other cases they had no other options other than turning to crime to survive.
>>30525802
Yet we're still there.
>>30513257
>>30519060
>>30521420
Definitely a dude.
>>30525915
If the US had annexed Jordan and Kuwait within the 5 years prior, your analogy might have ground to stand on.
>>30526289
With permission of the Iraqi government, not as an occupying army.
>>30525777
Violence just happens, Iraqi's cannot be held responsible for their own actions, it is up to you to not agitate them.
>>30525915
>French and Polish resistance killed half a million of their own while under German/Soviet occupation
wew lad, just wew
>>30526740
Yeah, the government that we set up by force lol.
>>30526797
Just ignore that it has democratic elections.
>>30526786
>the presence of sectarian violence nullifies the legitimacy of anti-occupation resistance
bush pls go
>>30526280
>it is not their own faults they are stupid naive welfare queens
>no other options other than turning to crime
bernie?
>>30526731
So if Germany invaded France or Poland and left Austria and Czechoslovakia alone, somehow French and Polish resistance would become illegitimate?
>>30526859
Democracy in Iraq is 2 wolves and a lamb voting about what to have for dinner.
>>30526280
What propaganda?
Soldering is a profession or job like any other profession or job. If 100 construction workers and electricians build a building and it burns down in two years you really think any of them actually gives a shit? No, they got paid to do work and when it was over it became irrelevant.
What 'nationalistic propaganda' could possibly have anything to do with some other fucking nation that has absolutely nothing to do with the nation the soldiers come from?
>>30527443
>What propaganda?
>thje government doesn't use propaganda to recruit idiots and suckers to kill for them
oh my
>If 100 construction workers and electricians build a building and they all light it on fire while a bunch of people are inside on the foreman's orders which they willfully follow, you really think any of them actually gives a shit
there, ftfy
>>30523304
Is it an ironic joke that he's now a peace correspondent to the middle east?
I want off this shithole planet
>>30527492
>If 100 construction workers and electricians build a building
>If 100 construction workers and electricians went to someone else's building
Small correction
>>30527492
>>building full of people set ablaze
This is a poor analogy because literally nobody fucking cares about the lives of Iraqis, not even other Iraqis. It was a primarily a bloody civil war and still is.
Kinda like, a construction crew lost a few people in accidents building a school for the criminally insane and it burns down in two years after the prisoners have a big race riot.
Iraq was primarily a gross waste of resources. Iraqis however, are an abundantly renewable resource.
>>30527242
I like how you have completely moved on from the dead Iraqi's now that we have established that it was not Americans or British who killed them.
>>30527850
>literally nobody fucking cares about the lives of Iraqis
just because you're a teenage pizza-face edgelord, doesn't mean everyone else is.
>>30527946
I like how you pretend the original catalyst of all the sectarian violence was not the US/UK led invasion.
>>30509639
I think it really comes down more to men than material. No doubt the campaign to take down Iraq was on point. But, the lack of ability (in manpower) to occupy and secure the country was pretty obvious from the get go. It was pretty much total anarchy following the invasion. Even when the troop surge went into effect it was only then "capable" in just the bare minimum.
I really think it goes to show there was a disconnect with the reality the war was planned with, and then an inability, or unwillingness to make changes to adapt to the situation. The entire strategy hinged upon creating a capable officer Corps for the IA and then train up an aggressive and professional Iraqi military to pursue COIN in our stead. That did not, and for the most part fell flat. When that was apparent in 2005 we should have changed the mission and deployments.
>>30527393
No, that's a Ben Franklin quote.....
>>30528027
Balls, I don't know where my mind went on those last two sentences. What I was trying to say was...
>That did not occur (in reference to the officer corps). When that failed, the idea of using those said officers to train up a capable Iraqi Army and security apparatus fell flat.
>>30527353
Your argument was that the French and Polish expected Nazi occupation to be permanent, which would be logical based on Nazi Germany's annexation of several countries just prior. To use this analogy with Iraq, there would have to be an expectation that the United States would permanently occupy/annex Iraq. There is nothing to justify such an expectation.
And this is not even addressing your insinuation that Iraqi insurgents killing Iraqis is legitimized by the presence of a foreign military.
>>30527962
It wasn't, nor does it absolve Iraqis of their responsibility in killing their fellow Iraqis.
>>30528055
Well, the US destroyed the vast majority of equipment left laying around that the Iraqi military had and they totally disbanded the Iraqi Army and blacklisted the majority of their officers. Who i return joined the insurgency.
The invasion was under the expectation that the whole country was like the handful of westernized collaborators that they talked to prior to invading.
I can't really see any outcome that would be better then having never fought the war at all. They kicked out a secular strongman and replaced him and his government with fucking ISIS.
>>30528114
>American politicians saying the occupation will be temporary in 2003 means it will be
>the US has military bases in more countries than not on the entire planet
Sounds legitimate.
>And this is not even addressing your insinuation that Iraqi insurgents killing Iraqis is legitimized by the presence of a foreign military.
What I said was Iraqi insurgents attacking occupation soldiers is always legitimate and justified. No one ever said the attacks on Iraqi civilians is legitimate.
>>30527951
that lack of refutation
>>30528160
The fairly obvious implication is that many adults do care about the innocent victims of war.
>>30528157
>the US has military bases in more countries than not on the entire planet
Tell us how many of them are without the host country's permission.
>What I said was Iraqi insurgents attacking occupation soldiers is always legitimate and justified. No one ever said the attacks on Iraqi civilians is legitimate.
You cannot have it both ways. If the Iraqi insurgents actions were legitimate because of "occupational soldiers" then you are claiming their murder of 500,000 Iraqi's is also legitimate.
>>30528183
Adults also address the contents of a statement when making a response.
>>30528152
We'll allegedly they newly trained men the Coalition was supposed to drum up would supplant the Baathists. That being said, I don't know how they thought making hundreds of thousands of dudes jobless wouldn't amount to them being salty. And, while I agree with you that no invasion would have been better, I have mixed feelings about that. Saddam was a fuck. Then again, this isn't better than Saddam. Guess that answers the question of what's the better option
>>30528253
>Tell us how many of them are without the host country's permission.
Bought with bribes for corrupt tyrants, threats of economic sanction, or to "solve" a problem that the US government caused to begin with. Such is the nature of US foreign policy.
>If the Iraqi insurgents actions were legitimate because of "occupational soldiers" then you are claiming their murder of 500,000 Iraqi's is also legitimate.
The attacks on the occupation soldiers is legitimate. The attacks on civilians are not. They are distinct, separate actions.
>>30528277
A statement like this does not deserve a response, it is self-evidently produced by a grade-A sperglord.
>Iraqis however, are an abundantly renewable resource.
>>30528345
Not the guys you're talking to but you're absolutely right that insurgents vs. Occupation soldiers is legitimate. That being said, fuck insurgents.
>>30511671
MY GUN HAS STALLED! THE PISTOL GRIP IS SHAKING VIOLENTLY!
>>30528407
>legitimate
and noble as well. which cannot be said for the occupying welfare queens.
>>30510924
