armyreal.com - Forums

Go Back   ArmyReal.com Forums > Military Discussions > Armies of the World
User Name
Password

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes

  #1  
Old 08-11-2005, 01:36 PM
Texas's Avatar
Texas Texas is offline
Major General
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 3,765
Default British Army units and foreign nationals who serve in its ranks

A thread dedicated to pictures of the British Army units in Iraq/ Afghanistan



Fijian member of British Army with Warrior APC in back ground
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	bw_fijian_wr.jpg
Views:	1264
Size:	37.4 KB
ID:	44  

Last edited by Texas; 08-12-2005 at 06:51 AM..
Reply With Quote

  #2  
Old 08-11-2005, 01:41 PM
Texas's Avatar
Texas Texas is offline
Major General
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 3,765
Default

Royal Marines zero their weapons ,Shortly before start of operations in Iraq
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	wmik_ranges.jpg
Views:	1271
Size:	37.3 KB
ID:	45  

Last edited by Texas; 08-11-2005 at 01:44 PM..
Reply With Quote

  #3  
Old 08-11-2005, 02:08 PM
Texas's Avatar
Texas Texas is offline
Major General
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 3,765
Default

British Armour supporting British and US Marines in Basrah
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	basrah_check.jpg
Views:	1271
Size:	38.4 KB
ID:	46  

Last edited by Texas; 08-12-2005 at 06:32 AM..
Reply With Quote

  #4  
Old 08-12-2005, 10:10 AM
royal marine's Avatar
royal marine royal marine is offline
Captain
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: high wycombe, buckingamshire
Posts: 1,000
Send a message via MSN to royal marine
Default

i think you will find they are signallmen and not marines
and royal marines do not fight alongside US marines, they fight alongside rangers and navy seals
__________________
what manner of men are these maroon berets
Reply With Quote

  #5  
Old 08-12-2005, 11:42 AM
Texas's Avatar
Texas Texas is offline
Major General
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 3,765
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by royal marine
i think you will find they are signallmen and not marines
and royal marines do not fight alongside US marines, they fight alongside rangers and navy seals
check this source.Scroll down 3/4 of page on right hand side
[url="http://www.operations.mod.uk/telic/photo_gallery_ops_land.htm"]http://www.operations.mod.uk/telic/photo_gallery_ops_land.htm[/url]

Last edited by Texas; 08-13-2005 at 09:37 PM..
Reply With Quote

  #6  
Old 08-13-2005, 04:00 PM
Tacky Tacky is offline
Lieutenant Colonel
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: US
Posts: 1,520
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by royal marine
i think you will find they are signallmen and not marines
and royal marines do not fight alongside US marines, they fight alongside rangers and navy seals
Wrong again, hero. Royal Marines are mostly commonly placed with US Marines. Royal Marines in general, are not Special Operations. Only SOF units within the Royal Marines will work along side US military SOF.

Royal Marines have worked with US Marines in support of SOF operations.
Reply With Quote

  #7  
Old 08-14-2005, 04:48 AM
royal marine's Avatar
royal marine royal marine is offline
Captain
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: high wycombe, buckingamshire
Posts: 1,000
Send a message via MSN to royal marine
Default

no the royal marines were the first onto the beaches of iraq along with the navy seals
yes the royal marines and the US marines might help eachother taking casualties to the aid station and stuff but the royal marines must fight alongside the seals and rangers just like the royal marines train one of the sealteams in return
__________________
what manner of men are these maroon berets
Reply With Quote

  #8  
Old 02-12-2006, 03:44 AM
Texas's Avatar
Texas Texas is offline
Major General
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 3,765
Default

Army rift with No 10 over Afghanistan troops 'fiasco'
By Sean Rayment, Defence Correspondent
(Filed: 12/02/2006)

The Government's "disastrous" decision to go to "war" on two fronts has opened a rift between Downing Street and the Ministry of Defence, the Sunday Telegraph has learnt.

Defence chiefs are concerned that with a large number of British troops still active in Iraq, a task force being sent to Afghanistan might not be big enough to counter the threat posed by al-Qaeda and Taliban forces. Yet commanders are being prevented from increasing troop numbers for the dangerous Afghanistan operation because of Tony Blair's insistence that no soldiers be withdrawn from Iraq until security improves dramatically.
The crisis follows the shelving of a secret plan last year to withdraw 8,500 British troops from Iraq in preparation for the Afghanistan mission. Yesterday it emerged that a document assessing how soon troops could be brought home had been buried by civil servants.
Former defence chiefs said last night that another conflict could leave the Army "dangerously overstretched", while the Tories claimed that the mission was rapidly becoming a "fiasco".
Gen Sir Mike Jackson, the chief of the general staff, is understood to have written to Lt Gen David Richards, the British commander of the Allied Rapid Reaction Corps and the officer who will command the Nato force in Afghanistan, over whether the force Britain is sending is large enough to deal with the threat posed by insurgent forces.
Defence sources have revealed that Gen Richards wants another infantry battle group, about 1,000 men, to join the task force responsible for controlling an area of 20,000 square miles, more than twice the size of Wales.
It is understood that Gen Richards is concerned that he does not have enough artillery and ground attack aircraft, nor sufficient Chinook transport helicopters.
Although Britain is contributing about 6,000 troops, later to be reduced to 3,500, to the 9,000-strong multinational force, only about 1,000 are combat troops, mainly Paratroopers from 16 Air Assault Brigade.
It has also emerged that the 3rd Battalion of the Parachute Regiment is so under strength that it is being reinforced by troops from the Gurkhas, the Royal Irish Regiment, the Territorial Army and raw recruits straight out of training. There is also concern at whether troops will have the necessary rules of engagement to conduct offensive operations.
Lord Guthrie, who is also Colonel Commandant of the Special Air Service, said: "The British Army is already dangerously overstretched and maintaining a force even of this size over the years will be difficult."
Dr Liam Fox, the shadow defence secretary, said that a larger force was vital if the operation was not to become a fiasco. "We must have sufficient troop numbers to ensure a maximum chance of success for the mission with minimum risk for our troops," he said.
Patrick Mercer, the shadow defence minister and a former infantry commanding officer, said: "History has shown that going to war on two fronts always courts disaster. This was never the Government's intent but the operational planning is becoming a fiasco because of a lack of troops and kit."
__________________
Reply With Quote

  #9  
Old 08-27-2006, 09:22 AM
Texas's Avatar
Texas Texas is offline
Major General
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 3,765
Default British fatalities in Afghanistan so far

The total number of UK troops killed while on operations in Afghanistan since 2001 has risen to 21 after a soldier was killed on 27 August 2006 in a clash with insurgents.
Of these, seven are known to have died either as a result of illness, non-combat injuries or accidents.

Found this on the BBC website
[url]http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5121552.stm[/url]
__________________
Reply With Quote

  #10  
Old 08-27-2006, 09:56 AM
jrj100's Avatar
jrj100 jrj100 is offline
Lieutenant Colonel
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: uk
Posts: 1,584
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Texas View Post
The total number of UK troops killed while on operations in Afghanistan since 2001 has risen to 21 after a soldier was killed on 27 August 2006 in a clash with insurgents.
Of these, seven are known to have died either as a result of illness, non-combat injuries or accidents.

Found this on the BBC website
[url]http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5121552.stm[/url]
theres no way of knowing but id like to compare the losses to taliban losses
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:38 PM.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
    
·Contact Us   ·Legal   ·Privacy   ·Link To Us    ·Advertise With Us    ·About Us    ·Site Map     
     Copyright 2004-2019 Activv, LLC. All rights reserved. Armyreal.com is a service provided by Activv.
This website is not affiliated, endorsed, authorized, or associated in any way with any government, military or country.