British to adopt the tactics that beat Rommel

[ECH1969]

The soldiers of the Queen's Royal Hussars will today board a fleet of stripped-down Land Rovers, festooned with weapons and equipment, bound for the depths of the Iraqi desert.

Their mission is to adopt tactics pioneered by the Long Range Desert Group, the forerunners of the SAS, more than six decades ago in the campaign against Rommel in North Africa. They will leave Camp Abu Naji, the only permanent base in Maysan province near the local capital of Amarah, and head into the remote region near the border with Iran.

Shia militiamen loyal to Moqtada al-Sadr, the fiercely anti-western cleric, have taken to firing barrages. One night in May, 54 mortar rounds detonated one after another.

Rather than staying in a fixed spot well known to enemy fighters in the most violent of all the Iraqi provinces under British control, they will live, camp and fight on the move. Roaming through the sparsely populated areas of Maysan, an area as large as Northern Ireland, they will travel without heavy armour that would become bogged down in the sand dunes and sleep under the stars.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/08/24/wiraq24.xml

[Webster Green]

1. Rest in peace, mutherfuckers!

Say your prayers, assholes!

[theanarch]

5. quite the contrary...

...this is exactly how the colonial/occupying power SHOULD fight a people's war. The lighter and more mobile the force (and remember, they still have all the tac/air/reinforcement assests at their disposal), the more personal contact with locals, and far less "collateral damage" when damage is done. Ideally, small teams (as few as four) are assigned to every population center, even if it's just a few dozen people, to live among them, and coordinate with any other programs for the local's benefit (medical access, a school, a new well, repairing a road or bridge). The countryside is aggressively monitored, much of it by small, highly mobile units on a random pattern (to disrupt the routines of the insurgents, keeping them off-balance and out of the villages where they recruit and eat). Over time, with the success of the patrols/home-guards in providing security, and the success of the social/economic programs to win the good will of the locals, the insurgency will simply disapate as an irrelency. The problem is, given the Pentagon's preference to win hearts and minds by bombing first and paying compensation later, it is all for naught.

Of course, i am not in any way defending the occupation--it remains evil; i am merely noting that the Brit's have finally stumbled on a better way of implimenting a failed policy...as Santyana wrote, those who do not learn from history are condemned to repeat it...well, one of Junior's allies is trying to learn...but then, if they were really smart, they'd have learned the lesson all the other (former) allies learned, which is "cut your losses while you still have some to spare, and run".

[Ms. Clio]

13. but the comparison was to Rommel

the Germans were not a local insurgency.

It's just a wacky comparison.

[Sherman A1]

14. Agreed

The new tactics may have some benefit but the comparison is beyond goofy.

[Yupster]

35. Actually the Britsh beat Rommell

by attriting his forces with overwhelming numbers. I doubt that will work in Iraq.

[Warren Stupidity]

24. The British force is way too small for such an operation.

I think the total force is 7-8,000 soldiers.

[PurityOfEssence]

29. Wrong analogy

As others have posted, the LRDG was fighting against a conventional army with exposed supply lines, standard uniformed military units and defined areas of control.

There's definitely merit to this plan, but it also exposes many in small groups in unknown territory.

The bravado, dash and elan of such a move appeals to the popular consciousness, but it's like the Royal Navy hearkening back to the credo of putting oneself "in harm's way" when dealing with the U-Boat menace in World War 1: the important job is securing one's supply lines, not in destroying the enemy. (Getting shipping through is the issue.) Destroying the enemy is gravy after the situation is under control.

This may bear fruit, but only if properly supported. If the Brits are prepared to create and sustain MANY groups like this, they may well play havoc with the insurgents, but since they're in Shi'ite land, they'd best mind their ps and qs. An approach like this also leaves these groups vulnerable: they have to be based somewhere, and small as they will be, they'll be vulnerable coming and going. Not only are they vulnerable, they're vulnerable to simple weapons that are highly mobile and exist in abundance.

It smacks of grandstanding and P.R. frippery. (We're not losing! We're not hunkered down in a no-win mess like we blew it in Iraq in World War 1! We're not, we're really not!)

ON EDIT: Let's also remember that the LRDG had virtually no impact on the war in the western desert. They were an annoyance, but their true effect was minor to the point of inconsequential. The war there was won by the Axis not realizing what an opportunity it was and thus not committing enough resources and the Axis not understanding how important the naval control of the Mediterranean was. The LRDG was filled with panache and they undoubtedly soaked off some resources, but they were less than a mote in the balance.

[leesa]

31. To what end? Do you put a flag on top of some mountain and declare it

over? Don't you understand that it will always come back to the people and they will reclaim their country. What is the point of this idiocy?

[Raydawg1234]

7. oh the intelligence

:sarcasm:

[savemefromdumbya]

2. Please not British. just Blair

this is Blair's doing

[Dhalgren]

3. I predict that if this is true and the Brits go at it in this way,

that they will suffer terrible casualties. The Germans in WWII were no more desert dwellers than were the Brits and Rommel was heavily mechanized, as well. The Iraqis should know this area like the backs of their hands and will wreak havoc on the Tommies. I hope I am wrong, but I am afraid I am not...

[ThsMchneKilsFascists]

4. Rommel was the invader in North Africa

The locals weren't too happy to see Rommel arrive I'd bet.
The Brits have it ass backwards in this case.

[dionysus]

33. Rommel, despite being a Nazi, was a brilliant fucking war

tactician

[TreasonousBastard]

6. I was under the impression that Rommel was...

kicking British ass through most of that, and Monty just barely beat his ass at el Alamein even though he had 3 times the tanks and troops and Bletchly Park had broken the German codes.

[nealmhughes]

8. At the Second Tobruk, Rommel did not want to fight but

to retreat since he was low on gas, food, motor oil, and tanks: Hitler ordered him to not retreat a yard.
The rest is history. The Germans could not get supplies to Libya, plus the US had arrived in Morocco and Algeria by then with lots and lots of supplies, had Rommel been reinforced.

[TreasonousBastard]

22. Those hundreds of Sherman tanks...

Monty got from us helped a lot towards the end. Rommel was stuck with a bunch of raggedy Italian tanks backing up his few remaining Panzers.

Methinks Rommel was ten times the general either Auchinleck or Monty were, but the deciding factors were Monty's superior order of battle and supply lines and Ultra telling the Allies where the German supply convoys were coming in.

Brit strike forces did a good job back then, but this latest bullshit mentioned in the OP is just jingoist PR putting more spin on the failure in Iraq.

[teryang]

9. Has a colonial war been won since WWII?

Blair and Bush try to resurrect defunct 19th Century imperialism that led to two world wars. They just don't get it.

[intaglio]

15. Colonial Wars "Won"

Malay campaign, Kenyan Mau-mau. In both cases the aim was to pass control to the locals as soon after the campaign as possible and the insurgents were minorities with poor communications and little real support in the population as a whole. But that's the Brits for you, cutting and running. :sarcasm:

[Demeter]

21. Don't Forget Grenada---and Panama!

Ronnie's little show wars....

[rman]

28. Does economic war count?

I think those have been a success with very few exceptions. See "globalization" and so called "free trade".

If the point of colonialism is economic exploitation of nations, and that goal can be achieved without military force, then the colonial age has never really ended.

[w4rma]

10. In other words the Brits are done spending huge amounts of money in

Iraq and are going to start spending much less.

[Richard Steele]

11. Now, if only the Iraqis will start adopting ROMMEL's tactics...

THEN we might start getting somewhere!

Someone give them a Heavy Armor division, quick!

[sofa king]

12. Yeah, as I recall it, Rommel had tanks and trained infantry.

What the Brits are actually describing is a counterraiding strategy. For a great example of that, see the Balkans for about the past six hundred years. Hope they packed a lunch.

[acmavm]

16. Oh for Pete's sake. Hope they have PLENTY of gas. That had a lot

to do with Rommel's defeat.

Sheesh, the propaganda just keeps getting weirder and weirder.

What intrigues me is that both the American and British troops have been hiding to keep casualties down. The Brits will have to come out of the safety zones. That can't be good.

And then there's the IEDs. How is a stripped down jeep gonna fare when it rolls over one of those babys?

[Stella_Artois]

17. Maybe not so much of a problem

In an area with no roads, where are you going to put the IED's ?

[acmavm]

18. Why do you need a road to plant bombs? And it's not like there's not

going to be certain areas that these things aren't going to have to travel. I mean, do Iraqi's hang out in the Middle of nowhere? Or is the action close to populated areas? And if you have populated areas, you have well-traversed areas. I don't think that there's going to be a lot of buzzing around in the middle of nowhere like in an old WWII movie. These guys aren't playing hide and seek like the Nazis are portrayed to have done. They're sticking pretty close to cities and towns.

And it doesn't have to be something you bury. A guy with a bomb strapped around his waster could do some damage. In fact, if you'll look at what's been happening, they have been. Or a car bomber. Hey, there's a problem. Unless the Brits are going to keep away from all vehicles and just use them there machine guns to mow everyone down, the old American tactic shoot first ask questions later method.

Point being they don't need more unarmored vehicles. That's been the problem ALL ALONG.

[intaglio]

19. The question the Brits are asking is "Are the current tactics working?"

and the answer is "No"

The idea behind using lightly armoured forces is that you you do not use consistent routes where an IED can be planted. You do not stay in one place long enough to be attacked. You do not offer them a sitting target. The process worked to an extent even in Northern Ireland a more densely populated country far less suited to the use of light troops.

Consider the Humvee; it is big and heavy even without armour. It is obvious and noisy. Even with armour it rolls and troops that use it are still killed by IEDs. It is hideously expensive and the troops iside it "loose connection" with the outside

Ignoring the overcooked hype about the LRDG it is the old military conflict about light troops vs heavy troops

[dipsydoodle]

20. Your right

Looks to be a complete off road exercise, with no IED issues, probably patrolling border areas. The guys driving those machines won't be idiots and I guess they're already trained in fast off road driving using Bowlers whatever as training vehicles - well over 100mph off road. All they're doing is matching like with like using infinitly variable mobility - even camping out at night time. If nothing else it keeps them well away from civilian areas.

[dipsydoodle]

23. Been meaning to give you this

A classic Stella Artois tv advert : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMGM73gb1b4

[intaglio]

25. thanks! n/t

[Stella_Artois]

30. Cheers !

I've had a few bottles tonight, as coincidence would have it :)

[IndianaGreen]

26. I saw that TV show, it was called "The Desert Rats"

and how is this going to acccomplish anything?

[Joe Bacon]

27. Gee, where's the RAT PATROL when you need them?

:crazy:

[tabasco]

32. Somebody's been watching reruns of Rat Patrol.

Let's hope Rummy doesn't get any clever ideas.

[gratuitous]

34. Oh great, the media's tipping off Rommel!

Traitorous bastards of the Fourth Estate. Now Rommel will know what's coming in Iraq, and be able to thwart the Tommies' intentions. Plant another row in the Victory Garden for the casualties of war.

[PurityOfEssence]

36. If you think the LRDG defeated Rommel, you'll believe anything

Yes, it's a useful tactic, but the very idea that these guys beat he Afrika Korps is silly fantasy that sounds like it comes from watching too many bad movies.

[bemildred]

37. 54 rounds in one night bespeaks the absence of adequate means of reply.

Where is the counterbattery fire? Where the air support? Hmmm.