| Submit your comments on this article |
| Afghanistan |
| British general to command American troops -- first time since 1944 |
| 2006-05-02 |
| Break-down of number of troops by country at site A THREE-STAR British general who takes control of Nato operations in Afghanistan this week will have thousands of American combat troops under his command — the first time this has happened since General Bernard Montgomery took charge of the US 9th Army in late 1944. Lieutenant-General David Richards’s command will cover every region of the country by September and include about 8,000 US combat troops, who are engaged in counterinsurgency and reconstruction programmes in eastern Afghanistan. They currently come under US Central Command. Under the leadership of General Richards, who heads Nato’s Allied Rapid Reaction Corps, the International Security Assistance Force (Isaf) in Afghanistan is spreading its wings to encompass the southern and eastern provinces with a total of 15,000 troops. In the south, in Helmand province, 3,300 British troops with full combat potential will be operational by the end of July. The only soldiers who will remain strictly under the control of US Central Command will be American special forces and covert operators engaged against al-Qaeda in Operation Enduring Freedom. General Richards, 54, a keen student of military history, will not need to be reminded of what happened to Monty when he was handed overall command of the US 9th Army during the Battle of the Bulge in the Ardennes — the largest land battle of the Second World War. The Americans had already suffered huge losses and did not take kindly to remarks from Monty at a press conference when he boasted that he had defeated the Germans. His command of the American troops was swiftly withdrawn. General Richards will also be wary of any comparisons with Britain’s 19th-century role in Afghanistan during the “Great Game” against the Tsarist Russian Empire, immortalised by Rudyard Kipling in his novel Kim. Britain, this time in its Nato role, is involved in a wholly different endeavour, seeking to spread the authority of the Afghan Government across the country by a mixture of hearts-and-minds diplomacy and robust defence against hostile opponents, and by extending troop presence to areas where drug barons and warlords have traditionally dominated. Yesterday a suicide bomber struck against US forces just outside Kandahar on the road to Helmand. One soldier was left with nails embedded in his head, but was stable. Over the weekend Canadian troops clashed with Taleban rebels in Helmand province. No Canadians were injured but up to 20 rebels were killed. On Sunday the body of an Indian telecommunications engineer was discovered beheaded after he was abducted on Friday in the southern province of Zabul. The British mission to reconstruct southern Afghanistan will be set right in the middle of the increasing violence. |
| Posted by:Sherry |
| #18 AT Kasserine US ground troops were under overall Brit command, whom had them spread out over wide fronts in vain attempt to control same; the Stuart or Jenny tank, while inferior to heavier German tanks, proved to be well-suited for the light recon role where speed was more essential than firepower; the Lees by most accounts were well-liked by the Brits - its interior was roomy and comfortable, while its main gun could stop any German tank wid one or a few shots, includ the [early]TIGER series. As for the Devastators at Midway, as were the newer modern TBF Avengers, performance aside it must be remembered that they were grossly outnumbered by the Japanese naval CAP, as much as 4:1 or 5:1 per Devastator/TBF, combat odds which only increased against the small numbers of attacking American carrier torpedo planes as the Japanese first strike againt Midway was also in process of returning to their carriers. It must also be remembered that the USN before Pearl Harbor was also already transitioning from torpedo-only or dive attack-only air to aircraft capable of cheaper [$$$ + lives] + more effective multi-role attack or flight missions - the US Army Air Corps/Air Forces did the same thing but later in the war, e.g. fighters armed with bombs-rockets, Thunderbolts armed wid two torpedoes, ....etc. While there were serious problems wid US torpedoes early in the war, enough of them worked to cause worry and heartache to many a Navy or Merchant Marine son of Nippon. As for US battleships, iff their performance in surface combat against the more modernized Japanese BB's from Guadacanal-Solomons campaigns to Leyte Gulf is any measure, US BB's could 've done very well against German or Italian Battleships. Its fair to say that, knowing the lead times in years or decades both the Germans and Japanese had in modernizing or dev their classes of warships, the US Navy would've attempted to match type of ship(s) wid the imminent or known enemy threats -in the Battle for the Atlantic, it is more likely the USN would've sent a newer NORTH CAROLINA-class, NEW MEXICO-class, or SOUTH DAKOTA-class to fight or sink the BISMARCK, NOT THE PRE-PEARL HARBOR NEVADA-CLASS, ETAL. HOWEVER POWERFUL OR ARMORED, WHICH THE PEARL HARBOR BB's WERE DESPITE THEIR ARCHAIC APEARANCES. I have no doubts a NORTH CAROLINA or SOUTH DAKOTA, or any pre- or post-Pearl Harbor BB, could've heavily damaged or even sunk the BISMARCK. As for the P40, a close look at USAAC/USAAF combat records will show they shot down many an ME109 or other Luftwaffe aircraft both in the Battle of Britain and over North Africa, as ditto for the P40 against the famed Japanese Zero. WE AMERICANS FOR SOME REASON LIKE = LOVE TO UNDER-RATE OUR WEAPONS. Despite the detriments wrought by isolationism and the Depression, we learned from our mistakes, caught up with the enemy, and won. Just remember, JOE STALIN himself > SOVIET RUSSIA + BRITAIN + EUROPE, WHETHER SEPARATELY OR TOGETHER, COULD NOT DEFEAT HITLER AND NAZI GERMANY [and by extens JAPAN]WITHOUT AMERICA. Many of Stalin's and Mao's boyz shot at Amer soldiers, units, planes and ships even as American forces was trying to help them fight and win against Adolf and Tojo. |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2006-05-02 21:48 |
| #17 Wasn't Monty in charge of Operation Market Garden? I understand he put both the 82nd and 101st in quite a pickle back in Sept. '44. |
| Posted by: Lancasters Over Dresden 2006-05-02 21:45 |
| #16 Deacon: "Cumbersome" generals? I've known one or two, yes. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2006-05-02 19:39 |
| #15 AlanC the rank of Major General was once know as Seargent Major General but that was rather cumbersome so the Seargent was dropped. That's why a Lt General outranks a Major General. |
| Posted by: Deacon Blues 2006-05-02 19:37 |
| #14 "Glad we didn't have to nuke Brusells from Iceland." An opportunity lost. |
| Posted by: Whamp Pholuth6661 2006-05-02 18:59 |
| #13 Now JFM let's be nice. How many of those A-20s did France scream for? And while the Grant and Lee were no great shakes, the British took every damn one we could ship. To be honest a lot of US R&D money was being spent on stuff that wouldn't be usable for a year or two, the B-29 and the B-36, also high energy weapons in case Europe couldn't defend itself. Luckily it worked out well. Glad we didn't have to nuke Brusells from Iceland. |
| Posted by: 6 2006-05-02 18:55 |
| #12 Just for clarification - FM 100-8 When participating in a multinational operation, the senior commanders must agree early on the type of C2 authority that will govern the operations of the forces. In any multinational operation, the US commander retains command over all assigned US forces. The US chain of command runs from the NCA to the combatant commander. The chain of command, from the President to the lowest US commander in the field, remains inviolate. The definitions shown in this section demonstrate the complexity of multinational operations. Subtle differences in terms, especially operational control, cause confusion even among allies with a long history of multinational operations. Although political considerations are critical, a clear point must be established where political structure ends and military structure begins. The MNF commander should report to the combatant commander or a subordinate joint force commander (JFC), who acts as a buffer between political leadership and military structures. This might mean that a US corps commander designated as the commander of the joint task force (CJTF) is the political-military buffer, and the deputy corps commander controls military operations as a joint force land component commander (JFLCC). The combatant commander determines the specific relationship. Congress' power per Article I, Section 8, in writing the laws governing land and naval forces results in this situation. |
| Posted by: Angath Huperens3717 2006-05-02 18:26 |
| #11 Well, JFM, there was one other thing in the inventory which was good: George S. Patton. He was the man who took the Kasserine Pass losers and whipped them into winners. I'm sure you already knew this - I'm just reminding you, lol. |
| Posted by: Clomoque Chaique8020 2006-05-02 17:35 |
| #10 Because it worked out so well at Kasseriene Pass "I have never seen so bad soldiers in their first combat and who improved so fast fpr the second" (Erwin Rommel referring to American soldiers). Kasserine pass was the first real combat for the American soldiers and they sucked at it. In fact it was basically the whiole US Armed Forces who sucked after the severe budget cuts from the Roosevelt adminstration durintg the thirties (all while going in a colllisioon course gainst Germany and Japan) it was unprepared. Just remember the obsolete air tactics in early war, the torpedos who didn't explode, the battleships only in name (most of those were sunk at Pearl Harbor but they were not even to 1918 standards), the Stuart and Lee tanks, the apalling Devastators, the Brewster Buffalos, and the fact that in 1942 America had nothing better that the P40 who was outclassed even by 194O vintage Meseserchmitts 109E and Spittfires Mark II. Also what was in the development line (Thunderbolts and Lightnings) was not that great while the P51 Mustang (unavalaible by 12/7/41) it was rejected by the USAAF and it was the British who sponsored its development. The only thing who was real good inn the American inventory in 1941 was the B17 bomber (and the bombers in developmebnt were also very good). Perhaps because bomber technology was in fact not that different from the one for airliners while fighters are "standalone" technology and benefit far less from advances in civilian aircraft. |
| Posted by: JFM 2006-05-02 17:07 |
| #9 Because it worked out so well at Kasseriene Pass... |
| Posted by: mojo 2006-05-02 16:01 |
| #8 The mnemonic we taugh troops for General rnak precedence was: Be My Little General 1 star Brigadier General (brigade, major base commands) 2 stars Major General (Division Commanders) 3 stars Lt General (Corps Commanders) 4 stars General (Large Command commanders) |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2006-05-02 15:58 |
| #7 And provisionally, the Canadians under Harper. Though Chretien's malign neglect of the Canuckian military will prolly take years to fix. |
| Posted by: Seafarious 2006-05-02 14:46 |
| #6 Lieutenant is lower in rank than a Major, but, a Lieutenant-General is HIGHER in rank than a Major-General (even a model of a modern Major-General) |
| Posted by: AlanC 2006-05-02 14:44 |
| #5 Granted, the only exception we would even consiger this would be the UK. You left out the Aussies under Howard. |
| Posted by: lotp 2006-05-02 14:42 |
| #4 No worries. The Britts are solid folks, though this is a major shift in US military practice. But its a good sign of the military's will to deal equally with its coalition partners. Granted, the only exception we would even consiger this would be the UK. This is what the US in Afghanistan calls ISAF South. The technicallity is that US forces are actually under NATO. |
| Posted by: Armylife 2006-05-02 14:37 |
| #3 Fixed. |
| Posted by: Fred 2006-05-02 14:31 |
| #2 Sombody did paste twice... |
| Posted by: Ptah 2006-05-02 14:26 |
| #1 Official bio here. |
| Posted by: Matt 2006-05-02 13:51 |