http://www.historynet.com/sir-thomas-cochrane-the-british-naval-officer-who-proposed-saturation-bombing-chemical-warfare-during-the-napoleonic-wars.htm From the World's Largest History Magazine Publisher Wed, 19 Jun 2013 19:40:14 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 http://www.historynet.com/sir-thomas-cochrane-the-british-naval-officer-who-proposed-saturation-bombing-chemical-warfare-during-the-napoleonic-wars.htm#comment-1019467 Which country today has the best trained soldiers? - Page 3 - Historum - History Forums Thu, 11 Apr 2013 14:56:08 +0000 #comment-1019467 [...] Originally Posted by Jim Casy Indeed, but I'd argue more so for the lack of usable experience of the commander of the British army (Raglan), who had last served in battle as Wellingtons aide-de-camp some forty years earlier. He seemed unable to argue (some of) his officers tactical wishes against the ones of the French allies. So the Crimean peninsular campaign became long and attritional, as siege tactics were adopted, rather than the short, sharp campaign that it begged to be. The soldiery were in themselves, relatively well trained, as the hand-to-hand combat proved, but made less effective due to tactical blunders. Although the tactical blunders no doubt masked any short-comings in the battle experience of the soldiery. An example of the soldiery being on and indeed learning from a steep learning curve, can be seen in them beginning to question some of the more lunatic orders, as they began to be able to recognise them, themselves, for what they were. The tardiness (I'm being kind here, 'b*gger off' comes more to mind) in rising from the trenches and attacking during the latter stages of the seige of Sevastopol, as they were pinned down by shelling, being a fair example of this I think, although the enervating effects of trench warfare had a lot to do with it too. My point about the Boer War, if I'm remembering those campaigns correctly, was that you had a relatively well trained and experienced army that still found itself at something of a loss, when faced with the guerrilla style tactics of the Boers and their use of the topography. Hence, in identifying the country with the best trained soldiers, I keep asking myself which country has real experience in the widest of eventualities and which soldiers might have benefitted most from them. I keep going to the likes of SAS, SBS, mainly due to me not knowing enough about SEALs and the like from other countries. To be honest I don't know enough about Crimea or the Boer war to comment fully. I just remember reading that ours was a pretty poor show in Crimea, certainly the French tended to fare better than us in Crimea from my limited knowledge. This is bordering upon fantasy, but I've always been intrigued as to how effective Lord Cochrane would have been at Sevastopol. Instead of the seige tactics used he endorsed an aggressive attack using amongst other things stink ships(early chemical warfare). I don't know how seriously he was considered for command. The Royal Navy had also lost effectiveness to an extent through relative peace. http://www.historynet.com/sir-thomas...eonic-wars.htm [...] [...] Originally Posted by Jim Casy Indeed, but I'd argue more so for the lack of usable experience of the commander of the British army (Raglan), who had last served in battle as Wellingtons aide-de-camp some forty years earlier. He seemed unable to argue (some of) his officers tactical wishes against the ones of the French allies. So the Crimean peninsular campaign became long and attritional, as siege tactics were adopted, rather than the short, sharp campaign that it begged to be. The soldiery were in themselves, relatively well trained, as the hand-to-hand combat proved, but made less effective due to tactical blunders. Although the tactical blunders no doubt masked any short-comings in the battle experience of the soldiery. An example of the soldiery being on and indeed learning from a steep learning curve, can be seen in them beginning to question some of the more lunatic orders, as they began to be able to recognise them, themselves, for what they were. The tardiness (I'm being kind here, 'b*gger off' comes more to mind) in rising from the trenches and attacking during the latter stages of the seige of Sevastopol, as they were pinned down by shelling, being a fair example of this I think, although the enervating effects of trench warfare had a lot to do with it too. My point about the Boer War, if I'm remembering those campaigns correctly, was that you had a relatively well trained and experienced army that still found itself at something of a loss, when faced with the guerrilla style tactics of the Boers and their use of the topography. Hence, in identifying the country with the best trained soldiers, I keep asking myself which country has real experience in the widest of eventualities and which soldiers might have benefitted most from them. I keep going to the likes of SAS, SBS, mainly due to me not knowing enough about SEALs and the like from other countries. To be honest I don't know enough about Crimea or the Boer war to comment fully. I just remember reading that ours was a pretty poor show in Crimea, certainly the French tended to fare better than us in Crimea from my limited knowledge. This is bordering upon fantasy, but I've always been intrigued as to how effective Lord Cochrane would have been at Sevastopol. Instead of the seige tactics used he endorsed an aggressive attack using amongst other things stink ships(early chemical warfare). I don't know how seriously he was considered for command. The Royal Navy had also lost effectiveness to an extent through relative peace. http://www.historynet.com/sir-thomas…eonic-wars.htm [...]

]]>