Talk:Bravo Two Zero
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions. | ||||||||||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. | ||||||||||
|
|||||||||||
The claims in McNab's and Ryan's books that the patrol walked 20km and had firefights with Iraqi armour have been heavily criticised and I think even the relatively watered down text on the page at the moment goes too far, even if you don't accept all of Michael Asher's claims. Coburn was on the patrol and does not support them; indeed, part of his case in the court proceedings was that the accounts given by McNab and Ryan were fictitious. I think all agree they obviously had some engagement, with armed locals or with soliders, and walked some distances, but nothing like the superhuman efforts claimed by McNab and Ryan. I think some redrafting or at least acknowledgement of the controversy over the distances covered and the enemy engaged should be made JRJW 20 December 2005There is a program "The real Bravo Two Zero" that re-creates Mc Nab's mission.....The findings are quite different than his accounts.
People have been reading too much into Michael Asher's unconvincing account; Michael Asher had an axe to grind and ground it heavily, basing his argument on the shaky points that Ryan and McNab's accounts differ, and that Bedouins don't lie. This article is heavily influenced by Michael Asher's book, written a decade after the event by walking through the region where Bravo Two Zero operated. I feel this must be corrected 139.168.41.98 12:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC).
I have read Asher's book, and find that it is convincing in some respects - notably, when he points out inconsistencies between the objective facts 'on the ground' (such as distances, habitation, landscape features) and the accounts of both McNab and Ryan. However, I found it less convincing in other respects; in a number of instances he seems very ready to jump to a conclusion based on circumstantial matches between what he finds and what he expects; for instance, is a given cairn of stones actually the remnants of a 'sanger' left by the patrol, or is its presence just a co-incidence... is there another pile of stones elsewhere which is the 'real' one, or is there simply no 'real' pile of stones left to be found any more? While it's often tempting to believe Asher's reconstruction, and on balance it seems a more plausible account of the patrol's likely movements over the terrain in question, too much of his evidence is circumstantial for his conclusions to be regarded as definitive. On one point, though , I agree absolutely that the text of this wikipedia entry ought to be amended: however accurate any of the given accounts are, it seems overwhelmingly unlikely that the initial 'insertion' march covered anything like the distances described in the books other than Asher's.
Chris Ryan- Pseudonym? I was under the impression that Chris Ryan's name was his real name, not a Pseudonym, also why he appears on Television as himself, unlike Andy McNab whose face is hidden. User:86.140.120.224 14:38 9 June 2007
Chris Ryan is indeed a pseudonym - McNab first gave him the name 'Chris' in Bravo Two Zero and perhaps he chose to keep that name for his own work. A number of ex U.K. Special Forces personnel have gone on to media careers, some use their own names and do not disguise their identities whilst others choose to keep both hidden. McNab has said that his decision to remain unseen was out of consideration to others with whom he had served on sensitive operations in the past (particularly in regard to Northern Ireland.) He has also said that this anonymity allows him to enjoy a degree of freedom of movement in public.
Chris Ryan- Exaggerating the amount of enemy troops encountered?
Upon studying both books it appears that Ryan's account of the patrol's compromises with the enemy appear to largely correspond with Asher's research, and from the Wikipedia article, Coburn's and Dinger's accounts. Assume the exaggerations were just McNab's hyperbole rather than Ryan's?
Wrong equipment!!! Weapons Of the eight man patrol the weapons carried by the patrol members were: four fn minimi whilst the others had m16 with 203 thry were not "colt commandos"(which has a collapsible butt stock) there are many pictures in the books which show the rifles with fixed stocks. Food In the article it talks of the MRE(meals ready to eat) which is American, the SAS is British. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.135.236.235 (talk) 09:22, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
All SAS accounts make a big deal of how they often steal equipment from the Americans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.97.237.50 (talk) 00:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Greek Sea?
The summary mentions the "Greek Sea". I've never heard of any sea called the "Greek Sea". Does this mean the Aegean Sea? Wardog (talk) 10:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
It would seem so, yes. It's a bit unclear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.97.237.50 (talk) 00:11, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
