PDA

View Full Version : Afghanistan



herman2
10-08-2008, 02:21 PM
Jerome Starkey

THEY are on the front line of the war on terror, but German pilots facing the Taliban are insisting they stop at tea time every day to comply with health and safety regulations.

The helicopter pilots, who provide medical back-up to Nato ground troops, set off for their base by mid-afternoon so they can be grounded by sundown.

Their refusal to fly in the dark is hampering Operation Desert Eagle, an allied offensive, which involves 500 Nato-led troops plus 1,000 Afghan troops and police.

Although Germany has sent 3,200 troops to Afghanistan, they operate under restrictive rules of engagement.

They spend much of their time in an enormous base, complete with beer halls and nightclubs, in Mazar-e-Sharif, a 90-minute flight from the fighting. They also have a base at Kunduz.

Germany, which has lost 25 soldiers in Afghanistan to suicide attacks and roadside bombs, commands the Nato-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in the north. But its men are not allowed to travel more than two hours from a “role two medical facility” - a hospital equipped for emergency surgery.

The restrictions have fuelled tensions among allied troops. Norwegian soldiers, who were fighting to stem a growing Taliban insurgency in this remote stretch of Afghanistan’s northwest frontier, were forced to desert their Afghan comrades midway through a firefight when German medical evacuation helicopters withdrew.

The Germans contribute unmanned surveillance planes, an electronic warfare team and a hospital to the operation.

One Norwegian cavalry officer, who was engaged in a day-long fight with more than 40 Taliban near Jari Siya in Badghis, said: “It’s hopeless. We were attacking the bad guys, then [at] three or four o’clock, the helicopters are leaving.

“We had to go back to base. We should have had Norwegian helicopters. At least they can fly at night.”

Abandoned by their western allies, the 600 men from the Afghan army’s 209 Corps were forced to retreat until a convoy of American Humvees arrived the next day to reinforce them.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article2890985.ece

pdf27
10-08-2008, 03:06 PM
Uh, you do realise this story was published in November 2007, and hotly disputed by the Germans at the time, don't you?

herman2
10-08-2008, 03:21 PM
No, I did not.Sorry about that, I just found the article so fascinating , and wondered why you didn’t put it originally in this forum, compared to that other forum you put it in. I find your work so interesting PDF. Your comments and threads in World Affairs and Alternative History and even computer forum’s are so well articulated around the Web. I have a newfound respect for you! :mrgreen:

pdf27
10-08-2008, 04:37 PM
How cute. I've got my very own cyberstalker :D

Nickdfresh
10-08-2008, 10:02 PM
How cute. I've got my very own cyberstalker :D

LOL You've never even had certifiably psychotic females, banned from some of the most liberal (Van Halen) forums on the internet, call your girlfriend/wife and tell her she's having an affair with you yet! :)

herman2
10-09-2008, 09:21 AM
Nick, I'm still trying to figure out how and why you were banned from Armchair General?...I mean, your an upstanding member of this forum so I think you were framed!..You should go back to them and appeal. I will support you if you need references!;)

Romanes Eunt Domus

Nickdfresh
10-09-2008, 09:47 AM
Nick, I'm still trying to figure out how and why you were banned from Armchair General?...I mean, your an upstanding member of this forum so I think you were framed!..You should go back to them and appeal. I will support you if you need references!;)

Romanes Eunt Domus

Um, speaking of cyberstalkers...

Why are you following me around on the 'net...

And I got banned from Armchair General because one of the webbies there, "Admiral," is a censorship-pansy that can't take any sort of debate, even via private message. And no profanity was used...

I "insulted" him because I called him "biased" via PM, which is pretty weak, and reveals a deep insecurity on his part. The really funny part is that board, while it has many good posters, really is run by "armchair generals," as most of the mod staff have a bunch of excuses as to why they never served in the military, yet have a profound interest in stopping "Islamofascism."

herman2
10-09-2008, 09:58 AM
I wasn't following you around, I merely was trying to find other websites related to war and everywhere I go, I run into you guys.I can't help it if your so popular---one of those things you have to live with I guess..So, I read up, and learn. I'm not that interested in your Van Halen or U2 threads ..thier so boring..so I only look up war stuff, so I can learn and be as smart as you guys.:D...sorry you were BANNED though....at least I feel happier knowing I was not the only one that ever got BANNED for their opinions. Your like a regular bloke, now that I know this....it almost puts a tear to my eye...

Anyways back to Aghanistan, if i may redirect this thread...as you know the Canadian government has taken a lead in the Afghanistan mission. Lately there has been a lot of scrutiny over the cost (like the USA),,todays ctv news blerb came out as follows:
On the eve of a parliamentary report on the financial cost of the Afghanistan mission for Canada, an independent group has released their own answer on the subject: $28 billion.
The Rideau Institute, an advocacy group and think tank that largely opposes Canada's military participation in Afghanistan, said the mission will cost the government $20.7 billion by 2011.
In addition, the Institute said the direct and indirect costs to the Canadian economy due to soldiers' deaths and injuries will be about $7.6 billion.
Parliamentary budget officer Kevin Page will release his report Thursday morning at 11 a.m. ET. The report was due to be released last month, but concerns of interfering with the election led Page to delay the release -- although Canadians will head to the polls on Tuesday.
The Conservatives have pegged the cost of the Afghanistan mission from 2002 to 2008 at about $8 billion. A significantly higher cost could be a political problem for Harper.
Support for the mission is lowest in Quebec, where the Tories are struggling to gain seats in the election.
Steven Staples, president of the Rideau Institute and co-author of the report, said he may be taking it a step further than Page's estimate, but obviously won't know until Thursday.
"We took it a second step further by also looking at the loss to the economy of the wounded and killed soldiers," he told CTV.ca.
He said he based his estimate on some American studies that looked at the financial cost of the Iraq war, and included the price to health care. One such study was authored by Nobel prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz. In 2006, he suggested the Iraq war had cost the U.S. $2 trillion, about 10 times the amount previously thought.
Staples said the war in Afghanistan has also come at the cost of Canada's contribution to UN peacekeeping missions.
"We've given up so much in this war, not just in terms of government costs but also the lost contributions of all these young men and women that have died, and also internationally -- we're contributing a lot less to UN peacekeeping where we used to do a lot more," Staples said.

"We used to be Number One in the early 1990s. We had more than 1,000 troops involved in UN peacekeeping. Now we're down to something like 160. In fact, we send more police for UN peacekeeping than soldiers, so when you count the number of soldiers involved it's roughly 50 or 60."
Another report on the cost of the Afghan mission by David Perry, a former deputy director of Dalhousie University's Centre for Foreign Policy Studies pegged the bill at $22 billion.
In light of the global economic downturn and a diminishing budget surplus, Staples suggested the Afghanistan mission could put significant stress on government coffers.

"It's clear that the government's budgetary and foreign policy hands will be tied if it intends to keep our troops in Afghanistan through December 2011," Staples said earlier Wednesday in a news release.
There are about 2,000 Canadian soldiers based in Afghanistan's volatile Kandahar province.
Since the mission began in 2002, 97 Canadian solders and one diplomat have been killed in Afghanistan.

Romanes Eunt Domus

herman2
10-10-2008, 07:58 AM
I don't know how you guys, but USA has spent close to a TRILLION dollars for the war in Iraq. Canada has spent 18 Billion in Aghanistan,....and WE are complaining?? The Toronto Star Newspaper today has headlines as follows:

The Conservative government deliberately misled Canadians about the mounting cost of Canada's Afghan mission, federal New Democrats said after a new report pegged the price tag at up to $18.1 billion before it ends in 2011
"They have tried to hide the real cost," NDP Leader Jack Layton said yesterday after the parliamentary budget officer released a report that tallied the cost of the war – and also said that successive Liberal and Conservative governments were not upfront with Canadians.

"Those numbers show the costs of the war are dramatically higher than the (Stephen) Harper government has been telling Canadians. The costs are billions of dollars more. And whether it was the Liberals that took us into the war, the Conservatives who extended the war with the help of the Liberals, they haven't been straight up with Canadians about the cost," said Layton.
The Conservative government has pegged the cost of the war at up to $8 billion, not including related, long-term costs.

Yesterday's independent report thrust the issue of the Afghan conflict into the political arena in the final days of the campaign for Tuesday's election.

Off the record, I really really don't know what the hell Afghanistan does to benefit the world. It has No oil, No exports, ugly people and there all either dirt poor or dam stupid and illiterate. Why should MY taxes go up so some dirt farmer can learn to read and write? You can't save the entire world? Let the Saudi's spend their god dam money on Afghanistan. They are Muslim aren't they? They are closer aren't they? They helped hide Idi Amyn and gave him seven virgins every night of his 23 yrs in exile, so why the hell is Canada spending money to protect this stupid useless country that nobody cares about or even heard about?. The Saudi’s are so generous to help and hide and fund terrorists so why can’t they help and fund these poor poor helpless MUSLIM Afghani’s? We let half a million Rwandans slaughter each other when CANADIAN peace keepers were over in Rwanda, but we don’t do spit about that. We let the dam Afghani’s grow their Opium which accounts for 90% of the heroin in the USA, which costs USA Taxpayers billions in health care costs, not to mention the crime that subsequently arises from the habitual drug user who resorts to this to spoof his fix. Why don’t we burn all the dam opium crops and put an end to it? Oh, because some stupid farmer might not get the money from the crops to feed his 15 stupid children because he don’t use protection, while I can only afford 1 child because my taxes have to pay for his 15 children who get money from the opium he supplies my country and we are to sensitive and compassionate to harm the Afghani ‘s by burning their crops?. Give me a break!

Rising Sun*
10-10-2008, 08:39 AM
Off the record, I really really don't know what the hell Afghanistan does to benefit the world.

The same can be said of a lot of countries.


It has No oil, No exports, ugly people and there all either dirt poor or dam stupid and illiterate.

The same may well be said by some of America within fifty to one hundred years if things continue on their current path. There are grounds for starting to say it now in the minds of some people.


[Why should MY taxes go up so some dirt farmer can learn to read and write?

Because that's how most Western tax systems already work, and not always with much success, domestically? If it's a good idea at home, why is it a bad idea for other people?


[You can't save the entire world? Let the Saudi's spend their god dam money on Afghanistan. They are Muslim aren't they? They are closer aren't they? They helped hide Idi Amyn and gave him seven virgins every night of his 23 yrs in exile, so why the hell is Canada spending money to protect this stupid useless country that nobody cares about or even heard about?. The Saudi’s are so generous to help and hide and fund terrorists so why can’t they help and fund these poor poor helpless MUSLIM Afghani’s? We let half a million Rwandans slaughter each other when CANADIAN peace keepers were over in Rwanda, but we don’t do spit about that. We let the dam Afghani’s grow their Opium which accounts for 90% of the heroin in the USA, which costs USA Taxpayers billions in health care costs, not to mention the crime that subsequently arises from the habitual drug user who resorts to this to spoof his fix. Why don’t we burn all the dam opium crops and put an end to it? Oh, because some stupid farmer might not get the money from the crops to feed his 15 stupid children because he don’t use protection, while I can only afford 1 child because my taxes have to pay for his 15 children who get money from the opium he supplies my country and we are to sensitive and compassionate to harm the Afghani ‘s by burning their crops?. Give me a break![/B]

1. Because if Saudi Arabia, from whence bin Laden sprang although even he was too visibly radical for and hostile to them, was funding Afghanistan it would be Saudi Arabia on steriods without the restraint; without the intellect; and without having much to lose by a resurgence of the Taliban at their worst in sponsoring al Qaeda etc because it doesn't have oil or anything else that legitimately backs major currencies or economies. It would be a junk yard dog off the chain and leaping fences again.

2. Because the Afghanis are human beings with the usual range of good, bad and indifferent. Before the Taliban took over, Kabul was a reasonably sophisticated city with a reasonably sophisiticated population. Bombing the country back to the stone age will ensure the survival of the least sophisticated elements because they are the most numerous and least concentrated, when, at least from the West's viewpoint, the road to anything approaching success is paved with support for the more sophisticated elements in Afghan society and politics.

3. Because in places like Afghanistan which have none of the social security benefits expected in the West, your children are your social security and superannuation. Not unlike Western agrarian societies almost within living memory when there wasn't any state sponsored social security.

4. Because the invasion of Afghanistan was justified to eradicate the likes of bin Laden, but it should have been a raid with promises of more to come if they reverted to their past ways rather than a doomed attempt to try to achieve the impossible of converting the nation into neutrality at worst and alliance with the West at best.

5. So, yeah, we should have invaded Afghanistan but we were stupid to stay there and think we could achieve what no other foreign colonial power has managed, but Bush & Co were sufficiently ignorant and arrogant to think they could, and still sufficiently stupid to lack the ability to see that it's not about pride in refusing to leave a bad situation but wise to get out intact and let Afghanistan know that if it goes back to its old Taliban ways, so far as they allow the likes of al Qaeda to operate, there will be another devastating raid. From the skies, where America is supreme, rather than bogging down on the ground where, like Vietnam, Iraq, and even France in WWII, the foreign power will usually be unable to control a determined insurgency.

herman2
10-10-2008, 08:41 AM
Excellent!.Thank You RS, I enjoyed reading that.

Nickdfresh
10-10-2008, 10:27 AM
I wasn't following you around, I merely was trying to find other websites related to war and everywhere I go, I run into you guys.I can't help it if your so popular---one of those things you have to live with I guess..So, I read up, and learn. I'm not that interested in your Van Halen or U2 threads ..thier so boring..so I only look up war stuff, so I can learn and be as smart as you guys.:D...sorry you were BANNED though....at least I feel happier knowing I was not the only one that ever got BANNED for their opinions. Your like a regular bloke, now that I know this....it almost puts a tear to my eye...

I'm not in any U2 threads, maybe a few, but never on a board for very long. And most of my Van Halen stuff is currently, possibly permanently, gone.

http://www.rotharmy.com/forums/index.php?s=

And you weren't banned for your opinions, neither was I really - just the way I stated them. You were banned for being a trolling buffoon.


Anyways back to Aghanistan, if i may redirect this thread...as you know the Canadian government has taken a lead in the Afghanistan mission. Lately there has been a lot of scrutiny over the cost (like the USA),,todays ctv news blerb came out as follows:
On the eve of a parliamentary report on the financial cost of the Afghanistan mission for Canada, an independent group has released their own answer on the subject: $28 billion.
The Rideau Institute, an advocacy group and think tank that largely opposes Canada's military participation in Afghanistan, said the mission will cost the government $20.7 billion by 2011.
In addition, the Institute said the direct and indirect costs to the Canadian economy due to soldiers' deaths and injuries will be about $7.6 billion.
Parliamentary budget officer Kevin Page will release his report Thursday morning at 11 a.m. ET. The report was due to be released last month, but concerns of interfering with the election led Page to delay the release -- although Canadians will head to the polls on Tuesday.
The Conservatives have pegged the cost of the Afghanistan mission from 2002 to 2008 at about $8 billion. A significantly higher cost could be a political problem for Harper.
Support for the mission is lowest in Quebec, where the Tories are struggling to gain seats in the election.
Steven Staples, president of the Rideau Institute and co-author of the report, said he may be taking it a step further than Page's estimate, but obviously won't know until Thursday.
"We took it a second step further by also looking at the loss to the economy of the wounded and killed soldiers," he told CTV.ca.
He said he based his estimate on some American studies that looked at the financial cost of the Iraq war, and included the price to health care. One such study was authored by Nobel prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz. In 2006, he suggested the Iraq war had cost the U.S. $2 trillion, about 10 times the amount previously thought.
Staples said the war in Afghanistan has also come at the cost of Canada's contribution to UN peacekeeping missions.
"We've given up so much in this war, not just in terms of government costs but also the lost contributions of all these young men and women that have died, and also internationally -- we're contributing a lot less to UN peacekeeping where we used to do a lot more," Staples said.

"We used to be Number One in the early 1990s. We had more than 1,000 troops involved in UN peacekeeping. Now we're down to something like 160. In fact, we send more police for UN peacekeeping than soldiers, so when you count the number of soldiers involved it's roughly 50 or 60."
Another report on the cost of the Afghan mission by David Perry, a former deputy director of Dalhousie University's Centre for Foreign Policy Studies pegged the bill at $22 billion.
In light of the global economic downturn and a diminishing budget surplus, Staples suggested the Afghanistan mission could put significant stress on government coffers.

"It's clear that the government's budgetary and foreign policy hands will be tied if it intends to keep our troops in Afghanistan through December 2011," Staples said earlier Wednesday in a news release.
There are about 2,000 Canadian soldiers based in Afghanistan's volatile Kandahar province.
Since the mission began in 2002, 97 Canadian solders and one diplomat have been killed in Afghanistan.

Romanes Eunt Domus

There's probably going to be an intensification of the US mission in Afghanistan in 2009, it's difficult to predict or speculate what will result...

Rising Sun*
10-10-2008, 10:42 AM
There's probably going to be an intensification of the US mission in Afghanistan in 2009, it's difficult to predict or speculate what will result...

Probably not much different to the position in 2019 if the West, which doesn't have the Asiatic stomach for long wars, is still there.

herman2
10-10-2008, 10:54 AM
Even Australia is thinking of withdrawing their 1100 troops....I read this in the Arab news:..looks interesting...

WE’RE not going to win this war,” a British commander in Afghanistan, Brig. Mark Carleton-Smith, recently disclosed to the Sunday Times. He suggests the most that can be hoped for is to dampen the insurgency, which he believes will still be active once the foreign armies have left unless efforts are made to negotiate with the Taleban, who, until now, have refused to sit down with “invaders”.

Australia’s Defense Minister Joel Fitzgibbon agrees that a decisive military victory may not be attainable, while NATO’s secretary-general wants to find a diplomatic solution to end the conflict.

Nickdfresh
10-10-2008, 01:22 PM
Probably not much different to the position in 2019 if the West, which doesn't have the Asiatic stomach for long wars, is still there.


There's going to be a shifting away from a national gov't mentality, as Karzai is ineffective and his gov't colludes with some bad characters, to a more tribal gov't. In short, the US is going to do what they've done in Iraq and throw their hands up and begin to acknowledge that tribal divisions are real, and begin to payoff tribal leaders - as we have done in Iraq...

I also think that there will be a much more aggressive policy with Pakistan...

Nickdfresh
10-10-2008, 01:28 PM
Even Australia is thinking of withdrawing their 1100 troops....I read this in the Arab news:..looks interesting...

WE’RE not going to win this war,” a British commander in Afghanistan, Brig. Mark Carleton-Smith, recently disclosed to the Sunday Times. He suggests the most that can be hoped for is to dampen the insurgency, which he believes will still be active once the foreign armies have left unless efforts are made to negotiate with the Taleban, who, until now, have refused to sit down with “invaders”.

Australia’s Defense Minister Joel Fitzgibbon agrees that a decisive military victory may not be attainable, while NATO’s secretary-general wants to find a diplomatic solution to end the conflict.


Occupation armies rarely defeat insurgencies in other nations. Again, like in Iraq where there is no real "victory" or defeat, it will be more about buying allegiances and turning the tribal chieftains against the Taliban with money, appealing to their nationalism since the Taliban are every bit as much a creation of foreign cultures as the NATO armies are. The Taliban are little more than a bastardized creation of Pakistani intelligence designed to keep Afghanistan either under Paki influence, or terminally weak...

herman2
10-10-2008, 01:42 PM
The White House says it believes that Ahmed Wali Karzai is involved in drug trafficking, and American officials have repeatedly warned President Karzai that his brother is a political liability. It doesn't help that the President's relatives are involved in Drug Smuggling. Is the USA so Stupid...Scratch that, are we so stupid to expect a country like Afghanistan, to EVER be even close to a country like ours. We will waste Billions of dollars into Aid and defence for this country that nobody cares about and what do I personally get out of it?. Bin Laden is yesterday's news. This bloody war in Iraq and Afghanistan will never end because we are too dam compassionate about the mud hut dwellers. When The Americans captured the rebels in Afghanistan and put them in prison, the special interest groups complained that their beds were not soft enough. These people slept on the dirt floor all their lives and we have to take Bull about their beds not being soft enough?. This whole thing in Afghanistan is a waste of money and the American and the World economy collapse can somehow be connected to this shit country. (maybe I’m wrong but I don’t need to be corrected if I am. What about the health costs associated with CARING for all these American and NATO soldiers who come back mutilated and disfigured or mental in the head?. We always talk about the War in Iraq and Afghanistan in terms of how much it costs NOW, but don’t forget that a war disability pension given for the next 20 years multiplied by the tens of thousands of disabled soldiers, costs us as a society for the next generation. Who is counting this?. The physio, the counselling etc..it all cost money too. Thank You fukin Karzi… for all the good you do for this world. Without you, we wouldn’t have your Brothers Opium to get high off and addicted to. Thank You very much.

herman2
10-10-2008, 03:13 PM
For those of us from the land of Down Under, I found this info out...
FIGHTING the war on terror has cost Australian taxpayers more than $20 billion since September 2001.

The Federal Government alone has spent or committed more than $11.5 billion on domestic and international counter-terrorism measures, including the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The rest of the figure covers spending by states, territories and the private sector.

The money is being spent on everything from training special forces to deal with weapons of mass destruction to a $74 million system enabling police and ASIO to tap phone calls.

How can this small island afford it? Globally, this entire war against terror must be in the trillions before its gone. Who would have ever of thought that a towel head from the caves of Afghanistan started this all?. It wasn't a Hitler with a vast army, nope, it was some funny looking lanky guy named Bin Laden who lived in caves to hide, and probably still is.

32Bravo
11-16-2008, 01:26 PM
The jackal, a replacement vehicle for the 'Snatch' Land Rovers in Helmand.

How good are they

http://www.bolditalic.com/quotulatiousness_archive/SupacatMOS230607_468x362.jpg

Two Marines killed in jackal :

Two Royal Marines whose deaths brought the Afghanistan and Iraq toll to 300 were named today as Robert McKibben and Neil Dunstan.

The pair were on patrol in a new Jackal armoured car when they were hit by a roadside bomb in Garmsir district of Southern Helmand, Afghanistan, on Wednesday afternoon.

The £600,000 vehicle was designed to be mine-resistant and was tested last year by the SAS.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1085324/Royal-Marine-pair-killed-roadside-bomb-Afghanistan-travelling-Armys-new-armoured-vehicle.html?ITO=1490

pdf27
11-16-2008, 01:57 PM
It's a WMIK replacement, not a Snatch replacement. Compared to WMIK, it's apparently brilliant. Just don't expect it to be bombproof - you couldn't get the mobility required if it was.

Nickdfresh
11-16-2008, 03:38 PM
There's no way that vehicle is going to protect it's crew against surface IEDs, unless it's moving really, really fast...

pdf27
11-16-2008, 03:45 PM
It isn't meant to. It is meant to be a light, extremely mobile weapons platform for deploying an awful lot of firepower to remote places in one big hurry. The armour is mainly against leftover Soviet AT/AP mines.

Firefly
11-16-2008, 04:04 PM
The jackal, a replacement vehicle for the 'Snatch' Land Rovers in Helmand.

How good are they

http://www.bolditalic.com/quotulatiousness_archive/SupacatMOS230607_468x362.jpg

Two Marines killed in jackal :

Two Royal Marines whose deaths brought the Afghanistan and Iraq toll to 300 were named today as Robert McKibben and Neil Dunstan.

The pair were on patrol in a new Jackal armoured car when they were hit by a roadside bomb in Garmsir district of Southern Helmand, Afghanistan, on Wednesday afternoon.

The £600,000 vehicle was designed to be mine-resistant and was tested last year by the SAS.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1085324/Royal-Marine-pair-killed-roadside-bomb-Afghanistan-travelling-Armys-new-armoured-vehicle.html?ITO=1490


Thats got to be a Snipers dream vehicle.

pdf27
11-16-2008, 04:51 PM
Beats the standard WMIK, not least because it's faster and has a lot more firepower.

http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/09_01/LandRoverWMIK_468x327.jpg

32Bravo
11-17-2008, 02:56 AM
Beats the standard WMIK, not least because it's faster and has a lot more firepower.

http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/09_01/LandRoverWMIK_468x327.jpg

This is the vehicle with the designated name 'Wolf' is it not?

32Bravo
11-17-2008, 03:02 AM
Thats got to be a Snipers dream vehicle.

Must be.

I suppose it depends on the enemy's tactics and how they employ snipers?

1 Para were very effective using open-topped Rovers in Belfast back '71/'72. Didn't concede a single fatal casualty to sniper or bomber.

It appears to me that the enemy are a different kettle-of-fish in their use of IED's to what the Soviets were up against in the Eighties?

Rising Sun*
11-17-2008, 04:53 AM
Must be.

I suppose it depends on the enemy's tactics and how they employ snipers?

1 Para were very effective using open-topped Rovers in Belfast back '71/'72. Didn't concede a single fatal casualty to sniper or bomber.

It appears to me that the enemy are a different kettle-of-fish in their use of IED's to what the Soviets were up against in the Eighties?

As long as a vehicle is moving rapidly over rough country, it's individual occupants don't seem like great targets for a long range sniper, while a short range sniper risks having a lot of firepower turned on him by the surviving crew members, whether or not he hits his mark.

An open vehicle with several crew members facing in different directions gives a lot more vision of the likely or actual source of attacks, and a quicker fire response, than being closed up in an armoured vehicle.

IEDs fulfil one of the functions of a sniper by harrassing the enemy randomly and inhibiting the enemy by creating uncertainty about who's next and where it's coming from, yet without inflicting a level of casualties which is likely seriously to affect the battle efficiency of a unit. They also don't require the fairly rare level of skills of a sniper, and don't expose those with the fairly rare bomb making skills to the enemy at the time of detonation which can be peformed by anyone. It's not hard to see why IEDs are so popular.

32Bravo
11-17-2008, 05:40 AM
http://blindkat.hegewisch.net/lrdg/LRDG_images/30CWTtruck2wd.jpg

Not a new concept

Rising Sun*
11-17-2008, 06:01 AM
http://blindkat.hegewisch.net/lrdg/LRDG_images/30CWTtruck2wd.jpg

Not a new concept

I had the same thought when looking at the image at #24. Very LRDG, right down to the snatch strap hung on the front bumper in #24 and uncoiled in your photo.

I can't work out why the left headlight at #24 is uncovered and the right one is covered by, perhaps, a water bag? Is it a water bag over the radiator? Doesn't seem to be a cold weather radiator blind as the troops aren't dressed for that level of cold. Neither 'water bag' seems to have much water in it.

herman2
11-17-2008, 09:33 AM
I can only assume that an armoured vehicle without enclosure is a lot cooler than an enclosed armoured vehicle. I don't suppose that armoured vehicles have air conditioning though, or do they?

pdf27
11-17-2008, 12:22 PM
This is the vehicle with the designated name 'Wolf' is it not?
Not quite - Wolf refers to the Engine/Chassis combination, so you can get hard top ones as well (I've been in one). They are MUCH quicker cross-country than a standard rover...


IEDs fulfil one of the functions of a sniper by harrassing the enemy randomly and inhibiting the enemy by creating uncertainty about who's next and where it's coming from, yet without inflicting a level of casualties which is likely seriously to affect the battle efficiency of a unit. They also don't require the fairly rare level of skills of a sniper, and don't expose those with the fairly rare bomb making skills to the enemy at the time of detonation which can be peformed by anyone. It's not hard to see why IEDs are so popular.
That works both ways - it also puts a premium on being able to vary your route at random over a wide area, which means mobility is a big thing.
That's one of the reason why the Snatch rovers have been having such a bad time - they've got so much armour on them that they've got very little off-road mobility so keep getting hit by IEDs. The vehicle is just too small to provide effective IED protection - vehicles which can (e.g. Mastiff) are absolutely immense, so for instance can't drive down many streets in Iraq/Afghanistan without ripping down all the overhead electricity/telephone wires.

George Eller
11-17-2008, 12:52 PM
-

From an acquaintance of mine who returned to the United States this summer after serving a year in Afghanistan. He will not be going back and has been assigned to other duties here in the United States.

http://img408.imageshack.us/img408/8150/blackhorsefeb5thux9.jpg
(Feb. 2008)

http://img408.imageshack.us/img408/4214/daveandioo7.jpg

http://img150.imageshack.us/img150/3564/afghanroadconditions1df8.jpg

http://img408.imageshack.us/img408/1559/afghanroadconditions2vz5.jpg

http://img408.imageshack.us/img408/1331/jingletrucksx4.jpg

-

32Bravo
11-17-2008, 01:34 PM
I had the same thought when looking at the image at #24. Very LRDG, right down to the snatch strap hung on the front bumper in #24 and uncoiled in your photo.

I can't work out why the left headlight at #24 is uncovered and the right one is covered by, perhaps, a water bag? Is it a water bag over the radiator? Doesn't seem to be a cold weather radiator blind as the troops aren't dressed for that level of cold. Neither 'water bag' seems to have much water in it.

Purely as a guess -I would guess that the left light is uncovered in order to provide light, the rest, I would suggest, is to prevent/reduce dust penetration?

Rising Sun*
11-18-2008, 06:27 AM
Purely as a guess -I would guess that the left light is uncovered in order to provide light, the rest, I would suggest, is to prevent/reduce dust penetration?

Yeah, that'd be right.

Proper RH drive vehicle in American area of operations has to conform to quaint Yank LH drive so the LH light is next to the centre line.

Bloody imperialist Yankees! :D

Or, seriously, if you're right, maybe it's to draw fire away from the driver at night? He's the bloke you most want to be healthy if things get serious and you need to skeedaddle out of there.

32Bravo
11-18-2008, 07:19 AM
Yeah, that'd be right.

Proper RH drive vehicle in American area of operations has to conform to quaint Yank LH drive so the LH light is next to the centre line.

Bloody imperialist Yankees! :D

Or, seriously, if you're right, maybe it's to draw fire away from the driver at night? He's the bloke you most want to be healthy if things get serious and you need to skeedaddle out of there.


Possibly. Or possibly just a 'driving on the left mentality', lighting up the left side of the road. presumably, its not all open terrain?

Those 'waterbags' draped across the front - wouldn't you say they might be empty sandbags?

Rising Sun*
11-18-2008, 07:29 AM
Those 'waterbags' draped across the front - wouldn't you say they might be empty sandbags?

Even if they are, what function do they serve where they are?

32Bravo
11-18-2008, 11:33 AM
Even if they are, what function do they serve where they are?

Well, the one covering the headlight, is to demonstrate to the enemy that our one-eyed monster is bigger than theirs. :lol:

Rising Sun*
11-19-2008, 07:37 AM
Well, the one covering the headlight, is to demonstrate to the enemy that our one-eyed monster is bigger than theirs. :lol:

That should be self-evident, given it has to be transported on wheels. :D

32Bravo
11-19-2008, 10:51 AM
That should be self-evident, given it has to be transported on wheels. :D

Yes, and that's at rest. You don't want to get in the way at "Stand-to!" :army:

George Eller
11-22-2008, 07:00 PM
-

From an acquaintance of mine who returned to the United States this summer after serving a year in Afghanistan. He will not be going back and has been assigned to other duties here in the United States.

http://img408.imageshack.us/img408/8150/blackhorsefeb5thux9.jpg
(Feb. 2008)

http://img408.imageshack.us/img408/4214/daveandioo7.jpg

http://img150.imageshack.us/img150/3564/afghanroadconditions1df8.jpg

http://img408.imageshack.us/img408/1559/afghanroadconditions2vz5.jpg

http://img408.imageshack.us/img408/1331/jingletrucksx4.jpg

-
-

A few more images from an acquaintance of mine who returned to the United States this summer after serving a year in Afghanistan. He will not be going back and has been assigned to other duties here in the United States.

http://img224.imageshack.us/img224/3641/aamiv0.jpg

http://img224.imageshack.us/img224/1015/bfrdx0.jpg

http://img221.imageshack.us/img221/1289/tm4en2.jpg

-

You're In The Narmy Now
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htinf/articles/20070803.aspx

August 3, 2007: So far, over 20,000 U.S. Navy sailors have served in, or with, the U.S. Army in Iraq and Afghanistan. There are about 5,000 sailors in Iraq right now. The sailors call it being in the "Narmy." These "augmentees" usually serve under navy command, in support of army operations. The sailors get some additional training to prepare them for life in a combat zone on land. They carry infantry weapons and dress like army troops. You have to look closely to see the navy insignia.

Most of the navy personnel do logistic and support jobs, but some do very dangerous work. Several hundred EOD (explosive ordnance disposal) sailors have served with distinction, clearing IEDs and other explosives from roads and bases. In addition there have been several thousand SEALs (and the sailors that provide them with direct support). Finally, are the new Riverine Squadrons, who patrol rivers and coastal areas, but are trained to go ashore if that's where the fight leads. The Riverine, or "brown water" sailors serve with army and marine units, depending on who needs some waterborne help. Most of those in the narmy, volunteered for it. As the old saying goes, it's the only war we've got.

-

Turning Sailors Into Street Fighters
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htinf/articles/20080108.aspx

January 8, 2008: The U.S. Navy has ordered all sailors assigned to shore billets (jobs on land) in Iraq (lasting more than 30 days), to take a three week "combat skills" course. Naval basic training used to provide some basics of ground combat, but that has been phased out over the years. That training was there because, for centuries, it was common to occasionally arm a portion of the crew and send them ashore, under the supervision of a few marines, to take care of business. That sort of thing faded away in the first half of the 20th century, and a little later, disappeared from sailor training as well.

But now thousands of sailors are serving ashore in Iraq, and sometimes find themselves in combat situations. So the three weeks of training will get sailors up to speed on handling weapons, giving first aid and conducting convoy operations in a hostile environment. Sailors are also taught on how to handle army communications equipment, and how to speak (or at least understand) army combat lingo.

-

Sailor Geeks Go The Distance
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htcbtsp/articles/20080320.aspx

March 20, 2008: The U.S. Navy has thousands of sailors serving on the ground in Iraq, at any given time, mainly using the same skills they employ when at sea. For example, electronic warfare specialists, who normally operate complex electronic gear on board ship, have proved life-savers in helping soldiers and marines properly employ the thousands of roadside bomb jammers issued to troops operating convoys through hostile areas. The jammers are designed to be simply turned on and off, but often benefit from some expert attention. The sailors could make sure the jammers were actually working, and even tweak them to work better. The soldiers soon realized that, once the sailors did their magic, the jammers became more effective.

Sailors often run some of those convoys, and get involved in the fighting when there is an ambush. Although the violence in Iraq has dropped enormously in the last year (by over 90 percent in some areas), there are still bad guys, and roadside bombs, out there. There's less danger for the sailors, but no less work. This shore duty has been surprisingly popular in the navy. It's a change of pace, only temporary, and provides sailors to actually participate in a war. There is some danger, nearly a hundred sailors have died in Iraq. But that's less than one in a hundred who served. Enough risk to make it a challenge, but not so much to discourage volunteers. The sailors call it being "in the narmy."

-

Drake
12-18-2008, 10:27 AM
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article5327683.ece

If this is true it's beyond rediculous.

herman2
12-19-2008, 10:14 AM
YEAAAA...GO CANADA GO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
(FROM THE NEWSPAPER TODAY)

Canadian governor of Kanadahar faces uphill battle

B.C. resident Tooryalai Wesa grew up in war-torn Kandahar and went to school with Presiden Hamid Karzai

By Darah HansenDecember 19, 2008 8:25 AM

KANDAHAR AIRFIELD, Afghanistan - Tooryalai Wesa, an Afghan-Canadian who this week was named governor of Kandahar province, says he is eager to get to work restoring peace and stability to a region long marred by violence and corruption.
But residents of Kandahar say they are wary of a man whom few know personally, and wonder if the 58-year-old agricultural expert from British Columbia is up to the difficult and dangerous job that lies ahead of him back home in Afghanistan.
"He must be brave as a lion and accept all the challenges he will face. We need that kind of a man," Hajj-Ghulam Hazrat, a 45-year-old businessman in Kandahar city, said when asked about Wesa’s recent appointment to the position of governor.
Sheer Ahmad, a 40-year-old city shopkeeper, agreed.
"I don’t know the upcoming governor and his working experience, but I can say we need a strong and firm man to fight against corruption, fight against prejudice and injustice, and work for the war-torn province," Ahmad said.
Wesa, who grew up in Kandahar and attended school with the country’s current president, Hamid Karzai, said he is confident in the skills he will bring to the job.
In particular, he said his dual citizenship makes him uniquely qualified to work in a region where Canada has more than 2,500 troops engaged in battle with Taliban insurgents.
"I can talk easily and discuss everything in both a Canadian environment and an Afghan environment," he told Canwest News Service in a telephone interview from Kabul where he met with Karzai Thursday.
"I always want to be the bridge between these two people," he said.
Wesa left Afghanistan with his wife and children in 1991, eventually moving to Canada in 1995.
For the past four years, Wesa has worked as associate researcher at the University of British Columbia Institute of Asian Studies and has travelled extensively to southern Afghanistan where he’s been involved in developing regional farming efforts and strengthening local governance.
Wesa listed security as his top priority, stating that "without security you can do nothing."
The southern province is also in dire need of infrastructure, including roads and bridges that will allow area farmers better access to markets, he said.
Wesa also cited employment as a concern and said he will push for the creation of jobs for Kandaharis in ongoing reconstruction projects in the region.
Wesa is expected to be sworn in as governor Saturday in Kandahar.
He replaces outgoing governor Rahmatullah Raufi, who was fired after only three months on the job.
Raufi’s sudden departure has left a bitter taste for many Kandahar residents who complain the political instability of the governor’s office has meant much-needed progress in the region simply hasn’t happened.
"The fired governor made lots of promises that he would bring peace and stability to Kandahar, but nothing was seen or improved. He was gone and we are in the same situation," said Sheer Ahmad.
© Copyright (c) Canwest News Service

herman2
01-02-2009, 12:32 PM
A Canadian soldier who risks his life to defend the stonage people of Afghanistan is charged for murder as per article in today's Toronto Star. What a shame. This happens all too often, but tis was not like the Mai Lai massacre. What next, Canadian soldiers will be sent to jail for not saying good morning to them backward goat herders. Oh brother!@

KANDAHAR, Afghanistan – A Canadian soldier who was on hand for a bloody battle against the Taliban in October has been charged with second-degree murder in the death of a presumed enemy fighter, military officials announced today.

Capt. Robert Semrau is accused of shooting, "with intent to kill," an unarmed man in Helmand province, where Afghan soldiers, their Canadian mentors and British troops had been defending the capital of Lashkar Gah from insurgent attack.

Semrau is a member of the Operational Mentor and Liaison Team, the Canadian military unit that mentors the fledgling Afghan National Army.

The major crimes unit of Canada's military police charged Semrau on Wednesday – the same day the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service announced an investigation into a death that took place "on or about" Oct. 19 in Helmand province.

Semrau is being held in military police custody before being returned to Canada, where a military judge will decide whether he remains behind bars. He faces 25 years in prison if convicted.

Military officials at Kandahar Airfield are declining further comment.

At the time of the incident, Canadian military mentors from the OMLT were among those in Helmand for the bloody three-day defence of Lashkar Gah. Also taking part were British forces, who are deployed extensively in Helmand.

Afghan and foreign troops eventually retook the Nad Ali district centre, which had been held by insurgents, after a three-day fight. That battle, which also involved air strikes, ended Oct. 18. Afghan and NATO officials claimed at least 100 Taliban died in the fighting.

An unrelated NATO news release dated Oct. 19, 2008 – the date of the alleged incident – quotes Semrau himself talking about the experience of working with Afghan soldiers.

"Working with the ANA presents some challenges; you have to be very patient, but when you get down to the bottom of it, they are just like us and like to kid around and joke," Semrau – identified as an OMLT "commanding mentor" – is quoted as saying.

"They're just like soldiers all around the world and are some good guys."

On Thursday, an Afghan army general who was on hand for the battle of Lashkar Gah said he had heard none of the allegations of ``inappropriate conduct" surrounding the presumed insurgent's death.

Gen. Sher Muhammad Zazai said the Afghan army killed so many Taliban fighters during the fight, it's impossible to know how they all died.

The CFNIS examines all incidents involving Canadian military personnel or property in Canada and abroad.

pdf27
01-02-2009, 02:49 PM
Like it or not, if the guy he shot was unarmed and he knew it, that's murder. The Geneva and Hague conventions exist for good reason, and killing a (presumably surrendered) enemy violates every law and custom of war.

herman2
01-02-2009, 02:56 PM
Like it or not, if the guy he shot was unarmed and he knew it, that's murder. The Geneva and Hague conventions exist for good reason, and killing a (presumably surrendered) enemy violates every law and custom of war.

YA, but come on. Don't tell me you never heard of Tunnel Vision Syndrome.
These American and canadian Soldiers are on their toes over there WIRED and Ripped by the unpredictibility of being killed themselves. the Canadian Soldier was finishing a tense fire fight with Taliban and he saw a man and killed him by accident cause he was so wired.
What about them AMERICANS that machine gunned a car full of women and children last year when the car they ordered to slow down sped up due to language issues and being scared,. Did they get chjarges for Murder????NO!.
Oh, please, this stuff happens all the time in War, and unless the soldier pre-meditated the murder I hionetly don't see how murder charges can be brought upon a soldier for acting jittery or even stupid by shooting a civilian. I don't have pity for soldiers who deliberatly shoot civilians like you say but in war these accidents are acceptable. Like It or Lump it:)

pdf27
01-02-2009, 03:12 PM
The Canadian Soldier was finishing a tense fire fight with Taliban and he saw a man and killed him by accident cause he was so wired.
So you've got a solider who shoots anything that moves in a firefight. Please, lock him up and throw away the key. People like that are dangerous.


Oh, please, this stuff happens all the time in War, and unless the soldier pre-meditated the murder I hionetly don't see how murder charges can be brought upon a soldier for acting jittery or even stupid by shooting a civilian. I don't have pity for soldiers who deliberatly shoot civilians like you say but in war these accidents are acceptable. Like It or Lump it:)
I've done it myself in training. Two of us had just overrun an enemy position and were searching a prisoner (I was covering), when he suddenly started attacking my oppo, so I "shot" him. Despite the fact that several weapons had been taken off him already during the search, he was unarmed at the time I shot him. I absolutely got my head ripped off for that one (rightly), and was told that had I done that in Iraq I would have been charged with murder.

herman2
01-02-2009, 03:27 PM
So you've got a solider who shoots anything that moves in a firefight. Please, lock him up and throw away the key. People like that are dangerous.


I've done it myself in training. Two of us had just overrun an enemy position and were searching a prisoner (I was covering), when he suddenly started attacking my oppo, so I "shot" him. Despite the fact that several weapons had been taken off him already during the search, he was unarmed at the time I shot him. I absolutely got my head ripped off for that one (rightly), and was told that had I done that in Iraq I would have been charged with murder.

PDF, If I was hiding in a fox hole and you accidentally shot me, then I would forgive you, cause it would be an honour to be shot by a man of your calibre!:)

Drake
01-02-2009, 03:44 PM
So you've got a solider who shoots anything that moves in a firefight. Please, lock him up and throw away the key. People like that are dangerous.


I've done it myself in training. Two of us had just overrun an enemy position and were searching a prisoner (I was covering), when he suddenly started attacking my oppo, so I "shot" him. Despite the fact that several weapons had been taken off him already during the search, he was unarmed at the time I shot him. I absolutely got my head ripped off for that one (rightly), and was told that had I done that in Iraq I would have been charged with murder.

That should be manslaughter at best. And since the stress of such a situation in real life is immense a court would usually apply mitigating circumstances. You could of course always become a pawn sacrifice. :twisted:

Rising Sun*
01-03-2009, 05:29 AM
I've done it myself in training. Two of us had just overrun an enemy position and were searching a prisoner (I was covering), when he suddenly started attacking my oppo, so I "shot" him. Despite the fact that several weapons had been taken off him already during the search, he was unarmed at the time I shot him. I absolutely got my head ripped off for that one (rightly), and was told that had I done that in Iraq I would have been charged with murder.

A prisoner who attacks his captors in a battlefield situation might be regarded as having resumed his status as a combatant and therefore become liable to be shot.

In a training exercise I was guarding disarmed prisoners, one of whom decided to be a hero and tried to wrest my M60 from me (which I think might have been an L2A2 getting into the spirit of things by pretending to be an M60). At one point I had the muzzle under his chin and even with a blank could have ruined his day, and the rest of his life.

If that had been a real situation, I reckon I would have been justified in taking his head off, to avoid the risk of him getting my weapon and turning it on me and my comrades, and or facilitating the escape of the prisoners. If it had been a real situation, I would have shot him. Actually, in a real situation I probably would have shot him at the last moment before he could grapple with me. If I'm armed I'm not there to play tug of war and frig about with unarmed combat, which I might lose, with someone who is going to shoot me and my comrades if he gets the main section weapon off me. Doing anything but using my weapon to elmininate the threat seems to me to be a dereliction of my duty to preserve the main section weapon and to not expose my comrades to the risk of having it turned on them.

I think, as I think Herman is arguing, allowance has to be made for the whole situation viewed against the context of warlike operations. After all, an awful lot of shooting in war would be murder in civilian terms, notably all attacks, ambushes and sniper shootings, but we don't apply civilian criminal law to such events or half the army would be locked up.

Your situation was different and perhaps you could have buttstroked the prisoner if he wasn't presenting an immediate threat, but if he had a chance of taking your mate's weapon before you could get there I don't see shooting him as the wrong choice.

Everything depends upon the circumstances, including the surrounding events. For example, if you're still under fire in a continuing battle and it's just you and your mate with the prisoner it's rather different to after the battle when battlefield pressures aren't upon you.

While proper treatment of prisoners must be taught in training, I don't know that it's a great idea to inhibit effective responses by making soldiers worry about being charged with murder when confronted with split second decisions in real warlike operations. There's a world of difference between shooting an unarmed prisoner out of hand and shooting one who is stll fighting.

herman2
01-05-2009, 09:02 AM
This time a Civilian Woman is machine gunned by the Americans in Iraq and on life support. I don't think the Americans who did it should be charged with attempted murder. These things happen. In war accidents happen.
Todays article from Toronto Sun Newspaper:
BAGHDAD -- American soldiers shot and wounded a woman -- identified by an Iraqi TV station as one of its producers -- after she failed to heed warnings to stop near a Baghdad checkpoint recently targeted by suicide and car bombs, military officials said Saturday.

The U.S. military said in a statement that the woman was "acting erratic" and didn't respond to warnings from Iraqi and American troops near the checkpoint in the central neighbourhood of Jadiriyah on Thursday.

"Concerned by the danger she might present to the security forces and civilians, given her repeated failure to respond to warnings, soldiers fired two rounds, wounding the woman," the U.S. military said.

The Biladi TV station, which is owned by former Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari, identified the woman as Hadeel Emad, 25.

Station spokesman Muhsin Kadhum said Emad had just left the station and was crossing the street to get a taxi when she was shot.

"She has hearing problems, and she didn't hear the warnings," Kadhum said. "She was wearing a long coat and carried nothing in her hands."

A medical official at al-Yarmouk hospital said Emad was in critical condition.

An Iraqi police officer said Emad was walking with her husband and ignored warnings from U.S. troops to stop.

Also yesterday, an Iraqi official said two people were killed and another was wounded when a bomb they were concealing in their car exploded in the north of Iraq.

RicemanCDN
01-17-2009, 04:05 PM
My Father Just Got back from Afghanistan he is a Master Warrant Officer in the RCHA. this was his 4th tour but he said it was hell.