Taliban searching for heavier AT weapons: Coalition sources
- Thread starter Armymatters
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Colin P said:
Well-it depends where you site your ambush, or if you are firing at a ground target (chance of immediate pursuit) or firing MANPADS at a an aircraft on final approach at KIA (less chance of initial detection, even less of immediate pursuit). Parts of Kabul are literal rabbit-warrens of narrow alleys and crazy, makeshift construction. Easy to escape in, hard to pursue.
Cheers
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 11,131
- Points
- 1,160
Sorry I got partly into my post yesterday and had to run.
I agree that the “urban” parts of Afghanistan rival anywhere as one of the toughest urban environments, more suited for a mixture of wheeled and foot infantry.
However large stretches of Afghanistan do not appear to be urbanized and from what little I have seen reported it seems that a fair number of the attacks have taken place outside of the heavier urbanized areas. This means a lot of the terrain does not help mask the Taliban and will limit the number of sites that they can pull off a successful ambush and live to tell about it. It also seems that much of the populated areas seems to follow the watercourses leaving barren areas in-between. Just finished reading a book by the ex-leader of the communist guerrillas in Malaysia. He said that one of the key initiatives that hurt them the most was food rationing, coupled with the villages being centralized. I suspect that food and access to it is one of the major Achilles heals of the Taliban, the land does not appear to give much in the way of support outside of the populated areas.
I agree that the “urban” parts of Afghanistan rival anywhere as one of the toughest urban environments, more suited for a mixture of wheeled and foot infantry.
However large stretches of Afghanistan do not appear to be urbanized and from what little I have seen reported it seems that a fair number of the attacks have taken place outside of the heavier urbanized areas. This means a lot of the terrain does not help mask the Taliban and will limit the number of sites that they can pull off a successful ambush and live to tell about it. It also seems that much of the populated areas seems to follow the watercourses leaving barren areas in-between. Just finished reading a book by the ex-leader of the communist guerrillas in Malaysia. He said that one of the key initiatives that hurt them the most was food rationing, coupled with the villages being centralized. I suspect that food and access to it is one of the major Achilles heals of the Taliban, the land does not appear to give much in the way of support outside of the populated areas.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Which is why, to a great extent, they seem to rely upon IEDs and rockets on timers, as opposed to direct physical assaults. Of course, they do conduct direct assaults, but they have to be very careful about not concentrating too early or dispersng too late, or going head-to-head against Coalition firepower. I think that you are generally right about the lack of cover afforded by the terrain, but the point is that in order to gain a significant political or military effect, they have to strike where people will quickly become aware of the results (and the collateral damage risk to the Coalition is higher), so they need to operate near areas of significant human presence: cities, towns and villages.
Cheers
Cheers
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 11,131
- Points
- 1,160
pbi said:
Actually a very good point about making sure events happen in media easy areas. I wonder how much they are able to take the pulse of the various nations serving there and alter their efforts for maximum effect?
- Reaction score
- 35
- Points
- 560
Colin P said:
How much would you be willing to bet they have on-line subscriptions to leading MSM outlets and listen religiously to BBC World News Service? It would not take long for them to find the Toronto Star http://www.thestar.com/ ; the Globe and Mail http://www.theglobeandmail.com/ and the CBC http://www.cbc.ca/ and realize they play right to the defeatist mind set they need to cultivate in order to win. (Of course, they probably have lots of friends in Canada to point them in the right direction).
"Terrorism is information warfare disguised as military action"
- Reaction score
- 146
- Points
- 710
a_majoor: I was thinking what you commented just before I read it. Earlier today CTV NewsNet was leading with the story of the two soldiers injured. If every military action with any casualties becomes the lead story in our media, esp. television...
Mark
Ottawa
Mark
Ottawa
C
couchcommander
Guest
When it comes to "terrorists" we should always operate under the assumption they know a hell of a lot more about us than we know about them, IMO.
FormerHorseGuard
Sr. Member
- Reaction score
- 428
- Points
- 760
no matter how good the weapons system is made and designed and how many mods it goes thru for improvements. No matter the money spent on the weapon system. Some one will come up with a cheap way of defeating it. Tanks were the costly item on the battle field of the roughly cost $250 000 in the 40s and 50s, found out a $75 000 helicopter and a cheap rocket launcher was away to defeat it. they built better helicopters and rockets to defeat the tank. built better tanks. now the helicopter costs almost as much if not more then the tank it is made to kill. now the little guy creates away to get rid of helicopter cheaply. lots of helicopters have been lost due to ememy action in various combat zones.
now Canadian troops are in a combat zone with the new hi tech toys and the bad guys are looking for away to defeat the new toy in use. it does not have to be anything hi tech, look at the IEDs being used in other conflicts to get rid of M1a2s and the helicopters, not all the weapons used were designed to be used to destroy the weapons systems they are doing battle with.
I am sure the bad guy will come up with a new way to defeat the equipment in current use. I do not think it will be anything hi tech or very costly. just has to go BOOM.
Besides there are enough places on the earth to buy and sell weapons to defeat anything out there if you know the right person and i am sure some one on the other side knows who to reach out to and has the right connection to the money to purchase it.
if a guy in toronto can buy a gun that was purchased in the States and smuggled into Canada on the street of Toronto in less then a week after it is purchased in the States. I am sure one of the bad guys can purchase a weapon to defeat a LAV III or Gwagon without much trouble. The only solution is to stop the suppliers of weapons,and bring out another mod to the system the Canadians have in place to defeat the new bad guy system.
if nothing else a $2.00 bullet and a good rifle can slow down a LAV III, shoot and run, good sniper can slow down the crew, might not kill the LAV III just mess with the crew.
just my thoughts. I do feel that Canadians in the zone should be looking at new ways of protecting themselves and I hope no news people report on the new ideas
now Canadian troops are in a combat zone with the new hi tech toys and the bad guys are looking for away to defeat the new toy in use. it does not have to be anything hi tech, look at the IEDs being used in other conflicts to get rid of M1a2s and the helicopters, not all the weapons used were designed to be used to destroy the weapons systems they are doing battle with.
I am sure the bad guy will come up with a new way to defeat the equipment in current use. I do not think it will be anything hi tech or very costly. just has to go BOOM.
Besides there are enough places on the earth to buy and sell weapons to defeat anything out there if you know the right person and i am sure some one on the other side knows who to reach out to and has the right connection to the money to purchase it.
if a guy in toronto can buy a gun that was purchased in the States and smuggled into Canada on the street of Toronto in less then a week after it is purchased in the States. I am sure one of the bad guys can purchase a weapon to defeat a LAV III or Gwagon without much trouble. The only solution is to stop the suppliers of weapons,and bring out another mod to the system the Canadians have in place to defeat the new bad guy system.
if nothing else a $2.00 bullet and a good rifle can slow down a LAV III, shoot and run, good sniper can slow down the crew, might not kill the LAV III just mess with the crew.
just my thoughts. I do feel that Canadians in the zone should be looking at new ways of protecting themselves and I hope no news people report on the new ideas
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 11,131
- Points
- 1,160
Well hi-tech does give advantages also, Night vision gives soldiers a distinct edge and takes away a lot of the cover of night that these guys relied upon for years, they to have to adapt to what the Canadians bring to the fight. We also bring excellent communications, leadership, motivation and training. That’s a tough combo to beat. If the Canadian can keep the Taliban off balance they can win, because the Taliban has to also ensure their food supply and ammunition is maintained. They also aren’t getting the same support that the insurgents get in Iraq, the only group that is interested in supporting the Taliban are the tribes of the NW Frontier and elements of the Pakistani intelligence services and they are having their own problems. Defeating them will take military, humanitarian and political action combined.
Similar threads
