ARmy Rumour SErvice

Originally Posted by Outstanding

Originally Posted by One_of_the_strange

It cannot succeed, and I stand amazed that anyone can seriously think it was ever possible.

Senior Army commanders obviously thought it possible, or was that promotion they could see?

Sadly advanced rank does not as and of itself confer common sense or the ability to mould the world by the power of positive thinking. As anyone who's watched "A Bridge too Far" knows. "But there's a couple of panzer divisions next to the DZ General !" "No there aren't, you're only an Int Corps Major so you must be wrong".

Originally Posted by Goatman

Indeed of the six deaths in Afghanistan since the deployment, half have been from other arms. The infantry do have a challenging task but so do all our forces in Afghanistan. Airpower, artillery, light armour and others are involved in combat. But the work done by the Provincial Reconstruction Team, the training teams, and those who enable the others to operate is every bit as essential to eventual success. Some more infantry are indeed deploying, but the fundamental balance of combat forces, to others carrying out vital roles, will not change, and this is because the mission has not changed.



Good luck and God speed to all involved in the new deployment - especially the TA medics of 212 Field Hosp.

Le Chevre

To me, this is a fundamental sign of a lack of infantry troops. Granted they are all still soldiers, but non teeth arm troops should not really be in a position to be killed by enemy fire. One bn of inf role troops is not enough to cover the area in strength. I would expect at least another bn to be deployed to provide more flexability and/or depth. Instead, the only inf troops being sent, equiv to two and a half companies, are going in a force protection role. So the single bn (3 Para? sorry cant remember which) will still be in a self supporting position.

The comment of half of the deaths being non inf is unfair too. If memory serves it currently stands at 1 para reg, two SF, 1 RHA. 1 Int and one sigs. Some may disagree, but i would include rha as a teeth arm so terming him as non inf is semantic at best, pedantic at worst...

I echo the above though, good luck, godspeed and good hunting to all those soon to be in harms way.

Originally Posted by One_of_the_strange

Originally Posted by Outstanding

Originally Posted by One_of_the_strange

It cannot succeed, and I stand amazed that anyone can seriously think it was ever possible.

Senior Army commanders obviously thought it possible, or was that promotion they could see?

Sadly advanced rank does not as and of itself confer common sense or the ability to mould the world by the power of positive thinking. As anyone who's watched "A Bridge too Far" knows. "But there's a couple of panzer divisions next to the DZ General !" "No there aren't, you're only an Int Corps Major so you must be wrong".

A slight disservice to Gen 'Boy' Browning, even as played by Dirk Bogarde in the fillum. He was under a lot of pressure to find a role for the Airborne.....and it was also

" Dutch intelligence ? How do we know they can be relied on ? They could have been turned by the Gestapo, feedin' us misinformation..."

I think Cornelius Ryan makes the point that the inevitability factor crept in......nobody wanted to face bad news or order a 'go around' and the Paras were champing at the bit for a large scale action.......should have analysed the Battle of Crete a bit harder methinks....

Le Chevre

GMan,
Thanks for the Arnhem piece, but really this is about what is happening now in Afghanistan where several versions of General Melchett are trying to garner promotion, decorations, knoighthoods and glory based on the back of their own poor initial decision making. They were so keen to get on the ground they didn't really consider the consequences. A brief look at history (The Russians got the boot about 15 years ago) would indicate that waving your w*illy in a hornets nest can be painful.

In the words of Bob the Builder "Can we fix it?" - urrm that'll be no then!!

Originally Posted by Outstanding

A brief look at history (The Russians got the boot about 15 years ago) would indicate that waving your wully in a hornets nest can be painful.

In the words of Bob the Builder "Can we fix it?" - urrm that'll be no then!!

We are in danger of violent agreement wings....one of the things I hope HAS happened is really close analysis of Soviet anti-Mujahideen tactics....what did they get wrong and why ? Did they get ANYTHING right and can we copy/improve ? WHERE did they identify Terr caches/safe houses etc etc Maybe Darth Doctrinus can reassure us both.

Only one advantage I can think of, which may be a slender reed....just how long would the Muj have resisted Uncle Joe without aid from and sanctuary in Pakistan via their friends in ISI/CIA etc ?

Seems to me the critical area for some close engagement is actually PAKISTAN, not least amongst the IDPs still there......


Le Chevre

Medal chasing. First time I have seen anyone mention this particular subject. Ouch. Have seen it at first hand. Not pleasant. Must read up on Vietnam, I think they found a cure for it.

Originally Posted by hansvonhealing

from the 'Independent'
A ruthless enemy, a hostile population and 50C heat
By Thomas Coghlan in Musa Qala, Helmand and Justin Huggler
Published: 09 July 2006

In Musa Qala, on the front line of the Taliban insurgency against British troops in southern Afghanistan, a pick-up truck packed with heavily armed men roared up the main street. They were just 50 yards from the local district governor's house, a building pitted by bullet and rocket-propelled-grenade strikes, where British commanders were meeting tribal elders.

The gunmen in the pick-up were wearing black robes and large black or white turbans, common tribal dress in Helmand - but also the uniform of the Taliban. Who were they? A terrified local shopkeeper replied: "They could be the governor's militia, or they could be Taliban. We can't tell the difference. But you should leave right now."

One British soldier told how his unit had come under intense fire from the Afghan police, who are supposed to be their allies. "They fired and manoeuvred straight past our vehicle," said the soldier, from the Parachute Regiment Pathfinder Unit. "They could clearly see that we weren't the Taliban, but they still kept firing, and we have intelligence that they had Taliban fighters with them." The gun battle lasted two hours, and the British had to abandon a vehicle.
More here.. http://news.independent.co.uk/world/...cle1168220.ece

Whilst the Indy is a class paper and objective in most things, i believe that since the Gilligan affair it has taken an anti government stance (as has most of the media) and cannot be trusted in its war reporting. Personally I take everything with a large pinch that isn't verified by several other media outlets, or anything that uses anonymous sources.

Originally Posted by Goatman

Originally Posted by Outstanding

A brief look at history (The Russians got the boot about 15 years ago) would indicate that waving your wully in a hornets nest can be painful.

In the words of Bob the Builder "Can we fix it?" - urrm that'll be no then!!

We are in danger of violent agreement wings....one of the things I hope HAS happened is really close analysis of Soviet anti-Mujahideen tactics....what did they get wrong and why ? Did they get ANYTHING right and can we copy/improve ? WHERE did they identify Terr caches/safe houses etc etc Maybe Darth Doctrinus can reassure us both.

Only one advantage I can think of, which may be a slender reed....just how long would the Muj have resisted Uncle Joe without aid from and sanctuary in Pakistan via their friends in ISI/CIA etc ?

Seems to me the critical area for some close engagement is actually PAKISTAN, not least amongst the IDPs still there......


Le Chevre

Good points.

I would also ask, who were the muhajadeen and where were they operating from - that is, were the battles against the Soviets mainly fought in Helmand or were there battles all over the country. Were the attrition rates similiar between the Soviets and NATO etc etc