Discussion in 'The Intelligence Cell' started by Fifth_Columnist, Aug 28, 2006.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Just read this report:

    Telegraph Front Page 28 Aug 06

    It seems quite clear that, whatever the successes achieved in individual actions, 600 men are not going to control Helmand Province, regardless of how often they use air strikes to help. The paper points out that Helmand is the same size as Scotland, and 600 men can do nothing more than react to isolated pockets - like squeezing a balloon, the Taliban will just pop up somewhere else.

    So, from a professional G3 point of view, how many 'bayonets' would you actually need to do the job properly?
  2. More than we have.
  3. Well the Russians have failed throughout history and they had masses of troops.
  4. DPM

    DPM Old-Salt

    Depends what they're there to do...

  5. How many blokes are in the Chink army? could always ask them for a hand.
  6. The Ivans had something like 120,000 troops in Afghanistan in 1985 and they still got their arrses handed to 'em! You would probably need, at the very least, half that number just to get a handle on the situation in Helmand province, let alone do anything constructive.

    All this hot air being spouted off about having the situation under control is an absolute boad of lollocks and completely disregards the pressure on the lads out there. Pollies and brass following this line should be slowly strangled with their own intestines.

    I'm very fearful that the casualty numbers are going to creep ever higher until somebody grows a pair and hauls the British Armed Forces out of a no-win situation.

  7. This does seem to be the nub of the problem. At the moment, all our lads can do is the best with what they have got, taking the low-level drip of casualties but with no prospect of making any real progress. All as a political fig-leaf.

    I assume that, if you had, say 30,000 on the ground in Helmand alone, you should be able to garrison the place in such a way as to suppress the violence within the province. Presumably this would just mean the Taliban would move to the other provinces and sit it out until the West's political will dissolves. If you wanted to do it properly, you would probably need 30,000 in every province simultaneously.

    All of them, reservist included. Say 120,000.
  9. Sorry, but your 120,000 wouldn't even scratch the surface (ask the Ivans).
    If you really want to "do" the place properly, you'd need something like ten times that amount of troops if you want to have the beating of the Taliban. Anything else is unrealistic and asking for a good shoeing.

    The only reasonable thing to do is to pull all troops out and let them get on with it.

  10. For once Bugsy i totally agree with you .If men who know a damn sight
    more than us about military planning , get it wrong (ala Afganistan now)
    How the hell can us lot on arrse put a number of men required to do
    the job . Lets get out of there asap.

    none just bomb the fcuk out of the place.
    failing that.

    nuke the place.

    Why dont we just get out and stay out.
  13. We have to remember that the Russians had 120K including conscripts, are we now saying that Ivans of 85' are a match man for man of our boys? Also all the time the soviets were there, the Yanks were feeding all the kit and advisors they could in, it was WWIII by proxy. Afghanistan now is a different situation, the yanks pasted the Taleban and some of the country supports the current government. Our equipment has moved on where as the AK is still an AK. Don't get me wrong I couldnt say how many men we need, I do think if we're staying we should be destroying all the drugs we can find whilst supporting the farmers with an laternative income that exceeds the money from the drugs. But I will say this, to compare our job with the Russian one in the 80's is wrong.
  14. I think the comparison is very apt. The only thing that's changed is the identity of the occupiers. Otherwise, the "enemy" is the same (with 20+ years of guerrila warfare experience) and so is the landscape. Have you ever actually been there? That is one very fückin' wrinkly country, man! The Ivans tried their best for ten years and never got anywhere. In fact, nobody's ever got anywhere in Afghanistan, including the Brits (twice). So what makes you think that it's going to be different this time? Improved weapons? They only work if you can bring them to play against a foe. But if the enemy's already disappeared into the folds of the earth, the improved weapons don't help much.

    As many have said, the best thing is to get out as soon as possible.

  15. No I've not been there, no doubt I'll get my turn, have you?

    Staying or going is not my decision. I still stand by my statement, that we could do a better job than the Russians did. By the way, Russia lost 15,000 and 500,000 wounded in Afghanistan.