Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    NATO operations in Afghanistan:

    Share

    lulldapull
    Sergeant
    Sergeant

    Posts : 188
    Points : 229
    Join date : 2010-03-29
    Location : Melbourne

    Afghanistan—One American Killed Every 18 Hours

    Post  lulldapull on Mon Jan 03, 2011 3:19 am

    Boy! I remember that the Americans used to make fun of the Russian Gunships going down one every 36 hours over Afghanistan in the late 80's........now seems like its their turn to get it in the ass!

    If it wasn't for Iran reigning in the Iraqi Shia's and supporting the elected Iraqi government with serious logistical, weaponry and political support not to mention battling out the Taliban via the Afghan army with millions of dollars in aid and weaponry, the U.S./ NATO casualties would have got these fools evicted from both Iraq and Afghanistan a long time ago!lol!

    The coalition is faring worse than the Soviets did in Afghanistan 25 years ago!

    2010 Was By Far the Deadliest Year for U.S. Troops in Afghanistan—One American Killed Every 18 Hours

    Friday, December 31, 2010
    By Edwin Mora

    Afghanistan casualties

    The remains of Pfc. Jacob A. Gassen return to the country he died defending on Wednesday, Dec. 1, 2010 at Dover Air Force Base, Del. (AP Photo/Steve Ruark)

    (CNSNews.com) - With 496 casualties, 2010 was by far the deadliest year for U.S. troops fighting a war in Afghanistan that has now entered its tenth year, according to casualty reports issued by the Department of Defense and tracked in a comprehensive database of war casualties maintained by CNSNews.com.

    There were 303 U.S. casualties in the Afghanistan war in 2009, making 2009 the second deadliest year of the war.

    Almost 17 times as many U.S. troops were killed in the Afghanistan war in 2010 as were killed in 2002, the first full calendar year of the war. In the past year, U.S. military personnel in Afghanistan were killed at a rate of about one every 18 hours.

    Thus far, 1,357 U.S. armed services personnel have lost their lives in the war in Afghanistan. The year-by-year casualty count is as follows:

    Year Casualties

    2001 5

    2002 30

    2003 31

    2004 49

    2005 94

    2006 87

    2007 111

    2008 151

    2009 303

    2010 496

    Of these 1,357 casualties, 1,344 were U.S. service personnel who died from fatal wounds received in Afghanistan or from accidents that occurred there during the war. The other 13 Afghanistan war casualties include one person who was killed in the Arabian Gulf in 2010 while supporting military operations in Afghanistan and 12 who were killed in Pakistan (2 in 2001, 7 in 2002 and 3 in 2010) while supporting military action in Afghanistan.

    Of the 496 U.S. casualties in the Afghanistan war in 2010, 469 were combat-related deaths.

    Since President Barack Obama was inaugurated on Jan. 20, 2009, the U.S. has suffered 788 casualties in the Afghanistan war, which is 58 percent of the total casualties the U.S. has suffered in the war since it began in October 2001.

    After arguing in his presidential campaign that President Bush had wrongly shifted the focus in the war on terror from Afghanistan to Iraq, Obama announced in December 2009 that he was escalating the U.S. deployment in Afghanistan by sending an additional 30,000 troops there.

    Four of the five deadliest months for U.S. troops in Afghanistan have taken place since then. The five deadliest months since the start of the war in October 2001 have been:

    Month Casualties

    1. July 2010 65

    2. June 2010 60

    3. Oct. 2009 58

    4. Aug. 2010 55

    5. Nov. 2010 53

    Historically, most of the heavy fighting and thus most of the casualties, in Afghanistan has taken place during the summer months of June to September. In 2010, however, November ended up being one of the deadliest months of the war.

    CNSNews.com’s casualty database is derived primarily from official Defense Department casualty reports, but it also includes information gleaned from news media outlets.

    This year, President Obama and military officials have indicated that the process of withdrawing U.S. forces from Afghanistan and transitioning the security lead over to Afghan forces is expected to last more than three years, and will begin in July 2011.

    The commander of the U.S.-led NATO training mission in Afghanistan told CNSNews.com that coalition troops will remain in support of Afghan forces beyond 2014, but it remains uncertain how many U.S.-led NATO troops will remain in Afghanistan beyond then.

    Nevertheless, Vice-President Joe Biden said on Dec. 19 that U.S. troops would exit Afghanistan by 2014 "come hell or high water."

    http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/2010-was-far-deadliest-year-us-troops-af

    IronsightSniper
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

    Posts : 496
    Points : 520
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : California, USA

    Re: NATO operations in Afghanistan:

    Post  IronsightSniper on Mon Jan 03, 2011 7:14 am

    [quote="GarryB"]
    Basic external ballistics tells me this is not a sniper rifle and anyone suggesting so works in the marketing department of the company that makes it.
    Very simply this round is filled with HE which is not very dense and certainly not very high velocity which suggests this round will be badly effected by cross wind.

    Shooting through windows at 750m sounds very optimistic.

    It's not a Grenade launcher, it's not a Sniper rifle, it's a cross, which is why it's such a "game changer".

    If not 750, 500.

    Uh, I highly doubt you can direct fire at 450 meters with a 40 mm grenade.

    It is like shooting at targets at 800m with an M16. On paper it is possible, in combat it never happens and even if you get the opportunity there is little point.

    450m is the ballistic max range of this weapon with the stock positioned on the ground. The red and white range scales meet at 450m. Normal target engagement range is 100-200m where the technique can be used. Targets at 400m plus are unlikely to be spotted by a grunt in the field unless they are firing tracer or the muzzle flash is visible.

    Precisely. XM25 you don't have to aim high and a tad to the left, it's all inside the ballistic range (500m).

    We're talking rifle squads here, mobile men doing quick jobs. RPGs just level the room, this kills anyone inside while still having more ammo, better than an RPG in the AP role. Besides, it's only $25 per grenade.

    A foot patrol consisting of a dozen men can have most of the men carrying RPG-22s which are only 3kgs each. Plus an RPG guy with a launcher... and of course on a foot patrol in an area where the target can ambush from longer range you would equip with a few extra SVDs/RPKs/PKMs too.

    I would want real confirmation of the $25 per grenade costs.

    According to this:

    http://www.atk.com/customer_solutions_missionsystems/documents/sw_iw_xm25.pdf

    The point target range is 500m and 750m is for area targets.

    I rather doubt there is much difference in weight between this 25mm round and the Soviet 30mm grenade. The whole 30mm grenade weighs 350 grams and a belt of 29 rounds in a drum with links weighs about 16kgs.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1334114/New-US-Army-rifles-use-radio-controlled-smart-bullets-used-Afghanistan.html#ixzz16kup4Cj7

    You do realize this isn't a 30 mm Soviet grenade, and it is not belt fed and in a drum. It's in a magazine with a 6 round capacity.


    No, it can't kill a fly but it can go inside a window of a room at 750 m. Yes, you can spot a room at 750 m, 4x magnification thermal sight standard, that means night fight capability as well. Standard marines are trained to hit a car at 500, x4 sight only helps at 750.

    See above pdf.

    So in any case, Long range AP area roles, goes to the XM25.

    Yes, yes, and how much rooms can you take out with an ATGM? 3 if you're carrying the ammo. With this, 6 per magazine.

    With METIS-M the standard load is 5 missiles with a team of 3 men. with two men carrying two missiles and one man carrying one missile and the launcher.
    Much heavier and much more cumbersome but accurate to kill rooms to 2km.

    One guy can hold enough ammo to demolish far more rooms than the Metis-M can. And this is still Afghanistan, why do you need a 2 km range?

    No, you can identify a weapon from a Beretta to a RPG-7 with those sights. If you doubt me, talk to your Squad leader, he'll have a 10x magnification binocular ready.

    The AH-64D Apache has excellent all weather day night optics and cannot discriminate between a rocket launcher and a camera.

    Someone hiding in a room with the window open a crack is a very difficult target for a thermal sight because thermals can't see through glass.

    Even if you can clearly see a group 600m away all carrying Kalashnikovs how can you tell if they are Taleban or local militia?

    Usually you can only tell when they start opening fire on you.

    Oh this again :rolleyes: We aren't talking the ranges of an Apache, we're talking <750 m. A Marine can see you from 500 m with his Iron sights. This thing has a standard x4 Thermal scope. If you doubt anything, talk to the Squad leader.

    Besides, ROE, anyone with a gun that's not Coalition is hostile.

    If they have a gun I don't know who the target is, I'm killing him. Very simple. And yes, if someone does invade the U.S. and apply that policy than I have no sympathy for 2nd Amendment followers.

    The problem there is this is a war your side started and you are supposed to be rebuilding that country. When you start opening up on anyone with a gun in a country full of guns and people trying to survive then you are not only going to make a lot of enemies very fast, you are also going to undermine any attempts to bolster the Afghan Army and Police into a viable force.

    If you have that sort of attitude then withdraw your troops and just have the B-52 as the game changer and just kill everyone.

    Or of course, tell them not to carry guns, why do you think we train their Police?

    We're talking Afghanistan here, most Mujaheddin don't use muzzle suppressors.

    7.62mm calibre AKs don't have a noticeable muzzle flash during the day time and at night I have only seen a faint blue muzzle flash which hardly gives away my position.

    The SVD and PKM both have significant muzzle flash hiders.

    When you're in a dark room any light contrasts.

    Lol, how large? 2 PGs for each man that's 16 RPGs total. Not a lot. 6 grenades per magazine, and presumably, lets just say for fun, 4 mags for the operator. Already, I can destroy 50% more rooms than you.

    That would be true only if they both had the same effect. How many rooms are you expecting the enemy to be firing from? Are you assuming the Pechenegs and SVDs in the unit will not be used? There will also likely be at least two guys in the unit with 40mm underbarrel grenade launchers plus 10 grenades each.
    Firepower is not really an issue for them.

    They have enough of the effect. RPGs destroy houses, XM25 kills people. XM25 does the AP role better. Assuming they have Pechenegs and SVDs, and lets assume they also have Mortar support, then you know what we have? Every squad has a SAW gunner, every Marine can shoot 500m, which is enough in an Urban environment, assuming you replace the Grenadier with a guy with the XM25 that's basically an uberized 40 mm grenade launcher. Rooms cleared from 500m away, enemies neutralized, we go home with a guy shot in his vest.

    Not accurate enough to hit a guy in the left eye from 800 meters away and not powerful enough to take down the whole house. It's a compromise, and that's what weapon designs are about.

    If you are trying to say this is another tool for the tool box then I agree. It is the idea that somehow this weapon will make the Taleban ineffective and completely change the war that I disagree with.

    It's not just any other tool is what they should of said. You get very ancy when U.S. media over hype things and I wouldn't blame you but you got to look pass that.

    We're not shooting at Afghan government if you haven't noticed.

    When the Soviets were there in the 1980s plenty of government forces went bush and joined the Muj for a bit and when they came back they generally got back pay. I have read that the Soviet soldiers having to work with the Afghans had more respect for the abilities of the ex Muj afghan government forces than for the rest.
    None could be trusted.

    We aren't Soviets.

    Yes, I can. It's quite easy to factor in obliquity into RHAe calculations. 60 degrees obliquity doubles LOS protection. And yes, I do know that penetration factors are LOS, and usually involve a target at 90 degree obliquity. But I don't think Rosonboronexport lies, they usually put their figures at how many mm at a target how far away angled at how many degrees. For RPG-29, they say 600. Other places say 750. My calculations say 850.

    You misunderstand what I am trying to say. When you quote real life penetrations you can't be sure what angle the rocket hit... take a vertical plate of normal rolled steel 50mm thick. Now angle that at 60 degrees and if you shoot at it and your projectile hits horizontally then the projectile is not penetrating at 90 degrees 50mm of plate. The formula is the thickness of penetration equals the plate thickness divided by the cosine of the angle of impact.
    The cosine of 60 degrees is 0.5 so the thickness to be penetrated is 100mm. Because of this the maker of the tank will not say the armour is 50mm thick they will say it is the equivelent of 100mm of armour.
    If in the real world an HEAT 40mm grenade hits the armour that is able to penetrate 50mm of steel plate but because it is a low velocity weapon that came in at an angle of incidence of 60 degrees and penetrates the armour... your estimates above would give the weapon a penetration capability of 100mm but in actual fact it was just a fortunate hit angle and the actual penetration performance is 50mm. Of course there are lots of weak spots on armour as well that might also influence penetration, like hitting a handle or wheel before it reaches the main armour.

    No, I know what the Lower Glacis protection level of a Challenger 2 is. The fact that a RPG-29 got through it meant that it can go through that stated protection level and then some.


    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15482
    Points : 16189
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: NATO operations in Afghanistan:

    Post  GarryB on Tue Jan 04, 2011 1:17 am

    It's not a Grenade launcher, it's not a Sniper rifle, it's a cross, which is why it's such a "game changer".

    It is just a more accurate grenade launcher. The requirements for sniper rifles are a bit tighter than being able to hit a car at 500m.

    And how can it be called a game changer till it has actually changed a game? The introduction of anything will change a game... sometimes for good and sometimes for bad.

    Precisely. XM25 you don't have to aim high and a tad to the left, it's all inside the ballistic range (500m).

    Its ballistic range is probably more like 750m if its effective range is 500m and can can be used against area targets at 750m.

    You do realize this isn't a 30 mm Soviet grenade, and it is not belt fed and in a drum. It's in a magazine with a 6 round capacity.

    Yes, I do, because the 30mm Soviet grenade is much larger and much more powerful. A burst of several grenades from an automatic launcher will be much more effective than a single grenade fired at a target.

    This weapon is all about where the US military wants to go with its super soldier stuff, but I personally think an AGS-30 wielded to the front rack of a quad motor bike with a trailer with extra ammo makes much more sense as a light support vehicle for foot patrols.


    So in any case, Long range AP area roles, goes to the XM25.

    What if the enemy are 900m away and are firing at you with PKMs?

    One guy can hold enough ammo to demolish far more rooms than the Metis-M can. And this is still Afghanistan, why do you need a 2 km range?

    Because sitting on top of a mountain at a base you can see much further than you can shoot. When the Soviets were in Afghanistan they used all sorts of strange weapons to extend their reach to try to match their vision. AGS-17 30mm grenade launchers, SPG-9 recoilless rocket launchers, ZU-23 twin barrel towed 23mm anti aircraft cannon, 14.5mm KPV HMGs, 12.7mm HMGs were all used as perimeter defence mainly because of their range to allow that group of afghans on the other side of the valley to be engaged. METIS-M rockets have no guidance and are relatively cheap to make so using them with HE warheads against groups of enemy or rooms makes a lot of sense. The fact that they are guided reduces the chance of collateral damage. Even right to the last second the missile can be redirected into the ground if necessary to avoid a mistake.

    This thing has a standard x4 Thermal scope.

    Thermal scopes can identify a man at long range but they are not very good for identifying specific people. The target could be Asian or black or eskimo and you wouldn't be able to tell.

    Besides, ROE, anyone with a gun that's not Coalition is hostile.

    So Afghan Army and Police get shot on sight?

    Or of course, tell them not to carry guns, why do you think we train their Police?

    There is no law and order in their country... even in cities the control is patchy. These guys have had guns for as long as there have been guns. It wasn't till the US and Saudi Arabia flooded the region with Chinese AKs that they had modern weapons, most of the early 1980s the weapons were from the previous invader... 303 rifles. After a few years of Soviet occupation chinese AKs flooded the market and there were AKs everywhere. Now, before you have fully trained an Afghan Army and an Afghan Police force you think those militias are just going to hand over their guns and rely on you to protect them? When you can't even protect yourselves?
    Be realistic.

    When you're in a dark room any light contrasts.

    So does a cigarette lighter when you are lighting up a smoke.

    RPGs destroy houses, XM25 kills people.

    Lets not get ahead of ourselves, RPGs will take out a good sized room but the 40mm anti personel rockets certainly will not bring down a house. And the advertising material tells us the Xm 25 should be good at killing people but we really don't know for sure yet.

    Assuming they have Pechenegs and SVDs, and lets assume they also have Mortar support, then you know what we have?

    Fairly likely they will have PKMs rather than Pechenegs.

    And the purpose of this weapon is that it can be brought on a foot patrol and that it is accurate enough to discriminate the target from things you don't want to hit.
    Personally I think something like a motorised 30mm grenade launcher or even Vasilek mortar would be useful for dealing with ambushes from 600-1,000m range which is outside 5.56mm range.

    Every squad has a SAW gunner, every Marine can shoot 500m, which is enough in an Urban environment, assuming you replace the Grenadier with a guy with the XM25 that's basically an uberized 40 mm grenade launcher. Rooms cleared from 500m away, enemies neutralized, we go home with a guy shot in his vest.

    The problem is ambushes with the enemy firing from 600-1,000m with SVDs and PKMs and then disappearing. If they had any brains they would set up IEDs and landmines at the ambush point so that as the patrol spreads off the road to find cover they find the landmines and set off IEDs.

    You get very ancy when U.S. media over hype things and I wouldn't blame you but you got to look pass that.

    I don't like the media in general... and there was a time when most people didn't like it when their news was overhyped. When did people get so jaded that news about a new weapon was not exciting enough, it has to be the new weapon that will end the war.
    It is already in use, so lets see all the reports of the lives it has saved and the thousands of terrs it has killed without injuring new born babies in cots next to PKM and SVD firing positions.

    I can see it is potentially useful, but it will actually have some faults too.
    It will be a success if it is used against targets at 500m most of the time. If, as I suspect most of the time it is used at 100-300m then there are other grenade launchers that can already do that job with much heavier and more effective grenades.

    We aren't Soviets.

    No you are not. The Soviets had a long history of cooperation with Afghanistan. In many ways both countries were allies and the Afghans mostly used Soviet weapons and tactics and training before the CIA started their insurrection.
    The point is that the coalition in Afghanistan has pretty much tried many of the same things that the Soviets did, including bribes and dealing with warlords etc and the problem wasn't the Soviets it was the Afghans.
    Any foreigner, whether they are Soviet or American is a foreigner and there is no shame in sticking the knife in the back of a foreigner when it suits.
    We might see it as two faced or deceitful.
    They see it as normal.

    No, I know what the Lower Glacis protection level of a Challenger 2 is. The fact that a RPG-29 got through it meant that it can go through that stated protection level and then some.

    What is the actual thickness of the lower glacis plate on a Challenger 2? Not the protection level, which would be the thickness divided by the Cosine of the angle of penetration, but the base thickness.

    If you tell me the normal angle of the plate you can use the protection level to work out the actual thickness equivalent of steel plate. (it is not homogeneous steel... as you know it is made of layers of all sorts of materials)

    IronsightSniper
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

    Posts : 496
    Points : 520
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : California, USA

    Re: NATO operations in Afghanistan:

    Post  IronsightSniper on Thu Jan 06, 2011 3:01 am

    GarryB wrote:
    It's not a Grenade launcher, it's not a Sniper rifle, it's a cross, which is why it's such a "game changer".

    It is just a more accurate grenade launcher. The requirements for sniper rifles are a bit tighter than being able to hit a car at 500m.

    And how can it be called a game changer till it has actually changed a game? The introduction of anything will change a game... sometimes for good and sometimes for bad.

    It's a metaphor, because before a LRP could get ambushed by a squad sized element hiding behind a blown out house somewhere higher in elevation, this thing effectively takes that cover away by circumventing a wall or a log to hide behind.


    You do realize this isn't a 30 mm Soviet grenade, and it is not belt fed and in a drum. It's in a magazine with a 6 round capacity.

    Yes, I do, because the 30mm Soviet grenade is much larger and much more powerful. A burst of several grenades from an automatic launcher will be much more effective than a single grenade fired at a target.

    This weapon is all about where the US military wants to go with its super soldier stuff, but I personally think an AGS-30 wielded to the front rack of a quad motor bike with a trailer with extra ammo makes much more sense as a light support vehicle for foot patrols.

    Then that's where we disagree, I'd prefer one accurate grenade fragging the enemy rather than putting a couple 40 mm on their position and risk more collateral damage. It's all a PR game, you know that, more civies you kill more enemies and worser it gets at home.


    So in any case, Long range AP area roles, goes to the XM25.

    What if the enemy are 900m away and are firing at you with PKMs?

    Get in range, or call for air support, or mortar, or artillery, or any guy that's good with the M24. If all else fails, meet them tomorrow.

    One guy can hold enough ammo to demolish far more rooms than the Metis-M can. And this is still Afghanistan, why do you need a 2 km range?

    Because sitting on top of a mountain at a base you can see much further than you can shoot. When the Soviets were in Afghanistan they used all sorts of strange weapons to extend their reach to try to match their vision. AGS-17 30mm grenade launchers, SPG-9 recoilless rocket launchers, ZU-23 twin barrel towed 23mm anti aircraft cannon, 14.5mm KPV HMGs, 12.7mm HMGs were all used as perimeter defence mainly because of their range to allow that group of afghans on the other side of the valley to be engaged. METIS-M rockets have no guidance and are relatively cheap to make so using them with HE warheads against groups of enemy or rooms makes a lot of sense. The fact that they are guided reduces the chance of collateral damage. Even right to the last second the missile can be redirected into the ground if necessary to avoid a mistake.

    At the cost of mobility, and still price. Even an unguided ATGM costs more than a 25 mm grenade from a XM25, I'm not saying this replaces all weapons, we still use M2s and Mk.19s on the OPs to suppress at long ranges, but if I or any soldier were on a foot patrol and not subject to the cover of my OP, I'd take a XM25 over a Metis any day, more ammunition, does the job, and still light enough for me to carry my own stuff.

    This thing has a standard x4 Thermal scope.

    Thermal scopes can identify a man at long range but they are not very good for identifying specific people. The target could be Asian or black or eskimo and you wouldn't be able to tell.

    We're not going to try to assassinate Osama Bin Ladin with a XM25, we're going to whack anyone with a weapon.

    Besides, ROE, anyone with a gun that's not Coalition is hostile.

    So Afghan Army and Police get shot on sight?

    They're uniformed, no, if they aren't yes.

    Or of course, tell them not to carry guns, why do you think we train their Police?

    There is no law and order in their country... even in cities the control is patchy. These guys have had guns for as long as there have been guns. It wasn't till the US and Saudi Arabia flooded the region with Chinese AKs that they had modern weapons, most of the early 1980s the weapons were from the previous invader... 303 rifles. After a few years of Soviet occupation chinese AKs flooded the market and there were AKs everywhere. Now, before you have fully trained an Afghan Army and an Afghan Police force you think those militias are just going to hand over their guns and rely on you to protect them? When you can't even protect yourselves?
    Be realistic.

    I am being very realistic. We've already ousted the Taliban and now they are subject to our rule in a non-imperialistic sense. Our job now is not only to kill the enemy but to provide a means to live. We have actually trained their Army and Police, and eventually they will be self-sufficient. if those militias don't, you know what always will happen. Can't shoot down a Hellfire with an AK.

    Also, stay on topic.

    When you're in a dark room any light contrasts.

    So does a cigarette lighter when you are lighting up a smoke.

    Who lights a cigarette every couple of minutes?

    RPGs destroy houses, XM25 kills people.

    Lets not get ahead of ourselves, RPGs will take out a good sized room but the 40mm anti personel rockets certainly will not bring down a house. And the advertising material tells us the Xm 25 should be good at killing people but we really don't know for sure yet.

    Why bring 2 types of rockets when you're weight conscious? You can watch the videos yourself, good shrapnel dispersion. But of course, abiding by the Russian rule, I of course will not take the manufacturer's word for it. We'll see. But as portable area effect AP weaponry goes, XM25 beats RPG-7 in mobility, which is very crucial.

    Assuming they have Pechenegs and SVDs, and lets assume they also have Mortar support, then you know what we have?

    [quite]Fairly likely they will have PKMs rather than Pechenegs.

    And the purpose of this weapon is that it can be brought on a foot patrol and that it is accurate enough to discriminate the target from things you don't want to hit.
    Personally I think something like a motorised 30mm grenade launcher or even Vasilek mortar would be useful for dealing with ambushes from 600-1,000m range which is outside 5.56mm range.

    These aren't a Professional army. If you think a U.S. Marine can't identify a man from 750m with a x4 Thermal scope than what makes you think a Mujy can identify a man from 1,000m with Iron sights? Personally, I think if you really care about mobility, XM25 is the way to go. Anything motorized that you bring along is just bringing a huge logistical baggage.

    Every squad has a SAW gunner, every Marine can shoot 500m, which is enough in an Urban environment, assuming you replace the Grenadier with a guy with the XM25 that's basically an uberized 40 mm grenade launcher. Rooms cleared from 500m away, enemies neutralized, we go home with a guy shot in his vest.

    The problem is ambushes with the enemy firing from 600-1,000m with SVDs and PKMs and then disappearing. If they had any brains they would set up IEDs and landmines at the ambush point so that as the patrol spreads off the road to find cover they find the landmines and set off IEDs.

    You do realize how accurate a SVD is from 600+ meters? Not very. If it was an ambush combined with IEDs, Air support is usually called, in which case you can expect more Apache gun cam videos.

    You get very ancy when U.S. media over hype things and I wouldn't blame you but you got to look pass that.

    I don't like the media in general... and there was a time when most people didn't like it when their news was overhyped. When did people get so jaded that news about a new weapon was not exciting enough, it has to be the new weapon that will end the war.
    It is already in use, so lets see all the reports of the lives it has saved and the thousands of terrs it has killed without injuring new born babies in cots next to PKM and SVD firing positions.

    I can see it is potentially useful, but it will actually have some faults too.
    It will be a success if it is used against targets at 500m most of the time. If, as I suspect most of the time it is used at 100-300m then there are other grenade launchers that can already do that job with much heavier and more effective grenades.

    Bigger isn't always better, remember, hearts and minds. You have more chance of killing the baby next door with a 40 mm grenade spam, a 30 mm grenade spam, a 40 mm AP RPG, or a 105 mm TBG-7V. You have less chance of killing that baby with a 25 mm air burst grenade.

    No, I know what the Lower Glacis protection level of a Challenger 2 is. The fact that a RPG-29 got through it meant that it can go through that stated protection level and then some.

    What is the actual thickness of the lower glacis plate on a Challenger 2? Not the protection level, which would be the thickness divided by the Cosine of the angle of penetration, but the base thickness.

    If you tell me the normal angle of the plate you can use the protection level to work out the actual thickness equivalent of steel plate. (it is not homogeneous steel... as you know it is made of layers of all sorts of materials)

    It's called a RHAe for a reason, LOS thickness along with angle and materials use are taken into account. It's 860 mm RHAe, LOS is probably less. Also, this is a very wrong thread for this section of the discussion.

    Pervius
    Senior Sergeant
    Senior Sergeant

    Posts : 259
    Points : 287
    Join date : 2011-03-08

    Re: NATO operations in Afghanistan:

    Post  Pervius on Mon Mar 28, 2011 10:55 pm

    lulldapull wrote:
    Viktor wrote:Like every other major offensive it will end up with bunch of dead taliban witch changes nothing.

    You forgot to mention that it also ends up with a bunch of dead NATO troops and assorted mercenaries.


    America can print dollars fast enough to keep a steady supply of mercenaries in there. This is a tactic Russia should have used.

    If they die you don't have to pay them. If they are dead you drain their account. No costs.

    Not many NATO troops have died. More US veterans commit suicide every day because there are no jobs than War Casualties.


    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15482
    Points : 16189
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: NATO operations in Afghanistan:

    Post  GarryB on Tue Mar 29, 2011 12:03 am

    Companies like Blackwater are not the solution in Afghanistan.

    Training an Afghan Army and Police force that can stand on its own, and developing an economy that creates jobs for young men and women so they have an alternative to joining a militant group, and can build a future for themselves and their families is the only lasting solution.

    Hunting down every last Taleban will not work. Their crime was not 11/9, their crime was not handing OBL over to the Americans when the Americans demanded it. Hardly a crime that warrants the genocide of the entire group.

    Russian Patriot
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1168
    Points : 2062
    Join date : 2009-07-21
    Age : 25
    Location : USA- although I am Russian

    Re: NATO operations in Afghanistan:

    Post  Russian Patriot on Tue Mar 29, 2011 12:21 am

    GarryB wrote:Companies like Blackwater are not the solution in Afghanistan.

    Training an Afghan Army and Police force that can stand on its own, and developing an economy that creates jobs for young men and women so they have an alternative to joining a militant group, and can build a future for themselves and their families is the only lasting solution.

    Hunting down every last Taleban will not work. Their crime was not 11/9, their crime was not handing OBL over to the Americans when the Americans demanded it. Hardly a crime that warrants the genocide of the entire group.

    Its actually the Haqquni network that we need to destory for the attack on FOB Champman... But yes I agree with you. The issue is though the Afganswait for U.S Marines to do everything.

    Russian Patriot
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1168
    Points : 2062
    Join date : 2009-07-21
    Age : 25
    Location : USA- although I am Russian

    Poland extends military presence in Afghanistan until Apr. 2012

    Post  Russian Patriot on Wed Oct 12, 2011 12:10 am


    Poland extends military presence in Afghanistan until Apr. 2012


    Polish President Bronislaw Komorowski extended on Wednesday the mandate for the country's peacekeeping contingent in Afghanistan until April 13, 2012, the Polish press agency said.

    The decision was made upon a proposal from the government, led by Prime Minister Donald Tusk.

    Poland currently maintains a 2,600-troop contingent in the war-torn Central Asian country as part of the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF).

    In line with Wednesday’s decision, Poland will have 2,500 troops deployed in Afghanistan.

    The Polish authorities plan to gradually decrease the number of troops and completely withdraw its military contingent from Afghanistan by the end of 2014.

    Twenty nine Polish soldiers have been killed and hundreds wounded since Poland sent its troops to fight Taliban and al-Qaeda militants in the country in 2002.

    http://www.en.ria.ru/mlitary_news/20111012/167594727.html

    Russian Patriot
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1168
    Points : 2062
    Join date : 2009-07-21
    Age : 25
    Location : USA- although I am Russian

    U.S. army to send new helicopter drone to Afghanistan

    Post  Russian Patriot on Fri Dec 30, 2011 9:55 pm

    U.S. army to send new helicopter drone to Afghanistan


    The U.S. Army is almost ready to deploy to Afghanistan a new rotary-wing surveillance drone, the Boeing A160T Hummingbird, equipped with a cutting-edge 1.8-gigapixel camera, the army says.

    Three drones, or unmanned air vehicles (UAV) in military jargon, will be deployed to Afghanistan in May or June, after they complete flight testing in Arizona at the beginning of the year, said the US Army's project manager for unmanned air systems modernization, Lt. Col. Matthew Munster.

    The drones are capable of “beaming back information and images of the surrounding terrain” in real time thanks to the highly sensitive 1.8-gigapixel camera, the largest video sensor used in tactical missions, the U.S. Army said on its website.

    Hummingbird's surveillance equipment can “track people and vehicles from altitudes above 20,000 feet (over six kilometers) across almost 65 square miles (168 square kilometers),” the army said.

    The 35-foot (11 meter) aircraft has the advantage of not needing a runway thanks to its rotary-wing configuration - ideal in Afghanistan's mountainous terrain.

    The drones’ hovering capability is one of the unique features that existing unmanned aircraft do not have, maker Boeing says. Hummingbird also has better hovering performance than other rotary-wing UAVs thanks to new technology allowing it to change its rotor speed according to altitude.

    The UAV's sophisticated "eye-in-the-sky" technology has, however, been blamed for a number of a "friendly fire" incidents in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

    Islamabad hit out furiously at NATO over drone strikes that killed 24 Pakistani soldiers on the Afghan border in November. NATO claimed the attack was a result of incorrect mapping information.

    In early December, Iran unveiled video footage showing a captured U.S. RQ-170 UAV. Tehran refused to return the drone and demanded an apology from the Pentagon for the invasion of its territory.

    http://www.en.ria.ru/mlitary_news/20111230/170559127.html

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15482
    Points : 16189
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: NATO operations in Afghanistan:

    Post  GarryB on Fri Dec 30, 2011 11:27 pm

    Its hovering performance will be useful, but the vibration caused by just being a helicopter will require excellent physical and electronic stabilisation, otherwise that powerful camera is just a waste of time.

    BTW a 1.8 gigapixel camera would create an image with 1.8 billion or 1 800 000 000 pixels, so with a standard 4:3 image aspect ratio that would be something like a 48,000 pixel by 37,500 pixel image.

    That would take a while to load into photoshop...

    Russian Patriot
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1168
    Points : 2062
    Join date : 2009-07-21
    Age : 25
    Location : USA- although I am Russian

    Re: NATO operations in Afghanistan:

    Post  Russian Patriot on Sat Dec 31, 2011 11:41 pm

    GarryB wrote:Its hovering performance will be useful, but the vibration caused by just being a helicopter will require excellent physical and electronic stabilisation, otherwise that powerful camera is just a waste of time.

    BTW a 1.8 gigapixel camera would create an image with 1.8 billion or 1 800 000 000 pixels, so with a standard 4:3 image aspect ratio that would be something like a 48,000 pixel by 37,500 pixel image.

    That would take a while to load into photoshop...

    Yes it would, but The Pentagon has better things than that I assume!

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15482
    Points : 16189
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: NATO operations in Afghanistan:

    Post  GarryB on Sun Jan 01, 2012 12:29 am

    Hey... don't knock photoshop... Smile

    I am sure that running on a super computer it will be smooth as silk... but I bet they wont be running a 32 bit version of XP because they will need more than just over 3 GB of RAM for those images...

    Russian Patriot
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1168
    Points : 2062
    Join date : 2009-07-21
    Age : 25
    Location : USA- although I am Russian

    Re: NATO operations in Afghanistan:

    Post  Russian Patriot on Sun Jan 01, 2012 12:31 am

    GarryB wrote:Hey... don't knock photoshop... Smile

    I am sure that running on a super computer it will be smooth as silk... but I bet they wont be running a 32 bit version of XP because they will need more than just over 3 GB of RAM for those images...

    correct, if theuy like I use CS3 Very Happy

    Russian Patriot
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1168
    Points : 2062
    Join date : 2009-07-21
    Age : 25
    Location : USA- although I am Russian

    French troops to serve in Afghanistan after 2014

    Post  Russian Patriot on Fri Jan 06, 2012 12:44 am



    French troops to serve in Afghanistan after 2014

    French armed forces will stay in Afghanistan after withdrawal of coalition troops in 2014, France's Defense Minister Gerard Longuet said on Sunday.

    Longuet told his Tajik counterpart Sherali Khairullaev that the two countries would widen its cooperation in security improvement at the Tajik-Afghan board.

    France's airpower forces unit is being based in the Tajik capital of Dushanbe since 2001 to provide services for coalition armed forces in Afghanistan.

    The unit included 250 troopers and six Dassault Rafale jet fighters till 2008 when the fighters were redeployed to Kunduz region in northern Afghanistan. Current number of French troopers in Dushanbe equals to 100.

    http://www.en.ria.ru/mlitary_news/20120101/170588258.html

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15482
    Points : 16189
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: NATO operations in Afghanistan:

    Post  GarryB on Fri Jan 06, 2012 5:37 am

    I rather suspect the French troops probably have a better relationship with the locals than the Americans or Brits.

    My nephew was sent to Afghanistan a couple of years back now, and he served in a region more to the north of the country. The New Zealand force that went with him had the role of rebuilding and support for the local Afghans, unlike the US and UK who were hunting the Taleban.

    Basically that meant our (NZ) forces were not bursting into peoples houses at 3am or doing much of the fighting... which meant our troops were not responsible for "collateral damage", so they got on a lot better with the locals than the American troops and British troops could.

    The irony is that Afghanistan has supposedly huge mineral wealth potential, so if they sorted out the security situation they could be as wealthy as Saudi Arabia... but they have a culture of fighting which will be hard to shed.

    It is good that the French are not abandoning the Afghans, but I am a little suspicious of their motives.

    Mr.Kalishnikov47
    Senior Sergeant
    Senior Sergeant

    Posts : 298
    Points : 341
    Join date : 2012-02-25
    Age : 28
    Location : U.S.A

    Helmet cam footage from firefights in Afghanistan.

    Post  Mr.Kalishnikov47 on Fri Mar 23, 2012 10:44 am

    Very high quality footage of firefights between U.S (and Afghan) forces and the Taliban.

    For those of you who don't know these videos are posted by a user named FUNKER530. He's got a lot of videos so check out his channel if you like these.

    Also note the third video down is MARSOC, Marine special forces.







    Don't see a whole lot of that "single shot placement" that the Army and Marines are always bragging about, but what are you gonna do? Smile

    TheRealist
    Corporal
    Corporal

    Posts : 79
    Points : 113
    Join date : 2012-08-20

    Foreign Military Bases in Afghanistan Raise Concern - Churkin

    Post  TheRealist on Fri Sep 21, 2012 3:46 am

    Foreign Military Bases in Afghanistan Raise Concern - Churkin
    UN, September 21

    Russia wants to know what is the purpose of foreign military bases that will remain in Afghanistan after the completion of the U.S.-led antiterrorism operation in 2014, Russia’s UN envoy Vitaly Churkin said.

    “Contradictory statements that foreign troops will be withdrawn from Afghanistan in 2014, but the foreign military bases will remain there raise a number of questions,” Churkin said.

    NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) plans to hand over responsibility for security in Afghanistan to the Afghan leadership by the end of 2014, as decided at the 2010 NATO summit in Lisbon.

    Churkin said that if the antiterrorism operation was completed in Afghanistan then the purpose to keep foreign military bases there would be different and Russia wanted to know the aim for maintaining the bases.

    “If the fight against terrorism continues [after 2014], the UN Security Council will have to extend the mandate for this operation,” the diplomat added.

    The international coalition in Afghanistan has lost more than 330 troops killed so far in 2012, according to ISAF information. The foreign troop contingents are scheduled to withdraw by the end of 2014.

    http://en.ria.ru/mlitary_news/20120921/176104680.html



    TheRealist
    Corporal
    Corporal

    Posts : 79
    Points : 113
    Join date : 2012-08-20

    Re: NATO operations in Afghanistan:

    Post  TheRealist on Fri Sep 21, 2012 3:51 am

    In my view, even if NATO or the US will put permanent bases in Afghanistan it will be more as a liability rather than a strategic prize. For one you have a very hostile population who have shown their tendency to be very aggressive not to mention a Taliban that is just waiting to be resurgent. Plus add internal divisions inside the Karzai goverment.

    Afghanistan is also geographically isolated, which the US or NATO would still have to go through Pakistan or Russia.

    nemrod
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 806
    Points : 1309
    Join date : 2012-09-11

    Incredible! Karzai refused to meet Obama

    Post  nemrod on Mon May 26, 2014 1:58 pm


    Incredible! When a slave rebeled against his master.
    What is Karzai else, a yokel, hick, an is-nothing, that could wash maybe once per year. Today, "Mr" -maybe not far from the Drug barron, as Afghanistan is becoming one of the top producers of Opium- Karzai refused a convocation, and what else ? It was a time where for far less than that, a president might be overthrown. The "Mr" -I have scruples to say "Mr"- Karzai was simply a little puppet that was placed by americans after they invaded Afghanistan. They realized that it was better to place a puppet -even though, this clown has no power- in order to give to the afghan population a feeling, that there could still exist an afghan adminstration, instead to govern themselves the country -2.000 metters average altitude- with a pro-consul like they did with Paul Bremer in Iraq.
    In fact since the beginning this idiot has never any power other than to say "yes" to US requests. Nevertheless, it seems that he does not want to commit to american request. I say it seems. What does it mean ? If it is true, then US ceased to be an empire because it could not order to its close puppets to obey to a mere request. Else, America is preparing the end of Karzai in order reinforce its presence in Afghanistan. Did the taliban-behind them Pak- accept american requests ? Or Will they completly to withdraw from Aghanistan ?
    If someone among you has more info, please...

    http://news.yahoo.com/karzai-refused-meet-obama-bagram-air-says-us-185356420.html


    George1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 9451
    Points : 9943
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: NATO operations in Afghanistan:

    Post  George1 on Mon Jan 05, 2015 12:17 pm

    Obama, Hagel Mark End of Operation Enduring Freedom

    WASHINGTON, Dec. 28, 2014 – President Barack Obama and Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel each issued statements today marking the end of the combat mission in Afghanistan.

    After 13 years of combat operations, Operation Enduring Freedom drew to a close today in a ceremony at the International Security and Assistance Force headquarters in Kabul, Afghanistan.

    “Today's ceremony in Kabul marks a milestone for our country,” Obama said. “For more than 13 years, ever since nearly 3,000 innocent lives were taken from us on 9/11, our nation has been at war in Afghanistan. Now, thanks to the extraordinary sacrifices of our men and women in uniform, our combat mission in Afghanistan is ending, and the longest war in American history is coming to a responsible conclusion.”

    “At the end of this year,” Hagel said, “as our Afghan partners assume responsibility for the security of their country, the United States officially concludes Operation Enduring Freedom. … In 2015, we begin our follow-on mission -- Operation Freedom's Sentinel -- to help secure and build upon the hard-fought gains of the last 13 years.”

    Today, though, “we give thanks to our troops and intelligence personnel who have been relentless against the terrorists responsible for 9/11 -- devastating the core al-Qaida leadership, delivering justice to Osama bin Laden, disrupting terrorist plots and saving countless American lives,” the president said.

    “We are safer, and our nation is more secure, because of their service,” he said. “At the same time, our courageous military and diplomatic personnel in Afghanistan -- along with our NATO allies and coalition partners--have helped the Afghan people reclaim their communities, take the lead for their own security, hold historic elections and complete the first democratic transfer of power in their country's history.”

    “I want to express my deep gratitude to all U.S. personnel, both military and civilian, who have served in Afghanistan since 2001, many on multiple deployments,” Hagel said. “I also thank the thousands more who were a part of the mission at home and around the world. In fighting America's longest war, our people and their families have borne a heavy burden, and some paid the ultimate price.”

    “We honor the profound sacrifices that have made this progress possible,” the president said. “We salute every American -- military and civilian, including our dedicated diplomats and development workers -- who have served in Afghanistan, many on multiple tours, just as their families have sacrificed at home.

    “We pledge to give our many wounded warriors, with wounds seen and unseen, the world-class care and treatment they have earned. Most of all, we remember the more than 2,200 American patriots who made the ultimate sacrifice in Afghanistan, and we pledge to stand with their Gold Star families who need the everlasting love and support of a grateful nation.”

    “Afghanistan remains a dangerous place, and the Afghan people and their security forces continue to make tremendous sacrifices in defense of their country,” Obama said. “At the invitation of the Afghan government, and to preserve the gains we have made together, the United States -- along with our allies and partners -- will maintain a limited military presence in Afghanistan.”

    The United States will pursue two missions in Operation Freedom's Sentinel, Hagel said. “We will work with our allies and partners as part of NATO's Resolute Support mission to continue training, advising and assisting Afghan security forces. And we will continue our counterterrorism mission against the remnants of Al-Qaeda to ensure that Afghanistan is never again used to stage attacks against our homeland.”

    “Our personnel will continue to face risks, but this reflects the enduring commitment of the United States to the Afghan people and to a united, secure and sovereign Afghanistan that is never again used as a source of attacks against our nation,” Obama said.

    “These past 13 years have tested our nation and our military,” the president said. “But compared to the nearly 180,000 American troops in Iraq and Afghanistan when I took office, we now have fewer than 15,000 in those countries. Some 90 percent of our troops are home.

    “Our military remains the finest in the world, and we will remain vigilant against terrorist attacks and in defense of the freedoms and values we hold dear. And with growing prosperity here at home, we enter a new year with new confidence, indebted to our fellow Americans in uniform who keep us safe and free.”

    Battalion0415
    Junior Sergeant
    Junior Sergeant

    Posts : 145
    Points : 152
    Join date : 2015-01-07
    Age : 30

    Re: NATO operations in Afghanistan:

    Post  Battalion0415 on Wed Jan 07, 2015 4:24 pm

    Humor. Talibans won vs USA. And USA won over Nazi Germany with bigger troops for Nazi Germany.

    And smaller troops for talibans.

    Is smaller more powerful than bigger soldier strenght. Question

    Question Exclamation

    flamming_python
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3188
    Points : 3316
    Join date : 2012-01-30

    Re: NATO operations in Afghanistan:

    Post  flamming_python on Wed Jan 07, 2015 6:32 pm

    I barely understand a word you're saying - for someone who grew up in Scandinavia and has an American flag on their avatar (not that there's anything wrong with that) - your command of English is appalling.

    But from what I could decode - yes, NATO has achieved little in Afghanistan, and its likely that the coming years will see all of its limited successes in the country completely reversed and the Taliban or some other extremists returning to the same seat of power they sat in before.

    Which is a shame - because Afghanistan was definately one place where I thought that the West could do some good.

    Regular
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1956
    Points : 1963
    Join date : 2013-03-10
    Location : Western Hemisphere.. mostly

    Re: NATO operations in Afghanistan:

    Post  Regular on Wed Jan 07, 2015 8:54 pm

    It was self serving good. Someone got very rich for all those contracts and lobyism. Afghanistan war should've been SF operation like Soviet one at their war. But history repeats itself - same mistake with same outcome.

    flamming_python
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3188
    Points : 3316
    Join date : 2012-01-30

    Re: NATO operations in Afghanistan:

    Post  flamming_python on Wed Jan 07, 2015 9:28 pm

    Regular wrote:It was self serving good. Someone got very rich for all those contracts and lobyism.

    Sure but it still beats durka-durka rule by a mile.

    George1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 9451
    Points : 9943
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: NATO operations in Afghanistan:

    Post  George1 on Tue Jan 13, 2015 11:05 pm

    At least 2,213 US military deaths in Afghanistan since 2001

    Sponsored content

    Re: NATO operations in Afghanistan:

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 2:07 am


      Current date/time is Sat Dec 10, 2016 2:07 am