Afghanistan and milsurp

L

longsault

Member
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Location
Eastern Ontario
There are some interesting milsurp references in the latest "At War" blog entry in the New York Times. The author makes the case that the myth of the modern Afghan sniper is just that--a myth. I particularly liked some of the comments that followed the story, including one that concluded with this quote:

"Our worst nightmare would be a couple hundred older soldiers with the old Mausers and the knowledge to use them."

Here's the link: http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/26/afghan-marksmen-forget-the-fables/

Enjoy!
 
I suspect that part (but only part) of the reason for the horrible accuracy of the insurgent's fire is due to the condition of their weapons. Its not like these guys are getting new, fresh-from-the-factory AKs. Many of these weapons are 10, 20, 30 years or older and many have been well used. I've seen reports of ISAF troops being opened up on from 10 metres and no one getting hit.
 
It's doubtful that "older soldiers" in Afghanistan would use Mausers, but according to my Great Uncle who travelled the Khyber Pass with an Enfield and a Vickers on mule trains in the 1920's they certainly knew how to use a Lee Enfield.
 
The initial support the mujahideen received from the CIA and ISI was in the form of Mk3 No1s and crates of surplus .303. For a very long time, they preferred the Enfield because it had a longer range and was capable of penetrating the Soviet's body armour, where as the AK-47s and AK-74s were not.
 
I am glad to read in New York times, that the final victory against the silly and poor marksman afghan fighter is near.

We canadians, the americans and all the NATO allies will soon celebrate a victory in Afghanistan ?.

And thus be the first military force to do so since Alexander the Great, Ginghis Khan, the several british attempt in the 1800's, and the 11 years of russian frustrations and large numbers of deads, among others, all ended in failure, when they all, after easily invaded Afghanistan, was unable to win the peace ?

Nice fairytale :)
 
bdtyre said:
I suspect that part (but only part) of the reason for the horrible accuracy of the insurgent's fire is due to the condition of their weapons. Its not like these guys are getting new, fresh-from-the-factory AKs. Many of these weapons are 10, 20, 30 years or older and many have been well used. I've seen reports of ISAF troops being opened up on from 10 metres and no one getting hit.
Click to expand...

Exactly and I'd be 0% of them know how too or ever have cleaned them out. I would bet plenty get killed just by their own guns alone.
 
The Taliban initially engaged our troops under conventional circumstances and were subsequently handed their asses. Since then they operate in an insurgency role - a role which has worked very well for them in the past.

As we all know their favoured mechanisms now are IED's, Booby Traps on Patrol Routes and pot shots from concealed locations. They have not really been engaging in large groups. A small Taliban Party will sometimes strafe an ISAF Patrol and then run away - often into crowds of people where our troops will not fire into.

From all of the chaps I've talked to coming back from the sandpit Taliban marksman have been the exception not the rule.

The new order of the day is to get between the population and the insurgency.
An insurgency war cannot be fought using conventional methods according to the new Commander (who's name eludes me at the moment).
 
It is said the weapon the Russians most feared in Afghanistan was not the AK , but the SMLE

When you have a 30 round magazine and a go-fast switch one tends to use it. Spray and pray may make one feel good, but it is AIMED fire that is effective.
 
Those who have been under fire tend not to be too concerned about incoming full auto fire from guns like an AK (or M16, for that matter).

In a conversation with an old soldier who recently returned from there, he tells me that Canadian troops are using a lot of full auto from their rifles, and as a result, are not hitting what they aimed at. Some Canadians are using aimed single shots.
 
The thing you have to remember about Taliban fighters is, a lot of them have little to no training. A lot of them are former poppy cultivators, disgruntled Afghans and nomads, not trained soldiers.

Furthermore as mentioned, they're using 30+ year old weapons with 30+ year old ammunition across often windy deserts, and AKs aren't all that accurate at distance to begin with.
 
Just finished a book about the Normandy invasion and I found one British company commander's comments interesting. He said several times he had difficulty getting his men to move forward due to desultory rifle fire,"the odd bullet whistling around", a particularly British way of putting it. He said his men were convinced snipers were shooting at them. He told them if a German sniper is shooting at you, the bullet won't whistle by you, it will hit you.
 
snowhunter said:
I am glad to read in New York times, that the final victory against the silly and poor marksman afghan fighter is near.

We canadians, the americans and all the NATO allies will soon celebrate a victory in Afghanistan ?.

And thus be the first military force to do so since Alexander the Great, Ginghis Khan, the several british attempt in the 1800's, and the 11 years of russian frustrations and large numbers of deads, among others, all ended in failure, when they all, after easily invaded Afghanistan, was unable to win the peace ?

Nice fairytale :)
Click to expand...

Obviously you didn't read the comments section below the article.

_________________________________________________________________

War has now been almost continuous in Afghanistan for over 30 years! The casualities have been enormous for the population size. The pool of available talent so to speak, is being progressively drained. As pointed out, many of the older, more skilled fighters are tired of fighting and the less than oppressive policies of the NATO forces help to encourage that. In the days when a genuine (as opposed to filed out of railway rail) rifle was something rare and valuable and every shot had to count, they were skilled marksmen.
 
This is low level stuff, which while interesting, will not really determine the outcome in Afghanistan. There will always be an abundance of whatever type of weaponry, but the tale will be told on the basis of the numbers of Taliban and others who are motivated to pick them up and use them to achieve their interests which are at cross purposes with those of the government.

The end state in Afghanistan does not depend on a classic military victory with us defeating the Taliban on the battlefield. Rather, it depends on the ability of the Afghans to produce a viable, functional system of government that can win the consensus of most Afghans that this is a more acceptable alternative than either the Taliban and/or the traditional decentralized system of tribal chiefs and warlords.

We must be willing to commit forces to maintain a security environment for development and nation building to occur over an extended period of time. This means continuing to engage and supress the Taliban so that they do not threaten development and nation building, and so that they cannot continue to influence and intimidate a large portion of the Afghan population. The western way is to expect quick results by throwing more resources at the problem. Afghanistan is not a quick fix and I personally doubt that the west has the stomach to stay there in the long term.
 
snowhunter said:
Some truth to this New York Times article, but the other side is learning as well ?
Click to expand...

If they hadn't figured it out before, they probably will now. Thank you New York Times!:rolleyes:

"Arithmetic on The Frontier"...

No, this won't change the outcome, but it would be a pity if it cost even one soldier his life.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom