Afghan snipers

I don't know any of you personally but it appears that most of you have not been in this theatre of operations. I want to cut the BS in this discussion down right now, lest it becomes unintended enemy propaganda.

"Why a bomb?" "Mud wall was no cover" Those walls are often 4+ feet (I've seen 8 feet) thick. Yes they are made of mud, but have you ever tried to shoot your rifle straight down into the mud? Guess how far your .308 will go, remembering the 300m gap beforehand, and hit a target. Not that effective.

There are no taliban snipers, NONE. Possibly some taliban marksmen.
There are possibly some foreign jihadist terrorists that are trained marksmen, MAYBE 1 or 2 experienced snipers- none of them are taliban, they are foreigners. Most Afghans can't hit anything from more than 100m. That's why they now use bombs.

Remember the "Juba" sniper in Iraq with all of his videos? It turned out to be several marksmen that were filming themselves taking shots at the US Army. They would then post the videos of successful hits and claim they were all this great sniper.

Our soldiers kicking ass isn't as great for the newspapers as the taliban winning, sick but true.
 
Last edited:
What is this very offical purpose of telling Taliban that they are lousy shoots ?

Is the media conveniently being used by NATO to convey some propagada to the Taliban that they are wasting their ammo on NATO forces ?

Or is it the truth that the Taliban are lousy shoots, wasting their ammo, big time, and the end is near for them ?
 
All that this is, is some guy putting things on the internet. My point as posted above is that any rumour about "great afghan marksmen" is not true. Actual "snipers" are foreign jihadists and again, that's why we are in this war- to fight international terrorists.

The reason I posted in the first place is because I don't want enemy propaganda pouring out. It goes from this story to - "I heard there are taliban snipers now" to- "Some guy said there are taliban snipers everywhere" to- "Everyone knows that taliban snipers are keeping everyone pinned down all the time".
 
canadiangunuser said:
I don't know any of you personally but it appears that most of you have not been in this theatre of operations.

"Why a bomb?" "Mud wall was no cover" Those walls are often 4+ feet (I've seen 8 feet) thick. Yes they are made of mud, but have you ever tried to shoot your rifle straight down into the mud? Guess how far your .308 will go, remembering the 300m gap beforehand, and hit a target. Not that effective.

Our soldiers kicking ass isn't as great for the newspapers as the taliban winning, sick but true.
Click to expand...

Not having been there, I'll defer to your experience if you have. The wall in this case though was about 18" thick IIRC, tapering to about 12" at the top. At 1000m or so, a .30 cal bullet from a full size cartridge would go through that with enough energy left to wound. Firing into a pool of liquid mud is not the same as firing into a dried mud wall.

From the videos I've seen, Canadian troops seem to make better use of cover than some US and UK troops, as well as seeming a bit more focussed and aggressive. Of course that could just be the particular incidents that were being filmed.

If the choice is "hot" or "shot", I'd go prone myself. Waiting until you find out whether the enemy fire is effective is foolish. Only pure luck saved that unit from a fatality due to their not taking cover properly.

Looking at the larger picture however, we are never going to change the people's traditional culture. "Sons & guns" is their lifeblood in that part of the world. Fighting and feuding has been their national sport for centuries. The Pathan/Pushtun male identity is so interwoven with guns, fighting, "honour" and Islam that it will only change over more centuries, if ever. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pashtunwali

No crop is going to compete with heroin and only the Taliban ever really suppressed the production of it.

Sorry Colin, it's not "winnable" IMO, nor is there any intention of "winning". It is a limited war like Viet Nam and serves a number of other purposes which I won't get into now.
 
RRCo. said:
Not having been there, I'll defer to your experience if you have. The wall in this case though was about 18" thick IIRC, tapering to about 12" at the top. At 1000m or so, a .30 cal bullet from a full size cartridge would go through that with enough energy left to wound. NO IT WON'T! That's why the army has used sand bags for centuries. You are right, dried mud is not like wet mud, it is like solid concrete! But with just enough give to absorb some kinetic energy. I have tested this, LIVE. That's not some big secret either, they know it and so do we.


Looking at the larger picture however, we are never going to change the people's traditional culture. "Sons & guns" is their lifeblood in that part of the world. Fighting and feuding has been their national sport for centuries. The Pathan/Pushtun male identity is so interwoven with guns, fighting, "honour" and Islam that it will only change over more centuries, if ever. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pashtunwali
What good choice of sources, wikipedia.
ANYTHING can be won if pursued properly. I have heard vietnam vets quoted as basically saying "they did everything but let us win". The current problem is about our combined strategy. We are turning away from conventional battles, but fighting is still needed to destroy the enemy's resolve so that we can then come in and build allies.

No crop is going to compete with heroin and only the Taliban ever really suppressed the production of it.The Taliban only did that so that their prices of stockpiled Heroin would go up, and it did. Canada is NOT in the anti-drug business in Afghanistan.

Sorry Colin, it's not "winnable" IMO, nor is there any intention of "winning". It is a limited war like Viet Nam and serves a number of other purposes which I won't get into now.There could be no intention of "winning" but not from the Army, YOU and the rest of the DEFEATISTS want to quit because the going is rough, thanks for all of your support.
Click to expand...

Yes, this is a very straight rebuttal, but I am very tired of hearing this crap from everyone. If you put in the money, resources and strategy, anything is winnable. Canada is not a poor country, it is well withing our means to do so.Afghanistan is not Vietnam! As WWII was not WWI. There are similarities, but the time, people, resources and goals are very different. We can use the lessons of Vietnam to our advantage, or we can wallow in the "give peace a chance" movement. We tried peace, they started killing us in Kabul- where we did little but hand out aid!
 
Last edited:
canadiangunuser said:
Yes, this is a very straight rebuttal, but I am very tired of hearing this crap from everyone. If you put in the money, resources and strategy, anything is winnable. Canada is not a poor country, it is well withing our means to do so.Afghanistan is not Vietnam! As WWII was not WWI. There are similarities, but the time, people, resources and goals are very different. We can use the lessons of Vietnam to our advantage, or we can wallow in the "give peace a change" movement. We tried peace, they started killing us in Kabul- where we did little but hand out aid!
Click to expand...
Take a vote. If more Afghans want us to leave than stay, so be it. You can't liberate people from themselves. If they want us there and we want to help, then you can count on my support. Asking the question (knowing the taliban will threaten all those who participate in the vote with death) is the tricky part. The logistics of that are tricky, as are the ballistics of fighting in this region of the world. This type of terrain allows an enemy to engage and disengage at will. Using this tactic (and the plenty of cover around, conventional and the populace itself) allows you to minimize your enemies advantage (aircover and close quarter firepower) and replace it with long range concealed harrasment fire. Neat to see the old girls (Lee Enfields and Nagants) still have it in this footage!
 
Well 5540fight, I don't think it's that simple. The Afghan people are tribal, and they don't really understand the full concept of democracy. Many will vote the way they are told, others will change their minds often. The south is almost another country when compared with the north. The thread that runs through the whole thing is not just the "taliban" it's an outlet for radical terrorists from all over the world- this is what must be stopped. A very difficult prospect I agree, but if we just leave because it's hard, then what business will we ever have using our military outside our own borders again?
 
What does "winning" mean in Afghanistan?

They don't understand democracy, they don't want democracy. They just want to be left alone to do things their own sweet medieval way, and no one is going to change that except them. It is an overwhelmingly rural, agricultural, tribal society with minimal infrastructure, education or media and the extremely conservative influence of radical Islam. It is NOT going to change in the forseeable future. This is both their strength and their weakness as we all know, or should.

It's too bad for the girls and women particularly, but while there are things they would probably like to change, I doubt most of them would want to trade their social oppression for our social mess.

If you say a foot of Afghan mud wall stops full calibre bullets I'll take your word for it. Personally I'd rather not put it to the test. Doesn't change the fact that they nearly lost a man due to not taking cover properly.

Sneer at Wikipedia if you want to, but I'll bet there's more info there than a lot of people would pick up in six months in a country.

It's very, very sad that 100+ Canadians have died there for little if any long-term result, but ours is a volunteer military and those are the chances you take when you sign up. I realize that is a hard thing to swallow when someone has "been and seen" and maybe lost friends or comrades, but IMO that is the reality of this war.

I fully support our troops, but I don't support the politicians who send them places they don't belong. There is a BIG difference.

And I'll leave it there.
 
Last edited:
If you say a foot of Afghan mud wall stops full caliber bullets I'll take your word for it. Personally I'd rather not put it to the test. Doesn't change the fact that they nearly lost a man due to not taking cover properly.
Click to expand...

If you watch the movie carefully the man that was shot was the same guy that ran out and back in to provide some fire. He was probably shot as he was running back in, but didn't notice at first. Adrenaline can do a lot.
 
Just because a Afghan says something critical of NATO and says the Taliban are better, does not mean he was telling the truth. It could be for the following reasons:

1. he is within earshot of a Taliban informant
2. He is telling the reporter what he thinks the reporter wants to hear
3. He might feel complaining will improve his chances of obtaining a better agreement for aid
4. He might be afraid that the Taliban will get hold of the interview and put a price on his head
5. He might actually support the Taliban or dislike them less so than NATO. don't forget the Taliban are also mainly outsiders that do some local hire


As for shooting bullets through the walls, keep in mind the rifles might be worn out, the ammo may be 50-60 years old and badly stored or it might be ammo made in Pakistan with who knows what powder and how much.
 
I'd prefer our contingents in afghanistan to be led by Serbs.
They know how to effectivley deal with jhihadists
 
RRCo. said:
Doesn't change the fact that they nearly lost a man due to not taking cover properly.
Click to expand...

He was hit high in the left shoulder, which means he could have had only his helmet and weapon above cover, using his ACOG to spot. This to me is effective cover.

Perhaps I missed it in the video, but I didn't see him get shot, so commenting on his position from a huge time and distance gap is pretty weak. If he were just standing around I would agree, but it looks to me like he was in the centre of a wall which would be the perfect aiming marker for a shooter trying to hit camouflaged soldiers from a distance. There is no evidence that he wasn't in a good fire position.

Aside from that, when things are happening, it's pretty hard to just lay down behind the wall and go to sleep- Soldiers and Marines aren't trained to curl up into a ball when taking fire. This doesn't excuse poor performance, but there is no real evidence of poor performance.
 
Afghan Snipers

I've often feared the day when taliban and other groups would give up on the AK's and started training and using rifles that could hit someone at long range rather than spraying the area with 7.62 X 39 fire. Let's just pray that this doesn't catch on. With the number of hiding places in the Afghan countryside, it could spell major trouble for our troops.
 
Seems to me that sun-dried mud with a bit of clay is what some folks call 'adobe', That's pretty tough stuff to punch through, especially when it gets a couple feet thick: just like solid sandbags.

One advantage that we have, which the Sovs did NOT have, is the advantage of an all-volunteer force. Ivan was drafted and SENT. Our guys are prepared, mentally, to go and DO the JOB. During both World Wars, the Canadians were the best-motivated troops in the theatres of operation. I think the guys going over there today just might make their grandfathers and great-grandfathers proud.

But as for Taliban snipers.... well, I haven't been there but it seems that spraying a pickup load of x39 from the hip doesn't really qualify.

Maybe we could send Wendy Cukier over there. She could tell them all that they need gun control! See how long she lasts in a society which IS violent.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom