Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 9/13/2001 2:35:18 PM EDT
Some questions regarding a possible war with Afghanistan? A.) How many casualties will our arm forces suffer before public support wane? Does the public have the stomach to fight a fanatical enemy to the death? It seems like everyone is used to a clean, antiseptic, and video type war ala the Gulf War with Iraq. B.) Which branch of the arm services is best equipped to fight in a mountainous terrain. I realize both the Navy and Air Force will be able to achieve air supremacy and provide close air support but one does need the infantry/grunts to hold and take ground. Thanks for taking my questions, just concerned that this WAR may not be as easy as some are saying. Felixcat
Link Posted: 9/13/2001 2:49:57 PM EDT
War never is easy but in this case we must send a message to all nations that terrorism will not be tolerated against our people. Nor will any nation who allows these terrorist to stay in their nation. We must take a stand and stop this now!
Link Posted: 9/13/2001 2:54:49 PM EDT
The rebels did quite well against the Soviets.
Link Posted: 9/13/2001 3:19:45 PM EDT
we ain't the Soviets and that wasn't total war.
Link Posted: 9/13/2001 3:24:32 PM EDT
When you lay wounded on the Afghanistan plain and the women come out to carve up your remains just grab your rifle and blow out your brains and die... die like a soldier. A poem by R. Kipling which describes England's "total war" experience in Afghanistan[;D]
Link Posted: 9/13/2001 3:25:10 PM EDT
The rebels didn't do "quite well against the Soviets" until WE started supplying them with a steady supply of Stingers through Pakistan.
Link Posted: 9/13/2001 3:27:16 PM EDT
Originally Posted By drjarhead: we ain't the Soviets and that wasn't total war.
View Quote
We "ain't" the Soviets, but to the rebels it was total war. I doubt it will come to that, but if it did. I'm sure we'll hold our own. Semper Fi
Link Posted: 9/13/2001 3:28:25 PM EDT
The Soviets tried to occupy and passify. We will do neither. Also, we supplied the rebels with shoulder fired heat-seeking missles that made it really damgerous for the Soviets to fly. I don't think we will have to worry too much about that threat. I vote for a mass dose of fuel-air bombs over all major cities, military installations, and any gathering of more than three camels. Follow that with about 6 months of carpet bombing to "soften them up", followed by more fuel air bombs. Hell, I bet the Russians would like to fly a few bombing sorties themselves!! We should encourage them. This may actually help US/Russian relations in the long run.
Link Posted: 9/13/2001 3:29:17 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/13/2001 3:29:35 PM EDT by Garand_Shooter]
Link Posted: 9/13/2001 3:32:55 PM EDT
Link Posted: 9/13/2001 3:34:11 PM EDT
Gengis and Subodai Kahn did quite well with them. Afganistan has never been attacked from both North and South at the same time before. And while there is a civil war going on.
Link Posted: 9/13/2001 3:34:30 PM EDT
remember, rambo was sent in during the 80's to help the afghani rebels. This time they won't have him. They won't have many allies with traditional force capabilities. Russia won't be supplying them with any arms like we did.
Link Posted: 9/13/2001 3:35:22 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Garand_Shooter: As far as best suited for fighting in mountainous terrain, I think the first you will see move in will be the 82ND securing an airfield or two or three followed by the 10th Mountain.
View Quote
That is way too small a force.
Link Posted: 9/13/2001 3:37:20 PM EDT
Link Posted: 9/13/2001 3:47:14 PM EDT
Does the word "BLITZKRIEG" many anything? Go in with heavy bombers followed by light bombers and attack aircraft, follow that with heavy armor and light armor and sweep across with heavy and light infantry. no let up, one after the other. Just a thought, it worked for HITLER.
Link Posted: 9/13/2001 3:50:58 PM EDT
Originally Posted By CQB30: Does the word "BLITZKRIEG" many anything? Go in with heavy bombers followed by light bombers and attack aircraft, follow that with heavy armor and light armor and sweep across with heavy and light infantry. no let up, one after the other. Just a thought, it worked for HITLER.
View Quote
Do you know where Afganistan is? It is entirely in some of the tallest mountian ranges in the world. Traditional Air/Armor tactics wount work there as the Soviets discovered.
Link Posted: 9/13/2001 3:52:43 PM EDT
Fox News is spreading two rumors- the first that attacks against Afganistan will begin as early as the weekend. The second that the Reserves will be called up starting tomorrow
Link Posted: 9/13/2001 3:57:18 PM EDT
Do you know where Afganistan is? It is entirely in some of the tallest mountian ranges in the world. Traditional Air/Armor tactics wount work there as the Soviets discovered.
View Quote
That's what worries me. Superior firepower only goes so far.
Link Posted: 9/13/2001 4:03:28 PM EDT
Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl: The second that the Reserves will be called up starting tomorrow
View Quote
Congrats ArmdLbrl! You're the first man to ever give me a hard on! [X] Semper Fi and see you on my flanks! Cpl Van Wie
Link Posted: 9/13/2001 4:11:56 PM EDT
Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl: Fox News is spreading two rumors- the first that attacks against Afganistan will begin as early as the weekend. The second that the Reserves will be called up starting tomorrow
View Quote
i've been listening off and on all day. i haven't heard either one of those things. weird. however, i was listening to Fox news interview, dang, i forget the name, and i didn't see the face as i was painting the dining room. regardless, the question was "do the American people have the resolve to stay with this for the long haul?" two points. 1) the guy answered yes. he thinks that the loss of life tuesday is enough to give us that resolve. he used (again) the analogy of pearl harbor. we were so against the war before that. and then we were fine with sending our men to all theaters for the next 4 (or was it 5) years to defeat the enemy. 2) this is going to go far beyond a single retaliatory strike against the culprits. this is an all-out war against terrrorism worldwide. we will be fighting this on all fronts. as an aside, i've heard on the news stations that the majority of the terrorists are actually Egyptian. perhaps our crosshairs should move south and west.
Link Posted: 9/13/2001 4:15:00 PM EDT
Last report we received Reserves are about to be called up. The question was which specifically and how many. Planerench out.
Link Posted: 9/13/2001 4:17:47 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/13/2001 4:17:29 PM EDT by gus]
One of my co-workers' wife is an Army Reservist. She was called up to report to Martin State Airport in Baltimore this morning. They have a rather large collection of A10's there.
Link Posted: 9/13/2001 4:24:06 PM EDT
America needs to wipe a few of those mountains of the map with a 100 Megaton response. Let's nuke the hell out of Afghanistan and not risk a foot war. Then we should go all out and move into Egypt and Iraq with our Infantry and take Bagdad and Cairo.
Link Posted: 9/13/2001 4:50:49 PM EDT
My plea: The legitimate leader of Afghanistan, and all of his supporters, are likely still on our side. Don't forget people, the Taliban just took over a few years ago (1996?) We would be WRONG if we attacked civilians intentionally in Afghanistan. SO QUIT SOUNDING LIKE REACTIONARY A-HOLES AND CALLING FOR NUKES, ETC. It makes you look so small minded, really, it does. Some interesting discussion points would be how Russia would feel if htey fought alongside there old enemies to oust the Taliban, for example. Or maybe how Bin Laden somehow created this myth of himself as a war hero (BS - just a spoiled rich kid craving power, the true heroes of the mujahadeen got overthrown by by these fundementalists nutcases). For a group of people who love to criticize every stupid thing the media says about guns, you all sure like to say some really stupid things about damn near everything else. Most of these thread sound to rational people no different then when anti-gunners refer to "Semi Auto High powered Sniper POcket Rockets" In other words - IGNORANT! Yobo had a good point a few days ago - the quality of discussions here lately has been lowering rapidly. Let's try to educate each other and quit BSing each other.
Link Posted: 9/13/2001 4:53:39 PM EDT
Would, say, a liberal coating of fuel-air bombs meet with your approval??
Link Posted: 9/13/2001 4:54:57 PM EDT
yep, fuel air explosive might be just the ticket. and let me say to all you apologists out there, IT'S TIME TO FEED THE HOGS.
Link Posted: 9/13/2001 5:01:29 PM EDT
Link Posted: 9/13/2001 5:15:00 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Stealth: The rebels did quite well against the Soviets.
View Quote
You are right, but, aside from the "total war" argument, there is another great distinction here. We would not be fighting a war of [i]occupation[/i], just [i]devastation[/i].
Link Posted: 9/13/2001 5:18:28 PM EDT
My only fear is that this WAR will become a war of attrition. Kill one small band of terrorist another will pop up to take their place. Plus, it’s going to be real hard identifying friend from foe e.g. when the infantry moves in to take some village.
Link Posted: 9/13/2001 5:22:46 PM EDT
Anyone think that they may still have some of the Stingers we gave them when they were fighting the Soviets?
Link Posted: 9/13/2001 5:24:15 PM EDT
Originally Posted By JIMBEAM: Anyone think that they may still have some of the Stingers we gave them when they were fighting the Soviets?
View Quote
Rest assured they do, but they will need more batteries.
Link Posted: 9/13/2001 5:31:30 PM EDT
airstrikes will do little here. Armor will be difficult to maneuver in many parts of the country. This will not be easy but it must be done. The challenges are great for our military and our civilians. Do we have a choice? Yeah, run sniveling and hide in our houses until they gas us or nuke us, etc. Kill 'em all and lets not stop until the job is done.
Link Posted: 9/13/2001 5:36:48 PM EDT
I wouldn't worry too much about the Stingers. They're short-range, have a defined shelf life, the batteries fail after a few years, and can be fooled by flares. They could prove troublesome to helos and slow moving fixed-wing aircraft, but compared to the SAMs of Vietnam, they are a lot less to worry about. I heard the Pentagon is discussing calling up the reserves, but I didn’t hear if they made a decision as yet.
Link Posted: 9/13/2001 6:43:16 PM EDT
I've had FOX News on for a while and according to them, the Pentagon is asking the president to call up the Guard and Reserve. They say they will need 30,000-50,000 people. My gear is ready, and my wife is just as P.O.ed as I am so she is behind me all the way.
Link Posted: 9/13/2001 6:55:15 PM EDT
Taliban needs to go; we don't need to nuke afghanistan. Let's help the rebels and then leave the country to them. If Pakistan gives us any grief, we can let India handle them. Israel will handle Syria. I would love to see Baghdad catch a nuke, but i doubt they have the forces to make any significant impact. I see two wild cards in this mix: Iran and Egypt. I believe nukes will fly if Egypt and Israel start mixing it up.
Link Posted: 9/13/2001 8:10:02 PM EDT
If Baghdad sent a bio-scud over to Israel, I'm pretty sure that would convince Israel to nuke them in return.
Link Posted: 9/13/2001 8:24:56 PM EDT
Anyone know the shelf life of a FIM-92??? Because I'm going to be mighty upset if one of our aircraft (or more likely an Apache) gets knocked down by one of the Stingers we supplied them during the Soviet-Afgan war...
Link Posted: 9/13/2001 8:31:46 PM EDT
If there are clear objectives for the troops, we will kick there asses. If the political fog of war creeps in, then we would be there for a long time.
Link Posted: 9/13/2001 10:48:33 PM EDT
Key here is to attack in a NON-Selective fashion. If you're going to hit a city, HIT THE CITY! HARD! We are not the ones who brought it down to this level. Our goal is to reduce the enemy to rubble. Nothing less. At least if I were in charge. That is not to say we should attack innocent countries, only the ones who have supported these bastards over the last 20 or so years. So far, I see the enemy as Afghanistan, Iraq, Sudan, Syria, Lybia, and maybe Iran. Furthermore, Saudi Arabia is an ally for now, but should the current govt be overthrown by fundamentalists, they become a target as well. There are surely more that I have missed. They will make themselves known. Oh, let's not forget Egypt's potential status. This will be ugly. War is ugly. Get used to it. They started it.
Link Posted: 9/14/2001 10:34:17 AM EDT
Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl:
Originally Posted By CQB30: Does the word "BLITZKRIEG" many anything? Go in with heavy bombers followed by light bombers and attack aircraft, follow that with heavy armor and light armor and sweep across with heavy and light infantry. no let up, one after the other. Just a thought, it worked for HITLER.
View Quote
Do you know where Afganistan is? It is entirely in some of the tallest mountian ranges in the world. Traditional Air/Armor tactics wount work there as the Soviets discovered.
View Quote
I am currently studying up on Afganistan now and downloading Topo's of this region for soon I will probaly be there, I will be looking for you on my right flank, as of BLITZKRIEG, the message I was trying to convey is basically to keep the enemy pinned by aircraft and artillery until a superior amount of ground forces can take positions to pin down and cut off the enemy from supply routes, I am not an expert combat strategest, but after all it was only a thought, but a swift and precise attack without let up will help in preventing enemy regrouping after initial assault.
Top Top