Man that takes me back to biology class 40 years ago. Thanks for the reminder.
Printable View
It is essentially an optical illusion. What they have done is build an ad hoc da of sorts across the Helmand River. It is more like a gate of sorts, built of earthern and wood materials which cause the water to "stack up" behind the constriction and raise the level of the water. This allows them to push water into canal inlets that wouldnormally only receive water during the months when the river is high.
The Helmand is one of the few rivers in the world that simply dissipate into the desert.
Might be those Taliban Monkeys up to no good.
http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/...207#post103207
IVIaedhros:
As IntelTrooper suggested, this sounds an awful lot like the Mobile (Roving?) Combined Action Platoons from Vietnam, which is good.
I don't if I can express this question clearly, but I'll try. How much of an emphasis would your proposed unit put on pursuit? And if they were going to pursue for more than a few hours, how would they lighten their load? Body armor or no? etc.
There is a long thread about lightening the load.
People tend to overestimate the effectiveness of these aerial assets. The real high tech things like JSTARS do wonderous things but they are extremely expensive so there will never be very many of them. And they can't see through mountains.
The other platforms that use night or day vision cameras don't really see that much. The field of view isn't that big, relative to the size of the area you want to cover. They can be heard from the ground, which can be an advantage and a disadvantage. The bigger ones like the Predators cost more than you think and they require a surprising amount of manpower to operate. Aviation Week quoted a figure of about 120 people per Pred when everyone is included. They are much more affected by weather than a manned aircraft.
The drones are a great tool, but you will never have enough of them to provide the degree of overwatch you suggest, especially if there are a multitude of small units roaming the field.
A war the UK bungled.
Those were battles or operations that occurred in wars we won. At best they were failed operations. ALL armies have those.Quote:
Khartoum, Boers, Somme, Dardanelles, Dunkirk, Western Desert, Malaya, Dieppe, Arnhem,
Nothing much wrong with the military conduct of that operation.Quote:
Suez?
Hmm, considering the war goals of September 1939, the UK lost the European WW2 in Jalta 1943 - and that can be attributed to Dunkirk.
With the same forgiving criteria that count WW2 as a UK win, you could also say that Irak was a UK win despite Basra - and the who knows how much the goals in AFG will be redefined...
WW2 was a "UK Win," albeit part of a coalition. All lost territory recovered. Unconditional surrender of the enemy. Yes, the strategic environment changed, but the UK was on the militarily successful side, and in the vast majority of cases UK formations destroyed the enemy formations it faced, both in Europe. Africa and Asia.
The Poles beg to differ.
The UK declared war because it had guaranteed Polish sovereignty - a promise broken two weeks later when it didn't declare war on the Soviet Union for its invasion of Eastern Poland. Churchill traded away Polish sovereignty completely to Stalin in iirc Jalta 1943.
The UK had a mission creep away from the original goal and reason of WW2 - and there's a good reason to expect the same kind of "win" in AFG and Iraq. The Crimean War had a similar kind of "win" for the British.
Btw, I personally dislike the inflationary use of "victory" in history books.
How could a nation be a "winner" if it took more damage than it had advantages because of its involvement in a war? Most "victories" in war sound rather like "enemy defeated" to me, not like actual "winning".
Fuchs, its called a Pyrrhic victory
Origin:
A Pyrrhic victory is so called after the Greek king Pyrrhus , who, after suffering heavy losses in defeating the Romans in 279 B.C., said to those sent to congratulate him, "Another such victory over the Romans and we are undone."
Yes and WW1 was such a Pyrrhic victory as well as the Germans and British had ripped the guts out of each other and as if that were not enough they had another go at it in WW2 which totally ripped out what was left out of each other.
A bankrupt Britain then had to borrow from the US to keep solvent (the debt having only been paid off in the last 5 years I think) and had to dismantle her empire post haste whatever the consequences and the end of rationing did not happen until 1954 when meat rationing was finally lifted. So yes some victory that was.
"Lost territory" as in British Lost Territory. Remember the British WW2 included fighting Japan.
Victory? I have little opinion as to what you call it. Lets us says "Hamster Moment." In both WW1 and 2, the UK was reacting to German aggression, and an existential threat - in terms of the cost of "not winning." The same was true with Napoleon. "Hamster Moments" in 1815, 1918, and 1945 ensured - as war always should- that French and German Policy were not effectively set forth. Cost? Yes it costs. In neither case was there a choice.
Really? 8-10 million military dead. Probably 10-12 million civilian dead. 10-15% of the population, dead, wounded or starved to death. In comparison, the UK lost less than 1% of its population. The massive expansion in defence commitment meant the USSR was never able to match US prosperity and growth, and it eventually imploded.
The US in comparison, became a global super power, with a huge economy and a prosperous way of life - and at very low casualties comparative to almost everyone else. - less than the UK.
The Soviets (who never gave a damn about their population anyway) were gifted half of Europe on a plate and they too became a global power. Merely the bad ideology (and economics) that led to their implosion 30 years before the USs own implosion started. But as for the Brits they were the real losers (more so than the Germans and the Japanese). But don't feel too bad about it, the US has to listen to what the Chinese boss has to say these days before doing anything.
Darn. That's at least the fourth occasion in my lifetime... :D
Well that's a very odd (poorly informed) view of Strategic history. To suggest that Germany and Japan were better off than the UK is palpable rubbish, as is the idea that the US listens to anything China has to say.
By any measure you care to choose, from a strategic stand-point the US benefited greatly more than the Soviets from WW2 - and at vastly less cost.
By 1960, the UK had the world's 2nd/3rd largest Navy, nuclear Weapons, the 2nd/3rd most powerful Army in NATO, a growing population, and was a G5 nation. - not bad of a country facing a solitary existential battle a mere 20 years early.
Yes, the German and Japanese economies did benefit from being rebuilt from scratch. So what? Part of a plan? No! Which of those nations could compete with France, the UK, or the US for strategic relevance, 20-or even 30 years after the end of war?
What is a "Hamster Moment"?
Wilf, JMA; you both have very odd world views.
Example: A large army is a cost, not an achievement in my opinion.
To me, countries consist of many individuals who have needs and preferences. Security (this includes freedom/liberty), health and material consumption are indicators of a good life.
Being part of a powerful nation or a well-armed nation has yet to be proved to be a positive factor in average quality of life. In fact, both can very well be considered to be detrimental to material consumption and in some examples even to security and health.
Besides, Wilf; the Germans and Japanese did not benefit from rebuilding from scratch at all. That's a myth. It took hard work and privations to catch up and then both simply continued their superior economic development of the earlier decades. Post-1960 Germany was as clearly in a superior industrial development than the UK as it was in 1880-1914.
Ken you want to do a little research into the Feb 2010 visit to the US by the Dalai Lama. The concessions made by the White House (no TV coverage, an explanation that they are only meeting him as religious leader etc etc) were not lost on the rest of the world to be sure.
What is of course interesting is that China obviously believes it "owns" enough of the US to dictate which world leaders the US should invite to the White House. Should be a source of major concern.
...and a few days ago Washington gave Beijing its cold shoulder when they protested against U.S.-ROK navy manoeuvres in their backyard.
It takes much more to prove your point because you made a quite far-reaching statement, JMA.
Almost all states have major troubles and challenges, and almost all states have to consider the position of other governments in international issues.
That's life. Even Washington woke up and understood it's not really that much "exceptional" as it believed.
Nevertheless, some states are in greater troubles and especially in other forms of troubles than others. The predominant form of troubles are domestic troubles - that's good news, for domestic troubles can be addressed and solved with good policies.