Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 90

Thread: Fire with Fire

  1. #41
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Durban, South Africa
    Posts
    3,902

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KenWats View Post
    Oh! Oh! Something I can answer... somewhat.

    Capillary action.
    Man that takes me back to biology class 40 years ago. Thanks for the reminder.

  2. #42
    Council Member jcustis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    SOCAL
    Posts
    2,152

    Default

    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.
    Last edited by jcustis; 07-16-2010 at 07:14 PM.

  3. #43
    Council Member slapout9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    4,818

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jcustis View Post
    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

  4. #44
    Council Member carl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Denver on occasion
    Posts
    2,460

    Default

    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.
    "We fight, get beat, rise, and fight again." Gen. Nathanael Greene

  5. #45
    Council Member carl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Denver on occasion
    Posts
    2,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by howard View Post
    might i suggest the force multiplier WE need in this is a significantly larger air surveillance presence in AWACS , "Joint STARS" , or UAV flights. this is especially needed with IR system detection of such forces as they move in the terrain at night or by day.

    with our air eyes, there is no reason to ever be surprised by an attack or by an ambush. we would have seen them as they moved, deployed, and
    set up for assaults.
    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.
    "We fight, get beat, rise, and fight again." Gen. Nathanael Greene

  6. #46
    Council Member William F. Owen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    The State of Partachia, at the eastern end of the Mediterranean
    Posts
    3,947

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fuchs View Post
    Crimea
    A war the UK bungled.
    Khartoum, Boers, Somme, Dardanelles, Dunkirk, Western Desert, Malaya, Dieppe, Arnhem,
    Those were battles or operations that occurred in wars we won. At best they were failed operations. ALL armies have those.
    Suez?
    Nothing much wrong with the military conduct of that operation.
    Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"

    - The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
    - If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
    Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition

  7. #47
    Council Member Fuchs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,189

    Default

    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...

  8. #48
    Council Member William F. Owen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    The State of Partachia, at the eastern end of the Mediterranean
    Posts
    3,947

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fuchs View Post
    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.
    Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"

    - The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
    - If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
    Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition

  9. #49
    Council Member Fuchs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,189

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by William F. Owen View Post
    All lost territory recovered.
    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".

  10. #50
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Durban, South Africa
    Posts
    3,902

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fuchs View Post
    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.

  11. #51
    Council Member William F. Owen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    The State of Partachia, at the eastern end of the Mediterranean
    Posts
    3,947

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fuchs View Post
    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".
    Quote Originally Posted by JMA View Post
    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.
    Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"

    - The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
    - If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
    Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition

  12. #52
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Durban, South Africa
    Posts
    3,902

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by William F. Owen View Post
    "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.
    Choice or no choice the eventual winner out of the WW2 bloodbath was... the Soviets.

  13. #53
    Council Member William F. Owen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    The State of Partachia, at the eastern end of the Mediterranean
    Posts
    3,947

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JMA View Post
    Choice or no choice the eventual winner out of the WW2 bloodbath was... the Soviets.
    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.
    Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"

    - The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
    - If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
    Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition

  14. #54
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Durban, South Africa
    Posts
    3,902

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by William F. Owen View Post
    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.

  15. #55
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default We're imploding? Again.

    Darn. That's at least the fourth occasion in my lifetime...

  16. #56
    Council Member William F. Owen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    The State of Partachia, at the eastern end of the Mediterranean
    Posts
    3,947

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JMA View Post
    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.
    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?
    Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"

    - The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
    - If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
    Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition

  17. #57
    Council Member slapout9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    4,818

    Default

    What is a "Hamster Moment"?

  18. #58
    Council Member Fuchs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,189

    Default

    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.

  19. #59
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Durban, South Africa
    Posts
    3,902

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken White View Post
    Darn. That's at least the fourth occasion in my lifetime...
    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.

  20. #60
    Council Member Fuchs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,189

    Default

    ...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.

Similar Threads

  1. Moving the Rhod. Fire Force concept to Afghanistan?
    By JMA in forum OEF - Afghanistan
    Replies: 196
    Last Post: 08-15-2011, 10:05 PM
  2. MSG Roy P. Benevidez Aug. 5, 1935 - Nov. 29, 1998
    By Rifleman in forum Historians
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 12-01-2008, 02:30 PM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-30-2007, 05:39 PM
  4. Friendly fire death was preventable: government report
    By marct in forum The Coalition Speaks
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-16-2007, 05:57 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •