Quote Originally Posted by Fuchs View Post
I think the problem is rather that certain practices are a no-no in either case, and were still applied in AFG. An example would be setting up a base on (relatively) low ground - until it's being harassed by fire from a higher position (I don't call it an assault if it's just fire).


There are also certain fighting positions known from photos and videos that were either never meant to be used as such or were the result of an extremely stupid (and eventually lucky because few get hurt in them) order.
I mean stone/sandbag walls over which the soldiers need to peek in order to return fire. No firing slits, no camo net concealment. The sophistication of these fighting positions was not only inferior to 15th century angle bastions, but even inferior to Hellenic Age fortifications! I don't mean materials (which are certainly an difficult to come by on an Afghan hill), but principles of construction.
A simple camo net can largely prevent aimed fire at defenders/guards, but I have yet to see it in use. Even the lesser alternative - setting up a background that looks just like the soldier - was not seen on published photos yet.
Well if the yardstick that justifies where these outposts are located and how their defenses are sited is whether any have been "overrun" then one can see why the tactical and defence-works standards are so low.

(I agree with your comment on camo nets)