Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

All eyes on Kabul's front line
Janes Defense Weekly ^ | 11/2/2001 | Anthony Davis

Posted on 11/02/2001 7:48:05 PM PST by scannell

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-34 last
To: Elihu Burritt
Apaches can hover over the area and they have armor in case of small arms fire. They can hover at night and see them just like it's day and once they Taliban moves or runs from the carpet bombings it's pick off time !
21 posted on 11/02/2001 9:40:19 PM PST by america-rules
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Elihu Burritt
I would like for you to explain to me exactly how you hear a B-52 coming when it is flying at 50,000 feet?
22 posted on 11/02/2001 10:27:04 PM PST by vbmoneyspender
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: scannell; *taliban_list
To find all articles tagged or indexed using

taliban_list

Click here:

taliban_list

23 posted on 11/02/2001 10:38:49 PM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: vbmoneyspender
I would like for you to explain to me exactly how you hear a B-52 coming when it is flying at 50,000 feet?

Take off 12,000 feet for the ground altitude. I don't know for sure as I have not physically been present at such a circumstance, but the reporters on site made the claim, and I did presume they were telling the facts. Sound is funny stuff, so if other similar matters hold true, the process may be unreliable. In any case, in the camera shots of the planes they were distinctly visible and identifiable.

24 posted on 11/03/2001 7:38:46 AM PST by Elihu Burritt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: McGavin999
I wish all the radicals in Pakistan would join in the fun. Hopefully, the can get a close up of some FAEs.
25 posted on 11/03/2001 7:40:39 AM PST by boycott
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: america-rules
Apaches can hover over the area and they have armor in case of small arms fire. They can hover at night and see them just like it's day and once they Taliban moves or runs from the carpet bombings it's pick off time !

Combined weapon usage is always highly preferable. The problem with the Apaches will be the high altitude and those ridge lines. Really handy for getting a stinger in through the heat flares.

The dangers of relying on expensive equipment and highly trained personnel is that you lose numbers and each equipment loss is costly. It's quite possible the war could be more effectively fought by large numbers of GI's, but who wants to go there and live on the level of the Taliban guys? Our rangers and such could cope, but we just don't have that many. The other alternative will produce something very akin to the Russian experience.

26 posted on 11/03/2001 7:46:13 AM PST by Elihu Burritt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: vbmoneyspender
Did you ever see video of the enormous ears the NVA dug. When we were using EW the "ears" worked better than radar.
27 posted on 11/03/2001 7:51:07 AM PST by Righty1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: scannell
"...paving the way for ground operations by the opposition United Front""

Read this as "they'll march in after we make it safe for them."

Much like the French. If you haven't read it, "Is Paris Burning?" is a GREAT book.

Patton was hopping mad about the lost time, manpower and materials required so the frogs could march in. He wanted to bypass Paris, but the frogs manipulated his plans using the media. Patton claimed that liberating Paris made the war last several months longer.

28 posted on 11/03/2001 7:59:41 AM PST by Bill Rice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Elihu Burritt
Infantry is still the Queen of the battlefield, and air power but her handmaiden.

Yes, but a few firebases would be nice. Artilary can wreck more havoc, cheaper, than airstrikes. An MLRS strike can be almost as devastating as Long Stick bombing. They have no idea the destruction we can rain down on them from a fully equiped firebase.

The only problem would be that we would have to keep moving these firebases as they would quickly destroy everything in their perimeter of fire.

29 posted on 11/03/2001 8:00:15 AM PST by NeonKnight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: NeonKnight
Yes, but a few firebases would be nice. Artilary can wreck more havoc, cheaper, than airstrikes. An MLRS strike can be almost as devastating as Long Stick bombing. They have no idea the destruction we can rain down on them from a fully equiped firebase.

The only problem would be that we would have to keep moving these firebases as they would quickly destroy everything in their perimeter of fire.

I haven't seen it mentioned yet, but the parallels to Dien Bien Phu are quite interesting. They are of course not mirage image parallels, but it remarkable how the military thinking has converged on an old concept.

There is also an earlier parallel. Yorktown.

When the French did their thing, the heart of the strategy was to deprive the other side of their artillery. That's not the real problem here. Our compromise solution here is to occupy the country 400 square miles at a time. It sounds like a manageble and acceptable escalation, but where does it really go? It can not project control of the country politically, it can only help get Bin Laden. Once Bin laden goes, we can justify going, but the place will be ripe for the next Bin Laden and the rest of his followers.

They are talking of a perimter roughly 20 miles on a side. How many men do you think would be necessary to control that real estate?

30 posted on 11/03/2001 8:16:06 AM PST by Elihu Burritt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Elihu Burritt
Good history leason..re: Yorktown. A modern US firebase has very little resemblance to what we saw in Vietnam. Just as bombing technology has advanced several generations, so has artillary technology. Targeting is far more advanced, as is ordinance. Security is not a real issue. The Taliban are not the NVA. A few M1A2's, Apaches, AC130H's, and SOF's could easily insure firebase security.

I suppose you are right in that it depends on our goals. I believe phase I of this war is capturing OBL (dead or alive) and dismanteling the Taliban regime, and it should be done quickly and in an overwhelming manner. We do not need our enemies to like us, but they MUST respect us. Therefore it is essential that we win our early battles decisively.

31 posted on 11/03/2001 8:36:14 AM PST by NeonKnight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Righty1; Elihu Burritt
I think you boys have been listening to too many stories from our left wing media. When the B-52s flew in Vietnam, they were unstoppable. In fact, the work they did during the Christmas bombing directly led to the North Vietnamese coming back to the negotiating tables via the Paris Peace Talks. BTW EB, you still haven't explained to me how the Taliban can effectively counter B-52 strikes that take place at night. Whenever I try and pin you down on this, you make arguments against why daylight attacks won't work. Finally, for your joint edification, I offer the following links for you to peruse Link No. 1 and Link No. 2

P.S. EB you are quite wrong on the ceiling for B-52's and if you don't believe me do a little research on the subject via Link No. 2 as well as this Link

32 posted on 11/03/2001 8:01:43 PM PST by vbmoneyspender
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: scannell
Yes, yes, keep the bombs falling, keep the Taliban off guard.
But that is just a side-show.
The real job is to find those caves and annihilate them.
That ought to be a straight-forward job for American technical know-how.
Kill Bin Laden and One-eyed Omar and get out.

Then the real problem can be dealt with. (Iraq)

33 posted on 11/03/2001 8:18:03 PM PST by Nogbad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: vbmoneyspender
P.S. EB you are quite wrong on the ceiling for B-52's

I don't know how I could be wrong when I was talking about the altitude figures you gave. Your confusion comes from the fact that when our B52's are over Northern Afghanistan, the ground comes up 12,000 feet above sea level. When the B52's are at 50,000, it's only 38,000 to the ground.

The issue is really troop density. Beyond that, we caved at the Paris peace talks and conceded the issue to them in exchange for time to disengage somewhat gracefully. Now, take a people used to living under tyranny like the Iraqi's, and you get a far different result as we did in the Gulf War. Technology does not operate in a vacuum, and a man who refuses to quit has to be killed.

34 posted on 11/04/2001 5:21:31 PM PST by Elihu Burritt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-34 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson