PDA

View Full Version : Soviet vets, 20 years on, warn Obama on Afghanistan



SYRIANKID
02-15-2009, 07:44 PM
"It's like fighting sand. No force in the world can get the better of the Afghans," said Oleg Kubanov, a stocky 47-year-old former officer with the Order of the Red Star pinned to his chest at an anniversary concert in Moscow.

"It's their holy land, it doesn't matter to them if you're Russian, American. We're all soldiers to them."

http://in.reuters.com/article/southAsiaNews/idINIndia-38016420090214

jackamo2887
02-15-2009, 07:49 PM
"It's like fighting sand. No force in the world can get the better of the Afghans," said Oleg Kubanov, a stocky 47-year-old former officer with the Order of the Red Star pinned to his chest at an anniversary concert in Moscow.

"It's their holy land, it doesn't matter to them if you're Russian, American. We're all soldiers to them."

http://in.reuters.com/article/southAsiaNews/idINIndia-38016420090214

Difference is the Afghans today don't have the Americans supplying guns to them..pretty big difference I would say.

And didnt we push the Taliban back to the mountains in a matter of months? How is that not getting the better of them?

Occasional IED's and suicide bombings =/= Afghans having the upper hand

thephoenix
02-15-2009, 08:00 PM
"It's like fighting sand. No force in the world can get the better of the Afghans," said Oleg Kubanov, a stocky 47-year-old former officer with the Order of the Red Star pinned to his chest at an anniversary concert in Moscow.

"It's their holy land, it doesn't matter to them if you're Russian, American. We're all soldiers to them."

http://in.reuters.com/article/southAsiaNews/idINIndia-38016420090214

'Entire R&P Section, right now, warn SC about being a Douchebag"

SYRIANKID
02-15-2009, 08:04 PM
Difference is the Afghans today don't have the Americans supplying guns to them..pretty big difference I would say.

And didnt we push the Taliban back to the mountains in a matter of months? How is that not getting the better of them?

Occasional IED's and suicide bombings =/= Afghans having the upper hand

China, Russia, and Iran are supplying the guns this time.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7623496.stm

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/06/13/iran.taliban/

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6975934.stm

jackamo2887
02-15-2009, 08:09 PM
China, Russia, and Iran are supplying the guns this time.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7623496.stm

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/06/13/iran.taliban/

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6975934.stm

China, Russia and Iran still don't have the technology the US does, or did at the time they were supplying the Afghans against the Russians.

I know you find it so unfortunate.

SYRIANKID
02-15-2009, 08:13 PM
China, Russia and Iran still don't have the technology the US does, or did at the time they were supplying the Afghans against the Russians.

I know you find it so unfortunate.

High-end technology is not employed in guerrilla warfare. When you talk about technology, you're talking about things that are useful to a formal military engaged in war - not for ragtag guerrilla troops who rely on guns, rpgs, and ammo.

It's not like guerillas use satellites.

thephoenix
02-15-2009, 08:17 PM
High-end technology is not employed in guerrilla warfare. When you talk about technology, you're talking about things that are useful to a formal military engaged in war - not for ragtag guerrilla troops who rely on guns, rpgs, and ammo.

It's not like guerillas use satellites.

Stinger missiles?

jackamo2887
02-15-2009, 08:20 PM
High-end technology is not employed in guerrilla warfare. When you talk about technology, you're talking about things that are useful to a formal military engaged in war - not for ragtag guerrilla troops who rely on guns, rpgs, and ammo.

It's not like guerillas use satellites.

The US has made great use of technology when fighting the Taliban..UAV's are a perfect example.

The Soviets had around 15,000 casualties in the 10 years they were in Afghanistan..the US has lost less than 3,000 in 8 years. What are you trying to argue?

The Taliban has been crippled for a long time. If Obama shifts forces from Iraq to Afghanistan things will only improve. Especially since he has said he would chase the cowards across the Pakistani border.

Beatitude
02-15-2009, 08:22 PM
Speaking of satellites, they can do wonders in these situations.

Afghanistan has a proud record of screwing over world powers. But the generals have studied the historicity of Afghanistan and we're not doing things the way the British did, and we're certainly not strolling into a mountainous, cavernous country with tanks like Russia did. I don't believe we're going to see a repeat of previous wars against Afghanistan, even if it is costly no matter how you do it. They've been playing it finesse style and it's worked.

sugicalmike
02-15-2009, 08:25 PM
From what I have read, it is my underestanding that the majority of Mujahideen were both cunning and dangerous fighters.

I imagine not too incredibly much has changed in that they're likely to still have the same mentality, although an ~20 year lul in between fighting means that the US is not facing Muj armed with the same mentality or skillset. Obviously they still should not underestimate them..... homefield advantage is a huge consideration in any factor.

surgicalcric
02-15-2009, 08:28 PM
Stinger missiles?

Dont forget the Milan anti-tank missile...

SK: You are right about the Guerrillas not using SAT's and GPS, etc. only because they cant. We do use those advances when we can and at the same time fighting them, as we did at the onset of the war, thru the use of less than conventionally minded soldiers...



...he has said he would chase the cowards across the Pakistani border.

It appears he misspoke and meant to say he would be chased across the Pakistani border... :D

SYRIANKID
02-15-2009, 08:47 PM
The US has made great use of technology when fighting the Taliban..UAV's are a perfect example.

The Soviets had around 15,000 casualties in the 10 years they were in Afghanistan..the US has lost less than 3,000 in 8 years. What are you trying to argue?

The Taliban has been crippled for a long time. If Obama shifts forces from Iraq to Afghanistan things will only improve. Especially since he has said he would chase the cowards across the Pakistani border.

Neither of us are war analysts. So neither of our "expert opinions" are worth much. But you are making some gross comparisons that you need to consider.

Soviets fought Afghanistan, not merely guerrillas within the country. The Soviets were not allied with Afghanistan, as the coalition is. That conflict ended with a stalemate. The Soviets had roughly three times the troops that the coalition does.

Former Soviets, and not just Soviets but other analysts as well, say that conflicts are more difficult when they don't involve 2 countries fighting directly.

It's true the coalition has lost 1000 troops, but nearly 4000 face combat-restricting wounds, and of course the people who are actually absorbing the brunt of the damage are the 4300 killed (coalition allied) Afghan soldiers. So the figures are not dramatically different from Soviet days considering the percentage of the Afghan population actually fighting.

This time, the Northern border of Pakistan is completely porous. In case you didn't know, roughly 2 million Northern Pakistanis ethnically and religiously ally themselves with what are termed "the Taliban". So what the media calls "Taliban" are really a diverse group of Afghans and Pakistanis who don't even recognize national borders.

jackamo2887
02-15-2009, 09:41 PM
Neither of us are war analysts. So neither of our "expert opinions" are worth much. But you are making some gross comparisons that you need to consider.

Soviets fought Afghanistan, not merely guerrillas within the country. The Soviets were not allied with Afghanistan, as the coalition is. That conflict ended with a stalemate. The Soviets had roughly three times the troops that the coalition does.



So pretty much..the 2 situations are nothing alike? Why then should we hold merit to what these old soviets that fought in a completely different war 20 or 30 years ago are saying?


Neither of us are war analysts. So neither of our "expert opinions" are worth much. But you are making some gross comparisons that you need to consider.


You fail to address the gross exaggerations made by these soviet vets..




It's true the coalition has lost 1000 troops, but nearly 4000 face combat-restricting wounds, and of course the people who are actually absorbing the brunt of the damage are the 4300 killed (coalition allied) Afghan soldiers. So the figures are not dramatically different from Soviet days considering the percentage of the Afghan population actually fighting.


Less than 3,000 deaths and 15,000 are dramatically different. It wouldn't be correct to bring the afghan army casualties into the discussion. They aren't using the same technology that the US is using, and that is what I was originally arguing. The superior technology has helped a lot in the war in Afghanistan.



This time, the Northern border of Pakistan is completely porous. In case you didn't know, roughly 2 million Northern Pakistanis ethnically and religiously ally themselves with what are termed "the Taliban". So what the media calls "Taliban" are really a diverse group of Afghans and Pakistanis who don't even recognize national borders.

Not much to say to this accept that is their problem when they get blown up for allying themselves with terrorists. Feel free to keep me updated on this with future threads.

SYRIANKID
02-15-2009, 09:45 PM
So pretty much..the 2 situations are nothing alike? Why then should we hold merit to what these old soviets that fought in a completely different war 20 or 30 years ago are saying?

You fail to address the gross exaggerations made by these soviet vets..

I didn't say they are completely different. But they are different.

This one Soviet vet didn't give his analysis. He just gave a pessimistic one liner.


Less than 3,000 deaths and 15,000 are dramatically different. It wouldn't be correct to bring the afghan army casualties into the discussion. They aren't using the same technology that the US is using, and that is what I was originally arguing. The superior technology has helped a lot in the war in Afghanistan.

Well, you have a smaller coalition force compared to the Soviet army, so that obviously means fewer deaths.

You also have fewer Afghans fighting this time, which means fewer deaths.

Plus Afghan troops are supported by NATO. They aren't using their own grungy Afghan technology. The more important detail is that they are more directly engaged.


Not much to say to this accept that is their problem when they get blown up for allying themselves with terrorists. Feel free to keep me updated on this with future threads.

You know I will.

jackamo2887
02-15-2009, 09:54 PM
I didn't say they are completely different. But they are different.

This one Soviet vet didn't give his analysis. He just gave a pessimistic one liner.



You created a thread on how Obama should be warned about the war in Afghanistan. You call what I said a gross exaggeration yet don't make a comment on
[b] No force in the world can get the better of the Afghans," Is this a gross exaggeration or do you truly believe the Taliban fighting out of the caves are reincarnated Spartans?





Well, you have a smaller coalition force compared to the Soviet army, so that obviously means fewer deaths.

You also have fewer Afghans fighting this time, which means fewer deaths.

Plus Afghan troops are supported by NATO. They aren't using their own grungy Afghan technology. The more important detail is that they are more directly engaged.

Sounds like good strategy on the Americans part to me.

SYRIANKID
02-15-2009, 09:58 PM
You created a thread on how Obama should be warned about the war in Afghanistan. You call what I said a gross exaggeration yet don't make a comment on Is this a gross exaggeration or do you truly believe the Taliban fighting out of the caves are reincarnated Spartans?

I created a thread on Soviet vets warning Obama. Then I pointed out why your comparison of the Soviet-Afghan war is different from the Taliban-Coalition war.

As for the former Soviet's quote, that's his personal opinion. Just as people like you think that dumping troops will solve the problem, a man who was part of such a strategy said "No".


Sounds like good strategy on the Americans part to me.

Well it strengthened the Taliban. Afghan soldiers end up refusing to fight or they end up joining the Taliban when they are thrown on their own into situations they can't handle.

jackamo2887
02-15-2009, 10:08 PM
I created a thread on Soviet vets warning Obama. Then I pointed out why your comparison of the Soviet-Afghan war is different from the Taliban-Coalition war.

As for the former Soviet's quote, that's his personal opinion. Just as people like you think that dumping troops will solve the problem, a man who was part of such a strategy said "No".



Like me and you both said, things are different today then the war they had 30 years ago. They were facing a conventional military, not guerrillas. They also didn't have the technology we have today. Dumping more troops very well could work. This isn't a case of "not learning from history, damned to repeat it".

And so you disagree or agree with his opinion? That is usually how a discussion works. Post an article and your opinion.



Well it strengthened the Taliban. Afghan soldiers end up refusing to fight or they end up joining the Taliban when they are thrown on their own into situations they can't handle.

The Taliban only strengthened when ironically troops were diverted from the Afghan theater to the one in Iraq. I haven't been to Afghanistan but from what my friends say that were there they don't worry much at all about the Taliban in terms of fighting, they just worry about IED's and suicide bombers. So I don't know if someone can consider the Taliban a formidable fighting force if their only weapons are IED's and suicide bombers.

SYRIANKID
02-15-2009, 10:20 PM
Like me and you both said, things are different today then the war they had 30 years ago. They were facing a conventional military, not guerrillas. They also didn't have the technology we have today. Dumping more troops very well could work. This isn't a case of "not learning from history, damned to repeat it".

And so you disagree or agree with his opinion? That is usually how a discussion works. Post an article and your opinion.

To be honest with you, I posted his quote because it was unique. He compares them to fighting sand. Almost poetic. You almost wonder what kinds of things those Soviets saw or experienced to make them say such a thing.


The Taliban only strengthened when ironically troops were diverted from the Afghan theater to the one in Iraq. I haven't been to Afghanistan but from what my friends say that were there they don't worry much at all about the Taliban in terms of fighting, they just worry about IED's and suicide bombers. So I don't know if someone can consider the Taliban a formidable fighting force if their only weapons are IED's and suicide bombers.

Well that's mostly what causes casualties: IEDs.

Beatitude
02-15-2009, 10:28 PM
http://www.camelspiders.net/large-camel-spider.jpg

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_0LlKkQ7nRJI/R72jKGq5QiI/AAAAAAAABSU/f3FDlOjh-JQ/s400/CamelSpiderBite4.jpg

Skettch
02-15-2009, 10:28 PM
http://www.camelspiders.net/large-camel-spider.jpg

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_0LlKkQ7nRJI/R72jKGq5QiI/AAAAAAAABSU/f3FDlOjh-JQ/s400/CamelSpiderBite4.jpg

Oh wow, what is that?

Beatitude
02-15-2009, 10:29 PM
Oh wow, what is that?

Probably the #1 cause for why everybody loses in Afghanistan as far as I'm concerned.

Camel Spider.

SYRIANKID
02-15-2009, 10:32 PM
Oh wow, what is that?

Forget that, what's this?


It's like fighting sand.

http://www.collider.com/uploads/imageGallery/Spiderman_3_Hi_Res/spiderman_3_movie_image_thomas_haden_church_as_san dman_fighting_spiderman.jpg

jackamo2887
02-16-2009, 02:29 AM
To be honest with you, I posted his quote because it was unique. He compares them to fighting sand. Almost poetic. You almost wonder what kinds of things those Soviets saw or experienced to make them say such a thing.




Unique in the sense it hasn't been used since a Spider man comic.





Well that's mostly what causes casualties: IEDs.

And those wont win a war, or give the taliban the upperhand.

Weightaholic
02-16-2009, 02:54 AM
http://www.camelspiders.net/large-camel-spider.jpg

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_0LlKkQ7nRJI/R72jKGq5QiI/AAAAAAAABSU/f3FDlOjh-JQ/s400/CamelSpiderBite4.jpg

http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d153/ManinHat/Funnel_Web_Spider__Australia.jpg

http://pixtures.s3.amazonaws.com/storylog/death/signaltonoise-death.jpg

Australia wins.

BJplayer
02-16-2009, 02:58 AM
SK: Would you like to see the Taliban defeat the American troops and force them to leave Afhanistan in disgrace like the Soviets?

DCarruso
02-18-2009, 07:36 AM
"It's like fighting sand. No force in the world can get the better of the Afghans," said Oleg Kubanov, a stocky 47-year-old former officer with the Order of the Red Star pinned to his chest at an anniversary concert in Moscow.

"It's their holy land, it doesn't matter to them if you're Russian, American. We're all soldiers to them."

http://in.reuters.com/article/southAsiaNews/idINIndia-38016420090214

I LOL'ed. SK is such a genius! SK p'wned SK himself and /thread.

SK pointed out that below that he just hyped a one liner. LOL


...
This one Soviet vet didn't give his analysis. He just gave a pessimistic one liner.
.....


:D :D :D

Shortfuze
02-18-2009, 08:10 AM
It's hard to compare Soviet experience in Afghanistan to US/NATO.

1) Soviet army did not follow any hearts and minds campaign. They used guns, bombs, terror and intimidation which brought all Afghans together despite their tribal differences. (This was the main reason why they lost)

2) Soviet army was largely made up of conscripts and ill equipped, low morale Afghan govt troops.

3) Soviet airforce was effectively nullified by US supplied Stinger missiles which turned the war against the Soviets.

4) The war was bleeding the Soviets dry especially with the enormous cost of maintaining large conventional forces against NATO allies.

5) There were no end of volunteers to fight against the Soviet forces from the entire Islamic world. More importantly they were encouraged to go by the US to fight against the Soviets.

Lucky_ROA
02-18-2009, 08:14 AM
Difference is the Afghans today don't have the Americans supplying guns to them..pretty big difference I would say.

And didnt we push the Taliban back to the mountains in a matter of months? How is that not getting the better of them?

Occasional IED's and suicide bombings =/= Afghans having the upper hand

Wrong, the weapons that America supplied Afghanistan, never GOT to the Afghans, they were kept by Pakistan. It was proven by the Ojri Camp bombings, and the Chief of Army staff later admitted the blame, that Pakistanis never transferred those weapons onto the Afghans.


The situation and scenario is actually exactly the same, only this time, the media is on the side of the oppressor.

Lucky_ROA
02-18-2009, 08:20 AM
It's hard to compare Soviet experience in Afghanistan to US/NATO.

1) Soviet army did not follow any hearts and minds campaign. They used guns, bombs, terror and intimidation which brought all Afghans together despite their tribal differences. (This was the main reason why they lost)
.

WRONG. Stop assuming things. I belong from the Bangash tribe, and we all follow the Pakhtoonwalia code. The tribes will unite NO MATTER WHAT. There are no tribal differences between the tribes, there are personal differences which are settled by the elders of the different clans/tribes depending on the situation.

The thing is, Pakhtoons dont think of themselves as AFGHANS, we think of ourselves as PASHTOONS/PAKHTOONS.

There are more Pashtoons in Pakistan than in Afghanistan. So when something happens, all Pashtoons unite. So expect external forces in this.

Right now, I can tell you this, I am sitting 5 mins. away from Kohat, and about 30-50 mins from the Afghan border, there is more hatred for the U.S forces than there was for the Soviets.

George Carlinian
02-18-2009, 08:40 AM
Where is Moscow compared to Kabul?

Where is Washington DC compared to Kabul?

Foreigners will ALWAYS struggle in foreign lands (especially over time).

The Soviets had the legitimacy of the Afghan Kings and communist Afghans invitation. Most Afghans were opposed to the king and communists. The US had the support of anti-talibaners...but we didn't do much with them and like in Iraq, chose to leave them at the mercy of militias (not good).

Bottom line, Afghanistan is NOT anyone elses problem...it barely is one country (with many tribes, ethnicities, and languages).

George Carlinian
02-18-2009, 08:42 AM
Wrong, the weapons that America supplied Afghanistan, never GOT to the Afghans, they were kept by Pakistan. It was proven by the Ojri Camp bombings, and the Chief of Army staff later admitted the blame, that Pakistanis never transferred those weapons onto the Afghans.


The situation and scenario is actually exactly the same, only this time, the media is on the side of the oppressor.

There's a lot of videos (rare from the 1970s civil conflict) of tanks and airplanes being destroyed by mujahadeen. some of it made it in.

cjh156
02-18-2009, 08:45 AM
High-end technology is not employed in guerrilla warfare. When you talk about technology, you're talking about things that are useful to a formal military engaged in war - not for ragtag guerrilla troops who rely on guns, rpgs, and ammo.

It's not like guerillas use satellites.

The difference is that the US has a much better understanding of fighting guerilla warfare than the russians did at the time. So far they have been extremely successful with the use of special ops leading the way.

Technology is used in guerilla warfare. In the end the training and technology employed by US special ops is what gives them the advantage in guerilla warfare. The use of unmanned spy planes, satellites, laser tagging of targets, night vision all give an edge to the US.

The US has been fighting guerrilla style battles since the beginning of these two wars, they've gotten pretty good at it, as can be seen in how quickly the routed the taliban the first time.

slowteg
02-18-2009, 09:17 AM
Wrong, the weapons that America supplied Afghanistan, never GOT to the Afghans, they were kept by Pakistan. It was proven by the Ojri Camp bombings, and the Chief of Army staff later admitted the blame, that Pakistanis never transferred those weapons onto the Afghans.


The situation and scenario is actually exactly the same, only this time, the media is on the side of the oppressor.

there are video's of russian heilcopters being shot down by stingers

photomasterx
02-18-2009, 09:50 AM
China, Russia and Iran still don't have the technology the US does, or did at the time they were supplying the Afghans against the Russians.

I know you find it so unfortunate.

This is incorrect.

Russia especially is ahead of the US in this aspect. Especially weapons needed for urban warfare.

What the US weapons companies have just finished R&D on this decade, the Russian had in service back in the 1970's and 1980's.

The Russians already had **** like 40mm thermobaric UBG's, shoulder launched thermo anti-structure munitions, laser guided 120mm mortar shells, 155/152mm laser guided artillery, vehicle based active defensive systems(ARENA-E) etc...

Russia's main problem was that at the time that the conflict began the Afghans were using weapons which were adequite for that time peroid. An RPG-7 was capable of destroying M-60, T-55/T-72, Centurion tanks.

Today the RPG-7 would not even scratch the paint of most tanks.

If Afghans recived RPG-29 and SA-18 the Americans would recieve the exact same beating the Russian's got.

Secondly Russian's, Chinese and Iranians have plenty of tech to cripple the US.

Iranian Misgah-1/2 surface to air missiles (similar to SA-16 and QW-1/2) :
http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e23/photomasterx/6_8411170195_L600.jpg

http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e23/photomasterx/misagh-1.jpg

RAAD-T SACLOS guided tandem warhead anti-tank missiles(similar to Milan AT) :
http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e23/photomasterx/raad.jpg


Iranian Super-Dragons :
http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e23/photomasterx/superdragon.jpg


Iranian TOW missiles(reverse engineered) :
http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e23/photomasterx/toophan.jpg



Iranian super cobra-gunships :
http://img216.imageshack.us/img216/3285/imfhesacobra7xk5jnwk6.jpg

http://img137.imageshack.us/img137/4471/iraniancobras38czvx0.jpg[/QUOTE]


Iranian "Generation 3" S-1001 Gen-3 night vision goggles :
http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e23/photomasterx/IranianIEIShabanoor-1001.jpg

etc....

And Iran is the least well armed and equiped out of the 3 countries. The Russian's companies are producing the best weapons now especially for the types of operations needed in Afghanistan/Iraq.

.

Lucky_ROA
02-18-2009, 10:16 AM
There's a lot of videos (rare from the 1970s civil conflict) of tanks and airplanes being destroyed by mujahadeen. some of it made it in.

LMAO, how can you throw the word ALOT and RARE in the same sentence. Dude, 95% of the AMMO and STINGERS were DESTROYED in the OJRI CAMP blast.

Only 5% were able to make it to the Afghans. That 5% doesnt ACCOUNTS FOR ****. You cant win a war, based on 10-15 STINGERS LOL

The United States is well aware of this fact, and there was a whole investigation on this, and it was all confirmed after the Ojri Camp bomb blast, the Chief of Armed Forces admitted it himself.

Shortfuze
02-18-2009, 01:54 PM
WRONG. Stop assuming things. I belong from the Bangash tribe, and we all follow the Pakhtoonwalia code. The tribes will unite NO MATTER WHAT. There are no tribal differences between the tribes, there are personal differences which are settled by the elders of the different clans/tribes depending on the situation.

The thing is, Pakhtoons dont think of themselves as AFGHANS, we think of ourselves as PASHTOONS/PAKHTOONS.

There are more Pashtoons in Pakistan than in Afghanistan. So when something happens, all Pashtoons unite. So expect external forces in this.

Right now, I can tell you this, I am sitting 5 mins. away from Kohat, and about 30-50 mins from the Afghan border, there is more hatred for the U.S forces than there was for the Soviets.

You cannot deny the fact that ethnic conflict/rivalry has plagued Afghanistan for a long time especially between Pashtuns and non-Pashtun populace. The Soviets and Govt forces did try to exploit that rivalry but failed because of their indiscriminate violence against all Afghans. I'm saying that ethnic rivalry was put on the sidelines during the Soviet invasion but after the Soviets left, you had many different warring groups competing for power(ex. Uzbek militia of General Dostum and the Ismaili militia of Sayyed Mansoor) until the Taliban takeover.

As for the hatred part, I cannot say. I do know that there has been an increase in casualties among Afghan civilians which is worrying the govt and causing strain between the populace and US/NATO forces.

D0NOVAN
02-18-2009, 04:03 PM
Wtf?

1.Are you not aware that we are there for the people, and the Russians were there for the land?
That statement alone is enough to disprove the uneducated Soviet.

But are you not aware of operation anaconda?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Anaconda
We played their game and this was the outcome

American Taliban/AQ
15 killed, 500?800 Killed
82 wounded ? Wounded

George Carlinian
02-18-2009, 05:44 PM
LMAO, how can you throw the word ALOT and RARE in the same sentence. Dude, 95% of the AMMO and STINGERS were DESTROYED in the OJRI CAMP blast.

Only 5% were able to make it to the Afghans. That 5% doesnt ACCOUNTS FOR ****. You cant win a war, based on 10-15 STINGERS LOL

The United States is well aware of this fact, and there was a whole investigation on this, and it was all confirmed after the Ojri Camp bomb blast, the Chief of Armed Forces admitted it himself.i dont know about the numbers you're given and i have no reason to doubt you...but i know that the mujahadeen crippled the sovietization of afghanistan and made them give up.

DCarruso
02-19-2009, 09:00 AM
It's hard to compare Soviet experience in Afghanistan to US/NATO.

1) Soviet army did not follow any hearts and minds campaign. They used guns, bombs, terror and intimidation which brought all Afghans together despite their tribal differences. (This was the main reason why they lost)

2) Soviet army was largely made up of conscripts and ill equipped, low morale Afghan govt troops.

3) Soviet airforce was effectively nullified by US supplied Stinger missiles which turned the war against the Soviets.

4) The war was bleeding the Soviets dry especially with the enormous cost of maintaining large conventional forces against NATO allies.

5) There were no end of volunteers to fight against the Soviet forces from the entire Islamic world. More importantly they were encouraged to go by the US to fight against the Soviets.

Excellent post! Repped.

DCarruso
02-19-2009, 09:03 AM
LMAO, how can you throw the word ALOT and RARE in the same sentence. Dude, 95% of the AMMO and STINGERS were DESTROYED in the OJRI CAMP blast.

Only 5% were able to make it to the Afghans. That 5% doesnt ACCOUNTS FOR ****. You cant win a war, based on 10-15 STINGERS LOL

The United States is well aware of this fact, and there was a whole investigation on this, and it was all confirmed after the Ojri Camp bomb blast, the Chief of Armed Forces admitted it himself.

Let me guess. Your cousins from your Khan Bangash clan defeated the Russia and saved Afghanistan, the world, the galaxy and the Universe, all by themselves.. ;)

yeah, we know you are trying to hog all the credit. ;)

-Ironside-
02-19-2009, 09:24 AM
R&P has been a weird place today as I have found myself agreeing with SK in numerous topics.
As for the argument about the US having superior technology. I once witnessed several soldiers killed by a homemade concoction of soap and fuel. It doesn't take technology to kill someone, any one here can easily be killed by a sharpened stick.

-Ironside-
02-19-2009, 09:27 AM
The difference is that the US has a much better understanding of fighting guerilla warfare than the russians did at the time. So far they have been extremely successful with the use of special ops leading the way.

Technology is used in guerilla warfare. In the end the training and technology employed by US special ops is what gives them the advantage in guerilla warfare. The use of unmanned spy planes, satellites, laser tagging of targets, night vision all give an edge to the US.

The US has been fighting guerrilla style battles since the beginning of these two wars, they've gotten pretty good at it, as can be seen in how quickly the routed the taliban the first time.

This may be true but we're limited by rules.
I believe both Iraq and Afghanistan are easily winnable if we stopped using the geneva convention.

Shortfuze
02-19-2009, 10:31 AM
This may be true but we're limited by rules.
I believe both Iraq and Afghanistan are easily winnable if we stopped using the geneva convention.

Can you elaborate please? How so?
Because violation of Geneva Conventions would result in more civilian casualties, further endanger US forces in conflict zones, endager US civilians in foreign countries, make US military and political personel elligible to be tried for war crimes in foreign countries, and the US would lose all credibility, respect, and support from the international community not to mention engender further hatred, resentment, fear and enemity from the rest of the world.

Usman_08
02-19-2009, 10:35 AM
This may be true but we're limited by rules.
I believe both Iraq and Afghanistan are easily winnable if we stopped using the geneva convention.

If Americans openly stopped adhering to the Geenva convention in Iraq/Afghanistan what position do you think that would leave America itself in ? You may think the wars would be "winnable" but America and its civilians would just become legitimiate and easy targets for many angry people. Terrorisim on American soil would sky rocket, it would not be worth "winning" the wars to destroy American domestic security would it ?

Usman_08
02-19-2009, 10:36 AM
Can you elaborate please? How so?
Because violation of Geneva Conventions would result in more civilian casualties, further endanger US forces in conflict zones, endager US civilians in foreign countries, make US military and political personel elligible to be tried for war crimes in foreign countries, and the US would lose all credibility, respect, and support from the international community not to mention engender further hatred, resentment, fear and enemity from the rest of the world.

ya x 2 good points there brah...

Irezumi
02-19-2009, 11:17 AM
It's hard to compare Soviet experience in Afghanistan to US/NATO.

1) Soviet army did not follow any hearts and minds campaign. They used guns, bombs, terror and intimidation which brought all Afghans together despite their tribal differences. (This was the main reason why they lost)

2) Soviet army was largely made up of conscripts and ill equipped, low morale Afghan govt troops.

3) Soviet airforce was effectively nullified by US supplied Stinger missiles which turned the war against the Soviets.

4) The war was bleeding the Soviets dry especially with the enormous cost of maintaining large conventional forces against NATO allies.

5) There were no end of volunteers to fight against the Soviet forces from the entire Islamic world. More importantly they were encouraged to go by the US to fight against the Soviets.

Correct. This comming from someone who was actually in the middle of the war in Kabul while Russia was invading us. We got lucky and escaped on horse back over several nights while the war was going on


WRONG. Stop assuming things. I belong from the Bangash tribe, and we all follow the Pakhtoonwalia code. The tribes will unite NO MATTER WHAT. There are no tribal differences between the tribes, there are personal differences which are settled by the elders of the different clans/tribes depending on the situation.

The thing is, Pakhtoons dont think of themselves as AFGHANS, we think of ourselves as PASHTOONS/PAKHTOONS.

There are more Pashtoons in Pakistan than in Afghanistan. So when something happens, all Pashtoons unite. So expect external forces in this.

Right now, I can tell you this, I am sitting 5 mins. away from Kohat, and about 30-50 mins from the Afghan border, there is more hatred for the U.S forces than there was for the Soviets.

You're Aghan too?

surgicalcric
02-19-2009, 07:53 PM
...Iranian "Generation 3" S-1001 Gen-3 night vision goggles :
http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e23/photomasterx/IranianIEIShabanoor-1001.jpg

Those are nothing more than PVS 7D's of which very few are still being used today by our military as we have moved on to better, lighter, smaller NVG's...

http://www.imaging1.com/images/PVS7D_pinnacle.gif

http://www.imaging1.com/images/AN-PVS-7D-night-vision-goggle-binocular.gif

They might be new to Iran but...

photomasterx
02-20-2009, 01:50 AM
Those are nothing more than PVS 7D's of which very few are still being used today by our military as we have moved on to better, lighter, smaller NVG's...

http://www.imaging1.com/images/PVS7D_pinnacle.gif

http://www.imaging1.com/images/AN-PVS-7D-night-vision-goggle-binocular.gif

They might be new to Iran but...

The outer casing is not important. Iran makes many versions. You give IEI an order for something specific and they will make it for you. Example if you want a gen-3 tube in PVS-14 goggles etc...

The tube is gen-3. Thats whats important.


.

BJplayer
02-20-2009, 05:02 AM
SK: Would you like to see the Taliban defeat the American troops and force them to leave Afhanistan in disgrace like the Soviets?

I dont believe SK ever answered my question....

surgicalcric
02-20-2009, 05:41 AM
The outer casing is not important.

Really I didnt know that... [heavy sarcasm]


...You give IEI an order for something specific and they will make it for you. Example if you want a gen-3 tube in PVS-14 goggles etc...

The tube is gen-3. Thats whats important...

There is a reason we have stopped using this type of outer casing and gone to mono (14's) and binos (15's.) You are right you can change the tube but in the case of the 7's you are still left without any depth perception which is a key factor when wearing/using any type of NOD.

photomasterx
02-20-2009, 07:01 AM
Really I didnt know that... [heavy sarcasm]


The company that makes those NVD also make many different models. Like I said the outer casing is not important. The company will make the casing to customer specs. This means if you want the whole device mate out of carbon fiber they will do it for you. If you want it made out of polymer they will do it.

You tell them what model/specs you want and what tube you want and the company will make it. They currently make about 10 different NVD models for various uses. You request something and they will make it.

The tube is the most important part of the NVD. Once you have the Gen 2+ and Gen 3 tubes you can then transfer them into any casing/lens combo you want. You can have PVS-7, PVS-14, PVS-22 etc... all on similar Gen 2+ and Gen 3 tubes. So like I said the casing is not important. You give them an order and they can produce it.



There is a reason we have stopped using this type of outer casing and gone to mono (14's) and binos (15's.) You are right you can change the tube but in the case of the 7's you are still left without any depth perception which is a key factor when wearing/using any type of NOD.

The reason why that model is still made is because it's a mil-standard for various countries that it's sold to. Iran exports equipment like this to over 50 different countries around the world including some NATO countries. These models are still popular for export.

You want PVS-14 mono's just ask the company and they will make you exact copies with generation-3 tubes. You want PVS-22 and they will make those. All you have to do is just request a model from them.

That picture by the way was just used as an example by me of one type of NVD made by one of the companies in Iran.

690
02-20-2009, 07:04 AM
Do you really think a soviet vet is going to say 'We failed but I'm sure America can handle it'????

Whether it is true or not, the soviet vet is definitely going to say these guys are unbeatable - because obviously if the soviets cant do it, no one can. FOR MOTHER RUSSIA!!!!!

-Ironside-
02-20-2009, 07:05 AM
If Americans openly stopped adhering to the Geenva convention in Iraq/Afghanistan what position do you think that would leave America itself in ?


Can you elaborate please? How so?

It's impossible for me to make you understand. You would have to experience what I've experienced in order to know what I'm talking about.
By getting rid of the Geneva Convention I'm not talking about genocide or killing civilians, I'm talking about how we run our whole operation. We treat the enemy like reformed citizens. Instead of executing an enemy on the spot, we are forced to let them go because or evidence is seen as inconclusive, evidence that if in America would sentence someone to life or death. To elaborate let me tell you something that I experienced.
US Troops respond to roadside bomb, before they get there another roadside bomb killed 1 soldier and permanently disables 2 more. Iraqi who set off bomb is found still holding the detonation device with a small pistol. Iraqi lived about 1/4 mile away so we raided his home and found RPG's, bomb making devices, aks, etc. The detonator had his finger prints all over it, the electrical tape made perfect imprints. We released this man 24 hrs later because our evidence was inconclusive in the fact that we couldn't database fingerprints, he said the RPG's weren't his, no one physically seen him set off the IED and we didn't have 2 literate iraqi civilians willing to swear in court saying that he was the one that did it.
This man should have been executed on the spot, instead we let him go and caught him a few months later after he killed 2 more soldiers and crippled 2 others.
So tell me that the Geneva Convention protected Americans in that situation. I wanted to execute him but I was told if I did, I would face prison time. If I could go back knowing what I know now, I would have done it anyways. 20 years of my life is worth the lives of other soldiers.