Watchman
09-19-2001, 10:14 AM
Pulled this off the OG:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Subject:
From: hatariyakufa
Date: 20-Sep-01 | 02:40 AM
Here is some gouge I got from a freind.
Very little written in the past 20 years about Afghanistan is useful. We face a mountain of rumour, half-truth, someone-said, and so forth.That said...
1. The Nazis never tried to get into Afghanistan.
2. The Taliban "government" bears more resemblance to the Leeds United Fan Club than it does to a formal government. A loose association of violent, rowdy, ill-educated, deeply ignorant thugs with a more-or-less common goal.
3. A shooting war is going on in Afghanistan between the Taliban, the remains of the army of the now deceased Masood, "Lion of Panjir," and whoever else feels like launching a rocket at each other.
4. Afghan combat "doctrine" seems to consist largely in a concept of infiltrate, harass, and ambush. A lot of experience against soft targets, most particularly trucks and light armored vehicles. It is a bad idea to respond in a rush to an Afghan ambush.
>>> NOTE WELL: Engagements in Afghanistan will occur at high altitudes, typically 3,000 to 5,000 ft above sea level. At such altitudes, normal max. ranges of light ordnance, particulary including RPG and man-pack SAM, are greatly increased.<<<
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: RE: INFO
From: hatariyakufa
Date: 20-Sep-01 | 02:41 AM
5. Brief summary of major invasions of Afghanistan:
A. Alexander The Great invades @330 B.C. Inconclusive. Fails to subdue the region, is able to sieze and fortify southwest portion and establish several garrisons. Gets a heavy arrow through the right lung for his trouble.
B. Arab fanatics @700 A.D. Inconclusive. Succeed in driving Greek-influenced and other Pagans into seclusion in the mountains, and establishing Islam as the dominant faith, but cannot pacify or control the area.
C. Indians under a variety of aggressive Hindu kings, @ 800 A.D. Disaster. Mountain range to the southeast becomes the "Hindu Kush" ("Death of Hindus.) Hindu states weakened, resulting in Islamic conquest of all northern India.
D. British Empire, two invasions, @ 1838 and @ 1878. First starts in disaster, with the massacre of three regiments (about 5,000 men) of British regulars, and a headlong retreat through the Hindu Kush, but ends in success. "Friendly" ruler established by British military force. Second succeeds early, with most of Afghanistan becoming a client state, small princes under British control, for the next 40 years. (Treaty of Gandamak, 1879.)
>>> NOTE: This second invasion may be most relevant: Afghanistan is exhausted at the time, after 15 years of civil war following the first British invasion. British are able to back small groups, selectively, divide, and rule. Further, British by this time are using weapons that are basically science-fiction to the Afghans, including gatling guns and rifled artillery with shrapnel.<<<
E. Soviet Union, lightning invasion including air-landing of armor, 1979. Something over 115,000 troops deployed. This was working, and had the place more or less subdued, until the USA supplied Afghan insurgents with sophisticated portable weapons. Most notably, groups that wound up very well armed included the Taliban, and Osama Bin Laden.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: RE: INFO
From: hatariyakufa
Date: 20-Sep-01 | 02:43 AM
For a perspective on this last, before the U.S. supplied aid, you can consult the very well-researched AFGHANISTAN: THE FIRST FIVE YEARS OF SOVIET OCCUPATION, by J. Bruce AMSTUTZ, National Defense University Press, 1986. (This has chapters on tactics and opposing forces, which may be more useful for the footnotes and their guide to further research than it is by itself. Amstutz is no infantryman.) An excerpt that might be interesting:
"The two best known (afghan) training camps were run by a former Afghan army colonel, Rahmatullah Safi. He had received commando-type training in the United Kingdom in 1973; he had also received training in the USSR and during the Vietnam War with U.S. Special Forces..."
In other words, unless the looney Taliban has bumped them off, the Afghans have people that know OUR doctrine, including Special Forces doctrine, very well. At least, our doctrine of 30 years ago.
Okay, some known specifics:
Afghan forces, including local militias, are well equipped with 14.5 mm guns, a variety of RPG, and portable SAM including some first generation STINGER.
They have a lot of experience with these weapons, including more experience at high surface altitudes than we will have. They have a lot of experience in downing helicopters. They may not be used to the more agile U.S. types, but if we give them time, they will learn. Normal safe zones for fast movers, 10,000 AGL, will not be safe because of the improved missile performance at altitude. Further, it is well-established that Afghans would ambush aircraft, dangling volunteer bait in a valley, with AA teams pre-postioned on the surrounding mountain peaks. They succeeded in downing HIND types with 14.5 mm MG by firing DOWN into the rotor hubs.
A consistent weakness with Afghan forces is ammunition supply. Transport is basically what can be back-packed, and these forces cannot sustain a fire-fight outside their base areas. However: They don't act like it. They tend to expend the available ammo in prodigious quantities, the (quite sensible) doctrine seeming to be "win quick or bug out."
Afghan forces, pursued into their base support areas, can respond with heavy weapons including armor of the T-55 (possibly T-72) class, towed gun artillery, and (their favorite) rocket artillery.
A great deal of the countryside is mined. No one even knows who put the mines there, any more. The locals have established safe routes more or less by trial and error. This suggests a possible predictability in their movements, that otherwise we wouldn't expect in their own back yard.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Subject:
From: hatariyakufa
Date: 20-Sep-01 | 02:40 AM
Here is some gouge I got from a freind.
Very little written in the past 20 years about Afghanistan is useful. We face a mountain of rumour, half-truth, someone-said, and so forth.That said...
1. The Nazis never tried to get into Afghanistan.
2. The Taliban "government" bears more resemblance to the Leeds United Fan Club than it does to a formal government. A loose association of violent, rowdy, ill-educated, deeply ignorant thugs with a more-or-less common goal.
3. A shooting war is going on in Afghanistan between the Taliban, the remains of the army of the now deceased Masood, "Lion of Panjir," and whoever else feels like launching a rocket at each other.
4. Afghan combat "doctrine" seems to consist largely in a concept of infiltrate, harass, and ambush. A lot of experience against soft targets, most particularly trucks and light armored vehicles. It is a bad idea to respond in a rush to an Afghan ambush.
>>> NOTE WELL: Engagements in Afghanistan will occur at high altitudes, typically 3,000 to 5,000 ft above sea level. At such altitudes, normal max. ranges of light ordnance, particulary including RPG and man-pack SAM, are greatly increased.<<<
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: RE: INFO
From: hatariyakufa
Date: 20-Sep-01 | 02:41 AM
5. Brief summary of major invasions of Afghanistan:
A. Alexander The Great invades @330 B.C. Inconclusive. Fails to subdue the region, is able to sieze and fortify southwest portion and establish several garrisons. Gets a heavy arrow through the right lung for his trouble.
B. Arab fanatics @700 A.D. Inconclusive. Succeed in driving Greek-influenced and other Pagans into seclusion in the mountains, and establishing Islam as the dominant faith, but cannot pacify or control the area.
C. Indians under a variety of aggressive Hindu kings, @ 800 A.D. Disaster. Mountain range to the southeast becomes the "Hindu Kush" ("Death of Hindus.) Hindu states weakened, resulting in Islamic conquest of all northern India.
D. British Empire, two invasions, @ 1838 and @ 1878. First starts in disaster, with the massacre of three regiments (about 5,000 men) of British regulars, and a headlong retreat through the Hindu Kush, but ends in success. "Friendly" ruler established by British military force. Second succeeds early, with most of Afghanistan becoming a client state, small princes under British control, for the next 40 years. (Treaty of Gandamak, 1879.)
>>> NOTE: This second invasion may be most relevant: Afghanistan is exhausted at the time, after 15 years of civil war following the first British invasion. British are able to back small groups, selectively, divide, and rule. Further, British by this time are using weapons that are basically science-fiction to the Afghans, including gatling guns and rifled artillery with shrapnel.<<<
E. Soviet Union, lightning invasion including air-landing of armor, 1979. Something over 115,000 troops deployed. This was working, and had the place more or less subdued, until the USA supplied Afghan insurgents with sophisticated portable weapons. Most notably, groups that wound up very well armed included the Taliban, and Osama Bin Laden.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: RE: INFO
From: hatariyakufa
Date: 20-Sep-01 | 02:43 AM
For a perspective on this last, before the U.S. supplied aid, you can consult the very well-researched AFGHANISTAN: THE FIRST FIVE YEARS OF SOVIET OCCUPATION, by J. Bruce AMSTUTZ, National Defense University Press, 1986. (This has chapters on tactics and opposing forces, which may be more useful for the footnotes and their guide to further research than it is by itself. Amstutz is no infantryman.) An excerpt that might be interesting:
"The two best known (afghan) training camps were run by a former Afghan army colonel, Rahmatullah Safi. He had received commando-type training in the United Kingdom in 1973; he had also received training in the USSR and during the Vietnam War with U.S. Special Forces..."
In other words, unless the looney Taliban has bumped them off, the Afghans have people that know OUR doctrine, including Special Forces doctrine, very well. At least, our doctrine of 30 years ago.
Okay, some known specifics:
Afghan forces, including local militias, are well equipped with 14.5 mm guns, a variety of RPG, and portable SAM including some first generation STINGER.
They have a lot of experience with these weapons, including more experience at high surface altitudes than we will have. They have a lot of experience in downing helicopters. They may not be used to the more agile U.S. types, but if we give them time, they will learn. Normal safe zones for fast movers, 10,000 AGL, will not be safe because of the improved missile performance at altitude. Further, it is well-established that Afghans would ambush aircraft, dangling volunteer bait in a valley, with AA teams pre-postioned on the surrounding mountain peaks. They succeeded in downing HIND types with 14.5 mm MG by firing DOWN into the rotor hubs.
A consistent weakness with Afghan forces is ammunition supply. Transport is basically what can be back-packed, and these forces cannot sustain a fire-fight outside their base areas. However: They don't act like it. They tend to expend the available ammo in prodigious quantities, the (quite sensible) doctrine seeming to be "win quick or bug out."
Afghan forces, pursued into their base support areas, can respond with heavy weapons including armor of the T-55 (possibly T-72) class, towed gun artillery, and (their favorite) rocket artillery.
A great deal of the countryside is mined. No one even knows who put the mines there, any more. The locals have established safe routes more or less by trial and error. This suggests a possible predictability in their movements, that otherwise we wouldn't expect in their own back yard.