Article

2006-06-21 Afghanistan

Brits finding more Taleban than expected

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Steve White 2006-06-21 00:00|| || Front Page|| [3 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Simply put: need some more bullets

Posted by Captain America 2006-06-21 00:25|| 2006-06-21 00:25|| Front Page Top

#2 Good for them. I worry though, that they might have a Custer(TM) moment:
"I say, where did all those ~~indians~~ talibans come from?"

Still, I wish them good hunting.

Posted by N guard 2006-06-21 01:11|| 2006-06-21 01:11|| Front Page Top

#3 One Word:

Gurkha.

Posted by Oldspook 2006-06-21 01:13|| 2006-06-21 01:13|| Front Page Top

#4 Re. #2
It's too bad Custer didn't have air support.

Posted by Chuck 2006-06-21 01:58|| 2006-06-21 01:58|| Front Page Top

#5 Target rich environment. That's all I have to say.

Posted by twobyfour 2006-06-21 02:25|| 2006-06-21 02:25|| Front Page Top

#6 Custer's men died because they were effectively outnumber about 10-1, they had single shot Trapdoor Springfields and a large number of the Indians had repeating rifles, and Custer both left his Gatling guns behind and split his forces. I don't see the Brits doing anything that harebrained in Afghanistan. Plus, the Brits can call on Apache helicopters, F-15, F-16, FA-18, Harrier, A-10, and AC-130U gunship air support; and the simply marvelous light artillery pieces that the British Army was smart enough to buy in 1980s and 90s. And the SA-80 for all of its faults is a true assault rifle, and British troops are issued plenty of ammo, and have effective marksmen training; plus they have excellent LMGs with plenty of ammo.

Posted by Shieldwolf 2006-06-21 02:37|| 2006-06-21 02:37|| Front Page Top

#7 I don't understand: AFAIK the Union cavalry had repeating rifles well before the end of the Civil war (example: in the battle where Jeb Stuart was killed).

Why was Custer's regiment using single shots over a decade later?

Posted by JFM">JFM 2006-06-21 03:47|| 2006-06-21 03:47|| Front Page Top

#8 Because the politicians and stick-in-the-mud generals in Washington DC decided that repeating rifles would "encourage the waste of ammunition" by the troops. So the cavalry got issued Colt and Remington pistols with the new cylinders for brass cased ammo, and single shot breechloaders like the Trapdoor Springfield. This happened almost immediately after the Civil War. The only advancement that the assorted morons permitted was brass cased ammo, since that was a much better all-weather approach and helped standardize each shot's powder use and range. The repeaters were sold off as surplus, and many wound up in the hands of the Indians -- who used them on the 7th Cavalry.

Posted by Shieldwolf 2006-06-21 04:08|| 2006-06-21 04:08|| Front Page Top

#9 Infra-red detectors, long-range sniper rifles, and frisk-'em-all tactics should be doing the job. However, from what I heard this action is only an offensive spike, and will dissipate until the Pakistan mosques get a new dose of venom.

Posted by Shurt Angaimble9728 2006-06-21 04:17|| 2006-06-21 04:17|| Front Page Top

#10 The British Army should remember their Little Big Horn: Isandlwana.

Posted by doc 2006-06-21 07:05|| 2006-06-21 07:05|| Front Page Top

#11 All with, as it turns out, Pakistani papers ...

But surely those are the classic Pakistani forgeries!

Posted by trailing wife 2006-06-21 07:13|| 2006-06-21 07:13|| Front Page Top

#12 Also they had shown their determination with a series of suicide bombings over the winter months -- a period when militants normally go to ground.
Were they showing their determination or their ethnicity? I thought Afganis looked down on suicide bombings.

Posted by Chinter Flarong9283 2006-06-21 08:06|| 2006-06-21 08:06|| Front Page Top

#13 Remember, from the other day, Brig. Butler said that there was no Taliban offensive. No wonder they're surprised.

Posted by Chuck Simmins">Chuck Simmins 2006-06-21 08:19|| http://northshorejournal.org]">[http://northshorejournal.org] 2006-06-21 08:19|| Front Page Top

#14 Was is their business, and business is good!

Posted by Besoeker 2006-06-21 08:26|| 2006-06-21 08:26|| Front Page Top

#15 The British Army should remember their Little Big Horn: Isandlwana.

At Issanwhana the Briotish had single shot Martini Henrys (for God's sake that was thirty years after American Civil war, why they were still equipped Martiny Henrys).

Aklso your link is the typical PC thrash like mass produced by the Ward Churchills who thrive in American univeristies: notice the pro-Zulu tone and how the Zulu casualties are grossly minimized: Victor Davis Hanson places them at about 3 times more and I have trouble believing that the Zulus lost barely more men that the British knowing the high standards for marskmanship who have been a constant in the British army

Posted by JFM">JFM 2006-06-21 08:30|| 2006-06-21 08:30|| Front Page Top

#16 Were they showing their determination or their ethnicity? I thought Afganis looked down on suicide bombings.

And they do. Winners don't suicide: be it the Japanese before the Turkey shot or Pashtuns basking in their (usually short-lived) XIXth century victories over the British. Chechens don't suicide either.

Only losers, people who think they don't stand a chance at trading shots with the ennemy, will resort to suicide warfare. That is why Arabs resort to it. Now could be that the daisy cutters have convinced Pashtun that they can't win normally but I still think most suiciders are Arabs.

Posted by JFM">JFM 2006-06-21 08:38|| 2006-06-21 08:38|| Front Page Top

#17 doc - I think we're focussing on the 90th anniversary of the Somme at the moment - but Isandlwana is certainly up there - along with our previous foray into Afghanistan. Caution be thy watchword...

Posted by Howard UK 2006-06-21 09:29|| 2006-06-21 09:29|| Front Page Top

#18 Comparing the Talevan to the Zulu is an insult Howard. Come on mate!

Posted by Besoeker 2006-06-21 09:31|| 2006-06-21 09:31|| Front Page Top

#19 the brits won plenty of battles with Martini Henry's which were an advanced general infantry breech loader at the time. The lost at Isandlwana cause they split a small force, and didnt dig in. Of course the Zulus took big casualties, but that was their strategy, they had a much larger and more poorly equipped force.

Posted by liberalhawk 2006-06-21 09:37|| 2006-06-21 09:37|| Front Page Top

#20 True.

Posted by Howard UK 2006-06-21 09:37|| 2006-06-21 09:37|| Front Page Top

#21 wetwork against the appropriate Pakland madrassah leaders is called for....

Posted by Frank G 2006-06-21 10:08|| 2006-06-21 10:08|| Front Page Top

#22 I think you are right on the money Frank G.
They can produce them almost as fast as we can shoot them.

Posted by bigjim-ky 2006-06-21 10:48|| 2006-06-21 10:48|| Front Page Top

#23 The British commander, speaking late Tuesday on condition of anonymity,

Bet you won't be gtting any more comments from the British Commander, you blew the "Anonymity" bit in the first sentence.

Posted by Redneck Jim 2006-06-21 15:07|| 2006-06-21 15:07|| Front Page Top

#24 So many talis, so little ammo.

Posted by mcsegeek1 2006-06-21 16:07|| 2006-06-21 16:07|| Front Page Top

#25 ...and British troops are issued plenty of ammo, and have effective marksmen training; plus they have excellent LMGs with plenty of ammo.

Not to mention their expertise with the bayonet.

Posted by mrp 2006-06-21 19:52|| 2006-06-21 19:52|| Front Page Top

15:37 Old Patriot
23:53 Janos Hunyadi
23:48 crazyhorse
23:42 RD
23:28 RD
23:17 Frank G
23:16 Monsieur Moonbat
23:10 trailing wife
23:06 RD
23:06 Janos Hunyadi
22:55 RJB in JC MO
22:51 RJB in JC MO
22:46 Mark Z
22:44 trailing wife
22:38 badanov
22:20 trailing wife
22:16 Slineger Flaique8971
22:09 Chuck Simmins
22:00 Captain America
21:54 Chuck Simmins
21:49 Captain America
21:48 anymouse
21:47 Al Gore
21:38 Frank G