ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ

Wars and ConflictsΜύ permalink

British Forces in Afghanistan

• Message 1.Μύ

  Posted by Little Enos Rides Again (U1777880) on Thursday, 26th January 2006

  With regard to the now increased levels of UK troops being sent to the hot spot of Helmand in Southern Afghanistan, around 5,700 I now believe to potentially combat just about everybody!!
  
  i.e. The Taliban, Al Qaeda, and your local friendly Afghan opium dealer.
  
  I just wandered has the debate been sorted out as to whether or not the Government would release the UK's Apache Gunships to provide air support? I had read that the Government thought that the Apache's would be too expensive to service and maintain out there and would use hopelessly out dated Lynx helicopters instead!
  
  Just got me thinking surely if your fighting in a vast mountainous country like Afghanistan,you would use the best possible ground attack helicopters available i.e. an AH-64 Apache and having Apache's to support ground troops and provide air recon would be invaluable irrespective of the cost?
  
  Wouldn't Lynx helicopters be much more vulnerable to small arms fire and RPG's than an Apache? Thus potentially resulting in much higher casualties and downed choppers, therefore costing a lot more in terms of expense and lives?
  
  
  
  
  
  

  Link to this forum: British Forces in Afghanistan

  Report message1

• Message 2

  , in reply to message 1.

  Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Thursday, 26th January 2006

  Since when did the treasury ever put lives over costs.

  Link to this forum: British Forces in Afghanistan

  Report message2

• Message 3

  , in reply to message 2.

  Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Thursday, 26th January 2006

  To show how the treasury works, take both The Merlin and the Typhoon. If the Spitfire had taken as long as both of them to come on line, the RAF would have received the Mk. Ones in 1957

  Link to this forum: British Forces in Afghanistan

  Report message3

• Message 4

  , in reply to message 3.

  Posted by Little Enos Rides Again (U1777880) on Thursday, 26th January 2006

  Politicians eh!!! So we spend Β£millions buying Apache's of the Americans and then when a scenario comes up where we need to use them, It's sorry their too expensive to fly
  
  Sounds a bit like Iraq where theres not enough body armour or armoured Land Rovers to go around so all the troops drive round in civillian cars etc.....
  
  Begs the question what the bl**dy hell is our Government doing commiting UK forces to these places when clearly we can't afford to arm or supply them properly what a shambles......

  Link to this forum: British Forces in Afghanistan

  Report message4

• Message 5

  , in reply to message 4.

  Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Thursday, 26th January 2006

  The answer is. we send the polticans out first, that way we will know the front line troops will have the best money can buy. Do you know, there are now more civil servants within the M. O. D. than there are people in uniform

  Link to this forum: British Forces in Afghanistan

  Report message5

• Message 6

  , in reply to message 5.

  Posted by Lord Ball (U1767246) on Thursday, 26th January 2006

  I heard that the Airborne brigade being sent out there will be supported by Apache helicopters.

  Link to this forum: British Forces in Afghanistan

  Report message6

• Message 7

  , in reply to message 6.

  Posted by DL (U1683040) on Friday, 27th January 2006

  16th Air Assault Brigade is the one you're thinking of. They have Apaches.
  
  Referring to the body armour comment, body armour is seriously over-rated, and even when issued, most troops tend to ditch it because its just heavy, uncomfortable and if you're hit with a high velocity round, all it will do is slow the bullet, flatten it out and it will make a bigger, messier hole (and probably not exit). It's not the mythical "bullet-proof vest" that many people think it is. Armoured Landrovers? The landrover isn't a combat vehicle (apart from the bonkers ones the SAS use) and should not really be in combat! If its a situation where armour is needed, well, we have plenty of APCs!
  

  Link to this forum: British Forces in Afghanistan

  Report message7

• Message 8

  , in reply to message 1.

  Posted by Mani (U1821129) on Friday, 27th January 2006

  Little Enos,
  
  "Wouldn't Lynx helicopters be much more vulnerable to small arms fire and RPG's than an Apache? " No, the other way round. The Lynx is far faster than the Apache... And as far as I knew, better protected...

  Link to this forum: British Forces in Afghanistan

  Report message8

• Message 9

  , in reply to message 8.

  Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Friday, 27th January 2006

  I cannot understand both us and the Americans. The South Africans invented a truck for anti terrorest work. The is designed so that if a wheel runs over a mine, ALL the blast is directed upwards and away from the crew. The sides are also designed to deflect RGPs So why don't we buy them, or copy them. Lives against cost??????

  Link to this forum: British Forces in Afghanistan

  Report message9

• Message 10

  , in reply to message 8.

  Posted by DL (U1683040) on Friday, 27th January 2006

  Going off on a tangent here,
  
  BUT! Many people have posted lots of comments on here about the Yanks being heavy-handed, trigger-happy and less than careful with their bombs, and their record is not so great when it comes to an occupation/pacification operation such as we see in Iraq, and now Afghanistan. Since there has always been a massive difference in terrorist activity between US patrolled areas in Iraq, and UK patrolled ones, then this demonstrates to me that our troops are (despite their equipment deficiencies) more successful in this very difficult role (compare Basra and Baghdad). So, since Afghanistan has the potential to become once more a haven and training ground for terrorists, who would you rather did the job of peacekeeping? The British army's finest soldiers (5th Airborne, and 16th Air Assault), or a division of US National Guard part-timers? Who is more likely to blow up half a town (and recruit a couple of hundred terrorists in the process) while trying to keep the peace?
  
  Sorry folks, but I know who is more likely to succeed. None of you seem to look at the fact that our troops are more experienced, and better trained for this sort of work, and the terrain of southern Afghanistan is not suitable for using armoured vehicles, so its down to the capability of our infantry, and the Army Air Corps. Our infantry are, man for man, the finest on this planet, and much more capable of doing the job than anyone else, so I for one am far happier that they get on with it, that say for example the Indiana National Guard. (Apologies to Indiana). They are going there, because they will get the job done, with the tools they have.

  Link to this forum: British Forces in Afghanistan

  Report message10

• Message 11

  , in reply to message 9.

  Posted by DL (U1683040) on Friday, 27th January 2006

  Fred,
  
  Exactly what use will a wheeled, high centre of gravity vehicle be in the mountains of Afghanistan?
  
  Absolutely none.
  

  Link to this forum: British Forces in Afghanistan

  Report message11

• Message 12

  , in reply to message 11.

  Posted by Mr Pedant (U2464726) on Friday, 27th January 2006

  Fred,
  
  Exactly what use will a wheeled, high centre of gravity vehicle be in the mountains of Afghanistan?
  
  Absolutely none.
  Μύ
  
  A common error is for top brass to make generalisations about landscapes and rule things out unneccesarily.
  
  Looking on Google Earth Helmand isn't especially mountainous.
  
  -Disclaimer: Sorry DL, typical pedant, contributes nothing then pops up with criticisms based on the little they actually do know.

  Link to this forum: British Forces in Afghanistan

  Report message12

• Message 13

  , in reply to message 12.

  Posted by DL (U1683040) on Friday, 27th January 2006

  DOH!
  
  DL rushes off to quickly study Afghan geography!!!
  Nah, can't be bothered. I thought the whole place was a tad on the bumpy side!!! Never mind.
  
  Still can't see the use of a big missile magnet like that South African APC.
  APCs with wheels....WHY??????
  
  (Wheels = tyres = puncture = sitting duck on the battlefield)
  About as useful as that Russian APC with the fuel tank in the rear door!
  
  God damn pedantic pedants!!!
  
  

  Link to this forum: British Forces in Afghanistan

  Report message13

• Message 14

  , in reply to message 11.

  Posted by Little Enos Rides Again (U1777880) on Friday, 27th January 2006

  There was a big debate going on over the last week about whether the 16th assault brigade would be supported by Lynx or Apache choppers.
  
  Argument being that Lynx choppers are far cheaper to maintain and support but certainly by my reckoning an Apache Gunship is better armoured and carries a lot more fire power i.e. M230 chaingun, hellfire missiles and Hydra rockets etc.
  
  Mani is right where he says a Lynx is faster (330kph to an Apache at 284 kph i think)
  however I would pick an Apache over a Lynx anyday, just my opinion.
  
  Re: the body armour comment from DL, I appreciate that body armour wont stop high velocity rounds et al, however surely it would stop an AK-47 round (weapon of choice in the middle east) or say 9mm hand gun round? I guess the downside is body armour is obviously heavy and must slow you down a hell of a lot so your probably more likely to get hit wearing it!!! Also if you get hit in the head, its game over no matter what armour your wearing. Nonetheless if its issued I'd want to have it!!
  
  Reminds me of the scene in Black Hawk Down where the US soldier takes his armour plating out that covers his back moaning it's too heavy then promptly getys hit in the back and killed!!!
  
  
  

  Link to this forum: British Forces in Afghanistan

  Report message14

• Message 15

  , in reply to message 14.

  Posted by DL (U1683040) on Friday, 27th January 2006

  Hi Enos,
  
  An AK47 fires 7.62mm rounds, which are pretty speedy. We used to fire 7.62 with SLRs, and every squaddie who ever fired an SLR thought it was a nice weapon because it fired a powerful round which was guaranteed to knock the bad guys down (unlike the piddling little wimpy 5.56mm they use in the SA80). So, the weapon of choice for the middle east, the AK (Usually not an AK47, more likely an AKM or an AKMS if they're lucky!) is more than powerful enough to penetrate body armour. The 9mm round, unless you're up close, that may well get deflected, but the impact is still going to do damage.
  
  With my own military service, I found that the plates in the body armour are bloody uncomfortable particularly with your PLCE ( and I too took the plates out of mine-reasoning being that if I got hit, I'd rather it went straight through cleanly).
  

  Link to this forum: British Forces in Afghanistan

  Report message15

• Message 16

  , in reply to message 1.

  Posted by firemansson (U2457230) on Friday, 27th January 2006

  Perhaps Princes Harry and William should be drafted to Afghanistan, along with sons of relevant govt.ministers and high level civil servants.
  This would possibly sharpen perceptions of reasons for being there. Also, the best possible equipment would then be provided to ensure the safety of THOSE persons` sons.
  Whether any wars would be contemplated if the sons of decision makers had to be involved at the sharp end is a matter for debate. I think it highly unlikely, as ministers are happy to get the sons/daughters of citizens killed/injured, they are not keen I think on any harm coming their way. War is immoral and a blot on international law.Perhaps there should be another Nuremburg war Crimes Tribunal for world leaders who begin conflicts. After all this is the 21st Century.
  For the PM or Monarch to have a relative in the firing line with the MOD cockups on guns, boots, helicopters,flak jackets,ammo etc would be something to behold!!

  Link to this forum: British Forces in Afghanistan

  Report message16

• Message 17

  , in reply to message 13.

  Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Friday, 27th January 2006

  The South Africans cheated. They used (I believe) Solid tyres, and had four wheel drive. It was designed so,if you blow one wheel off, it could and did carry on out of danger on three. But, I should imgagine our boys (And girls) will come up against a lot of stuff the Americans sent across to fight the Russians.

  Link to this forum: British Forces in Afghanistan

  Report message17

• Message 18

  , in reply to message 16.

  Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Friday, 27th January 2006

  If that ever happened. (Not counting Prince Andrew) then we would be the first country to invent a personal force field able to be carried by one man, and able to stop a 120 mil tank shell. Of course it would only be issued to the above.

  Link to this forum: British Forces in Afghanistan

  Report message18

• Message 19

  , in reply to message 15.

  Posted by Buckskinz (U3036516) on Friday, 27th January 2006

  AK-47
  Country Soviet Union, Russia
  Type Assault rifle
  Inventor Mikhail Kalashnikov
  Date of design 1947
  Service duration 1951–present
  Cartridge 7.62 x 39 mm
  
  IN AN INSTANT, Stovall’s face was perforated by shrapnel, the index finger on his right hand was gone, and the middle finger was hanging by a tendon. But the 22-year-old from Brooklyn remembers instinctively reaching for his chest and stomach β€” β€œto make sure everything was there,” he said.
  It was, encased in a Kevlar vest reinforced by boron carbide ceramic plates that are so hard they can stop AK-47 rounds traveling 2,750 feet per second.
  
  Cheers, Matt.

  Link to this forum: British Forces in Afghanistan

  Report message19

• Message 20

  , in reply to message 16.

  Posted by Lord Ball (U1767246) on Friday, 27th January 2006

  I heard that Harry's chosen regiment once he leaves the army is the Household Cavalry, who are likely to be sent to Iraq/Afghanistan when he will be in it. So the spare to the heir is likely to once again find action in a warzone.

  Link to this forum: British Forces in Afghanistan

  Report message20

• Message 21

  , in reply to message 10.

  Posted by Buckskinz (U3036516) on Friday, 27th January 2006

  
  Our infantry are, man for man, the finest on this planet, Μύ
  
  Greetings Earthling,
  Be happy you limited your opinion to your own puny planet, otherwise you would have had the wrath of the Intergalactic Federation on your primative resourses.
  
  Octoger Halliburton,
  Intergalactic Recon,
  Fleet Commander.

  Link to this forum: British Forces in Afghanistan

  Report message21

Back to top