Take no prisoners...

[Ming]

Originally posted by DanS
There were a lot of chilling images from the Gulf War involving Apaches.

Since we were MDC's ad agency at that time, they showed us a lot of footage from the cameras mounted on the Apaches...
Totally unbelievable the amount of firepower they had...

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by ZoboZeWarrior
That a soldier is KIA is logical. That a soldier was killed as a prisoner is a bad and a sad thing. But every nation have done that. and USA not the last. After all war is a serious business, a deadly struggle not a gentlemen sport. Such news fron CNN are pure propaganda.

Are you denying it's factually accurate? On what evidence?

Do you about the fate of Allied afghan fighter caught by Talibans ?
Surely not ...

Glad you can read all our minds - truly an impressive capability

Please spare us from such useless information.

You don't have to read it. Or make inane contributions to it.

[Roland]

"...and what they can do to fix entrenched positions."

Which makes me wonder why they'd take such positions. Or even like "On Tuesday we caught several hundred of them with RPGs and mortars heading toward the fight." - Sounds like the mobile suicide squad from the life of Brian.

What I do not see on CNN are (similarly unconfirmed) reports about bombs hitting villages. Is it propaganda line now to not even mention "colletaral damage" ?

[My Wife Hates CIV]

Now I'm at work and unable to read the entire thread but...

the world is always dogging out the US when it comes to double standards. and yeah, the world is probably more correct than wrong.

so, if the enemy we're fighting can kill CAPTURED US fighters how would the world react IF the US just kills all the fighters we have captured in Cuba - when we're done with them.

It would seem the US can do just that. Or the world has a problem with double standards on their double standards.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Roland
"...and what they can do to fix entrenched positions."

Which makes me wonder why they'd take such positions. Or even like "On Tuesday we caught several hundred of them with RPGs and mortars heading toward the fight." - Sounds like the mobile suicide squad from the life of Brian.

Re: Fixed entrenched positions - both sides had been in static dug in positions for years. And neither side had seen enough firepower to convince them that wasn't the place to be, when the real warfighters came to town.

Same thing about the Iraqis and their tactics. Everyone talked about how big and bad and tough they were - sure, at figthing the Iranians in World War I style straight up attacks. Warfighting has evolved, but a lot of these self-styled third world badasses are too impressed with themselves to realize how far behind the times they are.

Re: the mobile suicide squad. (a) that's the only way they have to move. (b) that's their means of humping ammo and supplies to the fight (c) there's a lot of barren country out there and (d) they're probably not used to the state of our NV gear, let alone the fact that you've got Predators and OP's all over the place, plus decent maps, comms nets, and mid-air refuelable helos with rapid response times from forward bases.

Same stuff happened to the Iraqis.

What I do not see on CNN are (similarly unconfirmed) reports about bombs hitting villages. Is it propaganda line now to not even mention "colletaral damage" ?

Ask them, but the more likely answer (since the villages are not secure) is that they don't have access to confirm. Oh, and just because it's a village, don't mean it ain't a legit target this time - the enemy is in the villages as well. How many civilians are still stuck there? Who knows? Hopefully they had a chance to get out.

[Ecthy]

Now were those guys caught or killed?

[Roland]

"Fixed entrenched positions - both sides had been in static dug in positions for years."

I'm talking about the Islamists who supposedly regrouped in the Paktia region.

"(a) that's the only way they have to move."

Why is it the only one ? Why would they want to move at all?

"(b) that's their means of humping ammo and supplies to the fight"

In concentrations of hundreds ? Reminds me of the Alarich quote...

"(c) there's a lot of barren country out there"

??

"(d) they're probably not used to the state of our NV gear, let alone the fact that you've got Predators and OP's all over the place, plus decent maps, comms nets"

All that equipment still lead to what looks like a miscalculation of enemy strength. It may work better now that the enemy has produced the favour of getting together in one spot...

"...they don't have access to confirm."

We're talking about CNN here.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Roland
"Fixed entrenched positions - both sides had been in static dug in positions for years."

I'm talking about the Islamists who supposedly regrouped in the Paktia region.

ok - I was referring in general to the fighthing around Mazar-e-Sharif earlier on.

In the Gardeyz-Khowst area, there's a single roadlet (not much more than a camel track) that goes into Parachinar in Pakistan.

The al Qaeda - Taliban supply caches date to the Russian invasion - they have their caves and tunnels in the mountains, tougher for ground troops to get to, and where their major heavy supplies are hidden. They use the ravines and dug in positions there to provide a defensive perimeter around their major caches and HQ locations.

"(a) that's the only way they have to move."

Why is it the only one ? Why would they want to move at all?

They're on foot, and once you come down from the ravines and gullies, the rest of it is a big alluvial plain - desert, and lots of wide open country. Biggest reason for moving is food and water - the caves are meant as supply caches primarily, and are not set up to support hundreds or thousands of fighters - especially in the winter, and especially when they didn't have the previous summer to stockpile food and when there's a drought.

"(b) that's their means of humping ammo and supplies to the fight"

In concentrations of hundreds ? Reminds me of the Alarich quote...

Nothing indicates concentrations that big - they'd be strung out over miles, but the Apaches are pretty mobile, and have a lot of ammo. Grease six here, three there, a dozen over there - it adds up.

"(c) there's a lot of barren country out there"

??

They're stuck with moving out of cover, in the open, or staying in place and running out of food and water. That country also has nothing to sustain them - neither food nor water, so their concentration in the overall area really makes them move further and further to keep supplied.

"(d) they're probably not used to the state of our NV gear, let alone the fact that you've got Predators and OP's all over the place, plus decent maps, comms nets"

All that equipment still lead to what looks like a miscalculation of enemy strength. It may work better now that the enemy has produced the favour of getting together in one spot...

Of course - you never know the true enemy strength - just what's moving around that you can see, and you estimate what percent of the total force that is.

"...they don't have access to confirm."

We're talking about CNN here.

Yeah - they're weenies.

[Ecthy]

oh, it seems I'm just disturbing the battle of the giants

[ZoboZeWarrior]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Are you denying it's factually accurate? On what evidence?

Nop. I just critize the 'Mise en scene', I mean the way your journalist plays on emotions to motivate hatred and increase their benefice.

Glad you can read all our minds - truly an impressive capability

Nop. I just read american (CNN by example) news. Far more simplier and instructive.

[faded glory]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


Apaches did a job on the Iraqis in the gulf, but didn't get much credit.

With VII Corps units, the Apaches went out around our armor, and vertically encircled the Iraqis - hitting their HQ's and rear areas, refuelling and resupply and maintenance depots, and generally kicking them in the ass just as we folded up their recon screens. That's one reason the Iraqis just crumbled so fast against our heavy units.

The Iraqi's wer stupid. They dug there tanks in exposing the turrets. Not only is that a weak part of the tank, it was also the most noticable. Most Iraqi tanks had anti-helo 12.7 MG's on them. But our helo's would come in 5 & 10's at night and zig zag across the lines. Weaving in and out obliterating everything. They didnt have a chance. Even if they shot at our apache's. And a few did have get shot up, tho not shot down. The 280 degree swivel Axil gattling gun on the nose could turn a man into a pile of goo in 2 seconds.


The apache's effectiveness is debatable because of mechanical issue. But I think the jury has made up its mind on combat effectiveness. Which is good.

The think heavy firepower is an RPG, that's why they're so in love with the things.

RPG-7 is one of the deadliest weapons of the 20th century. you can destroy most tanks in the world at 50-100 yards, a helo- if you aim well, a bunker.....there fire and forget and a dime a dozen. Thank the Nazi's tho. All the RPG is a reverse engineered Panzerfaust.

Also, I think the mile of death or whatever it was called, was due in large part to the Apaches...

Highway of death on the Kuwaiti-Basrah interstate. Not apaches. But A-10's did that. Another deadly weapon in our arsenal.

[Darsnan]

Originally posted by loinburger
Question for whoever: How does the Apache compare to the Russian Hind? I'd always had the impression that the Hind was considered to be sturdier/tougher/whatever. Just curious.

I was in the U.S. Army Air Defense, and so was able to track with radar both Apache's and Hind's (being flown by U.S. aviators). My impression was that the Apache was much more nimble: when I was out testing the SGT York Air Defense Gun I was able to visually see Apache's fly below treelines, up riverbeds below the banks, etc.. And quiet, too: on a different excercise we had set up our air defense position right below the crest of a hill facing the "enemy". Somehow the Apache's got behind our position, came up over the crest of the hill 7 ships strong: we didn't hear them until about ten seconds before they came over the crest. If that had been the enemy, we'd have all been dead! The Hind in comparison was slower, due in part to being bigger, and possibly because it was being flown by U.S. servicemen who weren't as experienced flying it as Russian aviators. It was also more noisy from my recollection (maybe because they were having a hard time getting a replacement muffler from the Russians! ). FYI.

D

[ZoboZeWarrior]

Originally posted by faded glory
Highway of death on the Kuwaiti-Basrah interstate. Not apaches. But A-10's did that. Another deadly weapon in our arsenal.

Yes the "tanks killer". But planes at low altitude cannot be used in mountain areas I imagine.

[Dr Strangelove]

I don't think I'd use an RPG on a helicopter unless for some reason it's very close and utterly stationary. The RPG uses a contact fuse, most anti-aircraft missles use proximity fuses because it's so difficult to land a direct his on a rapidly moving target.

If the Apache can hover at 12,000 feet it's not due to ground effect. The ground effect refers to increased lift resulting from air propelled by the blade bouncing off the ground and is limited to 30 to 50 feet off the ground. You're not going to get significant ground reflection at 12,000 feet. That's not to say that I'm doubting that the Apache might be able to hover further from the ground

[Alexander's Horse]

Of course the other factor here is the resilience of determined battle hardened infantry. In spite of all the high tech and bombing its remarkable what infantry can survive. And to win these battles, again in spite of all the high tech, the allies still have to take the ground with their own infantry.

That is why infantry have a unique mission. Only they can seize and hold ground