Paddington Bear wrote: ↑Mon Aug 16, 2021 11:08 am
Plugged this on the Book thread a while back but worth mentioning again how good I thought Afgantsy was as a history of the Russian war. Always struck me that a lot of the Muhajideen old hands who also fought for the Taliban had far more respect for the Soviets than they did for the Americans. Of course there's an element of 'in my day' as well as men of extreme violence respecting the same, but an interesting observation nonetheless.
You don't think the coalition forces actions in Afghanistan constituted extreme violence?
Oh good, you're here.
Why do Brits get so excited by war? They love coming to South Africa to visit the battlefields in Isandlwana, Rorke's Drift and Spioenkop. Its fukken macabre. So proud of shooting thousands of men armed with spears and the odd musket. One day in the future there'll be a busloads of redfaced Ruperts and Nigels visiting drone strike sites in Afghanistan.
Re: Afghanistan: that turned out well
Posted: Mon Aug 16, 2021 11:22 am
by Jock42
Or alternatively we could listen to Toby here and bungee him to the side of an F35
Re: Afghanistan: that turned out well
Posted: Mon Aug 16, 2021 11:23 am
by Paddington Bear
Think Elwood needs to let go here. A few airstrikes from carriers a thousand miles away doesn't change the fact that the Afghan government has surrendered. Also doesn't change that half the jets are American because we don't fund our military properly.
Re: Afghanistan: that turned out well
Posted: Mon Aug 16, 2021 11:25 am
by Margin__Walker
Paddington Bear wrote: ↑Mon Aug 16, 2021 10:40 am
All fun and games until the Paras have to go into the shit to get him out.
The frustrating thing is that he'll probably be absolutely fine and will get home safe insufferably smug with a cracking yarn. The Taliban are on cloud 9 here with this capitulation going better than they probably hoped. I doubt they are going to cause much friction by targeting foreign nationals just now. The Americans are fucking off, but they still have a foothold right now and could still launch punitive strikes if US or allied nationals start dying. Leave it a week or two and they can do what they want.
On a related not I watched a video the other day telling the story of an ambush in which a British soldier won an MC in Basra in 2004. The whole thing was basically caused by them having to rescue a Kiwi backpacker being held by a dodgy police unit.
Re: Afghanistan: that turned out well
Posted: Mon Aug 16, 2021 11:46 am
by Paddington Bear
I assume the Chinese will pay fairly well for access to all the abandoned US hardware?
Re: Afghanistan: that turned out well
Posted: Mon Aug 16, 2021 11:54 am
by tabascoboy
Trump - as usual - not slow to try and make capital from it
“It is time for Joe Biden to resign in disgrace for what he has allowed to happen to Afghanistan,” Mr Trump said in the statement, in which he also sought to resurrect claims over the legitimacy of the 2020 election.
but 4 months ago...
Re: Afghanistan: that turned out well
Posted: Mon Aug 16, 2021 12:23 pm
by tc27
Jock42 wrote: ↑Mon Aug 16, 2021 11:22 am
Or alternatively we could listen to Toby here and bungee him to the side of an F35
Leaving aside wether Pakistanis would allow overflights in transport terms the carrier has a small compliment of Merlin helicopters that would not have the range to fly into landlocked Afghanistan. Besides which the UK has enough heavy airlift (C17s, A400s and Voyagers) to get people out as it is.
Re: Afghanistan: that turned out well
Posted: Mon Aug 16, 2021 12:38 pm
by GogLais
Jock42 wrote: ↑Mon Aug 16, 2021 11:22 am
Or alternatively we could listen to Toby here and bungee him to the side of an F35
It’s the constant problem of UK defence procurement. We want our equipment to be as good as anyone else’s but that means we lack quantity. Better minds than mine have decided that for example 6 Type 45s are better than say 10 slightly less capable ships but however good they are they can only be in one place at a time. Don’t tell anyone but I’ve read that only one 45 is in service at the moment.
Re: Afghanistan: that turned out well
Posted: Mon Aug 16, 2021 1:03 pm
by tc27
The six Type 45s was pure Treasury cost cutting - the Navy wanted 12. What's particularly grating is that these savings were in part to fund the expensive Afghan deployment the fruits of which are crumbling to dust before us.
With Naval ships the general rule of thumb is the 2/3rds will be routinely unavailable - either in deep refit, crew leave or working up...so six ships equals 2 normally available. Get a mechanical problem like HMS Diamond just has and that's one destroyer....again this is why the Navy wanted 12.
“To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what the sea-going status is of each of the six Type 45 Destroyers; and which of those ships are (a) operationally available, (b) undergoing maintenance and/or a refit and (c) temporarily unavailable due to propulsion problems.”
Jeremy Quin, Minister of State for the Ministry of Defence, responded:
“HMS DEFENDER is currently deployed as part of the Carrier Strike Group (CSG21) while
HMS DIAMOND has experienced some technical issues and has detached from CSG21 for maintenance, inspection and defect rectification.
HMS DARING and HMS DUNCAN are currently undergoing planned deep maintenance.
HMS DAUNTLESS, the first of the Type 45 Destroyers to undergo a Power Improvement Project upgrade, is expected to return to sea for trials this year.
HMS DRAGON is undergoing a period of planned maintenance in advance of further operational commitments.”
Evidently a giant of thinking in international politics.
Re: Afghanistan: that turned out well
Posted: Mon Aug 16, 2021 2:07 pm
by GogLais
tc27 wrote: ↑Mon Aug 16, 2021 1:03 pm
The six Type 45s was pure Treasury cost cutting - the Navy wanted 12. What's particularly grating is that these savings were in part to fund the expensive Afghan deployment the fruits of which are crumbling to dust before us.
With Naval ships the general rule of thumb is the 2/3rds will be routinely unavailable - either in deep refit, crew leave or working up...so six ships equals 2 normally available. Get a mechanical problem like HMS Diamond just has and that's one destroyer....again this is why the Navy wanted 12.
“To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what the sea-going status is of each of the six Type 45 Destroyers; and which of those ships are (a) operationally available, (b) undergoing maintenance and/or a refit and (c) temporarily unavailable due to propulsion problems.”
Jeremy Quin, Minister of State for the Ministry of Defence, responded:
“HMS DEFENDER is currently deployed as part of the Carrier Strike Group (CSG21) while
HMS DIAMOND has experienced some technical issues and has detached from CSG21 for maintenance, inspection and defect rectification.
HMS DARING and HMS DUNCAN are currently undergoing planned deep maintenance.
HMS DAUNTLESS, the first of the Type 45 Destroyers to undergo a Power Improvement Project upgrade, is expected to return to sea for trials this year.
HMS DRAGON is undergoing a period of planned maintenance in advance of further operational commitments.”
Ta, I’d never have thought unavailability would be as high as 2/3. As it happens I assume Dauntless is just up the road from me at Cammell Laird. Tbh and I realise it was a Treasury decision but what the hell is the point of spending billions to have two at sea at any time?
Re: Afghanistan: that turned out well
Posted: Mon Aug 16, 2021 2:16 pm
by Sandstorm
1 x Type 45 gets you 3 x River class OFFSHORE PATROL VESSELS. And the smaller boats are much easier to maintain and deploy.
Re: Afghanistan: that turned out well
Posted: Mon Aug 16, 2021 2:45 pm
by tc27
Sandstorm wrote: ↑Mon Aug 16, 2021 2:16 pm
1 x Type 45 gets you 3 x River class OFFSHORE PATROL VESSELS. And the smaller boats are much easier to maintain and deploy.
Yeah but a OPV (even 3 of them) would be useless at air defence.
Re: Afghanistan: that turned out well
Posted: Mon Aug 16, 2021 3:20 pm
by Saint
None of which would be particularly useful in this situation. The only thing that might be of use really is the QE - load her up with Merlins and you can manage a decent emergency evac
Re: Afghanistan: that turned out well
Posted: Mon Aug 16, 2021 4:06 pm
by Jock42
Desperate..... the 2nd video doesn't show a lot but some might not want to view it.
Re: Afghanistan: that turned out well
Posted: Mon Aug 16, 2021 4:43 pm
by Enzedder
DP posted a nice pic of him and 3 of the Taliban. It all seemed rather friendly posing for the camera and comparing footwear.
Jock42 wrote: ↑Sun Aug 15, 2021 9:41 am
Rumours that 2 PARA are in contact.
My mate's son is out there. First deployment.
Best of British to him. HERRICK 10 just seems like a distant memory now, can't express how deflated I am this weekend.
Must be tough mate. Whilst I hate to see the situation unfold, part of me is glad that our troops will no longer suffer when the Afghans themselves seem so unwilling to fight for their own freedoms.
Re: Afghanistan: that turned out well
Posted: Mon Aug 16, 2021 5:13 pm
by Blackmac
Jock42 wrote: ↑Mon Aug 16, 2021 4:06 pm
Desperate..... the 2nd video doesn't show a lot but some might not want to view it.
The tone is the first video is ruined by the grinning fuckwit smiling and waving at the camera.
Re: Afghanistan: that turned out well
Posted: Mon Aug 16, 2021 6:03 pm
by FalseBayFC
giphy.gif (810.26 KiB) Viewed 1056 times
Re: Afghanistan: that turned out well
Posted: Mon Aug 16, 2021 6:06 pm
by Slick
FalseBayFC wrote: ↑Mon Aug 16, 2021 6:03 pmgiphy.gif
Your fellow Saffers keep defending you but I’m not sure why
Re: Afghanistan: that turned out well
Posted: Mon Aug 16, 2021 6:46 pm
by stunt_cunt
You'd have to think it's past time for launching some rescue mission to get these interpreters and former staff of different armies out the place.
The chaos of the initial hours of the Taliban waltzing in unimpeded will soon be overcast by an organised Taliban simply ring fencing the airports with roadblocks to see who's trying to get out. I'd assume that's probably happening right now.
Jock42 wrote: ↑Mon Aug 16, 2021 11:22 am
Or alternatively we could listen to Toby here and bungee him to the side of an F35
It’s the constant problem of UK defence procurement. We want our equipment to be as good as anyone else’s but that means we lack quantity. Better minds than mine have decided that for example 6 Type 45s are better than say 10 slightly less capable ships but however good they are they can only be in one place at a time. Don’t tell anyone but I’ve read that only one 45 is in service at the moment.
Doesn’t this demonstrate the ridiculous nature of the decision to build new aircraft carriers when a more modern fighting force would have flexible vessels capable of accommodating VTOL fighters, helicopter transports, amphibious assault vessels etc? I have no expertise in this but I’ve previously been told by people who know a bit more than me that carriers are now just about projection of power rather than successful military actions. Which in our case is a projection of power we no longer have.
Re: Afghanistan: that turned out well
Posted: Mon Aug 16, 2021 6:58 pm
by Biffer
Afghan Central Bank governor going to town of the president and government here
Jock42 wrote: ↑Mon Aug 16, 2021 11:22 am
Or alternatively we could listen to Toby here and bungee him to the side of an F35
It’s the constant problem of UK defence procurement. We want our equipment to be as good as anyone else’s but that means we lack quantity. Better minds than mine have decided that for example 6 Type 45s are better than say 10 slightly less capable ships but however good they are they can only be in one place at a time. Don’t tell anyone but I’ve read that only one 45 is in service at the moment.
Doesn’t this demonstrate the ridiculous nature of the decision to build new aircraft carriers when a more modern fighting force would have flexible vessels capable of accommodating VTOL fighters, helicopter transports, amphibious assault vessels etc? I have no expertise in this but I’ve previously been told by people who know a bit more than me that carriers are now just about projection of power rather than successful military actions. Which in our case is a projection of power we no longer have.
You;re pretty close to describing the capabilities of the QE class (barring the amhpib assault craft, but that type of operation requires a very specialist vessel that a carrier air wing would help protect). The QE class are more akin to the US Wasp class of carriers (technically Helicopter Landing Docks) than the (much larger) Nimitz/Ford nuclear class
Says the guy whose solution for Afghanistan is to nuke them.
That wasn’t me, you giant bowl of breakfast cereal.
Sorry I didn't understand your "Nuke them from orbit" meme. You seem to have a massive hard-on for war machinery so I thought you may have been serious rather than ironic.
Re: Afghanistan: that turned out well
Posted: Mon Aug 16, 2021 7:49 pm
by convoluted
tabascoboy wrote: ↑Mon Aug 16, 2021 11:54 am
Trump - as usual - not slow to try and make capital from it
“It is time for Joe Biden to resign in disgrace for what he has allowed to happen to Afghanistan,” Mr Trump said in the statement, in which he also sought to resurrect claims over the legitimacy of the 2020 election.
but 4 months ago...
^^^ FFS !!!
Trump's withdrawal was to be undertaken with a firm agreement in advance and with the Taliban left in no doubt as to what the military consequences would be should they renege.
Their clumped advances of recent weeks would have provided easy targets as against the difficulty of ferreting out a solitary with a 303 hidden in a crevice on a mountaintop.
An analogy is with Nixon's withdrawal from Vietnam.
The North Vietnamese knew for sure that if they violated the Paris Peace Accord and advanced on Saigon, then they would be obliterated by air strikes.
But Watergate removed both Nixon and his pledge to South Vietnam, and in consequence it wasn't VC armed with crossbows who took Saigon but columns of armored NV tanks and vehicles that would otherwise have been sitting ducks.
Biden is due to speak. Will he too try and deflect the human catastrophe onto Trump?
Re: Afghanistan: that turned out well
Posted: Mon Aug 16, 2021 7:54 pm
by tc27
esn’t this demonstrate the ridiculous nature of the decision to build new aircraft carriers when a more modern fighting force would have flexible vessels capable of accommodating VTOL fighters, helicopter transports, amphibious assault vessels etc? I have no expertise in this but I’ve previously been told by people who know a bit more than me that carriers are now just about projection of power rather than successful military actions. Which in our case is a projection of power we no longer have.
1. It literally has those abilities.
2. Kabul is outside the range of most VTOL aircraft and helicopters from the Indian Ocean
3. ..and even if it wasn't Pakistan is kinda in the way of and any maritime airlift
4. The UK has more than enough strategic airlift to get people out.
5. Whilst the carrier is a mobile asset it travels at about 30mph and is in the Pacific.
tabascoboy wrote: ↑Mon Aug 16, 2021 11:54 am
Trump - as usual - not slow to try and make capital from it
“It is time for Joe Biden to resign in disgrace for what he has allowed to happen to Afghanistan,” Mr Trump said in the statement, in which he also sought to resurrect claims over the legitimacy of the 2020 election.
but 4 months ago...
^^^ FFS !!!
Trump's withdrawal was to be undertaken with a firm agreement in advance and with the Taliban left in no doubt as to what the military consequences would be should they renege.
Their clumped advances of recent weeks would have provided easy targets as against the difficulty of ferreting out a solitary with a 303 hidden in a crevice on a mountaintop.
An analogy is with Nixon's withdrawal from Vietnam.
The North Vietnamese knew for sure that if they violated the Paris Peace Accord and advanced on Saigon, then they would be obliterated by air strikes.
But Watergate removed both Nixon and his pledge to South Vietnam, and in consequence it wasn't VC armed with crossbows who took Saigon but columns of armored NV tanks and vehicles that would otherwise have been sitting ducks.
Biden is due to speak. Will he too try and deflect the human catastrophe onto Trump?
Re: Afghanistan: that turned out well
Posted: Mon Aug 16, 2021 8:14 pm
by Ymx
So Bidens angle - he’s saying it was Ghanis fault. Ghani said the Afghans would fight. They did not. Why should US fight for something the Afghans aren’t willing to fight for, a civil war.
Re: Afghanistan: that turned out well
Posted: Mon Aug 16, 2021 8:16 pm
by Hugo
Biden is pulling no punches in criticising the Afghans, to paraphrase "if they were not willing to fight for their country then Americans should not be expected to do so on their behalf".
He's talked of the US pivoting away from using military power to using diplomacy and economics with human rights at the centre of foreign policy.
Re: Afghanistan: that turned out well
Posted: Mon Aug 16, 2021 8:18 pm
by Calculon
Remarkable that the real culprit, George w Bush, is getting a free pass on all this
Re: Afghanistan: that turned out well
Posted: Mon Aug 16, 2021 8:24 pm
by convoluted
Good grief.
CNN actually made an immediate and perfect summation: "Biden said 'the buck stops with me' but his entire talk was fingerpointing at others" (maybe not word for word).
tabascoboy wrote: ↑Mon Aug 16, 2021 11:54 am
Trump - as usual - not slow to try and make capital from it
“It is time for Joe Biden to resign in disgrace for what he has allowed to happen to Afghanistan,” Mr Trump said in the statement, in which he also sought to resurrect claims over the legitimacy of the 2020 election.
but 4 months ago...
^^^ FFS !!!
Trump's withdrawal was to be undertaken with a firm agreement in advance and with the Taliban left in no doubt as to what the military consequences would be should they renege.
Their clumped advances of recent weeks would have provided easy targets as against the difficulty of ferreting out a solitary with a 303 hidden in a crevice on a mountaintop.
An analogy is with Nixon's withdrawal from Vietnam.
The North Vietnamese knew for sure that if they violated the Paris Peace Accord and advanced on Saigon, then they would be obliterated by air strikes.
But Watergate removed both Nixon and his pledge to South Vietnam, and in consequence it wasn't VC armed with crossbows who took Saigon but columns of armored NV tanks and vehicles that would otherwise have been sitting ducks.
Biden is due to speak. Will he too try and deflect the human catastrophe onto Trump?
The Drump lover has decided to post on another thread apart from US Politics!
Ah, but wait, someone has said bigly bad things about the orange shitgibbon..
Now they're deleting pages praising his Taliban deals..
tabascoboy wrote: ↑Mon Aug 16, 2021 11:54 am
Trump - as usual - not slow to try and make capital from it
but 4 months ago...
^^^ FFS !!!
Trump's withdrawal was to be undertaken with a firm agreement in advance and with the Taliban left in no doubt as to what the military consequences would be should they renege.
Their clumped advances of recent weeks would have provided easy targets as against the difficulty of ferreting out a solitary with a 303 hidden in a crevice on a mountaintop.
An analogy is with Nixon's withdrawal from Vietnam.
The North Vietnamese knew for sure that if they violated the Paris Peace Accord and advanced on Saigon, then they would be obliterated by air strikes.
But Watergate removed both Nixon and his pledge to South Vietnam, and in consequence it wasn't VC armed with crossbows who took Saigon but columns of armored NV tanks and vehicles that would otherwise have been sitting ducks.
Biden is due to speak. Will he too try and deflect the human catastrophe onto Trump?
Yep, this is the norm for your crowd: mock because you are unable to provide a rational counter-argument.
You seem blissfully unaware that it comes across as nothing more than a white flag surrender.
Re: Afghanistan: that turned out well
Posted: Mon Aug 16, 2021 8:37 pm
by TB63
Trump freed Taliban leader Baradar in 2018
— Trump cut deal with Taliban in Nov 2020 after election
— Trump team refused to give security briefings to Biden team during transition
Re: Afghanistan: that turned out well
Posted: Mon Aug 16, 2021 8:42 pm
by Hugo
convoluted wrote: ↑Mon Aug 16, 2021 8:24 pm
Good grief.
CNN actually made an immediate and perfect summation: "Biden said 'the buck stops with me' but his entire talk was fingerpointing at others" (maybe not word for word).
I thought he was entirely fair, he owned the decision to withdraw but pointed out the context surrounding it - the Afghans are hapless and there is nothing you can do for people if they aren't willing to do it for themselves. He said a third decade in Afghanistan was unpalatable and he did not want to pass this problem onto another President.
