British OP Herrick in Afghanistan on Mil Chan 1:17 a.m. PST

[Secondbrooks]

Do they actually increase their chances of escape much by adding an extra 50m or so, at the expense of not actually hitting anyone? They'll do what they do though...

If one havent' seen how fast things starts to crumble when other side takes iniative i could guess it doesn't seem too risky. History of war is full of these kind examples.

How do they know they don't kill/hit anyone? There are no red spots and small first aid crosses, no accurate after action reports. People overall thinks their fire has bigger effect than it does. Veteran from ww2 telling that whole attack was wiped out, might actually mean rather small casualities (if refering to term wiped out). He just doesn't see anyone moving (as survivor might wait for night to escape from killzone). Escpacially in situation where he thinks on-one can survive and he can't check battlefield after battle, like many times in ambush.

Talibans seems to be good at evading from areas. Chechens escaped from situations from where they absolutely shouldn't, like i believe in siege of Grozny. World is full of these kind examples.

[Darkmage]

In that kind of green zone combat I doubt the Brits can put accurate aimed fire back down range. It's probs more of.. we're taking fire from this vicinity put down a field of fire in attempt to suppress and then try and hit it with an airstrike. If they don't suppress the area effectively then the talib could probs quite easily retreat.

going back to the Ross Kemp doc, one of the missions they went out on was deemed a 'success' as they had 2 confirmed enemy kills, and this was on a company sized 4 day patrol.

[Dowding2]

In terms of Taleban ambushes, didn't the French lose 12-13 soldiers in one such encounter recently? I hear credible rumours that they ran out of ammunition, however.

[Secondbrooks]

Didn't they loose their only radio right in start so they were hanging there without contact to anyone outside for very long time. Thou i'm not very sure are we discussing about same happening.

[Dietrich]

Why don't they setup better ambushes? Point blank if need be. What is the motivation to shoot before a good target is presented?

Point blank is bayonet range.

The British have used bayonets in combat as recently as 2004 in Iraq. If I had my hands on the book I read this account in, I could give more specifics, but.... a unit of the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders was ambushed by insurgents. The British ran out of ammo, then charged with bayonets the trenches which the insurgents were firing from. According to one of the British soldiers in that instance, the insurgents generally looked shocked; he figured they assumed the British would just keep firing at them from their own trenches.

Do they actually increase their chances of escape much by adding an extra 50m or so, at the expense of not actually hitting anyone?

Ambushing from beyond grenade range is wise, I suppose. Ambushing within grenade range seems to me more like an SOF sort of thing -- each guy hurls a grenade then lets loose a burst or two from his carbine, and then they all disappear into the landscape.

[Homo ferricus]

Most of the Taliban fighters are farmers with old AK's. Inexperienced, untrained, not professional.

Well, according to the manuals, presentations, compilations by those who have served in Afghanistan that I've read/seen and the general scuttlebutt I've heard from enlisted friends of mine who are/have been deployed or are in the military in general, and the common sense of history itself, that is far from true. Many Taliban happen to be the mujaheddin that fought the soviets for something like a decade (it is also noteworthy that there was an immense amount of these fighters, who received help from the CIA in terms of funding and training). Those who have not had experience fighting the soviets in the 80's had experience fighting the Northern Alliance in the 90's, and those who didn't do that have experience fighting the US and ISAF for the last 8 years. it's likely that most of them have seen some sort of combat, so they are not inexperienced, and I'd say that they are not necessarily unprofessional, considering the fact that they ARE very organized and have very complex and creative ways of fighting. About the training and old AKs--like I mentioned, they did receive some funding and training from CIA sources in the 80's, and i'm sure there are still muj running around that fought and were trained in CIA funded camps in the 80's. About the weapons they got, maybe that's not so substantial anymore, but i don't think anyone here is going to question the lethality of even an "old" AK.

In any case, all those decades of war tend to produce some damned good fighters, they are a force to be respected, for the simple fact that their force may be one of the most seasoned unconventional non-national ones around.

er... also, that was off the top of my head but it seemed like pretty general information, so I didn't do any additional research upon reading your post, so feel free to nitpick :-)

Remember when everyone was in a panic about those Stingers we sold to them way back when? Then someone realized that they expired like, a decade ago.

[Apocal]

Overenthusiasm? Eagerness? Nervousness? Each wanting to be first?

Maybe they weren't expecting contact and only had time to setup a hasty ambush?

Most of the Taliban fighters are farmers with old AK's.

Old AKs, yes. On top of their stash of GPMGs, HMGs, RPGs and mortars.

Inexperienced, untrained, not professional.

Not just no, but **** no.

[Dowding2]

I'm surprised the Taleban don't have any SAM capability - afterall it was the introduction of the stinger that helped increase the Russian casualties back in the 80s. I guess the supply of these weapons has been held in a choke-hold since 2001, and such weapons are a first-world sophisticated product, unlike small arms etc.