How to beat the Taliban in Afghanistan / Pakistan (and win the war on terror)

[Peter Dow]

What Hathcock did with an M2 came about only because the M2 has a particular feature that allowed it to operate in single-shot mode. The vast array of modern machineguns do not have this feature and they are in fact designed to be less accurate than a rifle.

Hathcock was able to make use of this feature of the M2 because he was a supremely competent sniper. He was also able to pre-register the target and therefore had plenty of time to do all the ballistics calculations for the range he was shooting at - an enemy position that was well known with all the required distances to target already calculated.

It certainly was not something that he did in five minutes after spotting an enemy. As an analogy, what you're asking a bunch of local soldiers to do with a machinegun is like asking a Sunday driver to win the Formula One by driving a delivery truck.

Well the starting point will be what the Afghan National Army have now in the way of machine guns. Wikipedia says

Machine Gun / Calibre / How many units the Afghans have got now

M2 / 12.7mm / 19,500
M240 / 7.62mm / 30,152
M249 / 5.56mm / 16,248

I assume that those were bought and paid for by the US and other NATO countries so no complaints from Karzai will be entertained if and when most of those weapons are transferred with the soldiers to be used by the new NATO run Afghan auxiliary force we set up to secure our supply lines?

Not that we'd need them all.

For 1 x M2 every 1000 metres on one side of the supply route then you need 2 x M2s for both sides to defend 1 km of supply route.

So the routes shown in the map would need

4800 x M2s for 2400 km.

But actually since there are plenty of M2s in the Afghan arsenal already it would be cost effective to change the plan a bit and put one M2 in every fortified position every 333 metres which would be

6 x M2 s per 1 km
or 14,400 x M2s for 2400 km.

Well I don't suppose those M2s will be modified with sniper scopes etc so something would have to be spent on upgrading them to do sniper operation as well as full auto for emergencies.

With an M2 in every fortified position it would mean not having to lug the thing between positions, which is handy, but it does mean M2s requiring to be securely held in an unmanned gun position with the concern being that our weapons could be used against us if, as has been already mentioned, the enemy make it as far as an unmanned position.

Hmmm. Well it is something to think about. Just the 1 M2 per on-duty gun team, or 3 times as many, 1 M2 per fortified position?

Well it's nice to have the M2s available to be able to make that decision at a later date.

If only using 1 M2 per on duty crew then the positions can be reinforced in an emergency with reinforcements from the depot bringing M240s of which the Afghans have plenty. The reinforcements are for responding to a mass attack so the single shot mode is not required in that role.

The Afghans are not so well off with mortars though, only 500 x 82 mm Mortars.

Really you'd want the reinforcements to bring in a mortar to return fire in the event of a mortar attack.

I think a minimum for mortars would be one mortar per depot which covers 2km of the route, so that would be

1200 x mortars for 2400 km.

So if the Afghans have only got 500 x 82mm mortars I think they are short on mortars and could do with getting some more and maybe bigger 120 mm mortars as well? Possibly the issue is that they don't have enough people trained up on mortars so maybe that's why they've not got more?

Hathcock was able to make use of this feature of the M2 because he was a supremely competent sniper. He was also able to pre-register the target and therefore had plenty of time to do all the ballistics calculations for the range he was shooting at - an enemy position that was well known with all the required distances to target already calculated.

It certainly was not something that he did in five minutes after spotting an enemy. As an analogy, what you're asking a bunch of local soldiers to do with a machinegun is like asking a Sunday driver to win the Formula One by driving a delivery truck.

Well the guards will be on duty on the same place from day to day, week to week, month to month and will become very familiar with the lie of the land and what they can hit in sniper mode with their M2s.

The enemy will be advancing through barbed wire, mines etc into machine gun fire and whether it is sniper or full auto, the advantage is with the defenders. Local Afghan soldiers or Indian / Pakistani / Tajik / Uzbek etc. mercenaries ought to be able to hold off anything the Taliban can bring to battle.

 

[RusCan2013]

One thing I agree with in the OP is about Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. Indeed, that is where most Islamic terrorism comes from. Saudis finance them, Pakis train them. And yet, the West, for some strange reason, continues to consider these two countries its allies...

 

[brinktk]

Is anyone else laughing at this guys complete lack of understanding of how any of these mentioned weapons systems are to be employed? I love his little arguments he's having in his head as if he knows what the hell he's talking about. HA!

I'm not going to humor this guy any more with thought out responses, I'm just going to point out the absolute stupidity of this guys delusionals ideas at every single turn.

I love how he totally discredited everything professionals have to say with that stupid bricklayer/ architect analogy. It's obvious we make sense and in order for him to justify his ideas in his mind he can't be having all these pesky "professionals" and "experts" pointing out the massively glaring flaws in his plan and also pointing out his absolute lack of credentials to back them up.

Seems he thinks he's a Clauswitz when in fact he's a McNamara...

 

[Peter Dow]

One thing I agree with in the OP is about Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. Indeed, that is where most Islamic terrorism comes from. Saudis finance them, Pakis train them. And yet, the West, for some strange reason, continues to consider these two countries its allies...

Even before we caught Bin Laden in a Pakistani ISI safe-house we very much suspected both Pakistan and Saudi Arabia of being behind the terror attacks on us.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1dcwrucnAk"]America's 'allies' Saudi & Pakistan: 'enemies' more like! - YouTube[/ame]

Regime change them both.

Pakistan being a former 100% military dictatorship under Musharraf is now nominally a democracy with disloyal elements in the military attempting to sabotage Pakistani democracy and pull the strings behind the scenes unofficially.

So there's a kind of slow regime change going on in Pakistan which has been encouraged by the West for years but it needs a boost to embed and anchor democracy more permanently and so my plan to take out the disloyal ISI elements who have been waging war against the Pakistani people by using proxy terrorists to undermine democracy, ought to be enough to finish the regime change job once and for all.

Saudi Arabia on the other hand has not changed but once we seize their satellites and call for the monarchy and their jihadi side-kicks to be overthrown then regime change can happen there too. Oh, and the name of the country needs changing as well as the regime since the Saudi Royal family is the regime and the country is named after the royal family, so goodbye Saudi Arabia, hello the United States of Arabia. :-D

 

[D.J]

One thing I agree with in the OP is about Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. Indeed, that is where most Islamic terrorism comes from. Saudis finance them, Pakis train them. And yet, the West, for some strange reason, continues to consider these two countries its allies...

Because you like many in the West are fundamental judging Middle Eastern countries by western standards. This is what lay behind America's big mistake by invading Iraq.

The Saudis are often blamed for being behind the growth of Islamic extremism. But they are even now a target for al-Qaeda. They are locked in a battle with Islamic terrorists, as the West is. This terrorism can only be tackled by effective intelligence so international cooperation is crucial, especially with Saudi Arabia.

The presence of several competing operators in South and Central Asia requires ongoing U.S. involvement in Pakistan

As Secretary of State Hillary Clinton once stated

"Pakistan is a nuclear-armed state sitting at the crossroads of a strategic region. And we have the seen the cost of disengaging from this region before."

 

[D.J]

Even before we caught Bin Laden in a Pakistani ISI safe-house we very much suspected both Pakistan and Saudi Arabia of being behind the terror attacks on us.

America's 'allies' Saudi & Pakistan: 'enemies' more like! - YouTube

Regime change them both.

Pakistan being a former 100% military dictatorship under Musharraf is now nominally a democracy with disloyal elements in the military attempting to sabotage Pakistani democracy and pull the strings behind the scenes unofficially.

So there's a kind of slow regime change going on in Pakistan which has been encouraged by the West for years but it needs a boost to embed and anchor democracy more permanently and so my plan to take out the disloyal ISI elements who have been waging war against the Pakistani people by using proxy terrorists to undermine democracy, ought to be enough to finish the regime change job once and for all.

Saudi Arabia on the other hand has not changed but once we seize their satellites and call for the monarchy and their jihadi side-kicks to be overthrown then regime change can happen there too. Oh, and the name of the country needs changing as well as the regime since the Saudi Royal family is the regime and the country is named after the royal family, so goodbye Saudi Arabia, hello the United States of Arabia. :-D

The experience of Iraq should teach you that pasting democracy on to a divided nation only entrenches division. With the region going to hell in a handcart, it is surely elementary common sense not to have a bust-up with a key remaining ally.

 

[RusCan2013]

Even before we caught Bin Laden in a Pakistani ISI safe-house we very much suspected both Pakistan and Saudi Arabia of being behind the terror attacks on us.

America's 'allies' Saudi & Pakistan: 'enemies' more like! - YouTube

Regime change them both.

Pakistan being a former 100% military dictatorship under Musharraf is now nominally a democracy with disloyal elements in the military attempting to sabotage Pakistani democracy and pull the strings behind the scenes unofficially.

So there's a kind of slow regime change going on in Pakistan which has been encouraged by the West for years but it needs a boost to embed and anchor democracy more permanently and so my plan to take out the disloyal ISI elements who have been waging war against the Pakistani people by using proxy terrorists to undermine democracy, ought to be enough to finish the regime change job once and for all.

Saudi Arabia on the other hand has not changed but once we seize their satellites and call for the monarchy and their jihadi side-kicks to be overthrown then regime change can happen there too. Oh, and the name of the country needs changing as well as the regime since the Saudi Royal family is the regime and the country is named after the royal family, so goodbye Saudi Arabia, hello the United States of Arabia. :-D

You problem is, you assume all of that can actually be done. My friend, the country my parents were brought up in already tried to do that sort of stuff, change the world to its ideology, fought countless wars, supported political parties and movements worldwide that fit its views. In the end, it bankrupted itself, financially and morally, and finally disintegrated in a pool of human blood, leaving behind a score of devastated countries and societies run by corrupt dictators allied with organized crime. That is where I had to grow up in. Russia. Soviet Union, my parents' country, doesn't exist anymore, because it got into the sort of adventures you say the West should get itself involved in now. Bad, bad idea. Especially now, when all of our economies have not nearly recovered from the recession.

 

[Peter Dow]

Because you like many in the West are fundamental judging Middle Eastern countries by western standards. This is what lay behind America's big mistake by invading Iraq.

No, the invasion decision was right, but there were plenty of mistakes.

1) Not securing our supply routes and losing way too many people to road-side bombs
2) Not realising that invading Iraq was never a one-country operation - the neighbouring countries had to be forced on side and made to support the new Iraq or made to pay a heavy price for opposing it.

For example, Iraq has suffered electricity shortages from sabotage organised by terrorist groups controlled by neighbouring countries. We could have told Saudi Arabia, Syria and Iran that they would be expected to supply 99% of Iraq's electricity from power cables from their own electricity and that they would be paid in full from the profits of Iraqi oil industry which would work very well with their help. Any failure to provide their share of electricity supply into Iraq could have been met by us bombing their country as punishment.

If we forced the neighbouring countries kicking and screaming to help Iraq and made it clear that they would only get paid for their help when Iraq was a success and could afford to pay, then the neighbours would not have supported terrorist groups destablising Iraq like they did.

The Saudis are often blamed for being behind the growth of Islamic extremism. But they are even now a target for al-Qaeda. They are locked in a battle with Islamic terrorists,

They are not. We have seen military deception as the Saudis have organised stunt attacks on themselves such as nearly, but not quite, blowing up the Saudi security minister etc. The few Saudi subjects who get killed are ones the Saudi royal family are prepared to sacrifice to keep up the illusion they are on our side. They are no such thing. The Saudis are 100% behind Al Qaeda, 9/11, the Taliban etc. We have some friends in Saudi Arabia but it's not the regime.

as the West is. This terrorism can only be tackled by effective intelligence so international cooperation is crucial, especially with Saudi Arabia.

No. We need to regime change them. Or at the minimum we need to force them kicking and screaming to live or die by the success of democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan. I think regime change is easier but maybe if we chain Saudi royals to girls schools in Taliban-threatened areas they'll get the message and quit funding terrorist training schools in Pakistan? Or assassinate a Saudi Royal for every innocent who dies at the hands of the Taliban maybe?

The presence of several competing operators in South and Central Asia requires ongoing U.S. involvement in Pakistan

Agreed. The involvement needs to step up a gear in terms of eliminating ISI and Saudi backed elements in Pakistan.

As Secretary of State Hillary Clinton once stated

"Pakistan is a nuclear-armed state sitting at the crossroads of a strategic region. And we have the seen the cost of disengaging from this region before."

Agreed. I like Hillary. I love Condi.

 

[D.J]

Peter, can you come to Israel?
We have some small problems with our neighbors. I think you're the man who can solve them.

 

[D.J]

Is anyone else laughing at this guys complete lack of understanding of how any of these mentioned weapons systems are to be employed? I love his little arguments he's having in his head as if he knows what the hell he's talking about. HA!

I'm not going to humor this guy any more with thought out responses, I'm just going to point out the absolute stupidity of this guys delusionals ideas at every single turn.

I love how he totally discredited everything professionals have to say with that stupid bricklayer/ architect analogy. It's obvious we make sense and in order for him to justify his ideas in his mind he can't be having all these pesky "professionals" and "experts" pointing out the massively glaring flaws in his plan and also pointing out his absolute lack of credentials to back them up.

Seems he thinks he's a Clauswitz when in fact he's a McNamara...

It requires no prerequisites to be a soldier. It is a simple job. You just need to kill people, that´s it. :wink:

 

[Peter Dow]

The experience of Iraq should teach you that pasting democracy on to a divided nation only entrenches division.

The Saudis were responsible for 50% of the carnage in Iraq. Our experience of Iraq is an experience of the Saudis backstabbing our efforts in Iraq.

With the region going to hell in a handcart, it is surely elementary common sense not to have a bust-up with a key remaining ally.

The Saudis brought hell to the USA in 9/11 when their man Bin Laden and his Saudi funded terror group, Al Qaeda organised the attacks.

The Saudis are the biggest financial contributor to the hell of jihadi terrorism globally and so they have roasting in hell overdue which we owe to them. If they are lucky the Saudi regime will get away with rapid reform and regime change that leaves the royal family alive but exiled, the offer which we gave to Saddam.

The Saudis are not a reliable honest ally. They are backstabbers.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V79M8svB3Rw"]Americans stabbed in the back by the Saudi Kingdom - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Peter Dow]

You problem is, you assume all of that can actually be done. My friend, the country my parents were brought up in already tried to do that sort of stuff, change the world to its ideology, fought countless wars, supported political parties and movements worldwide that fit its views. In the end, it bankrupted itself, financially and morally, and finally disintegrated in a pool of human blood, leaving behind a score of devastated countries and societies run by corrupt dictators allied with organized crime. That is where I had to grow up in. Russia. Soviet Union, my parents' country, doesn't exist anymore, because it got into the sort of adventures you say the West should get itself involved in now. Bad, bad idea. Especially now, when all of our economies have not nearly recovered from the recession.

The jihadis are engaged in a global regime change movement. They are trying to regime change the world. OK, game on. Let's see who regime changes who first.

The Soviets lost. Get over it. They deserved to lose because the communist ideals while in some senses progressive, well compared to the Taliban they were progressive, if nowhere nearly as progressive as American republican democracy, were communist ideas which really were a fig leaf covering up a very nasty secret police state, the KGB, which Russia is still cursed with today in the shape of Putin and his FSB.

 

[Peter Dow]

Peter, can you come to Israel?
We have some small problems with our neighbors. I think you're the man who can solve them.

Oh thanks for the invite. Maybe in another topic I can solve your small problems from my armchair like I do with the rest of the world's problems? :wink:

I don't travel much but I am single and looking so maybe if you could fix me up with an nice Israeli wife and mother to my kids it might be worth the journey?

 

[D.J]

The jihadis are engaged in a global regime change movement. They are trying to regime change the world. OK, game on. Let's see who regime changes who first.

The jihadis????
Damn! I always thought that it was the Jews!

 

[VDKMS]

The jihadis????
Damn! I always thought that it was the Jews!

He's right you know, allthough the Jihadis are only able to terrorise (for the moment). They do want a worldwide caliphate. Many Jihadis in Syria vowed to came to Spain and take back Al Andalus. (south of Spain). The Jews only want their land back.

 

[ScarabVenom]

Peter, can you come to Israel?
We have some small problems with our neighbors. I think you're the man who can solve them.

LOL...so you admit that you're not able to solve them?

 

[D.J]

LOL...so you admit that you're not able to solve them?

Yes, I must admit that we can´t as long as we have the deadlock as we have today.

It requires that we gain confidence in each other so we all in the region can sit down together and through dialogue find solutions that can lead to peace.
Unfortunately I don´t think it will happen in my lifetime.

 

[lolwhassup]

Well the starting point will be what the Afghan National Army have now in the way of machine guns. Wikipedia says

Machine Gun / Calibre / How many units the Afghans have got now

M2 / 12.7mm / 19,500
M240 / 7.62mm / 30,152
M249 / 5.56mm / 16,248

I assume that those were bought and paid for by the US and other NATO countries so no complaints from Karzai will be entertained if and when most of those weapons are transferred with the soldiers to be used by the new NATO run Afghan auxiliary force we set up to secure our supply lines?

Not that we'd need them all.

For 1 x M2 every 1000 metres on one side of the supply route then you need 2 x M2s for both sides to defend 1 km of supply route.

So the routes shown in the map would need

4800 x M2s for 2400 km.

But actually since there are plenty of M2s in the Afghan arsenal already it would be cost effective to change the plan a bit and put one M2 in every fortified position every 333 metres which would be

6 x M2 s per 1 km
or 14,400 x M2s for 2400 km.

Well I don't suppose those M2s will be modified with sniper scopes etc so something would have to be spent on upgrading them to do sniper operation as well as full auto for emergencies.

With an M2 in every fortified position it would mean not having to lug the thing between positions, which is handy, but it does mean M2s requiring to be securely held in an unmanned gun position with the concern being that our weapons could be used against us if, as has been already mentioned, the enemy make it as far as an unmanned position.

Hmmm. Well it is something to think about. Just the 1 M2 per on-duty gun team, or 3 times as many, 1 M2 per fortified position?

Well it's nice to have the M2s available to be able to make that decision at a later date.

If only using 1 M2 per on duty crew then the positions can be reinforced in an emergency with reinforcements from the depot bringing M240s of which the Afghans have plenty. The reinforcements are for responding to a mass attack so the single shot mode is not required in that role.

Uh do you not understand what the M2HB was designed for....? It is an anti-material Heavy machine gun, designed to take out light vehicles and destroy enemy cover, not snipe at people. Also how do you expect the average Afghan to use the M2 as a sniper rifle? Even the average sniper in any western army would find it difficult to use as a sniper rifle, let alone an infantryman.

 

[ScarabVenom]

Yes, I must admit that we can´t as long as we have the deadlock as we have today.

It requires that we gain confidence in each other so we all in the region can sit down together and through dialogue find solutions that can lead to peace.
Unfortunately I don´t think it will happen in my lifetime.

Yeah, it would be very less likely to happen, although I hope it does. Although, I'm not so much of an expert in the Palestinian/Israeli conflict but I've seen some videos that really surprised me. There was this video in which whoever made it was like walking around talking to both people and actually the vast majority of both sides in the video wanted peace so much. The Palestinian guy was like " If we want peace, we need to teach it to our children who will teach it to their children, we're all sons of Abraham and we're cousins." and some other Israeli guy was like "I'm willing to compromise anything, if they want my pants, they can take it." But of course there has been a bunch of super right wings on both sides. But, this video really surprised me since I thought it's as bad as this, whenever an Israeli see a Palestinian he/she would get violent and vice versa. Although I don't know so much so far, I believe the issue is basically the Israeli government and the Palestinian authority, not really huge amounts of racism and teaching kids how to hate (which I have seen from both sides).

 

[Peter Dow]

Uh do you not understand what the M2HB was designed for....? It is an anti-material Heavy machine gun, designed to take out light vehicles and destroy enemy cover, not snipe at people.

Out of the box, the M2 doesn't come with a scope on it. It needs an upgrade kit fitted for sniping.

This was Hathcock's scoped M2

Wikipedia: M2 as a sniper rifle

The M2 machine gun has also been used as a long-range sniper rifle, when equipped with a telescopic sight. Soldiers during the Korean War used scoped M2s in the role of a sniper rifle, but the practice was most notably used by US Marine Corps sniper Carlos Hathcock during the Vietnam War. Using an Unertl telescopic sight and a mounting bracket of his own design, Hathcock could quickly convert the M2 into a sniper rifle, using the traversing-and-elevating (T&E) mechanism attached to the tripod and a bolt on pistol grip kit that converts the M2 to fire semi-automatically by activating the trigger on the side plate to assist in aiming at stationary targets.[citation needed] When firing semi-automatically, Hathcock hit man-size targets beyond 2000 yards—twice the range of a standard-caliber sniper rifle of the time (a .30-06 Winchester Model 70). In fact, Hathcock set the record for the longest confirmed kill at 2,460 yards or 1.3 miles (2,250 m), a record which stood until 2002.

In 2011, it was reported in the Marine Corps Times that the Marines had ordered 780 scopes for just this kind of upgrade.

Marine Corps Times: Optics for .50-cal guns coming to Afghanistan

In response to an urgent requirement from units downrange, Marines in Afghanistan will soon field a new optic for their heavy machine guns, including the .50-caliber M2 and 40mm Mark 19 grenade launcher.

A $2.34 million contract was awarded in March to Leupold & Stevens Inc., of Beaverton, Ore., for 728 scopes. Each scope sells individually for about $3,150, according to Marine documents.

Leupold calls them MK 8 Close Quarters Battle Scout Sniper optics, but Marine officials said they will not be used on sniper rifles. The heavy day optic, or HDO, will be a long-range sighting system for heavy machine guns, documents say.

The urgent need statement was submitted in April 2010, and endorsed by operating forces with 3rd Marine Division out of Okinawa, Japan. The M2 and MK19 have effective ranges of at least 3,500 meters and 1,700 meters, respectively, but no optics were fielded that allowed Marines to consistently engage enemies at those distances, the documents state.

"The currently provided iron, image intensified and thermal sighting system either offer limited detection ranges or do not enable the required employment methods, which are based largely on the need for range-corrected aiming points, regardless of range, lighting condition or sighting device," the document states.

The new optic will be used with Leupold's Marine Tactical Milling Reticle, or M-TMR. It was designed to prevent Marines from needing to perform math on the fly to estimate range and to work in open desert, heavy cover and urban terrain.

Leupold officials said they have gone to extremes to ensure the optic is capable of withstanding shock and vibration. It will be mounted on the weapon with the Ballistic Extended Rail Mount, or BERM, which provides Picatinny rail space for optics and other equipment, Marine officials said.

The Corps bought the scopes through a sole-source contract, meaning it could find no one else capable of providing them in a timely fashion. This effort continues the Corps' shift toward fielding day optics on nearly every infantry weapon. In the last few years, Marine officials have fielded optics for the 5.56mm M16A4 rifle, M4 carbine, and M249 squad automatic weapon and the 7.62 mm M240B machine gun.

If you want to tell the Marine Corps they cannot snipe at the enemy with a scoped-M2, something which has been done for over 60 years since the Korean War, good luck with that buddy.

Also how do you expect the average Afghan to use the M2 as a sniper rifle?

Well presumably the soldiers could be trained up in the use of such a weapon. Those that can't be trained up wouldn't get the job, not if it was a NATO-run auxiliary force, run by our generals.

Even the average sniper in any western army would find it difficult to use as a sniper rifle, let alone an infantryman.

Oh this guard job will be easier than a real sniper's job. The machine gun will be in a fixed guard post waiting for the enemy to come to them. So the guards will usually be sat around for 8 hours in the one place and usually nothing will happen.

Real snipers have a much harder job sneaking up on the enemy without getting spotted. That's a very dangerous job to do.

These guards will have it quite easy as far as soldiering goes I think.

That's the idea of engineering a defensive line. You build in 90% of the defensive job being carried out with the barbed wire, mines, fortifications, camouflage. The guards' job is not to fall asleep and to know what to do when the enemy shows up, which they possibly never will, at any particular guard post anyway.

The worries I have about expectations are more to do with not expecting that my plan or indeed any good plan will be put into operation. I do worry a bit that we'll just drift on to the end of combat operations in 2014 as ordered by President Obama, we'll pull out and we'll leave the Afghans without much of a chance against the Pakistani-ISI-backed Taliban.

I expect that my plan would work well but I don't expect that my plan will be used because I've not really come to expect strategic planning by our leaders.