Perimeter defences plan for a military base for the GWOT - Page 7

October 8th, 2012  
Peter Dow
Originally Posted by brinktk
So what if they don't hit anything with rudimentary rockets. They managed to kill several soldiers on my base last year with this method of shooting. Not to mention the numerous wounded and damage to infrastructure they did. They don't need to hit anything for them to have an effect. The fact we have to stop what we're doing and go to a bunker until we get the all clear is enough of an inconvenience for us to have to deal with these guys outside the base.
This is exactly the military problem I am presenting a partial defensive solution for. Defence is not the total military answer to win a war. Our forces also need to go on the offensive against the enemy home bases, in Pakistan and elsewhere.

We need a good defence and a good offence. This plan is presenting my proposals for a better defence part of our military strategy.

For a discussion of what a good offence might consist of, see my other topic -

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

The problem with our existing bases is that the enemy rockets or mortars are being allowed to get too close, within their firing range, to be able to hit the critical areas of our existing bases.

The defensive solution is to keep the enemy further back, out of range of their indirect fire weapons, mortars and rockets.

That's why my plan includes perimeter defences which are many miles out from the central base I am defending.

So for example, a 107mm rocket has a maximum range of 8.5 kilometres, 8500 metres, 5.3 miles, so with with defences like this -

- where the Central Base (green zone) is about 16000 metres from the warning line. So if the enemy with his 107 mm rocket stays outside the warning line, at least 16000 metres from the central base he is too far away from the central base to hit anything in the central base with the 107mm rocket.

Admittedly, you do get bigger rockets with much bigger ranges than 8500 meters, some with ranges longer than 16000 metres, so, of course, you do need to keep those bigger rockets even further away.

For defending against bigger rockets with even longer ranges than 16000 metres then you need to enforce warning lines that are even further away from your central base than that shown in this diagram.

I don't know what is the longest range of rocket that the Taliban has used in Afghanistan. Have they ever used a 120 mm rocket with a range of 23000 metres, do you know? If they have got some of those 120mm rockets then we'd have to plan our defence perimeter accordingly.

Here is a web-page with some data on Iranian artillery rockets

Iranian Artillery Rockets

So long as we are aware that it will be enemy countries like Pakistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia who will be providing long range rockets and we need to hit back at the country concerned not just at the Taliban who are just their agents.

Originally Posted by brinktk
These auxileries you speak of...what happens when the Taliban gets a hold of these guys families for co-operating with the coalition. And these guys can't do anything about it because we're too busy using them to give us security on the super roads that only our vehicles can travel on safely to supply our bases?
We can offer to allow Afghan auxiliaries to bring their families to live beside the road they are defending, to live within the wire, so to speak. There would have to be terms and conditions which went along with any such offer in order to maintain security.

Originally Posted by brinktk
Broadcasting does nothing for defeating the ideology in a country living in the 13th century. How do you motivate the Afghans to back this plan? You think they are as fickle as we are where money is their sole motivator? What good is money to them if they can't protect their families? Why would they be happy about any of us using their country with impunity? Setting up these bases implies our enduring presence, an even worse prospect for them in the end.

Do you know what pashtunwali is? Do you know anything about Islamist ideology? Do you know the difference between a Sunni and a Shia? Do you know anything about the numerous different tribal factions in Afghanistan? As a scientist I would assume that you would have studied up on all of this. Have you? How much do you actually know about the area? States mean nothing to most Muslems, are you aware of this?

If you can answer all of this, then you can have the condescending tone that you've had with me thus far. Until then, I suggest you read up on the history of the area and take in every concievable variable know...real science sh!t.
The Pakistani military intelligence are the main state sponsor of the Taliban. You need to watch this video.

VIDEO: BBC Documentary - "SECRET PAKISTAN - Double Cross / Backlash" (2 hours)

[ame=""]Secret BBC - Pakistan Double Cross on Terrorism - Full - YouTube[/ame]


I am sorry but you have been misinformed by poor generals if they are telling you this is a local battle against ancient tribes people. The Pashtuns are being manipulated by Pakistani military intelligence. Watch the video.

Originally Posted by brinktk
What are you basing these systems around anyways? Did you stop to think that maybe after years of practice, study, and employment that the military might actually know what they're doing when protecting themselves? Did you ever stop to consider the reason so many soldiers on here give you sh!t is because we might know a thing or two more about what you're attempting to talk about and we know you're reccomendations won't work. What makes you think you know better than us? Why should we take you seriously? Do you really give two sh!ts about what the guys on the ground thinks?
The basic elementary idea of this plan is to keep the enemy out of range of his weapons. This is not my new idea. This is military science 101.

If our generals knew what they were doing they would be keeping the enemy out of range of our bases already. I am sorry that they don't seem to know what they are doing.

Originally Posted by brinktk
Or do you just think this is a perfect oppurtunity to expand the Wests influence at the expense of brown people...again.
No that's silly. President Obama is brown and my favourite politician Condoleezza Rice is brown. It's nothing to do with colour.

Yes we do want the West to have enough influence so that Pakistan and other countries don't think they can extort money out of the USA and the West by sending Al Qaeda terrorists to kill us like on 9/11 and don't think they can arm and train up the Taliban without us noticing and waging war on them too.

We do need our governments to stop paying the enemy and to start ordering our forces to fight the enemy.

So the aim is not Western influence for its own sake but to stop the terrorism, that's all really.

Originally Posted by brinktk
Or, are you a troll? seriously?
I am seriously trying to help.
October 8th, 2012  
Google C-RAM.. I would rather we pour funds into that than waste our resources on something like this(no offence ) .
October 8th, 2012  
Der Alte
All defensive positions can be taken. All it requires is sufficient will and a modicum of intelligence. Although these obstacles look formidable at first sight, they can be dealt with if careful preparation is made beforehand. Someone will find a way to circumvent it. That's always the problem with a static defense system.
October 9th, 2012  
The Belgian Fort Eben-Emael was reputed to be impregnable and at the time, the largest in the world. The fort was successfully neutralized within a day by 56 glider-borne German troops on 10 May 1940.

It's like Der Alte says : All defensive positions can be taken.

Similar Topics
Next US President
Great Military Leaders vs Military Education
What was said on the 3rd presidential debate.
*Joining the Military - Questions Abound - Help Appreciated!
Kerry Unveils Plan To Overhaul Military