Longinius 1 Posted July 27, 2002 Just heard on the news that several (4 or 5) US soldiers had been killed in a firefight in Afghanistan. CNN reports that they were wounded. Any more sources on this? http://www.cnn.com/2002....ex.html Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MDRZulu 0 Posted July 27, 2002 I saw that they were wounded and 2 Afghan militia guys were killed but that is from yahoo and they probably stole it from CNN. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Placebo 28 Posted July 27, 2002 US soldiers caught in Afghan ambush The wounded were evacuated to Bagram </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">At least four American soldiers have been wounded and two Afghan militia members accompanying them killed when they came under small arms fire in the south-east of Afghanistan, US military officials have said. The attack took place as the group was carrying out a reconnaissance mission about 12 kilometres (7.5 miles) east of the town of Khost. The soldiers were fired on from a walled compound, but their injuries were not life-threatening, a US military spokesman in Afghanistan said. They were evacuated to the main American military base at Bagram, north of the capital, Kabul. "The initial reports indicate that it was an ambush," said Sergeant Matthew Davio, US military spokesman at Bagram Air Base, just north of Kabul. <span id='postcolor'> Local fighters are helping the US forces </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Attacks The main Afghan commander in the area, Padsha Khan Zadran, said about 600 soldiers had been spread out near the village of Atkheil, looking for al-Qaeda militants believed to be hiding out there. The province of Khost, particularly areas near the Pakistan border, is one of the places where America is concentrating its efforts to target al-Qaeda and Taleban remnants. BBC's Kate Clark in Kabul says the US base near Khost comes under regular, if largely ineffective, rocket attack. American soldiers are based in Afghanistan as part of a US campaign to root out Saudi-born militant Osama Bin Laden's al-Qaeda network, which is blamed for the 11 September attacks on New York and Washington. About 40 American soldiers have been killed in combat and non-combat incidents and more than 340 have been wounded in the US operation in Afghanistan that began last October. <span id='postcolor'> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/2156037.stm Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Col. Kurtz 0 Posted July 28, 2002 As lonmg as the Americans stay in Afghanistan things like this will most likely continue to unfortunetly happen. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Antichrist 0 Posted July 28, 2002 I said that ages ago! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Col. Kurtz 0 Posted July 28, 2002 Shall we take it to court? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Col. Kurtz 0 Posted July 28, 2002 You know what, this is starting to sound a bit like Vietnam. 'US patrol ambushed' 'Wounded choppered out'. Next we will be hearing 'sapper attack on US military installation' 'Mortar attack on Air base' 'More Marines deplyed to deffend against guerilla attacks', not good. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Antichrist 0 Posted July 28, 2002 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Col. Kurtz @ July 28 2002,12:15)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Shall we take it to court? <span id='postcolor'> Hell yes!!! Where do u live in NZ? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Col. Kurtz 0 Posted July 28, 2002 Well, one prob, Im not in NZ at the moment, Im in the evil land of Australia. 2.Even if I was in NZ, I would most likely be in the rural West Coast of the South Island. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Antichrist 0 Posted July 28, 2002 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Col. Kurtz @ July 28 2002,12:34)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Well, one prob, Im not in NZ at the moment, Im in the evil land of Australia. 2.Even if I was in NZ, I would most likely be in the rural West Coast of the South Island.<span id='postcolor'> Nah too far! Probably some other time! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
scout 0 Posted July 28, 2002 here are some more detail Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Oligo 1 Posted July 29, 2002 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Col. Kurtz @ July 28 2002,12:19)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You know what, this is starting to sound a bit like Vietnam. 'US patrol ambushed' 'Wounded choppered out'. Next we will be hearing 'sapper attack on US military installation' 'Mortar attack on Air base' 'More Marines deplyed to deffend against guerilla attacks', not good.<span id='postcolor'> There is a term for this. It's called "Occupation Attrition" and it's what the yanks are experiencing in Afganistan and the Israelis in the trouble zones. Perfectly normal for an occupation campaign. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted July 29, 2002 What I don't get is why they (the Taliban) don't use mortars. They have a decent range and can create total havoc if you shell a base. It is also psychologically a very nasty weapon. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Oligo 1 Posted July 29, 2002 That's a good point. The yanks probably have counterbattery radars in their bases though, so they can return fire before the first shells have landed. On the other hand, the talebs could fire from civvie villages and then the retaliating yank shells would waste civvies and much heat would be handed out by the press. Dammit, I should be a guerrilla commander. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted July 29, 2002 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Oligo @ July 29 2002,09:48)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The yanks probably have counterbattery radars in their bases though, so they can return fire before the first shells have landed.<span id='postcolor'> Really? You can detect so small objects with normal radar? That must require a shitload of energy being emitted to get such resolution. I'm not sure that they are constantly pumping out that much power since it can't be to healthy for those around Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Antichrist 0 Posted July 29, 2002 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Oligo @ July 29 2002,09:48)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">That's a good point. The yanks probably have counterbattery radars in their bases though, so they can return fire before the first shells have landed. On the other hand, the talebs could fire from civvie villages and then the retaliating yank shells would waste civvies and much heat would be handed out by the press.<span id='postcolor'> Hello, Osama Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Oligo 1 Posted July 29, 2002 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ July 29 2002,09:57)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Really? You can detect so small objects with normal radar? That must require a shitload of energy being emitted to get such resolution. I'm not sure that they are constantly pumping out that much power since it can't be to healthy for those around <span id='postcolor'> It a normal radar designed for counterbattery tracking. You can pinpoint the enemy firing positions before his shells have landed. If you want to read some finnish propaganda, here you have it: Propaganda And about the power outage of that thing... Well, remember this: Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted July 29, 2002 Ah, yes. Who can forget L24A's informative sign? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Col. Kurtz 0 Posted July 29, 2002 Talking about mortars, what about the RPG-7? The Taleban and other Afghan fighters have used that weapon since the Soviet Invasion back in '79-'89. They are highly effective with it. And since was the noble warriors of Allah afraid of dying? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted July 29, 2002 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Col. Kurtz @ July 29 2002,11:27)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Talking about mortars, what about the RPG-7? The Taleban and other Afghan fighters have used that weapon since the Soviet Invasion back in '79-'89. They are highly effective with it. And since was the noble warriors of Allah afraid of dying? <span id='postcolor'> RPG's have a short range and are ineffective against anything but armoured targets. RPG-7 uses a HEAT warhead that needs armour to interact with to work properly. Mortars on the other hand are anti-infantry weapons Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ralphwiggum 6 Posted July 29, 2002 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Oligo @ July 29 2002,11:10)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And about the power outage of that thing... Well, remember this: http://home.planet.nl/~haan0054/sign.gif (eh hem....pic is over 100k!<span id='postcolor'> i was thinking of this too when i read the word 'radar' and 'mortar' Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Col. Kurtz 0 Posted July 29, 2002 The Taliban worked out how to make the warhead air burst at the range they want. The RPG-7 has a maximum range of One kilometre, and in a well planeed ambush, that should be more than enough. I also believe that there a few varietys of warheads for it and the RPG has been used against personal and equiptment for years. When it hits something, it explodes, when it explodes, shrapnel is realesed. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites