NATO forces in Afganistan
Select messages from
 # through # Forum FAQ
[/[Print]\]

Close Combat Series -> The Mess
#1: NATO forces in Afganistan Author: zygov,  PostPosted: Sun Apr 04, 2010 1:24 pm
    —
Almost every nation from Nato have troops there..
I want to show Polish forces
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=978_1208728513

And best apc there
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KTO_Rosomak
#2: Re: NATO forces in Afganistan Author: Ejergard,  PostPosted: Sun Apr 04, 2010 2:31 pm
    —
Even nations outside of Nato has forces in Afghanistan Smile
I wish them the best, I used to work with the Polish in RC North back in 2007, before they redeployed their effort south. I believe they are mainly stationed in PRT Gardez, RC East nowadays?
#3: Re: NATO forces in Afganistan Author: zygov,  PostPosted: Sun Apr 04, 2010 2:56 pm
    —
Yes RC East, now they are located in province Ghazni near province Paktya where Gardez is. They are responsible and in command in this province with support of American forces. Sweden have forces in Balkh?
#4: Re: NATO forces in Afganistan Author: Ejergard,  PostPosted: Sun Apr 04, 2010 4:12 pm
    —
Yes, Balkh, Aybak, Jowzjan and Sar-e-Pol, these 4 provinces is PRT MeS (Mazar-e-Sharif)
#5: Re: NATO forces in Afganistan Author: papa_whisky,  PostPosted: Mon Apr 05, 2010 1:52 pm
    —
Hail Tippi-Simo the ethnic cleanser! How come you have to make every thread a dull diatribe about your fascist views. If I am not mistaken you already have your own thread. However, if you have something constructive to add to this thread then please go ahead. Apologies to zygov.

Zygov, why do you think the KTO Rosomak is so good? Wheeled APC's seem to me to be fatally flawed not having tracks.
#6: Re: NATO forces in Afganistan Author: Tippi-Simo, Location: Helsinki PostPosted: Mon Apr 05, 2010 2:27 pm
    —
Nato attacked to Afghanistan because Taleban banned poppy cultivation.
Maybe you don´t know but there are many government agencies around the world that have unlimited funding for drug war.
Just my few cents.

Support your troops, Bring ´em home.
#7: Re: NATO forces in Afganistan Author: Ejergard,  PostPosted: Mon Apr 05, 2010 4:04 pm
    —
Wheeled APCs are needed in Afghanistan due to the great distances, but they are no substitute for tracked ones either. Otherwise, cv9040 ftw Smile
#8: Re: NATO forces in Afganistan Author: mooxe,  PostPosted: Mon Apr 05, 2010 4:21 pm
    —
Both are needed. From the time I spent there I seen it. Sometimes we would avoid the roads and travel through farm fields. The wheeled vehicles would always get stuck. Although we only went through farm fields if tracked vehicles were with us. Sometimes a tank would stay at a particularly bad mud patch in the field and pull all the vehicles through. On the roads though we need the speed. Tracks vehicles also tear up the road, counter productive to what needs to be accomplished.

You can't do that mission without both types.
#9: Re: NATO forces in Afganistan Author: Blackstump, Location: Hunter Valley Australia PostPosted: Tue Apr 06, 2010 6:16 am
    —
Good comment from sombody whos been there Mooxe, but how is that opium crop going ? yank government got enough in for next year ? Wink
#10: Re: NATO forces in Afganistan Author: papa_whisky,  PostPosted: Thu Apr 08, 2010 2:41 am
    —
mooxe wrote (View Post):
Both are needed. From the time I spent there I seen it. Sometimes we would avoid the roads and travel through farm fields. The wheeled vehicles would always get stuck. Although we only went through farm fields if tracked vehicles were with us. Sometimes a tank would stay at a particularly bad mud patch in the field and pull all the vehicles through. On the roads though we need the speed. Tracks vehicles also tear up the road, counter productive to what needs to be accomplished.

You can't do that mission without both types.


OK understood that you need a battle taxi, but where some countries seem to have gone wrong is they took your battle taxi and then stick a big cannon on the top or other variants like the Stryker series. Seems to me if you want wheeled vehicles keep them light but sufficiently armoured against light infantry weapons and mines, but stop at the HMG for defence/fire support. If the formation needs heavy weapons they you shouldn't be using wheeled vehicles but tracked.
#11: Re: NATO forces in Afganistan Author: mooxe,  PostPosted: Thu Apr 08, 2010 3:31 am
    —
papa_whisky wrote (View Post):
OK understood that you need a battle taxi, but where some countries seem to have gone wrong is they took your battle taxi and then stick a big cannon on the top or other variants like the Stryker series. Seems to me if you want wheeled vehicles keep them light but sufficiently armoured against light infantry weapons and mines, but stop at the HMG for defence/fire support. If the formation needs heavy weapons they you shouldn't be using wheeled vehicles but tracked.


There has to be a balance between mobility and speed. You need heavy weapons that can be deployed quickly, and anywhere. A mix of track and wheeled give you those abilities. Heavy weapons on wheeled vehicles has been working since atleast WW2. A blanket statement that heavy weapons should be on tracked vehicles only really holds no merit as history and current events prove.
#12: Re: NATO forces in Afganistan Author: papa_whisky,  PostPosted: Fri Apr 09, 2010 12:48 am
    —
OK so heavy weapons on wheeled vehicles have been operating since WWII. Those vehicles can move faster along roads, but poor off road. The number of tactical situations where it would be advantaged over a tracked vehicle would be if you had to move very fast with little threat or roads, the vehicle then using lets say an ATGMS or anti-tank gun would then have to defeat an armoured threat. To me there seems to be such a limited number of situations where a combination of infantry, tank (including light tanks), artillery, helicopter, and air support couldn't be used and do better to make it appear poor value for money even if the are cheaper to produce.

As a battle taxi, and possibly as a mortar carrier I can see that wheeled APC have great addionality in many circumstances, I just don't see it though in a modern theatre of battle how heavy weapons on wheels adds much if anything. Please enlighten me.
#13: Re: NATO forces in Afganistan Author: mooxe,  PostPosted: Fri Apr 09, 2010 1:25 am
    —
papa_whisky wrote (View Post):
OK so heavy weapons on wheeled vehicles have been operating since WWII. Those vehicles can move faster along roads, but poor off road. The number of tactical situations where it would be advantaged over a tracked vehicle would be if you had to move very fast with little threat or roads, the vehicle then using lets say an ATGMS or anti-tank gun would then have to defeat an armoured threat. To me there seems to be such a limited number of situations where a combination of infantry, tank (including light tanks), artillery, helicopter, and air support couldn't be used and do better to make it appear poor value for money even if the are cheaper to produce.

As a battle taxi, and possibly as a mortar carrier I can see that wheeled APC have great addionality in many circumstances, I just don't see it though in a modern theatre of battle how heavy weapons on wheels adds much if anything. Please enlighten me.


I tried to "enlighten." The terrain in Afghanistan requires both types of vehicles with a wide range of heavy and light weapons on both. You simply cant say tracked are best for all situations.

Now I didnt say they move poor offroad, infact they move very well off road. They dont move well through muddy terrain. Sometimes tanks dont do so well in mud either, they get slowed down, and pivoting when your tracks are beneath the mud is asking for a thrown track.

There is also no armoured threat in Afghanistan right now.
Close Combat Series -> The Mess


output generated using printer-friendly topic mod. All times are GMT

Page 1 of 1