Usually they blow up the middle truck, actually they always do. More chance of hitting two at once, and more confusion in the line.Kmarion wrote:
Hitting the last vehicle in a convoy is a normal tactic when outnumbered. The action takes place behind your strength. Putting a high priority target at the end wasn't too smart. Then again I'm not aware of the entire circumctance.
Last edited by dayarath (2008-04-19 11:15:49)
Circumstantial. If they are usually doing this then the Taliban needs to pick up a book. Numbers matter.dayarath wrote:
Usually they blow up the middle truck, actually they always do. More chance of hitting two at once, and more confusion in the line.Kmarion wrote:
Hitting the last vehicle in a convoy is a normal tactic when outnumbered. The action takes place behind your strength. Putting a high priority target at the end wasn't too smart. Then again I'm not aware of the entire circumctance.
pressing a button can be done from a very far distance. There's not much engagement when a roadside bomb explodes, it may have been one that exploded when you drive over it; meaning they were long gone anyway. You don't just find these people after the bomb explodes, they're too far off. Where are you going to search if you don't see anything? You've got desert all around you.Kmarion wrote:
Circumstantial. If they are usually doing this then the Taliban needs to pick up a book. Numbers matter.dayarath wrote:
Usually they blow up the middle truck, actually they always do. More chance of hitting two at once, and more confusion in the line.Kmarion wrote:
Hitting the last vehicle in a convoy is a normal tactic when outnumbered. The action takes place behind your strength. Putting a high priority target at the end wasn't too smart. Then again I'm not aware of the entire circumctance.
When ten to the enemy's one, surround him;
When five times his strength, attack him;
If double his strength, divide him;
If equally matched you may engage him;
If weaker numerically, be capable of withdrawing;
And if in all respects unequal, be capable of eluding him.
- Sun Tzu, the Art Of War
Last edited by dayarath (2008-04-19 11:36:02)
never said it did.dayarath wrote:
Oug, that you don't know doesn't mean the Taliban doesn't either.
Talk about being insensitiveoug wrote:
It's a fucking war. People die every day on both sides. And I'm supposed to care about this dickhead in particular because he's the son of a general I've never head of?
Funny how you cared so much about a cameraman being killed in that thread and saying it was the Israelis fault eh?oug wrote:
And if you want to take this a step further, like a guy did in that other thread about the dead cameraman, why should I care about a professional soldier who willingly put himself at risk by volunteering for this unjust war, or for fucking Taliban fighters who destroy other cultures' monuments for that matter? The former knew the dangers and he shouldn't have been there. The latter are scum whose "culture" (if one can call it that) takes the world back to the dark ages. I have no sympathy, sorry. I save that for the numerous other deadly clashes taking place in the world right now.
Circumstantial still. There is no way to know that that vehicle was targeted for that reason.dayarath wrote:
pressing a button can be done from a very far distance. There's not much engagement when a roadside bomb explodes, it may have been one that exploded when you drive over it; meaning they were long gone anyway. You don't just find these people after the bomb explodes, they're too far off. Where are you going to search if you don't see anything? You've got desert all around you.Kmarion wrote:
Circumstantial. If they are usually doing this then the Taliban needs to pick up a book. Numbers matter.dayarath wrote:
Usually they blow up the middle truck, actually they always do. More chance of hitting two at once, and more confusion in the line.
When ten to the enemy's one, surround him;
When five times his strength, attack him;
If double his strength, divide him;
If equally matched you may engage him;
If weaker numerically, be capable of withdrawing;
And if in all respects unequal, be capable of eluding him.
- Sun Tzu, the Art Of War
Sun Tzu's rules are nice and all, but they are only a bit viable when you know who your enemy is, how many of them there are, and where they are (which is rare). These rules are only a bit viable because in modern warfare, numbers begin to matter less.
Insensitive? I never agreed to this war. But now I'm insensitive because those who did are dying...M.O.A.B wrote:
Talk about being insensitive
Funny how you cared so much about a cameraman being killed in that thread and saying it was the Israelis fault eh?
You insult the man who died (called him a 'dickhead', remember?), then you take offense when someone insults you.oug wrote:
Insensitive? I never agreed to this war. But now I'm insensitive because those who did are dying...M.O.A.B wrote:
Talk about being insensitive
Funny how you cared so much about a cameraman being killed in that thread and saying it was the Israelis fault eh?
And wtf? I don't care because I said it was the Israelis' fault? What does one have to do with the other? You're not making sense my friend.
So being sent out to war is the same as agreeing to the war?oug wrote:
Insensitive? I never agreed to this war. But now I'm insensitive because those who did are dying...M.O.A.B wrote:
Talk about being insensitive
Funny how you cared so much about a cameraman being killed in that thread and saying it was the Israelis fault eh?
And wtf? I don't care because I said it was the Israelis' fault? What does one have to do with the other? You're not making sense my friend.
We can't know for sure indeed but the circumstances under which it happened point out in that direction pretty strongly.Kmarion wrote:
Circumstantial still. There is no way to know that that vehicle was targeted for that reason.
I'd hardly call the taliban and ied's modern in their tactics also. Airstikes and smart bombs are not within their capability. It is still a numbers game for them.
Last edited by dayarath (2008-04-19 12:44:37)
Being sent? I don't know how it works for the Netherlands, but around here only professional soldiers get sent to Afghanistan, and of course it is something they cannot be forced to do. It is their option, and they get paid a lot more to go there. I imagine it's the same for you guys.dayarath wrote:
So being sent out to war is the same as agreeing to the war?
See above.dayarath wrote:
So wanting to help people in a crisis situation equals agreeing to the war?
I didn't agree to the war when it started, but now that we are in the middle of it we can't just leave, there are people out there who need our help, we can't just abandon them.
Excuse me? Where did I mock anyone?dayarath wrote:
And what you're saying, in my opinion - is disgusting. You actually mock people who gave their lives for the safety of others.
Then why do they target one vehicle at the end of a convoy?dayarath wrote:
The Taliban are in a number game combined with guerilla warfare, their numbers are FAR superior to all of the allied forces.
lol tbh I didn't notice. And I don't get offended. This is the internets ffsSenorToenails wrote:
You insult the man who died (called him a 'dickhead', remember?), then you take offense when someone insults you.oug wrote:
Insensitive? I never agreed to this war. But now I'm insensitive because those who did are dying...M.O.A.B wrote:
Talk about being insensitive
Funny how you cared so much about a cameraman being killed in that thread and saying it was the Israelis fault eh?
And wtf? I don't care because I said it was the Israelis' fault? What does one have to do with the other? You're not making sense my friend.
Did you miss the part where I said it had happened? In both Iraq and Afghanistan, high-ranking general officers' kids were in line combat units. It wasn't a hypothetical.dayarath wrote:
So if say, Petraeus' son would go to Iraq, there should be no defensive measures along the lines of changing his name because;
he wouldn't endanger his fellow men.
if he would die there would be no effect on the war.
Well think again. He would endanger his men, he would become a high profile target, and the death of such a person would result in the high command getting a blow to the head. And you don't want that to happen in a war situation. It's not as easy as "because he's that and that he should be treated as equal" he should, but not under these circumstances. His presence there influences the situation.
Oug, that you don't know doesn't mean the Taliban doesn't either.
Do you guys not have brakes on your vehicles?Nordemus wrote:
This is obvious, since a normal ambush would go along the lines of bombing the first vehicle, while the other ones hopefully crash into it or explode.
Do you guys not panic when a car explodes in front of you?Kmarion wrote:
Do you guys not have brakes on your vehicles?Nordemus wrote:
This is obvious, since a normal ambush would go along the lines of bombing the first vehicle, while the other ones hopefully crash into it or explode.
I'm not trained military personal in a combat zone.Nordemus wrote:
Do you guys not panic when a car explodes in front of you?Kmarion wrote:
Do you guys not have brakes on your vehicles?Nordemus wrote:
This is obvious, since a normal ambush would go along the lines of bombing the first vehicle, while the other ones hopefully crash into it or explode.
You sign for a period of time in the military, you can't leave when you please. When you signed up before the war began, and get sent out, you go. No second option. If you refuse and desert, you will be imprisoned for about 2 years.oug wrote:
Being sent? I don't know how it works for the Netherlands, but around here only professional soldiers get sent to Afghanistan, and of course it is something they cannot be forced to do. It is their option, and they get paid a lot more to go there. I imagine it's the same for you guys.dayarath wrote:
So being sent out to war is the same as agreeing to the war?
Excuse me? Where did I mock anyone?
I'm putting up a situation that's about the same to the one that's happened here. Yes that has happened, and apparantly that went all well. But you can't tell me that they shouldn't've taken any precautions.FEOS wrote:
Did you miss the part where I said it had happened? In both Iraq and Afghanistan, high-ranking general officers' kids were in line combat units. It wasn't a hypothetical.dayarath wrote:
So if say, Petraeus' son would go to Iraq, there should be no defensive measures along the lines of changing his name because;
he wouldn't endanger his fellow men.
if he would die there would be no effect on the war.
Well think again. He would endanger his men, he would become a high profile target, and the death of such a person would result in the high command getting a blow to the head. And you don't want that to happen in a war situation. It's not as easy as "because he's that and that he should be treated as equal" he should, but not under these circumstances. His presence there influences the situation.
Oug, that you don't know doesn't mean the Taliban doesn't either.
Depends on the convoy or patrol. This patrol existed out of a bunch of lightly armored cars, so there wasn't exactly a vulnerable rear end; making it a more viable option to blow up the middle one.It is quite common to target the last vehicle in a convoy, as it not only cuts off the avenue of retreat, but also impacts the typically less armed and armored rear sides of the vehicles.
It is a common tactic that has been used repeatedly on vehicle convoys since before WWII.
I'd gonna say it's just bad luck, not an elaborate plan.
This isn't exactly a game of stones and sticks anymore, superior armor, firepower and training are in effect here.Kmarion wrote:
Then why do they target one vehicle at the end of a convoy?dayarath wrote:
The Taliban are in a number game combined with guerilla warfare, their numbers are FAR superior to all of the allied forces.
The lion doesn't stalk the lagging gazelle falling behind the herd because the lions have more numbers.
Last edited by dayarath (2008-04-19 13:50:27)
Yes, I can. Why do you think Harry had such a problem with leaving? He was treated no different than any other grunt out there and it did wonders for his unit's morale. Same applies in other cases...those soldiers don't want special treatment or protection over and above what the others in their units receive, and their superiors don't want it either.dayarath wrote:
I'm putting up a situation that's about the same to the one that's happened here. Yes that has happened, and apparantly that went all well. But you can't tell me that they shouldn't've taken any precautions.FEOS wrote:
Did you miss the part where I said it had happened? In both Iraq and Afghanistan, high-ranking general officers' kids were in line combat units. It wasn't a hypothetical.dayarath wrote:
So if say, Petraeus' son would go to Iraq, there should be no defensive measures along the lines of changing his name because;
he wouldn't endanger his fellow men.
if he would die there would be no effect on the war.
Well think again. He would endanger his men, he would become a high profile target, and the death of such a person would result in the high command getting a blow to the head. And you don't want that to happen in a war situation. It's not as easy as "because he's that and that he should be treated as equal" he should, but not under these circumstances. His presence there influences the situation.
Oug, that you don't know doesn't mean the Taliban doesn't either.
Sometimes it's out of the hands of someone to decide wether it's good for him or not. Harry was there secretly and immediately pulled back when the word got out of his stay there.FEOS wrote:
Yes, I can. Why do you think Harry had such a problem with leaving? He was treated no different than any other grunt out there and it did wonders for his unit's morale. Same applies in other cases...those soldiers don't want special treatment or protection over and above what the others in their units receive, and their superiors don't want it either.dayarath wrote:
I'm putting up a situation that's about the same to the one that's happened here. Yes that has happened, and apparantly that went all well. But you can't tell me that they shouldn't've taken any precautions.FEOS wrote:
Did you miss the part where I said it had happened? In both Iraq and Afghanistan, high-ranking general officers' kids were in line combat units. It wasn't a hypothetical.
While I'm sure that man is grieving the loss of his son, the soldier in him probably understands and respects the decision not to treat him special.
According to your last sentence their aim is to confuse. If they want to be able to live to attack again they need a retreat. The detonation devices they use are line of sight.dayarath wrote:
This isn't exactly a game of stones and sticks anymore, superior armor, firepower and training are in effect here.
Seriously, the Taliban are superior in numbers but not exactly in skill level or equipment. Their aim is to do as much damage as they can isn't it?
AGAIN, that would depend on the circumstance.And seeing as there is almost no way of detecting the guy who detonated the bomb (if it needed a detonater) the best option is to blow up the middle ones, hoping for more damage, and it would create a bit more confusion than blowing up the last one.
It's an analogy, not a quote. Your whole "Fucking outrage" is based on speculation. And that is near useless.Nice quotes, but near useless.
For the most part, this is true. A cameraman's life is no less or more important than that of a soldier, even if it's the son of a general. There are some practical concerns involved with people related to powerful figures, but it would appear that most people here are suggesting that this lack of caution is standard protocol.oug wrote:
It's a fucking war. People die every day on both sides. And I'm supposed to care about this dickhead in particular because he's the son of a general I've never head of?
And if you want to take this a step further, like a guy did in that other thread about the dead cameraman, why should I care about a professional soldier who willingly put himself at risk by volunteering for this unjust war, or for fucking Taliban fighters who destroy other cultures' monuments for that matter? The former knew the dangers and he shouldn't have been there. The latter are scum whose "culture" (if one can call it that) takes the world back to the dark ages. I have no sympathy, sorry. I save that for the numerous other deadly clashes taking place in the world right now.