The argument over lethality and wounding continues

[kwguy]

The tactics can be strangely 'similar but different'. The ambush ranges are longer than in Vietnam for sure, in many places, hence the reason for 7.62. They still use maneuver, and after they hit, can maneuver very well, and then use terrain to try to retreat (if they intend to do so at all).

Once air power shows up, they can either be gone, or if they misjudge the timing, they can have a bad day. Because of the increased distances though, grabbing U.S. troops 'by the belt buckle' may not be very easy for them to do.

The geography of the country definitely varies, but longer ranges certainly exist.

 

[Bill_Shelton]

kwguy,

Thanks for responding. I'm learning a lot.

BTW, I have see some documentaries about the Afghans (Taliban) that were ambushing American Forces. There was this one documentary where the leader was cool, calm-headed - outstanding. However, the Taliban Leader hinted that his troops were half crazy - and they really were! I'm talking some real brainless fanatics.

In another documentary, I see some Al Qaeda trying to train some Taliban troops on how to make, set and detonate roadside bombs. The Al Qaeda seemed to be pretty smart guys, but the Taliban were a bunch of inept doofuses that angered the Al Qaeda guy so bad that he essentially quit on the job.

Are the Taliban really that fanatic and stupid...or is it "Hollywood" so-to-speak? (actually, these were foreign documentaries).

Thanks.

 

[JShirley]

We are straying, but it's fair to describe many or most people in that area as "less sophisticated" socially. They may believe literally anything told to them.

 

[mastiffhound]

A vote for 7.62 NATO from our own boys!
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2013/04/01/usaf-eod-adopt-m14-ebr-rifle/

Looks like Air Force EOD is moving to 7.62 NATO. Maybe moving to the 7.62 is best. The main problem was that the loaded mags weighed so much for the M14. With modern polymers and aluminum then you could make considerably lighter mags. You would probably never be able to carry the same load out of the M16 or M4, but you could carry more than with the M14.

 

[HorseSoldier]

As far as comparing Vietnam to Afghanistan, it does seem like they are very different. You said that the Vietnamese fought close where the Afghans fight far out, but also hinted that the Vietcong never figured out that fighting close is a losing proposition. I not so sure. The Vietcong learned that they could surprise American Troops (they took initiative the majority of the time) engage for a few minutes, and then disperse into the jungle before the air support arrived. In this case, if the Vietcong are still there when the air support arrives - if they misjudge the timing, it behooves them to be close because air support does not get credit for hitting their own troops.

I didn't mean to suggest that the Vietcong/NVA strategy back then of closing the distance was an inherently bad one -- in that place and time, with the tools and technology we could bring to bear against them, it was a pretty good way to partially offset our advantages.

In AFG, though, most places you can see for about forever and even when there's good cover to obstruct direct observation from the ground, overhead cover from aerial observation is pretty limited. The terrain is pretty miserable in most of the country, and great for an insurgency, but with air support and aerial observation in the mix, there's not much good terrain for protracted stand up fights.

At least against first rate military formations with (at least theoretically) massive amounts of air support. Once we flip most of the lights off and the ANA and other Afghan security forces are trying to stand on their own, expect to see more real knock down drag out fights. (Where I was on my last trip it was already sliding in that direction -- the bad guys seemed to deliberately avoid ISAF patrols and reserved their ammo and energy for the ANA when they had the ability to call the plays.)