Camp Bastion attack
 

BBC news reporting that up to six Harriers have been destroyed in the attack the other night.

Something we all know was probably going to happen at some time......

Having served there and seen the security, that takes balls whichever way you look at!

Semper Fidelis leathernecks.

Not good at all. Sad to hear of the 2 marines and other wounded.

A lot of balls to carry out that attack, almost guaranteed to be a suicide mission.

Just as well the Americans got such a good deal on our harriers !
Seriously though metal bits can be replaced its the soft sqidgy bits that fly and look after them am more worried about getting hurt .
Hope all well , be safe

Agree.

That deal on the British Harriers will look even sweeter now
they need them operational.
.

Well done 51 Sqn
 

If the report in the DT is correct:

Prince Harry targeted in fatal Taliban attack on 'impregnable' military base - Telegraph

Good to hear the lads managed to get some smash down on terry.

As said in the article, the art of propaganda, something they seem to be
very good at (ref raiding it to get at Harry).

Long term planning while waiting for the right time to attack ?

The Taliban's claims do however, raise some valid concerns. Harry is a HVT and this could show their resolve in seeking to take him out. I bet every SAM they have (and will be supplied by Iran) will be taking shots at Apaches from hereonin. I think it was a mistake to ever announce him serving there. I would imagine it offers no solace to the families of the US Marines killed in the attack that the only reason for the audacious attack was to target Prince Harry. I now think it more sensible to get him out of there.

Grim

Absolute bollocks!!

1. The reason given for the attack by the Taliban in their first press release gave no mention of Harry, only the anti-muslim film.

They then saw the press talking about Harry so jumped on the bandwagon.

2. The idea that the Taliban will start attacking Apaches is frankly brilliant. If only they did that more often we would have won ages ago. Bring them on.
ditto frontal assaults on large bases. It is far easier to defend a base than patrol to find the buggers.

3. Dont be such a wuss. I bet you are a crab.

I agree with Grim, so there! :=

Tourist, guess you are a pongo:

Please could you explain this, presumably to reveal their location? Obviously no details required just the logic.

And, I agree with you on your other points.

Ex-Crab

Exascot

Exactly that.

The Taliban are doing rather well because they fight asymetrically.

If we can get them to start fighting against fixed defensive positions and fearsome weapons like the Apache instead of going to ground when they appear then bonus!

Ex-RN:ok:

First off sincere condolences to the families of the USMC who lost their lives. Secondly BZ to the FP boys for fighting off the attack. Thirdly respect and regards to anyone down range.

Seriously though; I think that there are probably grounds for a good discussion here. I am very conscious that one way or another we end up discussing the 'what ifs' of a specific serviceman being wounded or worse in a war. Sensitive ground and fortunately unique (we don't for example have a thread on ARRSE wondering if L/Bdr Davis will make it and what would happen if he didn't). I proffer the following:

1. When we go after a HVT it is usually due to his position within the enemy C2 structure. Harry has no part in ours.

- I therefore assume that people talk of him as a HVT because public opinion and support for the op would drop catastrophically (perhaps even forcing withdrawal) if the unthinkable happened. I remain unconvinced myself that this is the case (although it might be - I am not the general public and only get one vote). I think it just as likely that public opion would be galvanised. I also consider the chance of it happening to be very small.

2. The science of ridding this world of HVTs is incredibly complex. The kill chain required is complex. I think that we can credit the enemy with cunning and bravery, but I remain unconvinced that they can, other than with a very lucky shot, plan on this sort of thing against the person in question. They seem to do very well using IEDs and suicide bombers at shurahs, weddings and funerals to hit HVTs...but a AH pilot flying in and out of Bastion? A symmetrical HVT if you will. Not convinced.

3. The enemy is competent and committed. Can someone point out to me how they would be any more competent or committed due to the presence of a single person in Bastion? I don't see how they can, or why they would, 'up their game', without falling into the trap of meeting our chaps/ chapesses head-to-head.

I am sure some or most will disagree but I look forward to the discussion. Dare I hope it will be adult and balanced? I would re-iterate how sensitive I think this subject is and again, my condolences to those that lost loved ones in the fight.

Antelope, as he had qualified as an Apache operator it was a racing certainty that he would gom to Bastion. As he has a public profile it would soon be realised where he was.

Tourist is equally correct (though I hate to admit agreeing with him). It is accepted that an attacking force needs local superiority of at least 3:1. In this instance the TB clearly achieved that. If they attempt to repeat this type of action then Tourist is right although TB will still try to achieve local superiority.

Which would you prefer, to patrol and be ambushed or to defend a fortified position?

The Taliban don't often shoot at AH because if they do and we identify the firing point they are dead - simple as that, it's a Card Alpha engagement. To say that all of a sudden they're going to start targeting AH just because Harry is in theatre is quite simply ludicrous.

The Taliban would love to shoot down any aircraft but the vast majority of insurgents are incredibly afraid of us and have a quite sensible inbuilt sense of self preservation so they don't normally to it.

I personally quite enjoy hearing via ICom that they're getting "the big thing ready" as it will mean guaranteed trade!

To think the Yanks brag!

I have drawn up a chair, got my popcorn out, and am going to sit back and enjoy this discussion!

Does one Suicide Bomber trump the 3:1 rule?

Does a single Afghani Police Officer or Soldier who turns his Weapon on Friendly Forces trump the 3:1 rule?

The Taliban always scurry like Rats whenever an Apache flies over their valley?

This is a new kind of War....and there are going to be some wins and some losses.....we have to be honest and admit when each occur.

The most important thing is we must not believe our own propaganda....that can only end in tears.

While Cryptkeeper's right, there are ways that the Taliban are capable of taking a pot shot at something and then rendering themselves unviable targets; even your most hardened AH gunner isn't going to follow them into a civilian-packed area once the attack has ceased.

I remember being told that a lot of old MANPADS kept by pro-Taliban forces are never considered for use as they're one shot weapons, and once used, the owner loses the bragging rights of having such a weapon. Perhaps the possibility that they'll take down a Prince means more will be tempted to pull them out?

Plus, if there are any arms being supplied by other nations, surey the chance to kill Harry would mean they might add a few MANPADS to their deliveries?

SASless, you clearly don't understand the word 'local'.

One armed man in a room of unarmed men trumps the 3;1 rule everytime.

The 3:1 rule applies to Conventional Warfare and conventional thinking of tactics/strategy.

Down through the ages, as methods and technology altered the application of force during combat, perhaps that old rule has been outdated for the types of conflict we find ourselves confronting now.

Certainly in an Insurgency type conflict.....it is far more than 3:1 advantage the defending forces will have to have in order to prevail as it will have to secure and hold large areas with numerous defensive positions which are all vulnerable to attack as well as the lines of communication and supply.

That is the key to Asymetrical Warfare.....the advantage generally lies with the Insurgents to be able to initiate the action when it best favors them and puts the defenders at the disadvantage.

An excellent example has been given.....one guy with a rifle or LMG takes a pop at a helicopter, patrol, or convoy....then legs it back into a village or town...or does so from within the village surrounded by innocent civilians.....and now look at the amount of people, equipment, and logistics required to find him and neutralize that threat.

I think it is time to pack our stuff, fold our tents, and bring the Troops home. Once again....the Afghans have shown the outsiders that winning in Afghanistan can only be done if one does not overstay your welcome.

Mmmm, assuming they did manage to down an AH and the above happens, what's the difference between that and a suicide bomber?

The difference is that when a suicide bomber goes off, usually he has some success in taking others with him.

If the Taliban had many options re taking out AH do you not think they would have tried them in the past?

Heavy machine guns - yes they have some, and yes they might be successful, but they are almost certainly lost in the engagement. We have more AH than they have HMG.

Old SAMs - probably ineffective.

Double digit SAMs - they may have some. They may even have someone capable of using them effectively. Managing to combine the two at the right moment? Unlikely.

Realistically, they are playing into our hands if they try anything other than asymetric.

Ah, we are argueing the same point.

The 3:1 I was referring to was that of the attacking force over the defending one. In a simple case, like Bastion as it happens, 3/4 of the defending force are facing the 'wrong' way. Only one quarter of the force is looking toward the front. Of that force potentially 50% will be off duty thus reducing the effective local defence to 1/8th.

As that 1/8 is spread over a wide front then the TB needs only to have 3 times the number of attackers to defenders in a local area. Obviously they achieved local superiority for a time. Ultimately the defending force, which was much larger as a whole, would prevail.

SS, what Tourist said holds the clue:

Suicide bombers are effectively like kamikazi pilots. A missiler OTOH is a much more skilled beast (they hope).

Hmmm, I think the elephant in the room is that the combined force of many nations equipped with massively expensive weaponry and tools, are still not enough to decisively defeat 200 guys in flipflops in an area the size of Kent.

Yes we are slowly making inroads, but hats off to those fighters......******* ballsy work from my perspective.

Sure, my AH brethren have killed MANY people, why haven't we won by now?

I'm confused? ;-)

If I wanted to bleed the western worlds coffers white with expenditure, I'd back the Talibs.....much better value for money.

My reading of the papers today suggests that the attack took place at the US end of Bastion, a mile or so from Harry. If so, it points to the attack being spuured by the film rather than his presences.

They will have to use a heavy weapon system to down an Apache... that kind of thing is not easy to hide (particularly after having fired a couple of bursts) - historically when they have tried it the Wing aircraft is the one that spots the tracer or muzzle flash/dust and has destroyed the firing point. Hence they don't try it very often.

As for the comment from SASLess about "I thought the Yanks liked to brag" - it was not a "brag" simply a fact. They don't like AH and are not that stupid that they will try and take us on.

I take it that you have recent operational experience of flying AH in theatre?

Thought not.

Eastern side of the base (two runways and a HALs to get to before you are near any accommodation) that's a long long way to go! The place is huge!

Oh dear me....Gun ship drivers do go on!

That at least remains a constant since 1964......in other places!

I don' guess your tactics changed from the original fight the Russkies in Germany version you practiced prior to deploying to the Sand Box ahve t hey?

Scooting and Shooting now are we?

Gone the sneak up behind a hedge and pop off a missile or three....but back to old style gunship work.

The AH community is doing good work....but you are just one part of the puzzle and not the in the Leading Role....that belongs to the guys on the ground....the ones with rifles.....everyone else are just Support Staff.

SASless

You are being silly.

All arms are needed, and the most courage is required by the boots on the ground, but to say the aircraft are merely support staff is as bad as the RAF idea that aircraft are all that is needed.

One thing for sure is that the aircraft could fly over Afghan killing bad guys without boots on the ground.

Without aircraft in the overhead ready to "support" we would not risk boots on the ground for a day.

Ralphmalph,

Wrt the elephant in the room; it's a good point, and one with a subtle answer, IMHO. Here are my thoughts on it, designed to prompt thought and provide another angle, not to patronise or denigrate in any way, just to set the tone of my post.

The problem lies in interpreting the situation correctly, which we have failed to do entirely.

We (NATO/allies) think that we are in a fight with men. Men who wear flip flops, and identify themselves as a Taliban fighter. They fight asymmetrically, but despite their numbers, this fact is what makes it difficult to defeat them militarily, because they normally exploit surprise on us, making us reactive, and can blend in with the natives. Couple that with tactics like ieds where they are hard to find and fix, and there you have it. A tough campaign, where we can keep going until the politicians pull us out, job done, or not, basically we'll call it a day in 2014. Then will come the reflection, from the comfort of watching the nation unfold. At the moment though, it's easy to convince ourselves we're doing all we can, in the best manner, in a very difficult situation.

The Russians went through this, and the lessons they learnt the hard way, we will learn. Too late, granted, but the similarities exist.

I would propose that one of the lessons the Russians identified from making the same mistake that we now make, is that the 'Taliban' is not an organised bunch of troops, but is merely an idea. This ideal provides an avenue of activity which appeals to the motivational values of young men in that culture, one of achieving an identity, in a way that they would say is honourable.

So the real mistake is not to acknowledge this fact, and make efforts to offer an alternative to this ideal. We offer little in the way of alternative. It isn't easy to do so either. But I think that so many people who don't see it as necessary to do so are often those who wonder why the military might of the Western world has trouble stuffing a few hundred flip-flop wearers.

In trying to generate an Army there, we have a problem of identity. Here you go Afghans, have a democracy and an Army. Identity and honour sorted, yes? Well, no, actually. There are many in Afghanistan (as we call it) who have no regard for the borders that were drawn up, which often lie across tribal areas. Some individuals do not see themselves as 'Afghani' or from 'Afghanistan'. Again, we miss this point a lot of the time. So unfortunately, we now reap the problems of history and this will be very difficult to unpick. Ergo, train flip-flop wearers to become boot and beret wearers, take minimum risk for the final 2 years to drop the casualty numbers so the press lose interest, and we can say we now have the security situation totally under our control (no-one at home will know otherwise). Then declare victory in 2014 and hot foot it out of there. Hence the hitler YouTube spoofs of the 45 slide conop just to go outside the wire...

Sorry for the long post, hope it provides an alternative angle. It's all just my opinion personally of course, and I don't expect or need agreement, I just hope that after all of this, our gov't can engage brain before engaging in battle.

Re HMG, wasn't one used on the Apache in the book by Ed Macy
which got destroyed and didn't he comment that the intel was that
someone from another country had come in to operate it ?
.

Nice castle,

Excellent post! Eloquent and IMHO very accurate.

Cheers

Logically the winners would sit back, similarly enjoy a drop in casualties, wait until we depart, have it totally under their control and declare vistory to.

Historically is has never worked that way.

Any defeat, withdrawal, handover, whatever you call it, has always been helped with a surge in hostile activities.

The State rests its case Your Honor!:D

Air Power cannot occupy, hold, or secure ground....it takes the plain ol' Infantry Soldier with a rifle and (in the old days) a fixed Bayonet to do that. We own what is controlled by that guy on the ground.

As controlling a specified bit of dirt is always the central focus of warfare....anything else is secondary.

We Aviators, as much as it pains us at times....must remember that.

We can go off hunting with our airborne guns,rockets, and bombs....but in the final analysis....unless we send in the Grunts....as soon as we leave the opposite side just comes back, polices up the debris, and sets up shop once again.

Ralphmalph, thanks, no worries.
Pontius, quite possibly so, we'll have to see how it pans out. I do violently agree with you that the other side would do exactly the same, but our fickle media having lost interest might not report the situation, thus hiding the reality of it. That has happened before, and seems to correlate with a story that wouldn't help sell papers.

Sasless, I'd suggest 'grunts' or not, that last scenario is one we might end up facing. Arguably, the difference made by the presence of ground troops would appear to be little other than home casualties, sadly.

SASLess,

I'm not sure where in my previous posts that I think AH are "taking the lead" or indeed what your Cold War references were all about but they came across as both condescending and vitriolic.

I've been involved in All Arms operations for the last 24 years so I don't need you to tell me I'm there to support the guy on the ground. In fact I've been doing just that for 5 months of this year.

I have also been the guy on the ground - have you?

I have "walked" the walk Crypt....got the bullet wound and other scars to prove it. My sense of timing and getting the zag confused with the zig gave me those. Granted, having 40,000 pounds of aluminum and cast iron strapped to my Butt did slow me down a bit.

Do not think my remarks are directed exactly at you individually....as they are not.

SASLess,

In that case my apologies - maybe I'm a little oversensitive, I'll have to work on that!!

The lesson that we keep failing to learn is that regular ground forces quickly overstay their welcome and become part of the problem, not the solution - this has been true in any number of 'limited' conflicts over the ages. Once they become a target, political sensitivity to losses means that defending themselves occupies the vast majority of their time and effort. Without needing to do any detailed maths, I suggest that the vast majority of expenditure on operations in Afghanistan right now is on keeping NATO personnel and western civilians alive; the amount being spent on the campaign aims must surely pale by comparison.

We got it right in Afghanistan from 2001 to 2003 - we had SF on the ground, working with the Northern Alliance ground forces, with Western air support. Some commentators in the US are suggesting that the US's strategic goals were all achieved by early 2002 (although some will argue 2003). It's only become a disastrous mess since large-scale regular troop deployments took place thereafter.

Say what you like about post-Ghadaffi Libya - but the fact remains that the NATO campaign there was highly succesful, using SF on the ground, working with anti-Ghadaffi ground forces, with NATO (and UAE/Qatar) air support. Anyone see any similarities? The main point is that the majority of the troops are locals, who care passionately for their cause, and whose people are willing to take combat losses in pursuit of their aim. Which is not the case for us; a regular infantry whose first concern is to avoid losses is immediately fighting with one arm tied behind its back.

I hear a lot of regular Army acquaintances saying that a large regular army is needed to have a big enough pool to choose SF from. I call BS on that (the SBS seem to do pretty well choosing from 1 brigade) and anticipate major cuts to regular forces in the next SDSR.