^thats what living in the dark ages does for a person.
Afghans.. Lot`s of times invaded never been conquerd.
Those guy`s are tough as hell.. Even the kids make the avrage westener a softy.
Crazy how they raise there kids one hand a AK47 the other a stick or a bucket of hot boiling water.
It`s not the tactics or training just sheer crazy and toughness.
The Mongols,Brits,SU and all what`s near to it has faced defeat.
The toughest if you ask me.
Last edited by Dc5-driver; 12-20-2010 at 12:30 PM.
^thats what living in the dark ages does for a person.
^^yawn. In fact they were conquered (Alexander, Mongols) many times. Afghans are no ethnicity, most of the major groups live also in neighboring countries. They have also no special abilities in warfare - their 'performance' against the Soviets and now the NATO is laughable and among the worst ever recorded. They survive only because of the backing of others (pakis etc.)
To sum it up - it's largely a Cold War myth.
And on topic:
62nd Army under Chuikov during Stalingrad Batlle.
You clearly have not a clue what you are talking about and just made an entire Army group look foolish.Congratulations.
Zbor Narodne Garde, members of MUP (police) and Hrvatske Obrambene Snage during battle of Vukovar in 1991.
JNA being considerably better equiped and with a lot more manpower and firepower because of heroism of defenders and outdated tactics suffered heavy loses and couldn't occupy city of Vukovar till after 3 months of siege and complete destruction of the city.
Estimated enemy loses at around 8.000 killed, 15.000 wounded, 400-600 destroyed tanks, APCs and IFVs and around 20 airplanes and helicopters.
Vukovar Heroes
Last edited by Karabaja; 12-21-2010 at 06:29 AM.
And what country had the ability to control Astan??Originally Posted by BroCalFur01
There is a reason behind the huge amount of diffirent ethinicity`s.
And it`s allmost but possible to please them all.....conflict in a conflict in a conflict.
Laughable results untill the warlords now in favour by ISAF turn om them.
If ISAF lose there populairity there will endure a forced retreat for sure.
The main problem lies whit the Pashtun in southern Astan and north of Pakistan..you are right about the ethinicity.
Country`s borders are not relevant to them they have there own that`s why US wants to move the conlict.
Tribe isue what makes it that difficult ISAF coult not win by winning battles only but by the winning populairity difficult when the former landlords want there influence back.
A next war woult not be something new as they have no clue about peace much of then don`t care... only about local family isues.
You can move in the biggest hightech military but whitout Afghan will (including Pashtun e.c.) you lose.
The U.S. lost Vietnam not on ground battles and they lost it on U.S soil.
Mind there logistical lines and the abillity to confront there enemy all over the place.
An ability to move cars across those mountains.
They carry on becuse there used to suffer thats make`s them dangerous.
Donkeypower..
It`s shocking how they react on death...families craping up the remains of there relitives after a bomb attack while others are drinking tea like nothing happend.
If someting is useless they get rid of it somethimes there own kids.
The situation make them like this that`s why I still respect them.
True tough warriors.
Last edited by Dc5-driver; 12-21-2010 at 11:32 AM.
What country has the ability to control Australia? As long as the size of an arbitrary country is above let's say 10.000 square km it should be safe (of course adequate willpower of the locals is a precondition).
Don't f***in compare Vietnam with A'stan. US Armed Forces lost 16.000 KIA in 1968 alone! Not counting the ARVN and others. That alone says something about the quality of both sides as a warring party.
Oh and the USA indeed lost a number of battles and minor engagements in Vietnam. I mentioned a few in this thread:
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums...tnam-War/page2
There's nothing admirable there. Simply disregard of human life.
Last edited by BroCalFur01; 12-21-2010 at 01:05 PM.
What country did in the past I know one.
Ausies are not used to have a war.
It`s about the population/history and the terain gives the advantage.
I`m pretty sure the US prefer a war whit number of military`s acros the globe and past then the Taliban.
Such a bunch of savages but try to defeat them.....
There is not realy a comparison Vietnam but losing suport at home what coult happen if the conflict escalates.
Disrigard of human life..
It`s how you grow up...well how much regard of life outside the civilized west then?
It`s there situation and culture you can`t expect more of them.
And locals coult be very nice people dispite there cultural diffirences how can you blame them?
It`s life there.....It`s a westerners biggest fear.
Last edited by Dc5-driver; 12-21-2010 at 01:21 PM.
As has been mentioned, they have....there is something of a myth of Afghan martial prowess which the historical record does not actually bear out.
It is often said that Britain was 'defeated' in the wars it fought in Afghanistan in the 19th and 20th centuries. Not true as the record reflects.
We are often reminded that in the First Afghan War, a British "army" (actually a brigade smaller than the current British force in Helmand) was wiped out as it withdrew towards India in 1841 by those who flocked the the banner of Akbar Khan (the then emir,Dost Muhammads, son). There is little mention that a British force fought its way to Kabul in 1842 in retaliation, wherein all those enemies were smashed along the way and Dost Muhammad reinstated as emir until his death in 1863. Objectives complete the British withdrew through the Khyber pass.
In the Second Afghan War (1878-81), another disaster at Maiwand is mentioned without noting the British victory that followed it at Kandahar. The British appointee Abdur Rahman was thus securely established as emir of Afghanistan, under a protectorate which gave Britain control of Afghanistan's foreign policy, while the British government of India retained the frontier territories ceded by the Treaty of Gandamak. Having achieved the aims of their invasion of Afghanistan, the British withdrew. Ayub Khan subsequently raised a fresh rebellion against Abdur Rahman, but was swiftly defeated and killed, ending the threat to the new regime. This political settlement was to endure until the Third Afghan War.
In the Third Afghan War in 1919, the British Indian Army units who had to stave off an Afghan invasion triumphed.
The oft quoted sound-bites and editorials regarding Afghanistan should be uttered and written by those with more awareness of history.....
Stupid f*cking necrothread.
Posting Permissions
