The Strategypage is a comprehensive summary of military news and affairs.
 News As History - November 19, 2008

Dunnigan's and Bay's Latest
Advertisement
New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
1.Squad Battles: Winter War
2.Silent War
3.Manoeuvre
4.Gallic Wars
5.Fast Action Battle: The Bulge

100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
 
 
 

Online Giving

Utah SEO Firm

Xango

Smiley Gifts for Babies
Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use
Afghanistan Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: NATO Forces
ArtyEngineer    9/9/2006 1:41:28 PM
Below (Hopefully) is current NATO Forces in A'Stan. Im surprised at the amount of artillery currently being taken in theater. Illustrated by the Dutch taking their PzH 2000's

 
Quote    Reply
 Latest
 News 		  Most
 Read 		  Most
 Commented		  Hot
 Topics

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Sort in Reverse Order Posted
ArtyEngineer       9/9/2006 1:43:37 PM
Should clarify that while the chart shows only 2000 US troops under NATO Command there are actually about 20,000 US troops in A'Stan.  Im not sure how many will transition to NATO control.
 
Quote    Reply

olive greens       9/9/2006 2:04:47 PM

Below (Hopefully) is current NATO Forces in A'Stan. Im surprised at the amount of artillery currently being taken in theater. Illustrated by the Dutch taking their PzH 2000's

Artillery may have been displaced by strategic-bombers as the "Queen of the Battlefield", but it is still the Lord of the Mountains. Unless/until UAVs and their PGMs become really cheap and wide-spread, nothing beats having good artillery in the mountains for fire-support. In a way NATO forces are experiencing the same scenario Indian Army faced in Kargil 1999 (when the 155mm Bofors became iconic of the war... you cant find 5 pics of Indian Army then without at least one being that of the Artillery Izzat, IQ, Balls!).

Do you know of any incidents of artillery units providing close-support for an infantry assault on one of the fortified  Talibani sangars?
 
Quote    Reply

S-2    Olive Greens Reply   9/11/2006 1:44:03 AM
"Artillery may have been displaced by strategic-bombers as the "Queen of the Battlefield",
 
Hey O.G.  Just an ever so tiny, small, peripheral point, but the all-weather artillery will NEVER be displaced as the KING, sir, not queen of battle.  The "queen" are the grunt-types with the eighty pound umpah-loompah rucksacks hauling their asses to the deck as they hump some 8,000 ft. hill.
 
Quote    Reply

Guardsman 7207    And still...   9/11/2006 7:20:34 AM
Those numbers are still not quite giving the full picture, because of the countries making the largest contributions, only about half are willing to get involved in serious combat. Germany, France and Italy so far have kept in the background, and the US are more or less doing their own thing.

But I am not surprised that artillery is that popular, seeing that it provides the opportunity for the smaller contributors to give heavy fire support to their own troops without relying on air strikes. Remember the posts in the M777 thread in the Artillery category, the Taliban guerillas simply fled when the illumination rounds from the Canadian artillery started coming. Also there have been a couple of nasty blue-on-blue episodes related to air support which may or may not have played a role in the decision to bring in more artillery.

As for the PzH 2000, I am really looking forward to seeing how it fares in combat, cannot recall it ever firing a shot in anger before, anyone else have anything on that?
 
Quote    Reply

Guardsman 7207    And still...   9/11/2006 8:04:32 AM
Those numbers are still not quite giving the full picture, because of the countries making the largest contributions, only about half are willing to get involved in serious combat. Germany, France and Italy so far have kept in the background, and the US are more or less doing their own thing.

But I am not surprised that artillery is that popular, seeing that it provides the opportunity for the smaller contributors to give heavy fire support to their own troops without relying on air strikes. Remember the posts in the M777 thread in the Artillery category, the Taliban guerillas simply fled when the illumination rounds from the Canadian artillery started coming. Also there have been a couple of nasty blue-on-blue episodes related to air support which may or may not have played a role in the decision to bring in more artillery.

As for the PzH 2000, I am really looking forward to seeing how it fares in combat, cannot recall it ever firing a shot in anger before, anyone else have anything on that?
 
Quote    Reply

Thomas       9/11/2006 8:37:54 AM
The worms have been chased back in the can - so now you are getting the can-opener. What's surprising about that?
 
Quote    Reply

ArtyEngineer       9/14/2006 6:25:02 PM
It would appear that the NATO member states are struggling to come up with the extra 2,500 troops requested to support operations in southern A'stan, whats the deal?  A'stan is in my opinion a defining moment for the NATO alliance if this organisation is to establish relavance on a Global Scale.  This Mission cannot be allowed to fail, and I hope that the US DOESNT make up this shortfall in troops, its time for other countries to step up to the plate.  Where is the Spanish contribution, likewise Italy, Poland, the Czech Republic and Turkey.  Surely Turkish forces would be of huge benefit being a Muslim Nation?
 
Quote    Reply

TAC II       9/14/2006 6:31:42 PM

Poland has agreed to contribute 1,000 troops with deployment next february. This is comparable with their scaling down in Iraq. Poland already has 100 soldiers in Afghanistan. One of the Baltic states are also tossing in 30 troops. What has not been met is the additional tactical transport helos and some support units.
 
Quote    Reply

ArtyEngineer    TAC   9/14/2006 6:34:59 PM
Yeah, just read about the polish deployment, however the NATO commanders on the ground need these troops NOW.  I believe they want I highly mobile well equipped and supported reserve to act as a rapid reaction force when nests of Taliban/Al Quada/Warlords etc are encountered.
 
Quote    Reply

TAC II       9/14/2006 6:39:15 PM
NATO did try to get a 300 man strong Norwegian unit (the one with the CV9030 perchance?) that has the 'fire brigade' role in the north to move to the south. The Norwegians were adamant that they were needed in the north. It was argued that was purely on basis of military reasoning...
 
Quote    Reply

Crass Spektakel       9/15/2006 6:08:02 PM
To sum it up: german reinforcements are already there.

Over the last few days some intel leaked to the media about the german special forces already operating for some weeks in southern afghanistan.

The KSK has a habit of rarely appearing in the media and all their combat operations have been highly classified. As the KSK has increased numbers dramaticaly since 2001, when they usually operated with 100-200 man in the field and twice that in supply, I would expect a lot more personal on the ground this time.
 
Quote    Reply

ArtyEngineer    Whisky Tango Foxtrot   9/30/2006 5:49:03 AM
Why is the A'Stan thread so neglected?  Whats happening right now is a defining moment for NATO, Europe and the US.  There was an artivle in USA Today detailing the restritions placed on forces from certain countries.  Some NATO countries demand "No Combat", others demand "No Night Fighting"  others demand "No extended patrols".
 
What kind of crap is this?  Why the hell is the US, UK and Canada feeling the brunt of the fighting while supposed allies are unwilling to join!
 
Quote    Reply

EW3    AE   9/30/2006 6:04:27 AM
Just taking a guess, but a lot of threads start with press articles.
I know in the US you have to look high and low to find a reference to Afghanistan, Iraq is the MSM's bread and butter.  (Guess there are less luxury hotels in Afghanistan.) 
 
 
Quote    Reply

StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2008StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy