BF2S Forums Afghanistan

Very true, Mek.

Each has its best uses.  I'd much rather carry a LAW than a Javelin, but I'd much rather have a Javelin in an open area.
Javelins are on the bulky/heavy side of man-portable AT weapons, but they are also some of the most effective.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G9QyebNbLSU  Of the common choices, the Javelin would be the best option for engagements like this, due to the distances involved.  Range and guidance systems can be handy.

Pretty much every man-portable rocket launcher has serious backblast.
The only AT launcher I can think of that doesn't is the PIAT from WWII.

The experimental SMAW II has rounds which can be fired from enclosed spaces.  Newer M-72 LAWs also have reduced backblast.  Of course, the operator still needs to be careful!

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

And--as has been stated before--those Javelins have zero to do with the MRAPs and helos that are needed. That's simply not how acquisitions works.

The MOD is stretched for cash, there are tradeoffs between ongoing costs and money spent on new eqpt.

And as I said before...multiple times...those Javelins are neither "ongoing costs" nor "money spent on new eqpt". They are sunk costs. Money already spent. Shooting off that Javelin has fuckall to do with buying another MRAP or helo. Totally separate acquisitions. Totally separate budget cycles.

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

And nobody's getting "wiped out" by anything.

Scroll down this list and count the "Explosions"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/5121552.stm
They need better vehicles and are barely starting to get them
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7703703.stm

Apparently the beeb is down tonight.

But from one of the below articles:

A total of 223 British troops have died there since October 2001.

It's tragic, but it's far from getting "wiped out".

Dilbert_X wrote:

They need more helicopters and aren't getting them.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po … 20161.html
http://www.reuters.com/article/featured … USLU373842

Infantry using Javelins to take out semi-hardened targets won't keep them from getting them. That's pissing in the ocean, tbh.

BTW, we do the same thing with helos and cargo aircraft...big deal.

Dilbert_X wrote:

I'm just asking if they have the right eqpt. and tactics, I reckon they don't.

You haven't asked anything about their tactics. You've only griped about their equipment. And you've come down against them on equipment, really. Trying to downgrade their kit rather than upgrade it in order to save a buck.

Thanks for the news from 4 years ago.

The M-72 LAW is nice because it is lightweight and small--great for MOUT.
The Javelin is nice because it is guided and has a MUCH longer range--great for open plains/across valleys.

FEOS wrote:

But again, shooting off that Javelin doesn't affect whether or not an MRAP or helo gets programmed for acquisition. You truly do not grasp the scope of these types of budgetary programs.

Of course it does, same as fuel and ammo use affect how much money is left in the pot.
Countries don't have unlimited money for assets and operating costs, something apparently lost on the USAF....

No, you're not. You're trying to nickel-and-dime them with fuckall for experience to back up your opinion of what is "better".

No I'm not.

Really? I thought you were arguing for "field guns", not for cheaper man-portable rockets.

I was asking if there was a better option than $80,000 missiles and $125,000 launchers for taking out individuals with AKs, field guns seemed like one alternative given the engagement I saw covered, also mentioned RPGs and AT4s if you remember.
A lighter $2,000 dollar missile would seem to make more sense than a $80,000 missile if they can do a similar job, equally a $600 shell would appear an option also.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2009-11-04 18:15:23)

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

But again, shooting off that Javelin doesn't affect whether or not an MRAP or helo gets programmed for acquisition. You truly do not grasp the scope of these types of budgetary programs.

Of course it does, same as fuel and ammo use affect how much money is left in the pot.
Countries don't have unlimited money for assets and operating costs, something apparently lost on the USAF....

Interesting attempt at a jab, but when a blind man throws a punch, it rarely lands.

I say again: You do not grasp that of which you speak. You simply do not. And you are too stubborn to attempt to understand that it is not as simplistic as you would like to make it. Using a system that has already been acquired does not impact the ability to acquire a new system. It does not. Period. You saying differently does not make it so.

Dilbert_X wrote:

No, you're not. You're trying to nickel-and-dime them with fuckall for experience to back up your opinion of what is "better".

No I'm not.

Yes. You are.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Really? I thought you were arguing for "field guns", not for cheaper man-portable rockets.

I was asking if there was a better option than $80,000 missiles and $125,000 launchers for taking out individuals with AKs, field guns seemed like one alternative given the engagement I saw covered, also mentioned RPGs and AT4s if you remember.
A lighter $2,000 dollar missile would seem to make more sense than a $80,000 missile if they can do a similar job, equally a $600 shell would appear an option also.

No, you said they should use field guns instead because they were cheaper. Without even investigating whether they would achieve the needed effect on the battlefield for the soldiers you claim to want to help.

And don't forget: In Dilbert's world, they can't be using anything new...that would keep them from being able to buy MRAPs and helicopters. They also can't use anything they currently have either...that would keep them from being able to buy MRAPs and helicopters.

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Using a system that has already been acquired does not impact the ability to acquire a new system. It does not.

Of course it does, when 'using the system' means making expenditure you would not otherwise have expended.
Using up missiles and having to replace them, when otherwise they would have sat in store for another ~10-20 years, is unbudgeted expenditure.
With a fixed budget that spending gets cut from elsewhere.

See, that's where you show your ignorance. When you buy something like like say...a missile...it's assumed to be an expendable. Thus its replacement is part of the budgetary cycle. It's not an "unbudgeted expenditure". Even if there weren't a war going on, a certain number of those would be shot off for live-fire training purposes and weapon system evaluation programs.

Dilbert_X wrote:

No, you said they should use field guns instead because they were cheaper.

I asked if it might make better sense, since burning up $320,000 worth of missiles in one ten minute engagement to kill two Taleban when the average squaddie is being told not to use too much 0.50, short of body armour and mine resistant vehicles doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

Got a source for your latter statement, since it's the first time you've brought it into the argument?

Regardless, if it's the only thing they've got to take the guy out, it's what they use. Arty isn't the right tool...and Dilbert won't let them buy new stuff because then they can't get MRAPs or helicopters.

Dilbert_X wrote:

And don't forget: In Dilbert's world, they can't be using anything new...that would keep them from being able to buy MRAPs and helicopters. They also can't use anything they currently have either...that would keep them from being able to buy MRAPs and helicopters.

Now you're rambling and making stuff up.
Still, your DoD has already looked at it and is apparently on the same page as me, so sux2bu apparently.

You don't like getting trapped by your own flawed logic? Too fucking bad. Don't use it next time.

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

See, that's where you show your ignorance. When you buy something like like say...a missile...it's assumed to be an expendable. Thus its replacement is part of the budgetary cycle.

And say if the cycle is suddenly changed, for example by being at war instead of peace, everything changes.

War doesn't "suddenly change" the cycle. For either the US or the UK. It's been the same cycle for eight years. What's requested changes (type and amount), but the cycle remains the same, because it's the same cycle for the entire government, not just the DoD/MoD.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Got a source for your latter statement, since it's the first time you've brought it into the argument?

Actually its the second time, and yes probably. I do remember there were severe 0.50 shortages, and they were buying Czech stuff which was half the cost but unreliable.

Your MoD was buying Czech-produced .50 cal rounds? Without running them through testing first? Simply because of price? Sounds like they have some of your clones working at MoD.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Arty isn't the right tool...and Dilbert won't let them buy new stuff because then they can't get MRAPs or helicopters.

You keep making stuff up that I haven't said.

Not been trapped by anything, if anything its you by your hidebound dogma - kthx.

I'm not making anything up. It's exactly what you said.

Shouldn't be using Javelin because they're too expensive. Their use prevents MoD from being able to buy MRAPs and helos, which are needed more (in your mind) than anything else. You somehow link the two--a false linkage. When I bring that false linkage to full light--where it clearly makes no sense whatsoever--you disavow all association.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Cost is not irrelevant, there is a limited budget, money spent on anti-tank guided missiles is money which won't be spent elsewhere.

Dilbert_X wrote:

they are desperately short of MRAPs and helicopters,

Dilbert_X wrote:

The MOD is stretched for cash, there are tradeoffs between ongoing costs and money spent on new eqpt.

So...based on the above: Can't use what you've already got (javelin) because that would somehow prevent you from getting what you need. That is utter nonsense, but it's what you said.

Your troops using the equipment they've been given (which is damn good equipment, btw--javelin) doesn't keep them from getting MRAP and helos. Your government's budgetary priorities do. Simple as that.

FEOS wrote:

Can't use what you've already got (javelin) because that would somehow prevent you from getting what you need.

Its simple enough, you just don't get it. If you use what you have in store you have to buy replacements which costs money -> Less money to buy other eqpt. The MOD gets a pot of money from the govt and divides it up according to operational priorities.

Not sure how it can be made any clearer TBH.

Your MoD was buying Czech-produced .50 cal rounds? Without running them through testing first? Simply because of price? Sounds like they have some of your clones working at MoD.

Not really.

FEOS wrote:

You don't have to replace what is used. If the Javelin isn't the right thing, you don't replace it one-for-one. That's what you don't get. You seem to think that you have to replace what is used simply because it is used. That is an unthinking approach.

Here's the thing. Javelins were bought on the assumption that the British Army might have to face a major mechanised enemy (and I don't mean Decepticons). That possiblility is still on the table, hence infantrymen do still need access to a stock of AT missiles which is why they will no doubt be replenished as they are used.
Maybe they won't be replaced, but I doubt it.

Then how do you explain it?

AFAIK I have not been cloned, and god help the species if I have.
Probably it was a rush job, purchased on price and specifications and not testing - as should be possible with ammo - expect we'll never know.
Here ya go. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6176102.stm
There was a time when Bisley shooters picked up that sniper issue 7.62 ammo was off too.

We use the cheap Czech ammo in training, the best ammo is used in Afghanistan where having a breach explosion is lethal instead of a paperwork ballache.

FEOS wrote:

You shouldn't be buying something (even in replacement mode) that isn't intended to support the fight that you're currently in.

Duh they may yet face a mechanised enemy at some point in the future, hence they need them in store.

So it was bought based on price, rather than value. And look what your soldiers were left with. Wonder how many of your guys got hurt/killed because of that twisted approach

Incorrect, I've been asking if there is something which would do the same job at a lower price = better value.
Seems the DoD agrees with me.

As for the ammo, looks like they went for a cheap supplier and didn't make sure the quality was met.
As for your argument, I wonder how many people died because money had been spent on shiny gizmos like the F22 and no on body armour and armoured humvees?
Obviously things like the F22 are needed, but not during a war when people are dying, I guess thats why its been scaled back.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2009-11-09 05:53:42)

I didn't say they should be cut or even scaled back, but it is necessary to review what you're doing to see if you're getting the best bang for your buck and the troops the full range of eqpt they need.