Lack of Canadian helicopters in Afghanistan 'costs limbs'

[EastSideScotian]

Re: Lack of Canadian helicopters in Afghanistan 'costs limbs

The subs were bought for coastal surveillance.

What the hell good is a coastal survailance system that can't get near over half of our coastline. We needed nuclear subs......still do.

I dont think subs really serve much use unles its int he artic, other than that...I could do with out them, Buy us some Stealth ships and Hyrdo foils, thats what i say...

 

[Finder]

Re: Lack of Canadian helicopters in Afghanistan 'costs limbs

umm

 

[Mogz]

Re: Lack of Canadian helicopters in Afghanistan 'costs limbs

The subs were bought for coastal surveillance.

What the hell good is a coastal survailance system that can't get near over half of our coastline. We needed nuclear subs......still do.

I dont think subs really serve much use unles its int he artic, other than that...I could do with out them, Buy us some Stealth ships and Hyrdo foils, thats what i say...

Subs serve a huge purpose if they're the proper type of sub. You can use them for covert surveillance, drug interdiction, and fishery patrols. In a combat role, if you have Nuclear Attack Submarines, they can be used to launch warheads at the enemy, without ever being detected. Subs are a great weapon if used properly, something we saw during both the Gulf War, and the early stages of the War in Iraq. The U.S. and British Navies put literally dozens of nuclear submarines in the Persian Gulf, and they sat 200m under the surface, lauching cruiser missiles in to Iraq. No surface detection on radar, big explosion, what more could someone ask for? As for hydrofoils, Canada had one; HMCS BRAS d'OR:

 

[Caleb-Dain Matton]

Re: Lack of Canadian helicopters in Afghanistan 'costs limbs

Here's a new title; "Canadians in Afghanistan 'cost limbs'" You play with fire you get burned.

 

[Mogz]

Re: Lack of Canadian helicopters in Afghanistan 'costs limbs

Here's a new title; "Canadians in Afghanistan 'cost limbs'" You play with fire you get burned.

:roll:

 

[EastSideScotian]

Re: Lack of Canadian helicopters in Afghanistan 'costs limbs

Here's a new title; "Canadians in Afghanistan 'cost limbs'" You play with fire you get burned.

Yea cost the Taliban limbs, we lost one soldier in combat, and we have kicked the hell out of the Taliban, they have to use road side bombs becuase they cant face us one on one...if anything its probly not even much of a challange to close with and dystroy them, considering they dont actully have any training. Fish in a barrel

 

[Jersay]

Re: Lack of Canadian helicopters in Afghanistan 'costs limbs

Here's a new title; "Canadians in Afghanistan 'cost limbs'" You play with fire you get burned.

Yea cost the Taliban limbs, we lost one soldier in combat, and we have kicked the hell out of the Taliban, they have to use road side bombs becuase they cant face us one on one...if anything its probly not even much of a challange to close with and dystroy them, considering they dont actully have any training. Fish in a barrel

That's silly. The Americans when they got to Iraq thought the insurgents were nothing except maybe a few Bathists. Its taken three years and they still haven't defeated them.

You want to be a soldier. Never underestimate your enemy.

 

[Mogz]

RE: Lack of Canadian helicopters in Afghanistan 'costs limbs

While I think that Scotians comments are somewhat off-the-cuff, he isn't exactly FAR from the truth. The vast majority of casualties in Afghanistan are due to IEDs/VBIEDs and suicide bombers. Yes they get bold at times and launch attacks on coalition convoys or FOBs, but they always end in failure. I mean look at the assault on the FOB a few months back where Pte Costall was killed. In an seven (7) hour engagement, 100+ Taliban were killed, while Costall and an American Medic were killed. That's a 50:1 kill ratio. The militants in Afghanistan lack training in every sense of the word. They know nothing of small unit tactics, and utterly ignore the rules of the cover and concealment. Yes they are capable of killing our soldiers by other means than explosives, a good example is Captain Goddard. Her LAV-III was hit with an RPG-7 round, which exploded just below her turret, spraying her with shrapnel. What most fail to realize, is that the embedded reporter, told us of literally dozens of RPG-7 rounds flying past the LAV, before one finally hit. It highlights their inexperience with the weapons. A good soldier, with an RPG-7, should be able to bring down a LAV-III with ONE shot. Everyone knows that the name of the vehicle belies it's weakness LIGHT Armored Vehicle. Yes they have decent armor, but an RPG is designed to knock out a main battle tank. It can easily chew up a LAV if shot at the correct locations in accordance with anti-armor drills.

That all said however, I must agree with Jersay Scotian. The soldier who fails to respect his enemy runs a greater risk of becoming a casualty. There's nothing stopping the militants from getting training, and/or adapting. The unorganized "assaults" we're seeing now, could quickly turn in to highly organized section attacks.

 

[Jersay]

Re: RE: Lack of Canadian helicopters in Afghanistan 'costs l

While I think that Scotians comments are somewhat off-the-cuff, he isn't exactly FAR from the truth. The vast majority of casualties in Afghanistan are due to IEDs/VBIEDs and suicide bombers. Yes they get bold at times and launch attacks on coalition convoys or FOBs, but they always end in failure. I mean look at the assault on the FOB a few months back where Pte Costall was killed. In an seven (7) hour engagement, 100+ Taliban were killed, while Costall and an American Medic were killed. That's a 50:1 kill ratio. The militants in Afghanistan lack training in every sense of the word. They know nothing of small unit tactics, and utterly ignore the rules of the cover and concealment. Yes they are capable of killing our soldiers by other means than explosives, a good example is Captain Goddard. Her LAV-III was hit with an RPG-7 round, which exploded just below her turret, spraying her with shrapnel. What most fail to realize, is that the embedded reporter, told us of literally dozens of RPG-7 rounds flying past the LAV, before one finally hit. It highlights their inexperience with the weapons. A good soldier, with an RPG-7, should be able to bring down a LAV-III with ONE shot. Everyone knows that the name of the vehicle belies it's weakness LIGHT Armored Vehicle. Yes they have decent armor, but an RPG is designed to knock out a main battle tank. It can easily chew up a LAV if shot at the correct locations in accordance with anti-armor drills.

That all said however, I must agree with Jersay Scotian. The soldier who fails to respect his enemy runs a greater risk of becoming a casualty. There's nothing stopping the militants from getting training, and/or adapting. The unorganized "assaults" we're seeing now, could quickly turn in to highly organized section attacks.

Exactly.