Hi Pearly,
Re: Set up a firebase in the middle of Taliban territory
and your question: Would that be a winning solution?
First the disclaimer...this is from an old 'has been' who, even if he was still wearing the suit, would have no say in the matter of planning...only the execution would be my pleasure...but my thoughts...
1. This "firebase" had better be built around a fixed wing airfield, cause it is still 800 mi from the middle of Afgan to steaming stations 100-150 mi off Pakistani coast. Fixed wing resupply would be critical to getting Class V resupply...er, ammo. Beaucoup helos and crews would be worn out supporting a "firebase" at that range, with no fixed wing backup in the buildup of the necessary levels of men, materials and equipment, and evacuation of broken items likewise.
2. WHY would the Taliban want to "come and get" the Brits...unless the Brits plopped down in the middle of a primary resupply route from Pakistan, or wherever...a place that the Tbags had to transverse...Is there a "Ho Chi Minh"-like trail, 25 or so miles wide, that would be worthy of such interdiction? No doubt the Brits would be running combat patrols out of this "firebase", taking advantage of the protective umbrella of supporting arms...that would extend the area affected by the burr under the Tbags' saddle...perhaps drawing Tbags away from other areas into kill zones...Would they take the bait?...
3. I am not an expert on Brit military history, but I am sure they are not thinking of a "firebase" in terms of the 50-100 yd long knobs that we worked out of in Vietnam...It would have to be as large as the Khe San base with an airfield, since resupply would not be just a 30-40 minute chopper ride away....
4. I stand by my previous comments re: "Amateurs study tactics, professionals study logistics", and, close once again with a wise Army general's take on the subject.
LOGISTICIANS
"Logisticians are a sad, embittered race of men, very much in demand in war, who sink
resentfully into obscurity in peace. They deal only with the facts but must work for
men who merchant in theories. They emerge in war because war is very much fact.
They disappear in peace because, in peace, war is mostly theory. The people who
merchant in theories, who employ logisticians in war and ignore them in peace,
are Generals. Logisticians hate Generals.
"Generals are a happily blessed race who radiate confidence and power. They feed
on ambrosia and drink only nectar. In peace they stride confidently and can invade
a world simply by sweeping their hands grandly over a map pointing their fingers
decisively up terrain corridors, blocking defiles and obstacles with the sides of their
hands. In war they must stride more slowly because each General has a logistician
riding on his back --- and he knows that at any moment, the logistician may lean
forward and whisper, "No, you can’t do that." Generals fear logisticians in war,
and in peace, Generals try to forget logisticians."
"Romping along besides Generals are strategists and tacticians. Logisticians
despise strategists and tacticians. Strategists and tacticians do not know
about logisticians until they grow up to be generals --- which they usually do."
"Sometimes a logistician gets to be a general. In such a case, he must
associate with Generals whom he hates. He has a retinue of strategists
and tacticians whom he despises. And on his back is a logistician whom
he fears. This is why logisticians who get stars also get ulcers and
cannot eat their ambrosia."
Lt. Gen. W.W. Vaughan USA
(Before the 29th Annual Convention of the American Logistical Assn.)
Message 16596737 |
