War plane shot down over Turkey
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In | RSS Feed
 Kermit8  Hevon 02 Dec 15 11.29am |
  |
|---|---|
|
Quote jamiemartin721 at 02 Dec 2015 10.57am
Quote Kermit8 at 02 Dec 2015 9.13am
The military might of Nato ground troops v 30,000 of them. They'd all be seeing Allah a little bit quicker than they hoped. Won't happen, of course, but would make things a bit tidier in that part of Syria. The country is going to have to be partitioned sooner or later anyway. Optimistic, its astonishing what 30,000 fighters, in a guerrilla conflict, can actually establish. Plus the estimate varies for 30,000 to 70,000 fighters. You have to remember that behind that figure will sit a lot of logistical, command and support individuals as well. 30,000 people actually doing the fighting is a pretty large figure. I think for NATO for each person actually fighting, there are at least five to eight people ensuring that capacity. So if IS has 30,000 in the field it wouldn't be a stretch to imagine it has up to 150,000 active members.
The Kurds have retaken one or two places fairly comfortably. I think you may be over-estimating them. But the longer it is left the less I will be perhaps under-estimating them.
Big chest and massive boobs |
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
  |
jamiemartin721  Reading 02 Dec 15 12.01pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Kermit8 at 02 Dec 2015 11.29am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 02 Dec 2015 10.57am
Quote Kermit8 at 02 Dec 2015 9.13am
The military might of Nato ground troops v 30,000 of them. They'd all be seeing Allah a little bit quicker than they hoped. Won't happen, of course, but would make things a bit tidier in that part of Syria. The country is going to have to be partitioned sooner or later anyway. Optimistic, its astonishing what 30,000 fighters, in a guerrilla conflict, can actually establish. Plus the estimate varies for 30,000 to 70,000 fighters. You have to remember that behind that figure will sit a lot of logistical, command and support individuals as well. 30,000 people actually doing the fighting is a pretty large figure. I think for NATO for each person actually fighting, there are at least five to eight people ensuring that capacity. So if IS has 30,000 in the field it wouldn't be a stretch to imagine it has up to 150,000 active members.
The Kurds have retaken one or two places fairly comfortably. I think you may be over-estimating them. But the longer it is left the less I will be perhaps under-estimating them. Stalingrad? Arguably that was a military disaster for both sides. In fact Stalingrad and Lenningrad cost the Germans the war (and the soviets millions of casualties). Encirclement is a very difficult military strategy to maintain, as it essentially exposes both a front line to the enemy, and supply and logistical lines to partisan / guerrilla forces and reducing your capacity to pacify areas outside the encircled area, whilst still exposing your troops to hostile attacks inside the encircled area. Then you have to consider the civilian consequences. The problem of a modern army is it is utterly dependent on supply to continue to fight. By exposing your supply lines like this, you offer up soft targets to the enemy (essentially a front line is utilised to restrict the enemies capacity to utilise unpacified territory, to stage counter attacks and cut off supply lines. The Germans failed to pacify the areas outside of their 'sieges' despite utilising extermination policy (after the Soviets had utilised a scorched earth policy in retreat). The Kurds retook areas they lost, in open conflict, with total air dominance, but they did suffer significant casualties. In terms of casualties, a military campaign on the ground against IS would probably be reasonable to assume around 1000-3000 deaths of servicemen, and another 6000 significantly wounded.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
 Cucking Funt Clapham on the Back 02 Dec 15 1.59pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote jamiemartin721 at 02 Dec 2015 12.01pm
Quote Kermit8 at 02 Dec 2015 11.29am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 02 Dec 2015 10.57am
Quote Kermit8 at 02 Dec 2015 9.13am
The military might of Nato ground troops v 30,000 of them. They'd all be seeing Allah a little bit quicker than they hoped. Won't happen, of course, but would make things a bit tidier in that part of Syria. The country is going to have to be partitioned sooner or later anyway. Optimistic, its astonishing what 30,000 fighters, in a guerrilla conflict, can actually establish. Plus the estimate varies for 30,000 to 70,000 fighters. You have to remember that behind that figure will sit a lot of logistical, command and support individuals as well. 30,000 people actually doing the fighting is a pretty large figure. I think for NATO for each person actually fighting, there are at least five to eight people ensuring that capacity. So if IS has 30,000 in the field it wouldn't be a stretch to imagine it has up to 150,000 active members.
The Kurds have retaken one or two places fairly comfortably. I think you may be over-estimating them. But the longer it is left the less I will be perhaps under-estimating them. Stalingrad? Arguably that was a military disaster for both sides. In fact Stalingrad and Lenningrad cost the Germans the war (and the soviets millions of casualties). Encirclement is a very difficult military strategy to maintain, as it essentially exposes both a front line to the enemy, and supply and logistical lines to partisan / guerrilla forces and reducing your capacity to pacify areas outside the encircled area, whilst still exposing your troops to hostile attacks inside the encircled area. Then you have to consider the civilian consequences. The problem of a modern army is it is utterly dependent on supply to continue to fight. By exposing your supply lines like this, you offer up soft targets to the enemy (essentially a front line is utilised to restrict the enemies capacity to utilise unpacified territory, to stage counter attacks and cut off supply lines. The Germans failed to pacify the areas outside of their 'sieges' despite utilising extermination policy (after the Soviets had utilised a scorched earth policy in retreat). The Kurds retook areas they lost, in open conflict, with total air dominance, but they did suffer significant casualties. In terms of casualties, a military campaign on the ground against IS would probably be reasonable to assume around 1000-3000 deaths of servicemen, and another 6000 significantly wounded.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| matt_himself Matataland 02 Dec 15 2.19pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Cucking Funt at 02 Dec 2015 1.59pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 02 Dec 2015 12.01pm
Quote Kermit8 at 02 Dec 2015 11.29am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 02 Dec 2015 10.57am
Quote Kermit8 at 02 Dec 2015 9.13am
The military might of Nato ground troops v 30,000 of them. They'd all be seeing Allah a little bit quicker than they hoped. Won't happen, of course, but would make things a bit tidier in that part of Syria. The country is going to have to be partitioned sooner or later anyway. Optimistic, its astonishing what 30,000 fighters, in a guerrilla conflict, can actually establish. Plus the estimate varies for 30,000 to 70,000 fighters. You have to remember that behind that figure will sit a lot of logistical, command and support individuals as well. 30,000 people actually doing the fighting is a pretty large figure. I think for NATO for each person actually fighting, there are at least five to eight people ensuring that capacity. So if IS has 30,000 in the field it wouldn't be a stretch to imagine it has up to 150,000 active members.
The Kurds have retaken one or two places fairly comfortably. I think you may be over-estimating them. But the longer it is left the less I will be perhaps under-estimating them. Stalingrad? Arguably that was a military disaster for both sides. In fact Stalingrad and Lenningrad cost the Germans the war (and the soviets millions of casualties). Encirclement is a very difficult military strategy to maintain, as it essentially exposes both a front line to the enemy, and supply and logistical lines to partisan / guerrilla forces and reducing your capacity to pacify areas outside the encircled area, whilst still exposing your troops to hostile attacks inside the encircled area. Then you have to consider the civilian consequences. The problem of a modern army is it is utterly dependent on supply to continue to fight. By exposing your supply lines like this, you offer up soft targets to the enemy (essentially a front line is utilised to restrict the enemies capacity to utilise unpacified territory, to stage counter attacks and cut off supply lines. The Germans failed to pacify the areas outside of their 'sieges' despite utilising extermination policy (after the Soviets had utilised a scorched earth policy in retreat). The Kurds retook areas they lost, in open conflict, with total air dominance, but they did suffer significant casualties. In terms of casualties, a military campaign on the ground against IS would probably be reasonable to assume around 1000-3000 deaths of servicemen, and another 6000 significantly wounded.
I am sure this is a coincidence but sometimes Jamie's posts on a subject match, almost word for word, the Wikipedia entry on that particular subject.
"That was fun and to round off the day, I am off to steal a charity collection box and then desecrate a place of worship.” - Smokey, The Selhurst Arms, 26/02/02 |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 02 Dec 15 2.36pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Cucking Funt at 02 Dec 2015 1.59pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 02 Dec 2015 12.01pm
Quote Kermit8 at 02 Dec 2015 11.29am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 02 Dec 2015 10.57am
Quote Kermit8 at 02 Dec 2015 9.13am
The military might of Nato ground troops v 30,000 of them. They'd all be seeing Allah a little bit quicker than they hoped. Won't happen, of course, but would make things a bit tidier in that part of Syria. The country is going to have to be partitioned sooner or later anyway. Optimistic, its astonishing what 30,000 fighters, in a guerrilla conflict, can actually establish. Plus the estimate varies for 30,000 to 70,000 fighters. You have to remember that behind that figure will sit a lot of logistical, command and support individuals as well. 30,000 people actually doing the fighting is a pretty large figure. I think for NATO for each person actually fighting, there are at least five to eight people ensuring that capacity. So if IS has 30,000 in the field it wouldn't be a stretch to imagine it has up to 150,000 active members.
The Kurds have retaken one or two places fairly comfortably. I think you may be over-estimating them. But the longer it is left the less I will be perhaps under-estimating them. Stalingrad? Arguably that was a military disaster for both sides. In fact Stalingrad and Lenningrad cost the Germans the war (and the soviets millions of casualties). Encirclement is a very difficult military strategy to maintain, as it essentially exposes both a front line to the enemy, and supply and logistical lines to partisan / guerrilla forces and reducing your capacity to pacify areas outside the encircled area, whilst still exposing your troops to hostile attacks inside the encircled area. Then you have to consider the civilian consequences. The problem of a modern army is it is utterly dependent on supply to continue to fight. By exposing your supply lines like this, you offer up soft targets to the enemy (essentially a front line is utilised to restrict the enemies capacity to utilise unpacified territory, to stage counter attacks and cut off supply lines. The Germans failed to pacify the areas outside of their 'sieges' despite utilising extermination policy (after the Soviets had utilised a scorched earth policy in retreat). The Kurds retook areas they lost, in open conflict, with total air dominance, but they did suffer significant casualties. In terms of casualties, a military campaign on the ground against IS would probably be reasonable to assume around 1000-3000 deaths of servicemen, and another 6000 significantly wounded.
Current affairs and history interest me.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Y Ddraig Goch  In The Crowd 02 Dec 15 2.41pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote jamiemartin721 at 02 Dec 2015 12.01pm
Quote Kermit8 at 02 Dec 2015 11.29am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 02 Dec 2015 10.57am
Quote Kermit8 at 02 Dec 2015 9.13am
The military might of Nato ground troops v 30,000 of them. They'd all be seeing Allah a little bit quicker than they hoped. Won't happen, of course, but would make things a bit tidier in that part of Syria. The country is going to have to be partitioned sooner or later anyway. Optimistic, its astonishing what 30,000 fighters, in a guerrilla conflict, can actually establish. Plus the estimate varies for 30,000 to 70,000 fighters. You have to remember that behind that figure will sit a lot of logistical, command and support individuals as well. 30,000 people actually doing the fighting is a pretty large figure. I think for NATO for each person actually fighting, there are at least five to eight people ensuring that capacity. So if IS has 30,000 in the field it wouldn't be a stretch to imagine it has up to 150,000 active members.
The Kurds have retaken one or two places fairly comfortably. I think you may be over-estimating them. But the longer it is left the less I will be perhaps under-estimating them. Stalingrad? Arguably that was a military disaster for both sides. In fact Stalingrad and Lenningrad cost the Germans the war (and the soviets millions of casualties). Encirclement is a very difficult military strategy to maintain, as it essentially exposes both a front line to the enemy, and supply and logistical lines to partisan / guerrilla forces and reducing your capacity to pacify areas outside the encircled area, whilst still exposing your troops to hostile attacks inside the encircled area. Then you have to consider the civilian consequences. The problem of a modern army is it is utterly dependent on supply to continue to fight. By exposing your supply lines like this, you offer up soft targets to the enemy (essentially a front line is utilised to restrict the enemies capacity to utilise unpacified territory, to stage counter attacks and cut off supply lines. The Germans failed to pacify the areas outside of their 'sieges' despite utilising extermination policy (after the Soviets had utilised a scorched earth policy in retreat). The Kurds retook areas they lost, in open conflict, with total air dominance, but they did suffer significant casualties. In terms of casualties, a military campaign on the ground against IS would probably be reasonable to assume around 1000-3000 deaths of servicemen, and another 6000 significantly wounded.
I am for air strikes but other action needs to happen eg targeting revenue and weapons supply. the Arab states need to take a greater involvement. The only UK troops I want to see on the ground are support ( inc special forces) not front line.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 02 Dec 15 2.41pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote matt_himself at 02 Dec 2015 2.19pm
Quote Cucking Funt at 02 Dec 2015 1.59pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 02 Dec 2015 12.01pm
Quote Kermit8 at 02 Dec 2015 11.29am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 02 Dec 2015 10.57am
Quote Kermit8 at 02 Dec 2015 9.13am
The military might of Nato ground troops v 30,000 of them. They'd all be seeing Allah a little bit quicker than they hoped. Won't happen, of course, but would make things a bit tidier in that part of Syria. The country is going to have to be partitioned sooner or later anyway. Optimistic, its astonishing what 30,000 fighters, in a guerrilla conflict, can actually establish. Plus the estimate varies for 30,000 to 70,000 fighters. You have to remember that behind that figure will sit a lot of logistical, command and support individuals as well. 30,000 people actually doing the fighting is a pretty large figure. I think for NATO for each person actually fighting, there are at least five to eight people ensuring that capacity. So if IS has 30,000 in the field it wouldn't be a stretch to imagine it has up to 150,000 active members.
The Kurds have retaken one or two places fairly comfortably. I think you may be over-estimating them. But the longer it is left the less I will be perhaps under-estimating them. Stalingrad? Arguably that was a military disaster for both sides. In fact Stalingrad and Lenningrad cost the Germans the war (and the soviets millions of casualties). Encirclement is a very difficult military strategy to maintain, as it essentially exposes both a front line to the enemy, and supply and logistical lines to partisan / guerrilla forces and reducing your capacity to pacify areas outside the encircled area, whilst still exposing your troops to hostile attacks inside the encircled area. Then you have to consider the civilian consequences. The problem of a modern army is it is utterly dependent on supply to continue to fight. By exposing your supply lines like this, you offer up soft targets to the enemy (essentially a front line is utilised to restrict the enemies capacity to utilise unpacified territory, to stage counter attacks and cut off supply lines. The Germans failed to pacify the areas outside of their 'sieges' despite utilising extermination policy (after the Soviets had utilised a scorched earth policy in retreat). The Kurds retook areas they lost, in open conflict, with total air dominance, but they did suffer significant casualties. In terms of casualties, a military campaign on the ground against IS would probably be reasonable to assume around 1000-3000 deaths of servicemen, and another 6000 significantly wounded.
I am sure this is a coincidence but sometimes Jamie's posts on a subject match, almost word for word, the Wikipedia entry on that particular subject. I wasn't aware that HOL Online required full Harvard Referencing. Sometimes I'll refer to Wikipedia, usually about something I'm not sure about, or where its a question of facts that are referenced. Often though, I'll use the Open University Library sources, as I'm a member (as a registered student), its nearly as quick, online and surprisingly vast. I generally won't use wikipedo unless the reference checks out. How about you, what sources do you use?
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Tom-the-eagle Croydon 02 Dec 15 2.43pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote jamiemartin721 at 02 Dec 2015 2.36pm
Quote Cucking Funt at 02 Dec 2015 1.59pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 02 Dec 2015 12.01pm
Quote Kermit8 at 02 Dec 2015 11.29am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 02 Dec 2015 10.57am
Quote Kermit8 at 02 Dec 2015 9.13am
The military might of Nato ground troops v 30,000 of them. They'd all be seeing Allah a little bit quicker than they hoped. Won't happen, of course, but would make things a bit tidier in that part of Syria. The country is going to have to be partitioned sooner or later anyway. Optimistic, its astonishing what 30,000 fighters, in a guerrilla conflict, can actually establish. Plus the estimate varies for 30,000 to 70,000 fighters. You have to remember that behind that figure will sit a lot of logistical, command and support individuals as well. 30,000 people actually doing the fighting is a pretty large figure. I think for NATO for each person actually fighting, there are at least five to eight people ensuring that capacity. So if IS has 30,000 in the field it wouldn't be a stretch to imagine it has up to 150,000 active members.
The Kurds have retaken one or two places fairly comfortably. I think you may be over-estimating them. But the longer it is left the less I will be perhaps under-estimating them. Stalingrad? Arguably that was a military disaster for both sides. In fact Stalingrad and Lenningrad cost the Germans the war (and the soviets millions of casualties). Encirclement is a very difficult military strategy to maintain, as it essentially exposes both a front line to the enemy, and supply and logistical lines to partisan / guerrilla forces and reducing your capacity to pacify areas outside the encircled area, whilst still exposing your troops to hostile attacks inside the encircled area. Then you have to consider the civilian consequences. The problem of a modern army is it is utterly dependent on supply to continue to fight. By exposing your supply lines like this, you offer up soft targets to the enemy (essentially a front line is utilised to restrict the enemies capacity to utilise unpacified territory, to stage counter attacks and cut off supply lines. The Germans failed to pacify the areas outside of their 'sieges' despite utilising extermination policy (after the Soviets had utilised a scorched earth policy in retreat). The Kurds retook areas they lost, in open conflict, with total air dominance, but they did suffer significant casualties. In terms of casualties, a military campaign on the ground against IS would probably be reasonable to assume around 1000-3000 deaths of servicemen, and another 6000 significantly wounded.
Current affairs and history interest me. As does Wikipedia
"It feels much better than it ever did, much more sensitive." John Wayne Bobbit |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 02 Dec 15 2.45pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Y Ddraig Goch at 02 Dec 2015 2.41pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 02 Dec 2015 12.01pm
Quote Kermit8 at 02 Dec 2015 11.29am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 02 Dec 2015 10.57am
Quote Kermit8 at 02 Dec 2015 9.13am
The military might of Nato ground troops v 30,000 of them. They'd all be seeing Allah a little bit quicker than they hoped. Won't happen, of course, but would make things a bit tidier in that part of Syria. The country is going to have to be partitioned sooner or later anyway. Optimistic, its astonishing what 30,000 fighters, in a guerrilla conflict, can actually establish. Plus the estimate varies for 30,000 to 70,000 fighters. You have to remember that behind that figure will sit a lot of logistical, command and support individuals as well. 30,000 people actually doing the fighting is a pretty large figure. I think for NATO for each person actually fighting, there are at least five to eight people ensuring that capacity. So if IS has 30,000 in the field it wouldn't be a stretch to imagine it has up to 150,000 active members.
The Kurds have retaken one or two places fairly comfortably. I think you may be over-estimating them. But the longer it is left the less I will be perhaps under-estimating them. Stalingrad? Arguably that was a military disaster for both sides. In fact Stalingrad and Lenningrad cost the Germans the war (and the soviets millions of casualties). Encirclement is a very difficult military strategy to maintain, as it essentially exposes both a front line to the enemy, and supply and logistical lines to partisan / guerrilla forces and reducing your capacity to pacify areas outside the encircled area, whilst still exposing your troops to hostile attacks inside the encircled area. Then you have to consider the civilian consequences. The problem of a modern army is it is utterly dependent on supply to continue to fight. By exposing your supply lines like this, you offer up soft targets to the enemy (essentially a front line is utilised to restrict the enemies capacity to utilise unpacified territory, to stage counter attacks and cut off supply lines. The Germans failed to pacify the areas outside of their 'sieges' despite utilising extermination policy (after the Soviets had utilised a scorched earth policy in retreat). The Kurds retook areas they lost, in open conflict, with total air dominance, but they did suffer significant casualties. In terms of casualties, a military campaign on the ground against IS would probably be reasonable to assume around 1000-3000 deaths of servicemen, and another 6000 significantly wounded.
I am for air strikes but other action needs to happen eg targeting revenue and weapons supply. the Arab states need to take a greater involvement. The only UK troops I want to see on the ground are support ( inc special forces) not front line. This to me, makes more sense. The use of airpower has traditionally been better applied against the enemies capacity to wage war (resources, supply, logistics and financial capacity) than against individuals. Without resources, logistical and financial capacity, an organisation rapidly loses it capacity to hold itself togeather.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 02 Dec 15 2.47pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Tom-the-eagle at 02 Dec 2015 2.43pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 02 Dec 2015 2.36pm
Quote Cucking Funt at 02 Dec 2015 1.59pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 02 Dec 2015 12.01pm
Quote Kermit8 at 02 Dec 2015 11.29am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 02 Dec 2015 10.57am
Quote Kermit8 at 02 Dec 2015 9.13am
The military might of Nato ground troops v 30,000 of them. They'd all be seeing Allah a little bit quicker than they hoped. Won't happen, of course, but would make things a bit tidier in that part of Syria. The country is going to have to be partitioned sooner or later anyway. Optimistic, its astonishing what 30,000 fighters, in a guerrilla conflict, can actually establish. Plus the estimate varies for 30,000 to 70,000 fighters. You have to remember that behind that figure will sit a lot of logistical, command and support individuals as well. 30,000 people actually doing the fighting is a pretty large figure. I think for NATO for each person actually fighting, there are at least five to eight people ensuring that capacity. So if IS has 30,000 in the field it wouldn't be a stretch to imagine it has up to 150,000 active members.
The Kurds have retaken one or two places fairly comfortably. I think you may be over-estimating them. But the longer it is left the less I will be perhaps under-estimating them. Stalingrad? Arguably that was a military disaster for both sides. In fact Stalingrad and Lenningrad cost the Germans the war (and the soviets millions of casualties). Encirclement is a very difficult military strategy to maintain, as it essentially exposes both a front line to the enemy, and supply and logistical lines to partisan / guerrilla forces and reducing your capacity to pacify areas outside the encircled area, whilst still exposing your troops to hostile attacks inside the encircled area. Then you have to consider the civilian consequences. The problem of a modern army is it is utterly dependent on supply to continue to fight. By exposing your supply lines like this, you offer up soft targets to the enemy (essentially a front line is utilised to restrict the enemies capacity to utilise unpacified territory, to stage counter attacks and cut off supply lines. The Germans failed to pacify the areas outside of their 'sieges' despite utilising extermination policy (after the Soviets had utilised a scorched earth policy in retreat). The Kurds retook areas they lost, in open conflict, with total air dominance, but they did suffer significant casualties. In terms of casualties, a military campaign on the ground against IS would probably be reasonable to assume around 1000-3000 deaths of servicemen, and another 6000 significantly wounded.
Current affairs and history interest me. As does Wikipedia Not particularly.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| matt_himself Matataland 02 Dec 15 3.38pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote jamiemartin721 at 02 Dec 2015 2.41pm
Quote matt_himself at 02 Dec 2015 2.19pm
Quote Cucking Funt at 02 Dec 2015 1.59pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 02 Dec 2015 12.01pm
Quote Kermit8 at 02 Dec 2015 11.29am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 02 Dec 2015 10.57am
Quote Kermit8 at 02 Dec 2015 9.13am
The military might of Nato ground troops v 30,000 of them. They'd all be seeing Allah a little bit quicker than they hoped. Won't happen, of course, but would make things a bit tidier in that part of Syria. The country is going to have to be partitioned sooner or later anyway. Optimistic, its astonishing what 30,000 fighters, in a guerrilla conflict, can actually establish. Plus the estimate varies for 30,000 to 70,000 fighters. You have to remember that behind that figure will sit a lot of logistical, command and support individuals as well. 30,000 people actually doing the fighting is a pretty large figure. I think for NATO for each person actually fighting, there are at least five to eight people ensuring that capacity. So if IS has 30,000 in the field it wouldn't be a stretch to imagine it has up to 150,000 active members.
The Kurds have retaken one or two places fairly comfortably. I think you may be over-estimating them. But the longer it is left the less I will be perhaps under-estimating them. Stalingrad? Arguably that was a military disaster for both sides. In fact Stalingrad and Lenningrad cost the Germans the war (and the soviets millions of casualties). Encirclement is a very difficult military strategy to maintain, as it essentially exposes both a front line to the enemy, and supply and logistical lines to partisan / guerrilla forces and reducing your capacity to pacify areas outside the encircled area, whilst still exposing your troops to hostile attacks inside the encircled area. Then you have to consider the civilian consequences. The problem of a modern army is it is utterly dependent on supply to continue to fight. By exposing your supply lines like this, you offer up soft targets to the enemy (essentially a front line is utilised to restrict the enemies capacity to utilise unpacified territory, to stage counter attacks and cut off supply lines. The Germans failed to pacify the areas outside of their 'sieges' despite utilising extermination policy (after the Soviets had utilised a scorched earth policy in retreat). The Kurds retook areas they lost, in open conflict, with total air dominance, but they did suffer significant casualties. In terms of casualties, a military campaign on the ground against IS would probably be reasonable to assume around 1000-3000 deaths of servicemen, and another 6000 significantly wounded.
I am sure this is a coincidence but sometimes Jamie's posts on a subject match, almost word for word, the Wikipedia entry on that particular subject. I wasn't aware that HOL Online required full Harvard Referencing. Sometimes I'll refer to Wikipedia, usually about something I'm not sure about, or where its a question of facts that are referenced. Often though, I'll use the Open University Library sources, as I'm a member (as a registered student), its nearly as quick, online and surprisingly vast. I generally won't use wikipedo unless the reference checks out. How about you, what sources do you use? I generally source information from Davidicke.com, the official website of the Black Panthers, various websites that are favourable to Serbian 'patriot' Arkan, various websites of Ugandan preachers, The Guardian and maturehairypussy.com. But then I don't pretend to know everything.
"That was fun and to round off the day, I am off to steal a charity collection box and then desecrate a place of worship.” - Smokey, The Selhurst Arms, 26/02/02 |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
nairb75  Baltimore 02 Dec 15 3.48pm |
|
|---|---|
|
how about we start holding the saudis responsible for their terrorist funding. or at least have them send some soldiers to do some of the dirty work.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / Register
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2023 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.