Military Review

Why sticks and stones are dangerous for modern technology

91
Why sticks and stones are dangerous for modern technology

"I do not know how weapons the Third World War will be conducted, ”Albert Einstein warned President Truman,“ but the Fourth is like sticks and stones. ”


There is no sense in arguing with Einstein, he is undoubtedly right about the Fourth World War. However, in the famous saying of Einstein, it was suggested that, right up to the moment when we slide back into the Stone Age, the technologies of warfare will develop only in one direction: they will become more advanced, complex, perfect and deadly.

Today, much of what has been said about future wars supports this assumption. We are convinced that the flywheel of innovation rotates in one direction. High-tech measures of one side will lead to reciprocal actions of the other side, which will be met by even more perfect countermeasures, and so on ad infinitum - or until some Einstein catastrophe ends the cycle, throwing us back into the era of sticks and stones.

However, in Einstein's warning words one detail is missing: despite all our technical development, the war never went beyond simple sticks and cameos, and even today their destructive power remains surprisingly wealthy.

Technological teleology

It is easy to forget about the continuing role of stick and stone. When we think about stories military affairs, we are constantly coming to mind constantly increasing technology. Without a doubt, the history is full of examples of the escalation of technological cycles “measure, countermeasure and countermeasure”. With the increase in the deadliness of swords and spears, armor became thicker. With the increasing weight of armor, horses were needed to increase speed and maneuverability, and with the creation of the stirrup, the lethal effectiveness of cavalry increased. The development of large bows paved the way to war at a distance and reduce the number of cavalry troops armed with swords and spears, however later muskets and artillery replaced big bows, automatic weapons replaced single shooters and so on to the atomic bomb - to which Einstein’s work paved such an ambiguous path .
Or consider the electronic warfare. For example, during World War II, Allied forces developed an active hydroacoustic station for detecting submerged German submarines, while high-frequency radio direction finders installed on ships were used to intercept radio signals sent by submarines. Then Germany equipped its submarines with radar detectors, as a result of which the Allies developed a centimeter-range radar, which German detectors could not detect. In an air war, the evolution of radar systems to detect approaching aircraft led to the use of reflectors and the development of systems for generating radar interference, which in turn led to countermeasures aimed at complicating noise generators for frequency hopping and homing at the radiation source.

In each of these cases, technological innovations in military affairs led to new innovations by the enemy, and today, as during World War II, we are often inclined to assume that such technical escalation is inevitable.

It is this assumption that underlies the modern vision of not only the paradigm of warfare in the air and at sea of ​​the Pentagon, but also of cybernetic threats. In the cyberspace, the development of Internet communication systems is opposed to the development of new methods for their detection and disruption of Internet communication. The application of cyber attacks has led to the development of new cyber defense, which has led to new and more sophisticated cyber attack technologies. Similarly, the paradigm of waging war in the air and at sea is based on the assumption that technology is moving forward: the air and sea supremacy of the United States stimulates almost equal competitors, that is, our sworn friends, such as China, to develop technologies of absolute domination. And thus, following the logic, we must invest in technologies to counter these measures.

Of course, this usually requires money and a lot. Significant investments in the Air Force and Navy are also usually required, two types of troops, relatively speaking, pushed aside over decades of a slow, sluggish land war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Afraid of being out of work, the army and marines are promoting their high-tech vision of the future. As stated by Lloyd Freeman in the article, the marines need to be transformed, since “in future conflicts [the ground forces] will play only a secondary role. Ground forces will no longer win wars. For them, computers, rockets, planes and drones will do this. ” In the future, as Freeman states, the slogan “every marine is a rifle” will need to be transformed into a new concept “every marine is a PAN (advanced aviation gunner). ” “The Marines will master dozens of different communication platforms and become experts in them,” Freeman continues. “They will be giving real-time video.”

Perhaps, yes, maybe not.

And this is what we seem to be in a hurry to forget: the development of military technology can go in both directions. There is no teleology in biological evolution: the simple does not necessarily become complicated, and as long as life forms change and evolve in response to both random mutations and environmental conditions, they are not necessarily “going forward.” In modern military science, the same is true: high-tech measures are not always compensated for by more high-tech measures. Sometimes the exact opposite is true: low-technology ones are the most effective countermeasures - and this has been demonstrated in history as often as the opposite.
We certainly know about it. We just don't like it.

Sticks and stones in Afghanistan

Consider the very recent experience of the United States in Afghanistan. The United States entered the battlefield with overwhelming technological superiority, and at the same time new weaknesses. The Taliban, low-budget, but no doubt resourceful, the enemy, quickly developed low-tech responses to our high-tech weaknesses.
Unable to prevail in direct confrontation with US troops, the Taliban, for example, began to resort to the use of improvised explosive devices (IEDs), made of scrap materials and powered by mobile phones. In response, we began to install expensive cellular silencers on cars, designed to prevent the detonation of IEDs from a long distance, when our troops drove alongside them. Often, such silencers disrupted our own communications systems. Their use led the Taliban to use IEDs with a mechanical fuse. We responded to this by equipping our troops with a subsurface radar designed to detect the signature of the metal components of the VCA. To which the Taliban responded by further improving sticks and stones, creating an IED of push action from foam rubber, plastic and wood.

We are faced with similar low-tech countermeasures in other areas. We made large-scale investments in encryption and surveillance technologies, created, for example, to prevent encryption from being used by the adversary, but since we took it for granted that a potential adversary would follow the same high-tech track when developing their communication systems, we allowed our capabilities to degrade. detect simple FM radio stations.
Most of the time, the Taliban troops do not bother with encryption, they openly communicate through simple walkie-talkies, using a large number of mobile FM repeaters to transmit weak signals over long distances. Initially, US troops did not have the equipment necessary to intercept such broadcasts and, as reported, were forced to buy to listen for cheap "available scanners of radio wave bands in the bazaars of Kabul." The equipment needed to intercept Taliban radio communications has become standard, but it has proved much more difficult to find the enemy himself, since we can find relay towers, but not the Taliban with his walkie-talkie.

Al Qaeda is also a learning organization. Faced with a threat from American UAVs, al-Qaeda, according to incoming data, resorts to low-technology countermeasures, advising militants to use dirt and grass mats to disguise technology from air observation. Such tactics will not have long success, but it can be argued that in the coming years, al-Qaeda will find new low-technology means to counter American drones.
Now you have a general idea. Sometimes high-tech measures lead to high-tech countermeasures, however, sometimes high-tech measures lead to low-tech countermeasures. What is worse, because of the unjustified belief in our technological superiority, we become dangerously vulnerable to such low-tech techniques.

The moral of this story is

Some will tend to write it off as an artifact of the unfortunate US land wars after 11 September. Despite the fact that 65000 US troops are still in Afghanistan, we have already started to lose interest in this war and its lessons. We had to think better.

In 1970's, we convinced ourselves that there would be no more Vietnamese, and turned away from any experience we had during this cruel, protracted conflict (understanding the nature of asymmetric and guerrilla war, the strength of nationalism and the risks of occupation). Then, in Iraq and Afghanistan, we painfully re-learned many of the harsh lessons of Vietnam - just at the time when the heat of the war was asleep, and the public had lost interest in it.

Now many leaders of both military and civilian world are ready to repeat our post-Vietnamese ritual of escape from reality. There will be no more Iraq and Afghanistan, we say to ourselves, we will not invade or occupy territories with large ground forces, and also we will not participate in intricate anti-terrorist operations or operations to maintain stability, so we don’t have to remember our mistakes, we’ll just go on. The lessons of Afghanistan will not be applied in future wars, because future wars, if they are, will be high-tech conflicts with highly developed countries or opponents supported by such countries.

Perhaps, yes, maybe not.

The point is this: even if the proponents of cyber wars and the concept of warfare in the air and at sea are right, even if future wars are fought with high-tech developed countries - a big mistake to think that sticks and stones will not play a role in such wars.

In the end, it took the Taliban a surprisingly short amount of time to understand that the sophisticated technology of the United States can easily be confronted with low-tech techniques. Why should we think that almost equal to us state, such as China, did not pay attention to it?

Rosa Brooks is a law professor at Georgetown University and a senior fellow at the Schwartz Program at the New America Foundation. She served as adviser to the US deputy secretary of defense for the period from 2009 to 2011, and before that she was a senior adviser at the US State Department. Her weekly column comes out every Wednesday. At the same time, she publishes her blog “By Other Way” (By Other Means).
Author:
Originator:
http://inoforum.ru/
91 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Refund_SSSR
    Refund_SSSR April 26 2013 08: 19 New
    +7
    Roman legions, over-advanced and unaware of defeats - were beaten by wild and scattered barbarian tribes dressed in skins.
    The rules of the game remained the same, only other nations play the roles of barbarians and Romans.
    1. patline
      patline April 26 2013 08: 27 New
      +4
      Auntie is wrong. Technologies will benefit, only you need to apply them also competently, to any opponent, even if technically backward.
      1. self-propelled
        self-propelled April 26 2013 09: 00 New
        +9
        Quote: patline
        Technologies will benefit, only you need to apply them competently, too, to any opponent, even if technically backward

        I agree, without modern technology nowhere, but ...
        -the war against partisans is not possible to win in principle;
        -Do not forget that the technique has the ability to refuse (and as always at the most inopportune moment). and the more complex the technique, the higher the likelihood of this;
        in no way suggest returning to digging sticks and clubs. just do not forget about the simple, time-tested ...
        1. ronin
          ronin April 26 2013 09: 57 New
          15
          Quote: self-propelled
          -the war against partisans is not possible to win in principle;

          There is one way to win ... It is necessary to destroy the people. Amer is trying to do this, though not with weapons, but with his ideology, films and political correctness ..
          1. self-propelled
            self-propelled April 26 2013 11: 13 New
            +1
            Quote: ronin
            Amer is trying to do this, though not with weapons, but with his ideology, films and political correctness ..

            something in Iraq and Afghanistan they are not very good at. to see and with this scheme is not so simple
            1. GELEZNII_KAPUT
              GELEZNII_KAPUT April 26 2013 11: 40 New
              +3
              Quote: self-propelled
              something in Iraq and Afghanistan they are not very good at. to see and with this scheme is not so simple

              You just have to cut everyone clean ... you see the genocide! winked
              1. Corsair5912
                Corsair5912 April 26 2013 11: 53 New
                +4
                They will receive an asymmetric or adequate response, as in a joke.
                Reagan Brezhnev - Surrender, or I order to drop 1000 neutron bombs on the USSR, your population will disappear and your property will remain.
                Brezhnev to Reagan - It’s you who surrender, otherwise I will order 1000 warrant officers to be dumped in the USA, your population will remain, and all property, along with neutron bombs, will disappear.
              2. Thunderbolt
                Thunderbolt April 26 2013 18: 04 New
                0
                Quote: self-propelled
                in Iraq and Afghanistan they are not doing very well.
                In Iraq, and more precisely in Iraq, the United States actually tested all its promising developments and the very methodology of conducting large-scale modern military operations. But in Afghanistan, the United States entrenched itself for a long time and after the 14th year deployment bases will remain (there was such a rumor about 2 years ago that The USA is building some kind of buried structures in rock formations like the ICBM mines. (If anyone --- I would be grateful) Yes, and what are the USA's goals in Afghanistan? Combating terrorism? Noble, of course ...
                1. matryoshka
                  matryoshka April 28 2013 14: 56 New
                  0
                  Yes, Americans practice, the greatest experience in warfare, less husk, more work.
            2. ULxaw86
              ULxaw86 April 26 2013 11: 55 New
              +2
              In Iraq and Afghanistan, just the Internet and TV, probably not yet !!! How can they (s) still influence the brains of the natives !? This is us, having not managed to get out of bed, we run to turn on the computer, and then we wipe our eyes (I wrote from myself) smile !
            3. DimychDV
              DimychDV April 26 2013 15: 57 New
              0
              Patriarchalism and loyalty to traditions are generally characteristic of Muslim peoples. For Christians, alas, to a lesser extent, although our Caucasian Christians are also strong in custom. But Russian customs are lost with the destruction of the village, the peasantry and the loss of patriarchy - or those customs that dissolve in time, which still remained in our reserve. Which, of course, will not cancel either sticks or stones, our people are savvy, especially when angry. But there are more hopes for military specialists in non-traditional types of weapons - for their piggy bank of active experience. Well, and the old retinue and Susanin ways. Detection, swamps ... and still their topographic companions from orbit to reduce or interfere with their work. To land their planes in the way they planted Kaczynski in Smolensk ...
            4. matryoshka
              matryoshka April 28 2013 14: 54 New
              -1
              The USSR did not succeed, and the losses were higher.
          2. Maximus
            Maximus April 26 2013 14: 29 New
            +1
            Amer burnt Vietnamese partisans with napalm, Germans in the Second World War destroyed entire villages and villages only because of suspicions of helping the partisans, the Bolsheviks used gas during the Tambov uprising and took hostages from the families of the rebellious peasants.
          3. tomket
            tomket April 26 2013 20: 41 New
            0
            by the way in Vietnam, the loss of the Vietnamese was about mil civilians, destroy the people and all
            1. Thunderbolt
              Thunderbolt April 29 2013 23: 56 New
              0
              Quote: tomket
              the Vietnamese had about a mil civilian population, destroy the people and all
              So he did not allow himself to be destroyed, during the confrontation, the losses of the aggressor became unacceptable, because the Vietnamese are not narrow-eyed honuriks, but persistent and skillful warriors.
          4. matryoshka
            matryoshka April 28 2013 14: 54 New
            -1
            The Americans did it and the Indians, the Japanese with the Ainu, physically destroyed.
        2. APASUS
          APASUS April 26 2013 20: 54 New
          +1
          Quote: self-propelled
          without modern technology, nowhere, but ... - it is impossible to win a war against partisans in principle;

          Technology is good, of course, but what did the Americans stumble on in Afghanistan?
          The Americans did not study the country they entered! They didn’t learn the mentality, culture, customs. They broke firewood and now they dump it !!
          Not everything is solved by the most modern gadget !!!!!!!!! even in military performance
          1. Patriot.ru.
            Patriot.ru. April 26 2013 23: 48 New
            0
            Americans are not going to study the customs and customs of other nations until they get a kick, as in Vietnam. And the fact that simple weapons are the most effective, I agree with the author. But subject to the active resistance of the majority of the population.
      2. Atlon
        Atlon April 26 2013 09: 28 New
        16
        Quote: patline
        Auntie is wrong. Technologies will benefit, only you need to apply them also competently, to any opponent, even if technically backward.

        Auntie is right. And any high-tech tank, for a sweet soul, burns from a bottle of gasoline ("Molotov cocktail"), and the price of both is simply incomparable! Of course, the bearer of this bottle will probably die himself, but the questions of the value of human life in third world countries are practically not worth it. Moreover, a warrior of Allah who died in battle goes straight to Paradise. And who do you think will strive more strongly and where? The warrior of Allah to Paradise, for in earthly life he has no pleasures and comfort, or is a tanker of a developed country home, where is the house, car, all amenities, entertainment, beautiful wife?
        1. iliq
          iliq April 26 2013 11: 54 New
          -3
          Quote: Atlon
          And any high-tech tank, for a sweet soul, burns from a bottle of gasoline ("Molotov cocktail"), and the price of both is simply incomparable!

          learn the materiel, if for 50 years the tanks from napalm have not been burning - then why should they burn from gasoline (by the way, the Molotov cocktail is not gasoline!)?
          Tell me, where in the last 30 years and 6 wars (Afghanistan-USSR, Chechnya-1,2, Iraq-1,2, Afghanistan-NATO) at least one tank was burned with a Molotov cocktail?
          1. Wedmak
            Wedmak April 26 2013 12: 01 New
            +4
            teach materiel if for 50 years the tanks from napalm are not burning

            Seriously? Burning armor, of course, is unlikely ... but to heat the interior of the tank to at least 100-200 (at least) degrees is welcome. And if he gets into the MTO ... Then tell the scenario of the development of events?
            where in the last 30 years and 6 wars (Afghanistan-USSR, Chechnya-1,2, Iraq-1,2, Afghanistan-NATO) at least one tank was burned with a Molotov cocktail?

            Why make a cocktail if you have an RPG? This drink is used when there is already nothing to shoot and nothing. And with a successful hit, it disables the tank at a time.
            1. svp67
              svp67 April 26 2013 12: 07 New
              +4
              Quote: Wedmak
              Seriously? Burning armor, of course, is unlikely ... but to heat the interior of the tank to at least 100-200 (at least) degrees is welcome. And if he gets into the MTO ... Then tell the scenario of the development of events?

              I can offer you my own - as soon as a flammable liquid enters the MTO and lights up there, then this unfortunate fact is immediately recorded by the PPO sensors, and according to the laid down algorithm, this system extinguishes it, so that the tank does not die from this ...

              On the bill - to heat - is also another question, since, firstly, the thickness of the armor is large enough, and having burned out by such an amount, the process is long, in addition, the armor is "multilayered" in places and has "lining" everywhere, so ...
              1. Wedmak
                Wedmak April 26 2013 13: 31 New
                0
                as soon as a combustible liquid enters the MTO and lights up there, then this unfortunate fact is immediately recorded by the PPO sensors, and according to the inherent algorithm, this system extinguishes it

                Napalm? Put out? 1000 degrees? Well, good luck ... A Molotov cocktail is easy to mix so that it will be practically napalm, the recipe is not a secret ...
                since firstly the thickness of the armor is large enough

                Yeah, the heat on the metal is very well transmitted.
                and burning to such a magnitude is a long process

                How much? 20-30 cm? Dip the spoon in hot tea, after 3-4 minutes, take it in your hands - hot? And this is less than 100 degrees.
                in addition, the armor is "multi-layered" in places and has "lining" everywhere, so that

                Multilayer armor is certainly good, and the rate of penetration of temperature will depend on the quantity and material of the layers. But you did not forget that there are a lot of vulnerabilities on the armor? Optical devices melt easily ... slots in the MTO, antenna leads, loosely closed hatches, dynamic armor will also add a spark, the junction of the gun and turret is generally poorly protected.
                has a "lining" everywhere, so

                But isn’t it used for sealing? Even if it is not combustible, it will melt with the release of not very useful gases.
                1. svp67
                  svp67 April 26 2013 16: 59 New
                  0
                  Quote: Wedmak
                  Napalm? Put out? 1000 degrees? Well, good luck ... A Molotov cocktail is easy to mix so that it will be practically napalm, the recipe is not a secret ...

                  Did you deal with him? It seems only in the movie. So napalm does not burn without access to oxygen. And the software system works on this principle ...
                2. old rocket man
                  old rocket man April 26 2013 16: 59 New
                  +4
                  [quote = Wedmak] [quote] as soon as a flammable liquid enters the MTO and lights up there, this unfortunate fact is immediately recorded by the PPO sensors,

                  You forgot to add that the automatic fire extinguishing system, almost one-time, against the second bottle, it is useless and it is not a fact that even after the first bottle the engine will not have time to fail drinks
                  1. svp67
                    svp67 April 26 2013 17: 22 New
                    -2
                    Quote: Old Rocketman
                    You forgot to add that the automatic fire extinguishing system, almost one-time, against the second bottle, it is useless and it is not a fact that even after the first bottle the engine will not have time to fail

                    Well, if so, then it’s not a one-time, but at least three-time, since there are three cylinders with a fire-fighting composition.
                    In addition, in order to get on the engine and its systems, this nastiness has to go a long way through the cooling system, and if the crew quickly reacts and closes the blinds, then the flow of this "nasty" will stop ... but on tanks produced by "Kharkov" the plant cannot get there at all - the design is so made ...
                3. svp67
                  svp67 April 26 2013 17: 01 New
                  -1
                  Quote: Wedmak
                  Yeah, the heat on the metal is very well transmitted.

                  But isn’t it used for sealing? Even if it is not combustible, it will melt with the release of not very useful gases.

                  But who can deny it, only between the crew and the armor there is a rather significant lining of "lining", which does not allow a person to touch the armor. I watch this news for you too. It seems that modern tanks, you also saw only in the pictures ... Since the "lining" is not a means of sealing, but a means of reducing penetrating radiation ...
                4. svp67
                  svp67 April 26 2013 17: 14 New
                  +1
                  Quote: Wedmak
                  Multilayer armor is certainly good, and the rate of penetration of temperature will depend on the quantity and material of the layers. But you did not forget that there are a lot of vulnerabilities on the armor? Optical devices melt easily ... slots in the MTO, antenna leads, loosely closed hatches, dynamic armor will also add a spark, the junction of the gun and turret is generally poorly protected.

                  In a combat situation, more than one "napalm" is unable to warm up the "multilayer" armor, due to the relative short duration of exposure, and because of the difficulty of transferring heat during the transition from one substance to another.
                  The heating temperature of the most common mixtures of the "attacked" type is 1100 degrees, and the melting point of glass, the simplest one, is 1400 degrees, so the optics will not suffer too much.
                  The cannon mask or, as you call it, "the junction of the gun and the turret" is also not a place that is easily penetrated for napalm.
                  For your information, any armored vehicle is also tested for protection against incendiary weapons during tests, so do not rely heavily on the power of a bottle with a "Molotov cocktail" against modern technology
                  1. old rocket man
                    old rocket man April 26 2013 18: 23 New
                    +2
                    Quote: svp67
                    Quote: Wedmak
                    Multilayer armor is certainly good, and the rate of penetration of temperature will depend on the quantity and material of the layers. But you did not forget that there are a lot of vulnerabilities on the armor? Optical devices melt easily ... slots in the MTO, antenna leads, loosely closed hatches, dynamic armor will also add a spark, the junction of the gun and turret is generally poorly protected.

                    In a combat situation, more than one "napalm" is unable to warm up the "multilayer" armor, due to the relative short duration of exposure, and because of the difficulty of transferring heat during the transition from one substance to another.
                    The heating temperature of the most common mixtures of the "attacked" type is 1100 degrees, and the melting point of glass, the simplest one, is 1400 degrees, so the optics will not suffer too much.
                    The cannon mask or, as you call it, "the junction of the gun and the turret" is also not a place that is easily penetrated for napalm.
                    For your information, any armored vehicle is also tested for protection against incendiary weapons during tests, so do not rely heavily on the power of a bottle with a "Molotov cocktail" against modern technology


                    They clung to this bottle, no one claims that this is a supermedium against tanks, the bottom line is that there are many ways low tech and cheapstruggle with a superior opponent, and counter arguments, you can bring a lot and stay, and on the other hand.
                    And you immediately minus, what's the difference, three or four bottles will be needed?
                    1. S_mirnov
                      S_mirnov April 26 2013 20: 58 New
                      0
                      The difference is not how many bottles are needed to light the tank, but how many of your soldiers die when trying to burn the tank, soldiers tend to run out with low-level technology development.
            2. Jin
              Jin April 26 2013 13: 03 New
              +3
              Quote: Wedmak
              Why make a cocktail if you have an RPG? This drink is used when there is already nothing to shoot and nothing. And with a successful hit, it disables the tank at a time.


              + Definitely ... moreover, this muck, to put it mildly, is very difficult to extinguish) With its fluidity it penetrates into the "technological holes"))) and burns remarkably ... That's why they invented a special composition, and not just poured gasoline and forward) although it is also an extremely unpleasant thing))) laughing
            3. Mikhail3
              Mikhail3 April 26 2013 21: 18 New
              0
              There is still active protection. It’s a very beautiful thing, and it’s useful from RPGs ... only if it is heated properly ... it doesn’t have armor!
          2. Atlon
            Atlon April 26 2013 16: 31 New
            0
            Quote: iliq
            teach materiel if for 50 years the tanks from napalm are not burning

            Indeed?! laughing

            Quote: iliq
            then why should they burn from gasoline (by the way, a Molotov cocktail is not gasoline!)?

            I actually meant a collective image. But so be it, I will give you another opportunity, without gasoline. For example, close the optics with a "rag". And if someone tries to open the hatch, throw a grenade there, or again a bottle of gasoline. wink

            Quote: iliq
            Tell me, where in the last 30 years and 6 wars (Afghanistan-USSR, Chechnya-1,2, Iraq-1,2, Afghanistan-NATO) at least one tank was burned with a Molotov cocktail?

            And tell me where in the hostilities you listed this was not? tongue
      3. Jin
        Jin April 26 2013 12: 38 New
        +1
        Quote: patline
        Auntie is wrong. Technologies will benefit, only you need to apply them also competently, to any opponent, even if technically backward.


        Yes, and tell that to the tankers, on the advanced and expensive "armor" burned out from the antediluvian, but very effective RPG ...
      4. Jin
        Jin April 26 2013 12: 44 New
        +1
        Quote: patline
        Auntie is wrong. Technologies will benefit, only you need to apply them also competently, to any opponent, even if technically backward.


        You probably read a little inattentively IMHO ... She does not say that technology is a loser, she says that you should not forget about "sticks and stones" either! But wouldn't a soldier care what he would be killed with, a high-tech weapon or a primitive land mine from an art projectile? I mean, she means it! Taking off high - do not get too off the ground !!! Moreover, it is also a question of money, with a lot of money! The Taliban spent $ 1000 on a land mine, and millions on detection and defense equipment, etc. ...
        1. DimychDV
          DimychDV April 26 2013 16: 06 New
          +1
          Sobsno, even without a grenade launcher, lemons can be thrown using an ordinary slingshot - such an easel slider, extended ... well, our helicopters do not have the habit of flying with their hatches open, and the Vietnamese Amers blew up several cars, namely, throwing a hand grenade to the airborne squad.
      5. Geisenberg
        Geisenberg April 27 2013 12: 14 New
        0
        Quote: patline
        Auntie is wrong. Technologies will benefit, only you need to apply them also competently, to any opponent, even if technically backward.


        There is no general camp so that it is authoritative to declare that someone is right and someone is not.

        A high-tech society is prone to dullness in basic things. Therefore, the warriors of Americanistan and the like will always fall into a wonderful one for banal reasons. "Auntie" said everything correctly, but did not draw the correct conclusions.
    2. Corsair5912
      Corsair5912 April 26 2013 09: 26 New
      +4
      Do you believe in stupid nonsense about the Roman legions unaware of defeat?
      Did you know that the Gauls took Rome more than once?
      "In 390 BC. The Romans suffered a crushing defeat at the hands of Brennos, the leader of the Gallic tribe, who penetrated into the Apennine Peninsula through the Alps. Then the Gauls entered Rome, plundered and burned a significant part of the city, the consuls agreed with Brenno on a ransom in one thousand pounds (327 kg) of gold.
      Weigh it, according to Titus Livy ("History of Rome from the founding of the City", V, 48, 8-9), had to be done with false weights of the enemy. The Romans tried to object, and Brennus, with the words "Woe to the vanquished," humiliating for them, placed his heavy sword on top of the weights. "
      "Official history: the great, beautiful and mighty Roman civilization fell under the blows of stinking shaggy savages. In fact, the degenerates, sick of everyone (like the Americans now), were sanitized by more decent neighbors. Bare-assed and bare-legged, poorly armed Roman infantry (open text on the history of the ancient world, and admire the legionnaires) was trampled by the cataphractaries clad in steel from the tops to the horse's hooves. The main source of information is "Cataphracts and their role in the history of military art" AM Khazanov "
      1. Metlik
        Metlik April 26 2013 10: 06 New
        +3
        Examples from the history of the beginning of the Roman Republic, and from its sunset. Between them several hundred years. Under Julius Caesar, the legions were truly a child prodigy - they beat the troops that were several times superior in numbers.
        And yet it’s better not to talk about super-advanced legionnaires, they were inferior as troops to Persian equestrian archers and Nubian cavalry and Greek phalanxes, but to Roman military science, which, being constantly improved, honed in practice, was very strong.
        1. Corsair5912
          Corsair5912 April 26 2013 11: 29 New
          0
          Rome was surrounded by peaceful peoples, as a rule who did not have permanent regular armies, or were at war among themselves, this alone explains the Roman conquests.
          As soon as the neighbors of Rome had their own armies, Rome was crushed, along with its martial art.
          As for the centuries of power of Rome, too much, from the 4th century BC to the 4th century AD the Romans more than once suffered crushing defeats from the Gauls, Carthaginians, Greeks, Germans, Slavs, etc. And since the time of Hadrian, 2nd century AD Rome finally switched to defense.
          1. Jin
            Jin April 26 2013 13: 07 New
            +2
            Quote: Corsair5912
            Rome was surrounded by peaceful peoples, as a rule who did not have permanent regular armies, or were at war among themselves, this alone explains the Roman conquests.


            I don’t quite agree with you, but where did they share Carthage with the unforgettable Mr. Ganebal (I don’t remember exactly how the name is spelled, it doesn’t matter)? They fought long and tedious and ... Rome won in the end drinks
            1. old rocket man
              old rocket man April 26 2013 17: 10 New
              0
              Quote: Jin
              Quote: Corsair5912
              Rome was surrounded by peaceful peoples, as a rule who did not have permanent regular armies, or were at war among themselves, this alone explains the Roman conquests.


              I don’t quite agree with you, but where did they share Carthage with the unforgettable Mr. Ganebal (I don’t remember exactly how the name is spelled, it doesn’t matter)? They fought long and tedious and ... Rome won in the end drinks


              And I SO completely disagree with him, what peaceful peoples? Not organized, yes, but peaceful ?, these are Germans and Gauls, in whom every adult man (from 14 years old) did not part with his weapons even at night or the Huns and vandals, which war was a source of livelihood?
          2. Maximus
            Maximus April 26 2013 14: 36 New
            0
            Well, about peaceful nations, you bent of course.
      2. Standard Oil
        Standard Oil April 26 2013 11: 38 New
        +2
        Rome of the times of the early republic and the early empire is completely different state compared to the late empire, where they have already completely degenerated and turned into some kind of modern Americans, stupid, greasy and greedy, they even gathered all kinds of barbarians into the army because citizens did not want to serve.
        1. Jin
          Jin April 26 2013 13: 22 New
          0
          Quote: Standard Oil
          Rome of the times of the early republic and the early empire is completely different state compared to the late empire, where they have already completely degenerated and turned into some kind of modern Americans, stupid, greasy and greedy, they even gathered all kinds of barbarians into the army because citizens did not want to serve.


          You noticed it rightly) I wanted to write about it too! + As one wise man said, I don’t remember who it is, the sad fate of all empires ...
          1. Metlik
            Metlik April 26 2013 15: 18 New
            0
            Rome did not die because it became an empire. And the Romans, in most cases, did not become fat, dumb, and greedy. They became beggars as the oligarchs deprived them of their land. And becoming beggars, they lost their culture. “I am the last Roman in Rome,” said Cato. If there were a hundred of the same patriots, Rome would not have fallen.
            1. Jin
              Jin April 26 2013 15: 26 New
              0
              Quote: Metlik
              Rome did not die because it became an empire. And the Romans in most cases did not become fat, stupid and greedy. They became poor as the oligarchs stripped their land.


              Essno!) This is actually what we’re talking about ... and not that it has become an empire and suddenly has taken and collapsed ...
            2. DimychDV
              DimychDV April 26 2013 16: 13 New
              0
              Yes, my friend served in Osnaz in Germany in the 70s. And now the war begins - he says, I will not go to war for these Abramovichs and for the ESPO. In the USSR, I had everything. And today the government does not even allow the land under the house to be privatized. At any moment, it means that they can come and take away. But I talked to the young people - the guys even started the second campaign in Chechnya at the call, so they say, it was just a shame for the boys. And so the marines threw off their armor and in some vests and berets went to chop up Chechens - some with a machine gun, and some with a shovel. And the "Czechs" skedaddle.
      3. GELEZNII_KAPUT
        GELEZNII_KAPUT April 26 2013 11: 45 New
        +1
        The Roman Empire killed itself, being mired in debauchery, corruption, etc., and what the barbarians did to it is just a consequence of all this.
        1. Corsair5912
          Corsair5912 April 26 2013 15: 20 New
          +2
          For centuries, Rome has attacked the weak,
          For centuries, enslaved peoples
          For centuries of mercy did not know
          Throwing steel legions into battle.

          Rome crushed the rebellion of Spartacus,
          And they crucified the vanquished on the crosses
          Everyone was worthy of Christ there,
          The cross is a symbol of the warriors unconquered.

          Patricia and plebs are brazen day after day,
          Gladiators blood is smoking in the arena
          Cohorts of the Romans, as evil children,
          Death and misery sow on the planet.

          Rome is corrupted by a successful robbery
          And recruits the conquered into the legion,
          Fewer and fewer Roman war banners
          And an army of warriors captured.

          Yes, we are not Romans, our name is Legion,
          We are all Slavs free descendants,
          We will not go against our tribes,
          We hate Roman scum.

          We are not slaves, trembling lecherous Rome,
          We won’t go to the Russian plains,
          We will turn the spears against Rome
          We are the Legion! And we are invincible.

          They won’t stop us, like Spartacus,
          And crucifixion is not enough strength
          We will destroy the power of Rome forever
          Let the Romans leave ruins and graves.

          For gladiators, slaves, for Spartacus,
          Patricians will answer with a cross torment
          And there will be revenge on the rebels, forever
          The invaders are cruel science.
    3. Maximus
      Maximus April 26 2013 14: 23 New
      +1
      They beat the Romans already at the sunset of the Roman Empire, and many legionnaires were the same barbarian mercenaries. And about the skins, for example, the Mongols very successfully made skins from which they turned out, though not very strong, but still armor. Let us return to the barbarians, by the time they conquered Rome, the weapons and light defense were in many respects not inferior to the Roman, especially among the Franks. Well, the Huns are a different story, especially their cavalry.
      1. zart_arn
        zart_arn April 26 2013 23: 50 New
        +1
        Not only at sunset did the Latinos beat.
        "Emperor Valerian, who had been at war with Shapur since 259, in 260, as a result of treason, was captured near Edessa by the Persians, who treated him in the most unworthy manner. King Shapur I used his back as a bench when he mounted a horse . "
        1. Lopatov
          Lopatov April 26 2013 23: 59 New
          +1
          He was lucky. Mark Licinius Crassus the Parthians watered with molten gold.
          1. zart_arn
            zart_arn April 27 2013 11: 02 New
            0
            Valerian got drunk the same after offering a bribe (a huge ransom for the purpose of release) - the fight against corruption, however! laughing
    4. Old skeptic
      Old skeptic April 26 2013 15: 57 New
      +1
      Mistake, Rome fell from being mired in vice and luxury and the Romans ceased to serve in the army and began to hire barbarians into this very army, and they too brought them to Rome as a cheap rabsila. A rich and depraved state is a welcome piece. The result is known to all.

      Europe is not learning anything. No.
      1. old rocket man
        old rocket man April 26 2013 17: 15 New
        +1
        Quote: Old Skeptic
        Mistake, Rome fell from being mired in vice and luxury and the Romans ceased to serve in the army and began to hire barbarians into this very army, and they too brought them to Rome as a cheap rabsila. A rich and depraved state is a welcome piece. The result is known to all.

        Europe is not learning anything. No.


        That's right, in other words, Rome was destroyed by Gasterabytes.
    5. S_mirnov
      S_mirnov April 26 2013 20: 54 New
      0
      "Roman legions, super-advanced and unaware of defeat, beat wild and scattered barbarian tribes dressed in skins." - do not believe everything that is written in the history books. For about the Roman legionaries and barbarians, this is nonsense from the category of "the fascist army was defeated by hordes of Soviet barbarians." In a large-scale war, the strongest wins.
    6. Botanologist
      Botanologist April 26 2013 23: 00 New
      0
      Quote: We refund_SSSR
      wild and scattered barbarian tribes dressed in skins.


      Well, firstly, everyone who was not Roman was considered barbarians. Including the Vikings, very, very advanced in a quick direct battle, as well as in the siege.
      Secondly, the Romans were often defeated by the stupidity of leadership.
      And thirdly, the guerrilla warfare is not very sensitive to the training of legionaries - a surprise attack does not allow time for deployment in the statutory order.


      On the other hand, regular oysko can do what partisans often cannot - the seizure and retention of large territories and strongholds. So the "war of attrition" on the part of the partisans is a rather controversial tactic in modern warfare at the level of regional conflicts or countries. In addition, the partisans are happy to use MANPADS, remote blasting, which still speaks in favor of technology.
  2. fzr1000
    fzr1000 April 26 2013 08: 22 New
    +2
    Not bad. I would like a similar article from our author.
    1. DimychDV
      DimychDV April 26 2013 16: 17 New
      +2
      YES. and still not bad - a textbook of a modern partisan. angry
      1. jjj
        jjj April 26 2013 16: 34 New
        0
        The science of winning begins with a children's game of war games in the yard, and not at the computer. There, the basics of guerrilla warfare are comprehended. Then special skills are superimposed on these general skills.
  3. Alexander Romanov
    Alexander Romanov April 26 2013 08: 29 New
    14
    There will be no more Iraq and Afghanistan, we tell ourselves
    Well, it’s you who are telling yourself in America there, and the whole world knows that without a warrior your stunted SUSH cannot. what teachers, such students, okay.
    With regards to the perfect modern technology, we once cut the cable and EVERYTHING !!! The whole house sat without an Internet week, that's all technology. The more modern they are, the more vulnerable they are.
    1. DimychDV
      DimychDV April 26 2013 16: 20 New
      0
      Yes, sugar in the tank and a nail on the terminals. And a couple of metalheads in the neighborhood. Yes, they have a non-ferrous metal there that they will be stripped off like a sticky one - without noise and dust. "Sherlock, what does this clear sky above us tell you? .. Yes, that our duralumin tent was communed!"
  4. kotdavin4i
    kotdavin4i April 26 2013 08: 29 New
    +8
    as they say for every cunning Americanos priest - there is a bolt with a left thread ...
    1. alexng
      alexng April 26 2013 09: 54 New
      +5
      It’s better to crank the sausage will be stronger.
      1. kostyan77708
        kostyan77708 April 26 2013 10: 00 New
        +1
        or mace on the head)
        1. alexng
          alexng April 26 2013 13: 37 New
          0
          Nope, the mace is too fast. We must let them experience with delay that which they impose on others in full.
          1. Wedmak
            Wedmak April 26 2013 13: 45 New
            -1
            We must let them experience with delay that which they impose on others in full.

            Aren't you too lazy to spend so much strength? After all, they still don’t understand. Oh, what a hundred years we periodically teach.
          2. DimychDV
            DimychDV April 26 2013 16: 22 New
            +1
            The first step is to burn the convoy with their green toilet paper. Leave it without water for a week or two. They will not drink from the stream!
    2. Corsair5912
      Corsair5912 April 26 2013 12: 59 New
      +3
      As our special forces soldier, who met in a duel with the master of oriental martial arts, describes his "hooligan" style of hand-to-hand fighting:
      - I pretended to want to grab him by the neck, he stood in the position of miri-giri,
      and I kicked him in the balls.
  5. svp67
    svp67 April 26 2013 08: 31 New
    +3
    since “in future conflicts [the ground forces] will play only a secondary role.
    - a very controversial statement. I honestly think that it can work only against a "weak-minded" opponent. That is, one who, even before the outbreak of hostilities, will consider himself a loser. After all, it is not for nothing that it is said that "for every wise man, there is enough simplicity" and a person can always come up with such a move or such countermeasures in which all the most complicated electronic filling will be equivalent, in terms of its fighting qualities, to a "cobblestone" ... and then, as in the good old days, a simple infantryman will again enter the arena ...
    1. alexng
      alexng April 26 2013 13: 39 New
      0
      Quote: svp67
      ... and then, as in the good old days, a simple infantryman will again enter the arena of struggle ...


      With Kalash at the ready.
  6. fenix57
    fenix57 April 26 2013 08: 38 New
    +3
    “I don’t know what kind of weapons the World War III will be waged,” warned President Truman Albert Einstein, “but the Fourth is like sticks and stones.”- Someone else would survive the third world one. And after it will be the first, and not the fourth ...
    After all, it all starts with the fact that:
  7. ICT
    ICT April 26 2013 08: 39 New
    0
    often came across a photo of armored vehicles with hooks against wire stretch marks, but I still didn’t understand this, the troops really encounter this or is it reinsurance (here in the photo are simple)
    1. Soldier
      Soldier April 26 2013 10: 36 New
      0
      And whose flag is on the BRDMs? Romanian in any way? Those are still warriors ...
  8. ICT
    ICT April 26 2013 08: 41 New
    0
    but this one already seems too much
    1. svp67
      svp67 April 26 2013 09: 27 New
      0
      Quote: TIT
      but this one already seems too much

      Sometimes it is better to "over ..." than "not before ..." otherwise you will complain later to God.
  9. igor36
    igor36 April 26 2013 08: 46 New
    +2
    What is low-tech countermeasure? -This is a way to survive in war. Initial knowledge of this can be obtained at any tourist club. Further in the army survival courses. And one moment. The method of counteraction is cheap and simple, but during development it is easy to use data from all over the world via the Internet (production of explosives, mines, disguise, etc.)
  10. Wedmak
    Wedmak April 26 2013 08: 56 New
    14
    Americans, Americans .... It's you, thank God, you have not encountered the Russians in direct hostilities (I remember, of course, Vietnam and other countries, our "consultants", but this is a little off topic). The Germans will confirm that during the Second World War they were afraid of every piece of wire, tk. a current could be connected to it ... And if you anger a Russian peasant ... Guys, let's better live together? smile
  11. Mikhail Topor
    Mikhail Topor April 26 2013 08: 57 New
    +2
    Once again, the truth was confirmed that guerrilla attacks against the regular army are very effective. they certainly won’t lead to victory, but they can pretty much pat and confuse cards.
    in general, I wonder what are the goals of the war in Afghanistan (well, except for the development of the drug trade, and the ephemeral war on terrorism)? they themselves supply terrorists with weapons in other regions, and fight with the same weapons .. doesn’t it remind you of running a dog behind its tail?
    this war is beneficial for us, since destructive forces are distracted by confrontation with NATO forces. do not wake them, we would have been much more difficult.
    1. Atlon
      Atlon April 26 2013 09: 32 New
      +5
      Quote: Mikhail Topor
      Doesn’t it look like a dog running behind its tail?

      Any war is beneficial to the military-industrial complex. And the military-industrial complex in the United States is private. So this run on the spot will go on forever!
    2. Corsair5912
      Corsair5912 April 26 2013 09: 37 New
      +1
      Afghanistan is a large military base of the Yusovites, directed against Iran, India, China and Russia. They spit on terrorists, they did not get into Afghanistan for that, in order to fight them.
      1. DimychDV
        DimychDV April 26 2013 16: 32 New
        0
        That's it! they will plant several Shpien stations there, disguised as hotels or factories. The drug will be sent in all directions. Weapons tossed. The worse the rest, the better for them - that’s all. Although there are some far-reaching nts. These @@ ki love to trample disputed territories along paths, sites - not only geographically, but also legally, and they climb into morality and religion, and not necessarily elephant-like. The steps and moves for the future are important to them. We ought to get so filled up like that - because there’s not enough bitchiness. It seems like it is not pro-Christian. So we guys are awkward ourselves, but in the sense of strategic terrorism, espionage is not very distant ...
    3. Mikhail3
      Mikhail3 April 26 2013 21: 36 New
      0
      You can’t imagine how much money drugs are pumped out of Europe. The idea is really cool - for decades, there they have been giving everyone free money. And now there is a systemic crisis - there is so much money that at any moment not just inflation can start to collapse, but a complete collapse. That is, existing money will be denied trust in general. And the financial oligarchy will lose the instrument of power in a moment, turning into nothing at once. What to do?
      To take money from lazy loafers - Europeans. Then it will be possible to reduce the unsecured money supply by extending the existence of a delusional financial system. Moreover, the Europeans themselves should be thinned out, for the purpose of eugenics - let the crappy heads die, which are conducted at a free dose, it will become easier for everyone and the gene pool will be slightly corrected.
      So the Americans were sent to Afghanistan to poppy to breed and pump out the loot. And if I could ... that's just to pump money - it happened. But, to implement the plan, money must be ... destroyed! But this turned out to be impossible in any way, so the financial system will die anyway. And this little pump will not stop, as long as possible. We are only a passing target here.
      And the article is good. To destroy this entire high-tech war machine, you need people with vast modern knowledge ... and also with a variety of skills and a specific view of the world. Remember - "the Americans spent millions to develop a pen that could write in space. The Russians wrote with pencils." Not because we wrote with them because we knew and knew less than them. We see the world differently ... all our opponents will be destroyed. The more they attack us, the more terrible the retaliation will be. I'm afraid the pullback from psychological warfare will turn Americans into vegetables in the literal sense of the word ...
  12. Corsair5912
    Corsair5912 April 26 2013 09: 34 New
    +2
    In Iraq, American helicopters that had missile defense were shot down by anti-tank grenade launchers, against which the Yusovites had no protection. The stones work well against armored vehicles and infantry in stone throwers. Any high-tech weapon can be opposed to low-tech protection, you just need to think outside the box.
    1. vadimN
      vadimN April 26 2013 10: 49 New
      +3
      Hmm ... Well, sometimes a simple plot comes to my mind as a parody of Hollywood action movies about brave American guys saving the World ... Such a reconnaissance group of brave American guys crawls to the Russian object ... All hung with ultramodern things from electronic, walkie-talkies, jammers, computer for the selection of secret lock codes and other electronic crap ... And then they crawl to the gates of the Russian base, prepare all their tricky electronics to work, but ... they see a three-kilogram rusty barn lock on the gate ... A silent scene. Electronics is powerless.
      1. Igarr
        Igarr April 26 2013 11: 14 New
        +3
        Huh, Vadim. Hey.
        And I saw something else ... ".. And now they crawl to the gates of the Russian base, .." - and the base is open, everything is stolen and sold, bulls everywhere with empty bottles, and on a stick sticking out of the ground an inscription on a piece of paper with a felt-tip pen - "Crawled over? Well, and .. Member .. you."
  13. dark_65
    dark_65 April 26 2013 09: 46 New
    +1
    Auntie is worried about the case, oh, the case, it is enough to recall the faithful students of Tsiolkovsky-Palestinians, their KASAM-HASAM, Jews are steaming for a sweet soul. And if the fitting of their garages is a little better?
  14. erased
    erased April 26 2013 09: 49 New
    +5
    There you go, woman. and looks at the root. True - no experience can be forgotten !!!
    Okay, amers, but ours about the times of the 40s, when they destroyed the bandit underground in western Ukraine and the Baltic states, got such experience in counter-guerrilla and counter-insurgent operations that they surpassed the whole world. But it was a foreign experience - Vietnam, Korea, Asia and Africa.
    But they profiled. And they got Afghan. The Army entered it, imprisoned for a completely different war! And I had to get a new experience on the blood. SWAT had to turn into an assault infantry and look for new methods of confrontation with the Mujahideen. Okay, learned, managed.
    And forgot again! And the experience of AFgan and the experience of the Great Patriotic War. That's all!
    And they got Chechnya. Everyone remembers how armor burned in Grozny? How stupidly went the columns, how untrained boys were thrown into attacks? How much blood was shed only to please the scum from the Kremlin?
    The second Chechnya - they took into account something, managed something. Although stupidity was enough.
    And then it was August 2008. How did the Commander-58 communicate with the satellite telephone of journalists, how did Georgians also beat everyone in the convoy? How was a strategic bomber sent for reconnaissance?
    Praise to Perun and others like him - the Georgians did not dare to fight seriously, dumped. And if not?
    It is considered something shameful and superfluous in us to collect our own and others' experience, to analyze it. Every time we have to pay for the victory with great blood. The soldier, of course, is not the generals or Kremlin sitters.
    And amers, though scum, are cherishing their own and know how to learn from mistakes.
    And how long will this crap last? ..
    1. alexng
      alexng April 26 2013 10: 10 New
      +3
      Yes, the United States does not draw any conclusions from its mistakes. Their hobby is arrogance and completely lack of conscience, that’s all their wisdom. And the more unscrupulous the Yankees, by whom he is more valued by them. Moreover, they simply have this concept, as conscience does not and do not have such a word in their language, but there is only a concept of expediency. Any Amer warrior - this is the type of our urki, who has been sitting in the zone for more than one term.

      President of the United States addressing the nation:
      - Enemies barbarously attacked our planes, peacefully bombing their cities.
    2. DimychDV
      DimychDV April 26 2013 16: 39 New
      0
      Yeah, if only our soldiers would learn how to protect and avenge losses and terrorism, as both Amers and Israelis like to show. If these gavriks spit on any borders for the purpose of such operations - is that really not a precedent for us ??? But our authorities and the military have one answer: women still give birth!
  15. engineer74
    engineer74 April 26 2013 10: 00 New
    +1
    "There will be no more Iraqi and Afghani stances, we tell ourselves, we will not invade or occupy territories with large land forces,"
    Now they have no choice, they will not sit beyond the oceans! And what is guerrilla (terrorist) war in the state? Have they thought about this? NPPs, chemical industry, transport, energy, etc.- a lot of good for the partisan (terrorist). High technology is applicable for an asymmetric response ...
    There was already an innocent joke about the explosions in the White House, but what if the biological alert in New York is announced? How many people will die from panic?
    1. Corsair5912
      Corsair5912 April 26 2013 11: 48 New
      +1
      And what if you disable the power grid in the "stone jungle"? For amerikosov it will be tantamount to a missile and bomb strike, metro, underground passages and every skyscraper will turn into deadly traps. The criminals will immediately take advantage of the situation.
      1. engineer74
        engineer74 April 26 2013 12: 39 New
        0
        That's what I meant. Rejection of the idea of ​​global leadership (robbery, wars, etc.) will lead to a decrease in the level of consumption, and then one spark will be enough for a polls armed, snickering, racially and religiously heterogeneous population. And there will be a line of people who want to set fire to them. The choice of amers, or "high-tech" to fight overseas, or at home.
        1. DimychDV
          DimychDV April 26 2013 16: 43 New
          0
          Do not forget only one thing: the amers seem to be able to hold the blow and always try to give change, and very hard. They also have their own jambs in conducting operations - but we also have them. With us, in tactics. They have - as it were, a strategy (but behind it is the GEOstrategy, in which no blunders are pitiful for those who pull the politicians and the military for strings).
  16. bubla5
    bubla5 April 26 2013 10: 14 New
    0
    All right, global networks are imposing on us, despite the fact that most of them are issued outside of Russia, with X-time everyone can turn off or give a signal at the distortion of information at the same time, and we will all remain deaf and blind, i.e. with stones and sticks
  17. Vorchun
    Vorchun April 26 2013 10: 15 New
    +2
    So in Russia there has been a saying for a long time: - "The need for invention is cunning."
  18. Strashila
    Strashila April 26 2013 11: 39 New
    +2
    “The Taliban, a low-budget but undeniably resourceful adversary, has quickly developed low-tech answers to our high-tech weaknesses.” ... the feeling that the author does not quite understand the essence of the issue that was raised. To begin with, she had to answer, and who taught the Taliban ... the amirikos themselves are right and this lasted not a year or two. The Taliban gained experience in confronting the Soviet army, so much so that the Americans and their allies were just whipping boys.
  19. Corsair5912
    Corsair5912 April 26 2013 12: 04 New
    +5
    The Taliban did not actually fight the Soviet army.
    "The Taliban are an Islamist movement that originated in Afghanistan among the Pashtuns in 1994, ruled Afghanistan from 1996 to 2001 (Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan) and the Waziristan region in northern Pakistan (Islamic State of Waziristan) since 2004. Diplomatically recognized three states: the United Arab Emirates, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.
    The UN Security Council is considered a terrorist organization. "
    The USSR withdrew troops from Afghanistan in 1989.
    Soviet troops did not fight with Afghanistan, they provided technical support to the troops and security services of Afghanistan in the fight against foreign mercenaries and Pashtun terrorists, armed and trained by USAA. The same scenario as in Libya and now in Syria.
  20. Vtel
    Vtel April 26 2013 13: 22 New
    +1
    However, in Einstein's warning words one detail is missing: despite all our technical development, the war never went beyond simple sticks and cameos, and even today their destructive power remains surprisingly wealthy.

    All ingenious is simple, and then it becomes overgrown with "camouflage", but the essence remains the same. Therefore, the Russian Warrior often won in all wars with his ingenuity, using everything that is at hand and even a stick. But the Americans without a laptop and satellites are another question. The barbarians are so terrible that they are not in Western logic and it is not clear what to expect from them! In a word, children of nature.
  21. Standard Oil
    Standard Oil April 26 2013 13: 30 New
    -1
    Such a decentralized country like Afghanistan is not easy to defeat, what is the point for them that the aggressor will occupy Kabul, but forgive them the pardon, they will crawl out of their holes at night and attack supply columns, etc. Unfortunately, there are only 2 options: this is or the final solution of the Afghan issue by Uncle Adolf's method, like we surround the village and stupidly cut out everyone in a row, the second method is offered by kind uncle Harry Truman, this is a total nuclear bombardment of the entire country, no sticks will help against a nuclear missile, and for some reason I am sure that Germany will win at 2 MV, then if the Nazis had problems with Afghanistan, then they would stand one fine morning between brushing their teeth and having breakfast and press the button to launch nuclear missiles, totally destroy the "obstacle", and in the evening they would fall asleep as a baby without remorse. the whole world community would fold their opinions into a lump and shove them in one place. There are at least 2 countries that can do the same and solve the problem once and for all Always, and liberal girls, making noise on the street about the bloody regime, will come home and tell in the kitchen that these monkeys need so much. This is me saying that Afghanistan is "invincible" until no one really wants to defeat it.
    1. DimychDV
      DimychDV April 26 2013 16: 49 New
      0
      So amers were convinced of this! We just need to trade with Afghanistan, again to teach their students or mechanics there, and to eliminate all spy bookmarks in the mountains and cities for money and weapons through field commanders. and act the same way against drugs.
  22. jjj
    jjj April 26 2013 17: 04 New
    0
    Let's try to shoot from a machine gun, let's say a NATO one, with a collimator-type sight and from a Kalashnikov rifle with a conventional open sight. In the first case, you only see one target. And you get into it. But you cannot see what is happening from the target to the left and right, top and bottom. In a real battle, you are already dead too. When you shoot with a Kalashnikov, you see the whole panorama of the shelling sector. And you will have time to shoot at another target first, or you will protect yourself from defeat. In addition, the devices make it possible to detect quite well the "pieces of glass" from the enemy's optics. And that means covering these places with fire. That is why having fighters in the front lines who know how to hit targets with weapons with conventional sights is an important prerequisite for success. Shooter training should be conducted from childhood. First - pneumatics. Hundreds of shots. Then, in adolescence, small-bore rifles. At seventeen, you have to be able to get out of the Kalashnikov. So that after all this, in the presence of natural data, it is not so difficult to become a "Mark" - a month of daily training in shooting is enough, with a daily consumption of about a magazine of cartridges. And here you will not need to carefully target. You aim the barrel at the target, short burst. The target is hit. Kalashnikov's peculiarity to some dispersion plays into your hands
  23. knn54
    knn54 April 26 2013 17: 42 New
    0
    In Libya, they moved to jeeps with heavy machine guns. And try to get into an SUV for 5-10 thousand dollars with a homing missile / bomb for 100-300 thousand dollars.
  24. darksoul
    darksoul April 26 2013 18: 05 New
    0
    About two years ago I read an article, the meaning: the correspondent communicates with the Taliban and as a result, the Taliban admits that the Russians were soldiers and the Americans .......

    The Americans only rely on high-precision weapons if something goes wrong about what happened in the Afghan prison for prisoners of war, a riot took place and the Taliban killed the guards and seized the weapons warehouse, as a result, the American special forces stormed the prison, got it ... and retired, then Americans with high-precision bombs 3 times tried to blow up the prison and there were three misses and not + - a few meters and the bombs exploded on the devil's pies, as a result, they decided to flood the prison .... a very interesting report was ... I don’t remember the name of anyone interested in YouTube hanging

    My opinion: all this is good, but it’s better to hold a stick behind your back, where the compass will help stall)))
  25. old rocket man
    old rocket man April 26 2013 18: 38 New
    0
    The strength and advantage of the partisans is that they fight not in order to survive or win, but in order to inflict maximum damage to the enemy. Therefore, it is impossible to defeat them, destroy them, yes, but at what cost? Is the opposite side always ready to pay such price for victory?
    And the aunt is right.
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov April 26 2013 18: 44 New
      0
      And the "forest brothers" and the OUN at what cost won?
  26. Drosselmeyer
    Drosselmeyer April 26 2013 18: 53 New
    0
    The author of the article is fundamentally wrong. Throw modern MANPADS, explosives, communications, etc. to the Taliban. and losses to the American will grow by several orders of magnitude. While this fight with sticks against the "Apaches is sluggish. The Taliban know that the Americans will soon leave the country, and the Americans have local control in the country and also understand that the troops will sooner or later be withdrawn.
  27. Ak 12
    Ak 12 April 26 2013 20: 29 New
    0
    Consider the very recent experience of the United States in Afghanistan. The United States entered the battlefield with overwhelming technological superiority, and at the same time new weaknesses. The Taliban, low-budget, but no doubt resourceful, the enemy, quickly developed low-tech responses to our high-tech weaknesses.
    Unable to prevail in direct confrontation with US troops, the Taliban, for example, began to resort to the use of improvised explosive devices (IEDs), made of scrap materials and powered by mobile phones. In response, we began to install expensive cellular silencers on cars, designed to prevent the detonation of IEDs from a long distance, when our troops drove alongside them. Often, such silencers disrupted our own communications systems. Their use led the Taliban to use IEDs with a mechanical fuse. We responded to this by equipping our troops with a subsurface radar designed to detect the signature of the metal components of the VCA. To which the Taliban responded by further improving sticks and stones, creating an IED of push action from foam rubber, plastic and wood.


    Each weight has its own counterweight.
  28. Bosk
    Bosk April 27 2013 19: 17 New
    0
    If someone walked through the kishlah then he knows .. but n
    shoots until you move ...