Mali mountain battle leaves 13 Chadian soldiers and 65 insurgents dead - Polidicks

[t]http://imgkk.com/i/xl-n.jpg[/t] [url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-21555898[/url] [quote]Thirteen Chadian soldiers and 65 Islamist insurgents have been killed in heavy fighting in a remote part of northern Mali, Chad's military says. It says Friday's clashes occurred in the Ifoghas mountains, where many militants are believed to be hiding.[/quote]

Thanks Hollande

[QUOTE=Dr.Critic;39687050]Thanks Hollande[/QUOTE] It beats the alternative.

Christ, that is one fucked up BTR

I get propaganda wibes from this, the numbers are silly. "good guys versus bad guys fight, good guys lose one shoe, all six thousand bad guys die"

[QUOTE=smeismastger;39688955]I get propaganda wibes from this, the numbers are silly. "good guys versus bad guys fight, good guys lose one shoe, all six thousand bad guys die"[/QUOTE] Eh, I don't know about how Chad trains their soldiers, but when you see stories like that with American or British or whoever troops killing 50-100:1 insurgents, you've got to remember the differences in training and equipment involved. 13 dead vs 65 insurgents isn't even close to the ratios in a lot of the war stories out there.

[QUOTE=urbanmonkey;39688969]Eh, I don't know about how Chad trains their soldiers, but when you see stories like that with American or British or whoever troops killing 50-100:1 insurgents, you've got to remember the differences in training and equipment involved. 13 dead vs 65 insurgents isn't even close to the ratios in a lot of the war stories out there.[/QUOTE] Training doesn't equal experience, the rebel forces have multiple nationalities in them that have been around for a long time in very many conflicts and fights. They know how to fight. Which is why I feel that this article overshoots the numbers, the rebels fight in small but agile groups.

RIP Chad lads.

[QUOTE=smeismastger;39689024]Training doesn't equal experience, the rebel forces have multiple nationalities in them that have been around for a long time in very many conflicts and fights. They know how to fight. Which is why I feel that this article overshoots the numbers, the rebels fight in small but agile groups.[/QUOTE] Well maybe all their guns jammed or something, I dunno. But if I were a propagandist I'd be making the numbers look a lot more interesting than that.

[QUOTE=smeismastger;39689024]Training doesn't equal experience, the rebel forces have multiple nationalities in them that have been around for a long time in very many conflicts and fights. They know how to fight. Which is why I feel that this article overshoots the numbers, the rebels fight in small but agile groups.[/QUOTE] Rebels rarely ever fight against professionally trained soldiers. Most experience they could get is when rebel groups fight between each other or against the Syrian, Libyan, etc. governments. Only a few insurgents survive a battle against a well equipped squad. Even then, insurgent is practically an umbrella term for any potential threat, such as a normal person grabbing a rifle, even if he never held a gun in his life, from a dead friend to defend himself. Great equipment and excellent training does matter, as well as the intelligence of the situation. These are luxuries but they help lean the battle to one side.

[QUOTE=smeismastger;39689024]Training doesn't equal experience, the rebel forces have multiple nationalities in them that have been around for a long time in very many conflicts and fights. They know how to fight. Which is why I feel that this article overshoots the numbers, the rebels fight in small but agile groups.[/QUOTE] It's BBC, why would they skew the numbers? And experience doesn't suddenly mean they get air support, tanks, body armor, and better rifles. When a back-water rebel group is facing down a professionally trained army with modern equipment, who do you think is going to lose?

[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;39689464]It's BBC, why would they skew the numbers? And experience doesn't suddenly mean they get air support, tanks, body armor, and better rifles. When a back-water rebel group is facing down a professionally trained army with modern equipment, who do you think is going to lose?[/QUOTE] Chad doesn't have modern equipment, nor are they trained very well.

[QUOTE=Zambies!;39689500]Chad doesn't have modern equipment, nor are they trained very well.[/QUOTE] [img]http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/66032000/jpg/_66032205_66032200.jpg[/img] not modern at all and they're equipped with everything from AKM's to M-16's to FAMMAS' to G3's. Thats pretty modern in comparison to a bunch of rebels probably carrying AKM's and bolt actions. And from what these pictures show, the doods with AKM's even have rail systems and optics on them. I'd be willing to bet that these numbers aren't skewed.

How many were actually a 'threat' in the battle? I know that 'militant' has been used many, many times as a comfortable blanket term to include civilians along with actual hostile combatants.

[QUOTE=Ticon;39689629]How many were actually a 'threat' in the battle? I know that 'militant' has been used many, many times as a comfortable blanket term to include civilians along with actual hostile combatants.[/QUOTE] Well it was a remote part of Northern Mali, so probably all of them.

[QUOTE=Dr.Critic;39687050]Thanks Hollande[/QUOTE] But he French had nothing to do with t his battle. Hell it's not like Hollande started the war.

[QUOTE=smeismastger;39689024]Training doesn't equal experience, the rebel forces have multiple nationalities in them that have been around for a long time in very many conflicts and fights. They know how to fight. Which is why I feel that this article overshoots the numbers, the rebels fight in small but agile groups.[/QUOTE] but we don't even know anything about the fight, how can you be so certain that the numbers are skewed? the rebels could have been ambushed, the chadian soldiers could have had armoured or air support, or just had technological superiority and larger numbers, lot's of things factor into it

[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;39689563][img]http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/66032000/jpg/_66032205_66032200.jpg[/img] not modern at all and they're equipped with everything from AKM's to M-16's to FAMMAS' to G3's. Thats pretty modern in comparison to a bunch of rebels probably carrying AKM's and bolt actions. And from what these pictures show, the doods with AKM's even have rail systems and optics on them. I'd be willing to bet that these numbers aren't skewed.[/QUOTE] I take back my notion on them being ill-equipped, but their arms list is a mish-mash of tons of different guns.

[QUOTE=Zambies!;39691690]I take back my notion on them being ill-equipped, but their arms list is a mish-mash of tons of different guns.[/QUOTE] Which means what?

[QUOTE=Zambies!;39691690]I take back my notion on them being ill-equipped, but their arms list is a mish-mash of tons of different guns.[/QUOTE] The majority of the lower end ones on the list are from when their most armored vehicles were toyota trucks with DSHK's on the back. I'd assume they'd be using their most modern equipment when fighting.

[QUOTE=redshift2234;39691724]Which means what?[/QUOTE] I'm saying the difference between a Heckler and Koch and a Kalashnikov is a lot different.

[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;39691865]The majority of the lower end ones on the list are from when their most armored vehicles were toyota trucks with DSHK's on the back. I'd assume they'd be using their most modern equipment when fighting.[/QUOTE] Don't underestimate Toyota's with machine guns on the back. They did win the Toyota war after all.

[QUOTE=Zambies!;39691916]I'm saying the difference between a Heckler and Koch and a Kalashnikov is a lot different.[/QUOTE] Doesn't really matter. As long as the soldier using the gun is comfortable with it, he'll fight well. Though a mish-mash of different calibres is a good recipe for a logistical nightmare

[QUOTE=deltasquid;39691938] Though a mish-mash of different calibres is a good recipe for a logistical nightmare[/QUOTE] Hence why I thought it was odd seeing French soldiers use the MP7, since that round is fairly "special" (meaning: not common) and can't easily be supplied on long missions.

[QUOTE=laserguided;39691917]Don't underestimate Toyota's with machine guns on the back. They did win the Toyota war after all.[/QUOTE] True, but I'd take a modern BMP to a toyota with a PKM welded to the back. [editline]23rd February 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Zambies!;39691916]I'm saying the difference between a Heckler and Koch and a Kalashnikov is a lot different.[/QUOTE] A modern AK with a rail system and optics will out perform an AKM without a rail system and optics. You're severely underestimating a modernized AKM's potential.

I read this as "Cadian." I've been playing to much 40K.

--Gone--