This isn't thread to debate wheter or not deployment to Darfur will or won't happen or if it should or shouldn't. I'm wondering exactly what size of force and what type of forces would be needed if a deployment was ordered. Also, what countries have the necessary forces and skill levels to carry out such an operation?
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Darfur Action (attn OOE)
Collapse
X
-
That really depends on the mission, whether it's peacekeeping or peace enforcement ... and whether we choose a side or not.
The traditional peacekeeping op would see 12-25 thousand troops acting as a barrier between the two belligerants. Since this is Africa, the majority of the forces would be Africans with Nigeria taking the lead role. However, only real professional military forces have the experience to cover an area this big. NATO, Russia, China, India, Pakistan, Australia are probably the head candidates for these types of operations though Poland may have just gotten in because of their performance in Iraq commanding a multi-national force. What the UN would ask for is a lead General with the appropriate staff.
The UN will ask for light infantry, mainly because they don't want to pay for mechanized infantry and a transport pool (ie, about 20 trucks, meaning they expect the forces to walk) and forget helicopters.
The deployment schema would be platoon size outposts connecting to a company CP as the main hub in volitile regions. The main job is to observe and in case of trouble, wait for the calvary from the company CP.
You see the problem here. The RRF from company is going to arrive on foot, not exactly rapid in the Rapid Reaction Force (and I'm not going to add in the authorization time).
A more aggressive posture would be what the mercs did in Sierra Leonne. Go hunting the bad guys. This require a smaller force ~300. The main effort would be intel, to locate the bad guys, hopefully before they kill but when the start killing, you found them and you rush forward to engage them. Having superior firepower and superior deployment would make mince meat out of any bad guys in that region. You can't be everywhere but sooner or later, you run out of bad guys to kill. Not quite politically correct in that
1) you don't stop the killings
2) you use the killings to find the bad guys
3) you kill the bad guys without giving them a warm bath and milk and cookies.
4) And you chosed a side (the side who is dying) instead of being neutral.
-
As I understand it Darfur has extremely poor infastructure and almost no roads worth mentioning. This makes a limited operation extremely hard. Te way I see it, and I'm no expert, is that the only way this will stop is if NATO steps in and actually invades Sudan, which is about as likely as the sky turning yellow.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Officer of Engineers3) you kill the bad guys without giving them a warm bath and milk and cookies."Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Wraith601This makes a limited operation extremely hard.
Originally posted by Wraith601Te way I see it, and I'm no expert, is that the only way this will stop is if NATO steps in and actually invades Sudan, which is about as likely as the sky turning yellow.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View PostA more aggressive posture would be what the mercs did in Sierra Leonne. Go hunting the bad guys. This require a smaller force ~300. The main effort would be intel, to locate the bad guys, hopefully before they kill but when the start killing, you found them and you rush forward to engage them. Having superior firepower and superior deployment would make mince meat out of any bad guys in that region. You can't be everywhere but sooner or later, you run out of bad guys to kill. Not quite politically correct in that
1) you don't stop the killings
2) you use the killings to find the bad guys
3) you kill the bad guys without giving them a warm bath and milk and cookies.
4) And you chosed a side (the side who is dying) instead of being neutral.
With the fighting in Sudan being mostly minor conflicts, with small groups shooting at each other, would this system actually be effective enough to wipe our the hostile force?
Comment
-
I've just got some questions... With this smaller force consist of special ops, or just regular infantry?
NATO, Russia, and China are out
NATO and Rusisa would be portrayed as warring agaisnt Islam (again)
China wont jeporadize its energy contracts with Sudan.
Pakistan or indonesia are the best bets, they have proven themselves worldwide in peace ops and are Muslim. But i'd rahter see them in Iraq.
A purely black African force might provoke a war with the Arab north.
sticky sticky sticky
Comment
-
Light infantry vs light armor
Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View PostZraver is right that the Sierra Leone force was mercs based out of South Africa but these are more light motor infantry work than actual SF.
Out of work south African mercs...Reddite igitur quae sunt Caesaris Caesari et quae sunt Dei Deo
(Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's and unto God the things which are God's)
Comment
-
Originally posted by sappersgt View PostIn Sierra Leone except for one Hind gunship they were patrolling with unarmored vehicles (Toyota trucks and Land Cruisers) and helicopters. I think Darfur would require (some) APCs and light armor at a minimum.
South African mercenary.
Back on topic, why would you need APCs in Darfur, unless the Sudanese government intervenes overtly, most of the OPFOR uses AKs and rifles.
Comment
-
Blood Diamond/ Darfur
(Wraith601)On a related note have you seen Blood Diamond? It's set during the Sierra Leone civil war and one of the main characters is a South African mercenary.
The single Hind EO actually used was a nice touch. DiCaprio does a nice Afrikaner (Rhodesian actually), Col Coetzee is really believable.
The bar/disco DeCaprio does "business" in Freetown is (was) a real place! A temporary structure built on a jetty extending out on the beach for tourists it was taken down at high tide and during storm season.
I had to laugh at the dialog line "TIA", which means "This Is Africa"! That and WTA, "Welcome To Africa",were the phases most commonly used when things are really fu(ked up or when you saw something particularly bad.
The movie has a bittersweet ending which I wont spoil for you (think Titanic). An illustration of life in general and Africa in particular.
Back on topic, why would you need APCs in Darfur, unless the Sudanese government intervenes overtly, most of the OPFOR uses AKs and rifles.[/
In Sierra Leone EO used helicopters for intelligence and mobility putting the few troops they had where they needed them the most while simultaneously attacking with the gunship. The Hind proved almost invulnerable.
The rest of their forces patrolled in unarmored trucks and SUVs. In at least two ambushes the EO troops overcame their opponents with superior training, aggressive tactics and above all extensive combat experience.Last edited by sappersgt; 12 Dec 06,, 20:46.Reddite igitur quae sunt Caesaris Caesari et quae sunt Dei Deo
(Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's and unto God the things which are God's)
Comment
-
Originally posted by sappersgt View PostI saw it this weekend. I liked it, it's Hollywood but it's still good. It's filmed on location in Sierra Leone and South Africa (Cape Town, my favorite place), giving you a small idea of how picturesque Africa truly is.
The single Hind EO actually used was a nice touch. DiCaprio does a nice Afrikaner (Rhodesian actually), Col Coetzee is really believable.
The bar/disco DeCaprio does "business" in Freetown is (was) a real place! A temporary structure built on a jetty extending out on the beach for tourists it was taken down at high tide and during storm season.
I had to laugh at the dialog line "TIA", which means "This Is Africa"! That and WTA, "Welcome To Africa",were the phases most commonly used when things are really fu(ked up or when you saw something particularly bad.
The movie has a bittersweet ending which I wont spoil for you (think Titanic). An illustration of life in general and Africa in particular.
Originally posted by sappersgt View PostIf it was me, I wouldn't want to armed at the same level as the OPFOR if I could help it. That's the way you take casualties. In any kind of combat you need some kind edge, whether it's mobility, surprise, concentration of force or technical superiority. I think a light armored force for shock effect and or Helicopter gunships would be just the edge needed.
In Sierra Leone EO used helicopters for intelligence and mobility putting the few troops they had where they needed them the most while simultaneously attacking with the gunship. The Hind proved almost invulnerable.
The rest of their forces patrolled in unarmored trucks and SUVs. In at least two ambushes the EO troops overcame their opponents with superior training, aggressive tactics and above all extensive combat experience.
Comment
Comment