Ever since The Times set the hare running last Friday, with its report that "British Army chief ready to send 2,000 more troops to Afghanistan", there has been a rush of derivative stories speculating on this theme.

However, despite its misleading headline, proclaiming "Extra troops confirmed by Dannatt", The Independent report was closer to the truth, citing a "Downing Street spokesman" who said that a decision had not yet been taken. Crucially, though, the paper added as a tailpiece to its story, "There is a series of discussions to be had and they have a political dimension, a financial dimension and a military dimension."

View full article here

The 'Dragon Gun' story in the Sunday Times reads like something pinched from one of my 'Victor' annuals. Perhaps next week we'll hear about repulsing the Taliban from the gates of Kandahar with just the skirl of the pipes and a dynamite filled football. I eagerly await the next episode.

Next thing, they re-enact it for the Royal Tournament. The Yanks must be scratching their heads in amazement.

Talk about MOD gibberish being repeated in what are supposed to be 'quality broadsheet' newspapers !!

'British commandos, we are told, have hauled a two-ton artillery gun up a 130ft cliff by hand to protect a vital strategic outpost in Afghanistan, the 105mm gun having been dismantled and rebuilt at the summit of a rocky outcrop, known as the Roshan Tower,'

I did seven years in the Royal Artillery (TA). Even a first year trainee gunner is taught that artillery is normally deployed as an 'indirect fire' weapon. What on earth was this artillery piece doing at the top of the Roshan Tower. It's irrelevant whether it was manhandled into place or helilifted. What are they doing ? Engaging the Taliban over open sights like a German 88mm engaging Allied tanks in the last war (yes, anti-tank guns are direct fire weapons) ? All they had to do is to get one NCO or officer to act as a 'Forward Observer' (or whatever new name they call it these days) with a radio on the RA frequency. The artillery pieces can then be up to approx 17K away (10.5 Imperial miles) or if they have the barrels for firing the longer range specialist UK ammo system fitted 24K (15 real miles). This must be the most ridiculous artillery deployment of all time.

It is on a par with 25pdr's (an indirect fire artillery piece) firing anti tank rounds over open sights at Japanese light tanks in Malaya. The 25pdr's were used because there were no anti tank guns with the troops in Malaya as the British high command denied the Jap's had tanks !!

No wonder Treasury officials are having difficulty being persuaded by the MOD that there is a case for funding further deployments of resources in Afghanistan. If this is an example of an Army deployment in Afghanistan, one that the Army thinks is praiseworthy and is boasting about to the Press, then I can see the reasons for the Treasury to be concerned. It is a ridiculous deployment. The Treasury should not give any more 'toys' to the command in Afghanistan untill they can show that they have overcome their dementia and are safe with their existing toys.

You'll find that the story is now being covered on the MOD news website, so obviously some muppet in media ops thinks it's great. And yes the gun is being used in the direct fire role.

I personally think that it illustrates the lack of direct fire support available to the fellas on the ground. Would this be necessary if there was a sqn of Challengers in theatre or even a fire spt variant of Warrior - say with a 90-105mm gun. The Aussies did this in Vietnam with a Scorpion turret on an M113.

Yes, I would agree ... we need a medium tank ... the Chally is too big and cumbersome. Something like a Sherman Firefly would be ideal ... with grousers for wet conditions, when needed.

Strictly, on a historical point, the 25pdr was meant to have a backup anti-tank role, it had better penetration than the current a/t weapon in 1941. Of course that's supposed to be an emergency ability, but it was widely used in the desert too. It was modified to improve the a/t ability with a muzzle brake and supercharge cartridges. They used the Bofors 40mm for a/t too, occasionally.

The Aussie M113 had a Saladin turret.

I've frequently said they are replaying WW1 out there. Pre September 1916. Couldn't we find some Leopard 1s, that would be about right.

"Insurgents, we are told, are capable of striking at will almost anywhere in Afghanistan. The country's future has never looked more bleak and any sense that the Afghan war was a boy's own military adventure has now ended."

Wait a second! How can they be capable of striking at will anywhere in Afghanistan? They haven't got helicopters!

Whichever way they're doing it, it must be a terrible waste of manpower for the Taliban! Someone in Russia or China had better sell them some choppers so they can do it efficiently!

Sorry had to say that for comedy effect! ;)