Ammo For Sale

« « And you never do this before they hatch | Home | Gun Porn » »

Why the Taliban sucks at marksmanship

The NYT has a look.

16 Responses to “Why the Taliban sucks at marksmanship”

  1. Shootin' Buddy Says:

    Unpossible! The gun media tells of tales of ancient (aka blind) toothless hilljacks picking off Soviet tankers at 1,300 meters with “rusty, old Lee-Enfields”.

    How can this be? It’s almost as if the gun culture is full of shit or something?

    I’ve been in gun schools where my fellow students have trouble identifying black, full-value metal targets at 300 yards.

    The rule for “long range” shooting when some bloated toad tells you how long the shot was is to divide by at least 3.

  2. The Duck Says:

    Perhaps they hope Allah will guide their rounds

  3. George Says:

    …and, all this time I thought it was they held their guns sideways. No wait! That’s domestic terrorists!

  4. Lyle Says:

    Maybe those at the NYT are disappointed in Taliban performance, and are trying to give them some tips for improvement. “Come on guys– here’s how you should be doing it.”

  5. Ed Rasimus Says:

    Clearly a detailed news report such as that in the prestigious New York Times is the lead-in for a pleading editorial in the weekend edition for the Obama administration to supply quality weapons, reliable ammunition, advanced marksmanship training, the best ACOGs etc. to those poor Taliban. We have to equalize the fight in the interest of fairness to the oppressed people of the world. Oh yeah, and give them healthcare insurance too.

  6. wizardpc Says:

    “this is because we donít embed with the Taliban.”

    Yet, but we’re trying. Mahmoud! Check yer damn blackberry!

  7. DC Handgun Info Says:

    Amen to Lyle’s comment, above. I read the NYT “At War” blog and thought: The Taliban must have friends or supporters in the U.S., who can e-mail/fax/etc. this article back home so that the Taliban can IMPROVE their marksmanship! What was the Times thinking?

    Good grief!

  8. deez Says:

    The people we are fighting are not retards and all the points in the article are pretty obvious. Its not like mahmood reading the NYT is going to make an optomretrist’s office appear on the nearest hillside.

  9. illspirit Says:

    “Its not like mahmood reading the NYT is going to make an optomretristís office appear on the nearest hillside.”


    I would also add that it would probably sting a bit for the Talibananas if they knew they need remedial lessons in gunfighting from the NYT of all places. Seriously. That’s like getting diet advice from Michael Moore.

  10. charles Says:

    That read like an educational filmstrip narration. The slides are there, only the beeps for advancing the show are missing.

  11. straightarrow Says:

    The Hind Mil-24 was one of the toughest helicopters ever built, but the Mujahadeen brought them down in remarkable numbers. They did it mostly with RPG’s. Something that was stated as not likely to be possible by most military experts.

    But it was done, and done a lot. I haven’t read the NYT article, and I really doubt the Taliban needs their help. But nobody ever beat an enemy they consistently underestimated.

  12. AntiCitizenOne Says:

    didn’t we help them by giving them buttloads of stingers instead of RPGs?

  13. straightarrow Says:

    Yes we did. Because it was very difficult to down one with RPG’s as you can imagine. The only way it could be done was to bait a narrow valley with Mujahadeen or supposed Mujahadeen and when the helicopters came in low to kill them shooters in the hills above them would launch their RPG’s into the rotors. Very difficult and very costly to the “bait”. And didn’t always work, but it did work.

  14. Thirdpower Says:

    Contrary to popular opinion and recent movies, a Stinger MANPAD will not make a Hind gunship explode like the death star. It contains a small shaped explosive charge that is more likely to damage an aircraft than down it. The Mujahadeen were notorious for claiming any hit as a ‘kill’.

  15. SebastianWho'llGetHisBlogRunningEventually Says:

    Helos are inherently unstable; especially ones with high torque main rotors while at low airspeeds. Tail rotor failures will result in a downed bird, every time, and even if the copter doesn’t explode like in the movies when hit, if it can’t get power to the tailrotor, it will have to autorotate and descend.

    You’ll notice the helicopter doesn’t explode like the deathstar, but it does have enter autorotation and descend.

  16. nk Says:

    The Spartan boy gets his first from hi mother (that’s how they did it). He says, “It’s short”. She says, “Step closer to the enemy”.