Nato puzzled by Afghan army’s demands for tanks

[Juice]

We need nothing from NATO/US they should only allow us to have full authority of $4.1 bln/year military aid; we will buy them ourselves.

It's never a bad idea to let the guys on the ground decide what they need.

 

[Spring Onion]

Highly unlikely IF offensive military weapons would be left behind.

Most of the weapons afghanistan might procure in coming years would be with US permission from third parties, I don't believe russians are in mood to entertain afghanistan armed forces mostly equipment might come from US EDA stocks and other older equipment from NATO allies.

Again the procurement needs massive funds and if provided by US it will be indeed mostly from US Cos but again depending on the trust they will put in any govt in Afghanistan.

it all depends again on how all parties in Afghanistan behave since US wont want these used against each others.

it will need atleast 3 years to monitor the situation before allowing such weapons

 

[Luftwaffe]

it will need atleast 3 years to monitor the situation before allowing such weapons

I Agree, Nothing major is coming before 2017, as I posted C-27A spartan deal is also scrapped by US.

 

[MilSpec]

Afghanistan doesn't need tanks. They just need IFVs and proper soldier equipment.

Also take away all the artillery they have.

Why? why take away all arty...

 

[EagleEyes]

Why? why take away all arty...

They have been miss using it against Pakistan.

 

[MilSpec]

They have been miss using it against Pakistan.

Is it a unilateral accusation, as bilateral issue or are there demands for a UN inquiry to validate pakistan claims here too.

Afghanistan need heavy weaponry to ensure pakistan doesn't violate it's sovereignty once ISAF leaves, with the 5th/7th largest standing army standing next door, it's imperative for Afghanistan to secure it's interests.

 

[EagleEyes]

Is it a unilateral accusation, as bilateral issue or are there demands for a UN inquiry to validate pakistan claims here too.

Afghanistan need heavy weaponry to ensure pakistan doesn't violate it's sovereignty once ISAF leaves, with the 5th/7th largest standing army standing next door, it's imperative for Afghanistan to secure it's interests.

Afghanistan needs to worry about the Taliban and not Pakistan. Pakistan is the key player for stability in Afghanistan, without Pakistan... Afghanistan will be in **** loads of trouble. Karzai and co know better.

 

[Luftwaffe]

or are there demands for a UN inquiry to validate pakistan claims here too.

Afghanistan need heavy weaponry to ensure pakistan doesn't violate it's sovereignty once ISAF leaves, with the 5th/7th largest standing army standing next door, it's imperative for Afghanistan to secure it's interests.

Why did hindustan refuse when Pakistan asked for UN inquiry into recent LOC skirmish.

Who will pay for heavy weaponry why should US spend on afghanistan after leaving. AFAIK even the promised development $20B fund to afghnistan is no where.

 

[MilSpec]

Afghanistan needs to worry about the Taliban and not Pakistan. Pakistan is the key player for stability in Afghanistan, without Pakistan... Afghanistan will be in **** loads of trouble. Karzai and co know better.

I agree to what you said is the role of pakistan, but if security policies were just based on rhetoric, there would be lot lesser militarization around this part of the world. Apart from that from prior experience, there are reasons for the surrent afghan government to doubt the rhetoric of pakistan vis-a-vis peace and stability.

As far as arty guns are concerned, I am sure you are more than aware why they are needed in COIN operations, I am sure your FC operates a few too, don't they. Apart from that there is an extensive need for air support vehicles, surveillance vehicles, medivac vehices, IFV's, APC (Just like 500 of them given to pakistan under EDA), Light armored vehicles, and a sustainable security infrastructure.

Why did hindustan refuse when Pakistan asked for UN inquiry into recent LOC skirmish.

Who will pay for heavy weaponry why should US spend on afghanistan after leaving. AFAIK even the promised development $20B fund to afghnistan is no where.

Well, hindustan has a Shimla agreement which bounds the two nation to solve it's issues bilaterally, I dont recall any such agreemnets between the afghan-pak govt's. Apart from that India didn't call for Un intervention, pakistan did, hence my question if pakistan did the same with border skirmish between Pak-Afg

 

[EagleEyes]

I agree to what you said is the role of pakistan, but if security policies were just based on rhetoric, there would be lot lesser militarization around this part of the world. Apart from that from prior experience, there are reasons for the surrent afghan government to doubt the rhetoric of pakistan vis-a-vis peace and stability.

As far as arty guns are concerned, I am sure you are more than aware why they are needed in COIN operations, I am sure your FC operates a few too, don't they. Apart from that there is an extensive need for air support vehicles, surveillance vehicles, medivac vehices, IFV's, APC (Just like 500 of them given to pakistan under EDA), Light armored vehicles, and a sustainable security infrastructure.

Artillery should be limited and tanks should no way be given.

These weapons could be used against Pakistan later in case Taliban takes over. This what happened after the Soviets where Taliban were rolling tanks like Mercedes Benz.

 

[MilSpec]

Artillery should be limited and tanks should no way be given.

These weapons could be used against Pakistan later in case Taliban takes over. This what happened after the Soviets where Taliban were rolling tanks like Mercedes Benz.

I agree, there might not be any need for tanks, what they need is IFV's APC, Light armored vehicles, Air support systems, and survellence equipment. Apart from that there will be a huge requirement of logistical vehicles aswell. US EDA inventory needs to mke it's way into Afghanistan, and I am sure to ensure minimal protests from pakistan, US will be generous with pakistan EDA/FMA/WoT funds too.

 

[Gentelman]

I agree, there might not be any need for tanks, what they need is IFV's APC, Light armored vehicles, Air support systems, and survellence equipment. Apart from that there will be a huge requirement of logistical vehicles aswell. US EDA inventory needs to mke it's way into Afghanistan, and I am sure to ensure minimal protests from pakistan, US will be generous with pakistan EDA/FMA/WoT funds too.

the afghan really need those all bt first of all they need a real army,training etc...
at the present stage they r just like dogs trained a little by US against talibans...with out any discipline....
without this the will be crushed by talibans and warloads as soon as NATO will leave....
wt they need now is training reforms.....
with good APCs and light weaponary.....
i support strong Afhhan Army fully trained having heavy artillery and tanks...
bt training comes first...

 

[rohailmalhi]

Damn they should be puzzuled and worried .Afghans are killing the allied soldier with their guns what will they be capable of when they have mother of all guns .

They gonna roast them up .

 

[Juice]

Artillery should be limited and tanks should no way be given.

These weapons could be used against Pakistan later in case Taliban takes over. This what happened after the Soviets where Taliban were rolling tanks like Mercedes Benz.

At the behest of Pakistan

Damn they should be puzzuled and worried .Afghans are killing the allied soldier with their guns what will they be capable of when they have mother of all guns .

They gonna roast them up .

Oh no! We be scardey lardz!

 

[RabzonKhan]

It's never a bad idea to let the guys on the ground decide what they need.

You are right, but we need to make sure that the guys are honest and capable, after all it is our (taxpayers) money.