What's new

No military in the world can match up to Pakistan Army: Gen Raheel

Other then being dragged all over Svensker by my spazzy lady, I'm doing good.

How're you?

Your girl ? Who said Freyja is your girl ! :mad:

Or are you telling me that you've been eating all them chocolates, rose cupcakes and lemon kisses I've been sending her just so she'd agree to go out with me ? :o:

Damn it....I knew it...never trust a redhead who sports purple hair ! :(

Especially when her other half looks like shes wearing a multi-colored candy floss for a wig ! :tongue:

I'm doing alright.....you know me....pubs, clubs and some clubs again ! :D

But gawd is it hard as hell to wake up at 7 in the morning for a class when you've been out till 4 last night ! :tsk:

I think Redbull has to be man's finest creation ! :agree:
 
.
Given the progress of the Afghan military and police, I'd say ISAF has done a proper job. They can stand on their own now. But your conception of ISAF is skewed.
Yes I agree with you...But for the time the hashish or weed is not available, they can stand on their own :lol:
 
. .
Generally i dont make too many posts but i have been seeing too many emotional immatures lately mods should look at this including those jumpy neighbors
 
.
I have seen posts like this on this forum way too many times. You know ISI the best intelligence agency in the world. Something to cheer your self.
 
.
Who you sided with is immaterial. You were used as a tool that is it. Also, since China and USSR had a conflict going on, I can't imagine how you could have sided with both. Don't be under the delusion that your military in anyway could have withstood USSR military. They could have (and still can, if you consider Russia) steam rolled you to the ground, scrapped you up and they again steam rolled you to the the ground.

This episode reminds me of musharaf claiming pakistan to be superior in space technology than india after re-positioning and renaming a defective satellite...

We were used as a tool because we allowed ourselves to be used as a tool, we were under the impression that the US were champions of peace and prosperity instead of being nothing more than a war mongering nation which is very clear today but it wasn't at that point in time, siding with the US was the biggest blunder we ever made in history.

Regarding China and the USSR having a "conflict" going on, I'm sure it was nothing compared to the conflict with the west and we still managed to create such a blossoming and brotherly relations with China even though we were in he capitalist corner so I think it wouldn't have made that much of a difference.

If they "could have" then why didn't they? over a decade of war they were made to retreat back to where they came from against a coalition of Pakistan's Army and Afghan Mujahideen, I'm not going to argue with an Indian on this fact, USSR's conventional armed forces were present for over a decade, waged a way and retreated without any gains at all, your could or if theories did not happen.

That same coalition later outwitted and defeated the US led coalition.

It was us but look how that turned out in the end... I think USSR might have been a far better ally than Baba America...

Yes it was a big blunder, I agree with you.
 
.
We were used as a tool because we allowed ourselves to be used as a tool, we were under the impression that the US were champions of peace and prosperity instead of being nothing more than a war mongering nation which is very clear today but it wasn't at that point in time, siding with the US was the biggest blunder we ever made in history.

Regarding China and the USSR having a "conflict" going on, I'm sure it was nothing compared to the conflict with the west and we still managed to create such a blossoming and brotherly relations with China even though we were in he capitalist corner so I think it wouldn't have made that much of a difference.

If they "could have" then why didn't they? over a decade of war they were made to retreat back to where they came from against a coalition of Pakistan's Army and Afghan Mujahideen, I'm not going to argue with an Indian on this fact, USSR's conventional armed forces were present for over a decade, waged a way and retreated without any gains at all, your could or if theories did not happen.

That same coalition later outwitted and defeated the US led coalition.



Yes it was a big blunder, I agree with you.
You are completely unaware of world history. "capitalists" befriended "communists" just because there was fighting between 2 communists. and pakistan befriended china because china and india were fighting. There was no other reason for US to befriend china.

USSR owned all the coalition and ate them for break-fast militarily. It withdrew because it realized how stupid Afghan communist party was. USSR knew revolution takes time but Afghan commies wanted everything done overnight. As one USSR diplomat put it, they were trying to teach communism to USSR. It was this disagreement that lead them to break up and withdraw. Not the puny militaries and "mujahideens" that you are referring... don't be under any illusion that your military is of any consequence, back then or even today.
I don't understand the logic behind your army's statement. Your army, which never cared for civilian govt ever before and made the decisions by itself on virtually everything, suddenly decided to obey NS order to pull back from Kargil? how can that kind of army be "best military" in the world?
 
.
What about US Armed Forces?
Forget about others .Saddam boasted the same thing and in fact he was right .His Army was really good.But all it takes a few sorties of B series bombers .
You can be strong only if you have technology .Genghis khan ruled most of the world because of new tech at that time.

I think you are calculating in direct comparison. what he said is about the skills and achievements. US with all B series bombers, missiles gunships and the most high tech weapons and intelligence, faile to defeat all Taliban infact 50% of Afghanista is practically under Taliban control. they cannot go out from kabul red zone even.

on the other side the whole border area has been cleaned by Pakistan army and there are ground radars and checkposts to stop any possible insurgency.
 
.
If you are talking of Conventional warfare then there are MANY Armies
more powerful than Pakistan Army INCLUDING Indian Army

Indian Army's performance in Kargil and Siachen has been BETTER than Pakistan Army

And as far non conventional war is concerned
Indian Army has Never used heavy artillery or Air power while fighting insurgents in Kashmir
and North East

We used IAF Only once in 1966 in the North East state of Manipur
 
.
What new tech did Genghis Khan posses? :omghaha:

Hi,

The Mongol Composite bow------had the advantage of the longest shooting range of any bow for centuries to come----.

And to top i t off----the archer would use it on full gallop from the back of his / hers horse----.

Whereas---the like of english long bow---one end had to be planted on the ground----and still it was weaker.

Enjoy a part of the article---and click on the link to read all of it

"
The Mongol bow is not as large and long as the English one, but it is vastly more powerful. The draw weight of an English longbow averages around 70-80 pounds, whereas the Old Mongol bow had a pull that, according to George Vernadsky, averaged at around 166 pounds. Chambers states that the pull varied from 100 to 160 pounds. This seeming discrepancy certainly reflects the fact that draw weight varied with the strength of the user, and with what use the bow had been made for. As could be expected, there was a considerable difference in shooting range. Whereas the English longbow could shoot at distances up to 250 yards or around 228 meters, the Mongol counterpart can hit its target at 350 yards or 320 meters and, if the archer is well trained for the task, even beyond that.

There are people who claim that the Old Mongols could shoot and hit their target over truly astonishing distances. Gongor Lhagvasuren, Deputy Director at the Mongolian National Institute of Physical Education, has written an article called "The stele of Chinggis Khan." There, Lhagvasuren refers to an ancient inscription on a stone found in the basin of the river Kharkiraa, a left tributary of Urlengui river which flows into the trans-Bajkal river Erdene. The text of the inscription, supposedly dated from 1226, may be interpreted as follows: "While Chinggis Khan was holding an assembly of Mongolian dignitaries, after his conquest of Sartaul (East Turkestan), Esungge shot a target at 335 alds" (536m). Lhagvasuren draws the conclusion in his article that such feats were rather common for Mongolian archers during the 1200's, and writes: "This case illustrates the strength, accuracy and sharpness, physical prowess of the Mongolians who lived more than 700 years ago." Whether or not we find it likely that Mongolian archers could regularly hit their targets at the distances Lhagvasuren claims they could, there is no question that they and their and bows are outstanding in all of archery's history.

When we take a closer look at the Mongolian bow, we see that it is an intriguing construction indeed. The backbone of the bow is a wooden frame, which will typically be birch, because that wood is resilient and is also readily available. The total length of the frame is 150-160 cm. When the bow is unstrung, it looks like a semi-circle with a beautifully curvaceous shape, but when a string is attached the whole thing is stretched out so that its limbs are bent inward. Even so, these limbs with string attachments are bent slightly away from the archer, forming a double curve. It is this double curve that delivers explosive acceleration and awesome velocity to the arrow. From these limbs or bends of the bow behind the string attachments where the impact is greatest, the frame is covered with elongated and flattened pieces of mountain sheep's (or other wild or domesticated ungulate's) horn or/and bone which adds snapping power to the resilient wood in the frame. These hard parts form a layer that covers the whole area of the so-called belly, which is the part between the grip and the limbs. Chambers describes how the back parts of the bow, nearest the archer, were those covered with horn and/or bone while the sinew layer was applied to the outer side.

The reader will have noticed that I use the term horn and/or bone. This is because the precise details of how the bows were built could vary over the Siberian area, although the main features are clear. The bone elements, when added, are no more than a small part at the center of the bow, and may originally have served mainly ornamental and possibly magical purposes ".

http://www.coldsiberia.org/monbow.htm


As we understand, high-quality Mongolian bowmaking is certainly a most impressive craftsmanship. When the wooden frame, and the horns/bone parts are ready, the sinewing can take place. First the tendons have to be dried. After that, they are crushed until they form a mass of loose fibers. Next, this mass is mixed with fish glue to form a solid but not rigid layer. It is important to apply the correct thickness and amount of sinew, and it is done in a two-stage process with some days in between. Too little makes the bow weaker, too much would make it stiff. When completed the layer of sinew could be as thick as a human finger before drying. Sinew has a peculiar quality: Unlike other materials, its strength increases when subject to stretching or impact. This form of elasticity is a property stemming from the molecular structure of the protein of tendons (collagen), and can be seen as another striking demonstration of the innate superiority of natural solutions and materials. When used in a Mongolian composite bow, the effect is that as the horn plates in the front snap back to their former shape, the sinew layer in front contracts in the same split-second, adding further acceleration to the shot as the arrow is propelled forward.
 
Last edited:
.
Too bad Pakistan military cannot use these "synergies" on drones and other violations of Pakistan's sovereignty.

So U thought it mandatory to put in some oil with regards to the burning issue nowadays in Pakistan and expected a massive response from Pakistanis on this matter? Plz read the complete post first and then comment that in what context we are talking here.

We are hearing it from pretty long time now. I don't know they say on what basics?
On Basis of the reasons given below:

http://tribune.com.pk/story/953303/over-last-9-months-70-decline-in-terrorist-attacks-in-pakistan/

http://dunyanews.tv/en/Pakistan/285357-Pakistan-tops-list-of-countries-observing-decrease
 
.
The general of the Madagascar army said the same thing. Back in those days when army first invaded waziristan, there was this 1 km road full of dead corpses and burned armor vehicles. You want to know general to whom the corpses belong? The video may still be there at archive.org
 
.
You are completely unaware of world history. "capitalists" befriended "communists" just because there was fighting between 2 communists. and pakistan befriended china because china and india were fighting. There was no other reason for US to befriend china.

USSR owned all the coalition and ate them for break-fast militarily. It withdrew because it realized how stupid Afghan communist party was. USSR knew revolution takes time but Afghan commies wanted everything done overnight. As one USSR diplomat put it, they were trying to teach communism to USSR. It was this disagreement that lead them to break up and withdraw. Not the puny militaries and "mujahideens" that you are referring... don't be under any illusion that your military is of any consequence, back then or even today.
I don't understand the logic behind your army's statement. Your army, which never cared for civilian govt ever before and made the decisions by itself on virtually everything, suddenly decided to obey NS order to pull back from Kargil? how can that kind of army be "best military" in the world?

The fact of the matter is if they "could" or "if" have wiped out Afghan and Pakistan region conventionally then why didn't they? A 10 year war for WHAT? You yourself stated that USSR consumed all and ate all of their coalition for breakfast then why didn't they consumed Pakistan and Afghan coalition? I know being a butthurt Indian really stinks but still at-least don't loose your rationality over it.

I'm done arguing with this idiot.
 
.
So U thought it mandatory to put in some oil with regards to the burning issue nowadays in Pakistan and expected a massive response from Pakistanis on this matter? Plz read the complete post first and then comment that in what context we are talking here.

My comments was mere sarcasm about use of the words "synergies effects". What is this? Article doesn't really explain. This is just corporate double speak to confuse people.
 
.
My comments was mere sarcasm about use of the words "synergies effects". What is this? Article doesn't really explain. This is just corporate double speak to confuse people.

General Raheel was referring to the fight against terrorism and on ground successes achieved by Pak Army in particular and country in general. He never touched upon any conflict with India or anything else.
 
.

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom