Terrorism is Nobody's Monopoly

HP check Dr. Sohail`s board. I posted that pic for you and also on your UP thread resized smaller.

After all, what`re friends for ...

#176 by HP

HP I think you may be wrong here. Stingers are shoulder-fired missiles, and do not require launchers. Moreover, these are effective at relatively high altitudes.

It was because of the stingers alone that the soviets were defeated in Afghanistan.

But you`re right about no name fool being a Nabaaligh khasi ...

Just infuriating you know ...

#178 by zeemax
“I think you may be wrong here. Stingers are shoulder-fired missiles,”

I think you are tired after so many posts today. Just relax. How are you going to laucnh a missile w/o a launcher shoulder fired or not? Do a Google for stringer. You will find the info.

Dotty abhi Nabaaligh haa iss per hath dehala rakhoo jab jawan ho jaiya gaa tau dekhan gaiN…

#180 by HP

No of-course they require a launching mechanism but it is shoulder-carried. Ok so I get your point. US didn`t provide those launchers and just the missiles.

Got it. Sorry I mistook what you meant as tripod based launchers.

#176
HP:
Americans never provided more than 15 to 20 launchers and they were either bought back or are in Pak army’s possession.
The following is an except from ``Bear Trap`` by Mohammad Yousaf (ISI Afghan cell chief under Akhtar Rehman)
http://www.sovietsdefeatinafghanistan.com/beartrap/english/15.htm
``The agreement with the Americans was for an annual allocation of 250 grip-stocks, together with 1000-1200 missiles``

You have an annual allocation of 1200 missiles (thus about 3000-4000 missiles totally)and just 20 launchers? even us macaca`s are not so stupid.

For Zeemax:
HP I think you may be wrong here. Stingers are shoulder-fired missiles, and do not require launchers.
http://www.janes.com/defence/air_forces/news/jlad/jlad001013_2_n.shtml

``A Stinger system comprises the launcher assembly with a missile, a grip-stock, an IFF interrogator and an argon gas Battery Coolant Unit (BCU) (which consists of the squib activated argon gas coolant unit and electrical generating chemical battery).
The launcher assembly consists of a glass fibre launch tube with frangible end covers, a sight, desiccant, coolant line, gyro-boresight coil and a carrying sling. A detachable grip-stock which has a receptacle for the BCU is fitted with an IFF connector. The grip-stock is also fitted with an impulse generator (BCU energised), a seeker head uncage bar, a weapon launch trigger, an AN/PPX-1 IFF interrogator switch and a foldable antenna and control electronics for the missile gyro.
The missile has a two-stage, three-phase rocket motor. A separable launch motor ejects the missile followed by an advanced `boost-sustain` motor which provides high supersonic speed and agility out to maximum range. In its FIM-92A version it is fitted with a second-generation cooled passive IR conical scan reticle seeker head with discrete electronic components to provide signal processing. They process the IR energy received from the target in the 4.1 to 4.4 µm wavelength region to determine its relative angle and then, by using a proportional navigation guidance technique, continually predict an intercept point.``

#182 that is a lot of technical information for the fool (and no not HP)....

however, both of them need to enroll for a reading comprehension 101 course

FIM-92 Stinger and launcher

#182 by bongdongs
Yes yes. You don`t have to rub it in. Stingers do require a launching mechanism but it is light and shoulder carried. I got HP`s point that the Americans did not provide so many launchers so the 500 missiles would have been useless without them.

But the question intensifies. If the Pak army sold the stingers, who would have bought them without the launchers? And if they didn`t sell them, where are they?

In the end it proves my point. The Americans blew them up because Paks did have a few launchers as HP has stated.

#184 by bongdongs

LoL .. try wiki ...

ah well, its here:

FIM-92 stinger and launcher

Real beuties aren`t they?

#185

if you ask me Stingers were too precious a resource for Pakistani Army to sell. I would think that Pakistan supplied the systems to only their most trusted ally (Hekmatyar). For instance Masood is said to have received only 8 missiles and 1 launcher. This was done so that the Pakistani army could retain a large number of the systems as they passed through Ojhri and reaquire them back from Hekmatyar once the war was over.

Pakistan`s rapid development of the Anza MANPAD in the early 90`s also has some relevance to the story.

Somehow, when it is convienint the chinese are great friends and name dropping is the name of the game. at other times they are forgotten. Surely there must some quid pro quo somewhere for all the chinese help, one point the study of the cruise missile wihch fizzled. There surely must be other instances where pakistan provided the help.

This was also the time when Clinton etc were under pressure to pull the plug on china, the taiwan straits tensions, etc etc.

#190

as a corollary, I think Rocca`s reacquizition program failed because Pakistan already had its own program going long before Rocca got there.