| Submit your comments on this article |
| Iraq |
| US Military Convoys Will Now Stand and Fight |
| 2006-04-03 |
| GRAFENWÖHR, Germany — In a change to Army tactics, U.S. soldiers will stand and fight instead of shooting and pressing on when their convoys are attacked on Iraqi roads, according to Harvey Perritt, spokesman for the Army’s Training and Doctrine Command at Fort Monroe, Va. “In the first two years of Iraq, convoys (under attack) just fired and kept rolling,” said Maj. Roger Gaines, the battalion’s operations officer said Thursday. “That gave bad guys the perception that Americans run away. Now, convoys will stop and engage the enemy.” Yes, this would be nice - the attacked force fights back to hold the asshats in place - while a quick reaction force - supported by attack helicopters and fast movers - closes in from all sides The change is part of Army Chief of Staff Gen. Peter Schoomaker’s underlying philosophy of a more rigorous response to attacks, Perritt said in a telephone interview Thursday. The training is mandatory for all soldiers, regardless of their military occupational specialty. Members of the 1st Armored Division’s 141st Signal Battalion tried out the new policy while practicing live-fire convoys this week at the Grafenwöhr Training Area. Ah, Graf - a true garden spot - second only to my old stomping grounds in "Beautiful Baumholder" “We are training to take the fight to the enemy,” said Gaines, a 45-year-old Portland, Ore., native. “If you stop and fight, you can at least neutralize them or take it to the point that they disengage.” How about something simpler,like: "Kill then where they stand"? I like these sorts of initiatives. RLTW! |
| Posted by:Lone Ranger |
| #30 WOT? 10 years ago, the government of Algeria launched search and destroy operations against the killers of Christian monks. Now there government is being forced to adopt kill-abandoners legislation, like the Neo-Talibanis tried to enforce in Afghanistan. Real WOT progress. For those who actually visited the WTC pre-911, this will be interesting: http://en.france-echos.com/?p=48 |
| Posted by: Listen to Dogs 2006-04-03 22:55 |
| #29 Listen to Dogs, did you get into the wrong thread? What has Algeria to do with stopping to fight ambushes? |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2006-04-03 23:32 |
| #28 Echoes in the misty morning stillness bouncing between the temporary Gotta go... |
| Posted by: Glosing Hupesh7946 2006-04-03 22:17 |
| #27 Nothin like running on Ardennes at 6AM to remind you of the fun in the Army. |
| Posted by: 49 pan 2006-04-03 22:12 |
| #26 Wine? No good! Women? No good! PT? So good! |
| Posted by: Glosing Hupesh7946 2006-04-03 22:10 |
| #25 11a5s, ATW? Oh gawd folks we got us a paratrooper! |
| Posted by: 49 pan 2006-04-03 22:06 |
| #24 I'm not sure what they mean by "change in tactics" here. First and formost is to clear the "Kill Zone" of the ambush, always has been the rule, always will be. No one can fight and survive in a properly laidout kill zone. Call it running away or what ever, but you must first clear the kill zone. Then as others have said you flank, secure, and call in air and Arty. Catch you enemy on the move and destroy them. Basic tactics that are time and combat tested, and still in use. This sounds like good IO for the home front. |
| Posted by: 49 pan 2006-04-03 22:04 |
| #23 Agree with Lone Ranger and others above: it's all situational. Volume of fire, accuracy of fire, cargo, and friendly firepower will help the leader decide. Of course a good ambush is one where you're dead before you have a chance to decide. Interesting to compare notes with you Lone Ranger. I was trained to charge a near ambush with weapon on full auto and keep running until you were _well_ past the assualt element. Then you'd try to link up with any other survivors and E&E the hell out of there. All the Way! |
| Posted by: 11A5S 2006-04-03 21:08 |
| #22 Dar,if they stand up and fight a few times their will be far fewer ambushes for that eventual convoy of gas to worry about. You also make seperate rules for the gas convoy. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2006-04-03 18:48 |
| #21 Fighting back sounds all well and good unless you're driving a truck full of ammo or gasoline. I wouldn't be much for stopping and engaging if I were sitting on any cargo that volatile--and not just to protect my own hide but my mates in the potential blast radius. |
| Posted by: Dar 2006-04-03 16:01 |
| #20 Speaking of soldiers with big balls defeating ambushes, let's not forget this one. |
| Posted by: Matt 2006-04-03 15:16 |
| #19 I agree with Mike on the Qtrucks but can't understand why it wasn't done a long time ago. We did it more than once in diyala, in early 2005. Didn't advertise the fact, cause we Knew the enemy were reading the news dispaches. Opsec was better than usual in a few places. The expression on the survivors faces was priceless. "This is so unfair--Infidels aren't sposed to fight back!!!" They stopped attacking all our convoys by april. |
| Posted by: N guard 2006-04-03 14:44 |
| #18 I agree with Mike on the Qtrucks but can't understand why it wasn't done a long time ago. Set up a well armoured truck or two and have airpower in the distance and ready and just drive around looking for ambushes. Then again casualties are generally from IEDs so I'm not sure there's all that much ambushing excitement these past few months to begin with. |
| Posted by: Thuger Grens9563 2006-04-03 13:15 |
| #17 The next step could be a "Q-truck" convoy--looks like a harmless little bunch of softskins, but it's full of people loaded for bear. |
| Posted by: Mike 2006-04-03 12:53 |
| #16 Just make sure you get the hell away from those 5 tons. They make damn good targets. Yes, and have helos flying nearby for quick support. Ambush the ambushers. (or, as we called it, "F**k the F**king F**kers.) |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2006-04-03 12:34 |
| #15 DoDo -- odds are the change was announced to the field long before it was to the press. |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2006-04-03 12:13 |
| #14 Why is army announcing changes in tactics? I would think it would be more effective to make opreational changes without announcing them to the enemy. |
| Posted by: DoDo 2006-04-03 11:56 |
| #13 mojo - that's if you have training. If the last 'training' you had outside the twice annual requirement to simply fire your weapon, was basic prior to tech training, I doubt the probability of success against a well laid ambush. |
| Posted by: Hupineque Glerelet1305 2006-04-03 11:07 |
| #12 First order of buisness when you're ambushed is CLEAR THE KILL ZONE. Then turn around, flank, and start killing the ambushers. |
| Posted by: mojo 2006-04-03 10:39 |
| #11 Glenmore - a lot of airmen are being used to operate those convoys in Iraq. As to the change in tactical doctrine, remember the start of the Iraq war and the ambush of the convoy, the prisoner rescue, etc. The Army had for decades ignored proper tactical training for its combat support troops. Training resources and monies went to the maneuver brigades while the combat support elements actually had to operate daily in direct support of those brigades to keep them 'green' in operational status. Yep, you could run a bunch through a two week course and upgrade their immediate skills, but you need skill at each level of the command, and your usual officers and NCOs in the branches didn't have it. They were being thumped by the command chain on keeping their maneuver brigades skilled, not on their own tactical abilities. Now think. You should be seeing that same leadership now on its second, and possibly third, rotation into country. Now you have training with experience leadership. You now have tools to implement doctrine. Being streatched as the service has been, its not like you can take the bulk of the combat support off line for 6 months of intensive training without shutting down everything else. Its the evolution of doctrine, training, implementation, verification, and revision. Two years is about the historical norm. |
| Posted by: Hupineque Glerelet1305 2006-04-03 09:43 |
| #10 Is it true the USAF is adding two weeks to Basic to better train Airmen to be trigger-pullers? And that Airmen will actually be issued firearms? And that they will be deployed in ways where they will need to use them? |
| Posted by: Glenmore 2006-04-03 09:16 |
| #9 Thanks, Ranger, that makes sense. |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2006-04-03 09:12 |
| #8 The doctrine I learned was to try to continue ahead out of a "far" ambush, and the assault into a "near" ambush. Actually, the basic idea was that if you were caught in a near ambush, and the opponent knew what he was doing, your chances of survival were almost zero anyway, so you might as well die in attack mode. But - once you could close with the ambush line, it was then man-to-man - because the enemy could not shoot along his own deployed ambush line without hitting his own. Likewise, once you closed with him, he could not bring indirect fire down on you, without himself being in the impact zone. A well-laid ambush is not simply opening up on a target. A good ambush thinks out the reactions of the target, and trys to get the target to move into a prepared kill zone. Example - ambush a file of troops moving along a road in the open - with a nice ditch running next to the road. Assume that once the ambush is "sprung", the targets will take cover in the ditch. So - you prepare the ditch by laying claymore mines along the entire length, facing upwards. Now - the ambush simply uses a couple of machine guns opening up, to get all the target troops into the ditch - and you then detonate all the claymores - and your targets are all toast. You just mop up the remains (or the few survivors). Normally, you don't design your ambush to expect that the targets will attack into the ambush line - it takes well-trained troops, and BIG balls to assualt into plunging fire. So - that is generally a good way to avoid the planned "traps" of the ambush. But -you have to move FAST. Interestingly, I noticed that US Army policy on attendance at Ranger School has recently changed, to begin allowing combat support and combat service support NCO's to attend. This is based on the growing awareness that - in the large-scale counter-insurgency type actions that will predominate in the future, the delineations between "front lines" and "rear area ops" are disappearing - and troops and units of all types need to be able to fight aggressively. Cheers! RLTW (Rangers Lead The Way) |
| Posted by: Lone Ranger 2006-04-03 09:05 |
| #7 I'm still waiting for them to use a bait smoking sputtering helocopter for a controlled 'crash' to bring the splodies into the open for some good killin'. |
| Posted by: wxjames 2006-04-03 08:59 |
| #6 second only to..... "Beautiful Baumholder" Drank a lot while you were there, eh LR? |
| Posted by: Steve 2006-04-03 08:57 |
| #5 Good to hear from you Verlaine. I agree with the "ton of bricks" strategy. |
| Posted by: Spot 2006-04-03 08:41 |
| #4 I thought SOP was to charge (ie, attack, not try to pull away from) ambushes? |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2006-04-03 08:13 |
| #3 RWW's right, Zhang Fei is wrong here. It was always a mistake (in general) to flee, as opposed to making any enemy attack their last. Of course a given tactical situation had to determine the best course of action - but "hundreds" of bad guys were rarely, if ever, engaged against a convoy. Far beyond merely responding much more aggressively to attacks, we should have all along used deception (bait convoys with a large QRF standing by) and extended retaliation (pursuit of all assailants to the last one, with significant repercussions for any neighborhood that appeared to harbor or assist attacks). Rice herself made a huge blunder - and got the facts wrong - when she idiotically "admitted" "thousands of tactical errors" in Iraq. The tactical errors of consequence, however, all fall on a different side of the ledger than the superficial "critics" assume - lack of aggressiveness and seriousness, not excess of force. The current MNC-I CG has made some alarming comments about more building and less fighting. While we have the best military in human history, I think it's arguable that Iraq, post-kinetic, has often not been their finest hour ..... More McMasters, less hearts-and-minds silliness. Who in the hell thinks Iraqis are conditioned to respect any formula that lacks clear authority, if not compulsion? |
| Posted by: Verlaine in Iraq 2006-04-03 02:52 |
| #2 The Marines always stopped to fight. The drivers jumped out to guard their vehicles while the passengers engaged the enemy. I suspect that this was one reason why the insurgents preferred to attack army convoys. |
| Posted by: RWV 2006-04-03 01:24 |
| #1 This is actually a sign that the insurgents are basically done, in terms of their ability to put together attacks involving hundreds of men. As long as they were able to do so, the convoys had to roll on or risk being annihilated. As long as they had that capability, they could destroy Iraqi police stations at will. Now that the guerrillas have been whittled down, both convoys and Iraqi forces can become more aggressive. This isn't a new idea or a fixing of past mistakes - it's a logical progression from one step to another. Just as it's necessary to attend high school before going to college - high school isn't a mistake, but a prerequisite for going to college. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2006-04-03 01:03 |