Article

2005-10-31 Afghanistan-Pak-India

Small US units lure Taliban into losing battles

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Mike 2005-10-31 00:00|| || Front Page|| [5 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 The hard left that controls mass media and the hard left that infests the Dem Party are allied with this nation's enemies. Always have been. Always will be. There numbers are growing and the harm they do this nation is immeasurable.

On the brighter side, the BBC did relay the Taliban "victory" allowing the US military to engage, surround, kill, capture and scatter the enemy. Bet the BBC will not made that mistake a second time....

Posted by Hupeasing Jatch2629 2005-10-31 01:05|| 2005-10-31 01:05|| Front Page Top

#2 Great article. Afghanistan is not a backwater but is still a front in the WoT. The MSM should be treated like the traitors that they are. I would like to have the Administration give them hell like Gen. Honare or Swartzkopf did. The MSM needs their asses kicked from here to next Sunday. Their liberties with the news and their omissions are costing this country lives and progress in the WoT, that is, the war that is protecting their worthless behinds, too.

Posted by Alaska Paul">Alaska Paul 2005-10-31 01:19|| 2005-10-31 01:19|| Front Page Top

#3 But the ANA still have a disconcerting habit of shooting themselves with their own weapons. "The problem is muzzle discipline," says 2nd Lieut. Ben Wisnioski, a commander of an ANA unit based in Qalat. In the week before the elections, Lieutenant Wisnioski lost three ANA soldiers to self-inflicted wounds.

How, oh how, will we ever break the Muslim obsession with gun sex? Somehow, these guys just can't resist the urge to chlorinate their own genepool. It's all so very confusing because the way they treat their women doesn't seem to indicate any lack of "muzzle discipline". Enquiring minds want to know!

Posted by Zenster 2005-10-31 02:44|| 2005-10-31 02:44|| Front Page Top

#4 Mike...the reason the NYT can't tell a real story like this is the same reason they lied about Jerry Rivers (I mean Geraldo Rivera) in New Orleans...and why they couldn't fess up and apologize for the lie when they were caught.

The NYT does not care about truth.

Posted by anymouse">anymouse 2005-10-31 07:27|| 2005-10-31 07:27|| Front Page Top

#5 Wasn't there an article a couple days ago from a think tank organization about how more and more attention and resources were needed on whiz bang technology?

You still need someone rough to kick in the door and cleanout the trash at the point of a bayonet on the ground. It hasn't changed in 4,000 years of recorded history. It's not going to change anytime soon.

Posted by Graviger Elmaviper3760 2005-10-31 08:09|| 2005-10-31 08:09|| Front Page Top

#6 Don't forget about the NYT's article celebrating the 2000 dead americans - where they left out the real story about Jeffrey Starr in order to use this hero's death for their own anti-war purposes...

Posted by CrazyFool 2005-10-31 08:15|| 2005-10-31 08:15|| Front Page Top

#7 Time to burn down the NYT.

Good to see that the lessons of Vietnam are being put to good use. The special forces teams did just this in Vietnam, and the lessons have been passed to the regular leg units. Our boys are very, very good and can kick any "insurgent" butt out there. Even outnumbered 100-1. Air support and good training make it easy to do.

Posted by mmurray821 2005-10-31 08:19|| 2005-10-31 08:19|| Front Page Top

#8 Yea, all the Rumsfoolian pentagon-speak and hoopla over costly "Future Combat Systems" "shaping the force" and "transformation" (why do I hate that word?). Quite interesting that it boils down to an 11B (or and 18B) humping thru the vil with his mates, calling in arty and air strikes, linking bad guys up with thier 70 virgins.

Posted by Besoeker 2005-10-31 08:35|| 2005-10-31 08:35|| Front Page Top

#9 And just how do you think they are able to DO that?

With robots that do recon and other things in caves. With UAVs that spot the enemy creeping down the hillside. With jam-proof digital packet radios. With ..... other things we don't need to call out in detail here - but trust me, they are being deployed as fast as we can get them out there, because the troops and commanders are demanding them once they've had a chance to see how they enhance the mission.

Hell, even the thunder run up to Baghdad was a success in part because Blue Force Tracker portion of FBCB2 was installed in the forward tank battalions and used (as I was told by Silver Star winner / battalion commander LTC Rocky Marcone) to keep the tip of the spear coordinated when sandstorms made voice comms iffy.

Go read the accounts of exactly what SOCOM calls on in Afghanistan. A lot of it is precisely the early, partial deployment of what watchers from the sidelines are overly eager to dismiss as 'rumsfoolian'.

Posted by defense techie 2005-10-31 09:01|| 2005-10-31 09:01|| Front Page Top

#10 shouldn't have fired Sestak.

Posted by 2b 2005-10-31 09:15|| 2005-10-31 09:15|| Front Page Top

#11 As stated both in the article and in your post, mmurray821, the key is for infantry to actually receive the force-multiplying support that will drop the hammer; the infantry are to find and fix, not to "crush" the enemy. Therefore, efforts should be to secure this capacity, i.e. so that infantry is not cut off and its nominal advantage (small numbers) turned into a disadvantage.

The 11B, the 18B and the 0311 are the core of our military, but that does not invalidate the warrant officers who act as pilots, drivers and systems operators. If we forget that, I don't think it's hyperbole that we'd end up with another incident when SEALs were ordered to do a Ranger operation and paid for that error by brass with their lives. :(

Defense techie is totally right. The rifle may be the core weapon, but "rumsfoolian" procurement seems to be as much a boon to the "boots on the ground" as to the flyboys in the sea, air and land.

Posted by Edward Yee 2005-10-31 09:21|| http://edwardyee.fanworks.net]">[http://edwardyee.fanworks.net] 2005-10-31 09:21|| Front Page Top

#12 Thanks for the Northrup Grumman infomercial, UAV's and geospacial info are great, but it usually takes boots on the ground in the end. You could buy boat loads of Infantry and Special Operators (some R&R for those deployed) with the dollars blown on tech concepts and development over the past 20+ years. The bad guys have little in the way of high-end systems and we can't seem to whack them all and break contact. In 1960 the M113 was high tech, the "battle taxi." Buttonage is good, triggerage is better.

Posted by Besoeker 2005-10-31 09:27|| 2005-10-31 09:27|| Front Page Top

#13 Ed: As with most Navy programs, SEALS ... like Rustoleum Paint are products of very aggressive advertising, but I've seen few men as tough, or capable. Training at Harmony Church, Eglin, and Dahlonega is certainly rigorous and demanding, but it ain't BUDS. Linking all proper ST missions as waterborne is unenlightened. They do DA/UW quite well indeed.

Posted by Besoeker 2005-10-31 09:43|| 2005-10-31 09:43|| Front Page Top

#14 Thanks for the Northrup Grumman infomercial

I don't work for NG. I work for the ARMY, and I interact daily with combat veteran commanders and NCOs.

Posted by defense techie 2005-10-31 10:53|| 2005-10-31 10:53|| Front Page Top

#15 As such, welcome to Rantburg, DT. We always appreciate information about any topic from someone who works with it every day. We won't prevail in this war without both the men willing to kick in the gates of Hell and the technology to pinpoint the gate.

Posted by Seafarious">Seafarious 2005-10-31 11:04|| 2005-10-31 11:04|| Front Page Top

#16 It might be better if there is minimal coverage from Afghanistan. Remember that what they are doing is utterly alien to many civilians, who would recoil in horror when shown the violence involved.

That is, the Pentagon learned long ago that there is *no* way to show pictures of bodies that reflects well on the US military. That is because there is no context, no knowledge, no experience in the public at large.

The public embraces its illusions, refuses to examine what it sees and hears, and is comfortable. Even the MSM propaganda is better than the truth for the masses. Except for the very few who *do* understand, and who *want* to know the truth, the public is angered by those who dispel their illusions.

So a squad of US soldiers armed only with knives slaughters an entire battallion of Taliban who had just beheaded an elementary school. WE can celebrate. The MSM and the public ignore. The squad receives bronze and silver stars, and everyone goes on with their lives.

Posted by Anonymoose 2005-10-31 11:08|| 2005-10-31 11:08|| Front Page Top

#17 You could buy boat loads of Infantry and Special Operators (some R&R for those deployed) with the dollars blown on tech concepts and development over the past 20+ years.

And none of those troops would be nearly as well equipped. Lots of learning happens even in the "failed" projects.

The soldier on the ground will always be a necessity and the heart of combat, but if the tech didn't make a difference, we'd be hitting the jihadis with clubs.

Posted by Robert Crawford">Robert Crawford 2005-10-31 12:23|| http://www.kloognome.com/]">[http://www.kloognome.com/] 2005-10-31 12:23|| Front Page Top

#18 Robert: What I'm referring to are pet-rock projects that culminate in 2017 at a cost of billions. I'm not suggesting that we return to the M-1903A1. Airborne platforms aside, take a look at the Land Warrior Program OICW at $ 10,000 per copy. You wanna hump that thing with a basic load of 5.56 and 20mm ammo? Neither does anybody else! It looks like an infantryman's nightmare.

Posted by Besoeker 2005-10-31 13:35|| 2005-10-31 13:35|| Front Page Top

#19 "take a look at the Land Warrior Program OICW at $ 10,000 per copy. You wanna hump that thing with a basic load of 5.56 and 20mm ammo? Neither does anybody else! It looks like an infantryman's nightmare."

Well....Notwithstanding the fact that the OICW has now morphed into the XM-8, let me quote globalsecurity.org on the xm-29 OICW:

"OICWs weight fielding goal of 14 pounds is 10 to 30% less weight than the current M16/M4/M203 systems. When comparable features such as Thermal Weapon Sight, Optic Sight, Rails, Aiming Light, Leaf Sight and Laser are added, the standard infantry soldier carries 15 to 19 pounds. This weight includes only 1 (30 round) magazine of the 5.56mm and 1 round of 40mm HE ammo. The OICWâs 20mm HE round weighs only 1/4 pound compared to the M203âs 40mm round weight of 1/2 pound â a 50% comparison weight savings with substantially more effectiveness. The 18 rounds of 40mm ammunition in a soldierâs vest weigh 9 pounds. If a soldier was carrying 18 rounds of 20mm the weight is 4 1/2 pounds.

The M203 40mm combat round costs approximately $20. OICWâs 20mm round was projected in FY99 to be $20-$30 each. Cost effectiveness is a critical measurement to consider. Given OICWâs significant edge in effectiveness (5 times more at 300 meters) an engagement cost for the existing M203 would be $80-100 to achieve what a single $30 OICW round can do.

While an M16 costs under $1000, OICW may cost $10,000. That is because OICW is a single system consisting of a fire control and combinatorial weapon. The functions contained within the system include the "add-ons" now used on the M16 or M4 such as optics, thermal weapon system, and aim light. With these functional add-ons, the existing M16/M4/203 system cost exceeds $35,000 each."

Now, I'm not saying that they hit the nail on the head with the new small arms projects, but i think they are steps in the correct direction. Now all we need is to switch to a higher caliber round....

Posted by Mark E. 2005-10-31 14:45|| 2005-10-31 14:45|| Front Page Top

#20 The OICW, esp. the grenade launcher, is exactly the kind of weapon infantry needs. Nothing currently allows an infantryman to take out the enemy in bunkers, rooms, behind walls and ditches, and light armor up to 1000 meters away. One per fire team gives a huge advantage. The weapon, esp. the electronics, will get lighter and more effective. Hump the OICW or hump your M-16/M203 plus an antiarmor/antibunker rocket.

Posted by ed 2005-10-31 15:04|| 2005-10-31 15:04|| Front Page Top

#21 Funny, ed, but I recall that DOD was procuring the M72 LAAW -- yeah, that one -- for the purpose you stated... although troops apparently would prefer the RPG, of all things.

Thanks for welcoming DT and saying that tech and man are the key, Seafarious.

Mark E., PEO Soldier has no mention of the XM8, only of the M16A4 and new systems, including the XM25 descendant of the OICW and its XM312 machine gun. However, the XM230 underbarrel grenade launcher and the XM26 underbarrel semiauto shotgun, formerly slated for the XM8, are both there.

Posted by Edward Yee 2005-10-31 18:35|| http://edwardyee.fanworks.net]">[http://edwardyee.fanworks.net] 2005-10-31 18:35|| Front Page Top

#22 Tech is good, but if you've actually sat in a TOC and had to implement some of these wonders of modern engineering, you might find yourself taking Besoeker's view. My general view is that if is reduces work (fewer keystrokes, less soldier load, more enemy killed or wounded with fewer rounds) then it is probably a good thing. Otherwise, junk it.

A grenade launcher or a LAW with a laser range finder. Now that's something that a soldier could use! You'd eliminate the range estimation problem and increase first round accuracy to near 100%. And it'd be a hell of a lot cheaper than smart rounds.

Posted by 11A5S 2005-10-31 23:24|| 2005-10-31 23:24|| Front Page Top

00:00 Zenster
23:51 Zenster
23:50 Frank G
23:49 Frank G
23:44 Red Dog
23:38 Hupeasing Jatch2629
23:35 11A5S
23:33 Zenster
23:32 2b
23:26 2b
23:24 11A5S
23:22 Frank G
23:20 Zenster
22:07 C-Low
22:05 phil_b
22:04 Frank G
22:01 Zenster
22:00 11A5S
21:55 phil_b
21:49 2b
21:43 2b
21:41 phil_b
21:34 C-Low
21:29 Anonymoose