TYR, Is there any chance that you can expand on the above comment.
Printable View
I used to work for him and was let down by him both personally and professionally. I would never question his military service. I would question why he is no longer associated with the company he started over 15 years ago, and why he had to open up another tracking school.
Now Mantracker is working with the military on counter-IEDs.
Canadian Cowboy Earns Army Spurs
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
http://www.modoracle.com/news/Canadi...urs_20942.htmlQuote:
A cowboy has been teaching soldiers how to look for IEDs hidden in the ground when deployed in Afghanistan.
Professional tracker Terry Grant (52) has been recruited by the British Army to pass on his unique ground sign awareness skills to the soldiers of 7th Armoured Brigade while on Exercise Prairie Thunder 1 in BATUS.
Terry, who is famed for his hit US reality TV show Mantracker in which he tracks contestants over vast swathes of the Canadian wilderness, is training the soldiers to help prepare them for their deployment to Afghanistan next year. When an IED is laid, the ground is disturbed either by physically digging the device in or by the insurgents leaving tracks as they move around. Ground sign awareness is about recognising these clues and therefore identifying a potential IED location and reducing the risk.
Terry’s show Mantracker sees two contenders take off into the bush with a map, a compass and a head start. They have 36 hours to reach a finish line some 40km away without getting caught – how they escape is up to them. Terry is on horseback, without any navigational aids and doesn’t know their exact start point or finish line. His job is to track them searching the ground for clues before they reach the finish.
Thought this was interesting that the British Military would hire a TV personality when they already provide tracking instruction in Borneo.
The British military has hired the star of a Canadian reality-TV show to teach its soldiers tracking techniques that they can use to spot signs of improvised explosive devices when they deploy to Afghanistan.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle1660984/
I am sure that Terry Grant's training will have some value. But they would be better off looking at a more tactical approach to tracking Like former Rhodesian David Scott Donelan's TTOS: http://www.ttos.us/tracking/ttos/about_us.php
A good list of references.
http://www.ttos.us/tracking/bookstor...al_reading.php
David Scott is no longer with TTOS. He got in some trouble with the other owners and had to step down. He did start another school, however from what I hear he has been getting himself into trouble. I’m not a big David Scott fan myself. I used to work for the guy and I was thoroughly disappointed. I recently started writing Allan Savory the man who was the architect of the Rhodesian Combat Tracker Unit and he didn’t have a whole lot good to say about David either. Although the fact that he reintroduced Tactical Tracking here in the U.S. is a good thing don't get me wrong. Currently the Combat Tracker program taught by TTOS at Ft. Huachuca is being phased out and it may never be implemented to its full potential. It was on the wrong post to begin with and the program never really got the visibility from the combat arms folks like it deserved. After September the U.S Army will no longer have a Tracking program. The USMC still will have some Tracking with in the combat hunter program but IMO they also have thoroughly botched up that program as well. I think they meant well but with any program to many people got their hand in the cookie jar and screwed it up. Its funny the Army talks about "Every soldier is a sensor" and that they want to "Attack the Network" yet they haven't been able to train the ground guys who conduct dismounted patrols how to track or how the skill can be employed after an attack in pursuit of an elusive enemy. Instead they want to gather forensic evidence while the insurgents are getting away or attempt to use some gadget that costs alot of money to find or detect the enemy. Maybe I'm old fashion but I still believe that the human mind is the best computer employed by our soldiers and not some gadget. What ever happened to basic “Field Craft”.
That first point sums it up and answers the question at the end. It got caught up in turf battles between Branches and Schools. That and ARFORGEN...
Tracking is not easy and a really super tracker must be one who has a flair for it but the basics are not difficult, can be learned and used by most and can save lives. However, once learned, those skills require practice and Army units spend too much time in garrison to provide adequate practice so the skills atrophy for many and units develop the opinion that the training is a not valuable consumer of time... *
To the turf battles, add the determination by too many that Joe is stupid and can only (or should only) be marginally trained. Untrue, we just don't really try to train him -- too hard on, too much work for, the so-called Trainers. * He's not stupid. Lot of his Bosses are...
Including those that designed a 'personnel system' that says recruit anyone who says they want in, regardless of suitability and that everyone other than first termers will be a trainer in a school or training center and a Recruiter for 'career management' purposes **... :rolleyes:
* Both those items are also due to a failure to properly fund essential training in the basics in order to fund other things -- not least to concentrate on big showy little or nothing gained efforts like the CTC rotations. :wry:
** Translation: Making life easy for the 'Personnel Managers.' Easier to fill holes if you don't have to pay attention to whether a person is suited for a job or not. :rolleyes:
Without a doubt you are correct Ken. The skill is not easy but I have never had a student leave our course and not be able to track. Tracking at its very essence is hunting and the military is attempting to hunt an elusive enemy. I also noticed that it didn’t make a difference whether or not the student came from a rural or urban upbringing. Some will always make better trackers than others but all went away being able to track a man as an individual as well as part of a tracking team conducting a tracking operation. The soldiers and Marines who attended the course all had great things to say about our course and wished that they had received that training prior to going overseas. What has always baffled me is that the U.S. Army throughout its history had used this skill set in one form or another to pursue or gather information on the enemy. This skill doesn’t cost a lot to instruct nor maintain and most of all doesn’t require any fancy equipment. Instead of hunting a deer or an elk the soldier and marine is hunting probably the most dangerous prey...Man. However just like any other animal a man will set a pattern and the sign if interpreted and not just followed will indicate a lot about the enemy’s intention. I used to work with a guy that was a GS in my unit at JRTC, he had been a tracker in a Combat Tracker Platoon in Viet Nam, he also couldn’t understand why the army wasn’t picking up on that capability he always said it worked then and it would work today. When we look at history after Viet Nam, the Army attempted to make tracking not only a skill but a tactic that was part of an operation with the publishing of FM 7-42 Combat Tracker and Tracker Dog Training and Employment in 1973. Let’s face it what we are fighting today is nothing new, we’ve been there before. If the skill saves lives and is able to provide a vehicle for our guys on the ground to “Find, Fix and Finish” the enemy which enables us to “Attack the Network” shouldn’t we be training them to do just that?
FM 17 - 98. (The Scout Platoon) dated 23 Dec 1992 states:
FM 7-8 states thatQuote:
Immediate-use intelligence is information concerning the enemy that can be put to use immediately to gain surprise, to keep the enemy off balance, or to keep him from escaping the area entirely. A tracker can obtain information that, when combined with information from other sources, indicates enemy plans. Tracking is one of the best sources of immediate-use intelligence!
FM 3-24.2 – Tactics in Counterinsurgency, dated April 2009, states in paragraph 5-38, as it relates to Search and Attack:Quote:
There are three types of patrol: Combat, Reconnaissance and Tracking.
TC 31-34-4 Special Forces Tracking and Countertracking, dated Sep 2009, The WORST Tracking Manual I have ever read. This document is going to get someone killed.Quote:
Reconnaissance units must locate insurgent forces, tracks, or other indicators of direction or location. In rural and some border operations, well-trained trackers can identify and follow insurgent tracks that are hours or even days old. Units tracking the insurgent must be prepared to react to insurgent contact and avoid likely ambush situations.
Again what ever happened to Field Craft? I apologize for the Rant. I just don’t get it!:mad:
A SWJ Facebook fan posted a comment with this link. It lists different sources for learning about tracking. I thought that it may be of interest to readers of this thread.
The 1984 edition of FM 21-75: Combat Skills of the Soldier has a chapter on tracking. It's definitly not a comprehensive treatise; and yet, although very basic, it's still a good introduction to the subject matter.
TYR, you probably knew that but I didn't see it listed among the other manuals in your post so I thought I'd mention it.
The last sentence in the chapter is a gem: When being tracked by an enemy tracker, the best bet is to try to out distance him or to double back and try to ambush him. Major Rogers would approve.
Rifleman
You are correct. I had gathered this information going back to 1973. Although there are older manuals that discuss tracking, it is discussed under trailing. The purpose of listing page numbers was to show the degradation of information over time. Also to highlight that at one time the Military had a doctrinal program but just like any program that was developed during war time it slowly erodes during peace time. Unfortunately commanders do not understand this skill and are reluctant to send their soldiers through this training. Also who in today’s Army is really qualified to teach it?
FM 7-42. Combat Tracker and Tracker Dog Training and Employment-1973- 90 Pages covering combat tracking
FC 21-77. Dismounted Patrolling-1984- Tracking 10 Pages
FM 21-75. Combat Skills of the Soldier- 1984- 13 Pages covering tracking
FM 7-70. Light Infantry Platoon and Squad-1986- 3 types of Patrols: Combat, Reconnaissance, and Tracking, Tracking Patrols-9 pages
FM 7-8. The Infantry Platoon and Squad-1992- 3 Types of Patrols: Combat, Reconnaissance, Tracking. 6 1/2 pages.
FM 7-92. The Infantry Reconnaissance Platoon and Squad- 1992- Tracking -7 1/2 Pages
FM 17-98. Scout Platoon-1999- 3 Types of Patrolling Combat, Reconnaissance, Tracking (References FM 7-8)-3 Sentences
FM 3-90.98. Reconnaissance Platoon- 2002- 3 Types of patrols Combat, reconnaissance, and Tracking-6 pages
FM 3-05.222 Special Forces Sniper Training and Employment- 2003- Tracking and Counter Tracking- 19 Pages
FM 3-21.8. The Infantry Platoon and Squad-2007- 2 Types of patrols: Combat and Reconnaissance. 5 sentences under Reconnaissance describing tracking.
FM 3-22.10. Sniper Training and Employment- 2008- Tracking and Evasion-8 1/2 pages.
FM 3-55.93. Long Range Surveillance Unit Operations-2008- Tracking and Counter Tracking- 10 Pages
FM 3-24.2. Tactics in Counter Insurgency-2009- One paragraph
TC 31-34-4 Special Forces Tracking and Countertracking-2009- 48 Pages. I know that SWC probably meant well, however it is apparent that they never consulted a professional. Like I said earlier IMO this document if followed will get someone killed.
What I noticed as an instructor was that Soldiers and Marines do not possess the attention to detail those soldiers from other era’s possessed. I believe that is because of the way our culture both military and civilian has developed for the past 15- 20 years with the use of technology. IMO the military is more detached from their environment today than prior to 911. Our military is just not very good at basic patrolling anymore. Is tracking the answer to all our problems? No! But it is a tactic that has proven its worth not only in our military but around the globe as well, and along with other skill sets will provide great results.
TYR,
Good point. Perhaps the best bet really is civilian instructors. A retired Border Patrol Agent is worth a lot in that regard. The Army did the same thing in the '80s with packing clinics; guides and outfitters in the Rockies instructed personel from 7th SFG(A) before deployments to Latin America.
By the way. Anyone looking for a good combat tracking manual? Go to TAL Dozer's Selous Scouts site, print all the Rhodesian combat tracking articles, and put them in a binder. Now you've got a good manual!
Look I know how SWC came up with this publication. I have personally talked to some of them. The unfortunate part of this is that they never hired a subject matter expert to write the TC. The guys who wrote it had no knowledge of the skill itself. Tactical Tracking (I don’t like the term Combat Tracking. IMO Combat describes a fighting environment and Tactical describes a tactic that can be used in a multitude of environments for use in support of other military operations) is a dangerous business. A tracker is not just following spoor, he is hunting, at the other end of that spoor is not “bambie” but one or more men who are most likely armed have just committed an attack, may be operating in their own back yard; employ a network of supporters who may provide the quarry early warning or even sanctuary. Those things are not discussed in that manual. As I said the tracker is just not following footprints. The tracker is follows the spoor, evaluates the spoor and the environment to determine what the enemy did at that particular moment as well as where he is going and what he will do. The manual gives some information mostly incomplete information and does not discuss all the different indicators or how to track as a patrol or how to employ multiple patrols and leverage multiple assets to reach a certain objective as part of an operation. The Counter-tracking portion is the worst. I won’t go much in to detail on a public forum but what is discussed will only signpost your actions when attempting to evade a good tracker, or tracker team. The Circular doesn’t even discuss all the other techniques that could be employed. I believe that if you want to become proficient in countertracking you should first become a good tracker. By understanding the tracker you will better be able to counter him. Tracking is not something you learn by reading, it is something you learn by doing. One of the big problems is that when most people read something they think they can just get out there and do it. But in this line of work, if you don’t know what you’re doing and train properly you’re going to get someone killed. Our enemy may not be as educated or have all the technology, but by no means are they stupid. They are experts at survival in their environment. The only way to defeat an elusive enemy is to hunt them down relentlessly. Tracking is one way of accomplishing that.
When I was a National Guard LRS PSG during our units MOB for deployment in 06'. I pushed hard to try and get at least some guys in the Company trained out at the Army Tracking school. It even stated the course was intended for LRS Units. Even if the Unit never was tasked with a tracking mission. The skill alone in counter track is so valuable to a LRS Team. The same is said for Sniper training. Even with no sniper mission, the skills need for that mission go hand in hand with avoiding detection on your mission. But like many things NCOs’ hope their chain of command would see the light, NO! Our unit was even tasked to do border interdiction missions. Still NO!
I've since left the Unit and the Army after doing my 20yrs. And still the only guys that have received tracker training are those that receive it as part Counter Drug training for the State. The big Army just doesn't get it. As already stated in this thread, everyone wants to put their stamp on things and mess what could have been a good school for the Army.
Even doing some of the things I do as a DOD security contactor overseas. Such skills can help in having a successful mission. In 07' I was looking hard at sending myself to receive tracker training. Since then I've lost touch as to who now is running the better schools. If someone would be help in pointing me in the right direction, any help would be great. Thanks for reading my ranting.
Link: http://www.fletc.gov/state-and-local...aining-program
It's for LEOs through FLETC and it's free. I don't know if DOD contractors qualify but maybe it's worth looking into.
I've been wanting to go for some time but my department won't send me. Although the course is free there's still the matter of travel expenses, leaving a hole in the shift coverage, and paying me while I'm gone. Oh well, maybe someday. :(
And I've heard good things about Joel Hardin from other cops.
Link: http://www.jhardin-inc.com/
Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joel_Hardin
I don't have any personal experience with Hardin, so my info is second hand. But his reputation is that of a straight forward and practical instructor. None of the Native American mysticism approach.
Thanks Rifleman for the links. I at present live just up the road from FLETC, but don't think I would qualifiy for their free training. A few years back i was looking at TTOC, but have read in this thread that Mr. Scott is no longer with them. Don't know if that's a good thing or bad? Have read some things on SOTTI, but dont have enought view on them. I'm ging to start hitting up some of the former SF guys I work with to get some idea as to were they have been going.
Agian thank you and any help is great.
Boris,
If you are interested in Tracking a great book on Tracking is "Practical Tracking" by Louis Liebenburg, Adriaan Louw and Mark Elbroch. It was published last year and can be found on Amazon. Probably the best book I've ever read on the subject of tracking. Although it won’t physically teach you how to track. Whenever you do find a course you want to go to, you will have more information on the subject. The authors are a mixture of wildlife conservationists and anthropologists, although it doesn't delve in the military and law enforcement realm it is an excellent book on tracking in general. You do have some other schools in your area to choose from in your area, I would definitely stay away from any school that can’t get you out of the “Spoor Pit" and the "Step by Step" method by the second day. To many beginner Trackers can’t get away from the "Step by Step" method to include Joel Harden. Most schools that site Jack Kearney's method of Tracking never really understood his tracking philosophy and can get away from the “Step by Step” method or the “Tracking Stick”. Jack Kearney never meant for students to use either so literally even for Search and Rescue. “Step by Step” and the stick is a great training tool but are slow. A tracker who uses solely that method will never catch up to there quarry.
TYR,
thank you for pointing out the book. I've added it to my wish list for my next order. i have read your other post on this thread. I would like your opinion on a quality mantracking school, and or ones to avoid. any help pointing me in the right direction would be great. Thank you again for pointing out the book.
I have taken a bit of time to respond to this thread as I needed to consider the role of combat tracking in modern warfare was I see it.
Back in the 70's I was involved in a number of follow-up operations using trackers during the Bush War in Rhodesia. As an officer I normally had a combat tracker team attached for the purpose of the follow-up. Some we tracked to contact on others the spoor was lost for a variety of reasons.
The skill level of trackers was critical in the success or failure of the follow-up.
The speed at which they could track against the speed at which the insurgents were fleeing at was the determinant in most cases. It became obvious fairly early in a follow-up whether we stood a chance of tracking to contact by the speed the trackers could maintain. Some of the speed issue could be put down to the skill or lack of in the tracking team or difficult ground or the use of anti-tracking by the insurgents (I think the US term for this is counter tracking).
Early on (in the late 60's) the limitation of trying to catch up on fleeing lightly equiped insurgents was a real problem regardless of the skills of the trackers. So the tactic of "leapfrogging" was tested and refined to speed up this process. Essentially this was the use of heliborne trackers being dropped ahead of the follow-up team on the line of flight to cross grain to try to pick up the spoor closer to the fleeing insurgents. See this part of the Rhodesian manual on Follow-up Operations for more detail.
Apart from the obvious requirement for combat tracking teams to be able to track competently it is operationally essential that they be able to assess the freshness of the spoor and the sign and indicate to the follow-up commander that contact is imminent. This is necessary to allow the follow-up commander to move his troops into the best position (according to the ground) for the contact.
It was irritating that having been on a follow-up for a few days the whole operation would end with a fleeting no casualties either side contact or the trackers dropping one or two and the rest taking off now at twice the speed and probably "bombshelling" (scattering) to move individually to a prearranged RV somewhere ahead on their line of march.
There was/is a tendency for trackers to become prima donnas somewhere up there with opera singers if you let them.
The role of trackers or the combat tracking team is to help maintain contact with the enemy, nothing more. While operating with a slick and proficient combat tracking team which tracks you to a successful contact is a very rewarding experience the roles, functions, duties and tasks should never be confused.
The first point is that once contact is made you essentially have two elements which probably have never trained together now engaged in a firefight with the enemy. There are (friendly fire) dangers here and trackers need to keep out of it after the initial exchange of fire to avoid such problems. In our war if you did not immediately assault/pursue/out flank contact would be quickly lost and the whole effort would have to start again.
I would let trackers argue about skills and methods and whatever they like but operationally all that matters is their ability to track to contact.
All that said if you want proficient trackers you need a permanent tracking unit. The skill of tracking needs to be exercised daily and the only way it can be is through housing your trackers in one tracking unit and then attaching combat tracking teams from this unit to formations and units in the field as the circumstances require.
Apart from the bushcraft and tracking skills the military skills can be maintained through a system where for example they are required to attend a refresher course at (say) the Ranger school for a week a year.
The tracking and bushcraft skills would need to cover areas, continents and countries other than their own so it would be necessary to provide training in proper jungles and in Asia and the middle east and Europe etc etc to ensure that your "scouts" are able to serve the army regardless of where the next war might break out.
This unit would I suggest have a "reserve" component made up of people who have and use a tracking skill in the line of their everyday work and who can be called up for duty as and when required.
Likewise standard army units who may be required to operate with tracker combat teams would need to receive training in follow-up tactics as you don't want the situation developing where the trackers have more to fear from their own people following behind them than they have for those they are following.
Bushcraft (or woodcraft) training is essential for SF and selection based units and desirable for all soldiers. It provides a grounding in situational awareness which I believe is critical for soldiers especially those operating in a anti-terrorist or counter-insurgency setting out in the bush/jungle/mountains/desert somewhere.
As I suggested elsewhere (as part of officer selection and training) bushcraft training is also a great confidence builder which is IMHO essential for all officers and NCOs. Take them into a wilderness setting and issue them with a piece of hide and a bush-knife. Let them make sandals and/or a loin-cloth and a water bottle out of the hide and then take them on the training for a few weeks. Those that don't demand to be sent home to mommy will come out greatly improved as people (and therefore as leaders and soldiers) from the experience. (I think pilots do survival training something along these lines)
That all said I believe that all SF soldiers need to do at least a tracking course at the first level with emphasis on anti-tracking (counter-tracking) skills. (as sometimes the hunter becomes the hunted)
JMA,
Some good comments, I'd like to reply to some. Don't take anything personal, you cant read me as I am saying this.
Hey that’s part of the process. Tracking is just another tool and not the “be all end all”. It’s an opportunity event, depending on the Tracking teams ability, mission, enemy, terrain, weather conditions, as well as the amount of support will all affect the outcome of a Tracking Operation.Quote:
Some we tracked to contact on others the spoor was lost for a variety of reasons.
True the Rhodesians and South Africans did a great job developing this. Today however if you take that tracking skill and combine it with some of the advanced capabilities employed today, the information gathered and disseminated to other patrols working in conjunction would make the “leapfrog” method even more efficient.Quote:
Early on (in the late 60's) the limitation of trying to catch up on fleeing lightly equiped insurgents was a real problem regardless of the skills of the trackers. So the tactic of "leapfrogging" was tested and refined to speed up this process. Essentially this was the use of heliborne trackers being dropped ahead of the follow-up team on the line of flight to cross grain to try to pick up the spoor closer to the fleeing insurgents.
Not just aging but the tracking patrol needs to be able to interpret the track line to determine what the enemy was doing as well as attempt to figure out what he will do and understand his enemies TTPs. The tracking patrol doesn't’t just follow a set of tracks, they are hunting if they are in pursuit. If the tracking patrol is not interpreting the track line along with the terrain they will find themselves in trouble.Quote:
Apart from the obvious requirement for combat tracking teams to be able to track competently it is operationally essential that they be able to assess the freshness of the spoor and the sign and indicate to the follow-up commander that contact is imminent.
For you or them?:rolleyes:Quote:
It was irritating that having been on a follow-up for a few days the whole operation would end with a fleeting no casualties either side contact or the trackers dropping one or two and the rest taking off now at twice the speed and probably "bombshelling" (scattering) to move individually to a prearranged RV somewhere ahead on their line of march.
That happens with any small unit that you segregate from the guys they are to help support. However if you select and train one squad in each Infantry platoon to have this capability, as well as give them an additional skill identifier that will keep them in that position you shouldn’t have an integration problem or fratricide problem since they belong to that platoon and would be properly supported by their platoon. This is a skill set that will enhance every platoon’s ability to gather information on the enemy if they are conducting reconnaissance operations or find, fix and finish an enemy when conducting a pursuit operation. Tracking incorporated in the Scouts at the Battalion level as well as the RSTA units at brigade level will enhance their unit’s collection capabilities as well.Quote:
There was/is a tendency for trackers to become prima donnas
That sounds like an officer talking who didn’t completely understand the capabilities of tracking. This might have been the way the Rhodesians had thought of tracking but that is such a narrow view as to its capabilities. True sometimes you conduct a tracking operation and are unable to capture or kill the enemy, BUT what did the patrol learn about the enemy, the terrain, and atmospherics within a village and so on. When the unit comes back from their patrol and conducts their debrief all that information should be captured. Most insurgencies are local and what is gathered about that particular cell will help shape the Company Intelligence Support Teams Intel picture of what is going on in that area. Also the information gathered from footwear impression evidence as well as other material discarded by the enemy will provide a better understanding as to the insurgents Infil and Exfil routes, areas of support and so on.Quote:
The role of trackers or the combat tracking team is to help maintain contact with the enemy, nothing more.
Again this is a very narrow view of tracking.Quote:
I would let trackers argue about skills and methods and whatever they like but operationally all that matters is their ability to track to contact.
MHO is again that each company has this capability with those capabilities also at Battalion and Brigade level. It needs to be decentralized and employed by the guys who have to patrol every day.Quote:
All that said if you want proficient trackers you need a permanent tracking unit. The skill of tracking needs to be exercised daily and the only way it can be is through housing your trackers in one tracking unit and then attaching combat tracking teams from this unit to formations and units in the field as the circumstances require.
This just isn’t going to happen. The U.S. Military just won’t do that and I guarantee you your army didn’t do that either. It would be too costly. If that were to be done it would be done by a tier 1 unit and then you would definitely have a “prima donna” problem. However I have tracked in all these environments by using basic principles and after a period of adjustment to a new environment I had no problem tracking.Quote:
The tracking and bushcraft skills would need to cover areas, continents and countries other than their own so it would be necessary to provide training in proper jungles and in Asia and the middle east and Europe etc etc to ensure that your "scouts" are able to serve the army regardless of where the next war might break out.
I agree, since 911 our soldier’s field craft skills have turned to crap.:(Quote:
Bushcraft (or woodcraft) training is essential for SF and selection based units and desirable for all soldiers. It provides a grounding in situational awareness which I believe is critical for soldiers especially those operating in a anti-terrorist or counter-insurgency setting out in the bush/jungle/mountains/desert somewhere.
True, but you will never be proficient at counter tracking until you are a tracker first and understand what the tracker or a scent dog is capable of.:wry:Quote:
That all said I believe that all SF soldiers need to do at least a tracking course at the first level with emphasis on anti-tracking (counter-tracking) skills. (as sometimes the hunter becomes the hunted)
The "amount of support" from whom?
Yes there is much current technology that we could have used had it been available. 30 odd years ago even our helos could not fly at night. Especially important would have been the ability to continue into the night through the use of thermal. If they could just keep ahead of us until night fall they were generally home and dry. What other stuff would you find useful?Quote:
True the Rhodesians and South Africans did a great job developing this. Today however if you take that tracking skill and combine it with some of the advanced capabilities employed today, the information gathered and disseminated to other patrols working in conjunction would make the “leapfrog” method even more efficient.
Well here is where we part ways. Most always (unless you can give me otherwise specifics) the tracking team is not from your unit and is attached and under command for operations. We never (seldom if ever) used more than a 4 man tracking stick. The rest of the follow-up team were infantry soldiers effectively on an advance to contact. The follow-up commander was never the tracker team leader. So the word tracking patrol is vague. Who and what is the tracking patrol? Is it not a follow-up force comprising a combat tracking team and an infantry call-sign of varying size?Quote:
Not just aging but the tracking patrol needs to be able to interpret the track line to determine what the enemy was doing as well as attempt to figure out what he will do and understand his enemies TTPs. The tracking patrol doesn't’t just follow a set of tracks, they are hunting if they are in pursuit. If the tracking patrol is not interpreting the track line along with the terrain they will find themselves in trouble.
The irritation of having a fleeting contact after hours/days should be an irritant/disappointment to all and especially a waste to the war effort. While the trackers may be slapping each other on the back for getting two kills the big question should be what happened to the other 20 possible kills? Without a doubt good trackers will be able to indicate when a contact is imminent and so allow the follow-up commander to deploy his troops for the maximum result. There are just not too many good trackers out there. Not in Rhodesia in the 70s and and probably less elsewhere these days.Quote:
For you or them?:rolleyes:
Lets look the facts:Quote:
That happens with any small unit that you segregate from the guys they are to help support. However if you select and train one squad in each Infantry platoon to have this capability, as well as give them an additional skill identifier that will keep them in that position you shouldn’t have an integration problem or fratricide problem since they belong to that platoon and would be properly supported by their platoon. This is a skill set that will enhance every platoon’s ability to gather information on the enemy if they are conducting reconnaissance operations or find, fix and finish an enemy when conducting a pursuit operation. Tracking incorporated in the Scouts at the Battalion level as well as the RSTA units at brigade level will enhance their unit’s collection capabilities as well.
1. There is no way on earth that anyone will train up a skilled tracking team per infantry platoon across the whole army.
2. There are not enough people in any military in any country that have the necessary tracking skills and aptitude who want to be a grunt in an infantry platoon.
3. There is no way if a tracking team was integral to an infantry platoon organisation that they could maintain their proficiency without seriously degrading their other individual training and their training within the context of the platoon.
4. The maintenance of tracking proficiency would be impossible if the trackers were dispersed as you suggest.
Comment: Yes I agree that bushcraft training would be very beneficial for every man in the platoon but when it comes to tracking +95% just don't have the aptitude. Better then to attach tracking teams to companies when they are deployed in an operational environment that demands such skills.
Unless trackers have the ability to track to contact they serve no real purpose. The peripheral skills are indeed valuable but are merely add-ons. As in the US military environment where there once were scouts and trackers in the West in the late 1800s there are examples of these unique men. Unique is the word. These men can't be produced at will. As to the capabilities of these unique men the challenge would be to find and demonstrate the capabilities of these trackers.Quote:
That sounds like an officer talking who didn’t completely understand the capabilities of tracking. This might have been the way the Rhodesians had thought of tracking but that is such a narrow view as to its capabilities. True sometimes you conduct a tracking operation and are unable to capture or kill the enemy, BUT what did the patrol learn about the enemy, the terrain, and atmospherics within a village and so on. When the unit comes back from their patrol and conducts their debrief all that information should be captured. Most insurgencies are local and what is gathered about that particular cell will help shape the Company Intelligence Support Teams Intel picture of what is going on in that area. Also the information gathered from footwear impression evidence as well as other material discarded by the enemy will provide a better understanding as to the insurgents Infil and Exfil routes, areas of support and so on.
Tracking itself is a skill that has a narrow application. In Rhodesia in the early days the insurgent infiltration routes were through the wilderness areas of low population and as such were relatively simple to track. Later when they operated in the areas of high population density with domestic cattle and goats tracking became less in demand due to very limited success.Quote:
Again this is a very narrow view of tracking.
Where would you find all these skilled trackers and how will you keep them current? You would need to train thousands of people to get a no better than average tracking ability. When it comes to combat tracking average is just not good enough.Quote:
MHO is again that each company has this capability with those capabilities also at Battalion and Brigade level. It needs to be decentralized and employed by the guys who have to patrol every day.
Whether it does or doesn't is not my concern. In Rhodesia there was most certainly a serious attempt to group trackers together into distinct grouping where they could train together to maintain their skills level. The people grouped together were in the main people of already proven tracking skill and the training was how best to apply this skill in a military environment. One should learn from these attempts rather than offer an alternative that has less chance of success.Quote:
This just isn’t going to happen. The U.S. Military just won’t do that and I guarantee you your army didn’t do that either. It would be too costly. If that were to be done it would be done by a tier 1 unit and then you would definitely have a “prima donna” problem. However I have tracked in all these environments by using basic principles and after a period of adjustment to a new environment I had no problem tracking.
It should be obvious that the only way to keep a unit of trackers current is to exercise them continuously in different environments. I love the way cost is thrown into the equation mostly before the numbers have even been crunched. If the Pentagon were to be convinced that there was a real need for tracker and tracking and bushcraft skills the money would be found (especially if the unit was to be based in the state of an influencial senator ;)
I would agree that level one trackers would be able to adapt quickly to new and different environments but level one trackers are few and far between. To sell tracking as a skill to the extent you appear to believe would be valuable you would have to demonstrate that there are the numbers available at the required skills level realise that capability. Good luck with that. Where would you draw these trackers from? Special recruiting in areas where this skill is developed from birth (like Burham) or what?
Fieldcraft or bushcraft or both?Quote:
I agree, since 911 our soldier’s field craft skills have turned to crap.:(
No. If you understand how a tracker works and what sign he recognises you will be in a position to make it much more difficult for trackers following you. You may also need to employ booby traps and other mechanisms to delay and/or discourage trackers (when operating in areas where anti-tracking is difficult).Quote:
True, but you will never be proficient at counter tracking until you are a tracker first and understand what the tracker or a scent dog is capable of.:wry:
I would be interested to hear where the US military has used tracking to any significant degree in recent operations / small wars? This together with actual combat experience so as to establish to what extent the approaches to tracking being debated are merely theoretical or based on hard experience.
I think we are separated by a common language as well as different terminology, doctrines and eras. IMHO I feel you are wrong and you probably feel the same about my opinions. I will not banter with you just for the sake of bantering. Your view seems to be that of a platoon leader than that of a tracker and is based from what you experienced in your army at your time. That is you impression from your own experiences during that conflict at that time, in what used to be your country. I have been tracking and teaching tracking for a while and my opinions are shaped from my military service and my experiences as a tracker. I have never had a soldier or marine go away from a course not able to track, NEVER. Most Combat Arms soldiers I come in contact with want the skill. So when I make my comments about tracking its coming from what I see going on in our military and the need to reintroduce a skill at a level based on how we fight today. We are an all-volunteer force. We are not Rhodesia. We are not organized into sticks. We don’t have Alouette helicopters and the terrain that our soldiers will fight on tend to be different than that of our own country. I know the Rhodesian military structure was different than ours. I think historically you guys came up with some very innovative ways of fighting your enemy. But I also think your speaking from the past rather than doing some research and find out what we are doing here now. For some time the U.S. and some of the Coalition have been using tracking on a small scale and it has proved quite successful. When I first posted my thread I posted it in the “trigger puller” section because I wanted to generate some discussion as it relates currently not historically and I wanted to hear from guys who were “trigger pullers”. I didn’t want to get caught up on the past. My thread was then moved to the historical section because it was thought “appropriate”. I didn’t want to get into a historical Rhodesia debate which is why I didn’t post there in the first place because I knew you and I would be having this conversation about Rhodesia. It just seems counterproductive. By the way it’s not “Burham” its Burnham. If you want to PM me feel free but there are some things I will not discuss openly on this forum.
Again, one war in one locale at one time. Wars vary. Situations differ. Enemy and Terrain differ. METT-TC is older than you and I together...;)Not terribly necessary in the urban battles in Iraq, not much use in other, smaller wars since Viet Nam LINK There's one link, Google has many more -- a lot of which are posted earlier in this thread... :rolleyes:Quote:
I would be interested to hear where the US military has used tracking to any significant degree in recent operations / small wars? This together with actual combat experience so as to establish to what extent the approaches to tracking being debated are merely theoretical or based on hard experience.
Working with the tracker Teams in Viet Nam leads me to see your point but not totally agree; that METT-TC thing again. Depending upon the mission and operation, Tracker Teams can be of great or of no value. My observation has also been that you can train most guys, in combat, to an acceptable level of tracking skill. YMMV.
Exactly, that is why there is no point in trying to train up one combat tracking team (CTT) per infantry platoon. Attach/embed/whatever your CTT to battalions/companies/platoons as the operations circumstances in a given conflict may demand.
OK, so from that website we see the application very similar other than the follow-up force operated as follows:Quote:
Not terribly necessary in the urban battles in Iraq, not much use in other, smaller wars since Viet Nam LINK There's one link, Google has many more -- a lot of which are posted earlier in this thread... :rolleyes:
The variation obviously worked for them in the Vietnam setting, so there is nothing further to be said about it.Quote:
From Combat Tracker Team (Vietnam) website: "The unit was usually supported by a platoon or larger force and worked well ahead of them to maintain noise discipline and the element of surprise."
Tracker teams are by definition trackers first and foremost. If they are able/required/needed to fulfill reconnaissance and/or other functions in addition to their primary function and reason for their existence then that is all good and well. A separate specialist unit is the best manner in which to keep their skills up. (I accept that in order to justify their existence trackers would need/tend/resort to hype their capabilities, don't blame them for this. But between ourselves lets try to keep it real)Quote:
Working with the tracker Teams in Viet Nam leads me to see your point but not totally agree; that METT-TC thing again. Depending upon the mission and operation, Tracker Teams can be of great or of no value. My observation has also been that you can train most guys, in combat, to an acceptable level of tracking skill. YMMV.
Acceptable level of tracking skill? What is that? To be honest with you Ken I can't possibly accept that a kid born and bred in NYC can compare with one born and bred in a wilderness area. Average in most cases is just not good enough... and when it comes to combat tracking this is especially so (IMHO).
Damn I liked this quote from that website (maybe thats why veterans from wars always have so much in common)... I feel exactly the same about it all now 30 years on.
Now I suppose that's why they use 18-20 somethings for wars... they/we/I were too dumb then to understand the dangers.Quote:
“Our job was to find the enemy and re-establish contact,” Matt said. “When you were 20 years old, that sounded fun. When you’re 60, that’s crazy.”
"What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun." - Ecclesiastes 1:9-14
I am certainly not "wrong" but I can admit that the application of what I say (being what I learned at the feet of masters) may differ from one operational environment to the next.
What I/we experienced (including from the early days in Mozambique), what the Combat Tracker Teams in Vietnam, what the Brits and Rhodesians and others experienced in Malaya, what the Australians experienced in Vietnam and Timor cannot simply be ignored because it is in that past.
Trackers don't decide how the war is fought. Tracking skills are applied to the prevailing conditions as passed on through the chain of command. Where individual trackers are psychologically suited for recce work their skills will be valuable in this regard.
In the absence of live operational tracking against live, armed enemy and combat experience in a specific tracking setting one understands that there may be a tendency to theorise on the tactical employment. This is really unnecessary in the environments mentioned as there are people who have the experience to draw on. Certainly in the US there must be at least a handful of suitable experts from among the hundreds of Vietnam era trackers who must surely be consulted and their experience drawn on?
There is absolutely no reason to attempt to reinvent the wheel.
Well we are back to what constitutes a tracker. What does able to track mean? (same sort of question I asked Ken)Quote:
I have never had a soldier or marine go away from a course not able to track, NEVER. Most Combat Arms soldiers I come in contact with want the skill. So when I make my comments about tracking its coming from what I see going on in our military and the need to reintroduce a skill at a level based on how we fight today. We are an all-volunteer force.
The best way to reintroduce the skill of tracking is to redefine it in its most basic terms and let it be assessed whether there is a real need army wide or just as a specialist niche. Tracking is tracking and the ability to follow spoor and read sign has nothing to do with "how we fight today" but rather how follow-up actions can be extended into the night and further assisted by thermal and other technologies to continue operations on a 24/7 basis.
That is a meaningless paragraph.Quote:
We are not Rhodesia. We are not organized into sticks. We don’t have Alouette helicopters and the terrain that our soldiers will fight on tend to be different than that of our own country.
Is all your previous experience meaningless? If you served in Iraq is that service and combat experience meaningless when now operating in Afghanistan? Of course not. You take that experience and you use it, adapt it , draw from it and are better able to contribute in the battlefield you find yourself today.
Tracking in Rhodesia was a great learning curve for trackers as there is a large diversity of terrain/geographical/vegetation types. The Alouette helicopter was in a lot ways ideal for our war there. Initially it lifted sticks/callsigns of 5 then after the strela mods and the armoured seat for the pilot sticks were reduced to 4. So the tracking team and all other army callsigns became organised in multiples of 4. And it could fit into small, tight LZs. Difficult to shoot down as you needed to take the pilot out, hit the fuel line or the tail rotor. And cheap too.
Yes, in an army which fights all over the world trackers need to be trained in diverse areas with diverse terrain, geography and vegetation. (Thats why I said earlier a tracking unit would need to be formed to house these specialists and ensure a comprehensive training program to keep them current in situations from desert through to snow.)
But the tracking team was also 4 men like in Vietnam. Great minds think alike - except that our experience with dogs was not a success.Quote:
I know the Rhodesian military structure was different than ours. I think historically you guys came up with some very innovative ways of fighting your enemy.
Well in the early days we attached many of our trackers to work with the Portuguese forces in Mozambique. So by the time they were needed locally they were experienced and operationally competent. Note: they did not say "what the hell can the Porks teach us?"
We also drew on the Malayan experience as both our C Squadron SAS were there as were the RAR (Rhodesia African Rifles) and a number of officers had served with other Brit regiments in Malaya.
See my quote inserted at the top of this post.Quote:
But I also think your speaking from the past rather than doing some research and find out what we are doing here now. For some time the U.S. and some of the Coalition have been using tracking on a small scale and it has proved quite successful.
And of course I/we would be thrilled to see how the tactics have been adapted to enemy and terrain... but then you can't tell us any more about that because this is an open forum, yes? So what exactly were you wanting to discuss?
They may have had or now have some exceptional people but those were just that, exceptional. They were or are also few in number and were or are on both ends of that exceptional spectrum, good and bad. :wry:I don't think anyone here is suggesting otherwise...:rolleyes:Ability to spot major and easily identified sign, the odd broken branch or scuffed spot in the dust -- Fieldcraft (or Bushcraft) 101. The big stuff, not a tracker, just an alert kid who is very situationally aware -- a good, basic, competent combat infantryman, no more.Quote:
Acceptable level of tracking skill? What is that?
The average rural bred will have advantages over the average city bred in field combat situations (the reverse is somewhat true in urban combat -- it take all kinds...) but all born and bred in a wilderness area are not automatically junior F.C. Selous types -- wasn't he a born and bred Londoner -- Rugby grad? -- in any event? Not going to Africa until he was 19, the age of many young soldiers...:DQuote:
To be honest with you Ken I can't possibly accept that a kid born and bred in NYC can compare with one born and bred in a wilderness area.
It has been my observation that average is exactly what you get most of the time in most Armies. On average, it proves adequate -- not great, just adequate.Quote:
Average in most cases is just not good enough... and when it comes to combat tracking this is especially so (IMHO).
I've noticed that outlook in a great many one time good Soldiers and Marines who moved on to other things. Not nearly so prevalent an attitude in the long timers for whom it was just a job, not an exciting or interesting interlude to be relived. :wry:Quote:
Damn I liked this quote from that website (maybe thats why veterans from wars always have so much in common)... I feel exactly the same about it all now 30 years on.
Focus please on TYR's quest:I admit t'was I who moved TYR's opening thread to this old thread:eek: as it wasQuote:
For some time the U.S. and some of the Coalition have been using tracking on a small scale and it has proved quite successful. When I first posted my thread I posted it in the “trigger puller” section because I wanted to generate some discussion as it relates currently not historically and I wanted to hear from guys who were “trigger pullers”. I didn’t want to get caught up on the past.
..Quote:
appropriate
OPSEC withstanding, can we discuss the current situation?
cannot... :wry:
Perhaps Fort Benning should hire JMA as a consultant to be its moral conscience. He could be to light infantry tactics as David Kilcullen is to counterinsurgency doctrine. :wry:
Working on the Brit grading system (A, B+, B, B-, etc down to C-) Rhodesia had 2 A grade military trackers (Clemance and Watt) and then a handful of B+'s then more in each group was you went lower down the order. These exceptional people set the standard would-be aspirant trackers could aspire to. One needs the standard to be set and not allow every one to do their own thing and set their own standard... which often will be pretty low. (Note: there were many outstanding African trackers who worked mainly for the Game Department but could not be fully utilised in war settings as they had no wish to die in the war. Who could blame them.)
You would know how exceptional leaders would get the best out of often otherwise very average troops. A handful of exceptional officers and snr NCOs can turn an average battalion into a formidable fighting force. Seen that myself and no doubt you have on a number occasions as well.
My point in all this is that average trackers (in my experience) seldom were able to track to contact... and they could never tell when contact was imminent. That in my humble opinion is the differentiator. Probability of making contact and the 6th sense to know when the sh*t was about to hit the fan. You knew when you were working with the best as there were no surprises.
Another thing is that invariably the best trackers had better than 20:20 vision.
Well in saying that tracking skill is the most important I would go further to say that one should consider specifically recruiting people with proven tracking skills foremost then giving them the necessary military traning to function within a combat tracking team in conjunction with a follow-up force.Quote:
I don't think anyone here is suggesting otherwise...:rolleyes:
So I would suggest that you go find these kids in the wild areas and offer them a job. They probably know how to shoot too.
If you followed the thread of Service Academies then see post #62 where I suggested a means to address this bushcraft/woodcraft training and at the same time build confidence. Note: this is valuable not only for officer training but across the board.Quote:
Ability to spot major and easily identified sign, the odd broken branch or scuffed spot in the dust -- Fieldcraft (or Bushcraft) 101. The big stuff, not a tracker, just an alert kid who is very situationally aware -- a good, basic, competent combat infantryman, no more.
During such training (if it were ever to take place) you would soon see who had the natural aptitude for tracking and steer them in that career direction (if one still exists).
Selous was a hunter/adventurer/soldier/conservationist (not quite sure how they reconcile hunting on the scale carried out by Selous with conservation) and not a tracker or scout in the sense Burnham was.Quote:
The average rural bred will have advantages over the average city bred in field combat situations (the reverse is somewhat true in urban combat -- it take all kinds...) but all born and bred in a wilderness area are not automatically junior F.C. Selous types -- wasn't he a born and bred Londoner -- Rugby grad? -- in any event? Not going to Africa until he was 19, the age of many young soldiers...:D
This quote says it all: "Burnham is the finest scout who ever scouted in Africa. He was my Chief of Scouts in '96 in Matabeleland and he was the the eyes and ears of my force." — Gen. Carrington, British Army commander during the Second Matabele War.
Burnham was the man, but probably because Selous had made a name for himself and become a household name in the UK he received naming rights. (Note: the original Selous Scouts was in fact armoured car reconnaissance regiment which was disbanded and then reborn as the Selous Scouts as most people know it)
OK, and we know by experience to win the shooting part of a war all you need to be is better than your enemy. No more. Then there are those of us who want to improve our odds by being with a better than average unit. Soldiering can only be fun if you are kicking ass, yes?Quote:
It has been my observation that average is exactly what you get most of the time in most Armies. On average, it proves adequate -- not great, just adequate.
A lot of things change as one ages. Some of us drive slower, drink less, take less risks. Maybe it is only when looking back from the "responsible" position as family provider and grandfather that one can see the dangers in the actions of so many years ago that were not apparent at the time.Quote:
I've noticed that outlook in a great many one time good Soldiers and Marines who moved on to other things. Not nearly so prevalent an attitude in the long timers for whom it was just a job, not an exciting or interesting interlude to be relived. :wry:
Tracking skills are rare in "civilized" populaces, but handy.
I had the privilege to serve with Colonel (retired) Larry Brown who earned the nickname of "Superscout" during, I believe, his first tour in Nam flying scout helos in the 9th Cav. The unit was in pursuit of a group of VC, and Larry hovered low over an exposed section of muddy trail, and drawing a mental box, counting the number of footprints and dividing by two, he was able to report a direction, number of enemy, and an estimate of when they had passed. Later the enemy was interdicted, verifying his report. His commander changed his assessment that Larry was a major bull####ter to one that he was a "Superscout," and the name stuck.
It was a moniker he revalidated countless times during his multiple tours and countless engagements in that conflict. (He's still a hell of a pilot and one crazy SOB last I heard).
Your point is both true, and false in the same sentence.
I've seen some various posts that involve "Combat Tracking Teams"/"Tactical Tracking Teams". Frankly, they are one and the same. The focus is to track in a tactical environment and offer the commander either valuable intelligence, or ability to pursue the enemy to either find, fix, destroy them...or in some cases, collect enough intelligence or evidence, to offer that opportunity another day.
Either way, it is a current capability that is utilized in theater, and I say this, because I have done it. When I say that, my most recent mission where I was utilized as a Tracker, was just this last May in Iraq. It was essential in a Post Blast incident site north of Baghdad. If I hadn't utilized that skill, we would not have collected evidence that provided 25+ latent prints, spoor identifying number of individuals, TTPs utilized, spotter locations, etc. This is only one of many many missions where I was utilized in this manner while on a WIT as the Tactical Advisor (Infantryman) with EOD.
To say this is not current doctrine is only to say you are not familiar with what IS doctrine.
As recent as October 2007, the following was published for doctrine directed at the entire United States Army...however, it is being ignored.
Tracking supports not only the Commander in knowing what is going on outside the wire, but also provides valuable information that it utilized by current intelligence personnel to further develop the Current Operation Picture (COP).Quote:
FM 2-91.6 (October 2007)
Soldier Surveillance and Reconnaissance: Fundamentals of Tactical Information Collection
Chapter 1
1-13. Skills, education, and experience in cultural awareness; biometrics tools and applications; battlefield forensic support activities and tracking all directly enable the tasks that contribute to ES2.
2-3. In addition to the tasks that contribute to ES2, training in cultural awareness, biometrics tools and applications, battlefield forensic support activities, and tracking can significantly enhance a unit’s internal information collection and subsequent intelligence production.
TRACKING (Dedicated Section in FM)
2-18. Tracking is a type of reconnaissance. Tracking may be planned, but is often a result of combat or reconnaissance patrolling, tactical site exploitation, or an IED event. Although any trained Soldier can perform tracking, a tracking patrol is normally a squad-size, possibly smaller element. It is tasked to follow the trail of a specific individual or enemy unit in order to determine its composition, final destination, and actions en route.
2-19. Members of the tracking patrol look for subtle signs left by the subject as he moves. As the tracking element tracks, it collects information about the individual or enemy unit, the route taken, and the surrounding terrain. Normally, a tracking patrol avoids direct fire contact with the tracked unit, but in many instances, detention is a result of tracking an individual. Tracking patrols often use tracker dog teams to help them maintain the track.
This is not some skill that is depicted in "John Wayne" movies, but utilized in theater now. I have done the hand off to a Tracking Dog Team at a Post Blast in the outskirts of Baghdad, I have also tracked Triggermen leaving the location of where they detonated the device from. It provided essential information that the manuever element utilized and tasked various organic assets to go seek more information.
Yes, it is "handy", however it is also utilized in not only rural, but urban environments, which I have personally been used as a Tracker on for more missions than I can count on my fingers and toes combined.
And don't forget Burnham was an American. I expect that had something to do with it also.
But the same sort of thing happened during the American frontier era. W.F. Cody became famous as a scout and was a household name. Cody was a good hunter, marksman, and tracker but men like Al Sieber, Tom Horn, and Billy Dixon were probably as good if not better. But Sieber, Horn and Dixon just never had the same name recognition.
A blast from the past: Mountain scouting. Can be legally downloaded for free here.
...Quote:
CHAPTER XV
THE TRAIL, SIGNS AND SIGNALS.
THE difficult art of trailing or tracking is of great importance in Indian warfare.
...Quote:
Much valuable information may be obtained by carefully observing 'signs'; but to follow a trail successfully, one must not only possess a thorough understanding of all 'signs,' but also a knowledge of the character and habits of the thing trailed, the general features of the country round about, and the powers of the eye and ear must be cultivated to a great degree of acuteness.
...Quote:
The trailer should not allow anything deviating from the common order of things to escape a rigid investigation. A close scrutiny will generally reveal both the plan and purpose of every active living creature...
FirnQuote:
When trailing Indians, it is often important to know the
especial customs of the various tribes. With this knowledge, the examination of the deserted camps, halting and resting places will invariably reveal the identity of the tribe once there ; the fashion of fire-making, the style, cut and finish of the moccasin, the form of lodge, etc., are all unmistakable evidences.
P.S: This part I find personally very interesting, as there donkeys and mules were also used in Europe to protect "their" flock of sheep togheter with dogs and the shepherds. The increasing number of large mammals of prey in the Alps, foremost bears and wolves has revived that old practice in some regions.
There you have another reason to revive part of the mountain infantry tradition of the Muli. Plus a well-proven source of practical jokes and pictures would return and one could try if his stone-bound-to-the-tail trick would really prevent them from crying.Quote:
If there be a mule with the party, it will be well worth the while to carefully watch his actions. If he stubbornly seeks a certain direction, with his head high and ears thrown forward, and seems much engaged, something is surely approaching ; it may only be a bear or some smaller animal, but it will be well to be on the alert until the cause of the trouble is known.
Yes I agree and probably also because Burnham moved on after the Matebele Wars. If he had left his bones in Africa it may have been a different story.
Also the Brits love their heroes to be excentric and to die heroically. Selous fitted the bill more in this regard.
KIA in the First World War in East Africa against the Germans by a sniper.
"Teddy" Roosevelt (also a somewhat larger than life character) wrote this upon his death:
His legendary love of tea made him very "English" and when you read about the regiment he was serving with when he died you get an insight into the world of British eccentricity - 25th (Frontiersmen) Battalion, Royal Fusiliers.Quote:
He led a singularly adventurous and fascinating life, with just the right alternations between the wilderness and civilization. He helped spread the borders of his people's land. He added much to the sum of human knowledge and interest. He closed his life exactly as such a life ought to be closed, by dying in battle for his country while rendering her valiant and effective service. Who could wish a better life or a better death, or desire to leave a more honourable heritage to his family and his nation?
JMA responded:I posed the request mindful - from my armchair - that OPSEC may curtail discussion and other moderators no doubt will watch carefully. I know not how much can be discussed now.Quote:
The problem (as always) is the OPSEC issue. If one cannot discuss detail on the tactical employment of trackers in today's wars because of OPSEC then what can really be discussed?
There is now a current tracking ops thread:http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/...ad.php?t=11167
Watch & wait.
I don't know that you could. Maybe among some of the more rural Eskimo villages but I don't know. Most Native Americans, country boys, hunters, etc., will need almost as much additional training as city boys.
You see, most successful American hunters are what you might call track aware. For instance, good whitetail deer hunters notice deer tracks and can make some reasonably accurate deductions about track age and animal size but that's about it. They simply use tracks as an indicator that their prey is in the area but they seldom try to follow tracks.
Being track aware is an important foundation/first step but with most outdoorsmen it doesn't go much beyond that. I know that's always the way it's been with me and I've had some successful days hunting, including one very nice elk.
I also saw your other post in regards to OPSEC. Honestly, the carrying out of the tracking piece is not anything that hasn’t already been posted multiple times within U.S. Army unclassified doctrinal publications, or utlized by law enforcement for a long time in everyday forensic applications. The handoff from either an IED Post Blast, IED Found/Cleared, Small Arms Fire (SAF), etc., is simply the ability to not contaminate the area, and give the infantry a starting point to continue the pursuit of the quarry. From there, the basic principles of tracking are performed in conjunction with standard patrolling techniques that are relatively common in most military organizations. While performing the tracking, you maintain a security element that is either moving as the tracking element moves, or there are elements in an overwatch posture that allows for security of the tracking element that is walking point.
While performing tracking operations, you don't violate the "5 Principles of Patrolling", and maintain not only maintain situational awareness of METT-TC, but also OCOKA.
Definitions:
"5 Principles of Patrolling": Planning, Reconnaissance, Security, Control, & Common Sense
METT-TC: Mission, Enemy, Terrain and Weather, Troops and Support Available, Time Available, Civil Considerations
OCOKA: Observation, Concealment, Obstacles, Key Terrain Features, Avenues of Approach
Typically, in the urban environments in either Iraq or Afghanistan, most of the streets are either dirt, or have a concrete/asphalt base that is covered in dirt. Due to the dust storms, and the basic lacking of keeping anything picked up or clean over there, track traps are everywhere. While analysis of the initial scene of the incident is being conducted by one element, the maneuver element that found it takes it from the edge of the incident site. They continue it on from there in a “movement to contact” type of posture, which the tracker guides them to where the quarry was heading. If it is understood where the individual that was identified at the scene may be heading, the time distance gap can be shortened, particularly if there are channeling corridors that allow for only certain directions of travel. It is far easier to perform tracking in urban areas in Iraq than it is in the United States, as most of the alleys area dirt, and not paved. Additionally, our peak times in urban areas were between 2100hrs to 0100hrs, which there was limited activity in the towns we were working in. Most of the spoor was also identified going through alleys and not along the main streets. Typically, the point of setting up an IED in those areas was to eliminate either a specific person, or a group of individuals near buildings they felt safe at.
Just like dealing with a crime scene in the United States, tracking in urban areas in Iraq are not much different. However, I have found far more evidence that has been able to be identified in Iraq than anything I have done in law enforcement here in the United States.
Tracking is not merely a patrolling function, but a way to gather forensic evidence left by the individuals responsible for the incident that got you called to an area in the first place. Just like how law enforcement utilizes shoe impressions, tire impressions, skid marks on roads, etc., to determine what happened, or be able to identify a suspect, so does the tracker. The principles of tracking remain the same, and are not something that is some kind of “Special Forces” function, but a function that a trained Infantryman can utilize to better the pursuit of a suspect, or develop knowledge of TTPs utilized by the individual they are after.
In today’s combat environments, we are almost as limited as personnel in Law Enforcement. We are not allowed to call in artillery on a sniper in a building anymore, like early on in the war. The fact that we are in a “peace keeping” roll, and not open combat, limits the use of easy methods of eliminating a threat. Through this restricted form of warfare, we have to utilize such capabilities that are proven to go after the target in a surgical manner, and not try and kill a fly with a sledge hammer.
Nowhere in history has age been a predetermination of wisdom in warfare. To look for a specific age bracket of experience is only to limit yourself in finding the resources that allow for the completion of mission.
If there is a limitation in experience within a younger group within a military force, then it is up to the commanders and other leaders with knowlege in proven warfare tactics to provide that training to the younger future leaders in military organizations.
With that being said, any shortfalls found need to be identified, and corrected by those that make the decisions in training for our younger soldiers.
...To ignore these shortfalls only proves the inadequate focus of leadership in supporting the completion of mission.
However, I have found that many in leadership roles in not only our own organization, but those in others, are more concerned with providing themselves with a "legacy" in a combat theater to further their careers, which is carried on the backs of those that actually "leave the wire."
I can only hope this will change. To identify those individuals that are in their "mid 20's" that offer this type of knowledge, will require those in leadership positions to offer the training essential to allowing for this type of experience at that age bracket.
"Nowhere in history"? That is some claim!
OK, the age aspect is in relation to the requirement to have combat soldiers in their 20's (give or take). So one needs to recruit people with tracking skills into the military in their early 20's.
Yes, that is obvious... but I was talking about tracking skills. A knowledge of minor tactics is worthless unless the man/men has tracking skills.Quote:
If there is a limitation in experience within a younger group within a military force, then it is up to the commanders and other leaders with knowlege in proven warfare tactics to provide that training to the younger future leaders in military organizations.
This is again why I believe that when looking for trackers you go out and recruit them based on the possession of that skill... and then train them up as soldiers.Quote:
With that being said, any shortfalls found need to be identified, and corrected by those that make the decisions in training for our younger soldiers.
What does this mean? The clear priority is the ability to track first and foremost. The follow-up team can and normally does take on the tactical battle once contact is made.Quote:
...To ignore these shortfalls only proves the inadequate focus of leadership in supporting the completion of mission.
That's your opinion... BTW which others do you have experience of?Quote:
However, I have found that many in leadership roles in not only our own organization, but those in others, are more concerned with providing themselves with a "legacy" in a combat theater to further their careers, which is carried on the backs of those that actually "leave the wire."
For tracking to make any advances and gain recognition in a large military like the US the command will have to be convinced that there is a role for tracking across the board in the modern army. (I believe unlike the army the USMC is to continue with tracking training)Quote:
I can only hope this will change. To identify those individuals that are in their "mid 20's" that offer this type of knowledge, will require those in leadership positions to offer the training essential to allowing for this type of experience at that age bracket.
Can you convince them?
(Added emphasis mine)
Nah... simply not possible. I accept that there are exceptions to any rule but the attempted use of city boys as combat trackers is really not worth the effort (and cost). City kids can certainly benefit from "bush awareness" courses and could probably track 10 people walking in single file on a wet beach but that is about as far as it goes.
Being track aware even for a single species is 9,000% better than the city boy whose natural awareness is limited to avoiding stepping in a pile of dog crap on the sidewalk.Quote:
You see, most successful American hunters are what you might call track aware. For instance, good whitetail deer hunters notice deer tracks and can make some reasonably accurate deductions about track age and animal size but that's about it. They simply use tracks as an indicator that their prey is in the area but they seldom try to follow tracks.
One can work on this foundation you mention. I would suggest that you test the candidates on the course on the first day. If they pass they continue to do a tracking course if they fail they move over to a bushcraft/woodcraft course.
Yes I agree that even with some hunters and outdoors-men that they are limited in the area of skills like tracking and even shooting. Now if kids with this background and exposure are not capable of tracking then what chance does your city boy have?Quote:
Being track aware is an important foundation/first step but with most outdoorsmen it doesn't go much beyond that. I know that's always the way it's been with me and I've had some successful days hunting, including one very nice elk.
This all said. I accept that those who run tracking schools will swear on their mother's honour that they can turn out a tracker in less than a week out of your average city boy. They would wouldn't they.
OK, so run a pre-course tracking test as an entry qualification. Then run a course of 8 weeks, 16 weeks or whatever but not a few days.
Here is a SOF magazine article on Rhodesian tracking going back to 1985. Worth reading.
Note quotation below.
I differ from Savory only in that he was looking for quality as opposed to quantity. You can then decide whether to select trained soldiers with the tracking aptitude or go out and find an area (or areas) where kids grow up learning this stuff and then train them as soldiers. Your core leader element would need to be found within the existing forces and I guess that would be phase one of setting up such a unit which would provide your officer and NCO structure. Phase 2 would be to find the trackers to fill the posts. Either you go find them or you run selection courses for volunteers from within the military or both.Quote:
Savory’s concept took native tracking and turned it into a military discipline. He argued that a soldier already skilled in patrols, ambushes and tactical maneuvering could better almost anyone in the man tracking game once trained in the necessary techniques. From Rhodesia’s SAS he selected eight men which he felt had demonstrated special potential to form a test group.
Savory put them through a Spartan, rigorous training program in the Sabie Valley adjacent to the Mozambique border. Eight weeks in the field, two weeks back in town and another eight weeks back in the bush was just enough to bring his men to what he felt was the required standard.
Savory selected 8 men out of the Rhodesian SAS (company size) as having the potential. The training was then over 16 weeks. If this is what is required in terms of training for those who already have a special aptitude then what about our city boy with less than 20:20 vision? Not going to work.
So there will be trackers and there will be those who have attended an advanced-fieldcraft/bushcraft/woodcraft course. Let us never try to blend the two together.
Again I say that those with a commercial agenda may well attempt to sell the idea that anyone can be turned into a tracker in a few days. Some people may even buy that.
JMA,
Okay then, maybe I was a little too self-critical (I consider it being "realistic") when I drew my conclusions, but I've spent a lot of time looking at animal "sign" (spoor) over the years, yet in spite of that I've spent very little time trying to follow animals.
I've been successful at hunting on quite a few occasions...
http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/...1&d=1225666093
http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/...1&d=1225666066
...but I don't consider myself a tracker and I'd certainly need a lot more training before being ready for a manhunt in the Zambezi Valley.
Don't sell yourself short. When Savory selected his core group he took them out into the bush/wilderness for 16 weeks to hone their tracking skills and to learn the tactical requirements of tracking armed insurgents.
Remember city kids have only seen a deer in a movie. Never breathed fresh air and never slept out in the cold/rain/snow or been chowed by mosquitoes/mopani flies/tsetse flies/centipedes/and the odd snake. They don't know what they are missing ;)
As to hunting... a better sport is hunting armed insurgents. They can shoot back. A more even contest?
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4058/...8f0c6c57_z.jpg
Waiting for chopper uplift from the flat rock behind. Now that is hunting!