In a perfect world yes but,
Quote:
Originally Posted by
RJ
Gentlemen,
We live and some of you fight in a time when a good Lance Corporal in the Marines can and does when necessary talk to air assets that have the ability to do a lot more damage to enemy personnel and equipment than any amount of sexy firepower we can equip a modern rifle squad with.
I hear the in some of the fighting in Iraq, stubborn houses, well defended, were dropped around the ears of the enemy by the communication between the ground grunt and hte pilot with a smart bomb.
Now we are seeing single safe houses flattened by drones that are flown by some guy in the rear with the gear.
Let not over think the need, if all things being equal, todays infantry grunt can bring the wrath of God down on fixed defensive postions just by talking to a fast mover or a geek sitting in an air conditioned van on a little strip 100 miles away..
Yes if you have priority of fires. Have to think on a worst case scenerio. Can I effectively take on an enemy force with my internal weapons/weapon systems. There has been many fights where the unit in contact did not have priority on A/C gun ships, fighter A/C, or UAVs, they had to slug it out the old fashion way. Unfortunately we have yet to develop the power/fuel source that can keep an airframe in the air indefinately. Soldiers need to be able to continue the fight when aircraft have to leave station to refuel or rearm. Additionally there are cases where units maintained contact with the enemy for hours with these assets available. When thinking of how to arm todays grunt these factors need to be addressed.
Does this mean that hiking around the Central Highlands
for 15-20 days at a whack on multiple occasions was wrong? If so, I demand compensation for my pain and suffering!!! And hunger!!! And torn clothes!!! Where and who do I sue?
The 82d foot marched from mid-South Carolina back to Fort Bragg after a major exercise in 1962; 126 miles in four days. Did that, too. Does this mean I've been picked on???? :rolleyes:
I suspect this is incorrect.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Richard W
Algeria)...My guess is that there are very few infantry platoon's in the Western Armies that could do this type of a mission today (and probably fewer Western Commanders who would risk it.)
I think you'll find that some units in Afghanistan are routinely doing that and being resupplied by air. Some of the mounted platoons are out for more than two weeks at a whack, the foot mobile guys go for a week. Obviously their Commanders are now 'risking' it.
Quote:
In my opinion the two big questions are: 1) Can and will the Islamic Insurgents conduct extended and unsupported foot patrols? and 2) Do Western infantry platoons need to do so also?
The answer to the first is; depends. It's happening in Afghanistan. The answer to the second is yes (and it would be helpful if they could do it without the vests).
Quote:
As to rifle grenade vs. tube launched grenade...
Having used both, I'll go with the 40mm.
Extended Foot Platoon Patrol
Ken White:
Thank you for your kind reply.
I am confused - as usual. Are you telling me that Western Infantry Platoons are not conducting extended foot patrols without a supply vehicle but are being supported by an aircraft? If a platoon on a foot patrol is being supplied by an aircraft then that Platoon is attached to drop and landing zones. It is in a similar position to a Platoon tied to a road net.
My first question is whether Western Platoons are, like their ancestors, conducting extended foot patrols depending on their own backs to carry the required weight?
My second question is whether they need to?
Thank you
Regards
Richard W