Why is this more tragic/noteworthy than other Soldiers/Marines killed by IEDs?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Pete
Col. James H. Johnson III was recently relieved of command of the 173rd Airborne Brigade in Italy. He had been in command since 2008 and I believe he was in command when the engagement at Wanat took place. There's a Stars & Stripes story about it in today's SWJ news roundup.
Nah Pete, COL Johnson replaced COL Charles Preysler in October 2008. The battle of Wanat was July 13, 2008.
Nothing new here. I have personally employed the final (and earlier) CSI study for training, and feel it has extraordinary value in that context.
Believe it unfortunate that many terminated FCS items originally part of the Early Infantry Brigade Combat Team would have greatly assisted OP Topside and the main vehicle patrol base by providing better RSTA of deadspace, hotel and bazaar interiors, and exterior perimeters near OP Topside and COP Kahler. Same for COP Keating a year later in October 2009.
NLOS-LS and other planned UAS would have been highly effective, if perfected. The concepts were sound...the execution, IMHO sucked, probably primarily due to the network. Unfortunately the money is probably gone to AirSea battle concepts. The Army loses once again in efforts to provide the same asymmetric advantages already offered other services.
Seem to recall I mentioned something about poor execution
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fuchs
Are you referring to the remote ground sensors?
Afaik the video version was a sad joke in comparison to cheap civilian gadgets and all versions had terrible battery endurance.
There's a huge difference between military equipment for a few weeks of action and military equipment for years of occupation. Those unmanned grounds sensors clearly belonged into the former category.
The real question is whether it conceptually made sense to have urban and tactical unattended ground sensors, plus UAS and ground combat vehicles at lower tactical echelons. The now terminated NLOS-Launch System would have had a smaller blast radius and greater precision than the 155mm at Camp Blessing 5 miles to the south.
Properly executed, WITHOUT the FCS-specific network problems associated with all FCS systems, the concept made sense for dismounted units. Perhaps it was less necessary for mounted units with good organic vehicle sensors and more frequent movement.
The small unmanned ground vehicle remains and can perform some functions the unattended sensors would have performed. Batteries are cheap and getting better and small fuel cells are coming. Believe aerostats also perform a similar function as small UAS and unattended sensors. But those are less realistic when longer term COPs/FOBs are not in play.
But then we Americans are stupid. I live in shame for the wanton destruction of the few Libyan air defense systems and their operators who threatened allied aviators. Because I have a half German wife, I concede your point about the direct and obvious parallel between the Holocaust and German aggression in Europe in WWII and NATO's recent "aggression" in Libya. :cool:
Since I did not quote you it would be hard to misquote you
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fuchs
And don't use a false quote for a straw man.
Your attempt at making a mountain over the-attack-of-Libyan-air-defenses molehill, followed by the statement below, would lead most observers to infer your implication of some equivalence with your nation's WWII aggression:
Quote:
Several generations ago, hundreds of thousands of mostly very competent - and in some cases highly experiences - officers were wrong. They fought for victory. They failed their men, they failed their profession, they failed their country and they failed humanity.
This is an experience that added to my country's and our armed services' collective wisdom. It's not about victory alone, not by a long call. Decades of sitting on a potential battlefield with our very own allies plotting my nation's annihilation with nuclear weapons helped us not to forget this.
Flawed correlation aside, your initial mea culpa could not resist a parting shot at allies protecting you during the Cold War. Your implication that the U.S. would devastate then East Germany with small tactical nukes (and Carter's less destructive Neutron bombs) ignores that just as in WWII, the USSR would have devasted Germany far more if they had stormed conventionally across all Germany and Europe with a subsequent occupation. If that had occurred, instead of being the 4th largest economy in the world, today your entire country would resemble East Germany of the 80s.
I have never understood how smart people could have been suckered by Hitler, or let him take power. The current aversion to any form of aggression is equally puzzling because Germans typically are anything but passive personalities. Then I read this and more became clear:
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/article...5/stage_fright
Wasn't saying it was a positive example necessarily
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ken White
It's scary because it is an inefficient and generally ineffective method.
While it can work, marginally well, it should be avoided. If the technique is to be employed, much better training is going to be required for new enlistees and Officers. Not to mention the US Army needs to practice digging. By hand. With shovels. In the heat. And the snow (as they did for a great many years... :rolleyes:).
And crew served weapons on vehicles must always be capable of being employed on ground mounts. We used to know that. Why did we forget it?
And... :wry:
You are talking Infantry training issues. But not sure given the volume of RPG and machine gun fire that those weapons would have been any more effective dismounted. One mortar was surrounded by HESCO and still got taken out early as did the TOW vehicle that was poorly positioned on an open ramp.
Gunners may have had difficulty elevating over adjacent walls if they had been dismounted. One .50 cal gunner on the commander's vehicle was particularly effective because he had a wall behind him that protected the vehicle from RPG fire from the hotel and bazaar. All the HMMWVs were much too close to the village motel and mosque. The enemy fired from the mosque at both Wanat and COP Keating a year later.
You must admit (but probably won't ;) ) that combat outposts seems pretty ingrained now for irregular warfare. They likewise appear effective when placed near populations as opposed to indefensible and less essential terrain, and when patrolling is involved. Even Vietnam had firebases.
Now there is talk of turning over the entire Pech Valley to the ANA. Camp Blessing is at the mouth of Wanat's Waigal valley and near the Korengal valley. It was the site that took recent mortar fire, causing a helicopter QRF response that tragically engaged older kids instead of insurgents due to a mixed up target handover of unknown (by me) origin.
That was a negative for Army airpower but nearby a few weeks earlier, there were news reports of up to 65 killed insurgents that had the BDA video verifying it was a legitimate engagement.
Training is everything is training...
Forget that and / or try to do it on the cheap and it'll cost you later...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Cole
You are talking Infantry training issues.
No, I'm writing about land combat survival issues and our phenomenal ability to foolishly discard lessons and good practices learned the hard way. People who really know the basic principles of combat, land or air make fewer dumb mistakes that get people needlessly killed. Warfare means killing and dying, that's what it's about -- the object, per George C. Scott, is to make "the other dumb bastard give his life for his country."
Quote:
But not sure given the volume of RPG and machine gun fire that those weapons would have been any more effective dismounted.One mortar was surrounded by HESCO and still got taken out early as did the TOW vehicle that was poorly positioned on an open ramp.
Was not there so cannot comment on the specifics. What I can say is that HESCO Barriers lead to delusions of safety; that no one should EVER site any position, even a very temporary one, a halt on a march or patrol, on lower ground that allows opposing forces to move to extremely close range and overwhelm a portion of the position by massed fires. I can add that if mortars are taken out deliberately (accidents happen, bad guys can have good luck...) then the individuals responsible for those tubes' position were almost certainly wrong. Badly so.
Quote:
You must admit (but probably won't) ) that combat outposts seems pretty ingrained now for irregular warfare.
Why would I not admit it -- it's obvious and a fact of life. That does not make it sensible...:wry:
Quote:
They likewise appear effective when placed near populations as opposed to indefensible and less essential terrain...
By essential you mean near a population center, I presume. That's arguable but there is a time and place for it -- it should NEVER be viewed as a reflexive solution or an ideal way to do business. It is not. METT-TC in all things.
Quote:
and when patrolling is involved. Even Vietnam had firebases.
Bad example -- people in Viet Nam went out on three to five day patrols over tens of kilometers from those firebases. Some folks went out for longer period and for greater distances. I spent thirty plus days roaming around away from any base several times; so too did thousands of others. My sensing is that is not so in Afghanistan. Different wars...
Quote:
... causing a helicopter QRF response that tragically engaged older kids instead of insurgents due to a mixed up target handover of unknown (by me) origin.
That's a training issue -- a major one -- but it isn't solely an infantry issue...;)
Quote:
That was a negative for Army airpower but nearby a few weeks earlier, there were news reports of up to 65 killed insurgents that had the BDA video verifying it was a legitimate engagement.
That's warfare, ups and down. Who dares wins; Who is best trained wins...:cool:
He who violates common sense rules on position selection, weapon siting and availability, target identification or anything else will pay, one way or another...:(
That depends on where you are
who you are -- and what you do. And perhaps on whether you want to live or die. :D
METT-TC... ;)