Rhodesia, Rhodesia, Rhodesia
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.
Do you even read the threads in which you post?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JMA
Tracking itself is a skill that has a narrow application... 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.
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...;)
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.
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:
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.
All Armies are or were filled with average people. All.
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:
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JMA
Tracker teams are by definition trackers first and foremost...
I don't think anyone here is suggesting otherwise...:rolleyes:
Quote:
Acceptable level of tracking skill? What is that?
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:
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.
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
Quote:
Average in most cases is just not good enough... and when it comes to combat tracking this is especially so (IMHO).
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:
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.
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:
Well, obviously JMA and I