Page 7 of 9 FirstFirst ... 56789 LastLast
Results 121 to 140 of 180

Thread: Back to Basics…The Lost Art of Basic Combat Fundamentals

  1. #121
    Council Member Pete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    North Mountain, West Virginia
    Posts
    990

    Default

    Est tut mir leit, Herr Doktor Fuchs. My German never got much past the, "Wo ist der Schwerpunkt, bitte?" level.

  2. #122
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Durban, South Africa
    Posts
    3,902

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken White View Post
    However, if one has seen a few people killed by random, even unintended, fire one will probably look at a definition of 'effective' in a different light than others.
    In Section Battle Drill 2 - Reaction to Effective Enemy Fire (the Brit version) it is as follows: "Effective enemy fire is fire which is causing casualties, or likely to do so if the advance is continued." Does not matter what source.

    Depends on the weapons. If the opponents have SVD(s), any of the PK series or even old Nagants or Enfields -- even an RPK -- much less a Dshk, they can bring very effective (by any reasonable definition) fire on you at those ranges. Conversely, the M-14 series, the M240/MAG 58s and the various other long range weapons can initiate or return effective fire at those ranges. So whether one even bothers to take cover is -- as always -- situation, state of training and / or experience and all that METT-TC stuff dependent. The only rule in combat is that there are no rules...
    Its all about whether its effective fire. Some bangs in the distance with the odd high crack overhead is hardly worth responding to. The question needs to be asked again what are the troops doing out in the open and exposed to someone with any weapon 900m away?

    Or the Soldier led into harm's way by a quite competent officer or NCO not by strolling -- as you so repetitiously, drolly and ignorantly put it -- but by crossing open areas that are forced upon them by the situation in as tactically sound a manner as is possible.
    I appreciate it touches a nerve with you Ken but your responses don't address the issue. I ask again what do these patrols wish to find out there on the open ground they walk over? If they were there to draw fire that a few Gunships would respond to then I can understand it. But then we know this is not the case.

    I asked this question before and now I ask it again:
    ... what kind of tactical movement is being used by these patrols where they are out in the open and able to be seen from 500-700m? Not to mention fieldcraft and "selecting lines of advance" issues.
    I know the Brit teaching on this and they are deviating from the doctrine (they will probably say they have no choice because of the large tracts of open ground - but will forget that under such circumstances the requirement is to picket the high ground).

    Then we got into the supposed need to get from point A to point B. And it turns out they wanted to have a chat with the civvies in the villages.

    The good news is that you don't have to worry about any of that, you can just fulminate at length over the internet while a lot of others ranging from more competent than you or I ever were to those incompetents you seem to see everywhere get on with business...
    Its called the pursuit of excellence Ken. Keep questioning and keep trying to improve. The competent will continue to learn and improve and the incompetents will continue to go like lambs to the slaughter.

  3. #123
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Talking The only nerve exposed here is thine...

    Quote Originally Posted by JMA View Post
    In Section Battle Drill 2 - Reaction to Effective Enemy Fire (the Brit version) it is as follows: "Effective enemy fire is fire which is causing casualties, [B]or likely to do so if the advance is continued.[/
    B]" Does not matter what source.(emphasis added / kw)
    Thank you for confirming my comment with British doctrine. It must be terribly conflicting to have been trained under it, quote it often and yet have to denigrate the nation that produced it.

    That's an inane and inept add-on of yours. The source does matter. The difference in the effective range of 7.62x39 and 7.62x54 rounds can and does matter...
    ...The question needs to be asked again what are the troops doing out in the open and exposed to someone with any weapon 900m away?
    The answer is again provided -- Moving from one point to another. Sometimes that's necessary, sometimes not. We usually cannot tell from our distance which is which. I have no problem saying it's possibly not smart or required on occasion -- you seem to have a problem acknowledging that mission dictates and METT-TC can occasionally force one to do things that are undesirable. You also discount the terrain of Afghanistan and try to equate with that in your locale. It's rather different.
    I appreciate it touches a nerve with you Ken but your responses don't address the issue. I ask again what do these patrols wish to find out there on the open ground they walk over?
    I can't answer your question -- nor can you. We aren't there and cannot know whether there is a reason (whether sensible or not); you just wish to be negative -- you do that well if snidely...

    The snide factor does indeed touch a nerve; mostly because it's counterproductive and cloaks your value as a commenter. It does you no favors. The rest of the rather ill informed comment, not at all
    ... If they were there to draw fire that a few Gunships would respond to then I can understand it. But then we know this is not the case.
    There you go again. "we" do NOT know -- you assume. You also apparently assume there are more gunships available and that they can respond to every Platoon sized patrol from over probably around 3,000 or so platoons involved, perhaps about a quarter of which may see some activity daily. Figure 20% of them may make a minor contact -- that's a minimum 150 or so actions a day in a nation twice as large as was Rhodesia. Plus maintenance and other stuff going on like escorting MedEvac and resupply birds. Not that many gunships.
    I asked this question before and now I ask it again: ... but will forget that under such circumstances the requirement is to picket the high ground).
    You do that a lot; mostly because you apparently deliberately choose to ask generic questions that cannot be answered for various reasons, most frequently a lack of situational context and / or knowledge. Old and tired debating technique, that. I will point out that the Western Forces and the Afghan government forces in the fight do not have sufficient personnel strength to adequately "picket the high ground" on a constant basis (as many have repeatedly told you). More pointedly, I'll also note that you've been provided a few pictures -- and Google has many more --of the terrain there and if you're foolish enough to think that 'picketing' the high ground on a ridge that is two miles away from a valley or Village one has been directed to patrol to and conduct a search is going to do much good, you have my sympathy.
    Then we got into the supposed need to get from point A to point B. And it turns out they wanted to have a chat with the civvies in the villages.
    That's the theory...
    Its called the pursuit of excellence Ken. Keep questioning and keep trying to improve. The competent will continue to learn and improve and the incompetents will continue to go like lambs to the slaughter.
    I agree with the last portion, you're correct on that. On the first part, as on the rest of your comment to which this responds, you aren't "pursuing excellence," you're merely carping -- and doing that about a war you seem to choose to deliberately misunderstand and misrepresent. Sensible and knowledgeable suggestions can aid in the pursuit of excellence, obviously ill informed or deliberately elided and notably biased sneering comments will not. Your choice...

  4. #124
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    589

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fuchs View Post
    Belarus has much terrain of this kind (if you assume weapons such as Javelin for the infantry) and the Central European landscapes with the many dispersed settlements fit as well.
    Fuchs, that's the second time I've read you using Belarus as an example. Anything going on I or the Bylorussians should be aware of?

  5. #125
    Council Member Fuchs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,189

    Default

    The constitutional mission of the German Armed Forces is the protection of Germany, extended into alliance defence. A dictatorship at a relatively new alliance frontier is naturally attracting interest, although I don't think primarily about their forces...

    We're in good enough times that even tiny irritations can get attention. There's no big threat.

  6. #126
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Durban, South Africa
    Posts
    3,902

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken White View Post
    Thank you for confirming my comment with British doctrine. It must be terribly conflicting to have been trained under it, quote it often and yet have to denigrate the nation that produced it.
    Not the nation. Certainly the politicians (no surprise there) mainly for the conduct of the war in Basra and Helmand. Sadly this disease has spread to the senior officers of the British army. If you read widely you will see that the issues I have raised re the conduct of the Brit forces in Helmand are hardly if at all being contested now days. Outstanding soldiers are being misused and incorrectly employed by some very average (or worse) senior officers. This is very sad. But my criticism is hardly of the nation as a whole.

    Am I too expect a defence of British tactics in Helmand from 2006 to the present from you to prove me (and a host of others - mainly Brits themselves) wrong?

    That's an inane and inept add-on of yours. The source does matter. The difference in the effective range of 7.62x39 and 7.62x54 rounds can and does matter...
    Read the definition of effective fire again. Effective fire is effective fire.

    The answer is again provided -- Moving from one point to another. Sometimes that's necessary, sometimes not. We usually cannot tell from our distance which is which. I have no problem saying it's possibly not smart or required on occasion -- you seem to have a problem acknowledging that mission dictates and METT-TC can occasionally force one to do things that are undesirable.
    My information is that movement over open ground is treated like the words of the song of that song about Old Man River in that they just keep rolling along. There is no longer any pretense of dealing with such open ground as an obstacle and treated as such.

    Now think about it. This patrolling pattern gifted the Taliban with an opportunity to maintain the initiative by choosing the time and place for initiating contact with ISAF forces at ranges they know can't be accurately responded to.

    Now we hear that 52% of contacts are at ranges out beyond 500m. Then we have had threads of what poor shots the Taliban in general are other than for a small group of snipers. Then I was told the use of "crack and thump" was not applicable because of the short ranges that the contacts take place. Well there is obviously confusion here as "crack and thump" only blurs at ranges around 50m. But the problem is not that "crack and thump" doesn't work it is that the soldier with one ear covered can't use his hearing to the maximum.

    The tactical problems are self inflicted and the enemy is taking advantage of the "Keystone Cops" situation presented to them.

    You also discount the terrain of Afghanistan and try to equate with that in your locale. It's rather different.I can't answer your question -- nor can you. We aren't there and cannot know whether there is a reason (whether sensible or not); you just wish to be negative -- you do that well if snidely...
    I never discount terrain (in fact careful use of terrain will compensate in large part for a lack of knowledge of the enemy). I look on in horror how some of the best soldiers in the world are failing to use ground correctly. What ever happened to conducting an appreciation of the ground prior to movement? The sad point has been reached where an MO has been developed and Brits when asked as to why they do things that way the answer is "that's the way we do it over here." Unquestioning acceptance of a failed tactical approach... which is heartbreaking.

    The snide factor does indeed touch a nerve; mostly because it's counterproductive and cloaks your value as a commenter. It does you no favors. The rest of the rather ill informed comment, not at all
    I am not hear to earn any favours (with a U). I will continue to plug on with basic aspects which so many people merely pay lip service to.

    I await with interest for the next posting by some 30 something kid who will announce that he has solved some hitherto intractable tactical problem which should never have been a problem if only he/they had either read the manual carefully or sought out the answer from those with the experience.

    There you go again. "we" do NOT know -- you assume. You also apparently assume there are more gunships available and that they can respond to every Platoon sized patrol from over probably around 3,000 or so platoons involved, perhaps about a quarter of which may see some activity daily. Figure 20% of them may make a minor contact -- that's a minimum 150 or so actions a day in a nation twice as large as was Rhodesia. Plus maintenance and other stuff going on like escorting MedEvac and resupply birds. Not that many gunships.
    I was merely suggesting the "bait and trap" approach as being the only really sane reason to force infantry to walk over open barren ground.

    Hmmm... 150 contacts per day. I wonder when we will get some analysis from the Wikileaks documents to show what results and kill rates are being achieved in Afghanistan.

    In Rhodesia it took some time before the right concentration and use of air assets was worked out. Once it was the results were devastatingly effective.

    Interesting tactic used by South African forces in southern Angola where they had little or no idea where the enemy was. Called Butterfly Ops two Alouette III gunships would would fly a tactical bound ahead of a handful of Puma helos loaded with troops and when they saw likely camp areas would drop to tree top level and overfly the areas to try and draw fire. If successful they would call up the Pumas and the game would be on.

    Last time the aggressive tactical use of helos was suggested we had half a dozen people around here collapse in a heap shouting RPG... RPG!!!

    You do that a lot; mostly because you apparently deliberately choose to ask generic questions that cannot be answered for various reasons, most frequently a lack of situational context and / or knowledge. Old and tired debating technique, that. I will point out that the Western Forces and the Afghan government forces in the fight do not have sufficient personnel strength to adequately "picket the high ground" on a constant basis (as many have repeatedly told you). More pointedly, I'll also note that you've been provided a few pictures -- and Google has many more --of the terrain there and if you're foolish enough to think that 'picketing' the high ground on a ridge that is two miles away from a valley or Village one has been directed to patrol to and conduct a search is going to do much good, you have my sympathy.
    We are taking about 52 % of contacts being initiated at ranges from 500-900m... so where does the two miles come from?

    OK so ISAF have been at it in earnest for 5 years now and a tactic for dealing with "shoot and scoot" contacts has not evolved yet? Maybe its because the troops rotate at too short an interval to learn this stuff? (Oh yes... its all about PTSD isn't it?)

    That's the theory...I agree with the last portion, you're correct on that. On the first part, as on the rest of your comment to which this responds, you aren't "pursuing excellence," you're merely carping -- and doing that about a war you seem to choose to deliberately misunderstand and misrepresent. Sensible and knowledgeable suggestions can aid in the pursuit of excellence, obviously ill informed or deliberately elided and notably biased sneering comments will not. Your choice...
    Good so you agree with:
    The competent will continue to learn and improve and the incompetents will continue to go like lambs to the slaughter. Good.

    There are obviously so home truths which are unpalatable to swallow. It is only through the efforts (as unpopular they may be among the guilty) of people like Stephan Grey, Anthony King, Theo Farrell and others that the Brit politicians and senior officers will be shamed into taking the long overdue corrective action.

  7. #127
    Council Member Pete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    North Mountain, West Virginia
    Posts
    990

    Default

    JMA, your discussion of tactical and operational issues nearly always turn into a kind of moral condemnation of the leaders involved. I have no doubt that you learned some important things during your wartime service that give you insights into how current operations could be better conducted. The point I'm making is that it isn't your tactical commentary that arouses ire on this forum, it's your habit of claiming the moral high ground in each and every message. Why not try discussing tactics without the elements of indignation and contempt?

  8. #128
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default Sigh. Once more into the broach...

    Quote Originally Posted by JMA View Post
    If you read widely you will see that the issues I have raised re the conduct of the Brit forces in Helmand are hardly if at all being contested now days...Am I too expect a defence of British tactics in Helmand from 2006 to the present from you to prove me (and a host of others - mainly Brits themselves) wrong?
    Nor have I questioned them here, I do not disagree with you; the quote "Lions led by Donkeys" is older than you or I and I probably was aware of it before you were born.

    What I have questioned is your tone on the topic and your frequent assertions of your opinions as incontroverible facts. Both those things are mildly bothersome and IMO, do not do you or your message any favors.
    Read the definition of effective fire again. Effective fire is effective fire.
    I knew what that was before you were born also, possibly experienced it long after your last bit. The point was that the right weapon or caliber enhances the possibility of effective fire at extended ranges. Surprised you missed that simple and basic fact.
    My information is that movement over open ground is treated like the words of the song of that song about Old Man River in that they just keep rolling along. There is no longer any pretense of dealing with such open ground as an obstacle and treated as such.
    I hear the same thing -- unlike you, I know it's due to the vast extent of open terrain -- there are few options. It's not a matter of choice, it's a matter of getting where you need to be and few alternatives.
    Now think about it. This patrolling pattern gifted the Taliban with an opportunity to maintain the initiative by choosing the time and place for initiating contact with ISAF forces at ranges they know can't be accurately responded to.
    Incorrect; cannot be adequately responded to with the 5.56mm round we're saddled with; the 7.62mm weapons in the unit can and do respond; thus the Talibs are smart enough to stay where many weapons in the Platoon cannot tap them -- but not all. They also have range limitation in that most are armed with AKs.
    Now we hear that 52% of contacts are at ranges out beyond 500m. ... the soldier with one ear covered can't use his hearing to the maximum.
    Yep, confusing isn't it. Conflicting figures abound. What's an armchair warrior to do...
    The tactical problems are self inflicted and the enemy is taking advantage of the "Keystone Cops" situation presented to them.
    Of course they are, wouldn't you? Though I suggest your Keystone Cops comment is specious, made from a position of incomplete information and thus amounts to speculation and is unduly pejorative to no good purpose.
    I never discount terrain (in fact careful use of terrain will compensate in large part for a lack of knowledge of the enemy). I look on in horror how some of the best soldiers in the world are failing to use ground correctly. What ever happened to conducting an appreciation of the ground prior to movement? The sad point has been reached where an MO has been developed and Brits when asked as to why they do things that way the answer is "that's the way we do it over here." Unquestioning acceptance of a failed tactical approach... which is heartbreaking.
    Heartbreaking? Are you perchance a dramatist? In any event, I suggest that yet again you're projecting for some obscure reason. I doubt your stated points are accurate.
    I am not hear to earn any favours (with a U). I will continue to plug on with basic aspects which so many people merely pay lip service to.
    Good, do that. Does that mean you'll try to post in a civil manner and avoid speculative and judgmental pronouncements? That would probably help your stated cause. Plugging on is good. Does help if one has one's act together while plugging.
    Hmmm... 150 contacts per day. I wonder when we will get some analysis from the Wikileaks documents to show what results and kill rates are being achieved in Afghanistan.
    Sigh. There you go again -- you do know that "150" is only my broad 'estimate,' a hypothetical figure and could be terribly incorrect. Surely you won't go elsewhere and announce, authoritatively, that "The NATO force in Afghanistan has 150 c0ntacts a day..."
    ...they saw likely camp areas would drop to tree top level and overfly the areas to try and draw fire...
    Yet another US Air Cavalry tactic from Viet Nam you folks successfully later employed. Good for you.
    Last time the aggressive tactical use of helos was suggested we had half a dozen people around here collapse in a heap shouting RPG... RPG!!!
    Surely you jest. Better go back and review the comments, I was in on that and as the Bard said, "Thou doeth protest too much..."
    We are taking about 52 % of contacts being initiated at ranges from 500-900m... so where does the two miles come from?
    I thought you said you never discounted terrain. It came from the pictures you've seen and obviously forgotten at this (LINK). If one wanted to operate on any of those flats, the nearest ridge top is some hundreds of meters -- a couple of miles in two cases -- away. I thought surely the good soldier would remember those...[quote]OK so ISAF have been at it in earnest for 5 years now and a tactic for dealing with "shoot and scoot" contacts has not evolved yet? Maybe its because the troops rotate at too short an interval to learn this stuff? (Oh yes... its all about PTSD isn't it?)Yes, it is indeed due to the tours -- but that's democracy for you. That's five years (or nine, depending on how you're counting who. Or more...) separate and not always equal one year or less tours. Not a thing you or I can do about that so you might as well accept it. The Troops who go and do it are; you're the one doing the sniveling -- and doing it in a pejorative manner that isn't in your professed interest.

    As for the PTSD, don't think any one here said that. They did point out that it was a societal / political concern. Not much any of us here can do about that, either. So why get snide and stroppy with people who are inclined to agree with you and generally have on more points than not -- until you get unduly and egregiously bitchy and effectively imply that some who served there are lying or shading the truth at best. You're too cagey to accuse them but you drop a lot of innuendo -- unnecessary innuendo.
    There are obviously so home truths which are unpalatable to swallow. It is only through the efforts (as unpopular they may be among the guilty) of people like Stephan Grey, Anthony King, Theo Farrell and others that the Brit politicians and senior officers will be shamed into taking the long overdue corrective action.
    That is as may be and I wouldn't take bets on the corrective part. If those people achieve that, good on 'em. OTOH, your making yourself a minor pain here by pursuing fetishes to excess and offering gratuitous slaps to fellow posters here is hardly likely to help anyone.

  9. #129
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Durban, South Africa
    Posts
    3,902

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken White View Post
    What I have questioned is your tone on the topic and your frequent assertions of your opinions as incontroverible facts. Both those things are mildly bothersome and IMO, do not do you or your message any favors.
    Can't help you with that Ken.

    The point was that the right weapon or caliber enhances the possibility of effective fire at extended ranges. Surprised you missed that simple and basic fact.
    Didn't miss it. I was talking about effective fire. Pretty obvious different weapons have different effective ranges, yes?

    I hear the same thing -- unlike you, I know it's due to the vast extent of open terrain -- there are few options. It's not a matter of choice, it's a matter of getting where you need to be and few alternatives.
    The question is where do the troops need to be. And if they really need to be there how is the best way to get there (considering the IED threat and all).

    Incorrect; cannot be adequately responded to with the 5.56mm round we're saddled with; the 7.62mm weapons in the unit can and do respond; thus the Talibs are smart enough to stay where many weapons in the Platoon cannot tap them -- but not all. They also have range limitation in that most are armed with AKs.
    So how many 7.62mm weapons are their in a platoon on averge? So what do the 5.56mm boys do while the 7.62mm boys are duking it out? Take a smoke break, brew up?

    Yep, confusing isn't it. Conflicting figures abound. What's an armchair warrior to do...
    Confusing? No. Interesting (and sad) to see how slow the forces are adapting.

    Of course they are, wouldn't you? Though I suggest your Keystone Cops comment is specious, made from a position of incomplete information and thus amounts to speculation and is unduly pejorative to no good purpose.
    Ken the sad fact is that the war is being lost. The Soviets killed them (mujahideen, civilians, whatever) by the million and still left with their tail between their legs. Is the prognosis for ISAF any better?

    As too the Keystone Cops. That happens when soldiers come under fire when out in the open. See how they run... looking for non existent cover. Shopuldn't have been there in the first place.

    Yet another US Air Cavalry tactic from Viet Nam you folks successfully later employed. Good for you.
    Nothing new under the sun Ken, wonder where the US Air Cavalry learned that.

    For the rest you seem to have had a memory lapse. I would take no pride in turning the knife.

  10. #130
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Durban, South Africa
    Posts
    3,902

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pete View Post
    JMA, your discussion of tactical and operational issues nearly always turn into a kind of moral condemnation of the leaders involved. I have no doubt that you learned some important things during your wartime service that give you insights into how current operations could be better conducted. The point I'm making is that it isn't your tactical commentary that arouses ire on this forum, it's your habit of claiming the moral high ground in each and every message. Why not try discussing tactics without the elements of indignation and contempt?
    Pete, people (commanders) who get soldiers killed should be singled out for special attention. Name them and shame them.

    Start with the soldiering basics and get them right. (Marksmanship, fieldcraft and minor tactics).

    Study the terrain and accept that your enemy grew up in "them thar hills" and work especially hard at it.

    Study the enemy tactics from every possible source and try to get inside his head.

    Lastly know yourself. Understand your strengths and weaknesses and don't push your luck.

    Sun Tzu said: "If you know the enemy and know yourself you need not fear the results of a hundred battles."

  11. #131
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default Oh, you could...

    Quote Originally Posted by JMA View Post
    Can't help you with that Ken.
    but obviously choose not to do so for your own obscure reasons.
    So how many 7.62mm weapons are their in a platoon on averge? So what do the 5.56mm boys do while the 7.62mm boys are duking it out? Take a smoke break, brew up?
    Google can answer your question, though it is interesting that you comment 'knowledgeably' apparently without basic knowledge...
    Nothing new under the sun Ken, wonder where the US Air Cavalry learned that.
    Reconnaissance by fire; among others, the Sumerians and the Mongols excelled at that.
    For the rest you seem to have had a memory lapse. I would take no pride in turning the knife.
    Heh, can't you even exit gracefully?

  12. #132
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Durban, South Africa
    Posts
    3,902

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken White View Post
    snip
    OK, enough of that.

    This is about the basics right?

    Now the first problem IMHO is that the one ear of an infantryman is covered/blocked by a radio ear piece which obviously reduces his situational awareness (and also renders it near impossible to locate the enemy through crack-and-thump (or crack-and-bang as I believe it is in the US). We (I was specifically involved) tried this for stick commanders on Fireforce in 1976 and laughed it off for two reasons. One that the technology (available at that time) was not reliable enough, and two, that there was strong resistance blocking out environmental sound from one ear. The idea behind our trial was not to give everyone access to the radio traffic but rather to place the pressel switch (Brit) / push-to-talk switch (US) on the pistol grip of the FN so that both hands could remain on the weapon at all times.

    The next is forcing on soldiers the restricted view of the battlefield through universal use of the likes of ACOG. At what range would or should the use of an ACOG begin to benefit the soldier in terms of marksmanship? Secondly to what extent does the improved vision through the optic sight actually benefit the soldier during routine patrol observation and during actual contact with the enemy?

    I suggest that supposed improvements may not be as valuable as made out.

  13. #133
    Council Member reed11b's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Olympia WA
    Posts
    531

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JMA View Post
    The next is forcing on soldiers the restricted view of the battlefield through universal use of the likes of ACOG. At what range would or should the use of an ACOG begin to benefit the soldier in terms of marksmanship? Secondly to what extent does the improved vision through the optic sight actually benefit the soldier during routine patrol observation and during actual contact with the enemy?

    I suggest that supposed improvements may not be as valuable as made out.
    A: ACOGs are not universal, even in A-stan.
    B: Yes, they help, not for marksmanship, but for situational awareness. Often wished I had a small magnification ability in Iraq so I could see if the the guy in the field had a hoe or an AK-47. At the ranges in A-stan this is only more true. It's a tool, not a crutch.
    Reed
    Quote Originally Posted by sapperfitz82 View Post
    This truly is the bike helmet generation.

  14. #134
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Vicenza, Italy
    Posts
    67

    Default ACOGs rock, in moderation

    An ACOG is like a machine gun, if everyone in the platoon had one it would be way too much of the same thing. As an ISR asset at the platoon level, it rocks. My gunners in trucks had them and binos, I had one as the PL and my expert marksmen had them, in addition to more advanced scopes on M14s.

    The magnification definitely helps in positively identifying, then eliminating enemy threats. I, though, have always been a fan of more accurate fires as opposed to more fires, which is what most people tend to overreact with.

  15. #135
    Council Member 82redleg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USAWC, Carlisle Bks
    Posts
    224

    Default

    For rural Afghanistan, I can't see why you'd NOT want everyone to have an ACOG. Beginning at about 150m, it increases ability to accurately IDENTIFY and engage targets. Its not that you can't see the person in the field, but it IS about the ability to hit a hand or other small target behind cover, or engage through a window, etc. There is a tradeoff in speed of close range target acquisition, which can be mitigated to almost nothing with proper training. Given the mission set in rural Afghanistan, you are faced with long ranges alot more than you are with inside stuff, especially now that we are letting the ANSF do the searches.

    My 2 cents, for whatever you think its worth.

  16. #136
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    589

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fuchs View Post
    The constitutional mission of the German Armed Forces is the protection of Germany, extended into alliance defence. A dictatorship at a relatively new alliance frontier is naturally attracting interest, although I don't think primarily about their forces...

    We're in good enough times that even tiny irritations can get attention. There's no big threat.
    Who said the German's don't have a sense of humour?

  17. #137
    Council Member qp4's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Dirkadirkastan
    Posts
    16

    Default Didn't helicopters get invented in the 20th Century?

    Quote Originally Posted by JMA View Post
    Nothing new under the sun Ken, wonder where the US Air Cavalry learned that.
    Actually I think the large scale use of helicopter insertions really was something new under the sun that was devised by the US Army.
    Few are the problems that cannot be solved by a suitable application of concentrated firepower.

  18. #138
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Durban, South Africa
    Posts
    3,902

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by qp4 View Post
    Actually I think the large scale use of helicopter insertions really was something new under the sun that was devised by the US Army.
    Actually the comment related to a much narrower context.

    It related to deliberately using one or two choppers to fly at low level over an area trying to draw fire while a sizable force (jets, gunships, troopers) hung back out of earshot waiting for their chance to strike.

    The South African's used this in Angola where their intel on locations of insurgents were unknown. They called it "Butterfly Ops".

  19. #139
    Council Member Pete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    North Mountain, West Virginia
    Posts
    990

    Default

    Regarding these combat fundamentals -- why does everyone insist on complicating things?

    1. I will guard everything within the limits of my post and quit my post only when properly relieved.

    2. I will obey my special orders and perform all of my duties in a military manner.

    3. I will report violations of my special orders, emergencies, and anything not covered in my instructions to the commander of the relief.

  20. #140
    Council Member Pete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    North Mountain, West Virginia
    Posts
    990

    Default

    If I recall correctly Dad said they had to memorize something like ten General Orders. I guess once we kids started eating potato chips while we sat on the couch watching "Gilligan's Island" the Army realized they had to dumb things down. Then they came up with task-condition-standard a few years later, after they invented Doritos and we were watching "All in the Family."

Similar Threads

  1. Appreciating the lost art of Field Manuals
    By Tukhachevskii in forum RFIs & Members' Projects
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 09-04-2011, 04:37 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •