Urban / City Warfare (merged thread)

**William F. Owen** · 08-06-2009

Originally Posted by goesh

Opinion: IDF empowered a whole new generation of Palestinian fighters by using rubber bullets and tear gas. The young teen Palis were psychologically blooded IMO. What rock chucker didn't go home and brag to his sisters and neighbors and mother that he had taken out an eye of an IDF trooper or knocked one down, when in truth he was probably hiding a bruise from a rubber bullet.

... but rubber bullets and tear gas get used by police and military all over the world. Those weapons don't have that effect on other populations. The other option is 5.56mm ball. That causes a lot more upset.

**goesh** · 08-06-2009

Action Specific: A crowd of teens throwing rocks at a check point manned by a squad, they are close enough to inflilct personal damage, 30-40 in number and they've got a dozen 4-5 yr olds out in front of them as human shields, a small crowd of adults has gathered cheering and laughing.

Conventional: Up comes a Hummer with teargas and rubber bulletts are issued, an Iraqi response team is delayed, their Commander is on the phone because his wife is sick and may need a doctor, but nobody is going to gas some 4 yr olds or allow them to get hit with rubber bullets. The rocks are flying, 2-3 men have been ordered to drop any teen that pulls a gun, some barrels are leveled, tunnel vision and adrenalin our side, fun and aggression on their side and the teens are winning and sending a powerful message to mom and pop back home, cell phones are documenting it all.

Unconventional: Up comes the oldest and ugliest beater of pickup truck obtainable manned by several GIs. This is coming at them at their level, no superior high techery shock and awe, which is what the teens expect and must have to win the psychological battle. They want to fight the Hummer. The GIs have an improvised, giant sling shot and water balloons filled with feminine colored, non-toxic dye to splatter the punks with, including the human shields and they cut loose and splatter them rapid fire with pink and orange dye. About then the Iraqi cops show up and thump a few on the legs with night sticks and its over. Young Ahmed goes home colored like a woman and his bravado is gone, he is shamed and not hurt and Mom and Pop are glad they are not burying him or taking him to the hospital. They might even tell him to quit messing with the Americans.
This is no different than the GIs at Normandy who improvided those gouging shields on tanks to get through the hedgerows with - it just happened, out of box, jumping a dimension, a technical break in the chain of command set things in motion.

What are the risks associated with this example of out of the box thinking, specifically, could there be internal repercussions for some LT or Senior NCO for so ordering this action?

**tankersteve** · 08-06-2009

For this specific instance, the ramification for using an unauthorized and unarmored vehicle, contrary to force protection standards (possibly the biggest obstacle when it comes to U.S. forces and their innovation and effectiveness) may be a really loud counseling by the unit commander to the PL, if the CO had not been previously briefed on the plan.

In general, a lawyer and safety officer might want to weigh in on the potential for blinding a child with the balloon, the toxicity and environmental impact of the balloon dye, and where balloons fit within the escalation of force and the ROE. Big Army weapon managers would want to evaluate the rate of fire and reliability in arctic conditions, establish the maximum and effective range, and determine if the Lighthouse for the Blind could build a knockoff for .50 cents less than the regular commercial manufacturer. And the division commander would want to ensure the color of the dye is standardized across the AO, and the pink and orange color are not the same shade as our pink and orange VS-17 panels, used to mark friendly troops.

While I am being slightly cynical, this was the result of only about 5 minutes of brainstorming to come up with the typical U.S. Army bureaucratic response. I think the idea of shame and embarrassment employed would be effective and the troops who do the timeless 'ask for forgiveness, not permission' get a lot further with initially employing these kind of techniques.

I always encouraged my troops to improvise with different ideas, mainly with modifying current equipment or techniques. We used the long-range voice-mitters with MP3 players to stop traffic at highway overwatch positions to allow U.S. convoys to cross with less risk. We also modified smoke grenade launchers to fit on the gun shields to provide directional obscuration. One technique worked, the other needed refinement, and the decentralized nature of the AO prevented any higher from ever taking notice. Note that I didn't come up with either idea, my junior NCOs did.

Tankersteve