The USMC in Helmand (merged thread)

[Ken White]

That was really bad. Way, way too much just popping caps. Excessively long bursts on the 249s will destroy them sooner than necessary, aside from the waste of ammo. Firing them essentially offhand is of no value. I saw two Grenadiers launch 40mm rounds with no clue where they might land, a number of riflemen firing multiple shots in rapid succession almost certainly really unaimed, at least one firing an M4 on full auto which is pointless...

Those folks definitely need some training. I can never understand why leaders allow that kind of loose and pointless firing. We don't do the basics well at all and our lack of fire discipline is the prime indicator. In defense of that unit, same thing occurs all the time and did in other wars. Control of fire is not one of our strong points; we waste a LOT of ammo...

Not enough info on the tactical situation to say much on that aspect, though I agree with most of what you say as generically good.

[goesh]

- all points missed by the general Public, unfortunately - Obama made it clear this was where the war needed to be fought so my take is its a shot of PR, the good fight,quasi cool for arm chair soldiers in front of their flat screens safe at home, especially the guy spraying over the wall, they're left with maybe 20% of their ammo and the villagers chalk it off as another American loss -

[Rank amateur]

1) Do they have enough manpower to do what was suggested?
2) Why do you say "None of the marines in the video can see a target?" Reporter said they identified fire from 5 pairs of bad guys, hit several.
3) Village was cleared with no casualties. I'm not sure Obama was responsible, but it doesn't seem like a bad thing to be responsible for.

[Cavguy]

1) Do they have enough manpower to do what was suggested?
2) Why do you say "None of the marines in the video can see a target?" Reporter said they identified fire from 5 pairs of bad guys, hit several.
3) Village was cleared with no casualties. I'm not sure Obama was responsible, but it doesn't seem like a bad thing to be responsible for.

I'm always loathe to judge from my armchair far away, but the fire discipline didn't seem to be there relative to a unit w/500 engagements. Of course, this is a 3 min video covering an hour of combat. I was surprised to see the M4 "Pray and Spray" above the wall a few times. A lot of rapid semi-auto fire, which isn't good for accuracy. Fine if you have to suppress, and I couldn't judge the volume of incoming fire. I did think that SAW gunner was liberal with the whole 3-5 sec burst concept. When added to the other video posted a few weeks ago (ambush along a road), I am a little concerned that the mounted concept of OIF (always near vehicle, and on the roads) may teach bad habits for A-Stan regarding fire discipline, ammo conservation, and fire/maneuver.

As I pointed out to Bill though, there was a good NYT article a few months ago about a well executed deliberate ambush by our guys on the Taliban.

Again, hard to make sweeping judgments from short video clips.

Niel

[William F. Owen]

I'm always loathe to judge from my armchair far away, but the fire discipline didn't seem to be there relative to a unit w/500 engagements. Of course, this is a 3 min video covering an hour of combat.

I have no credentials to judge what I see based on experience and I concur with armchair judgements, however....

I think the men were aware of being filmed. I think they engaged in certain forms of behaviour based on that. The presenters comments strongly indicated he did not understand what he was seeing, and my guess is a very minor contact was dressed up to make it look like a big fire fight. (in the case of Blackwater videos from Iraq, no contact at all can be made into WW3)

The "behaviours" you see replicated in numerous, "in action videos" are not necessarily effective actions.

[50Bravo]

I was less concerned about the manpower versus mission thing than the fact the force they did have did not appear to be well employed, was not using fire discipline, locating themselves where an 81 could do some serious damage etc. They never had the initiative. They were targets the whole way.
I guess the armor changes the way you approach that.

If they "cleared" the hamlet it only stayed clear for about 30 minutes after they left. If you rae taking ground, hold it. If you are hunting bad guys then there are better ways than walking into a situation where they chose the time and place to engage you.

Two more points:
an associate pointed out that they carry lots of gear. I don't see how you move quickly or quietly with all that gear, let alone the armor. I wonder if the tactics are not being dictated by the amount of gear they drag around.

finally, I don't believe that inconclusive engagements like this bear to our advantage. When they can engage us and break it off when they choose (as was the case here-that platoon had no chance to pursue), they are learning how we fight and we are simply weeding out the less competent ones. In a sense we bred a better insurgent. If we have the initiative, we can engage when it is decisive for the units involved and when we can inflict substantial casualties. If we do that, they don't get better with each engagement but when we let them make that choice we are just a teaching vehicle

[Ken White]

He, 50Bravo, I mean -- but they aren't, that's Co B, 1-26 Inf of 3d Bde, 1st Inf Division, US of A Army. Same Unit that had the film clip of the kid with the boxers standing at the parapet...

Numbers of casualties don't tell you much. As many rounds as the US side fired, many of which were unnecessary, they were bound to have hit something. He said inaccurate fire because there were a number of scenes of firing that could not possibly have been accurate. Like the grenade launched blind over the wall and the 20 round bursts from SAWs -- offhand.

I passed that link to a serving leader of bods (Thanks from he and I, 50Bravo) who plans on using that clip for a 'How not to do it' training aid for his troopies.

3) Village was cleared with no casualties. I'm not sure Obama was responsible, but it doesn't seem like a bad thing to be responsible for.

How in the world did Obama get into this?

[Cavguy]

He, 50Bravo, I mean -- but they aren't, that's Co B, 1-26 Inf of 3d Bde, 1st Inf Division, US of A Army. Same Unit that had the film clip of the kid with the boxers standing at the parapet...

Numbers of casualties don't tell you much. As many rounds as the US side fired, many of which were unnecessary, they were bound to have hit something. He said inaccurate fire because there were a number of scenes of firing that could not possibly have been accurate. Like the grenade launched blind over the wall and the 20 round bursts from SAWs -- offhand.

I passed that link to a serving leader of bods (Thanks from he and I, 50Bravo) who plans on using that clip for a 'How not to do it' training aid for his troopies. How in the world did Obama get into this?

I posted it to company command and a few BCKS forums. Will see if anything develops, esp. on company command.

[Ken White]

Joe, knowing a camera is about, can be prone to ham it up a bit...

Like you, not enough to judge except that fire discipline has long been one of my pet peeves. We do not train it well...

[50Bravo]

I went back and listened again to the vid and those who correctly identified these guys as Army are correct. I mistakenly id'd them as Marines... my apologies to the USMC. I have been assured that no Marine would evah do that.