Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 64

Thread: Leading scouting/counter-scouting theorists

  1. #21
    Council Member William F. Owen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    The State of Partachia, at the eastern end of the Mediterranean
    Posts
    3,947

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MikeF View Post

    Several forms of Reconnaissance:
    -Map
    -Aerial
    -Route
    -Area
    -Zone
    -Map = part of the normal planning process
    -Aerial = aircraft sortie, tasked by at least formation
    -Route = again, part of the planning process
    -Area = to what end?
    -Zone = as above.

    Mike, I do accept that you have gain access to information about the terrain, (and even the population) but that is pretty much a given. My point, (poorly made perhaps) is that "Reconnaissance" has bloomed into something it was never meant to be. I think there is a blind spot when it comes to asking how much information do you want to feed the staff beast, and how much time and effort do you want to expend doing it, for no actual proof that it is actually making things better.

    In the "Dicta Wilf" Formation I still have no good reason to allocate forces to something we call "Reconnaissance." - Surveillance and Observation, yes!
    Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"

    - The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
    - If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
    Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition

  2. #22
    Council Member MikeF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Chapel Hill, NC
    Posts
    1,177

    Default My views on Reconnaissance

    Quote Originally Posted by William F. Owen View Post
    In the "Dicta Wilf" Formation I still have no good reason to allocate forces to something we call "Reconnaissance." - Surveillance and Observation, yes!
    Wilf, traditionally, the terms surveillance and observation sufficed. I concur with your point. Current Army doctrine on reconnaissance can be very confusing. Back in 2005, when I was a lonely staff weenie trying to transition our infantry battalion into a RSTA (Reconnaissance, Surveillance, Targeting, Acquisition) unit, I sorted through all the current doctrine and summarized it as best as I could. Simply put, Mike's intepretation of our doctrine is:

    1. Reconnaissance- Human Observation
    2. Surveillance- Technological Observation (UAV's, sensors, etc)

    This simplified our work so when I use the term reconnaissance, I am referring to a group of soldiers collecting intelligence on the terrain or populace to covertly/overtly infiltrate and conduct observation. Likewise, surveillance covers intelligence collected from all the technological toys that we have to play with today.

    Quote Originally Posted by William F. Owen View Post
    I think there is a blind spot when it comes to asking how much information do you want to feed the staff beast, and how much time and effort do you want to expend doing it, for no actual proof that it is actually making things better.
    In my mind, recon efforts are not driven towards feeding the staff beast. Rather, these missions exist to empower the platoon leaders and staff sergeants conducting missions. Two quick points.

    1. Aerial Reconnaissance. Perhaps one of my best learning points from my last deployment taught to me by some wise infantry dudes. Prior to entering a new area, I would take the company leadership for a helicopter ride after we conducted our map reconnaissnce and initial in-brief. These flights allowed my NCO's and O's to gain a better appreciation for the terrain prior to infiltration. We operated in river valleys, mountanious areas, cities, and desert environments so I wanted them to comprehend the differences. The helicopter flight was one such method for better understanding.

    2. Route, Area, Zone Reconnaissance. I hate the term that "insurgents melt back into the populace." One's enemy does not possess supernatural powers. After a hasty ambush (IED or small arms attack), they egress using established trails, paths, or roads. Often, these avenues of approach cannot be found on a map. So we conducted patrols to collect better intelligence on every route that existed within our AO. Simultaneously, these patrols gave us the opportunity to talk with the locals. (In some extreme cases, we were the first americans that they had ever met). Later, the knowledge gained allowed us to better understand the enemy's course of action. We established our own ambush positions followed with a "Suprise" for the enemy.

    v/r

    Mike
    Last edited by MikeF; 08-20-2009 at 03:55 PM.

  3. #23
    Council Member William F. Owen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    The State of Partachia, at the eastern end of the Mediterranean
    Posts
    3,947

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MikeF View Post
    • Prior to entering a new area, I would take the company leadership for a helicopter ride after we conducted our map reconnaissnce and initial in-brief.
    • So we conducted patrols to collect better intelligence on every route that existed within our AO. Simultaneously, these patrols gave us the opportunity to talk with the locals. (In some extreme cases, we were the first americans that they had ever met). Later, the knowledge gained allowed us to better understand the enemy's course of action.
    ...and that has been operational best practice since Biblical times. These are sound and essential activities, and I don't see these as confusing the terminology or doctrine of RSTA, Recon or Needle finding. I think the problem arises when these useful activities get bound up into something they are not.

    My basic point is that everyone does "reconnaissance" all the time. It's not and should not be a distinct activity. Now translating that into organisation, training and doctrine, may still be a problem.
    Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"

    - The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
    - If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
    Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition

  4. #24
    Council Member Tom Odom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    DeRidder LA
    Posts
    3,949

    Default

    1. Reconnaissance- Human Observation
    2. Surveillance- Technological Observation (UAV's, sensors, etc)

    This simplified our work so when I use the term reconnaissance, I am referring to a group of soldiers collecting intelligence on the terrain or populace to covertly/overtly infiltrate and conduct observation. Likewise, surveillance covers intelligence collected from all the technological toys that we have to play with today.
    Mike

    As a former intel guy that is close to what we learned 30 plus years ago with the following caveats:

    Reconnaissance is a time duration limited and target defined operation. Humans look at something and report back. But you can do recce with technical means as in aerial recce.

    Surveillance is continuous in its goal against a target area with more general criteria for what is actually of interest. As such it is more conducive to use of technical means.

    You are correct in that the confusion is rampant, especially with the abuse of the term(s) ISR as a catch all, mean nothing phrase. I sat in a trends refersal conference about 9 years ago and the representative from Ft Huachuca admitted that the school house could not define ISR even as it claimed there was a negative ISR trend that needed to be reversed.

    At that same conference, Ft Huachuca and Ft Knox announced an epiphany: Huachuca said that ISR had to be fixed. Knox announced that movement to contact/actions on contact were largely the same (they are not) and that both were in need of a fix. The fix came with a Huachuca statement that in essence claimed it was possible to see all and understand all (gave no vote to the enemy) and Knox gave the Guiness "brilliant" salute with the concurring statement that achieving said goal would eliminate the need for a movement to contact because you would know where the enemy is and would then attack him. Again the enemy had no vote --and neither did I sitting and listening.

    The 3 star and all the one stars nodded their heads north and south while I picked my jaw up off the floor.

    So if you find confusion in this arena today do not be surprised. It is a tradition.

    Best
    Tom

  5. #25
    Council Member MikeF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Chapel Hill, NC
    Posts
    1,177

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by William F. Owen View Post
    ...and that has been operational best practice since Biblical times. These are sound and essential activities, and I don't see these as confusing the terminology or doctrine of RSTA, Recon or Needle finding. I think the problem arises when these useful activities get bound up into something they are not.

    My basic point is that everyone does "reconnaissance" all the time. It's not and should not be a distinct activity. Now translating that into organisation, training and doctrine, may still be a problem.
    Agree. Nothing we currently do is new, we just have better toys. Trying to institutionalize it, get everyone using the same language, and execute is difficult. Specialization is required in special units conducting man-hunting, tracking, etc, but recon is simply a task conducted by every soldier on every level.

    Originally posted by Tom Odom:
    Reconnaissance is a time duration limited and target defined operation. Humans look at something and report back. But you can do recce with technical means as in aerial recce.

    Surveillance is continuous in its goal against a target area with more general criteria for what is actually of interest. As such it is more conducive to use of technical means
    Well said.

    Originally posted by Tom Odom: So if you find confusion in this arena today do not be surprised. It is a tradition
    I'll refrain from my comments about Fort Knox. I have a love/hate relationship with the school house. As a young 2LT, I remember a colonel stating that, "the M1A1 tank is the premier reconnaissance platform in the US Army inventory." Years later, sitting deep in a hide site in some very thick palm groves overwatching an enemy safe-house, I whispered that story to my senior medic. I had to cover his mouth while he burst out laughing so that we weren't compromised.

    In a perfect world, I'd send every new soldier and officer to the SLC (Scout Leaders course), RSLC (Reconnaissance and Surveillance Leaders Course), and Ranger school. The combination of those schools would provide a good understanding of both mounted and dismounted recon.

    v/r

    Mike

  6. #26
    Council Member RTK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Wherever my stuff is
    Posts
    824

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MikeF View Post
    Wilf, traditionally, the terms surveillance and observation sufficed. I concur with your point. Current Army doctrine on reconnaissance can be very confusing. Back in 2005, when I was a lonely staff weenie trying to transition our infantry battalion into a RSTA (Reconnaissance, Surveillance, Targeting, Acquisition) unit, I sorted through all the current doctrine and summarized it as best as I could. Simply put, Mike's intepretation of our doctrine is:

    1. Reconnaissance- Human Observation
    2. Surveillance- Technological Observation (UAV's, sensors, etc)

    This simplified our work so when I use the term reconnaissance, I am referring to a group of soldiers collecting intelligence on the terrain or populace to covertly/overtly infiltrate and conduct observation. Likewise, surveillance covers intelligence collected from all the technological toys that we have to play with today.
    As I wrote last year in Armor Magazine:

    "If surveillance is the passive method, reconnaissance is the resultant active effect when the information gathered during the surveillance period are analyzed and processed."

    I think it's important to make the distinction between the two. I think you broke it down better than I did.
    Example is better than precept.

  7. #27
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default Good thread, All three of you do good work.

    Wilf, you can have Saturday off; Mike, you can have Sunday off, Tom -- you deployed, no soup for you!

    Seriously, very good stuff -- I agree and have suffered much that both Tom and Mike say. Goes with the job, I guess...

    I can recall setting up more than one R&S line that did not entail any reconnaissance to speak of and which had extremely poor ability to surveill due to human limitations; thus Mike's definitions are I think a step forward.

    I agree with Wilf and Tom that RSTA is a bad combination. As is ISR...

    Mike also said this:
    In a perfect world, I'd send every new soldier and officer to the SLC (Scout Leaders course), RSLC (Reconnaissance and Surveillance Leaders Course), and Ranger school. The combination of those schools would provide a good understanding of both mounted and dismounted recon.
    I agree but suggest that if we simply did IET (Officer and Enlisted) correctly, the critical aspects of all three plus current IET would be included -- and those three courses could be tuned to do a far better job than they now do because of having to train some basics and retrain others...

    I went to the old I&R course at Benning a long time ago. It effectively was Ranger School minus idle harassment combined with RSLC running nine weeks and it started with the premise that most of us knew and could do more than we did and proceeded to rapidly move forward causing us to have to scramble to keep up. Best Army School I ever attended by far; the old Pathfinder school (when we still did DZs) was the next best -- operated the same way. Only schools I ever attended that did not cram eight hours instruction into three days and that dropped people for non-performance.

    Reconnaissance is a necessary and vital function. It IS everyone's job as Wilf says -- it also requires a few, not many, specialists that can do it stealthily, quickly, thoroughly and tell you accurately what's out there without fighting for it. They need to be a bit better than the average bear.

  8. #28
    Council Member Tom Odom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    DeRidder LA
    Posts
    3,949

    Default

    Wilf, you can have Saturday off; Mike, you can have Sunday off, Tom -- you deployed, no soup for you!
    Thanks, mate!

    But I am home on R&R and headed back this weekend...

  9. #29
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Red face I forgot.

    Hope the leave was a good 'un!

    Be careful out there.

  10. #30
    Council Member carl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Denver on occasion
    Posts
    2,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Odom View Post
    You are correct in that the confusion is rampant, especially with the abuse of the term(s) ISR as a catch all, mean nothing phrase. I sat in a trends refersal conference about 9 years ago and the representative from Ft Huachuca admitted that the school house could not define ISR even as it claimed there was a negative ISR trend that needed to be reversed.

    At that same conference, Ft Huachuca and Ft Knox announced an epiphany: Huachuca said that ISR had to be fixed. Knox announced that movement to contact/actions on contact were largely the same (they are not) and that both were in need of a fix. The fix came with a Huachuca statement that in essence claimed it was possible to see all and understand all (gave no vote to the enemy) and Knox gave the Guiness "brilliant" salute with the concurring statement that achieving said goal would eliminate the need for a movement to contact because you would know where the enemy is and would then attack him. Again the enemy had no vote --and neither did I sitting and listening.

    The 3 star and all the one stars nodded their heads north and south while I picked my jaw up off the floor.

    So if you find confusion in this arena today do not be surprised. It is a tradition.

    Best
    Tom
    This story should be Appendix I of the next edition of Parkinson's Law.
    "We fight, get beat, rise, and fight again." Gen. Nathanael Greene

  11. #31
    Council Member William F. Owen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    The State of Partachia, at the eastern end of the Mediterranean
    Posts
    3,947

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Odom View Post
    Reconnaissance is a time duration limited and target defined operation. Humans look at something and report back. But you can do recce with technical means as in aerial recce.

    Surveillance is continuous in its goal against a target area with more general criteria for what is actually of interest. As such it is more conducive to use of technical means.
    Clear, concise and excellent pointer. Owe you a drink for that (even if it was in a manual somewhere) and I'll buy you two if it wasn't!
    Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"

    - The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
    - If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
    Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition

  12. #32
    Council Member Tom Odom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    DeRidder LA
    Posts
    3,949

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by William F. Owen View Post
    Clear, concise and excellent pointer. Owe you a drink for that (even if it was in a manual somewhere) and I'll buy you two if it wasn't!
    Thanks, mate. Just memory and practice. Headed east tomorrow.

    Best
    Tom

  13. #33
    Council Member Van's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Honolulu, Hawai'i
    Posts
    414

    Default

    First and foremost; excellent thread. Challenging assumptions is an underpracticed discipline in the organizations I've been part of.

    Quote Originally Posted by William F. Owen View Post
    ...My basic point is that everyone does "reconnaissance" all the time. It's not and should not be a distinct activity...
    Yes, everyone does recon all the time.

    Aphorism to live by; the secret to military success is reconnaissance and rehearsal. Most failure can be traced back to one of these two things.

    But, "...should not be a distinct activity..."
    -Not everyone is equally competent at recon, and we don't have time to train and educate everyone to the level I'd want my scouts at. But we don't ask scouts to be brilliant mechanics, either.
    -Operationally, it's useful to have recon discussed as a discrete activity. Stop discussing a necessary step, and people will assume it away (sealing their doom).
    -In the budget wars, politicians and their uniform wearing toadies will cut numbers anywhere they can. Having dedicated scouts in a unit is having the bodies commited to a necessary task. Take away the recon element and the political hacks will claim it as a brilliant cost saving while expecting the unit to do everything they did when they had more people.

    Let's not denigrate the advantages of specialization.

    Maybe we're looking at this backwards.

    Rather than doing away with dedicated scouts, why not make scouts the basic unit? In the U.S. Army, 19D Cavalry Scout may be the most broadly trained soldier outside of Special Forces. Small, highly dispersed recon elements finding the enemy and coordinating air and artillery strikes was one on the visions of ground forces proposed in the '80s and '90s.

  14. #34
    Council Member William F. Owen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    The State of Partachia, at the eastern end of the Mediterranean
    Posts
    3,947

    Default

    I'm not suggesting that "Recon" is not vitally important. It is. FIND is the first Core Function.

    I think Surveillance/Observation, in the service of static security, or screening is vital and probably requires Formation level, specifically trained and equipped unit. Also such units are extremely useful in irregular warfare as well.

    However, going and "Finding" the enemy is a very costly business, especially as the enemy is often only detected when they open fire.

    Yes, I am aware that in forest/jungle or close terrain, small Recon Units can usually detect major units, either moving or at rest, but that probably requires theatre and conflict specific unit training programs, and personally, I think every infantry unit should be able to take a good stab at that type of task.
    Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"

    - The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
    - If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
    Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition

  15. #35
    Council Member Fuchs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,189

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by William F. Owen View Post
    My basic point is that everyone does "reconnaissance" all the time. It's not and should not be a distinct activity
    Wilf, you have a tendency to call for masters of all trades and to completely disregard the advantages of specialization.

    That may be almost acceptable in "small and nice" armies like the Royal Army.
    Yet, it's a REALLY BAD idea in general and especially in major conflicts.

    You should really pay more attention to specialization advantages.

    We can cook, but that doesn't mean that there should be no cooks, therefore no restaurants.


    A better approach is in my opinion to keep XY specialists (albeit they don't need to be specialised in only one field) but to also place due emphasis on basic XY expertise (in that area) for many others, just in case.

  16. #36
    Council Member William F. Owen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    The State of Partachia, at the eastern end of the Mediterranean
    Posts
    3,947

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fuchs View Post
    Wilf, you have a tendency to call for masters of all trades and to completely disregard the advantages of specialization.
    Well then you mis-understand me. I am all for specialisation. My whole approach is geared to being extremely good at a small number of general tasks.

    It is the nature of those tasks that are the issue. As far as I am concerned an infantry unit IS a close reconnaissance unit or patrol unit. Is an infantry Platoon that cannot do those things, actually any good at all?

    The issues arise when you start fine slicing the tasks, that create a specialisation. That's when time, and money are wasted and mission drift sets in.
    Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"

    - The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
    - If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
    Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition

  17. #37
    Council Member davidbfpo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    13,366

    Default Wider Recce

    Team,

    Should we not also consider the quasi-military recce performed, within treaties e.g. BRIXMIS in East Germany 1945-1980 and as mandated by the UN for example UNSCOM in Iraq? I accept inspection is not normally a military recce role.

    There remains a profusion of monitoring missions around the world, OSCE in Europe and UN bodies beyond.

    Just a thought from my armchair.

    davidbfpo

  18. #38
    Council Member Fuchs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,189

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by William F. Owen View Post
    Well then you mis-understand me. I am all for specialisation. My whole approach is geared to being extremely good at a small number of general tasks.

    It is the nature of those tasks that are the issue. As far as I am concerned an infantry unit IS a close reconnaissance unit or patrol unit. Is an infantry Platoon that cannot do those things, actually any good at all?

    The issues arise when you start fine slicing the tasks, that create a specialisation. That's when time, and money are wasted and mission drift sets in.
    Come on, whenever I talk or write about anything that's specialized, you come up with the statement that your standard infantry should be able of doing it anyway. You never gave me the impression that you understood the importance of specialization advantages or the importance and rigidity of mindsets.

    I've got a strong impression that you're developing your theory for the top 5% of an army's personnel resources.


    One example: There's no doubt that really good armoured recce requires a special type of leaders; especially daring ones who feel comfortable moving into the dangerous unknown.

    That kind of mind is rare (just think of your Wignam source). The dedicated armoured recce units exploit many of the few suitable officers.

    You could of course say that armoured recce is something that every tank company should be capable of.
    Right, but armour companies would be loud and they have a wrong mindset.

    Recce is nevertheless an essential element of armor activities.

  19. #39
    Council Member Van's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Honolulu, Hawai'i
    Posts
    414

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by William F. Owen View Post
    ... As far as I am concerned an infantry unit IS a close reconnaissance unit or patrol unit...
    Please define "close". Ideally, even battalion scouts should be able to operate out of logistical contact and possibly out of battalion and brigade fire support range for at least two to three times as long as an infantry platoon.

    Re: "Wider Recce"
    Strategic recon is fertile ground for a new thread, but is probably outside the scope of Wilf's infantry-centric theme.

    The difficulty with "Wider Recce" is that many first rate military people aren't comfortable with duplicity, and this sort of strategic recon is very close to low-down, nasty, espionage. Honest, noble combat arms folks and harder working support people might find this distasteful, bordering on unethical.

    Me, I'm not saddled with that sort of baggage.

  20. #40
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Thumbs up I totally agree. That used to be the norm.

    Quote Originally Posted by Van View Post
    Please define "close". Ideally, even battalion scouts should be able to operate out of logistical contact and possibly out of battalion and brigade fire support range for at least two to three times as long as an infantry platoon.
    The question is how many Commanders in the US Army today are willing to allow that to happen?
    Re: "Wider Recce"
    Strategic recon is fertile ground for a new thread, but is probably outside the scope of Wilf's infantry-centric theme.
    Probably so -- and perhaps doesn't bear too much open discussion anyway...

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
  •