British COIN (merged thread)

[JMA]

Okay, you stick to yours and I will stick to mine.

Agreed

The term manoeuvres as you describe it has not been in use by the Army since at least 1989 (and we were still doing Divisional and brigade exercises when I joined).

But to use your interpretation of 'large scale exercises' what exercises is he referring to? A brigade has not deployed in the field on manoeuvres since 2002; so it is not as if we are relying on it...

Remember Mumford is a civvie (or at least talks like one).

So the difference (not so subtle to us) between large scale exercises and field training like 'battle camps' is probably lost on him.

With COIN the training works upwards from the individual skills level to the stick (or what every the smallest operating call-sign will be) and on to sections and platoons. (What would you use a platoon for? Maybe a long term ambush and follow-up (tracking) operations and the like.)

Works for big armies.

True. And for smaller armies it requires smart thinking to make a little go a long way.

Is the issue deploying armour and mechanised troops or deploying on rotation?

Rotation? You mean we are back to short tours again? I suppose if they insist on taking part (to get the campaign medals and so forth) you can allocate them to road block/checkpoint duty, installation and route security and other crappy work like that

Sigh.. I know!

Well yes so I say again... it is all about continuity, tour lengths, specialisation, and focus... did you copy over?

Not at all. The argument has never been why the problem can't be solved, but why the problem hasn't been solved (for which there are good and bad reasons).

Well that is bound to take sufficient time to effectively kick the problem into next year.

Hmm. I don't know how the SF have evolved in Afghanistan and Iraq so I cannot comment. I do know that the green army (non-SF) now uses TTPs and equipment that were SF only capabilities until fairly recently.

Oh goodie.. you mean they now operate in three and four man teams? No? Well then what's the point in getting them all the fancy kit like the black army? This of course brings us to another point and that is the deleterious influence the black army (SAS and hangers on) is having on the rest of the army. The stock question should be how and why should line infantry operating in platoon strength (or at least more than ten men) need the same TTPs and kit as special forces who operate in three or four man teams? If the answer is that the 'black army' does operate in more than ten men call-signs then the question should be asked if those tasks are indeed for special forces or should they be carried out by line infantry. (Hint: read Slim's comments on special forces at the back of his classic book - Defeat into Victory)

For example the new Fieldcraft pamphlet introduces 'break contact drills' for sections. This as we know is a small team recce type of drill and is necessary when in Indian country on a recce on bumping into the enemy. Its a get out of Dodge move. How often will this apply to a line infantry patrol of section strength? As I have said before if a full section is caught out in the open then yes they need to pull back. But once its over you reduce the section commander to the ranks and then jail him for good measure... then take the rest of the section (now with a new commander) through the basics again explaining why when you move (through vulnerable terrain) you always keep one leg on the ground when the other is in the air. (Basic stuff really)

I could go on...

The use of the SF has evolved but that was not necessarily an SF decision, but made at Theatre Command level.

It is well known that Patreus and McChrystal pushed kill-or-capture ops and they have been wildly successful. Dropped off recently for whatever reason. (Probably the new commander believes the Taliban commanders also have a right to life.)

But the bottom line why can't these kind of ops be carried out in their AOs by the line infantry already deployed there? The night is the time to do it as the night vision equipment (especially now with the fourth generation stuff) gives such an advantage it probably takes the fun out of it.

Plus lack of accountability and apathy. I suspect that this applies to the US as well, but for both Iraq and Afghanistan it was a case for the UK of an army at war but not a nation at war; that is very constraining.

Oh dear, just when I thought it could not get worse. Now don't try to rope the yanks in on this (they have their own problems with those clowns in their congress) which makes your Brit problems seem like a mere sideshow.

Well you know the Brits have now lost the equivalent of three battalions killed or maimed in Afghanistan (400 KIA and 1,800 seriously wounded) and yet (the mind positively boggles) don't take the war seriously. I saw this mentality in South Africa where the war was a sideshow which distracted from the real business of peacetime soldiering. You fix this by firing the 'garatroopers'. (actually firing them is altogether a too gentle a process)