Poor wording on my part. I think that the British approach is that the size of the grouping depends on the military capability of the opponent and by military capability I mean the effective combat power he is likely to bring to bear in any given engagement.
IEDs have increased the equipment load, both with ECM equipment and differing sets of detection equipment for differing types of IED threats. I think one of the most significant impacts on the load carried is the appetite for risk. As the appetite for risk has decreased the personal load has increased. The appetite for risk is largely articulated by politicians and is related closely to the public support for the conflict.
I know the book well. Patrolling for the sake of patrolling is bad. It does not feature in British doctrine or training at any level; I am not aware of it happening in practice. All the post operational reports and post incident reports that cross my desk indicate that this is not happening.
That is the normal procedure. Of course very often the response team comes in the form of a precision guided munition.
That's been done and still happens. Like anything though do it too often and you set a pattern which makes you vulnerable, possible HLSs, fire support locations, interdiction points and overwatch positions are all very often mined or covered by fire. We found that placing snipers out before sending CallSign Tethered Goat out the front gate is highly effective as well.
PS - I have read Skeen's Passing It On, it sits next to Operations In Waziristan 1919-1920 and The Frontier Scouts on my bookshelves
Bookmarks