(Iraq) Convoys to Stand and Fight When Attacked

[sabra]

http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,92896,00.html

Convoys to Stand and Fight When Attacked

GRAFENWÖHR, Germany — In a change to Army tactics, U.S. soldiers will stand and fight instead of shooting and pressing on when their convoys are attacked on Iraqi roads, according to Harvey Perritt, spokesman for the Army’s Training and Doctrine Command at Fort Monroe, Va.

“In the first two years of Iraq, convoys (under attack) just fired and kept rolling,” said Maj. Roger Gaines, the battalion’s operations officer said Thursday. “That gave bad guys the perception that Americans run away. Now, convoys will stop and engage the enemy.”

The change is part of Army Chief of Staff Gen. Peter Schoomaker’s underlying philosophy of a more rigorous response to attacks, Perritt said in a telephone interview Thursday.

The training is mandatory for all soldiers, regardless of their military occupational specialty.

[JeffR]

1. Good Plan. Is this what they're teaching at West Point now?

Watch for sharp spike in US casualties over next few weeks, until strategy is dropped without comment.

[wtmusic]

2. Yep. We know that idea didn't come from the soldiers

who will actually be DOING the fighting.

[Benhurst]

24. No, they got it from an old handbook the Redcoats used during

the American Revolution.

[HereSince1628]

3. Well, with one person at the control of the IED I don't think there

is going to be too effective as a tactic of counter insurgency.

I don't think the insurgents are stupid enough to get concentrated and drawn into ambushes thus becoming targets for laser guided bombs. The insurgents are so much more effective with remote detonations. One person at risk while maybe a million dollars of equipment and 4 or more Americans can perish in a US combat vehicle.

[xdeathstarx]

11. Pretty much

Ambushes in Iraq are so rare, it's hardly even a threat anymore.

In the past year, Insurgent ambushes have ALWAYS resulted in HIGH insurgent casulties, with LOW Coalition casualties. Face to face, they cant match our firepower. This is why IED's have been so effective...plant, watch, detonate, run. Easy.

Plus, in areas that are prone to ambushes, are alos places that have high concentration of Iraqi security forces. If we get ambushed, we have the IP's there within minutes as backup. The same goes if they get ambushed. We arrive within minutes, and support them.

[Don Claybrook]

15. hardly even a threat anymore?

Your assumption is so incorrect as to cause me to ask where you get this information.

[xdeathstarx]

26. Been in Iraq...

for 11 months.

448 Civil Affairs
351 CACOM
Baghdad, Iraq.

Thats all I really want to give out. Anyone feel free to PM me if you have any "deeper" questions.

[newyawker99]

17. Hi xdeathstarx!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[xdeathstarx]

25. Thanks

I try to report facts, with zero political agenda.

So, hope we can all have some fair and educated discussions. :)

[The_Casual_Observer]

21. Boy, are they a bunch of dumb asses or what?

Face it, the "war" is lost.

[tatertop]

4. So... now they can set up multiple remote controlled IEDs

draw us in with a small charge, wait till we dispatch and take position, and really let us have it. The possibilities are endless.

[0007]

6. You got it! Get suck in and then get sucked off big time.

Are these folks crazy or what?

[tatertop]

9. This seems like the worst possible tactic

It's like giving the customer
four free chances at the duck shoot,
then bringing the duck to a complete stop.

[saigon68]

8. If we can figure that out They will too

Just Google how in 1954 The Groupement Mobile 100 was wiped out to almost the last man in Viet-Nam by the Viet-Minh


http://www.knox.army.mil/center/ocoa/ArmorMag/jf01/1french01.pdf


THE FOOLS

[tatertop]

13. That was written by Captain Kirk.

I printed and will read later.
My brother was on the front line and I was
17 when it ended.
Amazing how little I recall about that war.

[tatertop]

14. Perhaps cheney is not satisfied with the kill rate of US soldiers

How can he blame this all on Iran with such a low kill rate?

[sutz12]

5. Good idea....stay in the kill zone.

:shrug:

Maybe it works if they arrange some decent ambushes with some dummy convoys. They're gonna need more hardware and weapons support on the convoys. I doubt the insurgents are gonna stick around much after the first few rounds anyway.

[Journeyman]

12. It worked so well for the Redcoats against the Colonists. . .

well enough for a replay, I guess. . .

[TheBaldyMan]

7. this is dumb, plain dumb

During an exercise in Germany they tested the tactics:

Company C’s 3rd Platoon leader, 2nd Lt. Joshua Mendoza, 26, of Chandler, Ariz., said shooting on the run did not send insurgents the right message.

Yes it sends the message, "We're not dumb enough to stick around and get ambushed"

The military genius that dreamt this up must be the most stupid effing idiot, asking troops to go on the offensive against a prepared enemy at a time and place of the ambusher's choosing.

on edit: this is an April Fools' Day thing, it must be.

[PATRICK]

10. Sounds initially like Kerry's

swift boat attack. The difference between a jungle village on a river and an urban warfare setting is no small detail. In urban warfare the jungle IS a bunch of boxes containing innocent civilians. When the gunfire disappears inside those boxes even choosing the right one cannot be clear until blasting inside.

Meanwhile are there other lines of fire ready to emerge from other boxes? They might surprise a few lulled ambushers but adaptation will prove more costly in the long run and exposure will mean higher US casualties.

In principle it is surprisingly less costly to attack than not only if the enemy is not successfully entrenched. Because of superior firepower, becoming thus entrenched has been impossible. But in haste to attack blind defenses they might be entering a greater ambush, so the risk here is very great- eventually.

A rational officer would urge such a tactic to be used at random with caveats. If this is a blanket order it is dumb. Injecting unpredictability into routine in a fixed environment is mandatory. Of course such a "robust" tactic will ultimately also cost many innocent civilian lives and soldier casualties and recruit more opposition, but being in a lose/lose situation means less to those forced to risk their lives every day.

[maxrandb]

16. But I thought everything was going great over there?

I thought it was just the news media searching out and peppering us with nothing but bad news.

I would say the Pentagon publicly saying that we have convoys being attacked, is not good news.

That damn liberal Pentagon...why do they hate America?. I want more stories about GI's giving limbless Iraqi children Hersey bars. :sarcasm:

[xdeathstarx]

18. Actually

Ambushes on convoys are just about non-existant in Iraq. I challenge you to find the last time a convoy was actually traditionally "ambushed". I think is was about this time last year. 35 insurgents were killed, and 2 U.S. wounded.

[The_Casual_Observer]

22. traditionally "ambushed"

They don't do "traditional" anything. However, the US military love traditional old school stuff. That's why we are "winning".

BTW, weren't you tombstoned last night? Your "comment" in your profile was the same as it was on the other one, just say'n.

[saigon68]

29. Adios to him he is gone again

[BR_Parkway]

23. Well even googling the phrase "convoy ambushed" proves that

wrong - there have been several 'ambushed' in the past week.

Interesting how you speak so knowledgably of some issues but get it so wrong on others. Welcome to DU, pick your friends carefully, looks like one of the last ones you were supporting has already been tombstoned.

[xdeathstarx]

27. Minor attacks

on convoys always happen. That's what this article is about. Convoys take fire from a few guys, then the convoys run away, and the insurgency knows this. Usually they'll set off an IED, the follow it up with small arms fire. Then run after a minute. Now, units here have moved to chasing the attackers down.

I was talking large scale ambushes of 10+ guys. That RARELY happens anymore.

ps, this is my first time posting. i saw the other military member, and thought I would back him up. I didnt know he was banned, :(

[warrens]

19. Oh, goodie

let's see how this works out. If the insurgents know they'll stop and fight, it gives them a lot more flexibility in bomb strategies. I don't see anything good coming out of this idea.

[Kagemusha]

20. Yeah currently the insurgents know the convoys won't sit.

So with the casualties they tend to take in ambushes (our new DU member is correct in this) the insurgents may have more options but...

Frankly, we taught them better ways to hurt us with less risk to themselves.

[formercia]

28. If the insurgents know the convoys will stop an fight

they will pick a time and place with overwhelming tactical advantages for them. I feel sorry for the legs that have to fight from an indefensible position.