quote:

---

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

---

[edited for scripting errors.]

I am really not sure about the idea of letting the your enemies pick the stage for pitched battles, say a town square... could get ugly.

[ 01 April 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Webgear:
I have heard of company size operations being done by the insurgents in Iraq. They tend to be affective for short periods of time only, a few hours in lenght.

---

Right, but over running a convoy might take 15 minutes.

I am thinking of one particular firefight in Baghdad during the invasion, wherein the Iraqis took a stand.

[ 01 April 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]

I am just glad that I am not preparing such an operation, or preparing for one.

But back to my original point. It is perhaps the case that the US would like the convoys to be the honey baited trap to force decisive engagements with their elusive enemy.

As for the fact that the insurgents in Afghanistan and Iraq targetting the indiginous "allied" forces of the occupation, this was standard tactic of the Mujahideen against the Russians, not just because the the "allied" forces are less well equipped, but more as a means of undermining a functioning indigious government allied with the occupation.

This is a script so old, you might as well be reading Livy or Ceasar's book on his campaigns in Gaul.

[ 01 April 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]

It is a good possibility that it could work depending on the situation and the area.

Hadrian's wall, the completion of the Parthenon (still in use today, which makes it the longest use public biulding in history), Hadrian's gate outside the acropolis, his Villa in Tivoli:

A couple of miilion bucks and one of Americas great cities might have not been flooded.

Not to put to rosy a picture on Hadrian, he followed Caligulas policy on the Jews, overturning Claudius's refroms, and wiped out what remained of the Jewish population in Judea.

[ 01 April 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

It seems like a risky operation and decisions, sending your supply convoys out to bait a trap.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grape:
What about shadowing convoys/patrols (or their routes) with air support to cut down on the response time?

---

But this is the state of affairs now that sound military doctrine is being displaced so that the US doesn't seem like they're "running away."

This actually happened to me in a training exercise while in the Reserves. I was part of a three vehicle team that got fired upon and we stopped to slug it out. The NCO in charge of the training bawled us out for doing that.

Why?

The mission for the convoy is to GET THROUGH to the objective. The advantage in these cases is almost always with the attacker, especially if you choose to stand and fight. They pick the time the place and the terrain, cover and concealment for the ambush. You get the choice of continuing the mission or giving the ambushers exactly what they want.

So now the US will turn its convoys into the equivalent of armoured trains to draw out firefights. This will lead to higher body counts as insurgents now knowing the US will stand and fight will oblige more with bombs and then hit and run ambushes. If the US loads its convoys with heavy weapons that not only slows things down but diverts those weapons from other areas of defence.

In my view Khe San amounted to a draw. I read an account of an American general making this point about "winning" each an every combat engagement to a Vietnamese general, (Giap I think) who said: "This may be true, but it is also irrelevant."

The obsession with propoganda appearance is a very dangerous military affliction.

[ 03 April 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]

Hue, the forbidden city

quote:

---

After the war ended, one American is said to have returned to Hue where he met a former VC officer. He commented that the USA never lost a single major battle during the entire war. "You are absolutely correct" the former officer agreed, "but that is irrelevant, is it not?"

---

The big problem for the US is they just don't have the numbers to control Iraq. I just looked up in Wikipedia and found that New York City has 40,000 police and several thousand support staff.

That's roughly the same per capita staff levels as the US military in Iraq, yet obviously controlling NYC is a lot easier in that a larger portion of the population is on your side.

They (US armed forces) can try all sorts of tactics, but they've already lost the war. Short of carpet bombing there's nothing they can do to win it. They can't control the territory, and will end up being whittled away to nothingness, or they'll leave.

Oh, by the way Cueball, could you fix that picture you posted...sidescroll.

[ 03 April 2006: Message edited by: maestro ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:

Too expensive.

---

quote:

---

Insurgents in Ramadi recently have flown kites over U.S. troops to align mortar-fire, released pigeons to give away U.S. troop movements and staged attacks at fake funeral processions complete with rocket-stuffed coffins, U.S. forces deployed here say.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by $1000 Wedding:
Crude tactics by the natives make lighthearted entertainment, but are no match for the technology US forces combine with swift and lethal firepower.

---

Seriously the dumbest thing I have heard on rabble ever. I think the fact that our local CF contributor takes this discussion seriously and you do not is indicative of just how far out to lunch you are.

Armies of "natives" using crude tactics, have delivered serious tactical, operational and strategic setbacks, and even won wars, against technologically superior powers throughout history. In fact it is precisely the dumbness which you are spouting which it the ally of the "Natives."

Ask Custer dipshit.

For instance genius. Take your little scenario above, and its Predator component: what if it is a cloudy day?

Also Predators doesn't "orbit," they fly.

[ 10 April 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]

Passionate freedom fighters may have defeated foreign forces before in history. But, the Iraqi insurgents aren't freedom fighters. Their local support is not necessarily uniformly strong across Iraq.

Custer you say. Sure he lost at little Big Horn, but that was due to poor planning for a battle. Last I saw, the Indians lost that war.

My remarks take this thread seriously and are consistent with the first thread. Standing and fighting works when you can draw out insurgents and lay down superior firepower.

quote:

---

Passionate freedom fighters may have defeated foreign forces before in history. But, the Iraqi insurgents aren't freedom fighters.

---

I see. They don't have god on their side. But as long as you know they aren't real freedom fighters, that's all that matters.

Cold War convoy training focused on getting the supplies through. The loss of a few trucks and personnel to the enemy who had infiltrated to the supply lines was not a show-stopper in the perceived big picture.

Counter-insurgency is a slightly different matter. Having half the force escape but leaving the other half in the possession of the enemy is not what you want and is a major crisis (PWs). In that light, staying and fighting it out can indeed be a viable tactical option if you have the training, equipment and procedures to do it. You usually want to pick the time and place for a fight, but since the enemy has a vote you need to be ready for him to pick the time and place. Once you're in that fight, you need to be ready and able to win regardless. There are no front lines or rear areas.

That being said, if the convoy is still mobile and the commander senses that he is at too great a tactical disadvantage then pushing through can still be an option. There are no 100% solutions.

As an aside, the US convoy that got shot-up and captured during March 2003 was the result of the convoy missing a turn-off during a night move and heading across into enemy lines. They were hit by conventional troops. Things like this are part of what Clauswitz called "friction."

Cheers,