New policy for military convoys

[28rdsknsfn28]

http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,92896,00.html?ESRC=army-a.nl

I know there are a lot of military people here so I thought this would be a good topic for discussion. PLEASE do not turn this into a debate on the war.

I spent a year in Northern Iraq but was mostly a FOBBIT. Did go out on half a dozen convoys but there was no contact on any of them. The worst I delt with were mortars on the post.

[airborneskins]

Well, It can be a good thing. But truthfully, I really thought that we had already started doing this. When I was in Iraq (the last time) we stopped and fought (that was in 2004). I dunno. It has its advantages, but the insurgents are no Dummies. This will work well until they start to put IED's in the attack area and take mass casualties that way. Driving through was a way to get through the kill zone fast.

[ZoEd]

Don't know that I like this idea at all, for many reasons.

1) First of all it seems to me it will be opening convoy's up for ambush. It's extremely easy for insurgents to pre position shooters and IED's since the element of suprise is in their favor.

2) Makes it easy to catch a convoy in a crossfire

3) Allows the enemy to zero in on a non moving target with RPG's, mortars and small arms fire.

4) I'd rather give the appearance that we're running to save lives instead of sacraficing lives in for the appearance of stregnth. Feel free to add on to this list.

Our current way of doing convoy's are done this way for a reason, to save lives without becoming a sitting duck. I'm all about kicking some ass but let's be smart about it. You want to protect our troops on convoy's have an aerial prescence around them. Don't send them out without some sort of air support. They start shooting, we drive through and let the Apache's light their asses up. Please stop playing politics with our boy's and girls lives.

[Slateman]

It will be a good thing IF those convoys get quick air support. The convoys could pin down insurgents while the helos sweep em up

[Redskins Diehard]

When I was in Iraq (2004) we had very specific guidance to remain engaged with any enemy that engaged us. Not sure if it was battalion, brigade, division, or country wide policy. In fact, being shot at was about the only time you could know for sure who the enemy was. It came to the point where direct fire "ambushes" were exactly what we WANTED the enemy to do. Gave us chance to identify, engage, and destroy the bad guys.

Granted, I was in an active duty light infantry battalion...our boys were shooters, and good at it. Probably not the best policy for every unit over there.

[28rdsknsfn28]

It will be a good thing IF those convoys get quick air support. The convoys could pin down insurgents while the helos sweep em up

Since the posts so far have been against this (and I mostly agree) I will give some for it. The insurgents know we just s**t and get the are using hit and run against us, much like Washington did against the British. A lot of Soldiers feel if we took the fight to them the number of attacks would decrease. My commander had a good idea, much along the lines talked about above. Send extra gun trucks out. When the insurgents hit the main convoy moves out and the extra gun trucks (or convoy protection platforms) go after them.

[Redskins Diehard]

Since the posts so far have been against this (and I mostly agree) I will give some for it. The insurgents know we just s**t and get the are using hit and run against us, much like Washington did against the British. A lot of Soldiers feel if we took the fight to them the number of attacks would decrease. My commander had a good idea, much along the lines talked about above. Send extra gun trucks out. When the insurgents hit the main convoy moves out and the extra gun trucks (or convoy protection platforms) go after them.

Not all the posts are against this...I am 100% for it, except in extrememly rare circustances. The military is a dangerous job, soldiers fight, when the enemy presents themselves we should destroy them. If your unit is not trained to execute this, then it is a complete failure of the NCO and officer leadership within that unit.

Extra gun trucks and the like are a great idea if you have the resources for it, otherwise the soldiers need to fight.

[Baculus]

Unless the convoys have support of some type, and I don't know how much support they have, this does seem like a good way to get ambushed once the insurgents realize the change in policy. If the convoy stops upon first contact in a prepared area, with lots of IEDs, RPGs, HMGs, prepared firing lanes, etc.,that seems like a really bad spot to be as you're jumping out of your vehicle.

I am just a civilian, but I have spent a lot of time studying warfare and small unit tactics (for military gaming), and this just doesn't sound like the best idea. But I'll have to trust that the commanders know what they are doing and know the situation much better than me. I hope for the best.

[jpillian]

I think this can be a very good thing -- glad to hear of the policy change. We need to be fighting the enemy at every opportunity available; not just the fights we choose.

I do think this could result in more casualties for our side. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that if the enemy is setting up an ambush, they are in control of the kill zone(s). Initially, the can dictate a whole heck of a lot, if it's our policy to stand and fight.

Attacking into the ambush (as describe above) can eliminate a lot of their initial initiative -- and in the case of green insurgents -- this is a great way to increase the bad guys' casualties as well. However, in the case of more experienced insurgents, I could definitely see cases where we might take some heavy casualties due to secondary IEDs or VBIEDs after our folks have dismounted. Especially if we have frigging fuelers, mechanics, and the like dismounting and turning into 11B.

Overall, I think it will be a positive thing in fighting the insurgency: take the fight to them wherever they are, whenever we can get engaged.

However, this will provide some very unwelcome headlines in the future as well (i.e., ambushes that result in higher friendly casualty counts)

[Baculus]

If your unit is not trained to execute this, then it is a complete failure of the NCO and officer leadership within that unit.

My impression is that the truck convoys have not been the best prepared for such situations, unless the transport vehicles are more heavily armored then I realized. What do these convoys consist of for a vehicle compliment?

I guess, in a way, the convoys could also be used as decoys, with quick reaction forces, especially choppers, ready to pounce every time the enemy presents itself as a target. In this sense, the enemy's tactics could be totally used against them. I guess since we are only thinking about this briefly, we have to consider that new tactics have been drawn up for this new policy.

[Redskins Diehard]

Unless the convoys have support of some type, and I don't know how much support they have, this does seem like a good way to get ambushed once the insurgents realize the change in policy. If the convoy stops upon first contact in a prepared area, with lots of IEDs, RPGs, HMGs, prepared firing lanes, etc.,that seems like a really bad spot to be in as you're jumping out of your vehicle.

I am just a civilian, but I have spent a lot of time studying warfare and small unit tactics (for military gaming), and this just doesn't sound like the best idea. But I'll have to trust that the commanders know what they are doing and know the situation much better than me. I hope for the best.

The convoys should have their own internal "support"/security. It is very basic convoy principles. "React to ambush" is one of 8 very basic battle drills. Fighting the enemy is not a new concept.

If you don't kill/capture these ******* with the IEDs and RPGs they will be back....again and again and again....until you do.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/call/call_96-3_cpt2bd4.htm

[dreamingwolf]

I wonder how far off the drone convoy is, Ive read some stuff on that being something that is being considered.

Its too bad we couldnt have artillery batteries all over the place that could just devestate the area arround the convoys if they get ambushed. could you imagine batteries that are dedicated to a convoy and automatically adjusted their aim to follow the convoy, and if an ambush happends the convoy just keeps going and all arround them is the explosion of artillery shells

[Redskins Diehard]

As far as casualties counts go...I think this approach will decrease our casualties. If we are letting people intitiate contact with us and not reducing them, then they will be back again the next day. Eventually they must be captured or killed.

[ZoEd]

Not all the posts are against this...I am 100% for it, except in extrememly rare circustances. The military is a dangerous job, soldiers fight, when the enemy presents themselves we should destroy them. If your unit is not trained to execute this, then it is a complete failure of the NCO and officer leadership within that unit.

Extra gun trucks and the like are a great idea if you have the resources for it, otherwise the soldiers need to fight.

Have to disagree with you there brother. I have 75 of my close friends pulling convoy duty right now in Iraq. they had a whole two weeks of training at Ft Carson in CO. They're Air Force civil engineers sent over there to assist the Army. I'm as gungho as the next guy and would like nothing more than to pop a cap in some insurgents ass. But to say hey let's stop and get into a fire fight with our two weeks of training. Now if you want to allow these same guys several months riding shotgun with veteran units to hone their skills before throwing them to the dogs, then I'm in. But that's not going to happen.

Like Diehard said, this might be a good idea for units trained and equiped for this type of thing but not for all convoy's cruising around Iraq. We need to keep in mind that not all members of a convoy are "combat" troops.

[ZoEd]

The convoys should have their own internal "support"/security. It is very basic convoy principles. "React to ambush" is one of 8 very basic battle drills. Fighting the enemy is not a new concept.

If you don't kill/capture these ******* with the IEDs and RPGs they will be back....again and again and again....until you do.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/call/call_96-3_cpt2bd4.htm

That's the problem, most of these IED's aren't followed up with small arms fire. The people we're fighting are a bunch of cowards. They plant the bomb and run. You can't attack everyone on the street holding a cell phone or just start leveling buildings in hopes of finding the cowards who set it off. Then everyone's whining about civilians getting killed.

Bottom line fighting people without uniforms, without structure using guerilla tactics is a very tough thing to do.

[The Sisko]

In theory it sounds great. However, I have a hard time seeing truck drivers jumping out on the regular and doing a good job of fighting back. Maybe I'm selling the truckers short, but I just don't see them consistently delivering carefully aimed fire.

Eventually the insurgents will figure this tactic out and start targeting the sitting duck empty trucks. At that point you have to then send in a helo to extract them and your supplies are gone which means another convoy has to go through the same area again which presents yet another target.

True, we can bait them from time to time but I get the sinking feeling this policy is going to cost us a good bit in terms of men and materiel.

[ZoEd]

If IED's aren't enough to deal with. I just received this from an EOD friend of mine in the AOR right now.

DefenseNews

Posted 03/27/06 10:45

Snipers Emerge as Growing Danger in Iraq By GREG GRANT

Videotaped sniper attacks on American troops in Iraq are the new rage among insurgents and their sympathizers, analysts say.

In the past year, taped shootings have begun to overtake the once-popular footage of roadside bomb attacks on Jihadi Web sites, in Baghdad video stores and on e-mail lists, according to analysts.

This troubling new aspect to the guerrilla fighting in Iraq was confirmed by U.S. Army Lt. Col. Shawn Weed, a military intelligence officer, in a December interview in Baghdad. He said small-arms attacks on American troops are increasingly staged to produce video that can be used as propaganda tools. And sniper attacks are emerging as an industry; footage of an attack can reportedly be sold for as much as $5,000.

"The sniper videos convey the impression the insurgents can hit anybody, anywhere, anytime," said Peter Harling of the International Crisis Group.

Harling, who has spent two years translating and analyzing the publications put out by Iraq's insurgent groups, has collected an extensive video archive of sniper attacks. The graphic footage is often dubbed with religious music and nationalistic or religious chanting in Arabic.

This reporter viewed nearly two dozen sniper attacks, some with multiple casualties. These viewings indicate that most of the videos were taken by cameramen positioned well away from the sniper but close to the intended victims. The whole event appears to be set up to get the best footage.

In one disturbing sequence, a gunshot is heard and an American soldier falls to the ground on a stretch of highway. A combat medic enters the screen and attempts to pull the fallen soldier to safety. Another shot rings out and the medic falls face down. Blood can be seen flowing from beneath both bodies. Neither shows signs of life.

Another sequence is shot from inside a shop. As an Arabic voice identifies the location as Fallujah, the camera films what appears to be an intersection among a cluster of buildings. Several Humvees and trucks come into view and stop perhaps 35 yards from the storefront. A group of Marines disembarks and appear to start establishing a vehicle checkpoint.

Inside the shop, Iraqis can be heard talking on a cell phone to an individual identified as the sniper, who is somewhere outside. The Iraqis tell the sniper to hold his fire: "Not yet, not yet." Then: "OK, take your shot."

A rifle cracks and one of the Marines drops to the ground. The voices in the shop chant "Allah Akhbar." Then: "OK, now they're coming to move him, get ready to shoot again."

As two Marines rush to their fallen comrade, there is a second shot.

Another Marine falls. More rifle shots can be heard. The voices claim three Americans are shot, but only two victims are visible before vehicles obscure the scene.

An elaborate video documentary put together by the insurgent group known as the Islamic Army in Iraq portrays the victims of "Juba," an insurgent sniper the video claims is active in Baghdad. At the end of the video is a tally of his attacks: 143 American soldiers killed, 54 wounded and five officers killed.

There is no way to independently verify these figures, but the video contains footage of a dozen sniper attacks. Some of the Americans are standing on the sides of streets, standing upright in the hatch of a Bradley fighting vehicle or walking on patrol. A number of the videos appear to be shot from the dashboard of a car placed very close to the sniper's victims.

The body of insurgent literature, both printed material and Internet content, is vast and contains detailed discussion and analysis of insurgent tactics and strategy. Harling said much of it concerns lessons from the Iraq battlefield. For example, insurgent snipers are instructed to target American officers because they are more costly to train than regular soldiers. *

[Redskins Diehard]

Have to disagree with you there brother. I have 75 of my close friends pulling convoy duty right now in Iraq. they had a whole two weeks of training at Ft Carson in CO. They're Air Force civil engineers sent over there to assist the Army. I'm as gungho as the next guy and would like nothing more than to pop a cap in some insurgents ass. But to say hey let's stop and get into a fire fight with our two weeks of training. Now if you want to allow these same guys several months riding shotgun with veteran units to hone their skills before throwing them to the dogs, then I'm in. But that's not going to happen.

Like Diehard said, this might be a good idea for units trained and equiped for this type of thing but not for all convoy's cruising around Iraq. We need to keep in mind that not all members of a convoy are "combat" troops.

I think the only area we disagree in is the fact that in my opinion the VAST number of convoys that travel around Iraq HAVE to be prepared to fight. Not saying these 75 Air Force civil engineers should be the ones. But if I am sending them out, they will have assets that can. Recognizing that there are times when "soft skill" people have to get from point A to B and no escort could be provided...but from a military perspective we MUST be prepared to take these people out EVERYTIME they show themselves. Remember we are the worlds most powerful military...sometimes that means fighting.

[ZoEd]

I think the only area we disagree in is the fact that in my opinion the VAST number of convoys that travel around Iraq HAVE to be prepared to fight. Not saying these 75 Air Force civil engineers should be the ones. But if I am sending them out, they will have assets that can. Recognizing that there are times when "soft skill" people have to get from point A to B and no escort could be provided...but from a military perspective we MUST be prepared to take these people out EVERYTIME they show themselves. Remember we are the worlds most powerful military...sometimes that means fighting.

Amen to that. However I've found that convoy tactics vary from unit to unit, commander to commander, convoy to convoy. To all of a sudden say let's dismount and go chasing the bad guy down some alley seems like a knee jerk reaction to me. I'm behind this policy 100%, IF the proper training and equipment is made available before putting it into action. From your experience when is this done? Most of learn on the fly, trial by fire so to speak.

I don't see where driving through an IED or small arms fire is showing weakness. I did some work in Iraq for CIA, Special Ops and other "pro's". I talked to them about their tactics and they too drive right through when possible. The only time they stop is when there is no other alternative.

[shagman]

The problem that I see with this is what about convoys that have 5- 8 KBR trucks in between gun trucks? Do you think these local nationals will wait why we engage? I dont think so! If gunners stop to engage, the flow of supplies stops or becomes unguarded and susceptible to be attacked or stolen.

What have we done to address rock throwing? I thought that having gunners throwing rocks back was a good idea

:applause:

- but I guess someone else didnt think so. :doh1: Why is it that in the US throwing a rock at someone is considered a deadly weapon but in Iraq its just a nuisance, and something that you just have to deal with?

[Redskins Diehard]

I don't see where driving through an IED or small arms fire is showing weakness. I did some work in Iraq for CIA, Special Ops and other "pro's". I talked to them about their tactics and they too drive right through when possible. The only time they stop is when there is no other alternative.

I think it is safe to say that the elements you mention have very distinct missions from the conventional forces we have in place. Many of them are not built or equipped for a sustained close order battle. Conventional forces should be and even though convoy TTPs may very unit to unit, security considerations. A convoy is a combat operation...not a drive down the street and should be treated as such.

[airborneskins]

When I was in Iraq (2004) we had very specific guidance to remain engaged with any enemy that engaged us. Not sure if it was battalion, brigade, division, or country wide policy. In fact, being shot at was about the only time you could know for sure who the enemy was. It came to the point where direct fire "ambushes" were exactly what we WANTED the enemy to do. Gave us chance to identify, engage, and destroy the bad guys.

Granted, I was in an active duty light infantry battalion...our boys were shooters, and good at it. Probably not the best policy for every unit over there.

Maybe it was just a Division thing man. Like I said earlier, we engaged the enemy when attacked on my second tour (2004). I dont know maybe not all units are as Gung Ho as Division.

[shagman]

Maybe it was just a Division thing man. Like I said earlier, we engaged the enemy when attacked on my second tour (2004). I dont know maybe not all units are as Gung Ho as Division.

We would also engage the enemy when attacked so thats nothing new, and I dont think that this is what has changed in the new doctrine. From what I understand this will be engagement until the threat is taken out completely. I dont know how this TTP will be used with logistical supply using LNs. Any thoughts?

[ZoEd]

We would also engage the enemy when attacked so thats nothing new, and I dont think that this is what has changed in the new doctrine. From what I understand this will be engagement until the threat is taken out completely. I dont know how this TTP will be used with logistical supply using LNs. Any thoughts?

That's my question about the whole thing. Convoy's typically are made up of LN's, KBR and other non-military or non-combat personnel. So if you engage the enemey what happens to these people? If they stay their sitting ducks. They can't engage the enemy themselves, especially the LN's and KBR personnel.

Look I'm an Air Force guy who builds things for a living, you guys no more about this stuff then I do. It just brings questions to my mind of how this can be pulled off tactically and logistically.

[Redskins Diehard]

That's my question about the whole thing. Convoy's typically are made up of LN's, KBR and other non-military or non-combat personnel. So if you engage the enemey what happens to these people? If they stay their sitting ducks. They can't engage the enemy themselves, especially the LN's and KBR personnel.

Look I'm an Air Force guy who builds things for a living, you guys no more about this stuff then I do. It just brings questions to my mind of how this can be pulled off tactically and logistically.

I think it still goes to one of my earlier posts...except in rare circumstances, convoys should be "built" to be able to fight, and destroy, any force that initiates contact with them. We aren't talking about enemy companies or platoons. The insurgents typically fight in fairly small teams, we are "the most powerful and well trained and equiped military in the world". The fact of the matter is that our forces, pretty much all of them, should be able to take on and defeat this foe...and if they can't something must be done to make sure they can whether that be training or attaching shooters to these convoys. Personal opinion is that driving through and leaving those enemy forces behind is bad on at least 2 levels. 1) It sends the wrong message to the enemy(we either aren't willing or able to stay and fight) 2) It leaves the enemy intact to execute the exact same operation time and time again...

Believe me, I don't expect Air Force Civil Engineers to carry the same capability as an Airborne Infantry Battalion(We all know what would happen if We tried to design/build something) but their convoys should carry sufficient comat power to deal with the threat they may encounter.