ZoEd Posted April 7, 2006 Share Posted April 7, 2006 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. I agree with you. I however went out on a half dozen Convoy's outsied Kirkuk. I've grown up shooting and I'm fairly confident that I can hit what I shoot at. By no means does that prepare me for a combat situation. Our Convoy consisted of 6 Uparmored HUMVEE's with a 50Cal, a 60 and a SAW. Other than that it was M16's for the rest of us. After receiving a 5 minute briefing off we went. Now if the **** would have hit the fan under this new doctrine would I have been ready to pursue some insurgents? The gungho side of me say's hell yea lets go kick some ass. The sensible side say's oh **** what do I do. By no means do I think we were prepared to pursue and fight the enemy. Not to mention the fact I was convoying with a Guard unit out of Idaho who had only been in the AOR for one month and had never been attacked. Yes we should pursue and attack, but are our Commanders going to take the time to properly train and equip our guy's to do it. That's the big question. Two weeks of convoy training at somewhere USA isn't enough IMO. How much convoy and combat training does an Airborne Infantry battalion receive? Do you think our armed forces as a whole are sufficiently trained to carry out this new doctorine? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted April 7, 2006 Share Posted April 7, 2006 I'm for anything that kicks the **** out of the enemy. That said, it appears the AIr Force is going to start supplementing the Army and have folks driving convoys. They are going to be detached from the Air Force and made a grunt for a year, with all the training that goes with it. That said, some of the folks that are going to get that training can barely fire an M-16 straight on a range with static targets Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZoEd Posted April 7, 2006 Share Posted April 7, 2006 I'm for anything that kicks the **** out of the enemy. That said, it appears the AIr Force is going to start supplementing the Army and have folks driving convoys. They are going to be detached from the Air Force and made a grunt for a year, with all the training that goes with it.That said, some of the folks that are going to get that training can barely fire an M-16 straight on a range with static targets Like I posted earlier 75 of those guys are close friends of mine doing just that. Some of them went last year for six months and they all faired well. I just hope the same goes for them this year. Granted they never went out without the Army supporting them but they never had to go chasing anyone either. It will be interesting to see how this new doctrine is implemented. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted April 7, 2006 Share Posted April 7, 2006 Like I posted earlier 75 of those guys are close friends of mine doing just that. Some of them went last year for six months and they all faired well. I just hope the same goes for them this year. Granted they never went out without the Army supporting them but they never had to go chasing anyone either. It will be interesting to see how this new doctrine is implemented. Might as well get used to it. Looks like the wave of the future Good thing I'm ON TERMINAL LEAVE BABY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZoEd Posted April 7, 2006 Share Posted April 7, 2006 Might as well get used to it. Looks like the wave of the futureGood thing I'm ON TERMINAL LEAVE BABY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I have no problem with it as long as they give me the training and equipment to do it. AF Civil Engineer's used to fight, let's do it again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted April 8, 2006 Share Posted April 8, 2006 I have no problem with it as long as they give me the training and equipment to do it. AF Civil Engineer's used to fight, let's do it again. The thing that pissses me off about it is that they won't staff the Army with enough people to do it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shagman Posted April 8, 2006 Share Posted April 8, 2006 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. First off, Im in the AASLT division but does that make me less likely to get caught in a ambush? I doubt it. Convoys and patrols are two seprate things completely. If they were to say lets attach a patrol to every convoy that would be able to break off and engage the enemy while the convoys clears the kill zone while remaining guarded by 50 cals and mrk 19, I believe that this would be a better option. LNs (local nationals hired to drive supplies) will gas it as soon as the convoy begins to get attacked IMO. Some of the KBR workers that I met were brave and couragous but they still need the gun trucks seeing how they dont carry weapons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZoEd Posted June 26, 2006 Share Posted June 26, 2006 http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,92896,00.html?ESRC=army-a.nlI 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. Just wanted to point out that this new policy appears to be what got the two soldiers captured and murdered. The other HUMMV's on the checkpoint pursued their attackers leaving one HUMMV vulnerable for an ambush. This is exactly what I was afraid would happen. It saddens me that two soldiers had to die the way these two did. My prayers go out to their families. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.