Posted on 11/08/2002 12:05:04 AM PST by VaBthang4
They have AK-47s, belt-fed 30 cal LMGs (which punch through the side of huts), heavy 14.5mm AA MGs, RPG launchers, 82mm and 120mm mortars, and 122mm MRLs. Some aren't very mobile, so they dig in, in well hidden bunkers with alternate firing positions, etc.
We should have sniper rifles with night vision in every fire team (trumping AKs with range), our own belt-fed MGs at platoon level (to hose huts), mounted and dismounted 50 cals (to command from ridges), 40mm grenade launchers (to suppress anything), ATGMs in every squad (to take out bunkers and heavy weapons at range), 120mm mortars with smart rounds at the company level (to plaster mortar positions etc), counterbattery radars that work even in mountains (vs. mortars and MRLs), instant response counterbattery fire (for MRL raids in particular - air is way too slow), UAVs for every platoon (to spot firing targets in action, not just hunt in rear areas), and overwhelming air power on top of all of it.
What we've actually got is 5.56mm magazine fed SAWs, AT-4s, 60mm mortars, counterbattery radars that don't work in mountains, a handful of UAVs for special forces, and long communication chains to overwhelming air power trying to make up for all the other deficiencies.
If we had what we should have, we could trump every weapon in their arsenal with a deployable counter down at the low echelons actually engaged. Instead, we get pinned down by superior heavy weapons until the air force arrives, when up against anything beyond a few guys with AKs.
Welcome to the faster lighter modern military, which gets to the point of engagement lickety split, then wallows there helplessly until the flyboys pull their fat out of the fryer...
The Marine Corps is also developing plans to equip one or two men per squad with a long range rifle and night vision capability to spot targets and cover squad and fireteam movement.
And the one thing we are now moving into that nobody has...and almost trumps all else...Comm. and situational awareness down to the individual soldier.
The Marine Corps [as usual] tended to bring everything they needed for their engagements.
I do agree about the 5.56 ammo but with that said....pure marksmanship really makes up for lighter ammo. It doesnt cancel it out but it does handle alot of problems.
We already have one. The Mark 19. It is quite a bit much....especially if you are on the receiving end of a seven round burst.
It dont think it is designed to be a squad deployed weapon for infantry. Probably killer B's, helo and defensive position deployed.
The second I saw your post that prediction came back to me.
They have no other choice,since mechanized infantry can't be deployed as rapid reaction forces in those mountains,and that's where the emphasis on heavy weapons lies. Any attempt to drive through the mountian passes with mechanized units would have the same results for the Americans it did for the Russians,ambushes and high casualities.
BTW,don't knock the old 60mm mortar.It's about the only useable "heavy tool" they have,and it is damn effective. No,it ain't a 4.2,but do YOU want to carry a 4.2 around in the mountains on your back?
an overall snake-eater and maneuver element ethos that looks down on fire support elements.
I don't know who you've been talking too,but none of the SF guys I've ever met refuses fire support. Biggest problem we've ever had with it was getting it.
Our ATGMs are at the battalion level, for pete's sake.
I am so far out of touch on this that I'm not competent to comment on it. Other than to say fire power should always be the domain of the guys who are likely to use it,and none of these guys hang their hats at a battalion level. You know what is the most likely cause for this? Budget concerns and people whining and bitching about people wanting to expend costly munitions on "mere" training missions.
Meanwhile, 1000 men are expected to encircle 70 square miles of 8000 foot mountains. With just SAWs.
They have no choice. This is all they have,other than the 240/MAG-58's. The US military needs to be working hard of developing some type of aircraft to fill the tac-air role on deployments to areas like this. Maybe a Chinook "gunship" as a stop-gap,if nothing else. I don't know how much weight they can carry,but stipped down with a minumum crew,they could raise hell with mini-guns and 40mm cannons.
Fire bases are also a workable concept in mountain terrain. It is hard for enemies with only leg infantry to get at one, if properly situated. Setting up overwatch heavy weapons positions should be SOP. On some of those bare mountainsides, a pair of 50 cals could dominate several square miles of terrain. Particularly if one sets up interlocking fire from adjoining ridges, to take away a lot of the dead ground cover. 120s have the range to hit things, and steep trajectory to fire in the mountains. The Taliban have made solid use of 82mm mortars. The Lessons Learned reports say more than half our casualties to date have been from mortar fire.
And I will certainly knock the 60mm mortar. Better than nothing isn't saying anything. It is absurd that the United States of America is outgunned in that category by a 1941 era Soviet 82mm mortar. The Afghans carry those without any choppers at all. With choppers going for us, we should be able to get 120s into firebases, with working counterbattery radars, and terminal IR-homing or GPS capable ammo (both of which exist).
As for my comment about the mentality that is causing the weapons to be left behind, it is not directed at the real SF guys out in 2-4 man teams. Of course they call fire support, so does everyone, but they don't bring heavy weapons along with them. The problem is all the line units are playing SF wannabee and leaving their heavy weapons, thinking "if the SF can do without them, so can we". Which is bad reasoning, as they have a different tactical role, and a waste of the firepower assets we do have.
If you don't think the fire support elements are looked down upon in today's army, you need to read some of the realistic training reports, which do not pull punches on the subject. NTC reports of live fire exercises "1. Task forces (TFs) tend to focus on maneuver only and do not understand how to integrate other combat multipliers." "FSO/FOs are routinely ignored or merely forgotten during the planning process. For their own part, FOs do not always fully understand the ground tactical plan... The maneuver rehearsals are so maneuver-centric that the fire support for the maneuver element is rarely mentioned." I am not making it up. In the field, people fly by the seat of their pants, and lean on the air force because it is there and other weapons aren't.
On the centralization of firepower assets, I don't think it is primarily budget concerns. It is the maneuver warfare focus. The school ideal is e.g. the whole AT company at the location it is most needed, not spread over all the line companies. If anything else is involved, it is limited training with higher echelons. A platoon that mostly trains without the rest of the company does not get used to using company level attachments as a matter of course. Same with a company, for battalion level assets.
But the net result is that instead of every squad having ATGMs organic and training to use them against enemy fortified positions and crew served weapons as a matter of course, the ATGM men are off in their own company, training to take out tank battalions, while the squad expects to deal with such targets with M203 grenades or at most ad hoc use of AT-4s. And in practice, that means the squad is training to be impotent beyond a few hundred meters, when it ought to be able to reply to HMGs and the like at a km or more.
See, the revolution in military affairs is not being viewed throughout the military as a matter of increased importance of firepower and ranged engagements, at all levels. It is instead being viewed as an increased importance of called air strikes (only - because the air force is determined in its firepower focus) and for the rest an increased importance in becoming lighter and lighter, while also being able to call in the airstrikes (thus communications, intel gathering, etc - the latter all useful to be sure).
"Light" has crowded out "firepower", largely in the name of "manuever". The irony is that light infantry can't maneuver a damn under mere HMG fire, unless it can suppress that fire with organic heavy weapons.
And no, they do not need another gunship fer pete's sake. We sent gunships, they took rotor hits and D'ed. Chinhooks were never meant for combat to begin with and actually went down. But if you are going to try to dominate the next mountain ridge from this mountain ridge, you are going to need more than a SAW and a radio to do it. And if you are going to try to get up this mountain ridge when the enemy has MGs in bunkers ahead of you along it, you are again going to need more than a SAW and a radio.
It is not rocket science. We've thought all this through long since. People just thought they were "adapting" by leaving out all of the ranged firepower, and they weren't. Too "adaptive" by half.
Squads should have long ranged scoped 7.62 rifles as well as SAWs. The Marines see the need but are going with a scoped 5.56, which will only give around 500-600 meter range, not 1000m. Squads or at the lowest platoons, should have ATGM sections with Javelins, to take out hard point targets at 1 km plus. Not just AT-4s and the like. Platoons should have Mk-19s to throw grenades 1 km, instead of just M203s in fireteams to throw them 200m. Platoons should plan out HMG positions on high ground for overwatch, to deny wide open areas to enemy moving in the open. Battalions going into this sort of fight should set up a 120mm mortar firebase to answer company and platoon fire requests in combat time, and they should have smart rounds and working counterbattery radars.
There is not reason to fight these guys with lighter and weaker weapons than they have themselves. We've been able to get away with it by leaning on airpower and expecting the moon from it. But it has already caused needless casualties, and so far we've been lucky it hasn't caused worse. Our guys deserve to go into combat better armed than their opponents. We have the tech for it, what is lacking is a doctrine that properly emphasizes the importance of modern ranged firepower.
Sure they are. The problem is that they are only good if you are a army of occupation that is staking out a protected territory and setting up defensive positions to defeat a conventional enemy force. That ain't why we are there,and that ain't what we are doing.
It is hard for enemies with only leg infantry to get at one, if properly situated.
Ok,so what? The Taliban don't have leg infantry,and what guerilla forces they have left are reduced to straggler status now.
The Taliban have made solid use of 82mm mortars.
So what? They ain't carrying them around on their backs and going on raids with them. They can use them because they are being attacked in their base camps.
This isn't a conventional war that can be fought by mechanized infantry with conventional heavy weapons. I can see a role if a delivery platform is developed that can deliver the hardware on pre-selected sites to provide cover fire for a planned attack,but even then it would require recon teams on the ground to verify it is safe to deliver the goods and men to man them on a isolated target where they are screwed if they get ambushed. Remember,most of the peaks these people and this equipment would be sited on are too small for a mass assault relief force to land.
Another gunship IS what is needed. One that can fly slow and has the ability to carry a load at those altitudes. Stripped versions of it could be utilized to sling in 105's or other similiar equipment and their crews,while gunship versions circle to provide fire support.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.