Fire and Maneuver

 I wrote this several years ago during the earlier years of Iraq.  This schema has to do not with grand strategy (COIN, etc) but what happens when the recipients of blankets, welldiggers, medical clinics, etc., say "to hell with this" and decide to fight you.  Tactics.  This is about tactics.  I was an officer of this regiment.pl

----------------------------------------------------------

Ground combat is not like sensitivity training where the idea is to insure that everyone's self image is preserved in an atmosphere of "consideration for others."  No, engagements in ground combat are supposed to be conducted in such a way that you and your comrades survive and the other side does not.  This is definitely a "zero-sum game."

In every well run ground engagement, there are two parts to the friendly actions/plan:

1-Fire (a hopefully withering barrage of bullets, artillery shells or aerial ordnance which either incapacitates the other side or forces him to take cover so that he can not shoot at you effectively.  While that is going on -

2-Maneuver takes place.  In other words while one group does the cowboys and Indians thing of "Cover Me," the other group "goes for" the enemy on the ground, hopefully not frontally.  That's how things work.

Fire and Maneuver.  Every soldier with any real knowledge knows that's how it works.  It doesn't matter if the force engaged is a Rifle Squad (11 men) or an Army Corps (many, many men).  That's how it works.

If you try to do it some other way, for example, not have enough available fire support to "shut the enemy down," then the enemy is going to be free to shoot the hell out of you and you can expect to loose a lot more people while trying to maneuver if you can maneuver at all.

Why am I going on about this?  It is because I have finally grasped the fact that US ground troops in Iraq do not have anything like the fire support available to them that people of my "primitive" and backward generation were used to having.

Here is how things worked when I was young and spry.  There would be a "meeting engagement."  (troops meeting) The friendly commander would immediately request fire support from supporting artillery through his Forward Observer or an Air Force liaison officer.  The first "ranging" fire from the artillery would arrive quite quickly.  The fall of the shot would be adjusted with a round or two more and then "fire for effect" would be requested followed by a lot of shells falling all over the target area, maybe with some smoke thrown in for good measure.  While that was going on the enemy would stop shooting, and our side would get up and "go for them."  All of this would take place at a really low level of coordination with no seniors involved at all.  This was routine AND the way to stay alive.

Apparently this is not the case in Iraq where "fire missions" seem to be approved at division level, far, far above the level of the action.  From everything I can learn there is already a shortage of tube artillery in Iraq and as a result troops are often outside the "range fan" of friendly guns, a situation I was never comfortable with.  Airplanes are nice but not all that reliable as to timing when you need them.  They also often have a bad tendency to mistakenly drop their ordnance where it is not required.

To compound this problem, a desire to win "hearts and minds" and not to anger people by killing their relatives has made it a major issue as to whether troops engaged in a built up area should be given fire support that might (probably) would kill civilians.  After all, the best text books on how to do counterinsurgency tell you that you can't upset the civilians.  Sounds good.

As you think this over, I will give you my opinion that to be honest (intellectually honest) you have to accept the fact that by not making as much fire support available as is needed up front (as opposed to in the rear at Hq.) you are making a decision to have more Americans killed and wounded.  Its a trade off.

Out in western Anbar, the Marines don't seem to be so sensitive since they shoot up towns as needed with artillery and their own dedicated air.  They seem to have followed the same rules at Falluja as well.  Primitives.  (bless them)

Some Arab gentlemen with whom I was lunching today politely listened to this rant, and observed correctly that "no one in the Arab World would believe that we are holding back like this," especially at the expense of our people.  They are right.  No one in the Arab World would believe that, but it seems to be true.  If it is not, let me know.

I would estimate that our casualties in killed and wounded would have been lower if it were not for this.  Of course Iraqi casualties would have been higher.

Pat Lang

Comments

[W. Patrick Lang]

Joey

Welcome to the board. pl

[Resort u]

Fine and pretty site! Very good owner and design!
http://www.resort.bestresortscheap.org/perdido-beach-resort.html >Perdido beach resort http://www.resort.bestresortscheap.org/georgia-resorts.html >Georgia resorts http://www.resort.bestresortscheap.org/sandles-resorts.html >Sandles resorts http://www.resort.bestresortscheap.org/big-mountain-ski-resort.html >Big mountain ski resort http://www.resort.bestresortscheap.org/disney-resort.html >Disney resort http://www.resort.bestresortscheap.org/indiana-golf-resort.html >Indiana golf resort http://www.resort.bestresortscheap.org/turtle-island-resort.html >Turtle island resort http://www.resort.bestresortscheap.org/lawrence-welk-resort.html >Lawrence welk resort http://www.resort.bestresortscheap.org/fernie-alpine-resort.html >Fernie alpine resort http://www.resort.bestresortscheap.org/mexico-resort-mexico-villa-rental-state-of-new-mexico.html >Mexico resort mexico villa rental state of new mexico http://www.resort.bestresortscheap.org/colorado-resorts.html >Colorado resorts http://www.resort.bestresortscheap.org/phoenix-resort-hotel.html >Phoenix resort hotel http://www.resort.bestresortscheap.org/treasure-island-resort-wisconsin-dells.html >Treasure island resort wisconsin dells http://www.resort.bestresortscheap.org/resort-reviews.html >Resort reviews http://www.resort.bestresortscheap.org/resorts-west-crooked-lake-park-rapids.html >Resorts west crooked lake park rapids http://www.resort.bestresortscheap.org/sans-souci-resort-and-spa.html >Sans souci resort and spa http://www.resort.bestresortscheap.org/rosario-resort.html >Rosario resort http://www.resort.bestresortscheap.org/all-inclusive-family-resorts.html >All inclusive family resorts http://www.resort.bestresortscheap.org/door-county-resort.html >Door county resort http://www.resort.bestresortscheap.org/koh-samui-resort.html >Koh samui resort http://www.resort.bestresortscheap.org/all-inclusive-resorts-cancun.html >All inclusive resorts cancun http://www.resort.bestresortscheap.org/gaylord-texan-resort.html >Gaylord texan resort http://www.resort.bestresortscheap.org/sedona-resort.html >Sedona resort http://www.resort.bestresortscheap.org/phoenix-resort.html >Phoenix resort http://www.resort.bestresortscheap.org/west-crooked-lake-resort.html >West crooked lake resort http://www.resort.bestresortscheap.org/mexico-resorts.html >Mexico resorts http://www.resort.bestresortscheap.org/canada-fishing-resort.html >Canada fishing resort http://www.resort.bestresortscheap.org/secrets-resorts.html >Secrets resorts http://www.resort.bestresortscheap.org/key-west-resorts.html >Key west resorts http://www.resort.bestresortscheap.org/palm-springs-resorts.html >Palm springs resorts

[William R. Cumming]

Thinking there is merit to Sam's comment. Whether the COIN of the Realm involves tube artillery is unknown to me but no doubt some education in what towed 105s can accomplish might be of interest to those interested in spreading the anti-taliban oilspots. Do they still exist or do we have to buy them from S.Africa? [I believe S.Africa at one time was largest producer of 105mm rounds in the world. Could be wrong!]Also are there foreign military observers attached to US forces that are not participants?

[Jose]

Joey Wheeler, great post, but when conducting an "L" ambush maneuver didn't you use indirect fire you cover your flanks or pin the enemy by denying lines of retreat?

I believe the planting season is coming soon, if we continue to play "nice" what will happen to these poor people who will be even poorer?

Predators have ensured that they will hate us for a long time, so why try have "Stan the Man" apologize for collateral damage at this point?

[Andrew]

'As you think this over, I will give you my opinion that to be honest (intellectually honest) you have to accept the fact that by not making as much fire support available as is needed up front (as opposed to in the rear at Hq.) you are making a decision to have more Americans killed and wounded. Its a trade off.'

Of course. But surely this applies to going to war at all? If America had never invaded Iraq, fewer Americans would have died (and fewer Iraqis too, but let's leave them to one side for now).

Whenever you launch an attack isn't the same trade-off made? You order men to climb out of their foxholes, they are more at risk of death, but (you hope that) some objective is achieved.

I don't think I clearly understand why accepting an increased risk to 'friendly' lives by limiting the use of certain weapons is a more emotive issue than accepting an increased risk for any other reason.

Is it because the control of weapons is retained at higher levels? I can certainly see that this shows a lack of trust in the troops to abide by the rules of engagement, which is a very serious business. Or is it because you regard the mission as futile? In that case any risk taken to complete it - however small - is surely unacceptable so the issue of artillery support is really beside the point. The point is the futility of what America is trying to achieve in Iraq.

I suppose I am also disturbed by this because I am a civillian in an American-allied nation. I had always thought that the point of soldiers is that they put their lives at risk to make us safe (and often, in practice, for policy goals much less clear-cut than that). This is why we hold soldiers in esteem, and other men of violence in comtempt. When you say to J Thomas 'To put it bluntly, if I have or had to choose between dead GIs and dead whatevers, the GIs win every time.' I see that this may not be true. Perhaps I am just a 'whatever' like those civillian Iraqis.