Reply With Quote
Who said anything about laser guided weapons? They're talking about using the guns in their hands.
Are you really this stupid?
Convoys to Stand and Fight When Attacked
Military.comGRAFENWÖHR, Germany — In a change to Army tactics, U.S. soldiers will stand and fight instead of shooting and pressing on when their convoys are attacked on Iraqi roads, according to Harvey Perritt, spokesman for the Army’s Training and Doctrine Command at Fort Monroe, Va.
“In the first two years of Iraq, convoys (under attack) just fired and kept rolling,” said Maj. Roger Gaines, the battalion’s operations officer said Thursday. “That gave bad guys the perception that Americans run away. Now, convoys will stop and engage the enemy.”
The change is part of Army Chief of Staff Gen. Peter Schoomaker’s underlying philosophy of a more rigorous response to attacks, Perritt said in a telephone interview Thursday.
The training is mandatory for all soldiers, regardless of their military occupational specialty.
During an exercise in Germany that tested these new tactics:
en Duck-shoot. Didn't we learn anything from the colonial wars? Do they think these insurgents are just gonna stick around and be pin-pointed by laser-guided weapons?Company C’s 3rd Platoon leader, 2nd Lt. Joshua Mendoza, 26, of Chandler, Ariz., said shooting on the run did not send insurgents the right message.
Yes it sends the message, "We're not dumb enough to stick around and get ambushed"
Who said anything about laser guided weapons? They're talking about using the guns in their hands.
Are you really this stupid?
We don't cut and Run!
Common, you don't engage the enemy on their terms.
NBAdan likes to give insurgents the good intel feeds..
Even though convoy tacticts are TRAINED right here in town at Camp Bullis.
How does it feel to on soldiers everyday hua?
So Dan, with your experience in driving/riding in convoys, what do you think about the new Army tactics on a practical level?
As far as "fighting the enemy on his terms", I would suggest that the old Marine mantra of "Locate, Close With, Destroy" would fit quite well with the three-block type of conflict facing our military forces in Iraq today.
In principle, it is less costly to attack than not to attack only if the enemy is not successfully entrenched. Because of superior firepower, becoming thus entrenched has been impossible for the insurgents. But to attack in haste blind defenses they might be entering a greater ambush, so the risk here is very great- eventually.
A rational officer would urge such a tactic to be used at random, but only with caveats. If this is a blanket order it is dumb. Injecting unpredictability into routine in a fixed environment is mandatory. Of course such a "robust" tactic will ultimately also cost many innocent civilian lives and soldier casualties and recruit more opposition, but being in a lose/lose situation means less to those forced to risk their lives every day.
The hippie is a military mastermind.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
