Convoys to Stand and Fight

#2
Sound tactical judgement , or pride over-ruling common sense?

Stand and fight sounds good , as long as you have Fast Air on call , or overwhelming firepower available , but this decision to force a 'set piece' engagement I think will end in tears.

Granted a lot of the opposition may well be rag-tag disorganised 'terrorists' but some of Red Team , are going to be really really good and really have their s*** together.

In the worst case , is the loss in men and materiel really going to be worth the face-saving?

Are we going to see a return to the Vietnam-era Gun Trucks , and Spads on call?
 
#3
Well the enemy know you are going to run away , thw whole idea of an ambush is that you
are sprung in their killing area. You have nothing to lose by standing and fighting. Its basic
soldiering to fight through an ambush . As for the ''dead and wounded civvies '' well as most
of you will know that lack of civvies is a major ''combat indicator'' so there is a good chance
that there will be few innocents about . Lets face facts here if you are in an ''ambush'' the
most important thing on your mind is saving your mates and your own arrses.
 
#4
Looking at a UK perspective:

Surely to stand and fight you need firepower. How does that fit in with the "let's look nice to the locals and remove belt fed weapons from patrols"?

Is 'standing and fighting' against winning 'hearts and minds'?
 
#5
Does this mean they're going to turn the wagons over and fire at the nasties through the spokes of the wheels like John Wayne?
 
#7
PartTimePongo said:
Sound tactical judgement , or pride over-ruling common sense?

Stand and fight sounds good , as long as you have Fast Air on call , or overwhelming firepower available , but this decision to force a 'set piece' engagement I think will end in tears.

Granted a lot of the opposition may well be rag-tag disorganised 'terrorists' but some of Red Team , are going to be really really good and really have their s*** together.

In the worst case , is the loss in men and materiel really going to be worth the face-saving?

Are we going to see a return to the Vietnam-era Gun Trucks , and Spads on call?
I'm surprised these havent appeared already, trucks complete with miniguns in turrets hidden by canvas. Would keep the insurgents guessing.
 
#8
paveway_3 said:
We do have Belt fed weapons on Patrols (mounted ) out of site out of mind . We also have air cover
on the convoys .
Really? We weren't allowed them out, unless there was an identifiable threat. Must be a unit to unit thing.
 
#10
I'm surprised these havent appeared already, trucks complete with miniguns in turrets hidden by canvas. Would keep the insurgents guessing
Q-Convoys armed to the teeth looking for a drama to happen?

Might have an effect , until insurgent intelligence get their people to tell them which convoys are soft , and which are actually a one way trip to sherbert and raisins.

I don't think you can dramatically ramp up the number of convoys , but replacing the odd scheduled convoy with one that's a bit tastier might be the answer?
 
#11
You can make them as tasty as you like, but when was the last time a convoy was engaged by a set-piece ambush?

Only the (most self-selectingly) stupid terrorist will try an full-on direct contact, which is why we are at home to Mr IED and Mr EFP.

msr
 
#12
Plus have you seen the size of the Yank convoys?

Mind you ours are not much smaller these days. Thing is, like MSR so rightly points out, its not a good idea to take on a normal convoy (of any nationality) as you are going to be out-gunned most of the time. Hence the reliance on our friends Mr's IED and EFP. Patrols are another thing all-together and taking one of those on is not always a suicide pact if you have done your homework - bearing in mind they have the element of surprise, know the ground, can pre-postition ammo/heavier kit/booby-traps, plan arcs/kill-zones, have escape routes and the list goes on and on............

Not all of these loons are badly trained/dressed/equiped nut-cases some are exactly the opposite - well trained/dressed/equiped nut-cases and are quite capable of pulling of some spectacular sh!t................

Or am I giving them too much credit? Dunno, I do know, If I was told to stand and fight if hit on, I'd be wanting to see a hell of a lot of support in a postition that allows it to get to me very, very quickly.......................
 
#13
PartTimePongo said:
Sound tactical judgement , or pride over-ruling common sense?

Stand and fight sounds good , as long as you have Fast Air on call , or overwhelming firepower available , but this decision to force a 'set piece' engagement I think will end in tears.

Granted a lot of the opposition may well be rag-tag disorganised 'terrorists' but some of Red Team , are going to be really really good and really have their s*** together.

In the worst case , is the loss in men and materiel really going to be worth the face-saving?

Are we going to see a return to the Vietnam-era Gun Trucks , and Spads on call?
I think it was covered elsewhere on here, but one of the problems pointed out was that the Yanks cannot or will not deviate from Orders.

Whereas the Brit Comd on the ground can make the necessary call on the ground drive or fight through dependant on circumstances.

There cannot be one SOP to cover all eventualities, (come on, secondary IED etc)

thats my tuppence
 
#16
"If you have an aggressive posture, which the .50-cal provides, insurgents are less likely to target you," Landry said. "For every one round they fire at us, we send back a thousand."
Perhaps if they were a bit less trigger happy and fired aimed shots, then they wouldn't need so many replen convoys...

Anyway, all that will happen is that the insurgents will place a bigger bounty on the destruction of one of these trucks.

msr
 
#17
Thats crazy you will loose more personal trying to fight back leading to more and more resources having to protect convoys. The only result of this will be more bodybags I have to sadly say.
 
#19
dan_man said:
Thats crazy you will loose more personal trying to fight back leading to more and more resources having to protect convoys. The only result of this will be more bodybags I have to sadly say.
What are you on about ? if you enter an ambush you are entering a prepared killing zone,
if you fight back you have a chance to get away and to enflict casualties on the enemy .
If you turn and run your fecked , they have cut offs , IED's etc etc . Its a basic SOP to
fight your way out of the ambush . You are fighting on an area the enemy has recced.
So they have taken into account your escape routes .
 
#20
Bizarre. That was the 'new thinking' back in 2003 when I was in my spin-up phase. The gun trucks have been around since early 2004 at least.

It's to be remembered that we have three kinds of convoy going around over there: The pure combat convoy, involving a series of vehicles the vast majority of which aren't cargo carriers if there are any at all, the military convoy, wherin there are lots of cargo vehicles, but all are military, and the "KBR" convoy, which is about a mile and a half long, and generally filled with lots of civilian contractors who are driving.

The last is the simplest: They're not warfighters, so just have a couple of units pull over to suppress while the rest keep driving out of the kill zone.

The military convoy prefers to keep going as well: For the likelihood of actually catching/killing someone, you're putting a lot of cargo at risk, though you can work both ways if you need to.

Finally, the combat convoy/patrol is the one with the most flexibility. Sometimes we stand and fight, sometimes we go through out of the ambush, turn around, and come back. All depends on what we feel like. The Q-idea is already in effect, we called it Operation Suicide Bait for the two softskin HMMWVs that we kicked out about a half mile/mile in front of our tanks, other units use more extravagant setups.

Ulimately, the combat troops are out there to capture/kill the guys trying to kill us. Otherwise, all we're doing is riding around providing targets for them to practise on. Since we can't exactly go around detaining or shooting people just for looking at us funny, we are in effect obliged to wait until they shoot at us first. Their attacking us is the most obvious and easiest way of identifying them, and I would submit that an aggressive response in such a case can reap dividends, either in the immediate effect on enemy personnel, or in simple deterrence. There's a time and place to to shoot, and a time and place not to shoot. I submit that being attacked is one of the former.

NTM
 

Latest Threads