Thread: guerilla warfare in the concrete Jungle

The Chechens were way better organized.

Originally Posted by platinum786

In Iraq today US troops are facing Geurilla tactics, people attacking them in markets, shooting threw windows, drive by shooting etc. However the casulty rates are suprisingly low. Even when US forces took cities street by street the casulty rates where low. Compare it with ten years ago or so, when Russain forces moved in to Grozny and took a huge beating.

What is the difference? Have troops been better protected now, have tactics trained to stop the effectiveness of this type of attack? Is it just that iraqi insurgents are rally cr4p at what they do?

All of the above. Better protection, better leadership, better training, more effective weapons, many insurgents are untrained.

During Grozny 1, the Russians underestimated the Chechens, they were poorly trained, didn't fight a combined arms battle, and the Chechens had the advantage of having been former USSR soldiers, so they knew their enemy's tactics better than the enemy knew them.

However, don't confuse low KIA rates with overall low casualty rates. Modern battlefield medicine and the ability to have soldiers in surgery within an hour has reduced the rate of death. While over half of the wounded return to duty with 72 hours, meaning that they had a superficial wound or one that involved only flesh, there is a large contingent of injuries where the soldier is out of the fight for the rotation, and this numbers over 5,000. So, while the rates are still low, just looking at the KIA can be somewhat deceptive.

ok....but whats changed tactic wise....how can you be better prepred to face that?

I mean even US forces had problems in somalia most entertainingly portrayed by hollywood in black hawk down. whats the real difference in equipment/tactics?

Originally Posted by platinum786

ok....but whats changed tactic wise....how can you be better prepred to face that?

I mean even US forces had problems in somalia most entertainingly portrayed by hollywood in black hawk down. whats the real difference in equipment/tactics?

I wouldn't call Mogadishu problems per se. TF Ranger mauled the Somalis - it's just that 18 KIA, the capture of Durant, and the desecration of American servicemen's bodies were too high of a price to pay for a humanitarian mission for the American public. Also, remember that there was CAS, none of the digitization that you have now (do a search for Kiowa Down! on WAB and you'll find a write up on how Blackhawk Down! could have potentially turned out with some of today's tools).

As far as tactics, our urban battle drill has been refined and improved, equipment has been issued (mechanical and ballistic breaching tools) to complement these tactics, and they have received a large amount of training time.

Originally Posted by platinum786

ok....but whats changed tactic wise....how can you be better prepred to face that?

I mean even US forces had problems in somalia most entertainingly portrayed by hollywood in black hawk down. whats the real difference in equipment/tactics?

Also, ask Tankervet how effect main battle tanks are in the urban fight. 120mm HEAT is not an insurgents best friend, and makes his urban hide irrelevant when it collapses around him.

Up until this phase of the operation it was believed that the M1 was not an effective weapon in the Urban enviroment. It was felt that you had to be light and highly mobile to fight urban. We were for securing the outskirts. What we realized from OIF is that the tank is actually very effective in the urban area. We have more armor which allows us to move more freely through the area, and we have the ablility to destroy anything on the battlefield ie buildings walls etc. Compare that to Somolia where it was all light and the heaviest armor was not heavy enough to move into the city center.

Also we have been fighting for over 3 years now and around 60% of soldiers are veterans. If we have one good to take from this war it's that we have the most lethal force we ever have had. Very few of the leaders are jumping into Iraq without knowing what its like, or at least what it was like a year ago. This allows us to quickly adapt to changes the enemy throws at us.

A big area is the medical aspect as shek mentioned. Our medical care in the field is top notch and without seeing other armies fight, I would say we have the most advanced and streamlined medical process in the world. Countless servicemember owe there life to them doctors.

but is it not possible to totally destroy an m1 with an rpg from like 20 metres away?

also i have been watchin this program on one of those discovery channels called shootout, it's an account of us forces within iraq and how they gought and what they did....apparently the iraqi's where piss poor trained....they like shot rpg's from point blank range and missed....

did u expereince anything like that?

The only possible way to destroy an M1 with an RPG is probably hitting it from the top. Which is probably not going to happen as the accompanying infantry is going to cover the tank from just such a threat.

Originally Posted by platinum786

but is it not possible to totally destroy an m1 with an rpg from like 20 metres away?

also i have been watchin this program on one of those discovery channels called shootout, it's an account of us forces within iraq and how they gought and what they did....apparently the iraqi's where piss poor trained....they like shot rpg's from point blank range and missed....

did u expereince anything like that?

I believe that the arming range for a RPG is 35m.

Originally Posted by shek

I believe that the arming range for a RPG is 35m.

Its somewhere in that neighborhood. We had quite a few occasions where the RPG would fail to arm and just bounce off. (due to the range)

but is it not possible to totally destroy an m1 with an rpg from like 20 metres away?

No. Very few RPG have had any effect against the M1. There are a few occasions but they are few and far between.

also i have been watchin this program on one of those discovery channels called shootout, it's an account of us forces within iraq and how they gought and what they did....apparently the iraqi's where piss poor trained....they like shot rpg's from point blank range and missed....

did u expereince anything like that?

Its no secret that the Iraqi army/insurgents were poorly trained. Not to mention that the weapons they used were in poor conditions. Also you shouldn't worry too much about what the discovery channel says. Everytime they have a show about tanks they ALWAYS have a picture of an artillary piece. There shows are intended to entertain first facts second. Kindof like them movies that are "based" on a true story.

Originally Posted by leibstandarte10

The only possible way to destroy an M1 with an RPG is probably hitting it from the top. Which is probably not going to happen as the accompanying infantry is going to cover the tank from just such a threat.

Not the only way. We have had a few penetrate but there all considered very lucky shots.

If we were marines then you would be right about the infantry but in the Army its not as simple as that. We dont cross attach infantry like we use to very much. Or cross attach tanks for that matter. And we dont have infantry organic to a tank company.

1. US military is highly adaptable because of our culture is highly adaptable.
2. US can lavish our soldiers in effective body armor. No other army in the world can afford it.
3. US has the best battlefield medicine in the world. We have the ability to get a gravely injured soldier to surgery in an hour. This has changed the survival rate of soldiers dramatically.
4. The insurgents are not very good shots.

Shek,

A general point and not related to Iraq.

Tanks are OK for urban warfare where the streets are wide or in villages where there are mud huts.

In narrow streets tanks will not be effective and it will have to be infantry based.

Given the issues QR in the Defence Policy Guidelines and the possible areas of interest, it would be wrong for the US Army to base its tactics for Urban Warfare based solely on the experience in Iraq. There are other areas where the US may have to intervene where the roads can be narrow and hence tanks may not be abole to ply with the freedom it has in the scanarios that have been mentioned for Iraq.