US Army to Stand and Fight in Ambush

lwflee SG

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.

...

“They have been seeing how convoys are being attacked and driving off,” he said. “The enemy has felt like they might be winning. Now we are going to take them out.”

The change in tactics is necessary because insurgents are getting smarter, said Sgt. 1st Class Charles Ahlborn, 36, of San Diego.

...

http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,92896,00.html?ESRC=dod-b.nl

Uh-huh. I can imagine insurgent leaders rubbing their hands in glee now. One Ied to induce the US concoy to 'take the fight to them' + a couple of RPGs + several secondary IEDs ought to mop up.

Shotgun SG

Marvellous... Now the insurgents would actually be aiming to kill the entire convoy instead of harassing with IEDs.

They better standby a couple of Apache floating at high altitude to escort these convoys man. They are gonna need the firepower.

decepticon25 SG

i think there will be more “Black Hawk Down” type of skirmishes if the troops were are to dismount and take out the enemy.

LRRP SG

Not a good decision..in an ambush…very seldom does the convoy get the upper hand..cos the enemy might be on superior ground with a good vantage view.

stellazio SG

wasting innocent lives..

lwflee SG

Maybe the problem that the US army wants to address is that the insurgents now know that when ambushed, convoys will simply try to speed out of the kill zone. With that knowledge, insurgents know that the best way to attack convoys then is to set up another IED up the road or to set up a kill zone further up the road?

But then they are announcing to everyone their change in tactics so my guess seems unlikely.

tankee1981 SG

I must agree on the point that when being ambushed the advantage is clearly with the ambushers. This is because they chose the kill zone, they are already in position and equipped with the right weapons. The element of surprise is with them.

However, we must also understand the rationale of such a change in tactics. By counter-attacking the ambushed is regaining the initiative and taking the fight to the ambushers by surprising them back as its not expected for them to fight back. And the prospect of the ambushers being counter-attacked may help to put off future attacks.

Its like what the SAF infantry section is taught to do when we are ambushed. We will just charge in the direction of the ambush and firing all we have got hoping to get out of it before the whole section is killed. I believed thats the same rationale as why they change the tactics. Very Happy

lwflee SG

I disagree slightly with you intertretation of the rationale behind the ambush drill taught to foot patrols. Yes, the priority is to get out of the kill zone. Yes, one reason for launching a counter attack at the enemy is to try and regain the initiative. But things change when you are on vehicles.

When you are on foot and you are ambushed, to get out of the kill zone you can either

1. Run in the direction you were originally headed.
2. Run back where you came from
3. Run directly away from the attack
4. Run At the attack.

1 and 2 is a no go because we assume that the enemy has prepared the kill zone and has positioned cutting off forces at either end and there is probably no way a tired soldier on foot will be able to move fast enough to avoid being hit.

That leaves 3 and 4. 4 will probably be the better option because when you are pouring bullets at the enemy, you are forcing the enemy to take cover. Also, since you're going to die anyway, you might as well try and take someone with you.

On a vehicle, option 1 is the clear choice since vehicles can provide at least *some* protection and more crucially, vehicles have the speed to get you out of the kill zone quickly. After all, a vehicle traveliing at just
60km/h will cover about 16m/sec. How large a killzone do you think most enemies can prepare? In just 3 seconds, the vehicle would have covered almost 50metres!

Shotgun SG

However, bare in mind that if they were gonna ambush a vehicle convoy. With RPGs, they can selectively take out both the lead and rear vehicles. Trapping the middle of the convoy all together.

Of course, vehicles are gonna break off -OFF the road and if everybody tries to make a run for it, then there's gonna be chaos. Chances are, when that happen, its more likely that u're gonna get hit by friendly fire. Not so friendly.

I agree with attacking the ambush. In a column convoy, u''d have natural firepower to the flanks... Take that firepower, and walk it right up to the enemy and force them to break off before making a break for it ourselves.

decepticon25 SG

i think the terrain is still a factor in counter-ambush.. in urban terrain, if the point vehicle got pinned the rest of the convoy will have to stop and the men dismount to engage the enemy who is definitely in tall buildings and got a good view of the ambush and can easily pick off soldiers returning fire. The Russians got hammered in Chechnya when a bunch of guerillas ambushed them from builidings, i read somewhere they lost a battalion sized element( or armored battle group) in one such engagement

MobyDog SG

I believe the South African deploy this tactics effectively and successfully with their Rattels. But different situations, locations and troops morality have different oucome.

The south African pretty much depended on themselves most of their engagements.. so determinations to survive.. plays a huge part. They would not expect quick firebase support or air cover.. they are mostly on their own.

While the US forces, as I see it, has never been able to operate independently by themselves ( apart form SOF and rangers). They have always depended on superior fire support (air or Arty). US forces, generally, not known to hunker down and fight, without external support ( unless they are cornered). They usually scoot off as fast as possible.

BadzMaro SG

Whatever it is… an Ambush is an ambush. Chances of surviving are normally low. WHen u are ambushed, u are gonna expect casualites because the focus of an ambush is to attack with surprise while hidden and at an advantageous situation. Unless they were re-conned first , it normally doesnt end pretty. Eitherway , its either charging the position with everything u got.. or making a run for it. hopefully making it out alive.

lwflee SG

Do you guys think it would be inappropriate to discuss SAF’s vehicle ambush drills here?

YI SG

i am watching this thread and don’t mind reading more.

NewAge SG

i think the US feel that the ambusher is just a small group which the US forces with their current firepower will be able to take out easily. The militia will not be as well train or equipped as compare to the beginning of the war. Under such assumption stay and fight will slowly wip out the ambush in the long run. Surely the US will be Beefing up the defence of the convoys.

Shotgun SG

Honestly, I think the current ambush drill is too... hrm... how to explain.

U have a chance of making it IF EVERYBODY FIGHTS, and attacks the enemy. If u have ppl who cower and hide behind... then got problem liao.

king108 SG

S2 and S4 will be fired immediately if being convoy ambushed.

To send convoy, all junctions must be guarded by MPs after enemies wept out. Convoy cannot take on even a small pocket of enemies. If they are able to do so, it is no longer a convoy. It's troops by name.