Smaw

[shimmy]

I am sorry if this seems like a foolish question but why must US soldiers enter every room in an enemy(or possibly enemy)held building?It seems to me that once a squad gets any resistence from an enemy they should use the SMAW or SMAW-NE (or even just a BFV) to clear the place of enemy. I feel that way we cut down on casualties. It might also scare the heck out of insurgents.It seems that going door-to-door in urban combat is not effective. Once you get a hot enemy , use what equipment you have not waste trained soldiers.
Please explain hy I am wrong.

 

[Aussie Digger]

I am sorry if this seems like a foolish question but why must US soldiers enter every room in an enemy(or possibly enemy)held building?It seems to me that once a squad gets any resistence from an enemy they should use the SMAW or SMAW-NE (or even just a BFV) to clear the place of enemy. I feel that way we cut down on casualties. It might also scare the heck out of insurgents.It seems that going door-to-door in urban combat is not effective. Once you get a hot enemy , use what equipment you have not waste trained soldiers.
Please explain hy I am wrong.

For one thing, there are rules of engagement. Soldiers are required generally to positively identify an enemy before engaging them.

2. It is counter productive simply killing everyone. Iraq is not going to run out of people willing to fight, just as North Vietnam didn't. Convincing them NOT to fight is or at least should be the name of the game.

There will always be times when it is useful to employ a heavy direct fire weapon, such as a SMAW against a "room" of "enemies" but it is not a panacea.

 

[shimmy]

SMAW-still confused

Thank you for your help but I am still confused.I said that once an insurgent attacks US soldiers in an urban enviornment they then should use the SMAW (or other similar equipment) to rid them of the threat. If a soldier is attacked do you say the soldiers must identify themselves?If you shoot at me haven't you "identified " me ?Should US men and women then have to use dangerous means to clear a house rather than the less dangerous methods available with the SMAW(or SMAW-NE,SMAW-HEPP,BFV ,etc) because of your interpertation of the "rules of engagement?" (By the way didn't von Clausewitz say that war was the absence of rules?) If you are stating that American forces must go room to room after being attacked then I would argue that you sem actually afraid to win. I would also argue about the morality of sending US soldiers into combat but not letting them use available weapons.I do not think Iraq will really run out of soldiers but I do not want American lives wasted when there exists methods to keep our casualties down.
Thank you for your help but I am still confused. American casualities could be kept down by using materials available to our men and women .

 

[Tasman]

Thank you for your help but I am still confused.I said that once an insurgent attacks US soldiers in an urban enviornment they then should use the SMAW (or other similar equipment) to rid them of the threat. If a soldier is attacked do you say the soldiers must identify themselves?If you shoot at me haven't you "identified " me ?Should US men and women then have to use dangerous means to clear a house rather than the less dangerous methods available with the SMAW(or SMAW-NE,SMAW-HEPP,BFV ,etc) because of your interpertation of the "rules of engagement?" (By the way didn't von Clausewitz say that war was the absence of rules?) If you are stating that American forces must go room to room after being attacked then I would argue that you sem actually afraid to win. I would also argue about the morality of sending US soldiers into combat but not letting them use available weapons.I do not think Iraq will really run out of soldiers but I do not want American lives wasted when there exists methods to keep our casualties down.
Thank you for your help but I am still confused. American casualities could be kept down by using materials available to our men and women .

If only it was this simple. Look at the way in which the US and its allies are criticised in the media every time there is a civilian casualty.

Throughout the Iraq campaign, insurgents have used the rules of engagement to their advantage. For example, one reason car bombs have been so devastating is that soldiers at checkpoints obviously can't just engage every vehicle that comes toward the checkpoint and it has often been too late to stop a car bomb by the time the threat has been identified. It seems to me that the rules of engagement in this area are now being 'flexibly' interpreted. The result has been that there have been cases of cars stopped and occupants killed when it has turned out that in fact there was no bomb. Investigations have generally held that soldiers in these situations have acted in accordance with the rules because they had reasonable grounds to believe they were under threat. Soldiers know, however, that all instances like this will be investigated.

In a situation where soldiers are taking direct fire from a building the use of a weapon like SMAW or Javelin would be justified unless the commander on the spot had reason to believe that civilians were in danger. There is a difference too as to whether civilians are actively assisting the insurgents or are effectively being used as hostages or unwilling human shields. The big problem of course is how does the commander know? There is no easy solution to this. War in an urban insurgency situation involving fanatics, suicide bombers and an enemy who will not hesitate to use innocent civilians as shields, is, IMO, one of the worst situations a soldier can find themselves in. Apart from being incredibly dangerous it is also a legal nightmare, and one in which where the soldiers themselves have not made the rules.

It would be great if enemies could always be defeated by the use of high tech weapons but I think there will always be situations like urban Bagdad where the soldier on foot is still the only one who can do the job.

Cheers

 

[shimmy]

"Rules of Engagement"

Thank you for your help. It seems to me that you are saying that the situation is not that easy. I am saying it should be that easy for soliers in the field. It could be difficult for the politicos in their offices and conference rooms but it should not be dificult for those in the field. They must protect themselves and use everything that will make casualties as few as possible. If American soldiers are put in harms way they must know that they will be given every resource to maketheir jobs as safe as possible. I feel that as long as we are in Iraq(or Afganistan or any theater of operations) we must let the soldiers protect themselves anyway possible. To a great extent we did that in WWII but not very much in Vietnam . We are doing somewhat better in this regard in Iraq but not enough. Americans are angry because our sons and daughters are being killed , in most circumstances, because they are either not given proper equipment( e.g. HUMVEES,) or not allowed to freely use good equipment.(e.g. SMAW, SMAW-NE, et al.)
If we will not let our soldiers use top equipment then why are we even investigating other equipment ? Maybe we should stop developing the NLOS-C, the THEL, the Barrett , SWORDS , the Predator , etc. After all, they may break these artificial rules of engagement.

 

[Waylander]

So you want to rush through cities full of civilians with everything you have?

And you really think the result will be less victims on US side?

If you act too violent in every situation you are going to have much more opposition due to the loss of innocent civilian lifes during your operations.

And you for sure have enough opposition by now in Iraq.

 

[eckherl]

So you want to rush through cities full of civilians with everything you have?

And you really think the result will be less victims on US side?

If you act too violent in every situation you are going to have much more opposition due to the loss of innocent civilian lifes during your operations.

And you for sure have enough opposition by now in Iraq.

The Russians learned this the hard way in Afghanistan.

 

[harms]

you couldt just as well bomb iraq with nukes, rather than send in ground troops. All "bad guys" would be dead and US soldiers safe at home.:usa A whole hell would break loose then... I know i am dramatising a lot.
What I ment was- sometimes you need boots on the ground to do the nasty job and thats whay troops ar sent there- to protect your contry`s interests by all means necessary, sometimes putting their lives at risk to make big things look right. it is their job.
I am from Latvia, we have like 120 soldiers in the south of iraq. All of them voluntiers, profesionals. So far have had 3 casualtyes- all of them a national tragedy. respect.

P.S. sorry for bad english. peace

 

[Aussie Digger]

Thank you for your help. It seems to me that you are saying that the situation is not that easy. I am saying it should be that easy for soliers in the field. It could be difficult for the politicos in their offices and conference rooms but it should not be dificult for those in the field. They must protect themselves and use everything that will make casualties as few as possible. If American soldiers are put in harms way they must know that they will be given every resource to maketheir jobs as safe as possible. I feel that as long as we are in Iraq(or Afganistan or any theater of operations) we must let the soldiers protect themselves anyway possible. To a great extent we did that in WWII but not very much in Vietnam . We are doing somewhat better in this regard in Iraq but not enough. Americans are angry because our sons and daughters are being killed , in most circumstances, because they are either not given proper equipment( e.g. HUMVEES,) or not allowed to freely use good equipment.(e.g. SMAW, SMAW-NE, et al.)
If we will not let our soldiers use top equipment then why are we even investigating other equipment ? Maybe we should stop developing the NLOS-C, the THEL, the Barrett , SWORDS , the Predator , etc. After all, they may break these artificial rules of engagement.

Mate you make war seem so simple, so black and white. If it was just a matter of killing everyone than dropping several nukes on Baghdad, Basra etc would solve the insurgency problem.

No-one said anything about not being allowed to use a certain weapon. Army's have tactics. It is NOT a computer game where you can blow enemies away and suffer no more from it than sore thumbs. They make tactical decisions based on the situation at hand. Tell me, what's more important to the war effort. Capturing a terrorist cell in Iraq and exploiting the intelligence gained therein or simply destroying it?

Apparently you've learnt nothing from the USA's failed "search and destroy" policy it used it Vietnam if you still think this is the best method to use during COIN operations.

If you can't see this, then it's pointless discussing this with you any further. I suggest you take your blinkers off if you wish to continue these kinds of discussions here.

 

[Mick73]

Well if all of the insurgents would wear a uniform, use a recognised rank structure and not hide in the civilian community, then sure the ROE's would be different.
But guess what?...they don't!

Question for you?
What would your reaction to a group of police doing what you suggest into your house because someone was seen carrying a hair dryer and they believed it was a gun and ya kid brother let off a M80 in the house. Instead of a flash bang/CS gas, they throw a HE in your house. Would that be a problem for you?

Would you think that the SWAT guys deserve to use all weapons to protect themselves.

The ROE's are used for a reason, sometimes those reasons don't make sence but they are put in place to protect as many non combatants form getting harmed. War is not a simple thing.
If you think about what you are saying, if a badguy gets zapped and the three smalls kids die at the same time because the US soldier uses a Grenade etc. to clear a room of a known threat, that soldier is going to have more longer lasting wounds than you think.

As others have said, if you want to continue this in a simplistic way. My advise is put down your PS2 and grab a rifle and go and see for yourself. Goodluck.

 

[Simon9]

Also it must be pointed out that US troops can and do use SMAWs and AT-4s against insurgent positions they have identified. In fact they use them a lot - but only on buildings they are taking fire from. They also rarely hesitate to call in air support, usually 500-lb bombs dropped onto buildings, or Apache/Cobra strikes.

I don't know where you get the idea that US soldiers don't use their available support. If it is justified by their ROE, they use it. If anything, US soldiers use their support too freely, causing avoidable civilian casualties. If you search websites like youtube or liveleak you can see MANY examples of US troops using SMAWs, mortars, and airstrikes against insurgents.

 

[shimmy]

My position is that soldiers on the ground should not be pawns to be wasted by politicians in their safe offices. If soldiers are committed then they must be allowed to use all the technology we can give them. If someone shoots at an American soldier then it is the duty,I feel , for the government to give that soldeir all the support needed to keep the soldier safe. If you say that we can not do this in Iraq then I say keep the soldeirs off the ground in Iraq.We can easily say there are "rules of engagement" as we sip our drinks and play on our PCs. When a soldeirs is the first one through the door in urban fighting it is quite a different situation.
I still feel that if US soldiers are clearing a house and they get shot at , then they should use all their field weapons to do their jobs with minimal casualties to the soldiers.
Please note:I have great rspect for those who are trying to show me a different view, but I feel that wasting US lives is immoral.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Please note:I have great rspect for those who are trying to show me a different view, but I feel that wasting US lives is immoral.

I feel that wasting ANYONE's life is immoral. Fact is I have not heard of ANY soldiers being denied the use of a weapon system they are equipped with.

They are however told when and where they are allowed to use it. This is important, not only for the "PC" view of things, but to enable the force to act as a cohesive unit.

You don't just go around blazing away at anyone who might be shooting at you, not if you want to try and end the fighting. A measured approach to any tactical situation is the professional way of doing things.

As I said earlier, there might be a very sound reason for employing a heavy direct fire weapon and I am not personally aware of any "artificiall" rules from preventing them doing so.

Indeed Australian soldiers operate under considerably tighter ROE's than the American's in Iraq, are not directly employed in "fighting" the insurgents (any contacts are "self-defence" situations) and still carry M72A6 anti-armour weapons on regular patrols. No soldier carries something he's not going to use...

 

[Waylander]

Okay, a little example for you.

You are on a patrol and you get fire from a building. Not a lonely house somewhere in the desert but a block in the middle of a city.
What do you do?
Often enough you don't even see the enemy fire. The guerillas are not dumb. It is not like in a film were the enemy hangs out of a window and you the the fire. Firing from inside of the room is one of the first things you learn first during MOUT operations.

So back to the situation.
You get fire from thne block on your right.
Do you really would fire some AT-4 on it and than call in an airstrike which levels the building with a GBU-24?
You would for sure get the guerilla but you would also "get" some dozens civilians.

THIS is immoral.
And it won't help you bringing peace to this country.

I agree that it is always a thin line which kind of tactic to choose to cope with a situation but using nearly every weapons you have on every possible threat is way over the line.

 

[Rich]

Even forgetting "morality" for a minute, "to many people talk about that word in war time nowadays", you have to ask yourself would such a reckless use of power be helpful in accomplishing your mission?

There is historical material to support each view. Here's my favorite example of how the Arabs deal with Islamic fundamentalism that threatens the status quote http://www.2la.org/lebanon/ee/terrorsy.htm . Funny but I dont remember citizens of the Worlds Democracies pondering morality when the Syrians slaughtered the city of Hama.

Apparently you've learnt nothing from the USA's failed "search and destroy" policy it used it Vietnam if you still think this is the best method to use during COIN operations.

Funny how these Vietnam folk stories persist. We won every major battle in Vietnam and the highly sucessful Linebacker air campaigns brought the communists to the negotiating table, and afterwards they violated everything they agreed to. The military accomplished "their" mission, it was the great "moralists" stateside, and the Politicians, that failed them.

There are actually some historical connections. For instance the ease at which the enemy rests, recruits, and rearms,in the Pakistan tribal Lands could be compared to Cambodia and how we allowed the enemy to regroup once they crossed that border. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/taliban/ Iran is heavily involved in supporting the insurgency in Iraq and we handcuff our military in dealing with them as we did in Vietnam. Hell, in Vietnam we had some manure kicking President picking the air targets for the first few years, didn't allow USAF to bomb North Vietnam, and whom also forbade the USN from blockading or mining the enemies harbors. Well, at least LBJ considered himself "moral".:unknown

So history has shown us if we do to much, "moralizing", "limiting", "Politicaling", "micro-managing"...ect we are in for a bad time. The enemy doesn't burden themselves with such things. And we are placing our soldiers in an environment where they cant win.

 

[eckherl]

The most frustrating issue on the ground in Iraq is that we are trying to fight off a insurgency that is firmally planted with in the population, we have soldiers that are trying to help in bringing law and order to cities that have hundreds of thousands and in the case of the capital of Iraq millions, how do you fight this type of insurgency, we are going to take casualties like it or not. We do not want to go in there with all guns blazing and have more of the innocent Iraqi population to take on more casualties, they are suffering also, what needs to get accomplished is that the Iraqi government needs to stop burning the candle from both ends and start working for the overall population, which isn`t going to happen with all three tribes trying to leverage for power with outside influence. Looking at what Coalition troops are faced with on the ground in Iraq, it is my opinion that we have actually taken light casualties, which still is a bummer anytime you lose a soldier. Coalition soldiers are doing a excellant job over there, it is just too bad that we pretty much get to hear the negative side to it by the media.