itwillsting
New Member
I couldn't find anyplace to post ideas that could be used to combat insurgents. I have a few ideas and would like to get them out there.
Ideas that might help secure our troops?
- Thread starter itwillsting
- Start date
itwillsting
New Member
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #2
camera detector
There is a device available on the net that detects cameras, hidden or not. Would this device be useful in spotting insurgents in Iraq? Its fairly cheap, is claimed to be easy to use and very effective. Is there a better way to express ideas so they would be heard by those who could decide their usefulness or implement these ideas?
There is a device available on the net that detects cameras, hidden or not. Would this device be useful in spotting insurgents in Iraq? Its fairly cheap, is claimed to be easy to use and very effective. Is there a better way to express ideas so they would be heard by those who could decide their usefulness or implement these ideas?
itwillsting
New Member
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #4
Any ideas i suppose, but generally I'm mostly concerned with Iraq at the moment. Any thought as to contact someone in charge of these things?
Do you have friends in the army? In the Bundeswehr we have a special contact to were you can send your ideas of improving equipment or tactics. You can even win money if your idea is adopted. 
I would think such a solution exists also in the US Army.
As for improvements.
- Add more mine protected vehicles with RCWs. Even uparmored the Humvees are far away from being ideal for the situation in Iraq.
- Develop a dumb round for the Javelin. Using a normal Javelin for blowing holes into houses is soooo cost ineffective or maybe buy special bunker buster RPG/Panzerfaust style weapons off the shelf.
- Give the Abrams a proper HE round instead of the glorified HEAT they use now.
- Go on with the development of soft- and hardkill protection systems for vehicles as fast as possible.
- The same for sniper detection systems (Your part Gary ) and explosive sniffers.
- Next time you invade a country go in with much more boots on the ground and stop violence and riots before they can occur. The chaos after the fall of Bagdad caused much of the situation we have now in Iraq. The conventional part of an invasion can be won by overhelming technological advantage and with less troops than ever before. For what comes after this you need as many boots on the ground as you can get.
That's what comes to my mind in a short time.
I would think such a solution exists also in the US Army.
As for improvements.
- Add more mine protected vehicles with RCWs. Even uparmored the Humvees are far away from being ideal for the situation in Iraq.
- Develop a dumb round for the Javelin. Using a normal Javelin for blowing holes into houses is soooo cost ineffective or maybe buy special bunker buster RPG/Panzerfaust style weapons off the shelf.
- Give the Abrams a proper HE round instead of the glorified HEAT they use now.
- Go on with the development of soft- and hardkill protection systems for vehicles as fast as possible.
- The same for sniper detection systems (Your part Gary
) and explosive sniffers.- Next time you invade a country go in with much more boots on the ground and stop violence and riots before they can occur. The chaos after the fall of Bagdad caused much of the situation we have now in Iraq. The conventional part of an invasion can be won by overhelming technological advantage and with less troops than ever before. For what comes after this you need as many boots on the ground as you can get.
That's what comes to my mind in a short time.
The proliferation of IEDs certainly demonstrates a need for better protected armoured troop carriers, recce and fire support vehicles. RCWs would also save lives.Do you have friends in the army? In the Bundeswehr we have a special contact to were you can send your ideas of improving equipment or tactics. You can even win money if your idea is adopted.
I would think such a solution exists also in the US Army.
As for improvements.
- Add more mine protected vehicles with RCWs. Even uparmored the Humvees are far away from being ideal for the situation in Iraq.
- Develop a dumb round for the Javelin. Using a normal Javelin for blowing holes into houses is soooo cost ineffective or maybe buy special bunker buster RPG/Panzerfaust style weapons off the shelf.
- Give the Abrams a proper HE round instead of the glorified HEAT they use now.
- Go on with the development of soft- and hardkill protection systems for vehicles as fast as possible.
- The same for sniper detection systems (Your part Gary
- Next time you invade a country go in with much more boots on the ground and stop violence and riots before they can occur. The chaos after the fall of Bagdad caused much of the situation we have now in Iraq. The conventional part of an invasion can be won by overhelming technological advantage and with less troops than ever before. For what comes after this you need as many boots on the ground as you can get.
That's what comes to my mind in a short time.
I agree about the need for more 'boots on the ground' but I doubt we will see this in western armies. If anything I suspect we will continue to look for excuses (sorry I meant to say 'ways'!) to downsize our personnel numbers.
I think all of us (seeing we have an interest in defence matters) need to draw attention in our own countries to the problems facing our servicemen and women serving in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere, through contact with local politicians, letter writing, etc. In my country there is an appalling ignorance re what our army needs. I keep hearing people talk about the need for 'lightly equipped peacekeepers" and criticising the purchase of things like tanks, self propelled guns and AT missiles like Javelin. Exposure via TV to the loss of a couple of ASLAVs in Iraq a few days ago at least had some of my friends acknowledging that it was a good thing the troops concerned were in armoured vehicles. I think that armies themselves need to run public awareness campaigns re their needs, as far as they are permitted within legal and political constraints.
Cheers
Last edited:
It is not as if more troops wouldn't have been available for the first phase of OIF.
The problem was that Rummy was much too excited about the idea of a high-tech war with few but very well equipped troops. He just totally forgot to plan for the time directly after the conventional phase.
The problem was that Rummy was much too excited about the idea of a high-tech war with few but very well equipped troops. He just totally forgot to plan for the time directly after the conventional phase.
My main criticism of the Iraq campaign was that there didn't appear to be a plan for what would happen after Iraq was defeated. Blind Freddy could have seen that there would be a need for a large number of occupation troops after the Iraqi surrender. The people of Iraq and coalition troops are paying the price now.
IMO, western armies need greater numbers of troops trained and equipped to fight insurgents if they are going to be involved in the type of conflicts we see in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Cheers
The problem is armys tend to do either one thing or another.
Just look at how many western armies cut back their conventional war capabilities.
Just talk to some active US Army guys. Soldiers from tank and cavalry units are retrained to light infantry and serious conventional war training is lacking.
The same goes for the UK or other armies doing many peacekeeping operations.
Just look at how many western armies cut back their conventional war capabilities.
Just talk to some active US Army guys. Soldiers from tank and cavalry units are retrained to light infantry and serious conventional war training is lacking.
The same goes for the UK or other armies doing many peacekeeping operations.
I will never understand why we totally dis banded the Iraqi armed forces during our initial phase of the operation, I could see the dis bandonment of the Saddam die hards but the majority would of been happy to just see him over thrown and could of been used for security purposes.
Jup, together with the disbanding of nearly the whole bureaucracy this was a bad decision.
But maybe we shoudl concentrate on solutions which could work now. The ideas about more troops on the ground and not disbanding the whole structure of the country can be saved for the next war.
But maybe we shoudl concentrate on solutions which could work now. The ideas about more troops on the ground and not disbanding the whole structure of the country can be saved for the next war.
The kicker is that because we did not do things properly during the initial phase that it is going to be too late to change the outcome unless Iran and Syria decide to help out and you know how that will play out.Jup, together with the disbanding of nearly the whole bureaucracy this was a bad decision.
But maybe we shoudl concentrate on solutions which could work now. The ideas about more troops on the ground and not disbanding the whole structure of the country can be saved for the next war.
RE: OP
in a place like Gaza (also applicable to Iraq, Afghanistan, etc), where AK47s are everywhere, why doesn't Israel/CFs flood the area(s) with ammo that is completely indistinguishable from the real thing... except, a percentage of the rounds explode within the AK when fired. Meaning, any trigger-happy person using their weapon, will begin to understand that he/she is playing Russian roulette every time the gun is fired. Same with RPGs!?
Also, I remember the bitch of a problem hurricane Katrina caused in New Orleans. In the places like Gaza and Certain cities in Lebanon and Iraq, tunnels have been dug like crazy. During Katrina, many claimed it would take 3-6 moths to pump all the water out, it took a couple of weeks. For those cities that are creating problems for us and are located on/near the water, why not pump water in, the opposite of what was done in New Orleans. I understand the water table. However, the more rudimentary tunnels dug in sand, would collapse pretty quickly, right? Also, after seeing the Israeli war with Lebanon, and learning that the Hizbollah tank hunting crews had advanced Russian RPGs and Antitank weapons hidden on the ground, all over the place, the same thought occurred to me, “Flood the ground with a few inches of water.” I’m not sure how well the AT weapons will hold up to water and mud. My guess it they are built to take a saltwater bath.
Same with so many of the buried weapons in/around Iraq. Though I think it would work in some areas, it’s not the same terrain, size, location, of the former two places.
I’m not sure if anything can be done with respect to IEDs…?
I don’t know, it just has always seemed to me, we look for the most expensive, Hi-Tech answers, when that may not be necessary in several circumstances.
Last question thought. I know Egypt/Israel made the claim that they were digging deep in the earth/sand to detonate a non-nuclear explosion, to determine seismic readings… to be able to understand from readings if, “Iran is testing underground nuclear weapons.”
Okay, I’ll take their word, but is it feasible to be able to dig down as deep as some of the “suspected bunkers” are in Iran, and detonate a “larger explosion,” creating failure to the bunker system? Same with less hardened, suspected, underground tunnels/complexes/compounds?
Just some thoughts…
in a place like Gaza (also applicable to Iraq, Afghanistan, etc), where AK47s are everywhere, why doesn't Israel/CFs flood the area(s) with ammo that is completely indistinguishable from the real thing... except, a percentage of the rounds explode within the AK when fired. Meaning, any trigger-happy person using their weapon, will begin to understand that he/she is playing Russian roulette every time the gun is fired. Same with RPGs!?
Also, I remember the bitch of a problem hurricane Katrina caused in New Orleans. In the places like Gaza and Certain cities in Lebanon and Iraq, tunnels have been dug like crazy. During Katrina, many claimed it would take 3-6 moths to pump all the water out, it took a couple of weeks. For those cities that are creating problems for us and are located on/near the water, why not pump water in, the opposite of what was done in New Orleans. I understand the water table. However, the more rudimentary tunnels dug in sand, would collapse pretty quickly, right? Also, after seeing the Israeli war with Lebanon, and learning that the Hizbollah tank hunting crews had advanced Russian RPGs and Antitank weapons hidden on the ground, all over the place, the same thought occurred to me, “Flood the ground with a few inches of water.” I’m not sure how well the AT weapons will hold up to water and mud. My guess it they are built to take a saltwater bath.
Same with so many of the buried weapons in/around Iraq. Though I think it would work in some areas, it’s not the same terrain, size, location, of the former two places.
I’m not sure if anything can be done with respect to IEDs…?
I don’t know, it just has always seemed to me, we look for the most expensive, Hi-Tech answers, when that may not be necessary in several circumstances.
Last question thought. I know Egypt/Israel made the claim that they were digging deep in the earth/sand to detonate a non-nuclear explosion, to determine seismic readings… to be able to understand from readings if, “Iran is testing underground nuclear weapons.”
Okay, I’ll take their word, but is it feasible to be able to dig down as deep as some of the “suspected bunkers” are in Iran, and detonate a “larger explosion,” creating failure to the bunker system? Same with less hardened, suspected, underground tunnels/complexes/compounds?
Just some thoughts…
Metro, your post about Israel is so wrong I can't even be bothered fully rebutting it.
Those cities that are 'creating problems for us' are filled with innocent civilians, who im sure would object to their homes being flooded with water.
Also, how are the Israelis going to distribute that faulty ammo to the terrorists?
And i'm not sure, but for a second I thought you were suggesting flooding Iraq with a few inches of water... wait, that can't be right can it?
And your last paragraph was pretty incomprehensible.
Look, if it were as easy as you were suggesting we would have done it years ago. For instance, if Israel somehow flooded Lebanon in order to ruin the hezbollah weapons that are in the ground, then im sure the hezbollah would quickly move their weapons inside or up a hill or something. Now the flooding serves no purpose, and has ruined the every day lives of thousands of civilians. Thats just not a feasable idea.
Those cities that are 'creating problems for us' are filled with innocent civilians, who im sure would object to their homes being flooded with water.
Also, how are the Israelis going to distribute that faulty ammo to the terrorists?
And i'm not sure, but for a second I thought you were suggesting flooding Iraq with a few inches of water... wait, that can't be right can it?
And your last paragraph was pretty incomprehensible.
Look, if it were as easy as you were suggesting we would have done it years ago. For instance, if Israel somehow flooded Lebanon in order to ruin the hezbollah weapons that are in the ground, then im sure the hezbollah would quickly move their weapons inside or up a hill or something. Now the flooding serves no purpose, and has ruined the every day lives of thousands of civilians. Thats just not a feasable idea.
Blame ideological warriors like pearl, bremner, rummy, wolfy, idiots who tried to view the world through a theretical framework.
As to counter insurgency tactics:
Human intelligence is the most basic and fundamental thing to get right.
A indepth knowlage of local power structures and customs also helps.
Dont use local proxies as a pet milita, or as a national army.
Have 1 trooper to every 10 natives in insurgency supporting areas.
Constantly patrol, day and night, use your special forces pressure the insurgents in there safe areas.
Dont allow yourself to be manipulated by local elites with there own political/echnic agenda's.
Dont commit your self to impossible political positions, be flexible and enter into talks with the insurgency as soon as possible. If there is no one to talk to try to engage in confidence building measures with insurgent supporters.
Divide insurgents into those who are willing to negotate, and those who wont
Encourage the former, hound the latter.
If the insurgency is broad based, dont look for total victory. This would be impossible in anycase, a political solution that is favorable is the best you can hope for.
Most importantly, know why your fighting, for who and for what, and to be able to communicate that to your own people, if you can't make your own people understand why your fighting, what chance have you of convincing a people under occupation that your on there side.
radiosilence
jints
These are some of the keys to quelling an Insurgency.
-Understand the environment in which the war is being fought.
- Isolate the insurgents from their cause and their base.
- Secure the population under the rule of law.
- Generate intelligence from the population to drive actions against the insurgents.
- Apply all elements of national power in unison to support the legitimacy of the host nation’s government.
- Be prepared for a long commitment, measured in years if not decades.
Most which have not been accomplished in Iraq.
-Understand the environment in which the war is being fought.
- Isolate the insurgents from their cause and their base.
- Secure the population under the rule of law.
- Generate intelligence from the population to drive actions against the insurgents.
- Apply all elements of national power in unison to support the legitimacy of the host nation’s government.
- Be prepared for a long commitment, measured in years if not decades.
Most which have not been accomplished in Iraq.
One of the most sticky problems in Iraq is Shia death squad infiltration of the Securaty apparatus, it makes the Americans look like there taking sides in a civil war...
So the Americans have a chicken and an Egg problem, they cant secure the population under the Rule of Law because the the Iraqi securaty forces are using the Law as cover for the use of death squads. But if they dont support the current Goverment they would be bereft of allies, and there would be little point in a continued prescence in the country. As it is the insistance of the Americans to the rule of law is slowly peeling allies away from the goverment (6 Sadirist recently resigned from the goverment), so pervesely, the less corrupt the goverment gets, the less political power it wields. Already the writ of the goverment only runs to the edge of the green zone.
Truly the US is on the last throw of the dice.
So the Americans have a chicken and an Egg problem, they cant secure the population under the Rule of Law because the the Iraqi securaty forces are using the Law as cover for the use of death squads. But if they dont support the current Goverment they would be bereft of allies, and there would be little point in a continued prescence in the country. As it is the insistance of the Americans to the rule of law is slowly peeling allies away from the goverment (6 Sadirist recently resigned from the goverment), so pervesely, the less corrupt the goverment gets, the less political power it wields. Already the writ of the goverment only runs to the edge of the green zone.
Truly the US is on the last throw of the dice.