Middle East Firefights

Status
Not open for further replies.
T

TheMeager

Member
Joined
Jul 20, 2009
Messages
10
I think this is the right place for this post, as it relates to tactics.

So, America is currently engaged in a couple of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. As a civilian, I guess I've always just stupidly assumed that most of the firefights between patrolling US troops and insurgents took place in ambushes, with locals opening fire with RPG-7s and AK variants, and US troops taking cover and returning fire.

Then I got to thinking: perhaps this isn't the most realistic model of the situation. Surely they've got some more advanced tactics than just opening up with assault rifle and RPG fire, right?

I figured some of you are probably familiar with the US Army's operations, and could perhaps help inform me of the tactics used by insurgents and US forces, or at least point me in the right direction to research the topic myself.

Specifically, I'd like to know:

-How do insurgents wage warfare in cities, and how do US troops respond?

-Are there any policy changes that would allow for a better response from US forces?

-How come the US is killing exponentially more Iraqi insurgents than they kill US troops? Are they really just that bad at fighting, or are we a lot better at keeping out wounded alive or carpet bombing them or something?

Thanks, guys!
 
I think there are several answers to your question. First, US marksmanship is continually taught, rifles have good optics and last, unlimited ammo resources!! The bad guys in Iraq are mainly untrained with the AK sights and use the pray and spray method. The do make up for it with the IED's.
 
Last edited:
I think that most US casualties are caused by explosions (IEDs).

The high ratio of enemy killed vs. GIs killed has a lot to do with overwhelming firepower and support(air, armor) on the US side, fantastic body armor and top notch evacuation and medical care. Also, many times dead civilians are added to the number of enemies killed. Most wounded enemies die, while most wounded GIs survive. A more realistic approach to the damage inflicted on soldiers by insurgents would be to count all the severely wounded US casualties as well; all those that have been permanently incapacitated. The disparity will be somewhat narrowed if you count all the handicapped survivors(which had they been fighting on the other side, would have never survived and healed to become handicapped).
 
I think a lot of what you are asking is classified or given to those who "need to know". Obviously our armed forces are better trained and better equipped, but in terms of specific tactics used against the real BG's in the world, I imagine the only way you will find out is to visit your local recuiting station and tell them you want to learn how we wage war against these insurgents. I am sure they will be more than happy to oblige your request!

Scott
 
I did serve in the army for 22 years, I wanted to do 30 but RCP got me. I have now served for 4 years in Iraq fixing computers for the soldiers that used to work for me. I mention to the leadership, "It would of been cheaper to have kept me".
I do agree US citizens should enlist, when I go home on R&R you seldom hear anything about the progress we have made in the country of Iraq.
Lastly, the opposition does not want to stand and fight, completely different story in Afghanistan.
 
Thankfully it isn't rocket science. All you need to know is "Fires enable maneuvers."

In other words superior fire power allows you to manuever on the enemy - or close with and kill him.

It's a little bit more complex than the explanation, but that's it in a nutshell.

Ah yes, one more point. Not all firefights begin with an insurgent firing upon US Forces ;) We hunt them remember.
 
Last edited:
Can any of you who've served in the military confirm whether or not what I'm asking is classified, as Scott has suggested? I just figured that the basic tactics would be taught to so many soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan that they would be considered open for discussion.
 
Then I got to thinking: perhaps this isn't the most realistic model of the situation. Surely they've got some more advanced tactics than just opening up with assault rifle and RPG fire, right?
Click to expand...

I've got nothing but what I've read and what friends who've been there have told me but the tactical problem of the enemy is that US forces will almost always outrange them. The greater the distance between forces, the more the odds turn in the US forces favor simply due to the fact that our forces are built around bringing fire to bear on the enemy at a (relatively) safe distance. This dictates the enemies response. IEDs to stop and close quarter ambushes so that US forces are forced into a situation where it's a mano a mano fight, rather than us raining artillery down from miles away. And in cities so that we can't just pull back and lay waste to the area, or use armor or heavy weapons as effectively. Now, we still win most of the time because an organized, motivated modern military trains so that the whole is greater than the sum of it's parts, our unit tactics are better, our leadership doesn't get killed by missile strikes nearly as often (which tends toward more institutional knowledge and experience), and we throw lots of money at armor, weapons, vehicles, and medical care. Edit: That and most of our guys don't believe that they're getting a bunch of virgins if they toss their life away.

IMHO, the insurgent's strategy isn't all that great from the standpoint of taking and holding ground, but in this sort of war they don't need to. As long the leadership core can survive and the organization is capable of producing instability by occasionally inflicting casualties, they win the PR war, which is the real battleground these days. In understanding that they've been kind of brilliant.
 
Last edited:
In understanding that they've been kind of brilliant.
Click to expand...

Really? This technique, known as terrorism, is nothing new - seems to date (in this specific form) at least as far back as early 20th century Europe. I'm not being facetious here, just wondering if you actually think there is something innovative about their understanding of the situation, or strategy.
 
The bad guys in Iraq are mainly untrained with the AK sights and use the pray and spray method.
Click to expand...

This is a dangerous assumption and has gotten people killed in Iraq & elsewhere.

Never underestimate the enemy. Never believe that any hostile encounter is cut & dry textbook, always treat the enemy with a healthy dose of respect and throw everything you have at them. They do that to us. Everyone's goal is to win.
 
Surely they've got some more advanced tactics than just opening up with assault rifle and RPG fire, right?
Click to expand...

Yes, they surely do. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Turki

Some are amazingly resourceful. Others are Joe Poop the Rag Man wannabees. They all deserve a good amount of respect - if you don't respect their capabilities, you will learn to.

How do insurgents wage warfare in cities, and how do US troops respond
Click to expand...

Insurgents will do what is best for the situation, as will the soldiers. One difference (among others) is that generally the insurgents don't care about civilians, while soldiers do.

Are there any policy changes that would allow for a better response from US forces?
Click to expand...

Yes, and I think there have been bad policies since the beginning (my beginning at least, OIF2). Bad policies in Iraq are not new with this administration. I say that with a guy on the ground perspective, not big picture perspective.

How come the US is killing exponentially more Iraqi insurgents than they kill US troops? Are they really just that bad at fighting, or are we a lot better at keeping out wounded alive or carpet bombing them or something?
Click to expand...

We are better both at killing, and at not dying. We are better trained as a whole, and most of them have essentially no training, other than OJT. They become much more effective the longer they live. We have many more tools at our disposal than they do, and indirect and Apaches are a force multiplier.
 
Sorry, just saw this:

Can any of you who've served in the military confirm whether or not what I'm asking is classified, as Scott has suggested
Click to expand...

Yes, basically it is. TTP's will start at FOUO and only go up.

Ah yes, one more point. Not all firefights begin with an insurgent firing upon US Forces We hunt them remember
Click to expand...

Damn right we hunt them.
 
This would make an interesting discussion, but it's off topic here. We try to keep Strategies and Tactics focused on the armed citizen.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top