- Reaction score
- 35
- Points
- 530
First, my official disclaimer - you guys have forgotten more than I know....
That being said, although I like the premise of the authors argument, I think he stops one step short. Specifically, that planning and procuring for an insurgent/guerilla type defence using the RPG-7 is at-best is dangerous and possibly fatal underestimation. China and Iran are now producing anti-armour weapons at a very high rate (Iranian weapons which apparently are being shared with their various proxy terrorist groups around the Middle East as we speak). In addition, the insurgents ability to daisy-chain IED's as per the last attack in Fallujah that killed 10 marines and injured many more shows an increasingly dangerous defensive ability to attack "patrolling" ground assets.
My uneducated take therefore is as follows:
1) The biggest change you can make is to utilize high endurance UAV's to identify the placement of IED's and setting up of ambushes prior to your first man setting a foot anywhere near the area.
2) Once you have that information, you then need to determine what you're going to do with it. My proposal would be you need several alternatives.
a) Preferably you would develop a new class of UAV's where stealth and high endurance take priority over speed. In essence a vehicle with a 24-hour operating time and the ability to carry (6) Small Diameter Bombs. Call it "The Hand of God" factor. If our commanders on the ground via TV link can see people up to no good, they die. That also will send a powerful psychological message which will deter others from doing the same.
b) Where additional saturated fire is required in addition to the 1,500lb payload this UAV could carry, 155mm arty and 120mm mortar PGM support would follow.
c) In areas where you were unable to set-up surveillance in such a fashion and now must enter after the defences have been set-up, I think you must equip your soldiers to be able to withstand a first hit and then respond (a theme I've been repeating for a couple of years now). The only way I think you can do this is with something that can take an ATGM hit and respond. That in my book is something equivalent to Merkava 4, preferably with a Russian Shtora-equivalent anti-ATGM self-defence suite. Anything less and your basically killing off your recce guys as your trip wire. And since the enemy as an ambusher now gets to choose which targets they are going to engage often picking the softest-skinned vehicles available to maximize casualties, you need a similar level of defence for your remaining vehicles, including your logistics and support (visual a Bisons converted to fuel tankers and cargo carriers).
d) Remote sensing vehicles leading all patrols and convoys (also mentioned before) providing real time imagery with a sort of spider's eyes layout. Severval different types of sensors looking in different directions for different things. Wi-Fi sensors to penetrate curbs and pavement to identify IED's. Forward and upward (urban environment) looking IR sensors looking for camoflaged snipers or ATGM nests. And chemical sniffers. All information is fed back to a control vehicle that is mid convoy where a group of 5 or 6 guys review the data and complete threat identification (equivalent to a warship's stations and crew).
e) Next generation body armour. Where your soldiers are dismounted, they need that next generation of protection.
Bottom Line: It is inevitable that defenders will continue to refine their tactics and improve their weapons over the next decade as they take the lesson learned in Iraq and apply them. Since there is an inevitable arms race between tanks and anti-tank weapons, that means we have to turn it into a war of economics and build a force they cannot AFFORD to engage and since they are quickly cancelling procurements of BTR's and T-72-equivalents, we have to be aware they can afford a lot more ATGM's....
Comments invited....
Matthew.
That being said, although I like the premise of the authors argument, I think he stops one step short. Specifically, that planning and procuring for an insurgent/guerilla type defence using the RPG-7 is at-best is dangerous and possibly fatal underestimation. China and Iran are now producing anti-armour weapons at a very high rate (Iranian weapons which apparently are being shared with their various proxy terrorist groups around the Middle East as we speak). In addition, the insurgents ability to daisy-chain IED's as per the last attack in Fallujah that killed 10 marines and injured many more shows an increasingly dangerous defensive ability to attack "patrolling" ground assets.
My uneducated take therefore is as follows:
1) The biggest change you can make is to utilize high endurance UAV's to identify the placement of IED's and setting up of ambushes prior to your first man setting a foot anywhere near the area.
2) Once you have that information, you then need to determine what you're going to do with it. My proposal would be you need several alternatives.
a) Preferably you would develop a new class of UAV's where stealth and high endurance take priority over speed. In essence a vehicle with a 24-hour operating time and the ability to carry (6) Small Diameter Bombs. Call it "The Hand of God" factor. If our commanders on the ground via TV link can see people up to no good, they die. That also will send a powerful psychological message which will deter others from doing the same.
b) Where additional saturated fire is required in addition to the 1,500lb payload this UAV could carry, 155mm arty and 120mm mortar PGM support would follow.
c) In areas where you were unable to set-up surveillance in such a fashion and now must enter after the defences have been set-up, I think you must equip your soldiers to be able to withstand a first hit and then respond (a theme I've been repeating for a couple of years now). The only way I think you can do this is with something that can take an ATGM hit and respond. That in my book is something equivalent to Merkava 4, preferably with a Russian Shtora-equivalent anti-ATGM self-defence suite. Anything less and your basically killing off your recce guys as your trip wire. And since the enemy as an ambusher now gets to choose which targets they are going to engage often picking the softest-skinned vehicles available to maximize casualties, you need a similar level of defence for your remaining vehicles, including your logistics and support (visual a Bisons converted to fuel tankers and cargo carriers).
d) Remote sensing vehicles leading all patrols and convoys (also mentioned before) providing real time imagery with a sort of spider's eyes layout. Severval different types of sensors looking in different directions for different things. Wi-Fi sensors to penetrate curbs and pavement to identify IED's. Forward and upward (urban environment) looking IR sensors looking for camoflaged snipers or ATGM nests. And chemical sniffers. All information is fed back to a control vehicle that is mid convoy where a group of 5 or 6 guys review the data and complete threat identification (equivalent to a warship's stations and crew).
e) Next generation body armour. Where your soldiers are dismounted, they need that next generation of protection.
Bottom Line: It is inevitable that defenders will continue to refine their tactics and improve their weapons over the next decade as they take the lesson learned in Iraq and apply them. Since there is an inevitable arms race between tanks and anti-tank weapons, that means we have to turn it into a war of economics and build a force they cannot AFFORD to engage and since they are quickly cancelling procurements of BTR's and T-72-equivalents, we have to be aware they can afford a lot more ATGM's....
Comments invited....
Matthew.
) I think that has been echoed in different language on other threads and by members with a lot of experience dealing with this type of thing.
)
