This is a discussion on The Battle of Derapet within the Military Strategy and Tactics forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; Earlier this year, 20 Australian and 20 Afghan soldiers engaged a sizeable, and i believe numerically Superior group of Taliban ...
Earlier this year, 20 Australian and 20 Afghan soldiers engaged a sizeable, and i believe numerically Superior group of Taliban insurgents. One Australian soldier died, and around 20 to 30 insurgents were killed.
An australian Soldier who had fought in the battle sent an email regarding the battle, in which he blamed a lack of Artillery Support, inadequate Air support and Faulty inttelligence for the death of Lance Corporal Jarod MacKinney. It is alleged that the Soldier said that "That contact would have been over before Jared died if they gave us f------ mortars,". Naturally this has been denied by defence. It is importan to note that two ASLAVS were a couple of kilometres away from the infantry, providing Support with thier 25mm guns throughout the contact.
These allegations have led to a seemingly endless wave of "armchair generals" as well as several retired Army personel criticising both the Military and the government, mostly on internet blogs. These critics have a "do it properly or not at all" view and feel that the Army should provide adequate force multipliers, which they (the armchair generals) believe are several of the Armys Abrams Tanks and Tiger Helicopters.
The controversy has particular interest to me as i intend to join the Australian Army ASAP.
My questions are....
Did the Australian Army, and the combined coalition forces provide inadequate support to the soldiers during the battle?
Are Abrams Tanks of any use in Uruzgan Province, given that a large portion of the terrain is mountainous?
Any additional feed back is welcome. I understand that it will be difficult Answering these questions because a large amount of information is let out of mainstream media reports, such as the movements/locations of civilans.
[
An australian Soldier who had fought in the battle sent an email regarding the battle, in which he blamed a lack of Artillery Support, inadequate Air support and Faulty inttelligence for the death of Lance Corporal Jarod MacKinney. It is alleged that the Soldier said that "That contact would have been over before Jared died if they gave us f------ mortars,". Naturally this has been denied by defence. It is importan to note that two ASLAVS were a couple of kilometres away from the infantry, providing Support with thier 25mm guns throughout the contact.
These allegations have led to a seemingly endless wave of "armchair generals" as well as several retired Army personel criticising both the Military and the government, mostly on internet blogs. These critics have a "do it properly or not at all" view and feel that the Army should provide adequate force multipliers, which they (the armchair generals) believe are several of the Armys Abrams Tanks and Tiger Helicopters.
The simple answer is that you NEVER have enough of anything in a fight.
The more complex answer is amateurs talk weapons, professionals talk logistics. And Afghanistan is the ultimate war of logistics. Everything that the troops are using, except water and air, is coming in by 2 maxed out supply routes, one through the former states of the USSR (currently the most reliable) and the other through Pakistan. You can change the mix of items coming in, but the total tonnage you can bring in can only be increased in the short term at great expense. In the long term the Allies are paying the former states of the USSR to upgrade their transport net, and improving the transport net in Afghanistan themselves.
Because of the logistics bottleneck, I find it simplest if you think of things in terms of the number of light infantry you can field and support, instead of money. Let us start with X companies of infantry, then for each additional:
81mm mortar, subtract a squad
4 wheeled vehicle or truck subtract a squad.
120mm mortar, subtract 2 squads
MRAP subtract 2 squads
wheeled APC subtract a platoon
vehicle mounted 120mm mortar, subtract a 1+1/2 platoon
towed 155mm artillery piece subtract a company
tank subtract a company
self propelled artillery subtract 2 companies
helicopter subtract 2 companies
Air support other than helicopters is a special case, because it is based outside Afghanistan and shared over most of the combat area. How much is available at any given time is questionable, as is the ability to use it within the rules of the ROE.
Now look at the mission and the ROE and try to optimize the mix. Good luck.
One important item is the ROE. If they had mortars available that Soldier would probably have been saying "That contact would have been over before Jared died if they had just let us use the f------ mortars,".
Earlier this year, 20 Australian and 20 Afghan soldiers engaged a sizeable, and i believe numerically Superior group of Taliban insurgents. One Australian soldier died, and around 20 to 30 insurgents were killed.
An australian Soldier who had fought in the battle sent an email regarding the battle, in which he blamed a lack of Artillery Support, inadequate Air support and Faulty inttelligence for the death of Lance Corporal Jarod MacKinney. It is alleged that the Soldier said that "That contact would have been over before Jared died if they gave us f------ mortars,". Naturally this has been denied by defence. It is importan to note that two ASLAVS were a couple of kilometres away from the infantry, providing Support with thier 25mm guns throughout the contact.
These allegations have led to a seemingly endless wave of "armchair generals" as well as several retired Army personel criticising both the Military and the government, mostly on internet blogs. These critics have a "do it properly or not at all" view and feel that the Army should provide adequate force multipliers, which they (the armchair generals) believe are several of the Armys Abrams Tanks and Tiger Helicopters.
The controversy has particular interest to me as i intend to join the Australian Army ASAP.
My questions are....
Did the Australian Army, and the combined coalition forces provide inadequate support to the soldiers during the battle?
Are Abrams Tanks of any use in Uruzgan Province, given that a large portion of the terrain is mountainous?
Any additional feed back is welcome. I understand that it will be difficult Answering these questions because a large amount of information is let out of mainstream media reports, such as the movements/locations of civilans.
[
Ultimately, the foot soldiers will have to occupy any territory over run by vehicles. I believe, that a military commander first decides on whether the infantry is more useful in situations, and then he weighs other options. Mortars are used when the enemy is less mobile, or in a situation where the enemy is dug in. Perhaps, imortars are not extremely accurate, too. They are used to supress the enemy, to keep the enemy's head down, while others do the shooting on the enemy, while the enemy are minding their heads. How can a mortar bring down a specific soldier, even by identifying him, unless the mortar round lands inside the trench of the enemy, very close to the soldier? If I were the Taliban, then I would space out. even if I were entrenched. Today's weapons are meant for firing on masses of the enemy, or for suppressing individual enemy soldiers. The A K 56 may suppress the soldier, but all the suppressed soldier has to do, is wait for the magazines to empty of the firing opponent. And then make his move. I am surprised, that an Australian infantryman, considered by the majority of the world, to be the best foot soldier in the world, can make such a sweeping statement. Can a numerically superior and technologically superior military force, guarantee no personnel are lost in combat?
