This is a discussion on Ideas that might help secure our troops? within the Military Strategy and Tactics forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; I couldn't find anyplace to post ideas that could be used to combat insurgents. I have a few ideas and ...
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?
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.
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.
The proliferation of IEDs certainly demonstrates a need for better protected armoured troop carriers, recce and fire support vehicles. RCWs would also save lives.
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
________________
Learn from the past. Prepare for the future
Last edited by Tasman; April 25th, 2007 at 07:32 PM.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
We have gained alot of experience during our adventure, it is just heart breaking at the loss of life in both the Coalition forces and the Iraqi civilians.
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?
) and explosive sniffers.
