CHESTER HAS MOVED!: More clues of US and insurgent tactics . . .

Friday, November 12, 2004

More clues of US and insurgent tactics . . .

This Long Island News article is written by an embedded reporter and offers more clues into US tactics. Interestingly, it appears as though the tank-infantry teams necessary for urban warfare have been created at the battalion level, at least in this case: " . . . it was the 2nd Battalion that led the way, riding in tanks and Bradleys and blasting the way for Marine infantrymen, who go door-to-door in the hunt for insurgents who have survived the initial onslaught." The US probably did this because it did not like the idea of commingling US and Army units at anything lower than the battalion-level. This makes sense from a unit cohesion standpoint, but note that the lack of tank-infantry teams at the company level, and instead their separate existence as independent battalions, has created a vulnerability or two from time to time: "After the first push down a north-south main road the Americans have named Henry, his men reached their goals in the Jolan neighborhood ahead of schedule. They then had to wait longer than expected for the Marines to sweep in behind. That left the 2nd Battalion vulnerable as they waited in captured buildings."


Blogger Peyton said...

That last paragraph doesn't sound right at *all*. Bradley's carry infantry inside of them. At a stop, such as an objective, the infantry would not likely just wait inside of captured buildings. Army infantry are perfectly capable of occupying critical terrain, setting up fields of fire, and creating a defensive perimeter. In fact, I can't imagine that they wouldn't.

When you read "Bradley," think of infantry riding in an armored recreationsl vehicle. Although companies are usually all tank or all Bradley, they rarely fight like that. A "Company Team" is two platoons of tanks or Bradleys and one platoon of the other. However, if the infantry were to stay inside of the Bradley for the entire mission, then they might as well have not come. In my opinion, and doctrinally, many of the threats need rifles and sharp-shooters to deal with them, and not just the cannons and machine guns from the tanks and Bradley turrets.

I suspect that the reporter involved didn't fully understand what they were seeing. I hope.

November 12, 2004 at 2:58 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Listed on Blogwise