11-21-2005, 02:23 PM
Good points, Fragbait.
1. The information campaign has been crap from the beginning.
2. I don't understand the "we didn't use it" comment, since the LTC observed that WP is a legal munition. I have since heard about "shake and bake" tactics, which make some tactical sense: do something to get the enemy to move, and hit him while he is moving. That is good fire and maneuver technique.
3. As this story unfolds, I remain puzzled as to what provisions in the RoE permit WP in a MOUT setting, given the well understood reservations of its use in general. This is not a new concern, which I will elaborate with a personal anecdote.
In 1983, I was undergoing training as an airborne Naval Gunfire Spotter. A US Marine Captain, Field Artillery, was teaching our class. We were doing a classroom exercise on an immense board, a super duper micro armor sand table, about 6 meters by 4 meters in dimension, prior to our live fire training.
The board depicted a beach area and 10 or 20 kilometers depth of hilly land. My turn came to spot the fall of shot, which was indicated by a brief flash of light and sometimes a bit of smoke on the board. I was to call for fire on a position, by grid, call for corrective spotting rounds, and then full "fire for effect." WP spotting rounds were indicated by slightly thicker columns of smoke on the board.
The target was a Command Post. (Red Forces ;) ) I corrected a few rounds, trying to walk the fire into the target, and then called "fire for effect" with 6 rounds of WP, with which we had been spotting. I even considered wind drift.
The instructor stopped the lessaon, a quizzical look on his face. He had a teaching point to make.
Instructor:
"WP is a spotting round, did you forget to change munitions to HE, Lieutenant?"
Snickers from some of my classmates for my goofing up the call for fire.
Me: "No sir, I figured WP, even if we missed, would force the personnel in the CP to abandon their position. Mission kill."
The captain gave a mirthless laugh and remarked that I had a sick sense of humor. He commented that liked lateral thinking but generally preferred adherence to doctrine.
At this point he banged the podium he was teaching from, his words were to the effect of:
"Once again class, the shell used against personnel in soft cover in the open is High Explosive; WP is NOT to be used as an antipersonnel weapon. Marine artillerists and Naval Gunners will call "check fire" if anyone calls for WP "fire for effect."
WP's use, according to the captain, violated doctrine and was against US policy. (1983). With that bit of egg on my face, I re did my final call for fire "with six rounds, HE, fire for effect." The whole class got to learn a lesson at my expense. I also had to buy the first round of drinks at the Officer's Club that afternoon, since I had committed the day's greatest act of buffoonery.
At that time, I had not read the 1980 CCW agreements, nor was I as clear on RoE and LOAC issues in general. I have since become better educated.
That experience, and the incredibly tight RoE we had to work with last year, makes me wonder what subtleties in RoE, or other legal guidance, has changed. My gut feel is that rules on WP itself have changed little. This brings me to the limit of my competence on "Why was WP used in MOUT?" (House to House fighting, or, "Military Operations in Urban Terrain.") In that regard, you and I are sitting in the same barstool.
Occhi
1. The information campaign has been crap from the beginning.
2. I don't understand the "we didn't use it" comment, since the LTC observed that WP is a legal munition. I have since heard about "shake and bake" tactics, which make some tactical sense: do something to get the enemy to move, and hit him while he is moving. That is good fire and maneuver technique.
3. As this story unfolds, I remain puzzled as to what provisions in the RoE permit WP in a MOUT setting, given the well understood reservations of its use in general. This is not a new concern, which I will elaborate with a personal anecdote.
In 1983, I was undergoing training as an airborne Naval Gunfire Spotter. A US Marine Captain, Field Artillery, was teaching our class. We were doing a classroom exercise on an immense board, a super duper micro armor sand table, about 6 meters by 4 meters in dimension, prior to our live fire training.
The board depicted a beach area and 10 or 20 kilometers depth of hilly land. My turn came to spot the fall of shot, which was indicated by a brief flash of light and sometimes a bit of smoke on the board. I was to call for fire on a position, by grid, call for corrective spotting rounds, and then full "fire for effect." WP spotting rounds were indicated by slightly thicker columns of smoke on the board.
The target was a Command Post. (Red Forces ;) ) I corrected a few rounds, trying to walk the fire into the target, and then called "fire for effect" with 6 rounds of WP, with which we had been spotting. I even considered wind drift.
The instructor stopped the lessaon, a quizzical look on his face. He had a teaching point to make.
Instructor:
"WP is a spotting round, did you forget to change munitions to HE, Lieutenant?"
Snickers from some of my classmates for my goofing up the call for fire.
Me: "No sir, I figured WP, even if we missed, would force the personnel in the CP to abandon their position. Mission kill."
The captain gave a mirthless laugh and remarked that I had a sick sense of humor. He commented that liked lateral thinking but generally preferred adherence to doctrine.
At this point he banged the podium he was teaching from, his words were to the effect of:
"Once again class, the shell used against personnel in soft cover in the open is High Explosive; WP is NOT to be used as an antipersonnel weapon. Marine artillerists and Naval Gunners will call "check fire" if anyone calls for WP "fire for effect."
WP's use, according to the captain, violated doctrine and was against US policy. (1983). With that bit of egg on my face, I re did my final call for fire "with six rounds, HE, fire for effect." The whole class got to learn a lesson at my expense. I also had to buy the first round of drinks at the Officer's Club that afternoon, since I had committed the day's greatest act of buffoonery.
At that time, I had not read the 1980 CCW agreements, nor was I as clear on RoE and LOAC issues in general. I have since become better educated.
That experience, and the incredibly tight RoE we had to work with last year, makes me wonder what subtleties in RoE, or other legal guidance, has changed. My gut feel is that rules on WP itself have changed little. This brings me to the limit of my competence on "Why was WP used in MOUT?" (House to House fighting, or, "Military Operations in Urban Terrain.") In that regard, you and I are sitting in the same barstool.
Occhi
Fragbait,Nov 21 2005, 06:56 AM Wrote:What really bothers me is the change from 'We did not use it at all, except to >>illuminate enemy positions at night<<.' to 'Yes, okay. We used it alright, no sweat. But not on civilians, of course!'
from cnn article about the use of white phosphorous
It's so easy to state: The former statement was incorrect. The current statement is correct. Please believe us, we're telling you the truth, the whole truth.
The U.S. are continuing to repeatedly shoot themselves in the foot by not revealing the full extent of such things immediately. People begin to think:
'Yeah, sure. The complete truth - until something new is discovered. Hypocrites.'
Greetings, Fragbait
[right][snapback]95399[/snapback][/right]
Cry 'Havoc' and let slip the Men 'O War!
In War, the outcome is never final. --Carl von Clausewitz--
Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum
John 11:35 - consider why.
In Memory of Pete
In War, the outcome is never final. --Carl von Clausewitz--
Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum
John 11:35 - consider why.
In Memory of Pete