We never had any fire support larger than company mortars allowed to fire, except aviation like twice.
I know during my deployment we had a few mistakes. For us mainly caused by the mistrust of the Afghan army and national police. People trying to run a tcp, because the locals are as likely to rape, rob and murder them as to search and protect. In this situation, with indirect fires, I think counter battery operations are 100% the right answer from the perspective of doctrine tactically, although some what against some of the objectives strategically and operationally. Doubly so when you consider how small a pool of candidate's that the Israelis have to draw from. Preserve the force structure, destroy the enemies communication, command and control and logistics. Alienate the local population. On Jul 15, 2014 5:34 PM, "Bruce Sorge" <sor...@gmail.com> wrote: > > While there have been incidents of collateral damage caused by US forces > (usually planes dropping huge ass bombs), we do try very hard not to do > this. Case in point. > When I was in Tikrit back in '05, the insurgents would launch four or five > attacks against our FOB each week during the fighting season from orchards. > We already had these locations indexed, so as soon as they shot at us, we > fired back with our artillery. However, the the game changer was when they > started launching attacks from within the city. Once that happened, no more > counter attacks with artillery. Instead, we'd send a QRF into the sector > and kick down doors. The problem though was that they were not using homes > to attack us, they were using pickup trucks with the rocket launchers or > mortars in the bed, hidden using 55 gallon drums or tarps. So we pretty > much had to suck it up when it came to attacks from then on. > > As far as what goes through the mind of someone who has to do this, I don't > know. I am an infantryman. I kick down doors and go on patrols looking for > the enemy, I don't fire artillery on them. > > > On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 5:21 PM, Maureen <mamamaur...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > How terribly hard it must be on the soldiers who are ordered to carry > > out these missions, even given that they are permitted. Knowing that > > you are firing on non-combatants must be awful > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 5:04 PM, Bruce Sorge <sor...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > Tim is right. According to the Protocol Additional to the Geneva > > > Conventions of 12 August, 1949 and relating to the Protection of > Victims > > of > > > International Armed Conflicts (Protocol l), 8 June 1977, launching an > > > attack on a military target that is being shielded by civilians is not > > off > > > limits. Part of this states > > > "(c) effective advance warning shall be given of attacks which may > affect > > > the civilian population, unless circumstances do not permit." > > > > > > Of course when you read all of it, they go to great length to deter > such > > > operations, but it's not prohibited per se. > > > > > > http://www.icrc.org/ihl/WebART/470-750073?OpenDocument > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:371602 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
