Afghanistan: Lessons Learned (merged)

[silentbutdeadly]

Its like Warchild said Its a Sect Comdr fight and allot of our training from now on should be geared towards that style of combat. At least we could go up to PL size tactics, but the days of Coy and Cbt tm attacks are going the way of the FN. Yes a Coy might move into a staging area and have a AOR within the operation, but its the Platoons and the Sections that are dictating the fight to the enemy not the Coy Comdr. The Coy Comdr most of the time is going off of advice of the troops on the ground if that. Many a Pl Comdr/WO/Sect Comdr called in there own Arty and CAS.

 

[Infanteer]

In that vein, perhaps the USMC is going down the right path with their concept of Distributed Operations, which seeks to increase the capabilities of the infantry squad (section) to make it more independant through various improvements in things like comms, kit (lighten it up!), weapons systems (increased lethality at squad level).

https://www.mccdc.usmc.mil/FeatureTopics/DO/A%20Concept%20for%20Distributed%20Operations%20-%20Final%20CMC%20signed%20co.pdf

Anyways, the floor is yours again.

Infanteer

 

[warchild]

Yes and what is the 1st Bn doing in 07....  CTCC (Combat Team Commanders Crse).  Now I realize that this was on the books before we left but given what we learned over there I hope that within the scope of the CTCC that some "Outside the box" scenario's are used.  In saying that I also hope that any and all training we do from now on, that we use a creative flair towards the training scenario's that we will use.  An example of poor creativeness on the range would be by an OIC/RSO and Snr NCo (who will assist in the scenario) would be the "good old section attack with 3 mags and one en".  If that happens that will push guy's out.  We need to mirror as best as possible the compounds, trails, and natural obstacles here so the sect comd can get used to the chaos and confusion to best prep himself, his sect and over all his Pl prior to going in.  I just want to say one more thing about that.  Yes we will have to do more training both blank and live.  Just because we have experienced combat does not make us "Exempt from anything but live".  Just wanted to say that because I heard some talk today from some people that I thought would know better.

 

[a_majoor]

The problem, as always, is resources. We will have to engage all brain cells to think of effective training scenarios and venues without having access to fully instrumented MOUT ranges or crowds of actors representing the normal activity in the market place. Of course it is a bit difficult to train to patrol in a RG-31 when they are all in the sandbox........

I'm sure there is enough creativity in our troops and junior leaders to start taking this project on right now. We need widest dissemination of "Lessons Learned" in order to assist people in designing scenarios and interpreting the training as successful or not (without the metrics like the "seven steps of a section attack" check box sheet).

 

[PPCLI Guy]

I'm sure there is enough creativity in our troops and junior leaders to start taking this project on right now. We need widest dissemination of "Lessons Learned" in order to assist people in designing scenarios and interpreting the training as successful or not (without the metrics like the "seven steps of a section attack" check box sheet).

1 VP will conduct a 3 day AAR post Remembrance week, and capture LL and AAR pts - and then lead the Bde Leadership Symposium.  We will do our best to create useable product that is accessible to all - and that will include LL from the process of Recovery and Regeneration.

 

[McG]

In that vein, perhaps the USMC is going down the right path with their ...

Infanteer,
In some ways we are not behind the bigger militaries in soldier modernization.  Have a look at Canada's SIREQ project (even the USMC is looking at this to help them define where they want to go): http://pubs.drdc.gc.ca/pubdocs/sireq_e.html

Note: specific studies can be found through the link to the upper left.

 

[warchild]

I agree with a-majoor and also would still stress creativity.  We have spent so long working with less. Now that we have more it should be a no brainer.  However the attitude higher has to allow that, and allow the NCO's planning ranges along with he PL to be creative.  Saying "Think out side the box" is great but, you have to be allowed to "Play outside the box."  I have personally seen allot of people been "Put back in the box" because the person that these forward thinkers are bring their ideas to are old school and are uncomfortable doing something new or different.  So maybe it is a culture thing to.  But given that what we are now engaged in combat and with great forums such as this site to disseminate valueable lessons learned it will disseminate allot of the raw AAR's that are now going to be given allot more weight.  I think our new boss has the right idea's and will let us do it.  I hope that others even at the high end of the NCM side will follow his lead and let us "Be outside the box" and get over the idea that you should shave,  immediately after you have been in combat. ???

 

[a_majoor]

Having worked in training troops for many years, I am imprinted to some extent with the check box mentality (wandering around behind a section as the DS, your biggest thing was keeping the giant clipboard with marking sheets and assessment forms dry). For many people, filling in the check boxes is the "metric" for determining if a training event is successful.

There are some other issues to be addressed. Much of what we think we know is not from "proper sources", a common observation in Urban OPS is troops now tend to "stack" in four man bricks when assaulting buildings. While this seems to be a SOF/police thing, is it really the way "we" are supposed to do this? (This is a rhetorical question, BTW, for obvious reasons I don't expect an answer on this forum). Once again, wide dissemination of AARs through the proper channels will get everyone in the same headspace for planning, training and assessing.

 

[boondocksaint]

A-majoor, I agree that there will always need a method of checking 'the box'. What I would put forward though, is that we can look at modifying those boxes and those checks. Recent experiences can be drawn on, and used to determine what needs revamping.  Of course once the LL and the AAR's are some what hashed out.

mmmmm evolution  ;D

 

[Haggis]

We have spent so long working with less. Now that we have more it should be a no brainer. 

We have more in theatre than we've ever had before.  However back here at home the cupboards are still mostly bare.  This will become even more acute as more stuff gets destroyed and damaged in theatre and we start raping the units and CMTC for LAVs etc.  Already units are feeling the pinch in certain consumable commodites... and we still have 30 months of warfighting left in our current Afghanistan mandate.

 

[paracowboy]

However back here at home the cupboards are still mostly bare.  This will become even more acute as more stuff gets destroyed and damaged in theatre and we start raping the units...units are feeling the pinch in certain consumable commodites...

preach it Brother! Sing it!

 

[vonGarvin]

mmmmm evolution   ;D

evolution vice revolution ;D

As for "box checking", for this past summer, on the course for which I was crse O, the checklist was gone.  Yes, certain drills had to be done (eg: win the firefight BEFORE consolidation, as one blatant example); however, the "gut feel" of the DS, and leadership, were key.  In the end, some guys passed even though a box-checking event would have failed and others failed even though they hit every box in the old-style list.  The assessment process isn't perfect; however, it's better.  Will it ever be perfect?  I doubt it.  Will it get better?  I sure hope so!

 

[time expired]

As a old cold war warrior I would like to tell you guys how proud I am of you and the work you did in
A-stan. It makes me proud to have been in the same army that you guys are serving in and has gone a
long way in restoring my faith,which I must admit I was losing at the end of my enlistment.
Having got that off my chest I have a question , are you satisfied with the range and stopping power
of the 5.56 round ?.Given the distances one can observe targets in a desert situation would not a heavier
round be an advantage?.
                            Regards

 

[Petard]

As an example one fella called in a mission, and it was bang on.  Good initial grid, good "corrections" (based on "the round landed 'x' mils to the left", and so forth).  Then, the target was successfully engaged (the lad was doing a platoon attack).  Then the lad said "end of mission".  "End of mission out" was the reply.  Then he gave that target to the "FOO" (eg: the DS) for part of his fire plan.  The arty "missed".  Why?  He failed to "Record as target".  We gave him the lesson that once you say "end of mission", that's it, that's all, those guns go elsewhere.  Hopefully he learned his lesson (and no, he didn't fail because of that).

Now, before the flames come in, the Field Artillery School helped us immensely with these lessons, so it was not a slag on them what I say about their lesson plan.  It's just that the lesson plan is for the FOO course and future FOOs.  Also, previous courses had infantry guys giving the lessons who knew two things about calling in fire: Jack and Poo, and Jack left town!

von G, I was the orginal author of the supported arm call for fire lesson plan some time ago, (cranked up with that cheezey hill back drop because the IFT was down). Sad to say it looks like some IG's thought it was too simple and jazzed it up since. Noted. I checked with the lads in the IFT about this tgt record business and some did think that if someone forgot to record the Tgt, that was that, you don't get it back; simon says. But this isn't so. Yes by the book, fire discipline-wise if someone wanted to re-engage that Tgt he should've said record as Tgt, but someone sticking exactly to that thinking is being a pedantic dink. The IFCCS in the Bty CP records all the fire missions on a log automatically, it wouldn't take much to retrieve it. The bottom line here is if someone forgot to record the target, they would just have to say plainly what it is they needed engaged again.

BDS & SBD your sharing this information is absolutley invaluable and much appreciated. Your professionalism is unmistakable even in the way you have described what were undoubtedly traumatic events.
I'll do what I can to pass the word

 

[vonGarvin]

von G, I was the orginal author of the supported arm call for fire lesson plan some time ago, (cranked up with that cheezey hill back drop because the IFT was down). Sad to say it looks like some IG's thought it was too simple and jazzed it up since. Noted. I checked with the lads in the IFT about this tgt record business and some did think that if someone forgot to record the Tgt, that was that, you don't get it back; simon says. But this isn't so. Yes by the book, fire discipline-wise if someone wanted to re-engage that Tgt he should've said record as Tgt, but someone sticking exactly to that thinking is being a pedantic dink. The IFCCS in the Bty CP records all the fire missions on a log automatically, it wouldn't take much to retrieve it. The bottom line here is if someone forgot to record the target, they would just have to say plainly what it is they needed engaged again.

Hey there.  You're correct re: the target info is recorded.  The lesson wasn't so much to reflect "reality" as it was to reinforce a lesson with consequences, and in this case, the consequences were "missed targets".
That lesson was good, but I could tell that there were a few edits on it.  As I said in my orignal post, the FAS gave us stellar support on that course. (As they always do)

 

[FSTO]

Hi all, Navy guy here. This has been an absolutely fascinating read. Nice to get some first hand accounts of what is going on over there.  I know that this may off topic but sitting here in Canada I've been watching the news and if I wasn't in the forces I would think that we are getting our butts handed to us by the Taliban. What is your take on the way our home media is reporting on the war? Are they telling the truth or even a semblance of the truth?

The worst part about our Canadian Media is that their slant only helps the Taliban. They are more willing to trade 10 or 100 of their guys for 1 of ours.

 

[boondocksaint]

are you satisfied with the range and stopping power
of the 5.56 round ?.Given the distances one can observe targets in a desert situation would not a heavier
round be an advantage?.                          

Most of our fighting was done at far closer range then I think any of us anticipated. Generally at the longer ranges, 200-300m, it became more about suppression and 'fixing' the enemy. 5.56 was more then sufficient, and we had other weapons to augment this of course.

It was great for close in fighting, between compounds, and in room clearing it did just fine. The age old arguement about a heavier round vs a lighter one will always happen. For me, the 5.56 got it done fine

 

[Brad Sallows]

Well.  I suppose this should mean a whole new level of attention will be given to training for "The Section Attack".

 

[Infanteer]

*cough* http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/18270.0.html *cough*

 

[Alex22]

Hi boon. Im actually in Charlie Company of the 1st Vandoos. Were being deployed to support the PRT at the begining of december for an unknown amount of time. 6 to 9 months. I must say that reading this topic was an amazing, and very usefull reading. Im gonna be a C9 gunner and Im actually looking for a good Tac Vest that would hold at least 4 drums, with different other usefull items.. such as grenades, smokes and such. I know that the actual Tac Vest that we use in the forces just doesnt fit for what were gonna be doing there. You said that both of your c9 gunners were using the old webbing with 4 c9 pouches. Did it do the job, did they say they would prefer having a real tac vest? Because the webbing has a pretty limited ammount of pouches that can be fitted on it. Also, do you know if there is any way to buy one there at the american PX, or if there is a PX at all on Nathan Smith Camp? (thats where were going)
I found myself one of these: http://www.opticsplanet.net/issak-60-saw-gunner-flotation-kit.html# and Im thinking about spending the 300$ on it. since my life, and the life of my squad might depend on it. Also, Id like to know what you think about the Surfire flashlight used by the forces in A-stan. I found a nice one at the R. Nicholls here in Quebec but if the one given by the CF is worth it I wont be spending 140$ on it. 

Im sorry for al those questions, but every information I can get on how it works over there (since our chain of command doesnt seems to be able to give us more then the minimum of information), might have an impact on how well I do my job. Thanks for your answer anyways. Anybody else who can give me anykind of usefull info is welcome also.