Jessica L ynch's units training

[x westie]

I am new to this forum and i find it very interesting, i would like to hear some input into what went wrong when PFC Lynch's convoy,. was attacked. From following this forum there   are a   large group of professional soldier's in the Canadian Army that contribute to this forum,i would like to hear from you on what you believe went wrong,,and if the Canadian Army is taking steps in training to prevent this from happening to our troops,

 

[dutchie]

I will summarize what happened to the esteemed PFC Lynch and ther buddies:

Rear ech troops driving in a war zone, took wrong turn , ran into enemy troops who were not rear ech.

Enemy troops do their job.

Rear ech troops try to do what SHOULD be their first job. Despite enourmous effort by some, their lack of training in how to destroy the enemy showed very quickly.

Re:what the Canadian Army is doing to prevent this.....

The Canadian Army cannot address the issue of teaching a lot of it's rear ech personel's inability to kill the enemy until they convince them to put the firing pins back in there weapons.

 

[D-n-A]

No one here can really comment on the training the 507th Maint Co got, because no one here was in that unit.

And yea, what Caeser said is a paraphrashed version of what happened.


Canada(and I would assume other countries) have learned from this battle and others.

An example of the training to deal with this type of thing(convoy being attacked) that we're starting to do(I think we may have done this stuff before, but I'm not positive on this)
http://www.army.dnd.ca/lfwa/feature_convoy_training.htm


Caeser, its not fair to crap on all CSS troops, yes some don't take the whole "a soldier first, a tradesmen second" thing serouisly, but there are also a lot that do.

 

[gun plumber]

I agree.having been in the reserves for 9 years and the regular force now for 3(just signed my next BE)there is no point in downplaying CSS troops.It's just like any trade or unit:You have the guy who fights in the trenches and then you have the guy who washes pots!

 

[dutchie]

re:"its not fair to crap on all CSS troops"

That's why I said,  "a lot of it's rear ech personel's inability ".....'not all' CSS types do this, but a lot do.

This is based on my first hand, overseas experience with CSS types. For example, CSS types disassembling their weapons and storing them in the storage bins on the outside of the HL, CSS types removing firing pins so they don't get an ND, CSS types not fully seating the mag on a 9 mil so they don't have to do that whole scary 'put the empty mag in and pull the trigger' clearance drill, the list goes on. I know it was just Bosnia, but holy sheep shiite, your still a bloody soldier. This phenomenon is found strictly in the CSS. An Infantry soldier taking out his firing pin to avoid an ND is like a trucker slashing his tires to avoid driving.

Oh, and it was intended to be humorous.

 

[pbi]

I've talked to a few of the US folks here about the Lynch incident. The general consensus is that the US Army, while putting alot of effort into training its combat arms soldiers, had failed to do the same with its CSS types. Now, this would be bad enough in any army going to war, but IMHO the extreme specialization of the US Army CSS types aggravated it further. The comments made by some of the parents pf the soldiers in the 507th Maint Co, such as "my son just joined to be a mechanic....etc" further show that even in the US the role of soldiers as soldiers may not be fully understood. The fact that much of its CSS is in the ARES (not the ARNG) has not helped, as the combat trg levels of that force tend to lie somewhere below our own Army Reserve (anecdotal) Reportedly, the US Army has embarked on a crash program to train its CSS types for combat.

The Canadian Army cannot address the issue of teaching a lot of it's rear ech personel's inability to kill the enemy until they convince them to put the firing pins back in there weapons

Couldn't agree more. This has been discussed in other threads as evidence of the need to instill an Army-wide "warrior" mentality. IMHO this will only happen when the Army "owns" the CSS MOCs it needs and gets out from under this unified rubbish.

It's just like any trade or unit:You have the guy who fights in the trenches and then you have the guy who washes pots!

Yes, you do. And you need them to be alive to do their jobs. The enemy doesn't check MOCs before he pulls the trigger, and he knows the Achilles heel of any Western force is its CSS. The last thing we should do is "downplay" CSS. I blame us Cbt A types to a certain extent for this, but I still lay the great bulk of the blame at the feet  of the unified trg system. Cheers.

 

[dutchie]

Re:"The enemy doesn't check MOCs before he pulls the trigger"   - couldn't have said it better myself.

Further, all soldiers (but particularly CSS) should remember that the enemy trains to kill us as hard as our Combat Arms troops train to kill the enemy. If you think the Combat Arms types are too hard on you for your lack of discipline when it comes to war training, wait till you see how hard the enemy will be on you when YOU make that wrong turn.

PBI: How would you address the issue of training? Would you increase the war fighting training of CSS pers over their trades training? Make each man/woman a qualified Infantry soldier prior to commencing any trades qual courses? If so, how would you address the maintenance of the quality of their war fighting ability? I have my own ideas, but am anxious to here things from your perspective.

 

[x westie]

It seems that history is repeating itself, during WW2, i have read reports of the  Brit. RAF ground crew in both the Battle for Singapore and Crete unable to defend their airbases with  the issued .303 rifles & Bren LMG because they were not interested in learning a military skill or the higher up types felt there no need,this also happened in the Canadian Army in WW2,  in late 1944 due to heavy casualties after Normandy,many Service Corps people stationed in the U.K. were sent to man the infantry battalions, these people also did not know basic weapons handling and had to be trained at the front,aperantly some had been in the Army for several years but again either not interested or higher up types not making sure they were trained.

 

[the 48th regulator]

it was an ambush folks,

Can someone please, regardles of what trade, elaborate how they would handle such a situation?  I know I have had to go through one so I would like to hear the opinion of how front line troops would have handled themselves any better.

And please spare me the finite details of what one has learned in training.

Shit happens and you react... remember an abush is meant to surprise you, and unless you train on a constant basis for ambush drills, trust me, it aint easy for anyone.  Who would train on a regular basis for this type of attack?  Units that have been posted in an A.O  for long periods of time where you are able to learn local tactics of yer enemy, his favoured method of ambush, his favourite attakc routes (ie of his enemy, your ally).  Until that time happens, guess what? You get hit, and you get hit hard.  Period.  That's why you try to take it to them before the enemy can get a chance to plan on you.

that's how you beat an ambush.  Does the trade have an effect, sure combat arms will have the faster reaction time, cuz that's what we are trained for. Does it always work?  Think about it, all actions are really different types of ambush, woudl you not say?  You try to draw an emeny into a well defended position.  So in the end ya we may be able as "front line troops" know how to handle our selves, but given the chance anyone of us will jump if someone cam up behind us and tapped us on the head in th middle of the night.  Now try patollign in enemy territory when all eyes are on you.....big difference.

oh well time for bed, so keep the eyes on the back of yer heads open...

Tess

 

[pbi]

it was an ambush folks,

Can someone please, regardles of what trade, elaborate how they would handle such a situation?   I know I have had to go through one so I would like to hear the opinion of how front line troops would have handled themselves any better.

And please spare me the finite details of what one has learned in training.

crap happens and you react... remember an abush is meant to surprise you, and unless you train on a constant basis for ambush drills, trust me, it aint easy for anyone.   Who would train on a regular basis for this type of attack?   Units that have been posted in an A.O   for long periods of time where you are able to learn local tactics of yer enemy, his favoured method of ambush, his favourite attakc routes (ie of his enemy, your ally).    Until that time happens, guess what? You get hit, and you get hit hard.   Period.   That's why you try to take it to them before the enemy can get a chance to plan on you.

that's how you beat an ambush.   Does the trade have an effect, sure combat arms will have the faster reaction time, cuz that's what we are trained for. Does it always work?   Think about it, all actions are really different types of ambush, woudl you not say?   You try to draw an emeny into a well defended position.   So in the end ya we may be able as "front line troops" know how to handle our selves, but given the chance anyone of us will jump if someone cam up behind us and tapped us on the head in th middle of the night.   Now try patollign in enemy territory when all eyes are on you.....big difference.

oh well time for bed, so keep the eyes on the back of yer heads open...

Tess

Just out of interest, where were you ambushed and how did you survive?

I believe that the facts of   the 507th ambush are much worse than what you are suggesting. I have heard from US types here that the members of the coy did not have magazines in their weapons and in some cases were not able to operate weapons such as the SAWS (=our C9). These sad facts, as well as high level of concern about the low combat skill levels of their CSS types (esecially ARES CSS) has led the US Army to go into the crash combat training program I referred to above. Perhaps you may not feel that such training will make much difference, but evidently the US Army, who have all the facts of the 507 incident, do feel that it is needed. Survival in an ambush, to the extent that survival is possible, is IMHO a product of preparation, as is survival in combat in general. While I agree with you that a well-laid ambush will probably kill or injure a large number of its victims, I can also tell you that the Coalition forces here commonly experience ambushes laid with varying degrees of skill, and because of training and preparation their casualties are usually minimized.

You seem to suggest that there is no way for CSS units to avoid ambushes, nor to minimize their effects. I disagree completely, and I back up my position with the most recent "Lessons Learned" publication from the US Army here in Afgh. They have learned  many ways to achieve both of these things.
But, lessons learned are just so much useless history if they are not put into effect through realistic and demanding training, and this is the issue in the 507 situation: they were apparently not properly trained for combat. Our CSS folks are vital: if they die, we fail. Therefore we must train and equip them to survive. The approach of the USMC is that "every Marine is a rifleman" (NOT, they hasten to point out, every Marine an infantryman...) and this ensures that even Marine CSS units can give a good account of   themselves in combat.

Quite apart from the physical skills and drills, there is the mental outlook that is a product of proper training. Awarness, alertness, immediate reaction, self-confidence and determination are products of good combat training. IMHO, these are needed by anybody who may be faced with enemy contact, whether it be ambush, raid on a CSS hide, etc. Cheers.

 

[pbi]

48 Regulator: was it in Sector South, en rte to the Kenyan OP? Your last name seems familiar. Cheers.

 

[chrisf]

PBI: How would you address the issue of training? Would you increase the war fighting training of CSS pers over their trades training? Make each man/woman a qualified Infantry soldier prior to commencing any trades qual courses?

Isn't that the theory behind SQ?

 

[ark]

i would like to hear from you on what you believe went wrong,,and if the Canadian Army is taking steps in training to prevent this from happening to our troops,

I hope this is what you are looking for http://www.sftt.org/PDF/article07102003a.pdf

 

[Gayson]

Everyone has to take SQ, so the problem of CSS pers getting trained initially in the combat arms isn't the problem.  The problem is maintaning these standards.

Are non combat arms required to take a sort of SQ refresher course every so often?  How are their combat skills monitored?  How often do they train in the basics?

I think to prevent future occurances like the 507th happening to Canadian troops can be accomplished by:

a)  Requiring all non-combat arms to do an SQ-refresher style course, or have these skills a part of their units yearly training schedule (if not already done so)

b)  From day one develope the idea that everyone is a soldier first tradesmen sceond in all recruits, and keep this idea throughout their career.


Sure non-combat arms may not see nearly as much combat as their Infantry, Armoured, Engineer bretherin, but what happens if supply lines get attacked, of if for an upcoming battle the commander has a shortage of men and orders non-combat pers to fight as well?

The SQ course covers the C6, C9, defensive ops, recce patrolling, how to dig in amoung other essential skills which are the basics.  Like all skills these basics MUST be practiced!

 

[dutchie]

Isn't that the theory behind SQ?

The problem is not the original training, it is the maintaining of the skills and abilities over a 20 year career. How do we realistically expect people to maintain skills learned if they only 'practice' them once a year (if that)? A CSS tradesman/woman straight off their SQ would probably be much more proficient than someone who's been in for a year or two, or twenty. Their proficiency in 'soldier-skills', or 'infantry-type skills' will naturally go down, however, as their proficiency in their chosen trade goes up. There of course will be exceptions to this. But it's only natural that the skills learned on SQ will degrade over time unless pacticed and used regularly. That means less 'convoy-ops' ex's for MSE Ops for example, and more advance to contact, ambush, patrolling, etc type ex's.

In my opinion, CSS types should be doing at least as many strictly war fighting ex's (involving 100% soldier-skills) as opposed to ex's involving practicing their actual trade. I would much rather their skill at their chosen trade degrade a little in exchange for the ability to survive in a hostile environment......after all, you're ineffective if you can't survive long enough to actually support the troops doing the fighting.

If you don't have the skills (or the inclination) to kill an enemy soldier with the tools available to you, despite your skill in your trade, you are useless. You are a drain on the CF, and the tax payer in general.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

I think there is a big difference between being beasted once a year by infantry-types running the CSS through Warrior training and generally either treating the drills as a joke, or else trying to fail as many CSS and officers as possible, and useful training in the field.   Warrior training has been pretty mellow for the last few years in our unit here, but I do recall many of the infantrymen going out of their way, in years past, to fail all the officers and CSS types on minor points rather than actually help them relearn the skills they needed (the whole point of Warrior training).   In my opinion - and this is where I agree with Caeser, apparently - those skills are best developed in a field setting rather than on an armouries floor.   And they should be developing those skills every time the unit exercises.

 

[Matt_Fisher]

I agree with Michael Dorosh here.  Warrior training done by infantry for CSS can quickly turn into a non-learning, beasting type environment.  I think it would be better to develop a combat attitude from within by adding a Force Protection billet at the company level for CSS SR. NCOs as part of their career progression.  They would be formally trained and be responsible for instilling good tactical knowledge and practices into their CSS unit.

 

[dutchie]

"those skills are best developed in a field setting rather than on an armouries floor"

Exactly. It's one thing to learn the drills on a C7 for instance, but it's quite another to be able to bring effective fire down on an enemy under extremely stressful, terrifying, and dangerous situations (not that I profess to have experience in that either).

These are merely basics, that give you enough skill to safely start the actual training in a field environment. In short, we are taught these drills so we don't kill someone in training. Their original intent was never to be the training itself. Calling it 'Warrior Training' is really stupid. It should be called 'I-Won't-Accidentally-Shoot-You-on-the-Range Training'.

"develop a combat attitude from within by adding a Force Protection billet at the company level for CSS SR. NCOs as part of their career progression.   They would be formally trained and be responsible for instilling good tactical knowledge and practices into their CSS unit." - excellent suggestion Matt.

 

[pbi]

With respect to the issue of SQ, can somebody refresh me as to whether or not Regular Force CSS support MOCs go through that? I know that Reservists do, but I'm not certain about RegF. I rather think most RegF CSS MOCs go from BMQ to MOC trg, which would help to explain part of the problem.

Another issue that weakens the soldier skills of our CSS people is the manner in which our unified system shunts them around different environments. An MSE Op who has just spent three or four years driving bus on an Air Wing is not likely to have anything like the soldier skills or the outlook to perform properly in combat, especially today when the idea of the safe rear area simply does not exist on many operations.

Like others on this thread I have seen and had the pleasure to command some pretty impressive CSS soldiers. In Croatia, I had a cook who regularly went out on night patrols, and a clerk who volunteered to double as a sniper spotter. Thse guys were great and the o31s thought highly of them. But, IMHO they were great in spite of the unified system, not because of it. What we want is all CSS soldiers to be just like that. Cheers.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Theres no excuse for a soldier removing their firing pin or magazine on operations. Someone who does that should be sent to club ed. It's treason. What better way to aid an enemy than disabling your weapon? Thats one step below giving the bad guys your C7.

I personally think they should be kicked out of the military. It's not someone making a mistake or screwing up by accident. It's someone deliberatly making themselves non effective.  I wish I had more balls to do something about this when I saw it overseas.
I'm quite ashamed that I saw it a few times (No mags in weapons) and didn't do anything about it. Now I truely see how important of a thing it is and i won't overlook that again.

All ambushes are different of course. In some cases the ambushee (Is that the proper word?) will die regardless of their training, in other cases they won't. I don't think this is an excuse for soldiers not to be trained in ambush drills or support weapons. To just shrug the shoulders and hope for the best.

I love the idea of having all canadian soldiers trained like the marines. Riflemen first. I just don't see that as a possibility in Canada. We don't have enough people with that mentality or mindset, nor willing to do it.  We just won't attract enough soldiers willing to go through that then take trade training.  I DO think it's possible to give CS and CCS soldiers (much) more exposure to 'field' type training and keep then current. I don't see why we can't use Iraq as an example and have our friends in support trades thrown into convoys and attacked. Put into 'base defense' situations. Give them lots more range time, run them through jungle lanes. Navagation by foot and especially vehicle. Survival training.
I can see a lot of people saying "Fuck that, thats not what i signed up for. I'm here for the $10'000 signing bonus and the free schooling so i can quit in a few years and get a great civilian job"
Well tough. I think people who "Just want to be a mechanic" should keep the hell away from the military. Just because YOU don't want to use guns, sleep in the field or get dirty doesn't mean you won't be put in that situation.

Would it be so hard to set aside even 2 weeks a year and have non combat arms trades (that would find themselves deployed overseas) involved in an ex where they would learn and use the kind of life saving tactics were talking about? BEcome confident and comfrtable with their weapons? It's a big joke when someone picks up a rifle and says damn i haven't touched the C7 in 7 years. I think thats just scarry.  Have the combat arms as enemy force. What better way to learn about the enemy and see how things look from their point of view?
It's just like a 2 man enemy force team with miles equipment picking off a section of troops doing a section attack across a field. As the bad guy you get to see just how effective your tactics are.

I remember going to the MIR for poison ivy juice right before a battle group run. I couldn't believe how many people were there with some kinda problem trying to get chits.  I can only imagine the excuses from soldiers trying to get out of 2 weeks in the field or any other sort of training as were mentioning.
I think many canadian soldiers feel like only the infantry or combat arms will ever really be in harms way and it's going to take a situation like the lynch ambush for people to wake up.