We're the Military and Airpower Guys of Jonah Goldberg of National Review Online + a stray we found wandering around looking lost. All original material JHD, BHD, JR, WT, and KA 2003-2007 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2005/01/usmc_tank_company_commanders_aar_from_fallujah.html Sun, 03 Aug 2008 17:30:40 Z Movable Type 4.12 en Copyright 2008 http://www.rssboard.org/rss-specification Battles, and wars, can be lost by any level of command. In the current era, they are only won at the Company level, in my view. If your companies can't fight, it doesn't matter if you are Napoleon or Patton. Of course, Napoleon and Patton made sure they had companies that could fight... And if you are MG Lloyd Fredendall, commander of II Corps in North Africa, you can train pretty good companies, but lose the fight at the higher levels. Remember - Patton picked up Fredendall's Corps and took it across North Africa. Our companies can fight. And learn.... http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2005/01/usmc_tank_company_commanders_aar_from_fallujah.html http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2005/01/usmc_tank_company_commanders_aar_from_fallujah.html Mon, 03 Jan 2005 09:35:45 -0600 A mild meander: The D9 is what caught my attention more than anything. In several Israeli Defense Force articles and AARs I've read over the past few years, the armored "combat" bulldozer was touted as the single most important piece of equipment needed for MOUT, followed by on-call gunships. I recall one vivid AAR wherein an Israeli Officer described in detail similar to that in this article how the bulldozers were deployed, how the armor on top was needed to protect the drivers, and how the dozers were used to 1) make holes in walls, and 2) bring down buildings enemy fighters were on top of. Amazing to see that repeated here. I hope we learned that lesson from the Israelis and not the hard way, but knowing how things go, I suspect it's probably some of both. Which brings me to an important side-issue, and that's the real value of AARs and Lessons Learned (LLs). I have not been to Iraq. I will probably never see in-city fighting; however, I now have stored in my aging former military brain some pretty good damn info about fighting in cities, and things like pre-set tow cables, etc. I also read with some head shaking the bit about the grunt phones. When I was a GSR/Redeye guy, I used those (on M60's of course). To be honest, I had just assumed they had gone the way of sextants, and was pleased to learn they hadn't, but surprised to learn they had fallen out of use. As well all know, but sometimes forget, AARs and LLs save lives and help win battles, and are as important in some cases as the actual event. Also, while reading this article, I had vague memories of past images of crouched infantry following tanks, one of them with a handset to his ear with a wire running into the back of the tank. I don't know where that memory is from, but it's a B&W image, so it must either be an old movie or a WWII image. It might even have been the German Army in Russia?? Hard to say. And finally, the descriptions of covering fire brought to mind Stephen Ambrose's D-Day, in which he described U.S. Navy Destroyers sailing as close as within 900 meters of Omaha beach, firing at whatever the guys on the beach were firing at, using the grunts and tankers as spotters. In one case, he wrote the USS "Frankford fired away from shoal water 800 meters off the beach....A tank sitting at the water's edge with a broken track fired at something on the hill. We immediately followed up with a 5-inch salvo. The tank gunner flipped open his hatch, looked around at us, waved, dropped back in the tank, and fired at another target. For the next few minutes he was our fire-control party. Our ranger finder optics could examine the spots where his shells hit. (p. 387) Talk about close cover! And the number of 5" rounds fired was listed as USS Shubrick 440; McCook 975; Carmick 1,127; Satterlee 638; other destroyers between 500 & 1000, most in direct, nearly flat trajectory covering fire for the land forces. And of course the best of it was when land-based Germans soldiers surrendered to the USS McCormick! But anyway, to say I was impressed reading this AAR would be an understatement. As always, I stand in awe of our military, and today more than ever. Sorry about the disjointed feel of this post. -SangerM http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2005/01/usmc_tank_company_commanders_aar_from_fallujah.html#comment-11058 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2005/01/usmc_tank_company_commanders_aar_from_fallujah.html#comment-11058 Mon, 03 Jan 2005 22:25:16 -0600 Based on my calculations, the 120mm is a 0.044 Gauge; it would fired a lead ball weighing 22.5lbs. Cheers JMH http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2005/01/usmc_tank_company_commanders_aar_from_fallujah.html#comment-11057 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2005/01/usmc_tank_company_commanders_aar_from_fallujah.html#comment-11057 Mon, 03 Jan 2005 20:00:02 -0600 Hey, Being an ex-grunt, I don't know much about tanks and tankers, but it sounds like the tankers can make it work but need a few improvements. Como is always a problem. Has always been a problem and even with the equipment "in the pipeline",they won't completly solve the problems as everybody still won't be using compatable equipment. The new "Jitters" como is supposed to be the end all, because using como in the sky and other features. But, it appears years away. I read an article about them sending some small robots to Iraq to use for EOD and even one with a MG attached. In my uninformed opinion, a smaller tank with improved balistic armor and rpg fences is needed. Armed with a main gun that can breach and also fire super shotgun shells or air burst frags. I don't think we will be fighting out in the desert much anymore. I think it will be downtown. Iran and Syria have very narrow streets and lots of dead ends. This is my post Papa Ray West Texas USA http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2005/01/usmc_tank_company_commanders_aar_from_fallujah.html#comment-11055 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2005/01/usmc_tank_company_commanders_aar_from_fallujah.html#comment-11055 Mon, 03 Jan 2005 18:33:39 -0600 Excellent article. These guys are doing a great job. It's always interesting to hear about all the stuff we used to play with... http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2005/01/usmc_tank_company_commanders_aar_from_fallujah.html#comment-11052 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2005/01/usmc_tank_company_commanders_aar_from_fallujah.html#comment-11052 Mon, 03 Jan 2005 17:15:39 -0600 Given that most people don't thing of ordinary shot shells as 20mm rounds, it could be helpful to speak of a cannister round in terms of gauge. IIRC, at 120mm, it works out to six tenths of a gauge. http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2005/01/usmc_tank_company_commanders_aar_from_fallujah.html#comment-11051 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2005/01/usmc_tank_company_commanders_aar_from_fallujah.html#comment-11051 Mon, 03 Jan 2005 16:34:41 -0600