Comments for Firefight in Afghanistan

Firefight in Afghanistan

Thu, 26 Mar 2009 07:55:43 -0600

Turn your sound down. In-combat soldierly language abounds. If you are in an office (or home) of delicate sensibilities - save it for later. If you click through to the website hosting the video - know that Live Leak is NSFW in some of their peripheral advertising. There's no blood and gore, that's all, literally, off-camera - but it's there. No blanks were fired during the making of this video. No Hollywood explosions. To win the war in Afghanistan we have to fight the war. The post below this one talked about some of the "soft power" elements of that fight. This post is about "hard power" or, as the current term du jour puts it... the "kinetic" fight. Sit back and watch a what it's like in a FOB mortar pit as the Bad Guys™ conduct an ambush on guys just outside the wire, or an attack on the base proper - which seems more likely, but I'm not sure - it could be an attack on guys going out or coming in. Note the relative calm of the troops in the opening scene inside the operations center - though things get a little more animated when the mortar crew heads out from under overhead cover to feed their beast. Those aren't blanks in the background. No Hollywood special effects here.

Comment from Heartless Libertarian on 2009-03-28

Sat, 28 Mar 2009 08:54:37 -0600

What I find interesting is that the tube is pretty obviously a 120mm...last I remember, MTOE for 'light' infantry (basically, not mech or Stryker) mortar platoons had 81mm mortars. And all of the Army infantry troops in Afghanistan (thus far) are 'light' or IBCTs in today's nomenclature. (Actually, whichever company from 1-4 IN is in A-stan at any given time may be an exception, since 1-4 is the OPFOR unit at Hohenfels. I'm not really sure what they're formally classified as, structurally.)

I didn't seen anything that looked like a unit patch or crest, which might give me a clue as to what unit they were and where they were located.

Comment from BillT on 2009-03-27

Fri, 27 Mar 2009 12:01:39 -0600

A couple of 'em use "awesome" to describe something that actually *is* awesome, but 'possum will be a stretch. No marsupials over here...

Comment from Boquisucuio on 2009-03-27

Fri, 27 Mar 2009 11:23:23 -0600

We shall all know that the end is nigh, when the cadets at KRAB absorb: "Awsome Opposum" into their lexicon.

Comment from BillT on 2009-03-27

Fri, 27 Mar 2009 09:13:30 -0600

Bush has been sent home to his village in Texas, peace has been restored, and all is well. Inshallah.

Or, as they say in those villages in Texas, "Enchilada."

Which the cadets are also picking up on, along with "Cool beans"...

Comment from fdcol63 on 2009-03-27

Fri, 27 Mar 2009 08:45:01 -0600

Overseas Contingency Operations

Orwellian doublethink and newspeak straight from the Ministry of Truth .... using euphamisms to hide and distort the truth in an effort to convince Americans and the rest of the world that everything is fine and dandy, no problems here.

Obama is president, that mean old Bush has been sent home to his village in Texas, peace has been restored, and all is well. Inshallah.

Winston Smith would be proud.

Comment from BillT on 2009-03-27

Fri, 27 Mar 2009 08:30:05 -0600

Ah, yes -- contingency operations.

Normandy, 6 June 1944 (AP): General Dwight Eisenhower announced earlier that this morning's incursion into Festung Europa was a tentative land-centric joint contingency operation conducted utilizing several Units of Employment in an AirLandBattlespace Named Area of Interest for the purpose of imposing a future-reducible containment policy on enemy combatants and getting inside the OODA loop of their C4I infrastructure.

That really would've drummed up domestic support for the Second Front, now wouldn't it?

Comment from Argent on 2009-03-27

Fri, 27 Mar 2009 07:56:01 -0600

John: Oh OK. I think I follow you now.

Mitch: That spot was taken by Kyoto.

alternatively; Where the wife does when the husband wants to cook something that isn't char grilled.

Comment from John of Argghhh! on 2009-03-27

Fri, 27 Mar 2009 07:20:36 -0600

Argent - while I think, all things considered, it probably was an attack on the FOB, when I was talking near and far ambush, it was in relation to a patrol outside the wire, regardless of how far away from the FOB it was.

As someone upstream in the thread noted - near ambush is hand grenade range. Far ambush is outside of that, and is in relation to the notional patrol, not the FOB.

That it was a close-in fight for the mortar pit is obvious, but that's a different tactical situation.

Comment from Mitch Miller on 2009-03-27

Fri, 27 Mar 2009 01:16:12 -0600

No, no, get the nomenclature right, troop! (Oops! I mean, earth-toned government chemical accelerant application employee.) It's Overseas Contingency Operations regarding Man-Caused Disasters!

Comment from Argent on 2009-03-27

Fri, 27 Mar 2009 01:00:59 -0600

Well that was a lot of action. Well you can argue about the far idea from reasoning about the use of the smoke and HE rounds but you can't argue with thrust from 0 or 1 charges, can you?

Comment from Lamigra on 2009-03-26

Thu, 26 Mar 2009 19:08:43 -0600

What MaryAnn said, doubled for me. Them's some a##-kickin' troops!

Comment from fdcol63 on 2009-03-26

Thu, 26 Mar 2009 18:11:16 -0600

Wow .... an intense several minutes. Great job .... and glad everyone's okay!

Comment from Boquisucio on 2009-03-26

Thu, 26 Mar 2009 17:24:16 -0600

Overseas Contingency Operation Against Tuggy Feelings, that's really gonna make 'em shake in their boots!

Comment from MaryAnn on 2009-03-26

Thu, 26 Mar 2009 17:08:41 -0600

Yeehaw! That's my boys!!

Comment from Cannoneer No. 4 on 2009-03-26

Thu, 26 Mar 2009 16:56:15 -0600

No enemy is going to respect you if he doesn't believe you're serious about winning -- Mark Steyn, a few minutes ago

Comment from Cannoneer No. 4 on 2009-03-26

Thu, 26 Mar 2009 16:24:41 -0600

To win the war in Afghanistan we have to fight the war.

But if the National Command Authority can convince enough sheeple that the war is now just an Overseas Contingency Operation, we don't have to fight, or win, we just have to conduct Overseas Contingency Operations, more or less successfully, but who owns lack of success in Overseas Contingency Operations?

I'm on the right post.

Comment from Attila of Argghhh! on 2009-03-26

Thu, 26 Mar 2009 15:55:55 -0600

God, I'm glad I was born a Hog Driver. I love these guys and I wish we had had some airborne iron to f**k (technical term) the scumbags up REALLY bad.

People just don't understand how impressive the 'Merican soldier is. Especially the current administration. - attila

US GI: 'We being shot at. Let's kill the motherf**kers."
State Department: [nothing...she fainted.]
White House: [Damn...these warmongers just don't understand soft power. Who the Hell is the overzealous commander there?"]
State Department: ["Find the damn blogger who posted this and arrest him!...and discipline that icky army guy for using "war" instead of "contingency"!]

The next four years are going to be a Loooooong four years...

P.S. The capital "a" is inop on this machine. My apologies.

Comment from John of Argghhh! on 2009-03-26

Thu, 26 Mar 2009 14:32:07 -0600

Heh. Why, #4, do I think you meant this to be on the post below this?

Comment from Cannoneer No. 4 on 2009-03-26

Thu, 26 Mar 2009 14:13:03 -0600

Were ever really fighting a war in Afghanistan? Wasn't Operation Enduring Freedom merely a campaign of the Global War On Terror which is now morphing in to merely a generic Overseas Contingency Operation?

We are still living with the consequences of failing to accurately name this war and identify our enemies.

Comment from XBradTC on 2009-03-26

Thu, 26 Mar 2009 12:56:02 -0600

As to the near vs. far ambush, memory may fail me, but my recollection was that near ambushes were characterized as those within hand grenade range, roughly 35 meters. We practiced the battle drill many times- two grenades, go cyclic and assault through the ambush.

Comment from John of Argghhh! on 2009-03-26

Thu, 26 Mar 2009 11:44:20 -0600

Boq - Brad is right - if the attack is on the base, then it's not really an ambush by definition. And it could be a complex attack, with an ambush in the area near the base resulting in conjunction with the attack on the base.

Or a meeting engagement, where a patrol from the FOB stumbled into insurgents setting up for the attack.

Like I said, insufficient data, and I'm leaning on old habits of thought regarding the use of the WP.

Comment from John of Argghhh! on 2009-03-26

Thu, 26 Mar 2009 11:40:59 -0600

I thought I left that open enough - but what's missing is - are they firing in support of people outside the wire, or in simple defense of their FOB. I suspect an element of both, what with shooting the WP rounds that indicates there is some manuever going on.

Your sense of things is just as valid. Perhaps someone who was there or knows more will weigh in.

Comment from 11B40 on 2009-03-26

Thu, 26 Mar 2009 11:16:17 -0600

Greetings:

Ham & Eggs or Whiskey for Papa, it's all good for me. Just tell me that that wasn't a "sippy cup" in the opening scenes.

Comment from Boquisucio on 2009-03-26

Thu, 26 Mar 2009 11:16:01 -0600

At 5:39 on the video, the pit sgt. states that they were originally pinned down at their Command Post, being machine-gunned right at the pit. In other words, they were in a Near Ambush.

Comment from XBradTC on 2009-03-26

Thu, 26 Mar 2009 11:13:28 -0600

And with that said, I'm stealing the video. For some reason, I'm not smart enough to get my trackbacks to show up here.

Comment from XBradTC on 2009-03-26

Thu, 26 Mar 2009 11:10:38 -0600

John, I'll defer to you in all things related to indirect fire gunnery, but I feel compelled to remind you that an ambush is an attack against a moving or temporarily halted element. Our intrepid mortar crew most obviously was in a fixed, prepared position. The Taliban (or whomever) attack against their position would not be an ambush. It might be characterized as a raid, a hasty attack, or a deliberate attack, either an attack by fire, or by fire and assault (we can't tell from the video).

It would be highly unusual to assualt into the attack from prepared positions. Why forfeit the benefit of cover? If defensive fires were not enough to repel the attack, normally the option would be to either a) have elements from another unit move to attack the flank of the assaulting forces, or b) thin the line from the unengaged side of the defensive position, move them out to counter-attack the Taliban, again, preferably in the flank.

Comment from Pogue on 2009-03-26

Thu, 26 Mar 2009 10:50:41 -0600

That's some pretty impressive discipline.