- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 410
can't do too much against IED's but what about gunships shadowing the convoy out of RPG range initially?
Preparing for Iraq
- Thread starter Matt_Fisher
- Start date
TangoTwoBravo
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,741
- Points
- 1,110
I've also been wondering about a naval analogy for convoys. In a perfect world each convoy would have an integral escort while there would be other combat assets roaming about to either hit the bad guys first or come to the rescue.
In terms of mitigation, small and big packets have advantages and disadvantages. Big convoys allow you to focus your available escort resources, as well as the other bits like ISTAR coverage and QRF. If they are military personnel in the escorted vehicles you also have more people to fight the battle if it happens. They are also more lucrative targets, I suppose, and can become unwiedly.
Smaller packets are more agile and perhaps less of a lucrative target. They also make it harder to provide escorts, ISTAR support and QRF coverage. I think that the bad guys are happy to get one truck, so if we feel that we need to have escorts then perhaps bigger is better in terms of packets.
I conducted one major escort task in Kabul, namely the provision of armoured vehicles to the United Nations Security Council when they visited Kabul for several days. Having one big convoy made it much easier for us to focus our available assets, although it was rather large.
As an aside, the Coyote is very well suited to these types of operations (as is the LAV III I imagine). We also practiced integrating TUAVs into one road move to trial some procedures. Helos would also be excellent for these types of tasks to try and ferret out ambushes etc.
Cheers,
2B
p.s. Looking at the two posts since I started, having AFVs lead the packet at least give you a chance against some IEDs (command detonated will still be a threat to the soft-skins). I agree wholeheartedly on having aviation. A good ISTAR plan (incorporating everything from infantry patrols to OPs to UAVs etc) could also potentially catch some attackers before they set their ambush/IED. Cities and countries are pretty big, however, and it is hard to cover everything.
We should try to have our people in convoys behind some armour to at least mitigate the effects of RPGs and IEDs. Not always possible.
In terms of mitigation, small and big packets have advantages and disadvantages. Big convoys allow you to focus your available escort resources, as well as the other bits like ISTAR coverage and QRF. If they are military personnel in the escorted vehicles you also have more people to fight the battle if it happens. They are also more lucrative targets, I suppose, and can become unwiedly.
Smaller packets are more agile and perhaps less of a lucrative target. They also make it harder to provide escorts, ISTAR support and QRF coverage. I think that the bad guys are happy to get one truck, so if we feel that we need to have escorts then perhaps bigger is better in terms of packets.
I conducted one major escort task in Kabul, namely the provision of armoured vehicles to the United Nations Security Council when they visited Kabul for several days. Having one big convoy made it much easier for us to focus our available assets, although it was rather large.
As an aside, the Coyote is very well suited to these types of operations (as is the LAV III I imagine). We also practiced integrating TUAVs into one road move to trial some procedures. Helos would also be excellent for these types of tasks to try and ferret out ambushes etc.
Cheers,
2B
p.s. Looking at the two posts since I started, having AFVs lead the packet at least give you a chance against some IEDs (command detonated will still be a threat to the soft-skins). I agree wholeheartedly on having aviation. A good ISTAR plan (incorporating everything from infantry patrols to OPs to UAVs etc) could also potentially catch some attackers before they set their ambush/IED. Cities and countries are pretty big, however, and it is hard to cover everything.
We should try to have our people in convoys behind some armour to at least mitigate the effects of RPGs and IEDs. Not always possible.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 260
One of the US successes in Convoy Ops in Iraq has been the use of UAVs to scout out areas prior to the convoy moving through an area and also maintaining overwatch throughout the conduct of the convoy task. In lieu of helicopters UAVs can be armed somewhat as well.
On 2B point I believe for a little while that a large portion of Marines in Iraq were alomost retasked to provide security to military convoys with their LAVs, when the supply lines became to extended.
On 2B point I believe for a little while that a large portion of Marines in Iraq were alomost retasked to provide security to military convoys with their LAVs, when the supply lines became to extended.
- Reaction score
- 33
- Points
- 560
There is a bit of "what's old is new again" here. Truck convoys in the Viet Nam war (the American Phase 1965-73) were escorted by a strange collection of vehicles, ranging from M-113's and the occasional Helicopter gunship flying "top cover", to more suitable Cadillac Gage "Commando" series vehicles (a 4X4 light armoured vehicle often mounting a turret with one or more machine guns), to monstrosities built out of a five ton flatbed with armour plates, sandbags and multiple machinegun mounts (usually one in each corner of the cargo bed).
For any MPs reading this post, the "Commandos" were actually owned and operated by the MP branch, and this might actually be something to consider, truckers, mechanics etc. should concentrate on personal self defense and the MPs can provide the "armoured" escorts in most situations. This frees up the combat arms troops to do their own thing, which could include independent sweeps of the MSRs or lurking behind convoys as a QRF in case an ambush is sprung.
For any MPs reading this post, the "Commandos" were actually owned and operated by the MP branch, and this might actually be something to consider, truckers, mechanics etc. should concentrate on personal self defense and the MPs can provide the "armoured" escorts in most situations. This frees up the combat arms troops to do their own thing, which could include independent sweeps of the MSRs or lurking behind convoys as a QRF in case an ambush is sprung.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
IMHO this is an ideal, and very relevant task for our Army Res MPs to focus on, along with other ForcePro duties. Due to their non-status as Specially Appointed Persons, it seems to me that they have very little real value in law enforcement duties. Alot of the US ForcePro troops I saw in Afgh were MPs: I went out on a night HMMVW patrol with the MP Coy that was based in Bagram-they were as heavily gunned up as any Inf unit might be. We lack dedicated escort capability and Res MPs might be an ideal way to generate this. Of course, the Army does not really "own" the MP Branch and this might run us afoul of the CFPM who seems to have a fixation on law enforcement as opposed to combat tasks.
Cheers
Similar threads
