PDA

View Full Version : Current CQB MOUT and Demo



Juan Perez
28th October 2000, 02:02
With the recent increase of attention given towards Low Intensity Conflict (LIC) and Operations Other Than War (OOTW), the Army has placed more resources towards the Tactics, Techniques and Proceedures (TTPs) of both Basic and Advanced MOUT. However, I have found that despite the increase in training and fund allocation towards this end (to include the adoption of the M-4 and its FORCE-MOD system and the increased used of Simunition), the light infantry soldier has an inherent misunderstanding of the use and capabilities of demo charges towards this end.

Case in point: Despite numereous block of instructions geared towards the practical use of demo in MOUT (to include a MOUT specific demo range), some soldiers were caught rigging the M-81 fuse igniter directly to DETCORD just prior to initiating detonation of silhouette charges as opposed to utilizing MDI M14 time fuse, or the old M700 version (which seems to be more reliable... but that's another issue). It seems that currently the specialty of demolitions is left at the doorstep of the light combat engineer (Sapper). This seems almost natural since it is right up the engineer's alley. However, there seems to be a lack of willingness to accept the responsibility (on the light infantry soldier-leaders part) to truly take the TTPs of demo use to heart. The Ranger Regiment is an exception hence they don't receive direct support from "slice" units such as the Sappers and develop their own highly capable specialty demo teams in accordance with SH 21-76.

The problem is that the same Sapper that is used to breach into the objective (i.e., building, or mine/wire/booby-trapped obstacle), is expected to survive and make it to the individual structures and assist the light infantry in taking a foothold and securing the same. However, the survivability of the Sapper at the breach is somewhere at the 50% margin. Essentially, half of those demolition experts might not be there to "kick in the door" for the clearing team (or squad). I think the ARTEP battle drills (i.e. FM 7-8) need to include in-depth demo use in and therefore serve to inculcate infantry leadership to emphasize its use in CQB. Otherwise, the desire to follow "doctrine" to the letter will keep the soldiers' training locked in the Field Manual.

Looking at the difficulty that the Russians had in Chechnya, where it took nearly four years to secure one large city, it seems that all aspects of MOUT need to be studied a lot more closely than what seems to be the case.




[Edited by Juan Perez, Jr. on 11-09-2000 at 07:48 AM]

Jeff Cook
30th October 2000, 03:47
Juan,

As usual, you have given a great example of leadership not using standard troop-leading procedures.

Ultimately, it is a breakdown at the first-line leader level - the ones supervising the training and execution directly.

Jeff Cook
Wabujitsu

jerkyguy
3rd November 2000, 00:23
In order for a soldier to be proficient in a type of conflict,(although i'm not sure I've ever felt proficient when the bullets are flying), he must be comfortable with the material he is using. You can't expect a marine to drive a formula one race car after a day of instruction and still be alive at the end, the same applies to explosives and their many uses. Answer this right now! What is the difference between shock tubing and time fuze? Now try to pick the right one when the exercise umpire is setting arty simulators and screaming in your ear and the stress level has hit warp factor 4. Urban warfare is the dirtiest kind and takes months, not days to learn. Let the experts do the dirty work. their experience will make the difference between YOUR life or death

Staff sgt gary fresno
2 of the 10th
camp lejeune

Juan Perez
8th November 2000, 14:10
Sgt Fresno:

Your statement is true enough. It is true that demolitions training should be more than just a mere day of training. However, the "three block war" does not wait for the right PMOS to show up before it begins. My point is that if demolitions is covered, to an extent, in the FM 7-8, and the ARTEP versions, it would then become "habitual training" and not just "opportunity training." The key to performing complicated tasks under stress, as you know, is constant practice. Currently, the 10th Mountain Division (LI) is taking the initiative through its MLC4 (Mountain Leaders Close Combat Certification Course) by taking a new approach at CQB MOUT, in both its basic and advanced forms. As a result of efforts such as MLC4 great leaps and strides are being made in integrating specific demolitions training with MOUT skills. This has also affected the infantry's current TTPs for battle drill 6A. This is the kind of integration that needs to take place Army wide, at least with all the light forces.

Joseph Svinth
9th November 2000, 11:11
Long ago and far away, I was a 1371 Combat Engineer. We went one day to set up a demo shoot for 3/7 Marines. So there we were (all war stories must include this essential phrase), hacking away at TNT with our Kabars, and infantry were disappearing into the distance, terrified that when we blew up, we'd spray fine red mist all over them. We absolutely could not convince these guys that TNT is inert until you stick the blasting cap into the stuff. (Blasting caps, now, those are a different matter, and the LT kept those in a steel box.)

Anyway, a combat engineer's life expectancy is about the first obstacle. After that somebody else gets to pick up the Bangalore torpedo and the satchel charge, and make it to the second obstacle. So, just as the engineer really should cross-train on the M60 (as I recall, a Marine combat engineer platoon of the period didn't rate M60s, so we never carried the pig) and the radio (never saw one of those at my low level of life, either), the infantry really should train with common explosives. No, they don't need to know how to blow down trees with det cord or shoot rocks, but definitely they should have the confidence to cut a block of TNT in half or dump some fuel into the ammonium nitrate and knead, and then crimp a blasting cap (using aluminum crimpers rather than pliers or Lord forbid, their teeth) on some det cord, and then run a Western-Union pigtail to the John Wayne or the hellbox. This isn't rocket science. (If it were, they wouldn't trust engineers with it; you give an engineer a thousand pound steel ball, he'll break it or lose it.) But it is something people trying to clear a city who aren't too worried about collateral damage need to be familiar with.

This is especially true in Army units, as they historically do not travel with as many engineers as Marines. (A Marine division travels comparatively light on armor and trucks, but with three battalions of Marine engineers -- one heavy junk, one combat engineer, and one shore party -- PLUS a battalion of Seabees, well, their engineering capabilities are impressive.)