# Operations in Built-Up Areas (OBUA)



## marshmanguy

Does the CF have a MOUT course?  If we do, what's it called?  And what's it like?


----------



## Jarnhamar

FISH  course?

(Fighting In Someones House)


----------



## HollywoodHitman

I also hear there is an advanced FISH course in the works............ :dontpanic: :


----------



## Fusaki

> I also hear there is an advanced FISH course in the works............



The advanced course will expand on the predominantly indoors FISH course to include Dismounted Infantry Removal Through Yards AKA the DIRTY course. I hear that those selected for these courses will be doing exercises out on the economy to see what DIRTY FISH is like all around the Petawawa area...


----------



## MikeM

Dirty.. lol.


----------



## McG

marshmanguy said:
			
		

> Does the CF have a MOUT course?


Gotta love those US terms sneaking in.


----------



## chriscalow

marshmanguy said:
			
		

> Does the CF have a MOUT course?



Too much "full spectrum warrior?"


----------



## Infanteer

http://www.socnetcentral.com/vb/showthread.php?s=b5cc75ad1e6ab7e3effef6c350eb3255&threadid=41771

Good discussion of it here.  Sounds like the course is actually done quite well.


----------



## a_majoor

I remember early versions of DIRTY FISH in Pet. Targets and safe houses were reputedly marked with boxes of "cheer" in the windows...


----------



## KevinB

a_majoor    ;D - Naughty Naughty...


 MOUT is coming to use more and more in the CF as we go down south and use their facilities...


----------



## Ghost

LOL Full Spectrum Warrior

All that game taught me was to scream profanity at the top of my lungs and whip Xbox controllers at 90mph at my TV


----------



## 45B

In the CF we use FIBUA, for Fighting In Built-Up Area.


----------



## Fusaki

We call it OBUA now, not FIBUA. It stands for for Occupying Built Up Areas. Who knows why they changed it.


----------



## MJP

OBUA= Operations in Built-Up Areas


----------



## marshmanguy

What's it like?


----------



## Fusaki

> OBUA= Operations in Built-Up Areas



I stand corrected.


----------



## McG

The new accronym reflects that, in PSOs and a "thre block war", we will do more than just fight in built-up areas.


----------



## Jarnhamar

> marshmanguy:
> 
> What's it like?



OBUA in the CF reminds me of shopping at walmart.

All the buildings are basically laid out the same.
The minute you get inside the building you loose whoever you came in with.
The staff members seem to have different answers to your questions.
Your always bumping into people
Everyone seems to go in every direction at once.
You always find yourself in an area you just don't want to be (womens clothes/in the middle of the enemy)
You always end up having to carry around something big and heavy. (84mm/huge stupid table set)
You always run into someone you don't like and don't want to talk to


----------



## Argyll

Almost every CF base has at least a small site, thanks to the Argyll's many armouries will soon have indoor sites set up on the parade squares.  Furthermore, what the hell is FISH and who uses the term?


----------



## 48Highlander

Fighting in someones house.  Used as a joke.


----------



## Danjanou

Ghost778 said:
			
		

> marshmanguy:
> 
> What's it like?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OBUA in the CF reminds me of shopping at walmart.
> 
> All the buildings are basically laid out the same.
> The minute you get inside the building you loose whoever you came in with.
> The staff members seem to have different answers to your questions.
> Your always bumping into people
> Everyone seems to go in every direction at once.
> You always find yourself in an area you just don't want to be (womens clothes/in the middle of the enemy)
> You always end up having to carry around something big and heavy. (84mm/huge stupid table set)
> You always run into someone you don't like and don't want to talk to
Click to expand...


Ghost you owe me one large double double from Tims and you can now clean the keyboard that I spewed said beverage all over after reading your post and laughing.  8)

Thanks for making my day


----------



## jmackenzie_15

Of all of the tasks that an infantry soldier is faced with that I have experienced so far, or learned about from others, CQB, FIBUA/OBUA, is by far the most lethal by any stretch of the imagination.

My unit has been mostly training on this stuff steady for the last few months, culminating to an exercise down in the states with the army national guard (southbound trooper 5).Our unit had been tasked with putting together a platoon sized force to send down, and I was selected amongst the others.This past saturday were training in and old run down jail, while using paint rounds.Anyone else who has trained on this stuff recently knows what I am talking about.

Just an example, there was about a platoon of us (40 ish) with members of the pipe and drums band, and some recruits/SQ recruits comprising an enemy force of about 8-12 troops.We took 8 casualties in the first minute of the attack.It took about 20 minutes to clear the entire 2 story plus basement jailhouse, taking probobly close to almost 25 casualties in the process.

I am interested to hear what other infantry soldiers have to say on the subject, as I personally find that if you are near the brunt of the firefight, or engaged directly in it, your life expectancy is only seconds long if you're lucky.This doesnt include when you storm into a room and the first two guys are on the floor before the entire 4 man team is even in the room.


----------



## Yeoman

our only thing we all agreed on is just push as fast and as hard as you can. just keep going do not stop what so ever. while on course my section alone cleared the largest building in meaford from top to bottom from a ladder to the top window, with only two casualty (being me, hit at the same time as hitting the enemy force guy, man I dropped like a hawk my ear killed, and my 2IC while he was on the ladder) in under 10 minutes. just keep pushing, once the room is clear splash parts of a broken green glow stick (or red if there's booby traps) and just keep on moving. that's the way to get it done pretty much.
Greg


----------



## KevinB

I won't go into details on an open forum but IMHO you unit leadership and your skills are sadly lacking.

Using Sims shoudl also go hand in hand with DD's - this is perhaps the biggest failure of our command to leanr that we must train as we fight.   Doing precision house clearing should not be done the manner the majority of CF seems inclined to teach it.

The only way to learn is to have your chain dial the Hill and ask for help.


----------



## jmackenzie_15

I would be interested to see how each units drills differ from the nexts, and which ones are more successful.It seems like the 'correct' way to do something is changed quite often.

The first 5 or 6 guys we lost because of a tricky OPFOR guy on the floor above us, there was a hole in the floor just big enough to stick part of the barrell down and maneuver a bit... that plus automatic onto a bunch of guys' heads.

What I meant originally about the perils of CQB was, death can come from anywhere at any time.FIBUA/OBUA whatever its called now, has to be the most hazardous form of infantry combat  :-\


----------



## 48Highlander

DD's?   Designated Drivers? 

I don't think the "go go go" attitude accomplishes much in FIBUA except getting soldiers killed.   I saw a good example of that this summer.   The plan was crap from the start, and in the spirit of "max speed and agressions", 2 platoons got annhiliated in in the same small building within the first 15-20 minutes.   Watching it was like watching a group of lemmings jumping off a cliff, with the RSM standing at the edge and pushing the reluctant ones over.   You need a good plan, good communication, and enough flexibility to react fluidly to new intel.   When you're pushing the attack forward at top speed, there's no time for the front line units to send info back up the chain, have that info analyzed, and then fix the problems.   So what happens is exactly what occured in that attack.   The first unit goes in, gets slaughtered, and before they're even finished dying, the next unit's bashing in right into the same situation, without having any idea what happened to the unit in front of them.   And if they decide to pause for a minute, asses the situation, and try and send info back, they get the NEXT unit being shoved into the same building right on top of them.   Speed and agression is important, but without leaving enough time for thought and communication it's pointless.   It's like driving through a heavy fog at 160mph.   Sooner or later you're going to hit a wall.


----------



## KevinB

DD's - Distraction Devices - FlashBangs.

48th I agree there are times to go - and times to sit back and observe.
  
 Multiple Entry points are key and so are comms.


----------



## 48Highlander

KevinB said:
			
		

> DD's - Distraction Devices - FlashBangs.
> 
> 48th I agree there are times to go - and times to sit back and observe.
> 
> Multiple Entry points are key and so are comms.



Absolutely.  Unfortiunatly current CF doctrine (or it was last time I checked) is to only use ONE entry point, and the same point as the only exit.  Which is just bloody ridiculous.


----------



## jmackenzie_15

I played enemy force on the first run through with another guy against a 10 man section on our floor, it was incredibly easy to set up numerous ambushes at choke points (long hallways, dark stairways etc) pop off 10 or so rounds at the first couple of guys, and then withdraw to another pre-determined point.We managed to get 6 of the 10 guys before eventually getting screwed, we ran into a door that we thought would open and ended up didnt.

This was all made up on the fly pretty much too, i would hate to see what some enemy forces could do with some more numbers, traps, and plans.  :-\


----------



## Fusaki

> Absolutely.  Unfortunately current CF doctrine (or it was last time I checked) is to only use ONE entry point, and the same point as the only exit.  Which is just bloody ridiculous.



It was my understanding that the reason we only use one breach point is to give cut off teams a  better chance at mowing down a fleeing enemy. The idea is that you suppress a target house with machine gun fire, use a Carl G (or something similar) to blow a breach point in a second story wall, and then find a way to send troops through that hole to start clearing the building from the top down. I think the benefits of breaching through the upper levels of a building are worth mentioning here, despite the fact that I think most would consider them obvious. Its always been easier to fight downhill, the reason being that grenades go better with gravity and the geometry of the situation gives reduced exposure to the guy shooting down through a hole as opposed to up. The other reason is to give the enemy a way out of the building. If your opposition is cornered in the attic he'll fight to the death, but if he sees a chance to escape he might just try and withdraw through a ground level exit. This is where the single friendly breach point helps to maximize the effect of cut off teams.

This is, of course, the World War 3 scenario, and the most common one that my own unit trains for. Its also the least likely scenario we'd find ourselves in. I've heard mid level officers try and tell me its better to train for WW3 and tone it down for peacekeeping, as opposed to the other way around. That would be fine if we backed it up with enough "precision" training, but when the pressure is on, you don't rise to the occasion - you revert back to basics. If something doesn't change soon there's going to be some young private standing up in front of a court marshall who violated his ROE in the split second it took for his training to override his rational thinking.

Here's an idea I'd like to throw out here for comments: The most common way to get troops up to higher stories is using ladders, but that looks a little too suicidal IMHO. I've heard of using LAVs to drive up beside buildings, that way you can have a few guys riding on top of the vehicle to have a sturdy position from which to throw a frag in the breach point, and move through the hole in decent fighting fashion. You could then send reinforcements in through the ramp and up the bird gunner's hatch. This sounds viable (and safer then a ladder), but has anyone actually seen it done?



> Multiple Entry points are key and so are comms.



Regarding the multiple entry points, I totally agree - *IF* we had the training to go along with it. OBUA is complicated enough as it is, but to try and get fancy without a major shift in training policy is asking for disaster.


----------



## Britney Spears

I urge you all to read up on the Israeli solution to this, which has proven to be very, very effective: 

Don't use doors, or hallways, and don't move along the obvious routes that your enemy would expect you to use. 

Instead, every soldier is trained in the use of breaching charges. Instead of entering a building through a doorway and into certain death, blow a hole in the side. Instead of moving down fire swept streets, move <i>through</i> the buildings, when you come to a wall, just "make a hole".  

The IDF have, on numerous occasions, made large scale sweeps (i.e. day long fire fights) through densely built up areas (Nabulus, Jenin) with minimal casualties, using regular infantry well trained with these ( and judicious use of their D9 dozers)  simple techniques. Defending a building becomes a whole lot more difficult when the attack comes from every direction EXCEPT the doors and hallways. Unlike the FISH scenarios that we practice, with this approach the assualt team ALWAYS had the initiative.  

Of course, extensive use of breaching charges and such pyro is impossible given our training resources, so this would be a case where one hopes that we DON'T fight as we train.


----------



## Infanteer

I love it when you talk dirty, Britney....

I'll post the link again, because I think this is a very good resource to look at when considering approaches to OBUA:

http://www.socnetcentral.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=917&highlight=Urban+Combat


----------



## Glorified Ape

jmackenzie_15 said:
			
		

> Of all of the tasks that an infantry soldier is faced with that I have experienced so far, or learned about from others, CQB, FIBUA/OBUA, is by far the most lethal by any stretch of the imagination.
> 
> My unit has been mostly training on this stuff steady for the last few months, culminating to an exercise down in the states with the army national guard (southbound trooper 5).Our unit had been tasked with putting together a platoon sized force to send down, and I was selected amongst the others.This past saturday were training in and old run down jail, while using paint rounds.Anyone else who has trained on this stuff recently knows what I am talking about.
> 
> Just an example, there was about a platoon of us (40 ish) with members of the pipe and drums band, and some recruits/SQ recruits comprising an enemy force of about 8-12 troops.We took 8 casualties in the first minute of the attack.It took about 20 minutes to clear the entire 2 story plus basement jailhouse, taking probobly close to almost 25 casualties in the process.
> 
> I am interested to hear what other infantry soldiers have to say on the subject, as I personally find that if you are near the brunt of the firefight, or engaged directly in it, your life expectancy is only seconds long if you're lucky.This doesnt include when you storm into a room and the first two guys are on the floor before the entire 4 man team is even in the room.



My last platoon commander said the proper ratio for CQB/FIBUA was 10:1... I would imagine that would be difficult to muster though. 



			
				Britney Spears said:
			
		

> I urge you all to read up on the Israeli solution to this



I thought the whole "mouseholing" technique was used by alot of countries, from what I've read anyway. It just seems like common sense not to take the most obvious route.


----------



## Britney Spears

> I thought the whole "mouseholing" technique was used by alot of countries, from what I've read anyway. It just seems like common sense not to take the most obvious route.



The prevailence of modern "SWAT" techniques has, IMO, pushed some of these older lessons to the side. This is bad, since police methods were developed for very specific applications. That is, the cordoning off and assault of a single building. Concepts such as "stacking" outside a doorway or opening, while useful for SWAT teams, are not so useful for large, fluid Stalingrad or Falluija style battles. a police SWAT team outside a building generally doesn't have to worry about someone with an RPG popping up 100m down the street in another building and taking out the whole stack.


----------



## Ty

Britney Spears said:
			
		

> The prevailence of modern "SWAT" techniques has, IMO, pushed some of these older lessons to the side. This is bad, since police methods were developed for very specific applications. That is, the cordoning off and assault of a single building. Concepts such as "stacking" outside a doorway or opening, while useful for SWAT teams, are not so useful for large, fluid Stalingrad or Falluija style battles. a police SWAT team outside a building generally doesn't have to worry about someone with an RPG popping up 100m down the street in another building and taking out the whole stack.



To that I add that a SWAT unit also has to worry about non-combatants much more in their situation than an infantry unit operating in unfriendly BUA.  Has the old doctirine of using armour to breach buildings gone by the wayside?  Similar to a dozer, but can be used for gaurd duties in the streets shortly afterwards (to paraphrase a post form the armour section here, putting a tank in the streets is like putting a bouncer at the door)


----------



## JBP

Great idea, but having tanks or LAV's in a tight urban area can prove just as deadly without infantry support for the crew.

Example:


> a police SWAT team outside a building generally doesn't have to worry about someone with an RPG popping up 100m down the street in another building and taking out the whole stack.



But say this guy has 1-2 more buddies with him. A few well placed rounds into any MBT will do some damage. Especially if the bad guys know where to hit them... I think the most important thing in the "urban" scenarios is what some folks have touched on already, Situational Awareness, keeping your damn eyes open!!!

IMHO anyway, which is about .2 cents if that as a Pte(R)!!!


----------



## Ty

Pte (R) Joe said:
			
		

> Great idea, but having tanks or LAV's in a tight urban area can prove just as deadly without infantry support for the crew.



To be clear, I wasn't advocating the use of an armour-only approach ;D


----------



## Fraz

Indeed, Kevin B you've hit the nail on the head with that one... In our unit we have in limited terms used the techniques taught to us from the boys at the Hill, and yes to be effective the attacking force must be capable of utilizing combined arms (armour and infantry as well as engineers and mortars, not to mention air support if we had it) 
  As per the mention about the Israeli's tactics, those are nothing new, One needs only to remember Ortona in the Italian campaign back in 1943 where we... yes Canadian troops invented mouseholing, this is not a brand new idea, although it is a shame that we have forgotten the book that we ourselves wrote way back when... (note: recent OBUA ex's now have drywall and engineers to blow the windows to simulate mouseholing albeit in limited numbers but it has proven effective as those in OPFOR can attest to)
  For reservists in Ontario, I hope that you're units and leaders took some of the lessons learned at SG 04 in Pet (yes i was one of those bastards wearing the red duct tape) and can apply them so that the troops can fight effectively not as just mindless drones to end up being number 1 in the room aka bullet catcher... 
  I agree with all of you that more training is definitely needed but isn't that always the case???? In lieu of guarding lockers you bet that I'd love to be out there honing warfighting skills... Let us hope the recent appointment of LGen Hillier won't just be another attempt at window dressing and we will see real doctrinal refinement as well as procurement and committment


----------



## Glorified Ape

Does anyone know what proportion of combat training FIBUA composes? I would think (just going on vague impressions) that, given the increasing size and importance of urban areas, FIBUA's becoming more and more important... maybe even to the point where it should compose the majority of combat training (as opposed to more rural environments)? Is this so, or am I completely wrong? If so, is the increasing importance reflected in an increased focus on FIBUA training?


----------



## Fusaki

> Concepts such as "stacking" outside a doorway or opening, while useful for SWAT teams, are not so useful for large, fluid Stalingrad or Falluija style battles.



So whats the alternative?

In the initial breach, I can see using a Carl G to blow a hole from a distance then having troops sprint from cover into the hole. But, you'd NEED to make sure that EVERYONE inside that room is dead or else the enemy is going to start busting caps in the good guys as they trickle in one at a time. Depending on the distance that we'd need to sprint from cover to the breach, I can see an entire section getting killed before someone realizes that the enemy is still holding ground.

I can see your point about getting wasted by an RPG, but this is looking like a "Damned if you do, damned if you don't type situation".


----------



## rw4th

Nobody's mentioned it, but multiple points of entry is also very problematic for structures where the layout is not know (again the battles in Falluja are an example). The tactics used for precision DA attacks do not all port to extended urban battles. I think you can separate the tactics and training for urban operations into 3 different categories:

- FIBUA/CQB: the tactics used by the â Å“big armyâ ? for urban combat
- Advanced FIBUA/CQB: the tactics used by SOF type units for DA missions
- The stuff specialist units do: the tactics hostage rescue and other specialist units use

While the 3 levels have commonalities, some tactics do not port well across all 3 categories; e.g. using multiple entry points is good for a well-trained unit doing a precision DA raid with good intel on the target building, but can prove fatal for an infantry company fighting building to building in a foreign city.


----------



## jmackenzie_15

So far, what Ghostwalk said IMO sounds alot better than what we're doing.Assaulting a building from the roof or top level - down is harder to defend against, and the less educated/trained enemy would usually opt to just run out the seemingly safe front door only to be cut down by a c6.That idea right there cuts down on a few enemy troops that otherwise would have been firing at you from the top of a stairwell. 

I also agree that it is far easier to fight downhill than up.The training i was talking about that our unit did, many of our casualties came from being hit from above, be it a stairwell, a mousehole in the floor or something similar.The enemy also cannot use grenades as effectively having to throw them upstairs when they might just roll back down on top of them, and likewise, we could use grenades more effectively (if we were permitted to use them at all.)

Also, it seems safer to attack from the roof, as you dont have to worry /so much/ about the guy down the street with an RPG or whomever.You would also have a vantage point on any forces attacking you from outside the building.

That mouseholing idea sounds like it would also work alot better too..... I can see the official doctrine on OBUA being changed many many times in the future


----------



## Michael Dorosh

I'm all in favour of masking cities and leaving them to wither on the vine, myself...

Silly REMF.

Check out Dunkirk and many of the major French channel ports in WW II; they didn't surrender until May 1945...

I know, I know, how incredibly unhelpful of me...


----------



## a_majoor

Some observations:

Attacking from the top down is ideal in theory, but very hard in practice. Large helicopters will have difficulty landing on a roof, while small helicopters might only be able to deliver a single "brick" of four soldiers. Driving up in an AFV puts the vehicle in a bad spot, ladders expose the troops for a long time, even going from roof to roof might be problematic if the buildings are too far apart. This looks like a job for spider man!

AFVs are best used as "cut offs", since they are able to use their weapons and optics to cover down the length of a street. Using an AFV to breach a wall in "Stalingrad" fashion has the same limitations as using the AFV as a ladder. Use AFVs to divide the area into bite sized pieces. Anyone trying to cross the streets to escape or reinforce the position "gets it".

Multiple entry points are often discounted in training for the simple reason that control is lost right away. This is a risk assessment the local commander has to make.

High Explosive Dual Purpose (HEDP) 84mm is great for making a hole in a wall. Normal 84 or M-72 rounds will penetrate the wall and probably kill everyone inside with blast and overpressure, but there won't be a usable hole for you to go through.

Doors and windows can be booby trapped and covered, but this could be to your advantage: blast out the offending door or window with a large calibre round or charge. This will detonate the booby traps and possibly kill the defenders waiting for your arrival. Mouseholing is always better, though.

Combat inside buildings should be in "pulses" for lack of a better term. Hit a room, clear a room, secure a room, pause and pass on the situation to the next fire team or section, then they go into the next room.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo

Looking at AFVs in urban operations I think that we need to overcome our fear of deploying vehicles into these situations.   A built-up area does present many constraints but having AFVs available can make a big difference (in my opinion).   If tanks and APCs just motor into a city at full speed they will eventually get wiped out (Warsaw, Grozny), but if they are part of an infantry heavy combined arms force they can make a great contribution.

Tanks need protection in an urban environment but they certainly have a place.   The 105mm HESH round can make an excellent entry-point into a building (I've seen the results) and can give precise and timely fire support.   The problem, of course, is that you eventually end up wrecking the city this way...The MGS might be able to fill this role although I worry even more about RPGs.

I'm all for bypassing cities in a WW III scenario but in our current operations we may find ourselves having to fight for a particular part of a city even though we'd rather not.   

Cheers,

2B


----------



## Britney Spears

Ghostwalk:

I'm not discounting entirely the idea of stacking, it has its place just like anything else in an urban enviroment. Rather I was uing it to illustrate how over reliance on police tactics has caused us to forget some fundamentals of infantry combat which stay true regardless of the enviroment. i.e. Don't bunch up. You wouldn't want to bunch up in a section attack, nor on a fighting patrol, why would you do it while clearing a building? The Russians at Stalingrad never operated in groups of more than 2-4 men, blowing holes and fragging each room before entering it.  More were brought up as needed but the idea of gathering up a whole section outside each room to clear it is ludicrous, especially if the enemy has tanks. This was actually one of the weakneses of German tactics, whose troops were much better trained in operating as a section, but not in fireteams.

Just like a section attack, there isn't a perfect solution, but the Israeli idea of staying out of streets, doorways, and obvious routes of movement entirely as a doctrine does work. Piling 7 or 8 men through a narrow doorway, especially if its in a position exposed to fire from elsewhere, is stupid and dangerous.


----------



## westie47

We are in the midst of training for Urban Ops. There seems to have been a shift from all-out (high-intensity) fighting to this 3 block war concept. The question is: how do we train for all three blocks???? It's more common nowadays to enter a building and find everything from a family eating dinner in one room, to a guy with a rifle, making a bomb in the next.  Now you can't very well use frags in every room and go in spraying as per our old doctrine. Now it's more of a SWAT style entry, then determine the threat. We changed our drills from the old ones to new hostage rescue type of drills that a couple of us use in our normal jobs. We aslo finally got some MLP's from the recent Urban Ops Course, which were very similiar to our hostage-rescue drills.

The biggest problem I see with CQB-type of operations, is the IFF (Identify Friend or Foe) ability of our troops. We have all read/seen about the many American soldiers being charged for murder in Iraq!!!! Nobody wants to be that guy.

Thankfully the army is now, from what I understand, introducing DD-25's. We use them all of the time at work and they work awesome. The crap part is, they are in the system but we don't get them for training. It seems they are under the 'when you really need them you will get them' file!!!

I think the SWAT-style clearing techniques are the best.  If need be you can always escalate to frags. Using these techniques forces the troops to think and make snap decisions more so than if they just threw a frag in and went in firing. 

Does anyone agree?


----------



## a_majoor

Sorry, I'm with Britney on this one.


----------



## Michael Dorosh

westie47 said:
			
		

> The question is: how do we train for all three blocks????



The answer is: One block at a time.


----------



## Britney Spears

Westie47:

Noone's disagreeing with you, I was merely pointing out that police tactics are for police situations, and we often do face them. When buddy on the second floor decides to roll a grenade into your stack, you should probably stop stacking and bring out the RPOs. 

I've been on too many FISHing trips where the plan was something like "Okay, C6 overwatch will riddle all the windows and shoot anything that moves, and then 1 section will stack up on this door here....."  :

Anyone catch a glimpse of the American "storming" of the hideout of Uday and Qusay?  They brought in all their Delta, Seals, and the whole skateboard crew, tried to go in, took fire, pulled back, and then "cleared" each room with a TOW missile followed by a few bursts from the .50. 

It would be great if we could train for every kind of situation, but in the mean time we have to make a choice. 

Actual footage of the operation. Note the fancy helmets and webbing some of the characters in the front are sporting.
<img src=http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v505/Allen710/UdayQusaykilled_sizedown.jpg>
"Room clear.... no wait, I think there's still some movement..... fire another one in there......"


----------



## bossi

Fraz said:
			
		

> ... As per the mention about the Israeli's tactics, those are nothing new, One needs only to remember Ortona in the Italian campaign back in 1943 ...



Thanks for mentioning that (i.e. the Israelis may have practised it, but they certainly didn't invent it ...)

Trivia:  The Canadian Army Review thing-a-ma-bob (or whatever it's called) had an amusing anecdote - Cdn troops in the Netherlands were more successful when they simply knocked on doors and asked if there were any Germans there ... (chuckle) ... ah, for the simpler days of yore ...


----------



## a_majoor

Three block fighting needs to be very deliberate: 





> Combat inside buildings should be in "pulses" for lack of a better term. Hit a room, clear a room, secure a room, pause and pass on the situation to the next fire team or section, then they go into the next room.



This certainly allows the situation to be developed, without having too many people in one place should something go wrong (Family eating dinner turns out to be terrorist cell). The primary mistake is bunching up either in doors, or clustering behind AFVs expecting them to be mobile ballistic shields. This sort of thing attracts the wrong sort of attention; either a machinegun burst or an RPG (or maybe a remote IED).

The real issue is higher level tactics, or even the operational art. Stalingrad or Ortona style battles consume men and resources on huge scales, and give the initiative to the defender, since the attacker is basicly stuck in the city until it is cleared. Various methods of manoeuvrist fighting can be tried in Urban Ops, with screening the city being one extreme case. More sensible ideas would include "thunder runs" to rapidly insert forces, dominate areas and cut the city into bite sized pieces, very high levels of surveillance with Coyotes, UAVs, recce patrols, sniper dets etc. to pinpoint the enemy as best as you can, and agressive use of PSYWAR, CIMIC and HUMINT to separate the locals from the enemy, or better still, turn them against the enemy. Once the enemy is located, going in and getting them is fairly straightforward....


----------



## KevinB

I am with Westie on this.

Obviosuly we need both training - but just cause soemone in the house is hostile does not give us the right to level it.   Multiple Entry points keep the En off balance and allow you to enter and clear the straucture in a quicker manner of time.

 Unknown Layout -- Well unless your clearing a CF FIBUA house you lilkely dont have a good grip of the layout - that is why DD;s are good - you can "eat" one an dlive to joke about it - as out our drills and comms.

 Even in Iraq not ever house is "burned to the ground"   We practice precision house clearing.   SFOD and JTF do SURGICAL missions.   


Slow is Smooth and Smooth is Fast 

- In Door turn right!   

Seriosuly any of the areas where we have conducted recent ops - back as far as Somalia the typical threat area was limited personnel inside a house with non combatants.
   Now I must have missed it in my ROE's where I can cook down a family simply cause some asshoe took over their home to use as an ambush site?

Will their we some times when settign fire to the structure is viabke - you bet - but train for the most demanding eventds - then you can dumb it down.


----------



## westie47

The point I was trying to make was it's hard to train for every scenario.   Personally, I would rather move from the top down, mouseholing all the way. It causes a lot of damage but more of your guys are going home.   If you train for high-intensity, it will be easier to transition down than it would be to transition up.   Just like peacekeeping.   However, when you have to search buildings rapidly as in cordon and search ops, there has to be a different approach.   So I guess the question is: What do we train for? 

Michael said, "one block at a time.." So in our case, we got around 4 days to give our troops 8 weeks worth of CQB training. We went with the low-medium intensity approach.

Maybe the way to do it is to have specially trained troops to do rapid room clearing (JTF), or one platoon out of a rifle company that focuses on CQB while the other two platoons focus on high-intensity operations.

I fear this will be a topic that will garner much debate.....some "experts" say we will never fight another Stalingrad, Ortona, Caen, etc so why train for it.   Then Fallujah happened. That being said, the Marines didn't flatten every house either!So where does that leave us? I guess that will leave us debating further!!!!


----------



## Michael Dorosh

westie47 said:
			
		

> The point I was trying to make was it's hard to train for every scenario.  Personally, I would rather move from the top down, mouseholing all the way. It causes a lot of damage but more of your guys are going home.  If you train for high-intensity, it will be easier to transition down than it would be to transition up.  Just like peacekeeping.  However, when you have to search buildings rapidly as in cordon and search ops, there has to be a different approach.  So I guess the question is: What do we train for?
> 
> Michael said, "one block at a time.." So in our case, we got around 4 days to give our troops 8 weeks worth of CQB training. We went with the low-medium intensity approach.
> 
> Maybe the way to do it is to have specially trained troops to do rapid room clearing (JTF), or one platoon out of a rifle company that focuses on CQB while the other two platoons focus on high-intensity operations.
> 
> I fear this will be a topic that will garner much debate.....some "experts" say we will never fight another Stalingrad, Ortona, Caen, etc so why train for it.  Then Fallujah happened. That being said, the Marines didn't flatten every house either!So where does that leave us? I guess that will leave us debating further!!!!



Oh, we always train for one or two wars past, though, don't we?  Training to fight Falujah again will only guarantee that you will never actually use that training.  Isn't that one of Murphy's laws or somefink?


----------



## Fusaki

IMO, precision house clearing is the toughest form of OBUA that a regular infantry unit can be expected to undertake. I also believe that given our current political atmosphere, its the most likely situation we'd find ourselves in.

But if we're going to adopt a "Precision Oriented" attitude for the better part of our OBUA training, we'd better go all out or none at all. If you want to move past Ortona and embrace the more delicate nature of a Peace Support Operation, there needs to be a major shift in training policy. The troops need to spend at least as much time at the FIBUA site as we do in regular field training. We need tables, chairs, smashed cars, and all sorts of other junk in the buildings themselves. We need an enemy force that acts less like Herman the German and more like the bomb maker with his wife and kids in the next room. A half assed attempt at playing JTF will just get Canadians killed overseas. 

What we need is a clear standard for the kinds of ops infanteers should be capable of, and if it is decided that we should be capable of precision strikes, it should be understood that the more complicated nature of it will require much more training. Trying to use multiple entry points and limiting the use of mouseholes is not something that you can pick up in a few days. It will require time, money, and a consistant and focused effort.


----------



## Eric

Saw something interesting about IDF MOUT/FIBUA tactics.  Anybody know of a reference online?  
Appreciate the help.


----------



## Spr.Earl

As to FIBUA training,we are taught to fight against a formally trained Army in the defence.
But as of late our training due too the present enemy negates our present training and doctrine.

So what does the poor old infantry man have to deal with now?
Adapt and over come?
Yes that is what we have done for years with no money or the high tech goochie stuff the Yanks have.

It's a tuff call.


----------



## Eric

Appreciate the reply.  I saw a mention in one of the above posts about Israeli MOUT/FIBUA tactics; if anyone happens to know an onliine reference, I'd love to see it.  We tried a variation of the Brit's N. Ireland 4-man "bricks" in the desert while in urban areas and it worked nicely in certain situations.  

If anyone has any ideas, tactics or references to operations in "permissive" (not actively shooting at you) and "non-permissive" (shooting at you with COB's present, or confirmed HVT) SASO urban environments...Canadian or otherwise...it would be a big help. 

BTW, the "gucci" equipment is nice...some of it real nice...but more important in my mind is the ability of that 19-year old rifleman to ID and decide to shoot/no-shoot in a split second...


----------



## thimot

there is a fibua/obua site in gagetown called the --->ostere<---- "not idea how to spell it" village, and it has nothing on the american mout sites i've been too


----------



## McG

That site is actually a CFSME training facility.  It serves many purposes from developing tradesmen to boobytrap training, fortification/reinforcing trainining, and FIBUA for the Cbt Engrs.


----------



## Daniel San

As mentionned previously, the Israeli have had some experience with tackling urban warfare. With some success. For example:

 camera tripods for snipers 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




http://www.isayeret.com/gear/tripod/378.jpg

Door breaching grenades, fired from the rifle with a long detonator rod so the grenade explodes without hitting the door, simply blasting it open. (good for CT, hostage rescue. maybe not for full intensity urban warfare)




http://www.isayeret.com/gear/simon/rimon-main.gif

Wall-breaching ammo, using the same mechanism to blow a man-hole in a brick wall.




http://www.isayeret.com/gear/wallbuster/wall-3.jpg

Portable ceramic shields: two man-portable level 3 ceramic plates for added ballistic protection with cut-out half-circles to allow protected firing (better than a gyproc wall   ;D)




http://www.isayeret.com/units/civi/images/civi-122.jpg

Remote operated weapons (this kind of gear was used during the siege of the Church of nativity in Bethleem, they mounted a remote operated sniper rifle on a crane boom to observe and take out hostiles)




http://www.isayeret.com/gear/trap/trap1.jpg




http://www.isayeret.com/gear/trap/217.jpg

Some neat ideas too:
The Israeli special forces paint two white lines below their rifles receiver or attach white velcro loops around the barrel for fast identification in intense CQB.

Personal Infra-red LED for night combat and identification both from ground and air forces. (The infra-red light can only be seen with night-vision equipment)

Using dogs for room clearing, very effective in any situation (YOU don't get shot).

Bulldozers for perimeter breaching and destroying buildings when no friendly is left inside, a lot more safe than thorough room clearing: the enemy is simply buried (a tank can also be used as shown recently by the russians in Chechnya)

And now for a Great Canadian Idea (not mine, took it from the Simon Fraser U. website)

Instead of sending the old cats to the scrap (ie Leopards), why not recycle them into urban ops vehicles. Wouldn't cost much, and you don't need as many tanks. So if you keep, say, 40 tanks running you can cannibalize the others for spare pieces, etc. Ok, here are the proposed modifications:
- Dozer blade, for obstacle "removing"
- Changing the 105mm for a 120 mm mortar (shorter barrel = more manoeuvrable, 120 = more firepower for mouseholes)
- Add a 40mm external automatic grenade launcher (When 120 mm is a wee bit too much...)
- 2 remote operated .50 machine guns on the turret (firepower without exposure)
- Add-on slat armour - a fence against rpg or any hollow ammo placed over existing armour some 50cm from it all around the tank (cheap, easy to replace protection)

There you go, a fine urban warfare weapon system only a few modifications away... 





http://www.sfu.ca/casr/fisher7-2.jpg

BTW tracks are much better than tires in UO, think about doing a 360 turn in a LAV!!!


----------



## SprCForr

Just buy a couple used of M-728's and weld on bars. It's approx the same thing, but with a bigger gun.


----------



## Daniel San

Please forgive me stating my complete reference. The Leopard mods is an idea by Matt Fisher posted on a Simon Fraser U. website.

Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's.

As for using a bigger gun (165mm), it sure would be better (since the M-728's barrel is short) however it would be cost efficient (and politicians love that) to "recycle" the leopards since it has no role in the proposed weapons system (Stryker, adats, TUA) instead of purchasing phased out tanks.


----------

