# US Troops To Attack An Ambush (now a discussion on CDN ambush tactics)



## tomahawk6 (6 Apr 2006)

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htarm/articles/20060406.aspx

This is a welcome change from my standpoint. Aggressive troops tend to be alot safer in combat and make the enemy pay a price for the ambush. It has long been US Army doctrine to assault an ambush, so why not follow the same practice with a convoy ?


----------



## GO!!! (6 Apr 2006)

I am having a hard time finding a downside to this proposition - if the ambushers were guaranteed a counter - attack simply by firing a round, they might be less likely to do it in the first place - and even if it does not impact their willingness, the sheer attrition factor of losing men with every attack will definitely factor in over the long term.


----------



## KevinB (6 Apr 2006)

basicload over on Lightfighter said about the same as GO!!! last year --- 

The only way to deter the enemy is to kill them -- driving away once engaged only guarantees future attacks.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (7 Apr 2006)

It's part of the emerging Canadian convoy ops doctrine too...wait out, MTF.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (7 Apr 2006)

Teddy please tell me this is going to be issued out CF wide.  Last BTE/Sat 2 we did we were using info from a hodge podge of sources and nothing was firm.


----------



## couchcommander (7 Apr 2006)

Well it's comforting to know I wasn't the only one thinking the previous doctrine was strange. 

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/40408/post-343164.html#msg343164


----------



## plattypuss (7 Apr 2006)

Attached hopefully is the link to the Director General Land Capability Development site where the Convoy Escort - TTPs can be found.  Mind you the focus is on the Convoy Escort.  The only downside that I can see is that eventually - the ambushers will change their tactics to counter the counter attacks.  If they know that the convoy will fight back they may (if within their capability) create more elaborate ambushes waiting for the convoy to dismount and then hitting them with another IED, mine or claymore.  However if the Convoys don't always react the same way (ie drive away, fightback) then that should help keep the ambushers off balance.  The site was accessed via my DIN account. On this site you will also see some US counter IED doctrine.

 http://lfdts.army.mil.ca/dglcd/main.asp?lng=e


----------



## George Wallace (7 Apr 2006)

plattypuss

Your link is not working outside of your system/network.  

If one remembers how one was taught to set up ambushes, they would remember that to set up a well planned ambush, it will be set up so that no one comes out alive.  If it is just a hasty ambush or a delaying tactic, the ambushers will probably be fleeing as soon as they set it off.  So many scenarios could be played out, that although we may develop a set of Drills, it will all boil down to the initiative taken by the Commander on the Ground as to what the "Anti-ambush" steps (s)he will take.  

We have to remember the old addage "Max Flex" when we start talking Tactics.  The only 'Right Way' is the way that gets you out alive, and the other guy dead, and that will never ever be able to be duplicated as each scenario will require different actions to be taken.  Our "Drills" will only give us the 'guidelines' and basic instincts and responses to given situations.  Hopefully they will be enough to give us the advantage.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (7 Apr 2006)

> Teddy please tell me this is going to be issued out CF wide.  Last BTE/Sat 2 we did we were using info from a hodge podge of sources and nothing was firm.



Convoy escort doctrine development is largely in the hands of the Armour School, as Plattypuss can undoubtedly tell you.  When I was briefed on the new doctrine in Nov 05, it was still under review and had been updated with both US and UK experiences in mind.  There was some jaw dropping amongst the CSS types when they were told the convoy might be expected to dismount, RV, and assault the ambush...(tactical situation dependent, of course).  

I almost intruded into the Tac Vest debate to point this out, then thought better...  

Details, although unclassified, should probably be left on the DIN IMHO.


----------



## MG34 (7 Apr 2006)

The Canadian doctrine has always been to fight through an ambush,mounted or not.The fact that the CSS types have chosen to ignore this for years has finally come back to bite them in the ass (about time too). The security element's job was always to bring the fight to the enemy,not to run away. The proposed TTPs and doctrine is nothing new (at least in the Inf world). In our current work up training the default setting is always attack,except under certain conditions.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (7 Apr 2006)

> The Canadian doctrine has always been to fight through an ambush,mounted or not.The fact that the CSS types have chosen to ignore this for years has finally come back to bite them in the *** (about time too).



I don't mean to get into a debate on tactics here, as they're usually simply the opinion of whoever's running the show, but I should clear something up.  The previous SOP was - generally - for high value assets (ie: CSS) to pull out of the ambush and high-tail it to safety, leaving the escort to sort the ambush out (which also depends on the type of escort being conducted, but that's another story).  Unfortunately, this was leading (in the Iraqi theatre) to a _second_ ambush against the convoy after the escorts were engaged - with the result that CSS has suffered disproportionately high casualties there (I was told, _but cannot confirm_, that 60% of casualties in the Iraqi theatre were CSS/convoy escorts - FWIW).

Not dismounting and instead departing the scene has to be an option, particularly for heavy support C/S.  You wouldn't want (for instance) an HL full of ammo or a 10000L POL truck sitting there in the middle of the fraywhile the crew dismounts and fights through the objective.  Every situation is different.  Infantry might be able to call "ambush right, charge!" every time, but this doesn't always work for other types of units.


----------



## a23trucker (8 Apr 2006)

Teddy Ruxpin said:
			
		

> I don't mean to get into a debate on tactics here, as they're usually simply the opinion of whoever's running the show, but I should clear something up.  The previous SOP was - generally - for high value assets (ie: CSS) to pull out of the ambush and high-tail it to safety, leaving the escort to sort the ambush out (which also depends on the type of escort being conducted, but that's another story).  Unfortunately, this was leading (in the Iraqi theatre) to a _second_ ambush against the convoy after the escorts were engaged - with the result that CSS has suffered disproportionately high casualties there (I was told, _but cannot confirm_, that 60% of casualties in the Iraqi theatre were CSS/convoy escorts - FWIW).
> 
> Not dismounting and instead departing the scene has to be an option, particularly for heavy support C/S.  You wouldn't want (for instance) an HL full of ammo or a 10000L POL truck sitting there in the middle of the fraywhile the crew dismounts and fights through the objective.  Every situation is different.  Infantry might be able to call "ambush right, charge!" every time, but this doesn't always work for other types of units.



Correct; You must remember that the CSS convoy's mission is to deliver the load, not to destroy the EN. Please remember that we are not always escorted. We (the CSS) do train to dismount & attack, it always has been and will continue to be; if the circumstances deem that course action necessary. The decision sequence and the tactics used are part of the emerging TTPs.

Cheers
AM


----------



## Centurian1985 (8 Apr 2006)

Despite the doctrine stating you should fight through an ambush (to avoid secondary traps at head and rear of the column), the ROE (rules of engagement for those new to the CF) did not allow this to happen.  CF members were expressly forbidden to open fire unless a target was sited, thus eliminating the ability to place covering fire which is essential for fire and movement. The former ROE also expressly forbid firing ANY rounds without giving a verbal warning first, something very difficult (and suicidal) to do in the middle of an ambush).  Any contravention of these rules (drawn up by some brilliant legal minds   at NDHQ who had never heard a shot fired in ager before, but merely ewanted to ensure that no CF soldier could kill a non-combatant by mistake) left a soldier vulnerable to being prosecuted for a charge of wrongful death.

The fact that this also eliminated the ability to shoot a combatant seemed to have slipped their mind...thus the concept of the drive-thru ambush response (I'll take 40 bullet holes, a leg wound, three shattered windows and some grenade fragments...TO GO!!)   

Admittedly, this is still the best tactic for vehicles lacking armour and firepower and no support force (which you do not see in Kandahar, but still see in Kabul).  Glad to hear that more realistic tactics are being introduced. This definately supports the concept of "Train like you fight, fight like you train!", and will also suprise the heck out of insurgents who expect us to still run away.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (8 Apr 2006)

> Despite the doctrine stating you should fight through an ambush (to avoid secondary traps at head and rear of the column), the ROE (rules of engagement for those new to the CF) did not allow this to happen.  CF members were expressly forbidden to open fire unless a target was sited, thus eliminating the ability to place covering fire which is essential for fire and movement. The former ROE also expressly forbid firing ANY rounds without giving a verbal warning first, something very difficult (and suicidal) to do in the middle of an ambush).  Any contravention of these rules (drawn up by some brilliant legal minds   at NDHQ who had never heard a shot fired in ager before, but merely ewanted to ensure that no CF soldier could kill a non-combatant by mistake) left a soldier vulnerable to being prosecuted for a charge of wrongful death.



I assume you're talking "back in the day" (UN - Balkans); this is certainly not true now.


----------



## pbi (10 Apr 2006)

Centurian1985 said:
			
		

> Despite the doctrine stating you should fight through an ambush (to avoid secondary traps at head and rear of the column), the ROE (rules of engagement for those new to the CF) did not allow this to happen.  CF members were expressly forbidden to open fire unless a target was sited, thus eliminating the ability to place covering fire which is essential for fire and movement. The former ROE also expressly forbid firing ANY rounds without giving a verbal warning first, something very difficult (and suicidal) to do in the middle of an ambush).  Any contravention of these rules (drawn up by some brilliant legal minds   at NDHQ who had never heard a shot fired in ager before, but merely ewanted to ensure that no CF soldier could kill a non-combatant by mistake) left a soldier vulnerable to being prosecuted for a charge of wrongful death.



Centurian: what ROE are these? I was in Croatia in 94 and these were most definitely NOT the ROE we worked under for OP HARMONY. We did NOT need to wait to be fired on, we could use the appropriate weapon systems and types of fire for the situation, and there was NO requirement for any warning shots if delay in opening fire would endanger lives of CF personnel. The limitation on the type of fire we used was that it was to be "proportionate". This could include automatic fire (incl GPMG and HMG) as required. Soldiers did not necessarily need to make a 100% positve identification of the target: one of my patrols was shot at in the dark from close range, and immediately returned fire at the direction of  the hostle muzzle flashes. This action was duly reported to Bn HQ , and discussed at the next  morning's  Bn "prayers". No problems: troops did as they were trained and expected to do. And, once UNPROFOR was replaced by IFOR, the ROE were even more "robust".

Cheers


----------



## Centurian1985 (10 Apr 2006)

Hey Im just telling you what the official rules were that the big boys were making up while you were risking your ass in a hot zone.  Straight from the SG office.  If you didnt have to operate under them, then you were lucky!  Fortunately, although 'ignorance of the law is no excuse', the argument is countered by 'I'm following my CO's orders' so he gets to wear the hot pants instead of you. Cant give you an effective date, as that would cross the line between discussion and opsec, but this definition is not as old as you think!


----------



## a_majoor (10 Apr 2006)

Make sure all your troops read this to reinforce the need for proper drills, preparation and rehearsals before clearing the gate:

http://www.army.mil/features/507thMaintCmpy/AttackOnThe507MaintCmpy.pdf

Even when the situation is irredeemably f****d up, the ability of the troops to fight back effectively would have salvaged something from that disaster.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (10 Apr 2006)

Centurian1985 said:
			
		

> Hey Im just telling you what the official rules were that the big boys were making up while you were risking your *** in a hot zone.  Straight from the SG office.  If you didnt have to operate under them, then you were lucky!  Fortunately, although 'ignorance of the law is no excuse', the argument is countered by 'I'm following my CO's orders' so he gets to wear the hot pants instead of you. Cant give you an effective date, as that would cross the line between discussion and opsec, but this definition is not as old as you think!



Well, your comments must be on a situation older than ten years, as they certainly don't reflect the ROE we operated under in SFOR.  I was the TFBH point man for ROE a few years ago; in Bosnia under NATO, they were very robust, had surprisingly limited restrictions and contained nothing that would have restricted a very "positive" response to any ambush scenario.  ROE are issued by the CDS and cannot be altered locally - they're orders.  The "official" rules are issued to each and every soldier.



> Admittedly, this is still the best tactic for vehicles lacking armour and firepower and no support force (which you do not see in Kandahar, but still see in Kabul).



As for your previous comment (above) comparing Kandahar and Kabul - you don't know what you're talking about.


----------



## pbi (10 Apr 2006)

Centurian1985 said:
			
		

> Hey Im just telling you what the official rules were that the big boys were making up while you were risking your *** in a hot zone.  Straight from the SG office.  If you didnt have to operate under them, then you were lucky!  Fortunately, although 'ignorance of the law is no excuse', the argument is countered by 'I'm following my CO's orders' so he gets to wear the hot pants instead of you. Cant give you an effective date, as that would cross the line between discussion and opsec, but this definition is not as old as you think!



Centurian: We operated under ROEs issued by the CDS, like all CF missions. These ROE have to be reviewed by the JAG before issue. The CDS is the "biggest boy" in uniform, so we follow them as issued "luck" doesn't have much to do with it. Neither does the "ignorance of the law" excuse, which isn't applicable on a mission anyway, because everybody goes through ROE training. If the mission you are talking about is expired, then I can't see an OPSEC issue in identifying it. Are you sure you're not talking about the ROE for OP SALON (Oka)?

Cheers


----------



## Centurian1985 (12 Apr 2006)

I was also in SFOR, after 9/11 and guess what, those WERE the ROE.  I should know since I had to sit through both Level I and level II of that training.  They even included a training film depicting army soldiers on what you could and could not do as a sentry. Again, if you THINK you werent operating under this rule in SFOR, you were lucky.  And guess what, this WAS signed off by the CDS, that why we got given the briefing.  

Anybody who wants to call BS on this can PM me and give me his phone number and I can give you time, date, place, name of presenter, and responses to the audience questions on how inappropriate the ROE was to deployed operations.


----------



## pbi (12 Apr 2006)

Centurian:  I was on OP HARMONY, not SFOR.  Although I didn't serve on SFOR, like Teddy I'm still very surprised to hear your description of the ROE, particularly on a NATO mission. You can e-mail me at:

banks@cfc.dnd.ca or call me at (416) 482-6800 Ext 6639.

Since the old SFOR mission is long over, we can probably discuss the ROE without harming anybody.

Cheers


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (12 Apr 2006)

Centurian1985 said:
			
		

> I was also in SFOR, after 9/11 and guess what, those WERE the ROE.  I should know since I had to sit through both Level I and level II of that training.  They even included a training film depicting army soldiers on what you could and could not do as a sentry. Again, if you THINK you werent operating under this rule in SFOR, you were lucky.  And guess what, this WAS signed off by the CDS, that why we got given the briefing.
> 
> Anybody who wants to call BS on this can PM me and give me his phone number and I can give you time, date, place, name of presenter, and responses to the audience questions on how inappropriate the ROE was to deployed operations.



OK, I am calling BS - publicly - since you seem to think that PBI and I are delusional.  I will state this again:  I was the TFBH OPI for ROE during my Roto 7 tour as the Task Force G3 - *SFOR*.  As such, I delivered over 100 ROE briefings personally - in the exact theatre you're quoting, not long before you were there.  I drafted the initial ROEREQ and had the friggin cards printed up before we deployed (as I did for APOLLO, but that's not germaine to this discussion).  Personally, I don't care what you think you were told during your ROE training (Level 1?  Level 2? Explain, please.).  Duties of a sentry are far, far different than reacting to an ambush...  A sentry - for lo these many years - has been required to use formal challenge procedure unless directly engaged.  Reacting to an ambush, taking fire - totally different - and there was nothing in the SFOR ROE that prevented a lethal "positive" response, as long as that response was proportional to the threat.  Ever hear of self-defence?

I don't say this often, but you're so far out of your lane that it isn't funny and I'm on the verge of becoming impolite, which isn't in my gentle nature... ;D

TR, out.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (12 Apr 2006)

Gentalmen please, go to the PM's and sort it out then come back with your answers.


----------



## Kirkhill (12 Apr 2006)

I think CFL has a point here.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (12 Apr 2006)

Bah, I've said my piece and am not defending my position further - via PM or otherwise.  There's nothing to "sort out" as far as I'm concerned.  Then again, it just may be one of my many "illusions".


----------



## Edward Campbell (12 Apr 2006)

It has been a highly informative debate; thanks to all, especially pbi and TR for bringing us up to speed.


----------



## Kat Stevens (12 Apr 2006)

Nice de-fusing job, Edward.....you should be on the bomb squad


----------



## pbi (12 Apr 2006)

All: Centurian and I had a chat on the phone this afternoon. While I explained my skepticism and that of other members here, I have to say that I do believe he actually received the ROE briefing he described. My guess (which I explained to him) is that the ROE he got were either time-limited (so others serving in SFOR at different times would not have had them) or were for a very specific location/task. He explained that to the best of his knowledge there had been intervention from outside DND that caused the restricted ROE to be implemented. I still find it strange (and Centurian knows that I do) but I do not believe he is trying to mislead anybody.

Cheers


----------



## Kat Stevens (12 Apr 2006)

FWIW, We in 12 Fd Sqn as part of IIVP Bn Gp for Roto whateverthehellnumberitwas in'97, got an ROE briefing.  It went something like this: "  If you shoot anyone at any time for any reason other than to defend against an immediate threat to your life, will be sharing a cell with Kyle Brown." We got the distinct feeling that we were going to be hung out to dry if we so much as rooster-ed our weapons outside the confines of the ranges.  Did not provide us with a warm fuzzy, that's for sure.


----------



## Centurian1985 (12 Apr 2006)

I was happy to have the discussion with PBI, and appreciate that he posted his opinion of our discussion.

My intention was to inform others of what I had been taught, and, according to the source, was at that time being implemented for all overseas deployments.  However, they have obviously been superceded by more realistic guidelines in deployed operations engaged in combat situations. My point was that *I * had to operate in unfriendly environments with these restrictive ROE, which also impacted other missions at that time. To sum up, no need to keep arguing on this now moot point, lets get back to the previous thread... :warstory:


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (12 Apr 2006)

That's the impression I got pbi.


----------



## Edward Campbell (12 Apr 2006)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Nice de-fusing job, Edward.....you should be on the bomb squad



It wasn't my intention to defuse anything.

One of the great strengths of Army.ca is that it brings people with real, up-to-the-minute knowledge together to discuss, debate and explain and, simultaneously, it allows old retired folks like me and young people trying to learn about the military to _listen in_ and learn.

ROEs have come a long, long way since I joined, going on 50 years ago.    It is fascinating and instructive to learn about the evolution since I retired.

Thanks again, fellows.


----------



## Gunner (12 Apr 2006)

I'm with Teddy on the ROE issue (at least for Roto's 6-8) and Roto 11 and 12.  I don't recall a large difference from what we used on Roto 7 (or for Op APOLLO for that matter..).  My opinion, over the last 10 years, CA ROE have been quite robust and if you need to use force, you were authorized to do so.  

Carpet bombing and divisional fire missions remained questionable but the local commander on the ground made the call  ...

What we may have is a case of improper training, understanding and implementation.



> "If you shoot anyone at any time for any reason other than to defend against an immediate threat to your life, will be sharing a cell with Kyle Brown."



Kat, I hope that was said by someone right out of er.  Hopefully we can talk next weekend in Edmonton....

Cheers


----------



## 3rd Horseman (12 Apr 2006)

In my 21 years in the army I never was taught nor did I teach when in the position to do anything other than attack the ambush. I wonder were all this talk about running away comes from I never heard it.

 On another point ROE goes out the window once in an ambush as the assult has started and the ROE authorizes you to engage to defeat the EN, this is true on any mission be it a very restrictive UN mission or a robust mission like A stan. So the talk of this ROE or that ROE is moot as once in the thick of it the fight is on ROE or not.

   It brings me back to a point I have made before that ROE is a tool of administration not of combat and should not be used below sub unit level. Now before you ROE lovers jump on me hear me out... ROE is a good tool to issue to commanders and they inturn should craft the battle orders based on the ROE. They issue battle orders to troops who only need to know what the engagement and battle orders are they don't need to remember ROE and try and apply them in a fight. This was the only solution during the tough days of UNPROFOR when ROEs ballooned up to 56 in total. As a solution to this I only issued engagement orders below me and held the ROE at my level and in turn my responsibility. According to my troops it worked well and they preferred it to remembering 56 ROEs while taking the fight to the EN.


----------



## George Wallace (12 Apr 2006)

3rd Horse

In all my years in the army, I have trained to deal with Ambush Drills differently, depending on the situation.  If I were in an Infantry foot patrol, it would usually be an "Ambush.....Right....Charge!" type of thing, but I have also done Aussie Peel Backs.  If I was mounted and Escorting a Convoy, it would usually be "Pedal to the Metal!" and fire on the visible enemy as I got the heck out of the Killing Zone.


----------



## 3rd Horseman (12 Apr 2006)

George....Aussie peel backs...sounds interesting.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (12 Apr 2006)

> On another point ROE goes out the window once in an ambush as the assult has started and the ROE authorizes you to engage to defeat the EN, this is true on any mission be it a very restrictive UN mission or a robust mission like A stan. So the talk of this ROE or that ROE is moot as once in the thick of it the fight is on ROE or not.



Which is exactly what I said..

As for the rest, what George said +1


----------

