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

[pbi]

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]

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]

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

 

[Kirkhill]

I think CFL has a point here.

 

[Teddy Ruxpin]

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]

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

 

[Kat Stevens]

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

 

[pbi]

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]

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]

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]

That's the impression I got pbi.

 

[Edward Campbell]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Teddy Ruxpin]

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