vincere Posted October 22, 2010 Share Posted October 22, 2010 Oh, my original source for that has faded into the distant past, but I recall it was a 'real' quote from a real soldier in a real report about soldier experiences in Iraq during the worst years. After recently reading Black Hearts I can fully believe it. That book describes 3 or 4 man checkpoints and patrols in the Traingle of Death in 2006?. Some of the checkpoints were were not rotated for over a week or two. Sadly that particular lack of boots on the ground had some tragic consequences for the unit. It was only this week that somebody tried to tell that that 'Iraq wasn't a real conflict, you know no real fightin.' Shesh.. Anyway, I wonder if any of the dummies took incoming. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted October 27, 2010 Share Posted October 27, 2010 One of the primary reasons for being tactically understrength in Soviet Afghanistan times as well as currently with ISAF is the HUGE amount of terrain that needs to be covered compared to the forces available. This means large units are split up to cover areas far beyond their realistic capacity. In turn this means that the forces within the area are split up too small. This allows the enemy to "wipe out" small amounts of men with relative ease. It also means shifting of manpower around to make up for disease, wounds, etc. is made far more difficult and time consuming. Therefore, a lag of a couple of weeks to fulfill a request for replacements doesn't sound unlikely to me. Iraq had this problem too, with most of the high profile US losses being tiny checkpoints that were overrun long before help could arrive. I also remember speaking to a 101st Airborne BN Commander who described his subordinate units being so spread out that he had to use a helicopter if he wanted to visit more than one Company in a day. They also had to use satellite communications because radios range was exceeded many times over. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erwin Posted October 27, 2010 Share Posted October 27, 2010 You would think that the need for replacements would be predicted and put in the chain (like supplies) so they are available when actually needed. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DreDay Posted October 27, 2010 Share Posted October 27, 2010 You would think that the need for replacements would be predicted and put in the chain (like supplies) so they are available when actually needed. That's MUCH easier said than done. For that matter, it's pretty rare for all the supplies to be constantly available either... Overstrengthening is a more practical way of dealing with attrition. Peace, DreDay 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.