Squad uses Javelin in the field to take out insurgent vehicle

[Abbott]

Originally posted by Sergei:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by dog of war:

is the life of a soldier not worth more than this

Yes, the life of a soldier is worth more than that. The point being?

</font>

[Abbott]

It's a double!

[Sergei]

Originally posted by Abbott:

The point being the cost of the round has "zero" to do with the situation other then people trying to use it to point fingers.

No, the point is that if you have two ways to accomplish a mission, one of them being economically sustainable (use small arms fire) and the other not (use the most expensive gadget you have), then you should use the sustainable and use the more expensive method only when nothing else works.

Javelin has a range of over two clicks while the car is well within small arms range.

Originally posted by Abbott:

Go get shot at a few times and I guarantee you will come away with a different point of view.

I doubt - the soldiers in the clip weren't being shot at.

[MikeyD]

The idea that it was being recorded being fired might imply that the cart was put in front of the horse on this occassion. These guys had a Javelin and a video camera (or video phone?) in the same place at the same time and its entirely likely they were not going to let the day go by without getting footage of 'something' getting blowed up real good.

A nastier theory is that these soldiers are so low on proper combat equipment that they're being force to dust off their 'gold-plated' stuff for everyday work.

[Abbott]

Originally posted by Sergei:

No, the point is that if you have two ways to accomplish a mission, one of them being economically sustainable (use small arms fire) and the other not (use the most expensive gadget you have), then you should use the sustainable and use the more expensive method only when nothing else works.

Funny that was never part of my training; do they teach that in Economics class?

[MikeyD]

I recall footage from the Korean war where Patton tanks had big bins welded to their turret sides for the collection and recycling of 90mm brass shell casings. And most late war German armor went through a strict rationalization regime - down to reducing the number of threaded bolts used on their engine decks! So economics has always been a factor in wars that grind on for more than a couple months. If you could reduce the cost of this particular war by just 5% that would be 25+ billion dollars right there.

[Abbott]

Originally posted by MikeyD:

I recall footage from the Korean war where Patton tanks had big bins welded to their turret sides for the collection and recycling of 90mm brass shell casings. And most late war German armor went through a strict rationalization regime - down to reducing the number of threaded bolts used on their engine decks! So economics has always been a factor in wars that grind on for more than a couple months. If you could reduce the cost of this particular war by just 5% that would be 25+ billion dollars right there.

I don't recall ever meeting a grunt that put any thought at all into 25 Billion dollars. They left that kind of thing to the Politicians and Collage Boys back home. What you may think of as “common sense answers” to some questionable action in your mind has absolutely nothing to do with realities in an unreal environment.

[Nidan1]

There are no atheists or economists in foxholes.

[Matthias]

strange, as germany and most of europe has alot of atheists, and they manage to field armys... economists on the other hand are worth too much to allow the enemy to shoot at them

[MikeyD]

I'll agree grunts on the ground don't bean-count. But every once in awhile a message comes down from the CO outlining new rules of engagement for TOW missiles or driving restrictions for off-road speeds. Maybe these random-seeming new rules are political, or safety-related, or maybe they're for resource-conserving. 'Why' doesn't often filter down to the lower pay-grades.

[JonS]

Edit: ne'er mind. MikeyD said it better.

[Battlefront.com]

As a taxpayer I don't mind giving the guys at the front exepensive tools to do their job. I don't mind when they use them responsibly, either. But just because they have it doesn't mean they should be using it. In fact, if they can't use them responsibly then they need to be pulled from inventory.

What the defenders of these soldier's are forgetting is that *if* they wasted that Javelin they are acting AGAINST the war effort and AGAINST our national interests. What am I talking about? Folks, we can not wage an expensive war against an enemy that can fight on the cheap forever. We will lose if for no other reason than spending ourselves into poverty trying to protect the very things that can no longer be afforded. So everybody has to do their part to fight wars in an economically sustainable way, otherwise WE WILL LOSE long term. I know soldiers don't want to think about economics, but econimics don't give a flying fig what soldiers think about 'em. In fact, economics don't care a rat's ass for much of anything, just who pays the bills.

Obviously the grunt on the field shouldn't have to think about maro economics. Higher ups should have already maximized weaponry and training for best economic results so a field force can stay there in an economically sustainable way. I think most would agree that they have utterly failed to do this responsibly. The Bush Admin knew it couldn't afford a costly war, so Rumsfeld headed the effort to under man and underequip the mission as a way of cutting costs (and yes, that is exactly what he did). Obviously that didn't work out so well.

Sure, we don't know all the facts about this situation in the video. While it is fair to say people should give some benefit of the doubt to the soldiers, it is also fair to say it is possible that these are a bunch of guys that just decided it would be fun to use the Javelin even though tactically speaking there was no reason to do so. Absent of additional information, I think the evidence as stands favors the latter conclusion. If for no other reason than someone had no problem putting down his weapon to man a video camera (I seriously doubt this was a reporter).

If we can not field warriors that can beat our enemies on equal economic terms, then we might as well bring our guys home and call it a day. We'll never win if that is the case. So if our guys REQUIRE a $100,000 missile to take out a civilian truck sitting out in the open doing about 10mph laterally... we need to do some better training or somefink.

Yeah, I am a guy that wants the nation's resources to focus on the warrior part of the equation, not the defense contractor and Congressional district factors. Call me nutty that way

Steve

[ April 23, 2007, 03:48 PM: Message edited by: Battlefront.com ]

[Nidan1]

Originally posted by Matthias:

strange, as germany and most of europe has alot of atheists, and they manage to field armys... economists on the other hand are worth too much to allow the enemy to shoot at them

Yeah, but are they in foxholes?

[Abbott]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

As a taxpayer (snipped for brevity)

Steve

Yeah I get what you are saying Steve and others. The truth of the matter is soldiers will use what they have at hand based on many things. "Hmm, maybe that is to expensive a piece of ordnance to use for this target?" If you look at that from a Grunt's point of view it is just silly.

It may make sense to "the big picture" but to the guys on the ground unless there is a future need or an ass-chewing (orders issue) ...it is just a memory filed away for whenever they may need it again.

[ April 23, 2007, 04:57 PM: Message edited by: Abbott ]

[Battlefront.com]

Abbott,

I totally agree. However, there are some controls on the use of specifc weapons, munitions, tactics, etc. in order to conform to "big picture". For example, Abrams SOP is to engage with its MGs only, not the big boom stick. Calling in a B-1B strike on a squad sized enemy "somewhere over there" is also frowned upon. The grunts HATE such controls, but the war effort can not be directed by Buck Private and his buddy Lance Corporal. No more than a major coporation can be run by the guy in the mailroom or operating Drill Press #18.

In fact, I am pretty sure there are some strict rules about how and when the Javelin can be used. Not sure what they are, but I would guess that zapping a civvy truck at 168m in the open as it is driving away at slow speed isn't within those guidelines (unless there is something major we, the viewers of the video, aren't privy too. And that is obviously quite possible). Hey, if these guys did "waste" a Javelin I am sure they weren't the first.

It may make sense to "the big picture" but to the guys on the ground unless there is a future need or an ass-chewing (orders issue) ...it is just a memory filed away for whenever they may need it again.

This is, of course, an argument for pulling the Javelins out of the grunt's hands and putting them into storage. Either that or restrict supply to 1 CLU per Platoon instead of 3. So on and so forth. Hey, it's just like anything... if the people entrusted with x can't use it according to the rules, then take it away from them until they can.

Again, I'm looking at the Big Picture because ultimately that is all that matters. Losing a few soldiers due to cost considerations is far better than losing the war due to cost considerations. Sounds heartless, but war is all about number crunching if you want to win it.

Steve

[ April 23, 2007, 05:11 PM: Message edited by: Battlefront.com ]

[Severin]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Again, I'm looking at the Big Picture because ultimately that is all that matters. Losing a few soldiers due to cost considerations is far better than losing the war due to cost considerations. Sounds heartless, but war is all about number crunching if you want to win it.

Steve

So all we have to do is stop flushing money down the crapper and we'll win?

In all seriousness I think the finances issue would be a critical if the war was going to last 20 years. Well, I guess it certainly could, but I have a feeling our involvement will be quite a bit shorter.

From what I hear even old McCain is hinting that he would do a pull out as well. For those of you not keeping score the debate about Iraq sure seems to be:

Leave in 08

V

Leave in 09

While I'm sure that the US DOD can waste unbelievable amounts of money in a year, I'm doubtful it could spend its self into the grave.

[Abbott]

It seems to me that no one knows enough from the video to reach a conclusion as to what SOP was/is/or should be. Personally I try to look at the big picture and I don't have an issue with the weapon being fired. Hell, I wouldn't care if they fired two of them. If an M-2 would have been used the argument would likely be that U.S. soldiers are butchers because of the Geneva Accords and the target was friendly school girls on their way to a picnic. (Comment not directed at you Steve ).

The complaint seems more of a Political doctrine annoyance then a cost issue. At this point in time win/lose or draw seems to be pre-determined by poor management of the war and the Democrats pull-out-now strategy (in lieu of better management? I don’t know). The political in-fighting doesn't really effect guys at the bottom of the totem pole to much (unless they have been hit or some personal/family issue cropped up they were not home to deal with) other then they could use a thank you for trying to do what was asked of them. However soldiers don't really expect a thank you they just discharge or go on to the next.

If it were as big a deal as some think it to be then I would think the after-action report would be an interesting read with an Officer in a jam. It appears to me honestly that something is trying to be made from nothing to support a point of view.

I think Lewis Black may have said it best:

"Republicans: I have a ****ty idea!

Democrats: And we can make it ****tier!"

[Bigduke6]

Nidan1 is absolutely right that the vid does not show enough to make any absolute conclusions. He is also right that the pieces of a .50 cal are a bear to hump, and the ammo boxes make it worse.

I will point out just to be ornery that the immediate terrain depicted in the video is flat, and that modern American troops go anywhere they ride in an expensive vehicle an awful lot more often than they hump on their own two feet.

Nonetheless, I think troopies, unless very closely controlled, can and will use whatever tools thay have available to them, to blast whomever they consider the enemy.

Also, the Javelin is not exactly light. If I remember right the launch system with one missile weighs about 25 kilos, each extra rocket weighs something like 10 kilos, and then there are batteries. So if the guys in the vid actually walked to where they fired the missile - which I seriously doubt - some them were humping.

My *advised* criticism is towards those soldiers' leaders, meaning, for this example, the senior person present while the video was taken, and then a whole bunch of the chain of command.

Javelins are almost always too expensive to throw away at pickup trucks, which we know is what happened, and they are for sure too expensive to shoot just for fun, even though there are other small arms available, which seems to be the case.

What I want to know is, why did the sergeant or lieutenant on the ground go along with the shot? I suspect his chain of command is not forcing that junior leader to use minimum force if possible.

This is my assumption, but I think it is a reasonable one. The wars in Iraq and Iran are not wars so much as police actions in the pure definition of the term: the goal is civil order, not conventional military victory.

And the military does not "get it". Oh sure, they can talk a good game, Petreus (spelling?) sounds like T.E.Lawrence. But how effective has he been at enforcing that POV on his subordinates? How much of the military personnel in country, really in its heart, sees themselves as police needing to use minimum force, an not "warriors" (and for a nickel I'll explain why that term should be universally detested) just waiting for the order to engage the enemy and destroy them?

Almost any military hierarchy, of course, trains its soldiers to seek victory, to destroy the enemy, and to inflict maximum damage. Factor in the political priority of keeping friendly casualties to a minimum, and you get a US military organization inclined to blast whatever it chooses to see as hostile, and not worry about expense or how that use of force plays with the civilian populace.

The failure of the US military leadership is their failure to understand that the more they try and achieve victory, using tactics honed over centuries of conventional war, the more their soldiers will harm efforts to force a civil peace in Afghanistan and Iraq.

It is a intellectual failure of the first order - on the level of the German military leadership assuming the long-term pursuit of tactical excellence was the right route to defeat of the Allies during WW2.

It is the job of the military leadership to determine the correct route to military success in a conflict, once the civilian leaders determine the conflict is necessary. If the military leadership gets the strategy wrong, then they failed in their primary mission - and their troops die and are maimed uselessly, as a direct result of that error. Ditto for getting the strategy right, but failing to enforce the correct strategy with the troopies.

So all in all, I hope the video is of a training range - although training a Javelin firer to hit a moving target at less than 200 meters doesn't seem too bright to me.

[Cpl Steiner]

Maybe CMSF's debriefing screen should show you a dollar cost for each mission. Exceed a certain threshold and you lose.

.................U.S. Army............Syrian Army

Casualties........4....................21212

KIA.................0....................21212

WIA.................4........................0

Dollars Cost.....2 Billion.............10 bucks

Syrian Decisive Victory!!!

[teeps]

Good post Bigduke6.

This probably won't be popular, but if the video is of a genuine action, rather than training then I feel it demonstrates why US Forces have a bad press everywhere apart from the US. Cards on the table - I'm a Brit Christian who's also half-Iraqi and never supported the invasion in the first place, so if you want to filter my view through that then go ahead. The big problem I see is that US forces seem to do too good a job at dehumanising the people in Iraq, whether civilian or enemy. I know that can be a hard distinction to make, but in this case it seems like there was probably time to make some kind of assessment on that. The cheering after the javelin is fired is understandable on one hand, but imagine you are an average, moderate Iraqi seeing that - how are you going to feel? You're going to think Americans like killing Iraqis no matter what the circumstance. You're going to think that it's sport for American soldiers from the way they cheer at the end, like they're on some hunting trip. Seeing them use maximum force is going to make you think they are more interested in playing with toys than in any sort of humanity. It doesn't make the US look good, and it only serves as propaganda for the jihadists flooding into Iraq.

[Bigduke6]

I think CPL Steiner's suggestion is brilliant. If BFI doesn't build into the VP system a dollar function then they are cravenly avoiding accurate depiction of the True Horror of War, you hear me Steve? :mad: :mad:

[John Kettler]

Steve,

Multiple excellent points. If Stalin were running the show, some soldiers might well find themselves charged with sabotage and aiding the enemy.

Severin,

We've already been at it seven years, which puts puts it into the Vietnam War category as far as U.S. combat involvement. The cost has been astronomic, and tanks now cost what small jets (A-37 & F-5/T-38) used to cost. An F-4 back then was 3.5 million dollars, and it was the best we had.

Cpl Steiner,

I know. We can call it the THX 1138 criterion!

Bigduke6,

Tkach tko. (Think I got that that right.)

teeps,

You've hit one of my leading concerns, the Ugly American syndrome, squarely on the head. Very much appreciate your cross cultural perspective!

Abbott,

Love the Lewis Black quote! He's so deliciously acerbic. Am looking forward to seeing him play the principal in that movie about a nonexistent college.

Regards,

John Kettler

[ April 24, 2007, 04:08 AM: Message edited by: John Kettler ]

[Splinty]

I'm here, in Baghdad right now, and if you think we're allowed to just blast anything that moves with any weapons system at our disposal, you're dead wrong. If I as an MP want to use a MK19 grenade launcher, I have to get permission from a Brigader General! And that's after going all the way up my chain of command. Those restrictions don't just apply to MPs either, everybody is subject to them. BTW those guys who fired the Javalin will (or went)go through what's called a 15-6 investigation, which happens after every combat incident in which lethal force is used. If they are found to be in the wrong, everybody in their chain of command will pay for it from the battalion commander on down. My final point is, if you weren't there, don't judge it. You have no idea what the whole picture is.

[Cpl Steiner]

Although my earlier post about the debriefing screen was half in jest I have had another idea that is more serious.

In CM at the moment, victory points are awarded for the destruction of enemy assets such as tanks and transports. However, the cost to you of destroying those assets, such as the expenditure of anti-tank rounds or rockets, is not factored in. In a WWII setting this is acceptable because everything is so much lower tech and cheap. In a modern setting, as we have discussed, this is no longer the case.

In CMx2, perhaps ALL assets should be treated this way, including ammunition. For most ammunition, the cost will be negligible, but for some like the Javelin, it is so significant that using such a round to destroy an enemy vehicle might actually cost you victory points rather than the other way around. Of course, if it prevents the enemy from costing you even more victory points, then it will be offset and therefore acceptable.

Likewise, in CM you could lose a weapon system like a bazooka and it didn't really matter. In CMx2, an expensive piece of equipment like a Javelin launch system would be much more costly to lose. You wouldn't want one of those lost because some guy dropped it and didn't go back for it.

I can see this being done quite simply by the game. Just assign everything a point value, from a tank right down to a 5.56mm rifle round. Anything expended or lost at the end of the battle counts towards the enemy's victory score.

[YankeeDog]

Actually, I think BFC is one step ahead of you guys.

If you look on the blog, ammo usage is already included as a possible victory condition.

Take a close look at the images of the victory screens in Moon's blog post entitled "Assymetrical Wars". You'll see points categories for "Enemy Ammo" and "Friendly Ammo." The only thing I can think of that this would represent, would be ammo usage, and espcially usage of expensive and/or rare ammo, like Javelins, DU AT rounds, etc.

Cheers,

YD