Squad uses Javelin in the field to take out insurgent vehicle

[Capt. Toleran]

It seems to me that in cases like this, a RPG (in the hands of someone with training) would have worked fine. At 5k a pop, they are a cheaper (though unguided) alternative.

Often I feel we are "teching" ourselves to death, much like we did in Vietnam. We're getting focused on technology as the only solution, instead of part of the solution.

[Redwolf]

Ironically the weapon that the Javelin is the successor of would be suitable. The Dragon ATGM of the 1970ties was a practical joke with neither the range nor the power to stop Soviet tanks in Germany. But it would be sooo nice to use it to blow up a pickup truck charging at you. And cheap. You could even have people practice with it, making good for the more difficult use. You don't need a thermal sight either, much less one traveling with this missile.

Anything unguided (M203, LAAW) will not do.

[Battlefront.com]

I just had a chance to watch the video. The range of 168m was called out at the beginning, which looks about right from what I could see. If a US rifle Squad can't stop a pickup truck in the wide open with the small arms it has, then that Squad should come home. Either to get better training or to go buy some off the shelf weapons that can actually hit the broad side of a barn. From looking at that video I can only conclude that they fired the Javelin because they were sick of humping it around without getting to ever fire one. I hope their CO chewed them out, at the very least.

Steve

[Severin]

I understand the old Ma Deuce is still pretty much unrivaled as far as chewing up cars at medium goes. It still pretty much blows my mind that a HMG introduced in 1921(?) is still the weapon of choice.

[Kineas]

What about the military purpose they achieved by blowing up that truck? Are you sure it was only the destruction of a truck and a couple of grunts?

[Sergei]

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?

Originally posted by dog of war:

during the falklands war the british used milan anti-tank missiles to take out argentine machinegun bunkers, small price if it meant not having to rush the bunker

Yes. The difference to this is, of course, that Javelin is not Milan, and it wasn't fired at an Argentine machinegun bunker but at some lorry driving away. It's not a life saving usage.

[Sergei]

Originally posted by Kineas:

What about the military purpose they achieved by blowing up that truck? Are you sure it was only the destruction of a truck and a couple of grunts?

Do we know that it was an insurgent truck? Could have been a civilian as far as the video can tell. And when you're being fired at in Iraq, no matter what your business is, you don't want to stop and inquire who it is that is shooting...

[Sirocco]

Originally posted by Redwolf:

Anything unguided (M203, LAAW) will not do.

But it depends what you're shooting at. A static target - a bunker, for example - should be point and shoot. And RPG's seem to be a decent enough choice for that. A mobile, well protected target would probably have been flagged up early enough for fixed wing or rotary support. Pinpointing BMP's or T72's must be top of the priority list.

[tools4fools]

Wonder if electric fly swatters will be modeled too...

****

[Lt Bull]

Originally posted by Severin:

I understand the old Ma Deuce is still pretty much unrivaled as far as chewing up cars at medium goes. It still pretty much blows my mind that a HMG introduced in 1921(?) is still the weapon of choice.

Absolutely. That would have been my weapon of choice for that situation. Perfect weapon for the job.

BTW...I am unfamiliar with LiveLeak but when I watched the video, after it I saw links come up to other videos. One was of a 12year old Afghani boy who beheads a man suspected of helping the US. Although it was labelled as "censored" I started to watch it but then just couldn't watch it when I saw the boy with the blade in his hand and the blindfold go over the poor man. Did anyone else see it? Not many things disturb me but this kind of stuff just makes me sick and sorry for how ##@#ed up this world is.

Lt Bull

[ April 23, 2007, 04:38 AM: Message edited by: Lt Bull ]

[Nidan1]

Originally posted by Lt Bull:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Severin:

I understand the old Ma Deuce is still pretty much unrivaled as far as chewing up cars at medium goes. It still pretty much blows my mind that a HMG introduced in 1921(?) is still the weapon of choice.

Absolutely. That would have been my weapon of choice for that situation. Perfect weapon for the job.

BTW...I am unfamiliar with LiveLeak but when I watched the video, after it I saw links come up to other videos. One was of a 12year old Afghani boy who beheads a man suspected of helping the US. Although it was labelled as "censored" I started to watch it but then just couldn't watch it when I saw the boy with the blade in his hand and the blindfold go over the poor man. Did anyone else see it? Not many things disturb me but this kind of stuff just makes me sick and sorry for how ##@#ed up this world is.

Lt Bull </font>

[Bigduke6]

There is such a thing as fire discipline, and this is not a total war. Friggen morons. You don't call in an Arc Light strike on a single dismount, and you don't use a Javelin against a non-threating pickup truck within easy rifle range.

I am sure there is competent infantry somewhere in the US military, but these dopes sure weren't them.

[Nidan1]

I don't get the "non-threatening" thing...we have no context from this video other than the fact that a few rounds of small arms and then a missle of some kind is fired at a moving "something" in the distance. For all we know this is a training exercise.

Lets suppose this is either in Iraq or Afghanistan. Both are war zones, again we dont know the context. Maybe this "truck" contains some bad guys that this squad has been tracking, maybe they just rushed a checkpoint. How do you define "non-threatening". A car bomb is non threatening until it blows up in your face. If something is ID'd as legitimate hostile, even if its running away, I would advocate taking it out by any means, rather than letting it get away to come back again.

[Bigduke6]

I hear you Fred, but I'm just going by the vid. It's moving laterally, the terrain is wide open, and just I can't see how the only weapon on hand is a Javelin.

But maybe it's a firing range, I dunno. Although, what firing range allows chucking a Javelin at a target at 168 meters?

[ParaBellum]

The vid is of quite poor quality, but the distance seems well within the range of effective rifle/MG fire. I know nothing about the actual situation, but it looks to me as if a Javelin was absolute overkill in this situation. That's a situation an MG gunner should be able to solve with several bursts of fire.

I think I heard several bursts early on, but then the MG seems to have stopped firing.

EDIT: Ok, they really call out a distance of 168 meters at the beginning of the vid. Can't say I'm impressed with their marksmanship...

[Nidan1]

I am just concerned that lately we have become quick to rush to judgements based on video clips, sound bites, and the testimony of unreliable people, both in and out of positions of responsibilty.

We see and hear what we want to see and hear, and I just urge folks to use a bit of circumspection.

[SgtMuhammed]

Hear hear! I am so glad there are so many people willing to berate the guys on the ground from the saftey of a computer desk. No one here knows anything about the situation but everyone is sure that the soldiers should have done something else. Maybe the MPs should have gone out and threatened to give the vehicle a ticket, those are cheap. You guys must also have much higher resolution than I do because I can't tell how many rounds actually hit the target from that video. All I know is that it was still moving and in an environment where everyvehicle is potentially a 2000lb bomb there may be a reason why the guys wouldn't want it to get too close.

The fact is that no one here is in any position to make any judgement about what is shown in that video. The guys fired at a target, it didn't achieve what they wanted, they ended the engagement. If it didn't match someone's idea of proper use of assets or cost effectivness or marksmanship standards I am pretty sure those guys could care less. They are alive and the enemy isn't, end of story.

[Sirocco]

It occured to me that Iraq and Afghanistan are almost field tests for Javelin. I imagine the feedback from actual usage must be invaluable.

At $1,500 the AT4 looks a better choice:

(or AT-4) is a portable one-shot anti-tank weapon built in Sweden by Saab Bofors Dynamics (previously Bofors Anti Armour Systems). In the U.S. and NATO inventory it replaces the M72 LAW (Light Anti-armor Weapon). Saab have had considerable sales success with the AT4, making it one of the most common light anti-tank weapons in the world. It is intended to give infantry units a means to destroy or disable armored vehicles and fortifications they may encounter (though it is not generally sufficient to defeat a modern main battle tank). The launcher and projectile are manufactured pre-packed as a single unit, and the launcher is discarded after use.

Are these units in service with UK/US forces yet?

[SgtMuhammed]

AT4 has been in service for a while, at least they were in 2000 when I got out. I never see pictures of them being carried though. Maybe they went away.

[Imperial Grunt]

Marines carry AT-4s all the time, however the rockets are usually in vehicles, since Iraq is an COIN environment and not high-intensity conventional war. I am sure most Army infantry units do the same.

Marines also carry a new LAAWA4 too, as well as SMAWs and the Javelin.

While the use of the javelin in the video seems excessive, in defense of those soldiers, once the criteria for lethal force has been met, there is not a reason NOT to employ the missile and commander's should not be worrying about the cost of weapons fired in combat.

Now if there were a limited number of javelins available, a armor threat, orders not to use the javelin, etc, then that is a different situation. But in my opinion, once shots are fired, its game on.

[YankeeDog]

I've seen footage of infantry units carrying and using AT4s in Iraq, but mostly during OIF and shortly thereafter; I don't think I've seen anything recent with an AT4 in the shot. Seems to me they'd be a useful piece of kit, as a quick shot of HE firepower, in the current anti-insurgent conflict, but I don't really have the knowledge or experience to know.

IIRC, a couple of months ago someone posted some information about a new weapons system in development for the US Mil., that was designed to be a cheaper, guided RPG -- it seemed to be similar in capability to an AT4, with the addition of a guidance/tracking system that could lock on to, and hit targets moving at lateral speeds up to 60mph. Seemed like a good bridge between the M203, and the Javelin. IIRC, cost was ~$10,000/shot; definitely not something you just want to just toss of nonchalantly, but obviously far cheaper than a Javelin.

I think all we can say about the above clip is that, based on what can be gleaned for the poor quality video, it *appears* like it *might* be an inappropriate use of resources given the threat presented. But we really don't have enough information to be able to tell for sure. A squad MG should have been able to stop an unarmored truck at 168m without too much difficulty, at the cost of a few dollars' worth of ball ammo. But as many have already noted, the information available to us is far from complete.

As a taxpayer, I would hope an appropriate and fair review of the engagement was conducted by the CO. If the use of a $100,000 weapons system was warranted, fine. I hope the guys get medals. If not, then perhaps reprimands and additional training are warranted.

Cheers,

YD

[SgtMuhammed]

I think the lack of AT4s is largely because of the nature of the environment. Lots of close in stuff. Not exactly a good place for something that is like a flame thrower out its backside when you fire it. The Army really needs to invest in some soft launch systems like the German Armbrust (I think that is what it's called).

Is the M203 replacement supposed to be much better or just more of the same thing in a new package.

[Sirocco]

Originally posted by sgtgoody (esq):

I think the lack of AT4s is largely because of the nature of the environment. Lots of close in stuff. Not exactly a good place for something that is like a flame thrower out its backside when you fire it.

Does the US field the AT4 CS?

[MikeyD]

One problem about Javeline (if you want to call it a problem) is that anti-tank weaponry is considered 'sexy' so has been a high priority for decades. These were the weapons systems a man could build his Pentagon career around! But what do you do with your TOW 2B and your Javelin when there's no tanks around? Seriously, is an overflight-profile downward-firing dual self-forging warhead TOW 2B really as useless on an assymetric battlefield as I imagine it is?

[SgtMuhammed]

Originally posted by Sirocco:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by sgtgoody (esq):

I think the lack of AT4s is largely because of the nature of the environment. Lots of close in stuff. Not exactly a good place for something that is like a flame thrower out its backside when you fire it.

Does the US field the AT4 CS? </font>