Jump to content
12Alfa

Congrads to Germany

Recommended Posts

Just keep in Mind that GebPzBtl 8* is a reserve unit of 100% "part time tankers". So nice work taking 1st!!

 

Will be a nice beercall next month a Brigade HQ.B|

 

*Part of PzBrig12 btw :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And little Denmark was second (With only 24 active Tanks in total in the whole army)

 

But congrats to GebPzBtl 8 its very impressive what part time tankers can do. Very very impressive. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Gibsonm said:

Read the 5th paragraph of the article for a list.

the page keeps freezing on me for some reason 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

" Others, like dealing with improvised explosive device attacks were a test of how well the participating units from the U.S., Germany, Denmark, Italy, Poland and Slovenia work together. "

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I would think that was the responsive they took all those years ago, just throw more $$$$ at the issue. And as in the past it did not work, so a re-think is needed. But from reading a few article lately on this subject it seems, as many have stated the US does not rely on marksmanship, rather mass of fires from both land and air assists, thous negating the fine tuning of tank crews. When you can bring more firepower to the battle, precise gunnery from tank crews is not needed.

As this is seen in WWII and the latest gulf conflicts tank on tank engagement were not common  ( yes I know there were some 9_9), combine arms engagements were very common, and most likely the future for large forces as we see with the US, Russia, China.

It will be interesting to see what develops if anything though. Tank gunnery competitions sure do drive the leaders to take action, any action.

 

 

Just my 2 cents, this may offend the sensitive type as before, so just carry on as normal.

Edited by 12Alfa

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, TankHunter said:

 

Interesting article. 

 

"The mass delusion of the COIN cult has done this.  The notion that being nice to the natives was all that was needed caused leadership at all levels to think of themselves as half baked versions of the Green Berets.  (I am one) "

 

Damn. That is a bold statement.

 

I'm not sure why people despise COIN so much? In many ways it brings a greater challenge in more complex environments - especially at the tactical level. I am a product of the GWOT; two Iraq deployments and one Afghan. I don't consider myself one of the "Green Beret types", only did what I saw best for the mission.

 

Field Manual 3-24 says it the best: COIN is the doctorate level of warfighting.

 

On the other hand, I experienced my first taste of decisive action training during a combat training center rotation last year. It was great! Low IED threat, no pesky insurgents running around with suicide vests, low chance of the enemy blending in with civilians.

 

I was able to maneuver my Company against an enemy with a predictable doctrinal template. Instead of trying to win hearts and minds, we focused on seizing terrain and destroying the enemy. It had its own challenges, but I felt more comfortable doing something that felt natural.

 

Am i awesome? NO, I made a huge mistake during my first battle that led to high casualties, but it was a great learning experience for my team and me.

 

One day I'll upload Steel Beasts missions from my battles.

Edited by Apocalypse 31

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Having started my time a few years before IFOR/KFOR/ISAF and the like, i was often puzzled why the heck they made harsh destinction between COIN/pre-deployment training and your normal training.

I mean whats the difference in leading a recon-team(plt-size) and leading a "patrol"? **Whats the difference between a plt size COP and a prepared plt position for defence?

 

** Our chief of the army summed it up lately: Wer Spähtrupp kann, kann auch Patrouille.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

True, as did I 35 years ago when the cold war was on. My thoughts are the leaders see COIN as something the don't feel comfortable with, as they them selves were not schooled in this type of warfare. I believe that COIN is the harder com paired to conventional warfare to understand and train for, and doesn't have many shinny toys.

Most conventional warfare training is scripted and generally easy for people to understand and train for, as in go here take this area, or defend this area,simple. Now the details can get in the way, but as a whole much, safer than COIN.

Having trained all my career in the conventional war fighting, only to deploy in a COIN environment after 10 years in 3 block warfare as we call it I found most troops don't get it. 1 years training or less does not get one ready for COIN, heck 6-10 years (as in my case)is barely enough. It's a difficult subject and many have tried many different approaches as history has taught us, with the current conflicts showing just how little our leaders have learned.

Those who hate  COIN see themselves out side there comfort zone and this feels uncomfortable and needs to be changed or at least criticized.

 

 

Again my 2 cents, to the sensitive.... move on

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What always made me uncomfy was, that by design, the enemy has first strike...very rarely you realy have what would coun't as "the initiative".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I for one can only concede that they chose excellent taste in the design of the trophy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 20. 5. 2016 at 5:37 AM, Apocalypse 31 said:

I'm not sure why people despise COIN so much?

 

Well, as a someone who did his share of analysis and convincing regarding doctrine concerning little understaffed and underfinanced army in a little understaffed political party, I could think of three things.

 

First, the COIN-cult brings the notion that the conventional skills are to be thrown away of the window: handling encirclements/cauldrons? Large-scale maneuvres? Organized retreat? Phew, that will never occur to us again for we are fighting only COIN against rugheads, let's not train for it. So then you get the recent cauldron massacres like Ilovaisk and Debaltseve.

 

Second, the COIN-cult encourages destruction of heavy army weapons: let's cancel tanks and gunships altogether so that we could buy more cool COIN MRAPs and MH-6 Littlebirds, yeah! That's literally what we were facing (and lost to this COIN-cult craziness, so the Mi-24 are supposed to be replaced by either MH-6, EC-135 or UH-1). I, for example, was facing plan to scrap the Mechanized units completely and instead defend the whole country with ATGMs only - created by a planner of our MOD itself (to a political requirement, off course)!

 

Third, the COIN-cult damages the design of the new fighting vehicles and assets when it comes to anything but COIN.

Typical scenario: there was a debate about modernization of BMP-2 IFVs. The crucial compromise: should there be more protection against the IEDs or at least all-around 14,5mm-resistant armor when the suspension cannot support both? The IED protection won, since "we surely won't be facing anyone with 14,5s again", would we? Or the Kiowa.

The OH-58D had the rotor-mounted MMS for a good reason: it made it invulnerable to air defenses when doing NoE. However, in COIN, the Kiowas flew high and the LOS of the MMS was limited concerning the area right below the helicopter. So the MMS relocated to the lower side of the hull, thus completly eliminating survivability against AD - since "we surely won't be facing anyone with MANPADs and ZSUs, would we?"

Or the gunships. There was a reason the US created the AH-1 instead of using the UH-1 gunships in Vietnam: the need for narrower silhouette and armor. But no, let's revert from specialized gunships to armed crew-carriers, since in COIN, noone needs gunship survivability anyway and it's cheaper to run the UHs.

 

And then, you surprisingly get a hybrid conflict when you're facing T-72Bs and Strela-10s and MLRSes and all your COIN-cult army dies, since it was so optimized for "eternal COIN" that it is defenseless against the conventional heavy warmachines.

 

It's not just me saying: the recent RAND analysis of potential hybrid conflict in the Baltics literally said that the light NATO units (read: COIN-optimized wheeled-APC and MRAPs-mounted infantry) would be unable to even retreat from contact and destroyed on the spot. Thus, the resurgence of heavy armor in Europe.

 

So, pretty much any European reservist or would-be conscript hates the idea he would die in an Ukraine-like massacre, facing heavy armor and arty in vehicles only intended for COIN. That's why the despise towards COIN.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...