Defense and the National Interest

May.02.2008
9:48 am
by dni

Inside our OODA loops?

Spencer Ackerman posted an analysis yesterday of what might be called the strategic dynamics of the Iraqi conflict:

At the risk of saying something disputable, from 2003 to mid-2007, the insurgencies in Iraq had faster OODA Loops than the U.S. did. That’s not to say that there weren’t discrete tactical successes: there were, and lots of them. But those developments are coterminous with the concept of the Loop …

To make a further contention that will be disputed by historians: what Petraeus and Odierno actually did — and it is not a small achievement — was disrupt the insurgencies’ Loops more than any other U.S. commanders were able to. They kept the insurgencies in a state of confusion for months and prevented successful orientation. But the rise in U.S. and Iraqi civilian casualties demonstrates that the insurgencies’ Loops have now closed.

Although Ackerman uses the cyclical version, which I generally discourage, in this case it’s not a bad description of what we’re seeing in Iraq — action and reaction cycles. Note his astute reference to “orientation.”

Which brings up an interesting point: Could we do better by using a more sophisticated understanding of the OODA “loop”? What Ackerman describes, accurately, I think, is a move-countermove game. Boyd suggested that when OODA loops are done right, the competitive situation looks somewhat different (Patterns, 176):

In a tactical sense, these multi-dimensional interactions suggest a spontaneous, synthetic/creative, and flowing action/counteraction operation, rather than a step-by-step, analytical/logical, and discrete move/countermove game. …

In a strategic sense, these interactions suggest we need a variety of possibilities as well as the rapidity to implement and shift among them. Why?

Ability to simultaneously and sequentially generate many different possibilities as well as rapidly implement and shift among them permits one to repeatedly generate mismatches between events/efforts adversary observes or imagines and those he must respond to (to survive).

Without a variety of possibilities, adversary is given the opportunity to read as well as adapt to events and efforts as they unfold.

As Ackerman notes, our opponents in Iraq are able to understand what we’re doing and then change their tactics accordingly. Boyd is suggesting that instead of waiting to see what they come up with, we should change our strategy and tactics again, before they can understand what is going on. That is the textbook definition of “operating inside the OODA ‘loop,’” a la Patterns 132.

[Thanks to Fabius Maximus for the tip and congrats to Spencer Ackerman for a most insightful column.]

Comments are welcome; please observe our revised comment policy.

Filed in Boyd and Military Strategy, Iraq and the Middle East |

75 Responses to “Inside our OODA loops?”

Dr_Vomacton 02 May 2008 at 1:19 pm 1

I have a problem with any analysis of the Troubles in Iraq that attempts to parse these events in terms of strategic theory. That’s because I don’t think it’s a war—nor is it an “insurgency”, or a “Fourth Generation” conflict, or anything of that ilk. Obviously, I’m not going to deny that there is violence in Iraq, that people have been dying in large numbers, that our soldiers are regularly attacked (and attack in turn). However, even war has to live up to certain standards; there’s a point where a situation is so degenerate that it is senseless to describe it as a “war”, and that is the case in Iraq.

If you are engaged in an aerial dog-fight, it makes sense to speak of tactics, of “OODA loops”, and so forth. The situation is clear: you are engaged in battle with an enemy who is trying to kill you. You can extend this logic to conflicts having millions of participants; as Boyd taught, the same type of thinking can be useful in winning a big war as in winning a little battle.

However, the OODA loop is irrelevant if you find yourself caught in the middle of a drunken free-for-all barroom brawl. Well, perhaps Observing that you are in deep manure, Orienting yourself with respect to the nearest exit, and Deciding to make use of it expeditiously would be wise—but that’s just basic self-preservation, not Deep Thinking.

Just so in Iraq. This is no war, just lots of fighting, and there are about as many “sides” as you’ll find in a really good drunken riot. What is the point of talking about strategy in a situation like this? To do so is to perpetrate the illusion that our Iraqi policy is, in some sense, rational. It’s not. There’s nothing to be won here, folks.

By the way, has anybody noticed that even al-Maliki is smarter than our Esteemed Leaders? For reasons of his own, he wanted to weaken Sadr. So what does he do? He acts as though he believes the U.S. propaganda that he is the Prime Minister of a real, legitimate government, declares the Mahdi Army anathema, huffs and puffs and delivers himself of pompous ultimata—then fails spectacularly, as he knew he would. Result: U.S. troops are now fighting his factional scuffle of the moment for him. Can’t let our imaginary friends down, now can we?
seydlitz89on 02 May 2008 at 5:20 pm 2

This really caught my eye . . .

“Although Ackerman uses the cyclical version, which I generally discourage, in this case”

The “orientation” phase encompases so much, that it is difficult to see the whole system as a “cycle”, is that what Dr Richards means by this?

I would be very interested to know. . .

. . . But, not leaving it at that I went on to the actual link. . .

After that initial “surge” of interest, I read in Ackerman’s post . . .

Where he says, “(I would contend that a war contrary to American interests from the start can never end in victory by definition, only mitigation, but let’s leave that aside.)”

So what exactly is the political purpose?

Very much agree with Ackerman’s statement (and as an American, albeit a strategic theorist, do I not need to stress this?). This war is not being waged in the interests of the country, but rather imo in the interests of the political clique (and the various political investors behind them) in charge, that is making policy - in Clausewitzian terms - beholden to corrupt internal political interests which are counterproductive to achieving a US victory in Iraq (however that might be defined). In all a war already clearly lost from the US perspective . . .

So why does it continue? From a Clausewitzian perspective, the answer is clear: the political shambles continues to lurch forward until it finally collapses . . . at which point the really painful work begins.
Maxon 02 May 2008 at 6:02 pm 3

Dr. V.

As usual brilliant analysis (agree with the assertion wholeheartedly or not) and something we can really sink our teeth into.

“However, even war has to live up to certain standards;”

I agree it does not, or falls well short, but obsensively On the American side.

No realistic or honest objectives, enduring effective stratigy, goal, or purpose, and a campain doomed for abject failure from the get go.

To explain,
from the insurgency perpsective, there’s an old expression, whereby “those who attack must vanquish, those who defend, must merely survive.”

And so it is with the Iraqui’s as defenders against the imposition of American will, and if you actually know, or can can figure out what that may actually be, please call me, right now, collect ~!.

Where the US dominates on the tactical level, but the opportunities
to use the advantage effectively are so very sparce, controlled
and limited by the opposition, and in that sense the insurgence and particuarly I’m sad to say Aquida operate well within the US command and leaderships ability to percieve, react and implement.

Moreover, the US relies on overwhelming firepower and force,
and in so doing inflicts more dammage, dimishing the enviroment, further fostering untold resentment and hatred.

In other words, makes new enemies at a much faster rate.
The same can be said of Isreal in the conduct of it’s recent
military affairs.

“Can’t let our imaginary friends down, now can we?”

Very funny, very poinient.
Disturbing though on a serious note, in underscoring
the profound disconnect in US policy, and stratigy since 9-11.
You nailed it.

Dr. V. Superior insights from a gifted observer, and commentator,
who raises the bar for all of us.

Maximillian
Maxon 02 May 2008 at 6:15 pm 4

“In a strategic sense, these interactions suggest we need a variety of possibilities as well as the rapidity to implement and shift among them. Why?”

When I’m blasting along the lightly traveled rural back roads
on my Yamaha Crotch rocket, I play a game in my mind called
what if,,,?

What if, a delivery truck is stopped dead in the middle of the road
just around the blind sweeping right hand corner ahead ?

What if, a deer runs out in front of me on a straight where I top out somewhat, err,, in excess of the speed limit.

What if. there’s an oil spill, loose sand or gravel on the honking left
turn ahead while I’m leaned over at 45 degrees ?

It’s kept me alive doing this for well over 20 years.

MaX
Maxon 02 May 2008 at 6:33 pm 5

seydlitz89

“This war is not being waged in the interests of the country, but rather imo in the interests of the political clique (and the various political investors behind them) in charge, that is making policy”

A valid opinion, to be sure.

Consider also the stress of importance,
where the US and the vested interests behind all this,
have on your behalf, put so very much at stake.

And those stakes increase the longer we stay,
and with every setback, and despite what ever meager
gains, if any.

Like the proverbial drunken gambler at the crap table,
and the sunk cost fallicy taught in economics 101.

The Iraqui’s on the other hand at this stage have little more to lose.

I can’t imagine a much less favourable scenario in a 4th generational
enviroment. Or putting the “Ass” in Asymetric, warfare.

If you extrapolate a worst case scenario, but not impossible to rule out, the US could litterally forfieght almost everything.

Starting with the extraordinary Hubris.

Sadly I believe that process to be well underway.
And why is it nessesary to repatethe same lesson well
within liveing memory.

MaX
loggie20on 03 May 2008 at 5:12 am 6

The various disparate insurgents above the squad level are always inside the US’ OODA loop.

Not to worry: Michael Collins, Tito, Mao, Cho and Ho among others were inside their adversaries’ loops as well. Not all of whom were western adversaries.

As has been evident, the US is proving the liberals lost Vietnam.

When ideology impeded strategy the OODA loop breaks down.

Vital national interests demand as MaX says rational policy.

But who describes “national interests”? The Murdock media?
Cheton 03 May 2008 at 8:50 am 7

Dr. Vomact,

However, the OODA loop is irrelevant if you find yourself caught in the middle of a drunken free-for-all barroom brawl.

Actually, that’s exactly the situation the OODA “loop” was designed for. And by the way, your solution is probably the right one most of the time.

I have several posts over on chetrichards.com that go into this:
1. Inside our OODA loops?
2. Decision cycle speed
3. Orientation 101
Boyd’s first model for air combat, energy-maneuverability, worked well for 1v1 (it’s still taught to fighter pilots). But for MvN “furballs,” or bar room brawls, it tended to make people predictable. So, drawing on his own experience, analysis of air combat in Korea, and the YF-16/YF-17 flyoff, he came up with the idea of “asymmetric fast transients” for quick kills (see Patterns, pp. 4 & 5).

Later as he read more into military history, he tied AFT into deception, surprise, ambiguity, and cheng/ch’i maneuvers (see Patterns, charts 117 & 132) to come up with the OODA “loop” he put into “The Essence of Winning and Losing.” This was the only drawing of the “loop’ he did in any of his briefings. Boyd described the ideal behavior under this concept as “jerky” — as close to non-differentiable and even discontinuous as you can get in the physical universe. Pretty much what I’d want in a barroom brawl, at least until I could make it to the back door.

If by “strategy,” you mean some type of plan, then I agree with you completely.
Maxon 03 May 2008 at 10:17 am 8

“what Petraeus and Odierno actually did — and it is not a small achievement — was disrupt the insurgencies’ Loops more than any other U.S. commanders were able to. They kept the insurgencies in a state of confusion for months and prevented successful orientation.”

http://www.lewrockwell.com/engelhardt/engelhardt310.html

“The little group of us – rewriter, grade-level reducer, designer – would be summoned to the publisher’s office. There, our brave band of technicians would be ushered into a room in which there would be nothing but a gurney with a corpse on it in a state of advanced decomposition. The publisher’s representative would then issue a simple request: Make it look like it can get up and walk away.”
Maxon 03 May 2008 at 11:26 am 9

“Pretty much what I’d want in a barroom brawl, at least until I could make it to the back door.”

We’ll all have to meet up sometime
and give that a try, maybe durring ‘happy hour,’
after the next conference.
;0)

Indulge me, for the xtended post, as this is a specific area of my limited and feeble expertise.

The origin of what Coram devoted an entire chapter
in his Boyd biography as the F-16 and “the Button hook turn” is as follows.

Boyd, was Inspired to very exhaustive research into the dynamics of the Korean airwar, where the F-86 and Mig-15 were on paper very closely matched.

Yet, the UN forces so equipped enjoyed
an overwhelming advantage in kill ratio.

After exhaustive consideration and discounting the effects of experience, espree de corps, related motivational issues, amoung other factors, one thing stood out.

Boyd concluded that with the advantage of hydraulicaly boosted controls, the F-86 was empowered with a subtle but very significant advantage, against the Mig-15 in a dogfight.

Boyd concluded that the hydralic controls
alowed the F-86 pilot control the ship more quickly, in defense, turning the tables, or in offense, manuvering into a gun kill solution on the opponent.

And thus originated the larger idea that change
in general and particuarly in a stressfull compeditive situation is something that humans have a chalange with, and struggle with in perception, analysis and reaction.

Besides the YF-16 prototypes,
The later incarnation of the LWF in the Northrop F-20 Tigershark, has since been aknowlaged to be able to change direction and impart so many G’s so fast as to be a hazard to fly for it’s own pilot.

Indeed, 2 of only 3 prototypes ever made
and thier pilots were lost due to a new and little understood phenomina at the time now know as
instantanious Gloc, or loss of conciness.

Not, the more gradual tunnel vision, greyout,
and loss of concieness.

This has been compared to a knock out punch
in a prize fight.

In the case of the F-20 This might have been dealt with, by control limits in production models.

http://www.f20a.com/f20crash.htm
Maxon 04 May 2008 at 10:40 am 10

loggie20

“When ideology impeded strategy the OODA loop breaks down.”

I agree, becasue it warps your perception
and interpertation of events. Emotions
and an attachement for your conviction, belief, your vision or ambition, and no matter how flawed in conception as we can plainly see currently, over rides good judgement.

“But who describes “national interests”? The Murdock media?”

While there’s some truth to that, on the face ot it. Digging deeper it actually maybe much simpler.

First,
As a general rule, I resist widescale consperacy theories.

Working in and around the media,
I can tell you with some confidence that you can chock that one mainly upto expeidence, and a sickening type of sensationalism, and opportunisim in filling a vacum in the commercial market place. Or put another way, pandering to the lowest common denomiator.

In other words, American’s tune in to hear WHAT THEY MOST DESPERATELY WANT TO HEAR, that is that we are always right, invincible, the good guys, fair, honest, just and rightous.

All that further boils down simply as Hubris,
IE; USA ! USA ! Kicking $ss and taking names.

Ain’t that grand ?
Remember, We make our own beds.
Enjoy !

MaX
Maxon 04 May 2008 at 10:54 am 11

Dr_V,

“Can’t let our imaginary friends down, now can we?”

Perhaps It’s that’s simple and so very profound.

Going back over that, I find that’s an overwhelming and pervasive theme in
US forgien policy, and the conduct of wars.

“Imaginary” or wishfull.

In that sense.
The US acts collectively as a stranded motorist
a mile down the road from a federal penetentary,
in trusting the first person, in orange coveralls, to come along, and seeming to speak in a like mindedness, and making an offer.

I don’t care if you go back to Korea, Vietnam,
Pinochet, Noreiga, the Sahw, or the l8est.

And, the list is endless.

But we stray off topic.
M
seydlitz89on 05 May 2008 at 5:52 pm 12

Chet-

Thanks for the links to your theory posts. Interesting. From a Clausewitzian perspective, a model of decision making, a decision loop, esstentially tactical. If you were to add a “fourth dimension” (in addition to “time”, “space” and “mind”) to your environment, call it “language” then things might get interesting strategically. Consider that languages are intimately connected with values in ways that nationalities are not. Also language can unite or divide, essentially causing strategic effect on operations. For example, exactly how much was US policy in Iraq affected by having to rely on English as the “strategic language” of encounter with the Iraqi people? It goes back to the dirth of intelligence among our policy makers. Getting back to theory, we can have this . . .

Or, the general theory operating both within and without “orientation”. Each individual loop being modelled as well the single great loop, that theoretically symbolizing the particular war in question as a whole. What’s particularly interesting is how one would deal with the multiplicity of loops, that of each indivdual participant. Still theory would have to account for the existance of the random individual, at a seemingly unimportant level, who could trigger a series of events which could put the whole system at risk.

Which is where social action theory comes in. Yes, of course it works.
seydlitz89on 05 May 2008 at 6:04 pm 13

“without” = “outside of”
loggie20on 05 May 2008 at 7:00 pm 14

MaX,

On conspiracy theories.

Is; “None of us is as smart as all of us”.

as true as:

“None of us is as crooked as all of us”.

I sometimes put “dumb” in the phrase for “crooked” or “smart” when considering the DoD acquisition system.

If you do not subscribe to conspiracies, how come the GAO sees 95 major weapon systems wasting more and more taxpayer dough each year?

Melian dialog and all.
Newjarheaddeanon 06 May 2008 at 9:39 am 15

In my opinion the various sides fighting in Iraq are not aware of or don’t care about OODA loops.

It is really something how a government like the US, with so many people I believe are as smart as the people writing articles like this got into Iraq the way it did.

Thanks for the information. Have a great day!
Cheton 06 May 2008 at 10:22 am 16

Dear newjarheaddean,

Thanks - and welcome to DNI.

You’re probably right, although some very interesting stuff has been found in Afghanistan. Whether they know or care about the OODA “loop” I couldn’t say, although I’d bet most Marines have.

I was going to argue about who got us into Iraq, but some of the people most involved with that decision were well aware of both Boyd and the OODA “loop.”
Maxon 06 May 2008 at 2:50 pm 17

Newjarheaddean

on 06 May 2008 at 9:39 am
“In my opinion the various sides fighting in Iraq are not aware of or don’t care about OODA loops.”

You may be missing the whole point.

Boyd explains how human beings, particuarly when under pressure,
percive and react in situations.

Just as a physcian can describe how our hearts circulate and we breath,
not being acutely aware of it, obviously dosn’t mean that you’re not doing exactly all that.

If your saying that all interests are reacting, and behaving
in largely uncontrolled and viseral manner, and unaware
and with a poor understanding of one another’s moves,
countermoves, tactics, objectives and stratigy,
I beleive your absoutely correct.

Moreover after 5 years it’s becoming acutely obvious that the US
is acting blindly, and what is imagined as motivation,
straigy, objective and ambition changes month to month.

Not good.

Boyd would have a feild day, in analysis and critisism
of what’s going on.

The process of ODDA stands, almost like a principle of physics regardless of wether we “beleive” or are cognicent of it, we’re still doing it, doing well, or very poorly as the case maybe.

MaX
Maxon 06 May 2008 at 5:55 pm 18

loggie,

“If you do not subscribe to conspiracies, how come the GAO sees 95 major weapon systems wasting more and more taxpayer dough each year?”

I’m not disputing that, on the contrary, you’re preatching
to the chior.

That all this (including Iraq) is somekind orchristrated consperacy by a few, I envision the mythical James Bond villian(s) is to as usual
shirk responsibility off the shoulders of almost eveyone, who profits
from the military ind. con. services and think tanks, not to mention everyone who voted.

I find it mildly disappionting if not unexpected that even amoung some of the most free thinking and enlightened Americans there’s a tempation always lay to blame with the mysterious “them” for our troubles.

MaX
Maxon 06 May 2008 at 6:16 pm 19

A point about the OODA loop is also, everyone uses it,
everyday.

When you cross the street, particuarly when you j-walk.

Driving, video games, anytime your faced with a decision
that requires quick, or any kind really, of analysis, and action.

It’s in a compedetive or threatening, or dangerous enviroment where the ability to cope is tested.

So every interest in the Iraq situation (conflict) does it, but the US
is laden with first a beuracracy, then also dogma, it’s collosal hubris
with expectations, and protection of it’s self, and similarly graven interests at stake.

Where by comparison, the opposition has very little to protect, or fear.

MC
Maxon 06 May 2008 at 6:31 pm 20

Chet,

“I was going to argue about who got us into Iraq, but some of the people most involved with that decision were well aware of both Boyd and the OODA “loop.”

I havn’t got the faintest idea who you maybe talking about Chet,
but hey, on a tottaly unrelated issue, here’s an interesting critical analysis piece,,,.
M

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/192908_cheney29.html

Wednesday, September 29, 2004

Cheney changed his view on Iraq
He said in ‘92 Saddam not worth U.S. casualties

By CHARLES POPE
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT

WASHINGTON — In an assessment that differs sharply with his view today, Dick Cheney more than a decade ago defended the decision to leave Saddam Hussein in power after the first Gulf War, telling a Seattle audience that capturing Saddam wouldn’t be worth additional U.S. casualties or the risk of getting “bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq.”
Newjarheaddeanon 06 May 2008 at 6:41 pm 21

Dear Chet

I sure do hope the Marines and ALL combat service personal are receiving far better training than we did in the early 1980s. But as far as the tactical tactics go I have not seen any improvement. That is while watching CNN. And all I’ve learned on my own since thin.
I learned of (OODA loops) years later. You may have been talking about the Officers more than the NCOs.

Yes sir, Afghanistan for so many reasons, is a very interesting place. That’s why I’ve always wondered why the US got out of their in such a big way. One possibility may have been that it was part of some king’s truth agreement involving the USSR withdrawal.

As far as Iraq goes, I can’t help but think I will recall Dr. Vomact’s analogy of the drunken free-for-all, for quite so time to come.
Newjarheaddeanon 06 May 2008 at 6:56 pm 22

Dear Max

When it comes to the OODA loops I maybe a good example of how a little bit of knowledge can be dangerous.

Your second guess as to what I meant was more correct.

The circulation analogy I see as similar to the “latter effect” if you well, that I was not aware of until just a number of years ago. Meaning that most all decisions are based on other events that may have happened years, mouths, weeks, days, hours, etc. ago. Not on the present monument. Learning to give that some thought has helped me to avoid undesirable patterns.
Maxon 07 May 2008 at 3:48 pm 23

Newjarheaddeanon 06 May 2008 at 6:56 pm 22

“Dear Max.”

Well JHD, thank you for the gracious reply.
Welcome to the group.

All I can offer is this PERFECT example of how the Insurgency is ahead
of the US. Where the US spends countless hundereds of
millions of dollars, the oppostion comes up with something simple like ‘this that blow it away. You can bet dollars to donughts
it didn’t cost them much either.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/headline/world/5756202.html

May 5, 2008, 11:43PM
Back to Square 1 on soldiers’ safety?
New weapon penetrates pricey vehicle, kills 2 GIs

McClatchy-Tribune

WASHINGTON — The deaths of two U.S. soldiers in western Baghdad last week have sparked concerns that Iraqi insurgents have developed a new weapon capable of striking what the U.S. military considers its most explosive-resistant vehicle.

_____________________
So clearly, the insurgence are a step ahead, and moreover
are systematicaly bankrupting the United States.

And the same pepole, tell us to trust them, that items like
the $300 million + dollar F-22 fighter is invincible, and proceed to get all indignant when we question that.

Here endeth the lesson.

MaX
jaylemeuxon 08 May 2008 at 2:39 am 24

Max - the most telling part of this article:

“Military officials are still trying to determine whether last week’s attack is a sign of “new vulnerabilities (in the vehicle) or new (weapons) capabilities” on the part of insurgents, said Navy Capt. John Kirby, a spokesman for Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

in 2005, while deployed to Ramadi, i received a brief on EFPs (the weapon mentioned in this article) during Explosive Hazards Awareness Instructor Training (EHAT). Without getting into details, suffice it to say that at the time the MRAP was fielded, it was well known to EHAT that EFPs had already defeated tougher U.S. armor.

It’s not like the EFP has some monopoly on effectiveness, either. A few stacked Chinese antitank mines once sent an Abrams turret flying like a frisbee. Convoys traveling on the outskirts of Ramadi had to watch out for hollowed out propane tanks stuffed with 200 pounds of explosives buried in the middle of the road.

Nobody who knows anything about the threat to armored vehicles in Iraq should have had any illusion that an EFP or a number of other weapons wouldn’t pass through an MRAP like it wasn’t even there. Either Capt. Kirby is mistaken or there is such a disconnect between “military officials” and reality that the military has no functional OODA loop at all. It’s not that the resistance adapted to the MRAP, it’s that the MRAP was defeated before it hit the ground.
Maxon 08 May 2008 at 10:29 am 25

“It’s not that the resistance adapted to the MRAP, it’s that the MRAP was defeated before it hit the ground.”

Very good Jay.

As you would know Jay, and I know, thier using shaped
charges combined with dis-similar metals to penetrate
our armour.

I knew that, you know that, practically everyone on this
forum knows that.

Those in ‘charge’ (pun) know that too.

Just as we know this is unwinable.

MaX
Newjarheaddeanon 08 May 2008 at 4:23 pm 26

Dear MAX

I’m not offended, however the initials would be NJD, dean is not my name. My call sign refers to my wish for a new USMC (back to traditions, no five different types of sniper weapons, or MARSOC) dean, being me in charge of this Massif movement of one.

Note “it didn’t cost them much either” reminds me of the guerrilla leaving his car to a comrade if he can conduct his mission by bus. No need to waist anything. Etc.

One other way to put my original opinion might be that, the US is fighting a war of Maneuver Vs the Guerrilla war of Attrition. Both must fallow OODA loops, but which side can view things better from the enemies point of reference. I think the upper hand is with the Guerrillas. IMO they spin far less time trying to figure out what the US may do next and concentrate on sitting there own pace, and yes both are still reacting to each others moves.

Have a great day sir.
loggie20on 08 May 2008 at 7:03 pm 27

newjarheaddean,

Warmest regards.
Maxon 08 May 2008 at 7:14 pm 28

“One other way to put my original opinion might be that, the US is fighting a war of Maneuver Vs the Guerrilla war of Attrition. ”

That’s an interesting observation.
The insurgency is fighting a protracted campain, eroding
the US military’s ability to sustain deployment, finances,
world opinion, and self esteem, to name a few.

For our part, the US seems quite unable to do much to counter
all that.

The kind of war the US is currently fighting, worked
well in the initial phases of the Afganistan campain, and
the Iraq invasion, when it had the Taliban and Sadam
on the run, and off balance.
M
MickeyPvXon 08 May 2008 at 8:49 pm 29

Whew, it’s been a while since I’ve actually replied to anything (a lot of reading though), but I find this type of discourse particularly stimulating.

It is very interesting to note the disparity between the views/actions of the upper echelons of command and the hands-on experience of the “grunts” on the streets. While it is always painfully obvious to those in the fight on a day to day basis as to what works and what doesn’t, it’s hard to find a good way the uppers have reacted to facilitate those needs. What I find instead is the mindset they’re still drilling into us here in the AF, that technology is the key to everything in the universe and is why the US has (and apparently will continue) to win every conflict it’s ever been in since Vietnam. Never mind the rest of history that says otherwise.

A big problem with trying to solve every problem through innovating technologically (as opposed to strategically/tactically) is that in most cases it comes as a reaction to problems already noticed, against a threat that has already caused casualties, and is therefore already inside the decision cycles of those in higher command. Even worse, the US has the terrible habit of advertising its new battlefield technology before its use in the field, allowing the enemy to take advantage, which is where we find ourselves today with the EFP’s.

The worst part is that even when we are fully aware of a projects’ deficiencies (or adversary weapons abilities) it is still pushed through into the hands of the soldiers for whatever reason (ehem, contractors?). Plus, battlefield proficiency in urban combat with these new “marvels” is questionable at best, since more time is focused on developing weapons familiarization than with small unit tactics and training.

Such is our relationship with the Big Five Sided Green Machine.
Maxon 09 May 2008 at 9:07 am 30

MickeyPvX
on 08 May 2008 at 8:49 pm

“the disparity between the views/actions of the upper echelons of command and the hands-on experience of the “grunts” on the streets.”

SNIP

“it comes as a reaction to problems already noticed, against a threat that has already caused casualties, and is therefore already inside the decision cycles of those in higher command.”

All epitomised in the ongoing body armour
fiasco.
M

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,189763,00.html

“U.S. Army Bans Use of Privately Purchased Body Armor by Troops”

http://tinyurl.com/6crn8s

“Marines reject overweight body armour
After long complaining about not having enough protection, many US marines in Iraq are refusing to use new sets of body armour, saying they’re too heavy and cumbersome.”
Maxon 09 May 2008 at 9:26 am 31

Max
on 08 May 2008 at 7:14 pm

“The insurgency is fighting a protracted campain, eroding the US military’s ability to sustain deployment,”

And, I ain’t just whistling dixie,,,.
M

http://tinyurl.com/5h77em

“By Gregg Zoroya, USA TODAY”

“U.S. troops head out on foot patrol south of Baghdad. Of the 1.6 million servicemembers sent to Afghanistan and Iraq, more than 43,000 have been deemed medically unfit for combat, according to Pentagon records.”
Newjarheaddeanon 09 May 2008 at 3:15 pm 32

Thanks to loggie20, I too am very pleased with all the exchange of ideas, this is only the 2nd site for me to blog on. The 1st one is not as open minded to say the least. Only been on the web for 11 mouths still organizing all my rumor boards (LOL).

Just going to keep putting my two cents in. What about the suicide bombers, now that’s the ultimate mind game. The handlers use the shame, revenge and debt cards a lot. Seems to me they might also have a system like the AF dose with the jets on “Alert status” around the nation. I’ve read they keep them isolated from the rest of the world (no news, or TV) so at the time of an alert, they have less ability to judge the reality of the mission and thus well fallow orders better. Example; they will believe WWIII has started if told that. Maybe these organizations have totally isolated living quarters and raise these people from birth. It would be quite easy to convince a pure innocent mind of the evil out here. Etc. And they would have no material desires.

Max I checked out the link, speaking of suicide, (I wish to say first that our service men and women are as brave as any) however my guess is this PDS is a result of those who join up and expect to be trained as Rambo’s and when they are not and return from war, with only stories of witnessing the indirect fire power called in by them, it all hits home.
MickeyPvXon 09 May 2008 at 11:10 pm 33

Max,

“All epitomised in the ongoing body armour
fiasco.”

Sounds like just the type of top-down leadership that’s gotten us into trouble in the first place. While the troops know what the best products for business are, the top says they have to use something else. Lip service is paid to the concept of “Initiative,” but those who show it by suiting up with the best equipment are backhanded by a ban on privately purchased body armor (and I’ve heard about bans on rifles such as the H&K 416 as well).

Heck, if the most effective way to fight insurgents was to walk around in shorts and a t-shirt, I’d be all for it. Meanwhile the top would still be strapping everybody up with as much hardware as possible.
Maxon 10 May 2008 at 6:37 am 34

Exactly, what kind of message does a decision like this send ?
Think about it.
Think about 4th generational warfare the writings
of Martin Creveld, etc.
Think about the moral stature of the United States.

Remember this;

I am convinced that the future epitath of the United States will read,

Starting in the latter
half of the 20th century, a pervasive and epidemic decay in morality, underscored by the refusal to accept personel responsibility for anything wrong,
throughout the entire scociety.

http://wiredispatch.com/news/?id=161939

May 09, 2008 16:30 EST

Blackwater Worldwide, the security contractor blamed by an angry Iraqi government for the shooting deaths of 17 civilians, is not expected to face criminal charges — all but ensuring the company will keep its multimillion-dollar contract to protect U.S. diplomats.
loggie20on 10 May 2008 at 6:37 am 35

MicketPvX,

Had recurring Friday noon lunch meeting with old comrades.

The conclusion: this war will last a long time, there is a lot of money being made.
Maxon 10 May 2008 at 6:48 am 36

Interesting.

MC

http://tinyurl.com/6r9ske

“Commando leaders shift away from Rumsfeld strategy”

“By RICHARD LARDNER, Associated Press Writer
56 minutes ago”

“WASHINGTON -

SNIP

“Fridovich, who has extensive experience in the Pacific region, arrived in Tampa last year just as Olson was taking over. For the previous six years Fridovich had been a key player in what the Defense Department considers a successful effort against Abu Sayyaf, an al-Qaida outgrowth in the Philippines.”

“Along with Olson, Fridovich is a proponent of indirect warfare, a slow and disciplined process that involves training foreign militaries and providing humanitarian, financial and civic backing to areas viewed as possible terrorist breeding grounds.”
Maxon 12 May 2008 at 12:14 pm 37

MickeyPvX

“Heck, if the most effective way to fight insurgents was to walk around in shorts and a t-shirt, I’d be all for it.”

As a matter of fact,

MaX
MickeyPvXon 12 May 2008 at 9:45 pm 38

Max,

I said the thing about the t-shirt and shorts somewhat from reading John Poole’s book, “Phantom Soldier” where he talks a lot about the battle of Hue City in Vietnam. It’s rumored that the NVA both infiltrated and exited the city with little trouble by stashing their uniforms and dressing up like normal city-goers. That and the reading on this site by the Austro-Hungarian Marine Corps on 4th generation warfare and the brazen Lt. Col. that suggests de-escalation. Sounds common sense to try and fit in, don’t you think?
Maxon 13 May 2008 at 2:06 am 39

jaylemeuxon 08 May 2008 at 2:39 am 24

““Military officials are still trying to determine whether last week’s attack is a sign of “new vulnerabilities (in the vehicle) or new (weapons) capabilities” on the part of insurgents,”

“Took them out with a heat seeker, Dillian, that’s pretty sofisticated
for a bunch of half-assed mountian boys.”*

*Arnold Schwartzenegger
In the Hollywood Contemporary Classic “Predator”

“”It” has started, and it’s only a matter of time before
“they” start bringing down our highest valued hardwere assets.”

MaX

http://tinyurl.com/59pcnu

“Missile Is Fired at Copter Over Baghdad,”

By STEPHEN FARRELL and MICHAEL R. GORDON
Published: May 13, 2008

BAGHDAD — A surface-to-air missile was fired on Saturday at an American Apache helicopter flying over the Sadr City section of Baghdad, American military officials said on Monday. The attack, which had not been disclosed previously, represents the first time that a helicopter has come under missile attack in Sadr City since fighting erupted in the Shiite enclave in March.

The missile missed the aircraft. But the attack was sufficiently worrisome that the American military changed the route of an aerial tour of Baghdad it had arranged for a group of reporters, television cameramen and photographers on Monday. Two helicopters were to fly over or near Sadr City, but an official said the route had been changed because of the missile threat.

The United States military has made extensive use of Apache helicopters to try to stop militias from firing rockets at the Green Zone and to protect American and Iraqi troops in Sadr City from Shiite fighters armed with small arms, rocket-propelled grenades, mortars and roadside bombs.

The helicopters have taken a heavy toll on the militia fighters. In an effort to blunt the American advantage in airpower, the militias have waited until dust storms have grounded the Apaches to unleash heavy rocket attacks on the Green Zone.

But the attack on Saturday suggests that the militias may intend to make a more determined challenge to the American dominance in the air.
Newjarheaddeanon 13 May 2008 at 5:25 pm 40

On the SA-7 if that’s what it was, it’s a 30 some odd year old weapon. (9K32 “Strela-2″ / Ru 9К32 “Cтрела-2″ - arrow, NATO reporting name SA-7 “Grail” IOC 1968). IMO it would have had to have been modified maybe equipped with an RPG motor, and the guidance would have been disconnected or gutted. So the weapon could be fired like a spear. So non of the ECMs would have any effect. The only reason for using it Verse an RPG would have been the warhead rumored to be 2.5 lbs. Some RPG warheads can weight 4.5 lbs, however I believe it also has to do with the design of the SA-7 warhead. It’s amazing to me more have not been used. IMO the US forces most likely always punishes the area where a SAM is fired from pretty darn good. So fewer guerrillas try it.
Maxon 13 May 2008 at 8:23 pm 41

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/row/sa-7.htm

SA-7 GRAIL
9K32M Strela-2
HN-5 (Hongying 5) China
Anza MKI - Pakistan
Ayn as Saqr - Egypt

The SA-7 GRAIL (Strela-2) man-portable, shoulder-fired, low-altitude SAM system is similar to the US Army REDEYE, with a high explsive warhead and passive infrared homing guidance. The HN-5 ( Hong Nu = Red Cherry ) is an improved Chinese version with upgraded capabilities. The SA-7 was the first generation of Soviet man portable surface-to-air missiles. Although classed as “fire and forget” types, the missiles were easily overcome by solar heat and, when used in hilly terrain, by heat from the ground.
Maxon 13 May 2008 at 8:43 pm 42

“It’s amazing to me more have not been used. IMO the US forces most likely always punishes the area where a SAM is fired from pretty darn good. So fewer guerrillas try it.”

You honestly believe the insurgence “hang around” for the air strike ?

Why ?

All the strikes do is bounce rubble, and kill civilians,
making scores of new sworn enemies, willing to
die, and take any chance to kill Americans.

All of which delights the defenders and Alquada to no end.

I am surprised the insurgency hasn’t used 50mm rifles
(a lot of them in co-ordinated fashion)
to bring down our AC.

But then again, since the US plays right into thier hands
on the stratigic level, to begin with, they don’t really have to, now do they ?

Meanwhile we go broke.

Filled up your tank lately ?

MaX
MickeyPvXon 14 May 2008 at 9:20 pm 43

NJD and Max,

“IMO the US forces most likely always punishes the area where a SAM is fired from pretty darn good. So fewer guerrillas try it.”

“You honestly believe the insurgence “hang around” for the air strike?”

Max, I was about to say the same thing in regard to air strikes on time sensitive targets (TST’s). The biggest problem with the shoulder mounted SAM’s is the ability to point, shoot, and scoot. While we may get the info as to its location, by the time return fire is inbound, they’ve been gone for quite a while.

Yes I have filled my tank up recently, for a cheap $3.73 *rolleyes*. AAFES sent out an email saying they’d provide the cheapest gas in town, which is true because the station in second place is off base by about a mile and is serving it up at $3.74. Wow, thanks AAFES.
Newjarheaddeanon 15 May 2008 at 2:05 pm 44

First, many thanks to DNI for providing this service, I do apologize for getting off topic and well try not to let it happen in the feature. So to wind this up and get back on subject.

Max.
IR is ancient technology brother, Not too many helicopter lost to them in Vietnam. And this was before all the ECM available today. It was the FIM-92 stinger not the Redeye used in Afghanistan that was unbeatable.

Why would insurgents stay in area? What I said was, the US forces most likely punishes the area etc.

IMO the objective of such damage is not to get the guilty, only to punish those in the area for not policing their neighborhood better.

I would ask why Sadr would want a aircraft shot at from his base of control. It’s like stealing in your own neighborhood. Even if I’m wrong about the policy, there would be heat for such actions. Most likely it was an insurgent not a Sadr guerrilla who shot at the helicopter.

And to anyone who would think Uncle Sam would not have such a policy I say look at the missile strikes along the Pakistan Afghanistan boarder like the one that was just reported today, May 15, 2008, Reuters India, (anger after apparent US missile strike in Pakistan).

Furthermore, I read one time that some people thought the so-called errant bombs that strike unintended targets are not always errant. One OODA observation one might make is that the general public tires of war based on the amount of innocent life lost, therefore increasing this may hasten the support of the public who just want it to end.

Thanks again to DNI
Maxon 15 May 2008 at 7:34 pm 45

Newjarheaddeanon 15 May 2008 at 2:05 pm

“IMO the objective of such damage is not to get the guilty, only to punish those in the area for not policing their neighborhood better.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Geneva_Convention

Collective punishments

Article 33. No protected person may be punished for an offence he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited.
Pillage is prohibited.
Reprisals against protected persons and their property are prohibited.

Under the 1949 Geneva Conventions collective punishments are a war crime. Article 33 states: “No protected person may be punished for an offense he or she has not personally committed,” and “collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited.”

By collective punishment, the drafters of the Geneva Conventions had in mind the reprisal killings of World Wars I and II. In the First World War, Germans executed Belgian villagers in mass retribution for resistance activity. In World War II, Nazis carried out a form of collective punishment to suppress resistance. Entire villages or towns or districts were held responsible for any resistance activity that took place there. The conventions, to counter this, reiterated the principle of individual responsibility. The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) Commentary to the conventions states that parties to a conflict often would resort to “intimidatory measures to terrorize the population” in hopes of preventing hostile acts, but such practices “strike at guilty and innocent alike. They are opposed to all principles based on humanity and justice.”

Additional Protocol II of 1977 explicitly forbids collective punishment. But as fewer states have ratified this protocol than GCIV, GCIV Article 33. is the one more commonly quoted.
Newjarheaddeanon 17 May 2008 at 8:27 pm 46

AHOY

Max, come on bub you got to be playing some kind of initiation joke on me. What kind of attention do you think the United State of America pays to the Geneva Conventions in Guantanamo Bay. Are those missile attacks inside Pakistan being made by US made missiles. Are those firing them not play god with who dies for what price.

Maybe you want me to read the Bible now.

Over and out.
Maxon 24 May 2008 at 11:10 am 47

Newjarheaddean
on 17 May 2008 at 8:27 pm

“Max, come on bub you got to be playing some kind of initiation joke on me.”

Not necessarily, I am neutral with respect to
where this is going, but I am feeding you information to prompt you, in order to learn, and see where it maybe your headed.

You have finally tipped your hand with the last reply.

You’re assertions constitute a serious indictment
of the US military.

At this stage who can we really trust, towards versions of events.

Remembering that perception is 9 tenths of reality in such matters, which is a factual cornerstone
of 4GW.

The deliberate targeting of civilians should
shock and revile every thinking American
with a conscience.

And yet nearly everyday their are headlines from
credible sources that suggest that you are
indeed absolutely correct.

How would Americans react if this was being done
to them, not once, twice, or more, but practically daily for years on end ?

http://tinyurl.com/6mg38y

“Increased U.S. airstrikes in Iraq killing more civilians David Edwards and Muriel Kane
Published: Friday May 23, 2008″

” According to the Washington Post, ever since an attempted crackdown on Shi’ite militias by the Iraqi government in March, which led to increased attacks on the Green Zone in Baghdad that killed some Americans, the US military has been firing missiles almost every day into the crowded Shi’ite slum of Sadr City. ”

“Residents describe the attacks as indiscriminate and say they have led to many civilian deaths. However, the US Army states that they choose their targets carefully and often refrain from firing for fear of civilian casualties.”

SNIP
Maxon 24 May 2008 at 9:20 pm 48

Newjarheaddean

“What kind of attention do you think the United State of America pays to the Geneva Conventions in Guantanamo Bay. ”

-This kind,,,
When and if we feel like it, or not.

http://wiredispatch.com/news/?id=181525

May 23, 2008 00:47 EST

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on Thursday defended tough interrogation techniques for terrorism suspects approved by the Bush administration in the wake of 9/11, saying they were necessary to protect America from new attacks.

SNIP

But she acknowledged that those rules had since changed and that the United States was a “different place” then, adding that the administration’s top priority at the time had been preventing new attacks and not necessarily observing fine legal points.
Newjarheaddeanon 29 May 2008 at 9:17 am 49

AHOY

Max

Apologies for the reply delay. My goals where revealed with the commit on 08 may 2008 at 16:23 hours. Get the USMC back to traditions and the Nation too. Joke that sums up the situation. USMC stands for Uncle Sam’s mislead children.

IMO there are very few “thinking Americans with a conscience”, maybe three million tops. Most of the educated have been canalized without even noticing the parking lots filled with only three types of cars. They have been segregated into sophisticated fiefdoms if they ever buck the system they discover what is in the fine print of the numerous contracts they have signed. The spouses they “meet by chance” are not unlike the cars they chose, the children they have are the cherries on the cake that seal the deals. My point; all their energy and time is accounted for.

As for who can we trust, I like Bill Moyer’s (paraphrase) “there are to many interest with a stake in a dysfunctional democracy”.

And I’ve got a phase too “who you going to call”
Take all the books about the current administration, I have read they have many contradictions. No media Max is holding anyone to the facts. Right now Scout McClelland is going threw the talking points cycle. However the media well never make up our minds.
IMO the CIA has never taken its eye off the ball. And this AWOT is all about good verses evil.
Newjarheaddeanon 29 May 2008 at 2:17 pm 50

Max

Project Chloe the DHS’s plan for a laser-armed UAV to protect U.S. airports. The name Chloe is from the TV series 24. The article said that one drone at 50k ft. could cover several regional airports at once and spot terrorists and blind them or the weapons with the laser. Could this be the reason for the lack of missile attacks in Iraq and other locations?

And then there is the supper grainy, washout, black and white negative security footage shown on local news cast fallowed by the question can you ID this person. (LOL) usually one can’t tell if suspect has on a hat or not. The reasons for showing the footage have nothing to do with the general public providing police with an ID. However lots of those in the sheep herd believe the quality of the image is as good as the police have to work with.

Remember the gang downing helicopters a year or so ago with the AAA systems mounted on trucks. They were killed with a air strike, shown on CNN. IMO it was no coincidence the public was told of this activity by the group just weeks before the big bang event that altered their mission. IMO if anyone ever started shooting pilots with 12.6mm rifles, their position would be triangulated before the recoil. That’s a bit of an exaggeration of course. But we don’t lose to many soldiers to that type of weapon either.
Maxon 11 Jun 2008 at 5:10 pm 51

*”Pepole ! Ideas ! Hardware !”

“In that order !”

*John Boyd/Col. USAF (Dec)

http://www.d-n-i.net/fcs/comments/c418.htm

“I see the pilot as just another black box, in a ship full of black boxes”*

*quote by an AH-10 Apache Combat Helicopter pilot.
_______________________________
http://tinyurl.com/57dg56

US seeking ways to keep copters safe
Vulnerability complicates Baghdad effort

By Bryan Bender, Globe Staff | February 9, 2007

WASHINGTON — The increasing vulnerability of US helicopters ferrying troops and supplies could slow and potentially jeopardize the military’s expanded mission to secure Baghdad, military officials said yesterday.

The loss of six helicopters in the past three weeks, at least four of them believed to be targets of enemy fire, has left the military scrambling for ways to protect the air space over Iraq.

In one new tactic aimed at helicopters, groups of insurgents have waited in places where helicopters frequently fly and then attacked with a combination of small arms, rocket-propelled grenades, and other weapons, military officials said. The “swarming” strategy may have played a role in some of the recent crashes, according to officials familiar with ongoing investigations.

But with a new offensive aimed at securing Baghdad neighborhoods, and more troops operating out of the capital, commanders will not be able to reduce the number of flyovers without disrupting the military effort, they said. The only option to enhance helicopter safety is to frequently alter flight patterns.
_____________________
http://tinyurl.com/6oau86

US military helicopters are equipped with jamming devices, chaff dispensers, and sensors capable of detecting when their aircraft has been illuminated with a hostile missile targeting radar, US army officials said.

“We don’t have anything that’s a preventive measure against RPGs (rocket propelled grenades) or small arms fire. It’s just not there,” said Major Gary Tallman, an army spokesman.

So, pilots rely on tactics and flying skills for protection against those threats.

“The enemy has clearly adapted and so have we,” said Tallman. “That’s the nature of combat.”

The 40 deaths from helicopter downings due to hostile fire account for nearly 18 per cent of the 224 combat deaths suffered by US forces since May 1.
Newjarheaddeanon 19 Jun 2008 at 11:51 am 52

AHOY Max

I’ve been extremely busy! My apologies again!
It seems to me the DNI community is speeding down the freeway of strategy while I crawl in the jungle of tactics. So I’m going to agree to disagree on the US air defenses. I well read the links.
But I most say IMO the statements that you listed accrued during the time period of the group with the AAA mounted on trucks that were bombed. The small arms fire statement is no different than when reporters get away with calling a APC a Tank. It was 20mm cannons. IMO most over all losses are do to pilot errors and Mechanical failures. With the pilots statements; you have a man flying the most advanced helos in the world by the set of his pants. I don’t buy that. It sounds like the GWI pilots talking about flying through the hail of lead over Baghdad when they were two miles above 80 to 90 % of it all.
Take care Max. %
Maxon 03 Jul 2008 at 8:43 am 53

“It sounds like the GWI pilots talking about flying through the hail of lead over Baghdad when they were two miles above 80 to 90 % of it all.”

That was then, I’m talking about now.
M

http://tinyurl.com/5p52vu
U.S. helicopter shot down as Afghan violence rises Wed Jul 2, 2:21 PM ET

KABUL (Reuters) - A helicopter belonging to U.S.-led coalition troops was shot down by small-arms fire in Afghanistan on Wednesday and America’s top military officer said he was increasingly concerned about the rising violence.

SNIP

http://tinyurl.com/5gqnq2

By Ralph Omholt

Despite our rapid defeat of the Iraqi army last spring, one clear lesson that has emerged from both the combat and occupation phases of the war is that the entire concept of helicopter operations in battle is undermined by their extreme vulnerability to ground fire.

Unlike our experience in the jungles and wooded mountains of Vietnam, the helicopter is a prime and easy target in desert and urban warfare environments such as we have seen in Somalia, and are still seeing in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The combat record of the helicopter in Vietnam was different from subsequent battlefields. That was true by virtue of the limitations of the Viet Cong-NVA firing accuracy, the limitations of their weaponry - including quantity - and the visual limitations of the jungle or forests which served to protect the helicopters flying overhead.

It was also true that the UH-1 Huey was a simple and tough helicopter, easily repaired. The application of the helicopter was uniquely successful in a unique environment. And, their relatively low cost ensured that quantity was rarely a factor.

The harsh reality is that today the helicopter is a terrible choice of troop transport or firepower against any competent or well-equipped force - of any size.

Whether in Mogadishu 10 years ago or Iraq today, the helicopter equation has changed for the worse. Typically, the adversary’s ground arms are more available. And whether by luck or skill, the effectiveness of enemy ordnance is far greater than that experienced in Vietnam.
SNIP

http://www.buzzflash.com/analysis/03/05/05_helicopters.html
Why Do U.S. Military Helicopters Keep Crashing?

A BUZZFLASH NEWS ANALYSIS

In the beginning weeks of Operation Iraqi Freedom, as well as during the war on terrorism, military helicopter crashes and “hard landings” were a common occurrence. A number of BuzzFlash readers wrote in to comment on this, with many questioning why U.S. helicopters seemed to pose more of a threat than the enemy
Newjarheaddeanon 03 Jul 2008 at 5:10 pm 54

AHOY Max
First link 11 June, I take it we agree things are not right at the top. 18 power standard, is that similar to what I read in (How to make war, by Dunnnigan) chapter 25, where system is based on a starting thresh hold etc. 10 billion being the figure he used in 1993. When I read these Keystone cops reports about DoD book keeping, I consider it maybe disinformation. One time this blogger referred me to all these analyst reports on the relationship btw China and USSR. So I asked him if he could tell me what Pres. Bush meant in his last address to the nation when he said X. And now we have reports that most nations involved in money laundering are cooperating. If true, IMO the laundering has switched to the pre-market oil trading, I forget the term. Also how could described DOD budget system coexist within a gov. that is capable of comprehending and correcting globe money laundering? Families have traditions of Collage or poverty, there are few exceptions within either. USA is 232 years old 4 or 6 life spans IMO not two many have given up the power. Not only is the president a figure head, the senators are mouth peace lawyers for the Mr. Taylor’s of the world. IMO all manor of promotions are based on vulnerability ie the controllability not competency. I knew CMC Conway when we called him w-r-o-n-g-w-a-y! US doesn’t wont anymore Gen. Mc Arthur’s.
Newjarheaddeanon 04 Jul 2008 at 1:48 pm 55

AHOY Max, Hope everyone had a Happy 4th of July. Someone once put my last point a better way. He said the best officers in the Military are the Colonels that don’t make General. That’s the line I’m taking about. Think Col. Hackworth. And Max IMO main stream media plays up hoop and hype its about drama thin (GWI) and now. AK-47s are not serious threats to UH-60s. Not even golden bebe showers, LOL. Look at the repeat wording also when it comes to the counter tactics. That one link at the Def. site did mention some tactics, but all the media articles just keep saying we change up our routines, change our tactics, do things differently like its all top secret. LOL. They might as well say we’re flying around like a chicken without its head.

[CR: To which we might add Boyd, Wyly, Riccioni, Wilson (GI), Dilger, Burton, Macgregor, Lang (Pat), and the many others it has been my honor to know and serve with.]
Maxon 04 Jul 2008 at 9:42 pm 56

“AK-47s are not serious threats to UH-60s.”

True, in that respect I’ll take your word for it, unfortunately however, we’re dealing with these, and similar.

Which is enough to bring down any aircraft in the US tactical inventory, particularly any chopper, and short of the A-10.

http://tinyurl.com/5yo3g

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nig7yzIWKk8&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1fCZvOHd5dg&feature=related

CR: “To which we might add Boyd, Wyly, Riccioni, Wilson (GI), Dilger, Burton, Macgregor, Lang (Pat), and the many others it has been my honor to know and serve with.”

Amoung those on the list, Chet also retired a Col.

Not to put too fine a point on it.
To a military leader, there maybe no higher complement
than to say.

IF I had served, and IF it came down to it,
I’d follow the likes of those on the list I’m personely familiar with, into battle, and that also infers by nature, trust, and IF it came down to it, to give one’s own life.

Maximillian C
Newjarheaddeanon 05 Jul 2008 at 1:02 pm 57

AHOY Max, 50 cal. lets look at possible defenses and see what you think. For the airport one combat rule is check your perimeter. 24/7 with UAVs, ground senors, sat, and human intel, the noisy bodies of the neighborhood, and patrols. IMO there are few vacant rooms available for a sniper. snipers usually don’t use roof tops, besides there like front porches. Theirs no high ground. Vehicle option, any out of routine or out side traffic is noted. If weapon mounted at work and then you play hooky etc. IMO that car setting there would be notice from previous photos. My point, a two or three mile buffer zone would not provide and endless number of hiding places. Intel gets better with time. Geneva aside, with Medicavs IMO the unit would position the CROWs system, troops would enter areas or buildings of concern and EVERYONE would here the Jets over head. The helo would pass by and circle back to recon area and drawl any premature fire. WIA are moved to (dead space) LZ maybe a mile or more away, there would be lots of smoke, aerosols and laser lights in all spectrum’s etc. G-Day!
Maxon 05 Jul 2008 at 7:11 pm 58

Thanks, JHD, you made it, the point !

So, lemee get this straight, and make sure that I get it, I’m pretty slow sometimes,,.

Because of their inherent and acute vunerability, US combat helicopters in the Iraqi and Afganistan theater need these concerted, complex, orchistrated, and layered protection schemes.

Yes ?

Including a 3 mile secured perimiter ? And Jets escorting on CAP.

Yes ?

Against 4th generational oppostion we’re told, and told again, and again, compare as practicaly cavemen, against our training, equipment, skills and technology !

Yes ?

What IF these same pepole were well armed, equipped, and actually any good !?

Well ?

Thanks for clearing that up.

Losses continue,
M

http://tinyurl.com/5bqkjh
http://tinyurl.com/2oqrnb
Newjarheaddeanon 06 Jul 2008 at 3:19 pm 59

AHOY, Max
Acute vulnerability, the 50 cal target would be the pilots head. And IMO only slightly possible with a armor piercing sabot round.
The suggested tactics would be to counter any possible threat. Not even an M-1 tank operates alone.
Cavemen, NOT ME, that’s the media you trust talking, they also say UBL is living in a cave. US well trained NO, most all troops are just fallowing orders without understanding tactics. I know there are PFCs that think the helicopters keep passing by and circling back because the pilots are looking for them. LOL. My call sign references to what I wish was the USMC counter to the Mujahideen. Because in my opinion the Mujahideen are like the Rambo story, “however they may have ended up, there was a time”… And if those Rambos ever get lots of modern Anti aircraft weapons. IMO we well see a series of modern day battles of little big horns. Its been said that if war dose not end quickly, neither side has better leaders, if one side (NATO) has advantages and war drags on, you can be sure smaller force has better leadership. G-day!
Maxon 11 Jul 2008 at 7:05 pm 60

Inside our OODA loops?

http://tinyurl.com/69gunu

SNIP

U.S. military officials call the devices Improvised Rocket Assisted Munitions, or IRAMs. They are propane tanks packed with hundreds of pounds of explosives and powered by 107mm rockets. They are often fired by remote control from the backs of trucks, sometimes in close succession. Rocket-propelled bombs have killed at least 21 people, including at least three U.S. soldiers, this year.

The latest reported rocket-propelled bomb attack occurred Tuesday at Joint Security Station Ur, a base in northeastern Baghdad shared by U.S. and Iraqi soldiers. One U.S. soldier and an interpreter were wounded in the attack.

U.S. military officials say IRAM attacks, unlike roadside bombings and conventional mortar or rocket attacks, have the potential to kill scores of soldiers at once. IRAMs are fired at close range, unlike most rockets, and create much larger explosions. Most such attacks have occurred in the capital, Baghdad.

The use of the rocket-propelled bombs reflects militiamen’s ability to use commonly available materials and relatively low-tech weaponry to circumvent security measures that have cost the U.S. military billions of dollars.
SNIP

http://tinyurl.com/5r8jf8

SNIP

The 107 mm rockets that are used in the improvised bombs — which some call an airborne version of the roadside bombs that through the course of the war have been the leading killer of U.S. troops — are manufactured in Iran, officials said. But some officers cautioned against assuming Iran is directly involved.

The weapons are launched from small trucks and are fired in multiples of four to nine rockets at a time. The detonation is sometimes triggered by a signal from a cell phone, other times by a washing machine timer.

Brig. Gen. Will Grimsley, deputy commander of U.S. forces in Baghdad, said in a separate AP interview on Thursday that for lack of a better term he refers to the group as “the evil militia.” He said it is small and exhibits a high degree of technical skill in assembling the weapons and executing attacks.

SNIP
Newjarheaddeanon 12 Jul 2008 at 11:25 am 61

AHOY Max,

Aircraft losses, figures show majority due to maintenance and pilot error. On the IRAMs, catastrophic damage, cannot be stopped, two second warning. Acronym good example of US always having to invent new terms. Could be like a fuel air explosive warhead i guess but Catastrophic? How much larger than 122mm Katyushas 50 lbs warhead? Green zone uses Phalanx systems with proximity fuse shells. UAVs have 24/7 coverage can rewind tapes to see where car bomb or anything else came from. IMO the enemy steels a vehicle right around the corner from target, drive into allie, 15 people converge on it, each with a part and role. They put it together while the martyr is preying, then drives back around the corner and bag! No time to react. Cell phone detonation could be used like self destruct fuse of RPGs, to attack helicopters. And if one whispers there is no use of the vocal cords thus no voice signature to ID UBL (LOL), gaps in teeth etc can be easily modified. DOD calls it chatter. G-day!
Maxon 12 Jul 2008 at 1:40 pm 62

“Aircraft losses, figures show majority due to maintenance and pilot error”

Havn’t reviewed the stats to that degree, because it’s largely moot.

I realise a fair number are loss due to mis-hap.
However, think, economics and practical theory.

The AC and in many cases the crews and/or passengers & troops have been lost or written off, at the end of the day.

On the balance sheet the bottom line remains the same.
Wartime campain losses are losses, and however caused.

Sady, many thousands return horribly mangled and permanetly debilitated and/or brain damaged, that would have otherwise died on the spot, but have been kept alive by recently advanced medical technology.

These soldiers, thier lives pretty much ruined, will need to be cared for, until the end of thier days.

I hope that victory, and attainment of shifting goals, what ever they maybe, this month, the next, or the year(s) ahead, when it and if it ever comes, is worth those, amoung mounting costs.

MaX
jaylemeuxon 12 Jul 2008 at 2:22 pm 63

on the IRAMs-soldiers and Marines are calling them lob-bombs. i think they’re tactically brilliant-they’ve got people scared to death over there. i’m doubtful that their being manufactured in Iraq is meaningful, if it’s even true. from a soldier’s description, they can be made in any mechanics garage.

first hand video from IVAW’s own Casey Porter:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UCWnBlozjmM&eurl=http://ivaw.org/
jaylemeuxon 12 Jul 2008 at 2:23 pm 64

oops, meant to say “Iran,” not “Iraq.”
Maxon 12 Jul 2008 at 5:38 pm 65

Newjarheaddeanon 06 Jul 2008 at 3:19 pm 59

AHOY, Max
Acute vulnerability, the 50 cal target would be the pilots head.

Sorry,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BsKfxXtQrzc
Newjarheaddeanon 12 Jul 2008 at 6:30 pm 66

AHOY Max, yes WIA I here you… I must say, that is why I get so mad at the lack of training. Take the man who jumps on a grenade, a grenade has a very small causality radius, the WIA figures are only like 6 % within 10 feet, a death is very rare, mostly just those that jump on them. But yet the government constantly harps about these acts as saving all the surrounding troops life’s. Instead of training to eliminate these tragic acts. And now you may have read the Time Magazine article about all the anti depressants being subscribed, its unbelievable. Hay Max do you remember the Supper Bowl that broadcast using the panorama TV camera technology it may have been the 1998 or 99. I once seen this Air force Association Mag. with multiple cameras mounted on rails parallel to the F-15s fuselage, IMO they were testing for panorama battle field application. But I’ve never seen it on CNN. (LOL)
Newjarheaddeanon 13 Jul 2008 at 8:47 am 67

AHOY, Newjarheaddean must man up and admit I sounded off out my stern yesterday on the grenade causality figures here is what I have on record.
Causalities 100% with in 2m, 75% with in 4m, 50% with in 6 m, 25% with in 10 m, 5-10 % 15 m, and less than 1% 20 m away. However over all less than 10 % of WIA are KIA. Exceptions are when troops are in confined spaces, like APC or basements etc.
As I often find myself doing on blogs I thank the host for providing service.
Newjarheaddeanon 13 Jul 2008 at 10:18 am 68

AHOY, Max; Those iron plates do not have the ballistic properties of the materials used in the manufacturing of military vehicles and aircraft today. This is why specification figures always peak in terms of equivalent penetration abilities. Example the M-1 tank armor provides the equivalent of about 3 feet of steel. That being against shape charges. However the bulkheads are only around 4-6 inches thick. That’s about a 12 or 24 to one ratio. So please some one find a link to answer the question of why snipers are not killing pilots with 50 cal. Weapons. I don’t want to hear it’s the cost. I say it’s mostly the BOMBS! And so this IMO would not be the only unwritten rule being fallowed, while the service men and women are dieing like pawns on a chest board.
Maxon 13 Jul 2008 at 2:07 pm 69

“the WIA figures are only like 6 % within 10 feet, a death is very rare, mostly just those that jump on them.”

Yes, Very Light, in comparsion to the Somme,
Tarawa, Iwo Jima, etc, most casultiess cocouring in and around base,
and until we actually engadge, and encounter “the enemy.”

“Maybe you havn’t been paying attention to recent events,
but we just got our asses kicked !”*

*Bill Paxton / Private Hudson
In James Cameron’s hollywood master peice “Aliens.”

http://wiredispatch.com/news/?id=250710

Official: 9 US troops killed in Afghanistan

Official: 9 US troops killed in large attack on remote outpost in eastern Afghanistan

JASON STRAZIUSO
AP News

Jul 13, 2008 12:30 EST

A multi-pronged militant assault on a small, remote U.S. base killed nine American soldiers Sunday in one of the deadliest attacks on U.S. troops since the 2001 invasion, a Western official said.

Militants fired machine guns, rocket-propelled grenades and mortars from homes and a mosque in the village of Wanat in the northeastern province of Kunar, a mountainous region that borders Pakistan, NATO’s International Security Assistance Force said in a statement.
SNIP
Maxon 13 Jul 2008 at 2:15 pm 70

With pepole like this on “our” side, who needs
Taliban or Aquida ?!

M

http://tinyurl.com/6jtny4

Now, that’s what I call, really “inside” our ODDA loop.
sarc

13 survive battle, killed by wiring
Article from: Agence France-Presse

By Karin Zeitvogel in Washington

July 12, 2008 07:49am

THE biggest US military contractor in Iraq has been accused of recklessly causing the electrocution deaths of US soldiers.

“While I had always been prepared to hear that one of my sons died by way of a firefight or a roadside bomb, I was dumbstruck to hear that my son was electrocuted while taking a shower in his living quarters,” said Cheryl Harris, mother of army Staff Sergeant Ryan Maseth, who died in January.
Newjarheaddeanon 15 Jul 2008 at 1:12 pm 71

AHOY, just to clarify grenade stats, 2m overpressure (death zone) IMO this would be at sea level, the more altitude less radius. The other stats are for fragmentation effect. With APCs there is suppose to be netting or chicken wire around port holes to prevent entry in the first place and sand bags on the deck so you can toss one over any grenades.
I believe all those serving are heroes and need the equipment and TRAINING necessary for mission. And of course they should not have to worry about taking showers. Wanta Kunur, Taliban almost got a Little Big Horn. Mosque is usually strongest building in area, centrally located, on highest point, excellent OP, and IMO have an escape tunnel. I’ve heard Taliban gave warning to locals to evacuate. And that they used horses, maybe in a decoy approach or for withdrawal. IMO well never get much of any useful information. Air power saved the base. And I can’t stand this mistaken identity excuse with 120 magnification zoom. IMO US bombed wedding, killing 47 just because someone may or may not have had a RPG hidden in their Burqah.
Maxon 30 Aug 2008 at 10:34 am 72

“Those iron plates do not have the ballistic properties of the materials used in the manufacturing of military vehicles and aircraft today. This is why specification figures always peak in terms of equivalent penetration abilities.”

http://www.vpc.org/studies/roofone.htm

“A round that has “proven performance” against an armored attack helicopter at 1,600 yards is a clear threat to America in the hands of any terrorist group that, like Al Qaeda, has acquired the means to deliver it in the form of the Barrett 50 caliber sniper rifle.”
Maxon 30 Aug 2008 at 10:46 am 73

Still More evidence on the Power of 50cal.
M

http://www.snipercountry.com/Articles/KillingShot_2430Metres.asp

Killing shot made at distance of 2,430 metres
Stephen Thorne
Canadian Press

“A world-record killing shot by a Canadian sniper detachment in “Afghanistan could never have been made with the ammunition they were issued when they left Edmonton last winter, the triggerman said in a recent interview. The Canadian .50-calibre rounds have a maximum range of between 2,200 and 2,300 metres.”

But the U.S. rounds, they discovered, “fly farther, faster,” said Cpl. “Bill”, a 26-year-old native of Fogo Island, Nfld.

The two-man Canadian team, coupled with American Sgt. Zevon Durham of Greenville, S.C., made the kill from 2,430 metres, or nearly 2 1/2 kilometres, on the second shot.

This feat is the equivalent of standing at the foot of Yonge St. and hitting a target in the intersection of Yonge and Wellesley Sts., just north of College St.

The first shot blew a bag from the hand of their target, an Al Qaeda fighter walking on a road.

“He didn’t even flinch,” said Bill, who spoke on condition that his real name not be used.

“We made a correction and the next round hit exactly where we wanted it to. Well, a bit to the right.”"

“The kill, one of more than 20 unofficially accredited to Canadian snipers during Operation Anaconda in Afghanistan’s Shah-i-Kot Valley, beat the 35-year-old record of 2,500 yards, or 2,250 metres, set by U.S. Marine Gunnery Sgt. Carlos Hathcock in Duc Pho, South Vietnam.”
Newjarheaddeanon 30 Aug 2008 at 8:39 pm 74

AHOY my bub Max !

could not believe my eyes, I have not visited this site in weeks, and there was your commits on this very day.

The question Max, was why don’t the guerrillas in Iraq or Afghanistan use these weapons. And I’ll add this question why cant the Russians operate UAVs in NATO controlled combat areas.

I found this note about VPC on answers dot com.

Gun rights advocates have been critical of the accuracy and scientific validity of VPC’s reports, charging that the conclusions have already been decided regardless of the statistics. They charge that the VPC has a track record of making allegations for which there is no proof.

I MOST BE CRAZZZZY! i should have waited till 22:46 hours to reply.
Maxon 19 Sep 2008 at 6:11 am 75

More info Chopper losses in Iraq.

http://tinyurl.com/3ms9pq

“In all, 70 U.S. helicopters have gone down since the war started in March 2003, according to military figures.”

” Of those, 36 were confirmed to have been shot down.”

Trackback URI | Comments RSS

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Inside our OODA loops?

75 Responses to “Inside our OODA loops?”

Leave a Reply

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Categories

Archives

Blog Authority

Pages

Blogs

Other Sites