US Army artillery deterioriating

[Vympel]

Ready, Aim, Misfire!

Inside Washington
National Journal, Sat. Apr. 26, 2008
By Elaine M. Grossman

Can Army artillery units hit the side of a barn? Maybe not, according to a troubling internal memo sent this month to Army Chief of Staff George Casey by three former brigade commanders.

“The once-mighty ‘King of Battle’ ” is a “dead branch walking,” write the active-duty colonels in the five-page document obtained by National Journal. With “growing alarm,” they describe “deterioration” in artillery readiness to perform its most basic missions. In training, “firing incidents [occur] during every rotation”; “crew drills are very slow, and any type of [disorder] halts operations”; and, absent instructor intervention, “most” cannon platoons would have fired in unsafe conditions, the memo says.

The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have drawn experienced artillery troops into other jobs-like infantry and transportation-where soldiers are badly needed, the authors write. Ninety percent of fire-support personnel have been reassigned, leaving behind fewer than 10 percent certified for the mission.

“General Casey seeks out and appreciates receiving feedback [from] commanders and soldiers in the field,” said an Army spokesman, who declined to comment on the memo’s specifics.]

[Lonestar]

They gotta get boots somewhere.

[Raxmei]

Yes, the artillery has been deploying as infantry and neglecting their artillery training to do it. Yes, this will come back to bite us if we ever end up needing artillery. I wouldn't be surprised if the armor was doing the same thing.

With demand for troops so high they can't pass up combat arms troops even if the particular mission they trained for isn't in high deman. Retrain and send them out.

[Sidewinder]

Yes, the artillery has been deploying as infantry and neglecting their artillery training to do it. Yes, this will come back to bite us if we ever end up needing artillery. I wouldn't be surprised if the armor was doing the same thing.

Armor IS doing the same fucking thing.

August 25, 2003

Troops using confiscated Iraqi AK-47s

By Andrew England
Associated Press


BAQOUBA, Iraq — An American soldier stands at the side of an Iraqi highway, puts his AK-47 on fully automatic and pulls the trigger.
Within seconds the assault rifle has blasted out 30 rounds. Puffs of dust dance in the air as the bullets smack into the scrubland dirt. Test fire complete.

U.S. troops in Iraq may not have found weapons of mass destruction, but they’re certainly getting their hands on the country’s stock of Kalashnikovs — and, they say, they need them.

The soldiers based around Baqouba are from an armor battalion, which means they have tanks, Humvees and armored personnel carriers. But they are short on rifles.

A four-man tank crew is issued two M4 assault rifles and four 9mm pistols, relying mostly on the tank’s firepower for protection.

But now they are engaged in guerrilla warfare, patrolling narrow roads and goat trails where tanks are less effective. Troops often find themselves dismounting to patrol in smaller vehicles, making rifles essential.

“We just do not have enough rifles to equip all of our soldiers. So in certain circumstances, we allow soldiers to have an AK-47. They have to demonstrate some proficiency with the weapon ... demonstrate an ability to use it,” said Lt. Col. Mark Young, commander of the 3rd Battalion, 67th Armor Regiment, 4th Infantry Division.

“Normally an armor battalion is fighting from its tanks. Well, we are not fighting from our tanks right now,” Young said. “We are certainly capable of performing the missions that we have been assigned, there’s no issue with that, but we do find ourselves somewhat challenged.”

In Humvees, on tanks — but never openly on base — soldiers are carrying the Cold War-era weapon, first developed in the Soviet Union but now mass-produced around the world.

The AK is favored by many of the world’s fighters, from child soldiers in Africa to rebel movements around the world, because it is light, durable and known to jam less frequently.

Now troops who have picked up AKs on raids or confiscated them at checkpoints are putting the rifles to use — and they like what they see.

Some complain that standard M16 and M4 rifles jam too easily in Iraq’s dusty environment. Many say the AK has better “knockdown” power and can kill with fewer shots.

“The kind of war we are in now ... you want to be able to stop the enemy quick,” said Sgt. 1st Class Tracy S. McCarson of Newport News, Va., an army scout, who carries an AK in his Humvee.

Some troops say the AK is easier to maintain and a better close-quarters weapon. Also, it has “some psychological affect on the enemy when you fire back on them with their own weapons,” McCarson said.

Most soldiers agree the M16 and the M4 — a newer, shorter version of the M16 that has been used by troops since the 1960s — is better for long distance, precision shooting.

But around Baqouba, troops are finding themselves attacked by assailants hidden deep in date palm groves. Or they are raiding houses, taking on enemies at close-quarters.

Two weeks ago, Sgt. Sam Bailey of Cedar Falls, Iowa, was in a Humvee when a patrol came under rocket-propelled grenade and heavy machine gun fire. It was dark, the road narrow. On one side, there was a mud wall and palms trees, on the other a canal surrounded by tall grass.

Bailey, who couldn’t see who was firing, had an AK-47 on his lap and his M4 up front. The choice was simple.

“I put the AK on auto and started spraying,” Bailey said.

Some soldiers also say it’s easier to get ammo for the AK — they can pick it up on any raid or from any confiscated weapon.

“It’s plentiful,” said Sgt. Eric Harmon, a tanker who has a full 75-round drum, five 30-round magazines, plus 200-300 rounds in boxes for his AK. He has about 120 rounds for his M16.

Young doesn’t carry an AK but has fired one. He’s considered banning his troops from carrying AKs, but hasn’t yet because “if I take the AK away from some of the soldiers, then they will not have a rifle to carry with them.”

Staff Sgt. Michael Perez, a tanker, said he would take anything over his standard issue 9mm pistol when he’s out of his tank.

And the AK’s durability has impressed him.

“They say you can probably drop this in the water and leave it overnight, pull it out in the morning, put in a magazine and it will work,” Perez said.

February 28, 2005

A badge of their own
It’s official!: CCB design isn’t final, but recognition is retroactive to Sept. 11, 2001

By Joseph R. Chenelly
Times staff writers


Soldiers who aren’t officially infantrymen but have taken part in “infantry specific” missions since Sept. 11, 2001, now have a combat badge to call their own.
The Close Combat Badge was created in response to recommendations from the most senior commanders in Iraq. But the new badge also is a result of a long-standing debate over how to recognize soldiers for combat duty. It is designed to recognize soldiers in ground combat arms — specifically armor, cavalry, combat engineer, and field artillery soldiers.

Since World War II, infantrymen and medics — who receive the Combat Medical Badge — were the only soldiers who receive branch-specific awards for combat service.

Lt. Gen. Franklin L. “Buster” Hagenbeck, the Army’s chief of personnel, sat down with reporters Feb. 18 to discuss the Army’s newest award.

“The Close Combat Badge is the right way to recognize those soldiers who were in units purposefully reorganized to serve as infantry and conducting infantry unique missions,” he said.

Troops who come under fire during a convoy or while on post will not necessarily be eligible for the CCB, Hagenbeck said. A soldier rating a combat patch will not necessarily rate a CCB, he said, referring to the practice of allowing soldiers to wear unit patches on the right shoulder to recognize service in a combat zone.

“This is not for just coming under fire,” he said. “This is for doing an infantry job and enduring the daily endeavors that come with that job.”

Not long after the ground campaign ended in April 2003, the Army began training noninfantry units such as cavalry companies and artillery batteries to perform dismounted infantry missions.

Lieutenant and major generals began writing Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker, the Chief of Staff of the Army, last year asking for a way to reward noninfantry soldiers under their command who were filling roles doctrinally reserved for infantrymen.

According to one such letter shown to reporters, a lieutenant general wrote: “On a daily basis, these noninfantry troopers will execute the same missions and share the same hazards as infantrymen, and should be recognized as such.”

So Schoomaker decided to find a way to do just that. The Army convened a panel of retired three- and four-star generals and command sergeants major. The Army turned to the retirees in an effort to ensure the “CIB’s steeped history” was preserved, Hagenbeck said. At least one of the panelists is a veteran of World War II, the Korean War and the Vietnam War.

The group looked at several options before deciding on the CCB, including awarding the CIB to noninfantry or Special Forces soldiers; creating a combat action ribbon like the Marine Corps and Navy, and making no move at all.

The criteria for earning a badge will mirror that of the CIB, Hagenbeck said. The official wording is being finalized by lawyers and policymakers and is expected to be officially released in an administrative message in March.

The regulations governing the CIB are fairly specific:

• The soldier, either enlisted or an officer below colonel, must be in an infantry or Special Forces branch or military occupational specialty.

• He must have “satisfactorily performed duty” while engaged in ground combat for any length of time with an infantry, Ranger or Special Forces unit no larger than a brigade or regiment.

• The recipient must be “personally present and under hostile fire” in a unit “actively engaged” in ground combat with the enemy.

• Personnel with an MOS other than infantry or Special Forces are not eligible, “regardless of the circumstances. Commanders are not authorized to make any exceptions to this policy.”

Approval authority for the CCB will be granted to major generals and cannot be delegated. Soldiers can be nominated for the badge immediately after the message is released, Hagenbeck said, but the badge itself is not expected to be available in post exchanges for about six months.

The design of the badge is still in a “predecisional” phase, but Hagenbeck said plans have it looking much like the CIB, but with a bayonet in place of the rifle. The CIB is a silver and enamel badge one inch high and three inches wide, with an infantry musket on a light blue bar with a silver border, on and over an elliptical oak wreath.

Soldiers who rate the badge will pick up 15 points toward promotion just like infantrymen do when they earn the CIB.

Other branches of the U.S. military, as well as foreign forces, may be eligible for the new badge, but Hagenbeck would not estimate the number of soldiers who may already be eligible since the CCB is retroactive to the 9/11 attacks.

Word of the CCB already is trickling in among rank-and-file soldiers in Tikrit, Iraq, and reaction is mixed.

Soldiers of 2nd Battalion, 7th Infantry Regiment, a unit of the 3rd Infantry Division’s 1st Brigade Combat Team, arrived there about a month ago to begin their second rotation for Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Set up under the new unit of action organization, the infantry battalion has two tank companies and an engineer company assigned to it permanently, a forward support company in direct support of the battalion plus its two original infantry companies, for a total of six.

Depending on eligibility requirements, the tankers and engineers stand to be awarded the badge for their roles in dismounted operations. Even so, as far as these combat engineers are concerned, the badge won’t change a thing.

“These patches and badges encompass standards for meeting requirements. [What we do] is part of the job of a soldier. I don’t think it deserves any huge recognition,” said Sgt. Louis Berwald, 23, of Atlanta, a squad leader with Easy Company, which was formerly organic to the 11th Engineers Battalion, a division asset. “It’s not about wearing patches. It’s about keeping your buddies alive.”

Another Easy Company combat engineer, Spc. Michael Seaman, 22, of St. Clair, Mich., said he thinks that wearing a combat badge invites problems.

“All it does is make people want to ask you about it back home,” said Seaman, who recalled that when he went home, a number of people asked him about the darker side of being in Iraq, about the people he may have had to kill when he was here during OIF I.

Some of the battalion’s tankers seemed more receptive, but, like the engineers, didn’t feel it would validate what they already know they’ve done in Iraq.

“I think it’s great that Gen. Schoomaker is wanting to do it for us, but for me, personally, I don’t need it,” said Capt. Jason Freidt, 31, of Temecula, Calif., commander of Charlie Company, one of the tank companies with 2-7. “I know what I’ve done.”

Boasting about the amount of ground they cover and the number of missions they go on every day, especially their abilities as a quick reaction force, the infantrymen of Alpha Company were, nevertheless, accepting of a close combat badge for their fellow artillerymen, tankers and engineers as long as they did something to deserve it.

“I could see, like, tankers and combat engineers [getting something], but not these FOB dwellers,” said Spc. Mark Mohler, 22, of Liberty Center, Ohio, referring to troops who work on the forward operating bases but never go outside the wire.

But “if they’re doing an infantryman’s role they should get something,” said Spc. Brandon Daniels, 24, of Richland, Miss., an infantryman with the 2-7’s Headquarters and Headquarters Company who is on his first rotation to Iraq and expects to get his CIB while he is here.

“I wouldn’t say the CIB, because that’s for infantrymen, but they deserve something.”

Staff writer Gina Cavallaro reported on this story from Iraq.

So we have tankers on foot instead of in their tanks, and artillerymen on foot patrols instead of manning their guns, all because there aren't enough infantrymen or MPs for the mission in Iraq. What's next, helicopter pilots and crew chiefs on foot instead of in a fucking helicopter?

At this rate, the only way the US Army will beat North Korea's is if the Norks laugh themselves to death when they find out the American POWs they have are tankers, artillerymen, and pilots who were ORDERED to perform foot patrols.

[Kanastrous]

Is this in part a symptom of air strikes replacing artillery as preferred method for delivering explosives...?

[MKSheppard]

Is this in part a symptom of air strikes replacing artillery as preferred method for delivering explosives...?

Nope. The USAF actually prefers GMRLS (guided MRLS) now for strikes; since it's accuracy and small warhead mean less collateral damage in Iraq. It also can arrive in about 45 seconds from "call to strike"; the insurgents call it the "Hand of Allah" or something like that.

[MKSheppard]

Sidweinder; the CCB is something that's sorely needed as a reward to the people who are now having to fight like infantry, due to the rather fluid nature of the war in Iraq with no specific hard front lines; a transport company can find itself fighting off an ambush and then counterattacking the bad guys who sprung it -- and they might do that a couple of times in a tour of duty; yet they didn't get any recognition for it under the old system which only recognized infantry units -- the CAB fixes that.

[MKSheppard]

Oh yes, we never should have cancelled Crusader. Damn Rumsfeld

[Sidewinder]

Sidweinder; the CCB is something that's sorely needed as a reward to the people who are now having to fight like infantry, due to the rather fluid nature of the war in Iraq with no specific hard front lines

I have no problem with the CCB; what I DO have a problem with is tankers acting like infantrymen and doing foot patrols instead of supporting the infantry with TANKS, and artillerymen acting like infantrymen instead of supporting the infantry with ARTILLERY. Hell, now I'm wondering if hiring Blackwater for these kinds of jobs is more cost-effective than training a recruit to be a tanker or an artilleryman, buying an expensive tank or howitzer, buying spare parts and lube so maintenance can be performed on these weapons systems, and then having the now fully-trained tanker or artilleryman act as infantryman instead of manning a tank or howitzer.

[Sidewinder]

Oh yes, we never should have cancelled Crusader. Damn Rumsfeld

No argument there.

[Commander 598]

(Semi-necro)

If I remember correctly, unlike the USMC (Every Marine a rifleman!), the Army doesn't give proper infantry training to anyone but infantry, which would make this an even worse.