bigredlancer said:
I watched the "Roberts' Ridge" reenactment, and wondered why we don't have RPG-7s for some situations like this. I am only learning now about Army ops; is there a reason why we don't use this "instant artillery"?
And why we don't use those Apaches - altitude restrictions?
How about using an A-10 loaded to the gunnels with Hellfires?
BRL
Dear Member,
In answer to your question:
* Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld wanted to keep a cap on US forces in Afghanistan. He personally approved all US ground forces and their equipment. When they 101st sent a combat brigade team to Afghanistan (ie they were suppose to be for base protection and a quick reaction force incase the Special Ops got in trouble) he at first refused to allow them to take any of their divisional slice of Apaches or 105mm howitzers. In the end with the 101st brigade commander bugging him, General Franks got Rumsfeld to approve 8 Apache helicopters. That brigade was suppose to have 24 Apaches. On arrival two were sent to Kandahar. On the day of Operation Anaconda only five were available and they were launched to escort the Chinooks. Because of some mix up (ie the Army blames the Air Force and the Air Forces say it was a misunderstanding) there was no massive suppression of a mountain that controlled the route that the Chinooks would have to take. The Apaches had to fly back forth along that moutain drawing fire and taking massive hits. In the end the five had to fly back to a forward operations base to refuel and rearm. Two were so badly shot up they could not be used no more. That left three and by the time Roberts Ridge happen they were not avaiable. (It is by sheer luck that the Apaches were available and that three Special Forces reconn teams -- ie by one Captains initiative -- were inserted that took out a heavy machine gun position on a mountain that would have slaughtered the Chinooks and give controll for air strikes or it would have been a disaster and most likely Rumsfeld would have been hanged in the Pentagon inner circle. It may have even cost GWB the election. It was that close.)
* There were no A-10s available at that time it seems. Whether they were in the region or not I do not know. But shortly after Operation Anaconda an A-10A squadron was moved to Kabul air base.
* The US military does not need RPG-7s as it has weapons like them -- ie the USMC has the SMAW a version of the Israeli B-300 rocket launcher and the US Army Rangers have the Swedish Carl Gustav (wrote a large article on the CG -- great weapon). The problem is the weapon that replced the M72 LAW the AT-4/M136. The AT-4 as most people call it is a great antiarmor weapon. But it is heavy and clumbersome. In fact twice the size of the older M71 LAW which is perfect for this type of warfare in the mountains. The US defense budget shows funds to purchase improved M72s from Norway, but I have a feeling they are for other Special Ops units. In fact the US Army and Marines should both consider a one time buy of stocks of M72s for use in places like Afghanistan. They are perfect for bunker busting and taking out light armor but not powerful enough to be a threat to US Abrams or Bradleys if captured by the bad guys.
The only heavy stuff that was taken in on the first Chinook lift was one 120mm heavy mortar (ie because it had the range to cover the valley bothsides) and 35 rounds. The second lift never arrived with more mortars, etc. AQ on the other hand had heavy machine guns, mortars and even one dug in artillery piece.
Finally, there is one weapon I can not figure out why the US Army is so resistant to. That is rifle grenades. Not the one that is fired from the unit located below the barrel of the assault rifle but those that are stuck on the end of the barrel of a rifle. They make them now with bullet traps so you don't have to load a special round (ie or worry about accidently using a real battle round), that can be fired from the shoulder (ie use to be if you fired a rifle grenade from the shoulder you would break it) and they have pop up sights and a good rifle grenades man can put them through windows and bunker slits. The USMC in the late 1990 tested the Israeli rifle grenades and were all for them, but the US Army (ie while the US Army does not control the USMC they can effect its purchasing) was totally against rifle grenades. Go figure.(':?:')
Jack E. Hammond