When’s the last time you emplaced a claymore mine? When’s the last time you’ve even seen one?
I’m sure I’ll get a few of the ‘you’re an idiot’ comments, but in several trips to Afghanistan and Iraq — as well as multiple trips to the field for training with a variety of Marine and Army units — I have never once seen or heard of claymores being used or trained for employment. That’s not to say it doesn’t happen, it’s just that I’ve had a pretty good pass over a lot of the modern military and never once did I run into any (figuratively, of course)…
And that’s a shame, because what a great piece of gear…
Well, more from the Wanat history — seems the institutional Army needs to take a closer look at claymore training and employment.
American soldiers require additional and enhanced training in tactical employment of claymore mines. Claymore mines were integral to controlling and denying the dead ground around OP Topside, and were not optimally employed to accomplish this task. Claymore mines were not employed at COP Kahler, although they could have proven to be extremely efficient at controlling the dead ground in the ravine to the west and north of the COPs perimeter…
However, the limited numbers and failure to have overlapping Claymore fields of fire is evidence that Claymores were not employed to their maximum effectiveness at OP Topside.
Claymore mines should always be employed in depth, with the rear Claymores employed and recovered after darkness, all firing wires buried, and all Claymores should have their rear highlighted with visible markings (chemical lights, reflective tape, IR glitter tape, white paint, etc.) so that any enemy disturbing or tampering with Claymores can be readily detected, and deterred by the employment of covering Claymores or other suppressive fire. The effective use of Claymore mines needs to be emphasized, and additional numbers of Claymore mines should be deployed for the defense of static positions. Doctrine and TTPs for Claymore mine employment need to be enhanced and strengthened. This recommendation should be addressed by the U.S. Army Center for Lessons Learned and by TRADOC service schools, particularly the Infantry School.
Now, I did take a look at a copy of the Small Unit Operations in Afghanistan handbook recently compiled by the Center for Army Lessons Learned in Leavenworth. It mentions the use of “mines” and claymores in the defense of COPs, JCCs and OPs but doesn’t go into very much detail at all.
Like the water purification callout, maybe it’s time for more training and better technology with the claymore…
Well folks, I’ve been down all day at tactical gear manufacturer Blackhawk! down in Norfolk participating in a writer’s workshop to get smart on their gear and the techniques to use it.
I’m ripping through the material I got throughout the day: tactical nylon products like web gear and pouches, holsters, knives and knife fighting, tactical lights and their employment in low-light situations. So real quick, I’ll post a clip from tactical pistol guru Todd Jarrett who’s got probably some of the best technique in the business. It’s a real honor to have even an hour of instruction with Jarrett, and it’s the first time I’ve ever done transition work from M4 to Glock and back.
I may not be that great at it, but at least I know I’ve learned the fundamentals from one of the best.
At my old job, we used to always joke that it wasn’t news unless the Washington Post, New York Times or AP reported it — even if we’d done the story a month earlier.
Well, here’s another case of the “it ain’t news” phenomenon. We’ve been covering the heck out of this issue for more than a year, but when the chief says something about it and the AP hears it, well, then, Stop the Presses!
The military is reviewing Soldiers’ complaints that their standard ammunition isn’t powerful enough for the type of fighting required in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Army’s highest-ranking officer said Thursday. But Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the Army chief of staff, said it was too soon to say whether the Pentagon will switch.
Current and former Soldiers interviewed by The Associated Press said the military’s M855 rifle rounds are not powerful enough for close-in fighting in cities and towns in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Speaking with reporters at a conference in Huntsville, Casey said leaders are constantly soliciting feedback from Soldiers in the field and were aware of complaints about the M855 ammunition.
“To effectively prepare them we have to adapt as the enemy adapts, and that is some of the feedback we have gotten,” Casey said. “We’ll evaluate it quickly and then we’ll decide how we want to proceed.”
But Casey said it would be premature to say if the Pentagon will consider a different type of ammunition.
“I can’t tell you exactly what we’re going to do,” he said.
How much do you want to bet the answer to that question is “nothing”…? Kinda like the M-4 debate, huh?
Here’s a cool heads up that the Army has fired its first Excalibur artillery round in Afghanistan.
It was just a test, but it’s an important one since artillery actually plays a pretty big role in fire support during combat ops in Afghanistan. And with the recent rash of friendly fire incidents resulting from off-target CAS, it’s always a good thing to add one more precision-guided munition to the tool kit, I think.
Here’s part of the story we’re running on Military.com:
KUNAR PROVINCE, Afghanistan — Soldiers fired the first 155mm GPS-guided Excalibur artillery round in Afghanistan Feb. 25.
The GPS-guided Excalibur round was given the proper grid coordinate to seek out and destroy a target using the Enhanced Portable Inductive Artillery Fuse Setter by placing the system on the tip of the round and sending a digital message containing the coordinate for the round to find.
The U.S. Army is considering buying more Counter Rocket, Artillery and Mortar (C-RAM) systems, first fielded in 2006 to protect forward operating bases from incoming fire, said U.S. Army Lt. Gen. Michael Vane, who directs the Army Capabilities Integration Center.
The Army last increased its order in January, when it gave Northrop Grumman a $71 million contract to supply an unspecified number of C-RAMs. Vane declined to say how many of the weapons have been purchased, or how many might be added.
When most bombs go off, they release a spray of deadly shards of steel. Now, imagine that those shards were themselves explosive, detonating in a massive chain reaction. It’s for real: Defense contractors are harnessing the strange alchemy of reactive materials (RMs) in which two or more inert materials are mixed to create an explosion to develop smaller, more lethal warheads, as well as new ways to protect troops against mortar rounds and rocket-propelled grenades.
RMs generally consist of powdered metals, such as aluminum or titanium, combined with an oxidizing agent. Whether that agent is another powdered metal or a nonmetallic compound, such as Teflon, contact alone isn’t enough to trigger an explosion. A powerful impact, however, will chemically mix the materials, igniting them and leading to a massive shock wave.
“A big challenge is making [RMs] strong enough to survive launch, but fragile enough to react on impact,” says Judah Goldwasser, program manager at the Office of Naval Research, which is developing RMs for potential use in antimissile systems…
Click HERE to read the full article from Popular Mechanics now available on Military.com.
Raytheons innovative satellite-guided 155mm artillery shell was used in operations in Iraq last weekend to kill a top local al Qaeda leader south of Baghdad.
Bloomberg News Tony Capaccio reports a salvo of XM982 Excalibur artillery shells were targeted against Abu Jurah and 14 associates in a house near the town of Arab Jabour.
The two-shell salvo fired by Soldiers from the Armys 1st Battalion, 9th Field Artillery Regiment is particularly significant because it could mean the re-emergence of field artillery as a viable weapon in the highly restrictive combat environment of an urban counterinsurgency.
The statement e-mailed from Baghdad said Abu Jurah was “the top target” in al-Qaida south of Baghdad, responsible for a terrorist cell that made improvised roadside bombs and suicide-vehicle bombs and fired mortars at U.S. troops.
The attack marked the U.S. military’s first acknowledgement that the new precision-guided weapon has been used in Iraq. In combat testing before deployment, the weapon demonstrated accuracy within 20 feet (6 meters) of its target, a precision designed to minimize civilian casualties and accidental U.S. military deaths in a war that is increasingly urban.
Defense Tech infrequent contributor and resident ballistics expertDavid Woroner busted out an interesting first-person analysis of a bullet that could answer soldiers call for more stopping power.
As our readers might remember, we reported two weeks ago that a Center for Naval Analyses study obtained by DT found of all the suggested improvements for Americas standard-issued sidearm and carbine, soldiers surveyed said they want a more deadly weapon or round.
CNA pointed out that one answer is off the table: hollow point ammo.
But Woroner took a first-hand look at a type of round that could answer a politics vs. lethality dilemma
From Dave (its a longish entry, but I think youll find it worth the read):
Known as the Federal EFMJ for expanding full metal jacket the round would appear to be a gift from above to the soldier on the ground. It is fully jacketed, yet expands like a hollow point upon impact.
The basic concept was developed by projectile whiz Tom Burzynski and Larry Head, lead ammo designer for Federal applied some of his magic to bring this bullet to fruition.
So what makes this round so different and special?
Well first of all it is a full metal jacketed bullet — this means there is no cup at the front as with most hollow points. Standard hollow points work by taking advantage of fluid dynamics — the fluid being the liquid or blood in a target.
Inside Defense reported the shot yesterday, though it occurred earlier in the month against an al Qaeda safe house.
The WWS quotes a few defense experts critiquing the operational test, some calling it a stunt and saying the precision-guided artillery round isnt much use when the U.S. has total air superiority.
This morning I spoke with Stuart Koehl, a military analyst at Johns Hopkins University’s Center for Transatlantic Relations, who called the strike “a stunt, because they didn’t have to use an artillery round, they could have used an airplane–it would have been a lot cheaper.
In counterinsurgency this kind of thing is mainly irrelevant. If I really need the long-range indirect fires, I’ve got total air supremacy, I’ve got all-weather capability, I really don’t need an artillery round when I could drop it from an airplane. It just makes a lot more sense to have something right there on the scene shooting from a much shorter range…a JDAM dropped from overhead is going to go right down the pipe, no matter what.“
Except thats not exactly true. Aircraft are not always on station and sometimes if there are planes aloft, there arent enough of them or theyre tasked out to do other things, like search for IEDs.
But every forward operating base has an artillery battery and that battery has guys ready to pull the firing cord at a moments notice. The artillery fires are much more responsive and a precision-guided 155 round packs just enough punch to knock out what you need, leaving the rest largely undamaged.
“If all I want to do is blow up one building, JDAM’s just too much of a good thing.“
Critics say the Army should be spending more time looking into a precision-guided mortar. But, thing is, they already are.
Infantry mortars are good for suppression and fixing the enemy. The 120mm mortar fits the bill for an infantry vehicle-portable precision fire platform for medium distances. If a soldier or Marine needs to knock out a specific room in the short range, he can use an AT4 or LAW.
Programs like Excalibur, however, could suffer from the time worn Pentagon practice of adding capabilities that boost the cost and make the thing more complicated and expensive that it needs to be. Army, Marine and Navy, for that matter cannon cockers need precision rounds just as much as the jet jocks do. And in a counterinsurgency, precision is everything.
The two companies competing to design a more precise way for the Army to put artillery on bad guys wrapped up a shoot-off last month at Yuma Proving Ground, Ariz.
BAE Systems and Alliant Techsystems are working with the Army to design and field a low-cost, low-tech way to make dumb artillery rounds smarter. Its called the Precision Guidance Kit, and the long and short of it is its basically a fuze screwed on to the end of a standard 155mm or 105mm round that houses a GPS guidance package and a series of spoiler-like fins to help it home in on its target.
The intent is to have a 50-meter Circular Error Probable with the PGK system. Later, the Army wants an even more precise artillery guidance kit that delivers a 10-meter CEP.
According to BAE:
The testing included 20 rounds of various test configurations including fully autonomous GPS guided rounds. BAE Systems fired M549 Rocket Assisted Projectiles (RAP) to a range of about 20.5 kilometers. All test objectives were adhered with all rounds functioning properly. The GPS guided rounds demonstrated the ability to acquire GPS within the desired time and the ability to maneuver within the required 50-meter CEP.
As Maj. John Moorhead, munitions branch chief at the Armys Training and Doctrine Command, wrote in the Jan.-Feb. issue of Field Artillery Magazine:
Commanders will be able to select PGK as the munition of choice when mitigation of collateral damage is a concern at extended ranges and precision munitions are neither available nor feasible. In addition, improved accuracy with PGK could lessen the logistics resupply burden. Depending on the mission, units could sustain fires longer without ammo resupply. This would free transportation assets for other missions on the battlefield
PGK will provide commanders the option of scalable precision to more closely match the round to the task. Instead of firing large numbers of projectiles to attack a target as specified today in AFATDS, the commander will be able to choose PGK to tighten up the shot group and achieve the desired effects with fewer rounds. Using PGKs, units will be able to service more targets in the same span of time, resulting in a better overall efficiency and use of UBLs. Firing fewer rounds also will decrease the crews susceptibility to counter-battery fires, increasing their survivability
Heres how the system will work:
Handling and storing PGK will differ very little from other fuzes; PGK will have the same dimensions as a standard NATO fuze. The only exception is it may require special handling if the wing-like control surfaces are exposed and fixed in the final solution.
Upon receipt of a fire mission requesting PGK, Cannoneers mate PGK to the projectile in a similar manner as with current fuzes. Using the enhanced portable inductive artillery fuze setter (EPIAFS), Cannoneers set/load (program) the PGK the same as any inductively set fuze, transferring all mission-essential data (fuze mode, howitzer and target location) necessary for PGK to function reliably.
It takes less than 10 seconds to pass all the fuze mode and GPS mission data to PGK. Once fired, the PGK-equipped projectile acquires GPS during flight and follows a normal ballistic trajectory to apogee (top of flight path) where the processor begins calculating the estimated miss distance to determine when to deploy the control surfaces (brakes or canards). At the optimal time during the descending leg of the trajectory, the control surfaces deploy and begin correcting the flight path.
Control surface deployment time is critical. The processor estimates the miss distance and uses the surfaces to make small corrections to the trajectory, guiding it to the intended aim point
And the anticipated timeline:
…The PM anticipates fielding of Increment 1 sometime in FY09. PGKs acquisition strategy will follow an incremental developmental approach to prove the concept. Once the program achieves a 50-meter CEP, production will begin for limited quantities of Increment 1 for fielding while development begins on Increment 2.
A long-range goal for Increment 3 is to leverage the 155-mm PGK technologies for PGK use with 105-mm projectiles. The initial version of PGK may be robust enough to meet the 105-mm howitzer requirements, but only time and testing will determine its compatibility…
Its about time the Army made their dumb artillery less, well, dumb. Maybe fielding the PGK in numbers will give artillery units a needed rebound from the provisional jobs theyre increasingly tasked with in todays counterinsurgency fight.
BAE Systems has some cool video of their version of the PGK with some downloadable grafix as well.
Recent Comments
"Now please tell me where in the Bible Jesus or his disciples...
DualityOfMan
No, I am not a muslim. And no, the Koran does not say anything about...
DualityOfMan
You aren't. You're just annoying. Like a paper cut between...
bdwilcox
Zandor, Don't you have to go play in traffic or play...
bdwilcox
Welcome to paralysis induced by political correctness.
bdwilcox
It's too bad a brave soul like you wasn't in that room....
bdwilcox
Zandor, You're obviously and expert on religion and religious...
bdwilcox
Cannon, please stop bringing relevant facts and arguments into this. The...
bdwilcox
News reports have said that this guy has openly stated his...
Cannon Fodder
Headphones and earplugs are effective, but...
JustAGuy