Rangers? Where the hell where the marines? The marines are the group with the record of assault and win, fight and hold, not the rangers. You do not do OAS type raids on stronghold areas. (Unless you are prepared to accept large casualty rates.) The advantage is always in raid and retreat. Air backup should be always considered. Typhoons hurricanes backed up troops to make them unassaultable in the double W war. They needed roving harriers to attack ground troops from medium height. Sounds like an overconfident not well planned out op. What the marines found out a the Yalu river was that well staked out rifle positions and pre-targeted mortars where invaluable in holding counter attacks. The Afghanis are the kings of counter attack. bin Laden's men have assaulted almost impregnable hills. Units of the northern alliance have taken more hills than any unit of the US army.
The US advantage is not in man equipment except in firepower. They have less experience with their weapons. Less adaptation experience in difficult situations. Not enough sensitivity to their own weaknesses, enemy capability and attack probabilities. And far too much likelihood or morale breakdown in the face of adversity. The US has hardware, intelligence, logistics, support, technology, and firepower. (and food) It can surround, wait, harrass, fire at a distance and also amass strength. But readiness coefficients must be maximized as they can afford to do it. The US can afford to put 20 MG's on a site, so why not? Not all situations need lightness and max engineering, but all need redoubtable defense.
EC<:-} |
