SW Asia: how well protected are in-theater medical folks and their patients?

[mycrofft]

A recent thread

(http://www.emtlife.com/showthread.php?p=421756#post421756

cited the loss of New Zealand medics to an IED in Afghanistan near Do Abe.

What do you think? (Yes, it is impossible to build a vehicle that will resist the largest imaginable IED unless it has wings, but how is it on the ground?).

This has been going on over a decade now. How has it evolved and how is it hanging in now we are starting to withdraw? How about civilian providers? ROLE 3 facilities? (PLEASE do not divulge anything of use to the bad guys, though).

 

[Veneficus]

A recent thread

(http://www.emtlife.com/showthread.php?p=421756#post421756

cited the loss of New Zealand medics to an IED in Afghanistan near Do Abe.

What do you think? (Yes, it is impossible to build a vehicle that will resist the largest imaginable IED unless it has wings, but how is it on the ground?).

This has been going on over a decade now. How has it evolved and how is it hanging in now we are starting to withdraw? How about civilian providers? ROLE 3 facilities? (PLEASE do not divulge anything of use to the bad guys, though).

You've been there.

I wouldn't exactly call replacing uniformed military with contractors "withdrawing" in any sense of the imagination.

 

[mycrofft]

At the bases I was at, and I saw not too much, there was a lot of on-base "organic defense" (everyone carrying assault rifles, but often very dirty and sometime with magazine in the belt and not in battery), the giant dirt bags being replaced with blast walls, and permanent building foundations being laid. Bagram was very "porous", many locals on site, didn't see medical except to note the civilian clinic for contract workers was shut.

I wish everyone involved good luck, except the bad guys. I wish them patience and a change of heart.

 

[Hemostatic]

What do you think? (Yes, it is impossible to build a vehicle that will resist the largest imaginable IED unless it has wings, but how is it on the ground?).

This has been going on over a decade now. How has it evolved and how is it hanging in now we are starting to withdraw? How about civilian providers? ROLE 3 facilities? (PLEASE do not divulge anything of use to the bad guys, though).

I guess I don't understand what you're trying to ask. Yes, there are certain trucks that do a better job protecting the occupants from a blast than others. Yes, even the good trucks wouldn't handle the largest IEDs very well.

One of the other threads got into a discussion about vehicle mobility and offensive capabilities vs. armor and protection.....

For civilian contractors and ROLE 2/3 facilities, the biggest threat is indirect fire. Once those personnel leave the wire, the threats are basically the same as what Joe Grunt is facing day to day.

At the bases I was at, and I saw not too much, there was a lot of on-base "organic defense" (everyone carrying assault rifles, but often very dirty and sometime with magazine in the belt and not in battery), the giant dirt bags being replaced with blast walls, and permanent building foundations being laid. Bagram was very "porous", many locals on site, didn't see medical except to note the civilian clinic for contract workers was shut.

A lot of the bases I was at, we (the actual soldiers) were not allowed to have a magazine in the well. That could've been dangerous..... :huh:

As far as all the LNs, TCN, and even all the indig military army and police personnel being allowed on base and to integrate with the coalition troops, one only has to look at the number of friendlies getting killed by our supposed counterparts to figure out how well that is working. :angry:

The bottom line is that if they want us to fight a war and actually crush the taliban, then they need to unchain us and let it happen. If that's not what they want, then they need to bring the troops home and quit throwing lives at this "hearts and minds" bull:censored::censored::censored::censored:.

 

[EpiEMS]

The bottom line is that if they want us to fight a war and actually crush the taliban, then they need to unchain us and let it happen. If that's not what they want, then they need to bring the troops home and quit throwing lives at this "hearts and minds" bull:censored::censored::censored::censored:.

Just out of curiosity, do you meant that the ROE needs to be loosened? Or is it more of a change of mission into a search/destroy Taliban forces rather than "hearts and minds"?

 

[Doczilla]

Hemostatic, you're missing a.very important rule: know your operational environment.

You will never, EVER "kill all the bad guys", or "crush the Taliban."

Know why? Because there is an almost limitless supply of foreign fighters with an infinitely sustainable source of income and weapons.

The difference between a civillian and a "bad guy" changes on a daily and hourly basis, deoending on wether or they wanna make five bucks to pick up that initiator.

We arent in a "red vs. Blue" war. Fighting an insurgency is much more complex.

 

[Hemostatic]

Just out of curiosity, do you meant that the ROE needs to be loosened? Or is it more of a change of mission into a search/destroy Taliban forces rather than "hearts and minds"?

I think the ROE needs to loosened a little bit. I'm certainly not advocating rolling into villages and shooting everything in sight. However, opening things up so that we could be somewhat offensive, rather than 110% defensive would be a great start. It is also my *personal opinion* that warning shots should be brought back as part of EOF.

Putting more effort in the search/destroy mission would also be good, however, see below:

You will never, EVER "kill all the bad guys", or "crush the Taliban."

Know why? Because there is an almost limitless supply of foreign fighters with an infinitely sustainable source of income and weapons.

The difference between a civillian and a "bad guy" changes on a daily and hourly basis, deoending on wether or they wanna make five bucks to pick up that initiator.

We arent in a "red vs. Blue" war. Fighting an insurgency is much more complex.

Trying to run search/destroy ops is extremely difficult because, just as Doczilla pointed out, the enemy changes on an hourly basis. So we try to put more effort into intelligence to root out local taliban commanders, and regional leadership. But that presents it's own challenges. I don't want to get to deep into that, 'cause it's not really my lane.

I think most (90%) of Afghans don't really care one way or the other who is governing them, because they are not going to follow that goverment anyway. They are loyal to their family and their tribe, and that is all. After that, they just want to be left alone to ranch their goats. They'll smile and be friendly to whoever is standing in front of them right now (American or talilban), and then stab that group in the back as soon as the other one rolls into the village. I certainly don't have any answers to that situation.


Here's my biggest dilemma: It is my personal opinion that we haven't had another successful terrorist attack (think 9/11 magnitude) on US soil, because the bad guys have been too busy committing their resources to fighting us in Afghanistan. Sure, there have been a few attempts, but they have been poorly planned and resourced, ultimately leading to their failure.

So, in order to defend the country, do we continue sending troops over there to keep the bad guys busy in their own back yard?

Again, my personal opinion only.

 

[mycrofft]

"I think most (90%) of Afghans don't really care one way or the other who is governing them, because they are not going to follow that goverment anyway. They are loyal to their family and their tribe, and that is all. After that, they just want to be left alone to ranch their goats. They'll smile and be friendly to whoever is standing in front of them right now (American or talilban), and then stab that group in the back as soon as the other one rolls into the village. I certainly don't have any answers to that situation. "
We "Murricans" can't get our head around that...yet look at our elections, with turnouts as low as 30% and everything polarized along lines of race, party, and religion.

Afghanistan has been overrun so many times , in recent history and back through time. "Here's the new boss, same as the old boss". Plus, saying no to Taliban is like saying no to Al Capone in 1920's Chicago.

Indirect fire...yeah, I seemed to see that vulnerability too, and obvious to anyone with binoculars off base.

 

[Doczilla]

The biggest threat will always be IEDs. There's EFP's that can defeat tanks. So the vehicles make little difference.

The best way to mitigate that is stay off the roads. Dominate the terrain.

But that also requires you to be able to manuver at altitude with heavy, cumbersome armor, and additional gear. Not everyone can do that.

The few Times that IDF has been executed well in my presence, they were soon met with A-10's hungry for blood. And they get fed.

 

[mycrofft]

Glossary note to others: EFP= explosive formed penetrator, often a thick copper plate which explosive shockwave turns into a super battering ram-cum-projectile. We started experimenting with them in the late Sixties.

Article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explosively_formed_penetrator

Quote:
"As a rule of thumb, an EFP can perforate a thickness of armour steel equal to half the diameter of its charge for a copper or iron liner". And it doesn't just penetrate, it is extremely energetic.

 

[Veneficus]

Glossary note to others: EFP= explosive formed penetrator, often a thick copper plate which explosive shockwave turns into a super battering ram-cum-projectile. We started experimenting with them in the late Sixties.

Article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explosively_formed_penetrator

Quote:
"As a rule of thumb, an EFP can perforate a thickness of armour steel equal to half the diameter of its charge for a copper or iron liner". And it doesn't just penetrate, it is extremely energetic.

I think this is basically a combination of the WWII German APBC tank rounds (armor piercing ballistic capped) and HEAT (high explosive anti tank) which was a chemical mediated force.

 

[Doczilla]

Mind you, these aren't really common. But the bigger the truck you build, the bigger the bombs they make. Look at the progression of vehicles over the years. And we still sustain a steady flow of IED casualties.

 

[Veneficus]

Mind you, these aren't really common. But the bigger the truck you build, the bigger the bombs they make. Look at the progression of vehicles over the years. And we still sustain a steady flow of IED casualties.

The natural course of war.

One side builds a weapon, the other builds a counter. Always has been always will be.

 

[mycrofft]

So defense of patients and practitioners must reside more in procedures such as site security, sound perimeters, short time on scene under fire, and agile advanced care (MD) closer to scene of injury?

 

[Veneficus]

So defense of patients and practitioners must reside more in procedures such as site security, sound perimeters, short time on scene under fire, and agile advanced care (MD) closer to scene of injury?

That is generally how it has been for a few decades.

 

[mycrofft]

(just making a point).

There are literally acres of desert tan uparmored humvees sitting around here at reserve and depot installaitons all dressed up and nowhere to go because they are outmoded and outgunned.

"We brought a Humvee to an IED fight?"

 

[Veneficus]

(just making a point).

There are literally acres of desert tan uparmored humvees sitting around here at reserve and depot installaitons all dressed up and nowhere to go because they are outmoded and outgunned.

"We brought a Humvee to an IED fight?"

because the US doesn't know how to use cavalry.

 

[mycrofft]

Invaders with cavalry (think Genghis Khan* or Hitler's blitzkriegs) require long supply lines or living off the territory. We think D Day (crushing logistics and local superiority of forces).

*Not to be confused with Genghis Kahn, his converted orthodox half-brother. Just a typo.

 

[EpiEMS]

So, in order to defend the country, do we continue sending troops over there to keep the bad guys busy in their own back yard?

I guess it's a situation amenable to eliminating the targets we need to eliminate by Predator/UAV or SOF strikes, and keeping an eye on the place?

 

[Doczilla]

(just making a point).

There are literally acres of desert tan uparmored humvees sitting around here at reserve and depot installaitons all dressed up and nowhere to go because they are outmoded and outgunned.

"We brought a Humvee to an IED fight?"

GMV's are a different story