I served for 22 months in combat in a United States Marine Corps LAR BN (Light Armored Reconnaissance fighting from the LAV-25,M,AT,L,R,Csquare). We had smoke grenades inserted in the launchers almost always but to my knowledge I never saw a vehicle deploy them. Maybe once or twice during the initial invasion or Iraq. Even during complex ambushes that disabled vehicles and “un alived” Marines. Hindsight tells me that the reason we never deployed them was often just a lack of memory that they were even there. But in my opinion we should have been using them at a much higher frequency than we did. Looking back I wish that in certain circumstances the smoke should have just been deployed without hesitation and we should have trained more to make their use “muscle memory”. Often everything goes out the window the second multiple road wheels are blown off or machine gun fire states splattering the hull. Fun fact. The LAV-25 (and variants) has “armor steel” for the hull and is very effective at stopping 7.62x39 but.. the grenade launchers themselves are made of a very soft metal… and when the LAV is sprayed for a time with Machine gun fire the launchers almost immediately become unserviceable when struck. The rounds made huge craters and sometime traveled straight through the launcher “tubes or barrels” where you insert the actual smoke projectile that flies out. Plus most vehicles in combat are so much like Gypsy wagons with all manner of things strapped on the exterior… that incoming rounds often can start fires when POL (Petrolium, oils, and lubricant) Jerry cans are punctured. I once hit a mine North of Al Qaim Iraq. Somehow we drove into a mine field while running along the border between Iraq and Syria in Western Iraq. I was an LAV-AT gunner at the time and when we hit it. My ruck was shackled above the left front headlight cluster. So not only did it knock me unconcious (like I got hit in the face with a bat) but it blew that ruck into the desert winds. Swiss cheesing everything I owned. All gone. We were going around 20 or 30 kph when we hit it and when I woke up we were at a dead stop. Interior so thick with dust that it was hard to breath. Eating the dust it was so thick. Thankfully there we no “ambush” as we could see for kilometers around in the flat desert. We did exactly as this gunner said. We made sure the vehicle wasn’t on fire and we “backtracked” out of the mine field on our tracks and waited for someone to figure out what happened. Our radio was “scrambled” and at that time we were a lone vehicle. Our wingman came around after awhile and we radio up our situation. They sent engineering support with mine detectors to clear a “lane” for a recovery low boy (big ass truck). The mine flattened five of our eight wheels. Blew off a differential and put a fist size hole in another. Bent the drive shaft and the brake drum over the impacted tire looked like the Hammer of Thor had but it into a blast furnace got it red hot and pounded it flat. Even given all that the vehicle started up and we drove it on the “run flats” onto the lowboy. Mechs worked for 48 hours straight getting it sorted out. Hopefully YT doesn’t censor this and not allow it to go through… a lot of typing for nothing if they do. Lol. Cheers and Semper Fi
Don't worry, we can all see it. RU-vid must have introduced an AI censor lately. Half of my comments don't show and I got 3 strikes for "hate speech" when I wrote something very mundane
Great write-up. I’m considering going in to LAR and a couple of other jobs atm. The LAVs don’t fuck around and are very capable of turning an infantry company into a graveyard
@@horseman2777 if you’re going infantry… you won’t get to pick and choose which unit you’re assigned. It’s not a choice. Or it wasn’t when I served. The best I can tell you is that you can “choose” to go infantry. Which is what the military is all about in my opinion. You want to turn a wrench… ok but you can do that anywhere. But the infantry… there is no civilian equivalent. In my humble opinion… life is about the “write ups” or stories you get to tell… and the infantry will provide a plethora and myriad of “experiences” especially those with an interest in military history or just like expl0sions and rifles. So if you get an 03 (the MOS military occupational specialty of 03 refers to all the MOS’s in the infantry… like a different number is for “tankers” or “artillery” or “intelligence” etc. when you complete basic training at Paris Island or MCRD San Diego you go to SOI East Coast or SOI West Coast. Once at the School of infantry you get to pick and MOS specialty within the infantry. I was trained originally as a TOW gunner or 0352. And with that training on the TOW system I knew I was most likely going to what they call CAT Teams or Combined Arms Teams which is a specific type of team that’s primarily fighting out of Hummers (or whatever they are using now… oh and I should mention… I don’t know the current Corps… my time was almost two decades ago… talk to a recruiter for more accurate info… but anyway most go to the CAT teams… i by chance was assigned to 1 LAR on 41 Area Camp Pendleton which is actually just down the road from SOI West. And once in the LAR community I was assigned and trained at first as an LAV-AT (anti tank variant of the LAV with a hammerhead turret with two ready TOW missiles and around 12 -14 additional rounds in the vehicle for reloading. Then a gunner and eventually a Vehicle commander before we left our vehicles behind and I started functioning more as a Scout… but also a VC for an LAV-25 for a few months. So there is one way to almost be guaranteed to get into LAR… but in my opinion it’s not as interesting as being an infantry scout… but that is the MOS of 0313 which is specifically the LAV Crewman. These Marines are infantryman… but they are also in large part “mechanics” because their focus is driving the vehicle at first… but they also eventually become LAV Vehicle commander of all the variants which include the Recovery (mostly crewed by another totally non infantry MOS of LAV Mech or mechanic. The logistic or LAV-L is mostly Staff NCO’s and the units admins types like the company gunny or First Sgt. the M is the mos of 0341 mortarman with the 0313. The 25 is a mix of all types. The AD or Air DEfense hardly ever moved off the ramp on 41 area throughout my entire carreer and the gunners were actualy “phased out” in a terribly short sighted decision by the Corps. Not a single person knew how to fight that vehicle. The. AT or anti tank is crewed by the 0352’s. Adn I think that’s about it. But anyway you don’t get to “choose” LAR unless you specifically want to be an 0313. Which is a cool MOS don’t get me wrong. But those “choices” are kind of a “wish list” deal in SOI. If I remember correctly you list your top three choices and the Corps will try to accomodate but it’s not guaranteed. It’s dependant on the needs of the Corps at that time. I loved the Infantry and no matter what type of infantryman you end up being. You have made the correct selection of Service and MOS… so I applaud you. Semper Fi… and I hope one day to address you as a fellow “tuefelhunden” or “Dev1L D0g” Good luck young Marine… and God speed to you. Now more than ever our Nation need men ( and women) to stand up and serve.
How much of your training involved using your vehicles amphibiously, like for crossing rivers or other water obstacles. And how much of that did you end up actually doing on deployments? I understand that some of the LAV-25 service life extension upgrades ended up removing the amphibious capability.
@@horseman2777 oh I forgot the C-Square… or the “brains” of the LAV Companies. But this vehicle is just basically a huge box filled to the brim with radios and communications nad command and control (which is where the “c squared” comes from). This will typically only be occupied with the most senior people in the Company (or BN or Division should the General want to use it) but typically you would find a 0-3 up to an 0-5 in the C square. And because it’s the most senior officers chairiot… he usually selects the very best of all possible Marines for his “crew”. You’ll find the very most stellar and superior Marine 0313 driving the C-Square. Which when I was in was sometime a Staff NCO… which was a very rare thing indeed. As typically the driver is the “lowest Man on the totem pole” as far as the 0313… but even the driver can “outrank” the junior scouts… so the scouts essentially turn into mechanics working under the direct supervision of the 0313 who has a greater depth of knowledge of the vehicle and all the system on it. Including the main gun (except the mortar tubes or tow launchers if LAV-M or AT as described above. But on the C square…. You’ll find the “brains” of the whole operation. If it goes down.. .then typically the “red platoon” or the most senior and experienced platoons commanding officer will assume command of the formation. Sometimes the LAR would split the Company’s or platoons up into a myriad of different combinations. With “attachments” like heavy armor or breaching vehicles or air defense assets or HET human intelligence guys, engineering support, heavy construction guys… the sky is the limit to how you can “task organize” the basic BN, Companies, or platoons. Typically the LAR community is doing their primary function of serving as the “eyes” for a Division on the attack or defense. Or we can provide Screening for a division. We also often got tasked out to the “special forces” as support for them. But out company commanders and scouts did plenty of exactly what the special forces did. We would be given a k1LL or Capture mission with a specific bad guy or target to assualt. Which we became very proficient at doing. Most often in the dead of the night we would “short count” or vehicles (where ever single driver starts their vehicles on a specific command so any “audio type collection devices or sensors or ears can’t “count the number of vehicles about to move”. You are correct in that a company of LAR… is a very very leth!l formation capable of not just “recon” but the full spectrum of warfare. The LAV can punch well above it’s “weight class” for a 16 to 19 ton vehicle. That TOW system and the LAV-AT could bust any threat or friendly MBT on the battlefield at the time I was in it. The different variants of the TOW missile have only gotten better over the years from what I have read. But even twenty years ago… we could not only bust any MBT on the battle space…we could do it with standoff. Beyond the effective range of the tank gunners to do anything about us. At 3.75 km this was outside the range of their main guns. It’s truly the optics both day and night that made the LAV-AT so deadly in particular. And in addition to the ability to have a “thermal image” of the battlefield with great clarity it is the “armor identification” skills taught to 0352’s that set them apart. We are trained to not only identify ALL of the threats (MBT, IFV, technicals, even rotary wing aircraft) of not just enemy but friendly. When the commander screams that he needs to know if that “heat blob” is friend or foe in a fraction or a second from various ranges and angles… you need to know if that is enemy or friendly. Mariens lives or your partner coalition forced depend on that ability to identify armor quickly and they train and teach that extensively.
@@ReichLife The flails aren't great for breakthroughs, but they are really good for clearing. ^The difference is simple: Breakthrough: Done as an offensive move towards your enemy, likely while in view of said enemy and potentially under fire. Clearing: Done as a defensive move behind friendly lines, unlikely to be observed and fired upon by the enemy. But as a tool the flails are great for clearing, they just suck as breakthrough vehicles.... They are typically much slower than a mine-plough which is why they aren't suitable for offensive work. The ideal option for breakthroughs are mine-ploughs with line charges, as these can move fairly fast while clearing a path wide enough for tanks, with extra space on each side for safety. And if the field is short or taken under fire, then line charges and be used to obscure vision and rapidly clear a short path.
I would like to see this excellent analysis taken a step further to the question of why mines seem to have been more effective in restricting broad movement by armour in this war than others.
Terrain and quantity, its far easier to conceal mines in temperate climates with plenty of foliage than in a desert where track and excavation marks are clearly visible. Furthermore, the Russians have deployed at least two million mines across Ukraine, there hasnt been a war fought with this quantity of mines since since 1945. Whats more is that unlike WW2, the delivery mechanisms now include both artillery and air delivered mines which can quickly remine an area immediately after its been cleared. Until now all these assault and clearing drills against scatter mines had been theoretical, but in practice they have proven to be far more difficult to counter than expected, especially when under fire.
Many, most (?) of russian mines were deployed on the surface of farm fields, roads and forest. After a year or two, the ones in the fields are now effedtively buried in grass and weeds. Even mines spread on road can be hard for relatively untrained tank drivers, maybe under fire to spot through the narrow drivers slit. Even when the mines are clearly visible from a spotter drone watching the "fun".
While everyone's talking about drones and how this technology reshaped the war and "made tanks obsolete", good old mines actually do their job just like 80 years ago. Minefields still a deadly traps for armored vehicles, doesn't matter how modern and sophisticated they are, old TM-62 will do it's job.
Where the drones become really frightening is the Ukrainian use of the big drones to drop an anti tank mine onto the top of a tank. The mines go looking for the tank instead of being a static defense.
@@carkawalakhatulistiwa I mean, we had them as early as in the 40s, right? But, as mentioned in the video, the approach of "clearing tanks" (especially mine flayers like the "Keiler") come with several draw-backs. There are newer concepts than flayers and plows, yes, but the main problem still remains: your clearing vehicle will HAVE to be slow. First because of physics, and second, because hastening things would mean that, in the worst case, the removal doesn't work. Keep in mind: the enemy KNOWS about clearing tanks. There are mine laying tactics that, for example, purposefully bury mines deeper than normal, so that they are harder to remove. Also, Plows and Flayers can at least be attached to existing tank chassis with (comparably) little effort. Dedicated mine clearing vehicles are often rare, and spread out over the front line. So if the enemy manages to destroy 2 or even 3 during an assult and you didn't manage to break through the mine belt, you either have to risk loosing vehicles, or wait for replacement for the clearing tanks you lost. Which gives the enemy time to restore the defenses. Not to mention that many mines nowadays (as mentioned) are not laid by hand but by special artillery shells or by planes. The most effective way to clean mines (meaning: fastest and safest, NOT most accurate) is to my knowledge to just shell a narrow part of the mine strip with artillery for an extended period. That explodes many mines, tips them over or throws them out of the path. It's (relatively) fast, you can do it from a distance, and because mines are rarely the only obstacle placed at a defensive line, you wanna shell it anyway. But for Ukraine, obviously this isn't an option right now. I'm interested tho what the Industry might develop as a solution. Now that it is clear, that in a peer-to-peer (or near-peer) fight mines are in fact a problem, I think there will be some new takes on mine removal in development.
@@carkawalakhatulistiwa Everyone does. Those vehicles are (a) limited in number, (b) get targeted as soon as they appear while (if talking about MICLICs) having (c) limited number of charges per vehicle, thus, (d) being able to create a breach lane of limited length, which might not be enough to get through a minefield. Mine ploughs are better regarding (c) and (d), but still, not every tank gets one. After all that, there's also an issue of rocket-deployed mines that, per doctrine, would be used to isolate the breaching unit by creating a new mine field behind them.
Damn, you almooost had it, bud Yes, drones make tanks obsolete. In conjuction of stopping vehicles with mines and trapping them in a small corridor - they make taking out tanks with drones even easier. There's a reason why the new M10 "Booker" is more of a armored fighting vehicle than a tank.
Interesting as always. Is it possible for you to maybe have an interview with a German (or any other major western soldier) infantrymen and see how similar/different training and procedures are to the real combat in Ukraine? Or maybe how training and procedures changed during the past two years.
But the German instructors said to drive around them ☠️ I feel like, at this point, there isn't a lot of useful things NATO, or any, instructors could teach Ukrainian troops that other Ukrainian troops with field experience couldn't, other than technical knowhow for specific weapon systems. Same for Russia tbh. Both sides have a core of battle hardened men that could teach recruits/conscripts practical survival skills. These 2 countries are probably the only 2 on the planet that have experience in a large scale, near peer conflict. They'll have a lot to teach their allies one day.
To be fair, they've improved a lot and they've adapted to the character of their war. Still, there is a lot of doctrine they are lacking, such as in the use of armor, and obstacle breaching. Their operators understand how to "operate" their NATO equipment, but not how to put it to use in a bigger context. NATO thought about this kind of situation, then wargamed, then ran field problems, and then wrote doctrine on how to deal with a Soviet-era Army. But in offensive evolutions, the Ukrainians don't display much knowledge of that. That's a knowledge gap at the Battalion and Brigade staff level.
@@CptFugu games are games, that's not reality. 3 of the most successful attacks yet involved finding or digging multi-kilometer long tunnels - was that in any games?... And what about the false trenches that fooled everyone on the western side? Your opponent in a game doesn't really give it all to win and doesn't use everything, this is just a mutual dance based on some common rules. Reality doesn't work like that
@@NJ-wb1cz I am not talking about video games here, buddy. I am talking about professional military wargaming. It is a system by which professional military leaders test contingency cases. It is used to write doctrine and war plans, as well as to train officers. I am sad to tell you that false trench lines and long tunnels are not new to military theory. They were not invented in Ukraine either. Anyone surprised by any of that didn't do enough wargaming. Lol.
@@CptFugu yes, these are fantasy games that create fantasy doctrines that have zero obligation to actually work in the real world created by careerists who were never engaged in a real war, as is evidenced in Ukraine Nothing is new, mines aren't new, jammers aren't new, bombs aren't new, yet those fantasy gamers conducted multiple games with Ukrainians and created a completely failed counter-offensive plan. And the only reason why it was only moderately devastating to the Ukrainians as opposed to being completely devastating, is because Ukraine didn't throw all of their forces in one spot like those western gamers wanted them to
Ive seen examples of IED shaped side attack charge made from 5gal buckets. Those things have very wide standoff and a lot of penetration potential. edit: this was in Afghanistan 2010
I would love to hear your opinion on a topic Col. Reisner is talking about in a presentation that the Austrian Bundesheer is doing. "Is Manouvre Warfare and the soldier manouvering dead". As in (my interpretation) "are wars between developed nations more and more turning into attritional war with more emphasis on semi/full-automation with the odd moving of frontlines and less strategic and more local movements." Much love from Vienna
If he has served as a tank engineer in a current major war where mines have been extremely important, then he doesn't have only "an opinion" about it. He has found the way how to do it. The other side of the debate, the guy who found the way how NOT to do it, is unfortunately not with us this evening.
Not exactly true… I’m not typing it again… but I have struck a mine in an LAV-AT once in Iraq. Whole crew lived and the vehicle was back in the fight in less than 48 hours. If interested in more info… I have left a comment above or below this one… wherever it is. The backward Russians design vehicles that “jack in the box” and nobody is left to tell the tale… but the Americans… lol. But it really has to do a lot with what type of mine you hit… and in my case… how old/potent the mine/explosives inside the mine were. I didn’t type this above but will add it here. The Combat engineers that came out to clear a lane for our recovery vehicles. They did a “post blast analysis” on the mine and mine field we were in. And they stated we had indeed hit an anti tank mine because there was some confusion about if it was an anti personnel or anti tank which are much bigger. Thankfully the mine field we were in was ancient. Really really old. From long ago maybe when Iraq was at war with Iran… not sure exactly but very old. We had rode over one behind our vehicle (and walked over it) but it didn’t detonate. And the one that did detonate was severely “underpowered” as the explosives inside of it had sat for decades being baked in the Iraqi desert. Cheers.
@@jastrapper190I don't want to diminish your experience but what your describing isn't really indicative of real combat conditions. You were accidentally driving through an old mine field with no urgency and not under fire. When you hit the mine everyone could halt and eod could spend all the time and precaution to safely get to you and clear the route out. In ukraine, you're actively being fired upon by an equivalently potent force while having to maintain a tempo and attack dug in positions while also moving through a much denser mine field.
@@jonahhekmatyar I think you might be mistaken about what real combat is. I’m sure there are situations like mine (pun very much intended) all the time. When the enemy is using minefields as a delaying tactic. There often is no “ambush”. The objective is to stop or at least slow your advance. I can assure you that my “mine strike” story is 100% indicative of real combat… because I was there living it… and I can assure you it was very much “combat”. Lol I hear your point however… and I agree. My situation was very lucky. It was a clear blue sky day. Hot as balls. If we had placed a minefield for enemy armor for instance… and I was in that LAV-AT… after we popped the tires off the vehicle or de tracked it with a mine… and we were within 3.75 clicks away. That vehicle (and crew) could have expected “death of a leash” in the form of a TOW missile. And when it hit we’d cut the wire and be driving full tilt to the next position to shoot again. You’re so far away from the point of impact the enemy can often not even see you without the aid of optics. However independent of any weapons system we had. The greatest weapon on the battlefield is the radio. Because with it… all manner of de@th is possible. Just organic to our BN. We had very proficient mortars men working out of LAV-M’s which could put an “umbrella of support” around us for a great distance. And the mortar men only needed to get out of their vehicle to lay in their tubes and pound in aiming stakes which happened in a flash. Once any armor is gone… the 25mm bushmaster cannon is a deadly deadly weapons system. I was once awarded a NAM (Navy and Marine Corps Achievement Medal W/ a Combat Distinguishing Device or “Combat V” with the award. It was for one night on fire watch I observed an enemy RPG team moving in a city (this was during Operation Steel Curtain where 1st LAR was the “steel curtain” or blocking force… the anvil that the enemy fell against as the straight leg infantry BN’s swept through Husaybah and Al Qaim) Anyway I called up the LT into the turret (he was the VC and I was in the gunner hole) after observing he gave me permission to engage them. Which I did. The 25 mm round when it impacts a human will “pop” off limbs or separate the body into big pieces. I know I had “un alived” that team becasue I watched their bodies go from “hot” to “cold” throughout the rest of my watch. We had a little mountain of 25 mm casings and links beside our vehicle before that operation was done. Called in many JDAM’s. God all this talk is making me miss my beloved Corps… and strangely war itself. I always liked the quote… by Hemingway. Something like… THERE IS NO HUNTING BUT THE HUNTING OF MAN, AND ONCE ONE HAS GROWN ACCUSTOMED TO, AND LEARNED TO LOVE IT, THERE CAN BE NO MORE ENJOYMENT IN HUNTING OF ANYTHING BUT MAN. Semper Fi. And I do hear your point. In only two decades war has drastically evolved. The battlefield is every bit more lethal and deadly than when I served. Watching the Ukranians clear trenches… it’s a nightmare. A completely barbaric way of fighting. I prefer stomping on the weak… as all warfare should be conducted. If done properly. As our BN’s motto states: TRAMPLE THE WEAK. HURDLE THE DEAD.
He's not a "traitor." He's a "coward" without personal integrity. Traitor implies that he's working with enemies. It's not some conspiracy, he was just scared to do his duty. He had the ability to retire, so he accepted a demotion as punishment and abandoned his troops. Not illegal... but very immoral. My unit was over there when his was training to go. We lost a few. The 125th I heard lost a few.
Let me guess before watching this. How to detect a tank mine? "- Fire the gun into the ground. If it blows up extra+, then you've found a mine." "- But if you have found a mine anyway, how do you disarm it?" "- Fire the gun into the ground. If it blows up extra+, then you've disarmed a mine."
Serious answer/comment. I served in a Marine LAR BN and we had a 25 mm main gun (bushmaster chain gun). And we at numerous times thought about and asked for permission just to shoot at IED’s (which were very common unfortunatly and I’ve dealt with so many I don’t even remember all the stories). But anyway… we wanted to shoot them with the main gun and be done with it… but the EOD (bomb disposal or Explosive Ordinance Disposal) guys would get furious if you did. “Shattering” the IED’s (often artillery shells with the fuse removed and det cord “monkey fisted” into the fuse well… but sometime other containers or mortar rounds prepped in a similar manner). If you blew them apart they often didn’t “detonate” so much as just throw material everywhere. Which could often be collected and reused or would pose even more of a hazard to anyone who went near it. EOD had very detailed directions as to how they wanted the situation dealt with… which often involved whole eight hour blocks or time (or longer) while we waited for them to get to us (as you could imagine they were VERY VERY BUSY. And we would often just “cordon off” the area and wait for them to show up with R2D2 or some other bomb disposal robot. Fun story. I once was “on the fence” about if a suspicious looking bag was actually IED or not. It was under an overpass. So we went on the overpass above it (which in hindsight was ridiculously stupid) and used our vehicles “grappling hook” to snag the IED (which it very much was an IED consisting of 155 mm artillery shells strapped together with a SANYO Base Station and small motorcycle battery for power. Once we pulled it out of all the trash and saw it… we ran as fast as our little legs could travel. But it just goes to show how “in demand” EOD was and how “sure” you needed to be by calling them to “investigate”. But in summary.. yeah they hated even the idea of “shooting” anything at the devices because it made their jobs much more dangerous and hard. I will say that if you are in the middle of combat… these rules might go out the window. And to heck with what EOD “wants”. A 25 mm round HE or AP will do a good job of disposal if push comes to shove. Lol
@@jastrapper190 As a combat engineer I can confirm this, but your best choice of ammo would be HE, as any simple kinetic projectile will NOT detonate the explosives in ammunition - you need that detonation wave to set it off. That's why we also place charges on the inside of mines, relative to the path we're clearing - sometimes 500g of C4 won't set off a weathered mine, but it sure as shit will launch that bad boy. - If we place it on top, we risked just damaging the mine, so in that case the charge is increased. So to summarize: If you ever shoot a mine (not advised), use ammunition with an explosive charge - and aim for the explosive compartment (millimeters matters here).
@@Fiirow1 I was originally trained as a 0352 Anti tank guided missileman in the Corps. But when we left our LAV-AT’s behind in the states retrained as a 0351 Assaultman. Went through the 1st Marine Divisions Demolitions school. I did a lot of demolition work and used a crap ton of different types of explosives. My main goal of “shooting” an IED is to bust it apart. I could really care less if it actually goes off. The goal would be to sever the link between the cell phone and the IED. No signal… no boom. As a short story to further cement the point you are making. I once had a small pile of mortar rounds… which we “railroad tracked” C4 blocks on top of. With the explosives pushed and formed around the rounds. It was a good shot… I thought. Until my watch read zero and I heard a small pop instead of boom. It was one of the only times that I ever had a failure to detonate and it was my own fault. They teach that you need a certain “thickness” of explosives around a cap to reliably get a detonation. Instead of taking a block of C4 and cutting it in half and then sandwiching the cap in between. I just sloppily took a crimping tool and poked a hole into the end of a block and called it a day. Most likely it wasn’t even “centered” on that one block. Anyway… the cap detonated and just “splattered” C4 all over the place. It was one of the most frightening things I’ve ever done having to go back “downrange” to make right what I screwed up. With smoldering little pieces of white play doe all over. Another kind of funny story (in hindsight) was during the initial days of my last deployment. We were “shadowing” another LAR BN. They were taking us around one to one to show us the AO and the lay of the land and where they had “self deletion” SVBIED’s and IED’s etc. anyway because I was one of the only Demo trained infantryman I shadowed a Marine Combat engineer. And during our day of “shadowing” we happened to find a huge pile of dirt. Which we instantly knew what it was (or they did and we would learn). These random piles of dirt in the desert contained alll different types of ordinance. When Sadam’s regime fell all the military bases were left unguarded and much of everything in them was squirreled away all over the desert. And they typically just made a half hearted attemp at burial to hide the stuff. And some of the piles were ordinance that I believe Sadam hid during the first gulf war. Anyways I was working with this engineer to lay out a metric ton of mortar rounds. Likttle rally thousands of pounds of mortar rounds. All corroded and rusty. Using a shovel and E tool to get them out. Laying straight to make a nice shot and get sympathetic detonation of all the ordinance. He was also throwing all sorts of demolitions on top… that he just wanted to get rid of because their deployment was ending and they wanted to get rid of it… (I took alll kinds of goodies like caps, det cord, flex linear, C4, all sorts of good stuff) anyway while working with one of these mortar rounds I dropped one. And I dropped it just right that it hit another round and the thing kinda “cracked” or something. All I know is this little “hiss and cracking” starts… the rounds as it turns out were “Willy peter” or White phosphorus rounds. And because of their age and corrosion level after having been left out for years in the desert buried… the White P combusts when exposed to air. So I turn to see what the actual engineer thought of this new and interesting development… becasue I’m not very bright. Lol anyway it was exactly like the “bomb squad shirts” IF YOU SEE ME RUNNING YOU BETTER BE RUNNING TOO. That c sucker just dropped his shovel and took off without a single word and was already halfway back to the vehicles before I even turned around to look and see what he thought. I then joined him. And we called EOD who came out with R2D2 and finished that job. Lol. True story. And funny now. But not so at the time.
What role do mine clearing line charges or similar explosive obstacle clearing devices have? Are they not effective in clearing obstacles while being less vulnerable? I know they are probably not available in large numbers - when I was in Bn exercises, our MCLCs were held at Bde level and not always given. Is this just a doctrinal issue? Or is there a problem with cost?
Always enjoy your videos, Great! However one point there really is "NO IED" this was a silly made up term. All mines are either "victim activated" like you step on it or "Command Detonated" were like a claymore mine or directional mine you detonate it when the victim comes into the kill field. An IED is really just a Command Detonated Mine. The British EOD have the right terminology and understanding in this matter I believe...Cheers
If there are any Ukrainians reading this: You guys need to ask for M56 Coyote mechanical smoke generators and smoke pots from the US ARMY. You can use the Coyotes to cover maneuvers such as breaching. They can operate for extended periods of time and, used correctly, be used to feint and force the enemy into wasting resources. Since the vehicles have a large signature, you need to use the consumable smoke pots in order to conceal the position of the generator. If you plan to go on the offensive at some point this will save a lot of lives. It is a force multiplier that will increase the survival of your combat engineers and your attack columns.
Each soviet tank since T-55 can cast smoke injecting fuel to system. Their engines already are smoke generators. And additionally they have smoke launchers with (normally) particles refract IR and thermal waves, so it reduce possibility to see through for enemy drastically. What does Coyotte do to bring one more completely unique vehicle to ranks and logistics?
@@Uncle_Smallett A small smoke generator, like the one on a Tank/IFV engine has some drawbacks. First, it covers a relatively small area. Second, it reveals the general position of the vehicle. Third, it can only run for a small period of time. Fourth, that smoke is not opaque to thermals. Fifth, running the generator increases the maintenance and logistics load. Smoke grenades can be opaque to thermal sights, but they don't last long, they cover a very limited area, and they only carry a few charges. Often up to 3. Both of those are great when the vehicle is threatened, but they are essentially very temporary escape measures. On the other hand, a Battalion of Coyotes can cover and obscure a front kilometers wide and kilometers deep. While it depends on choosing the right time and place, that type of deployment can obscure from all types of visual and IR detection for long periods of time. When I was operating them I was told the record for a unit was 6 months of uninterrupted operations by cycling units in and out of maintenance (a previous model). On the offensive, you can use them both, to feint a maneuver, which will exhaust the manpower and indirect fire ammunition of the unit facing it. You can also cover a breaching attempt (de-mining, river crossing, for example). It can cover the movement of a major unit which will limit the effectiveness of drones, and will force artillery and reinforcement units to spread out in a large area rather than converging on the attacking column. It can be used defensively, to protect concentrations of troops, or to feint such concentrations. It can also protect buildings and critical infrastructure from attacks that require visual recognition, and it can protect them from satellite observation (not from radar). Cleverly used, you can create ghosts of a structure to further confuse an attacker. I will also add that it is particularly effective in Ukraine's temperature range. While not a weapon itself, the Coyote is a great force multiplier, and it is key in protecting your own force.
To properly train and equip Ukraine to be effective against Russia would take a decade especially with aircraft to expect anything more is just fallacy.
@@ReichLife no, such nonsense As if Ukraine is ineffective currently against Russia, I wouldn’t rate an ineffective force as one that can inflict half a million casualties on its assailant
@@looinrims Depends on your definition of effectiveness. Let's say, effectiveness is being able to accomplish strategic military objectives. If that is the case, what strategic military objectives has Ukraine accomplished during the last year of the war? Not much, really. Casualty rate between Russia and Ukraine is also pretty close to being 1:1 most of the time. So Ukraine is definitely not an effective fighting force, at least not any more effective than Russia's - it is a capable one, otherwise it simply wouldn't have been able to hold out for so long, but is limited in effectiveness by many things, including, largely, lack of equipment.
