CDG Solution Winners #25: Through a Deadly Iraqi Minefield, Gulf War, 1991
Eric Hillerson
Waupun, WI
Breaching an enemy obstacle requires that the breaching force attack using the tenets of breaching: intelligence, breaching fundamentals, breaching organization, mass and synchronization. In order to best fit the fundamentals of breaching (suppress, obscure, secure, reduce and assault) and allow redundancy to ensure success of the entire operation, we must organize our breach teams according to COA 3. COA 3 allows us to have flexibility to quickly assault through the obstacles no matter what the composition of the obstacle. COA 3 allows us to quickly plow through the first obstacle with tanks who then become the support by fire for the AAVs to blast through the wires with a MCLC. Following the AAVs, the second set of plow tanks to breach the last mine belt following each breach team is the dozer tanks to widen the last breach lane, they become a support by fire while the assaulting force moves through the breach lanes.
{default}
Stephen Duchaine
La Junta, CO
Course of Action 3 is the way to go. By mixing the specialized equipment you are assured if success in the least amount of time regardless of which types of mines you encounter. The biggest concern must be clearing the mines as quickly as possible as the remaining combat units can’t move forward until the paths are cleared. If the Intel reports are correct and there are only shallow buried mines than plan 3 has the plow tanks in front as they would be in plan 1 so little no time is lost while plan 3 also allows flexibility in case the Intel report is wrong. There is added risk of the men in the AAV’s being exposed to Iraqi artillery fire in plan 3. Given the importance of clearing the mines as quickly as possible I believe the risk must be taken as the delay would be substantial if the Intel is wrong and more time under Iraqi artillery fire means additional casualties.
Course of Action 2 having the AAV’s lead the way using the line charging method of clearing all mines will certainly work but once again we are looking for the quickest method which this certainly isn’t and therefore would lead to more casualties IF the Intel report is correct.
Ultimately given the importance of the mission Course of Action 3 allows us to clear the minefield as fast as Course of Action 1 if the Intel is correct but allows us to react in the quickest possible manner if circumstances require us to change methods of mine clearing with only a slightly increased risk in casualties thus is the best solution for the circumstances.
Fernando Franco
St.Paul, MN
COA #3- mix and match provides the max firepower, speed and flexibility that are part of any breaching operations. My 14 years as an infantry officers has taught me that the faster you breach an obstacle the better chances you have to secure the objective. The plow tanks will take care of the surface mines and have a good chance of surviving and continue mission if hit by a deep mine. The AAV with line charges will give me the flexibility to continue the mission if the M60 tank can’t continue. Any breaching ops. Should have a plan B just in case the Intel reports are not accurate. By having a mix of plow tanks-AAV- dozers I am providing fire protection to the front; flexibility in the middle and recovery in the rear. COA #1 gives me speed but doesn’t provide the flexibility and agility to change courses if a plow tank goes down. COA #2 gives me speed, but could create a bottle neck if the AAV got hit by a surface mine, artillery or a heavy mine.
