RE: Obstacles, Part 3

-----Original Message-----
From: NVDoyle [mailto:NVDoyle@aol.com]
Subject: Re: Obstacles, Part 3

>Actually, the infantrymen I have met (a few, not a huge sample),
usually have
>the attitude, that if a particular obstacle looks dangerous, or even
>inconvenient, they would be more than happy to let the engineers take
care of
>it.  This is NOT a slam, just a representation of natural human
laziness and
>self-preservation.

Absolutely! We used to loath wire obstacles. Wire and mines go together
all too often. But that is why we have combat engineers and pioneers! 

Now it should be borne in mind that these obstacles don't just magically
appear in front of an objective. Prior to any attack, recon is conducted
and determining location and layout of obstacles is one very important
piece of info to be gathered. Consequently Engineer support is PLANNED
into the attack. Now we are talking Bn, Bde or perhaps even Div level
here, so Engineers will be as likely as Armour or Arty. If the situation
arises where infantry have to start going at Cat II or III with bare
hands, wirecutters or anything else, there is something dreadfully
wrong. 

The comments about taking wire obstacles apart with tools at hand are
fine for a string of concertina. But you should be aware that some wire
constructions can be VERY deep and if put together properly the human
body weight will not be at all effective. A HE round from a Carl Gustav
will not do much either. In the explosion much of the wire and pickets
just get pushed around and you end up with even a worse mess to try to
get through.

All I can say is thank god we DO have engineers when it comes to mines
and wire!

I like the suggestions for Engineering so far. It brings into focus
another facet of combined arms operations other than Inf, Armour and
Artillery. 

Now if someone could come up with a way to factor in Intel and
PsyOps..................

Owen G