A question for the military posters

[Chris]

I watched a report from Afganistan where a small group of 8-10 American soldiers went into a thick cornfield that they knew had enemy in it. There was high ground on both sides of the field very close, like only a few feet away. Instead of sending his men to the high ground where they could look down on the enemy, the CO sent them straight into the field where they couldn't see them. I want your opinion about this. It seemed much wiser to me, to take the high ground and spy the enemy rather than walking into thick brush where you could only see a few feet in front of you. Is there something in military strategy that I am missing here?

 

[CSM]

I watched a report from Afganistan where a small group of 8-10 American soldiers went into a thick cornfield that they knew had enemy in it. There was high ground on both sides of the field very close, like only a few feet away. Instead of sending his men to the high ground where they could look down on the enemy, the CO sent them straight into the field where they couldn't see them. I want your opinion about this. It seemed much wiser to me, to take the high ground and spy the enemy rather than walking into thick brush where you could only see a few feet in front of you. Is there something in military strategy that I am missing here?

It depends what the objective was. Certainly more detail would be needed to provide a fair critique of the actions taken.

 

[Chris]

It depends what the objective was. Certainly more detail would be needed to provide a fair critique of the actions taken.

The objective was to kill the enemy in the cornfield, which they did.

He was hiding in a small foxhole he had dug out.

 

[CSM]

The objective was to kill the enemy in the cornfield, which they did.

He was hiding in a small foxhole he had dug out.

So apparently the tactics employed worked.

 

[Chris]

So apparently the tactics employed worked.

True, but my question was about specific tactics in that situation.

Would it be better to look down from the high ground or not?

I kind of got the feeling the CO was showing off for the cameras.

 

[CSM]

True, but my question was about specific tactics in that situation.

Would it be better to look down from the high ground or not?

I kind of got the feeling the CO was showing off for the cameras.

Again, without more specifics, it's hard to judge.

 

[AllieBaba]

You don't have any information about the specific tactics.

It isn't better to look down from the high ground if your men are exposed and vulnerable. You don't want to risk 10 soldiers in order to get one guy in a hole.

 

[Chris]

You don't have any information about the specific tactics.

It isn't better to look down from the high ground if your men are exposed and vulnerable. You don't want to risk 10 soldiers in order to get one guy in a hole.

Perhaps that's the answer.

 

[Mr. President]

In a full on assault you would rather have the high ground for a specific known target who is dug in you would rather have cover and the element of suprise if at all possible. But again specifics are needed.

 

[Missourian]

IMO the understanding you need here isn't the military tactics, it's the dynamics of a corn field. A cornfield is so dense that having the high ground would only expose your unit. Your men would have no chance of visually penetrating the corn stalk foilage except from directly over head. Google 'lost in a corn field' or corn field maze.

 

[Chris]

IMO the understanding you need here isn't the military tactics, it's the dynamics of a corn field. A cornfield is so dense that having the high ground would only expose your unit. Your men would have no chance of visually penetrating the corn stalk foilage except from directly over head. Google 'lost in a corn field' or corn field maze.

I see.

If it had been me, I would have raked the field with automatic weapons in hopes of taking him out without risking my men.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

Perhaps that's the answer.

That is the answer. If the guy had dug a hole in a cornfield then he would have been hard to spot from the exposed hilltop. He had cover, the sqaud hunting him did not. In that situation, you use his cover against. By entering the cornfield, the squad had cover as well. Just a guess with limited info.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

IMO the understanding you need here isn't the military tactics, it's the dynamics of a corn field. A cornfield is so dense that having the high ground would only expose your unit. Your men would have no chance of visually penetrating the corn stalk foilage except from directly over head. Google 'lost in a corn field' or corn field maze.

Sorry, I posted before I saw you had repsonded with essentially the same answer.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

I see.

If it had been me, I would have raked the field with automatic weapons in hopes of taking him out without risking my men.

Killing the combatant might have been a secondary objective. The main objective might have been capture.

 

[Missourian]

That is the answer. If the guy had dug a hole in a cornfield then he would have been hard to spot from the exposed hilltop. He had cover, the sqaud hunting him did not. In that situation, you use his cover against. By entering the cornfield, the squad had cover as well. Just a guess with limited info.

NP C.W. I think you explained it better anyway.

 

[Chris]

Thanks to all for answering my question.

 

[Gunny]

I watched a report from Afganistan where a small group of 8-10 American soldiers went into a thick cornfield that they knew had enemy in it. There was high ground on both sides of the field very close, like only a few feet away. Instead of sending his men to the high ground where they could look down on the enemy, the CO sent them straight into the field where they couldn't see them. I want your opinion about this. It seemed much wiser to me, to take the high ground and spy the enemy rather than walking into thick brush where you could only see a few feet in front of you. Is there something in military strategy that I am missing here?

It depends TOTALLY on what their mission was.

One, having the high ground may or may not expose the enemy. If he lays low in a cornfield and doesn't move, you can't just "see" him.

One explanation that comes to my mind is to limit collateral damage so you wouldn't be on here posting an article about how the Army deprived a village of its corn by blowing it up.

Sounds to like he just wanted to flush the enemy from the cornfield with part of his force and engage them with the remainder. A basic tactic.