Posted on Mar 15, 2015
These minigun strikes vs. insurgents will get your blood pumping! Is Close Air Support (CAS) more effective in Iraq, or in Afghanistan?
5.62K
25
17
4
4
0
** Don’t forget to answer the survey question included here **
Watch this blood-pumping video clip, and then answer the survey question below. Also tell us about your own experiences from being involved with CAS situations.
Video link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yD5AmWIItWU
//
Additional context:
During OIF, my unit (A/1-27 IN) sometimes utilized CAS depending on METT-TC. We had 24/7 CAS on station all around MND-B while I was there.
From being in Iraq 15 months, my impression was that CAS was HIGHLY effective in nearly all use cases in Iraq. Iraq is flat; it was really easy for CAS assets to get to you quickly and shape the battlefield.
However, I never spent time in Afghanistan, so I have no personal way of comparing how effective CAS was in both places, let alone in other places like Vietnam. That’s why I would love to hear from RP members of all branches about their experiences with CAS – whether directly or indirectly. Note: obviously, don’t write things here that are sensitive in any way.
Watch this blood-pumping video clip, and then answer the survey question below. Also tell us about your own experiences from being involved with CAS situations.
Video link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yD5AmWIItWU
//
Additional context:
During OIF, my unit (A/1-27 IN) sometimes utilized CAS depending on METT-TC. We had 24/7 CAS on station all around MND-B while I was there.
From being in Iraq 15 months, my impression was that CAS was HIGHLY effective in nearly all use cases in Iraq. Iraq is flat; it was really easy for CAS assets to get to you quickly and shape the battlefield.
However, I never spent time in Afghanistan, so I have no personal way of comparing how effective CAS was in both places, let alone in other places like Vietnam. That’s why I would love to hear from RP members of all branches about their experiences with CAS – whether directly or indirectly. Note: obviously, don’t write things here that are sensitive in any way.
Posted in these groups: 
Iraq
Close Air Support (CAS)
Iraq Close Air Support (CAS)
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 9
1
1
0
I would vote that it is equally effective because of the difference in terrain. It was easier for CAS and CCA to get round on target in Iraq because of the predominance of flat terrain. But, in Afghanistan it is imperative to have CAS and CCA because of the mountains. It is much more difficult for ground troops to make their way to positions while retaining cover moving up mountains, CAS and CCA help keep the enemy down while ground forces make their way in.
All that said, the Warthog is a nasty beast... saved my bacon one night.
All that said, the Warthog is a nasty beast... saved my bacon one night.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
CPT Aaron Kletzing
I cannot view the video here at work but I think I may have seen it already.
If it is the one I am thinking of there is quite a difference between Close Air Support (CAS) and Close Combat Attack (CCA). CAS being much more deliberately planned as opposed to CCA being more hastily planned (and primarily Army rotary wing).
The question of where it is more effective also depends on the type of terrain you are operating in, in both Iraq and Afghanistan you have rural and urban areas and you can argue which is better in what terrain. Laser guided munitions from CAS have pinpoint accuracy to whereas some CCA is not as accurate.
My preference is CCA regardless of location. CCA seems to have a quicker response time, rotary wing pilots are very easy to communicate with even if you do not know how to properly send a request, they are also very helpful in observing and guiding you towards your objective even if they cannot kinetically engage it. They are extremely useful in spotting and terminating "squirters".
Of course as everything during operations it's all METT-TC dependent.
I cannot view the video here at work but I think I may have seen it already.
If it is the one I am thinking of there is quite a difference between Close Air Support (CAS) and Close Combat Attack (CCA). CAS being much more deliberately planned as opposed to CCA being more hastily planned (and primarily Army rotary wing).
The question of where it is more effective also depends on the type of terrain you are operating in, in both Iraq and Afghanistan you have rural and urban areas and you can argue which is better in what terrain. Laser guided munitions from CAS have pinpoint accuracy to whereas some CCA is not as accurate.
My preference is CCA regardless of location. CCA seems to have a quicker response time, rotary wing pilots are very easy to communicate with even if you do not know how to properly send a request, they are also very helpful in observing and guiding you towards your objective even if they cannot kinetically engage it. They are extremely useful in spotting and terminating "squirters".
Of course as everything during operations it's all METT-TC dependent.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Great video, and a great feeling hearing the fast mover & helo coming. From my experience CAS was more effective in Iraq, most likely due to terrain.
(1)
(0)
CPT Aaron Kletzing
CSM Michael J. Uhlig thanks for the response. That was my impression as well, glad to see others share that view! Whereabouts in Iraq were you?
(1)
(0)
(0)
(0)
CPT Aaron Kletzing
CSM Michael J. Uhlig the name of that town does not make it sound like a place I'd want to spend too much time in, haha. I was around Hussaniyah and Al Awad in Iraq, just north of Baghdad proper and due east of Camp Taji.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google