These minigun strikes vs. insurgents will get your blood pumping! Is Close Air Support (CAS) more effective in Iraq, or in Afghanistan?

CPT Aaron Kletzing — Sun, 15 Mar 2015 18:55:21 -0400

** 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.

Epic Minigun Strike on Taliban Fighters

Response by TSgt Joshua Copeland made Mar 15 at 2015 7:12 PM

TSgt Joshua Copeland — Sun, 15 Mar 2015 19:12:52 -0400

Based on what I have heard from just about everyone, CAS is effective regardless of terrain.

Response by CSM Michael J. Uhlig made Mar 15 at 2015 7:19 PM

CSM Michael J. Uhlig — Sun, 15 Mar 2015 19:19:28 -0400

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.

Response by CSM Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 16 at 2015 5:23 AM

CSM Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 16 Mar 2015 05:23:56 -0400

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.

Response by SSG Jeffrey Spencer made Mar 16 at 2015 8:22 AM

SSG Jeffrey Spencer — Mon, 16 Mar 2015 08:22:49 -0400

Strength. Through superior firepower. No minigun in my days of service. BAR or SAW, and the .50cal was at our disposal. LAW, M203 or M79 grenade launchers.

Response by SGT Bryon Sergent made Mar 16 at 2015 10:33 AM

SGT Bryon Sergent — Mon, 16 Mar 2015 10:33:43 -0400

Regretfully I can't comment to this as I didn't receive either.

Response by CPT Aaron Kletzing made Mar 19 at 2015 8:30 AM

CPT Aaron Kletzing — Thu, 19 Mar 2015 08:30:28 -0400

Wow, it looks like 0 people have voted that CAS is more effective in Afgh than it is in Iraq. I guess I expected that, though it's still interesting to see. Also, the highest # of votes has been for the "equally effective in both places" option -- so it will be interesting to see how this debate continues to shake out.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 19 at 2015 11:09 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 19 Mar 2015 11:09:21 -0400

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.

Response by SFC Charles S. made Mar 19 at 2015 1:36 PM

SFC Charles S. — Thu, 19 Mar 2015 13:36:24 -0400

I think it would be more effective in Iraq due to the lower Mountain and higher visibility ratio for air to targets.

Response by SGT Bryon Sergent made Jun 30 at 2015 11:41 AM

SGT Bryon Sergent — Tue, 30 Jun 2015 11:41:29 -0400

When the proverbial fhit hits the san I don't care who or what is giving it as long as it is there!