What does "airstrikes struck land features denying ISIL a tactical advantage" really mean?

2015-05-29T13:03:09-04:00

For a few weeks at least the DoD News service emails have included the phrase "airstrikes struck land features denying ISIL a tactical advantage" usually associated with attacks against small tactical units. I understand how occupation of land or the short-time potential of bringing direct or indirect fire limits the use of terrain [that implies real time observation]; but, I am not certain what the phrase means or how long the tactical advantage will be retained after the aircraft depart the AO.
[5/29/2015 update to question] The phrase seems to be focused on denying ISIL offensive capabilities.
May 28 - Near Tal Afar, Iraq an airstrike struck land features denying ISIL a tactical advantage.
May 14 - Near Asad, Iraq two airstrikes struck an ISIL tactical unit and occupied land features, denying ISIL a tactical advantage
May 11 - Near Mosul, Iraq two airstrikes struck an ISIL fighting position and struck land features denying ISIL a tactical advantage.
May 5 - Near Ar Raqqah, Syria three airstrikes struck land features, denying ISIL a tactical advantage.
Contrasted with -- May 5 - Near Mosul, Iraq seven airstrikes struck two ISIL tactical units and destroyed an ISIL vehicle, two ISIL staging areas, two ISIL excavators and an ISIL defensive position.
I certainly am hopeful for the strategic and operational defeat of ISIS. I hope the use of the phrase means something tangible and is not merely part of an information or deception campaign.

Response by CPT Ahmed Faried made May 29 at 2015 1:17 PM

2015-05-29T13:17:04-04:00

communication satellites, oil wells that they using to generate revenue and other assorted things like that. Personally Sir, I think airstrikes won't win this alone.

Response by MAJ Bryan Zeski made May 29 at 2015 1:21 PM

2015-05-29T13:21:19-04:00

It means we spent millions of dollars to destroy mud huts.

Response by Capt Seid Waddell made May 29 at 2015 2:37 PM

2015-05-29T14:37:20-04:00

Sounds like knocking out bridges, buildings, etc. to me.

"Near Fallujah, three airstrikes struck land features denying ISIL a tactical advantage, destroying an ISIL boat, an ISIL river crossing point and an ISIL vehicle."

http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=128934

Airstrikes Deny ISIL Forces Tactical Advantages

U.S. and coalition military forces have continued to attack Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant terrorists in Syria and Iraq, Combined Joint Task Force Operation Inherent Resolve officials reported.

Response by LTC Stephen F. made May 29 at 2015 3:27 PM

2015-05-29T15:27:20-04:00

In addition to the May 29 DoD posting referenced by Capt Seid Waddell, the following DoD News posting contained the subject phrase. I concur with Capt Waddell that destroying capabilities to cross rivers would yield a tactical advantage. I am not certain that knocking out buildings would yield a tactical advantage for very long. I note that on May 5 a tactical advantage is obtained near Ar Raqqah, Syria by attacking land features while the phrase is not used in a strike against Mosul the same day which destroyed an "ISIL defensive position." Therefore I believe the phrase is focused on land features which can be exploited in offensive operations such as river crossing capabilities and not used against defensive systems including buildings.
May 5 - Near Ar Raqqah, Syria three airstrikes struck land features, denying ISIL a tactical advantage.
Contrasted with -- May 5 - Near Mosul, Iraq seven airstrikes struck two ISIL tactical units and destroyed an ISIL vehicle, two ISIL staging areas, two ISIL excavators and an ISIL defensive position.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made May 29 at 2015 3:35 PM

2015-05-29T15:35:13-04:00

They destroyed a bridge ISIS had to bypass?

Response by COL Jason Smallfield, PMP, CFM, CM made May 29 at 2015 5:21 PM

2015-05-29T17:21:51-04:00

- "airstrikes struck land features denying ISIL a tactical advantage" has no defined doctrinal meaning that I am aware of.
- The phrase is possibly a way to communicate "we are doing something" to the American public but most military professionals will see it for what it is (essentially meaningless).
- Never use nine words when one or two words work better (killed, destroyed, defeated). We can't use these words, however, since they would most likely be outright lies since we are not doing these things.
- It is things like this that better enable me to understand why the United States has not truly won a conflict at the operational or strategic levels of war since the end of WWII let alone properly shaped or detered a conflict as our doctrine and national military strategy state.

Response by Col Joseph Lenertz made May 29 at 2015 6:40 PM

2015-05-29T18:40:45-04:00

Unfortunately, it's a load of crap. It's the worst political-media bullshit talk, and it doesn't mean a thing. A bridge at best. It's what they say when they don't know if we killed a bunch of bad guys or just blew dirt in the air.

Response by LTC Paul Labrador made May 29 at 2015 9:12 PM

2015-05-29T21:12:21-04:00

About the only thing in my mind would be taking out a key bridge or destroying a key fortification. Or maybe hitting an weapons depot.

Response by Maj Chris Nelson made May 29 at 2015 10:16 PM

2015-05-29T22:16:23-04:00

So, as an Air Force Nurse (with prior Army Medic experience)...and some time to think about tactics due to my low levels of PTSD and my paranoia I would say there are quite a number of targets that would be eligible. I would suggest that the only stand of trees in the country on a hill top, the only water in an area, hill tops, mountain passes allowing easier passage (or the ONLY passage), river/water crossing points, Ridge lines with good fields of fire on opposition troops...the list goes on! Hitting mud huts, bridges, and other man made structures is ok....denies them travel and cover/refuge, oil wells etc limits their income; but all these are MAN MADE.

Does the phrase "airstrikes struck land features denying ISIL a tactical advantage" really mean much more then hundreds of thousands of dollars blowing up dirt and rocks? Probably not. BUT, denial of a tactically superior vantage point, especially when you do not have enough people to place there to defend it..... maybe priceless to those that need it! Now, to the senior ranking officers that called bunk, I am not calling you out, BUT from both a tactical and strategic position, maybe a bit more then bridges would be worthy of being hit.... Needs review of more then just a nurse to verify tho!! ;-)

Response by SGT Lawrence Corser made May 30 at 2015 1:06 PM

2015-05-30T13:06:35-04:00

collapsing road ways or blocking passes?

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made May 30 at 2015 1:09 PM

2015-05-30T13:09:40-04:00

It meant the ISIS switched from driving straight to zig-zag.

Response by LTC Stephen F. made Jun 4 at 2015 12:49 PM

2015-06-04T12:49:20-04:00

May 29, June 1, 2,3 and 4 DoD News has reported Near Beiji, xx airstrikes struck an ISIL tactical unit and land features denying ISIL a tactical advantage. This is the only location where the phrase has been used over the past week. I was interested to see that apparently on 5 separate occasions ISIL has been denied a tactical advantage based on strikes on land features.
The Tigris River flows to the East of Beiji and appears to be much wider there than to the immediate south. I suspect that the land features targeted near Beiji may be associated with crossing points along the Tigris.
1LT Scott Doyle, SGT Lawrence Corser, Maj Chris Nelson, MAJ Ken Landgren, LTC Paul Labrador, Capt Seid Waddell, CPT Ahmed Faried, COL Jason Smallfield, PMP, CFM, CM,

Response by LCpl Mark Lefler made Jun 4 at 2015 12:51 PM

2015-06-04T12:51:40-04:00

that we missed the target? :P

Response by Maj Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 4 at 2015 1:54 PM

2015-06-04T13:54:07-04:00

Degrading trench systems, tunnel networks, berms, etc. Obviously they can be rebuilt, but it forces them to waste time and resources repairing them.

Response by MSG Brad Sand made Jun 8 at 2015 12:08 PM

2015-06-08T12:08:40-04:00

Bombs dropped. Bombs hit the ground.

'Struck land feature' translate into, "The bombs did hit the ground and there was nothing there." 'Denying a tactical advantage' translates in "If they were really trained in Land Combat they would have put people there because it would have been a good position...except for us bombing it."

Remember gravity is not only a really good idea, it is a law.

Response by SGT Richard H. made Jun 8 at 2015 12:51 PM

2015-06-08T12:51:39-04:00

It means there's now a hole for them to trip over.

Response by COL Ted Mc made Jun 8 at 2015 12:59 PM

2015-06-08T12:59:11-04:00

I just went through the thread again.

From the discussion, it would appear that dropping several busloads of caltrops across Iraq so that the ISIS drivers had to keep stopping to fix flat tires would also produce a "tactical advantage".

In fact, dumping a bunch of loose 2x4s in front of an ISIS advance would ALSO produce a "tactical advantage" because they would have to watch where they were walking and that would slow them down.

On the other hand, so would dropping enough nuclear weapons on Iraq to form a glowing line in the sand which ISIS couldn't cross would ALSO produce a "tactical advantage".

"Tactical advantage" is meaningless bafflegab unless it is put in perspective.

Response by LTC Stephen F. made Jun 8 at 2015 1:24 PM

2015-06-08T13:24:16-04:00

Today DoD News included the phrase "destroying an ISIL tunnel entrance." It was interesting that the assumption is that the entrance as opposed to the tunnel exit was targeted - unless ISIL is developing one way tunnels.
I noticed last week that a bridge was destroyed by an airstrike - that weakens my assumption that the "land features" struck by airstrikes around Beiji last week were directed towards river crossing capabilities and land features providing over-watch for those crossing.

Response by LTC Ed Ross made Jun 8 at 2015 1:27 PM

2015-06-08T13:27:57-04:00

This sounds like typical Pentagon mumbo jumbo to me. It's the kind of bomb damage assessment they give when they don't have a clue what damage they have done. As a former artillery air observer in Vietnam I am familiar with the kind of BDA reports fighter pilots and air observers give

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Jun 8 at 2015 3:45 PM

2015-06-08T15:45:32-04:00

It means they had to go left instead of right.

Response by SSG Mark Ives made Jun 8 at 2015 3:46 PM

2015-06-08T15:46:51-04:00

Bombing the crap out of a worthless piece of road that insurgents may have been using? Why does this remind me of the reports I used to hear in the news about actions in Vietnam when I was a kid?

Response by CAPT Kevin B. made Jun 8 at 2015 4:25 PM

2015-06-08T16:25:26-04:00

Agree it's Babblespeak for not doing squat. Unfortunately that is symptomatic of an Administration that doesn't want to hear the truth or get asked about it. It is truly shades of Vietnam all over again. We spend a lot and lose a lot over this type of mentality. It's Whiz Kids deja vu all over again.

Response by SGM Erik Marquez made Jun 8 at 2015 8:11 PM

2015-06-08T20:11:53-04:00

It's simple
And no not doctrinal term yet still very real.
Striking a hill top that has tactical advantage before an attack would be terrain denial
Striking that hill top during an attack on the patrol base below would cause the enemy to withdraw or become
Ineffective from that position

Response by Capt Mark Strobl made Jun 9 at 2015 1:32 AM

2015-06-09T01:32:23-04:00

...back in the ready room: That means the fuzzy-faced Captain completely missed his target. However, the DoD had to account for the spent munitions.

Response by Lt Col Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 9 at 2015 6:55 AM

2015-06-09T06:55:54-04:00

Usually, it refers to striking either lines-of-communication, such as roads, to deny high-speed movement into an area.

Sometimes, it may refer to striking berms, trenches, or other temporary fortifications to disallow their use by ISIL forces.

Could even be abandoned buildings, or buildings not currently inhabited by enemy but known to be staging areas.

We did this a few times in Afghanistan as well, particularly on hills and peaks known to be points of origin for indirect fire.

Response by COL Jon Thompson made Jun 13 at 2015 11:27 AM

2015-06-13T11:27:11-04:00

Blowing up a bridge or closing a narrow passage point with debris? I guess doing something to slow their rate of march or divert their route. Typical military bureaucratic nonsense most likely.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 17 at 2015 3:03 PM

2015-06-17T15:03:05-04:00

political speak for what Doctrine used to call Terrain denial.

Response by SSG Roger Ayscue made Jun 20 at 2015 8:59 PM

2015-06-20T20:59:18-04:00

This should be read as "We missed."

This comes from that part of the Book/Movie "Catch-22" by Joseph Heller. In it the bombardier in the lead aircraft, CPT Yossarian, does not want to bomb a small Italian town that has no military significance, but was randomly selected so that they ad something to bomb. Yossarian toggles early triggering the rest of the Bomb Group to do the same. The strike photos show that they "Scored a Direct Hit on the Ocean" but with extremely good bomb groupings. The General is then called in to give the aircrews medals.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dcmwPYCUysw

Catch-22 (6/10) Movie CLIP - Bomb the Ocean (1970) HD

Catch-22 movie clips: http://j.mp/1BcPxTS BUY THE MOVIE: http://amzn.to/sW9BrI Don't miss the HOTTEST NEW TRAILERS: http://bit.ly/1u2y6pr CLIP DESCRIPTION: Y...