On 29Jul2020 1328, xxxxxx@gmail.com wrote:
> One last NZ question:
>
> What's your NZ section layout? How did you maneuver when you move?
Section splits into two halves on contact - rifle group (Section
Commander in charge) of all the riflemen and fire support group (2IC in
charge) of MG team and the grenadier and partner (usually these are the
scouts).
That's close to what we did, though we had people who went on recce courses, but I don't ever recall our reserve unit designating 'scouts'.
Moving under fire is in pairs - one runs, the other covers, hopefully
while the MG and grenadier are making the enemies' miserable. Ideally,
when the riflemen assault through the enemy position, all they're doing
is counting bodies and policing up weapons, as the MG is supposed to be
the primary section weapon.
And that doesn't often happen. Rifle squad efficacy has largely been static for the last 20-30 years. That's why they've tried to come up with things like the US OICW to be able to increase that. I'm not sure, short of armoured exoskeletons mounting much more lethal and larger weapons, we're going to change that much.
My CO used to say 'our job, as the mechanized infantry, is to debuss on top of an enemy position amidst the dead and dying.... because our artillery has blown them to bits...'. That might be a little closer if the target is not in fighting positions at which point even artillery is of limited effect.
The whole role of the infantry really boils down to:
- Stand on ground and keep eyes on the area (place markers for who owns what)
- Keep threats away from armour (so their heavier firepower can be effective)
- Help direct artillery fire
- In defense, provide supporting fires for emplaced defenses like minefields or registered artillery points and to help channelize the enemy
We're like the ants of the animal kingdom. You can kill some of us pretty easily, but we're numerous enough that some will usually survive. And we are small enough and sometimes hard to spot which may help us avoid too much attention from artillery or tactical air assets...
It's basically the same as British rifle
tactics and doctrine from pre-WWII onwards (and similar to German WWII
doctrine).
There's only so many effective ways to do what we do. Things vary a bit, but the central features are the same.
It's funny how people think that modern rifle tactics date
from the German WWII introduction of the GPMG as the section/squad's
main firepower, but the British had already gone with that, using the
Bren, before WWII even started.
The Germans made great use of MGs in WWII (moreso than the allies).
The Bren was a good weapon, but just not able to put out the volume of fire you want for suppression. It also might arguably have been *too accurate* because people could shoot it with some amazing degree of accuracy for a support weapon (wherein you want the capacity to have rounds generally reach an area, but have some scatter).
Of course a lot of people also don't realise that the British Army was
the world's first fully mechanised army. The British armed forces
might've been under-equipped going into WWII after a couple of decades
of minimal defence spending, but they'd put a lot of time into working
out what the lessons of WWI were, and what they needed in terms of
equipment and tactics to benefit from those lessons.
The problem you get in all wars, though, is that the people who have ended up generals, colonels, etc. were people who were lieutenants or captains in the prior war 20 or 25 years before (that and the switch from warrior culture to maintenance bureaucrat culture). This is why if you aren't the aggressor in a conflict, you are usually on your back feet for a while until the warriors are in authority again and those whose tactical and strategic views haven't kept pace are swept out of leadership.
>
> I think some of the American doctrine has been built around breakdowns
> by 2s (so you always have a buddy).
>
> Back in the late cold war, our infantry reserve unit used about a 9-11
> man section with 3 with the SAW and the balance with rifles with the
> notion that we'd generally articulate in 3s (to move, one cover, or
> two cover, one move). Back then, we had semi-auto FNs (SLRs in Brit
> parlance) and a heavier FN C2 with a 30 round mag (I think, been a
> while) for a SAW (which was not anywhere like having the C9 SAW we
> have now - which is the US M-249 SAW which is belt fed).
We had C9s as our SAW when I was serving (late 80s, early 90s),
presumably because we got a better price for them than for FN-made MINIMIs.
In the mid-nineties, we were just getting the C7 rifles (and by *us*, I mean regular force... my FN C1 had a butt plate indicating an origin in 1956...). Those started coming into the reserve units around 1990 and the C9 after.
I don't know about C9 vs. Minimi (though it is largely the same weapon), the C7 which is largely the same weapon as the later M-16 and the C-8 which is an M-4 variation were deemed to have a few minor advantages over the US originals which is why the SAS purchased them. We tended to rig for more cold-weather climates for one instance but there were a few other very minor but thoughtful changes in the designs.
There's also always the costing aspect. Canadian companies would undercut US ones that like to control markets and charge some high prices.
>
> We also did a lot of 'advance to contact' work with the mantra
> "up-he-sees-me-down" to go from prone to prone in a matter of a few
> seconds after a small displacement. I understand that kind of went out
> of British service after the Falklands and Goose Green - too slow. I
> saw combat videos from Afghanistan and the movement and fire was much
> tighter and more coordinated (from what I saw). Mind you, back in my
> day, a flak jacket would stop fragments but not rounds, so you didn't
> wear one. That made you faster than someone wearing a kevlar vest with
> front and rear plating today.
We had no armour other than a (steel) battle bowler. 'Light' infantry,
you see.
I hated helmets. Pretty useful against shell fragments, but I hated what they did to my hearing. If you are maneuvering in the bush, your ears are at least as useful as your eyes.
I put the 'light' in quotes because we carried massive amounts
of stuff, even after tossing everything not essential.
A friend of mine (ex US-SF and a historian of war) pointed out:
The load any infantryman has carried has remained rather constant since the armies of Rome and probably before (60-80 pounds is not uncommon).
In the event that gear got lighter, more gear or ammunition or armour got added.
The limit is not dictated by the weight of any particular weight of any particular gear, but rather by the limits of what the infantryman can carry.
Now we have lighter comms, lighter rounds and mags, lighter weapon systems, lighter (but still heavy) body armour, but we find ways to fill out the weight - carrying more rounds for our weapons and the section's weapons, AT launchers, laser designators, NVGs, NBC gear, etc.
One time we were talking about the MacNabb retelling of Bravo Two Zero's mission. He pointed out that those guys didn't know their comms stuff for the desert (which caused them a big problem) and they over-kitted, with each one carrying in around 110-120 pounds of gear when there was a chance of contact early on. As you say, you have to be selective about what you take. (Though, the guys in Blackhawk down found out that leaving out your rear trauma plate in a 360 degree war scenario can get you killed...).
Water is pretty critical, but food can be something you skimp on. Dry socks are a godsend. I could be soaking wet and cold, but as long as I could get dry socks on, I could still function. Sleeping bags and pillows and so forth (bug bars too) are optional as are tents. You can sleep on grass or against a tree if you really must. Batteries must be well justified because those suckers are heavy (for some gear).
Our RSM was
slumming out in the bush when we were on exercise and decided to give a
few tips on soldering to the newer people. One was "You shouldn't be
carrying more than your own bodyweight, so if you're a smaller fellow
like me [he was shorter than average and lean] you might have to
sacrifice some of your comfort gear." He wasn't joking.
--
Rupert Boleyn <xxxxxx@gmail.com>
-----
The Traveller Mailing List
Archives at http://archives.simplelists.com/tml
Report problems to xxxxxx@simplelists.com
To unsubscribe from this list please go to
http://www.simplelists.com/confirm.php?u=RDHE7iRpfwqlHvVvWBIhpJZsbTiD5NnL