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).

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. It's basically the same as British rifle
tactics and doctrine from pre-WWII onwards (and similar to German WWII
doctrine). 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.

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.

>
> 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.
>
> 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 put the 'light' in quotes because we carried massive amounts
of stuff, even after tossing everything not essential. 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>