On 30Jul2020 0215, xxxxxx@gmail.com wrote:
> Well...
>
> On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 11:57 PM Rupert Boleyn
> <xxxxxx@gmail.com <mailto:xxxxxx@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>
>
>     On 29Jul2020 1328, xxxxxx@gmail.com <mailto: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'.

We spent a huge amount of time doing bush warfare, and when you
patrolled you had a couple of guys out the front,
"on point". They are the scouts and are part of the fire support group,
rather than manoeuvring with the riflemen. The forward scout would have
a rifle or possibly a shotgun if the country was very close, the cover
scout a rifle and a grenade launcher - they were also the grenadier
unless we had a lot of extra men, in which case the grenadier might be a
separate soldier.

>
>     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...

I've always maintained that the reason infantry is the only arm that can
both take *and* hold ground is that infantry is too slow to run away and
therefore has no choice but to hold whatever its standing on (well,
living *in* more likely).
>
>     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).
That's something a gunner can allow for though.
>
> 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.
We actually seldom wore them - usually is was j-hats (jungle hats, also
known as 'hat, floppy, ridiculous').

>     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.

Actually we carry more now than we used to. Classical armies used to
have their men carry about 40 pounds, sometimes a little more. WWI-WWII
was more like 80 pounds, sometimes even into known combat. We were
carrying over 100 pounds of kit, none of it optional in our army's
opinion. Spec ops and other 'light' forces in Afghanistan were carrying
100-120 pounds as well and less of it was wet weather gear and spare
clothing (not optional in NZ's very wet bush!), so in bush or jungle
they'd have been carrying even more.

>
> 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).
Can't do that in our bush. You need at least a sleeping bag and a
shelter half. The ground mat and other such stuff is optional, though.

--
Rupert Boleyn <xxxxxx@gmail.com>