Thinking about the Infantry Attack

[Kirkhill]

I hate the term fixed. Because unless you are conducting a static defense to the last man (or woman) nothing is fixed. Temporary is a much better word IMHO for firing positions. As offensive positions will continue to move as consolidation or further advancement allows, and blocking force or mobile defenses will do the same sort of thing but in reverse gear

Temporary .... the income tax was temporary. Heck the entire trench system from the Channel to Switzerland was temporary.

Time is relative.

It wouldn't surprise me if the Great Wall of China started as an expedient defence.

 

[GR66]

Probably in their character sheets, beside their charisma score and resistance to cold magic.

 

[dapaterson]

Probably in their character sheets, beside their charisma score and resistance to cold magic.

We're talking Infantry, not Sigs, officers.

 

[markppcli]

We're talking Infantry, not Sigs, officers.

We’re all nerds. The CQCI cell in Wainwright played magic cards on breaks during my course lol.

 

[dapaterson]

We’re all nerds. The CQCI cell in Wainwright played magic cards on breaks during my course lol.

The last mass, unit wide "Cards Against Humanity" game I saw in a combined mess was just before Operation HONOUR.

 

[Fabius]

Theodolite app.
One can take a picture of the ground (in panoramics) that have grids, distances and bearings to key features - and send them digitally via ones comms from a secure tablet.
As well one can send back highlighted areas etc.
What used to take days and still have errors in both terrain (and distances without using a LRF) can now be done accurately passively in seconds.




To be realistic, defeating EO/IO isn’t really a realistic option anymore, without a ton of engineering support and access to equipment that isn’t available outside of some SOF entities. At best for a conventional force one can have deep trenches with significant OHP with camouflage and reduced exposure, plus a lot of other positions to rotate personnel in and have a thermal deception plan by using heat sources in unoccupied areas.


OP’s without covered access via comms trenches are not nearly as viable as they were 20 years ago. Which requires even more engineering support - ideally BN CS Coy assets can cover the OP and Patrolling tasks as well.

All true enough. Interesting app.

The next 5 years might see some broad digitalization of the Bns. Hopefully.

The the good thing is that in like 6 months we’ll just do this as ATAK mission package drops. I slot this into using JNCOs as trainers vs training them.

Okay but let’s logic this. The purpose of an OP is to screen your defensive. Same with patrols. If that’s already happening with recce / snipers / and presumably armoured recce is there value in establishing your own OPs or does it make more sense to focus in your main effort of digging in ?


Anyways if we want to keep discussing the defensive and how to train for it we can probably start a thread for that vs doing in “thinking about the infantry attack.”

Even with Bde and Bn recce I remain of the opinion that the sub units have a part to play. What that looks like with technology might mean it doesn’t look like an OP with two guys.

In any event there will be more exercises in the next year to see how proficient units are at both basic and advanced stuff along with maybe some trialing of new equipment.

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

I was just drawing from Kevin's comments about how he perceives it easier for a offensively trained unit to adapt to the defence than it is for a defensively trained unit to adapt to the offence.

My thoughts turned to how do you achieve both in one battalion with the thought being that perhaps it would be useful to have within the battalion one individual or team who are allowed to focus on the defence even when the unit is on the offence.

That led me to thinking that the defence, as I said, is largely a matter holding a firm base which covers its arcs with fire and which digs in. To me that sounded a lot like the attributes of the Combat Support Company which, as I understand it, in the offence largely works by moving its weapons to fixed positions to cover zones with fire.

It strikes me that adding an Air Defence / LAA / C-UAS platoon to the CS company is only going to reinforce its defensive characteristics.

Personality wise - I have no real opinions beyond wondering if there might be a selection bias towards officer candidates that exhibit the necessary elan.

I have no doubt that there are all sorts of personalities in the army. Do some personalities, some characteristics, prevail in different trades?




Combat Support Company may not fight as a company but I thought it was responsible for generating the fire support plan, the armoured defence plan, the MG/DFS plan, the mining and wiring plans and the air defence plan. In the defence the rifles then used to fall in on those fixed points. I also seem to recall that the intent was to keep the rifles out of the line as much as possible and conserve them to the rear for counter-attacks and the assault. To my mind, again, that sounds a lot like the hard skeleton of the battalion is the Combat Support Company which the rife companies flesh out.

Like any other skeleton it needs to be mobile and flexible. But on a bite and hold battlefield then wouldn't a planning consideration for the CS Company, when establishing fire bases, be how to defend that base if the battalion is pushed back on to the defence?

In the offence, it appears to me at any rate, that the CS company supports the Rifle Companies but on the defence the Rifles play second fiddle to the CS Company.

Presumably I have that all wrong.

Infantry are generalists. Both the offence and defence have support plans, and those support plans are not concocted in isolation of the manoeuvre plan. The CO is responsible for the plan. The various support platoon commanders (when the Bns have them...) are indeed responsible for the details of their plans, but they all support the overall plan. The CO will provide direction and guidance on all of them. OC Cbt Sp can also be the Ops O, and even when he is not he is often found in the Bn CP. The Infantry Battalion in Battle is rather dated (1995), but it states quite clearly that Combat Support Company does not operate as a tactical sub-unit on operations. The platoons operate under the direct command of the CO.

The battalion is not sallying out of a medieval camp.

In the defence the CO will be siting the Kill Zone(s). He may well site the key weapon systems. If the Battalion has an anti-armour platoon with long-range weapons they will form the framework of the anti-armour plan, but the infantry companies will be the actual structure of the overall defence. The 1995 Infantry Battalion in Battle has an Anti-Armour Company with an OC - can't say I have seen that in the field. Even then, the manual states that the CO will be selecting the kill-zones. The anti-armour plan could be the most import supporting plan in a defence against a mechanized enemy, but CS Company is not establishing the defence and holding the line. The infantry company commanders are siting their defensive positions. How they then occupy them will depend on their estimate of the situation. The pioneers (if they have them) will be focused on close-in protective obstacles and/or survivability support to certain positions. Yes, that is "defensive", but pretty much the entire Battalion would be focused on the defensive at that point.

During an attack, there should be a firebase which will most likely be an infantry company, although this could also be tanks or a combat team. The various elements of CS company may be involved in fire support for the attack, but the mortars would be doing so from a position that makes sense for them and that is probably not the actual firebase position. During the assault the CO will have both the firebase sub-unit and likely a reserve, so if the the attack founders then he then has two elements that can stave off defeat.

An infantry battalion has to be able to perform both offensive and defensive tasks. There are too many BTS to be able to be 100% amazing in all of them all of the time with the available time (and other resources). We use Foundation Training to identify the core BTS that each unit must train to a baseline level (generally Level 5 Dry Combined Arms Team for Reg F units) each year. We then use the Operating Plan/Managed Readiness System to identify additional Levels and BTS along with the resources. The Enhanced Warfighting Proficiency (EWP) directive gives details for those that will be in high-readiness.

So there is a foundation of BTS that is achieved by all every year, with some then doing more. The infantry will do Advance, Attack, Defend, Reconnaissance and Operate in Cold Weather Environment at Section level. Advance, Defend, Attack and Operate in Cold Weather will also be done at Platoon and Company level regardless of stage of the MRS. An infantry unit in the Build Year will be assigned additional BTS and resourced appropriately. If the mission is known their the EWP tasks will be more specific than if it is not known.

 

[KevinB]

All true enough. Interesting app.

The next 5 years might see some broad digitalization of the Bns. Hopefully.

Which while great is still fairly sad, as in 2015 I was doing that, and I wasn't the originator.

Even with Bde and Bn recce I remain of the opinion that the sub units have a part to play. What that looks like with technology might mean it doesn’t look like an OP with two guys.

I'm still convinced there is the next for mud recce roles even with the technology that is available - but the training and discipling required to do it safely and effectively means that it's not going to be a good task for the average Infanteer, or even most Recce Patrolmen.
I'm also convinced that miniature UAS, and UGS will make the OP and many Patrol and Recce tasks significantly different.
Most of the UGS are fairly clumsy systems (even if small) and only really work for urban situations, the mid sized versions are similar in size to a dog, and aren't the most stealthy - but the SubMini UAS systems are hummingbird sized and offer remarkable abilities.

In any event there will be more exercises in the next year to see how proficient units are at both basic and advanced stuff along with maybe some trialing of new equipment.

I'm hoping a lot of the currently SOF specific technologies start to trickle down faster to conventional forces - but even the vanilla SOF aren't yet able to afford some of the technologies out there.

 

[FormerHorseGuard]

Been out of the infantry for longer than I care to admit and what does a private really know or understand about life on the battlefield besides he or she is going to be the body trying to stop the enemy advance or be the advancing force upon the enemy?

I personally think every NATO Army planning group has to sit down and watch how the war in the Ukraine is going, and what is working and what does not work and plan for those types of actions.

If the Ukraine wins this war and tosses the Russian Army out of the Ukraine and is able to keep them out, the Ukrainian military will be training NATO troops on how to defeat the Russian equipment, the order of battle and how to address the Russian Style of leadership.

The attack as we know it will be changing as this conflict scales up and is drawn out longer. We also have to relearn the defensive position and how to defend ground against the new style of attacks.

Just this former Privates perceptive

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Been out of the infantry for longer than I care to admit and what does a private really know or understand about life on the battlefield besides he or she is going to be the body trying to stop the enemy advance or be the advancing force upon the enemy?

I personally think every NATO Army planning group has to sit down and watch how the war in the Ukraine is going, and what is working and what does not work and plan for those types of actions.

If the Ukraine wins this war and tosses the Russian Army out of the Ukraine and is able to keep them out, the Ukrainian military will be training NATO troops on how to defeat the Russian equipment, the order of battle and how to address the Russian Style of leadership.

The attack as we know it will be changing as this conflict scales up and is drawn out longer. We also have to relearn the defensive position and how to defend ground against the new style of attacks.

Just this former Privates perceptive

and then adapt that training to fight the PLA and how they will adjust to the same lessons.

 

[daftandbarmy]

I'm hoping a lot of the currently SOF specific technologies start to trickle down faster to conventional forces - but even the vanilla SOF aren't yet able to afford some of the technologies out there.

Well, there is the Rouleau Roll

https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadianForces/comments/91i88f

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Some trench clearing training, personally I think he chewed to much of his gum if he thinks that M113 is a Bradely

 

[Rifleman62]

Defeated Company ruzzians. Surrender Captivity. Brutal battle near Bakhmut 2023​

 

[Jarnhamar]

Defeated Company ruzzians. Surrender Captivity. Brutal battle near Bakhmut 2023​

3:50
John Wayne charging out of the hole with a machine gun having it immediately jam then running back and throwing the gun at his fireteam partner. Awesome.

 

[daftandbarmy]

3:50
John Wayne charging out of the hole with a machine gun having it immediately jam then running back and throwing the gun at his fireteam partner. Awesome.

Must be the OC

 

[markppcli]

Defeated Company ruzzians. Surrender Captivity. Brutal battle near Bakhmut 2023​

Interesting and I have to say very very familiar to anyone who’s done a mechanized attack. The effectiveness of IFVs at suppressing the objective is paramount here.

What we see is the same principals for success as discussed in 300 attacks. Enemy is located (drone or eyeball it’s just kit not principal), suppressed initially and the during the approach (IFV or MG same thing), suppression is co to use until the assault which is conducted by fire and movement with use of grenades.

Big difference to how we do it is pulling the IFVs back while we tend to push them up but that’s clearly a lesson learned.

 

[medicineman]

3:50
John Wayne charging out of the hole with a machine gun having it immediately jam then running back and throwing the gun at his fireteam partner. Awesome.

Followed by him tossing himself and his teddy in the corner and sulking..

 

[Haligonian]

Interesting and I have to say very very familiar to anyone who’s done a mechanized attack. The effectiveness of IFVs at suppressing the objective is paramount here.

What we see is the same principals for success as discussed in 300 attacks. Enemy is located (drone or eyeball it’s just kit not principal), suppressed initially and the during the approach (IFV or MG same thing), suppression is co to use until the assault which is conducted by fire and movement with use of grenades.

Big difference to how we do it is pulling the IFVs back while we tend to push them up but that’s clearly a lesson learned.

Great video. Concur with your observations. A few others.

I would classify what they did as dismounting on the objective. Infanteer and I have beat the drum against this for a while but all the videos I see has them dismounting on the objective. Perhaps time to rethink it. I have, however, not seen a video yet with IFV's fighting through the posn with the infantry.

Patience seems to be a virtue in fighting through the posn. Lead with HE, compel the defender to break from cover and then shoot him down as he runs. Probably helps convince the others to surrender.

Exploit and/or consolidate in a manner that protects the posn you just captured and the administrative activities that have to happen (CASEVAC, PW handling, etc) but also exploits advantageous ground to cover the withdrawal routes where you can do disproportionate damage to the enemy.

 

[markppcli]

Great video. Concur with your observations. A few others.

I would classify what they did as dismounting on the objective. Infanteer and I have beat the drum against this for a while but all the videos I see has them dismounting on the objective. Perhaps time to rethink it. I have, however, not seen a video yet with IFV's fighting through the posn with the infantry.

Patience seems to be a virtue in fighting through the posn. Lead with HE, compel the defender to break from cover and then shoot him down as he runs. Probably helps convince the others to surrender.

Exploit and/or consolidate in a manner that protects the posn you just captured and the administrative activities that have to happen (CASEVAC, PW handling, etc) but also exploits advantageous ground to cover the withdrawal routes where you can do disproportionate damage to the enemy.

Wrt to dismounting on or before the objective: looks to me to be around 25 is meters short, so as close to on as not. It will always be situational and a pro con situation, do you give up the speed and suppression of your IFV and dismount short or do you risk loosing an entire section if a vehicle is hit, is your biggest threat small arms, arty, or atgms in the approach? Those have to be answered before you decide on the dismounted infiltration or dismounting on the objective.

Ukrainians are pulling vehicles off the objective in nearly all cases and I assume that’s in order to preserve equipment. Consider that up until they received Bradley’s and CV90s they were working with relatively lightly armoured vehicles that didn’t have the same kind of fire power modern IFVs can offer, in those cases the risk reward pay off of fighting through with AFVs isn’t there. Additionally looking st the positions they’re rolling onto, it’s not conducive geometry for the afv to support.

I’ve banged this drum for a while; we proved very very simple objectives for our dismounts to fight through. The objective of a combat team attack should be a trench system that the infantry has to fight through. This is beneficial for the soldiers learning this skills, small unit leaders directing the assault through, sub unit and unit commanders gaining an understanding of the time this takes, and the logistics chain having to account for grenades and ammunition in a realistic manner.

 

[ueo]

All true enough. Interesting app.

The next 5 years might see some broad digitalization of the Bns. Hopefully.



Even with Bde and Bn recce I remain of the opinion that the sub units have a part to play. What that looks like with technology might mean it doesn’t look like an OP with two guys.

In any event there will be more exercises in the next year to see how proficient units are at both basic and advanced stuff along with maybe some trialing of new equipment.

Nice app. But what happens during comms black out (for whatever of a myriad of causes)? Back to pencil, lead black and field message pad for the use of. Yes I'm that old! Need a compass and a paper map as well,