Who says Raids are limited to Squads.
Or to Platoons, companies or even Battalion. No reason to exclude Brigade or even multi Brigade sized raids. Nor to think they cannot be made ny armored or mounted elements to include airmobile.
Raids are often ignored as strategic or tactical solutions due mostly to risk aversion. Most often, in an attempt to 'insure' success or lower own casualties / PWs, highly detailed planning and support to include extensive (excessive... :rolleyes: ) rehearsals are insisted upon for no real benefit -- and often result in the raid missing its effect due to passage of time or movement of people or things in the objective area. Better training can remove that impediment...
In this era, Raids make far more sense than trying to occupy terrain...
Two USMC Manuals - Raid Operations
FMFM 7-32, Raid Operations (3 Dec 1993):
Quote:
This manual explains doctrine, tactics, techniques, and procedures (DTTP) for raid operations conducted by Marine Air-Ground Task Forces (MAGTFs). It highlights the advantages, disadvantages, and other critical factors every commander and staff member must consider during planning and execution of a raid operation.
and MCWP 3-43.1, Raid Operations (23 Dec 2002) (basically the same manual in one pdf allowing copy extraction):
Quote:
Chapter 1
Raid Design
Quote:
"Nothing is so devastating as to pounce upon the enemy in the dark, smite him hip and thigh, and vanish silently into the night." Brigadier Orde Charles Wingate Burma, 1943
A raid is an operation, usually small scale, involving a swift penetration of hostile territory to secure information, confuse the enemy, or to destroy his installations. It ends with a planned withdrawal upon completion of the assigned mission. Raids may be conducted as separate operations or in support of other operations. Examples of separate operations include raids for psychological purposes, destroying enemy assets not susceptible to other action, harassment, to gain combat information, as spoiling attacks to keep enemy forces off balance, and to recover or rescue friendly personnel and equipment.
One can't argue with the "smite him hip and thigh" brigadier as to that thought. :) As to the actual Chindit operations, reality didn't always correspond to that desired end.
Dieppe (from RHLI, The Raid on Dieppe):
http://www.rhli.ca/images/maps/dieppe_map1.jpg
involved heavy Canadian losses - with mixed reviews as to whether that large-scale raid had any redeeming long-term impact:
Quote:
By early afternoon, Operation Jubilee was over. Conflicting assessments of the value of the raid continue to be presented. Some claim that it was a useless slaughter; others maintain that it was necessary to the successful invasion of the continent two years later on D-Day. The Dieppe Raid was closely studied by those responsible for planning future operations against the enemy-held coast of France. Out of it came improvements in technique, fire support and tactics which reduced D-Day casualties to an unexpected minimum. The men who perished at Dieppe were instrumental in saving countless lives on the 6th of June, 1944. While there can be no doubt that valuable lessons were learned, a frightful price was paid in those morning hours of August 19, 1942. Of the 4,963 Canadians who embarked for the operation only 2,210 returned to England, and many of these were wounded. There were 3,367 casualties, including 1,946 prisoners of war; 907 Canadians lost their lives.
The deepest penetration was by a squad of Montreal Frogs (err, Fusiliers) led by SGT Pierre Dubuc.
http://www.rhli.ca/images/maps/city_attack_dieppe.jpg
Regards
Mike
Conformity constrains. Sometimes nicely or desirably, sometimes dangerously...
The trick is to differentiate between those two potentialities. We, the world, need to work on that...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fuchs
This begs the question (and is related to the thread about avoiding stupidities) when is a country taking enough damage from another country to justify a violation of the latter's sovereignty but the damages stop accumulating after just a raid???
That's like pornography. I can't describe it but I know it when I see it... :D
The serious answers, plural, are that's in the eyes of the offended nation and can vary due to many things; what precisely was or will be raided and for what effect; is / was the raid designed to 'stop' damages or to destroy ability for more or other damages; is / was it designed for another purpose entirely?
Quote:
I don't think such a case exists.
Perhaps not, I'm too lazy to search my memory banks just now -- may do so later. Now, simply recall the same thing could be said of Pakistan in 1945, the Internet in 1950, Al Qaeda in 1980,the G-20 in 1995 or South Sudan in 2005...
Things change. One adapts or one stays mired in the past. :wry:
Quote:
A strategic raid in what's otherwise peacetime amounts to a backlash-prone aggression and can easily provoke a cascade of uncontrollable and possibly very undesirable effects.
Any type of war, warfare or warlike action does all that. That applies equally to the potential provocation(s) and / or provacateurs that might spur such a Raid in the first place. ;)
Consider also that some such Raids might actually be Demonstrations or Feints and be aimed at an indirectly related target, result in no casualties to anyone and serve merely as a demonstration of capability -- or resolve.
The 'rules' are changing. Have in fact changed. They are not going back to those of the turn of the 20th Century -- or even the 21st. To paraphrase both the SAS and SBS mottoes; Who adapts wins -- by strength and guile...
Just to give Colonel Church and his Indian allies their due…
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Steve Blair
And you're mistaken to some degree about just who fought the Indian Wars, Bob. I won't bore folks with the details, though, but just point out that there were some commanders and units who understood that sort of warfare. Often the irregulars caused more problems than they solved.
I do think Bob’s characterization works for the Anglophone colonies in the 17th century and the early 18th century, though I would hasten to add that native allies should be summed to the parties involved. I won’t bore folks with details, either, but I think there might be an interesting separate thread about the particulars at some point.
The tradition of all dead generations &tc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Steve Blair
I was basing my comments on his Comanche example, which in terms of US involvement was certainly early to mid 19th century. When you get into that period there are many examples of the involvement of civilians and para-military types actually fanning the hostilities and making things worse than they perhaps needed to be (shades of Blackwater, anyone?).
In the right hands those examples might serve as the basis for a fine work of fiction… :D
Here's what doctrine says...
FM 1-02, Operational Terms and Graphics:
raid – (DOD, NATO) An operation, usually small scale, involving a swift penetration of hostile territory to secure information, confuse the enemy, or to destroy installations. It ends with a planned withdrawal upon completion of the assigned mission. See FM 3-0.
FM 3-90, Tactics
A raid is a form of attack, usually small scale, involving a swift entry into hostile territory to secure information, confuse the enemy, or destroy installations. It ends with a planned withdrawal from the objective area on mission completion (FM 3-0). A raid can also be used to support operations designed to rescue and recover individuals and equipment in danger of capture. (page 5-38)
FM 3-0, Operations
A raid is an operation to temporarily seize an area in order to secure information, confuse an adversary, capture personnel or equipment, or to destroy a capability. It ends with a planned withdrawal upon completion of the assigned mission (JP 3-0). Units routinely conduct raids as part of tactical
operations but sometimes as separate joint operations. The latter is characterized as a limited intervention. (FM 3-90 contains doctrine on tactical-level raids.) (page 2-6)
JP 3-0, Joint Operations
Raids are operations to temporarily seize an area, usually through forcible
entry, in order to secure information, confuse an adversary, capture personnel or equipment, or destroy an objective or capability (e.g., Operation URGENT FURY, Grenada 1983, to protect US citizens and restore the lawful government). Raids end with a planned withdrawal upon completion of the assigned mission. (Page V-27 to V-28)
AAP-6, NATO Glossary of Terms and Definitions
An operation, usually small scale, involving a swift penetration of hostile territory to secure information, confuse the enemy, or destroy his installations. It ends with a planned withdrawal upon completion of the assigned mission. (Page 2-R-3)
Is a raid the first phase of war, or,
just a raid and get the Foxtrot out :eek:
If we dump on Iran tomorrow with a raid, is it just a raid to destroy their nukes, or, is it indeed the first phase of a war ?
Why is a raid then so defined as a military act when our politicians do it every swingin' day and we pay the dear price of repairing "it" ?
As a former feeble military servant, it seems to me that a military raid and its outcome is no different than politics with potentially high costs to all in terms of casualties, civilian damage and economic disruption.
Fuchs: A political raid ?
Son Tay raid: separate thread
Thirty-one posts have been moved to a new thread, in the Historians arena and is available on:http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/...ad.php?t=14524
Meantime back to 'Definition of a Raid' and other historical examples.:)
