Fire teams and battle Drill
Fireteams are nothing to do with Battle Drill. Battle drill was started in 1918 using entire platoons, not sections. If you can find a copy of Maxse's and Liddell-Harts 1919 manual, (SS-148??) it shows this in detail.
What the US adopted in the 1950s is nothing like the UK iteration of Battle Drill.
Battle Drill always talks about attacking from the rear or flank, or even by-passing. The 1942 Instructors hand book is explicit on this. Frontal attacks were used in training because of live ammunition range safety templates. How you train using live fire is still a major consideration on this matter.
What is in US Books and what is
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Norfolk
I had written that post for another thread, where I was discussing the effects of rote application of Battle Drill in lieu of tactical judgement. I was also observing how in the Canadian Army, the adoption of the US Fire Team system coupled to said rote application of Battle Drill made for an almost blind and automatic recourse to the Frontal Attack, even in cases where the traditional Flanking Attack that use to be taught in the CF was possible. At that time, we effectively dispensed with traditional Platoon Battle Drill and settled for an almost US-style approach. Not so good.
actually done in units and practiced in combat are more often than not quite different things...
Most manuals are written in the service schools and reflect the thoughts of students at the school, some, called Snowbirds (No, not that kind... :D ) arrive before their Advanced course starts and thus have not absorbed great knowledge.
Others, called Blackbirds, have completed their Advanced Course and are awaiting movement to their next assignment. These have absorbed Great Knowledge -- and therefor are doubly dangerous in the sphere of doctrinal writing... :wry:
They are aided in this by civilian Educational or Training specialists and the occasional Field Grade who has fifty things going on at once. Also by the odd General Officer who has a pet rock he wants introduced to the Army... :rolleyes:
Contrary to what Wilf said Battle Drill as practiced by most infantry units in the US Army in the 50s through the 80s required thinking, a lot of it and it was not rote stuff -- unless they had a poor commander who believed in what the book said; fortunately, a relatively rare thing.
Fire and maneuver at Platoon level and below is movement from wall to wall or tree to rock, is generally uncoordinated and after a few firefights, becomes automatic -- and it is effective (those who cannot adapt perish). Anyone who says squads don't do it hasn't been there.
Don't know if it would be doable
Quote:
Originally Posted by
William F. Owen
I have real issues with blank ammunition on field exercises. Blanks, without TESEX kit, or very good umpiring and role players, provide negative reinforcement, - or bad training, - but there doesn't seem to be any other way to get around it. This one really keeps me thinking.
but I know the groups of soldiers who go paintballing together become very adept at working together, And the sting kinda gets the point across to.
Get guns close enough to familiar feel and you could get great drilling anytime anywhere with just a quick stop at your local wholesaler.;)
Heh. Got a smile or three out of that, Fred...
Agree with all of it and it points out very well that units generally do what works and the foolishness * of the schools and doctrine writers is ignored far more than it is practiced. That's why the theorists have such a hard time with it; they intuitively discern we are not doing what the books says. Or not... :D
Particularly enjoyed your comment on the 'patrol' outside Baquba. Generally a couple of other Dinosaurs and I are appreciative of the competence and professionalism shown by the most of the Troops in the pictures we see from Afghanistan and Iraq but occasionally, we grit our teeth at lapses like the one you mentioned. I do not enjoys saying, to myself "...one ping ball will get you all..." or "how many times have you walked that route, that way?" :mad:
We still don't do the basics well... :confused:
Enjoyable post, thanks.
* Not that the writers or the schools are necessarily foolish; just that hewing to the party line, regurgitating long held shibboleths and avoiding risk are, regrettably, embedded in the processes. Combat entails risk, IMO, the schools go too far in trying to eliminate it....