Back to Basics…The Lost Art of Basic Combat Fundamentals

[Pete]

Things like this need command emphasis. Dad used to say everyone supports the Infantry, which he probably heard during a motivational speech in 1944. I picked up a bit of this at Fort Benning OCS, but not much. By the way, I can't get the link to open.

[Ken White]

Ken we aren't in a real war now? Soldiers and civilians are fighting and dying in Iraq and Afghanistan in real combat everyday.

So do you and the rest of the Herd...

However, I would qualify the combat in Afghanistan, as I did the earlier combat in Iraq, as just that. Combat. So was Viet Nam, mostly. Korea was a war before it runed into something less. Afghanistan combat is certainly, as you highlighted, real -- and it can kill individuals just as dead as WW II did. Just not as many or on the same scale...

Semantic quibble, perhaps but I base that combat versus war bit on the overall casualty rate. If infantry units in contact are receiving less than 2% or so casualties per day of actual contact, then I personally have difficulty calling that a war. YMMV and many will not agree; that's fine.

My Son who is on his third Afghan tour (plus one in Iraq to add a star to his first CIB from Desert Storm) said it well on the phone least weekend. After decrying the fact that a Valley his company had cleared three years ago had been reinfested and had seen no NATO or Afghan troops in over two years he started describing the changes to Kanadahar from his last trip (the garbage trucks and the new brick buildings fascinated him...) and ended with "I don't know what this is, Pop, but it's not war..."

So there's at least two who don't think it's a war -- certainly not a big one against a near peer. May all be my fault, I may have corrupted him...

Then again, I sometimes get lazy an call it a war; easier than this explanation...

[Ken White]

I can't get the link to open.

I checked before I sent it and just went back and checked it again and it works for me. I use Firefox but I also tried it with Internet Explorer 8 and it worked with that as well. It is a very slow loading site, took about 15 seconds to load in Firefox and twice that in IE8. I usually load distant sites at about 2 to 3MB per seconds on Cable...

It's FM 3-21.8 The Infantry Rifle Platoon and Squad. You may be able to Google it but that was the only link I found that was free or not behind a .mil firewall.

Here are four typical diagrams in case you can't get to it:

[Infanteer]

the earlier combat in Iraq, as just that. Combat. So was Viet Nam, mostly. Korea was a war before it runed into something less. Afghanistan combat is certainly, as you highlighted, real -- and it can kill individuals just as dead as WW II did. Just not as many or on the same scale...

Semantic quibble, perhaps but I base that combat versus war bit on the overall casualty rate. If infantry units in contact are receiving less than 2% or so casualties per day of actual contact, then I personally have difficulty calling that a war. YMMV and many will not agree; that's fine.

Add me to your tally. Your distinction between War and Combat is apt. When I can sit in one of the single most dangerous districts in Afghanistan for weeks without any hostile act against me and plan a big luncheon with locals and work on a plan to get the ANA to the market so we can get some good goat, "it's something, but it ain't war".

My 2 cents.

[JMA]

Add me to your tally. Your distinction between War and Combat is apt. When I can sit in one of the single most dangerous districts in Afghanistan for weeks without any hostile act against me and plan a big luncheon with locals and work on a plan to get the ANA to the market so we can get some good goat, "it's something, but it ain't war".

My 2 cents.

Have you thought that maybe its not "one of the single most dangerous districts" after all?

[82redleg]

Have you thought that maybe its not "one of the single most dangerous districts" after all?

Could be, but the numbers of attacks there probably say it is, and that's why he called it that.

And you can track stuff like "# of attacks per district"- I'm not sure that's a good thing, but its certainly available information.

[Fuchs]

Here are four typical diagrams in case you can't get to it:

I'll never understand the idea behind such formations.

A platoon should march separately in order to retain the freedom of movement for at least a part of itself in the event of a contact. Even a whole infantry platoon can easily get pinned down - fixed - if it marches as a whole in one body.

Military history knows incidents of whole companies being temporarily fixed by a single sniper.

It's absolutely crucial to move in separate groups of minimum capability each if that's possible at all (communication, coordination).

[JMA]

Could be, but the numbers of attacks there probably say it is, and that's why he called it that.

And you can track stuff like "# of attacks per district"- I'm not sure that's a good thing, but its certainly available information.

A term comes back to me after all these years... "low intensity war". I see Ken's point in that we don't see armoured divisions crashing into each other but rather small unit contacts and minor incidents.

Maybe we are not seeing battles like Ia Drang and Chosin Reservoir or indeed worse (Stalingrad) but I'll bet those caught up in a sharp skirmish or an IED in Afghanistan will nevertheless certainly have a mind focusing experience.

[Infanteer]

Have you thought that maybe its not "one of the single most dangerous districts" after all?

Google "Zharei/Panjwayi"

Maybe we are not seeing battles like Ia Drang and Chosin Reservoir or indeed worse (Stalingrad) but I'll bet those caught up in a sharp skirmish or an IED in Afghanistan will nevertheless certainly have a mind focusing experience.

Re-read Ken White's post.

[Tom Odom]

So do you and the rest of the Herd...

However, I would qualify the combat in Afghanistan, as I did the earlier combat in Iraq, as just that. Combat. So was Viet Nam, mostly. Korea was a war before it runed into something less. Afghanistan combat is certainly, as you highlighted, real -- and it can kill individuals just as dead as WW II did. Just not as many or on the same scale...

Semantic quibble, perhaps but I base that combat versus war bit on the overall casualty rate. If infantry units in contact are receiving less than 2% or so casualties per day of actual contact, then I personally have difficulty calling that a war. YMMV and many will not agree; that's fine.

My Son who is on his third Afghan tour (plus one in Iraq to add a star to his first CIB from Desert Storm) said it well on the phone least weekend. After decrying the fact that a Valley his company had cleared three years ago had been reinfested and had seen no NATO or Afghan troops in over two years he started describing the changes to Kanadahar from his last trip (the garbage trucks and the new brick buildings fascinated him...) and ended with "I don't know what this is, Pop, but it's not war..."

So there's at least two who don't think it's a war -- certainly not a big one against a near peer. May all be my fault, I may have corrupted him...

Then again, I sometimes get lazy an call it a war; easier than this explanation...

All good but consider how many times you and others have used the phrase "war is war" when discussing distinctions between regular and irregular warfare, COIN, or other variations on the same theme.

Mexico is at war along our borders. The Congo is approaching 20 years of continuous war. Neither have involved massed formations, artillery, or aerial fires. The first has resulted in thousands of casualties, the second millions.

I will go with Michael C. People are dying and rounds are being fired. Combat is part of war. We can disagree.

Best

Tom

[Fuchs]

Semantic quibble, perhaps but I base that combat versus war bit on the overall casualty rate. If infantry units in contact are receiving less than 2% or so casualties per day of actual contact, then I personally have difficulty calling that a war.

Define contact. The definition of contact I am aware of would call sitting 200m in front of each other in trenches "contact with the enemy", and by that standard even WWI would fail to meet your criterion (and the Yugoslav Civil wars as well).

[Ken White]

I'll never understand the idea behind such formations...
It's absolutely crucial to move in separate groups of minimum capability each if that's possible at all (communication, coordination).

I agree and the key is to have formations for some basic semblance of control (not to mention the training aspect...) while maintaining adequate separation to avoid the pitfalls you cite.

Rough rule of thumb - 5 to 15m between individuals in Urban areas, 10 to 30m in open terrain, 20to 50m in desert. Close up a bit at night or in the woods or jungle -- but just a bit. About 100m between Squads in a Platoon on average, twice that, minimum, between Companies...

Always go for the maximum the terrain and vegetation will allow for control and situational awareness.

[Ken White]

A term comes back to me after all these years... "low intensity war". I see Ken's point in that we don't see armoured divisions crashing into each other but rather small unit contacts and minor incidents.

Both Korea, post 1951 and Viet Nam generally with only rare exceptions were low intensity wars IMO. I went to the Dominican Republic in 1965. There was a bit of combat, people got killed -- but it wasn't a war. Not even low intensity conflict, really...

Maybe we are not seeing battles like Ia Drang and Chosin Reservoir or indeed worse (Stalingrad) but I'll bet those caught up in a sharp skirmish or an IED in Afghanistan will nevertheless certainly have a mind focusing experience.

No question about it...

[Ken White]

Combat is a part of most but not all wars, all combat does not take place in war. Those are also truths.

All good but consider how many times you and others have used the phrase "war is war" when discussing distinctions between regular and irregular warfare, COIN, or other variations on the same theme.

Oh, I do, thus my my above mentioned resort to being lazy on occasion.

That mostly to avoid discussions like this.

Mexico is at war along our borders. The Congo is approaching 20 years of continuous war. Neither have involved massed formations, artillery, or aerial fires. The first has resulted in thousands of casualties, the second millions.

Totally true and you'll get no disagreement from me on either of those. However, we were not discussing US involvement in either of those nations. Neither did I cite massed formations, artillery or aerial fires -- I cited casualties, specifically Infantry but by implication all including Civilians and both wars you cite meet that criteria. Iraq and Afghanistan also do at times but generally do not IMO. Note that IMO; it is mine and it is an opinion; As I noted Michael C. and others -- obviously including thee, Tomas -- and I'd guess most others disagree.

As I told JMA above, IMO (again) most but not all of the Korean and Viet Nam conflicts were not war as I saw it. War as a term can be misused; the 'War on Terror' and the 'War on Drugs' are but two examples. That said, I certainly do not object to anyone else using "war" for Afghansitan or Iraq and the kids that go are in a war as far as they're concerned -- and I certainly respect that. And them.

My point in much I post here including this is simply to remind people not to confuse what's happening from 2001 to date with what will occur in mid intensity to high intensity conflict. That could be quite dangerous...

I will go with Michael C. People are dying and rounds are being fired. Combat is part of war. We can disagree.

Okay, we can do that. Hopefully without being disagreeable.

[Steve Blair]

If we're getting into the whole war thing again (and like Tom I tend to find the "war is war" position something of a dodge), I think you have to go at it from at least two standpoints: the combat/conflict one and the legalistic one. I've seen much historical evidence of this in one of my favorite research periods, as Congress refused to award brevets or other considerations during the Indian Wars. The reasoning (as put forward by Logan among others, and I'm paraphrasing here) was that 'it wasn't really a war.' Perhaps it wasn't when compared to the Civil War campaigns Logan and many of his fellow congressmen had waged, but to the guys on the ground there wasn't much difference between being blown up by Rebel canister or being cut up by Sioux women if he fell wounded on the field.

The above is one reason I tend to subscribe to the idea that often the definition of war is based on perspectives. What is LIC (and I like that term as well) to us may well be a full-blown battle for national survival in the eyes of the people we're helping. War may be war to the guy at the end of the pointy stick, but the further away you get from that (and the more you're concerned with resource allocation, troop levels, and reelections) the grayer it all becomes and a full-blown war in the Haitian jungle becomes a minor stabilization operation using a handful of Marines, cheap local troops, and State department governing officials.

There's also the question of techniques and skillsets (and the appropriateness of them in some situations). And to go back to Ken's somewhat rhetorical question, I certainly hope that people don't forget that what has happened between 2001 and now will certainly be valuable in the future. Relegating it to training manuals and once-every-four-years exercises will do no one any good. We need to get over this "either-or" hangup and actually tackle the hard questions. I really doubt that will happen, though.

[Ken White]

Define contact.

LINK. As in 'Movement to contact' (LINK) .pdf). Or this Video (LINK). Or the US DoD Dictionary (LINK) under 'M' for Movement to contact...

Any contact involving an exchange of fire or direct combat, ranging from hand to hand all the way indirect as in an Artillery duel. It can be at close or long range, with or without visual acquisition. That can and does include meeting engagements, static defense, tank on tank fights, ambushed patrols, aerial combat between fighters, bombers dropping bombs...

Virtually unlimited methods of action designed to achieve a military effect and where opposing forces meet or engage each other.

A well known German Officer knew it -- this from the Clausewitz Wiki entry: "Moltke's notable statement that "No campaign plan survives first contact with the enemy" is a classic reflection of Clausewitz's insistence on the roles of chance, friction, "fog," and uncertainty in war."

The definition of contact I am aware of would call sitting 200m in front of each other in trenches "contact with the enemy", and by that standard even WWI would fail to meet your criterion (and the Yugoslav Civil wars as well).

That seems an awfully narrow definition. We can differ...

[Ken White]

(and like Tom I tend to find the "war is war" position something of a dodge)

In using "dodge" you mean intellectually lazy, I agree and am guilty. Cheerfully so. It is done to make a point...

[Coldstreamer]

Combat? War? A lot of parallel, inter-related, relative stuff here.

If you are on a small scale focussed intervention - say a NEO or a Hostage Rescue effort - you may still find yourself in a punchy - event brutal and protracted - firefight, with lots of combined arms integrated activity. But are you in a war? No.

Yet in an enduring, protracted, 9 year+ multinational effort along all lines of Dip, Info, Mil, Economic effort - but against a non-state insurgency, with a much lower casualty 'density' than say Korea, or WW2 - or even the Falklands, where ships and planes were lost and battlegroups fought pitched battles - is it a war? I think so - because of the enduring nature of the Clausewitzian clash of wills.

Its been a while since I've posted. Busy bloke. But no-one's mentioneD style.

WW2 saw Glenn Miller on the Allied side (George Formby...lets not go there). The Germans had the Horst Wessel song (still catchy, for the Airborne).
In the 50s, the first Cold-War Hot-War saw the emergence of Rock and Roll. And success in Vietnam, had it been measured by music, would have been assured.

So where's the music for Generation Y at War? Hereinlies the strategic stall. Obama and Cameron (probably) listen to Coldplay. No wonder they're gloomy.

I made my Company listen to the Red Hot Chilli Peppers. Every man came back. When things were dark, I'd educate the young with Credence Clearwater Revival. 'What's that?' their innocent faces would ask. 'That's wisdom', I'd answer.

I think thats enough for now.

[Tom Odom]

When things were dark, I'd educate the young with Credence Clearwater Revival. 'What's that?' their innocent faces would ask. 'That's wisdom', I'd answer.

Lieutenant Dan would say. "GET DOWN! Shut Up!"

And we did...

Tom

[Steve Blair]

So where's the music for Generation Y at War? Hereinlies the strategic stall. Obama and Cameron (probably) listen to Coldplay. No wonder they're gloomy.

I made my Company listen to the Red Hot Chilli Peppers. Every man came back. When things were dark, I'd educate the young with Credence Clearwater Revival. 'What's that?' their innocent faces would ask. 'That's wisdom', I'd answer.

I think thats enough for now.

Depends on who you ask. You've got some Gen X hangers-on with RATM, and Disturbed and Saliva often make it into the mix. The music's out there, but unlike the '60s and such it doesn't get major airplay.