Thoughts on "Patrol Base Infantry"

[Coldstreamer]

I must say I tend to agree with the broad thrust of his arguments, biased as I am (that light infantrymen are the highest evolved life form). It is also largely borne by what my company trained for and is currently conducting currently in Afghanistan. Each patrol has a G2 and CIMIC mission, and each soldier is a sensor for every dimension of the operation. The training premium is indeed very high, and we work hard to keep each skill set up to speed. I'm most fortunate in having a sniper section, who are without doubt a force multiplier (don't tell them that - they're cocky enough as it is), and I'm using them to take the rest of the boys through observation skills on a regular basis. We also go for the 'shura' method of talking through issues and new TTPs among the commanders to spread best practice and experiences. It may depend on precisely what role a unit finds itself in, but I basically agree that if each brick or team understands the core functions and what the effect required is, the initiative and determination of the Guardsmen produces truly humbling results.

[Ender]

I think this is sound stuff, (Pattonesque) and is a direction we should be heading in... I want to read this a couple more times to flesh the details but my gut tells me a model that stesses observation and initiative as fundamentals can't be bad thing.

[RTK]

This is reconnaissance and security operations by definition. This paper is an 8 page summary of the our own FM 3-20.98 and the duty description of a 19D Cavalry Scout.

[Norfolk]

Owens' article in enjoyable, but I am uncertain as to the role that he intends Patrol-Based Infantry minor units to undertake. Are they supposed to be classic light infantry - he pointed out the light troops of the Napoleonic Wars - irregular troops that perform reconnaissance, security, raids, and skirmishing, leaving the main battle to others?

Owen also mentioned a figure of 12 weeks for training someone for this role who has had no prior infantry experience (I am hoping that the unstated assumption here is that the someone has already received about the same amount - c. 12 weeks' - of recruit training). As such, he seems to be speaking of a revival of classic light infantry.

He also seems to speak of applying all this to the line infantry as a whole, so things seem a little confusing (but it could very well just be me misunderstanding him), and I love both his quote of Lord Wavell and his own assertion that the Infantry needs to consists of said persons, and not be assigned those that may be considered "unsuitable" for other occupations.

If he does envision applying PBID to the Infantry as a whole, then the 12 weeks he recommends for PBID training will have to come on top of 3 months' recruit training and somehow be integrated with the usual (in Commonwealth at least) 3 additional months' basic infantry training. A basic-trained Commonwealth infantryman, with 6 month's recuit and basic infantry training to his credit, normally would then have to embark on some advanced training, namely 6 weeks' of basic infantry reconnaissance training in order to perform the full range of tasks described in PBID. Given this, and Owen's own Commonwealth Army background, if he were to apply PBID to the entire Infantry Corps, then a total of 7 -1/2 to 8 months' would be required for a PBID basic infantry syllabus.

I very much disagree with his statement about sniper training: first off, basic sniper training must come after basic infantry reconnaissance training. A sniper must master basic infantry reconnaissance before becoming an advanced practioner - namely a sniper - of that trade. Secondly, skill at marksmanship is something that comes with practice, but even thorough and conscientious fieldcraft training - and that, not marksmanship, is the heart of the sniper's craft - can only go so far. What makes the sniper different from the rest of the infantry, even the recce patrolman, is his unsurpassed skill at fieldcraft, especially tracking, stalking, camouflage and concealment - seeing without being seen. And that is a rare gift. As the old saying about snipers goes, " a man does not choose to be a sniper, sniping chooses him." Being a great shot alone does not a sniper make.

Admittedly, this is a somewhat intriguing work that Owen has produced, full of possibilities.

[Ender]

I very much disagree with his statement about sniper training: first off, basic sniper training must come after basic infantry reconnaissance training. A sniper must master basic infantry reconnaissance before becoming an advanced practioner - namely a sniper - of that trade. Secondly, skill at marksmanship is something that comes with practice, but even thorough and conscientious fieldcraft training - and that, not marksmanship, is the heart of the sniper's craft - can only go so far. What makes the sniper different from the rest of the infantry, even the recce patrolman, is his unsurpassed skill at fieldcraft, especially tracking, stalking, camouflage and concealment - seeing without being seen. And that is a rare gift. As the old saying about snipers goes, " a man does not choose to be a sniper, sniping chooses him." Being a great shot alone does not a sniper make.

After having read this again I completely agree with this point, have my own questions and want to know what he meant by this...

It takes a considerable amount of time and training to instill an active observer (reconnaissance) mindset into the warrior and sniping is without question a highly advanced application and more evolved form of that basic mindset. I wonder if he said "sniper" and intended more along the lines of a universal DM program? As you said being a good shot does not make a sniper and we know that if we sent all of our light infantrymen to sniper schools one of two things would have to happen, we would either have to lower the standards so everyone could pass or we would have to accept the fact that a large percentage of them would be coming right back to their units.

[RTK]

After having read this again I completely agree with this point, have my own questions and want to know what he meant by this...

It takes a considerable amount of time and training to instill an active observer (reconnaissance) mindset into the warrior and sniping is without question a highly advanced application and more evolved form of that basic mindset. I wonder if he said "sniper" and intended more along the lines of a universal DM program? As you said being a good shot does not make a sniper and we know that if we sent all of our light infantrymen to sniper schools one of two things would have to happen, we would either have to lower the standards so everyone could pass or we would have to accept the fact that a large percentage of them would be coming right back to their units.

Concur. I would add that there is a significant difference between using a Soldier as a surveillance sensor from utilizing a Soldier as a reconnaissance platform. The first is passive and easy. The second requires a lot of training.

[Norfolk]

After having read this again I completely agree with this point, have my own questions and want to know what he meant by this...

It takes a considerable amount of time and training to instill an active observer (reconnaissance) mindset into the warrior and sniping is without question a highly advanced application and more evolved form of that basic mindset. I wonder if he said "sniper" and intended more along the lines of a universal DM program? As you said being a good shot does not make a sniper and we know that if we sent all of our light infantrymen to sniper schools one of two things would have to happen, we would either have to lower the standards so everyone could pass or we would have to accept the fact that a large percentage of them would be coming right back to their units.

Ender, I found myself similarly confused by Owen's statement about training all the PBID Infantry as snipers. As for myself, I came down on the side of Owen intending that the PBID Infantry were actually to be snipers, not merely sharpshooters. Given that Owen is a former British Army Infantry officer himself, I therefore took it that it would be unlikely for him to use the term "Sniper" when he in fact meant "Designated Marksman". He would undoubtedly comprehend the vast difference between the two. But as you said, it would be nice if we had something from Owen to clarify this point.

[William F. Owen]

Gents,

Now I am here I will attempt to make some useful contribution. Not sure where to start though.

[William F. Owen]

Ender, I found myself similarly confused by Owen's statement about training all the PBID Infantry as snipers. As for myself, I came down on the side of Owen intending that the PBID Infantry were actually to be snipers, not merely sharpshooters.

Obviously I need to address this. It has already cause huge problems when the article was published in the British Army’s Doctrine and Training News.

1. All I am suggesting is that Infantry need to have a high standard of measurable skill. – and the determination to get it.
2. These skills should be field craft, shooting, navigation, observation and communication. These are all core sniper skills. They are also core infantry skills, which need to be developed.
3. Thus “sniper training,” would have a great deal of use to basic infantry training. This is not to say that the same standards that qualify snipers would be applied to basic training. EG- Recruits would only be required to stalk and locate a target unseen, and would not be required to release shots and get out of the position undiscovered, as snipers have to.