Quick question about parapets
Quick question:
What's the current state of affairs in regard to parapet firing positions in the U.S.?
Is it still fashionable/been done or was it succceeded by something better/worse?
Were the troops testing results of the 70's accurate or overly optimistic?
Take a look at the 2nd Bn 5th Marines.com website I have referenced on other threads. That site gives good details about a few optimized possibilities. "Digging in" is still done, though often at reduced pace/scale due to environmental concerns, and moreso because arraying yourself in a company defense is not a trsining event done often. Almost all time is spent training to some COIN task.
I can only comment that the UK Defensive ideas about digging in the 1980's were amazingly dumb, and known to be, but there seemed little spirit or intent to change them.
Elaborate stores intensive 4-man trench with 2 shelter bays, that were always too small, and you fired from a predictable and easily detected 2m frontage.
More over the UK tactical teaching on siting a platoon/company defensive position was almost moronic, as almost every FTX constantly proved!!
My own thinking has gone back to separated "hides/shelters" with multiple pre-prepared "fire/observation" positions. Not rocket science. Keep it simple.
Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"
- The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
- If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition
Fuchs, I come from that era and it was called a Parfox position if I remember correctly. We had to know about them but we never really dug them in training. The key points were the position had to be concealed from the enemy and you had to have interlocking sectors of fire. Your are essentially hiding behind something and shooting at the enemy from an angle. There is a study that is online somewhere about some this if I can remeber where it is.
The link to JC's posts are here.
Another fine thread at the SWJ under Rifle squad composition!
If you want to blend in, take the bus
Good Job StanOriginally Posted by Stan
I think this is the DuPuy or "Dragon teeth" trench/bunker system. It works very well, in the right ground, - under near ideal conditions. EG: Works very well in flat ground with very thick scrubby bush, or forests with good ground cover/jungle. IMO, it really only works for small arms and against infantry.
Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"
- The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
- If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition
It was designed for use in Vietnam(by a private if not mistaken). It worked well against a lightly armed infantry. If they had some modern day missile systems it would be a very different story.
One of the old retired NCOs at my old military school credits the DuPuy bunkers with saving their lives at the Battle of Ap Gu. Enormous mortar barrage preceded the assault upon their position. They survived the mortar barrage and then repelled an assault so fierce that even the Chaplain was engaged in hand-to-hand fighting (literally choked a few enemy to death - BADASS!).
My primary MOS was 11B4P my secondary was 11C4P. The primary HE mortar round we fired was fused to detonate about a 1/2 second before impact. Point being it did not penetrate the ground. If you were in any hole and didn't receive a direct hit you would probably survive. Mortars are vicious against Infantry that are exposed, not so good if they are dug in unless you can alter the fusing mechanism. Artillery/Indirect fire invented EBO a long time ago
Yea, that Chaplin was a bad dude.
IMO the Parfox is basically designed like Old Medieval Forts. The inside of the firing ports were BEVELED at an angle so you could stand behind solid rock and shoot at the enemy (with a crossbow) from an angle all day long and not be effected by enemy fire.
That's funny, we thought completely in parallel on this one.
I am preparing a damning text on field fortification ~doctrine in the Heer (which is pretty much stuck in the 30's and the FMs are simply a scandal in this regard!) and came to the conclusion of artillery-protected hideout + edge observation & firing positions as well.
My thought was in great part about how infantry can control open fields between closed terrains (as for example the mix of forest - field in NE Europe). Simply sticking to the edge of a forest is too predictable (even if it's 20-100 m inside), but necessary for observation & LOS firing.
The basic idea is as old as turrets on walls, but the Renaissance's angle bastion is the very best analogy in my opinion.
Last edited by Fuchs; 12-14-2009 at 05:41 PM. Reason: added 2nd quote&comment
Unless it was a Major Operational Test we did something like that. I think it was called an improvised prone firing position (can't remember) basically you dug a 6 inch slit in the ground(the size of your body) so you were flush withthe ground, making you very hard to see and harder to hit from small arms fire, but it wasn't going to stop anything. That was really all you needed under the Airborne Systems Thinking Philosophy(shoot,move,and communicate) which was see and shot the enemy first and you want have to dig anything
Can't wait for your new textMy thought was in great part about how infantry can control open fields between closed terrains (as for example the mix of forest - field in NE Europe). Simply sticking to the edge of a forest is too predictable (even if it's 20-100 m inside), but necessary for observation & LOS firing.
Not that funny. We're both pretty sensible chaps.
European forest and field does create that dynamic. I think you have to be able to use a number of systems dependant on the terrain, and you don't really get a choice as to where you might have to work.My thought was in great part about how infantry can control open fields between closed terrains (as for example the mix of forest - field in NE Europe). Simply sticking to the edge of a forest is too predictable (even if it's 20-100 m inside), but necessary for observation & LOS firing.
We called that a "Shell scrape". Really only used when you set up a patrol harbour. Talking to anyone who has been actually "shelled", and they all dig down to "STAGE 1," and forget about shell scrapes!
Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"
- The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
- If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition
Our manuals call it a "Hasty Fighting Position."
Troops usually call it a "Ranger Grave."
"Pick up a rifle and you change instantly from a subject to a citizen." - Jeff Cooper
What is a Patrol Harbour?
Slap,
A patrol harbour is basically a small patrol base or patrol layover point. Not a term I've seen used in US writing, but it's really common in British stuff (and possibly other former Commonwealth stuff).
"On the plains and mountains of the American West, the United States Army had once learned everything there was to learn about hit-and-run tactics and guerrilla warfare."
T.R. Fehrenbach This Kind of War
Thats good I thought the Navy was taking over
Fuchs, click on the link below to Field Manual 5-103, Survivability, from 1985. I believe that's the most recent version of the manual but I might be wrong.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita.../5-103/CH4.HTM
It would take thorough deliberation to draw a mroe stupid picture than this one:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...3/IMG00077.GIF
Almost everything is wrong in it.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks