Leading infantry tactics theoreticians/experts today

[Randy Brown]

I'm curious about who is being considered being one of let's say 20 top infantry tactics experts/theoreticians in the open domain (=some chance to find articles or books to read his/her ideas).
I am specifically interested in the kinetic aspects when I wrote infantry, else I'd have written "PsyOps" or "MP expert".

Any suggestions?

My earlier musings as to whether the civilian tactical law enforcement community might have anything to offer in this area--despite your stipulations against "MP experts"--was based on two assumptions/suspicions. The first was that tactical LE TTP might have some (limited) application for infantry-work within a population, particularly if that population was limited in scale, such as a building, a complex, a block, etc. ... Can't say that line of inquiry or thought worked out, but it was an idea.

The second was that there might be some gendarme/peacekeeper theorists out there, which would blend infantry and police (small "p") thought and practice. An SWJ article on "expeditionary law enforcement" this morning captures the spirit of latter possible research direction, in my opinion. I offer it here for your consideration.

[William F. Owen]

My earlier musings as to whether the civilian tactical law enforcement community might have anything to offer in this area--despite your stipulations against "MP experts"--was based on two assumptions/suspicions. The first was that tactical LE TTP might have some (limited) application for infantry-work within a population, particularly if that population was limited in scale, such as a building, a complex, a block, etc. ... Can't say that line of inquiry or thought worked out, but it was an idea.

The second was that there might be some gendarme/peacekeeper theorists out there, which would blend infantry and police (small "p") thought and practice. An SWJ article on "expeditionary law enforcement" this morning captures the spirit of latter possible research direction, in my opinion. I offer it here for your consideration.

I think you are broadly correct and I share your interest in that thought. The challenge is the blend, AND the distinction. There's a time for the LE type TTP and a time to be more aggressive/kinetic approach. You must be able to do both.

I have spent a great deal of time studying a lot of US LE-SWAT minor tactics, most of which make no sense and promote process over effect. All seem to focus on dancing around in rooms in very complicated ways, so there is still some considerable human, rather then technical or even tactical challenges in this area.

[Ron Humphrey]

I have spent a great deal of time studying a lot of US LE-SWAT minor tactics, most of which make no sense and promote process over effect. All seem to focus on dancing around in rooms in very complicated ways, so there is still some considerable human, rather then technical or even tactical challenges in this area.

Welcome to Form over function in it's many splendored glory

[PhilR]

I'm not sure if it isn't too limiting to be discussing only infantry. The modern battlefield, and the advances made, are about combined arms, or at least combined arms principles. I would recommend Robert Leonhard's Art of Maneuver and offer his discussion of combined arms theory (complementary principle, dilemma principle and Alcyoneus principle) as a good theoretical lens for discussing tactics (the attached link provides a decent summary: http://www.operations.dns2go.com/ops...ned%20Arms.htm).
It seems to me that the history of infantry tactics through the 20th century has been to give smaller and smaller infantry units an organic combined arms capability (LMGs, suitcase ATGMs, marrying up with APCs, etc.). The new paradigm, call it distributed or whatever, is to increase those small units combined arms capabilities through greater reachback via networking to firepower and support (UAVs, JTAC training, blue force tracker, etc.). Additionally, the recent emphasis on COIN and Stabilization is about bringing more civil-military skills and tools down to the lower levels. The "strategic corporal" concept merits recognition here, along with Special Forces Unconventional Warfare theory. I would also add VADM McRaven's Spec Ops book as good theory for special operations as they apply to raids and direct action.

[William F. Owen]

I'm not sure if it isn't too limiting to be discussing only infantry. The modern battlefield, and the advances made, are about combined arms, or at least combined arms principles. I would recommend Robert Leonhard's Art of Maneuver and offer his discussion of combined arms theory (complementary principle, dilemma principle and Alcyoneus principle) as a good theoretical lens for discussing tactics (the attached link provides a decent summary: http://www.operations.dns2go.com/ops...ned%20Arms.htm).

I would offer that Combined Arms is only relevant in that it is about supporting the infantry. Infantry remains a critical and mostly under studied area of tactical thought. Correctly trained and equipped infantry is the basis for the vast majority of land combat power. My personal opinion is that Manoeuvre Warfare provides nothing useful to infantry theory and science. I would recommend Robert Leonhards "Principles of War for the Information Age" in that regard.

[jcustis]

Fuchs,

To get back to the very first question you posed, have you researched the writings of CWO5 Jeffrey Eby? I think he is the closest personification of what you are looking for. He has spent a lot of time in the kinetic realm, observing and making note of those observations.

Much of his writing can be found in Marine Corps Gazette articles, pretty easily.

JC

[William F. Owen]

To get back to the very first question you posed, have you researched the writings of CWO5 Jeffrey Eby?

I think I might have read everything Eby ever wrote on the SAW v the LSW argument, and I'm impressed with his reasoning. We seem to agree, but for slightly different reasons.

What leaves me shaking my head is the utterly bizarre field and range trials described in the Marine Corps Gazette. I can only conclude they were designed by an OA weeny who did not understand the question.

[Fuchs]

I recall those articles, but they're not easily accessible any more.
He was writing mostly about infantry equipment instead of how to solve tactical problems IIRC.

[jcustis]

He has at least one concerning two-man buddy pair tactics, and also spends a lot of time talking about the concept of the LSW as it relates to team and squad tactics. That came from his study of German squad tactics, IIRC.

I agree though, that it is difficult to get them without paying for the download at the Marine Corps Gazette.

[Fuchs]

It's actually even worse.

Credit cards are very uncommon in Germany (just as cheques), I couldn't even pay for I have none.

We pay by paypal or money transfer from account to account.


Well, judging by his article titles and my memory of his articles he has no answer for the problem of infantry being pinned (fixed) and no mortar SMK available?

That's the #1 infantry tactical problem in my area of interest.

[Fuchs]

I'm curious about who is being considered being one of let's say 20 top infantry tactics experts/theoreticians in the open domain (=some chance to find articles or books to read his/her ideas).
I am specifically interested in the kinetic aspects when I wrote infantry, else I'd have written "PsyOps" or "MP expert".

Any suggestions?

*bump*

Any news on this?

(And I can't believe that I really wrote "kinetic" back then. That must have been a concession to this place!)