Combat Participation

[JMA]

Both.

The need to close in with the enemy is relatively rare, and the destruction of the enemy (or even killing) is so, too. That's the 0.x % part of the job in wartime, and it's ridiculous to suppose the other 99.y % were not the role of the infantry.

Almost all defensive combat missions include no "close in with" part until the initial defence failed and a counterattack is being launched.

The destruction / killing of the enemy ain't the role either, it's at most part of a mission. Just remember a classic infantry mission; go snatch a POW for interrogation. Where's the killing here? Ain't that an infantry job?

Moreover, warfare is mostly about reducing the enemy's promising repertoire. Armed forces are mostly about taking the enemy's options off the table, such as "walk forward" (taken off the table by defensive firepower, without actual killing or closing in).

What warfare is about these days is anyones guess.

There are also a number of tasks - like information gathering (recce) - that are preliminaries to an attack (when your infantry will be required to close with and kill the enemy).

You have said your piece and I mine and I posted the link to our earlier discussion on this matter.

I will try to remember (in future) to state that: the primary role of the infantry is to close with and kill the enemy.

Other than that I'm with the Brits on this:

INFANTRY

Roles. The Infantry’s mission is: ‘to close with and engage the enemy, in concert with other arms in all operational theatres and environments, in order to bring about his defeat’. The Infantry’s core capability is to conduct aggressive close combat in a combined arms context. All battalions, to a greater or lesser extent, and depending on the available mobility and firepower, are expected to perform the following tasks:

a. Close with and destroy the enemy.
b. Seize, control, and hold ground.
c. Breach and cross obstacles and establish bridgeheads.
d. Operations in built up areas, fighting in woods and forests (FIBUA and FIWAF).
e. Observe and patrol the battlefield especially in conditions of poor visibility and at night.
f. Destroy armoured vehicles.
g. Provide flank protection.
h. Provide integral direct and indirect fire support.
i. Protect vital installations, routes, and communication centres.

[Fuchs]

a. Close with and destroy the enemy.

Hardly primary task, more like the famous exception of the rule.

d. Operations in built up areas, fighting in woods and forests (FIBUA and FIWAF).

Same do armoured forces, recce forces ... nothing special about infantry here other than it's usually better-suited.
Furthermore, note that this is an environment description, while the list began as a task list.

e. Observe and patrol the battlefield especially in conditions of poor visibility and at night.

Especially in conditions of poor visibility!? A MBT is better at that one. Besides, this stuff should be part of (b); control of terrain.

f. Destroy armoured vehicles.

Really? That's more like a self-defence necessity than a real role.

g. Provide flank protection.

...a classic role for faster-than-average troops, and infantry is the slowest branch in combat.

h. Provide integral direct and indirect fire support.

Self-licking ice-cone. That's no task, but part of how to execute a task.

i. Protect vital installations, routes, and communication centres.

There's rarely if ever infantry to spare for this.


I know their manual, and wasn't impressed by ANYTHING in it.
Somebody was tasked to write the thing, wrote it, some general signed it - but no great or especially disciplined mind was involved, for sure.

[JMA]

a. Close with and destroy the enemy.

Hardly primary task, more like the famous exception of the rule.

d. Operations in built up areas, fighting in woods and forests (FIBUA and FIWAF).

Same do armoured forces, recce forces ... nothing special about infantry here other than it's usually better-suited.
Furthermore, note that this is an environment description, while the list began as a task list.

e. Observe and patrol the battlefield especially in conditions of poor visibility and at night.

Especially in conditions of poor visibility!? A MBT is better at that one. Besides, this stuff should be part of (b); control of terrain.

f. Destroy armoured vehicles.

Really? That's more like a self-defence necessity than a real role.

g. Provide flank protection.

...a classic role for faster-than-average troops, and infantry is the slowest branch in combat.

h. Provide integral direct and indirect fire support.

Self-licking ice-cone. That's no task, but part of how to execute a task.

i. Protect vital installations, routes, and communication centres.

There's rarely if ever infantry to spare for this.


I know their manual, and wasn't impressed by ANYTHING in it.
Somebody was tasked to write the thing, wrote it, some general signed it - but no great or especially disciplined mind was involved, for sure.

I'm sure the Brits will be encouraged to hear this

[Surferbeetle]

What warfare is about these days is anyones guess.

Identification of, and, control of access to resources...same as always.

Back in the day you guys wore fancy plate armor, carried swords, and struck terror into the serfs as you rode by on your way to jousting tournaments to ceremoniously fight over raw commodities (primarily) agricultural (primarily), industrial (not much), and intellectual (some) bounty. And those damn high tech crossbows were bad form, ya?

Today it's still about fights over raw commodities, agricultural, industrial, and intellectual bounty...we just don't carry swords.......and the fields of battle are no longer limited to just combatants

[JMA]

Identification of, and, control of access to resources...same as always.

Back in the day you guys wore fancy plate armor, carried swords, and struck terror into the serfs as you rode by on your way to jousting tournaments to ceremoniously fight over raw commodities (primarily) agricultural (primarily), industrial (not much), and intellectual (some) bounty. And those damn high tech crossbows were bad form, ya?

Today it's still about fights over raw commodities, agricultural, industrial, and intellectual bounty...we just don't carry swords.......and the fields of battle are no longer limited to just combatants

...but when we 'rode' into battle back then there was no confusion about who we were and what we were and what our mission was.

[Surferbeetle]

...but when we 'rode' into battle back then there was no confusion about who we were and what we were and what our mission was.

Soliders *know* how to read a map and what it means with respect to the area and systems they are to work within. That hasn't changed, and i suspect that i don't need to remind you to review a map of current and past operations in order to refresh those hard-won insights.

Soldiers *are not* swayed by the ephemeral twaddle spewed by chicken-hawk-draft-dodging-patron-seeking or Kantian-dreaming-draft-dodging-patron-seeking politicians of whatever nation.

Sword, deed, and then word...or something like that.