Force Ratios (the old 3-to-1 rule)

[JMA]

I would be very careful of that assumption. I see little evidence, that it is anything more than senior officers opinion. Based on Core Functions, we should seek a minimum of 4:1. The Russians have taught very high ratios from about 1922 onwards.

It evolved (the 3:1 ration in the attack) just as the principles of the 4 Phases of War did... as did the Principles of War and the principles relating to just about every action in the military (and were not pucked out the air). All are guidelines (and a point of departure) but one would IMHO be required to justify discarding any one principle. I agree that a straight jacketed mind is to be avoided among the officer corps (as T.E. Lawrence complained about the British officer being "too much body and not enough mind"). The problem as I see it is that the limited ability to find officers who have the ability to read a battle (at any level) and make intelligent judgement calls as where, how and with what force level to attack makes the use of such rules of thumb and assumptions vital. Then we see armies (where they line up the cannon fodder in waves) where I would suggest they screen out the characteristic of imagination among officers.

Fuchs mentioned the German approach at a given time and I mentioned Slim from Burma. There are times (we need to accept) when such tactical matters need to be imposed.

Good point and very true, BUT it needs to explicitly explained as a training vehicle alone, with no operational merit.

Yes, but does rifleman no 1 in the left forward section of the left forward platoon of the left forward company need to know that a battalion infiltration attack may have been the better option under those battlefield circumstances? If the officers and the senior NCOs know and understand that it is merely an exercise then that is all that matters.

Again, good point, but if this is the case then the Exercise is very badly planned. The DS shouldn't be in a position to hold up the exercise. Sadly and traditionally, not the case.

It really depends on who is being exercised doesn't it? If the whole company (for example) is being exercised then then the flow must be unimpeded and tactical disputes or disagreements can be dealt with after the fact.

Its all about the maintenance of the selected aim.

Soldiering is learnt skill. Commanders should be those identified as skilled in the relevant areas.

Yes, in the main. However, do not discount the natural attributes some bring to the table. As a young Troop (platoon) commander I noticed that certain of the troopies exhibited a knack and a level of understanding of combat soldiering way ahead of the pack (these were not necessarily leaders but could be a machine gunner or the like). When I moved on to officer training again one could detect the recognition and understanding in some of the eyes which simply said "OK I get it ... so when do we start." Then the crunch came when for the first time the crack-and-thump was real. Some faltered, some did OK and others (sometimes the most unlikely troopie) rose magnificently to the occasion. Not foreseeable.

So yes much can be taught and indeed should... probably better than we are doing at the moment. And (seriously) if I were the Brits I would roll every Sandhurst cadet through Afghanistan on an op attachment to test them under fire as that would take the guesswork out of that matter.

Finally (and somewhat off topic), a while back in another thread I recommended to Red Rat that the best use for Kenya was not for trained soldiers (other than tracking courses) but certainly for all officer cadets and maybe certain levels of recruits to do a month out there as part of their training. This would take the form of a cross between Outward Bound, a military bushcraft course and an an environment training in some basic military skills. Here I emphasize it not being a selection course where you try to knock 90% off the course but rather where you aim to lift 100% of the courses up appreciably in terms of self worth, self confidence and character development. We would need a couple of rules of thumb for this training ... only kidding.