Definition of a raid

[Fuchs]

Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms :

raid
An operation to temporarily seize an area in order to secure information, confuse an adversary, capture personnel or equipment, or to destroy a capability. It ends with a planned withdrawal upon completion of the assigned mission.

I just found the above (google makes things like that ridiculously easy - and on top of that for free).

Hours earlier I wrote two own definitions based on what I heard and read about the usage of the word in military contexts:

A surprise attack with limited objectives and a planned withdrawal prior to effective intervention of opposing forces' higher level reserves.

The second one can be applied to more levels, up to foreign policy:

The offensive exploitation of a limited net advantage, avoiding entanglement (commitment) beyond the limit of this net advantage.

I don't remember this word from doctrinal publications (or non-published works), so I'm wondering whether I got this right (not my mother tongue, after all).



The concept caught my attention to the extent that I began to frame everything desirable in land war either as a raid or as an ambush (kinda like Wilf labelling everything a patrol )...

Btw, the German language has apparently not established a word for this; all translations differ somewhat.

[Misifus]

I think all three of those are adequate definitions. I think I have my old Ranger handbook laying about here somewhere. Maybe there is a definition in there.

[Chris jM]

I'll ignore doctrinal definitions, which often get caught up in detail and try too hard to link in with other related terms (thus you get a lovely collection of esoteric labels such as 'neutralise, destroy, suppress,' etc) that end up getting horribly misused.

A definition should also span all levels at which the activity van be conducted - in the case of a raid a section/squad through to a Corp can conduct it, so it should not be dependent on span of command or scale of execution.

With that in mind, I would define a raid as "an offensive operation that does not involve occupation".

You do something offensive and then you leave, in other words.

[Fuchs]

I'll ignore doctrinal definitions, which often get caught up in detail and try too hard to link in with other related terms (thus you get a lovely collection of esoteric labels such as 'neutralise, destroy, suppress,' etc) that end up getting horribly misused.

A definition should also span all levels at which the activity van be conducted - in the case of a raid a section/squad through to a Corp can conduct it, so it should not be dependent on span of command or scale of execution.

With that in mind, I would define a raid as "an offensive operation that does not involve occupation".

You do something offensive and then you leave, in other words.

You meant "an offensive action that is not meant to be followed by holding the captured terrain" ?

Operation and occupation don't sound very squad-level-esque.

[Ken White]

Or to Platoons, companies or even Battalion. No reason to exclude Brigade or even multi Brigade sized raids. Nor to think they cannot be made ny armored or mounted elements to include airmobile.

Raids are often ignored as strategic or tactical solutions due mostly to risk aversion. Most often, in an attempt to 'insure' success or lower own casualties / PWs, highly detailed planning and support to include extensive (excessive... ) rehearsals are insisted upon for no real benefit -- and often result in the raid missing its effect due to passage of time or movement of people or things in the objective area. Better training can remove that impediment...

In this era, Raids make far more sense than trying to occupy terrain...

[Bob's World]

6006 in the Dieppe raid (3600 Killed, wounded or captured...so much for the "planned withdrawal)

[jmm99]

FMFM 7-32, Raid Operations (3 Dec 1993):

This manual explains doctrine, tactics, techniques, and procedures (DTTP) for raid operations conducted by Marine Air-Ground Task Forces (MAGTFs). It highlights the advantages, disadvantages, and other critical factors every commander and staff member must consider during planning and execution of a raid operation.

and MCWP 3-43.1, Raid Operations (23 Dec 2002) (basically the same manual in one pdf allowing copy extraction):

Chapter 1
Raid Design

"Nothing is so devastating as to pounce upon the enemy in the dark, smite him hip and thigh, and vanish silently into the night." Brigadier Orde Charles Wingate Burma, 1943

A raid is an operation, usually small scale, involving a swift penetration of hostile territory to secure information, confuse the enemy, or to destroy his installations. It ends with a planned withdrawal upon completion of the assigned mission. Raids may be conducted as separate operations or in support of other operations. Examples of separate operations include raids for psychological purposes, destroying enemy assets not susceptible to other action, harassment, to gain combat information, as spoiling attacks to keep enemy forces off balance, and to recover or rescue friendly personnel and equipment.

One can't argue with the "smite him hip and thigh" brigadier as to that thought. As to the actual Chindit operations, reality didn't always correspond to that desired end.

Dieppe (from RHLI, The Raid on Dieppe):



involved heavy Canadian losses - with mixed reviews as to whether that large-scale raid had any redeeming long-term impact:

By early afternoon, Operation Jubilee was over. Conflicting assessments of the value of the raid continue to be presented. Some claim that it was a useless slaughter; others maintain that it was necessary to the successful invasion of the continent two years later on D-Day. The Dieppe Raid was closely studied by those responsible for planning future operations against the enemy-held coast of France. Out of it came improvements in technique, fire support and tactics which reduced D-Day casualties to an unexpected minimum. The men who perished at Dieppe were instrumental in saving countless lives on the 6th of June, 1944. While there can be no doubt that valuable lessons were learned, a frightful price was paid in those morning hours of August 19, 1942. Of the 4,963 Canadians who embarked for the operation only 2,210 returned to England, and many of these were wounded. There were 3,367 casualties, including 1,946 prisoners of war; 907 Canadians lost their lives.

The deepest penetration was by a squad of Montreal Frogs (err, Fusiliers) led by SGT Pierre Dubuc.



Regards

Mike

[ganulv]

Btw, the German language has apparently not established a word for this; all translations differ somewhat.

Is there a relevant word used when describing Operation Eiche?

Dieppe […] involved heavy Canadian losses

Did the Canadian Corps’ association with trench raiding have anything to do with the Canadians’ role at Dieppe?

[JMA]

6006 in the Dieppe raid (3600 Killed, wounded or captured...so much for the "planned withdrawal)

At least the Germans were there when the raiding party arrived at Dieppe. Dieppe was a cock-up because (one of the inbred 'elite' with the military skill and acumen of an 18 year old troopie) Mountbatten commanded the operation. Had a proper military man been in charge it could well have been different...

Rule one on raids: they must be based on good intelligence ... unlike Son Tay (A raid in 1970).

[Fuchs]

Is there a relevant word used when describing Operation Eiche?

Befreiungsaktion or Kommandoaction (liberation action or commando action).

We do use the word "Raid" sometimes as an improvisation, but I've seen it used with a very different meaning. It's not an established expression.

[Kiwigrunt]

Uberfall? Although that would probably lack the withdrawal aspect. But even the word raid only really implies the withdrawal aspect in a military context, I think. Think for instance about a police raid.

[Fuchs]

Police raid is a "Razzia", a word that's not being used in any other context.

"berfall" exists, but it's not the same as raid. "berfall" is merely a sudden attack. It can even be applied to stationary context (Feuerberfall, an activity that even artillery can do) and generally misses the planned withdrawal component.


German military vocabulary lacks counterparts for other English military terms, too; for "economy of force" or "turning movement", for example.

[Bob's World]

I support Ken's frequent assertion that "strategic raids" are a valuable tool. This is also a tool that we neglect in our planning, preparation and implementation. In many ways, the USMC is the ultimate strategic raiding force, but we don't really highlight that fact.

Armies are great for fighting wars, but not so much for conducting strategic raids. Various SOF forces are good for small raids designed for strategic effect, but for the larger ones the USMC is a force without peer. (Yes, air delivered munitions have their place, but to become over reliant on such impersonal devices is a bad business. Sometimes you have to look a guy in the eye to deliver the appropriate message)

One can deter a lot of silliness and avoid a lot of long, drawn out frustrating "intervention" through the possession of the ability to employ a powerful, effective strategic raid when necessary.

[Fuchs]

This begs the question (and is related to the thread about avoiding stupidities) when is a country taking enough damage from another country to justify a violation of the latter's sovereignty but the damages stop accumulating after just a raid???

I don't think such a case exists.
A strategic raid in what's otherwise peacetime amounts to a backlash-prone aggression and can easily provoke a cascade of uncontrollable and possibly very undesirable effects.

[Ken White]

The trick is to differentiate between those two potentialities. We, the world, need to work on that...

This begs the question (and is related to the thread about avoiding stupidities) when is a country taking enough damage from another country to justify a violation of the latter's sovereignty but the damages stop accumulating after just a raid???

That's like pornography. I can't describe it but I know it when I see it...

The serious answers, plural, are that's in the eyes of the offended nation and can vary due to many things; what precisely was or will be raided and for what effect; is / was the raid designed to 'stop' damages or to destroy ability for more or other damages; is / was it designed for another purpose entirely?

I don't think such a case exists.

Perhaps not, I'm too lazy to search my memory banks just now -- may do so later. Now, simply recall the same thing could be said of Pakistan in 1945, the Internet in 1950, Al Qaeda in 1980,the G-20 in 1995 or South Sudan in 2005...

Things change. One adapts or one stays mired in the past.

A strategic raid in what's otherwise peacetime amounts to a backlash-prone aggression and can easily provoke a cascade of uncontrollable and possibly very undesirable effects.

Any type of war, warfare or warlike action does all that. That applies equally to the potential provocation(s) and / or provacateurs that might spur such a Raid in the first place.

Consider also that some such Raids might actually be Demonstrations or Feints and be aimed at an indirectly related target, result in no casualties to anyone and serve merely as a demonstration of capability -- or resolve.

The 'rules' are changing. Have in fact changed. They are not going back to those of the turn of the 20th Century -- or even the 21st. To paraphrase both the SAS and SBS mottoes; Who adapts wins -- by strength and guile...

[Fuchs]

Wikipedia definition of a raid:

Raid, also known as depredation, is a military tactic or operational warfare mission which has a specific purpose and is not normally intended to capture and hold terrain, but instead finish with the raiding force quickly retreating to a previous defended position prior to the enemy forces being able to respond in a co-ordinated manner or formulate a counter-attack. Within the tactical mission, a raiding group may consist of personnel specially trained in this tactic (such as commandos or guerrilla fighters), regular soldiers, or any organized group of combatants.

The purposes of a raid may include:

to demoralize, confuse, or exhaust an enemy
to ransack or pillage a location
to obtain property or capture people
to destroy goods or other things with an economic value
to free POWs
to kill or capture specific people
to gather intelligence.

with references to historical raids (Vikings, Native Americans, Mongols - that stuff).

[Bob's World]

The Commanche were the masters of the raid, covering vast distances at night (thus the American saying "Commanche Moon", for some 50 years settlers feared the full moon with good reason), to strike ruthlessly, round up vast herds of horses, and be back home hundreds of miles away before any pursuit could be organized.

Thank god AQ is nowhere near as capable or dangerous as these warriors were. Of note, we never said we were a "nation at war" in those days, and most of the fighting was done by civilians and para-military Ranger units. The military had the wrong gear, the wrong doctrine and never understood what they were dealing with. Ultimately the military applied an indirect approach with minor success, but it was the buffalo hunters who forced the Commanche onto the reservation.

Just a hat tip to some master raiders.

[Ken White]

of today has yet to be written...

The purposes of a raid may include:

to demoralize, confuse, or exhaust an enemy
to ransack or pillage a location
to obtain property or capture people
to destroy goods or other things with an economic value
to free POWs
to kill or capture specific people
to gather intelligence.

Many of those purposes are still quite valid, others not so much...

[Fuchs]

"to obtain property or capture people"

Why not?
Remember the manhunt in Somalia a while ago.

A classic example for a raid to obtain property was the British raid in WW2 that was aimed at capturing a Würzburg radar set. Nowadays one might think of securing some nukes or chemicals that cannot just be demolished on the spot (for safety reasons).

[jcustis]

What you say is true. What you and I apparently cannot say at this time is whether or not that move was known -- satellites and UAVs are better and more prolific now but they then existed... -- and the 'Raid' allowed to proceed for other reasons. Not saying that was the case, just that whether it was or not is not known to us.

You may assume that it was an intel failure. Could well be, even likely correct. However, having worked in the belly of the beast for a day or two, I've learned to reserve judgement. Folks in the ME and Asia are not the only ones who can makes thing to be not always what they seem...

Concur Ken, wholeheartedly, and at the end of the day, raiding boils down to a few other principles (which you no doubt know already, but I will share for the benefit of others):

-On the matter of intel, if the intel is spotty or just plain weak, causing lots of guesses, one needs to think about it in a bit more detail and weigh the go/no-go factors some more. It doesn't mean you stop planning.

-Raids are not an all or nothing proposition with regard to the quality of intelligence, and "good intelligence" is on a sliding scale. Intel will never be perfect, and if there are gaps, the planners just need to refer to the bullet above and try to get it in the box as much as possible.

-If the intel appears to be good to the planners at the time, there is no reason to do more than formulate the plan, apply the resources, and execute. Allowing history to creep in does little but confuse matters and a basic question - did the planners believe they had actionable, multi-source intelligence at the time of execution, when the GO decision was made. A lot of what I have read about Son Tay indicates that they did believe they had all the intel they could summon. It was sketchy and had some gaps, for sure, but they went with what they had.

Son Tay wasn't an issue of bad intelligence, if my armchairing has any bearing. The intelligence just wasn't up-to-date to match conditions, and so they went with what they had. The fact that the prisoners were moved in July isn't even relevant.

Although "rescue" is a relative term, my battalion rescued the seven American POWs being held by the Iraqis in Samarra (remnants of the 507th and the downed Apache) in April 2003. The intel was for sure sketchy and garbled, as to be expected during the often chaotic rush to attack Tikrit. My battalion commander told us something after the invasion that will stick with me forever.

He said, very plainly, that he took action because he wouldn't have been able to live with himself if he had continued to bypass the town as he had planned, and ignored the informant's tip, only to find out later that dead Americans had been exhumed from the city. Pretty good guts to try if you ask me. The intel wasn't even good, if you ask me, but he trusted his subordinates to execute violently and with precision, and sent them on their way.

All he did was monitor the radio from his CP to be ready to offer other resources to the force going in. Imagine that...