Battle Drill

[Norfolk]

Sorry to go off topic here, and back to the old thread, but I don't see what the problem is. Platoons don't just attack things. They do a whole range of activities which the organisation has to account for. The whole problem of this debate is everyone defaults to F&M as being the defining purpose of Squad and Platoon organisation. It is not. The defining purpose should be simple and effective control.

The way I am coming at it is that F&M in particular, and closing with and destroying the enemy in general, constitute the primary and the most demanding tasks of the Infantry. The Defence, Patrolling, and other tasks do not seem to make quite the "manpower" requirements that A-to-C and the Attack do. As such, the "manpower" requirements (et al) of the Firefight, the Assault, and Holding against Counter-Attacks, which expose the Section and Platoon to usually the heaviest losses of any Infantry operation, are some of the chief considerations from that perspective. Smaller units may break down more quickly under sustained battle attrition.

[Rifleman]

I guess I'm between the extremes as far as assault battle drill goes. We certainly did enough of it at squad and platoon levels and I can see how it can do as much harm as good.

Immediate action drills for reacting to contact and breaking contact are another matter, at least according to Vietnam era recon vets. Yes, they sometimes had to be modified under fire but they got everyone started on a correct course of action. Kind of like torpedos and wire guided missiles that adjust course after being fired. They can't do any adjusting until they're fired. You have to take that first step.

Many recon vets of B-52 Project Delta and SOG credit well rehearsed immediate action drills with their survival.

[Norfolk]

I understand your views Rifleman. Battle Drill, especially for Advance/Movement-to-Contact and the Attack bothers me especially in so far as it seems to prop up Infantry leaders who probably shouldn't be leading in the first place. The Germans deliberately avoided Battle Drill, and relied on developing and using the tactical judgement of their Infantrymen in general, and leaders in particular. No-one can claim that that approach didn't work for them, especially against opponents who used Battle Drill (The Commonwealth).

I figure that competent and well-trained infantry and infantry leaders don't need Battle Drill, or if they do, only for very limited purposes. And on the other hand, Battle Drill can serve to disguise the poor tactical judgement of weak infantry and especially their leaders. For those reasons, I think that Battle Drill should be ditched and the German system adopted. It's easier to find out who's got the goods, and who doesn't, in peacetime if they don't have the cover of Battle Drill to hide behind.

That said, I have to agree that on some things, like counter-ambush and the like, certain drills are or may be necessary; tactical circumstances allow no time for anything other than an instantaneous reaction.

[William F. Owen]

Immediate action drills for reacting to contact and breaking contact are another matter, at least according to Vietnam era recon vets.....

Many recon vets of B-52 Project Delta and SOG credit well rehearsed immediate action drills with their survival.

Drill just means common aims and means, so as you say, AI drills are very useful. Battle drill is just an extrapolation of that. Some drills get called SOPs.

@ I figure that competent and well-trained infantry and infantry leaders don't need Battle Drill, or if they do, only for very limited purposes. And on the other hand, Battle Drill can serve to disguise the poor tactical judgement of weak infantry and especially their leaders.

@ For those reasons, I think that Battle Drill should be ditched and the German system adopted. It's easier to find out who's got the goods, and who doesn't, in peacetime if they don't have the cover of Battle Drill to hide behind.

@ I think you are right. I am not a fan of Battle Drill, in terms of the name. IA drills are essential however, as is an objectively based form of infantry training. The real problem is Battle Drill is it is usually taught very badly, because people are confused by the language, so resort to simplistic iterations of what they think is right. That is why you have Section Attacks, and not Section IN the Attack.

@ What is the German System? - and how do you measure tactical skill in peacetime. When I went up to ITC Brecon, back in the UK and suggested that TES kit be used on all tactical courses, everyone fell over in horror! To quote one SI "You can't learn anything once you become a casualty" - and yes he really said that.

...now, forgoing the idea of something called "a German system" I think you are right, and there are some pretty obvious ways to do it.

[Norfolk]

@ What is the German System? - and how do you measure tactical skill in peacetime. When I went up to ITC Brecon, back in the UK and suggested that TES kit be used on all tactical courses, everyone fell over in horror! To quote one SI "You can't learn anything once you become a casualty" - and yes he really said that.

...now, forgoing the idea of something called "a German system" I think you are right, and there are some pretty obvious ways to do it.

Yes, TES puts the fear into the hearts of Slackers and Ruperts alike. MILES became very unpopular very quickly in certain quarters here in the Great White North, particularly after Platoon and Company Attacks made using laser simulation kit revealed the utter tactical incompetence of a distressing number of Infantry Officers and NCOs alike. Attacking Platoons were being reducing to half a dozen men or so, pinned down, against a like number or so of aggressively-handled Enemy Force. Needless to say, MILES is sadly avoided by many Units as much as possible.

The lads on the other hand, love it; although they hate the part where they have to sit out the rest of the fight when they get zapped, and not magically brought back to life by umpires. Every Field EX possible (Live-Fire excepted for obvious reasons) should be run with full TES/MILES support.

The German System:

Well, here's a start (Stan and slapout dug this up for us a little while ago) -

Special Series No. 9, The German Squad in Combat (1943):

http://ahecwebdds.carlisle.army.mil/...AslnIxyQ__.pdf

[slapout9]

Hi Norfolk, I also found a manual on the German Rifle Company but for some reason it was never translated. The whole manual was published in German as part of the US Intell special reports project. Not sure of the reasoning behind that but they did it.

[jcustis]

The lads on the other hand, love it; although they hate the part where they have to sit out the rest of the fight when they get zapped, and not magically brought back to life by umpires. Every Field EX possible (Live-Fire excepted for obvious reasons) should be run with full TES/MILES support.

Ah, but it is best employed when we actually have the requisite quantities of blank ammunition to replicate a combat load. I've never seen that happen across dozens of MILES exercises. It's usually been a handful of rounds per each man, so the exercise or lane is run as far as it can go until one side runs dry. There was rarely enough ammo to employ sufficient suppressive fires to facilitate an assault, especially in MOUT town.

Come to think of it, there was never any exercise of the battalion-to-company-to-platoon logistics flow during the exercise. No ammo planning, and very little "battlefield calculus" where leaders considered what the rates of fire would be and then factored in planned resupply throughout the fight. We always did a great job of pointing out casualty collection points on the terrain model though...

Sometimes I sit back and seriously believe we suck, but have just sucked less than our opponents the last few go-arounds.

[Norfolk]

Hi Norfolk, I also found a manual on the German Rifle Company but for some reason it was never translated. The whole manual was published in German as part of the US Intell special reports project. Not sure of the reasoning behind that but they did it.

Hi slap. Yeah, I found that rather frustrating too. I was even more flustered when I discovered from a specialist source that the traditional German/Prussian script that The German Rifle Company is written in is supposedly almost incomprehensible to most ordinary Germans these days. There is some guy who does translate these things over in Germany or Brit-Land, and he's been swamped by such requests. He tries to get a few manuals translated a year, but it's a really long, tough slog to do so. I've just tried to track him down, but I seem to have lost him.

Here are a few of links to the Evolution of the Section and Battle Drill for whom it may interest:

http://www.canadiansoldiers.com/medi...fantry_Section

http://www.canadiansoldiers.com/medi...fantry_Section

Incidently, the following link comes from the Regiment that introduced British Army Battle Drill to the Canadian Army, and it was the Regiment that was commanded by the author of On Infantry, Lt.Col. John English:

http://www.calgaryhighlanders.com/history/battle.htm

jcustis:

Yeah, blank ammo, never mind live ammo, is almost always grudgingly and stingily doled out. In The RCR, we got around that by loading "Militia Bullets" (shouting "Bang! Bang!" - pathetic isn't it?) when our regular ammo ran out. When we ran out of "Militia Bullets", as the Section Commander would quickly tire of this nonsense, he would issue the order to "Load Insults!", and thereupon, we would continue the notional firefight with unsocial expressions of ill-will towards the Enemy Force.

We were told that the rear Sections and what not would resupply us with ammo and the like during the Firefight; never saw it done, and I have real doubts that it is practical under many conditions. Didn't somebody say something about the Army that wins is the one that is the least disorganized?