Sticking with the point I can usefully address, I have heard that the Aussies may reject the 1/39 platoon and go back to the old 32/36 man platoon because they don't have the manning and equipment numbers and the budget to support the 40 man 1/39 platoon. Same reason as the UK cut the fourth section in 1937! As we say here in the Far East, "same same everyday."Originally Posted by Norfolk
Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"
- The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
- If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition
Norfolk: I'll try to condense my thinking thus,
1. Manpower is limited. All resources are limited. Budget is everything. Accountants do not tell you how to fight but they do tell you how much you can have. We have to balance efficiency with effectiveness and so we have to have methods to measure this, or at least make useful comparisons.
2. There are huge flow down effects of just massing men and equipment to try and generate combat power, or address redundancy. These are mostly negative.
3. How you train, equip and organise has far more effect on combat power than pure numbers. You cannot argue that a 40 man platoon is more effective than a 30 man platoon, in terms other than numbers, for the same given training and equipment. The actual argument is whether to organise a 120 man company in 3 x 40 man platoons or 4 x 30 man platoons.
4. Task organisation works. We know this, so why fixate on fixed numbers for any other reason than budgets. I may have a 120 man platoon, but that does not stop me generating a 75 man fighting patrol under a skilled platoon commander.
5. As concerns "Patrols", I just refuse to get stuck in the 1915 phraseology that has held back infantry doctrine for nearly 80 years. We can do things better and also do better things. US/UK Infantry doctrine is till stuck in a WW2 set piece conventional battle mindset, that is retained for emotional and organisational reasons. If I were to subscribe to this mindset, I would be failing in my attempt to try and improve the wider understanding of infantry operations.
Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"
- The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
- If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition
On that we can agree...
Particularly the last paragraph...
Quick question. Does the "denial of the same to the adversary" argument hold in an urban environment where the enemy patrols in plainclothes and you do not? If not, what's the solution or alternative?
Sure as hell. If you can prove that someone is conducting unarmed or even armed reconnaissance, then you can detain or, if necessary, kill them.
How someone dresses merely effects the how you detect them. It does not alter the need to detect them.
Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"
- The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
- If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition
No argument there, but I'm asking how feasible it is to deny the enemy the ability to patrol under those conditions and what, if any, measures the force can take to mitigate the disadvantage.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks