Results 1 to 20 of 307

Thread: Infantry Unit Tactics, Tasks, Weapons, and Organization

Threaded View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #31
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Durban, South Africa
    Posts
    3,902

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by William F. Owen View Post
    Basically yes.



    RE: "I respectfully submit it does not work, or at least not work well. I submit that F&M at the section level is a myth."

    One section may be able to do F&M, against ONE position. If there is more than one position to suppress, you need another base of fire, and that needs to be under someone's control to co-ordinate with the team trying to move - which is why most successful F&M against competent opponents seems to take place at the Platoon or even Company level.
    OK, consider this.

    A company attack with two platoons up with each platoon in turn attacking with two sections up is in effect then four simultaneous section attacks involving section level fire & movement. Each platoon commander is observing their individual two section attacks and have the third section in reserve in case the attacks stall. This while the company commander observes the progress of his two platoons and hold his third platoon in reserve in case either of the platoon actions stall.

    So I see it that the sections are not attacking isolation and have an objective and boundaries for each action (with the reserve section passing through to take on the next objective) the command and control is always with the next higher HQ.

    Are we on the same page?
    Last edited by JMA; 04-30-2010 at 01:16 AM.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •