Search results

If I am far away, I can still pound the enemy with indirect systems to cause attrition. If I am close, but the enemy is suppressed or neutralized, I still have room to manoeuvre. One is related to time and space, while the other is related to force.

Except they are not ends of a sliding scale. Manoeuvre is the use of fires and movement to gain a position of advantage, and attrition is simply the destruction of stuff. Attrition stems from manoeuvre, enables it, and is enabled by it. Attrition can also occur through other battlefield...

The author makes numerous erroneous assumptions and falls on the familiar trope of manoeuvre vs attrition, a false dichotomy. Manoeuvre and attrition are simultaneous and complementary effects on the battlefield. The Ukrainians are not conduct breakthrough and exploit offensive operations, but...

It's actually a Bde(-), all things considered. There are more guns in that BG than in a CMBG. The comment on mass is probably applicable when you consider the host nation's military, and how the eFP contributes to its national defence plan.

I don't doubt it - thing is terrible looking!

Unsurprising, but looks pretty good.

I think Toronto EMS is hiring.

I know a guy....

No, but I am stating that offering affordable accommodations with shared washrooms and, possibly, shared living space is not unusual nor unique to the military. I was just talking to a soldier who lives in the shacks. He says he doesn't mind it (it was his first time away from home) and that he...

Not to speculate on specific base policies or what informed accommodation construction, but I could see this being something conceived completely free of "Officer/NCM divide" - what you describe for junior ranks accommodations is exactly what I saw offered to new university students on campus...

When were these buildings constructed? Is this a conscious policy, or an inheritance of an old way of business?

That would be a good use for a AGLS systems....

The thing that caught me on that one was that they weren't doing this to be sneaky, but rather to avoid firing their artillery which would then become exposed to CB fire. More a tactic of necessity than one of ingenuity.

I would rephrase this differently by stating the important part is that the protect the tank by clearing the threats that the tank can't see. The certainly can't do this from behind a tank or by hanging around their IFV.

This raises the issue of what infantry configuration best ensures protection of the armoured vehicles to create a combined arms synergy. If they are lumped up behind the tank, are they really protecting the tank? If they are nowhere near the tank and lumped up behind the IFV, what are they...

You mean that thing we tell platoon commanders to do?

The defensive stuff was moved off to its own thread. To keep this one going, a doctrinal debate from the 1950s/60s on where mechanized infantry locate themselves during the attack. The American view was to move behind the vehicles (keep the big piece of steel between you and the enemy) while...

Lets use the data available. The factors most likely to contribute to success of an assault from the simulations were enemy morale and finding and suppressing the enemy (locating position and fire control). We can't really do much about the first one but we can measure the second one to some...

Actually, that's false. We observed in Afghanistan that untried small units would blast a lot of ammo off, making lots of noise. After experience, small units would consume far less ammo in engagements, and that carrying massive amounts of small arms ammunition just added weight to the soldiers...

Need to know if you (1) want to fight China; and (2) what your street fighting record is.