Thinking about the Infantry Attack

[SeanNewman]

I don't know, it's hard to argue against the strengths of the fix and strike benefits that a firebase offers.  I compeltely agree that killing them is the best method to supress them, but I think that is best offered by 2 x C9s laying down belt after belt of rapid rate...while the lighter C7/C8 force moves in to mop up.

Keep in mind that we're not talking about a not-really-that-hasty platoon attack flanking with orders and moving way to the side.  An oblique attack still gives you that approx 90 degree angle and a firebase set and blazing, but the assault force is advancing almost immediately so it's not a 10 minute rapid rate.  The whole thing is theoretically over with in 1-2 minutes (assuming no inevitable casualties, etc).

Remember the other disadvantage to a frontal being that it allows the enemy to find cover to some extent.  Unless they have a prepared defensive position, it's very unlikely that they will have cover from the multiple sides of the C7s and the flankers.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Interesting article by an 'egghead jar head' that supports a heavy fire base with a lighter, faster manoeuvre element:

Suppression is the Critical Infantry Task

by

Major Brendan B. McBreen

      The three keys for a successful attack against a prepared enemy position are:

·        A covered approach. The assault element needs a covered approach to protect the force from enemy observation and enemy direct fire.

·        A vulnerable penetration point. The commander must recognize and assault the enemy’s most vulnerable position. Ideally, he recognizes where the enemy has poor mutual support, a point where subtle terrain features conspire against the enemy to isolate and weaken his position. This allows the suppression element to concentrate maximum suppressive fires against specific enemy defenses and not disperse fires across a wide front of multiple threats.

·        Overwhelming suppressive fire. The assault element cannot exit their covered approach to assault the penetration point until enemy weapons have been destroyed, obscured or effectively suppressed. This is the critical task. Effective suppression is a pre-requisite for the assault, and in turn, the entire attack.

      Currently, Marine infantry units are not trained sufficiently on direct fire suppression. This represents a critical deficiency in the lethality and offensive combat power of our infantry.

World War I: 1917
      In 1937, Erwin Rommel published Infantry Attacks, a tactical primer based on his combat experiences in World War I.1 Of its many lessons on small-unit combat, the book is especially clear on suppression in support of the assault. As a young combat leader, Rommel displayed a “masterful use of direct-fire weapons to gain nearly total fire superiority…in narrow sectors in order to effect a breakthrough…”2

      Infantry Attacks describes a series of attacks that Rommel led during 1917. He organized his forces into three elements: a suppression element, an assault element, and an exploitation element. The assault element was small in relation to the suppression element. As he gained experience, he further decreased the size of his assault element.3

            Date            Location      Ratio of Suppression to Assault Elements

7 January 1917                        Gagesti                        2 : 1

10 August 1917                        Carpathians                        3 : 2

11 August 1917                        Carpathians                        3 : 1

19 August 1917                        Carpathians                        9 : 1

25 August 1917                        NE Italy                        4 : 1 4

      His large suppression element placed overwhelming suppressive fire on specific enemy positions. Rommel closely supervised every detail of the suppression element, personally directing the emplacement and assignments of his soldiers and weapons. The assault element maintained a covered approach, and usually assaulted less than 100m from its last covered position to the penetration point.5 Once the penetration had been made, Rommel would then lead the exploitation element into the enemy position.

U.S. Army: 1976
      In 1976, the U.S. Army conducted a series of combat tests with the experimental MILES laser system, which was then being developed to simulate small arms fire. Over seventy attacks, day and night, were made against a dug-in enemy. All soldiers and weapons were instrumented to record casualties. One analysis examined the most successful tactics for small-unit assaults:

              Units / Scheme of Maneuver      Success Rate
(1) Base of Fire      (2) Maneuver      25% success

No Base of Fire      (3) Maneuver: On-line assault      33% success

(1 + AT) Base of Fire      (2) Maneuver      56% success

(2) Base of Fire      (1) Maneuver      88% success6

Notes the last line. Heavy suppression, with a small assault element was successful almost 9 out of 10 times. Two up and one back was successful only 25% of the time. This result paralleled Rommel’s tactics.

            One of the strengths of mechanized infantry is that in addition to mobility, the unit carries significant organic firepower. The attack by a well-trained mechanized infantry unit should place a small assault element against a vulnerable penetration point, supported by the overwhelming firepower of a vehicle-mounted suppression element.

http://www.2ndbn5thmar.com/CoTTP/Suppression%20McBreen%202001.pdf

 

[KevinB]

I don't know, it's hard to argue against the strengths of the fix and strike benefits that a firebase offers. 

with the exception is a visible target thats a bigger priority for the enemy especially with RPG or AGL...

I compeltely agree that killing them is the best method to supress them, but I think that is best offered by 2 x C9s laying down belt after belt of rapid rate...while the lighter C7/C8 force moves in to mop up.

  Shoot less, hit more.  Unless your enemy is the Red Chinese running over a hill in Kapyong, the idea that beltfeds are show stoppers is delusional.  Mountainous or Urban terrain will quickly prove what a falacy is of the C9 or even C6 is a show stopper.

Keep in mind that we're not talking about a not-really-that-hasty platoon attack flanking with orders and moving way to the side.  An oblique attack still gives you that approx 90 degree angle and a firebase set and blazing, but the assault force is advancing almost immediately so it's not a 10 minute rapid rate.  The whole thing is theoretically over with in 1-2 minutes (assuming no inevitable casualties, etc).

Remember the other disadvantage to a frontal being that it allows the enemy to find cover to some extent.  Unless they have a prepared defensive position, it's very unlikely that they will have cover from the multiple sides of the C7s and the flankers.

You've lost me, as you seem to think your 6-10man element is capable of flanking an enemy position, now, in a an urban battle it may be possible to breach a house and enter to flank a opponent but its jighly unlikley that your going to be able to fix an oponent with a small iunit, and I still beleive that 'supression' especially against our current foes in Afghanistan and Iraq, that supression is highly overrated,  and pretty much impossible.

I'm quite willing to conceed for large attacks, where one can bear support weapons and indirect fire assets and fast/close air assets - when then you can grind them down in scale, however 6-10 people "supressing" the enemey may make you feel good, but your just sending ammo downrange for no real return.

 

[Kirkhill]

Interesting article by an 'egghead jar head' that supports a heavy fire base with a lighter, faster manoeuvre element:

Suppression is the Critical Infantry Task

by

Major Brendan B. McBreen

      The three keys for a successful attack against a prepared enemy position are:

·        A covered approach. The assault element needs a covered approach to protect the force from enemy observation and enemy direct fire.

·        A vulnerable penetration point. The commander must recognize and assault the enemy’s most vulnerable position. Ideally, he recognizes where the enemy has poor mutual support, a point where subtle terrain features conspire against the enemy to isolate and weaken his position. This allows the suppression element to concentrate maximum suppressive fires against specific enemy defenses and not disperse fires across a wide front of multiple threats.

·        Overwhelming suppressive fire. The assault element cannot exit their covered approach to assault the penetration point until enemy weapons have been destroyed, obscured or effectively suppressed. This is the critical task. Effective suppression is a pre-requisite for the assault, and in turn, the entire attack. .....
     
            One of the strengths of mechanized infantry is that in addition to mobility, the unit carries significant organic firepower. The attack by a well-trained mechanized infantry unit should place a small assault element against a vulnerable penetration point, supported by the overwhelming firepower of a vehicle-mounted suppression element.

http://www.2ndbn5thmar.com/CoTTP/Suppression%20McBreen%202001.pdf

Saw that and couldn't help bringing this back to the fore:  Hand-to-hand horror = http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1299447/posts ( My Hyperlink doesn't seem to be working)

Not the best account - other accounts describe 4 Warriors suppressing a line of dug in jihadis while Corporal Byles and one other soldier assaulted across open ground to take the trench line in the flank and then rolled up the line hand to hand.

4x 30mm + 4-8x 7.62mm suppressing with 2 bayonets assaulting.

 

[vonGarvin]

4x 30mm + 4-8x 7.62mm suppressing with 2 bayonets assaulting.

Makes sense to me.  If all the enemy are doing is shitting their collective pants, you can send in the proverbial "Angry boyscout with a sling shot"

 

[Kirkhill]

Wouldja baleeve...... ;D

 

[a_majoor]

We seem to be running around in circles here (the new section manouevre?)

WRT using small sub and sub sub units to flank or otherwise attack by manouevre rather than assault. go back to this post: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/18270/post-111544.html#msg111544.

 

[GnyHwy]

I realize I'm coming in late with this and I'm sure you guys will set me straight.  I only sped read the 25 pages of posts.  I did not see any mention of the 40mm AGL, be it MK19(US), MK47(US), Vektor Y3 AGL(SA). 
,
believe if suppression, high rate of fire, quick response and relative accuracy is whats needed any one of those provides te answer.  1/Plt. 4/Coy with the potential of a Coy heavy weapons det if necessary.

The MK19 is basic but tried and true.  The MK47 is an updated version with airburst capability and the Vektor brings an indirect capability.  I see the indirect being viable because with my experience there are occasions where the Zulu vehicles were essentially useless in a harbour for a number of reasons.

With an indirect or semi-indirect capability reminiscant of old indirect .50 cal drills they would be a suppresion asset immedialtely at the Coy Cmdr or Plt Cmdr fingertips.

 

[daftandbarmy]

I realize I'm coming in late with this and I'm sure you guys will set me straight.  I only sped read the 25 pages of posts.  I did not see any mention of the 40mm AGL, be it MK19(US), MK47(US), Vektor Y3 AGL(SA). 
,
believe if suppression, high rate of fire, quick response and relative accuracy is whats needed any one of those provides te answer.  1/Plt. 4/Coy with the potential of a Coy heavy weapons det if necessary.

The MK19 is basic but tried and true.  The MK47 is an updated version with airburst capability and the Vektor brings an indirect capability.  I see the indirect being viable because with my experience there are occasions where the Zulu vehicles were essentially useless in a harbour for a number of reasons.

With an indirect or semi-indirect capability reminiscant of old indirect .50 cal drills they would be a suppresion asset immedialtely at the Coy Cmdr or Plt Cmdr fingertips.

That will never work. Gagetown DS would never let you use it on an assessed sect/pl attack because it probably doesn't have blanks, and you can't hand carry it on the fight through.  ;D

 

[GnyHwy]

LOL. I am becoming Gagetown DS (Arty).  Don't step on me yet.  Yes any AGL is capable of being hand carried and your probably right about the blanks. 

My business is suppression and helping you guys win your fights. 

What you have now is M203 (short range and slow rate of fire).  60mm (higher rate of fire but short range 800m without bipod and a really bad accuracy).  Any of the AGLs that I mentioned bring 2000m and a helluva lot more more rate of fire than the M203 and a lot more accuracy than the 60mm. 

 

[Journeyman]

What you have now is M203...

Well, each battalion had a whole platoon's worth of indirect fire too, but someone (raised wearing your capbadge), felt a need to find employment for gunners, so.......    :deadhorse:

 

[GnyHwy]

Cmon now,

I doubt it was my Cmdr that made that decision seems how MY Cmdrs don't do go much above Col.  The Infantry should keep the 81s.  I'm just trying to provide some experienced advice (my job) that best assist you for a immediate reaction, direct and/or higher trajectory weapon. 

If you want to talk about even higher weapons with higher ROE than I am willing.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Cmon now,

I doubt it was my Cmdr that made that decision seems how MY Cmdrs don't do go much above Col.  The Infantry should keep the 81s.  I'm just trying to provide some experienced advice (my job) that best assist you for a immediate reaction, direct and/or higher trajectory weapon. 

If you want to talk about even higher weapons with higher ROE than I am willing.

Damn you customer service focused people; don't ruin our illusions about non-infantry types! We'll have nothing to bitch about at happy hour at this rate 

 

[GnyHwy]

I am willing to help.  You just have to look beyond your sights.

 

[vonGarvin]

What you have now is M203 (short range and slow rate of fire).  60mm (higher rate of fire but short range 800m without bipod and a really bad accuracy).  Any of the AGLs that I mentioned bring 2000m and a helluva lot more more rate of fire than the M203 and a lot more accuracy than the 60mm.

You're comparing apples and hub caps here.  If you wish the AGL to bring 2000m and that ROF of which you speak, bring a really big logistical trail, and not to mention Jesse The Body Ventura to lug that bad boy around. 
Listen very carefully:
"We Infantry Don't Want the AGL/CASW at the expense of the 60mm.  We want a new 60, COTS."  That's experience talking there.

 

[daftandbarmy]

You're comparing apples and hub caps here.  If you wish the AGL to bring 2000m and that ROF of which you speak, bring a really big logistical trail, and not to mention Jesse The Body Ventura to lug that bad boy around. 
Listen very carefully:
"We Infantry Don't Want the AGL/CASW at the expense of the 60mm.  We want a new 60, COTS."  That's experience talking there.

Agreed! :camo:

And I refer this discussion to the comprehensive CASW thread http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/28805.0

 

[SeanNewman]

"We Infantry Don't Want the AGL/CASW at the expense of the 60mm.  We want a new 60, COTS."  That's experience talking there.

Normally we see eye to eye my friend, but I have to admit that as much as I used to worship the 60mm, I am a CASW convert after recent experiences...both in practical seeing 42 Cdo use theirs and our recent foray.

Old-timer 60mm fans might as well just be old-timer bow and arrow fans.  Yes longbows were better than muskets, but the writing was on the wall and very shortly there will be no going back.

I'll start with the counter-point to my argument, which is that there are a couple things that the 60mm can do better, like have a bigger boom or potentially puncture some ground cover that a CASW can not.

But ask yourself this...if you are fighting against a defended position, don't you think that air power would hit it first?  No you can't 100% count on the airforce and the Infantry likes to do things for itself, but even still...even if the air force doesn't show up I'll give you that one small check in the 60mm's "Pro" box.

However, compare that to all of its cons compared to the CASW:  Takes almost infinitely longer to get rounds on target than the CASW.  Deploy the weapon + load + time in the air = say 1 minute (if your first round is a hit).  If it's not a hit, then you have guys scattering and have fun hitting a running target even with a Coy's worth of 60s.  Compare that to the few seconds of flight time for 40mm rounds, being lobbed at auto.

Not only are you far more likely to hit something with the first shot, even if it's an area target you can blanket the area and then it's extremely easy to change your point of aim to get rounds on escaping targets.

Also, the huge "Pro" for the CASW is being so pin-point accurate, even at ranges of kilometers.  If a known insurgent stops his Hi-Lux for 5 seconds to talk to a buddy 1,500m away, a CASW will be destroying that truck and nothing else around it.  Good luck quick-deploying a mortar for that kind of sniper shot and not hitting anything else in the vicinity.  Even if you manage to bullseye the round, the truck would be gone for 30 seconds by time of impact.  Heck, the CASW could even track and hit the truck moving with simple ambush leading fire methods.

I'm not saying the CASW is better than the 60mm at everything, I'm saying that it would beat it at 8/10 of my most important things, and for those other 2/10 things I could take the risk of the airforce not playing that day because of how much better the CASW is at doing the other 8 things.

Assuming I could only take one, I'll take the CASW and never look back, even if I had to give up the Comd's tent for space to put it on the toboggan.

 

[vonGarvin]

I'll disagree 100%, simply because I cannot disagree more.  The CASW is junk.  Yes, if it works, it can lob those shells in; however, the 60 is much more accurate than you know.  Also, the CASW is more akin to a .50 than a high-angle weapon system (eg: mortars). 
The main thing is this: logistics.  Who is going to carry around the ammo and the system?  Where will it go?  Now, an AGL mounted on a vehicle, that's fine; however, you cannot replace a mortar with a machine gun any more than you can replace a tire with a gas tank.

So, to keep this on topic, let us consider a company attack on a defended locality, with no external support.  For fun.  The 60 is, as I stated, much more versatile in hitting things out well beyond 2 km, things that you don't have to see to hit.  And this means that "they" cannot hit back at teh 60s.  Yes, I hear that the CASW is able to do so as well; however, the lower mass of the rounds means that they are more vulnerable to atmospheric effects than the 60mm rounds=less dispersion ("PE") on the target area for the 60.  But I revert back to "who carries what?"  The 60 can be broken down, and the rounds as well. 
Now, if a vehicle shows up with a 40mm AGL on it, and it joins in, it can supplement the fires of the machine guns quite well.  The dismounted atrocity that DLR wishes to thrust upon us?  No thanks.


And as for "modernised weapons", we can bin the current in-use 60 and upgrade to any of the variants out there.  Hell, we'd probably get more range. 

 

[SeanNewman]

... let us consider a company attack on a defended locality, with no external support. ...

I already covered that, and it's a damn-near impossible hypothetical.  You have seen this yourself, how often do we do deliberate ops with real lives in danger without 10 layers of coverage in the air to bomb anything that moves? 

The image of a company doing an isolated attack on a static platoon dug-in position the open is so old-school in thinking that it is almost cute because of how silly it is.  It's okay, I understand, you were sold on the mortar when you were in Germany fighting last century's war.

You using that example of why we still need the mortar like saying we need X new machine gun in case tens of thousands of Zulu Warriors advance on us in extended line.

In fact, I even granted you that one specific example in my devil's advocate point.  Then I stated that even granting that last-century warfare example presents itself, for the other 8/10 things that a CASW is better I'll take it with me.

And logistics?  Yes it may take two (I'll even grant you 3) men to carry a CASW with the FCS, the ammo is completely reversed.  For the few mortar bombs that you can carry, I can have dozens. 

When our two units have a meeting engagement in the open, we'll see how many mortarmen you still have left to fire any rounds at all after your position is blanketed with 20,000 rounds of 40mm HE

As I said, the biggest CASW advantage is the time it takes to get rounds on target, and we're honesty talking 5-10 seconds vs a minute. 

 

[vonGarvin]

As I said, the biggest CASW advantage is the time it takes to get rounds on target, and we're honesty talking 5-10 seconds vs a minute.

That is its only advantage.  Now, FWIW, "Cold War" is not a dirty word, and the straw man of a company with no external enablers is just that: to see what a company can bring to the table.  By your logic, we should stick to rifles for self-defence and just carry radios and bomb the shit out of everything.  You look to Afghanistan where we are the Rich Dude on the block, with stacks and stacks of "stuff".  That's nice, but it's the guerre du jour, not war.

Enough of trying to say "either/or" for CASW/Mortar.  Your relative inexperience is showing here, and this isn't a slight against you or anyone for that matter.  Talk to the dudes who were in our BG who used the mortar as it was intended to be used, not as a hand-held bomb launcher.  They wouldn't have traded it for anything.  And remember, to avoid your waves of CASW, I'll just hide behind a wall and log bomb after bomb at your opposing forces (in between doughnuts, naturally: after all, that's what mortarmen do).