# The Role of Infantry (and other Combat Arms)



## SirTwonish

I am a new recruit in PRes and while we were running in formation our M cpl was asking us questions as we went along. Length weight of a C7 etc... He also asked us what is the role of the infantry? It goes something like this: To close with and defeat the enemy day or night regardless of weather or terrain something something something. I have just started and I was wondering what the role of the infantry is word for word, I don't want to feel retarded next time he asks! Thanks!


----------



## KevinB

The role of the infantry is to close with and destroy the enemy, by day or by night, in all weather conditions, and terrain.


----------



## Haggis

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> The role of the infantry is to close with and destroy the enemy, by day or by night, in all weather conditions, and terrain.



+1 to the Infidel!... with particular emphasis on "*destroy*"


----------



## vonGarvin

Here I go, raining on a parade again:
*The role of Infantry* 
To close with and destroy the enemy.


Just in case it comes up
*The role of armour* 
To defeat the enemy through the aggressive use of firepower and battlefield mobility.


----------



## Future Pensioner

How about this version:

To close with and destroy the enemy.  To kill or capture him.  To seize and hold ground by day or by night regardless of season weather or terrain.

DUCIMUS


----------



## vonGarvin

Future Pensioner said:
			
		

> How about this version:
> 
> To close with and destroy the enemy.  To kill or capture him.  To seize and hold ground by day or by night regardless of season weather or terrain.
> 
> DUCIMUS



How about "no".
"My" source is B-GL-392-001/FP-001 "The Infantry Battalion in Battle", Volume 1, Chapter 1, Section 2 "Role and Tasks", and I quote:



> ROLE
> 
> 6.     The role of the infantry is to close with and destroy the enemy.
> 
> 7.     Well armed individuals with fighting spirit and dogged determination constitute the backbone of the infantry battalion.  All the rest - vehicles, stores and equipment - merely exist to assist the infantry soldier to carry out the mission.  It is by determination and the skillful use of weapons and ground that the battalion succeeds in battle.
> 
> TASKS
> 
> 8.     The infantry battalion may be assigned the following tasks:
> a.  to destroy the enemy in close combat;
> b.  to defend a position by the holding of ground;
> c.  to fight as covering force troops;
> d.  to act as all or part of a reserve to counter-attack or block;
> e.  to participate in airmobile, airborne or amphibious operations;
> f.  to establish surveillance and conduct patrols;
> g. to conduct security tasks, including rear area security; and
> h. to exploit the effects of NBC weapons.




NB: Edited for spelling


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Mortarman Rockpainter said:
			
		

> Just in case it comes up
> *The role of armour*
> To defeat the enemy through the aggressive use of firepower and battlefield mobility.



aka 'Speed & Violence'


----------



## Nfld Sapper

Or how about that of the Engineers 

The Primary Role. To assist friendly troops to fight, move and live, and to denying the same ability to the enemy; and

The Secondary Role. To fight as infantry.

Ref: B-GL-361-001/FP-001 LAND FORCE ENGINEER OPERATIONS – VOLUME 1 (ENGLISH) Ch. 1. Section 1 Role

 ;D


----------



## Future Pensioner

Mortarman Rockpainter said:
			
		

> How about "no".
> "My" source is B-GL-392-001/FP-001 "The Infantry Battalion in Battle", Volume 1, Chapter 1, Section 2 "Role and Tasks", and I quote:
> 
> 
> NB: Edited for spelling



I stand corrected.  Thank you.


----------



## dapaterson

But never forget the foreword to B-GL-372-005/FP-001, paragraph 4:








> Unless otherwise noted, masculine pronouns contained herein refer to both genders.





... this non-sequitur brought to you by CH3CH2OH...


----------



## Infanteer

> How about "no".
> "My" source is B-GL-392-001/FP-001 "The Infantry Battalion in Battle", Volume 1, Chapter 1, Section 2 "Role and Tasks", and I quote:



And if you would have wrote that on the TKT at the Infantry School it would have been marked wrong by Standards (I know because I remember bringing this up).  Yet another sign that we don't even know our own doctrine!

Since we're discussing the role of the infantry, here is a reading assignment for everyone:

http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/caj/documents/vol_09/iss_1/CAJ_vol9.1_09_e.pdf


----------



## vonGarvin

Infanteer said:
			
		

> And if you would have wrote that on the TKT at the Infantry School it would have been marked wrong by Standards (I know because I remember bringing this up).  Yet another sign that we don't even know our own doctrine!


I remember also bringing that up to the former SME for DP 1.1.  Being Australian, he always used that definition that included "to kill or capture him, etc".


That really fried my cheese!


----------



## vonGarvin

*To engage with the population and destroy the enemy at close quarters.*

That is the role envisioned by the author for the infantry.  I would disagree.  I believe that the role of the infantry should remain as it is: to close with and destroy the enemy.  Remember, "destroy" traditionally implies that the enemy must not be capable of conducting operations without being reconstituted.  That works well in a conventional, peer enemy force situation.  In the COE, however, "destroy" has a new meaning, I believe.  So, instead of only destroying through firepower, I would posit that the infantry can destroy the enemy through engaging the population, undermining the enemy and instilling confidence in your force.  These are necessary (IMHO) for winning in COIN.

Perhaps some of the tasks that can be assigned to the infantry also include "engage the population?"  Still, for me, I don't think defitions need changing.  WHAT we do may need changing, or even how we do it, but the role of the infantry, the first principle, in my professional opinion, should remain "to close with and destroy the enemy."

Thoughts?


(It is a good article: I recommend that everyone read the article on the link posted by Infanteer)


----------



## The Bread Guy

Haven't read the article yet, but based on the explanation above, how about

"To close with and destroy the enemy, through direct or indirect fires, or by neutralizing the enemy's popular support"


----------



## vonGarvin

milnewstbay said:
			
		

> Haven't read the article yet, but based on the explanation above, how about
> 
> "To close with and destroy the enemy, through direct or indirect fires, or by neutralizing the enemy's popular support"


I've always liked the simplicity of "to close with and destroy the enemy" says _what_ we do, as "through direct or indirect fires, or by neutralising the enemy's popular support" would tell us _how_ to do it.  In mission command, "how" is left to the commander.  Also, it's easier to learn and memorise for tests ;D


----------



## Kirkhill

> ...Now, that infantryman must also have certain attributes of a “beat cop.”


  LCol Eyre's closing line.



> To engage with the population and destroy the enemy at close quarters.
> 
> That is the role envisioned by the author for the infantry.  I would disagree.  I believe that the role of the infantry should remain as it is: to close with and destroy the enemy.


 The guy with the can of whitewash.

The second position makes everything easier.  There is a training focus.  There is moral clarity.

But, I most humbly suggest, that is not what a government can supply.  

I have argued that the soldier is first and foremost an agent of the Crown (or the sovereign people for those silly types that require democracy in all things).  The Crown needs to control its spaces and places.  Places are where the people are.  Spaces are where people might be.

People don't easily self-identify as targets and non-targets.  Only members of the military tribe seem to have that propensity.

The Government requires people to act as its agents to engage other people.  By choosing to act as agents then the types involved also self-identify as targets - might as well give them uniforms.

The ongoing question of the difference between the Policeman and the Soldier is ultimately a non-question. Both of them are agents of the Crown whose role is to enforce the Crown's wishes.  Fortunately, in Canada, the Crown wishes a peaceful, secure environment..  The Policeman expects to come home most nights after a day on the job.  But he works every day.  The Soldier doesn't work everyday (ducking now).  He trains every day and gets paid for that but he really only works occasionally.  Most importantly, when he does work, he doesn't have the same expectation of coming home that the Copper does.

That difference in expectations is not a function of the role of the Agent so much as it is a function of the environment to which they are assigned.  Soldiers are assigned to target rich environments. Policemen are assigned to target poor environments.  Unfortunately the scale of poor to rich is a sliding scale and sometimes the targets have to be sifted.  And this brings us back to Dragoons raised as mobile infantry to police the spaces.  And to Gendarmerie, and Carabinieri and Marechausse and Mounties and British South African Constabulary.....

It is no accident that the Cold War infantry was an endangered species.  The Cold War was predicated on people in uniforms operating in target rich environments with moral clarity of purpose.  The targets self identified.  The Shock Forces (Cavalry and Artillery - tanks to nukes and everything in between) didn't have to worry about finding something to fight with).

Now that that period of silliness is behind us we are back to where we started.  The Government needs to find people to sift out the wolves from the sheep and to identify the target rich space from the target poor spaces so that they can appropriately assign personnel: police to target poor zones, soldiers (or should it be Shock Forces) to target rich spaces.

The Continentals, accepting of a Standing Army and no concept of Minimum Force, have no trouble maintaining a separate domestic army of gendarmes to control the spaces.  Their police control the places and their armies control their borders and beyond.

Us Anglo types (and our Huguenot friends) rebelled very precisely and exactly against that very type of standing domestic army, whether it be Jimmy the Sixth and First's paid reivers on the borders, Charles II's Highland Host and Dragoons in Ayrshire, Louis XIV's Dragons in the Vendee and the Palatinate, or George II's Black Watch. Consequently the Brits have had to maintain an infantry heavy army to supply the Crown with the capabilities that Louis's Dragoos supplied him.

The Crown needs bodies to operate in the Grey Zone that is neither target rich nor target poor.  They need Policemen that can take Shock Action when the situation warrants rather than waiting for someone else to handle it.  At the same time they need Shock Forces that will find their own targets and not piss off the population in the process.

Apparently our Cold War raised Army doesn't want the job.  Unfortunately the prognosis for Shock Forces is not that great in the absence of self-identified targets.  Given such a shortage the Shock Forces are not likely to get much usage and end up going the way of the Guild of Wagon Wheel Spoke Makers.


----------



## Kirkhill

Of course there might be another option.

Remove CIMIC from the CF (I think I hear Edward nodding) and have it created as a separate SMALL corps of agents of the Crown with specializaition in the Grey Zone and exposure to both Policing and Shock Action in their training and selection.  Then assign Shock Forces and Police as the situation demands.

Of course that would require subordinating the Military to the Civilian District CIMIC Officer.

It would leave the Military free to concentrate on Shock Action.

Of course it would also require a CIMIC agent with every deployed package.  So if the smallest deployable package were the Company/Combat Team we would only need 50 or so CIMIC Officers (and their staff).  If, on the other hand we were deploying Fire Teams to villages then each Fire Team would need a separate CIMIC Officer to call their shots.  

2 Tms/Sect
6 Tms/Pl
18 Tms/Coy
54 Tms/Bn
162 Tms/Bde
486 Tms/Cdn Army requiring the creation of 486 CIMIC Agents and Staffs to supervise their activities and utilize their capabilities

That is only converting the Infantry
The Cavalry and Artillery (complete with Panzer Grenadiers) would remain as Shock Forces dedicated to destroying targets.

Engineers find themselves swinging both ways.

Service Support likewise.


----------



## Kirkhill

But that brings us to the concept of an Officer being a Commissioned agent of the Crown and being assigned a competent Corporal's Guard by the local Centurion/RSM.


----------



## McG

Mortarman Rockpainter said:
			
		

> Here I go, raining on a parade again:
> *The role of Infantry*
> To close with and destroy the enemy.
> 
> Just in case it comes up
> *The role of armour*
> To defeat the enemy through the aggressive use of firepower and battlefield mobility.


Here's a fun quiz.  Who can name the role of armour prior to it becoming what is posted here?


----------



## George Wallace

To defeat the enemy throught the aggressive use of firepower and shock action.


----------



## McG

George Wallace said:
			
		

> To defeat the enemy throught the aggressive use of firepower and shock action.


Maybe, but lets go earlier to something that does not even resemble that phrase.


----------



## George Wallace

You thinking of the motto?

Through the mud and the blood to the green fields beyond.  (General Worthington)


----------



## McG

No.  I've got something else & a reference to back me up.


----------



## McG

In the spirit of official references, here is what we get from B-GL-301-002/FP-001 THE BATTLE GROUP IN OPERATIONS, Change 2, 1992-02-03

ARTILLERY
FIELD ARTILLERY - Role. Field artillery contributes to the defeat of the enemy by indirect fire
AIR DEFENCE ARTILLERY - Role. Air defence artillery prevents enemy aircraft from interfering with land operations.

ARMOUR
TANKS - Role. The tank defeats the enemy by the aggressive use of firepower and battlefield mobility.
ARMOURED RECONNAISSANCE - Role. Armoured reconnaissance obtains and relays timely information about the enemy and the ground, and contributes to battlefield security.
TANK DESTROYERS - Role. Tank destroyers (TDs) destroy enemy armour.

INFANTRY
INFANTRY - Role. Infantry closes with and destroys the enemy.
LONG RANGE ANTI-ARMOUR WEAPONS - Role. The long range anti-armour weapon (LRAAW) destroys enemy armour.

ENGINEERS
ENGINEERS - Role. Engineers assist the land force to live, move and fight on the battlefield and work to deny the same to the enemy. Engineers may also be employed as infantry when required.

and as found in B-GL-371-003/FP-001 Field Artillery Operational Procedures, 27 Aug 2000 and in B-GL-371-000/FP-001 Field Artillery Doctrine, 22 Jun 1999:
The role of the field artillery is to assist in the defeat of the enemy with indirect fire as part of the all-arms battle.


.... but I'm still waiting to see if anyone can dig out a really old definition of the role of Armoured.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Slightly off topic, but a good one for a new infantryman to have handy as required:

THE INFANTRYMAN  

" Let us be clear about three facts. First of all, all battles and all wars are won in the end by the infantryman. Secondly, the infantryman always bears the brunt. His casualties are heavier, he suffers greater extremes of discomfort and fatigue than the other arms. Thirdly, the art of the infantryman is less stereotyped and far harder to acquire than that of any other arm."

Field Marshall Lord Wavell


----------



## Nfld Sapper

MCG said:
			
		

> In the spirit of official references, here is what we get from B-GL-301-002/FP-001 THE BATTLE GROUP IN OPERATIONS, Change 2, 1992-02-03
> ENGINEERS
> ENGINEERS - Role. Engineers assist the land force to live, move and fight on the battlefield and work to deny the same to the enemy. Engineers may also be employed as infantry when required.



Hey MCG notice how this slightly differs than the original one from 


			
				NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> Or how about that of the Engineers
> 
> The Primary Role. To assist friendly troops to fight, move and live, and to denying the same ability to the enemy; and
> 
> The Secondary Role. To fight as infantry.
> 
> Ref: B-GL-361-001/FP-001 LAND FORCE ENGINEER OPERATIONS – VOLUME 1 (ENGLISH) Ch. 1. Section 1 Role
> 
> ;D



And that ref is dated 1998-04-17.


----------



## McG

I did notice.  Same with the role of Field Artillery.  Things change & the books are not being kept up to date with even the official changes.


----------



## Nfld Sapper

Ok.

:cheers:

CHIMO!


----------



## McG

Canadian Army Publication.  Director of Military Training.  10M-10-48(1629) Military Science Part I and Part II.  From the year 1948


----------



## Kat Stevens

" Go over there and kill that guy who wants to kill you first"  works for me.


----------



## McG

Mortarman Rockpainter said:
			
		

> I've always liked the simplicity of "to close with and destroy the enemy" says _what_ we do, as "through direct or indirect fires, or by neutralising the enemy's popular support" would tell us _how_ to do it.  In mission command, "how" is left to the commander.


I like this thinking that role should be what and not how.  Odd that the current role of the Armd is at least 50% how: by the aggressive use of firepower and battlefield mobility.

Is it odd that we have formalized the role of each arm, but that we have not done this for the more typical all arms grouping?  Having read several ALCC and other less formal summaries, it seems one of the typical theme's is the importance of all arms groupings.  One paper in particular, by a Maj T. Cadieu, brings out the point that it takes all arms to close with & destroy.  Could it be that we had things more right in 1948 & that the role of both manouvre arms should be to close with & destroy?


----------



## vonGarvin

MCG said:
			
		

> I like this thinking that role should be what and not how.  Odd that the current role of the Armd is at least 50% how: by the aggressive use of firepower and battlefield mobility.
> Is it odd that we have formalized the role of each arm, but that we have not done this for the more typical all arms grouping?  Having read several ALCC and other less formal summaries, it seems one of the typical theme's is the importance of all arms groupings.  One paper in particular, by a Maj T. Cadieu, brings out the point that it takes all arms to close with & destroy.  Could it be that we had things more right in 1948 & that the role of both manouvre arms should be to close with & destroy?


As an attempt to perhaps clarify the first principles, perhaps the roles of the various combat, combat support and combat support arms could remain as they are; however, maybe roles of the combat team, the battle group and the brigade group need defining?
As a meagre first stab at it, would the role of the combat team (the form of which needs no defining as each combat team is formed according to need and available sub sub units) be something like:
Close with and destroy the enemy through the use of combined arms
The battle group and brigade group, I'm not sure where to go with these.  Anyone?


----------



## George Wallace

> The battle group and brigade group, I'm not sure where to go with these.  Anyone?



To close with and destroy the enemy through the use of manoeuvre.

To close with and destroy the enemy through superior firepower.


----------



## vonGarvin

Refining combat team:
to close with and destroy through the integrated manoeuvre of combined arms

(manoeuvre: the use of manoeuvre and fire power or fire potential)
I think that "to close with and destroy" is first principle for all levels, no?
the how it is done is certainly a bit different at all levels, no?


----------



## tomahawk6

George Wallace said:
			
		

> To close with and destroy the enemy through the use of manoeuvre.
> 
> To close with and destroy the enemy through superior firepower.



To close with and destroy the enemy through superior technology.


----------



## George Wallace

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> To close with and destroy the enemy through superior technology.



Wouldn't that be Div or Corps?     ;D    ................or more likely Army?     ;D


----------



## McG

Does the "how" need to be stated within the role.  Can it not be "to close with and destroy_*.*_" for both manoeuvre arms & for combat teams to brigade groups?  For the artillery it would be something along the lines of to stand-off and destroy the enemy or to destroy the enemy from afar.


----------



## George Wallace

"Neutralize!"  The Artillery neutralize.


----------



## McG

Currently they say "defeat" but the three functions of firepower are destroy, neutralize or suppress.  Given greater precision of modern fire control systems & munitions, we should be aiming for more destroying the enemy.


----------



## daftandbarmy

At the end of the day it is the individual fighting soldier who carries the battle to the enemy. Sir Andrew Agnew commanding Campbell’s Regiment (Royal Scots Fusiliers), giving orders to his infantrymen before the Battle of Dettingen in 1743 shouted; "Do you see yon loons on yon grey hill? Well, if ye dinna kill them, they’ll kill you!" http://www.armedforces.co.uk/army/listings/l0027.html


I find it interesting that at least two countries that I know of (there may be more) - the US and Australia - have created a badge to recognize the special role of infantry i.e. sticking bayonets into people while working under the most miserable of conditions. It would seem that these two countries have formally recognized the concepts of 'close combat' with the aim of 'destroying', people mostly, within the terms of reference for this award. This gets away from the more fancy schmancy types of roles that include 'manoeuvre' and redcuing the enemy's will to resist. These two awards recognize that, in the end, the infantry is all about kill or be killed - at arms length is neccessary. Not very pretty, but then again, based on my expereince, nor are the best infantry soldiers!


Infantry Combat Badge - Australia
http://www.defence.gov.au/army/RAINF/ICB/infantry_combat_badge.htm
5.    What is the history behind the ICB?  Why are only infantrymen eligible to wear it?

The ICB was first established in July 1970 for recognition of infantry service in battle or on operations, following the decision of the Military Board in January 1970.  The role of the infantry is to seek out and close with the enemy, to kill or capture him, to seize and to hold ground, to repel attack, by night and day, regardless of season, weather or terrain.  The purpose of the ICB is to recognize this unique role and the particular training, skills and hardships attendant upon service as an infantryman.  In exceptional circumstances, the ICB may be awarded to members of other corps, where they have qualified for it as infantrymen.  In January 1970, Lieutenant General Sir Thomas Daly KBE, DSO, as the Chief of the General Staff and part of the Military Board, laid the original basis for the ICB.  He is recorded in the minutes as saying, “whilst he appreciated the views expressed (in the Military Board) it was to be borne in mind that the proposed badge was meant to be a visible distinction for the infantryman and was not a general combat badge.  He said the other corps had their responsibilities and neither their worth nor performance, were in question.  However he could not accept that an infantry award should be granted to members of other corps unless they qualified for it as infantrymen.”



Combat Infantryman Badge

http://www.americal.org/awards/cib.htm

History. 

(1) The Combat Infantryman Badge (CIB) was established by the War Department on 27 October 1943. Lieutenant General Lesley J. McNair, then the Army Ground Forces commanding general, was instrumental in its creation. He originally recommended that it be called the "fighter badge." The CIB was designed to enhance morale and the prestige of the "Queen of Battle." Then Secretary of War Henry Stinson said, "It is high time we recognize in a personal way the skill and heroism of the American infantry." 

(2) Originally, the Regimental Commander was the lowest level at which the CIB could be approved and its award was retroactive to 7 December 1941. There was a separate provision for badge holders to receive a $10 per month pay stipend, which was rescinded in 1948. Several factors led to the creation of the CIB, some of the most prominent factors are as follows: 

(a) The need for large numbers of well-trained infantry to bring about a successful conclusion to the war and the already critical shortage of infantrymen. 

(b) Of all soldiers, it was recognized that the infantryman continuously operated under the worst conditions and performed a mission which was not assigned to any other soldier or unit. 

(c) The infantry, a small portion of the total Armed Forces, was suffering the most casualties while receiving the least public recognition. 

(d) General Marshall's well known affinity for the ground forces soldier and, in particular, the infantryman. All these factors led to the establishment of the CIB, an award which would provide special recognition of the unique role of the Army infantryman, the only soldier whose daily mission is to close with and destroy the enemy and to seize and hold terrain. The badge was intended as an inducement for individuals to join the infantry while serving as a morale booster for infantrymen serving in every theater.


----------



## Old Sweat

The infantryman, and by extension the rest of us, may be given tasks - weasel worded out of recognition or not- but the role remains to close with and destroy the enemy.

I am simple enough to accept these seven non-megasyllabic words as the truth.


----------



## geo

D&B
The close combat badge should be coming to Canada in the near future if the current CDS has anything to do with it.
The ways and means of qualifying for it are being hammered out - to take into consideration those who go outside the wire and close with and destroy the ennemy - without necessarily being Infantry by trade....


----------



## vonGarvin

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> I am simple enough to accept these seven non-megasyllabic words as the truth.


I disagree.  We need more multisyllabic words.


;D

Question: Why does the word "monosyllabic" have so many syllables?


----------



## Infanteer

I like the "Basic Arm" close with and destroy the enemy bit.  It implies the fundamental task of the "combat maneuver arms" - the how is not needed as it is up to the smart commander to figure out (irregardless of his hat colour); he can blow them up, dislocate them, or have an enemy tribe wack them.  Engineers, Arty, Aviation and maybe even Signals are "combat support arms" which help the basic arms dominate the battlespace.

Something needs to be said for the "how" though in terms of where to focus training.  Maybe not in the "role" paragraph, but somewhere else that acts as a doctrinal guide to Battle Task Standards.


----------



## McG

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Something needs to be said for the "how" though in terms of where to focus training.  Maybe not in the "role" paragraph, but somewhere else that acts as a doctrinal guide to Battle Task Standards.


Each arm has a list of tasks, and most arms have an associated list of characteristics (the artillery have fundamentals of employment instead).  These should start to develop the how & provide an initial bridge between role and BTS.


----------



## daftandbarmy

geo said:
			
		

> D&B
> The close combat badge should be coming to Canada in the near future if the current CDS has anything to do with it.
> The ways and means of qualifying for it are being hammered out - to take into consideration those who go outside the wire and close with and destroy the ennemy - without necessarily being Infantry by trade....



Great idea. There have been problems with defining who, and who does not, qualify for similar badges in the past. Given the nature of today's warfare, there is definite blurring between who is most at risk - whether they happen to be inside a wire enclosure or not.


----------



## Infanteer

MCG said:
			
		

> Each arm has a list of tasks, and most arms have an associated list of characteristics (the artillery have fundamentals of employment instead).  These should start to develop the how & provide an initial bridge between role and BTS.



So it's settled then - an ideal "role" does not need to include a "how".


----------

