Author Topic: The Role of Infantry (and other Combat Arms)  (Read 47865 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline NFLD Sapper

  • Mentor
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 283,211
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,050
  • CFSME STAFF
Re: The Role of Infantry (and other Combat Arms)
« Reply #25 on: January 11, 2008, 20:46:01 »
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
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.
CHIMO!
First in, Last out
Sappers Lead the Way

Just tell your wife she owes your life to some Muddy Old Engineer,
Some dusty, crusty, croaking, joking Muddy Old Engineer

Offline MCG

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 207,760
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,756
Re: The Role of Infantry (and other Combat Arms)
« Reply #26 on: January 11, 2008, 20:52:50 »
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.

Offline NFLD Sapper

  • Mentor
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 283,211
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,050
  • CFSME STAFF
Re: The Role of Infantry (and other Combat Arms)
« Reply #27 on: January 11, 2008, 20:58:35 »
Ok.

:cheers:

CHIMO!
CHIMO!
First in, Last out
Sappers Lead the Way

Just tell your wife she owes your life to some Muddy Old Engineer,
Some dusty, crusty, croaking, joking Muddy Old Engineer

Offline MCG

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 207,760
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,756
Re: The Role of Infantry (and other Combat Arms)
« Reply #28 on: January 11, 2008, 23:35:56 »
Canadian Army Publication.  Director of Military Training.  10M-10-48(1629) Military Science Part I and Part II.  From the year 1948

Offline Target Up

    ........pull, patch, and score.

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 222,320
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,819
  • that's how we roll in redneck land
Re: The Role of Infantry (and other Combat Arms)
« Reply #29 on: January 12, 2008, 00:18:18 »
" Go over there and kill that guy who wants to kill you first"  works for me.
Apparently, a "USUAL SUSPECT"

“In peace there's nothing so becomes a man as modest stillness and humility; but when the blast of war blows in our ears, then imitate the action of the tiger; stiffen the sinews, summon up the blood, disguise fair nature with hard-favor'd rage.”

 Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and start slitting throats

Offline MCG

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 207,760
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,756
Re: The Role of Infantry (and other Combat Arms)
« Reply #30 on: January 13, 2008, 18:46:49 »
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?


Offline Technoviking

    DANCE TO THE TECHNOVIKING.

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 186,736
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,029
  • OBEY!
Re: The Role of Infantry (and other Combat Arms)
« Reply #31 on: January 13, 2008, 19:43:27 »
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?
So, there I was....

Offline George Wallace

  • Army.ca Fossil
  • *****
  • 436,310
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 31,592
  • Crewman
Re: The Role of Infantry (and other Combat Arms)
« Reply #32 on: January 13, 2008, 19:47:56 »
Quote
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.
DISCLAIMER: The opinions and arguments of George Wallace posted on this Site are solely those of George Wallace and not the opinion of Army.ca and are posted for information purposes only.
Unless so stated, they are reflective of my opinion -- and my opinion only, a right that I enjoy along with every other Canadian citizen.

Offline Technoviking

    DANCE TO THE TECHNOVIKING.

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 186,736
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,029
  • OBEY!
Re: The Role of Infantry (and other Combat Arms)
« Reply #33 on: January 13, 2008, 19:50:14 »
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?

 
So, there I was....

Offline tomahawk6

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 105,205
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,563
Re: The Role of Infantry (and other Combat Arms)
« Reply #34 on: January 13, 2008, 19:55:59 »
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. :)

Offline George Wallace

  • Army.ca Fossil
  • *****
  • 436,310
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 31,592
  • Crewman
Re: The Role of Infantry (and other Combat Arms)
« Reply #35 on: January 13, 2008, 19:57:33 »
To close with and destroy the enemy through superior technology. :)

Wouldn't that be Div or Corps?     ;D    ................or more likely Army?     ;D
DISCLAIMER: The opinions and arguments of George Wallace posted on this Site are solely those of George Wallace and not the opinion of Army.ca and are posted for information purposes only.
Unless so stated, they are reflective of my opinion -- and my opinion only, a right that I enjoy along with every other Canadian citizen.

Offline MCG

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 207,760
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,756
Re: The Role of Infantry (and other Combat Arms)
« Reply #36 on: January 13, 2008, 20:01:52 »
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. 


Offline George Wallace

  • Army.ca Fossil
  • *****
  • 436,310
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 31,592
  • Crewman
Re: The Role of Infantry (and other Combat Arms)
« Reply #37 on: January 13, 2008, 20:04:57 »
"Neutralize!"  The Artillery neutralize.
DISCLAIMER: The opinions and arguments of George Wallace posted on this Site are solely those of George Wallace and not the opinion of Army.ca and are posted for information purposes only.
Unless so stated, they are reflective of my opinion -- and my opinion only, a right that I enjoy along with every other Canadian citizen.

Offline MCG

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 207,760
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,756
Re: The Role of Infantry (and other Combat Arms)
« Reply #38 on: January 13, 2008, 20:13:45 »
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. 

Offline daftandbarmy

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 235,850
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,420
  • The Older I Get, The Better I Was
Re: The Role of Infantry (and other Combat Arms)
« Reply #39 on: January 13, 2008, 20:30:22 »
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.
"The most important qualification of a soldier is fortitude under fatigue and privation. Courage is only second; hardship, poverty and want are the best school for a soldier." Napoleon

Offline Old Sweat

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 217,805
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,795
Re: The Role of Infantry (and other Combat Arms)
« Reply #40 on: January 13, 2008, 21:36:38 »
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.

Offline geo

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 26,410
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,648
Re: The Role of Infantry (and other Combat Arms)
« Reply #41 on: January 14, 2008, 09:09:17 »
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....
Chimo!

Offline Technoviking

    DANCE TO THE TECHNOVIKING.

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 186,736
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,029
  • OBEY!
Re: The Role of Infantry (and other Combat Arms)
« Reply #42 on: January 14, 2008, 09:15:29 »
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?

So, there I was....

Offline Infanteer

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 169,715
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 15,196
  • Honey Badger FTW!
Re: The Role of Infantry (and other Combat Arms)
« Reply #43 on: January 14, 2008, 13:20:44 »
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.
« Last Edit: January 14, 2008, 13:24:02 by Infanteer »
"Overall it appears that much of the apparent complexity of modern war stems in practice from the self-imposed complexity of modern HQs" LCol J.P. Storr

Offline MCG

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 207,760
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,756
Re: The Role of Infantry (and other Combat Arms)
« Reply #44 on: January 14, 2008, 14:23:19 »
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.

Offline daftandbarmy

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 235,850
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,420
  • The Older I Get, The Better I Was
Re: The Role of Infantry (and other Combat Arms)
« Reply #45 on: January 14, 2008, 14:35:19 »
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.
"The most important qualification of a soldier is fortitude under fatigue and privation. Courage is only second; hardship, poverty and want are the best school for a soldier." Napoleon

Offline Infanteer

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 169,715
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 15,196
  • Honey Badger FTW!
Re: The Role of Infantry (and other Combat Arms)
« Reply #46 on: January 14, 2008, 15:03:48 »
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".
"Overall it appears that much of the apparent complexity of modern war stems in practice from the self-imposed complexity of modern HQs" LCol J.P. Storr