- Reaction score
Okay. You've accurately described my experiences in the '70s and '80s and I expect they were also true in the '90s.... I don't think there is an issue with "preference" for either one in our doctrine or our training; we need to practice both. It's how we practice them that can be problematic. The standard approach - indeed, the accepted norm - is to slam into the enemy, almost always into an obstacle. I've never seen a "bypass," a "penetrate and exploit," or an "attack from the rear." "Exploitation" in training generally means reorganizing and/or passing the next element through to hit the next enemy square on. For a "manoeuvrist" army, we certainly seem to prefer surfaces over gaps.
That leaves me with several questions:
1. Was it any different in Afghanistan?
2. Why do we train this way?
3. Do we need to do something about that and, if so, what?
The Falklands was a footslogging campaign against a dug in enemy on mostly open, exposed ground. That's generally not conducive to anything but deliberate attacks. From what I understand both sides had some light armoured forces - Scorpions and Scimitars for the Brits, Panhard AML 90s for the Argentines - and, for the Brits, these were helpful and sped things up where the terrain permitted.Subsequent attacks in the Falklands War were also deliberate affairs, although fire support was noticeably improved.