Infantry Tactics

[Kirkhill]

Do you have any idea about what you are talking about?

Do you continue to see things in absolutes?

You are getting a glimpse, from a distance, of one type of warfare. Precision targeting is but one aspect of it. Precision targeting (especially by UAVs) as it is now will degrade as more effective countermeasures are developed and employed. An army properly prepared for war will need to have several options available to it. So far no one has come up with a system that will provide effective area neutralization at a reasonable cost.

No disagreement.

Do we need WW1 scale shell factories? No.

Agreed

Do we need more and better shell factories? Absolutely.

Yes. And we can deliver shells by various means, including but not limited to guns, with cosiderably greater precision in a more timely fashion, so as to not mess up the are more than is necessary. Those can be manufactured faster and more cheaply.

Do we need more and better precision strike systems? Also absolutely.

Good. More agreement.

Collectively, dumb artillery and smart weapons cause in excess of 80% of the casualties on a battlefield. They don't hold ground as has been properly pointed out above, but they sure help degrade the enemy so that those who do seize and hold ground can do their job.

Again. Agreement.

My problem with your arguments is that you always seem to grab on to the next shiny bauble that makes its way into manufacturers' glossy brochures without due consideration for how al the pieces fit together into a cohesive whole that is fit not just for one mission but capable of working across a wide variety of challenges that may come their way. An army needs to be versatile and adaptive. Adaptive does not equate to overeager divestment of proven capabilities.

I make no excuse for presenting the next shiny bauble and asking how it might be employed, what effects it might have, how it might change the balance of Strengths-Weaknesses-Opportunities-Threats.

Those shiny baubles are being presented to the soldier in the field at an astonishing rate currently. Every day is a surprise for the poor buggers in Ukraine, or the Middle East.

People keep throwing new shiny baubles at them until they find stuff that works. And the poor buggers on the receiving end have to figure out how to deal with them.

....

I am not opposed to the "tradtional" weapons of war nor to their organizations.
My position is, as previously stated, that their operating envelopes are being constrained by developments.
They do no bring the same overwhelming advantages to the field that they did in 1945 or even 1985.

Ground vehicles are more easily targeted, must move more cautiously and operate more dispersed. Making it harder to deliver your CQB troops.

Fortunately people can see further in all environments and more reliably hit targets at range. Making it easier to eliminate the CQB troops' opposition.

Things change and stay the same.

One thing that remains the same is the end goal: the need to eliminate the threat.

 

[ArmyRick]

STOP CALLING them CQB troops. CQB is just a skill set of fighting up close, its what the INFANTRY has done since the days of tribes organizing themselves to raid other tribes. The term is infantry. Some may say Infantry on the assault. Or some armies call them assault troops.

Now, CQB can be used by anyone exposed to the enemy. Log troops get ambushed in a convoy and the enemy is assaulting them, then those troops have to use their CQB skills (whatever level its at) to protect themselves.

 

[ueo]

I kind of like the Brits' alignment of the infantry with the Close Quarter Battle and defining the CQB as being under 150m, with lethality under 40m.

That is the human battle.

Everything else beyond that is a supporting activity and it doesn't really matter if the supporter is delivering fires while monitoring a screen 250m away or on the other side of the planet as long as the support is effective and timely.

....



Depends on how one defines arty these days.

UAV delivered off-route mines can make a lot of terrain unavailable. And those obstacles can be "covered by fire" from other UAVs and Loitering Munitions with autonomous seekers.

....

The problem as I see it, is not that there are new things for the world's forces to consider, a lot of the new bright ideas have been around since Hitler's day. The problem is that the cheap stuff is getting smarter and more effective at longer ranges. This increases the constraints on traditional battle winners and reduces their effective operating envelope.

But, as noted, the CQB will continue to demand the human touch, because ultimately war is about people.

Hmmmm bit of sci fi here Still no mention of actually occupying the ground.

 

[Kirkhill]

Singapore has a new battalion structure.

Army unveils Next Generation Infantry Battalion

The Next Generation Infantry Battalion pairs cutting-edge technology with flexible force structures to take infantry fighting to the next level.

defencepioneer.sg

SAF revamps active infantry battalions with drone suite, real-time battle map

Companies will also be reshuffled to create 2 new sections focusing on unmanned systems. Read more at straitstimes.com.

www.straitstimes.com

Company moved from 3 platoons of 3 sections to 5 platoons of 2 sections.
The sections are reduced in size to 6.
The 2 sections are carried in a pair of Terrex 8x8s, each with a crew of 2. The gunner/commander has a turret with a GPMG and a 40mm GMG.
The sections are equipped with ISR and LM UAVs.

The company also has two UxV sections equipped with longer range ISR and LM UxVs

 

[Brad Sallows]

Singapore has a new battalion structure.

Company moved from 3 platoons of 3 sections to 5 platoons of 2 sections.
The sections are reduced in size to 6.

Sounds like a company of 5 sections/squads* when dismounted. That's an observation, not a reasoned negative criticism. (I have no notion what the innovations of the past few years are going to prove out with respect to dispersion and numbers.)

*harking back to the old USMC squads

 

[Kirkhill]

Sounds like a company of 5 sections/squads* when dismounted. That's an observation, not a reasoned negative criticism. (I have no notion what the innovations of the past few years are going to prove out with respect to dispersion and numbers.)

*harking back to the old USMC squads

This line ....

"The change to infantry operations embodies the military saying “bots before boots”, which is the strategy of first sending robotic systems into dangerous environments ahead of human soldiers,"

"Advance to contact" now means something different. As does "walking point".

.....

The basic "platoon" now seems to consist of a pair of vehicles as a support base, with UAVs, and a pair of dismount groups. The support base conducts recce via UAVs and supplies fire support by AGL and GPMG as well as LMs.

 

[Brad Sallows]

This line ....

"The change to infantry operations embodies the military saying “bots before boots”, which is the strategy of first sending robotic systems into dangerous environments ahead of human soldiers,"

"Advance to contact" now means something different. As does "walking point".

I get those parts. I'm a little skeptical what happens when a company with 30 dismounts has advanced to contact with a company with 90 dismounts in close terrain. I am thinking there ought to be a few more people. There are a lot of different scenarios a company has to be able to fight. And it will almost never fight at 100% strength.

But, again, maybe another giant leap in dispersion is unfolding.

 

[Kirkhill]

I get those parts. I'm a little skeptical what happens when a company with 30 dismounts has advanced to contact with a company with 90 dismounts in close terrain. I am thinking there ought to be a few more people. There are a lot of different scenarios a company has to be able to fight. And it will almost never fight at 100% strength.

But, again, maybe another giant leap in dispersion is unfolding.

I'm thinking you are right on the dispersion leap.

But I think you are off on the arithmetic.

1 company of 5 platoons of 2 sections of 6

6x 2x 5 = 60 dismounts

Plus 2 sections of UxV handlers.

Still looking at 10 to 15 ICV/APC per company.