Thinking about the Infantry Attack

[PPCLI MCpl]

Sorry to hijack the thread, but I have a question:

For several years I have observed various members of my unit attempt to justify going down on one knee, vice the guts, on a section attack.  Apparently "The Brits in the Falklands found out that when their troops went to the prone they would refuse to get up, therefore they would only take a knee." 

Now I accepted this argument as gospel for the last 8 years, but the other night I decided to do a little more research.  I cannot find any literature or AAR's supporting this theory.

Is there a grain of truth to this "lesson learned" or is it a much propagated myth used by lazy NCO's?

Any comments would be most appreciated.

 

[KevinB]

I have spoke to a few Brits who championed the one knee - to keep the momentum going -- as mentioned elsewhere the theory about "gee this is a nice spot to hide" going to ground can take away troops who simply shut 'er done.


GO - DD's are in the system - of course until the CCO guys (you reading this Mike?) officially standardize the Nico 9 Banger I dont know if they are orderable domestically. 
The other problem is proper breaching will result in the door being typically N/S afterwards so you need a pretty good supply of doors and frames.

I've seen guys do the house with a M240[US C6] live - does not mean it is a wise concept - espeically when we have a role for security that they (C9 gunners) can be more adventageously employed in - if you have to punch into another room your 9gunner makes a shitty DD man or Doorman - and he is not going to be fast enough to be the #1.

 

[readyfourzero]

Go on one knee, I'd like to see them explain that to one of the instructors at Brecon, they'd probably get a swift one aimed at the rear end and told to get on their 'belt buckle' to put it in polite terms.  Different positions for different cover I say, I found the Australians do everything on their belly once under fire even when stuck in secondry jungle and don't do what we do 'we're up we're running we're down' sort of fire and movement until you're close up to the position then it's 'belt buckle' all the way.  I can imagine it does allow for faster movement though.

 

[Danjanou]

Sorry to hijack the thread, but I have a question:

For several years I have observed various members of my unit attempt to justify going down on one knee, vice the guts, on a section attack.   Apparently "The Brits in the Falklands found out that when their troops went to the prone they would refuse to get up, therefore they would only take a knee."  

Now I accepted this argument as gospel for the last 8 years, but the other night I decided to do a little more research.   I cannot find any literature or AAR's supporting this theory.

Is there a grain of truth to this "lesson learned" or is it a much propagated myth used by lazy NCO's?

Any comments would be most appreciated.

I've got a copy of 2 PARA's AAR from the Falklands somewhere in my den (interesting reading BTW especially along some of the ideas in this thread). As I was going through ISCC back during that war, a lot of us did some serious research on this conflict. Never found anything about one knee. No mention in documents, no pictures of it anywhere, and there were a lot of pictures/video of that war, and none of the Brits I spoke to said anything about it.

 

[a_majoor]

I have heard this story for a long time, and it intuitively makes sense (you can get up a lot faster from one knee than from the prone) untill you try it with MILES gear....

The observation of troops going prone and refusing to move actually dates back to SLA Marshall's "Men Against Fire". The idea that a rifleman would feel helpless to influence the battle and therefore tend to hide (stay prone, and often not even fire the rifle) was counterbalanced by his other observation that the presence of comrades would raise the mutual morale of the soldiers, and that soldiers with more powerful weapons like the Browning Automatic Rifle (BAR) would continue to fight and advance, since they felt they had a chance of influencing the battle. Crew served weapons like the GPMG were the best of both worlds, since the crew had the most powerful and influential weapon, and each soldier had his partner right with him. (Although I don't remember if Marshall raised this point, it also explains the age old tendency for troops to close up).

We work with two man fire teams, and even the C-7 rifle is much more powerful than any infantry weapon of the WWII period (and that is before you add the M-203, C-9 gunners etc), so the factors of isolation and feeling of relative helplessness have been much reduced in the modern battlefield.

If you want to advance faster across the battlefield, detaching individual fire teams to move forward and cover the remainder of the section in a series of bounds seems to work very well, so long as the fire teams are not movig so far ahead they are out of contact with the remainder of the troops, and they take sensible positions to observe and provide cover for the remainder of the section. The section commander also needs to keep one foot on the ground, his next team should be forward and "firm" before he picks up the covering fire team.

 

[GO!!!]

As to the c9 for clearing rooms - it can be done effectively - seen it done, done it - blank and live - nuff said from me.

As to the taking a knee instead of a buckle - I've always been taught that the taking of a knee is for high cover, clearing of stoppages/reloading or to fix/rearrange (pull out a grenade) kit, DEPENDING upon the terrain. Taking a knee on a forward slope being far from ideal of course.

The idea of a knee instead of a buckle is based in FIBUA/MOUT where the prone position restricts lines of sight, fire, and mobility in extremely complex terrain.

Basically - knees in the built up areas, and prone in the field, or just use your common sense!

As to the "myth propagated by lazy NCO's"  this probably only applies when they are required to go prone - it's OK if the troops do it though! ;D

 

[Danjanou]

Go I think your right re knee vs prone, urban areas and basically any other thick cover, ie jungle.

Re the lazy NCO, you're not suggesting that anyone would dare teach "the do as I say not as I do"  method now are you ;D

 

[GO!!!]

The "do as I say, not as I do" approach is not used in the CF.

There is ample evidence of this simply by observing the fine standards of physical fitness that many of the NCO's posted to Wx (WATC) maintain.

Demonstrator!.....

 

[Infanteer]

Regarding C9's and room-clearing - from the USMC lessons learned in Fallujah:

The squad should be organized by using the traditional three elements of assault, support, and security. The amount of Marines contained within each element will vary according to the squad's number of Marines, the skills and abilities that each individual Marine possess, and the weapons systems that each Marine employs (M249 SAW, M203, and ACOG scoped M16A4's).

The assault element must contain no SAW's if that is possible. A SAW gunner must never clear rooms. The assault element should contain the most number of Marines because every room must be cleared with two Marines. The support element will supplement the assault by falling in the stack and peeling off to clear rooms.

This is as "from the horses mouth" as it gets.

 

[BetterThanTheBest]

I was a C9 gunner for an exercises down in Virginia and our MOUT instructor who had recently returned from Iraq said that the C9 is effective for clearing rooms. However it should never go in first, It should be third or fourth in the stack (Preferably 4th because in the case of a "short" room, It provides much better hallway security.)

 

[GerryCan]

So what is the reasoning behind the C9 never going in first and being back in the stack? I'm sure that eventually while clearing through urban terrain C9 gunners and riflemen alike are going to end up in every imaginable part of the stack sooner or later.

As GO!! said, the C9 can be employed very effectively IF it is being used by the right soldier. We just recently did instinctive shooting with C7's and 9's and the C9 gunners found out very quickly how much upper body is req'd to properly employ the weapon in that role, but it can be done and some guys did it better than others. Again though, clearing stoppages and changing boxes gets a bit tricky on the fly, but practice makes perfect.

 

[KevinB]

The #1 should be your best instictive shooter - the #2 your second.

A C9 even the A2's are not going to be as quick into action - nor are they easy to manuver if the tgt is too close and it become a dogs breakfast.

That said it all depends upon how you are clearing - if it is precision work with non combatants the C9 is not the tool to use PERIOD. 

 

[BetterThanTheBest]

The reasoning was that no matter how much practice you get a C7 will always have a slight speed advantage over the C9 when it comes to positive target aquisition. And in a CQB environment, oftentimes whoever shoots first wins.

 

[GerryCan]

The #1 should be your best instictive shooter - the #2 your second.

I understand that, but as you know, it's not going to turn out like that everytime you enter a room or wherever you're clearing through. You have the set order of your section or team when you start, but it quickly changes as you progress through the situation as men are left back for security/casevac etc.. so sooner or later one of your 9's may end up in the front of the stack. In this event would you deliberately change the order and risk slowing down momentum and causing confusion or can it slide to a certain extent?

 

[a_majoor]

In the past, what sometimes happened was either people or weapons were traded so the section assigned to cut offs and other cordon tasks in the street were almost all C-9s while the assaulting elements were almost all rifles. This depended a lot on the initiative of the 2I/C and the situation you worked in. Sometimes a few C-9s were taken with a view of placing them in the upper stories to help defend the position during consolodation, especially if the building was particularly tall or provided longer sight lines.

 

[KevinB]

GerryCan - It all depends - ideally I'd take a sec and switch - but that is not always possible.  We found in the States that breaking Platoon's up prior to entering the dwellings work best - that way ALL your troops are similar - then we'd just try to use the M203 guys last...

Doing "El presidente" drills the C8A1 EOTECH guys are noticebaly quicker - then the C8SFW EO's then the C7's and worst the M203 equipped either SFw or C7.
I've actualy shot my fastest reflexive and ElP's with an old C8 carry handle - no light/laser or sight - in close it just is that faster...

Unfortunately We don't have the kit DH does and as such can't have 4+ carbines for each guy in the ready locker - so we have to take the best GP system, and run that.

That said I saw a run with a suppressed Mk46 (SF version of the Para C9) with a can an that guy WAS FAST...  But a lot more rounds than one would want (the can ups the RoF...) in a precision or surgical clear.

For unrestricted clears - I have always been a fan of burning it down, much safer for the 'onlookers'  ...

 

[BetterThanTheBest]

Whats this "can" that youre talking about? Ive never heard of it.

 

[KevinB]

this sort of can...

 

[TCBF]

"For unrestricted clears - I have always been a fan of burning it down, much safer for the 'onlookers'"

If it's concrete, I'd consider having my gunner put a few 105mm APFSDS-T into it first to crack up the structure, then HESH to collapse it or empty it out. Then - if we (meaning all you 'Gangsta' grunts) aren't going to sit in it - WP.

Sit may dictate no FS due to penetration/templating, and perhaps no WP due to obscuration of retreating/manoeuvering enemy.

in domestic ops, templating would be critical, so I would recommend TPFSDS-T, or plain old TPDS-T . Yes.   Training ammo.   Also SHPrac-T for door kicking.  

Also for domestic ops or a sensitive case, lurching the Leopard up to the door or window, inserting the muzzle of the main armament through said aperture and letting go with a 105mm Blank would 'stun' the occupants.   Then you lot can budda-budda-budda and root the bastards out. ;D

Tom

 

[a_majoor]

TCBF, this is a great plan if the Infantry uses Merkava Mk 1s as their IFV, but we need to think in terms of how to do this with stuff we can carry in our hot little hands (sorry).

Since the focus of this thread seems to have shifted to Urban Ops, maybe TCBF and KevinB have a point: the enemy will most likely be holed up in some sort of structure, and section and platoon attacks will resemble reducing a series of fortified bunkers. The support group needs something between a M-72 and a Carl G in terms of size, weight and effectiveness to help shoot in attacks or reduce fortified positions and kill the occupants. I believe FFV once offered a sort of alternative Carl G; one 84mm round packaged in a disposable launcher. If there was a way to really increase the power of the 40mm M-203 grenade, or issue a special "bunker buster" grenade, that might work as well.

In Urban Ops the platoon can then be arranged with a "security section" (C9s forming cut offs around the building), "support section" (adding firepower to the weapons det's GPMG and Carl-G/Eryx) and the "assault section". This also implies the sections might not be symmetric in size, perhaps 6 in the security section, 4 man support section adding their fire to the weapons det and 2 X 7 man assault sections (still = 24 troops before weapons det and HQ)