Thinking about the Infantry Attack

[Thaedes]

Thanks for the advice guys, I'll definently keep that in mind as I start my BIQ course in January, and in my future career.

Things here in Meaford are going well, I just finished my SQ and though I didn't get top canidate one of the guys who I think definently deserved it did.  Like you guys said, I just paid attention to what my Sgt was saying and focused on that, it ended up in some very positive feedback for my course review and it turned out that my strong points were the dismounted offensive and defensive operations in the field.  I can honestly say I had blast in the field, even with the sleep deprevation, hehe.  Take care.

 

[Hylander_ca]

Thaedes....Always remember that training is based on building blocks. As your career progresses you will find out what works and what doesn't...But that time will come. Always use what is taught to you as a foundation and build up from there, but don't think that every idea will work....I've had a couple back fire on me, lessons learned. I'm a better soldier for it. I am sure others here will agree with me....If not, I'm open to feed back from them. And always be open to humility by your peers.

Trial by fire.

:mg:

 

[mainerjohnthomas]

Experience is the most important resource for training young soldiers.  In basic, we had a Brit Sgt (Reynolds) who was doing basic with us so he could transfer in grade into the CF.  His experience in Northern Ireland made him quite the resource for us.  When we were bitching and complaining (as recruits always do) about how unjust/unrealistic some field problem or criticism was, Reynolds would relate something from his time in Ireland illustrating how someone making the same mistake got men killed, or someone doing what the Sgt's were trying to get us to do had stopped someone getting killed.  During our advanced infantry, we were blessed with non-coms just rotating back from truceline duties with the UN on the Iran/Iraq war.  When they talked, we listened. Keeping men who have "been there and done that" in our fighting regiments is vital to keep our doctrine realistic, and our young soldiers aware of the way the game is played today.  We also need realistic simulation systems so that all levels can experience what the result of their tactical doctrine is; finding out your tactics will get you killed is embarrassing at battleschool, its deadly in combat.  If our junior and senior leaders can test and develop doctrine with realistic feedback, then when it has to get applied for real, we won't be bleeding our way up the learning curve.

 

[ArmyRick]

Wait for it. The CF has been strongly hinting at new changes in the SQ and DP 1 Infantry FTX staying away from fighting out in the bald ass open fields or wood lines and emphasing more OBUA stuff....


Watch and SHOOT!

 

[Argyll]

In response to the question about sniper attacks/effects:

Think about where the section attack starts from, say about 300-400 meters, the max. effective range of most small arms.  From there standard doctrine has us pepperpot those 300-400 in relatively straight lines, possibly slightly zig-zagging.  Realisticly we'd get slaughtered as long as the enforce has decent training.  Now think about what would happen if some well trained jerk with an SVD took a few potshots at us from say 500 or 600 meters, lets also say that he has a PK off to one side for flank support.  We start our advance sprinting from cover to cover to try to nail that sniper, then as soon as we start to converge, which always happens unless you just finished practicing not doing it, that PK lets off a few 50 round bursts.  Not a pretty picture, anyone disagree? :sniper: :fifty: Ugly... 

 

[ArmyRick]

Adair, lets go over this one more time.

The section battle drills are more of a tool for training soldiers to use fire and movement in a section quick attack scenario (Basically the worst case scenario). The principles we teach for section battle drills and the individual soldiering skills it develops transfers over to raids, ambushes, platoon, OBUA or company quick attacks.

I have seen some of the footage of Iraq and I have seen
-US troops doing their fire and movement to enter a building
-Proper frag out drills as they call them (Their slightly different drills then ours)
-Initial reaction to fire during the battle of Falluja (Double tap, dash, down, etc) keep in mind their drills are a little different then ours
-Using their form of target indication to locate an enemy across a street (Locate the enemy)

Do you get the picture? Your scenario of the lonely p*ssed off russian deciding to tackle a section of CF troops advancing all by themselves in a bald*** open field is not (no offence) realistic.

Remember the 7 section battle drills are a training aid more than anything, used to teach basic battle field skills. However they may be a time, when you will have to perform a section or platoon frontal.

 

[silentbutdeadly]

all this talk about section attks , gets me to think that here in the infantry we have not evolved this part of our trade in ages! i was down in North Carolina and saw the Royal Marines in action and i tell ya, i was blown away with the speed , fire power. Once they had contact they moved to one knee , started firing and once the section comd said move. they were off , still on one knee and firing all the time and were on the object and had the enemy killed within mins. It was unreal, why have not gone to this? i think its because the section attk we use is more for teaching and assesing purposes, not real fighting!

 

[big bad john]

IMHO Canadian Forces I have seen are not trained to be aggressive to the same level that Royal Marines are.  We are taught to be very aggressive.  It does save lives in the long run.

 

[silentbutdeadly]

oh don't get me wrong , we are not even close to there level, but i think we have to start looking at lessons learned! i try to do that with my section , on a live fire less the one knee portion and well i was told i was moving to quickly! not like momentum wins battles or anything!

 

[big bad john]

Lessons learned is the basis of improvement.  The problem is that Canada has not put enough of its' Officers into combat situations, IMHO.

 

[ArmyRick]

Silentbutdeadly,
I agree with you and if you look at some of my earlier post, I advocate different ideas and methods of doing section attacks or other offensive actions, for trained troopies in battalions.

However, for new troopies I put through SQ here at M-ford, I stick to the basics.

As far as aggression goes, I force my troops to keep their bounds short and fast, all the good stuff we teach our troopies.

I have seen how aussies do section battle drills and I found them really interesting and probably effective.

 

[ArmyRick]

BBJ, your quite right, we in the CF lack true battle expirience  IMO.

 

[a_majoor]

I think this is more a matter of detail than substance. Troops moving to the kneeling position do move faster, and I would think (a la SLA Marshal) that troops going prone may not be as inclined to get up again, although this is only opinion on my part. SBDs comments about moving "too fast" might have been as compared to the rest of the formation (wasn't there so I can only guess), hitting the enemy ahead of the flanking section or before the firebase has opened up also has negative consequences.....

Royal Marines, Canadian soldiers, US Army troops etc. use the section attack to deliver a shock assault to minor enemy units or formations, in both urban and "woodland" settings. (Yes, you can assault across a street into another building). Going back in these threads, some issues have emerged: Is a shock assault even nessesary? Is the section the "immutable" minimum force on the battlefield? How should sections (an by extention platoons and companies) be organized. What sort of weaponry and technology would add/detract to the section's ability to function?

Working in a more complex security environment means looking at the tools we have to use and deciding the best way to use them. Have fun thinking of a solution, but be prepared to explain the "hows and whys" of your proposal.

 

[silentbutdeadly]

yes i think we might have to change our make up of sections and platoons, i just feel we are always one step, wait a sec 10 steps behind everyone else in this thinking(ie Royal/US Marines) and of course we have to blame ourselves for this. The attk i was involed with was just a section attk live fire , so no flanking element. We were told to come up with something new. The OC liked what he saw, gave me some pros and cons , but once he left the CSM said i was wrong in what i did. I figured that he troops went on there or only shoot when there lying down problems will occur with soldiers being scared thats all.I have to think about the last thread and i will get back to you.

 

[silentbutdeadly]

also i think with the world becoming more urban and our fights happening in towns and cities, the section attk and sections have to change in some shape or form, but the section attk is the basics for new troops but at unit levels and deploying units we have to come up with something more advanced for the changing face or warfare in our time.

 

[ArmyRick]

I remember reading some wheres that the USMC is big on suppression during attacks (something like 2:1 support:assault elements or something like that).

Anyways with that mind, I personally think we should make it official doctrine to add a second C6 to the weapons detachment (I have heard of this maybe happening for years, but still hasn't?). Also add speed up the acquisition of the ALAWS and add that to the wpn det and maybe call it spt wpns section?

Then at leat, at very least, for platoon level attacks during light inf ops we could have a fire base of a section + spt wpns sect and the assault element consisting of 2 sections. In my mind of how I see the world (take that for what it worth!), thats alot of suppression !!!

What about 60mm mortars? good question. Still a valuable a weapon system and keep the three of them in a coy weapons detachment along with 2-3 sniper teams.

I am not totally up to speed on our current sniper detachments but i beleive one with a .50 MacMillan and one with the C3 would be great IMO.


As for individual battle field skills (fire and movement, trench clearing, selection of fire positions, etc) I think we need to hear from some grunts who have seen some of the worst of the action from say the US Army, USMC and maybe the aussies as well?

Ideas? Opinions?

 

[silentbutdeadly]

the question of a C6 in a section has come up here in my unit and it looks like it might happen if and when we go back to afghanistan

 

[ArmyRick]

As a Sect comd, I would welcome  a C6 to the section if we are operating on our own. Maybe a 12 man section is not a bad idea either (The USMC use 3 x 4 man teams plus a Squad leader, 13 in total).
You could put 8 guys as we do now plus a 4 man fire support team under the 2IC. Also I would give the 2IC two mags at least of tracer so he could easily control C6 fire. The fourth guy in that support group would be used for security and as an ammo bearer/3rd barrel carrier (need lots of 7.62).

What do you think of that idea?

 

[Kirkhill]

Howabout giving the 2ic a scoped 7.62 rifle, in fact make the entire support det 7.62 to supply stand-off support?

 

[silentbutdeadly]

i think two 4 man tms would be more ideal within our infantry, being that it is more flexible with the lav and dismounted ops such as urban ops and room clearing. Attach a C6 to the section , but not make one soldier the C6 gnr, and with the new small arms in the infantry section, having a 7.62 for the 2ic is not needed.