Sets of Fours

[yanmacca]

I have been looking around to address the term sets of fours, now I was asking questions about these sets being a permanent unit, with four men who were group together. After doing a bit of searching it seems that this is not the case and troopers were simply set in groups of four for two reasons:

A: to allow for a more compact column on the march.
B: for horse holding duty, as the number four in the group usually held the horses if the company dismounts.

I have been on a mission to see just what being the number entails and the number four usually stayed mounted, there was a strap that was linked to the number fours horse and was linked to the first horse in the line, his horse was linked to the number two and his to the number three, these links were like a snap hook and every horse had one.

The reason the number four stayed mounted was to have the option of moving the horses forwards to the skirmish line, I suppose for quick getaway, or to get the out of the line of fire.

Some other data suggests that once dismounted the skirmish line moved twelve paces forward and close on the center, apparently the skirmish lines moves away from the horse holders and not the other way round. The number fours stay mounted behind and are then placed under the command of a NCO.

Apparently some say that married or older men were chosen for this role, but I wonder if they used green troops too.

Yan.

[quincannon]

The number four provided the base for a set of fours. It is the same basic principle that we  used in stack arms for those of us old enough to remember that. Thus I have you by the stacking swivel.

The purpose of a skirmish line once dismounted is to dispute possession of the ground immediately in front of that skirmish line, so moving away from the horses is logical in most situations. It is a fundamental mistake to ever say always though for always never happens. Therefor skirmishers moving away, or horses moving away is determined by the tactical situation.

The very same principle applies today. Mechanized Infantry dismount from either carrier or IFV, and either the vehicle stays at the point of dismount to cover by fire, or if the intensity of incoming will not permit that, they move rearward to a place of relative safety, where they can also hopefully support by fire. Sometimes they cannot, so the decision then is do you support and risk loss of mobility, or do you secure mobility with the attendant loss of fire. That is the vehicle commander's call usually, probably in the same manner that it would be up to the NCO in charge of the horse holders.

If you ever walk into "The Building" and hear the term horse holder, don't look for horses. The people that are the horse holders there, on other assignments usually command battalions and brigades.

[yanmacca]

Chuck you had me confounded with the terms “Stack Arms” and “Stacking Swivel” so I did what I always do in these situations and do a random search, so for anyone else who have not heard of these terms before, then here they are;

link

[quincannon]

If you don't learn something new every day Ian, the day is largely wasted.

The base of the stack needs three, but I have seen four or five. With the three base weapons the swivels are always attached, four and five are leaned against the tripod formed by the stack.

You questioned finding out more about cavalry tactics and probably meant more technique than tactics, when you mentioned that book yesterday. Period cavalry TTP, and the TTP of mechanized/motorized, and even airmobile Infantry is pretty much the same as for cavalry in the 19th century.

American cavalry generally followed the dragoon style that we see with mech/motor/airmobile. Ride to battle, and fight on foot. Some portion of the mounted force would stay mounted covering the dismounts. This practice led to diluting the combat power of the dismounts, while restricting the mobility of those still mounted.

The real difference today is with the tank Infantry or Infantry/attack helicopter being able to overcome the inherent disadvantage of the dragoon. The Tank Infantry team are in reality, Hussars (tanks) and Dragoons (Infantry) or Hussars (attack helicopters) Dragoons (Infantry). They do the exact same job in essentially the same way without the drawback of the dragoon doing it alone.

[yanmacca]

I was reading also about German Panzer Grenadiers and how they fought in squads of ten, but each half-track (or SdKfz 251) had a crew of two which was an extension of that squad and these two soldiers acted as driver and machine gunner, the machine gunner would obviously over any dismount.

So in today’s military, troops are carried in to battle by helicopter, now you see the same principle here as with the Panzer Grenadiers, as each chopper would have a pilot and co-pilot plus a guy hanging out the side of the aircraft with a heavy machine gun. But I don’t think you could call these crew member apart of the infantry squad, but in reality they are doing just the exactly the same job, by getting the troops to their destination and covering their dismount.

[Beth]

I have to ask--why 4? Was it the max number of riderless horses that one person could handle? Was it just habit or tradition?

[quincannon]

A little more complicated than that.

Generally an airmobile assault has four elements, thus the employment of combined arms. They are:

The airmobile Infantry component which does exactly the same thing the dragoon did when they dismount - dispute possession of a given piece of terrain.

The lift element, transport helicopters like the UH60 which deposit the dismounts in the landing zone, and cover the dismount period with a door mounted MG. They are a throwback to the horse holder, in that they stand ready to be on call when the dismounts must regain high speed mobility.

The fire support element, tube artillery, which does the same thing tube artillery has always done, provide rapid response fire to the dismounts on call, with precision.

The attack helicopter, the hussar element, who provide a constant mobile force, in responsive support for, but not directly tied to the dismounts. The attack helicopter can range much further afield and you may find them attacking deep, relatively far away from the dismounts, but in consonance with the overall Infantry effort. They are the game changers, a force rapid in response, but free from the tyranny that terrain is, so they are capable of expanding the area being attacked exponentially.

There is absolutely nothing new tactically under the sun, just new forms of sun glasses, enabling you to see the whole picture better, and operate better, faster, and in more depth in a sunny environment.

[yanmacca]

It could be Beth, I suppose that in some situations they could handle more and even less, but like the military in every country, they have to have regulations and I suppose that Cavalry can only either operate in line, column of twos and column of fours.

[quincannon]

Why four, the answer is either Custer could not count any higher, or more probably four was an optimum for control. If you go lower, say three you reduce dismounted combat power by 33% vice 25% with four. If you go to five or six then you increase dismounted combat power, but decrease positive control of the horses.

Pretty much the same situation with the IFV vice Infantry carrier. The IFV has more combat power, but the price is fewer dismounts. The Infantry carrier has less combat power, and is generally larger, with less protection, but it can carry more dismounts. Combat is a series of tradeoffs

[yanmacca]

In a way then Chuck, little changes with air mounted infantry then the mechanised elements from WW2, if what I see is correct then if it takes around twelve choppers to move a rifle company, then these would be augmented by a couple of fire support choppers, in a similar way to a company on the ground would have three rifle platoons and fire support platoon.

[yanmacca]

I always wondered why the British used that daft little vehicle called the universal carrier, it could only carry four men which meant that carrier sections only contained eight instead of ten troops (each section had two carriers). We used these carrier platoons right through WW2 and because of our inability to design something better. We had to buy M3 half-tracks of the US army which was a vast improvement.

[quincannon]

There are usually eight or nine required to lift a company, but there may be as many as twelve or fifteen depending upon how that company is task organized, what its mission is, or how heavily you wish to reinforce your main effort.

Such an assault is usually done by a battalion in multiple lifts, the same choppers lifting task groupings A, B, and, C, or more.

Such an effort would normally be supported by a troop of air cavalry, 8 attack birds, that may be screwing the enemies pooch well away from the Infantry landing zone, miles or tens of miles. They are however capable of rapidly responding back to the LZ if necessary. You don't especially want that to happen though, preferring to get you fire support from the tubes.

Also don't forget, we call AH64 battalions, at least the ones we have so far converted, which will soon be all, air cavalry for a reason. While they are out there attacking far away from the landing zone they are also in the process of reconnoitering (thus the cavalry name and title)

Our air cavalry squadrons consist of three troops each with 8 Apache attack/recon birds and a platoon of RQ7 drones. They work very effectively together.

Stuart and Murat, Kellerman and Forrest would not blink and eye, were they transported to this time. They would be right at home, for the concepts they practiced are still in widespread use, and will remain so when the members of this board three hundred years hence, discusses these very things concerning space hussars and space dragoons. Read Starship Troopers, and see them using the very same TTP.

[quincannon]

Every division should in my estimation have two aviation oriented brigades, regardless of how the rest of the division is organized, heavy or light.

One of those brigades should be general purpose aviation dedicated to lift alone. Probably three battalions, two of UH60's and one of CH47's

The other should be two air cavalry squadrons, organized as I described above, a dedicated large lift company (15 birds) of UH60's, and an airmobile Infantry battalion.

We won't get there due to budget constraints. Bird's cost lots of money, and there are not enough in the inventory to spread the butter that thin. The concept though was developed by the Howtz Board back in 62, and proven in the last days of Vietnam when during the time of withdrawal from that conflict when we formed a provisional air cavalry brigade with two air cavalry squadrons, an attack battalion, a lift battalion, and an airmobile Infantry battalion. Worked like a charm. We then tried to do it on a division scale with the 1st Cavalry Division (TRICAP) (= triple capability) until the armor fogies, the same damned thought process that wanted to keep the horse in 1941, said pretty please, and they were politically assuaged at the expense of progress and enhanced combat power.

[quincannon]

I hope you will also note that some of the ideas of the Malevolent Musketeer, regarding supporting distances and widespread deep operations, while they are the product of fairy tales, pipe dreams, and undeniable ignorance and stupidity for the time he dwells in, are today possible in some aspects. A company in trouble, can indeed be supported by a troop, three or thirteen miles away. I suppose that "cavalry colonel" he dined with, who taught him all those valuable lessons over rubber chicken, forgot to mention that he (the cavalry colonel) lived in the 1970's not the 1870's. Probably would not have made that much of a difference though. A pea sized brain can only absorb so much.

[yanmacca]

Is the UH-60 still the principle Helicopter for your air assaults? With the capacity to carry a ten men fire team it would be ideal for a set of four to lift a basic platoon (still on the set of four theme).

I like the idea of land based artillery used as support, just because it is an air assault it doesn’t mean that fire mission cannot be undertaken by 105s or even 155s as the fire control systems are now so advance to allow for shot spotting elements to land the ordinance just were they need it.