|
Post by yanmacca on Mar 7, 2017 13:16:32 GMT
Would you or Colt agree that infantry and tank cooperation comes in two forms? I would think that in open country like a desert or open plains, that tanks would look after the infantry and cover them with their capability to engage long range targets. But it if the same units were in a built up area or close country like a forest or thick hedge rows, then the infantry would actually cover the tanks.
|
|
colt45
First Lieutenant
Posts: 439
|
Post by colt45 on Mar 7, 2017 14:31:12 GMT
Yan, That is a pretty good view of how the two different branches would take advantage of the other's strengths.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Mar 7, 2017 15:07:15 GMT
Generally yes, but not always in the modern era. The M2 (Infantry) and M3 (Cavalry) fighting vehicles have long range missile capability, so in certain instances you very well could have mounted Infantry in position to cover tanks in open areas such as the desert.
At 73 Easting McMaster's Troop G, 2nd ACR, equipped with two platoons of M1's and two scout platoons of M3's switched lead a couple of times before they engaged the Iraqi brigade. In the past you would have found scouts out always with tanks covering in that type terrain. The missile gave them options they did not have n the past.
The key is to get tanks and Infantry mixed by cross attaching platoons down to company team level. The typical split is 2T-1I. or 2I-1T. You also see 2T-2I and 1T-1I if you wish to form a balanced team. Rarely would you see a pure tank or pure Infantry company within a battalion task force but it does happen. When you form these teams the idea is to give the team commander the capability to meet any problem with a complete set of tools to get the job done. Time is a weapon. If you do not have what you need at hand and have to call back for support to come up it costs time, and the time you give the enemy he puts to good use against you.
The emphasis on company level teams is post 1950 and an outgrowth of WWII experience, where teams were normally composed of a tank company and an infantry company, under one commander. We found that we could push cross attachment down one more level.
If you want to understand tank-Infantry cooperation, just look at how the dragoons did it. They would ride together into battle. Once engaged a portion of the force would dismount, and fight on foot, while the other portion remained mounted to cover the dismounts, and/or take advantage of any opportunity that presented itself. That is exactly how it is done today, The only difference is the size of the battle space. Today we ride into battle together, and take appropriate action upon contact. Together is the operative word.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Mar 7, 2017 16:39:19 GMT
Talking about dismounts, I recall that the German Panzer Grenadier doctrine, was to virtually get their Sd.Kfz 251 armoured half-tracks practically on top of the enemy position before they debused and covered the area with automatic fire, thats why panzer grenadiers were equipped with two MG34s plus one on the 251, which gave them local fire superiority.
It built up area's German infantry support tanks like the early marks of Panzer IV and later versions of the Panzer III, had a short barrelled 75mm howitzer, and this was so the main gun could be traversed 360 degrees in a narrow street without the gun snagging a building.
The Americans, would stop their M3s short of the battle space and the infantry would continue of foot the rest of the way covered by their tanks.
I don't know what the doctrine is now, with the new breed of APCs, do they stop short and debus or wait until they are on top of their objective.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Mar 7, 2017 17:24:54 GMT
We generally follow the method of the German Panzer Grenadier, unless there is a very good reason not to. Mechanized Infantry will stay mounted as long as they are able to, and dismount only when it becomes necessary to do so. At that point the weapons on the IFV and the tank weapons support the dismounts by fire, for the duration of the dismounted period.
Also on the move the Infantry platoons mounted weapons cover the tanks close in. It does not pay for a tank to bypass a hidden enemy anti-armor weapon like a short ranged missile or RPG, only to have the enemy goose the tank in the rear. The only way you can do that is with a closely integrated company team.
We use the word overwatch to describe this activity.
Please do not confuse what we are talking about here, with a tank unit supporting light Infantry. Typically that would be done by attaching a tank platoon to a light Infantry battalion, for the only purpose of providing that Infantry with some heavier direct fire support, which they would not ordinarily have.
Also keep in mind that we have always (since 1940 or so) designed our tanks for World Wide deployment. European design parameters for fighting within Europe do not necessarily mesh with our own ideas. I think you see a bit of this Europe only design function in the early Panzers models, but as the war grew on, both the Mark III and Mark IV became more main battle tanks. The later models of both carried long barrel high velocity guns. The Germans from about 41 on played around with various types of assault guns, to fill in the gaps for dismounted Infantry support. They kept the idea when the new German Army was formed post 1957 for awhile as well. Today the concept has largely been dropped. There are too many other ways to accomplish the same task.
True combined arms has not been achieved within our heavy community as of yet. The Maneuver Center at Benning is a great step forward, which set up the twin schools Armor and Infantry into sort of a university setting, where Armor and Infantry are colleges under the Maneuver Center university auspices.
The next step is to eliminate the separateness of mechanized Infantry, manage personnel by MOS, instead of branch, and train all the heavy people together in the Armor College. For officers that would mean they would specialize as either a tanker or dismount when they are in company grade. Once they reach field grade it would not matter.
The same could be done for light and motorized (Stryker) Infantry. Both of these types are designed to fight dismounted, so those skills should be the purview of the Infantry college.
I would not be opposed to our heavy combined arms battalions consisting of three companies each having two tank and two mechanized platoons. The balanced configuration has proven to be best over time, That way a company commander would get to know, and build bonds with the people with whom he will fight. It would eliminate the need to cross attach within the combined arms battalion, which now consists of two pure tank companies, and two pure mechanized Infantry companies. It you did that, plus adding a battalion reconnaissance company (vice platoon) and a battery of dedicated supporting artillery (like the old ACR squadrons), the potential for an even greater expansion of the battle space is enormous. It is like the nuns of my youth used to say - A family that prays together stays together - changed only to be - A family that trains and fights together - wins.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Mar 7, 2017 19:13:37 GMT
I have not checked if any of the reconnaissance battalions have an infantry component theses day, during World War Two it was common to have an infantry element in reconnaissance battalion, this force was small compared to the armoured vehicle units, example if the battalion had five companies then only one would be infantry based and these would be transported in light APCs and the rest would be either on motorcycles or armoured cars.
I don't see the reason for this infantry component, it makes these battalions more akin to fighting units instead of reconnaissance units, to me I would have three companies all just armoured cars, because they are there for recce purposes and not to get involved in pitched battles, if they take incomming, then they get the hell out of there, because they have done their job and reported that the enemy was in that location in force, job done.
It would be common to see a mix of units in these reconnaissance battalions, if they had five companies then one would be mounted on motorcycles, another in light cars similar to jeeps, another would be light armoured cars and another heavy armoured cars, to top this off you would then have a support company with anti-tank, infantry gun, machine gun and engineer platoons.
The British would confused things further by having armoured cars, Scout cars and light reconnaissance cars, in their eyes, armoured cars mounted guns, light reconnaissance cars carried machine guns and anti-tank rifles, Scout cars carried just a bren gun, but all could do the same job.
That is why the American system worked well, because it was more streamlined, you had basically one light tank, one medium tank and one armoured car.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Mar 7, 2017 21:01:35 GMT
There are two different types of reconnaissance units. One is for looking and one is for both looking and fighting. The first is a one trick pony like the British armored car regiments. The other is a full spectrum combat unit capable of a number of combat missions, including reconnaissance. Combined arms is non-existent in the lookers. Combined arms is fully present in the looker/fighter.
What are armored car units going to do if they have to fight for information? Wait, they can't because they are not combined arms units.
Look at the doctrine that dictates the design that a given nation will adopt, and that will tell you a lot about what they expect their reconnaissance units to do.
We have never talked much here about the importance of winning the reconnaissance phase of battle. Winning it gives the winner time. Losing it means you are effectively blind as to enemy intentions and schemes of maneuver. Losing the reconnaissance battle means nothing good is going to happen to you that day. Heavier all arms reconnaissance organizations win more than they lose, while the reverse is true for the one trick ponies.
It is not about the equipment, it is about the doctrine that dictates the equipment. If that doctrine does not tell you to organize your recon the way you organize your main battle force, as a completely integrated combined arms unit, you will pay a stiff price in battle.
If the term reconnaissance phase of battle is unfamiliar, it is the opening stages of a major engagement where the forces screening the main battle force on offense, meets the forces screening the main battle force on defense. What issues is a clash for advantage. The offensive reconnaissance force attempts to push back the defensive reconnaissance force, thus making them blind in determining what is the main attack, what is the supporting attack, exactly where they are, what they are doing. Winning that battle goes a long way in winning the major portion of the battle that is about to take place. It is a fight for positional advantage.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Mar 8, 2017 11:48:41 GMT
I never thought of it that way, but back in WW2 infantry and armoured divisions had different types of reconnaissance units and the armoured formations had the stronger of the two.
In many European infantry divisions you would see infantry on bicycles and armoured cars would be issued to armoured or cavalry formations.
The Germans were the worst at this, as their infantry divisions had a Fusilier battalion, which was responsible for recce work and these had squadrons equipped entirely with bicycles. The panzer and panzer grenadiers divisions had reconnaissance [and engineer battalions], which were armed to a high level, in fact these could be counted as fully fledged fighting units rather than recce troops and engineers. It was the recce battalion of the 17th SS motorised division that first encountered the 101st airborne at Carentan. I think the battle was known as “the battle of bloody gulch” and the US Paratroops needed the help of the 2nd armoured division to prevent them from being overrun.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Mar 8, 2017 14:07:59 GMT
I cannot speak for all armies only the U S Army in WWII
Our doctrine was.
The Infantry Divisions will fight as part of a corps. They will fight as part of a multi-division force, Therefore the reconnaissance assets assigned to a division will be minimal, of use only for local situations, We gave them a troop (a company sized organization). The corps will have a cavalry group assigned. It will consist of two squadrons (battalion sized organization) reinforced normally by an Infantry battalion, a tank destroyer company, a company of engineers, and a field artillery battalion. The reinforced cavalry group will provide the assets to win the corps reconnaissance battle in offensive operations, and screen the corps on defense.
The armored division is an offensive weapon. It is designed for breakthrough and deep penetration. It must have organic to it its own highly capable reconnaissance assets to lead the division forward in an offensive posture. The division was assigned a squadron, stronger in structure than the similar squadron within the cavalry group.
That was the doctrine, and that is how we allocated forces to comply with the doctrinal dictates,
That is the way it stayed until about 1957. The only real change was that the cavalry groups became cavalry regiment.
In 1957 we realized that divisions would fight the battles that corps had fought in WWII, so we assigned a squadron of cavalry to each division regardless of type, The only exception was the airborne division, In 1962 a squadron was added to the airborne division as well, followed a year later by including an air cavalry squadron in the newly designed air cavalry division.
Today with pre-structured brigade combat teams forming divisions, each BCT has its own reconnaissance squadron
The BCT today is the lowest level of organization capable of semi-independent operations. It contains a command and control element, a mobility element, three maneuver elements, reconnaissance, fires, and service support elements. It is structured with these elements identically to the divisions that went before it.
If you look at the British Army 2020 model, it is very similar to our BCT's. Each one capable of fielding at least three combined arms battle groups, with all the other functions I mentioned as well.
The German Army is adopting a similar construct as well.
The French have had it for years, and their designs are very advanced.
The trend is to push combined arms down ever lower to make brigades play the role that were once reserved for divisions.
The rest of this I got from a source that has both fought within the parameters that I m about to explain, and later was instrumental in the further design and full implementation of the concept. I will not put a name to him in this open forum, but suffice to say, he was high enough and positioned well to make these statements
The only use of the corps headquarters today, is to deploy to theater and keep the politicians off the back of the operational and tactical commanders.
The division, as we thought of it before is obsolete. It only serves to provide command and control the brigades temporarily assigned to it in combat from all sources
Both organizations will fade from the structure within 20 years and be replaced by stronger multifunctional brigades, that are completely self sustaining.
You can see the start of what he was saying in the forces we have deployed in Europe as I write this. We have a Stryker Brigade (2nd Cavalry Regiment), and a heavy brigade (3rd Brigade Combat Team, 4th Infantry Division - this from just down the road from me at Fort Carson). They are presently independent from any controlling division structure.
|
|
colt45
First Lieutenant
Posts: 439
|
Post by colt45 on Mar 8, 2017 14:29:27 GMT
Chuck, in the BCT structure of today and in the future, who commands the BCT, an O-6, O-7? In my day, an O-6 commanded the brigade, with an O-8 commanding the division. If an O-6 commands the BCT, what do the general officers do in this scheme?
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Mar 8, 2017 14:51:09 GMT
I don't envisage either the British or the US Army to be involved in a major campaign on its own turf, the chances of one happening on main land Britain or North American are pretty slim, so any military engagement would be overseas, but that is nothing new to both countries, as we have both carried out operations all over the world over the last seventy years.
So I would guess that both nations should have a reaction force that could put boots, heavy weapons and vehicles on the ground anywhere in the world in a matter of days and this force should have all the assets of a combined arms group. I guess that we already have something similar in structure now, but I don't know if it contains anything larger than a brigade, without main battle tanks or heavy artillery.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Mar 8, 2017 15:03:43 GMT
Right now it is still an O-6. I suspect down the road it will become an O-7.
I think a lot of it depends upon what we do with divisions. Right now they serve two functions. In theory the division headquarters and headquarters battalion is a tactical command post. The day to day function is the management of an installation in most cases. For instance at Fort Carson, the headquarters of the 4th Infantry Division and the headquarters of the installation (Fort Carson) are one in the same. If the tactical command post (the headquarters battalion) deploys there is a stay behind element that continues to run the post.
The BCT's will become larger in the future. They will probably climb to about 6000. I think that is when a BG will assume command.
I believe in the future we will still require command posts above the brigade level, but just not as many of them.
Another issue is this. Brigade command of some type is the way colonels are looked at for promotion to higher rank. If they have successful command tours at brigade, that goes a long way before a general officer selection board. There is probably a solution out there, but just now I don't know what it is. One possibility is that as battalions grow larger, they just might make O-6's battalion commanders. Don't know, but it is a possibility. It was done before in the battle group of 1957-63 period, and a battle group was nothing more than a big battalion. I would be an advocate of having Majors command companies as well. The company level will be the place where future wars are won and lost, and the company of today is easily the equivalent of the battalion of WWII and Korea.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Mar 8, 2017 15:31:20 GMT
Ian: Right now you have 11 combat brigades in the British Army organized under the British Army 2020 construct. That is a good number considering the size of your country and looked at in the light of the fact that the U S Army now fields 33 on active duty with 15 additional in the National Guard.
Your immediate response force is your 16th Air Assault Brigade, which is also your largest brigade numbering about 8000. It is a very powerful unit. Do not sell its combat capabilities short because it does not have any tanks. The attack helicopter has eliminated the requirement for a large number of tank units. Tanks are still needed and very valuable, and you will need them for the foreseeable future. You will just not need as many. Combined arms does not mean it must be tanks and Infantry. It means that the structure must be capable across the spectrum of conflict, and designed for the intended purpose by bringing together the "appropriate" arms and services consistent with the mission. You also have heavier units designated for immediate follow up if such is warranted.
Getting there fast, sometimes prevents wars, and sometimes it prevents ongoing conflict from spreading
The study of WWII only gets you so far in understanding the world today. You can see by that study how these things came to evolve, but you cannot assume that what was past is also present. It's not.
For those who read these words of mine and still shit their britches thinking we do not have enough - I would say more is not better. Only better is better. If you can do the same thing with 33 better than you once did with 91 bigger, then why have the 91 bigger. Armies are not formed and maintained for old times sake.
|
|
colt45
First Lieutenant
Posts: 439
|
Post by colt45 on Mar 8, 2017 20:12:55 GMT
Chuck, with the BCT of today, I can see a problem of how to allocate the officer ranks. If the army leaves captains as company commanders and LTC's as battalion commanders, a bird can still command the brigade, but if you are right and the BCT gets big enough to require a BG to command, then the O-6 rank kind of finds itself out of a job, other than as the XO/deputy. You don't suppose they would consider eliminating the rank much like the navy eliminated commodore, do you?
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Mar 8, 2017 20:20:02 GMT
I thought that BTCs would be commanded by a Brigadier and the battalions a Lt. Colonel + a Major as his second, that would leave Captains to look after the companies.
|
|