Combat and Battle Formation

[jhungary]

Battle Formation comes from the time when Alexander the Great rules Europe.

It has not change much today, we are still using the same formation on all our asset for tactical advantage, even tho before us, it was designed to use with Pike, Lance, Musket and Cavalry. Here i will cover some of the most common Battle formation modern Military uses. And discuss the good, bad and what changed since the 773 BC

Line Formation (or Form Battle Line)

Line formation come from a time when a column of infantry have to attack while marching. While it also served as a defensive formation when you are repulsing enemy assault. While each line of soldier form a file (or rank) and multiple rank of soldier forming a column (or Group).

When moving. The first 2 line of soldier are called Battle ready line and it was the only 2 line that's literally battle ready. In the pike and lance era, first line will protrude their pike forward while the second file will point their pike up on 45Degree, that is in case the soldier from the first line falls and you are ready to fill in (Also known as fill the rank).

In Musket era. The first line fire while the second line reload. A rank of soldier seldom more than 3 file. A Ready, Reload and a Reserve.

In Modern day, a rank is usually no more than 2 lines, usually single file. Usually used on assault a fixed target and provide a the largest field of fire to your men.

Good side on a line profile is you get the maximum field of fire covered (180 with double file, 360 with single fire) Down size is, a line formation is very open to attack from the frank. and also if enemy position a machine gun on your flank, it can achieve a "Defilade" on you. Which is the maximum firing position on defence.

Main usage : Assault on masse, or defending a perimeter

Column Formation (Or Form Tactical Column)

Column come from a Rapid advancement of Roman Calvary. A column of Cavalry can be used to attack enemy soldier from the flank and round out and return to your own formation without any lost. It is due to the low profile (a column is a line looked sideway) and it can effective brave the enemy archer posted to shoot down those cavalry.

Column can also be used defensively when you are to form square formation to resist enemy Cavalry Charge

In most recent development. Column is restrict to transfer as the limit of the invention of road and most likely you will be restricted by the width of the road instead of anything else.

However, with modern warfare evolved, Column are once again used as assault method, this time by human wave tactics. The reason behind it was, a column moving fast produce the smaller surface to enemy that can be fired on. While maintain speed and agility, you can brave and wave enemy small arms and enemy artillery and hit a specific point of the enemy defence (Preferably the weak point)

The up side of this formation is speed and small contact surface. So it's far superior for rapid movement. The downside for this is column tend to be prone to Enemy ambush and if the front and the back was down, it will render the whole column unstable.

Main Usage: Assault and Movement of Troop

Echelon formation (Either Echelon Right or Echelon Left)

Echelon formation came from the French word (Echelle). Echelon are used majority on breaking up enemy flanks and provide a scouting position for your team of scout.

Echelon formation work best on line, where the enemy exposed flanks will definitely succumbed to the overwhelming echelon attack. Basically, you form a line on your enemy flank (a column)

The Echelon formation was mainly used by spearman and cavalry for quick dispatch of enemy flanks and break up enemy side bit by bit. It could even work with half wedge (Which will explain later)

Today, Echelon formation are still used not for attacking enemy flank. But for it's distinctive line of sight to each member in the formation. On a line formation, each member in the line can only cover less than 180 degree of view, because there will be a guy standing either side of you, In either echelon formation, each member have about 190 -270 degree field of vision depending on how your echelon fanned out. Which give the formation best worked with scouting party or advance scout.

Up side of this is you have the best situation awareness. Quick reform and attack your enemy flank. Down side include present yourselves as an defilade again and with the echelon formation, you have a limited field of fire before you are hitting friendly.

Main Usage: Scouting.

V Shape Formation (or a Wedge Formation)

Wedges are basically 2 echelon joined by the tips. and forming a continuous V shape. It first uses was to the ancients Cavalry when the leader (such as Alexander himself) would lead a Cavalry charge to the enemy, using speed and strength to break an enemy battle line in two. It carry on the same usage by the age of musket

With technology progress. V formation are most generally used by aviation and formed a "Flying Wedge" which gave the pilot supposedly the best view possible, but since the V have a close knit formation characteristic. When attacked, the V cannot be disassemble fat enough and often felt prey.

In ground warfare, a combat V is the primo formation for armoured and cavalry attack. The pointy end of the V give view to the leader (usually in the very edge of the point) to divert the troop, best situation awareness, but also easy to transform from "V" to Line, which give static defence ability to ground commander.

Upside is, it give a good field of view generally (not better than a single echelon) but also retain the defensive capability. Downside is the tightness of formation mean if the enemy are getting too close, it would have a hard time to scramble.

Main Usage: Armoured warfare

Inverted V Formation (Or Inverted Wedge)

An inverted V is also 2 echelon formation but this time joined by the end. With the end of the V move, it formed a "Pocket" of troop.

First used to "Besieged" enemy fortification in ancient warfare and where the formation can be turn into an encirclement easily. It was also be used to "Swallow" a smaller enemy force by a larger one.

Today, the world are simpler and inverted V was overtook by most Commander in favour of either V or simple echelon formation because of the risk of friendly fire. However, with an well set inverted V formation, it is extremely effective on laying ambushes, as Inverted V have the best interlocked cross fire with machine gun on either side of the V.

Upside is it provided with the best field of fire (or kill box) of all formation, but it also come with a major down side. Which is the chance of fratricide when used ineffective or immaturely.

Main Usage : Ambushes

 

[jhungary]

OK, yesterday, I have talked about each combat formation and their advantage as well as the disadvantage of using it.

Today, I am going to up the ante a bit. Going thru the application. How you can maximize the situation by using a combination of formation and how your opposite can response and react.

There are no one solution to every problem. So the key to use this formation thing effectively is by mix and match the situation, as well as the terrain. And different set of formation would adapt to different set of terrain.

Say for example. A battle line. A battle line is a static defence formation, how do you effectively transform from a defensive posture into an offensive posture and you do that effectively?? You move from a line to V, cause that is the easier of all to change to, by moving the lead element ahead, you can drag out a V easily. What's more, don't forget a V is 2 echelons, so when the point man see fit, he can easily split the group up and engage in two different direct as it arise. You can also collapse the V into a dual column, which give you a fast assault capability.

Now, it's important to remember, formation also used with terrain, for example. If the right hand side of you are a cliff, you would not want to form an echelon to protect your flank. You do when your flank are exposed. With terrain, you need to consider either would you want to plug the gap (By setting off line formation everywhere) or set up an ambush if the terrain you are referring to is a bottleneck, hence set up an inverted V.

Then again, best to use your formation with fixed defence. place a line between two machine gun nest, so you could have a base of fire to cover the crest of Machine gun fire. Or you just want to set up OP somewhere and form a V or inverted V to guard the OP.

More to come tomorrow

 

[jhungary]

Two night ago, I have talked about how transforming from one formation to another make good use with your battle strategy, today, I am going to talk about the use of Combined Formation.

As I talked about before, each formations are used for a specific situation or to defend a specific attack. But you can never really depend or rely on one single formation, if you put different unit under your command in different formation, they can change and adapt quicker and you will enjoy the most combat advantage.

Since formations does not really change much since ancient battle and evolved only a little. Today I am going to discuss some important combination of formation and how they change the world since the dawn of ages.

Battle of the Teutoburg Forest, 9 AD

Background of the battle: During 6 AD, the Roman-Germanic war. The Roman Commander Publius Quinctilius Varus leading 36000Roman legions (XVII, XVIII, XIX) transfer from their summer Camp to a Headquarter near Rhine. While on route a, a report is heard of a local uprising, upon hearing the news. the Roman Commander decided to detour and quell the Uprising quickly, inorder to dispatch the uprising quickly, they are to go thru a small passage under Teutoburg Forest to get to a high ground that a charge there is more preferable.

Roman Force consist of 3 Legions and 6 Allied or Cohort Troop with 3 cavalry squadron. Totalling 36-40,000 men
Germanic Force consist of 12 Sporadic Tribe inside the forest, about 20,000 men

Course of Battle: Upon a day and night march, with a storm brewing over , the road in Teutoberg Forest are becoming sticky and muddy. Which in effect dragged out the column over 9 mile long. Instead of wait and regroup, Varus decided to march on, in a Sporadic column formation.

German hiding inside the forest are outnumbered, however, by taking advantage of the Sporadic Column. they emerge and engage each separated column in a overwhelming power, and eat up the force until the back column catch up. On the course of the March, Roman Legion have been eaten up piece by piece, by the time the Roman have reached the high ground, a set piece battle had been set up by the German and now facing the deaminized Roman Legion, the set piece battle ended in Germany Favor.

Roman, lost all 3 legions in the process and the commander Varus himself. While historian agree Germany casualty should light.

What should have been done??

Most military tactician agrees, even if Varus waited up, the Roman Box formation will not be good on these type of hit and run. They will still ended up with inferior number once the Roman got on the hills and face the German on the set piece.

However, if the Roman Legion move with 1 unit of rear guard on the either side, for each of the 3 Legion. While the German uses hit and run and left the rear guard to deal with them with the main column move on. They may lose the rear guard, but the main column should have remain untouched and in strong number to finish off the Set piece with the German.

What we have learn in this battle is immense, it literally gave the Idea to the Finnish to deal with the Russian during the 41 invasion, and hence repeat history again by using a small and sporadic form. They manage to overwhelm the Russian garrison locally.

We also learned that from this, the modified convoy formation (The one we have now using between Afghanistan and IRaq) are now needed to have a rear guard in every separate column.

 

[jhungary]

Final Post in this Chapter - Formation and TO&E (Table of Organisation and Equipment)

Well, since I was educated in the US for this matter, I don't really know what they are called in respective country. However, the point is, how the Formation uses dictate the Equipment used in each equipment. And by equipment, I do not mean individual equipment like Rifle, RPG. I meant Unit Equipment.

The battlefield are littered with all sort of Unit, how do you suppose you can effective command them all?? The answer is actually very simple. You limited the amount of different unit in the field, then you limited the hassle of commanding repeated unit or have moved a wrong unit.

Problem is, how do you move specific unit out of the place when you don't want to disturb the overall situation. By plugging and pulling specific unit, you move the harmony of either an attack phase line or a defensive line. Every unit have their specific purpose on that field, so you want to think twice before removing a unit from battlefield.

A commander always need to remember this. You always use your infantry to fix the enemy and you fire your artillery into them and run their flank over with your tank. This is the basic combat formation you get no matter you are fighting in 2013AD or 1013BC, things did not change much since then, you also use your infantry or Phalanx to fix your enemy in position. You use your missile troop or archer to disperse the enemy and run their flank over with your cavalry.

What change is the speed and to some extend, ferocity of battle. So what you do need is a quicker displacement, or your chance of doing whatever you want to do is gone.

But first, before we go on. We need to know one thing, without it, nothing make sense, that's APP-6A

It may seems like you are playing Video Game. But this is what people actually use in battlefield. Like so

APP-6A is the standard symbol used on battle map. You use them for a quick reference on what the unit available to you as well as what is your enemy deposition

The purpose is you need to move your best troop against your enemy best troop. In most combat, you place your elite on the right to your battle line, and your infantry in the main line, backed up with 2 or 3 unit of artillery (or archer/missile troop in ancient time) and finally Armoured Vehicle on both of your flank.

Depend on how your enemy response, if they also put the elite on their right, then a capture flank battle will ensue. Mostly they have the same or less confident of their best troop against yours. However, if they put the best to counter your best, that will turn into a grinding battle. Which translate to they think their best is better than you.

That in term give birth to different unique formation specifically designed for different situation, one of them, Oblique order/formation are created during Battle of Leuctra 371BC, and still being used today.

The formation is very simple, you stack your "Strong Side" with troop and disperse the rest and stretch them out. So when a frontal attack comes, your strong side will crush the enemy with speed and a quick dissolve of the flank mean the middle of the troop will be caught out in the open.

The operation goes on the time it take for your strong side to crush the enemy flank vs how long your reduced line can hold. However, it must be clear that, Even if you win over the enemy flank, there are no guarantee that you will win the battle. You just have a higher chance, that's all.

With that, the tactical formation is constantly changing, but with those change, it always come back to basic. Which is the one I have cover in my opening post. And no matter how you change it, it needed to be based on the 5 formation I had cover before.

That's all for the Military Formation, hope you enjoy reading it as much as I enjoy writing it.

If you have any question, please feel free to ask. Thanks for your time

 

[jaibi]

Battle Formation comes from the time when Alexander the Great rules Europe.

It has not change much today, we are still using the same formation on all our asset for tactical advantage, even tho before us, it was designed to use with Pike, Lance, Musket and Cavalry. Here i will cover some of the most common Battle formation modern Military uses. And discuss the good, bad and what changed since the 773 BC

Line Formation (or Form Battle Line)

Line formation come from a time when a column of infantry have to attack while marching. While it also served as a defensive formation when you are repulsing enemy assault. While each line of soldier form a file (or rank) and multiple rank of soldier forming a column (or Group).

When moving. The first 2 line of soldier are called Battle ready line and it was the only 2 line that's literally battle ready. In the pike and lance era, first line will protrude their pike forward while the second file will point their pike up on 45Degree, that is in case the soldier from the first line falls and you are ready to fill in (Also known as fill the rank).

In Musket era. The first line fire while the second line reload. A rank of soldier seldom more than 3 file. A Ready, Reload and a Reserve.

In Modern day, a rank is usually no more than 2 lines, usually single file. Usually used on assault a fixed target and provide a the largest field of fire to your men.

Good side on a line profile is you get the maximum field of fire covered (180 with double file, 360 with single fire) Down size is, a line formation is very open to attack from the frank. and also if enemy position a machine gun on your flank, it can achieve a "Defilade" on you. Which is the maximum firing position on defence.

Main usage : Assault on masse, or defending a perimeter

Column Formation (Or Form Tactical Column)

Column come from a Rapid advancement of Roman Calvary. A column of Cavalry can be used to attack enemy soldier from the flank and round out and return to your own formation without any lost. It is due to the low profile (a column is a line looked sideway) and it can effective brave the enemy archer posted to shoot down those cavalry.

Column can also be used defensively when you are to form square formation to resist enemy Cavalry Charge

In most recent development. Column is restrict to transfer as the limit of the invention of road and most likely you will be restricted by the width of the road instead of anything else.

However, with modern warfare evolved, Column are once again used as assault method, this time by human wave tactics. The reason behind it was, a column moving fast produce the smaller surface to enemy that can be fired on. While maintain speed and agility, you can brave and wave enemy small arms and enemy artillery and hit a specific point of the enemy defence (Preferably the weak point)

The up side of this formation is speed and small contact surface. So it's far superior for rapid movement. The downside for this is column tend to be prone to Enemy ambush and if the front and the back was down, it will render the whole column unstable.

Main Usage: Assault and Movement of Troop

Echelon formation (Either Echelon Right or Echelon Left)

Echelon formation came from the French word (Echelle). Echelon are used majority on breaking up enemy flanks and provide a scouting position for your team of scout.

Echelon formation work best on line, where the enemy exposed flanks will definitely succumbed to the overwhelming echelon attack. Basically, you form a line on your enemy flank (a column)

The Echelon formation was mainly used by spearman and cavalry for quick dispatch of enemy flanks and break up enemy side bit by bit. It could even work with half wedge (Which will explain later)

Today, Echelon formation are still used not for attacking enemy flank. But for it's distinctive line of sight to each member in the formation. On a line formation, each member in the line can only cover less than 180 degree of view, because there will be a guy standing either side of you, In either echelon formation, each member have about 190 -270 degree field of vision depending on how your echelon fanned out. Which give the formation best worked with scouting party or advance scout.

Up side of this is you have the best situation awareness. Quick reform and attack your enemy flank. Down side include present yourselves as an defilade again and with the echelon formation, you have a limited field of fire before you are hitting friendly.

Main Usage: Scouting.

V Shape Formation (or a Wedge Formation)

Wedges are basically 2 echelon joined by the tips. and forming a continuous V shape. It first uses was to the ancients Cavalry when the leader (such as Alexander himself) would lead a Cavalry charge to the enemy, using speed and strength to break an enemy battle line in two. It carry on the same usage by the age of musket

With technology progress. V formation are most generally used by aviation and formed a "Flying Wedge" which gave the pilot supposedly the best view possible, but since the V have a close knit formation characteristic. When attacked, the V cannot be disassemble fat enough and often felt prey.

In ground warfare, a combat V is the primo formation for armoured and cavalry attack. The pointy end of the V give view to the leader (usually in the very edge of the point) to divert the troop, best situation awareness, but also easy to transform from "V" to Line, which give static defence ability to ground commander.

Upside is, it give a good field of view generally (not better than a single echelon) but also retain the defensive capability. Downside is the tightness of formation mean if the enemy are getting too close, it would have a hard time to scramble.

Main Usage: Armoured warfare

Inverted V Formation (Or Inverted Wedge)

An inverted V is also 2 echelon formation but this time joined by the end. With the end of the V move, it formed a "Pocket" of troop.

First used to "Besieged" enemy fortification in ancient warfare and where the formation can be turn into an encirclement easily. It was also be used to "Swallow" a smaller enemy force by a larger one.

Today, the world are simpler and inverted V was overtook by most Commander in favour of either V or simple echelon formation because of the risk of friendly fire. However, with an well set inverted V formation, it is extremely effective on laying ambushes, as Inverted V have the best interlocked cross fire with machine gun on either side of the V.

Upside is it provided with the best field of fire (or kill box) of all formation, but it also come with a major down side. Which is the chance of fratricide when used ineffective or immaturely.

Main Usage : Ambushes

@Secur mate we should include a generic military guide page as well to our wiki.

Sent from my A2 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Joe Shearer]

@jaibi , an excellent idea, but a bit 'general', if you don't mind an unasked-for opinion. While @jhungary 's contribution is invaluable in reminding us that all battle breaks down into micro-action of the sorts that he has outlined, it is also useful to remember that there are some classic battles, which have set the tone for all time to come. These successful battle developments have been re-invented again and again, but are essentially the same, from the age of hand-to-hand combat to the nuclear age. The difference is of scale and speed. Most of these classic battles have demonstrated the combined use of some of the formations classified and presented by @jhungary , against formations - again - of a set type. Perhaps @jhungary and/or @AUSTERLITZ could illustrate the point by presenting a series of classic battles - not great commanders, not strategically significant campaigns, not politically or strategically important battles, but great battles because of their military significance. While we have had a number of threads, I am not sure that one of this sort was presented. I am not sure if @AUSTERLITZ 's on-going series of battle descriptions has this in mind; if it has, please ignore all the stuff above.

 

[jhungary]

@jaibi , an excellent idea, but a bit 'general', if you don't mind an unasked-for opinion. While @jhungary 's contribution is invaluable in reminding us that all battle breaks down into micro-action of the sorts that he has outlined, it is also useful to remember that there are some classic battles, which have set the tone for all time to come. These successful battle developments have been re-invented again and again, but are essentially the same, from the age of hand-to-hand combat to the nuclear age. The difference is of scale and speed. Most of these classic battles have demonstrated the combined use of some of the formations classified and presented by @jhungary , against formations - again - of a set type. Perhaps @jhungary and/or @AUSTERLITZ could illustrate the point by presenting a series of classic battles - not great commanders, not strategically significant campaigns, not politically or strategically important battles, but great battles because of their military significance. While we have had a number of threads, I am not sure that one of this sort was presented. I am not sure if @AUSTERLITZ 's on-going series of battle descriptions has this in mind; if it has, please ignore all the stuff above.

If i know my crap is taken that seriously, i would have invest more time in it, i don't remember what was on my mind when i wrote this piece. But i started the Battle Report after i saw some member going on talking about a battle with extreme prejudice.........Hence i start writing the correct way to analyse a battle.

I can always talk about any battle that's with tactical signifiance, given i know what was going on (Either i had studied it before or i have the material to study) I am not god of battle you know

@Joe Shearer, may i know your military background?? Maybe you can help me with that

 

[jaibi]

@jaibi , an excellent idea, but a bit 'general', if you don't mind an unasked-for opinion. While @jhungary 's contribution is invaluable in reminding us that all battle breaks down into micro-action of the sorts that he has outlined, it is also useful to remember that there are some classic battles, which have set the tone for all time to come. These successful battle developments have been re-invented again and again, but are essentially the same, from the age of hand-to-hand combat to the nuclear age. The difference is of scale and speed. Most of these classic battles have demonstrated the combined use of some of the formations classified and presented by @jhungary , against formations - again - of a set type. Perhaps @jhungary and/or @AUSTERLITZ could illustrate the point by presenting a series of classic battles - not great commanders, not strategically significant campaigns, not politically or strategically important battles, but great battles because of their military significance. While we have had a number of threads, I am not sure that one of this sort was presented. I am not sure if @AUSTERLITZ 's on-going series of battle descriptions has this in mind; if it has, please ignore all the stuff above.

An excellent suggestion, sir. My main aim is to demystify the military world if you will for the average joe. So that they might be able to understand what each advancement actually entails. Why don't you, jhang and austerlitz go about it? As you people are much more experienced and knowledgeable about the subject matter.

Sent from my A2 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Joe Shearer]

If i know my crap is taken that seriously, i would have invest more time in it, i don't remember what was on my mind when i wrote this piece. But i started the Battle Report after i saw some member going on talking about a battle with extreme prejudice.........Hence i start writing the correct way to analyse a battle.

I can always talk about any battle that's with tactical signifiance, given i know what was going on (Either i had studied it before or i have the material to study) I am not god of battle you know

@Joe Shearer, may i know your military background?? Maybe you can help me with that

I was a technician, a supervisor and member of general management in a defence organisation. My comments strictly avoid that area, for certain institutional and security reasons. By the time I got there, I was several years away from my last hands-on technical work, and today, that part of my learning has fallen off the edge of the world.

I concentrate on military history, due to the relationship of several members of the family with the services, and the enormous insight into military history gained from my father, who was an analyst and historian of this specialty. It is frustrating to think over the vast treasures open to analysts in the west, as our own resources are pitifully small for those who are not attached to the National Defence College, or to the Staff College.

Your contributions are getting more and more satisfactory, because of their focus on the meat-and-potatoes of battle-craft, a welcome change from the windy nonsense that we sometimes inflict on each other.

I would like you to read (if you care to) both Agha Amin, a ruthlessly objective analyst and historian of Pakistani origin, and Kaisar Tufail, again a Pakistani, again, ruthlessly objective. The first was an armoured corps soldier from a legendary regiment, the second a very senior aviator. Both display the typically brutal candour of the Pakistani analysts, the good ones, that is. We have never really produced someone to match them, sadly. 

An excellent suggestion, sir. My main aim is to demystify the military world if you will for the average joe. So that they might be able to understand what each advancement actually entails. Why don't you, jhang and austerlitz go about it? As you people are much more experienced and knowledgeable about the subject matter.

Sent from my A2 using Tapatalk 2

I would be happy to support @jhungary and @AUSTERLITZ, a particular favourite of mine, whose posts I look forward to with unabashed interest. However, both due to my unexpected increase of work, utterly unexpected at this age, and due to my innate lack of staying power in matters literary (all other departments are quite adequately serviced, if I may assure readers who jump to erroneous conclusions), it is unlikely that I can do more than edit their efforts, or add snippets of information.

I would be happy to help.

 

[jhungary]

I was a technician, a supervisor and member of general management in a defence organisation. My comments strictly avoid that area, for certain institutional and security reasons. By the time I got there, I was several years away from my last hands-on technical work, and today, that part of my learning has fallen off the edge of the world.

I concentrate on military history, due to the relationship of several members of the family with the services, and the enormous insight into military history gained from my father, who was an analyst and historian of this specialty. It is frustrating to think over the vast treasures open to analysts in the west, as our own resources are pitifully small for those who are not attached to the National Defence College, or to the Staff College.

Your contributions are getting more and more satisfactory, because of their focus on the meat-and-potatoes of battle-craft, a welcome change from the windy nonsense that we sometimes inflict on each other.

I would like you to read (if you care to) both Agha Amin, a ruthlessly objective analyst and historian of Pakistani origin, and Kaisar Tufail, again a Pakistani, again, ruthlessly objective. The first was an armoured corps soldier from a legendary regiment, the second a very senior aviator. Both display the typically brutal candour of the Pakistani analysts, the good ones, that is. We have never really produced someone to match them, sadly. 


I would be happy to support @jhungary and @AUSTERLITZ, a particular favourite of mine, whose posts I look forward to with unabashed interest. However, both due to my unexpected increase of work, utterly unexpected at this age, and due to my innate lack of staying power in matters literary (all other departments are quite adequately serviced, if I may assure readers who jump to erroneous conclusions), it is unlikely that I can do more than edit their efforts, or add snippets of information.

I would be happy to help.

I think we have more or less the same experience.

I was trained as a APC Commander and after i got out of the Advanced training, i know all the ins and outs of a Bradley Vehicle, then those bastard deployed me to IRaq as an Infantry platoon leader.

I have some sort of Agressiveness coming from my cavalry background. After about a year in the middle east, i got into Ranger School and i was train as an Army Ranger, i finished the course but i got a job serving as an aide to a 2 stars.

By then i have forgot everything about how Bradley works. And finally my last deployment ended my military career when i caught a piece of sharpnel on my shoulder.

If not for that, i will probably go on in staff position. But meh........i would probably still be in the military, should be a major by now.

I too came from a military family, all the way go back to the last stand of Alamo when my great great grand fought with Santa Anna, my great grand father fought in Spanish American war and my Grandfather fought in WW2, my dad in Nam, my brother in desert storm, and me in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Probably the only different is my dad was dragged and forced sworn in by the Government. He don't want to go to Nam in the first place.

I love Military History, and i have been doing Military Intel for some time, mainly because they were kind of a fast track position. Personally i have an normal interest in history but i have a snack for figuring thigns out. And i like planning Ops (Much less running it) I love the feeling you know the Ops you help planned make a different, and more importantly, everybody come back alive.

And as i told Jaibi, i can only do Tactical level planning, i know nothing about how the grand schema work....That's why i can discuss any battle down to single unit action, which you don't generally see everyday.

The problem i see with today Military History is their spectrum is too board, and you are require to know a lot of stuff, granted, you need to understand the background but people generally and usually ignore the "Little Guy" that make all the different.

My wife is a junior level staff officer and me being a Senior level tactical (Field) officer, we argue a lot on the Military history related topics. We never see eyes to eyes in these kind of thing, i swear if not because of the sex i would have left her by now

And yeah, i will check out the 2 guys you mentions but i am now bombed with a lot of work, i still have 7 article to finish and i need to help Jaibi up for soemthing, then i got my own work to do, it's gonna be a long time before i can really look into it.

But all in all, i am up for any joint project if you guys are interested and i could re-prioritise things.

BTW i think @AUSTERLITZ should be promoted to professional for his historical knowledge, i may know a lot with military matter but if you want to learn history, he is the guy.

We need some sort of Project to kick start these chapter. 

An excellent suggestion, sir. My main aim is to demystify the military world if you will for the average joe. So that they might be able to understand what each advancement actually entails. Why don't you, jhang and austerlitz go about it? As you people are much more experienced and knowledgeable about the subject matter.

Sent from my A2 using Tapatalk 2

So, you want us to do a history in battle evolvement?

 

[jaibi]

@jhungray @Joe Shearer

I was actually thinking of a more techincal paper about military organisation. Such as, how the military is broken down? Corps, Brig, Company and so on. How does the military operate? Especially, the role of different levels of command amongst the ranks (e.g. a Capt. Lance Corporal and so on). Same for the Air Force and Navy. And what's the function of JCOs, NCOs, COs so on. More like a How to understand the military for Dummies, if you will.

For example, if we ask people on PDF what's the difference b/w a Colonel and a Brigadier, they'd recognise that the ranks different but how does that translate to the field won't be appreciated.

Do you get my drift?

This can be the first project for the new and improved Professionals of PDF I think it would be easy as it must be known to you guys.

 

[jhungary]

@jhungray @joe Shearar

I was actually thinking of a more techincal paper about military organisation. Such as, how the military is broken down? Corps, Brig, Company and so on. How does the military operate? Especially, the role of different levels of command amongst the ranks (e.g. a Capt. Lance Corporal and so on). Same for the Air Force and Navy. And what's the function of JCOs, NCOs, COs so on. More like a How to understand the military for Dummies, if you will.

For example, if we ask people on PDF what's the difference b/w a Colonel and a Brigadier, they'd recognise that the ranks different but how does that translate to the field won't be appreciated.

Do you get my drift?

This can be the first project for the new and improved Professionals of PDF I think it would be easy as it must be known to you guys.

Basically you want an basic ABC of Military then??

THat can be arranged.

 

[AUSTERLITZ]

Ok,i won't add seperate tactical formations throughout the ages,as that would be huge and i'm alreday doing that one by one in the battle report threads and frankly it would be difficult to continue at both threads simultaneously.o if anyone as any particular armies formations in mind he can just ask.

Here are however the classical seven battlefield manuevres throughout the ages,regardless of formations.First proposed by chandler.



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Single Flank Envelopment.Pinning attacks along the front line to attract enemy reserves,then mobile assault reserve swings rounds and rolls up the enemy flank.Advantage is simplicity,disadvantage-if faced with a capable general who will not answer by depleting his reserves to the pinning attack but rather launch a counterattack of his own against your weakened center or use those reserves to assault ur flanking force head on.

Classic Example - Caesar at pharsalus.
Other example Robert.E.Lee at chancellorsville- american civil war,and napoleon at wagram.
Subotai leading the mongols vs the hungarians at mohi.
Roman commander Lucullus at tigranocerta vs the armenians.
Battle of Kerch Peninsula - Von manstein [Germans] routs the russians.
When it failed - Napoleon lured the austro russians at austerlitz to perform this attack on his flank,then launched a sudden vicious attack on the weakened allied centre crushing the allied army.
Another example is battle of rossbach,when franco-imperial forces tried to flank frederick in open sight and were badly embarassed as frederick attacked the advancing coloumns with his more disciplined and mobile forces mid manuevre and sent them routing.
Another example of failure is Battle of ipsus.Elephant reserve neutralizes flank attack.



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Double Envelopment - Also known as the pincer movement,The most difficult and sought after manuevre,and the most rewarding.Most risky unless one has large numerical advantage.Basically pin the enemy army in place[Either in defense or offense] and surround and crush it with reserves.Advantage is total annhilation,disadvantage is requires superb timing and coordination and enemy can defeat strung out pinning forces before manuevre can be completed.

Classic Example - Hannibal at cannae,of course.The perfect battle.Some call it the greatest battle.
First Recorded use Miltiades of athens in marathon. 490 bc.
Favourite Tactic of Shaka Zulu.
Favourite Tactics of the German wehrmacht.Here slow moving infantry acted as pinning forces,while panzers slashed through enemy defences in narrow armopured spearheads sarrounded the enemy and linked up behind enemy lines,trapping him.
Variation used by khalid ibn al walid at walaja,suleiman the magnificent at mohacs.Morgan at cowpens in the american revolution.Red army at Stalingrad.
Genghis khan,babur and tamerlane used variations of this.

When it failed -
Battle of Kursk - The Russians crushed the northern german pincer and the southern one was gradually exhausted on the greatest anti tank defences of all time and inexhaustible soviet reserves.
Battle of Moscow 1941 - Red army gave ground in desperate fighting until german pincers stopped to regroup ,being exhausted by soviet resistance and logistical strain.Then the fresh soviet reserves,spearheaded by the divisions transferred from the siberian front assaulted and hurled them back.The russian winter joined in for some more fun on the retreating germans.Total german rout was prevented by relatively intact german centre which held its position and hitler's order of rage to purge anyone who retreated.
Battle of dertosia - Hannibal's brother hasdrubal tried to replicate cannae with a weak centre.But his centre was routed by the romans before his cavalry reserves could wheel and surround the enemy force.
Battle of wagram - Archduke charles's austrian sought to double envelop the french under napoleon.However davout's corps halted the eastern pincer-while napoleon made a masterly redeployment to neutralize the other.



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

The Oblique Order Attack.
Basically refuse the weaker flank and launch diversionary attacks with it,to divert enemy reserves -then launch primary assault on one wing.By the time enemy dispatches rest of his reserves too late.Flank destroyed,swing round and roll up the rest of his line.Difficult to pull off.Requires terrain cover or obstruction,so enemy can't see the main attack coming.

Invented by the theban Epaminondas.
Classic examples- Epaminondas at leuctra 371 bc.
Frederick the great at Leuthen 1757 .Alexander used a ingenious variation at Gaugamela .
Favourite tactics of - Frederick the great[attempted to use it in most of his battles] and alexander the great.[used occasionally]
When it failed - At kolin and kunersdorf,the austrians and russians waited for the now predictable oblique order attack by frederick ,placing themselves on a strongpoint- they didn't scatter their reserves on the diversionary attacks and routed the prussian attack dealing frederick 2 heavy defeats.



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Counterpunch -
Involves luring the enemy to attack a strong defensive position,then attacking the exhausted enemy forces with a sudden sharp counterattck with reserves.Weakness is it can lead to passive mentality with overdependence on walls or terrain.Also if position is too strong enemy might avoid attacking it altogether and bypass it.Advantage is conservation of forces,can take on larger forces with numerically smaller ones.However its quite a defensive strategy.

Classic Examples -
Gaius marius vs the Teuotones& Amburones at Aquae Sextae - Lured the german tribesmen to assault his numerically smaller roman force uphill,head on.After the pilum strom disrupted german charges,legionarries assaulted downhill,while a hidden force took the germans from the flank.
Publius Ventidius Bassus vs the Parthians at Mount Gindarus - Lured the parthian cataphracts and horse archers to attack uphill.Before the horse archers can begin their disruptive arrow fire,chosen force of roman slingers with their longer range slings with deadly lead bullets rain fire on them.Disordering the cavalry.Legionaries then charge and rout the parthians.
Battle of Dara-Belisarius defeats the sassanids.
Battle of Talavera 1808 by wellington against the French.A trademark wellington wallop from behind reverse slopes to avoid the french artillery.
Battle of Kursk 1943 -Red army vs wehrmacht.Perhaps the greatest example of this type.
Battle of Dresden 1813- Napoleon vs the austro-prussian-russian allies.Napoleon uses dresden city fortifications,and reserves to inflict heavy defeat on much larger allied force.
Battle of Auerstadt 1806 -Marshal Davout vs Prussians.Davout's greatest victory.
Battle of Waterloo 1815 - Wellington and blucher[anglo-prussian allies] vs napoleon[france].
Battle of Kolin & Kunersdorf - Austrains in the first and russians in the second await frederick's attack then punish and rout him.
Battle of Rivoli 1796 - Napoleon uses interior lines,to conduct a excellent mobile defense on the rivoli plateau strongpoint against outnumbering austrians.
Battle of Bibracte - Caesar vs the helvettii,same barbarian fail charge on uphill romans.
Battle of Zela - Caesar vs pontic forces.Pontic force charges outnumbered roman forces uphill,promptly routed.
Battle of Orchemanus - Lucius Sulla of Rome defeats pontic forces.
Battle of Gettysburg 1863 - The union forces smash Robert lee attack on a solid defensive position.Decisive battle of american civil war.
Battles of the rzhev Sailent[operation mars] - Field marshal model[nazi germany] hands zhukov[red army] his bloodiest defeat.
Battle of Agincourt/nicopolis - French knights charge english longbows/turkish and men at arms/sipahis on muddy ground behind stakes.Massacre.
Battle of Panipat/khanua - Babur absorbs the afghans/rajputs attack,then counters from behind field fortifications.
Most early ottoman battles.

Favourite Tactic of Duke of wellington.Used it in almost all his battles.Thus he is sometimes criticized as a defensive commander.Roman commanders also favoured this move.
A favoured tactic of ottomans .

When it Failed -
France Blitzkreig 1940 - Wehrmacht simply bypassed the maginot line and took it from the rear,enveloping the french counterattack reserve force instead.
Battle of alesia 52 BC- Caesar used a ingenious double circumvillation to negate both the original forces and reinforcements after a fierce 3 day engagement.
Ulm 1805 - Napoleon simply bypassed and sarrounded austrian forces with manuevre forcing surrender.
Battle of Borodino 1812 - French under napoleon break through russian defences by brute force.But with heavy losses.
Sevastopol 1942 - Germans under von manstein take the fortress by superb fire and manuevre tactics with inferior forces against the russians in crimea.German tactical skill.
Battle of Hastings 1066 -Normans under william the conqueror break through and win england,but only ..just.
Battle of Verdun 1916 - The original german plan was to take a part of verdun in a surprise attack,then use it as bait to lure the greater part of the french army and grind it down in a attritional struggle using artillery and machine guns, as it attempted to retake verdun in a 'meatgrinder' to bleed france white.Unfortunately it became a public prestige objective and germans were drawn into the same attritional struggle to keep and retake the verdun forts.Result - mutual massacre.
Battle of Lutzen 1632 - Gustavas adolphus swedes break through solid imperial positions after hevay losses,but gustavas is killed.
Battle of narva 1700 - Charles XII of sweden took advantage of a snowstorm to advance on a larger fortified russian force and totally routed it.
Battle of Baecula -Scipio africanus defeated hasdrubal.
Battle of Malplaquet 1709- The french under villars almost succeeded in defeating marlbrough's english and german allies.But eventually the allies broke through-at a very high cost.The french were able to retire in good order though..so it was only a very partial failure.



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Penetration Of the Centre - Flanks pin enemy forces in place and deplete enemy reserves.Then once enemy reserves from centre are sufficiently denuded,main assault comes.Followed by mobile exploitation reserves which then wheel and hit the enemy flanks in the rear after rupturing the centre.
This is a Very compact and solid manuevre as until the moment of the attack,all your reserves are in the centre and in case of any mishaps can quickly reinforce either flank.However its main problem is it usually requires superior quality of troops if both armies are numerically equal to succeed in a full penetration,or superior numbers to gain numerical advantage at centre.

Classic Example - Marlborough at blenheim 1704.
Favourite tactic of duke of marlborough- Turned it into a art form and used it in all of his major 4 pitched battles.[blenheim,ramillies,oudenarde,malplaquet]
Other examples - Napoleon used a ingenious variation at austerlitz to split the allied army in two.
Alexander at gaugamela,used a variation combined with the oblique order.

When it failed -
Battle of Yarmuk - On the first days pinning attacks were uncoordinated and not done together,so khalid was able to switch around his mobile guard reserve to neutralize each pinning attack before turning on the other.When finally byzantines attacked together with 2 pinning forces advancing together.Khalid in an inspired move ordered a spoiling attack on one incoming force,to buy time while the mobile guard repulsed their second pinning force.The battle was desperate but the efforts of the mobile guard and the intervention of arab women to rally the routing arabs,turned the tide.Byzantines also failed to attack with their reserve when it was required unlike khalid's excellent rotation of his reserve.
In most other cases this manuevre failed because it ended up as a frontal assault on the nemy lines,and the centre didn't have enough punch to knock out the enemy centre and make that decisive penetration.
Battle of Waterloo- Napoleon failed to breakthrough as all his reserves were expended to hold back blucher's flanking prussian forces and therefore the centre attack was not strong enough to break through wellington's strong position held by the dogged british infantry.



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Feigned Retreat - Staging a retreat to entice the enemy into false confidence and lure him to abandon his position and then suddenly turn and ambush the shocked enemy.Main advantage is tactical surprise achieved as the enemy is attacked unexpectedly and out of position.Disadvanatge is unless troops are disciplined and know what they are doing-feigned withdrawal could easily degenerate into a real rout.
Classic Example - The battle of Kalka river.
Battle of charonea[philip of macedon vs the theban-athenian alliance]
Bajirao I at battle of bhopal vs the mughals.
William the conqueror at hastings-used it to disturb cohesion of saxon defnsive line as many chased after his apparently fleeing knights.
Favourite Tactics of the Mongols -Just about every mongol battle.No one ever used this tactics anywhere as good as the mongol hordes.



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

The Indirect Approach -
'This maneuver involves distracting the enemy with secondary forces while using the main force to strategically envelop the enemy in rear and flank. This maneuver seeks to force the enemy to react and give battle on unfavourable terms for fear of being cut off from supplies or communications. This maneuver is usually attempted if an aggressive mobile force is available or if enemy supply and communication lines are vulnerable. Advantages of this maneuver include the total victory if the enemy loses a battle while cut off from his base and the prospect of alternative objectives once in the enemy’s rear and flank. The disadvantages of this maneuver are few because the maneuver has so much diversity although mobility and timing are vital to its success.'In place of a natural obstacle,a cavalry screen or light forces can be used as screens for the turning movement.
This is the most recent of the seven and constantly used in modern warfare.It was perfected by Napoleon.The name though was coined by liddell hart.It was advocated by sun tzu,though vaguely.

Classic Example - Napoleon vs the austrians.Battle of Ulm 1805.Capture of an entire army without any significant fighting.
Battle of Arcola 1796 - Napoleon vs the austrians
Battle of konnigratz -Moltke[prussia] vs the austrians.
Battle of singapore 1942- Yamasita[japanese] vs the british.Japanese mastery of jungle warfare.
Battle of kiev 1941 - Guderians panzers make a wide detour to complete the biggest envelopment in history.
Battle of gazala 1942- Rommel's masterpiece.
Blitzkrieg 1940 -The secondary invasion force in belgium and holland distracts and attracts allied attention while the real german panzer spearhead thrusts unnoticed into their rear through the ardennes forest.
Battle of tannenberg 1914 - German general staff vs czarist russia.
Gulf War 1991-recent example.

Favourite tactics of Napoleon.Used in most of his campaigns.Also greatly favoured by the german generals.Israelis have used elements of it in the middle eastern wars.USA has used it in conjunction with continous aerial bombardment.

When it failed - The german masterplan for ww1 in the west -The schlieffen Plan.Came very near to success.But the lack of speed[no motorization in those days]and machine guns and barbed wire,halted the attack and degenerated it to trench warfare.Here the attack failed beacsue it didn't meet the requirement of mobility.

 

[jaibi]

Yes, please

Basically you want an basic ABC of Military then??

THat can be arranged.

 
You're an absolutely brilliant poster, Austerlitz, I hope you'd help jhang and sir Joe. I thoroghouly enjoyed your post. What do you think of the military giude?

....

 

[livingdead]

@jhungary .. plz keep your posts coming, I love the personal touch they have because of your own experience. And yes people do take your posts seriously.
No pressure though. Just saying.