4 ms·
Combined Action/Arms Groups are stupid effective. Armor working with Infantry and Cavalry (light armor) that also have close air-support is a thing to behold.
by all2 8y ago
Combined Action/Arms Groups are stupid effective. Armor working with Infantry and Cavalry (light armor) that also have close air-support is a thing to behold.
The thing is, the US military re-tools its organization every 10 to 20 years or so, looking ahead at the conflicts to come. In the late 80s that re-tooling began and the result was methodologies that came to fruition in Iraq and Afghanistan. We take notes from past examples (see Russian occupation of the latter), examine the fight we see coming (insurgent warfare in WWII), and rebuild doctrine to fit.
The special operations groups were part of the process. While we were creating our own future enemies in the 60s and 70s (mujahideen turned into Al-Qaeda and others) we were also getting a first hand look at guerrilla warfare and how ineffective symmetric war concepts were at facing a guerrilla opponent.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asymmetric_warfare https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asymmetric_warfare
[edit]grammar![/edit]
- eaandkw 8y agoI don't know. The Marine Corps seemed to figure a lot of that out in its Small Wars Manual from the 1940's. Here is the FMFRP 12-15. https://www.marines.mil/Portals/59/Publications/FMFRP%2012-15%20%20Small%20Wars%20Manual.pdf https://www.marines.mil/Portals/59/Publications/FMFRP%2012-1...
- all2 8y agoIn WWII they leaned on understanding from British occupations across the world. Insurgents were a big issue for the British, and they had started to sort out how to fight a guerrilla war as the empire was collapsing. I wish I could remember the book I read. It details things like how the one person you had to worry about at a security checkpoint was the person with all their papers in order... I want to say it was Western Africa, or a similar holding that the book centered around. [edit] All that to say I agree with you. A self-sufficient force seems to be, by nature, multi-talented. [/edit] [edit2] And the book, which is quite good, is "Small Wars" by a Colonel Callwell. https://www.amazon.com/Small-Wars-Their-Principles-Practice/dp/1438513887 https://www.amazon.com/Small-Wars-Their-Principles-Practice/... [/edit2]
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- woodman 8y ago> In WWII they leaned on understanding from British occupations across the world. Nah. The Corps has had plenty of opportunity to acquire the experience organically: "During about 85 of the last 100 years, the Marine Corps has been engaged in small wars in different parts of the world." --Small Wars Manual (1940 Edition) Running through the list of the Corps' most revered heroes... I can't think of a single one that didn't face an enemy that employed guerilla warfare tactics. Chesty Puller started out fighting an insurgency in Haiti and then Nicaragua. Before that SgtMaj Daly fought in the Boxer Rebellion. Smedley Butler fought Cuban insurgents in the Spanish–American War (later writing "War Is a Racket"). Archibald Henderson fought in the Seminole Wars... The Corps has more experience with asymmetric warfare than the stereotypical military campaign. It also has a very long institutional memory where best practices are developed and passed down - I don't remember ever hearing somebody cite British colonialism during a period of instruction, we had our own colonialism to refer back to: the banana wars.
- all2 8y agoOoh! Lots of reading for me to do. Thank you!