4 ms·

Ask HN: How to understand theory of infantry tactics

11 points by 7402 5y ago

I am neither a combat veteran, nor a military history buff, nor a wargamer. In trying to follow the news, I feel a lack of understanding of fundamentals of infantry warfare. I've found that the US Army publishes an amazing detailed manual, “Infantry Platoon and Squad Manual” ATP 3-21.8, that they (!) make freely available for download. It's more of a how-to handbook, or a set of instructions - not exactly what I'm looking for. There are many books on military history available, with titles like WWII / Vietnam /Civil War / Ancient Roman / Infantry Tactics, but they seem to be a lot of history and cataloguing of events and weapons, without as much big-picture philosophy. It seems there should be a textbook that covers fundamentals that apply largely across time, with an explanatory philosopy that covers general principles, but I haven't found it yet. (Maybe something like "Infantry Tactics for Physicists," that begins with the line, "Assume a spherical soldier.") Any recommendations?

tjalfi 5y ago
We read The Defense of Duffer's Drift[0] when I was in ROTC. [0] https://www.benning.army.mil/infantry/199th/ocs/content/pdf/The%20Defence%20of%20Duffers%20Drift.pdf https://www.benning.army.mil/infantry/199th/ocs/content/pdf/...
egberts1 5y ago
Big picture? Like 10,000’ altitude view? Like an eagle? Art of War, by General Sun Tzu
- muzani 5y ago
  Art of War is 25 centuries old. It's pretty basic by today's standards, similar to the Pythagorean Theorem. It's mostly popular because it covers things like intel and psychology, which were not so intuitive at the time. I would recommend Greene's 33 Strategies of War as a high level book. But Art of War is short, so read both.
  - egberts1 5y ago
    https://irp-cdn.multiscreensite.com/cb9165b2/files/uploaded/The%2033%20Strategies%20of%20War%20%28%20PDFDrive.com%20%29.pdf https://irp-cdn.multiscreensite.com/cb9165b2/files/uploaded/...
PaulHoule 5y ago
It's a lot to know and it depends on the war. An infantry soldier does what it takes to win and hold on. From one viewpoint ATP 3-21.8 is a very good book but the US Army will throw it in the trash if soldiers find out that they need to do something else. Some aspects of the human experience can be understood through fiction better than the facts, take a look at this book https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/198289.Fields_of_Fire https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/198289.Fields_of_Fire If you want to know what Putin faces in Ukraine study https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_warfare https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_warfare because that is where the hard fighting happens. Those big block apartment buildings the Warsaw Pact built are the ultimate defense against Blitzkrieg, drive a tank past one and the people will drop a piano on you drop a Molotov cocktail on top of the piano try to shoot out your periscope with a sniper rifle hit you with an RPG-7 and then another one... there is not a whole lot you can do from that tank because you can't point the main gun at the 4th story window and it is "not very effective" against a concrete/rebar building as they say in a Pokémon game. To pacify that area you have the option of destroying the buildings with rocket artillery or going room to room in house to house in the meantime with infantry facing booby traps https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M18_Claymore_mine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M18_Claymore_mine and other deadly threats... that rocket artillery is looking pretty good in comparison. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Fallujah https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Fallujah Also read up on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Chechen_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Chechen_War and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Chechen_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Chechen_War
meetingthrower 5y ago
Tactics? It all boils down to "fire and manuever." Create an element which "fixes" the enemy with suppresive fire, while the other element moves. Switch places, leapfrogging until you kill the enemy. Works from platoon to two man buddy team. Source: former infantry officer.
- UncleEntity 5y ago
  > It all boils down to "fire and manuever." Sure, unless you’re setting up an ambush. Or are in an ambush. Or defending a fixed position. Or are retreating…er, ending an engagement for the marines types. Only other case I can think of off hand is hoping the dude on the ground shooting at you dangling from a parachute is a really bad shot.
  - meetingthrower 5y ago
    Actually, pretty much the same. Ambush: you kill, then assault through with a covering element. In an ambush: return fire, assault through with an element. Fixed position: true, you are not manuevering, but technique is to have interlocking fields of fire from different elements. This also gives you flexibility in a retreat... (And you have secondary and tertiary fallback positions to which to manuever too.) Retreat: bound back under cover (eg, with covering element.) Combat jump: jump on at 400 feet to get to the ground quickly. Find your nearest paratroopers and form fire teams.. (was in the 82nd).
ThrowawayR2 5y ago
> "...fundamentals that apply largely across time..." Such a thing doesn't exist since the steady march of technological progress has radically changed how warfare is conducted and that radical change is still underway. Obvious examples like the transition from muzzleloaders->repeating arms->automatic weapons->"smart" weapons abound as do less obvious ones like the canning of food and the jerry can affecting how units can be kept supplied in the field and move around in a tactical sense. If you want something like a layperson's overview of modern infantry tactics, I would suggest trying the articles at http://armchairgeneral.com/category/tactics101 http://armchairgeneral.com/category/tactics101 starting at the #101 post which begins a multi-part series on mechanized infantry and what it does.
VoodooJuJu 5y ago
If you're looking for fundamentals, Sun Tzu's Art of War is a popularly-memed classic on strategy, and its modern equivalent MDCP 1 Warfighting echoes a lot of the same sentiments, but with modern clarity. But these are very general strategy books, not tactics, and the reason for that is tactics are always evolving and must be adapted differently depending on the situation, the technology, the threat model. This is probably the most important takeaway: you must always be adapting and learning and changing your tactics in response to new information and events. In addition to understanding risk (not in an academically fragile mathematical sense), this is probably one of the most important fundamentals to understand. I think war is ultimately just too simple to bother theorizing much about, not to mention a waste of time. It's not easy, of course, but it's simple to understand. It's in our bones. It's a part of primate nature. The only things that change are the technology and the scale, which inform the tactics. Here's something closer to a more tactical fundamental, something that hasn't changed since Roman times: Here are modern soldiers erecting fortifications to help hold a location of interest: https://mwi.usma.edu/effective-weapon-modern-battlefield-concrete/ https://mwi.usma.edu/effective-weapon-modern-battlefield-con.... From the HESCO barriers of today to the wooden palisades of two-thousand years ago, they accomplish the same fundamental goal. Protect a location of interest, keep your supply lines safe, etc. Infantry-wise, like meetingthrower said, you "fire and manuever". There are nearby enemy soldiers attempting to harm our supply lines or pierce through our fortification to the location of interest? Go "fire and manuever" on them. That's the fundamental. Whether you do it with spears or rifles is another matter. It's not rocket science - the desired outcome is the same. How exactly you do it changes according to the technology, the threat, geographic features, and environmental factors.

11 points by 7402 5y ago

tjalfi 5y ago

We read The Defense of Duffer's Drift[0] when I was in ROTC. [0] https://www.benning.army.mil/infantry/199th/ocs/content/pdf/The%20Defence%20of%20Duffers%20Drift.pdf https://www.benning.army.mil/infantry/199th/ocs/content/pdf/...

egberts1 5y ago

Big picture? Like 10,000’ altitude view? Like an eagle? Art of War, by General Sun Tzu

muzani 5y ago
Art of War is 25 centuries old. It's pretty basic by today's standards, similar to the Pythagorean Theorem. It's mostly popular because it covers things like intel and psychology, which were not so intuitive at the time. I would recommend Greene's 33 Strategies of War as a high level book. But Art of War is short, so read both.
- egberts1 5y ago
  https://irp-cdn.multiscreensite.com/cb9165b2/files/uploaded/The%2033%20Strategies%20of%20War%20%28%20PDFDrive.com%20%29.pdf https://irp-cdn.multiscreensite.com/cb9165b2/files/uploaded/...

PaulHoule 5y ago

It's a lot to know and it depends on the war. An infantry soldier does what it takes to win and hold on. From one viewpoint ATP 3-21.8 is a very good book but the US Army will throw it in the trash if soldiers find out that they need to do something else. Some aspects of the human experience can be understood through fiction better than the facts, take a look at this book https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/198289.Fields_of_Fire https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/198289.Fields_of_Fire If you want to know what Putin faces in Ukraine study https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_warfare https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_warfare because that is where the hard fighting happens. Those big block apartment buildings the Warsaw Pact built are the ultimate defense against Blitzkrieg, drive a tank past one and the people will drop a piano on you drop a Molotov cocktail on top of the piano try to shoot out your periscope with a sniper rifle hit you with an RPG-7 and then another one... there is not a whole lot you can do from that tank because you can't point the main gun at the 4th story window and it is "not very effective" against a concrete/rebar building as they say in a Pokémon game. To pacify that area you have the option of destroying the buildings with rocket artillery or going room to room in house to house in the meantime with infantry facing booby traps https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M18_Claymore_mine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M18_Claymore_mine and other deadly threats... that rocket artillery is looking pretty good in comparison. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Fallujah https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Fallujah Also read up on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Chechen_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Chechen_War and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Chechen_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Chechen_War

meetingthrower 5y ago

Tactics? It all boils down to "fire and manuever." Create an element which "fixes" the enemy with suppresive fire, while the other element moves. Switch places, leapfrogging until you kill the enemy. Works from platoon to two man buddy team. Source: former infantry officer.

UncleEntity 5y ago
> It all boils down to "fire and manuever." Sure, unless you’re setting up an ambush. Or are in an ambush. Or defending a fixed position. Or are retreating…er, ending an engagement for the marines types. Only other case I can think of off hand is hoping the dude on the ground shooting at you dangling from a parachute is a really bad shot.
- meetingthrower 5y ago
  Actually, pretty much the same. Ambush: you kill, then assault through with a covering element. In an ambush: return fire, assault through with an element. Fixed position: true, you are not manuevering, but technique is to have interlocking fields of fire from different elements. This also gives you flexibility in a retreat... (And you have secondary and tertiary fallback positions to which to manuever too.) Retreat: bound back under cover (eg, with covering element.) Combat jump: jump on at 400 feet to get to the ground quickly. Find your nearest paratroopers and form fire teams.. (was in the 82nd).

ThrowawayR2 5y ago

> "...fundamentals that apply largely across time..." Such a thing doesn't exist since the steady march of technological progress has radically changed how warfare is conducted and that radical change is still underway. Obvious examples like the transition from muzzleloaders->repeating arms->automatic weapons->"smart" weapons abound as do less obvious ones like the canning of food and the jerry can affecting how units can be kept supplied in the field and move around in a tactical sense. If you want something like a layperson's overview of modern infantry tactics, I would suggest trying the articles at http://armchairgeneral.com/category/tactics101 http://armchairgeneral.com/category/tactics101 starting at the #101 post which begins a multi-part series on mechanized infantry and what it does.

VoodooJuJu 5y ago

If you're looking for fundamentals, Sun Tzu's Art of War is a popularly-memed classic on strategy, and its modern equivalent MDCP 1 Warfighting echoes a lot of the same sentiments, but with modern clarity. But these are very general strategy books, not tactics, and the reason for that is tactics are always evolving and must be adapted differently depending on the situation, the technology, the threat model. This is probably the most important takeaway: you must always be adapting and learning and changing your tactics in response to new information and events. In addition to understanding risk (not in an academically fragile mathematical sense), this is probably one of the most important fundamentals to understand. I think war is ultimately just too simple to bother theorizing much about, not to mention a waste of time. It's not easy, of course, but it's simple to understand. It's in our bones. It's a part of primate nature. The only things that change are the technology and the scale, which inform the tactics. Here's something closer to a more tactical fundamental, something that hasn't changed since Roman times: Here are modern soldiers erecting fortifications to help hold a location of interest: https://mwi.usma.edu/effective-weapon-modern-battlefield-concrete/ https://mwi.usma.edu/effective-weapon-modern-battlefield-con.... From the HESCO barriers of today to the wooden palisades of two-thousand years ago, they accomplish the same fundamental goal. Protect a location of interest, keep your supply lines safe, etc. Infantry-wise, like meetingthrower said, you "fire and manuever". There are nearby enemy soldiers attempting to harm our supply lines or pierce through our fortification to the location of interest? Go "fire and manuever" on them. That's the fundamental. Whether you do it with spears or rifles is another matter. It's not rocket science - the desired outcome is the same. How exactly you do it changes according to the technology, the threat, geographic features, and environmental factors.