I can't help but feel the then Maj. Patton knew Adolf von Schell, or at least his work. This reads a lot like the kind of light infantry formations von Schell was an advocate for while still managing to keep some of the character then traditional American formations had of being so light on officers
I’ve thought for years we really need to teach skirmishing tactics.
We seem to either want to blow it up with IDF (Indirect Fire) or “assault onto the objective.”
Now prepare the Sacred Council to hear charges of heresy;
I don’t think going onto the objective physically is always necessary or wise. If you haven’t taken casualties before, you will now. So there should be a reason.
My Canon Lawyer and I are confident we can get a fair hearing on this, right? 🤣
(And shooting but not MUST ASSAULT OBJECTIVE and just... not go there... is in line with Skirmishing)
Well,therein lies a large part of our problem: outside of a SOF action sometimes, we don't use light infantry. One thing I'm actually excited to see with the advent of ground-based UCVs is to see how it impacts combat loadouts and mobility long-term. Marine FD2030 seems to be anticipating this, but the tech still needs a lot of work to get to where is needed for the level of flexibility envisioned
Mere updated skirmishing tactics, we only just got a generation of it from the enemy, would do us a service.
I’m very Dubious of Doctrine walking the path of the Catholic Church (as a Catholic of course) and in implementation the Army has decided it shall be enforced by... Sergeant Majors.
Something not understood, let alone taught, enough about doctrine is it's a framework, not a straight jacket. When applied without reasoning, it's just useless.
Interesting organization. It would certainly have a good deal of strategic and tactical mobility, as it is very lean, as well as good platoon level fire power. Note the lack of a third maneuver element (unless one of the two platoons provides a squad or section), a company weapons platoon with mortars and machine guns, anti-tank weapons, submachine guns, a supply sergeant or an armorer (unless one or more of the NCOs doubles up). One wonders what additional support was provided at battalion level and how many companies such a battalion would have in Patton’s idealized structure?
Interesting; sounds very much like the company organization of the Italian army in World War 2. Essentially each platoon was a rifle section and a machine gun section; three platoons made a company. This obviously didn't perform well though that can't be blamed on the TOS. https://www.quartermastersection.com/italian/companies/802/Itinf
I can't help but feel the then Maj. Patton knew Adolf von Schell, or at least his work. This reads a lot like the kind of light infantry formations von Schell was an advocate for while still managing to keep some of the character then traditional American formations had of being so light on officers
Battle Leadership is one of my favorite books.
I still cite it out of uniform regularly. It and MCDP1 are probably the two most useful books I use semi-regularly
Light infantry should be scouts or skirmishers .
I’ve thought for years we really need to teach skirmishing tactics.
We seem to either want to blow it up with IDF (Indirect Fire) or “assault onto the objective.”
Now prepare the Sacred Council to hear charges of heresy;
I don’t think going onto the objective physically is always necessary or wise. If you haven’t taken casualties before, you will now. So there should be a reason.
My Canon Lawyer and I are confident we can get a fair hearing on this, right? 🤣
(And shooting but not MUST ASSAULT OBJECTIVE and just... not go there... is in line with Skirmishing)
Well,therein lies a large part of our problem: outside of a SOF action sometimes, we don't use light infantry. One thing I'm actually excited to see with the advent of ground-based UCVs is to see how it impacts combat loadouts and mobility long-term. Marine FD2030 seems to be anticipating this, but the tech still needs a lot of work to get to where is needed for the level of flexibility envisioned
Mere updated skirmishing tactics, we only just got a generation of it from the enemy, would do us a service.
I’m very Dubious of Doctrine walking the path of the Catholic Church (as a Catholic of course) and in implementation the Army has decided it shall be enforced by... Sergeant Majors.
This moves Doctrine from Dogma * to the Koran.
*In Catholicism, Doctrine must have a rational basis.
Dogma is an unquestionable article of faith.
Since oh Military you insist on doing this... you are “cautioned.”
Something not understood, let alone taught, enough about doctrine is it's a framework, not a straight jacket. When applied without reasoning, it's just useless.
Doctrine now being enforced in army by SGMs /CSM. Sergeant Majors.
..................
Interesting organization. It would certainly have a good deal of strategic and tactical mobility, as it is very lean, as well as good platoon level fire power. Note the lack of a third maneuver element (unless one of the two platoons provides a squad or section), a company weapons platoon with mortars and machine guns, anti-tank weapons, submachine guns, a supply sergeant or an armorer (unless one or more of the NCOs doubles up). One wonders what additional support was provided at battalion level and how many companies such a battalion would have in Patton’s idealized structure?
In my above comment, I am presuming that medics, forward observers, etc. would be attached from other organizations.
Speaking for the airborne in WWII, they couldn’t get their hands on enough BARs. The weight to punch ratio seemed to be desirous to them. I wrote a little about it here: https://open.substack.com/pub/ridgwaysnotebook/p/lighthorse-harrys-notes-fighting?r=2e66kq&utm_medium=ios&utm_campaign=post
When Major Patton was made a General, did he get to put his ideal rifle company into action?
In the American Army promotion to Major is accompanied by a lobotomy. General Patton had recovered.
More firepower. Only half should be rifles. More grenadiers .
Ukraine 2015-2022;
4 man team would include at least heavy weapon RPG or GPMG and at least one SDM.
Rifles should be 50-60% tops.
Rest firepower- either MG or grenade launcher.
The above isn’t out of line for WW2 either, sorry the rifle can’t be a mainstay.
I do like 6 MGs at plt HQ, if I read that right.
Interesting; sounds very much like the company organization of the Italian army in World War 2. Essentially each platoon was a rifle section and a machine gun section; three platoons made a company. This obviously didn't perform well though that can't be blamed on the TOS. https://www.quartermastersection.com/italian/companies/802/Itinf