Swampthing

Hey

This is a question for those people for military service. I am just a historian so my knowledge of these things are quite low.

Anyway, to what degree are infiltration assault-tactics viable today?

I ask this question with certain things in mind.

Given the mobility of most armed forces, there would be no more distinct front lines, on blurred combat "zones". In this instance, would infiltration assault be useful?

During the Korean and Indo-chinese wars, infiltration assault tactics were used to surround a position, cut off retreat, but also not initiate combat until very close to avoid artillery and air-strikes. This was done at night to avoid air-power and surveillance. However, nowdays IR and night-vision is VERY effective, and guided munitions (excalibur artillery shell, constant-patrol air-craft above, UAV's) would mean those advantages are negated.

What are your thoughts about this?

-{SpoonmaN}-

I saw an interesting show on the History channel a fair while ago that discussed the effect new technologies would have on battlefield dynamics.
I would love to hear what the pros have to say on the ideas they proposed. The central premise is that it was all about two modern, well-equipped forces facing eachother, rather than asymmetrical warfare. Some of the key points that I remember were:

1. End of the "empty battlefield"; new sensor and tracking technologies, such as IR, are making it harder and harder to hide from the enemy. ECM and all that would become ever more important. Another key point was the advance of communications technology and the increase in networking (FCS is all about networking as I understand it) gives commanders a real time view of the battlefield, and gives junior leaders and ordinary soldiers far more situational awareness upon which to base on the spot decisions.

2. Increasing firepower and effective use thereof; more firepower concentrated at lower and lower unit levels, coupled with technologies that enhance the accuracy of such weapons will make the future battlefield more deadly.

3. Intensity; if the previous concepts prove to be true then battles could move away from the long, drawn out slugfests of the past to short, super-hot engagements that leave both sides burnt out quickly. This could lead to higher rates of PTSD and other negative effects upon combatants, as well as high casualty rates.

I would imagine that for every measure there is or will be a counter-measure, however I found the notions discussed to be rather interesting. I do wonder how accurate they would prove in an environment with a massive amount of cover, such as a major city or canopy jungle.

__________________
"I have this to say to the people of Australia: Kick me, I'm different."

sappersgt

If by infiltration you mean the art of going through rather than around then it's a common tactic. Others on the WAB have more experience in an IR and night vision environment than I. I don't know how effective or how degraded your night vision would be. It would seem to me at the very least those devices would be limited by LOS.

Infiltration in daylight is a useful tactic. There are never enough troops to go around so there are gaps. Avenues of approach such as ravines or other obstacles limiting LOS are effective. Sometimes the enemy can see you anyways and still can't do anything about it before it's too late. If you can get cover for at least part of your approach sometimes that's good enough.

Once a position we were holding was being attacked intemittently from two separate directions. My orders were to see if I could find away around one of the attacking groups. I led a stick up a dry creek bed and even though it was broad daylight no one saw a thing. I was able to occupy a dominating position between our attackers and bring enfilading fire on their flanks. That stopped the attack and enabled us to defeat them in detail.

__________________
Reddite igitur quae sunt Caesaris Caesari et quae sunt Dei Deo
(Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's and unto God the things which are God's)

Swampthing

So you basically outflanked one of the attack groups, and when they were gone, you bought the full weight to near against the smaller contingent?

Feanor

sappersgt

In a nutshell. The creek bed proved an effective avenue of approach, providing cover and concealment. First and third platoons were down to twenty three men due to casualties and the need to detach their sniper teams to cover our flanks. I was sent with six men and a mg to reinforce them.

Going down the creek and behind the enemy I managed to occupy a concrete loading dock adjacent to the railroad tracks. It was piled eight high with bags of feed making a ready made position. Once the enemy took flanking fire they went to ground and stayed there. I left two men to keep them busy and turned the gun to fire down the other flank while third platoon attacked their front.

We ended up killing about eighty and taking almost sixty prisoners including an officer, another thirty or so escaped into the bush.

Stan187

First and third platoons were down to twenty three men total?!?!

__________________
In Iran people belive pepsi stands for pay each penny save israel. -urmomma158
The Russian Navy is still a threat, but only to those unlucky enough to be Russian sailors.-highsea

sappersgt

Total, plus my six. Sapper platoons were small to begin with.They were short about ten men, I think six casulaties and the sniper teams.

The two men I left to cover my flank, Coetzee and Simmons were both wounded but still fighting. I recommended Coetzee for promotion to section leader.

Ray

My experience says infiltration is viable since I have done it!

It depends on the terrain and the degree of surveillance by the enemy.

__________________


"Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."

I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.

HAKUNA MATATA

Swampthing

But what about infiltration as a company-level tactics rather than squad level?

Ray

Yes, mine was a company which infiltrated to raid an enemy supply point 9 miles inside.

Swampthing

Cool.

So in modern warfare, infiltration is a useful tactic, but what about as a central part for an army operating on the offensive?

Stan187

What's your objective? Ray's was for a raid. SapperSarge's was to outflank in order to relieve pressure on his company. So the question is not whether it can be a central part of an army operating offensive, but what is the nature and objectives of such an offensive? If it is to make small cross border raids, then sure you could probably have quite a few independent operating companies try that out. It might work for some and not for others. But what if you're trying to take ground? What if you have a schedule that you're trying to meet? It all depends on what you're trying to do. Once you got that figured out, only then do you go about determining how you will do it.

Officer of Engineers

It's now called the reconnaissance battle.

__________________
Chimo

zraver

And is the single most important fight. Winning the recon battle let the US VII corps get into Iraq's rear. In effect the US and UK snuck several thousand AFV's past the Iraqies.

Another way to infiltrate is vertical envelopment. Its expensive and if something goes wrong deadly but damm it works.