Jump to content
wquon

Movement & Tactics

Recommended Posts

I'm a reference guy. In the militia group training is at a minimum, so resources one can share off site is a bonus. So I thought I'd share!

 

Here is a playlist (2 vids) of Simple tactics, like bounding.

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLjjEujdBUihGWozCmJL7P0qlBZv5JINXH

 

This is a playlist (8 vids) of basic infantry tactics.

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLjjEujdBUihEirg9q_JKGAgAf1si39uo1

 

 

Yes, this is airsoft. I view milsim airsoft as "dry practice" for movement & drills. Some may wonder if this can translate into real firearms skills, here's their answer.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQDfwyUgtjg&t=653s

 

I hope this help some folks & their teams out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The mental, visual and "muscle memory" body movement as well as the general shooting skills developed in airsoft-like drills is what is valuable from them.  It's true that "real" weapons drill is another, specific skill set but, that can be honed on the target range with those specific weapons' characteristics.  The combination of the two skill sets, however, can easily mesh and likely be very valuable when needed in actual use.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Military units are actually traditionally composed of two "individuals" (file ranks) per "team" (a "file", traditionally two ranks in column); two "teams" compose a squad (a traditionally square formation of two files in line capable of small volleys or, more modernly, capable of "fire and maneuver" or "bounding"); two squads (in column) traditionally compose a section; two sections (in line) traditionally form a platoon -- the usual volley or "peleton" formation.  The number of ranks or files (optimally four files of eight ranks) in the platoon make it the ideal formation for less-than-automatic shots ("fire" in the naval context means "The ship is on fire, man fire stations!" and is therefore replaced by the term "shot", "shoot", "shooting", etc. for that purpose).  

 

The modern (since the American War Between the States) military doctrine of "fire (shoot) and maneuver" can be seen as derived largely from the practice developed by Confederate Lt. Gen. James Longstreet's inversion to trench warfare after his revulsion towards the large (Confederate) casualties from volleys during that war.  It failed to occur that (the proper kind of) body armor and evasive marching -- even in close order, but, necessarily at normal or greater interval -- could achieve the same protective effect as trenching while leaving forces capable of still advancing under enemy shot (except for artillery, a caliber of shot not defensible from by trenching either).

 

The use of modern automatic shot is assumed to overwhelm mass formations (and would do so at close range --within 100 yards -- and especially towards close-interval troops, and more especially inadequately body-armored formations) but, even the 18th Century disciplined volleys (especially shooting in line from left or right) amounted to automatic shot (though actually aimed -- something that only the first shot of automatic shooting may actually achieve) and, could be maintained indefinitely -- something that modern automatic weapons often can't do without overheating.  Modern rifles' roughly 500-meters (yards, steps or, five street blocks') range at 800-meters (about eight street blocks)-per-second gives forces some half a second of time to evade shots aimed from that maximum effective range and, even a rough quarter second of evasion time from around 200 meters if marching at constant Obliques (actually, constant Right and Left Flanks after an initial Oblique) every three steps (roughly the "three seconds" assumed to be optimal to evade being shot, though not actually calculated to be predictably evasive, in "bounding") at normal or double interval -- even if targeted individually by enemy riflemen or even marksmen. 

 

This compares actually better than the almost non-evasive dead-on running towards the enemy under supposed "cover" of suppressive shot (which is being answered by enemy suppressive shot to "cover" their own maneuvering as well!).  "Fire and maneuver" thus seems (and is expected) to work against a relatively undisciplined, inexperienced foe but, could be outmatched by one that has lost his gun-shyness and has the level of discipline -- and is knowledgeable of just how unlikely he is to even be hit, and if effectively body-armored (namely with scales), can be better protected against any actual hits that might occur to boot -- to not succumb to the purely psychological fear of rifle shots that he even less-ably would otherwise brave largely unprotected  by his "three seconds'" of running in "firing and maneuvering".  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you suggesting open old school marching open warfare would still be effective?    It was practically suicidal by the civil war and wasnt the best plan now.  Modern weapons like the ar15 with a 20 inch barrel and a acog style scope.  Put that behind a decent shooter and your picking off people .  

 

The role of the militia hasn't changed much from our revolutionary times.  You're not direct shock troops.  However your setting ambushes and doing hit and runs..

 

Maybe I read it wrong but I guess that's the first time I have seen that tactic talked about. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Claw Hammer said:

Are you suggesting open old school marching open warfare would still be effective?    It was practically suicidal by the civil war and wasnt the best plan now.  Modern weapons like the ar15 with a 20 inch barrel and a acog style scope.  Put that behind a decent shooter and your picking off people .  

 

The role of the militia hasn't changed much from our revolutionary times.  You're not direct shock troops.  However your setting ambushes and doing hit and runs..

 

Maybe I read it wrong but I guess that's the first time I have seen that tactic talked about. 

The old school tactics are often revisited after it's found that the new ideas are the ones that get friendlies killed (as old-school line shooting in close quarters combat has had to be resumed -- usually given some amateurish re-name by those unfamiliar with the former doctrine they've had to "reinvent" -- after many "wedge" (chevron) formations lost forward friendlies to their own echelons' shots from the rear).  You seem to have not read my point that with reconnaissance-in-force, those scoped enemy sharpshooters themselves will have been decimated by our shot that's being volleyed at them and at all the other potential positions of their comrades that look like the enemy's camouflage from every 100 meters of advance (or continuously until the enemy is annihilated when the enemy has been revealed).  Sharpshooting only works for the enemy when you're playing by the enemy's rules.

 

"Civil" War tactics were based on lack of proper body armor --which would be haltingly revisited by WWI -- and (the largely undisciplined, particularly Confederate) refusal to revisit Roman tactics which would have made the platoon a marching continuous advancing volley-shot testudo formation (an infantry equivalent of modern governments' esoteric armored but heavily supply-dependent fighting vehicles).  Sadly, Lt. Gen. Longstreet misled the way towards World War I in heading for the trenches to avoid the enemy's volleys instead of answering them with his own unit's (necessarily scale armored--another Roman concept) body armored testudo formations as continuous advancing volley shot platoons.  It would be interesting to see (and perfect) a properly executed continuous volley march decimate if not totally "annihilate" a modern-doctrine mock enemy full of sharpshooters and automatic ammunition wasters in an airsoft match. 

 

Certainly, artillery and air cover (really, just another form of artillery, being vertical, though considered to be cavalry as if horizontal) will be met but, must be met in kind with the same tactic employed against enemy artillery and air as is used by infantry against enemy infantry.  That is where cavalry (in whatever form) and even ranger infantry volleys can serve its purpose -- as fast mobile light counter-"artillery" to also volley-shoot the enemy's own artillery and cavalry positions on the fly.  Mobility is key.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Claw Hammer said:

Who exactly do you plan on attacking in a open field again?    Cause the government has crew serve and your running charge would be suicidal.    Patriot was a good movie and featured some things you may want to consider when it comes to small unit tactics.

"'Patriot' was a good movie..."  Precisely!  But, just a movie, though maybe fun to watch.  I have already seen parts of it.  Movies depict things as their producers would like for those things to be depicted.  Americans love modernity and, are in love with heavy industry and technology...until it will prove to be their weakness.  They mostly love to depict anything in a light that "proves" their point.  However, real proof is, as they say, "in the pudding".  The pudding, in this case, can be tested in airsoft drills, as our good colleague wquon has brought to our attention in this thread. 

 

Being hit by enemy "crew served" or other gunnery will occur even for modern-doctrine units as it will for those keeping ranks.  As an example: advancing across an open field (something that, according to modern doctrine, is -- as you say -- "suicidal" because of modern gunnery's ranges) actually mitigates that gunnery's effectiveness by the very characteristics of those ranges.  I may have not mentioned that modern infantry rifles' "effective" ranges are rated at 500 meters (yards, paces or, about five city blocks) at about 800 meters (eight city blocks)-per-second.  A unit marching at (necessarily constantly-alternating) obliques (even if alternating at regular intervals) is not only hard to aim at for almost all riflemen, especially at that distance, whether or not equipped with scopes (and not easy even for the best sharpshooters), the quick-step movement at 400 meters -- if at obliques, something that wasn't done by War Between the States-era, or prior-era units (it wasn't "conventional" at that time -- just as is my assertion isn't now!) does evade shots from that distance -- each private's body moving totally off target within the two-seconds' time an aimed shot was made.  Obviously this is at normal if not double-interval.  Automatic shot (crew-served or not) is even less effective -- only the first shot is likely to actually be aimed, the rest are wasted as un-aimed, mere psychological demonstration shots (at that distance) from the constant recoil of the previous ones from such guns.  The U.S. Dept. of Defense (who's Pentagon types love to calculate such things) calculated that some 50,000 shots were wasted for every actual hit during the Vietnam War.  This was a war of automatic fire (at least, from the American side -- the enemy often had other, less heavy-industry-dependent munitions that they used).

 

Closer up, at 200 meters (two city blocks), well within good targeting range of enemy targets by friendly forces, the constant, more accurately-aimed shot from a friendly volley on the march is something that your modern suppressive fire tries to simulate but, militates against (by the nature of this culture's preference for lack of discipline in formation) the vital cohesion of friendly forces by its own frenzied, haphazard nature as well as misses any targets if shot by automatic feed.  That's utterly exploitable (and should be exploited) by a disciplined, and therefore inherently cohesive enemy formation on the offensive (as one shooting constant volleys in formation would be).

 

Crew served, and all others, will be hit by volley shot every 100 meters (or every 10 meters if enemy presence is truly suspected) and by constant volley-shot when the enemy is actually revealed by such reconnaissance-in-force.  This saves friendly ammunition by disciplined shooting as well as serving the essential function of the less-disciplined and largely wasteful "cover fire" that's currently mis-relied upon.  Cover-fire bounding is fine and works when the enemy is of inferior discipline, conscripted and such.  That has benefited the U.S. in most of their modern wars against any actual (but inferior) government forces.   Guerrilla forces, however, often don't play by even those (fire and maneuver) "rules".   Militia cannot and won't have what those "government" adversaries you mention have at their disposal.

 

Certainly, the tactic I'm suggesting must be tested (the airsoft arena of mock combat is excellent for testing this kind of doctrine!) and drilled ("Drill, Baby, Drill" takes on new meaning here!) and perfected with such testing and drill.  The key to its use is simplicity and discipline -- time-honored (but now, largely scoffed-at) maxims of the military.  Without these, a militia's expectation of playing by the enemy's rules makes surrender to and defeat by the enemy not only a foregone conclusion, it has already occurred by playing by the enemy's rules!  "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State...." -- Amendment II, U.S. Constitution  "Discipline is the soul of an army.  It makes small numbers formidable; procures success to the weak, and esteem to all." -- Gen. of the Armies George Washington

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who are you attacking? 

 

 

Glad it works in airsoft........... 

 

Let me know when you decide to run this test against a enemy.    I'll sit on the side lines and watch them put the laughter in slaughter.     No foot unit is going to line march into modern firepower.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/18/2020 at 9:24 PM, Claw Hammer said:

Who are you attacking? 

 

 

Glad it works in airsoft........... 

 

Let me know when you decide to run this test against a enemy.    I'll sit on the side lines and watch them put the laughter in slaughter.     No foot unit is going to line march into modern firepower.

Maybe that's under allowable OSHA tactics. I think that Roger's Rangers, copying from the French and Indians against the Redcoats, sorta illustrated that open line only worked well for the opponent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...