Distances of Engagement in Modern warfare

>>31603053
You just need to be watching YouTube videos of the Wars in Syria and Ukraine. This is how modern wars look today.

>>31603075
Cool. Any cool readings? Do they teach about this in OCS, or are only select people privy to the strategies of war? I don't hear my OCS friends talking about war strats very often.

>>31603053

Addressing the last two points, in a western military the LTs and NCOs in any platoon should be perfectly capable of calling in artillery or air support at any time if there is a valid reason to do so, they would give the grids to a superior who passes the order on to the appropriate unit.

Infantry don't fight in formation anymore aside form staying loosely grouped with their fire teams, squads or platoons as the case may require. Modern military formation is based around providing a fire base for maneuver elements. and this can be up-sized or downsized from squad to company level.

File: 1469558798054.jpg (427KB, 1689x3081px) Image search: [Google]

427KB, 1689x3081px

>>31603053
Finnish doctrine:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2crAx8kibis
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=foipv7iVP-c

>>31603168
>if there is a valid reason to do so
What kind of scenario constitutes a 'valid reason'? Why don't people just call in arty strikes all the time if their range is so great?

Take for example the HIMARS. Its effective range is ~300km (holy shit), and I'm guessing the rocket speed means that a target can be hit within seconds (allowing for accuracy). Why not just set up a few of these, and have them fire on the target, then advance/retreat as needed?

>>31603053
I was in the Infantry and I don't want to touch this. It reminds me of the post that asked why we just didn't throw grenades at everyone.

Don't worry, call of duty will answer you.

>>31603163
You don't learn anything about tactics or strategy in OCS aside from buddy rushing and fire team formations the rest is just screaming and drill

File: 1462473244891.jpg (57KB, 720x594px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 720x594px

>>31603053
You're touching on an incredibly wide subject that can't be adequately explained here. The art, skill and knowledge of warfare is a millenia long tradition that requires a massive amount of studying, experience and knowledge to truly master.
I'm not an expert by any means, but I'll try to answer.
>Would I be correct in saying that it is commonplace for armor units fight with armor units, infantry against infantry because both sides know what their enemy's forces are?
No. Armour and infantry operate together whenever possible, since they both are required to perform roles the other can't. A tank can drive into machinegun fire and take out a pillbox, but can't effectively operate in a forest, nor can it enter buildings. It also can't react effectively to multiple simultaneous threats like anti-tank infantry. A unit with such a mix is also obviously more effective in combat, and because of this mechanized units would be used for attacks in focal points, where the armour and infantry in IFVs or APCs will work together to reach their objective.
>reconnaissance/scouting
It depends. Recon can be used in many ways
>to simply monitor movement, eg set up and hide in a bush, report all enemy units that move along a road up the chain of command
>advance before an attack to scout the enemy's defence
>to secure flanks, recon troops spread out to ensure the enemy can't perform a surprise attack to the sides
>to perform surprise attacks in an attempt to mislead the enemy
>to perform long range recon to locate enemy formations and targets of value, like supply centers, or headquarters. Ie. sneak around behind enemy lines.

>How close do the scouts dare to approach?
Into contact. Recon troops may perform raids or kidnap sentries for questioning, depending on the troop.

>>31603053
What it sounds like you are describing is two modern militaries facing off with similar assets.

That doesn't happen now. War is much uglier and chaotic these days.

Look into Syria

>>31603256
Che,that's kinda offensive. Despite the lack of knowledge,I really don't think my questions are that invalid.

>>31603263
Yeah I figured as much,at what point do they start teaching you? I imagine that an officer would be put through certain courses to study prior wars and such to learn about what works and what doesn't.

File: 1381425483358.png (194KB, 382x597px) Image search: [Google]

194KB, 382x597px

>>31603053
>Are drones able to fly overhead (out of reach of guns) or do they observe at a safe distance?
Overhead whenever possible.
>Then there infantry are sent out on the front lines. They normally have an objective handed out by a captain
The captain (company commander) receives orders from above, gives orders to his platoon leaders, who give orders to his squad leaders who give orders to their squads. Or, the platoon leader gives orders to his squads in entirety, depending on the situation and if he can do so.
>Men have their guns equipped with bipods so that they may go prone and shoot at enemies.
No. Bipods are only found on machineguns and possibly sniper rifles. An ordinary rifleman will simply lie prone and fire, preferably resting his rifle on something, either by the mag or by the handguard.
>Generally, how far away are enemies when they engage?
Depends entirely on the situation.
An attacking enemy would want to get as close as possible to the enemy before engaging if the situation allows it, a defending force would want to engage the enemy at a 100-150 metres. Close enough to effectively engage with the assault rifles used, but far enough to not be seen before initially opening fire, as to maximize the initial casualties of the enemy. A 12 man squad can theoretically shoot 12 enemies with the very first rounds fired, before they can take cover. Also important is to ensure that mortars can be fired on the enemy without endangering your own troops. Proper artillery has a far larger area of danger and can't be used in close combat.
Of course if you simply want to delay the enemy, you can open fire from a longer distance to harass them, or cause casualties with either sniper, machinegun, grenade or rocket fire.
As is most everything when it comes to warfare, it's situational. All of it is based on how to effectively accomplish your objective, whatever that objective is.

>>31603228

Because contrary to popular belief infantry generally like doing their jobs, and bullets are cheaper than guided rockets or air ordnance. No one with any authority is going to call for support if they can handle it with what they have.

>>31603483

All officers are given an academic grounding in modern tactics and a limited amount of training to put them into use, however a lot of tactical ability is learned through experience. The enlisted only get small unit tactics.

>>31603338
>incredibly wide subject that cannot be adequately discussed

Am aware,but without any knowledge I didn't know where to start looking. Many,many thanks for the detailed answer. Never thought that recce could conduct attacks,that's interesting. Thanks again - it helped a lot.

>>31603409
I don't doubt what you're saying,especially since the most common vet stories usually involve being attacked by IEDs and the untrained suicidal bombing kid. Kinda sad,really.

>>31603523

Recon can basically do whatever it pleases, their doctrine is practically non existent and COs will use them in whatever way they want to accomplish the objective.

File: updated_call_for_fire_card_by_sushi666-d302q2u.jpg (170KB, 900x1440px) Image search: [Google]

170KB, 900x1440px

>>31603053
>Infantry shoots at the enemy, but are unable to gain ground. When can they call in artillery strikes?
Artillery can be called in at any point in battle, so long as it is prepared and you have priority of fires. It is called in either by the forward observer, officer, or in some countries' systems, by anyone. As I said earlier, it depends on how you can best accomplish the objective.
Artillery can be preparatory, as in it's fired on the enemy before you attack, to weaken them and throw them into disarray.
It can be suppressive, to stop them from firing at your advancing troops.
It can be harassing, to simply stop the enemy from acting at full efficiency
It can be used to destroy, for example to destroy the remnants of an enemy unit you've just ambushed.
Consider looking for more in-depth information on this, I don't have it.
>I'm assuming that infantry cannot/are not trained to call in coordinates.
No, most are not, but it's not complicated. The system and its difficulty also depends on the nation.
>I'm thinking infantry simply radios in their intention, and have intelligence/recce figure it out, then radio it to the artillery units?
Incorrect. Infantry have access to their own company's mortars and any artillery giving priority of fires to them. They either call it in directly (see pic) or it's called in from higher in the chain of command. For example, a squad leader could call in artillery for a pre-set position in the case of defence simply by shouting for "artillery on point X, enemy platoon assaulting". For example.

>>31603495
Another incredibly detailed answer. Thank you.

>Bipods are only found on machine guns and possibly sniper rifles. An ordinary rifleman will simply lie prone

That's surprising. I came to that assumption watching a military exercise video. ALL of the men had their weapons equipped with bipods. Since you say that they don't,why do you think this is the case? I imagine bipods help a lot with accuracy when firing prone.

>Also important to ensure that mortars can be fired on the enemy without endangering your own troops

Yes,this is true. But why even have troops involved in the front lines at all,if you can simply have arty units bomb the hell out of everything,then simply send them in later? With effective ranges of distances of 300km,anti-artillery troops should not be a problem. The only problem should be other artillery units. What am I missing here? It couldn't all come down to cost,could it?

>>31603519
>All officers are given an academic grounding in modern tactics

I thought so too,but none of the bars I know know anything about war tactics. Which made me ask if only certain ranks/vocations are taught those

>>31603587

You can't hold an objective with no infantry present, bombing targets doesn't capture them or their strategic value.
You aren't always going to know enemy locations and thus cannot bomb their shit.
Additionally you seem to be imagining that modern battles have a nice defined front line to fight over, it's a very blurry one if it exists at all, troops can end up kilometers forward of the nearest friendly unit with hostile ones between them, especially if the hostile forces have insurgents to harrass your troops such as in afganistan, iraq and syria.

File: 1000px-256thIBCTOrBatt.png (268KB, 1000x593px) Image search: [Google]

268KB, 1000x593px

>Also, what do modern army formations look like?
Depends on the nation. The current trend is for brigade sized, independent units, such as the brigade combat teams.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brigade_combat_team
These spread into battallions, that are formed out of companies, that have platoons, that have squads, that have fireteams that have individual troops.
If you want more information on individual formations, you'll need to go read more in-depth material as I won't type it all out here.
In general, individual troops keep a certain distance between eachother, ~5 metres between combatant in a combat situation to avoid multiple casualties on artillery, rocket or grenade impact.

>>31603610

Well what kind of bars are you asking and what military? POGs obviously aren't going to know shit about fighting a ground war, but any officer in a western military should at least know his shit even if he doesn't understand it.

>>31603568
This is plenty,friend. I wasn't looking for a complete guide to everything,just some general information/some of the jargon so I can get some reading done :)

>>31603587
My armory issued attachable pistol grips. Fucking pointless. Towards the end some of them were tacticool and had the collapsible bi pods. I had one, but my buddy was an armorer.

You aren't supposed to do this, but before I had one I'd just rest the rifles magazine on the ground to stable it. It's balls ass sloppy, and is gonna trigger autists, but it works.

>>31603624
>Additionally you seem to be imagining that modern battles have a nice defined front line to fight over

You're right. Are front lines not generally where trenches are dug,so that a position can be held?

>>31603637
Yellow and silver bars. No double stripes,tho.

File: fragpatterns.png (611KB, 1314x972px) Image search: [Google]

611KB, 1314x972px

>>31603523
>Never thought that recce could conduct attacks,that's interesting.
In general they're not really proper attacks. They essentially would engage momentarily, cause a few casualties if possible, then break off and get the fuck out of dodge. Recon units do not most often have the capability to conduct proper attacks to either destroy or neutralize and enemy.

>>31603587
>That's surprising...
It's extra weight on the rifle and it's not really that big of a help. If you're firing from a prone stance, your rifle is supported on the ground, with both of your elbows securely also on the ground. It's very accurate and stable enough for a rifleman. A sniper, who may shoot out to a hundreds, if not over a thousand metres requires that extra stability. A rifleman doesn't.

>But why even have troops involved in the front lines at all,
Because you can't. You first need to see the enemy, then have eyes on the target to ensure the artillery hits its target. If the enemy is hidden, you can't call in artillery on it. See videos in
>>31603197
Also, ordinary artillery is not some magical murdermachine. Taking cover by lying on the ground, or better in a hole, or a ditch will protect you from the fragments. See picture and video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUvcdKGD-FM
The artillery also only has so much ammunition it can use and to simply bombard your enemy is not effective, as you can see from how WW1 turned out. Years of trench warfare, since artillery is incapable of killing troops under ground.
>With effective ranges of distances of 300km
Only tactical rockets and missiles have that kind of range. Ordinary artillery is usually around 30-40km with MLRS having a bit longer.
>The only problem should be other artillery units.
Which are used in anti-artillery role, by counter-artillery fires. Radars calculate the location of incoming artillery and then fire at the enemy artillery. This requires artillery to be mobile and move after firing.

>>31603626
>dividual troops.
>If you want more information on individual formations, you'll need to go read more in-depth material as I won't type it all out here.

Mind pointing me in the right direction? :)

>>31603692
Thanks for the informative answer. I imagine other non-military guys on here have learned a few things,too.

File: fig2-15.gif (17KB, 450x624px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 450x624px

>>31603587
>31603692
>What am I missing here? It couldn't all come down to cost,could it?
Artillery alone can't defeat an enemy. They can use armoured vehicles, build bunkers, trenches, foxholes and tunnels to the point where no amount of artillery would win you the war. You need infantry to actually get in there, to fight, to call in the artillery, to murder the enemy, to clear them out of their holes and trenches and then to hold the area. Tanks themselves can't take the positions because of anti-tank weaponry. All it takes is a single guy with a Javelin or NLAW to destroy an MBT without an active protection system.
You need to start thinking with the basis that everything supports the infantry.

>>31603642
That's what I'm trying to give you, but to get such an image, I claim that you need to familiarize yourself with unit formations during movement and combat to truly get a grasp of what combat is like.
Fire and movement, squad and platoon line, -column, -wedge, etc, why they're used and when. Basic platoon and company tactics, how they work to accomplish the objective.

>>31603723
>Mind pointing me in the right direction? :)
This channel has some easy to digest information. Specific formations naturally depend on the nations, but file and line are used all around the world, as well as wedge, which is a simpler form of the column.
https://www.youtube.com/user/tbocsims/playlists
>Squad Movement Formations & Techniques
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKRues4Fwrk

>>31603610
>>31603669
In all likelihood a lieutenant will end his career as a freshly minted captain or salty 1LT, so armies don't waste time and money teaching them how to run a campaign. There's no point.

>>31603723
Ranger Handbook. Or the Infantry Platoon and Squad. Both are field manuals with decent basic tactics. Literally the basics of small unit warfare. For more strategic info look to the latter book.

File: when the battle at fulda started at 0800 and its 0810.gif (1015KB, 400x240px) Image search: [Google]

1015KB, 400x240px

>>31603053
>ITT: Explain how modern war looks like
Between two powers geared towards a conventional fight, it would be EXTREMELY fast and very lethal. This is assuming we skip the hellfire phase of WW3, or achieve a conventional fight with very limited and tactical usage of nuclear weapons.

Lots of artillery, lots of combined arms operations, lots of "oh fuck an F-16 just screeched overhead at treetop level, here we fuckin go"

File: 1474817868041.png (157KB, 326x323px) Image search: [Google]

157KB, 326x323px

>>31604807
>it would be EXTREMELY fast
t. every general before both World Wars.

>>31604807
>file name
Fucking kek

>>31604852
Imagine if the Allies landed on Normandy with JDAM support.

Saving Private Ryan would've had a much shorter intro scene.

File: 1475535423195.gif (360KB, 480x480px) Image search: [Google]

360KB, 480x480px

>>31604905
Imagine if the Germans had interceptors and anti-air missiles. Imagine if they fought war with modern doctrines instead of 60 year old, outdated ideas that simply don't function in the modern battlefield?

File: 1371959822527.gif (2MB, 230x270px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 230x270px

>>31604924
>Imagine if the Germans had interceptors and anti-air missiles
Don't forget the HAARMs.

also
>krauts
>outdated doctrines

>>31604960
In the magical situation where the Allies have JDAMs, absolutely.

>Don't forget the HAARMs.
Don't forget to turn of the radar. You're not some retarded Arab, are you? We have surveillance radars and interceptors for a reason.

>>31604990
I'm not really sure what you're getting at

>>31605009
That HAARM don't work against non-radiating AA sites. It's kind of a shit situation for SEAD to realise that it just went past an active site that's now targeting it once it flew past.

File: goodness gracious great balls of fire.png (128KB, 266x297px) Image search: [Google]

128KB, 266x297px

>>31605049
>That HAARM don't work against non-radiating AA sites
Better call the military and tell them to completely revise their strategies for dealing with IADS as they've been developing it for half a century.

File: 1472004124625.png (13KB, 298x307px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 298x307px

>>31605065
Or I could just tell you that HAARM isn't some magical anti-AA weapon that completely destroys a modern anti-air network. The Iraqi were worthless, ill-trained bumblefucks and the performance of US SEAD against them is no implication of their possible future performance against modern combatants.

File: 120809-N-CD297-029.jpg (90KB, 640x354px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 640x354px

>>31605103
It would be better if the point hadn't screeched over your head like an F-16 at treetop level because I only mentioned HAARM when you decided to interject a BUT MUH ANTI SEAD TACTICS into an obvious fantasy of JDAM support circa '44, which was only ever called into play to make a point about the increased speed and lethality of modern warfare as compared to the last two great wars of more than half a century ago.

File: 1461848324745.png (70KB, 368x276px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 368x276px

>>31605130
The original argument was about a theoretical WW3 being an extremely fast war, which the JDAM fantasy does nothing to fit into. It simply makes no sense in that context.

>>31605158
>JDAM
>modern technology
>WW3
>modern war
you're a fucking idiot if you don't see how they all fit together with a common theme of increased killing efficiency.

how about the ability to deliver precision conventional munitions via what were typically strategic nuclear attack assets? Is that a better descriptor than JDAMs with regards to a modern conflict?

File: 1473360409321.png (367KB, 729x965px) Image search: [Google]

367KB, 729x965px

>>31605191
No, stop sperging out. You can't just toss in a singular modern weapons system into WW2 and think it's an actual argument to how deadly modern warfare is.

File: 204855-1-1000-7211110c96-1471426929.jpg (227KB, 1000x749px) Image search: [Google]

227KB, 1000x749px

>>31603228

Fair question - how many rockets etc. do you think there are in a specific theater and how many months do you think they should last?

>>31604905
Imagine if they had artillery smashing every advance, mines everywhere, cruise missiles/AShM's to sink cargo ships, etc

In the reality all these precision weapons would be used/destroyed within a few weeks of war.

>>31605299
>How many rockets are there in the war
Fucking Day/k/are.

Rockets are also being done wrong by most conventional militaries, the snackbar hell canons are the most optimized rockets to date.

>>31605555
>Rockets are also being done wrong by most conventional militaries,
This here is a grid-square wiper. Tell me what's wrong with this. Recon locates an enemy brigade HQ and an hour later it's off the map.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJMDTHUXmbg

File: Screenshot_2016-08-22-17-00-25-2.png (2MB, 1440x1260px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1440x1260px

>>31603256
"Why dont you infantry guys just use auto rocket launchers instead of rifles?!?!?!?!?111!?!?!"

File: 1475336189321.jpg (2MB, 2048x1536px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2048x1536px

I won't pretend to be an armchair general but i'll post some pictures of what it looks like.

File: StalingradRus.jpg (53KB, 600x445px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 600x445px

>>31604905
Sometimes I really wonder if with all the precision deep strikes, jamming everything and anti-radiation missiles around, at the end of the day a modern large scale conflict will end up being a infantry affair.

>>31606312
Combat is always an infantry affair.

>>31606312
tank you mean
infantry are useless in this day & age

>>31606477
ATGM you mean
tanks are useless in this day & age

>>31606489
I was just about to say that.

>>31604249

This. Theres a reason why Army War College is attended by LTC's, minimum.

The rest are supervised closely and fuckup frequently.

>>31606489

Tactical nuke you mean

Ground forces are useless in this day & age

>>31606312
Ground cannot be held or taken in force except with infantry. The Queen will always have a throne.

>>31606597
shutting down the atoms you mean
nuclear weaponry are useless in this day & age

File: God_of_war.png (109KB, 600x781px) Image search: [Google]

109KB, 600x781px

>>31603053
>>31603228
>they could simply bomb the hell out of every enemy

That's exactly what is done using both arty and aviation which always are the biggest casualties producers in any war, the problem is that to effectively strike the enemy with these weapons you need precise information about their location, the kill area of even the biggest bomb out there still is pretty small when compared to the size of the battlefield and generally you just don't want to blast away a large area because of costs and collateral damage; infantry and armor are there to fight for this information, to fix the enemy in place so that it can be attacked and to shield the relatively vulnerable bases from where arty and air strikes come from.

>>31606603
If infantry is Queen, then artillery is the King, and everyone knows what the king does to the queen.

>>31606664
Keep pounding the ground whilst the infantry sits in a trench?

>>31606761
Casualty figures says otherwise.

>>31606842
Those casualties occur mostly outside of the trenches, you know.

File: PJE_71_0317_VN.jpg (181KB, 800x519px) Image search: [Google]

181KB, 800x519px

>>31606851
So? At the end of the day indirect fire is the real killing force in the battefield and infantrymen are either glorified spotters or targets.