INFANTRY TACTICS

Contents

Introduction

Ancient warfare

The Roman system

Middle Ages

Sieges

Battles

Renaissance period

Gunpowder warfare

Colonial warfare

World War I

World War II

Squad

Offensive tactics

Defensive tactics

Field Works

Platoon

Cold War era

Vietnam War

Soviet-Afghan war

Modern times

Russian-Chechnyan conflict

U.S. - Iraq conflict (2003-present)

Notes

Bibliography

World War II

Introduction

No one is exactly sure when the first war was fought. Many believe that it was fought between Cro-Magnon and Neanderthal groups over resources. It is believed that a little later on, wars were fought over people for sacrifice, women, along with territories with animals which could be hunted. Battles in prehistoric times consisted of small groups of people fighting with weapons they would use for hunting. Not until later did humans begin making weapons for the sole purpose of killing each other. Based on evidence from cave paintings, some believe warriors knew the basic concept of flankings and envelopments. Early civilizations often used forces that emphasized strengths in their societies.
It is probable organized warfare had to wait for the introduction of agriculture. Before that, food surpluses to support tribe members doing nothing but defending the tribe would have been impossible; as well, the value and lure of resources now had dramatically increased.
The first battle in recorded history was Megiddo in 1469 BC. Rebels against Pharaoh Thutmoses III held a pass north of Jabal Mar Elyas, where Thutmoses achieved a crushing victory.^[1]
Bronze weapons first apppeared before 3000 BC (when the first known example appeared^[2]); the strength of bronze enable the creation of swords, replacing Stone Age clubs, while its relative softness meant thrusting swords were more common,^[3] the first tactical change produced by technology. Iron weapons first appeared around 1500 BC, created by the Chalybes of what is now Armenia. Iron armor made infantry virtually invulnerable to the softer bronze sword.
Missile fire was primarily delievered by slingers in Europe and the Middle East, and archers in China and India;^[4]

Ancient warfare

The first chariot, created by the Sumerians around 1200 BC, was bulky and unstable but it would put into motion a significant change in warfare. Used to transport archers and spearmen during the Trojan Wars, they would continue to carry officers well into the Greek period.^[5] The chariot was modified with scythes on the wheels for increased lethality and shields on its sides for protection; despite its unsuitability except on open ground and the vulnerability of its horses, the chariot proved a valuable shock weapon. About 200 years later, cavalry would supplement chariots; in India, due to lack of horses, elephants would begin to be used some 400 years after that, around 600 BC.^[6]
The infantry phalanx was a Sumerian tactical formation as far back as the third millennium BC.^[7] It was a tightly knit group of ''hoplite''s, generally upper and middle class men, typically eight to twelve ranks deep, armored in helmet, breastplate, and greaves, armed with two- to three-meter (6-9 foot) pikes and overlapping round shields.^[8]. It was most effective in narrow areas, such as Thermopylae, or in large numbers. Although the early Greeks focused on the chariot, because of local geography, the phalanx was well developed in Greece and had superseded most cavalry tactics by the Persian Wars. The brilliant Phillip II of Macedon reorganized his army, with emphasis on ''phalanges'',^[9] and the first scientific military research.^[10] Theban and Macedonian tactics were variations focused on a concentrated point to break through the enemy phalanx, following the shock of cavalry.^[11] Carefully organized (into ''tetrarchia'' of 64 men, ''taxiarchiae'' of two ''tetrarchiae'', ''syntagmatae'' of two ''taxiarchiae'', ''chilliarchiae'' of four ''syntagmatae'', and ''phalanges'' of four ''chilliarchiae'', with two ''chilliarchiae'' of ''peltast''s and one ''chilliarchia'' each of ''psiloi'' and cavalry (''epihipparchy'') attached.^[12]) and thoroughly trained,^[13] These proved exceedingly effective in the hands of Alexander III of Macedon.
However, as effective as the Greek ''phalanx'' was, it was inflexible. Rome made their army into a complex professional one, with a developed leadership structure and a rank system. The Romans made it possible for small-unit commanders to receive rewards and medals for valor and advancement in battle. Another major advantage was a new tactical formation, the manipular legion (introduced around 300BC^[14]) which could operate independently to take advantage of gaps in an enemy line, as at the Battle of Platea. Perhaps the most important innovation was improving the quality of training to a level not seen before. Although individual mentods were used by earlier generations, the Romans were able to combine them into an overwhelmingly successful army.

The Roman system

On the infantry level, the Rome introduced new weapons, the ''pilum'' (the heavy spear) and ''gladius'' (the short thrusting sword), and a new convex shield (protecting better than the pike), which unlocked the ''phalanx'' while still providing its protection.^[15] Generally, battle opened with a volley of light spears from up to 18m (20yd) (and usually far less),^[16] followed by volleys of heavy spears (''pilae''). After the enemy was disheartened, Roman soldiers would close in with ''gladiae''. As was the case with throwing spears, the Roman soldiers were trained profusely to stab with these swords instead of slashing. Their training was constant and repetitive, to ensure stabbing was used in combat rather than a more natural slashing motion. To motivate the Roman soldier to come within two meters (6 ft) of his enemy, as he had to do with the ''gladius'', he was made a citizen.^[16]
The manipular legion was a major improvement over the ''phalanx'' on which it was based, providing a flexibility and responsiveness unequalled before; it had the unanticipated benefit of reducing the lethality of opposing weapons by increasing dispersal, almost triple a typical phalanx.^[18] Coupled with superb training and effective leaders, the Roman army was the finest in the world for more than two millennia. Their power on the field was such that they avoided most fortifications, preferring to meet the enemy on open ground. To take enemy fortifications, they would cut off their supply lines, build watchtowers around the city, set up catapults, and dare the enemy to try to stop them from reducing the walls to rubble. Their achievements were carefully carved in stone on Trajan's Column, as well as documented by the artifacts strewn about battlefields all over Europe.

Middle Ages

After the fall of the Roman Empire, many of the ingenious tactics they used disappeared. Tribes such as the Visigoths and Vandals preferred to simply rush their enemies in a massive horde of people. These tribes would often win battles against the more advanced enemies by achieving surprise and outnumbering their enemies. Grown out of the partition of the Roman Empire, the Byzantine Empire created an effective military. Its conscripts were well-paid and led by commanders educated in military tactics and history. However, the army mostly relied on cavalry, making the infantry a smaller portion of its overall force.
The Vikings were able to be effective against stronger enemies through surprise and mobility. Like guerillas in other wars, the Vikings could decide when and where to attack. In part because of their flat bottomed ships, which enabled them to sneak deep into Europe by river before carrying out an attack, the Vikings almost always caught their enemies by surprise. Monasteries were common targets because most of the wealth was held inside of them. The Vikings were fearsome in battle but they became even more so when they would go berserk. Acting like animals, snarling and biting their shields, the Berserkers would rush their enemies with unrelenting determination even against impossible odds. No one is exactly sure what caused these frenzies; some believe it might have been a ritual or use of hallucinogenic mushrooms.

Sieges

Much of the combat during the Middle Ages revolved around castles and sieges; invading armies who ignored the complex process of besieging certain castles could face flank and rear attacks from the castle garrisons. Engineers who could construct often giant machines such as trebuchets, battering rams, and towers designed to allow attacking troops to scale the walls could be great help, but even so the process of taking a castle could take months to years. Assaulting troops would be pelted by arrows as they closed into the wall; even boiling oil might be poured onto them if they got closer. Wooden castles could be destroyed by fire and even the gates of stone castles could often be set alight. However, the tactics and weapons used evolved. In order to prevent the gate from being burned down, a portcullis or iron guard would be built in front of the wood gate.
However, the majority of castles were taken with guile. It was not uncommon for the besiegers to pay off someone inside the walls to open up the gate and allow them in. Other castles could be taken over through the wide spread of ladders. The besieging force would rush the walls, prop ladders onto them, and try to get as many soldiers as possible up them. This tactic was useless against castles with tall walls. Siege towers were a safer means for infantry to scale a wall. This, however, was slow and could topple over if it hit a large ditch.
Mining was one of the most effective means of toppling a castle's walls but it took a long time. It involved building a tunnel underneath the castle walls, supported by wood pillars. Upon being underneath the castle wall, the tunnel would be filled with flammables and lit. The wood support pillars would be destroyed by the fire and in turn the castle walls would collapse. Once gunpowder was created it was also used in sieges. An explosive charge known as a petard could be used to damage or destroy a castle's walls and gates. Often men would rush up to the wall with a petard, light the fuse and run off to safety. However, many of the petards malfunctioned and blew the bombardier along with the castle walls.
The defender's tactics were based on the design of the castle itself; a small garrison could utilize its design to hold off many times their number. For example, spiral staircases curved upwards and to the right, so that the attackers going up could not swing their swords properly, their right arms being blocked by the central pillar of the stairs. Overall, the strategy was to kill as many attackers as possible and slow their attack until they either convinced the attackers that it was not worth it, received reenforcements, or ran out of food and ammunition.
There were also distinct differences in the philosophy of castle use. Western Europeans treated them as virtually inaccessible retreats, from which short-duration missions could be staged, while Byzantines treated them as bases for defensive-offensive operations, commanding the ground on which these would take place.^[19]

Battles

Battles of the Middle Ages were often smaller than those of the Romans and the Grecian states. Armies, like nations of the time, were more decentralized; insubordination was very common; leadership was often incompetent, based on birth, not ability; and most soldiers were much more obedient to their feudal lords than their nations. However, the biggest difference between previous wars and those of the Middle Ages was the use of cavalry, particularly knights. Knights could often easily overrun infantry armed with swords, axes, and clubs. Infantry typically outnumbered knights somewhere between five and ten to one. They supported the knights and defended any loot the formation had. Infantry could counter the threat posed by cavalry with these spearmen. Other times wood palisades would be used, while archers pelted enemy horsemen with arrows; the English used this tactic against French knights during the battle of Agincourt.
Pikemen often became a substitute for communities and villages who could not afford large forces of heavy cavalry. The pike could be up to 18 feet long, whereas the spear was only 6 to 8 feet in length. Archers would be integrated into these forces of spearmen or pikemen to rain down arrows upon an enemy while polemen held the enemy at bay. Polearms were improved again with creation of the halberd. The halberd could be the length of a spear, but it an axe head which enabled the user to stab or chop the enemy cavalry with either the front of the axe or a thin point on the other side. The Japanese also created polearms. The naginata consisted of an approximately 6-foot long shaft and a 2.5-foot blade. The naginata was often used by women to guard a castle in the absence of men.

The crossbow, which did not require trained archers, made the long bow obsolete. The biggest disadvantage of the crossbow was the slow reloading time. With the advent of steel and mechanical drawing aids, crossbows become more powerful than ever. Armor proof against long bows and older crossbows could not stop quarrels from these. Pope Innocent II put a ban on them, but the move toward using this lethal weapon had already started.
The first gunpowder weapons usually consisted of metal tubes tied down to wooden staves. Usually these weapons could only be fired once. These gonnes, or hand cannons, were not very accurate. To compensate for this, the user would fire in volleys either from city walls or in ambush. Like the crossbow, the gonne did not require trained soldiers and could penetrate the armor worn by enemy soldiers. Men with crossbows and gonnes were protected by soldiers with melee weapons. Knights would be on either sides of this force and close in on the enemy to destroy them after they had been weakened by volleys. The introduction of smallarms presaged a social revolution; even an illiterate peasant could kill a noble knight. This factor led samurai to prohibit firearms in Japan.

Renaissance period

As firearms became cheaper and more effective, they grew to widespread use among infantry beginning in the 16th century. Requiring little training, firearms soon began to make swords, maces, bows, and other weapons obsolete. Pikes, as a part of pike and shot formation survived a good deal longer. By the mid 1500s, firearms had become the main weapons in many armies. The main firearm of that period was the arquebus. Although less accurate than the bow, an arquebus could penetrate most armors of the period and required little training. In response, armor thickened, making it very heavy and expensive. As a result, the curiass replaced the mail hauberk and full suits of armor, and only the most valuable cavalry wore more than a padded shirt.
Soldiers armed with arquebuses were usually placed in three lines so one line would be able to fire, while the other two could reload. This tactic enabled an almost constant flow of gunfire and made up for the inaccuracy of the weapon. In order to hold back cavalry, wooden palisades or pikemen would be in front of the soldiers armed with arquebuses. An example of this is the Battle of Nagashino.

Gunpowder warfare

The introduction of the bayonet made pikemen obsolete. Generally in battles, two sides lined up and fired a few volleys at each other and one side rushed the other with bayonets. Due to the high cost of professional armies, two or three lines of musketmen were a typical battle-line. These basic principles dominated warfare in the 18th century.
Napoleon Bonaparte did many things to change the nature of warfare. Entrenching was among his adaptations. This meant soldiers did not always have to stand exposed, and could have a large degree of protection from direct fire weapons. The largest problem with entrenching was the time it took to make a trench. Another infantry tactic Napoleon introduced was a diamond formation, which allowed soldiers to rapidly change directions. He relied heavily on the column, a formation less than a hundred men wide and containing an entire brigade in tight formation. The constant movement and sheer mass of this formation could break through most enemy lines. His enemies eventually adapted and defeated Napoleon, but his tactics were studied well into the 19th century, even as improved weapons made massed infantry attacks increasingly suicidal.
Long-used line tactics contributed significantly to the bloodshed of the American Civil War. By that time, rifles had been introduced which were accurate enough to render lines unnecessary; still, many commanders clung to traditional forms of combat. Linear tactics were used against natives in lands being colonized by European powers during the late 19th century, and their use continued until World War I.

Colonial warfare

Countries which have not been major world powers have seen many other infantry tactics. In South Africa, the Zulu impis (regiments) were infamous for their bull horn tactic. It involved four groups - two in the front, one on the left, and one on the right. They would surround the enemy unit, close in, and destroy them with short ''assegai'', or ''iklwas''. The Zulu warriors surprised and often overwhelmed their enemies, even much better armed and equipped enemies such as the British army. However, as effective as the Zulus were, they were no match for the technologically advanced and professional British Army.
The Sudanese fought their enemies by using a handful of riflemen to lure enemy riflemen into the range of concealed Sudanese spearmen. On the other side of the spectrum, the Māori did not fight; rather, they hid in fortified bunkers that could withstand strikes from even some of the most powerful weapons of the 19th century. Sometimes the natives would arm themselves with weapons similar or superior to those of the imperialistic country they were fighting. During the Battle of Little Bighorn, Lt. Colonel George Custer and the Seventh Cavalry were destroyed by a force of Sioux and Cheyenne.^[20]
Unconventional infantry tactics often put a conventional enemy at a disadvantage. During the Second Boer War, the Boers used guerilla tactics to fight the conventional British Army. Boer marksmen would often pick off British soldiers from hundreds of feet away. These constant sniper attacks forced the British infantry to begin wearing khaki uniforms instead of than their traditional red. The Boers were much more mobile than the British infantry and thus could usually choose where a battle would take place. These unconventional tactics forced the British to adopt some unorthodox tactics of their own. These included putting the families of Boer soldiers in concentration camps in order to deprive the Boer soldiers of support.

World War I

Because of the lethality of more modern firearms, such as the machine gun and artillery, infantry tactics shifted to trench warfare. Massed infantry charges were now essentially suicide, and the Western Front ground to a standstill.
A common tactic used during World War I was to shell an enemy trench line, at which point infantry which would leave the safety of their trenches, charge across no man's land, and seize the enemy trenches. However, this tactic of "preliminary bombardment" was largely unsuccessful. The nature of no man's land--filled with barbed wire, mines, and anything else that could be placed to slow down an advancing soldier--was a factor in this. For a unit to get to an enemy trench line, it had to cross this and in the process would be slowed by all the obstructions and then counterattacked by enemy reserves. It also depended on the ability of friendly artillery to suppress enemy infantry and artillery, which was frequently limited by "bombproofs" (bunkers), revetments, poor ammunition, or simply inaccurate fire.
An improvement was the "creeping barrage" in which artillery would fire right in front of advancing infantry to clear any enemy in their way. Many important victories (such as Vimy Ridge) relied on creeping barrage, but it required close coordination in an era before widespread use of radio, and when laying telephone wire under fire was extremely hazardous. New tactics were the key to breaking the deadlock of trench warfare. The Germans devised infiltration tactics in which shock troops quietly infiltrated the enemy's forward trenches, without the heavy bombardment that gave warning and allowed the other side to send in reinforcements. The Allies devised a fearsome new war machine, the tank, enabling them to overrun enemy positions without fear of the ever-present machine guns.
The Germans used their specially-trained Stormtroopers to great effect in 1918, overrunning the Allied trench lines and allowing supporting infantry to pour through a wide breach in the front lines. Even though most of the German forces were on foot, they were soon threatening Paris. Only timely and stiff resistance of American forces prevented disaster. After this Spring offensive, the Allies counterattacked with tank support, and eventually forced the Germans into a retreat. Then-current tanks were too slow to do more than support the infantry, but they were enough to break the deadlock.

World War II

Since trench warfare had been rendered obsolete by the tank, new infantry tactics were devised. More than ever, battles consisted of infantry working together with tanks, aircraft, artillery, (see combined arms). One example of this is how infantry would be sent ahead of tanks to search for anti-tank teams, while tanks would provide cover for the infantry. Portable radios allowed field commanders to communicate with their HQs, allowing new orders to be relayed instantly.
Another major difference from any other previous conflict was the means of transportation; no longer did soldiers have to walk (or ride a horse) from location to location. The prevalence of motor transport, however, has been overstated; Germany used more horses for transport in WW2 than in WW1, and British troops as late as June 1944 still were not fully motorized. Although there were trucks in World War I, their mobility could never be fully exploited because of the trench warfare stalemate, as well as the terribly torn up terrain at the front and the ineffectiveness of vehicles at the time. During World War II, infantry could be moved from one location to another using half-tracks, trucks, and even aircraft, which left them better rested and able to fight once they reached their objective; this also influenced speed of deployment and casualties.^[21] A new type of infantry, the paratrooper, was deployed as well. These lightly armed soldiers would parachute behind enemy lines, hoping to catch the enemy off-guard. They were first used by the Germans to seize key bridges in the Netherlands, and prevented their destruction long enough for additional forces to arrive. They required prompt support from regulars, however; First British Airborne was decimated at Arnhem for being left essentially cut off.
To counter the tank threat, WW2 infantry initially had few options other than the so-called "Molotov cocktail" (first used by Chinese troops against Japanese tanks around Shanghai in 1937^[22]) and Anti-tank rifle. Neither was particularly effective, especially if armor was accompanied by supporting infantry. These, and later Anti-tank mines, some of which could be magnetically attached to the tank, required the user to get closer than was prudent. Later developments, such as the Bazooka, PIAT, and ''Panzerfaust'', allowed a more effective attack against armor from a distance. Thus, especially in the ruined urban zones, tanks were forced to enter accompanied by squads of infantry.
Marines became prominent during the Pacific War. These soldiers were capable of Amphibious warfare on a scale not previously known. As Naval Infantry, both Japanese and American Marines enjoyed the support of naval craft such as battleships, cruisers, and the newly-developed aircraft carriers. As with conventional infantry, the Marines used radios to communicate with their supporting elements. They could call in sea and air bombardment very quickly.

Squad

Offensive tactics

Aggressive squad tactics were similar for both sides, though specifics in arms, numbers, and the subtleties of the doctrine differed. The main goal was to advance by means of fire and movement with minimal casualties while maintaining unit effectiveness and control.
The 'German' squad would win the ''Feuerkampf'' (fire fight), then occupy key positions. The rifle and machine gun teams were not separate, but part of the ''Gruppe'', though men were often firing at will. Victory went to the side able to concentrate the most fire on target most quickly. Generally, soldiers were ordered to hold fire until the enemy was 600 metres (660 yards) or closer, when troops opened fire on mainly large targets; individuals were fired upon only from 400 meters (440yd) or below.
The German squad had two main formations while moving on the battlefield. When advancing in the ''Reihe'', or single file, formation, the commander took the lead, followed by the machine gunner and his assistants, then riflemen, with the assistant squad commander moving on the rear. The ''Reihe'' moved mostly on tracks and it presented a small target on the front. In some cases, the machinegun could be deployed while the rest of the squad held back. In most cases, the soldiers took advantage of the terrain, keeping behind contours and cover, and running out into the open when there were none to be found.
A ''Reihe'' could easily be formed into ''Schützenkette'', or skirmish line. The machinegun deployed on the spot, while riflemen came up on the right, left or both sides. The result was a ragged line with men about five paces apart, taking cover whenever available. In areas where resistance was serious, the squad executed "fire and movement". This was used either with the entire squad, or the machinegun team down while riflemen advanced. Commanders were often cautioned not to fire the machinegun until forced to do so by enemy fire. The object of the firefight was to not necessarily to destroy the enemy, but ''Niederkampfen'' - to beat down, silence, or neutralize them.
The final phases of an offensive squad action were the fire fight, advance, assault, and occupation of position:
''The Fire Fight'' was the fire unit section. The section commander usually only commanded the light machine gunner (LMG) to open fire upon the enemy. If much cover existed and good fire effect was possible, riflemen took part early. Most riflemen had to be on the front later to prepare for the assault. Usually, they fired individually unless their commander ordered them to focus on one target.
''The Advance'' was the section that worked its way forward in a loose formation. Usually, the LMG formed the front of the attack. The farther the riflemen followed behind the LMG, the more easily the rear machine guns could shoot past them.
''The Assault'' was the main offensive in the squad action. The commander made an assault whenever he was given the opportunity rather than being ordered to do so. The whole section was rushed into the assault while the commander lead the way. Throughout the assault, the enemy had to be engaged with the maximum rate of fire. The LMG took part in the assault, firing on the move. Using hand grenades, machine pistols, rifles, pistols, and entrenching tools, the squad tried to break the enemy resistance. The squad had to reorganize quickly once the assault was over.
When occupying a position (''The Occupation of Position''), the riflemen group up into twos or threes around the LMG so they could hear the section commander.
The 'American' squad's basic formations were very similar to that of the Germans. The U.S. ''squad column'' had the men strung out with the squad leader and BAR man in front with riflemen in a line behind them roughly 60 paces long. This formation was easily controlled and maneuvered and it was suitable for crossing areas open to artillery fire, moving through narrow covered routes, and for fast movement in woods, fog, smoke, and darkness.
The ''skirmish line'' was very similar to the ''Schützenkette'' formation. In it, the squad was deployed in a line roughly 60 paces long. It was suitable for short rapid dashes but was not easy to control. The ''squad wedge'' was an alternative to the skirmish line and was suitable for ready movement in any direction or for emerging from cover. Wedges were often used away from the riflemen's range of fire as it was much more vulnerable than the skirmish line.
In some instances, especially when a squad was working independently to seize an enemy position, the commander ordered the squad to attack in sub-teams. "Team Able", made up of two riflemen scouts, would locate the enemy; "Team Baker", comprised of a Browning Automatic Rifle (BAR) man and three riflemen, would open fire. "Team Charlie", made up of the squad leader and the last five riflemen, would make the assault. The assault is given whenever possible and without regard to the progress of the other squads. After the assault, the squad advanced, dodging for cover, and the bayonets were fixed. They would move rapidly toward the enemy, firing and advancing in areas occupied by hostile soldiers. Such fire would usually be delivered in a standing position at a rapid rate. After taking the enemy's position, the commander would either order his squad to defend or continue the advance.
The 'British' method formations depended chiefly on the ground and the type of enemy fire that was encountered. Five squad formations were primarily used: ''blobs'', single file, loose file, irregular arrowhead, and the extended line. The ''blob'' formation, first used in 1917, referred to ''ad hoc'' gatherings of 2 to 4 men, hidden as well as possible. The regular single file formation was only used in certain circumstances, such as when the squad was advancing behind a hedgerow. The loose file formation was a slightly more scattered line suitable for rapid movement, but vulnerable to enemy fire. Arrowheads could deploy rapidly from either flank and were hard to stop from the air. The Extended Line was perfect for the final assault, but it was vulnerable if fired upon from the flank.
The British squad would commonly break up into two groups for the attack. The ''Bren group'' consisted of the two-man Bren gun team and second in command that formed one element, while the main body of the riflemen with the squad commander formed another. The larger group that contained the commander was responsible for closing in on the enemy and advancing promptly when under fire. When under effective fire, riflemen went to fully fledged "fire and movement". The riflemen were ordered to fall to the ground as if they had been shot, and then crawl to a good firing position. They took rapid aim and fired independently until the squad commander called for cease fire. On some occasions the Bren group advanced by bounds, to a position where it could effectively commence fire, preferably at 90 degrees to the main assault. In this case both the groups would give each other cover fire. The final attack was made by the riflemen who were ordered to fire at the hip as they went in.

Defensive tactics

'German' defensive squad tactics stressed the importance of integration with larger plans and principles in posts scattered in depth. A ''Gruppe'' was expected to dig in at 30 to 40 meters (33-45yd) (the maximum that a squad leader could effectively oversee). Other cover such as single trees and crests were said to attract too much enemy fire and were rarely used. While digging, one member of the squad was to stand sentry. Gaps between dug-in squads may be left, but covered by fire. The placing of the machine gun was key to the German squad defence, which was given several alternative positions, usually being placed 50 meters (55yd) apart.
Pairs of soldiers were deployed in foxholes, trenches, or ditches. The pair stood close together in order to communicate with each other. The small sub-sections would be slightly separated, thus decreasing the effect of enemy fire. If the enemy did not immediately mobilize, the second stage of defense, entrenching, was employed. These trenches were constructed behind the main line where soldiers could be kept back under cover until they were needed.
The defensive firefight was conducted by the machine gun at an effective range while riflemen were concealed in their foxholes until the enemy assault. Enemy grenades falling on the squad's position were avoided by diving away from the blast or by simply throwing or kicking the grenade back. This tactic was very dangerous and U.S. sources mention soldiers losing hands and feet this way.
In the latter part of the war, emphasis was put on defense against armored vehicles. Defensive positions were built on a "tank-proof obstacle" composed of at least one anti-tank weapon as well as artillery support directed by an observer. To intercept enemy tanks probing a defensive position, squads often patrolled with an anti-tank weapon.

Field Works

Platoon

Cold War era

The Korean War was the first major conflict following World War II. During the Korean War, the human wave tactic was used by Chinese forces. Human wave tactics emphasized overwhelming an enemy by sending large numbers of soldiers against fortified positions. This tactic, first seen as early as the Russo-Japanese War, was used extensively by the Soviets and Japanese during World War II. Generally, it was employed by a poorly trained force against a more disciplined one. It proved very costly, but could achieve the desired result. New devices, including smaller radios and the helicopter were also introduced. Parachute drops, which tended to scatter a large number of men over the battlefield, were replaced by airmobile operations using helicopters to deliver men in a precise manner. Helicopters also provided fire support in many cases, and could be rushed to deliver precision strikes on the enemy. Thus, infantry were free to range far beyond the conventional fixed artillery positions. They could even operate behind enemy lines, and later be extracted by air. This led to the concept of vertical envelopment (originally conceived for airborne), in which the enemy is not flanked to the left or right, but rather from above.

Vietnam War

Guerrilla tactics became very popular throughout developing nations. Many of these attacks revolved around "hit and run" attacks, involving a small group usually hiding in ambush and attacking a larger force, only to retreat seconds later. This reduced the advantages of the conventional force's advanced weapon systems. It gave an ambushed squad no time to call in artillery or air strike.
Booby traps were another common tactic among guerrillas. The punji stick (or the concealed punji stick pit) was a common example of booby traps used in Vietnam. Grenade traps (poised with the pin removed) were also used. Moving them would take the pressure off the lever, causing the grenades to explode.
One of the defining characteristics of a guerilla, however, was camouflage. The Viet Cong would travel in small groups, often wearing civilian clothes to make it difficult for American soldiers to know who they were. Often, the Viet Cong would hide in tunnels underground. Some of these tunnels were so advanced commanders briefed soldiers and slept there. When American soldiers had to enter the tunnels, they had to be lightly armed and travel through the dark.
Tunnels and "spider holes" were often used to spring ambushes on American troops. The Vietcong would wait for part of an American formation to pass before coming out of the ground and opening fire. Before the Americans had the chance to realize where the fire came from, the Vietcong would duck back into the trenches. This often caused fratricide because soldiers who were ambushed would fire back behind them, hitting other American patrols.
American troops, usually assigned to Vietnam for a one-year tour of duty, found themselves ill-trained to wage a war against a mostly invisible enemy; by the time the "cherry" learned the necessary lessons, he was "short" to be rotated out. Also, due to the increased use of air mobility, the average infantryman in Vietnam saw five times the combat in one year his World War Two counterpart experienced in the entire war. Lessons learned during this conflict led to the creation of such specialized units as the United States Army Special Forces and the United States Marine Corps Force Reconnaissance.

Soviet-Afghan war

During this war, Russia battled a force called the ''Mujahideen''. Although the Soviets were much more powerful than ''Mujahideen'', they were not able to completely destroy them because they hid in the mountains and used guerilla tactics. They often attacked Soviet convoys from mountains as they drove by below in valleys. Like the Vietcong, they would often retreat soon after ambushing the Soviets.
When the Stinger missile was introduced to ''Mujahideen'', they began to ambush Soviet helicopters and fixed wing aircraft at airfields. The Stinger was only effective up to 15,000 feet, so ''Mujihadeen'' would attack aircraft as they were landing or taking off. The Stinger, however, was not the "weapon that won the war". Although it did have a big effect on the war, it did not shoot down very many aircraft. It did force the Soviets to modify their tactics. For example, helicopters stayed over friendly forces, fixed wing aircraft began flying higher, and armor and electronic defense systems were added to aircraft to help protect them from the Stinger.
The Soviets countered ''Mujahideen'' tactics in various ways. ''Spetsnaz'' were used extensively. They would be flown into areas where ''Mujahideen'' often passed, had been seen, or were ambushing someone. ''Spetsnaz'' were effective against ''Mujahideen''; tanks and aircraft were of comparatively little use. The only technology with a significant impact on ''Mujahideen'' were land mines and helicopters, who were nevertheless able to work around the problems caused by them.
As the Soviets seemed to get stalled, they began punishing the local population for supporting ''Mujahideen''. It was not uncommon for Soviet helicopters to raze an Afghan village in retaliation for an attack against Soviet soldiers. At other times they dropped mines from aircraft in fields and pastures and shot livestock with machineguns. Without the support of the villagers, ''Mujahideen'' would have had to carry their own food. Another common tactic was to cordon off and search villages for ''Mujahideen''. These tactics were not unlike those used by the United States in Vietnam, or by the Germans against Soviet partisans in World War Two.

Modern times

Russian-Chechnyan conflict

The conflict between Russia and the Chechens has been mostly a guerilla war involving acts of terror. Most fighting is done with the support of armored vehicles, artillery, or aircraft, rather than just infantry. Russian infantry were important for fighting in Grozny during the mid 1990s although they were not prepared for the urban warfare that occurred. The Chechen insurgents were hiding on the top floors and basements of buildings armed with small arms and anti-tank weapons. The Russians came in with convoys of armored vehicles which were unprepared for the tactics the Chechens would use.
Chechen ambush tactics were planned, and involved destroying the first and the last vehicle in the column. This was done by either rocket propelled grenade (RPG) or improvised explosive device (IED) attacks. Under Russian military doctrine, these would be armoured personnel carriers (APCs) or tanks. If the initial attack was successful, the rest of the convoy would be trapped in between. This tactic was developed by the Dushmans, and adapted for urban warfare by the Chechens who served in the Soviet Army in Afghanistan.
In the aftermath of the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Russia adopted many tactics used by the West. During the second conflict, learning from the lessons of the first, artillery and airstrikes were used much more extensively. Despite the civilian loss of life, these were not the carpet bombings of the World Wars, but quite precise strikes. The second siege of Grozny was an exception, as the whole city was leveled.
Chechens also fought in a different formation during urban combat. These tactics employed fireteams of three fighters: a machine gunner, a sniper and a RPGer. In the conditions of urban combat this proved ingenious, as a very small and mobile fireteam could meet any potential sizable threat with great effectiveness.
Chechen snipers were known for wounding soldiers and picking off their rescuers. A favorite tactic used by Chechen snipers during the first battle of Grozny was to shoot off the antennas from the moving APCs. Since this was often the only means of communication with the command center, the troops inside would end up isolated. The troops would then be attacked with RPGs or by the sniper as they tried to repair the antenna.
As Russia controlled more and more area, ambushes gave place to roadside bombings. These usually involved modified mines and improvised explosive devices (IED).
Experience gained by Arabs in guerrilla and urban combat in Chechnya was successfully imported into Iraq after the invasion.

U.S. - Iraq conflict (2003-present)

Before and during the insurgency many unconventional tactics were used. Human shields were common during the war and in the ensuing insurgency in places like Fallujah. Suicide bombers have attacked soldiers at checkpoints, on patrols, on their bases, and in convoys. Consequently, soldiers use more caution, and treat everyone who comes to a checkpoint as a potential suicide bomber; explosives can be hidden under clothes or in something being carried.
Infantry carrying small arms and RPGs have aided in ambushes with improvised explosive devices. Several times convoys have been stopped with IEDs and Iraqi fighters armed with RPGs and small arms attacked them.
There have been several occasions in which infantry have met with angry crowds.
Armored units and infantry units have been combined in urban environments to great effect in places like Fallujah. The use of armor in cities was once thought to be a tactical mistake.

Notes

1. Dupuy, Trevor N., Colonel, U.S. Army. ''Evolution of Weapons and Warfare'' (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1980), p.1. ISBN 0-672-52050-8
2. ''ibid.'', p.2.
3. ''ibid.'', p.3.
4. ''ibid.'', p.2&4. Achilles' death to the bow in ''The Iliad'' was considered a dishonorable act byHector.
5. ''ibid.'', p.5. Thus, the scenes in ''The Iliad'', of leaders dismounting to fight, are period correct.
6. ''ibid.''
7. ''ibid.'', p.10.
8. ''ibid.'', p.10-11.
9. ''ibid.'', p.11.
10. ''ibid.'', p.12.
11. ''ibid.'', p.13.
12. ''ibid.'', p.14. The simple ''phalanx'' could be combined into a grand ''phalanx'' of four simple ''phalanges'', a formation equivalent to a modern army corps.
13. ''ibid.'', p.13-14.
14. ''ibid.'', p.16.
15. ''ibid.'', p.16-17.
16. ''ibid.'', p.17.
17. ''ibid.'', p.17.
18. ''ibid.'', p.19. Covering a wider area naturally reduces the tendency of any one soldier to be killed.
19. ''ibid., p.67.
20. Custer suffered from insubordinate junior officers as much as superior enemy weapons, as shown in Sklenar, Larry. ''To Hell With Honor''. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press, 2000.
21. Moving across a fire zone in a vehicle, especially under armor, dramatically cut casualties.
22. Fitzsimons, Bernard, ed. ''Illustrated Encyclopedia of Twentieth Century Weapons and Warfare'' (London: Phoebus, 1978), Volume 18, p.1929-20, "Molotove Cocktail".

Bibliography

World War II

★ ''World War II Infantry Tactics: Squad and Platoon'', Dr Steven Bull, 2004 Osprey Ltd.