The Military Thread

[BMAN]

Well, they got clobbered by the Prussians in 1871 and had to give up a bunch of territory. Then their army mutinied in 1917 and wouldn't engage in any offensive operations until nearly a year later. The Brits and Americans bailed them out there. We all know about WW2. Then post World War 2, they got clobbered in a major set-piece battle by the Viet Minh.

They did do well during the era of Napoleon, but he wasn't (strictly speaking) French. And they only found victory in the 100 Years War after a girl took over.

Fuck, it's all starting to come back to me. Been a while since I read up on France's history

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

Fuck, it's all starting to come back to me. Been a while since I read up on France's history

There's a hilarious write-up somewhere about the French only having military success when led by a girl, or by a non-Frenchman. Wish I could find it.

 

[Sebastian]

The French had to hold off an enemy twice their size for three years in WWI. It destroyed the most productive parts of their country and to this day vast swathes of land are untouchable and poisoned*. It bled them dry while the Brits got their act together and the US twiddled its thumbs. Losing an entire generation tends to make things difficult 20-30 years later. Something like 1 in 3 French young men between the ages of 17-30 were killed, wounded or maimed. Their sacrifice saved us from a German dominated world.

Edit: Something else now that I am and able to think, @BMAN, is, make no mistake, France won WWI. They took the brunt of the German onslaught, and they tore the heart out of the German Army. They led the Allied Forces and equipped it.

1) By the time the US had any meaningful number of troops on the ground in spring 1918, the French, with an assist from the Brits, defeated the Great Spring Offensive.

2) The French also defeated the Fall Offensives with some help from the US and the UK, but the majority of the troops were French, and most Allied forces (not the US) were under French command. The first great Allied offensive that broke the Hindenburg Line in the fall was composed of one American Army, four British armies and nine French.

3) The French actually armed the US Forces as well as trained them.

4) Essentially, by the time the US entered the fray in numbers, the French, and the UK blockade, had already won the war. Germany could not win. The appearance of US Forces simply made it impossible for Germany to negotiate a favorable peace and expedited things by a year.


*In the map below, the areas in red, to this day, are uninhabited because the soil is toxic from poison gas, and chemicals associated with explosives and there are tens of millions of unexploded munitions.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

The French had to hold off an enemy twice their size for three years in WWI. It destroyed the most productive parts of their country and to this day vast swathes of land are untouchable and poisoned*. It bled them dry while the Brits got their act together and the US twiddled its thumbs. Losing an entire generation tends to make things difficult 20-30 years later. Something like 1 in 3 French young men between the ages of 17-30 were killed, wounded or maimed. Their sacrifice saved us from a German dominated world.

Edit: Something else now that I am and able to think, @BMAN, is, make no mistake, France won WWI. They took the brunt of the German onslaught, and they tore the heart out of the German Army. They led the Allied Forces and equipped it.

1) By the time the US had any meaningful number of troops on the ground in spring 1918, the French, with an assist from the Brits, defeated the Great Spring Offensive.

2) The French also defeated the Fall Offensives with some help from the US and the UK, but the majority of the troops were French, and most Allied forces (not the US) were under French command.

3) The French actually armed the US Forces as well as trained them.

4) Essentially, by the time the US entered the fray in numbers, the French, and the UK blockade, had already won the war. Germany could not win. The appearance of US Forces simply made it impossible for Germany to negotiate a favorable peace and expedited things by a year.


*In the map below, the areas in red, to this day, are uninhabited because the soil is toxic from poison gas, and chemicals associated with explosives and there are tens of millions of unexploded munitions.

Party pooper.

 

[Sebastian]

Party pooper.

I get a little annoyed about the WWI and WWII thing sometimes. I served with some great Frenchies (liaison officers stateside and in Afghanistan) and the "surrender monkey" thing was once brought up on a Friday night and they proceeded to layeth the smack down about American misconceptions.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

I get a little annoyed about the WWI and WWII thing sometimes. I served with some great Frenchies (liaison officers stateside and in Afghanistan) and the "surrender monkey" thing was once brought up on a Friday night and they proceeded to layeth the smack down about American misconceptions.

Well, i'd actually disagree with the claim that they deserve credit for winning the war in the west. The truth is the French were itching for war in 1914 to avenge the territorial losses of 1870-71. Turns out they bitten off more than they could chew, were still outmatched by the Germans, and would have lost the war had the BEF not arrived.

They did suffer the most casualties, so it can fairly said they endured the most for the allied cause. But they would have lost in 1918 had the U.S. not entered the war.

After all, they were fighting for their own country, so they should have born most of the load. The Brits and us weren't.

 

[Sebastian]

Well, i'd actually disagree with the claim that they deserve credit for winning the war in the west. The truth is the French were itching for war in 1914 to avenge the territorial losses of 1870-71. Turns out they bitten off more than they could chew, were still outmatched by the Germans, and would have lost the war had the BEF not arrived.

They did suffer the most casualties, so it can fairly said they endured the most for the allied cause. But they would have lost in 1918 had the U.S. not entered the war.

After all, they were fighting for their own country, so they should have born most of the load. The Brits and us weren't.

They wouldn't have and didn't lose in 1918. Our contributions for the first six months of 1918 were very small. By then they had already defeated the two big German offensives.

Even in the 100 Days Campaign, our contribution, and even Britain's was far smaller than theirs. They had already won the war without meaningful help from the US. France and Britain didn't need the US to win; we just made it easier.

 

[Coyote850]

For those into World War 2 history. Paul Allen has a reseach vessel that he uses to find sunken warships. Yesterday they found the USS Lexington. Sunk in 1942 at the Battle of The Corsl Sea. Follow Paul on twitter. Awesome stuff.

 

[Sebastian]

For those into World War 2 history. Paul Allen has a reseach vessel that he uses to find sunken warships. Yesterday they found the USS Lexington. Sunk in 1942 at the Battle of The Corsl Sea. Follow Paul on twitter. Awesome stuff.

Nice.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

@King Stannis -- Opinion?

The Marine Corps’ New Plan To Shake Up Rifle Squads

In an address to an audience of Marines at a Marine Corps Association awards dinner near Washington, D.C., on Thursday night, Commandant Gen. Robert Neller said future squads will have 12 Marines, down from the current 13.

But while the squads are losing a body, they will gain capability, with two new leadership positions, he said.

The new squad will have three fire teams of three Marines each, an adjustment from the standard four-Marine fire teams of today, Neller said....

...Marine leadership has been debating changes to the size of the infantry squad since 2016, using a designated experimental infantry unit, 3rd Battalion, 5th Marines, to model various configurations and added weapons capabilities. The service reportedly was considering a squad as small as 11 Marines or as large as 14.

Neller told Military.com the final decision was made after talking to infantry squad leaders and commanders and considering his own experience in the community.

“Everything we want to do has to be reversible,” he said. “It’s easier to add a person to your fire team than it is to break two fire teams back into three.”

Meanwhile, Neller said, squads will also build into their structure an assistant squad leader and a squad systems operator, allowing the unit to operate with greater independence and manage a growing suite of advanced technology, including unmanned aerial systems.


https://taskandpurpose.com/marine-rifle-squad/

I don't like this, though I respect the fact that it is considered sort of a trial, and might be reversed. I imagine this was a change that was debated rather vigorously.

I see a few problems with three man fire teams. The first is that you've got an odd number that doesn't work for setting in a defense and two-man fighting holes. It also doesn't work for setting up two, 2 man teams for urban combat and other applications.

But the thing I really don't like is that I think it screws with leadership. You're going to have three, 3 man fire teams, plus two "extra" guys with specific tasks. That means you've reduced the leadership responsibilities of your corporals by giving them only two rather than three marines to lead, but now given your sergeant five direct-report elements to lead.

I'd rather keep the 13 man squad, and simply have some of the Marines within that squad given those additional collateral responsibilities. Your senior fire team leader is the de facto assistant squad leader, and the tech guy also is part of a regular fire team who does that stuff when the situation calls for it. Also think that having the tech guy integrated into a fire team would promote cross-training because the other guys in that team will inherently be exposed to that stuff more often.

 

[TopGun]

@King Stannis -- Opinion?

The Marine Corps’ New Plan To Shake Up Rifle Squads

In an address to an audience of Marines at a Marine Corps Association awards dinner near Washington, D.C., on Thursday night, Commandant Gen. Robert Neller said future squads will have 12 Marines, down from the current 13.

But while the squads are losing a body, they will gain capability, with two new leadership positions, he said.

The new squad will have three fire teams of three Marines each, an adjustment from the standard four-Marine fire teams of today, Neller said....

...Marine leadership has been debating changes to the size of the infantry squad since 2016, using a designated experimental infantry unit, 3rd Battalion, 5th Marines, to model various configurations and added weapons capabilities. The service reportedly was considering a squad as small as 11 Marines or as large as 14.

Neller told Military.com the final decision was made after talking to infantry squad leaders and commanders and considering his own experience in the community.

“Everything we want to do has to be reversible,” he said. “It’s easier to add a person to your fire team than it is to break two fire teams back into three.”

Meanwhile, Neller said, squads will also build into their structure an assistant squad leader and a squad systems operator, allowing the unit to operate with greater independence and manage a growing suite of advanced technology, including unmanned aerial systems.


https://taskandpurpose.com/marine-rifle-squad/

I don't like this, though I respect the fact that it is considered sort of a trial, and might be reversed. I imagine this was a change that was debated rather vigorously.

I see a few problems with three man fire teams. The first is that you've got an odd number that doesn't work for setting in a defense and two-man fighting holes. It also doesn't work for setting up two, 2 man teams for urban combat and other applications.

But the thing I really don't like is that I think it screws with leadership. You're going to have three, 3 man fire teams, plus two "extra" guys with specific tasks. That means you've reduced the leadership responsibilities of your corporals by giving them only two rather than three marines to lead, but now given your sergeant five direct-report elements to lead.

I'd rather keep the 13 man squad, and simply have some of the Marines within that squad given those additional collateral responsibilities. Your senior fire team leader is the de facto assistant squad leader, and the tech guy also is part of a regular fire team who does that stuff when the situation calls for it. Also think that having the tech guy integrated into a fire team would promote cross-training because the other guys in that team will inherently be exposed to that stuff more often.

I'm surprised they didn't go down to an 11 man squad so that the leader could count all of his Marines without taking off his shoes and socks.

On a serious note, I agree that 3-man teams are not ideal in most situations, but I think that this will end up being de facto 4-man teams with each team leader having increased responsibilities.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

I'm surprised they didn't go down to an 11 man squad so that the leader could count all of his Marines without taking off his shoes and socks.

On a serious note, I agree that 3-man teams are not ideal in most situations, but I think that this will end up being de facto 4-man teams with each team leader having increased responsibilities.

But then who would be leading those 4 man fire teams? I mean, you've already got 3 corporals (at least by T/O) who are supposed to be fire team leaders. So if you're going to turn those 3 man teams into 4 man teams, that means the sergeant squad leader is now part of a fire team, and the assistant squad leader (probably the senior corporal in the new T/O), is part of another. That means that 2 out of the 3 corporals who are supposed to be leading their own fire teams will be outranked within their own unit by either the squad leader or his assistant.

It may work well enough in small-scale counter-insurgency operations where you need special skills at the squad level more often. I just don't think it will work nearly as well for most other applications. But hey, I could be wrong.

The Marine Corps Gazette should be more interesting for the next year or so, because guys will be blasting each other back and forth over this.

 

[Sebastian]

@King Stannis -- Opinion?

The Marine Corps’ New Plan To Shake Up Rifle Squads

In an address to an audience of Marines at a Marine Corps Association awards dinner near Washington, D.C., on Thursday night, Commandant Gen. Robert Neller said future squads will have 12 Marines, down from the current 13.

But while the squads are losing a body, they will gain capability, with two new leadership positions, he said.

The new squad will have three fire teams of three Marines each, an adjustment from the standard four-Marine fire teams of today, Neller said....

...Marine leadership has been debating changes to the size of the infantry squad since 2016, using a designated experimental infantry unit, 3rd Battalion, 5th Marines, to model various configurations and added weapons capabilities. The service reportedly was considering a squad as small as 11 Marines or as large as 14.

Neller told Military.com the final decision was made after talking to infantry squad leaders and commanders and considering his own experience in the community.

“Everything we want to do has to be reversible,” he said. “It’s easier to add a person to your fire team than it is to break two fire teams back into three.”

Meanwhile, Neller said, squads will also build into their structure an assistant squad leader and a squad systems operator, allowing the unit to operate with greater independence and manage a growing suite of advanced technology, including unmanned aerial systems.


https://taskandpurpose.com/marine-rifle-squad/

I don't like this, though I respect the fact that it is considered sort of a trial, and might be reversed. I imagine this was a change that was debated rather vigorously.

I see a few problems with three man fire teams. The first is that you've got an odd number that doesn't work for setting in a defense and two-man fighting holes. It also doesn't work for setting up two, 2 man teams for urban combat and other applications.

But the thing I really don't like is that I think it screws with leadership. You're going to have three, 3 man fire teams, plus two "extra" guys with specific tasks. That means you've reduced the leadership responsibilities of your corporals by giving them only two rather than three marines to lead, but now given your sergeant five direct-report elements to lead.

I'd rather keep the 13 man squad, and simply have some of the Marines within that squad given those additional collateral responsibilities. Your senior fire team leader is the de facto assistant squad leader, and the tech guy also is part of a regular fire team who does that stuff when the situation calls for it. Also think that having the tech guy integrated into a fire team would promote cross-training because the other guys in that team will inherently be exposed to that stuff more often.

This seems more fit for a special weapons platoon than a regular infantry one.

They should be adding more firepower, rather than slimming down.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

This seems more fit for a special weapons platoon than a regular infantry one.

They should be adding more firepower, rather than slimming down.

Well, there are plans to add more firepower. I personally just think this change to the fire teams messes too much with the leadership within the squad.

I know the Army squad-level organization has changed quite a bit over the years.
Right now, I think it is two four-man fire teams. I know that back in the 90's, there was a push by some in the Army to go to the triangular organization but I don't know if that ever happened.

There's also this, which is a very good idea but will be expensive. We looked at doing this back in the 80's, but determined that the level of expertise required made it impractical. By the time you figured in all the schooling requirements, we just didn't have the resources. Technology should help that quite a bit, though. A GPS alone is a huge plus :

The Corps wants every rifle squad qualified to direct air, naval and artillery fire

The Corps plans to greatly boost the lethality and responsibility of one of its most fundamental building blocks of combat power by ensuring Marines can accurately direct and control mortar, field artillery, naval surface fire support and provide accurate targeting data for close-air support.

To do that, the Corps plans to qualify at least one Marine in every rifle squad as a joint fires observer, or JFO, according to the Corps’ recently published 2018 aviation plan.

The Marines need a whopping 648 JFOs to fill every active-duty rifle squad across the Corps and 243 in the reserves. Across the Corps’ ground combat element to include recon and armor, the Corps wants a total active 1122 JFOs and 494 in the reserves. That’s a lot of folks qualified to rain down accurate precision fire on enemy forces.

JFOs are qualified to “request, adjust, and control surface‐to‐surface fires, provide targeting data in support of Type 2 and 3 close air support terminal attack control and perform autonomous terminal guidance,” according to the Corps’ aviation plan. “The objective is to have at least (1) JFO at each rifle squad” who will work in conjunction with a Joint Terminal Attack Controller, or JTAC.

https://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/your-marine-corps/2018/05/02/the-corps-wants-every-rifle-squad-qualified-to-direct-air-naval-and-artillery-fire/

 

[Sebastian]

Well, there are plans to add more firepower. I personally just think this change to the fire teams messes too much with the leadership within the squad.

I know the Army squad-level organization has changed quite a bit over the years.
Right now, I think it is two four-man fire teams. I know that back in the 90's, there was a push by some in the Army to go to the triangular organization but I don't know if that ever happened.

There's also this, which is a very good idea but will be expensive. We looked at doing this back in the 80's, but determined that the level of expertise required made it impractical. By the time you figured in all the schooling requirements, we just didn't have the resources. Technology should help that quite a bit, though. A GPS alone is a huge plus :

The Corps wants every rifle squad qualified to direct air, naval and artillery fire

The Corps plans to greatly boost the lethality and responsibility of one of its most fundamental building blocks of combat power by ensuring Marines can accurately direct and control mortar, field artillery, naval surface fire support and provide accurate targeting data for close-air support.

To do that, the Corps plans to qualify at least one Marine in every rifle squad as a joint fires observer, or JFO, according to the Corps’ recently published 2018 aviation plan.

The Marines need a whopping 648 JFOs to fill every active-duty rifle squad across the Corps and 243 in the reserves. Across the Corps’ ground combat element to include recon and armor, the Corps wants a total active 1122 JFOs and 494 in the reserves. That’s a lot of folks qualified to rain down accurate precision fire on enemy forces.

JFOs are qualified to “request, adjust, and control surface‐to‐surface fires, provide targeting data in support of Type 2 and 3 close air support terminal attack control and perform autonomous terminal guidance,” according to the Corps’ aviation plan. “The objective is to have at least (1) JFO at each rifle squad” who will work in conjunction with a Joint Terminal Attack Controller, or JTAC.

https://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/your-marine-corps/2018/05/02/the-corps-wants-every-rifle-squad-qualified-to-direct-air-naval-and-artillery-fire/

Last I checked it was still two-four man fire teams. Two teams with a SAW and 240B each back then. Now I think it is they are aping the old German predilection for more firepower by giving both teams short-barreled 240s.

Calling for fires is made easier by the JETS-TLDS, that still needs to get reduced in size by 50%. But once it does, any E-5 can call for fire with precision.