|
byron13 -> (9/17/2002 8:07:51 AM)
|
I think Sabre is pretty close with the 30% figure. In theory, there is no reason why you couldn't cross attach so that every company was a mixed company team. But it did not happen as much as one might expect.
The reasons I can think of are not doctrinal but are more "practical." First of all, cross-attaching would mean losing a company and its commander that the battalion commander knew and getting in return a new company commander that (i) the battalion commander knew nothing about and (ii) that probably had a different outlook (armor v. infantry) that clashed with the battalion as a whole. While it was possible to send just platoons to another battalion (as happened to me once), this would be unusual because you would be sent without the company maintenance slice that had all the spare parts. That having been said, I think the norm would have been to probably attach one company of infantry or armor to another battalion. In my brigade, this did not happen because we had three armored battalions and one infantry battalion; if they'd given each tank battalion one company of infantry, the infantry battalion would have had three armor companies!
While I can't back this up, I think tanks attached to an infantry battalion were more likely to be split up and parceled out to the infantry companies. My limited experience was that the infantry usually considered the tanks to be additional anti-tank assets - a kind of mobile pill box - as opposed to a concentrated counterattack force. So you'd be more likely to have the tanks parceled out to augment the TOWs. Likewise, the tankers didn't really know what to do with the infantry and would usually just have them tag along until there was a forest or a town to clear out. I'm thinking the armor guys were more likely to keep the infantry together as a company to keep them out of the way. Plus the tanks could handle most threats and had a hard time dealing with the time it took for an infantry unit to deploy and to its thing.
Finally, to maximize cross attachment so that there was an even mix, you'd probably be sending half of your company commanders away and receiving new company commanders that you knew nothing about. Also, any company that was sent to another battalion, say a tank company to an infantry battalion, was likely to stay tank heavy (or infantry heavy for an infantry company cross attached to a tank battalion). This would be because, if your tank company was reduced to one tank platoon and two infantry platoons (i) the company maintenance slice would be ineffective and (ii) you've got a tank company commander commanding a company the use of two-thirds of which he is basically unfamiliar. Finally, a company team may be ideal for defending point A, but two klicks away at your next battle position, the infantry platoon may be completely worthless.
Based on all of this, I would say the norm was to attach a company to another battalion. That company would lose one platoon and pick up a platoon. You'd end up with two pure companies and two mixed companies with only one being heavy in the "foreign" type.
The real problem is that, for the most part, the infantry was way out of its element in Europe. The capabilities of tanks had advanced much further than those of the infantry. The war was going to be extremely fast and violent, and most of the targets were going to be vehicular. The infantry really did not have a role in that environment. Most wooded areas were small enough that tanks on either side could prevent the enemy from gaining access. If it was so large that you couldn't do this, then you needed a company or more of infantry to cover that ground. When you really needed infantry, it was to clear out an area that required a full dismounted company to do well. If you were on the defense and your dismounted infantry was engaged, the enemy had gotten waaaaaay too close, and the infantry would have a very hard time disengaging. The advent of the Bradley merely meant that the infantry had their own light tanks. Keep in mind that tanks feel the enemy is too close when they are 1,000 meters away. How do you use infantry in that kind of environment? You either keep the infantry 1,000 meters to your front where they can't escape, or you keep them back performing local security for the tanks.
I think the war would have unfolded with the tanks doing most of the fighting and the infantry being held in a kind of reserve for special tasks like night security, clearing areas of patrols, cleaning out a small community that the tanks had advanced to and, on a larger scale, clearing out or holding forests and larger towns on a company or larger scale.
|
|
|
|
