Making the infantry of Arashi

[Charon]

Given the creation of the team around a single weapon system of extreme importance, my initial reaction is "no", unless we start considering ancient siege weapons, but those would be more of a gun or tube section. As you know, the whole thing is built around that SAW. Giving a team the firepower of a squad with the mobility of half and the initiative of an internal leader.

[Ofiach]

 As for most of those examples I am showing an evolution of fighting forces, and trying to give a diverse perspective to show what could have developed from different cultures. Also giving the OP different reference points to look at for his idea about the infantry. Also Han Dynasty warriors could operate in 20 man groups very easily and for the technology and fighting styles of the day that is beyond impressive.

Like I said I concede the point about the exact term "fireteam." Marine's always came up with every tactical idea ever I get it, I really do, you can keep the term "fireteam." The idea of splitting squads into smaller groups to allow for covering fire, advancement, and split leadership is not a new idea; once again I know it wasn't called a "fireteam."

As to the topic of the post one of the big reasons for splitting a squad is  to allow half the squad to advance while the other half is laying fire, and this tactic can apply to the biggest nastiest infantry advance you can think of. BUT 3-5 people seems to be the lowest number that the tactic works for. @ Charon I did my time in service and had to sit through hours of lectures and sweat through endless hours of drills, maybe I got a different instructor but he made sure to show us examples of what worked historically, what didn't, and why. 

As for the Russians, I'm sure those 8 man squads never broke in half to attack from 2 flanks, wait yes they did. You are correct though they weren't called "fireteams." And you know what I bet in a GoI style infantry group they wouldn't have an exact Fire team structured A, B, C. But that's how it would naturally sort itself. The only thing missing from a natural fireteam compared to a marine fireteam is a SAW. The squad leader wouldn't put an idiot in charge of half his sqaud he would put the guy he trusts to lead the squad if anything happens to him in charge.

As for geeking out, you're getting so into the minutiae of the topic and not understanding the over arcing concept as it applies to the topic at hand. Deductive reasoning not rigid it must conform to this to be this. I know that's not how infantry is programmed but hey we aren't talking about American Marines in this forum.

The infantry in this world has been fighting for decades with firearms. They would have figured out effective means to fight. Maybe they don't have a special weapon like a SAW to form around, maybe they do.  Would it really change infantry organization to the point where a 7-12 man squad is the smallest possible formation just because the don't have a SAW? NO. Blocking out, as I said before, the complete idiocy of straight line combat. Decades of war would have cured them of straight line combat.

Maybe they wouldn't have developed a special designation such as "fireteams" but the splitting of a squad naturally happens to maximize its effectiveness.

[Lord Dick Tim]

So we are looking at smaller squads more due to the massive casualties airships would cause to larger groups.

[Charon]

You assume a lot there, Ofiach. "Infantry's not programmed that way". Ha.

A squad splitting in half and advancing is not as effective as utilizing fireteams for fire and movement or fire and maneuver.

8 man squads splitting in half don't achieve the goal of the fireteam. The fact that you're not aware of that is interesting. You then state that the only thing missing is a SAW (squad automatic weapon), when every last one of these soldiers is running around with an SMG, capable of providing better fire superiority than the SAWs of the day in the terrain they were fighting in. The squad does not have multiple smaller groups lead by an NCO. It was a squad, not a fireteam.

[Lord Dick Tim]

Let's get back on track gents, I'd hate to lock my own thread because I lost control of its direction.  Though I appreciate the debate and Ives learned from it, it is taking on a mean edge.

[Shukketsushi]

@Ofiach

I think that you're missing the main point here on the topic of fireteams and that is: Words mean things. "Fireteam" refers to a very specific organization and tactic. Just because a squad splits in two doesn't make them two fireteams. Just because one guy in a group of four has a SAW doesn't make them a fireteam.

It's important to note that "SAW" doesn't just refer to the M249.

I don't think that anyone is saying that, after decades of combat, these people haven't figured out how to mobilize as fireteams. They certainly didn't start out in them, though, and your examples are irrelevant to that discussion.

As for the actual topic of the thread, I've got a few ideas that I want to formulate better before I post them. Perhaps after work.

[Charon]

Hey, you got it, Tim. No hard feelings on this end.

On the airship side of things, I think you'd definitely see smaller elements progressing against these things, because they've got a pretty permanent enfilade advantage going for them. It's always going to be easy to hit the ground troops, so long as you can see them, and they're not in cover. Depending on the prevalent weapons types you're going to see a difference in dispersion from 15 meters to however many it takes to escape that kill/cas radius and still maintain those connecting files.

What really bites is that the ground guys can't just crouch and take it until the thing goes away due to fuel constraints. Even our choppers have a semi-limited time on station, although they can start a rotation to assist in TICs. Not sure what kind of fuel these airships take, I've heard diesel, but something tells me they could stick around for a good minute if they were so inclined.

[Ofiach]

Even in my original post on this topic I said it probably wouldn't have been termed a "fireteam."

I was pointing out how human military groups even when their smallest group is 100 men strong have the natural tendency to fragment even more to get things done.

All this because I used the term "fireteam" loosely in a discussion of a fictional military group is a bit insane.

Also I'm just going to point out different organizations use different squad and fireteam tactics. SEAL's, S.A.S., Rangers, and VBSS to name the few groups I have worked with.

@ Lord Dick Tim that's the basic gist of what I'm trying to say, these guys are veterans of decades of war. They have grown up knowing they would be at war and because of this have developed tactics that will minimize casualties. It isn't too much of a leap in reasoning to say they would have come up with a "fireteam"like concept to maximize effectiveness and limit casualties.

I also think that this military would have different weapons for different jobs, maybe your average new recruit is only issued the finnish mk25 or maybe even a single shot only weapon so he didn't waste ammunition. Maybe the proven veterans are given  better weapons and gear. That's just something for you to think about and get the brain juices flowing. Or maybe they only have the one weapon because that's all they can produce.

[Charon]

Message removed per original posters request.

[The Churrosaur]

Children please...

This thread is about how infantry in the GOI world have developed squad (okay "small group" to avoid confusion with whatever the proper military definition is) based combat tactics utilizing evasion and movement over brute force of numbers- which I think is rather probable considering the inefficient nature of what would equate to WWI trench warfare especially in our near-apocalyptic scenario where resources, manpower included, would grow increasingly scarce- I don't think minute squabbles over textbook definitions of squad vs. fireteam, or our service records/ lack thereof are relevant.

[Lord Dick Tim]

Thank you churrosaur, well said.

Now what about temporary defenses?  Would viet con tunneling be a good option as well?

[Charon]

There's a great book on this subject, actually, called "Phantom Soldier: The Enemy's Answer to U.S. Firepower". It explores the difference displayed in our sort of warfare, and the style of warfare of a nation that lacks our technological advances or brute force.

The likelihood of a group to utilize tunnel systems in particular has a bit to do with who they're fighting, and certainly what terrain we're looking at. Viewing this through a Sun Tzu lens, we attack when we're strong, and defend when we're weak. Tunnel systems are one hell of an asset, but you'll need time to dig them, a good location for them (which should indicate that the fight is taking place on the digger's turf) and a reason that this is better than just erecting defenses on the surface.

I think we can definitely count on entrenchment ability for temporary defenses, false trenches or fighting positions, possibly even fake or abandoned lookout posts, if these guys are on the defense. I doubt we'll be seeing much in the way of wire or hedgehogs.

[Lord Dick Tim]

Right on, now this is the direction I wanted to go in!  Thanks Charon, ok new thoughts broiling.

Now what about a diesel punk solution, like a tunnel digger machine that made it comsiderably easier to avoid detection?
It would likely be to comical to suggest it could go for dozens of miles, but I could see it being used to build bases, erect defense and what not.  It would be like ant mounds, you'd know where a base was because of all the darker dirt exposed to the surface.

[Charon]

The tunnel digger solution is pretty sound, I think, but now this is a bit of a game changer. Seems to me that this machine would be one nasty bastard to haul around if it were out of fuel (tank treads would probably be necessary, and the kinds of rocks that get stuck between those treads are insane) so they'd need to keep it stocked on fuel instead of using it for digging...that is, until they get it to a spot they intend to set up at.

Where might they set up at? My thoughts are they'd set that sucker up at another source of fuel. A downed airship with undetonated reserves. They arrive on sight, clear the sucker out, set up an underground tunnel system for rest and refit, and set up on any weapon systems that weren't destroyed, ready to ambush the next airship that comes by, and begin the process anew. This way, they have a base of operations and a steady place to scrap that ship while they sit.

[Ofiach]

In sand dune like desert you can dig small man sized trenches in the sand then cover them with a tarp then put sand back over the top. This provides a well camouflaged observation point. You could adapt the idea to hide a squad or two for ambushes. Say the enemy has to come near this dune to hit their target so you have a few guys there to hit them in the back.

I have a question for you, is this a Sahara like desert with shifting sand dunes and Oases or more of an Arizona desert with clay a few feet down? That would effect what a digging machine would be capable of and how fast.

You say these guys are fighting a more guerrilla style fight so I would assume if they saw a large enemy force coming straight at them they would pack up and move or maybe leave behind mines and a skeleton fighting force to draw the enemy in. Evade and counter over sitting still and trading blows with a better equipped and angry enemy.  As an example lets say an entire company is coming straight in at the Asps position. They are already desert dwellers so they can move out quicker while leaving their camp(I would assume tents or something similar) behind with a small group of armed men to make it look like the camp is still populated. Then that small group would put up a fight while retreating, drawing the enemy into the camp that is boobytrapped and landmined. Used with the small groups hidden in surrounding dunes taking a military position could become a complete nightmare for the guild while the Asps are risking a handful of men and tents.

Also would the Asps have any airships of their own in this conflict or would those airships be so outgunned that they would have to stay away from the fight. I really do like the idea of using a downed airship as a sort temporary HQ.