Author Topic: Making the infantry of Arashi  (Read 57669 times)

Offline Charon

  • Member
  • Salutes: 95
    • [RAFT]
    • 37 
    • 39
    • View Profile
Re: Making the infantry of Arashi
« Reply #15 on: April 15, 2013, 05:41:33 pm »
Carlson and Merritt A. Edson are believed to have developed the fireteam concept during the US occupation of Nicaragua (1912-1933).

Offline Pickle

  • Member
  • Salutes: 42
    • [AeBr]
    • 14 
    • 38
    • 31 
    • View Profile
Re: Making the infantry of Arashi
« Reply #16 on: April 15, 2013, 06:24:30 pm »
Carlson and Merritt A. Edson are believed to have developed the fireteam concept during the US occupation of Nicaragua (1912-1933).

And the rest of the Wiki paragraph points out that Carlson, "brought these ideas back to the US when the country entered World War II."  Where they were adopted, rejected and adopted again.  So again, much later than the starting point for the canon.

Offline Charon

  • Member
  • Salutes: 95
    • [RAFT]
    • 37 
    • 39
    • View Profile
Re: Making the infantry of Arashi
« Reply #17 on: April 15, 2013, 07:33:19 pm »
Didn't think we were specifically talking about the US.

Offline Charon

  • Member
  • Salutes: 95
    • [RAFT]
    • 37 
    • 39
    • View Profile
Re: Making the infantry of Arashi
« Reply #18 on: April 15, 2013, 07:38:41 pm »
Beyond that, I'm getting the impression that this world is quite a bit further along down the road than just WWI. They've stated that this is a world in which WWI never really stopped, and this is what we're left with, but their writings on the "history" of the world seem to indicate quite a bit of time passing between the flight of the Icarus and current times. If the world we're in presently is one that has been in a state of constant war like we all seem to think, it's not unthinkable that ground warfare has evolved a bit since the Great War.

Offline Charon

  • Member
  • Salutes: 95
    • [RAFT]
    • 37 
    • 39
    • View Profile
Re: Making the infantry of Arashi
« Reply #19 on: April 15, 2013, 07:39:29 pm »
While there's nothing solid stated here, I definitely get a "this happened a long time ago" vibe from it.

http://gunsoficarus.com/world/history/flight-of-the-icarus/

Offline Charon

  • Member
  • Salutes: 95
    • [RAFT]
    • 37 
    • 39
    • View Profile
Re: Making the infantry of Arashi
« Reply #20 on: April 15, 2013, 07:41:43 pm »

Offline Lord Dick Tim

  • CA Mod
  • Salutes: 119
    • 7
    • View Profile
Re: Making the infantry of Arashi
« Reply #21 on: April 16, 2013, 01:16:46 am »
So we have a long time of continued war, a chance for reforms to happen, but centered in this idea that Arashi is a loosely organized league of independent states.

Kind of suggests we would have just about everything and the kitchen sink happening at once.  Old companies that have traditions dating for hudnreds of years, rebel desert nomads using skirmishes tactics, down to independent cells and loosely organized militias.

So wide perspective, rag tag, closer perspective may still have some cohesion, but it would be highly situational, there would be an ordered sequence of events that led to the construction of any one entity, that would not likely be shared with a neighboring city.

Starting to sound more like a rebel coalition, with all the squabbling and in fighting that comes with it.  A strong unifying military arm would be necessary to weld together any kind of meaningfull resistance against a determined foe, unless the desert was truly just that brutal and it's occupants just as wicked.

Offline Lord Dick Tim

  • CA Mod
  • Salutes: 119
    • 7
    • View Profile
Re: Making the infantry of Arashi
« Reply #22 on: May 04, 2013, 09:13:39 pm »
Found a good write up that drives the point home on how traumatic and horrible trench warfare is.

http://i.imgur.com/xFXldwD.png

Offline Ofiach

  • Member
  • Salutes: 25
    • [FALC]
    • 5
    • 10 
    • View Profile
Re: Making the infantry of Arashi
« Reply #23 on: May 05, 2013, 07:29:17 am »
Were fire teams part of the organisation of any organised military force in the early twentieth century? - we are supposed to be closer to WW1, than C21 asymmetrical post-colonial NDYPOMP exercises.  There is no Treaty of Versailles in the canon.

To go beyond the wiki references SMDH. Fire teams have been around since the invention of an organized fighting force. Certain nation states did it "bigger" than others as in Roman phalanxes and cavalry charges. Also think about Han dynasty unit tactics, the entire military could break down into small units able to flank and spank on its own. Now as weapons and communication got better unit numbers were lowered to increase effectiveness. Straight line warfare being the exception as a retrogression in battle tactics.

Take the revolutionary war as a prime example, guerrilla warfare with small scale units decimated larger units. These groups may not have been designated "squads" and "fire teams" but the operated in a very similar and supportive manner, most notably during ambushes. One squad lays fire from one direction then another squad from another direction then the squads retreat with certain elements laying cover fire for the retreating elements.

Also if you want the "official" version of current squad based tactics and their evolution check out some marine handbooks. Maybe even the French Foreign Legion handbooks. Never got ahold of S.A.S. handbooks myself but I'm sure they would have interesting sources for their development. Think how the Russians fought the Germans. etc. etc. While not always called "fireteams" the idea has been around since Bows and Arrows.

Wiki referencing never has the full information and half the time the information there is plain wrong.

As for trench warfare in this world I don't see that working at all. Trench warfare worked because bombs couldn't find the trenches reliably. Now think about a slower moving balloon craft manually dropping munitions on a trench in the earth. Bad day for anyone in a trench. Slit trenches are a different story and could provide plenty of cover from dumb munitions, but the trench warfare everyone thinks about would be like digging your own mass grave with the kinds of weapons in this world. 

As for the whole story idea. You sir, are damn good.

Offline Charon

  • Member
  • Salutes: 95
    • [RAFT]
    • 37 
    • 39
    • View Profile
Re: Making the infantry of Arashi
« Reply #24 on: May 05, 2013, 05:31:39 pm »
Wiki referencing works just fine, so long as you check the sources on the bottom of the page. Check your facts and you're fine.


Offline Charon

  • Member
  • Salutes: 95
    • [RAFT]
    • 37 
    • 39
    • View Profile
Re: Making the infantry of Arashi
« Reply #25 on: May 05, 2013, 05:33:37 pm »
By the way, fireteams have NOT been around since the invention of an organized fighting force. The fireteam concept is pretty specific, and not many units throughout history have used them. The concept refers not only to the size of a unit, but also its composition, tactics, decentralization of leadership and training.

Offline Ofiach

  • Member
  • Salutes: 25
    • [FALC]
    • 5
    • 10 
    • View Profile
Re: Making the infantry of Arashi
« Reply #26 on: May 05, 2013, 06:18:48 pm »
Sorry. No. If you want to get into exact specifics we can argue that a Marine 4 man fireteam isn't really a fireteam but the Army Ranger 7 man squad is. You can geek out on the specifics all you want but to the concept has been around since ranged weaponry.

Ok I'll concede this point. Don't call them fireteams, call them disorganized groupings of 3-5 men who work within a larger military force.  ::)

Offline Charon

  • Member
  • Salutes: 95
    • [RAFT]
    • 37 
    • 39
    • View Profile
Re: Making the infantry of Arashi
« Reply #27 on: May 05, 2013, 08:44:00 pm »
You're missing the point. The fireteam's size isn't what the fireteam concept is about. 

Offline Charon

  • Member
  • Salutes: 95
    • [RAFT]
    • 37 
    • 39
    • View Profile
Re: Making the infantry of Arashi
« Reply #28 on: May 05, 2013, 10:14:32 pm »
The fireteam is a small unit with decentralized leadership under the command of a non-commissioned officer or senior non-rate built around the firepower of a squad automatic weapon. At the time of it's inception, squads were organized around a single SAW. Under this organization, each fireteam consisting of four men would carry a SAW, allowing each unit to suppress and move. Key points here: Decentralized leadership, smaller and more mobile force, NCO in charge until he gets killed, and a squad automatic weapon.

Let's have a look at your previous examples and see if they fit this description.

The Phalanx: The Phalanx is a formation, not an element. Its size varied, depending on the number of men available. This would be like saying a wedge is a fireteam. A platoon can assume wedge. A company, even. Hell, if we wanted to, we could get the whole damn battalion out here to jump in a wedge right quick. It seems a bit stupid, but it could be done.

Han Dynasty: The smallest unit organization during the time of the Han Dynasty was a platoon. A platoon is not decentralized leadership, it's not a small unit, it's definitely not the most mobile element. That's not even considering the fact that the element wasn't capable of levying mobile suppressing fires, and definitely didn't engage in fire-and-maneuver, or fire-and-movement tactics. They didn't have non-commissioned officers, and in fact, they had two sides to their army. Non-professional (conscripts) and Professional (volunteer). Professional is about as close as they get. No NCO, no decentralized leadership, this isn't a fireteam.

The Revolutionary War did feature guerrilla warfare style tactics, but they did not feature professional military men organized into small teams, lead by an NCO. Not fireteams, just pockets of fighters. I mean damn, the French had to show us what the bayonet was for.

How did the Russians fight the Germans? According to their organization, in squads. Squad size of the day was 8 men, and I'm talking in particular about the SMG platoons, because this is about as close as we get. 3 squads to a platoon. No NCO leadership over those squads. Furthermore, the fireteam is a breakdown of the rifle squad, so this example is further disqualified.

What I'm telling you -is- the "official" version, as I'm a Marine infantryman of 8 years.

Your main arguments so far have been that a platoon is a fireteam, a squad is a fireteam, a formation is a fireteam, and more recently that the Army Rangers have a 7 man fireteam. The reality is that a platoon is a platoon, a squad is a squad, a formation isn't an element, and the Army uses the same 4-man set up as us in their fireteams. On occasion, we'll form what we call a fireteam reinforced, where stragglers from a hit element will form up on an existing fireteam. Only then would you see something on the level of a seven man team. Ther's a definition for these things, there's a reason for the definition. These specifics become kinda important when they're your job.

Finally, I'm not sure what's up with the snide "geek out" remark, or the neat little eye rolling smiley figure over there. We can disagree on something without acting like kids.




Offline Lord Dick Tim

  • CA Mod
  • Salutes: 119
    • 7
    • View Profile
Re: Making the infantry of Arashi
« Reply #29 on: May 06, 2013, 01:26:19 am »
Have there been specialized elements in history that behaved like a fire team without using the traditional leadership model?
I can't think of anything really, and searching for it is rather non specific.