Printable View
I am serving my 2 years national service and is posted to the infantry. I am curious, how do the modern infantry take a well defended hill from the enemy?
BTW I do not know how the actually defend a hill so if anyone have that information please enlight me. If there is any books on modern fighting tatics will be welcome :-)
They bomb it until it's flat?
hmm... thats a good idea, but what if we do not have any air or artillary support? Just charge up?
Snipers, mortars, machine guns available?
Use mortars and snipers to reduce the number of the enemy. Use smoke grenades if possible, hiding your charge. Then, charge!
To defend, a few well placed machine guns can make a whole lot of difference, in my opinion.
That's just my logic working here. I'm no expert on army tactics.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shadow
if you want to die easily, you can run right up and say
"Hello, I'm here!!"
:pirate2: :hmg:
Not sure. I won't go up unless I had to.
If you're looking purely at infantry tactics, without supporting arms, find a study of the Falklands War.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shadow
kinda off topic, but: i used to have a geography teacher who claimed he was in a night attack against a hill during the falklands wars, he always talked about the best way to use a bayonet... a right weirdo :sweatdrop:
Good idea. Here's one such encounter:Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Mount_Tumbledown
Of course, the Brits did have some supporting arms - artillery, naval bombardment, light tanks etc - but not in sufficient numbers to avoid the infantry doing most of the work.
Diversionary tactics, attacking at night, overwhelming weakly defended spots, covering fire etc all played a role, although in the end a lot of it seemed to come down to grit and determination (symbolised by the fixed bayonets).
The fixed bayonet is one hell of a morale buster. If you see 200 men charging at you with fixed bayonets you think twice before you open fire.
In WW2 it was often used by the Brits would they need to get out of situation they would rather not be in. Wolfheze is a good example, where Brigadier Hackett himself led multiple bayonet charges, losing men, but reaching the objective.
If you attack a hill you will lose men anyway, it's a given (atleast against enemies that are as good as you). So you have to use unorthodox tactics.
Monte Cassino in WW2 might be another good example of taking a hill (or not taking a hill), although a lot of the fighting was in the town at the base of the hill.
The Allies lost a lot of men trying to take the town and hill. But I remember reading the comment of the German paratroop commander defending it. He said the Allies had just not committed enough men in one assault. This was surprising as the concentration of force in a very small area was already impressive.
I think in the end Monte Cassino fell in something of an anti-climax, when flanking moves had meant it was no longer so vital for the Germans to defend and could be attacked from the rear.
Talking of hills, I was surprised to read in the context of Vietnam that the US army learnt to prize maneouvring through valleys rather than trying to secure the high ground. IIRC, the thinking was that people out on hills made better targets whereas valleys offered more concealment. But maybe that just goes back to the "blow up the hill" point. I suspect the modern US army would just love it if their opponents were foolish enough to set up on a hill to oppose them. (Gets me thinking of the "We were soldiers..." film I saw the other day.)
I heard about the American troops maneuvering through valleys during Vietnam as well, but could that be due to some difference in the level of vegetation rather than an actual difference in Geography? I suppose hitting a hill with non-line-of-sight weapons would be a bit easier than hitting a valley, but I don't know enough about this particular topic to say.Quote:
Originally Posted by econ21
It'd be interesting if hills, which dominated the battlefield for millenia, were now disadvantageous, but I think they still offer some key advantages, for example I think it's much easier to shoot down at people than up at them, and it is certainly much easier and quicker to move down a hill rather than up it. That and if the hill has some cliffs too anyone below one of the cliffs would be an excellent target.
If you're up on a hill you have superior line of sight and it is much better for directing artillery and air attacks. Also, if you put some artillery on top of one it will fire further.
Hills still provide advantages but in a different way compared to the old days. A defender actually wants to shoot up as its easier to spot and hit targets that are silhouettes which also explains why one wants to move in valleys. Crests are something to avoid or quickly cross if one cant avoid them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Uesugi Kenshin
Reverse slope defense is generally the best way of defending hills. Focusing more than an observation post and a few units on the forward slope just makes an easy target for an attacker's long range weapons. IIRC British infantry made short work of several Argentine bunkers (Goose Green?) using MILAN antitank missiles.
CBR
Didn't Rommel in some of his WWI vattles he took part in was also famous for using concelment of ridges and like to out flank the enemy?Quote:
Talking of hills, I was surprised to read in the context of Vietnam that the US army learnt to prize maneouvring through valleys rather than trying to secure the high ground. IIRC, the thinking was that people out on hills made better targets whereas valleys offered more concealment. But maybe that just goes back to the "blow up the hill" point. I suspect the modern US army would just love it if their opponents were foolish enough to set up on a hill to oppose them. (Gets me thinking of the "We were soldiers..." film I saw the other day.)
__________________
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120863/Quote:
Originally Posted by Shadow
How so?Quote:
Originally Posted by Stig
I would say its about instinct telling us its better to keep at a distance of something hostile. So there is an increased chance of panic when suddenly facing an enemy that clearly shows his intent of going close to you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shadow
Logic would of course tell a modern soldier that he should remain calm and keep firing against enemies that only becomes easier and easier to hit. But in times of severe stress logic/training is competing with basic instincts.
CBR
First you recon the enemy position carefully. Choose a weak spot from the defence. Concentrate the supporting infantry arms to that area and use artillery and mortars to soften the enemy,if you dont have any, use the infantry supporting weapons for direct support. Smoke the area and penetrate the defence from a narrow area. One good option is to attack during the night, because of the worse LOS for the enemy, but that will ofcourse effect your men also. Once you are in the enemy defence zone, you will use fire and movement, in order not to give time to the enemy to move reinforcements to the area or for him to retreat. Important thing is not to stop or loose enemy contact. Then you just push until the area is cleared. Important thing is to get close and fast, Once you are inside the enemy defence zone you have better odds. If you have to move long distances in open space before getting on the enemys skin, your chances of success are lot worse. So basicly move close concealed, concentrate fire to penetrate the enemy position, use fire and rapid movement to put your enemy in disorder and take his position.:smash:
They would probally smoke the surronding area, then get some gernades at the hill, disorginize them with the explosion. then charge up and slaughter.
I think the Germans in WW1 developed the tactic to take strong defensive lines.
First of all - Kage is right - recon is the key.
If you have artillery and bombs, fine. If not, then you do it with infantry. Bit no mass assault. You have small teams of specialists with special tasks: taking out a michine gun or destroying a bunker. Use grenades, machine guns, flame throwers etc.. Also try to avoid the main defense and outflank the hill.
In fact, hills are very inportant for the defense, because of the view and the option to place atrillery. But as a matter of fact, hills attract the fire of the enemy, therefore a clever general will only place as few soldiers as necessary. Better to have a strong reserve behind the hill, plus artillery around it.
Yes, I'm pretty sure it was the Germans who did it too take trenches in WWI. YepQuote:
Originally Posted by Franconicus
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wiki
1) Do you really need capture this hill? Maybe you can flank opponents and force them to withdraw?
2)If you need - try to flank opponents - no one fight well with rear on fire.
3)Before attack remember about art and air support - to show opponent that you are not joking.
4)While attacking - try to attack from more than one direction - this will force enemy to divide troops.
5)Remember to use enough men - but do not use too many - remember Americans and Brits at Monte Cassino.
6)During attack use moving art support - art should be 100-150 metres in front of your men. When your soldier capture part of hill, art should turn fire next part.
7)Don't be afraid of using smoke flares, flame throwers, grenades, grenade lauchers.
8)IF YOU REALLY WANT THIS HILL - USE NAPALM TOO :) But remember to use napalm and then infantry. Different using might cause loses.
9)If you have problems call bombers and more art.
There is no need to put modern artillery on any hill for it to reach longer and hit more accurate.
Forward units report where they want an artbarrage and then they call it in from usually great distance and after the art has fired some rounds they better get moving before the antiart answer comes (if both sides got proper equipment).
Kalle
The advantage may be negligible, but hey it'll still give a bit of a boost in range. And iirc most US firebases in Vietnam were on cleared hilltops so there must be some not insignificant advantage. Though artillery has of course advanced in the last thirty years I doubt such significant, and more importantly widely implemented, advances were made between now and then.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kalle
I would imagine they were on hills in Vietnam because it was harder to ambush and much easier to defend. If you could see even twenty metres in all directions around you, that would have been a good and comforting thing. Also it would make it easier for the Helicopters to see where you are if you need an airlift or support.Quote:
Originally Posted by Uesugi Kenshin
That's a good point too....Though if you cleared a flat area of jungle your LOS into the jungle wouldn't be much different than if you were on a hill.Quote:
Originally Posted by CountArach