Deep battle

For everything else UK defence-related that doesn't fit into any of the sections above.
Post Reply
J. Tattersall

Deep battle

Post by J. Tattersall »

The notion of the close, deep and rear battle is replicated at every level, certainly from battle group upwards, if not lower.

Deep of course doesn't just apply to indirect fire. I'm just wondering whether we're starting to see a rebalancing away from close combat towards deeper engagement? At the unit and subunit level more emphasis on snipers, sharpshooter, heavy machine guns, guided weapons etc. At the formation level longer range precision fires etc. Perhaps stated around.The time of Commando 21 some twenty years ago, pushing more crew served weapons.to company level and dressing down at big on number and size of rifle troops.

If my observation its correct, and admittedly I don't have a lot of data points, then might we see battalions rebalancing from rifle sections towards more crew served weapons, snipers etc. embedding support composing assets in rifle companies etc. At the higher level might we see more precluding fires and resources shifted from infantry and armour to artillery and ISTAR?

If one then goes further, and I might be well being tenuous here, and look at the European theatre and the need to get there quickly, then might this not privilege more deep fire assets, e.g. road and air portable missile systems, together with their force projection, above traditional close combat assets such as Challenger and Warrior, e.g why not draw down on these and invest people and resources more in the deep battle?

Interested in views.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Deep battle

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Well, we know where the name came from (Marshal M. N. Tukhachevsky got shot before the Winter War, and by the time of Barbarossa Soviet divisions still had armour in a penny-packeted way that had helped them lose 2000 AFVs against the Finns - with no armour). After trial-and-error learning we saw deep battle implemented in Operation Bagration, in 1944, and the effective destruction of the Wehrmacht.

U.S. doctrinal reform in the 1980s was informed by the above and saw the rise of “AirLand Battle” and as you have observed (on many levels) and I agree with that we are seeing the 'third coming' of the same kind of doctrinal change. Mind you, this is happening on both sides. Russian divisions were dismantled entirely and now they are putting 4 back together again, in order to be able to implement the 'echelon after echelon' pushing against a Schwerpunkt - our answer is to be able to contribute one division capable of manoeuvre warfare (with about half of it operating in dispersed 'strike mode' with effects being, err effected from afar (whether from air or land) in the initial stages.

So, yes, a good and topical discussion point.
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Post Reply