British style style reverse slope positions and bounding overwatch tactics?

[STURM]

Could someone please explain whether British style reverse slope positions and bounding overwatch tactics, as practised by armoured units, are also in official use by other armies which were not trained by the British? Just curious as to why both these tactics have been described as 'British' when I would think that it be logical for everyone to have adopted them. Is it part of any army's doctrine to have defensive positions on forward slopes? Thank you.

 

[Equinox]

I imagine the reverse slope defense may be described as British due to it's prominent use by the Duke of Wellington during the Napoleonic Wars. I believe that is the first time it came into general use. Or at least, noticeable use.

 

[Marc 1]

Could someone please explain whether British style reverse slope positions and bounding overwatch tactics, as practised by armoured units, are also in official use by other armies which were not trained by the British? Just curious as to why both these tactics have been described as 'British' when I would think that it be logical for everyone to have adopted them. Is it part of any army's doctrine to have defensive positions on forward slopes? Thank you.

Are you talking 2 very different ideas here?

I.e. - the way turretheads move armour in bounds, and secondly the use of reverse slope defensive positions for other corps e.g. Infantry?

If so, yes, and it depends.

 

[STURM]

I.e. - the way turretheads move armour in bounds, and secondly the use of reverse slope defensive positions for other corps e.g. Infantry?

Yes, I meant the 2 different tactics. The reason I was asking is because in Kenneth Pollack's 'Arabs At War', he mentions the Iraqis making use of such tactics as they were thought these by the British. It got me wondering as to how many other armies use similar tactics, especially the reverse slope position which I think would be a logical tactic for any army to employ. In Wiki it was mentioned that Argentine units occupied forward slope positions but whether this was part of their doctrine or whether it was just a poor tactical choice is unknown.

 

[Marc 1]

Yes, I meant the 2 different tactics. The reason I was asking is because in Kenneth Pollack's 'Arabs At War', he mentions the Iraqis making use of such tactics as they were thought these by the British. It got me wondering as to how many other armies use similar tactics, especially the reverse slope position which I think would be a logical tactic for any army to employ. In Wiki it was mentioned that Argentine units occupied forward slope positions but whether this was part of their doctrine or whether it was just a poor tactical choice is unknown.

It's been a while since I stuck my nose into tactics but in Aust the blackhats definately used to move from bound to bound by reversing back from their hull down overwatch position and popping around or at least cresting the bound at a different point.

When it comes to the question of whether a reverse slope defence is worth employing it would depend on the ground, the enemy orbat and a host of other factors. Some positions lend themselves to such a defence others not so much. Other times it would be stupid to employ the tactic.

For instance if you had an enemy that had a limited number and type of direct fire weapons, whilst yiou had weapons that had a serious ability to reach out and touch someone and you had a large clear killing area in front of a position, you may site forward confident in your ability to seriously degrade any assault before they got close enough to use their weapons.

Then again, if the enemy had the range advantage and or armour and you had light weaponry, then a reverse defence may make the most sense - you can take out the enemy armour with short range weapons as they crest a ridge (belly plate shot). Another thought would in the past have been that being on the reverse side of a hill makes even indirect fire difficult to direct - then again today with UAV's becoming so prevalent, the reverse slope defence may not offer freedom from view.

Just a few thoughts from someone who hasn't sighted a wooden stake in 19 years.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Yes, I meant the 2 different tactics. The reason I was asking is because in Kenneth Pollack's 'Arabs At War', he mentions the Iraqis making use of such tactics as they were thought these by the British. It got me wondering as to how many other armies use similar tactics, especially the reverse slope position which I think would be a logical tactic for any army to employ. In Wiki it was mentioned that Argentine units occupied forward slope positions but whether this was part of their doctrine or whether it was just a poor tactical choice is unknown.

People have been using reverse slopes since the first missile weapon. In terms of tanks it is certainly not a unique British tactic and is known officially through the French as ‘defilade’. Though Soviet post war tanks have a problem with reverse slopes because of their low turret height. This means their gun barrels can’t train downwards enough to use a reverse slope. There are other tanks like the Swedish S-Tank and the Israeli Merkava that are designed to maximise the benefit of a reverse slope position.

As to the Argentines in the Falklands they fortified a series of hills against all directions. So they didn’t have the option of defilade as they did not know in which direction the British would be coming from. But even though they were exposed to direct fires it was still a better position than being down in the peat below the rocky hills where they couldn’t dig in.

 

[STURM]

Thank you for the feedback guys, much appreciated.

Are there any tactics with regards to the employment of infantry, armour and artillery, that are still practised today and are uniquely British?

Off topic but in WW2 did any Allied army practise a form of Mission Command type tactic that was similar to the German Auftragstaktik? And when did the British army, start intoducing Command Mission type tactics into its doctrine?