Unique mixes of capabilties throughout history

[SuperP]

Hey Guys, I love reading about historical examples where leaders employed unique and innovative mixes of capabilities to defeat their threat. If you all have any input please share!

Here are some examples off the top of my head..

-Gustavus Adolphus (17th century) used a unique mix of combined arms to find success. He employed thinner, more mobile, lines of infantry. His infantry was a mix of both Musketeers and Pikemen; able to repel assaults from the standard “caracole” pistol cavalry of the day. He also integrated lighter, more mobile artillery as well as a traditional Saber-equipped cavalry. In addition, all of these branches were crossed trained, increasing the overall flexibility and lethality of his force.

-The saber cavalry’s use was recorded as late as the Polish-Soviet War (1919-1921). The Polish army lacked many of the modern pieces of military equipment that the Russian army had begun to acquire, so they adapted. The Poles employed a mix of infantry, horse cavalry armed with sabers and lances, armored cars, armored trains, and light tanks purchased from France. During the battle of Warsaw, the Russians believed that the Poles posed no danger to their exposed periphery. Polish General Sikorski took advantage and exploited the Russian flank using his light tanks, trucks, armored cars and mobile cavalry columns. Gen. Sikorski has been credited with employing the first blitzkrieg tactics of the 20th century.

There are also alot of examples during Napoleonic times, WW1/2, the war of attrition and even the Russians in AFG.

 

[kato]

Norway is iirc one of the only countries to have standing peacetime combined-arms battalion combat groups, composed of single tank, infantry, recon and artillery companies.

Sorta unique, as everywhere else such compositions would be adhoc wartime combinations depending on the threat.

 

[SuperP]

I thought that I read Great Britain also created battalions like this. Standard organizations of Tank, Mech and Light guys. As a result of the units task organizing like this overseas, so they adopted it. I have been in a number of discussions about the US doing this in our "modular" brigades that we have now, but you are right, the decision makers see this as ad hoc and confusing. I think it may make sense in an irregular warfare scenario.

 

[kato]

A interesting thing are also the German Territorial Army "Home Protection Regiments" of the 1980s - because superficially these were shaped exactly like a generic late WW1 German Infantry Division, updated to modern weapons.

They just replaced the old howitzers with a similar number of modern heavy mortars (with similar range), the field guns with tank destroyers (albeit a smaller number here, accounting for the higher mobility), the cavalry squadron for recon with motorcycles and jeeps and the heavy machine gun company with a similar number of 20mm automatic guns with not that much larger logistic footprint. Even the number of rifle companies was kept the same.

Firepower went through the roof compared to the original of course, with the modern variant using automatic weapons at individual level, and 40mm grenade launchers, machine guns and RPG7-style launchers at squad level.

 

[riksavage]

Napoleonic Wars - British line against French column, the former fronted by skirmishes armed with rifles against French voltigeurs armed with muskets. The line producing a far superior weight of fire against the narrow front of an advancing column. The column having the perceived advantage of a concentrated critical mass coupled with ease of control. Deciding factor being could the line decimate the column before the latters number advantage took over? In most engagements (Talavera being a prime example), the lines firepower won the day.

The rifle brought the advantage of range and accuracy to the field allowing for the selective targeting of officers and senior NCO's commanding the columns. Napoleon believed rifles a waste of time due to the slow reloading time, an opinion not shared by his voltigeurs who were picked off at range without having the ability to respond.

 

[Thiel]

Rifles were also very effective at suppressing artillery.

 

[SuperP]

Are you referring to a few centuries ago when they had similar ranges?

 

[Locarnus]

What springs to mind are the fire-pigs scaring off war elephants (eg Rome: TW).
Most likely an ancient urban myth, but still (the pigs against elephants was known & used, just the fire addition is probably myth)
search for "Claudius Aelianus' fire pigs anecdote"

Or more fitting the german Sturmtruppen from 1915 on under Hauptmann Rohr and later under General Oskar von Hutier.
Squad sizes, decentralized fire support and command on lowest possible level, stahlhelm and partly armor plates, infiltration tactics aso.
A truly powerful and war/army/tactics changing concept, although already partly developed in the 1905-06 by McMahon, first really used by the germans in WW I.

 

[Thiel]

Are you referring to a few centuries ago when they had similar ranges?

Yes. The combination of long range, loose formations and a more initiative friendly culture made the British Greenjackets truly deadly.

 

[Waylander]

While I agree that the rifle units proved their worth in the peninsular war I would doubt that the british had the more flexible army culture. I would even go the other way and say that the brits were severely hampered by their rigourus caste system of the comissioned officer corps.
The french army fought exceptional over the whole of europe and only the russian winter and Wellington broke them.

But their leadership was much more flexible as many of their officers came from the ranks or NCO corps and were promoted due to excellent performance.

The british had luck that once in a while somebody with a mind and passion for war bought a comission.

BTW, wasn't polish cavalry also used against German tank and mot inf units during WWII (with predictable results) this is an interesting mix of enemy units fighting against each other.

In the end in the big picture the US Army heavy cavalry regiments which were reroled in the last years were very interesting combined arms brigades.

 

[riksavage]

While I agree that the rifle units proved their worth in the peninsular war I would doubt that the british had the more flexible army culture. I would even go the other way and say that the brits were severely hampered by their rigourus caste system of the comissioned officer corps.
The french army fought exceptional over the whole of europe and only the russian winter and Wellington broke them.

But their leadership was much more flexible as many of their officers came from the ranks or NCO corps and were promoted due to excellent performance.

The british had luck that once in a while somebody with a mind and passion for war bought a comission.

BTW, wasn't polish cavalry also used against German tank and mot inf units during WWII (with predictable results) this is an interesting mix of enemy units fighting against each other.

In the end in the big picture the US Army heavy cavalry regiments which were reroled in the last years were very interesting combined arms brigades.

French Napoleonic infantry tactics weren't flexible, they relied almost entirely on a single tactical move and shock. One of the reasons why the French used column exclusively was because it was far easier to manage and wheel in the field compared to line, which required a lot of practice to switch units quickly between marching column, line and square.

As Wellington said: The French will attack us in the same old way and we will defeat them in the same old way. Making reference (just prior to the battle of Waterloo) to the way the British line defeated the French column during the Peninsula Campaign.

The best British General in the Peninsula War was probably Lieutenant-General Sir John Moore. You also had other notable characters like Sir Alexander Campbell and Major-General Robert ''Black Bob'' Craufurd who commanded the Light Division.

 

[Thiel]

While I agree that the rifle units proved their worth in the peninsular war I would doubt that the british had the more flexible army culture. I would even go the other way and say that the brits were severely hampered by their rigourus caste system of the comissioned officer corps.
The french army fought exceptional over the whole of europe and only the russian winter and Wellington broke them.

But their leadership was much more flexible as many of their officers came from the ranks or NCO corps and were promoted due to excellent performance.

The british had luck that once in a while somebody with a mind and passion for war bought a comission.

BTW, wasn't polish cavalry also used against German tank and mot inf units during WWII (with predictable results) this is an interesting mix of enemy units fighting against each other.

In the end in the big picture the US Army heavy cavalry regiments which were reroled in the last years were very interesting combined arms brigades.

You misunderstand me. I wasn't referring to the Army as a whole, but to the Greenjackets.
Unlike the rest of the army they were encouraged to think for themselves and take initiative.