Armored Infantry Leadership: How 6 Armies Do It 

Cool :3

You forgot the Brits. You said six armies. You did five.

@@metaljewelgaming 2:27

Did you already do the same for soviets, russian and chinese?

@@BattleOrder2Oops, really sorry about my own stupidity.

seems to me like that company structure is also very resilient in actual combat situations. both the mounted and dismounted elements have their own command and secondary command present. It does take a lot more officers to fill

​@@wp12mv the dutch have way to much officers anyway so they need a spot somewhere and SHOULD be in the dismounted element if they join the unit as a fresh out of officer school piglet. Always trust the mounted nco. And that corporal in the lead position on the vehicle next to him. Guess wich one I was for a little while (years fly by)

Do Danish platoon commanders not carry their own radios?

i thought they made the marines

@@user-up5zl5es2e the first use of specialized marine infantry dates back to the Carthaginian wars by Romans. The first organic marine infantry unit was made by Venice. The oldest marine infantry corps still in active service is Spanish.

the first modern style marines were the dutch under command of michiel de ruyter, they stole the british flagship and burned most other ships down in the proces, wase realy daring and displayed dicipline and dadication to our country. the english hated it and i loved it. that being said can those roman unit's realy be called marines, they were fighting on the sea as if it were land ramming pins intho ships with bridges so that they could hack down on the ennemy, the spanish marine core mgiht be 120 years older than ours, the spanish one was based on the tercios witch was the exact same as their land army's, in essence nothing more than a landing fource dumped on a boat......... dutch marines were for naval operations and operations behind ennemy lines not just a landing fource in wich the infantry could also do the same job, if we say marines in the modern sence i would say dutch to be the oldest. as landing men by sea for conqeust is as old as the boats them selves.

@@rollolol6053 True The Dutch is the 2nd oldest one in the world still in service. However the Dutch Marines were the first to fully specialize in Amphibous operations, whereas the Spanish Marines were more like sailors that could be used a naval infantry.

@@teaser6089 no thats not entirely correct, Spanish and Portuguese marines are more then a century older and the British marines a year older. What sets the first Dutch marines apart from them as the first modern navy assault infantry is their doctrine. Prior to marines were invented countries in war would march their land based army on ships and then go to war, this faced two problems. The first one was no maritime combat skills in the army and the second problem was in the chains of command issues with navy and army officers on one ship causing delays, fights over authority on board and errors in the chain of command that effected combat effectiveness, I think it was the Portuguese who were the first to solve this chain of command problem by placing a regular infantry unit permanently under direct navy command and so the first type of marines were born as navy infantry. An extra advantage of this was this unit would always be doing their naval warfare so they would gain more maritime combat skills the longer they served, the disadvantag was that each time such a unit or soldier needed replacement the maritime combat skills of the replacements were back at level 0 becuase they were recruited from the regular army. Spain followed this Portuguese example pretty fast and the English did also about 150 years later. A year after the British marines the Dutch marines were formed but they took a different appoach. Instead of placing an infantry unit at ships under direct command of the navy they figured out that they had a lot of maritime combat experienced personal among their sailors in the merchant fleet and navy. So they selected the best fighters among their sailors and then trained them to be a cohesive (navy) infantry unit and in the process of creating this marine corps they created a standard doctrine for the best technics for boarding ships and doing amphibious assaults by collecting the combat experiene and knowledge of their combat experienced sailors which then could be tought to any new recruits as a standard navy infantry assault doctrine in the future and no matter if he came from the army, the navy or civil society he would become a trained specialized maritime infantry assault soldier. That makes them not the oldest marines but the first specialized maritime assault infantry corp which is who are called modern marines today. The raid at Chatham in their founding year and their succeses against Spanish, Portuguese, English and French shipping and colony strongholds made the English switch to this Dutch approach of training people specialized for maritime warfare and all other nations follewed that example in the years and centuries after that including the US. So the Iberians solved the chain of command problems and the Dutch solved the lack of maritime combat skill problem and combined that with the Iberian chain of command solutution in to modern marines. Thats why they are the founding father of modern marines doctine which are specialized maritime assault infantry but they are by far not the first infantry unit under navy command called marines also.

Agreed, we had a platoon leader for the CV90‘s and also operating as a vehicle commander and then a platoon leader for the dismounts

Wow ya early 😮

Man now you made me curious how different Canadian, Australian, American, and New Zealander forces work with their own LAV Family of vehicles. With the LAV 3.0, ASLAV, LAV-25, NZLAV being used respectively.

​​@@TheRandCrews the American LAVs are used by the Marines in scouts-carrying light armor recon role. Not really in the same sense as other variants of LAVs that are considered infantry-carrying IFVs instead.

@@hoodrat21 oh okay, I thought they were like Marine version of Stryker units or armored infantry, so more so Marine Cavalry scouts kinda thing gotcha.

@@TheRandCrews close but no cigar. The Marines don't really got a specifc MOS for their LAR scouts like how the army does with their cav.

When would it be necessary? House clearing? Trench clearing? I mean, in the Swedish forests, I guess there isn't too much of that. Not so sure about Ukraine tho.

@@kebman from experience it's mostly when on the defence and you need to prepare and set up defensive positions and ambushes or in urban fighting where the vehicles are particularly vulnerable.

@@kebman it would also depend on the individual officers and ones capabilities. The platoon leader usually have extensive experience in the mounted fight and not so much in the dismounted and therefore usually leaves it to the close combat leader who usually is a light infantry specialist but it of course varies. When I did my training the platoon leader would only dismount for coordinating a defensive or delaying action before contact with hostiles, or when the close combat leaders messed it up and lost coordination completely. Not mentioned here is that there is another close combat leader attached to the company commander who's job it is to coordinate and lead the dismounted elements of several platoons simultaneously

Översergeant is OR-6 same as a sergeant. Fanjunkare is OR-7

@@gustafdahlman8704 thank you for pointing out said mistake, I'll edit my comment

DutchLeak Barend

Americans are playing around with a new organization I hear. Something about redoing things so that the vehicles and the infantry are technically their own separate platoons. 6 Bradley platoons or something. With the dismounts just being more passengers.

@@VhenRaTheRaptor yes and that’s is weird as XXXX since it will make the squads and tracks slower to adept

the original 80s US mech infantry doctrine was somewhat similar to the Danes minus the dismounted NCO but then they decided that they want a 9-man squad like the light infantry counterpart, hence ended up with this kind of weird cross-loading due to platform constraints (you can't put that many people in the back of an M2) they think that this is a problem too, and so aimed for 9-passenger vehicles in programs like FCS and GCV - which sadly ended in failure

Yeah, I think The Dutch makes the most sense. Everyone knows what their job is at all times.

The US built its army in the Cold War to fight a battle that never happened. Desert Storm was the closest thing to a fight against Russia and it went really well. Then you get the post 9/11 conflicts where I think the mech infantry needs to fight more like light infantry when dismounted. No one wanted Brads chewing up villages with the bushmaster or getting hit with IED’s. I suspect there’s pressure to reduce training and save money right now so it’s not likely they can easily make big changes.

Hey thanks mate, I wrote an article on the mechanized infantry platoon based on a 2016 manual: www.battleorder.org/post/nl-cv90 If you wish to read let me know if you see anything wrong

@@BattleOrder2 I concur, its wrong. Its R1 and E1. number 2 means = Squad leader. 1 = dismounted platoon leaders. . So B2/E2/R2/A2 are all squad leaders, on paper 3 NCO's and 1 Corporal, but usually 2 NCO's and 2 Corporals.

That's what I like to see!

I was going go reference their squad but I don’t actually know how this works at the platoon-level. In their squads the squad commander stays mounted as vehicle commander while the troop leader leads the 6 dismounts

The swedish part has taken much from the German use during WW2 that the main part is tank support and tanks is to fast to do much dismounted battle that are complex. Would be fun the see how the Germans compare, since the Swedish have taken the “don’t dismount” to the extrem.

@@BattleOrder2 Not quite. The squad leader will lead the element that the focus is on in a given situation. So if the focus switches to dismounted fighting, the squad leader (Gruppenführer) will dismount too and lead the dismounts while the deputy squad leader (Truppführer) will take over vehicle commander. If the focus is on mounted fighting, the deputy squad leader will lead the dismounts instead (if they are even dismounted, as the Germans also love to fight mounted like the Swedes). So both, the squad leader as well as his deputy are trained as IFV commanders as well as infantry leaders. Also the Platoon Leader is often just an experienced NCO instead of a junior officer.

I think I've seen a USAWC paper from the late 80s discussing US, German, Israeli, and Soviet mech infantry doctrines before, including what they do during offense, defense, movement, etc that one should be able to answer this in detail but I can't seem to find it....

Platoon leaders work like squad leaders: they go with their main effort. Also German mech doctrine knows to forms of employment: by platoon and by squad. In the first case, the whole platoon mounts and dismounts together, on orders from the PL, while in the later, squads do so independantly. (Something that does not really work in US doctrine due to crossloading.) @QuiGon: Aren't NCO PLs being phased out in combat arms?

We first used the same structure and system as the Dutch but because it took too many young officers from other units we switched to Danish structure and system.

The only difference is from the Dutch is 4xsquads of infantry.

I don’t know about out of combat (although I figure the vehicle deputy doing vehicle related training and supply would be answering to the vehicle commander) but in combat the vehicle deputy would most likely be leading a 2-vehicle section under the vehicle commander. Kind of like how even if a company commander outranks a sergeant, a sergeant on the battalion commander’s staff probably isnt answering to them

​@@BattleOrder2 the R stays in command, the R2 would have less abilities left to lead when he is fighting with the dismouted element. Let alone work on the BMS to inform all forces in the AOR to adopt to the situation. More brains, more speed...

I've got very limited experience in this, but as far as I understand it Romeo has the highest authority, assisted by Echo. Echo will assume command if Romeo is unable (incapacitated or otherwise engaged), thus being in command of Romeo2. As long as Romeo is in the fight, Echo and Romeo2 might cooperate, but neither is in charge (they simply do as ordered by Romeo and perform their respective tasks). The Dutch army has this 'own initiative' and 'anybody should be able to lead' mentality, which somewhat flattens the hierarchic structure.

@@thebathman0987 the Romeo's are in charge, the command structure is clear. It's more complex on paper, but in reality they all have their own fields clearly devided leading their own elements directly. I used to work with the old structure (more like USA), but the "new" structure is so damn quick in battle, possibly allways a step ahead.

Thanks for the input mate. I wrote an article on the Dutch mechanized platoon based on a 2016 manual: www.battleorder.org/post/nl-cv90 If you care to read I'd appreciate it if you let me know if you find anything wrong

I think in general this is basically the reality, although different situations/personalities I image would result in different solutions on the fly. For all of the countries I double checked with or had full convos about it actual servicemembers

Anytime you lose a fully loaded IFV, it degrades your combat capacity so I don’t think the load out matter much in That case.

The swedish NCO is not ”real” NCO they are officers just A different kind, but the differens come to show it self after platoon level leadership.

Why Officers? Surely it means your Ncos are less capable?. Your Plt Sgt in the British Army will have better knowledge and skills in this than a junior officer...

@@dulls8475 I would say that depends on nation, some nations junior officers with more hands traning on then a US/UK officer.

@@heinzg6375 Never seen it in any Army. So you have junior officers who lets face it will be fairly new with more experience than SGTs who have been in 15 years and in British case actually seen combat? Which countries would that be anyway?

@@dulls8475 Sweden and Finland would be to example not all countries use the Uk/US NCO system

Advance at speed. With dismounted troops the whole unit is reduced to infantry walking speed.

@@heinzg6375 The squad leader leads the element that the focus is on in a given situation. So if the focus switches to dismounted fighting, the squad leader (Gruppenführer) will dismount too and lead the dismounts while the deputy squad leader (Truppführer) will take over vehicle commander. If the focus is on mounted fighting, the deputy squad leader will lead the dismounts instead (if they are even dismounted, as the Germans also love to fight mounted like the Swedes). So both, the squad leader as well as his deputy are trained as IFV commanders as well as infantry leaders. Also the Platoon Leader is often just an experienced NCO instead of a junior officer.

​@@heinzg6375 Hmm, I'm not sure if it's really that close to the Swedes. The Germans usually don't put the vehicles under direct command of the (deputy) platoon leader ever. Each IFV is an integral part of its squad and thus always stays close to its squad and under squad control. The concept of splitting up dismounts and vehicles and command them seperately is pretty alien to the German armored infantry. They stay mounted as much as possible and try to keep dismounting really short and limited to a single action, like clearing an obstacle (a trench, a building, some trees) and then immediately remount to keep up the momentum. They are not considered infantry in the German military, but instead belong to the armor corps.

​@@heinzg6375 Here's a glimpse of how a Marder goes into an apartment complex: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-EO1qW_3WurM.html There is no such thing as a dedicated close combat leader in the German armored infantry, hence my doubts about the closeness to the Swedish way. If the focus is on dismounted fighting, then the platoon leader will lead the platoon dismounted, but each IFV still remains under control of its squad leader even if he is dismounted. The platoon leader always leads the platoon as a whole and only controls his own IFV directly.

@@heinzg6375 Another example of Marders moving into a building complex: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-mje-5x3X3Ac.html

@@heinzg6375 I do understand that, but I don't recall that I have said anything to the contrary. Just because the IFV remains under control of its squad doesn't mean that the whole platoon (or even company) can operate with dismounted focus. There is just no dedicated leader for mounted or dismounted ops respectively. All squad and platoon leaders as well as their deputy leaders are trained for both and do whatever is needed in a given situation, while their respective deputy takes over the other part. Although having said that, I also gotta add, that such terrain that requires extensive dismounted operation is not well suited for armored warfare (which in Germany includes the armored inf), so it is better to leave that to true infantry. But yeah the fact, that Swedes and German armored inf prefer to fight mounted seems to be a commonality indeed.

The CV9035 doesn’t have a lot of space in the back so it’s basically full with the platoon HQ. Some more space in the Warrior but it’s still notionally a platoon HQ vic

there's a lot more initiative and invidivual critical thinking encouraged in the Dutch army. R2 can decide where to dismount and R will probably be ok with that decision unless they have a real reason why that plan isn't going to work. more freedom of action and discussion, which some think leads to longer decision times, but in reality, it leads to smarter actiosn

The 4th vehicle as the Platoon HQ with RTOs and other stuff

I know what they do at the squad-level but not at the platoon-level.