This came up in a drunken debate, need to know if there is any credible information that shows which element does the most damage.

I'm tempted to say maneuver, but I don't claim to be an expert.

Actual enemy KIA, or FF?

THis is one of those rare threads where I am actually a subject matter expert. I should mark this day on my calendar.

I am a transporter, fancy word for truck driver. I move ammo for an Artillery Battalion among other things.


Basically, to answer your question, maneuver elements ( infantry, scouts, armor, artillery,...etc) undoubtedly account for more enemy KIA than support. Our primary job is NOT to kick in doors and stab mother fuckers in the face. We are tasked with getting supplies where they need to be so the face stabbers can do their job.

That having been said, the modern battlefield has no front lines. There are countless incidents of support troops being in direct contact with enemy forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. We get to kill our fair share of bad guys too, it's just not our primary job.

Also, many of us get tasked out to do various shit while deployed that puts us in direct harms way. VIP escort, convoy security, TCP/ECP, route recon/clearance, and all kinds of other shit you don't see in movies or on TV shows. The modern support Soldier has a much better chance of getting in a fire fight now than in any war in history.

But the combat arms guys definitely get to kill more bad guys than we do, and they take more casualties as a result.

Traditionally, support, by far. Artillery, CAS, Naval gunfire.

If you are talking Infantry elements I would have to go with maneuver.   Support will be keeping their heads down and they will be taking as much cover as possible.    The maneuver element assaults across the objective and cleans house.   Of course the support element has to lift or shift fires for this to happen.

If that is what he's talking about then yes, maybe I misunderstood the question.

Damnit, I felt important there for a second.

This is the textbook answer.

The correct answer, of course, is the HSLD, hard-charging, whiskey-swillin', bimbo-bangin', Fire Support God, otherwise known as the FO, or FISTer, who gets first round effects on the target and allows the Grunts with whom he spends his time to mop up the remnants of his handi-work.

What's the sound that makes the Earth shake
Shoot, move, and communicate

If we're talking MFE (combat arms) versus combat support/combat service support, you're asking if infantry, armor, artillery, and aviation kill more than transportation, ordnance, intelligence, and quartermaster.  Obvious answer is obvious.

If you're speaking strictly maneuver - infantry, armor, and aviation - versus the rest combined, then traditionally, especially in conventional war, artillery is responsible for more enemy casualties than anyone else - throw in CAS and NGF, and you have a whole lot of fire support death.  However, in the current OE, with the limits on IDF, manuever may edge out the lead.

ETA: And if you're talking about battle drill 1/1A, support by fire element vs. assaulting element, I'll defer to the infantrymen to answer that one.

All depends on what level of forces you are talking about.  Are you talking about squad/plt/company level or are you talking about branches, ie infantry, armor (maneuver) versus engineer, artillery, trans (support)?  If you're talking branches/functions, artillery and CAS will do more damage and kill more bad guys.  If you're talking elements, the maneuver element should do more damage since the support element is not necessarily trying to kill the bad guys but more to keep them fixed and pinned down so the maneuver element can maneuver freely.  

So, to answer the question, it depends on what you're talking about.

Artillery may be the king of battle....and Inf may be the queen...but Armor is the chastity belt that keeps the bitch from getting raped...Hooah!





Sorry...I just had too....

Depends on the type of fight.

king of battle > queen of battle

LOL, that's is the first I have heard that ending.

Reminds me of the old quote, "Artillery adds dignity to what would otherwise be a vulgar brawl."

I've heard of artillery being the King of battle and of Infantry being the queen of battle, but never about armor.



Those terms come from the chess board.  Hence the Queen of Battle title going to the infantry.  When that phrase was coined (and it predates the 20th Century), it was the infantry that decided the battle (last boot standing)

If maneuver is infantry and support is everyone else (like I learned at fort Benning)

Then I would be tempted to say support. Pilots, tankers, scouts, arty, etc.

I took this as between the SBF laying down suppressive fire and the assault element who will assault through the objective.

Who kills more enemy between those two elements?

Was that the question OP?

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile

Yes, that is correct.

Got into a discussion about automatic weapons, and the old tired saw about "Autos are used by the Army because they are good at Killing so many people" came out and I responded by saying "Autos are used to fix the enemy in place and keep them from moving so that other guys can circle around and kill them easier" and was going to go on about saying that those other guys (maneuver element) don't even really necessarily need automatic weapons to do the bulk of the killing.

So its basically for future debating purposes, but I'm not a subject matter expert so I thought I'd ask. The gist is to debate the notion that Auto's are by default better killing weapons, when in actuality the Military uses them mainly for their utility (to fix an enemy in place) then their lethality.

Like other things, it depends.

I would think if "the plan" is working, it would be the support element.

Of course when does "the plan" ever really work?

manunver is your support: logistics, coms, supply, intel. they coordinate the onslaught.
infantry, AVIATION, F/A, ARMOR, THEY HOLD THE GROUND.
one could exist without the other, but it would be ugly as goes execution.

It's already been clarified what the OP means, he means does the base of fire do more damage or does the assault team do more damage. Talking about infantry units here.

I would be inclined to agree with you, but these are my credentials




So in for the actual answer

Well , lets look at a Text book assault as was shown on BoB's at the assault on the guns at Brecourt. The SBF element lit them up with crew served, and will always kill a few in the opening Killing burst, but after that they keep there heads down and try to regain fire superiority...

While this is going on,the Maneuver element flanks them and does the majority of damage with grenades and automatic and rifle fire... so in that context, the maneuver element does the lions share of the killing.They then disengage and cover the SBF element so they can also disengage. Unless the Maneuver element can sweep thru the objective. Then they can Mop up and re-consolidate and reorganize with the maneuver element on the far side of the objective.  Deal with Casevac and prepare a hasty defense for what must be assumed will be an impending counter attack to get back what was taken. If that is withing the Mission Op Order.


Doing this mounted works pretty much the same, but is faster and more violent and takes less time...

Hmmmmmmm, let me think...

Fragmentation producing weapons are the number 1 killer on the battlefield, be they rockets, mortars, bombs, grenades or artillery.

Steel rain bitches

I'm with ya homie, but the POGs still think we are talking about them.

On paper, and against other armies, the maneuver element.

The SBF is usually shooting at bad guys 300-400 meters away, who are in the prone, and maybe you have a target the size of the human head and a piece of shoulder, hiding behind a tree or rock.  At 300 meters you cant see that.  You see some muzzle flash and smoke and shoot in the vicinity of it.  Most of the time people in the SBF that are shooting aim just a little bit high anyway.

The goal is to get the maneuver element to the flank, say 100 meters away, at which point the defender is in  a crossfire.  Then the killing begins.  So the SBF is aiming low, kicking up dirt, pinning guys down, so the maneuver element can get around and kill bad guys.

Now. That is in a pure infantry on infantry fight.

What really happens usually is that in US units you pin the bad guys down, and hit them with artillery or something.

Consider that it is 437.5 grains to the ounce. a 5.56 bullet weighs 62 grains.  An average rifleman with 210 rounds in a basic load is delivering 29 ounces of lead, split 210 ways, at the enemy.  Less than two pounds.   Sound impressive? Consider an 81mm mortar shell weighs nine pounds and a 105mm shell weighs 30 pounds, maybe 10% of that is HE and the rest is steel fragments.  If the bad guys are going to stand and fight then it is maneuver.  Much of the time, if they are guerrillas or insurgents, they will run away, and it is fire support, like pin them down with a lot of 5.56mm and fire a couple 105mm shells before they run away.   Their goal is pop some caps and run before the HE shows up.

The phrase that pays is "we kill with HE."  If they are going to run away anyway the maneuver element wont catch them, because a US soldier with 60 pounds of gear on is not going to catch a jihadi with ten pounds of AK and two mags of ammo and a bag of walnuts in his pocket.

So the real answer is it depends.  In OEF, most of the time, the maneuver element didn't kill anyone, unless they could drive in Humvees and maneuver that way. That only happened if the bad guys fought in a way that the vehicles could drive at them...ie.  only when they were really stupid.  That was infrequent.


Technically field artillery is combat arms, not combat support.  


Interesting question.

Truth

While Armor and Infantry will Occupy enemy territory, more most casualties are caused by Artillery than any other two causes combined.

PS: The King's a Fink and the Queen's a bitch!

Correct answer. What is your military background if you are willing to share.

Good answer.

Excellent post, Pretty much covers an assault at the platoon level.

ETA: The Germans were notorious for rapid and successful counter attacks.

Brecourt isn't really a good example to base an answer off of. It was
executed the way it was out of necessity. The assault was well planned, and brilliantly executed. Regardless, it was not the ideal or desired method. Artillery and close air
support weren't available. Making an infantry assault on that position without Prep, when Arty and CAS was available would have gotten a commander relieved.

I will have to disagree. while it is always great to have everything you need, if you look back on History, many assaults did not have CAS or Priority of Indirect fires, and the mission still had to be accomplished. I thing Brecourt stands as an excellent example of a getting the job done as a FRAGO with the available assets

And the key principles of fire and maneuver were all there...