Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
BCM
User Panel

Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 5/22/2015 3:59:01 PM EDT
Hard to surpass the WWII Finns in this regard.  NVA and VC were pretty damn good at it too.  

After they got their act together, the Brits' regular infantry and artillery (used as infantry) did good job during the Malayan Emergency.

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile
Link Posted: 5/22/2015 4:05:46 PM EDT
[#1]
The Brits in Malaya were completely overrated.
Link Posted: 5/22/2015 4:12:36 PM EDT
[#2]
overall? US Army... lots of soldiers scattered  through a bunch of units... concentrated? some NG units, 193rd, etc
Link Posted: 5/22/2015 4:14:23 PM EDT
[#3]
Link Posted: 5/22/2015 4:17:21 PM EDT
[#4]
In the '80s I remember hearing that the Brits had the best trained, but worst equipped, infantry in the world.


Link Posted: 5/22/2015 4:20:45 PM EDT
[#5]
North Korea. Their military blends in so well many of them have been mortared.
Link Posted: 5/22/2015 4:23:41 PM EDT
[#6]
The group with the best fieldcraft are the snipers.

As to which nation, that's hard to say.
Link Posted: 5/22/2015 4:37:09 PM EDT
[#7]
Finland.  Just ask the Russians.
Link Posted: 5/22/2015 4:38:39 PM EDT
[#8]
the Poles have always relied on the basics.
Link Posted: 5/22/2015 4:50:25 PM EDT
[#9]
US  Guardian  Eagles ,       UGE     ...    Clearance level above top secret,,, in fact even talking about there clearance level is treason.       Budget  unlimited.   theater of operation   worldwide.
Link Posted: 5/22/2015 4:53:12 PM EDT
[#10]
I can't believe arfcom's Rhodesian fetish hasn't manifested itself here yet.
Link Posted: 5/22/2015 4:56:44 PM EDT
[#11]

Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


I can't believe arfcom's Rhodesian fetish hasn't manifested itself here yet.
View Quote
Selous Scouts
Link Posted: 5/22/2015 5:08:43 PM EDT
[#12]
I'd probably have to go with WWII Japanese.  The snipers they had hidden in trees were so well camouflaged that Marines had to hose down every tree top.  Marines didn't discover machine gun nests or spider holes until it was too late, and they dug out entire labyrinths of tunnels underground with hand tools to entrench themselves.  Hell, a Few Japanese were so well embedded that they didn't even know the war was over until decades later.

I read a story somewhere where a Japanese airbase was under constant allied air attack.  One of them got the bright idea to make fake airplanes out of local materials and put them out in the open while camouflaging their real ones.  Day in, day out, allied planes would come in and destroy the fake planes and they'd just make more of them during the night.  And their real planes would be unscathed.

This IS the definition of "Field craft", isn't it?  As for the Viet Cong,I read somewhere that  before North And South Vietnam were divided and the Viet Minh started showing up, the local French authorities would allow the surrendered Japanese to keep their arms for a little while to help keep order because the Japanese were the only ones the Viet Minh were truly afraid of.
Link Posted: 5/22/2015 8:41:00 PM EDT
[#13]

Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


The Brits in Malaya were completely overrated.
View Quote




 



Why?  I'm not seeing it.
Link Posted: 5/22/2015 8:42:05 PM EDT
[#14]
Rhodesia
Link Posted: 5/22/2015 8:42:45 PM EDT
[#15]

Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


overall? US Army... lots of soldiers scattered  through a bunch of units... concentrated? some NG units, 193rd, etc
View Quote




 






No.  Not even close.  Charlie didn't call us "the elephant" for nothing.







We've done a lot of stuff well with the average infantry Joe, IMO, but military fieldcraft hasn't been one of them.
Link Posted: 5/22/2015 8:44:44 PM EDT
[#16]

Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


The group with the best fieldcraft are the snipers.



As to which nation, that's hard to say.
View Quote




 



True.  They're highly trained specialists, though, even when not "elite" units.






Link Posted: 5/22/2015 8:45:57 PM EDT
[#17]

Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


I can't believe arfcom's Rhodesian fetish hasn't manifested itself here yet.
View Quote




 



I specifically thought to exclude mentioning them in the OP because I was sure somebody else would have brought it to the table.
Link Posted: 5/22/2015 8:47:29 PM EDT
[#18]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
I can't believe arfcom's Rhodesian fetish hasn't manifested itself here yet.
View Quote


their SAS and Selous Scouts did some strong work.  For "fieldcraft" they would be tough to beat.  weeks at a time without resupply is how you define fieldcraft.
Link Posted: 5/22/2015 9:13:38 PM EDT
[#19]
Fieldcraft? The WW2 Germans, and especially their mountain troops.
Link Posted: 5/22/2015 9:38:23 PM EDT
[#20]

Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


Fieldcraft? The WW2 Germans, and especially their mountain troops.

View Quote




 






I recently read at book about Finland and Germany in WWII.  IRRC correctly the Waffen SS and Mountian troops (pretty sure it was mountian) that worked with the Finns both said the Finns were better than them.  No small compliment coming from a military not known for low self esteem.












Link Posted: 5/22/2015 9:42:57 PM EDT
[#21]
If by field craft you mean prepared defensive positions & classic military engineering then.

IDF in the golan and Sinai.   after that the DMZ t South Korea's ROK. then the east germans.  

Link Posted: 5/22/2015 9:44:59 PM EDT
[#22]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
I can't believe arfcom's Rhodesian fetish hasn't manifested itself here yet.
View Quote


Or the IDF circle jerk.
Link Posted: 5/22/2015 9:58:12 PM EDT
[#23]
Link Posted: 5/22/2015 10:07:05 PM EDT
[#24]
Link Posted: 5/22/2015 10:09:15 PM EDT
[#25]
The finns during ww2, easy choice

The us military, during ww2, especially in the Normandy campaign, lots of backwoods engineering was shown, as troops experimented with various inventions and tactics to get through the hedgerows, Also the us ghost army, used to fool Hitler that the allies would invade Pas-de-Calais
Link Posted: 5/22/2015 10:10:59 PM EDT
[#26]

Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


If by field craft you mean prepared defensive positions & classic military engineering then.



IDF in the golan and Sinai.   after that the DMZ t South Korea's ROK. then the east germans.  



View Quote




 



It's a general term, but I was thinking of it more in the individual and small unit sense.  Prepping fighting positions, sure, but not engineered ones.  Anything more than pick and shovel moves you out of it, I think.  That's not all it's limited to, of course, there's use of terrain, camouflage, sustaining yourself in the field, sustainable field hygiene, etc.









Link Posted: 5/22/2015 10:20:09 PM EDT
[#27]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


their SAS and Selous Scouts did some strong work.  For "fieldcraft" they would be tough to beat.  weeks at a time without resupply is how you define fieldcraft.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
I can't believe arfcom's Rhodesian fetish hasn't manifested itself here yet.


their SAS and Selous Scouts did some strong work.  For "fieldcraft" they would be tough to beat.  weeks at a time without resupply is how you define fieldcraft.


Fetish or not there are times when legendary status is appropriate.
Link Posted: 5/22/2015 10:22:24 PM EDT
[#28]
Much as I hate to say it, I think the NVA/VC and the Imperial Japanese Army likely fall under the category of having good fieldcraft.

They were able to get plenty done with not a lot it seems.
Link Posted: 5/22/2015 10:38:28 PM EDT
[#29]
One must remember that fieldcraft is much more than just camouflage, though it is a large part of it. Its an overall method of operating stealthy.

The Japanese dominated this aspect in WWII. They were one of the few armies truly proficient (and trained) in night attacks. They heavily pushed all aspects of fieldcraft down to the lowest levels of all infantry units, not just a few elite ones. Their performances and experiences in China and Indochina taught the Chinese, Koreans, and Vietnamese about the importance of that skill. Helping them (or hurting them depending on your outlook) was that none of these cultures ever really held or tried to hold air superiority, making cladestine movement of troops a necessity (something the US never really needed to worry about).

This little doohickey was created by the Japanese and then used by the Chinese and Vietnamese and worked wonders in turning platoons of light infantry into "ghosts."


I'd say that right now the North Koreans, though completely untested in combat for 60 years, are the most skilled army in fieldcraft, as they have to be to make up for their lack of skills and equipment. Entire hills hollowed out, hidden arty and fighting positions, netting sewn into all field uniforms. They take those techniques the US Army only brings up for EIB testing seriously.

Seriously, the US Army probably has the worst fieldcraft of anyone. Its like we go out of our way to announce that we are operating in an AO. Strong and tough elephants, but still elephants.
Link Posted: 5/22/2015 10:53:11 PM EDT
[#30]
Take a peasant army composed of manual laborers used to working outdoors in a near impoverished lifestyle (which is more or less what the infantry is:

Add two teaspoons of a repressive, Communist type regime that exacted ruthless discipline and didn't give much regard for soldier welfare.

Put them in a location where survival was difficult and discipline was needed to keep hygiene and health (like the jungle)

Square off against a fore with unlimited firepower and force them to camouflage, go underground, and cut no corners or die.

I'd go with the North Vietnamese.  Sapper units, especially.  

It is hard to read about the Cu Chi tunnel setup, or the Siege of Dien Bien Phu, and not be impressed.
Their deliberate attacks weren't great but far better then the Japanese.

Japanese logistics and medical support were medievel.  Really bad.  Their rate of disease was pretty high.  Especially on New Guinea, and Guadalcanal.  To me that's a part of fieldcraft.
Link Posted: 5/22/2015 10:56:17 PM EDT
[#31]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:

North Korea. Their military blends in so well many of them have been mortared.
View Quote








Link Posted: 5/22/2015 11:01:00 PM EDT
[#32]

Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


Take a peasant army composed of manual laborers used to working outdoors in a near impoverished lifestyle (which is more or less what the infantry is:



Add two teaspoons of a repressive, Communist type regime that exacted ruthless discipline and didn't give much regard for soldier welfare.



Put them in a location where survival was difficult and discipline was needed to keep hygiene and health (like the jungle)



Square off against a fore with unlimited firepower and force them to camouflage, go underground, and cut no corners or die.



I'd go with the North Vietnamese.  Sapper units, especially.  



It is hard to read about the Cu Chi tunnel setup, or the Siege of Dien Bien Phu, and not be impressed.

Their deliberate attacks weren't great but far better then the Japanese.



Japanese logistics and medical support were medievel.  Really bad.  Their rate of disease was pretty high.  Especially on New Guinea, and Guadalcanal.  To me that's a part of fieldcraft.

View Quote




 



I agree.




Also, the Germans suffered significant numbers of avoidable disease casualties in all theaters due to their poor field sanitation and hygiene.
Link Posted: 5/22/2015 11:10:41 PM EDT
[#33]
That's why I think the Russian Army was pretty good.  Mostly made of peasants used to incredibly harsh winters.
Link Posted: 5/22/2015 11:13:21 PM EDT
[#34]
We would make Camo garnishes for our helmets, a lot of guys thought 1 piece of Camo net was good to go. I used a photo of British Paras walking giant Afro burlap helmet.

Very often see pogue units Camo up face only. No neck, ears etc
Link Posted: 5/22/2015 11:16:20 PM EDT
[#36]

Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


We would make Camo garnishes for our helmets, a lot of guys thought 1 piece of Camo net was good to go. I used a photo of British Paras walking giant Afro burlap helmet.



Very often see pogue units Camo up face only. No neck, ears etc
View Quote




 






I don't understand why scrim nets for helmets aren't made and issued.  The brits still do it.







Remember manchu hair when 7th ID was still around?












Link Posted: 5/22/2015 11:20:01 PM EDT
[#37]
How about Vietnam era LRRPs??

There are all sorts of books on how they beat the VC at their own game.



You said 'Regulars'
Link Posted: 5/22/2015 11:20:16 PM EDT
[#38]
Ok, so here is a fun question to consider: who has demonstrated the most success in avoiding detection by thermal and light amplification?

Hard to imagine any of those guys pulling off their previous tactical/operational successes with the advent of ITAS, LRAS3, LITENING, and so on.
Link Posted: 5/22/2015 11:20:29 PM EDT
[#39]
Link Posted: 5/22/2015 11:34:51 PM EDT
[#40]
First, define what the hell you mean by "fieldcraft". It's an undefined term, and used for so many damn different things that it's almost useless.

Is it "fieldcraft" when a Chinese army disappears into the hills and sneaks up on a US Corps in North Korea?

Or, is it "fieldcraft" when a Finn or Swede camouflages their tank to the point where it looks like pile of logging waste, even from five feet?

Alternatively, is it "fieldcraft" when you fire on a patrol in the jungle, and they vanish into the underbrush like so many snakes?

Evaluating an army on these skills is essentially meaningless, because of the wide range of things we use the term for. Which is probably a huge part of why its trained so damn poorly, as well.

Fieldcraft, as most define the term, includes things like OPSEC practical skills like camouflage and movement techniques meant to hide presence or movement from the enemy, to things like how a soldier reacts to contacts. If you ambush a bunch of poncy prima donnas who are more worried about the cleanliness of their uniforms and shine on their boots than they are about getting to ground and then getting to you, you'd say they practiced poor fieldcraft. If they vanish into the mud and weeds? Excellent fieldcraft.

Because the term itself is so nebulous, it is aching for a clear definition.  Take a unit like 7 ID, Light--Dump those guys into South Rainier Training Area on Fort Lewis, and then watch their Light Infantry asses get smoked by the guys who live and train in those woods. Watching some of those guys try to move through the forest up there was just 'effing painful. Experienced guys from Lewis like some of the Infantry units from 9th ID could ghost through those woods like nobody's business, because they knew the tricks of movement, the little things that enable speed. The guys from 7th? Sucked at it, because they had no idea of what to do. Example: What do you do to cross over a blown-down tree? Typical woodswise guy from the 9th would not even break stride crossing, using his knee as though it were a foot, and just keep on moving. Guys from 7th? They'd either walk up the tree looking for an easy way to get around it, or they'd do some elaborate straddling move that usually left them falling down in the brush. After thirty or so trees in the first few hundred meters, the native 9th ID bubbas would be so far out of sight of the guys from Ord that they'd be invisible.That's fieldcraft--Knowing how to move and fight in your environment. Unfortunately, it is not a thoroughly studied science. Most of it is passed on soldier-to-soldier, and not retained or documented at the unit level. You learn it by watching.

If I had to say who was the best at between WWII and now? I'd have to give the trophy to the Chinese Army that took X Corps, and the North Vietnamese Sappers. Nobody else is even in the running.
Link Posted: 5/22/2015 11:42:38 PM EDT
[#41]

Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


First, define what the hell you mean by "fieldcraft". It's an undefined term, and used for so many damn different things that it's almost useless.



Is it "fieldcraft" when a Chinese army disappears into the hills and sneaks up on a US Corps in North Korea?



Or, is it "fieldcraft" when a Finn or Swede camouflages their tank to the point where it looks like pile of logging waste, even from five feet?



Alternatively, is it "fieldcraft" when you fire on a patrol in the jungle, and they vanish into the underbrush like so many snakes?



Evaluating an army on these skills is essentially meaningless, because of the wide range of things we use the term for. Which is probably a huge part of why its trained so damn poorly, as well.



Fieldcraft, as most define the term, includes things like OPSEC practical skills like camouflage and movement techniques meant to hide presence or movement from the enemy, to things like how a soldier reacts to contacts. If you ambush a bunch of poncy prima donnas who are more worried about the cleanliness of their uniforms and shine on their boots than they are about getting to ground and then getting to you, you'd say they practiced poor fieldcraft. If they vanish into the mud and weeds? Excellent fieldcraft.



Because the term itself is so nebulous, it is aching for a clear definition.  Take a unit like 7 ID, Light--Dump those guys into South Rainier Training Area on Fort Lewis, and then watch their Light Infantry asses get smoked by the guys who live and train in those woods. Watching some of those guys try to move through the forest up there was just 'effing painful. Experienced guys from Lewis like some of the Infantry units from 9th ID could ghost through those woods like nobody's business, because they knew the tricks of movement, the little things that enable speed. The guys from 7th? Sucked at it, because they had no idea of what to do. Example: What do you do to cross over a blown-down tree? Typical woodswise guy from the 9th would not even break stride crossing, using his knee as though it were a foot, and just keep on moving. Guys from 7th? They'd either walk up the tree looking for an easy way to get around it, or they'd do some elaborate straddling move that usually left them falling down in the brush. After thirty or so trees in the first few hundred meters, the native 9th ID bubbas would be so far out of sight of the guys from Ord that they'd be invisible.That's fieldcraft--Knowing how to move and fight in your environment. Unfortunately, it is not a thoroughly studied science. Most of it is passed on soldier-to-soldier, and not retained or documented at the unit level. You learn it by watching.



If I had to say who was the best at between WWII and now? I'd have to give the trophy to the Chinese Army that took X Corps, and the North Vietnamese Sappers. Nobody else is even in the running.
View Quote




 






Define "pornography".    I bet you can't.  There still isn't a consensus on what porno is.  But I also bet you'd know it when you see it.







Fieldcraft is a similar broad term, encompassing a range of skills, short of fighting, but including movement, sustainment, survivability, stealth etc.
Link Posted: 5/22/2015 11:46:25 PM EDT
[#42]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
One must remember that fieldcraft is much more than just camouflage, though it is a large part of it. Its an overall method of operating stealthy.

The Japanese dominated this aspect in WWII. They were one of the few armies truly proficient (and trained) in night attacks. They heavily pushed all aspects of fieldcraft down to the lowest levels of all infantry units, not just a few elite ones. Their performances and experiences in China and Indochina taught the Chinese, Koreans, and Vietnamese about the importance of that skill. Helping them (or hurting them depending on your outlook) was that none of these cultures ever really held or tried to hold air superiority, making cladestine movement of troops a necessity (something the US never really needed to worry about).

This little doohickey was created by the Japanese and then used by the Chinese and Vietnamese and worked wonders in turning platoons of light infantry into "ghosts."
https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTeejaZh6uxvb2CrakuZc4XLO3sWpcyDVNqKtxi3ebPYEG9_54owlZ2fK3l

I'd say that right now the North Koreans, though completely untested in combat for 60 years, are the most skilled army in fieldcraft, as they have to be to make up for their lack of skills and equipment. Entire hills hollowed out, hidden arty and fighting positions, netting sewn into all field uniforms. They take those techniques the US Army only brings up for EIB testing seriously.

Seriously, the US Army probably has the worst fieldcraft of anyone. Its like we go out of our way to announce that we are operating in an AO. Strong and tough elephants, but still elephants.
View Quote

What is that gadget, and what does it do?
Link Posted: 5/22/2015 11:51:59 PM EDT
[#43]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:

What is that gadget, and what does it do?
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
One must remember that fieldcraft is much more than just camouflage, though it is a large part of it. Its an overall method of operating stealthy.

The Japanese dominated this aspect in WWII. They were one of the few armies truly proficient (and trained) in night attacks. They heavily pushed all aspects of fieldcraft down to the lowest levels of all infantry units, not just a few elite ones. Their performances and experiences in China and Indochina taught the Chinese, Koreans, and Vietnamese about the importance of that skill. Helping them (or hurting them depending on your outlook) was that none of these cultures ever really held or tried to hold air superiority, making cladestine movement of troops a necessity (something the US never really needed to worry about).

This little doohickey was created by the Japanese and then used by the Chinese and Vietnamese and worked wonders in turning platoons of light infantry into "ghosts."
https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTeejaZh6uxvb2CrakuZc4XLO3sWpcyDVNqKtxi3ebPYEG9_54owlZ2fK3l

I'd say that right now the North Koreans, though completely untested in combat for 60 years, are the most skilled army in fieldcraft, as they have to be to make up for their lack of skills and equipment. Entire hills hollowed out, hidden arty and fighting positions, netting sewn into all field uniforms. They take those techniques the US Army only brings up for EIB testing seriously.

Seriously, the US Army probably has the worst fieldcraft of anyone. Its like we go out of our way to announce that we are operating in an AO. Strong and tough elephants, but still elephants.

What is that gadget, and what does it do?


Attaches to the back of the webbing or pack/ruck. You run local natural vegetation through the loops of the coil, basically turning your back into a bush. So when you go prone, you basically disappear, without needing to attach a bunch of crap to your head, which is a huge target identifier (head moves more than anything else but hands). Its one of the prime reasons so many Vietnam vets say that they never saw the enemy they were fighting.

Link Posted: 5/23/2015 12:01:43 AM EDT
[#44]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Ok, so here is a fun question to consider: who has demonstrated the most success in avoiding detection by thermal and light amplification?

Hard to imagine any of those guys pulling off their previous tactical/operational successes with the advent of ITAS, LRAS3, LITENING, and so on.
View Quote


Considering how few countries actually have the means to use any of equipment similar to the ones you listed, few I'd say are proficient. For when facing off against those countries that do, as proven in Iraq and A-Stan, countermeasures do in fact exist, though most were crude. Here is a a list of some techniques. We played around with an LRAS and other thermal scopes and some are relatively successful.
Link Posted: 5/23/2015 12:04:03 AM EDT
[#45]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


Attaches to the back of the webbing or pack/ruck. You run local natural vegetation through the loops of the coil, basically turning your back into a bush. So when you go prone, you basically disappear, without needing to attach a bunch of crap to your head, which is a huge target identifier (head moves more than anything else but hands). Its one of the prime reasons so many Vietnam vets say that they never saw the enemy they were fighting.

http://www.combatsportsupply.com/images/products/detail/P10_CR65_2.jpg
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
One must remember that fieldcraft is much more than just camouflage, though it is a large part of it. Its an overall method of operating stealthy.

The Japanese dominated this aspect in WWII. They were one of the few armies truly proficient (and trained) in night attacks. They heavily pushed all aspects of fieldcraft down to the lowest levels of all infantry units, not just a few elite ones. Their performances and experiences in China and Indochina taught the Chinese, Koreans, and Vietnamese about the importance of that skill. Helping them (or hurting them depending on your outlook) was that none of these cultures ever really held or tried to hold air superiority, making cladestine movement of troops a necessity (something the US never really needed to worry about).

This little doohickey was created by the Japanese and then used by the Chinese and Vietnamese and worked wonders in turning platoons of light infantry into "ghosts."
https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTeejaZh6uxvb2CrakuZc4XLO3sWpcyDVNqKtxi3ebPYEG9_54owlZ2fK3l

I'd say that right now the North Koreans, though completely untested in combat for 60 years, are the most skilled army in fieldcraft, as they have to be to make up for their lack of skills and equipment. Entire hills hollowed out, hidden arty and fighting positions, netting sewn into all field uniforms. They take those techniques the US Army only brings up for EIB testing seriously.

Seriously, the US Army probably has the worst fieldcraft of anyone. Its like we go out of our way to announce that we are operating in an AO. Strong and tough elephants, but still elephants.

What is that gadget, and what does it do?


Attaches to the back of the webbing or pack/ruck. You run local natural vegetation through the loops of the coil, basically turning your back into a bush. So when you go prone, you basically disappear, without needing to attach a bunch of crap to your head, which is a huge target identifier (head moves more than anything else but hands). Its one of the prime reasons so many Vietnam vets say that they never saw the enemy they were fighting.

http://www.combatsportsupply.com/images/products/detail/P10_CR65_2.jpg

A simple, low-tech solution that worked very well. Nice.
Link Posted: 5/23/2015 12:09:50 AM EDT
[#46]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:

 



I don't understand why scrim nets for helmets aren't made and issued.  The brits still do it.




Remember manchu hair when 7th ID was still around?


http://www.usmilitariaforum.com/uploads//monthly_10_2012/post-82150-0-33701900-1349712097.jpg





View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
We would make Camo garnishes for our helmets, a lot of guys thought 1 piece of Camo net was good to go. I used a photo of British Paras walking giant Afro burlap helmet.

Very often see pogue units Camo up face only. No neck, ears etc

 



I don't understand why scrim nets for helmets aren't made and issued.  The brits still do it.




Remember manchu hair when 7th ID was still around?


http://www.usmilitariaforum.com/uploads//monthly_10_2012/post-82150-0-33701900-1349712097.jpg







3rd Brigade 10th Mountain used it starting in 2010. 1-32 Infantry still does and used it from 2007 when I got to Drum.  




Link Posted: 5/23/2015 12:12:20 AM EDT
[#47]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:

 



Define "pornography".    I bet you can't.  There still isn't a consensus on what porno is.  But I also bet you'd know it when you see it.




Fieldcraft is a similar broad term, encompassing a range of skills, short of fighting, but including movement, sustainment, survivability, stealth etc.

View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
First, define what the hell you mean by "fieldcraft". It's an undefined term, and used for so many damn different things that it's almost useless.

Is it "fieldcraft" when a Chinese army disappears into the hills and sneaks up on a US Corps in North Korea?

Or, is it "fieldcraft" when a Finn or Swede camouflages their tank to the point where it looks like pile of logging waste, even from five feet?

Alternatively, is it "fieldcraft" when you fire on a patrol in the jungle, and they vanish into the underbrush like so many snakes?

Evaluating an army on these skills is essentially meaningless, because of the wide range of things we use the term for. Which is probably a huge part of why its trained so damn poorly, as well.

Fieldcraft, as most define the term, includes things like OPSEC practical skills like camouflage and movement techniques meant to hide presence or movement from the enemy, to things like how a soldier reacts to contacts. If you ambush a bunch of poncy prima donnas who are more worried about the cleanliness of their uniforms and shine on their boots than they are about getting to ground and then getting to you, you'd say they practiced poor fieldcraft. If they vanish into the mud and weeds? Excellent fieldcraft.

Because the term itself is so nebulous, it is aching for a clear definition.  Take a unit like 7 ID, Light--Dump those guys into South Rainier Training Area on Fort Lewis, and then watch their Light Infantry asses get smoked by the guys who live and train in those woods. Watching some of those guys try to move through the forest up there was just 'effing painful. Experienced guys from Lewis like some of the Infantry units from 9th ID could ghost through those woods like nobody's business, because they knew the tricks of movement, the little things that enable speed. The guys from 7th? Sucked at it, because they had no idea of what to do. Example: What do you do to cross over a blown-down tree? Typical woodswise guy from the 9th would not even break stride crossing, using his knee as though it were a foot, and just keep on moving. Guys from 7th? They'd either walk up the tree looking for an easy way to get around it, or they'd do some elaborate straddling move that usually left them falling down in the brush. After thirty or so trees in the first few hundred meters, the native 9th ID bubbas would be so far out of sight of the guys from Ord that they'd be invisible.That's fieldcraft--Knowing how to move and fight in your environment. Unfortunately, it is not a thoroughly studied science. Most of it is passed on soldier-to-soldier, and not retained or documented at the unit level. You learn it by watching.

If I had to say who was the best at between WWII and now? I'd have to give the trophy to the Chinese Army that took X Corps, and the North Vietnamese Sappers. Nobody else is even in the running.

 



Define "pornography".    I bet you can't.  There still isn't a consensus on what porno is.  But I also bet you'd know it when you see it.




Fieldcraft is a similar broad term, encompassing a range of skills, short of fighting, but including movement, sustainment, survivability, stealth etc.



Aaaaand... That's why nobody trains it, teaches it, or tries to capture it, either. If you can't define it, you can't nail it down to turn into doctrine. There are no "Fieldcraft Schools" anywhere in the US Army or Marines, although some other service schools try to at least teach a little bit of some aspects of it. The guys down at Sherman for JOTC tried to teach some jungle-environment specific stuff, but they did not have a really solid hold on things going back to Vietnam.

Personally, I think this is an area that really needs to be addressed. The root of the problem really comes from the modern man's separation from nature, especially in terms of things like hunting, tracking, and general survival skills. I had a guy in my first unit that was a true Cajun swamp rat, as he referred to it. He could vanish into the woods like nobody's business, and generally could support himself entirely in the field. About the only thing he used the C-rations we were issued was as bait. If you went out to his position and visited him, he'd have a little oven dug into his grenade sump, and be cooking rabbit, possum, or some poor snake for dinner. The guy was amazing, but there was only one of him, and there weren't too many people interested in picking up his skills. The company used him as a scout, and the stuff he got up to in that role was legendary--One of the company commanders got stupid, and decided to initiate a guidon theft war, like we were some trainee company. That shit stopped when Gaither went in and literally walked out with everyone's stolen guidons, and that company commander's weapon and COMSEC material, the loss of which was not noted until the following day. Put a stop to that idiocy in a hurry...

Fieldcraft is something that badly needs formal definition and study, because without that stuff being quantified, it's never going to be taught properly or make it into the training schedules.
Link Posted: 5/23/2015 12:28:41 AM EDT
[#48]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History


Good intent, bad execution. The small amount of camp netting and burlap doesn't break out the outline of the helmets and the evident SOP of keeping the rhino mount for the NODs mounted during daylight (kept black and not painted for some reason) defeats the point entirely. I can't see anyway anyone would see that helmet on top of a US soldier and not know it was not a helmet.

The problem with running camo on the head is two-fold. Movement is the number 1 target identifier, and the head moves a lot (meaning the camo will shake around and turn). In the sniper community its called turkey necking. The next problem is that the top of the head is about 4 inches above the eyes, the helmet is another 2-3 inches above the head, and the camo is another 2-6 inches (depending on amount of natural vegetation added). So all told, a person who thinks they are being sneaky and camo can have up to a foot of extra height above their head. While that might not make much of a difference in the prone and well camo'ed, if kneeling or standing, or mingled around other micro terrain features, it can stand out too much. Large head camo works great for a sniper who is slow and methodical but for the average joe infantry its a pretty crappy way of camo'ing. The best thing would be a simple cover, like the Israeli one, to not add any height but to break up the shape and silhouette.



Cheap and easy to remove and attach and can be stowed in a pocket when not needed. I'd make it reversable with different camo patterns (multicam/grey urban).

Camo at the shoulder/trapezius level and extending above toward the head is more effective. It breaks up the shoulder-neck-head outline, a major target identifier for shape, and also serves as effective camo when prone, kneeling or even hunched over.
Link Posted: 5/23/2015 12:32:20 AM EDT
[#49]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:

Aaaaand... That's why nobody trains it, teaches it, or tries to capture it, either. If you can't define it, you can't nail it down to turn into doctrine. There are no "Fieldcraft Schools" anywhere in the US Army or Marines, although some other service schools try to at least teach a little bit of some aspects of it. The guys down at Sherman for JOTC tried to teach some jungle-environment specific stuff, but they did not have a really solid hold on things going back to Vietnam.

Personally, I think this is an area that really needs to be addressed. The root of the problem really comes from the modern man's separation from nature, especially in terms of things like hunting, tracking, and general survival skills. I had a guy in my first unit that was a true Cajun swamp rat, as he referred to it. He could vanish into the woods like nobody's business, and generally could support himself entirely in the field. About the only thing he used the C-rations we were issued was as bait. If you went out to his position and visited him, he'd have a little oven dug into his grenade sump, and be cooking rabbit, possum, or some poor snake for dinner. The guy was amazing, but there was only one of him, and there weren't too many people interested in picking up his skills. The company used him as a scout, and the stuff he got up to in that role was legendary--One of the company commanders got stupid, and decided to initiate a guidon theft war, like we were some trainee company. That shit stopped when Gaither went in and literally walked out with everyone's stolen guidons, and that company commander's weapon and COMSEC material, the loss of which was not noted until the following day. Put a stop to that idiocy in a hurry...

Fieldcraft is something that badly needs formal definition and study, because without that stuff being quantified, it's never going to be taught properly or make it into the training schedules.
View Quote


I agree. I see the problem being that the US military, because of our major technological advantages, often gets away with bad TTPs. Coupled with a near continuous tactical winning streak, it went to our heads and its hard to try to tell people otherwise. I remember running various infantry lanes and having my squad camo'ing up hard, past the face paint standard (pre-Iraq) and getting my balls busted by peers and seniors for doing it. Fuck me for trying to do the right thing, huh? Too bad, cause we won't learn these necessary lessons until its beaten into our heads in the form of bodybags.
Link Posted: 5/23/2015 12:52:30 AM EDT
[#50]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


I agree. I see the problem being that the US military, because of our major technological advantages, often gets away with bad TTPs. Coupled with a near continuous tactical winning streak, it went to our heads and its hard to try to tell people otherwise. I remember running various infantry lanes and having my squad camo'ing up hard, past the face paint standard (pre-Iraq) and getting my balls busted by peers and seniors for doing it. Fuck me for trying to do the right thing, huh? Too bad, cause we won't learn these necessary lessons until its beaten into our heads in the form of bodybags.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:

Aaaaand... That's why nobody trains it, teaches it, or tries to capture it, either. If you can't define it, you can't nail it down to turn into doctrine. There are no "Fieldcraft Schools" anywhere in the US Army or Marines, although some other service schools try to at least teach a little bit of some aspects of it. The guys down at Sherman for JOTC tried to teach some jungle-environment specific stuff, but they did not have a really solid hold on things going back to Vietnam.

Personally, I think this is an area that really needs to be addressed. The root of the problem really comes from the modern man's separation from nature, especially in terms of things like hunting, tracking, and general survival skills. I had a guy in my first unit that was a true Cajun swamp rat, as he referred to it. He could vanish into the woods like nobody's business, and generally could support himself entirely in the field. About the only thing he used the C-rations we were issued was as bait. If you went out to his position and visited him, he'd have a little oven dug into his grenade sump, and be cooking rabbit, possum, or some poor snake for dinner. The guy was amazing, but there was only one of him, and there weren't too many people interested in picking up his skills. The company used him as a scout, and the stuff he got up to in that role was legendary--One of the company commanders got stupid, and decided to initiate a guidon theft war, like we were some trainee company. That shit stopped when Gaither went in and literally walked out with everyone's stolen guidons, and that company commander's weapon and COMSEC material, the loss of which was not noted until the following day. Put a stop to that idiocy in a hurry...

Fieldcraft is something that badly needs formal definition and study, because without that stuff being quantified, it's never going to be taught properly or make it into the training schedules.


I agree. I see the problem being that the US military, because of our major technological advantages, often gets away with bad TTPs. Coupled with a near continuous tactical winning streak, it went to our heads and its hard to try to tell people otherwise. I remember running various infantry lanes and having my squad camo'ing up hard, past the face paint standard (pre-Iraq) and getting my balls busted by peers and seniors for doing it. Fuck me for trying to do the right thing, huh? Too bad, cause we won't learn these necessary lessons until its beaten into our heads in the form of bodybags.


The biggest problem we have is with the "uniformity mafia", when it comes to personal camouflage. Can you imagine trying to get something like that Israeli Mitznefet past a uniform board? Hell, that's what killed the ragtop for the 7th ID guys that came up to Lewis when they shut down Ord--The CSMs we had running things up at Lewis had a hard-on for that stuff, and away it went. Same-same for any other camouflage efforts that were out of the ordinary. I remember one unit that tried emulating that Vietnamese circle thing for putting camouflage on their rucks, and they got nailed to the wall by, of all people, the environmentalists on post because they were chopping up too much vegetation. On Fort Lewis...

The other problem with this is that what the average person considers "good fieldcraft" is often not amenable to being passed on in a formal manner; the majority of it requires one-on-one mentorship between peers, and draconian disciplinary efforts to enforce. And, lots and lots of field time, which is something people are no longer willing to tolerate or pay for, which is why we're going to get our asses handed to us the next time we take on an enemy in close terrain that is dominated by light infantry. You can see it coming several miles off, but nobody is doing a damn thing about it.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Close Join Our Mail List to Stay Up To Date! Win a FREE Membership!

Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!

You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.


By signing up you agree to our User Agreement. *Must have a registered ARFCOM account to win.
Top Top