|
Post by eddiewouldclearhot on May 23, 2016 20:19:02 GMT -5
nope, literally the same thing, just a different name. almost word for word from our doctrine (ranger handbook)
|
|
|
Post by panzer0170 on May 24, 2016 0:58:26 GMT -5
nope, literally the same thing, just a different name. almost word for word from our doctrine (ranger handbook) Interesting. Never seen or heard of your lot doing anything different to what's seen in Afghan, and I got taught harbours before we were properly going at it in Afghan. In Iraq stuff that was PB style would be a 'platoon house' etc. PBs, for us, are distinctly hard standing fixed locations. a harbour on the other hand my last for 20 minutes.
|
|
|
Post by eddiewouldclearhot on May 24, 2016 18:36:12 GMT -5
nope, just another example of how two differnt armies arrive at the same conclusion just calling it different things.
you may be getting mixed up with FOBs, or forward operating bases. (not a doctrinal term)
From the old FM 7-8: Section V. PATROL BASES A patrol base is a position set up when a squad or platoon conducting a patrol halts for an extended period. Patrol bases should be occupied no longer than 24 hours, except in an emergency. The platoon or squad never uses the same patrol base twice. Platoons and squads use patrol bases--
To stop all movement to avoid detection. To hide during a long, detailed reconnaissance of an objective area. To eat, clean weapons and equipment, and rest. To plan and issue orders. To reorganize after infiltrating an enemy area. To have a base from which to conduct several consecutive or concurrent operations such as ambush, raid, reconnaissance, or security.
|
|
|
Post by panzer0170 on May 25, 2016 5:37:19 GMT -5
FOBs and PBs in Afghan whilst I was out there was all static, named locations. I went and found the ranger handbook and read it and yes; a harbour IS a patrol base according to doctrine. Just appears to have gotten static due to the nature of the conflict (and, more likely, the duration. Not using the same place twice for a harbour is an absolute BITCH if you're there for ten years...)
|
|
|
Post by panzer0170 on May 25, 2016 11:52:06 GMT -5
I found the chapter and verse of what a patrol harbour is, according to our paperwork stuff;
"A patrol harbour is a position established to provide security when a patrol or platoon halts for a period longer than a temporary halt. Possible reasons for the establishment of a harbour are:
A. To form a base from which operations can be mounted, eg. attack, ambush, recce, or OPs.
B. To provide an RV after infiltration into an enemy area by small groups, or after withdrawing from an area.
C. To provide security for an administrative halt after long periods of movement or close contact."
Wording is slightly different, but is essentially the same, indeed.
|
|
|
Post by eddiewouldclearhot on May 25, 2016 18:30:01 GMT -5
yep, same thing, we just don't use the word "whilst" because it smacks of tyranny and the queens english.
i honestly find it fascinating how our doctrine is both the same and different, and how we arrived at roughly the same conclusions from different approaches. your principles of war are different from ours, which begs the question: if they are principles, why are they not universal?
anyways, didnt mean to derail, i just honestly am fascinated by brit doctrine vs ours.
|
|
|
Post by panzer0170 on May 26, 2016 3:17:31 GMT -5
I don't even consider it a derail. It was something I practised, and we've discussed it and how that's different to US Doctrine (Here's a fun question; Is it even doctrine across the three (4, 5?) services? For example, when conducting infantry skills training, I know that the RAF read the ARMY Practical Aide Memoires (Fat book that's basically an FM, TAM being the slimmed down version for the field). It's also interesting to find out that PB's as used in Afghanistan go AGAINST that doctrine as set down in the FM; They were certainly static for longer than 24 hours. I have my own ideas why (mostly COIN based stuff, logistics simplification and the need for actual PROTECTION without spending a whole 6 month tour digging foxholes...) I think one of the key differences in US vs British doctrine is the difference in what we have encountered. For the past 50 years, excluding an odd little jaunt here and there we have had soldiers dealing with terrorism on our own soil (IRA for the most part, they've had a lot less to do with the current 'Islamic' threat.) That has massively coloured how we have handled our doctrine. I know folk who went out in the early stages of Afghan AND Iraq, and the US was getting hammered with attacks and the UK was getting hit, but not REALLY hit, and it all changed when US troops changed from patrolling locked up inside vehicles like faceless killers, and starting walking the streets and interacting with folk. THAT tactic is something fundamentally ingrained in British Doctrine now, after decades of Northern Ireland. The US Army until very recently has been very much a Total War warfighting Army, with a big enough element of SOF that there has been an ability to actually operate in a totally different manner. It always struck me as odd at how, for example (and I know they're not SOF as a whole) the USMC holds (held, have they changed now?) on to 20" barrels and higher accuracy standards, the four services have a totally different uniform etc. We get differences in formal dress (mostly historical carry ons, and battle honours) and quirky little habits (The Irish guards do NOT wear headdress on the way to the cookhouse, which is odd, but a thing that they do...) but all the things that we fuck around with are administrative, and if they weren't steeped in hundreds of years of tradition might be considered petty
|
|
protus
Junior Member
Posts: 323
|
Post by protus on Jun 3, 2016 4:35:05 GMT -5
Panzer. I'm reading "a rifle man went to war ". He goes into detail about the British troops from attitude..training..and the uniform quirks. Interesting book seeing as it's about ww1.. but a lot of what he writes is stuff people still debate and talk about today. Sorry for the detail.
|
|
|
Post by panzer0170 on Jun 3, 2016 5:27:10 GMT -5
Panzer. I'm reading "a rifle man went to war ". He goes into detail about the British troops from attitude..training..and the uniform quirks. Interesting book seeing as it's about ww1.. but a lot of what he writes is stuff people still debate and talk about today. Sorry for the detail. Author? ISBN?
|
|
protus
Junior Member
Posts: 323
|
Post by protus on Jun 3, 2016 17:19:57 GMT -5
Herbert McBride.
|
|
|
Post by panzer0170 on Jun 6, 2016 13:21:37 GMT -5
Thrown myself round a few three milers in the last week or two. Have successfully taken 2:00 off my time over that distance. Might sound like a lot, but actually it just underscores how much of my fitness I'd lost!
|
|
|
Post by judomayhem on Jun 15, 2016 2:31:43 GMT -5
McBride was a HUGE influence on Col Jeff Cooper. He credited his respect for the 1911, the concept of the Scout Rifle and a few other "Cooperisms" as having originated with his reading of "A Rifleman..."
|
|