RL Q regarding Band of Brothers

[Speedysteve]

Hi all,

Just watched an episode of Band of Brothers (Day of Days) whilst eating dinner and I wondered something.

It says the attack on Brecourt Manor guns is still taught today at West Point as a textbook assault on a fixed position.

Can you Military guys confirm if that is the case or not?

Thanks

[wolffpack]

Talked to a couple of west pointers in my unit when it first came out and they said it was. That was awhile back tho. Don't know about now.

[JWE]

It is a classic of small unit tactics. It is taught and appreciated, not only at Hudson High, but anywhere people wear the the little oblong blue badge with the flintlock & wreath.

XVII ABC was using it as an exercise at Bragg at least till 1969. I recall my TacO saying only 1 in 50 classes were ever successful. Mine sure wasn't. Makes you appreciate men like Winters don't it?

JWE

[patrickl]

Hi,

Found this on the web - map and the battle sequence. [;)]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-vet ... 2013/posts

Pat

[JWE]

ORIGINAL: patrickl

Hi,

Found this on the web - map and the battle sequence. [;)]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-vet ... 2013/posts

Pat

Thanks to Patrickl for that. If you do the wargamer math, it was impossible. A squad, armed with 1 .30 cal and a mix of garands, carbines and pistols taking on a 4 gun battery (plus the gun bunnies) and a support security platoon that had been positioned for weeks, and armed with 3 or 4 of the usual uber, super german mgs.

So much for wargamer math; and uber, super german mgs, and the rest of that crap. This action is (was) taught under the rubric of 'leadership'. "A small force, well trained, well armed, competently led, adequately oriented towards the objective, suitably motivated, and (most importantly) commonly motivated, will almostly always prevail, given the requisite leadership".

This is right out of the textbook, but what it doesn't say is that leadership is what synthesizes the rest of the requirements into the force that will take the objective. Leadership 'makes' the unit, it doesn't 'lead' the unit. Once a unit is made 'made', a leader just has to get up, and his unit will follow.

This is probably why so many classes lost their shirts in the exercises. None of us was a Winters; none of us had the opportunity to build a 'unit' like Dick Winters did.

The services must do what they do on account of the math. Unfortunate, but necessary. They gotta go with the best they can get from the least common denominator. Fortunately for us, they (in the back of their minds, but there, nevertheless) understand that a Dick Winters will be there when we really need them. Today .. Dogs and Soldiers keep off the grass .. tomorrow, they will remember.

[Speedysteve]

Hi guys,
 
Great stuff.
 
It sure does make you appreciate those guys. Even more so when you see the REAL men interviewed at the start of each episode.
 
Amazing little mission.

[m10bob]

ORIGINAL: Speedy

Hi all,

Just watched an episode of Band of Brothers (Day of Days) whilst eating dinner and I wondered something.

It says the attack on Brecourt Manor guns is still taught today at West Point as a textbook assault on a fixed position.

Can you Military guys confirm if that is the case or not?

Thanks

Speedy...The tactic itself is also taught at the Army Ranger school and in concept is in the FM manual as well...........

[Speedysteve]

Cool.
 
Thanks Bob.
 
Out of interest do you know what before Brecourt was the standard example for an assault on a fixed position?

[m10bob]

It would only be a guess on my part, but I'm fairly certain it would be something from the Spanish American war (for the U.S.Army.)
The American USMC had experience with assaults in Nicaragua in the thirties and I believe both Lou Diamond and Chesty Puller got their experience there.
(If you never heard of Diamond, IIRC, he remained an EM because he loved to fight, but I think you can do a Google search and learn he was a real legend.?)

[Yamato hugger]

ORIGINAL: Speedy

Cool.

Thanks Bob.

Out of interest do you know what before Brecourt was the standard example for an assault on a fixed position?

Well I cant say what they teach in West Point on assulting fixed positions. However, speaking as a former US Army infantry squad leader and Special Forces and Ranger instructor I can tell you from the small unit point of view you avoid them. No different than the German Panzerblitz created in WWII. If you HAVE to assult it, you hit it from as many directions as possible, find the weakest point and push everything you can into the hole. Pretty common sense really.

A man can only shoot in 1 direction at a time. Shoot at him from 2 or 3 directions and you are at a decided advantange.

[JWE]

I'm sure m10bob is right on for the Marines.

As far as the USArmy goes, we had no real 'action studies' till the Historical Section was instituted in 1942. Prior, before War I, the 'Manuals' were mainly translations of the French; very formalized stuff, almost Napoleonic in terms of what they considered a relevant scope of a manual.

The Infantry School at Benning had no formal cirriculum till Marshall became commandant in the late 20s, he established the "Demonstrate", "Explain", and then "Make 'em Do It" method; also brought in University professionals to ensure 'teaching' was done properly, but it still depended on the 'knowledge' and 'experience' of the individual instructor.

I don't think there were any real institutionalized 'after action studies' till War II (also thanks to G.C.M.). When I was in Analysis in the 70s, we were still trying to come to better grips with it.

Back then the Point taught tactics, yes, but the tactics were still highly formalized; Point was a College of Civil Engineering that had a major A&M component dealing with motorized vehicles and the science of artillery concentration and fortification. We really didn't get our stuff together till War II.

Best answer I can think of to your question (Army perspective), and certainly what impressed the Bradleys & Collins' of the day, might be the "lost battalion" action; Argonne Forest Campaign, 1918. JWE

[patrickl]

Hi JWE

ORIGINAL: JWE

ORIGINAL: patrickl

Hi,

Found this on the web - map and the battle sequence. [;)]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-vet ... 2013/posts

Pat

Thanks to Patrickl for that. If you do the wargamer math, it was impossible. A squad, armed with 1 .30 cal and a mix of garands, carbines and pistols taking on a 4 gun battery (plus the gun bunnies) and a support security platoon that had been positioned for weeks, and armed with 3 or 4 of the usual uber, super german mgs.

So much for wargamer math; and uber, super german mgs, and the rest of that crap. This action is (was) taught under the rubric of 'leadership'. "A small force, well trained, well armed, competently led, adequately oriented towards the objective, suitably motivated, and (most importantly) commonly motivated, will almostly always prevail, given the requisite leadership".

This is right out of the textbook, but what it doesn't say is that leadership is what synthesizes the rest of the requirements into the force that will take the objective. Leadership 'makes' the unit, it doesn't 'lead' the unit. Once a unit is made 'made', a leader just has to get up, and his unit will follow.

This is probably why so many classes lost their shirts in the exercises. None of us was a Winters; none of us had the opportunity to build a 'unit' like Dick Winters did.

The services must do what they do on account of the math. Unfortunate, but necessary. They gotta go with the best they can get from the least common denominator. Fortunately for us, they (in the back of their minds, but there, nevertheless) understand that a Dick Winters will be there when we really need them. Today .. Dogs and Soldiers keep off the grass .. tomorrow, they will remember.

No problem. [;)] I am always interested in small group action. I wonder if there is something similar done by the Marines in the Pacific threatre. [&:]

Pat

[wdolson]

ORIGINAL: JWE
Thanks to Patrickl for that. If you do the wargamer math, it was impossible. A squad, armed with 1 .30 cal and a mix of garands, carbines and pistols taking on a 4 gun battery (plus the gun bunnies) and a support security platoon that had been positioned for weeks, and armed with 3 or 4 of the usual uber, super german mgs.

So much for wargamer math; and uber, super german mgs, and the rest of that crap. This action is (was) taught under the rubric of 'leadership'. "A small force, well trained, well armed, competently led, adequately oriented towards the objective, suitably motivated, and (most importantly) commonly motivated, will almostly always prevail, given the requisite leadership".

This is right out of the textbook, but what it doesn't say is that leadership is what synthesizes the rest of the requirements into the force that will take the objective. Leadership 'makes' the unit, it doesn't 'lead' the unit. Once a unit is made 'made', a leader just has to get up, and his unit will follow.

This is probably why so many classes lost their shirts in the exercises. None of us was a Winters; none of us had the opportunity to build a 'unit' like Dick Winters did.

The services must do what they do on account of the math. Unfortunate, but necessary. They gotta go with the best they can get from the least common denominator. Fortunately for us, they (in the back of their minds, but there, nevertheless) understand that a Dick Winters will be there when we really need them. Today .. Dogs and Soldiers keep off the grass .. tomorrow, they will remember.

The problem with reproducing the battle in a school setting is that the defenders know that you're going to assault them and even if they are in the same positions and "playing" lax troops, they really aren't. As the assault unit, you have a bunch of people who don't have the experience working together as a team as those guys did going in. Most of those guys had trained hard with each other for years. That's impossible to reproduce in a school setting.

What Dick Winters did was an amazing feat of leadership and his men performed well beyond what most troops would have been able to accomplish. They had several things going for them though that is just tough to reproduce.

Bill

[wdolson]

ORIGINAL: patrickl

No problem. [;)] I am always interested in small group action. I wonder if there is something similar done by the Marines in the Pacific threatre. [&:]

Pat

There are several cases of amazing Marine assaults on the island hopping campaign. Once defensive action which I'm sure is studied today is Chesty Puller's defense of Henderson Field. His Marines stopped a massive assault dead in its tracks.

Bill

[patrickl]

Hi wdolson,

Thanks for your post. Going to hunt for Chesty Puller on the web![:D]

Pat

[nico71]

Hmmmmm....I think that would be an interesting scenario for Combat Mission. I just don't know how the Editor works. I'm confident that CM is well suited to simulate this scenario. At least against AI Germans. It might not work against a human player, though.

[Kwik E Mart]

ORIGINAL: JWE

ORIGINAL: patrickl

Hi,

Found this on the web - map and the battle sequence. [;)]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-vet ... 2013/posts

Pat

Thanks to Patrickl for that. If you do the wargamer math, it was impossible. A squad, armed with 1 .30 cal and a mix of garands, carbines and pistols taking on a 4 gun battery (plus the gun bunnies) and a support security platoon that had been positioned for weeks, and armed with 3 or 4 of the usual uber, super german mgs.

So much for wargamer math; and uber, super german mgs, and the rest of that crap. This action is (was) taught under the rubric of 'leadership'. "A small force, well trained, well armed, competently led, adequately oriented towards the objective, suitably motivated, and (most importantly) commonly motivated, will almostly always prevail, given the requisite leadership".

This is right out of the textbook, but what it doesn't say is that leadership is what synthesizes the rest of the requirements into the force that will take the objective. Leadership 'makes' the unit, it doesn't 'lead' the unit. Once a unit is made 'made', a leader just has to get up, and his unit will follow.

This is probably why so many classes lost their shirts in the exercises. None of us was a Winters; none of us had the opportunity to build a 'unit' like Dick Winters did.

The services must do what they do on account of the math. Unfortunate, but necessary. They gotta go with the best they can get from the least common denominator. Fortunately for us, they (in the back of their minds, but there, nevertheless) understand that a Dick Winters will be there when we really need them. Today .. Dogs and Soldiers keep off the grass .. tomorrow, they will remember.

sounds straight out of orson scott card...ender wiggin probably would have nailed this "exercise"...