Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="aramis erak" data-source="post: 9438860" data-attributes="member: 6779310">Yeah, it's been used that way.Actual maneuver doctrines currently set the fire team as the fundamental tactical  maneuver unit, be it 3 or 4 man,  in the US. Prior versions used fireteams ranging from 3 to 5 man. Last I checked, USMC was 3 man, and US Army 4 man; USN and USAF infantry and infantry equivalent forces usually match USMC and USArmy, respectively.Up through WW II, the Navy maintained infantry training as a standard part of the BM, GM, and MA rates, and the deck department seamen non-rates (SR, SA, SN). Signalmen often also got infantry training. See the LPM from those areas. There are still provisions in the LPM for naval infantry, but I don't know if they're trained outside the crews of the littoral combat ships.It would if there is a fortification or cover source, or some other resource linked to the position, such as a boat to board, that is the reason you are moving to it.Also note: Fortification, in a modern infantry sense, includes everthing from a foxhole to a bunker, and lots between. The Russians and Ukrainians are using trenches currently, for example.Cover is a tactical positional goal, not a strategic one.For example, a move from open field into a stand of shrubbery or a garden wall, provided it isn't changing the targets available, a positional tactical movement. Its movement to take advantage of specific locations resources, whether in a tactical or strategic consideration.As is movement to get off the command detonated minefield. Positional vs engagement movement are a different axis from tactical/strategic. Much tactical movement is for positional benefit. Much also is for access to targets. The move is not positional if it's about changing the available targets for your fire.</blockquote>

Verification