winter conditions

Hi all,

This is a question for those more knowledgable than us non-military types...

We know from textev that the entire ICA is trained to march in winter conditions, but that a smaller part was actually trained to fight in those conditions.

What's the difference? What would be the consequence for untrained portion of BGV's army if they got caught and had to fight in winter conditions anyway?

Don

n7axw wrote:Hi all,

<SNIP>

What's the difference? What would be the consequence for untrained portion of BGV's army if they got caught and had to fight in winter conditions anyway?

Don

Don,

In theory, on paper, I think the difference between trained to march in those conditions as opposed to fighting in those conditions RFC is getting at is something similar to a Ruck march. On paper every soldier is trained to march in any given condition with a combat load plus a Ruck that could weigh anywhere from 50-100 lbs. While that, in theory, makes them an all purpose marcher, different units may not be able to fight effectively/efficiently in every condition.

From my experience in the Army, here's the problem I see: while that sounds great, its not very feasible. Units stationed in Alaska will have different skill sets that they focus their training on based on the conditions they are most likely to face which is usually different from a unit stationed in Louisiana or in Puerto Rico might be expected to face.
If you're going to train someone to march in an environment, you're also going to train them on how to fight there. Consistently.
Now, you will have Spec Ops units that are designed to be all purpose, all weather, all terrain, Swiss-Army-Knife style commando units (like snipers, Green Berets, Civil Affairs, Force Recon, Seals, Parajumpers <PJs>) that frequently go between all these different places and train to keep their skills fresh. However, like everything with the military, it is like drinking from a fire-hose and you're only expected to retain some small percentage of that in general knowledge that will make everything else fall into place when the time is needed. However, even their training is focused on prepping them for the environment they are about to go into. It is not always as generic as I made it seem, though that type of training is common.

I trust this answers your question?

n7axw wrote:Hi all,

This is a question for those more knowledgable than us non-military types...

We know from textev that the entire ICA is trained to march in winter conditions, but that a smaller part was actually trained to fight in those conditions.

What's the difference? What would be the consequence for untrained portion of BGV's army if they got caught and had to fight in winter conditions anyway?

Don

Hi Don,
I think the biggest difference is the density and proximity of the marching units and you would have no fire support sited or deployed. Movements would be serial.
Tactical advances are much less dense and have fire support sited and deployed. Movements would be a leapfrogging of units - advance, cover, advance, and so forth.
I think.

ChronicRder wrote:

n7axw wrote:Hi all,

<SNIP>

What's the difference? What would be the consequence for untrained portion of BGV's army if they got caught and had to fight in winter conditions anyway?

Don

Don,

In theory, on paper, I think the difference between trained to march in those conditions as opposed to fighting in those conditions RFC is getting at is something similar to a Ruck march. On paper every soldier is trained to march in any given condition with a combat load plus a Ruck that could weigh anywhere from 50-100 lbs. While that, in theory, makes them an all purpose marcher, different units may not be able to fight effectively/efficiently in every condition.

From my experience in the Army, here's the problem I see: while that sounds great, its not very feasible. Units stationed in Alaska will have different skill sets that they focus their training on based on the conditions they are most likely to face which is usually different from a unit stationed in Louisiana or in Puerto Rico might be expected to face.
If you're going to train someone to march in an environment, you're also going to train them on how to fight there. Consistently.
Now, you will have Spec Ops units that are designed to be all purpose, all weather, all terrain, Swiss-Army-Knife style commando units (like snipers, Green Berets, Civil Affairs, Force Recon, Seals, Parajumpers <PJs>) that frequently go between all these different places and train to keep their skills fresh. However, like everything with the military, it is like drinking from a fire-hose and you're only expected to retain some small percentage of that in general knowledge that will make everything else fall into place when the time is needed. However, even their training is focused on prepping them for the environment they are about to go into. It is not always as generic as I made it seem, though that type of training is common.

I trust this answers your question?

In a way what I am hearing here is that what we are really describing here are survival skills? That a unit that has the ability to survive in any given environment should be able to fight there...or am I missing a trick here?

Don

n7axw wrote:In a way what I am hearing here is that what we are really describing here are survival skills? That a unit that has the ability to survive in any given environment should be able to fight there...or am I missing a trick here?

Don

Hi,
from my (short) military training I know how to "fight" in a conventional cold-war aera middle european scenario. In the summer.
I would be able to march in winter but I have no idea how to fortify a camp if I can't dig, how to survive cold temperatures in a tent, how winter camouflage works or how to move without showing everybody where I went.
When it became winter we moved to our vehicles and stayed there if we were on an excercise. Or we stayed indoors in our baracks and did standard preventive maintance. With one exeption: Marching/running on streets. That's something we did even in winter.

Also it's a matter of stamina. Runing, ducking and all the other things which are part of fighting a battle are much more demanding in snow.

EdThomas wrote:

n7axw wrote:Hi all,

This is a question for those more knowledgable than us non-military types...

We know from textev that the entire ICA is trained to march in winter conditions, but that a smaller part was actually trained to fight in those conditions.

What's the difference? What would be the consequence for untrained portion of BGV's army if they got caught and had to fight in winter conditions anyway?

Don

Hi Don,
I think the biggest difference is the density and proximity of the marching units and you would have no fire support sited or deployed. Movements would be serial.
Tactical advances are much less dense and have fire support sited and deployed. Movements would be a leapfrogging of units - advance, cover, advance, and so forth.
I think.

The leapfrogging of units to allow them to cover each other makes sense although it would seem to me that this could be applied any time, not just in winter.

I'm struggling a bit with what you said about fire support. But let me give it a shot. In your first paragraph, you are refering to marching, that is moving a given body of troops from point a to point b. In that event since there is no contact with the enemy, no fire support is sited.

In your second paragraph, you are referring to tactics performed in contact with the enemy which would include siting fire support including cannon, angle guns, mortars, and so on.

So if we were to take your answer and work back to our text evidence, we would say that all of BGV's army can comfortably march in winter conditions which is what you are describing in you first paragraph. But only his vanguard has been trained to implement the tactics neccessary to winter fighting. That would be your second paragraph.

Don

Sounour wrote:

n7axw wrote:In a way what I am hearing here is that what we are really describing here are survival skills? That a unit that has the ability to survive in any given environment should be able to fight there...or am I missing a trick here?

Don

Hi,
from my (short) military training I know how to "fight" in a conventional cold-war aera middle european scenario. In the summer.
I would be able to march in winter but I have no idea how to fortify a camp if I can't dig, how to survive cold temperatures in a tent, how winter camouflage works or how to move without showing everybody where I went.
When it became winter we moved to our vehicles and stayed there if we were on an excercise. Or we stayed indoors in our baracks and did standard preventive maintance. With one exeption: Marching/running on streets. That's something we did even in winter.

Also it's a matter of stamina. Runing, ducking and all the other things which are part of fighting a battle are much more demanding in snow.

All you guys are contributing tidbits of info that help with the picture. Thank you. Reacting to this post, I would think survival skills would fall more into the marching category rather than the fighting. When I was a younger man, we would go elk hunting in late November when the temps could drop, sometimes to subzero on the F scale. We had to be prepared with adequate clothing, tents, sleeping bags, firestarter and hot food all of which had to be packed back into the mountains, usually on horses. That focuses on survival rather than hunting or fighting.

With that little bit of experience, I can apreciate your comment about stamina. Dad always compared moving in snow with trying to swim in molasses.

Don

n7axw wrote:

ChronicRder wrote:Don,

In theory, on paper, I think the difference between trained to march in those conditions as opposed to fighting in those conditions RFC is getting at is something similar to a Ruck march. On paper every soldier is trained to march in any given condition with a combat load plus a Ruck that could weigh anywhere from 50-100 lbs. While that, in theory, makes them an all purpose marcher, different units may not be able to fight effectively/efficiently in every condition.

From my experience in the Army, here's the problem I see: while that sounds great, its not very feasible. Units stationed in Alaska will have different skill sets that they focus their training on based on the conditions they are most likely to face which is usually different from a unit stationed in Louisiana or in Puerto Rico might be expected to face.
If you're going to train someone to march in an environment, you're also going to train them on how to fight there. Consistently.
Now, you will have Spec Ops units that are designed to be all purpose, all weather, all terrain, Swiss-Army-Knife style commando units (like snipers, Green Berets, Civil Affairs, Force Recon, Seals, Parajumpers <PJs>) that frequently go between all these different places and train to keep their skills fresh. However, like everything with the military, it is like drinking from a fire-hose and you're only expected to retain some small percentage of that in general knowledge that will make everything else fall into place when the time is needed. However, even their training is focused on prepping them for the environment they are about to go into. It is not always as generic as I made it seem, though that type of training is common.

I trust this answers your question?

In a way what I am hearing here is that what we are really describing here are survival skills? That a unit that has the ability to survive in any given environment should be able to fight there...or am I missing a trick here?

Don

It sounds like another way to put the distinction is between things you learned once, some time ago, say in basic training, and haven't had to practice or perfect since, versus skills you DO use and keep fresh, particularly with an eye toward needing at any time.

The troops trained once to march and maybe fight in winter conditions can later be counted on to be able to march there; the ones trained well and kept trained to march and fight in winter conditions, by contrast, can be counted on to be able to march and fight effectively under those conditions.

n7axw wrote:Hi all,

This is a question for those more knowledgable than us non-military types...

We know from textev that the entire ICA is trained to march in winter conditions, but that a smaller part was actually trained to fight in those conditions.

What's the difference? What would be the consequence for untrained portion of BGV's army if they got caught and had to fight in winter conditions anyway?

Don

Marching in winter means being able to operate outdoors at all during winter, and knowing how to move along winter roads and paths, or making them if needed, having the ability to make camps, being able to handle bad weather on at least a basic level, all without causing massive attrition losses.

Being able to fight in winter conditions is very different. Tactical mobility in heavy snow is radically different, you have to know how to notice what tracks and trails are real or false, what were used 2 hours ago and what was made 2 weeks ago, you have to have the ability to move through the terrain even if there´s a few meters of snow in the way, preferably without leaving easy to follow tracks...

You have to be able to fight without tiring yourself out too much, or let yourself get too sweaty, because if that happens chances are that the cold will kill you rather than the enemy.
You have to know how your weapons and gear handles the weather, what extra maintenance you have to do to keep it functional(often a lot).
You need to handle getting access to water when you actually need it.
Being able to handle bad weather on a small unit scale or even individually(which is radically different from handling it as part of a regiment or something similarly big), at any time. And fighting during a snowstorm is seriously nasty, as the battle at Narva shows off very well.

It sounds like another way to put the distinction is between things you learned once, some time ago, say in basic training, and haven't had to practice or perfect since, versus skills you DO use and keep fresh, particularly with an eye toward needing at any time.

The troops trained once to march and maybe fight in winter conditions can later be counted on to be able to march there; the ones trained well and kept trained to march and fight in winter conditions, by contrast, can be counted on to be able to march and fight effectively under those conditions.

Barely any country in the world now or before trained their troops for winter combat on a regular basis. Mountain troops, some jaegers and rangers did/do, but sometimes not even those.

[quote="Tenshinai
Barely any country in the world now or before trained their troops for winter combat on a regular basis. Mountain troops, some jaegers and rangers did/do, but sometimes not even those.[/quote]

Canada did, which I know because I participated - it was not a lot of fun, and I wouldn't be surprised if Russia did.