Ambush Question....

Discussion in 'Infantry' started by Speedkuff, Mar 29, 2007.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Before I pose my question, I should mention that I am an ex-scalie and thus, my knowledge of the minutiae of Infantry work is fairly basic.

    OK, here goes... I spend some of my spare time desperately trying to re-live my youth by assisting with my local ACF Detachment.

    It was on a recent ACF weekend when I heard another adult instructor talking about "Ambush in Depth" I seemed to recall that there were two basic types of ambush - "L" shaped and "Linear" and was a little confused.

    So, I asked what he was on about... The essence of his scheme was that the enemy is drawn onto a series of ambushes which require them to pootle along on some type of triangular route obligingly offering themselves up for slaughter.

    I asked if he was on about the old soviet "Firesack" thingy but he was adamant that he was talking about the "Ambush in Depth"and that it was a well recognised tactic.

    Well, I didn't want to call him a bullshitter straight off so I throw it over to the experts. Is there such a thing? Is he bulshitting or am I woefully ignorant??


  2. BBear

    BBear LE Reviewer

    Never heard of that.
  3. Further to my last, it seemed to defy the KISS principle and required the full cooperation of the enemy. Hence my sneaking suspicion that it was complete cojones 8)
  4. Its a linear like tactic but I believe an american style yeeha thingy!
  5. chrisg46

    chrisg46 LE Book Reviewer

    think i have heard of it in an american context, but fail to remember the details. Certainly cant remembe being taught by brit though.
  6. Cheers for that article, it seems to explain things a little better for me and I think I'm now able to better understand the theory...
  7. Never heard of an "ambush in depth. There was the Triangler ambush which was basically 3 linear ambushes in the shape of a triangle, which allowed you to cover multiple approaches/killing areas.
  8. So it's fair to say I'm close to woefully ignorant but suffering from an initially pants explanation then?

    Or am I just crap? LoL :lol:
  9. your not crap, he was talking sh*t.
  10. The AI who told you this, he wouldn't happen to subscribe to Combat and Survival magazine, would he? Sounds like thats where he's got it from. Probably the sort to buy Soldier mag at WH Smiths, too.
  11. PAM 45 used to mention the area ambush, which was basically a series of smaller ambushes set up to cover all likely routes through the objective.
  12. I think he might be a C&S reader... hehe!

    I once heard him tell a regular Guards Drill Monster how he (The AI) had completed some drill course for the ACF... Talk about sink through the floor...
  13. What is he doing trying to teach concepts like that to the ACF anyway?
    Sounds like he is setting himself up as a Rommel-Rambo, rather like the instructor who said that as mortar rounds land in a pattern if you run in a zig-zag you can get through unharmed. Bet that gets taught in Brecon.

    Ambush in depth seems to me to negate the (general) principles of ambush which is to cause maximum devastation in as short time as possible and bug out with least damage done to home team.
    In depth means causing enough damage to tempt the enemy on and maintaining contact to bring him to the next stage, difficult to control and tactically dodgy, the opposition should wise up after one or two stages. It might work if the immediate ambush is on a larger force to draw them into a bigger ambush, or killing zone. But it is inviting casualties as they press on now alerted, - remember if the opposition is too big don't trigger the ambush. It also asks the question 'why not simply mount a big ambush in the first place? If it is drawing them onto a killing zone then the tactic is no longer ambush.
    Possibly this is a yank concept, and as they hate dismounting, to be used as a mobile tactic, (just guessing here), not British and again seems to violate the ambush concept.
    There have some bullshit to answer his bullshit, and feel free to shoot me down.

    Give the ACF lads what they like, survival weekends and the like, not in-depth tactical reviews.
  14. Perhaps you could teach them an American tactic called 'the ring of fire'. Nothing to do with eating vindaloo- it involves surrounding the enemy entirely with your chaps firing into the middle..... Apparently the septics swear by it as it leaves the enemy no escape!

    Ambush in depth sounds like tripe to me (agreeing with other posts) as you are simply letting the enemy switch to advance to contact possibly with support from the air/ mort/ arty. Next time he mentions it tell him to 'have a nice cup of shut the fcuk up'. I have been infantry for 19yrs and just read Erwin Rommel's 'Infantry Attacks'. (Highly recommended but not part of our current doctrine)