I think he overdid a bit on the helmet. Even slight head movement would be very conspicuous because so much would swirl around.
The narrator also confused concealment (protection against detection, not against shot) with cover (protection against both) at times.
Isn't it a bit uneasy how much the narrator stresses the importance of being speedy on the foot at times? The movements shown when he says so are largely impossible for a modern infantryman weighted down by 15+ kg of armour alone.
related: 2011/11/sniping-history-theory.html
S O
A Pre-WWI (Aboriginals hunting bison) up to post WWII-era 'summer' training for snipers or special service units (artillery fire control men, etc.), it became standard for infantry units. (It is a basic survival kit).
ReplyDeleteIt is natural/animal instinct/ideal/ camouflage training for beginners if you have a competent army (officers and technology to nullify the OPFOR technology) in a conventional armed conflict.
These techniques of camouflage and hiding in the open field will not protect the infantry against the casualties inflicted by the volume and varied ammunitions, and saturation firepower of the OPFOR (from small calibers, artillery, cluster bombs, tactical missiles to ballistic missiles [Chechnya, 1999], even less for NBC-R warfare…).
The best protection remains disarmament and avoiding armed conflicts altogether.—
It sure became standard for infantry and scout training in developed nations, but there's an alarming tendency to ignore such fieldcraft in favour of a focus on equipment.
DeleteThere's also an alarming wealth of videos and photography showing troops in war zones violating such basic principles.
http://defense-and-freedom.blogspot.de/2009/12/hw-to-get-killed-in-combat-against.html
I saw worse behaviour in American videos, but didn't want to feed the "you are anti-american!" trolling at the time.
‘Developed nations’?
DeleteWhat about Shaka Zulu?
Ceteris Paribus, he could have taught a few lessons to Napoleon; and Clausewitz would have written other stories. This is off topic.
These videos still give the basics to the ground forces (infantry/logistics/ armour…):
http://defense-and-freedom.blogspot.fr/2011/11/sniping-history-theory.html
(the whole world copied and developed strategies around German military manuals).
Equipments and the massive use of day/night vision devices (active, passive and thermal imaging), multidimensional camouflage, radars, UAV, air reconnaissance, satellites etc. indeed could affect the outcome of a confrontation. Not always. One might be the impotent observer of one’s own lost battle.
UAV vs UAV is… very funny after all. Sorry, I have no specific video link.
It is sure that EMPs (Electromagnetic pulse devices, without nuclear detonation, I must emphasis on this! We are still in conventional/electronic warfare) among others, activated around an area of confrontation, will immediately show the level of preparedness of the forces.
Anon, please pay attention to context. Shaka was perfectly irrelevant in a topic about individual fieldcraft.
DeleteThat is correct.
DeleteI thought of ‘fieldcraft’ as ‘military tactics’ (Shaka Zulu), not a ‘mother’s way to take the kids to school or to buy them a slurpee’.
A one’s man's home is his castle.
Your blog, your castle. There is no trespass to property.
I’ll respect the rules.