Reconnaissance in Force

[@clintcarpentier2424]

As an aspiring author of military sci-fi, I am loving these videos.

[@christopherlarsen7788]

Hope it helps, brother.

[@Friedrich687]

Wait, you're also watching these because you're writing Military Sci-Fi too???

[@The_Professor_]

The recon in force has proved valuable for me in hunting down enemy LP/ OP’s. Wherein we insert attempting to avoid contact, possibly with some NAI’s in mind. Most often these NAI’s are vague and based on terrain more than ISR, HUMINT, SIGINT, etc. We’d execute this by inserting in a way that we concealed our movement. We moved very slowly conducting SLLS’s halts frequently. If we believed we had come upon and enemy LP/ OP (it was an NAI, we hear/see/smell sign, etc) we transition from a covert approach to the “in force” mindset. We then execute a recon by fire. Each man selects a position he suspects to be an enemy position and fires 3-5 rounds into that position. This is ultimately the probing attack, as you mention. This is not a decisive engagement, but rather used to develop the situation. Return fire would confirm the enemy presence to include crew served weapons, as well as the EMLCOA of that location. LP’s tend to break contact or be overwhelmed quickly, squads will often begin to return fire and/ or maneuver. Civilian considerations, enemy’s capabilities and limitations, EMLCOA/ EMDCOA, and general context influence if we decide to execute this task. Most often upon making contact we execute a break contact to report information or remain to develop the situation while QRF moves to support us (this is often a FT sized activity, sometimes a squad). You definitely have to read the tactical situation well to know when to conduct a recon in force. I really appreciate hearing your thoughts on this. Someday my platoon staff will get an earful of this from me haha

[@christopherlarsen7788]

That's actually a pretty good cognitive model of how to select sites and methods of conducting probing attacks when HUMINT, SIGINT ISR information is not available. Be sure to share that with the Warriors in your fireteam. They'll be a fireteam leader soon enough, and this is a good way of thinking about this specific problem. Thanks for sharing.

[@SamuelWandaro]

WTH did i just read

[@ericferguson9989]

"F it. Let's just go..." In common parlance.

[@christopherlarsen7788]

No kidding. Yes...that is the spirit of the RIF.

[@SilverShamrockNovelties]

“A good plan violently executed now is better than a perfect plan executed next week.” -George S. Patton

[@advrider7777]

Thank you Chris for this fantastic channel, Love One Shepherd hope to attend one day, great job !!!! Cheers mate👍

[@christopherlarsen7788]

Thanks for the compliment, brother. I'm looking forward to training with you.

[@DJTheMetalheadMercenary]

Another excellent dissertation brother, good stuff!!

[@christopherlarsen7788]

Thanks. Much obliged.

[@HankMcGurk]

Thank you for your help. It is good to know that when I have a concern, I can come to you to find a way to solution.

[@christopherlarsen7788]

Thanks, brother. Much appreciated.

[@markec8227]

Listening to you I understood everything immediately and you explained all possible aspects. Excellent video, all of your other videos are great too, keep it up! Can you please make a video about the forms of maneuver and about the five types of combat orders?

[@christopherlarsen7788]

Thanks for the compliment. And yes, I do plan to cover maneuver and combat orders in future videos - they're on my list! I'm hoping to get to both of those topics later this year.

[@markec8227]

@@christopherlarsen7788 Great, thanks for your reply!

[@barrosamuec3883]

Excellent breakdown Dr. Larsen. I have a question regarding militaries of small or impoverished nations that you may be able to address. How would a small or very poor nation without any substantial military begin their efforts to build a useful fighting force? Are there any particular areas that should be emphasized first (such as logistical elements, etc...) so that they have a chance to build up and not stagnate? I'm curious to know how such nations start the process, when they have no previous experience in building and maintaining a military force. I'm assuming it's not just a matter of putting money in to it and hiring foreign experts to coach you, but I really have no idea. Would love to hear your response!

[@christopherlarsen7788]

Whew. Big topic...not only because there is so much work to be done, but also because a "grass roots" approach can come from any single need - defense, offense, logistics, communications, disaster support, etc. Since need is the mother of all invention, I'd recommend beginning with the small nation's primary need. Is it simply border defense? If so, we'd want to begin there. For example, this might entail foot and vehicle patrolling that conduct reconnaissance, presence, and interdiction patrols - very similar to anti-poaching patrols in Africa. When we begin at our primary need/function, it becomes clear what logistics, equipment, and support the martial force will need. We can begin to define those. The biggest mistake here would be to say to ourselves, "Well the US, UK, and Australia all have special forces teams and really cool submarines...so, maybe we should start there?" No. Those are very specialized assets that will not help our border control situation at all. Let's instead focus on the problem THIS NATION is trying to solve, and let's not focus on the problems THOSE NATIONS are trying to solve. Yeah?

[@barrosamuec3883]

@@christopherlarsen7788 Very insightful response, thank you Dr. Larsen. Looking forward to more of your content.

[@orc_gunslinger]

I know you are focused on light infantry, but wondering how RIF would change in a combined arms setting. E.g. light vehicles and IFVs as part of the vanguard. Also it seems like having mortars in your platoon or company would be beneficial, because the PL or company leader could have direct control of the IDF. But at the same time it might be a detriment due to counter battery or just giving away the main body’s position 🤔

[@christopherlarsen7788]

Yes, in this video I focus on Light Infantry, but I occasionally cover Mechanized and Motorized forces as well. How would RIF look in a Mounted force? Good question. In that case, RIF would very much rely on Cavalry Scouts as the vanguard. The idea is to hit hard and either (a) exploit quickly, then relay your success back to the main body; or (b) run away quickly while again relaying information back to higher command. The effort here isn't to leverage artillery or CAS on stubborn, well-defended positions. Instead, the effort is to identify the path of least resistance and exploit it. Mortars for the platoon? More like missiles. To be specific, the platoon already has Javelins and AT-4 rockets. Today, loitering munitions act as essentially "guided grenades" to hit key enemy assets with remarkable precision. So a combination of ISR drones and loitering munitions will likely result in the greatest impact. But this is just one tool in the bag of tricks. Yeah?

[@veliborrodic5803]

Good video as always,what afther contact,if separated from main body of patrol single or pair of soldiers,can you film clip on exfil with escape evasion techniques and link up or going back plan thry enemy positions,or pick up?Thanks

[@christopherlarsen7788]

Good question. Being separated from the main body is the default situation for the forward vanguard teams. The vanguards call the main body forward once an enemy vulnerability has been identified for exploitation. If a vanguard does not discover an enemy vulnerability, they will maneuver back to a predesignated rendezvous point to link up with the main body at a later time. This should be part of the plan. As for the request to create videos of field training, I would very much like to attempt this. However, my channel is pretty much a one-man show with too few resources! I'm afraid the opportunity to video Warriors during training will be greatly limited. Sorry.

[@veliborrodic5803]

@@christopherlarsen7788 No, thanks that is ok,no field exercise,just talking as previous clips,great.But if soldier miss linkup time on RV or ERV,he is at EE situation,I meant it would be interesting to talk about that as you are wery experiance and serious man.Thanks

[@christopherlarsen7788]

@@veliborrodic5803 - Correct. If a Soldier misses the linkup, he will be in an escape and evade situation back to friendly lines. That is why the rendezvous point and linkup process is such a critical part of the planning.

[@veliborrodic5803]

@@christopherlarsen7788 Great,so you can talk about that little bit on future videos.That us very important for recce patrols and exfil on missions.Thanks

[@raylast3873]

Wait but if I‘m performing a Movement to Contact, you mentioned that my advance elements might end up doing RIF (or probing attacks). But if RIF can also involve MTC, then it‘s all just MTC in the end?

[@christopherlarsen7788]

Correct, Ray. I realize it can be a bit confusing. The tactic is a tool. A fork can be used for dinner, or stabbing an opponent in the neck, or even digging weed roots out of the garden. The tool can be used for different outcomes. Movement to Contact is used to attack an enemy when we know very little about their disposition - location, size, capability, morale, et cetera. Reconnaissance in Force is used to literally get into a fight with the sole intent of learning (called "developing") the enemy's disposition. Yet, because we don't know the enemy's disposition, the tactical means by which we conduct RIF is most often in some form of MTC. Does that make sense?

[@raylast3873]

@@christopherlarsen7788 no, makes sense.

[@seheshehoohlo3420]

What would be telltale signs that you could be committing to an ambush? I ask because once your RIF reports resistance levels and you determine that your rear vanguard must now transition from rear vanguard into MTC, you as the battalion commander in this example are now committing to a fight with most of your sources hoping for a catastrophic victory. But the OpFor could be pulling a Sun Tzu and appearing weak by retreating at every contact in order to entice you to commit.

[@robertdole5391]

I imagine this is being used quite often in Ukraine across the FLOT.

[@christopherlarsen7788]

Oh yes! I'm confident that's true.

[@The_Assassin_of_The_Gray]

As knowledgeable as Doctor Larsen is, as much informative insight as he offers, there is one crucial thing omitted in this presentation . . . His opinion on Nexus Six Series Replicants, specifically, the "Rachel" Secretary model over the "Priss" Bargirl model

[@christopherlarsen7788]

Heh-heh. Well, Rachel of course. I believe that goes without saying. And Priss is nice! Very nice. But let's be honest here...the choice is obviously Rachel.

[@GutsAndGlory734]

Hey Doc, what are your thoughts about strategies of successful amphibious landing invasions. For example, if infantry were to hypothetically engage in amphibious warfare in the South East Asian islands and coastlines and simultaneous airborne drops, would the casualties exceed that of D-day, due to modern weaponry and strategy. Also, what’s your thoughts on semi-auto’s in the U.S. it will be a sad day if Americans end up getting gun bans similar to Canada. As a matter of fact, do you think that it was positive for the bill of veterans inhaling burning garbage fumes to be denied? Thanks👍

[@christopherlarsen7788]

Fair question. If amphibious landings are repelled (or even greatly diminished due to fires) then I can promise you that it isn't due to an "Infantry fight." That will be the result of surface fleet and air power capabilities. Oh, it's a very real possibility! But, it won't be the result of land warfare. Getting the troops to the shore is the domain of the Navy and Air Force. Yeah? As for Congress' recent kabuki theater...I prefer to keep this channel out of the political realm as much as possible. But I will say that this bill (a) won't get passed, and (b) the SCOTUS has already ruled such bans "unconstitutional." I'm not worried.

[@christopherlarsen7788]

@D W - Good question! I'm not sure. I realize the vast majority of American citizens are comfortable, fat, lazy, and unwilling to risk that lifestyle. At the same time, there are Americans who would resist by even violent means, if necessary. And it really doesn't require that high of a percentage to resist! Just a single percent of willing Americans means a "standing army" of +3 Million armed citizens!

[@duranduran6456]

I just searched for Dr. Christopher Larsen after watching his face paint video haha What are you a Doctor of sir? Just curious.

[@christopherlarsen7788]

Ohhhh...NEVER ask an academic what their PhD is in. They'll trap you in a corner for hours! NERDS! So. Since you asked...my PhD is in learning technologies and educational psychology from the University of Missouri-Columbia. My research interest include human factors, cognitive science. I've studied decision-making models and frameworks within austere environments, usually with combat arms of the US Army and Marine Corps. Most of my publications are in small unit tactics of US doctrine, as well as emergent trends in Red Team Army (Russian) doctrine and hybrid threats (guerrilla warfare, insurgencies, terrorism, and crime cartels). I currently work as a research analyst for the Irregular Warfare Directorate in Washington, DC.

[@jmjones7897]

The kids want Commando Mortars.

[@christopherlarsen7788]

I mean ... who doesn't?!

[@jmjones7897]

@@christopherlarsen7788 Commies, Sig Sauer; Big Green? 14lb. Carbine's a go tho

[@christopherlarsen7788]

@@jmjones7897 - Yep. Look, I see this two ways. On one hand, SOMETHING was eventually going to replace the AR15. It's been serving our military forces for 58 years now! We all knew it would eventually be replaced. On the other hand, once the patent of the AR15 ran out many years ago, this weapon system became "open sourced" and "free sourced" - meaning it was not only copied, but it has been steadily improved upon to meet a wide variety of military, police, self-defense, sporting, and hunting needs. It is a powerful dynamo! The Sig M5 might eventually turn out to be a decent weapon. It has HUGE BOOTS to fill! The obstacles seem un-assailable! Can we really put up with 20 years of disappointment until the Sig patent runs out...and American citizens fix all the problems? I ask because - let's not forget - the AR15 series rifles were HATED by the military until the civilian market began fixing the problems and restored the reputation of the venerable AR15. The Sig M5 seems...heavy, bulky, and boring. Also, pointless. Literally...what's the point of the M5 system?