Infantry tactics

[1] It was a tightly knit group of hoplites, generally upper and middle-class men, typically eight to twelve ranks deep, armored in helmet, breastplate, and greaves, armed with two-to-three metre (6~9 foot) pikes and overlapping round shields.

Although the early Greeks focused on the chariot, because of local geography, the phalanx was well developed in Greece and had superseded most cavalry tactics by the Greco-Persian Wars.

In the fourth century BC Philip II of Macedon reorganized his army, with emphasis on phalanges,[3] and the first scientific military research.

[8] On the infantry level, the Roman Army adapted new weapons: the pilum (a piercing javelin), the gladius (a short thrusting sword), and the scutum (a large convex shield) providing protection against most attacks without the inflexibility of the phalanx.

To motivate the Roman soldier to come within two metres (6 ft) of his enemy (as he was required to do with the gladius) he would be made a citizen after doing so, upon completion of his term of service.

In part because of their flat bottomed ships, which enabled them to sneak deep into Europe by river before carrying out an attack, the Vikings could frequently catch their enemies by surprise.

Maurice of Nassau, leader of the 1580s Dutch Revolt, made a number of tactical innovations, one of which was to break his infantry into smaller and more mobile units, rather than the traditional clumsy and slow-moving squares.

His innovations were further adapted by Gustavus Adolphus who increased the effectiveness and speed of volley fire by using the more reliable wheel-lock musket and paper cartridge, while improving mobility by removing heavy armour.

[14] Its disadvantage was that the musket could not be fired once fixed; the socket bayonet overcame this issue but the technical problem of keeping it attached took time to perfect.

Once this was resolved in the early 18th century, the accepted practice was for both sides to fire then charging with fixed bayonets; this required careful calculation since the closer the lines, the more effective the first volleys.

[12] In the 18th century, changes in infantry tactics and weapons meant a greater willingness to accept battle and so drill, discipline and retaining formation became more important.

Its main advantage was its ability to march rapidly and then deploy into line comparatively easily, especially with well-drilled and motivated troops such as those available to Napoleon after the French Revolution.

The column formation allowed the unit rapid movement, a very effective charge (due to weight of numbers) or it could quickly form square to resist cavalry attacks, but by its nature, only a fraction of its muskets would be able to open fire.

Napoleon was eventually defeated, but his tactics were studied well into the 19th Century, even as improved weapons made massed infantry attacks increasingly hazardous.

In New Zealand, the Māori hid in fortified bunkers or pā that could withstand strikes from even some of the most powerful weapons of the 19th century before luring opposing forces into an ambush.

Although there were trucks in World War I, their mobility could never be fully exploited because of the trench warfare stalemate, as well as the terribly torn up terrain at the front and the ineffectiveness of vehicles at the time.

During World War II, infantry could be moved from one location to another using half-tracks, trucks, and even aircraft, which left them better rested and able to fight once they reached their objective.

The widespread availability of helicopters following World War II allowed the emergence of an air mobility tactics such as aerial envelopment.

This formation was easily controlled and maneuvered and it was suitable for crossing areas open to artillery fire, moving through narrow covered routes, and for fast movement in woods, fog, smoke, and darkness.

On some occasions the Bren group advanced by bounds, to a position where it could effectively commence fire, preferably at 90 degrees to the main assault.

German defensive squad tactics stressed the importance of integration with larger plans and principles in posts scattered in depth.

Jungle warfare was heavily shaped by the experiences of all the major powers in the Southeast Asian theatre of operations during World War II.

As a result of these experiences, the British increased the close-range firepower of their individual riflemen by replacing the pre-World War II bolt-action Lee–Enfield with lighter, automatic weapons like the American M2 carbine and the Sterling submachine gun.

Although the Soviet Army had greater firepower and modern equipment than the Mujahideen, they were not able to completely destroy them because of the difficulty of countering guerrilla tactics in the mountains.

When the Stinger missile was supplied to the Mujahideen, they began to ambush Soviet helicopters and fixed wing aircraft in proximity of the military airfields.

This changed in the Kargil War of 1999 when Indian forces were faced with the huge task of flushing out intruders and disguised Pakistani soldiers who had captured high mountain posts.

During World War I, the increasing lethality of more modern weapons, such as artillery and machine guns, forced a shift in infantry tactics to trench warfare.

There was a growing emphasis on field craft, especially in the British and Dominion Armies, where night-patrolling and raiding tactics soon also demanded an increase in map-reading and navigation skills.

[18] An improvement was the creeping barrage in which artillery fire is laid immediately in front of advancing infantry to clear any enemy in their way.

This forced the Germans back and after less than three months the allies had made the largest territorial gains on the western front since the war began.