Blog

<h2> Understanding Tactics: An Overview </h2>The mission of every Warfighter is to win--victory is the only option. Winning requires many things: excellence in techniques, an appreciation of the enemy, exemplary leadership, battlefield judgement, and focused combat power. Yet these factors by themselves do not ensure success in battle. Many armies, both winners and losers, have possessed many or all of these attributes. When we examine the differences between victor and vanquished, we draw one conclusion. Winning in combat depends upon tactical leaders who can think creatively and act decisively. This series pertains to all leaders, whether their force is a fire team or a division; it applies to all. Everyone faces tactical decisions in battle regardless of their roles. Tactical leaders must develop and hone their warfighting skills through study and practice.&nbsp;Tactics is "the art and science of winning engagements and battles. It includes the use of firepower and maneuver, the integration of different arms, and the immediate exploitation of success to defeat the enemy." This description is from Marine Corps doctrine and reflects our approach to tactics.&nbsp;Tactics are the purposeful actions taken to win engagements and create an advantage over the enemy. They involve arranging and employing forces in ways that fit the situation, exploit opportunities, and impose problems the enemy cannot solve. Tactics require an understanding of the environment, the mission, the enemy, and one’s own unit's capabilities. Tactics is a combination of art and science to gain victory over the enemy. The art of tactics lies in how we creatively form and apply military force in a given situation. It involves the creation, positioning, and maneuvering of combat power. When do we flank the enemy, and when do we ambush him? When do we attack, and when do we retreat? How do we use speed and momentum to achieve a decisive advantage? This creativity is a developed capacity and acquired through education, practice, and experience.&nbsp;<h3>The Environment</h3>The tactical environment is defined by uncertainty, friction, disorder, and constant change. No situation is ever perfect or fully known, and even simple tasks become difficult under the pressures of combat. An example of how the environment can further chaos and confusion is the amphibious assault on the island of Tarawa in World War 2. Between the heavy fire, the lack of effective communication, and the landing craft carrying reinforcements and supplies being unable to cross a coral reef, the entire 2nd Marine Division faced eradication. Robert Sherrod, a correspondent for "Time" and "Life," called it "war at its worst."&nbsp;The enemy is not a passive obstacle but an intelligent, adaptive force actively trying to disrupt our plans. Terrain, weather, time, and the limits of human beings all add additional layers of complexity. Because of this, the tactical environment demands flexibility, awareness, and the ability to make decisions with incomplete information.A tactician must understand that the environment will never be ideal. Plans will break down, communications will fail, and the situation will shift faster than expected. Instead of seeking perfect clarity, we must learn to operate effectively within this uncertainty. Success comes from recognizing patterns, identifying opportunities, and acting despite the chaos—not waiting for conditions to improve. This ability to think, adapt, and overcome within a dynamic environment is the heart of effective tactics.This chaotic environment also brings opportunity. Clausewitz wrote about combat, "No other human activity is so continuously... bound up with chance." The challenge is to recognize opportunity when it arises amid chaos and uncertainty, and to seize it to achieve a clear, unambiguous victory. When viewed through time, even the most chaotic of systems may reveal recurring patterns that may then be exploited. The experienced tactician will look for these recurring patterns that can be exploited to advantage.&nbsp;<h3>Deterministic vs. Probabilistic</h3>How we view the combat environment largely determines how we operate in it. There are two competing views of combat: Deterministic and Probabilistic. The deterministic view argues that combat is predictable. Among the advocates of this view are military theorists who seek prescriptive rules for battle and analysts who predict battle outcomes based upon force ratios. The other view is that combat is chaotic and uncertain. In this probabilistic view, battle is seen as a complex phenomenon in which participants interact with one another and respond and adapt to their environment. The probabilistic viewpoint sees combat as unpredictable. The deterministic view often leads to centralized control, micromanagement, and stifled initiative, inhibiting a unit's ability to adapt and change, which may leave them overwhelmed.&nbsp;&nbsp;The probabilistic view recognizes the complexity and uncertainty of war, leading to a decentralized approach to control. It places greater trust in subordinates to achieve a desired result through the use of mission order and commander's intent. Subordinates can handle unforeseen situations and seize opportunities as they arise. We advocate this view as it allows us to remain flexible, cope with uncertainty, and operate in an ever-changing combat environment. As one tactics manual put it more than half a century ago: "The leader who frantically strives to remember what someone else did in some slightly similar situation has already set his feet on a well-traveled road to ruin."&nbsp;Leaders must remember that there are no fixed rules and no precise checklists, but there are bounds. We study examples of successes and failures not to emulate, but to increase our own tactical competence.&nbsp;In the next post of this series, we will review how to achieve a decision in a combat environment.&nbsp;

TACTICS SERIES: POST 1 | Understanding Tactics: An Overview

<h2>The Science of War</h2>When most people think about war, they picture the tactical level. They imagine squads moving through streets—soldiers clearing rooms. Fire teams bounding. Vehicles peeling off a line of departure. It is natural: that is the level that is visible, filmed, and easiest to understand.But the deeper reality is that warfare is not won at that scale. Individual tactical actions matter, of course. But once you zoom out, the factors that actually determine victory shift. The world becomes more abstract. The "game" becomes more like competitive decision-making than individual technique. You leave the realm of "how to stack up on a doorway" and enter the realm of "how to shape the entire conflict so the enemy runs out of choices."If you have ever picked up books like Clausewitz's "On War," you will see a lot of confusing terms. You will most likely be disappointed that he shows no drawings of tactics, battle drills, or the like at any point. But this is indeed the magic of a book that comes from a time and age when the horse was a relevant asset on the battlefield, and still is in a day and age of tanks and drones.This article is about that jump. Higher warfighting theory. The attempt to understand the more profound logic of war, not just the drills.<figure id="figure-9c4skzb8rmho38v3x"><img id="9c4skzb8rmho38v3x" src="https://cdn.durable.co/blocks/85zpPSeceWtETsnuixpUGbcPBSEA2DDz2sgHcxVi2m9aZHR7qAQdop8XwPfnN1qK.png" alt="" title="" class="object-cover bg-gray-100 " style="aspect-ratio: 1/1; object-position: 0% 20%;" data-corners="default" data-aspect="1:1" data-caption="" data-positionx="0%" data-positiony="20%" data-fullwidth="false" data-mce-src="https://cdn.durable.co/blocks/85zpPSeceWtETsnuixpUGbcPBSEA2DDz2sgHcxVi2m9aZHR7qAQdop8XwPfnN1qK.png" data-mce-style="aspect-ratio: 1/1; object-position: 0% 20%;"></figure>Why higher-level theory mattersCombat operations are so complex, with many interlocking factors such as terrain, morale, enemy, luck, and boldness, that we just can't set up formulas to predict the outcome of a battle. Therefore, military game theory is largely abstract. All that can be done is to isolate and analyze the core principles from past battles. Warfighting theory is, therefore, a soft science and of the realm of effects.What effect do you want to impose? Where do you want to impose it? What is the fastest path to creating that effect? What assumption about the enemy are you exploiting? This is why higher war theory feels closer to game theory than to range tables. At the strategic and operational levels, you are constantly looking at choices: the enemy's preferences, your own choices, and which decisions constrain the battlefield in your favor.Clausewitz understood this.He was criticized for being too abstract — but he was working at the level where drawing a diagram is almost meaningless. The real levers of war are rarely map-clean enough to be diagrammed like a football playbook.At higher levels, you deal with:- Friction - Uncertainty - Fluidity - Disorder - Complexity - The Human Dimension - Violence and Danger - Physical, Moral, and Mental ForcesThese elements are real — but they are not systems you can reduce to a simple function. You cannot predict how humans react to novelty, surprise, pain, despair, or sudden opportunity.War remains, to this day, part science and part art.So, higher war theory forces us to extract principles rather than formulas. Principles are not precise. But they are reliable guidance — distilled from a long history.<h3>Principles</h3>MassWhen talking about mass, we are referring to the quantity and quality of a force. Mass is not just sheer manpower; it's the overall "combat value" of a deployed force. Think of mass more along the lines of "weight" than of "numbers". Yes, an infantry squad has the same number of personnel as a tank platoon. But who has the higher impact? Most of the time, it's the tank platoon or even an individual tank.<figure id="figure-2ydcltax73mho4khmy"><img id="2ydcltax73mho4khmy" src="https://cdn.durable.co/blocks/75YneTEmMh3V5WFNkTUWJoPMzII91FKVDvlCq6LLnyPe35Yz7s2RpbZM5z5TKjgg.png" alt="" title="" class="object-cover bg-gray-100" style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; object-position: center center;" data-corners="default" data-aspect="16:9" data-caption="" data-positionx="undefined" data-positiony="undefined" data-fullwidth="false" data-mce-src="https://cdn.durable.co/blocks/75YneTEmMh3V5WFNkTUWJoPMzII91FKVDvlCq6LLnyPe35Yz7s2RpbZM5z5TKjgg.png" data-mce-style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; object-position: center center;"></figure>Generally, mass is considered the most important predictor for warfare. Bringing in a mass that is significantly higher than the opponent's will most likely result in victory in decisive engagements. We should, however, also include factors like quality of training in our calculations of mass.<figure id="figure-ma6fwgb81mho4luwm"><img id="ma6fwgb81mho4luwm" src="https://cdn.durable.co/blocks/63XSL154sxKyr8X5LNz78HqtFy19r1NDjI9rWHAGanYRHiSstcZE7y5QyNnDjSW6.png" alt="" title="" class="object-cover bg-gray-100" style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; object-position: center center;" data-corners="default" data-aspect="16:9" data-caption="" data-positionx="undefined" data-positiony="undefined" data-fullwidth="false" data-mce-src="https://cdn.durable.co/blocks/63XSL154sxKyr8X5LNz78HqtFy19r1NDjI9rWHAGanYRHiSstcZE7y5QyNnDjSW6.png" data-mce-style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; object-position: center center;"></figure>DensityWhat density describes is nothing else but the amount of dispersion or force concentration applied. A unit with a high mass that is stretched over a large AO may be inferior to a unit with a lower mass that’s applying force concentration.<figure id="figure-php3rqi0uimho4m4zn"><img id="php3rqi0uimho4m4zn" src="https://cdn.durable.co/blocks/1c096SD8MZ0OwaykJbwkWOobcFGU8T4H4AogQL6ncyfWigdSNXH4zlvoIofQ9pp2.png" alt="" title="" class="object-cover bg-gray-100" style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; object-position: center center;" data-corners="default" data-aspect="16:9" data-caption="" data-positionx="undefined" data-positiony="undefined" data-fullwidth="false" data-mce-src="https://cdn.durable.co/blocks/1c096SD8MZ0OwaykJbwkWOobcFGU8T4H4AogQL6ncyfWigdSNXH4zlvoIofQ9pp2.png" data-mce-style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; object-position: center center;"></figure>Density should however also consider things like overlapping field of fire, terrain considerations can have a major impact on fields of fire. As soon as they are not interlocking or overlapping the element in question will have gaps. Gaps in a layered air defense may for example create weak points.<figure id="figure-g8nsomc1a4mho4mecb"><img id="g8nsomc1a4mho4mecb" src="https://cdn.durable.co/blocks/2dtdqwJr6nj4IsGsd7RqvQSgb6NjlUqaKVwI8rwN2PWdg3oTlsXrQ0uhWoZBzhTG.png" alt="" title="" class="object-cover bg-gray-100 " style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; object-position: center center;" data-corners="default" data-aspect="16:9" data-caption="" data-positionx="undefined" data-positiony="undefined" data-fullwidth="false" data-mce-src="https://cdn.durable.co/blocks/2dtdqwJr6nj4IsGsd7RqvQSgb6NjlUqaKVwI8rwN2PWdg3oTlsXrQ0uhWoZBzhTG.png" data-mce-style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; object-position: center center;"></figure>Surface Surface takes the theory of mass and density to another level. Will the attacking or defending force be able to project a high amount of its mass on the enemy? Terrain and security measures play a huge role here. As soon as terrain channelizes an axis of attack, the attacker cant bring all of his force into direct kinetic engagements. Meaning that a lot of his mass will be idle. Surface also applies to basics such as infantry formations, a column attacked from the front needs to change formation in order to optimize its surface.<figure id="figure-ntiqm4a28hmho4mnwu"><img id="ntiqm4a28hmho4mnwu" src="https://cdn.durable.co/blocks/2d2P0T3LzNZAedqEeSLc3GNtBlqD9lP31FotX9Q2OoBtyibFxbxQNS5IQmSDbgdS.png" alt="" title="" class="object-cover bg-gray-100" style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; object-position: center center;" data-corners="default" data-aspect="16:9" data-caption="" data-positionx="undefined" data-positiony="undefined" data-fullwidth="false" data-mce-src="https://cdn.durable.co/blocks/2d2P0T3LzNZAedqEeSLc3GNtBlqD9lP31FotX9Q2OoBtyibFxbxQNS5IQmSDbgdS.png" data-mce-style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; object-position: center center;"></figure>A great example for surface is the battle of the Thermopylae where the Spartans faced a force of way higher mass. The result was that the surface of the Xerxes army being so small that it could never be deployed in full mass. Taking the higher training standards and heavier armor of the Spartans into account, the forces of Xerxes that faced direct engagements had to fight an enemy with a higher mass.<figure id="figure-3h5etvms0omho4nwiy" class=""><img id="3h5etvms0omho4nwiy" src="https://cdn.durable.co/blocks/318HR3q47tSeK9PZE0deM1NQ2H8WBW66J3xduqh6dNuFEofwHJNefKlMFi5nWnM0.png" alt="" title="" class="object-cover bg-gray-100 " style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; object-position: center center;" data-corners="default" data-aspect="16:9" data-caption="" data-positionx="undefined" data-positiony="undefined" data-fullwidth="false" data-mce-src="https://cdn.durable.co/blocks/318HR3q47tSeK9PZE0deM1NQ2H8WBW66J3xduqh6dNuFEofwHJNefKlMFi5nWnM0.png" data-mce-style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; object-position: center center;"></figure>FrictionIn warfare, things happen that can't be predicted. Bad luck, issues with comms, logistics, and weather, and the like. Clausewitz called this phenomenon friction. Friction should be considered when planning a battle. The longer the battle, the higher the friction; that’s why seeking a quick and decisive engagement with quality troops should always be favored.<figure id="figure-jdbfdlnnjnmho4xh48"><img id="jdbfdlnnjnmho4xh48" src="https://cdn.durable.co/blocks/1cbsesY8ulGGHVc9C7zWuYzguDIPBbHLYxCjcD2EIEBVVnGuAWKEYuTvDPiQrH5W.png" alt="" title="" class="object-cover bg-gray-100 " style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; object-position: center center;" data-corners="default" data-aspect="16:9" data-caption="" data-positionx="undefined" data-positiony="undefined" data-fullwidth="false" data-mce-src="https://cdn.durable.co/blocks/1cbsesY8ulGGHVc9C7zWuYzguDIPBbHLYxCjcD2EIEBVVnGuAWKEYuTvDPiQrH5W.png" data-mce-style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; object-position: center center;"></figure>B.A. Friedmann had another approach to friction. His idea was that forces would create friction by producing casualties on the other side. A force should always be seeking to create the most friction in the shortest time. This is achieved by combining the factors of mass, density, and surface area most favorably.ImpactShooting a machine gun on an infantry squad in an open area is a high impact operation. Shooting the same machine gun at a tank will have little to no impact. Impact describes the efficiency of combat arms in relation to terrain and enemy. Impact is also known as 'Weapon to target match.' All the factors named above can be covered and applied, but they are useless if the chosen weapons have little to no impact. Combined arms and supporting arms warfare aim to maximize the force-to-impact ratio.Shock and ConfusionBoth of these are taking the human aspect of battle into account. A boldly conducted operation using overwhelming firepower, high speed, and violence of action will cause many casualties at a rapid pace and create shock. This shock reaches from the individual trooper being suppressed or literally under shock to the commander who realizes that a small but concentrated maneuver element has penetrated his lines using overwhelming force.Confusion, on the other hand, is disrupting the enemy commanders' OODA (Observe, Orient, Decide, Act) loop. The enemy commander's ability to react relies on several electronic and personnel feedback pathways. Removing command infrastructure, changing angles of attack, and applying deception measures will contribute to shock.Does this matter to the small unit?YES! First off, small-unit leaders need to understand overarching war-fighting principles to be efficient in mission command. Furthermore, playing around with those ideas will make you know what you do in an engagement. What happens if I add all my SAWs to my support element? I create greater density with my highest-impact weapon systems! What if my assault element acts fast and boldly? I create shock! Combining all of these principles is how we induce friction, overcome the enemy, and ensure victory!&nbsp;

The Science of War

<h2>Introduction to Violence of Action</h2>Understanding the concept of violence of action is crucial for anyone involved in tactical operations. After all, every "CQB Bro" will tell you the three principles are speed, surprise, and violence of action. But when you ask people what this actually means, they can often correctly describe surprise and speed, but they have a hard time pointing out what violence of action means.The first ones to coin the phrase were the Special Air Service in World War 2, with "Speed,&nbsp;Aggression, Surprise". Aggression, which highlighted the use of overwhelming force and controlled aggression, &nbsp;was later changed to "Violence of Action" by Colonel Beckwith and the newly formed Delta Force. However, these were not created by large institutional bodies or by anyone with any degrees in military arts and science, but rather by a small, high-performing unit.&nbsp;<figure id="figure-2j268yf4vnmhjqnt27"><img id="2j268yf4vnmhjqnt27" src="https://cdn.durable.co/blocks/1eyMtuqYVFrD69kA5UQT4NbQlx8qxqqJOUPRC4ivqA9Xi8MM3VbDhonxtOeBewp6.png" alt="military tactics" title="military tactics" class="object-cover bg-gray-100 " style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; object-position: center center;" data-corners="default" data-aspect="16:9" data-caption="" data-positionx="null" data-positiony="null" data-fullwidth="false" data-mce-src="https://cdn.durable.co/blocks/1eyMtuqYVFrD69kA5UQT4NbQlx8qxqqJOUPRC4ivqA9Xi8MM3VbDhonxtOeBewp6.png" data-mce-style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; object-position: center center;"></figure><h2>A Better Term?</h2>So is violence of action the sum of speed and surprise? Or is it its own factor? So far, it looks like it’s a bit of both, with both "Aggression" and "Violence of Action" lacking the terms "violence" and "aggression" in warfighting doctrine. But we have another term coming really close to it: “boldness”.Boldness is described as a unit's or a leader's willingness to take action without being overcautious, or even against all odds. Examples are giving up security perimeters, not waiting for higher-up permission, and not overthinking decisions."To stand still, to hesitate, is to stagnate, lose initiative, and pass the initiative to the enemy." - MCDP 1 A bold plan usually results in speed and surprise as well as employment of overwhelming force, as fewer assets are needed for security and the like.&nbsp; MCPD 1 says,&nbsp;"Boldness is the characteristic of unhesitatingly exploiting the natural uncertainty of war to pursue major results rather than marginal ones." Boldness is a genuine creative force, for wherever it is superior, it will take advantage of its opponent's weakness. However, just like anything, boldness requires restraint in the ever-changing landscape of war. Boldness is based on strong situation awareness: We weigh the situation, then act. In other words, boldness must be tempered with judgment lest it border on recklessness.Boldness is superior to timidity in every instance, although boldness does not always equate to immediate aggressive action. A nervy, calculating patience that allows the enemy to commit himself irrevocably before we strike him can also be a form of boldness. By combining the correct levels of boldness and restraint, we can deliver effective, heavy blows to our enemy and exploit their weaknesses.&nbsp;

Defining Violence of Action

<h2>Fitness as the Backbone of Tactical Effectiveness </h2><h3>Abstract</h3>Tactical proficiency means little without physical capacity. Whether negotiating harsh terrain, moving under load, or executing combative maneuvers, skills such as marksmanship, close-quarters battle, or small-unit tactics mean little if the operator cannot physically reach the fight or sustain performance once there. Fitness is not just about strength or endurance—it is the foundation that allows tactics to be applied under stress, fatigue, and violence. This post examines how physical fitness—not exclusively tactical acumen—underpins operational success through endurance, resilience, and cognitive clarity in high-stakes environments.<h3>The Physical Prerequisite to Tactical Skill </h3>Operational success begins long before the objective is reached. Long-distance movements under load fatigue the operator before engagement even begins, rendering tactical training moot if one cannot arrive fit enough to fight. According to a 2025 meta-analysis on military training and physical readiness, prolonged exertion was shown to significantly degrade muscular endurance and explosive capacity—two abilities essential for close-quarters combat tasks (<a data-mce-href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39946048/?utm_source=chatgpt.com" href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39946048/?utm_source=chatgpt.com" target="_blank" rel="noopener">PubMed, 2025</a>).<h3>Fitness as a Predictor of Battlefield Readiness </h3>A study on the Warrior Task Simulation Test (WTST)—which involved running, casualty drags, obstacle negotiation, and other tasks—found that aerobic and anaerobic capacity, muscular endurance, and body composition together explained more than 50% of the performance variability in battlefield tasks (<a data-mce-href="https://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr/Fulltext/2018/09000/Physical_Fitness_Predictors_of_a_Warrior_Task.18.aspx?utm_source=chatgpt.com" href="https://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr/Fulltext/2018/09000/Physical_Fitness_Predictors_of_a_Warrior_Task.18.aspx?utm_source=chatgpt.com" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Journal of Strength &amp; Conditioning Research, 2018</a>). In other words, fitness markers directly predicted tactical effectiveness. Without these qualities, skill execution degraded rapidly.<h3>Fitness Standards Reflect Combat Demands </h3>The U.S. Army recognized this correlation when it replaced the Army Physical Fitness Test with the Army Combat Fitness Test (ACFT) in 2022. The ACFT measures deadlifts, sprints, loaded carries, and power throws—events designed to reflect combat-relevant tasks such as lifting equipment, sprinting to cover, or dragging a casualty (<a data-mce-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army_Combat_Fitness_Test?utm_source=chatgpt.com" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army_Combat_Fitness_Test?utm_source=chatgpt.com" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Army Combat Fitness Test Doctrine, 2022</a>). Furthermore, research indicates that structured, expert-led physical training programs yield significantly higher improvements on ACFT events compared to conventional unit-led training (<a data-mce-href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36582397/?utm_source=chatgpt.com" href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36582397/?utm_source=chatgpt.com" target="_blank" rel="noopener">PubMed, 2023</a>).<h3>Load Marching and Tactical Mobility </h3>Getting to the fight is often the most challenging part. A 2023 study of ROTC cadets found that anaerobic capacity was one of the strongest predictors of load-march performance, with sprint-drag-carry metrics closely tied to weighted march times. Trunk and upper-body strength were also essential for carrying loads across long distances (<a data-mce-href="https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10045466/?utm_source=chatgpt.com" href="https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10045466/?utm_source=chatgpt.com" target="_blank" rel="noopener">PubMed Central, 2023</a>). Without this foundation, operators may arrive at the objective too exhausted to fight effectively.<h3>Injury Prevention Through Fitness </h3>Fitness is not just about output—it is also about protection. According to an extensive review of Army training programs, soldiers with the lowest aerobic fitness were 1.4 to 2.8 times more likely to sustain injuries during training (<a data-mce-href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK235938/?utm_source=chatgpt.com" href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK235938/?utm_source=chatgpt.com" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Institute of Medicine Committee on Military Nutrition Research, 2001</a>). Another study confirmed that slow run times strongly correlated with higher injury rates regardless of gender (<a data-mce-href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28993131/?utm_source=chatgpt.com" href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28993131/?utm_source=chatgpt.com" target="_blank" rel="noopener">PubMed, 2013</a>). In short, poor fitness not only degrades tactical effectiveness but also increases the risk of being sidelined before a mission begins.<h3>Integrated Training Outperforms Traditional Methods </h3>Recent research has demonstrated that modern integrated training methods outperform traditional physical training programs. An 8-week Integrated Neuromuscular Training (INT) protocol significantly improved sprinting, jumping, agility, and balance in military personnel compared to conventional PT (<a data-mce-href="https://bmcsportsscimedrehabil.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13102-025-01172-9?utm_source=chatgpt.com" href="https://bmcsportsscimedrehabil.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13102-025-01172-9?utm_source=chatgpt.com" target="_blank" rel="noopener">BMC Sports Science, Medicine &amp; Rehabilitation, 2025</a>). High-intensity interval training (HIIT), which mirrors the intermittent bursts of combat, has also been found to effectively build both aerobic and anaerobic capacity—making it a valuable approach for tactical readiness (<a data-mce-href="https://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr/fulltext/2013/09000/mechanical%2C_physical%2C_and_physiological_analysis.8.aspx?utm_source=chatgpt.com" href="https://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr/fulltext/2013/09000/mechanical%2C_physical%2C_and_physiological_analysis.8.aspx?utm_source=chatgpt.com" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Journal of Strength &amp; Conditioning Research, 2013</a>).<h3>Fitness Enhances Cognitive Function Under Stress </h3>The benefits of fitness extend beyond physical resilience. Aerobic exercise has been shown to enhance executive function, decision-making, memory, and emotional regulation (<a data-mce-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurobiological_effects_of_physical_exercise?utm_source=chatgpt.com" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurobiological_effects_of_physical_exercise?utm_source=chatgpt.com" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Neurobiological Effects of Exercise, 2008</a>). For the operator, this translates into sharper tactical awareness and faster decision cycles under extreme stress—capabilities just as vital as physical strength.<h3>Conclusion </h3>Tactical success is inseparable from physical readiness. Aerobic and anaerobic fitness, muscular endurance, agility, and body composition directly predict combat performance. Fitness protects against injury, sharpens cognition, and ensures operators arrive at the fight ready to execute their tasks. Integrated, modern training methods better prepare personnel for the demands of modern warfare. Bottom line: Tactical skill without fitness is wasted potential. True combat effectiveness requires both.

The Correlation Between Fitness and Tactical Success

<h2>Assaulting Trench Systems</h2>Trench warfare, a form of combat that became infamous during World War I, is still widely used today, specifically in the Ukraine conflict, and involves soldiers fighting from protective ditches. These trenches serve as both fortifications and the primary means of defense and offense on the battlefield. Understanding the fundamental principles of trench warfare is essential for mastering trench assault techniques.<figure id="figure-pby3hk7ugmdoo2x5b"><img id="pby3hk7ugmdoo2x5b" src="https://media.gettyimages.com/id/1179045878/photo/world-war-one-trench.jpg?b=1&amp;s=2048x2048&amp;w=0&amp;k=20&amp;c=ocvaiEkzir-RJltrZMXO2xPMN1nY8ElO9POfWqfefc8=" alt="World War One Trench" title="World War One Trench" class="object-cover bg-gray-100" style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; object-position: center center;" data-corners="default" data-aspect="16:9" data-caption="" data-positionx="null" data-positiony="null" data-fullwidth="false" data-mce-src="https://media.gettyimages.com/id/1179045878/photo/world-war-one-trench.jpg?b=1&amp;s=2048x2048&amp;w=0&amp;k=20&amp;c=ocvaiEkzir-RJltrZMXO2xPMN1nY8ElO9POfWqfefc8=" data-mce-style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; object-position: center center;"></figure>Trenches are usually dug to connect fighting positions. They are typically dug in a zig-zag fashion to prevent attackers from firing down a long axis if they enter the trench and to reduce the effectiveness of high-explosive munitions. Trenches may also contain shallow turns, intersections with other trenches, firing ports, overhead cover, tunnel systems, and bunkers. Bunkers are usually oriented outside the trench, but may also have apertures allowing the ability to provide protective fires into the trench.Trenches provide defenders with frontal cover, allowing them to relocate without the threat of the squad’s direct fire. However, without overhead cover, trenches are vulnerable to the effects of high-trajectory munitions like grenades, grenade launchers, and indirect fire weapon systems. These weapons systems should be employed to gain and maintain fire superiority over enemy defenders in the trench.The confined nature of trenches, extensive preparations, and limited ability to integrate combined arms fires against them make clearing them hazardous for even the best-trained infantry. Although we always strive to avoid trenches whenever possible, we often cannot, and infantry units must frequently move in and clear them.&nbsp;<h3>Entering the Trench Line</h3><ul><li>The unit leader conducts leaders reconnaisance on the trench, identifying an entry point.</li><li>The unit leader establishes the security element, as well as an internal base of fire (IBOF) or a support by fire (SBF) to suppress the trench line.&nbsp; </li><li>The unit leader and the assault fire team move to the last covered and concealed position near the confirmed entry point.&nbsp; </li><li>The unit leader shifts the base of fire away from the entry point. </li><li>The base of fire continues to suppress the trench and adjacent enemy positions as required. </li><li>Team 1 (the fire team leader and automatic rifleman) occupies a position short of the trench, adding suppressive fires for the initial entry.&nbsp; </li><li>The unit leader and Team 2 (the grenadier and rifleman) move to the entry point. They move in rushes or by crawling; the unit leader takes positions from which they can best control the fire teams. </li><li>Team 2 positions itself parallel to the edge of the trench and gets into a low position. </li><li>On the unit leader’s command, Team 2 uses grenades (two seconds maximum), shouts “FRAG OUT”, and throws grenades into the trench. </li><li>Upon both grenades detonating, they rush into the trench, assume a back-to-back stance, and engage all enemy personnel or suspected enemy positions. </li><li>Both assaulters immediately move in opposite directions down the trench, continuing until they reach the first corner or intersection. </li><li>Both assaulters take up positions to block any enemy movement toward the entry point. </li><li>Simultaneously, Team 1 moves to and enters the trench, joining Team 2.</li><li>The unit leader directs them to one of the secured corners or intersections to relieve the assaulter from Team 2, who then rejoins their team member at the opposite end of the foothold. </li><li>At the same time, the unit leader enters the trench and secures the entry point. </li><li>The unit leader remains at the entry point, marks it, and calls forward the next fire team to the trench. </li><li>Once the unit has secured a foothold, the unit leader reports to the commander, “FOOTHOLD SECURE.” The commander follows the success of seizing the foothold with the remainder of the force.&nbsp;</li></ul><figure id="figure-liespb9ij9mdoo31dq"><img id="liespb9ij9mdoo31dq" src="https://cdn.durable.co/blocks/33X9e9H7Mcb0wIRa3qX7DqZdLdHDPvqxSV5vITmPj3kBrRFkKHRc2o6CZa3vCGUU.png" alt="military communication" title="military communication" class="object-cover bg-gray-100 " style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; object-position: center center;" data-corners="default" data-aspect="16:9" data-caption="" data-positionx="null" data-positiony="null" data-fullwidth="false" data-mce-src="https://cdn.durable.co/blocks/33X9e9H7Mcb0wIRa3qX7DqZdLdHDPvqxSV5vITmPj3kBrRFkKHRc2o6CZa3vCGUU.png" data-mce-style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; object-position: center center;"></figure><h3>Exploiting the Foothold&nbsp;</h3>The commander or a designated subordinate must move into the trench as soon as possible to control the tempo, specifically the movement of the lead assault element and the movement of follow-on forces. Leaders must resist the temptation to move the entire unit into the trench. Follow-on forces should be committed as elements reach their objectives and reinforcements are required.The assault element should maintain fire team organization to clear the trench (Assaulters should be designated number one, number two, number three, etc.). Each team is armed with at least one automatic rifle, and all Assaulters are armed with multiple hand grenades.The positioning within the fire teams is rotational, so the Assaulters must be rehearsed in each position. The responsibilities for each position are as follows: <ol><li>The one man is responsible for assaulting down the trench using well-aimed, effective fire and throwing grenades around pivot points in the trench line or into weapon emplacements.</li><li>The two man follows the number one man closely enough to support them, but not so closely that both would be suppressed if the enemy gained local fire superiority.</li><li>The number three and four man follow the number two man and prepare to move forward when the positions rotate.</li></ol>While the initial fire team may rotate by event, the squad leader directs the rotation of the fire teams within the squad as ammunition becomes low in the leading team, casualties occur, or as the situation dictates. Since this drill should be SOP, fire teams may be reconstituted as needed from the remaining members of the squad. The commander controls the rotation between squads using the same considerations as the squad leaders.<figure id="figure-lejzzw937mdopdsd8"><img id="lejzzw937mdopdsd8" src="https://cdn.durable.co/blocks/12r8fT3yq9POifww5ZK5TCdMhd9UeO8qwKHhTfDBF3xn194EvMBhCMzYQ6vlJMrb.png" alt="" title="" class="object-cover bg-gray-100 " style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; object-position: center center;" data-corners="default" data-aspect="16:9" data-caption="" data-positionx="undefined" data-positiony="undefined" data-fullwidth="false" data-mce-src="https://cdn.durable.co/blocks/12r8fT3yq9POifww5ZK5TCdMhd9UeO8qwKHhTfDBF3xn194EvMBhCMzYQ6vlJMrb.png" data-mce-style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; object-position: center center;"></figure><h3>Clearing the Trench Line</h3>The lead fire team of the initial assault squad moves out past the security of the support element and executes the trench clearing drill. The number one man (followed by the rest of the Assaulters in the fire team) maintains the advance until arriving at a pivot point, junction point, or weapon emplacement in the trench and conducts the following:&nbsp;<ul><li>The one man alerts the rest of the team by yelling out “POSITION” or “JUNCTION” and prepares a hand grenade. </li><li>The number two man immediately moves forward near the number one man and provides covering fire until the grenade can be thrown around the corner of the pivot point. </li><li>The number three and four man move forward to the point previously occupied by number two and prepare for commitment.&nbsp;</li></ul>Anytime the number one man encounters a junction in the trench, the squad leader or a subordinate leader should move forward, make a quick estimate, and indicate the direction the fire team should continue to clear. This is generally toward the majority of the fortification or suspected command and control emplacements. A marker should be emplaced (typically specified in the unit SOP) pointing toward the direction of the cleared path. After employing a grenade, the number two man begins moving in the direction indicated and assumes the duties of the number one man. Anytime the number one man runs out of ammunition, they shout “RELOADING” and immediately move against the wall of the trench to allow the number two man to take up the fire. Squad leaders continue to push uncommitted fire teams forward, securing bypassed trenches and rotating fresh teams to the front. It is essential to note that trenches must be cleared in sequence, rather than simultaneously, to reduce the risk of fratricide and ensure that no enemy positions are bypassed.Fire teams use variations of the combat formations to move. These formations are also used when clearing buildings. For these purposes, the terms "hallway" and "trench" may be used interchangeably.&nbsp;<figure id="figure-txr9wru8urmdoo35dw"><img id="txr9wru8urmdoo35dw" src="https://cdn.durable.co/blocks/5uCzmDhq6H6yTPBgYBIgjIQCbSsu29OQAkTC6AIlsCl8olq102goojNoMNyF56QI.png" alt="military technology" title="military technology" class="object-cover bg-gray-100" style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; object-position: center center;" data-corners="default" data-aspect="16:9" data-caption="" data-positionx="null" data-positiony="null" data-fullwidth="false" data-mce-src="https://cdn.durable.co/blocks/5uCzmDhq6H6yTPBgYBIgjIQCbSsu29OQAkTC6AIlsCl8olq102goojNoMNyF56QI.png" data-mce-style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; object-position: center center;"></figure><h3>Conclusion</h3>In summary, understanding trench warfare is really important because it has shaped military conflicts in the past and is still relevant today. We saw its brutal effects during World War I, and now, in places like Ukraine, we can observe similar strategies in use. As we move forward, it’s clear that elements of trench warfare will continue to appear in conflicts, adapting to new technologies. By learning about this type of warfare, we can better understand the challenges of battle and how to more effectively counter them.

Mastering Trench Assault: Techniques and Tactics

The Basics of Military Operations on Urbanized Terrain

Seraph Eustace Group