Are there any notable differences in how a platoon or company from America and for example Russia or China would fight?
I suppose that the basic things like fire and maneuver, interlocking defence, usage of IFV’s, usage of UAV’s for recon,etc. is more or the less the same, so what is different, other than the equipment?
I’m only talking about lower level units, not divisions, armies and so on, and just regular land conflicts like Russia vs Georgia, not ww3 with carriers, nukes,etc.
One way is their functional organization. In some armies, recon is a top-down system, where the recon unit reports directly to higher-ups who then distribute information and orders as they see fit. In others, recon is bottom-up, where the recon troops report to their immediate commander who then passes it up the chain of command.
I would imagine that they all fight broadly the same in terms of the mechanics of digging in, fields of fire, and so on, the lower down you go. After all, rifles, grenades and machine guns are substantially alike in terms of how you’d employ them.
I’d also be willing to bet that nations vary in how much initiative they expect and freedom they give individual soldiers, NCOs and the most junior officers, with some nations expecting leaders all the way down to individual soldiers to take initiative in the absence of orders to achieve the mission. Others have a more command-driven structure, where orders come down and unquestioning obedience is expected, and individual initiative is not encouraged.
For example, the Prussian Army and its successor the German Army used something called * Auftragstaktik, which translates to “mission-type tactics”. Put very simply, each level of command defines a goal, constraints and the forces to be used, and lets the subordinate commander figure it out. Which means that he’s going to do the same sort of thing for his subordinates- define goals, forces and constraints, and let them have at it. This continues all the way down the tree. Contrast this with other nations where things are more clearly defined and less latitude is given in terms of how to go about things.
So I would imagine that would make some countries’ troops fight significantly differently, especially if communications were disrupted, etc…
That seems unusual given the Prussian mind set of authority.
Actually, it was one of the defining qualities of the wehrmacht in WWII. lower level commanders, down to squad level, had a great deal of autonomy. They would be given an objective and they used deeply-ingrained combat doctrines to achieve it as they saw fit. Some objectives required a straight-on assault, some worked best with a flanking encirclement, and so on. It was understood that the commander on the scene knew what would work best.
Here’s the wikipedia article on it- it’s an interesting read.