Mountain Infantry Assaults with Small Arms

The Bundeswehr social media outlets recently released this training video of a Bavarian mountain battalion executing a vertical ascent and subsequent assault on an enemy position. The video is very interesting to watch when to comes to observing how the Germans perfect their mountain warfare tactics. Notice how the assault team uses a scout to lead the way up the cliff face, then pushing the rest of the team on top, thereafter assaulting the objective down below. Obviously the team climbed up one side, then descended on the enemy from above on the other side of the mountain.

The scout was armed with an MP7, while the rest of the team had issue G36s. See how much easier it is to maneuver with all the rope equipment while having the G36 stock folded as compared to a traditionally longer rifle. I’m not familiar with the Bundeswehr’s G36 trialsls and acquisitions program, but I wouldn’t put it past them that one of the requirements for a folding stock (apart from APC/airplane usage) was to be able to compact the service rifle specifically for climbing. Judging from Germany’s presence along the Alps, this could have been true. The team even brought up an MG3. Because weight and gear is of much more consideration to these soldiers, the team has to improvise or bring less ammunition down. In addition, most of the time weapons have to be strapped to packs or otherwise out of the way because of the need to utilize the climbing ropes going up and down the cliff face. In addition, the vertical assaulters at the end, leading the assault have to essentially deploy with very limited weapons and ammunition because of their quick descent onto the enemy objective. What that means for the platoon is that only fire superiority and gains are made on the objective, they have to get down as soon as possible because those soldiers at the bottom are unable to sustain themselves for very long. Also notice the use of snipers. A mountainous environment is almost a snipers playground.

The American experience with mountain warfare began in World War II with the 10th Mountain Division being created to fight in Italy. In addition to the cliff climbing of the Ranger Regiment during Operation Overlord at Point Do Hoc. Today the Marine Corps runs a very extensive mountain warfare program at MWTC Bridgeport in northern California. Unlike traditional infantry tactics, mountain warfare takes on a very different spin. Infantrymen have to be qualified in climbing ropes, working with less resources and supplies, even using pack animals unto this day to bring equipment to austere locations. In fact, the Army SF component is frequently in attendance at these pack animal classes due to operations in Afghanistan.

Notice in the photographs of myself descending a vertical face while at Bridgeport, the length of the M16A4/M203 on me. Certainly a detractor to climbing.


Infantry Marine, based in the Midwest. Specifically interested in small arms history, development, and usage within the MENA region and Central Asia. To that end, I run Silah Report, a website dedicated to analyzing small arms history and news out of MENA and Central Asia.

Please feel free to get in touch with me about something I can add to a post, an error I’ve made, or if you just want to talk guns. I can be reached at


  • VanDiemensLand

    Germans can soldier.

    • Nicks87

      They have a long history of discipline and efficiency. Prussian infantry doctrine is still in use today.

    • Tormund Giantsbane

      German infantry are probably the best there have ever been.

      • USMC03Vet

        History says otherwise.

        • winnerswritehistory

          History says that precisely. Losing a war does not mean that they could have not had an advantage in some areas. One thing is for certain, the US certainly does not field the finest. The US has trouble handling goat humpers with nothing but worn out ass small arms. Vietnam anyone? The US has some of the least stringent requirements of any military in the western world. Nearly anyone can join the American military. Try that in Europe or Down under. They actually turn large amounts of people away due to higher standards for recruits. The average Marine would be turned away from the Royal Marines. LIke wise, the average US soldier would be turned away by the Bundeswehr or Austrian Heer.

          • Someone

            That “having problems” is because of rules of engagement, you dont want to blow up a ton of civilians. And opponents use asymetric tactics.

            And in therms of recuiting, the US needs a large Army, why send people away who are willed to serve.

          • M.

            If you think any other modern infantry stuck in that horrific quagmire would be any more effective, you’re sorely mistaken. It’s not a problem of soldiering hard enough, it’s about geography and fighting an insurgency.

          • john huscio

            The Bundeswehr can get back to me when they can field a rifle that’s worth a sh*t.

          • cmbv79

            They have, it’s call G36.

          • Mr. Privilege

            The US doesn’t lose wars in the field. Their wars are lost on the home front due to subversion from Baby Boomers – AKA: the WORST Generation.

          • Wolfgar

            I resent that. On that note I guess we did raise the loser millennial’s. Before the hate starts, I’m just joking. The truth is every American generation has produced fine soldiers but society as a whole determines the leaders and national mind set that wins or looses wars. In that regard we have been been slipping since the Korean war. Now back on mountain infantry.

          • CapeMorgan

            Silly argument. You need to look at the entrance requirements anyway. The size of the UK military is so small that they can afford to be more selective (if they really in fact, not fiction, are). In fact, the UK military is having issues getting enough volunteers as it is. The US does not use anything similar to Gurkhas to make up for personnel shortfalls.
            Similar issues in GE and Austria. Those are just the facts.
            Another fun fact…Australia used to offer bonus to ex-US servicemen (Army and Navy) to join.

          • Wolfgar

            WOW, I beg to differ but we have hired contractors in unprecedented numbers in the past years to fill the void LOL. That said the Germans have been the best at marching to martial music, starting wars, getting over run by non Germans and then getting their butts kicked.

          • CapeMorgan

            I guess knowing how to use Google is another one of those things that you can’t do. By the way “contractors” does not always mean people that carry weapons. Duh.

          • Wolfgar

            I guess all the controversy over Black Water”s abuse in Iraq was because they never used firearms and just insulted the natives with vulgarities LOL.

          • CapeMorgan

            Showing a lack of knowledge and then arguing about it seems to be your strong suit. For example, my reply to the OP was about recruiting standards in the US military vs other countries military services. I replied with a factual answer. That completely went over your head. Your “reply” that the US needs to fill out its recruiting needs with contractors is false. They are used instead of recruiting to fill temporary needs. You fail to realize that contractors are cheaper than active duty members and have been used since VIetnam (and before) for secondary tasks in support functions….like dining facilities, building bases, operating training facilities and some technical maintenance under DOD auspices. Using them offensively is against international law and they are considered unlawful combatants. Since you never were in the service based on the things you say, ask around. PMR’s are not used as active duty troops. You don’t even know much about Blackwater…the Blackwater PMCs involved in the shootingt in Nisour Square were PMC’s hired by the State Department for diplomat security, not the US military. There are many reasons why PMCs are used..but they are over your head for this discussion and certainly not for recruiting shortfalls.

          • Wolfgar

            About as much over my head as your opinion the M-16 was not flawed when first introduced and all it needed was more maintenance LOL . Of course the military never used private contractors for direct confrontation but the US government did use them in unprecedented amounts when before they used soldiers for those same duties. The British used soldiers throughout it’s history from it’s empire as they needed them when they had an empire. The war on terror used more private contractors than any other time in our history and many of them were armed which you conveniently down played. I don’t recall seeing long lines of private contractors hauling supply’s along side the red ball express in Europe or the Island hoping campaign during WW2. The problem like the British is expense, lack of man power and volunteers. We also use immigrants as a tool for easing US citizenship which is in of itself using foreign people to fill the troop numbers.
            In 1990, in the early days of Gulf War One, President George H.W. Bush signed an executive order which allowed any military member (active duty, Reserves, or National Guard) to apply for citizenship, without any residency requirement.
            Waiting for your sure to be cordial and reflective reply.

            This saves the military member
            five years on the civilian applicant for citizenship so when you hear
            the military help you accelerate the process, this is what that means.

            July 3, 2002, under special provisions in Section 329 of the INA,
            President Bush signed an executive order authorizing all non-citizens
            who have served honorably in the U.S. armed forces on or after Sept. 11,
            2001, to immediately file for citizenship. This order also covers
            veterans of certain designated past wars and conflicts. The
            authorization will remain in effect until a date designated by a future
            presidential executive order.

          • CapeMorgan

            Thank you for proving my point and going on another one of your tangents to nowhere. I am sorry that I schooled you earlier and now again on PMCs. I know it stings, but your silly attempts to somehow redeem yourself is utterly failing. BTW, at least you did not spell “Black Water” wrong again. I am sure you will come up with something from left field or tell an American Legion story to finish the thread. Immigrants have always joined the military…since the Civil War. Gurkhas are not immigrants. Up until 2007 they did not get the same pensions as UK soldiers nor have the right of residency when their service was completed. SO you got that wrong too. Sorry.
            BTW, you don’t need PMCs when you have a draft. You do know what a draft is don’t you?

          • Wolfgar

            The tangent is the fact we do use non nationals and people other than US personnel to fill traditional military roles which was your silly argument about the British using the Gurkhas in the first place. The Gurkhas have had a long outstanding history serving the British. The Gurkhas are units who serve India which was part of the English empire,” if you need to be reminded” so the need to pay full benefits as any British soldier since they are no longer under the British Empire,”if you need to be reminded was one of the conditions during the debate to retain them. We give citizenship to unproven foreigners with zero history compared to the Gurkhas so in retrospect the US is more desperate than the British by using a non proven historical units like the Gurkhas. Then again listening to a government report such as yourself has always proven more reliable like the report of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, Obama’s red line in Syria, the Soviet Unions military superiority to the US, The Gulf of Tonkin incidents, sinking of the Maine, the inferiority of the AK-47, M-16 compared to the M-14, etc etc. I guess the people who were actually involved with the early development of the M-16 have no credibility. Former Colt employee Chris Bartocci, the inventor Eugene Stoner, the authors of The Black Rifle R. Blake Stevens,Edward C Ezell, and the people who had to carry the early M-16 have no credibility, just exaggerated legion hall gossip. You have still not answered my question, if the M-16 was not flawed what was the purpose of the changes to the M-16A1? If the cost of using PMC is cheaper than using soldiers what does having a draft have to do with it. Most PMC’s are ex military which would still be in abundance even with a draft so why didn’t they use PMC’s in the past to save money? Your logic is about as sharp as your manors. Keep trying, I’m enjoying watching the insults increase as your argument becomes more desperate.

          • Wolfgar

            I meant to say served in India not for India.

          • CapeMorgan

            Sure you did.

          • Wolfgar

            If you look at the time it was posted you will notice it was before your reply so I’m glad you agree.

          • CapeMorgan

            Yep. Sure. Now the real question…do you know where Nepal is? That is for extra points.

          • Wolfgar

            Yup, in the clouds where your over opinionated sense of yourself resonates.

          • CapeMorgan

            You need to learn reading comprehension and how to use Google. Immigrants with green cards have long been eligible to enlist. We do not use anything resembling Gurkhas and do not require their use like the UK to make up maneuver battalions and not nearly in the raw numbers as they do. 3,500 Gurkhas out of 82,000 personnel is a large number. By contrast in 2015, 7,000 personnel were naturalized in the entire US military. Do you know that the US military is more than just the US Army? Do the math. BTW Gurkhas are not from India they are Nepalese and are not stationed in India…India is a sovereign country. We do not give citizenship to “untested” foreigners. I guess I need to educate you yet again…and this is from the US Citizenship and Immigration website, try reading it. You have all the laws screwed up in your head. Prior to 2009 you had to honorably complete your service before you could apply. In 2009, they gradually phased in a program where you could get naturalized in the Army upon graduation from boot camp…in 2013 the program was made available to every branch. You still have to complete honorable service and they go through the same vetting process as any other applicant only it is expedited. I think the “foreigners” who have honorably served their branch of service deserve respect, especially the ones who died while in the service. Your cheap shot at them is just that…any real vet will tell you that. BTW, you still have to meet the recruitment qualifications like any US citizen.
            I have no idea what WMD, Obama’s Red Line in Syria, the Soviet Union’s military superiority over the US, the Gulf of Tonkin have anything to do with this…it just shows some lack of focus on your part. BTW, the Soviet Union no longer exists.
            You need to learn about this…if you have a draft, you can get all the manpower you want AND you do not have to pay them like we have to do with an ALL VOLUNTEER ARMED FORCES. Compare the pay scales in the civilian world to the military pay scales during the years of the draft. This is obvious stuff. In addition, PMC’s that are armed have tenuous legal standing under the Rules of War. It was not until 2007 that the UCMJ was amended to allow prosecution of PMCs deployed in a declared war or contingency operation. You would know that if you had looked it up…it is easy to do. BTW, active duty military personnel costs are more than just straight pay scale…that should be obvious to you too.
            BTW, it is manners, not “manors” and my manners and logic are quite sharp and I always respond in tone to those that reply to me. I just gave you the truth. Now, you have been corrected, yet again, on the original post that I answered. I am sorry that you forced me to do it.

          • Wolfgar

            Since you misread my entire post I would recommend reading comprehension for your yourself. I stated below I meant served in India not for it if you would have bothered to have read it. They were trained by the British and have been basically a British segregate unit through out the years with British customs and doctrine.. Foreign soldiers are foreign soldiers which was what your argument was about in the first place. If they are an old historical unit like the Gurkha’s or immigrants serving for a fast tract to citizenship they are still foreign personnel filling the needed ranks of volunteer armies. Twist it as you would like but the truth is the truth. This shouldn’t be that confusing. Of course you don’t understand what I was talking about when I used other government reports which were proven just as wrong as the one you used to defend the early M-16 rifles. It doesn’t jive with your opinion. it is called a partitive with which one can correlate a parallel of truth and understanding. You stated we used PMC because they were cheaper than using regular troops, then you state they are not needed with a draft because there is no shortage of man power? I thought you said it was because they were cheaper? Please make up your mind. Now you state under a draft the ssoldiers pay is cheaper than under a volunteer army so using a PMC under a draft is not economical? ROTFLMAO!
            I do have to say you just questioned my intelligence and falsely accused me of disrespecting foreigners who served and died serving our country instead of questioning my man hood so your manors not manners is better than many LOL.You have once again sidestepped my question about the M-16 but hey it has been fun but quite pointless. Good night!

          • CapeMorgan

            I can’t insult something that you lack. I get that you are embarrassed because you did not know that Gurkhas are from Nepal…that is a common mistake for people who don’t look things up. And now you know that India is a separate country. I guess you can’t do percentages either…that is why I gave you numbers of personnel. Do some division and calculate the percentages if you can.The number of immigrants in US service is much less. while the Gurkhas are a form of mercenary…by law. BTW, since they are naturalized, the folks in US service by definition are not “foreigners” no matter what phobia you have about them. At least get that straight. As usual my original point still stands.
            Like I said, if you can do the math, cost out conscripts for WW2 and then prevailing civilian wages and then look up pay scales under a volunteer army and current civilian wages. Then, factor in other governmental costs for having a volunteer military on the rolls. You know, things like housing allowance, base barracks upkeep, medical costs, retirement costs etc. You really are new at this kind of stuff aren’t you. Yes, PMC’s are more expensive than folks inducted under a draft. Duh. You really don’t get economics either, nor understand the manpower requirements of WW2. This was demonstrated during Vietnam War and the beginning of contractors required there because of only a half-hearted draft system. In addition, re-read what I wrote about PMC’s and legal status under the LOW.. Clearly you don’t get that either.
            Thank you for giving me the opportunity to school you again, But, your rambling is not helping. I did not question your intelligence I stated what it is and it is not that good and you comments about “foreigners” was from you. You posted to me…it is not my fault I answered you and then you got embarrassed. Blame yourself.

          • Wolfgar

            Once again you change the dialog to fit your opinion. The discussion was not about numbers, duties etc but about foreigners who are needed to fill the parent countries need for soldiers. You stated we didn’t need any unit like the Gurkhas as England does. I stated we fill our ranks with foreigners and contractors just the same. This some how set you off LOL. I corrected my mistake about India 10 hours ago and your reply was 9 hours ago meaning your reply came an hour after my correction yet you keep pretending it is not so. Comparing foreigners who are not from a historical proven unit like the Gurkha’s but only completed basic training in the Guard is some how disrespectful to you—OK! Technically people who are citizens of a different country who are serving to become a citizen of this country are foreigners. It means,” non citizen” or they would already be a citizen. I know this is hard for you so read slower so you can absorb it. You then digress into tangents of distraction about military budgets,housing costs etc to justify your back and forth opinion, very entertaining. I could continue but it is painful to watch you try. I did notice you sidestepped the M-16 question once again, what is it up to 4 or 5 times ? Your so called schooling reminds me of the lefts schooling- pure bunk with zero substance but like the left when someone disagree or exposes the holes in the argument, pointless distractions and insults with a temper tantrum materialize. Go find a safe space with some coloring books, suck your thumb and try to chill. Just because I don’t agree with you doesn’t mean I don’t dig you.

          • CapeMorgan

            You keep on nagging me every time you get corrected. That is not my fault and yet you act like some puppy nipping at their master’s heel. It is silly.
            Like I said, you can’t read with comprehension…I explained the change to the rules regarding immigrants being naturalized right out of boot camp. And yet, you continue to quote the OLD RULES and yet to acknowledge the miniscule number inducted to the entire US military compared to the use of Gurkhas and the overall importance to US military troop strength anyway. Although it is an excellent way to get interpreters. Obviously, by your comments the whole PMC topic is way over your head. Not your fault, just the way it is.
            BTW, we don’t need units like the Gurkhas…you really think that all immigrants in US service are in the same units? You really don’t understand the UK system still.
            I am glad that I was able to straighten you out about other real facts about the Gurkhas though. I was embarrassed for you.
            You still can’t do math though. That is on you. Your lack of budget experience is on you too.
            I definitely don’t “dig you”. People who can’t learn are boorish. BTW, people don’t really say “dig you” anymore…it makes you look more foolish.
            Like I said, I am glad I was able to school you on another topic; I was finished schooling you on the M-16 on another thread, no need to repeat myself. Bless your little heart.

          • Wolfgar

            I’ll try to get by knowing you don’t want to be my friend but thank you for the blessing ,it means so much!

  • Joe Schmoe

    That was impressive to watch. Techniques looked solid.

  • Ark

    Granted, completely uninformed observer here, but a vertical ascent up an exposed wall seems like a great way to get your ass shot off. Nobody actually does this in a combat situation, right?

    • Joe Schmoe

      It is done, but there is usually covering fire (notice the snipers for example setting up, and I assume in a real situation mortars as well).

    • Major Tom

      Not on a frontal assault. Vertical ascents are typically used when not getting shot at or when you have sufficient covering fire (snipers, artillery, air support, etc.) or more commonly when the enemy doesn’t know you’re there and you’re getting in position from the other side of the mountain they are next to, the side they aren’t watching or expecting you to be.

      Unless you’re willing to take casualties like Point Du Hoc.

    • The theory part of this training was that the company climbed up one side, and attacked down another. Actually climbing this under fire would be suicide as you have summarized.

      • FarmerB

        The other side have snipers too!!

        • VanDiemensLand

          Guess they might get shot, you can’t plan for everything, only mitigate risk, otherwise they’d not be soldiers.

          • FarmerB

            Obviously. But the original flow of comments was about the support available to the assaulters from snipers.

  • KestrelBike

    Hah that poor bastard with the G36 and the MG3…

    • Friend

      According to Wikipedia that’s a minimum of 31lbs of small arms, not including ammo or tacticool accessories. His life sucks.

      • Blake

        Seeing the word “tacticool” used when referencing military gear used by soldiers makes my brain hurt.

        • Dude

          its fun..

    • Ευστάθιος Παλαιολόγος

      Why make the Machine Gunner carry the extra weight of a rifle and it’s ammo? Isn’t he already over-burden with the MG?
      I’ve also seen this in photos and videos from the USMC.
      What’s the reasoning behind it? Honest question.

      • chris

        Maybe he is just carriyng it because he is strong and a good climber.

      • From a logistical standpoint, his rifle is simply a self-defense weapon, as his primary weapon system is the machine gun. Especially in the mountain assaults, one would assume an MP7 or at least a handgun would be sufficient enough but not from a military standpoint…

        While I was in, 240 gunners were carrying full length M16A4s, while certain others whose job descriptions didn’t require lugging around 30 extra pounds of weaponry/equipment/ammo got to rock M4s. It didn’t make sense to us either, in addition to fueling our hatred for the chain of command.

        • Richard Kaplan

          Interesting. I was a MAGist in the IDF (FN MAG=M240) in the 80s, and we didn’t take our Galils with us. We carried 50 round belts where our magazines would have gone, 150 in a canvas sack on the gun, and another 400 rounds (2 boxes worth) on our backs. Operationally we didn’t carry more (always ammo nearby) but in exercises we spread more cases around the platoon.

        • The_Champ

          Same in the Canadian forces, C6 gunner(gpmg) lugged a C7 rifle as well.

        • roguetechie

          Yes but without all this hatred burning deep inside your bellies you’d be much more tempted to burn stuff to stay warm at night!!!

          So, obviously such nonsensical actions are about light discipline…

    • Just say’n

      … and to all of them for rock climbing in those awful combat boots.

    • Michel_T

      If you think a MG3 is a pain to log around… try it with a 81mm mortar tube strap to your back…

    • Bernd

      Don’t know about the germans, but as their southern neighbours we have a similar MG, and i can tell you from my expierience: in our Army the one with the MG isn’t the poor one, but his buddy is. Because this guy carries the Ammo and the spare barrels additional to his own stuff.
      (And our MG guy doesn’t get a rifle, just the MG74 and a Glock)

  • LH

    With one year of Service in the german armed Forces, I have to say that the folding stock of the G36 is quite useful if you’re “aufgesessen” (in a vehicle) or have to store the rifles for a short time.

    • Thomas Weißhuhn

      Do you also think that they see our BW a little bit diferent than we do?

  • Max

    Hey MWTC is my next duty station! Going there this summer!

    • Mud

      if your not in shape now, you will be. 🙂

    • Bridgeport sucked when 1/9 went through the winter package in 2013, worst experience of my life… But I went back with 1/24 in the reserves on a summer package. Have fun with being a red hat man!

  • Major Tom

    Fort Carson frequently does mountain training on the 14ers of Colorado. And with like 57 of them to choose from, there’s plenty of terrain diversity to train on.

    Of course every now and then you end up with the flatlanders doing their first mountain for the first time and are totally not ready for that altitude. Like happened last autumn on Longs Peak.

    Then again, when you’re above 12,000 feet, you’re not running marathons or Olympic sprints. Not enough air to do much running for long.

    • roguetechie

      To say the least!

      I moved from Vancouver Washington to Colorado springs 75% of the way through sophomore year and went from 6 minute miles on “slacker days” &5:15 if I pushed to …a little under 8 minutes with a cool down routine that literally consisted of vomiting twice stumbling 5 steps and passing out!

  • polnnna

    Few know this but aussie style rappelling was developed from an Australian aboriginal game, they copied this style of descent from the vicious drop bears who the aboriginals believed were using rope to attack from above, but were really just fearless at dropping down on unsuspecting prey.

    • Damn! That’s nuts! Learn something new! Any info on where the “Ausie Peel” came from, when breaking contact?

      • pollana

        The aussie peel was created by an SASR patrol in Vietnam who having been eating bananas for almost a week, realized that the peel back motion of a bananas skin combined with a white thrust of firepower would enable them to deceive their opponents that they were a much larger force, enabling them to break contact.

  • Pete Sheppard

    Impressive! If they’re discovered too soon, though, it will be a massacre.
    Another lesson: Unless you can place security up top, don’t set up positions deep in quarries or canyons…

  • noamsaying

    Obviously the Germans are way behind the times. They are not using their own version of the gasoline powered mule that DARPA came up with. That program was patently absurd from the start and a poster boy for Pentagon waste. Mind numbingly stupid.

    • Juggernaut

      Comes from watching too many movies.

      • toollema

        Too many girls in DARPA, they felt sorry for the mules, so they decided to make a robomule by removing unnecessary organs from a mule, but preserving it’s brain inside a robotic suit. Thus creating the much more animal friendly Darpa mule.

    • Sometimes we think we have the edge with all these gizmos, but pack mule courses are still being taught at Bridgeport for precisely this reason, the things work.

      • The_Champ

        I believe the Canadian forces locally sourced some pack animals and used them in Afghanistan.

      • roguetechie

        We actually have an epic supply of pack animals and their stateside infrastructure within the DOD.

        Read several articles around the time SOCOM dropped into Afghanistan where the article explained that we actually maintain a “strategic reserve” etc etc that realistically is than we technically need so we can supply our pack animal pauper allies and “other users” who may have already been at war so long that all the good mules where they are have already died!

        This is why to this day line items for farriers, tack, feed, & etc are in every budget to this day.

  • Phillip Cooper

    Very interesting. Would like to see more like this.

  • Dude

    Bavarian? haha strange, its called Bayern, were people wear ONLY Lederhosen.

  • Juggernaut

    Germany has the coolest camo patterns

    • .45

      I was just thinking that. Noticed how well they blend in against the rock walls and vegetation.

  • Nice man! Thanks for sharing, I wish I could understand it!

    • Johannes von’ Strauch

      I can do a full translation tomorrow if you like.

  • That was uncalled for. Let’s stick to guns and tactics.

  • B. Young
    Sgt. Reckless appreciates the battle mules which look to be in great shape.

  • Lee M Attinger

    I was watching a WWI documentary the other day and there was footage of Austrian soldiers climbing the Alps carrying fricking artillery. A G36 is one thing, a god damned cannon is quite another. Crazy Austrians.

    • Iggy

      That entire Alpine Campaign was insane from start to finish, if your casualties from avalanches number at LEAST 60,000 dead, apart from exposure and actual enemy action, you really should pick somewhere else to fight. Bodies are still defrosting from those battles.

      • Lee M Attinger

        Other places such as the Somme? Lol. The British lost 60,000 on the first day!

  • The_Champ

    So much G3 goodness but the best part by far is heaving guys up to the second story windows using large tree branches lol.

    • Johannes von’ Strauch

      3:46 “Camouflaged like flounders on the sea bottom, but flounders doesnt shoot thats the small diffrence” unusual word jokes for a Military Dokumentation in that time haha

    • Are Tee

      The tree branch was very clever.

  • Jeff S

    Fun fact: Erwin Rommel was a company commander in the Alpenkorp in WWI, long before he was a tank commander.

  • lamaman

    Unfortunately trained monkeys as mountain assault forces don’t work, it is known.

  • Wolfgar

    The US has been playing policeman not soldier. Big difference. By the way if I remember correctly Britain lost it’s empire and Australia never had one LOL.

  • CavScout

    The pics of US Marines doing the climbing… NOT for show. The Germans… that was totally for show. Odds are the ones doing the hardest climbing in the video are school instructors, etc. Propaganda.