Infantry Unit Tactics, Tasks, Weapons, and Organization

[PsJÄÄK Korte]

It makes sense to me that the Finnish Army would use reserve or territorial units for defensive operations and the regular units for offensive ones. However, once the situation becomes "fluid" both components would need to be capable of both types of operations. The distinction between the two components of the Army would become blurred once a war really starts going on in earnest. The original assumptions of a war plan would fall all apart under the pressure of events.

My family once lived near the Baltic Sea, Danzig and Stockholm, but it was two and three centuries ago, a long time ago.

All most all of finnish wartime units of ground forces are mobilised from reserves. Peacetime units exist for purposes of training, and some other things.:)

Also. Yes it is inevitable that at some point regional force have to try counter-attack.

"Adapt, adjust, improvise." <-I hope that we heed this at event of war and make at least self propelled recoilless guns (if old blackies (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/95_S_58-61) are still in rosters), selfpropelled mortars and selfpropelled ATGMs out of civilian tracktors, jeeps/land rovers, and light trucks for regional forces.

I glad though that we bought 147 mt-lbs from sweden and XA-series are going to through extensive maintenance to continue their service time.
FDFs mobilization strength has gone from 500000->250000, atleast one good thing I can think concercing it is that even if not all ground forces can be moved around in APCs maybe they can be given atleast military grade trucks instead of civilian tractors/vans/other cars, if amount of personel is lowered but equipment numbers stay same. :D

For the end as anectodish. I have heard that at beginning of nineties FDF mobilization plans still had horses on their equipment rosters and some second line (or would that be third) units would have been armed with WWII vintage small arms.

[ganulv]

Maybe it somewhat compensates their (indirect units) immobility and low survivability to use larger and dispersed formations.

I am a civilian with no military background so apologies if the answer to my question is too simple, but how is differing mobility during the three seasons (snow, mud, and other) dealt with vis-à-vis the organization of units? Does the organization of units optimize for one season, compromise for all three seasons, or are there changes in configuration as the seasons change?

[PsJÄÄK Korte]

By the way on question on platoon leader and platoon 2iC in mech/armoured infatry platoons. I am interested in which one is more common in the world:
1.Platoon leader dismounts, 2iC is commander of one of the IFVs
2.Vice versa
3.Other

Asking this because in our CV90 mounted armoured infatry platoon PL dismounted and 2iC commanded the 1.Squad's vehicle and he commanded platoon's vehicles while PL led dismounts into combat.

[PsJÄÄK Korte]

I am a civilian with no military background so apologies if the answer to my question is too simple, but how is differing mobility during the three seasons (snow, mud, and other) dealt with vis-à-vis the organization of units? Does the organization of units optimize for one season, compromise for all three seasons, or are there changes in configuration as the seasons change?

I did my military service in southern Finland where winter snows have become thinner and thinner, only optimisation we did was to wear warmer clothes.;) and places we practiced warranted no skis because there was so little snow.
In northern parts of Finland you have to use skiis to move around and in north manouvre units use thisthis (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Sisu_Nasu) as motor transport to move around it has lower ground pressure than average human male. And mortars and arty need TNT for their firing positions
So cut long story short it is more about equipment than organisation.

PS.I would like to see someday IFV supported attack by ski troops, as finnish BMP-2s and CV90s have storage place for squad's skiis. :p

[Fuchs]

Snowmobiles as winter motorcycle of couriers is a neat thing, and a snow mobile can tow several Skijäger at once.

In hilly regions it also makes sense to combine ski with snow shoes.
Snow shoes also make sense in bogs; back when people were harvesting turf from bogs for heating houses, even the horses got snow shoe-like equipment. Another application for snow shoes is navigating very dense or uneven forests in winter or snowy terrain with lots of ditches.

[Pete]

Snow shoes also make sense in bogs ...
Herr Fuchs is reminding me of the errors of my feckless youth, when I was lost in a bog at Fort Wainwright, Alaska. My snowshoes got me out of it, though. It was in December of 1982.

Though I once was lost at Fort Wainwright, I found SWC and talked to Ken about METT-TC ...

[PsJÄÄK Korte]

Snowmobiles as winter motorcycle of couriers is a neat thing, and a snow mobile can tow several Skijäger at once.

In hilly regions it also makes sense to combine ski with snow shoes.
Snow shoes also make sense in bogs; back when people were harvesting turf from bogs for heating houses, even the horses got snow shoe-like equipment. Another application for snow shoes is navigating very dense or uneven forests in winter or snowy terrain with lots of ditches.

I have heard from finnish forums that if one had to choose between skis and snowshoes as combat equipmet, one would be better of with skis.
Also I don't know if we have used snow mobiles to tow people but in northern parts they use that finnish bandwagn variant to tow people.
Picture here. (http://www.military-today.com/trucks/sisu_na_110_l2.jpg)

[ganulv]

In hilly regions it also makes sense to combine ski with snow shoes.

Yes, I was curious as to what extent the Finnish military makes use of snowshoes. In the region of the U.S. where I live off track travel is impossible to accomplish at any speed without skis or snowshoes for at least three months of the year (http://www.flickr.com/photos/mtbradley/5482232833/). Skis are the faster option when possible, but given the state of the land cover (mostly thick second-growth forest) and the relief (hilly to steep, with ice beginning before 4,000 ft.) ski travel is largely relegated to trails. In the U.S. the success of the ski-borne Finns during the Winter War is relatively well known but snowshoes are never mentioned in the context of the conflict. Are they simply left out of the narrative, or is the landscape of northern Finland so open as to be widely traversable by ski?

[Fuchs]

The Russians have developed many interesting / crazy vehicles for arctic warfare over time...

http://www.battlefield.ru/en/articles/216-aerosledges.html?start=2

[Pete]

We had snow mobiles at Fort Wainwright in '82. Not lots of them, but some. We trained on both skis and snowshoes. I don't believe the snow mobiles were TO&E, perhaps MTOE.

The other thing I learned is that the personality conflicts between guys in a small Arctic tent in -20 F weather can become murderous. We had an active duty USMC ANGLICO team with us during our training there. Great guys, true professionals. With them was a Marine Lance-Corporal who was a reservist. The ANGLICO guys from Pendleton gave him so much crap at first about his rapid promotion to L-C that at first I felt sorry for him. After three days in an Arctic tent of listening to his snooty and wise-ass remarks I was ready to give the active-duty Marines my .45 and a loaded magazine.

[PsJÄÄK Korte]

the landscape of northern Finland so open as to be widely traversable by ski?
Northern Finland becomes more open after certain lattitude.
I just skimmed on finnish forum topic about skis vs snowshoes and found out following info:
Utti jaeger regiment once tested tested snow shoes, and while it was found by parajaegers of regiment.
Also it was concluded, both by parajaegers of regiment and reservist forum writers, That few are situtations in Fnland where snowshoes are better that skis.

[ganulv]

Also it was concluded, both by parajaegers of regiment and reservist forum writers, That few are situtations in Fnland where snowshoes are better that skis.

Thanks for checking up on this! I have been curious about it since moving up north and discovering that not all snow-covered terrain is suitable for cross-country skis. But when they are appropriate the user can make great time.

[PsJÄÄK Korte]

And on the other news:
Regional forces will have their old infantry bridage 80 replaced with new regional brigade/contigent/element/*suggest good english name*
Old infatry brigade had:
HQ&HQ-company
4xinfantry battalions
-4xinfantry companies
-HQ&HQ-company
-Mortar company
-anti-tank company
-service company
-forward observer and signals battery
recce company
engineering company
anti-tank company
field artillery regiment
-HQ&HQ and service-battery
-Forward observer battery
-light artillery battalion
-heavy artillery battalion
2xanti-aircraft battery
signals company
service company

New regional *good english term?*
Will have:
3-6 regional battlegoups with:
3-4 infantry companies
1 HQ&HQ-comapny
1 signals company
1 heavy mortar company
1 service company
1 engineering company
1 field artillery battalion.

New system seems atleast more flexibel while possessing more firepower (in indirect fire) than old infantry brigade.
There is no AA-battery, so I assume (hope) that headquarters company has either manpads or ZU-23-2 platoon for air defence, so battegroups wouldn't have to rely only on NSVs and corps level AA assets.
Also question is will NLAW be heaviest AT weapon or will some battelgoups be issued with TOWs or heavy recoilless cannons.

[jmm99]

It depends on the snow cover, etc. In our country (winter snowfall usually between 200-300 inches per season (http://www.johndee.com/history.htm)), both are used. Cross-country skis work best on some sort of trail - i.e., firm base.

Snowshoes come in various designs - traditionally something like these:

Alaskan Style (http://snowshoe.com/index.cfm?pageid=275&rc_hidecontent=11&productid=352#352)


Much like a large Ojibwa in general shape and function, the Alaskan's upturned toe, large surface area and sleek profile excel at covering open trail distances through any depth of snow.

http://snowshoe.com/media/products/Product_216.jpg

Fastest, but least maneuverable, snowshoe.

Ojibwa Style (http://snowshoe.com/index.cfm?pageid=178&rc_hidecontent=11&productid=302#302)


Of all the many shapes we could make, we feature and recommend the Ojibwa, with its pointed tail, highly efficient pointed toe and ''nesting'' shape. This beautiful design comes down to us from thousands of years of challenge and survival. It is strongly preferred by Canadian and US snowshoers and winter guides as the top design for beginners to start on, best for general day trips and for serious expeditions.

http://snowshoe.com/media/products/Product_211.jpg

More maneuverable than the Alaskan (but not in close quarters - sapling whips, etc. because of the sharp prow).

Huron Style (http://snowshoe.com/index.cfm?pageid=59&productid=%2311Huron#%2311Huron)


If your grandfather snowshoed, most probably it would have been on a pair of Babiche-laced (rawhide) snowshoes like these. Country Ways brings this tradition back with these 12" x 46" Huron-style “Drift Busters”. Great looking snowshoes for over the mantle, outside an entrance, or on any wooded trail! Yes, they are as reliable and quiet as ever, especially in the deep snow. Select quarter-sawn white ash is steam bent and the babiche is hand laced by our skilled craftspeople in patterns developed over many hundreds of years.

http://snowshoe.com/media/products/Product_91.jpg

My dad's choice - which I've adhered to.

Green Mt. Bearpaw (http://snowshoe.com/index.cfm?pageid=279&productid=702#702)


A fine example of the traditional and much-loved New England mountain snowshoe.These Green Mountain (or modified) bearpaws are quite oval, rounded at both ends with a slight lift to the toe. Ideal for outdoor work projects - surveying, orchard pruning, traplines, dense brush and winter campsites where you need to turn in your own length. Often used as expedition spares carried on the back of a pack. Harder walking for long distances than pointed tail snowshoes.

http://snowshoe.com/media/products/Product_218.jpg

This modification is longer than the traditional bearpaw (which is roughly 2/3 the length, but same width), which is the ultimate cedar swamp snowshoe.

A shorter form of New England bearpaw was probably used by Roger's Rangers in the "Battle of the Snowshoes (http://www.amazon.com/Battle-Snowshoes-Bob-Bearor/dp/0788406191)". That book's cover shows a TdM trooper (French Colonial Marine), a French-Canadian militiaman and an Indian auxilliary - all using Huron-style snowshoes. The First Battle (1757) involved French infantry (TDY'd to Canada) from the Languedoc Regt. (who were not snowshoe-equipped - "The French reported that they were at a disadvantage, since they were without snowshoes and floundering in snow up to their knees."), plus some French-Candadian militia and Indians. The Second Battle (1758) involved mostly Canadian Indians as auxilliaries to approx. a "platoon" (~30 men) of Colonial Marines.

At least two 1757-1758 encounters involved snowshoes - see Wikis, Battle on Snowshoes (1757) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_on_Snowshoes_(1757)), and Battle on Snowshoes (1758) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_on_Snowshoes). Roger's g-g-granddaughter found several original documents reporting on the Second Battle of the Snowshoes, 13 Mar 1758 (http://www.usgennet.org/usa/topic/colonial/rogers/snowshoes.html)).

Regards

Mike

[Pete]

When I was in the 7th ID in 1982 and went to Arctic weather training with the 1/32 Inf I thought I was getting the short end of the stick because at the same time my battalion, 1/79 FA, was sending teams to Singapore and Japan for CPXs with their national forces. However, in Alaska I learned all about snowshoes, skis, field-expedient snow caves, and wearing clothing in layers.

The knowledge has come in handy around here, where we sometimes get 24 inches of snow every now and then. I've gotten some people out of the ditch by the side of the road when there is ice and snow all over.

The one thing I wish to say is that my old units, 7th ID, Task Force Faith, 1/32 Inf, were virtually annihiliated during the run-up to the USMC's epic stand at Chosin. We took the main punch the Chinese had to offer and we died with our boots on. Were we yet another incompetent Army unit, or did we die fighting? Probably a combination of the two, if the truth must be known.

When I ran this theory in about 2004 by the late Brig. Gen. Edwin Simmons, the former chief historian of USMC, he wanted to have nothing to do with it. I knew his son during high school in Alexandria, Virginia in '69-'70. Gen. Simmons was a good man and I hope I didn't p*ss him off too much.

[kaur]

PsJÄÄK Korte, you are writing that in Finnish organisation there are Apilas and LAW. Don't you intentend to replace those systems with NLAW? You have bought already approx 2000 pieces. I suspect that this is just beginning. The efficency of NLAW compensates to some limit the quantity of Apilas/LAW in structure. Can you speculate how this weapon will be located in structure? Will it be platoon level weapon?

[PsJÄÄK Korte]

PsJÄÄK Korte, you are writing that in Finnish organisation there are Apilas and LAW. Don't you intentend to replace those systems with NLAW? You have bought already approx 2000 pieces. I suspect that this is just beginning. The efficency of NLAW compensates to some limit the quantity of Apilas/LAW in structure. Can you speculate how this weapon will be located in structure? Will it be platoon level weapon?

Nlaw will replace 95 S 58-61 (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/95_S_58-61) heavy recoilless rifles in addion to APILAS, not LAW. :D
To my knowledge there are no plans for LAW.
Also if NLAW is gradually replaces APILAS and "Blackie" on 1-on-1 rate. It will be located in this way:
Infantry platoon: one NLAW team with leader (NCO or private first class) and two gunners (private or private first class).
HQ-platoon of infantry company: NLAW squad made of two NLAW teams mentioned above. leader of one team is also squad leader.
HQ-company of regional battlegroup and type 90 jaeger battalion: platoon of three NLAW squads.
Also, because finnish terrain is so forested, TOW and SPIKE-MR squads have APILAS/NLAW team for close protection.
I hope my explanation is not confusing.

[82redleg]

-*suggest good english name*
New regional *good english term?*
Will have:
3-6 regional battlegoups with:
3-4 infantry companies
1 HQ&HQ-comapny
1 signals company
1 heavy mortar company
1 service company
1 engineering company
1 field artillery battalion.

I would call this unit a brigade in English.

Regarding your earlier post, requesting a suggestion for an English term for "forward observer officer aidman" I would suggest "Fire Support Specialist" as the US Army equivalent if I understand you correctly. English "aidman" usually has medical connotations, but I think that you mean an assistant to the forward observer officer, right?

[PsJÄÄK Korte]

I would call this unit a brigade in English.

Regarding your earlier post, requesting a suggestion for an English term for "forward observer officer aidman" I would suggest "Fire Support Specialist" as the US Army equivalent if I understand you correctly. English "aidman" usually has medical connotations, but I think that you mean an assistant to the forward observer officer, right?

Yes maybe fire support specialist is better translation. I am talking about person in fire support/forward observer team/squad whose job is to carry laser rangefinders and other similar gear and, to my understanding, help determine exact location on team and/or target for arty and mortars.

Also maybe you are right on calling it brigade.

[kaur]

PsJÄÄK Korte, thanks for quick explanation (juhannuksen aikana). This is best, that I have found so far.

Is this NLAW team on picture? Do they have only 1 NLAW shot per team? Sounds unbelivable. ... or weapon is so good :)

http://s1.postimage.org/31kxljj2c/Soome_NLAW_lasud.jpg (http://postimage.org/image/31kxljj2c/)

[ganulv]

Is this NLAW team on picture? Do they have only 1 NLAW shot per team? Sounds unbelivable. ... or weapon is so good :)

http://s1.postimage.org/31kxljj2c/Soome_NLAW_lasud.jpg (http://postimage.org/image/31kxljj2c/)

The NLAW is disposable, right? So I guess the photo shows one NLAW and three M72s. Is that the normal make-up of a team?

[82redleg]

Yes maybe fire support specialist is better translation. I am talking about person in fire support/forward observer team/squad whose job is to carry laser rangefinders and other similar gear and, to my understanding, help determine exact location on team and/or target for arty and mortars.

A US Army infantry/armor/cavalry company/troop gets a 4-man team for observation/fire support coordination- a LT Fire Support Officer, a SSG (E6) Fire Support NCO, a SPC (E4) Fire Support Specialist and a PFC (E3) RadioTelephone Operator (who is also MOS 13F- Fire Support, not communications).

In addition, rifle platoons (and the cavalry platoons in the Infantry BCT) get a forward observer party consisting of a SGT (E5) Forward Observer and a PFC (E3) RadioTelephone Operator (who is also MOS 13F- Fire Support, not communications).

Other platoons (tank platoons, cavalry platoons except where noted, and anti-armor/weapons platoons).

The US Army used to, and the USMC still does, refer to the artillery officer (LT) in the company as the forward observer. AFAIK, that changed in the mid-70s with the introduction of the Fire Support Team (FiST) concept, and the LT became known first as the FiST Chief and then the Fire Support Officer (FSO). I don't know exactly when the FiST Chief changed to FSO, but it was before I became FA in 1997, although my early BN CDRs were FiST Chiefs in the early-mid 80s.


Also maybe you are right on calling it brigade.

When in doubt, doctrine is always a good place to start. FM 1-02 defines brigade as "(DOD) A unit usually smaller than a division to which are attached groups and/or battalions and smaller units tailored to meet anticipated requirements. (Army) A unit consisting of two or more battalions and a headquarters." Dictionary.com has "a military unit having its own headquarters and consisting of two or more regiments, squadrons, groups, or battalions."

Based on these, and your unit descriptions, I would use the BDE symbol if I were drawing this unit on an overlay, but that's just an opinion, and you can take it for what you paid for it.

[Fuchs]

The latter definition does not draw a line between brigade and regiment, though. Brigades tend to be combined arms, whereas regiments tend to be one-branch formations.


Infantry should be highly agile, a 2 km cross-country run with equipment should be possible at almost any time (I certainly would need two months of exercise till I reached that fitness level).
Not the least for this requirement, I dislike the idea that infantry teams always need to have heavy AT munitions.
I'd rather prefer to have multiple TO&E per team; and a Plt base / cache / carrier vehicle with the temporarily unnecessary equipment.

[82redleg]

The latter definition does not draw a line between brigade and regiment, though. Brigades tend to be combined arms, whereas regiments tend to be one-branch formations.

Traditional US Army usage (I don't have the definitions handy) was that a Regiment was a fixed organization of (predominantly) a single arm/branch, while a Brigade was an unfixed organization combining multiple arms/branches, but that wasn't always true, since a square division in WW1 had 2 brigades of 2 regiments. It is also not true in the current organizations, since each of the three BCTs have a fixed organization. The Multifunctional and functional support brigades have an unfixed organization, but at least the functional support brigades are predominantly of one arm.

It also depends on the size of your regiment, since some nations' regiments are only battalion sized.

[PsJÄÄK Korte]

The NLAW is disposable, right? So I guess the photo shows one NLAW and three M72s. Is that the normal make-up of a team?

As you can see from picture, it is from exercise with advanced MILES. They propably have one NLAW simulator because number simulators, which can simulate other forms of damage than rifles, Finland has is low. There are barely enough for one exercise between two peace time brigades. So every advanced MILES gear is rotated between peace time brigades, althought every infatry battalion has their older MILES gear of their own, used to practice squad and platoon combat, while advanced MILES is reserved for company, battalion and battlegroup/brigade exercises. For example, in our exercises APILAS-team I was part of usually had one APILAS simulator. And in our "Final War" we had to use older MILES, so only way to simulate APILAS fire was to have referee with "referee gun" follow us everywhere.

In war that team would be given anywhere between 2-9 NLAW, depending on wether it is in more "peaceful" location or wether it is part of force sent to blunt attack of tank brigade.

[PsJÄÄK Korte]

A US Army infantry/armor/cavalry company/troop gets a 4-man team for observation/fire support coordination- a LT Fire Support Officer, a SSG (E6) Fire Support NCO, a SPC (E4) Fire Support Specialist and a PFC (E3) RadioTelephone Operator (who is also MOS 13F- Fire Support, not communications)...



Infantry and armoured infatry companies have fire support officer (senior lieutenant or captain) and, depending wether they are armoured infatry company, type 05 jaeger comapany, type 90 jaeger company or type 80 infantry company, either company level fire support platoon with 3-4 fire support squads or each platoon has organic fire support team. Difference between fire support squad and team is that squad has two RTOs and team has one. Reason why squad has two RTOs is that one of RTOs have radio for communicating with firing positions while second carries telephone cable for company network

[PsJÄÄK Korte]

Btw. Reason why I was uncertain for translation for that new formation because in finnish word prikaati means brigade, but that new unit's name in finnish paikallinen taisteluosasto which component words mean, if translated directly
paikallinen=regional, territorial
taistelu=combat, battle
ryhmä=group, team, squad, section, plus many more translations which have nothing to do with military.

[ganulv]

new unit's name in finnish paikallinen taisteluosasto which component words mean, if translated directly
paikallinen=regional, territorial
taistelu=combat, battle
ryhmä=group, team, squad, section, plus many more translations which have nothing to do with military.

Maybe it is similar to the ‘territorial battalion (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBYQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.army.forces.gc.ca%2Fcaj%2Fdoc uments%2Fvol_11%2Fiss_2%2FCAJ_Vol11.2_08_e.pdf&rct=j&q=TERRITORIAL%20BATTALIONS%3A%20CAN%20THEY%20WORK% 3F&ei=kyoGTtzfD9L0gAfU5pDsDQ&usg=AFQjCNHz_2x6VvG_7-bQC6SkLdKfsvNocQ&sig2=VKnWZLCN1Kvqpgj1famR6A&cad=rja)’ of the CF (http://www.vcds.forces.gc.ca/sites/page-eng.asp?page=7446)?

[BushrangerCZ]

The latter definition does not draw a line between brigade and regiment, though. Brigades tend to be combined arms, whereas regiments tend to be one-branch formations.


Infantry should be highly agile, a 2 km cross-country run with equipment should be possible at almost any time (I certainly would need two months of exercise till I reached that fitness level).
Not the least for this requirement, I dislike the idea that infantry teams always need to have heavy AT munitions.
I'd rather prefer to have multiple TO&E per team; and a Plt base / cache / carrier vehicle with the temporarily unnecessary equipment.

I dare to say that right now there is no NATO infantry unit able to do it as a team in equipment they are required to carry on when outside the wire. It´s beating the same dead horse as we do for some years already.

[Fuchs]

Well, I'm not talking about a patrol, but about tactical (area) defence.

[PsJÄÄK Korte]

Maybe it is similar to the ‘territorial battalion (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBYQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.army.forces.gc.ca%2Fcaj%2Fdoc uments%2Fvol_11%2Fiss_2%2FCAJ_Vol11.2_08_e.pdf&rct=j&q=TERRITORIAL%20BATTALIONS%3A%20CAN%20THEY%20WORK% 3F&ei=kyoGTtzfD9L0gAfU5pDsDQ&usg=AFQjCNHz_2x6VvG_7-bQC6SkLdKfsvNocQ&sig2=VKnWZLCN1Kvqpgj1famR6A&cad=rja)’ of the CF (http://www.vcds.forces.gc.ca/sites/page-eng.asp?page=7446)?

These new units are similar in way that they have certain area which they have do defend in war, but they have no peace time functions. They are basicly restructuring of old territorial brigades for something more suitable for modern times.
We have
These (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_Defence_troops_%28Finland%29) as our reserve units with peace time duties of assistance of civil authorities.

[PsJÄÄK Korte]

Greetings.
I was making armed forces for my nation in game "Nation States" and had a though.
Even though grenade launchers are usually used team/squad/platoon(?) level, I thought would it make sense to use them to create "grenadier" platoons for battalion HQ-company or weapons company?
For example something like this:
grendier platoon:
platoon HQ (PL, 2iC, RTO, medic)
3xgrenadier squad with
squad leader
-2xgrenadier section(team leader, 2xgunner (rifle with M203, Milkor MGL etc), 2xassistant gunner/ammunition bearer)
Is this completely stupid idea or invented already.
Thanks in advance.
Korte

[Fuchs]

There's a tendency to distribute man-portable weapons into the small manoeuvre units and to keep the crew-served weapons pooled at a higher level (with tripod machine guns being the water shed that moved into platoons after WW1).

A battalion fire support unit would thus use mortars or crew-served anti-tank weapons rather than a 7 kg MGL.

An exception are snipers which should be in a Bn Sniper Plt, but their employment is very distinct from the normal infantry employment (thus sharpshooters within the infantry).

[PsJÄÄK Korte]

A battalion fire support unit would thus use mortars or crew-served anti-tank weapons rather than a 7 kg MGL.
.
I forgot to add that it would be (possibly) in addition to mortars, crew-served anti-tank weapons and what have you at battalion level.
I am not also sure who in infantry squad would be equipped with it... ...unless I change assistant automatic rifleman to grenadier.
(Squad I came up was sort of horrible chimera of US army infantry squad, finnish infantry squad and german jaeger squad(?) and my additions. At the moment it is squad leader, designated marksman and two fireteams with team leader, automatic rifleman, assistant automatic rifleman and two anti-tank gunners with either M72 or AT-4CS)

[Firn]

I forgot to add that it would be (possibly) in addition to mortars, crew-served anti-tank weapons and what have you at battalion level.
I am not also sure who in infantry squad would be equipped with it... ...unless I change assistant automatic rifleman to grenadier.
(Squad I came up was sort of horrible chimera of US army infantry squad, finnish infantry squad and german jaeger squad(?) and my additions. At the moment it is squad leader, designated marksman and two fireteams with team leader, automatic rifleman, assistant automatic rifleman and two anti-tank gunners with either M72 or AT-4CS)

As Fuchs said, having a grenadier platoon at the battalion would a bit of an oddity. The key question is the overall utility compared for example to (additional) pioneers or personal/assets for the heavy weapon company/platoon, especially for the mortars.

METT-TC is of course once again key, for example in a high-intensity conflict against an enemy using combined arms additional light/heavy AT capability could be far more important. In very difficult terrain, the number of hands per heavy MG or mortar will have to be increased to support them and heavy casualities in the rifle platoons could make it necessary to fill them up again.

To fully exploit an MGL you might need an assistant gunner which carries additional rounds, as the gunner will have already to carry at least the heavy MGL, possibly in addition to a carabine.

While I have no idea how a weapon like the M25 is performing in combat, but it might be, METT-TC permitting, worthwile to incorporate it into the heavy weapon squad of the platoon. Having supposedly good range and a neat thermal sight it might offer good target detection, fire support and target designation, marking accurately targets for the MGs, mortars and heavier assets. This third role doesn't even require complicate time-fuzing. ;)

[JMA]

METT-TC is of course once again key, for example...

Yes this is true. I wonder though if there have been any significant changes in what is carried at section/squad, platoon and company levels (and how they are employed) due to METT-TC in either Iraq or Afghanistan.

[JMA]

Responding to a post from FUCHS containing: "Infantry should be highly agile, a 2 km cross-country run with equipment should be possible at almost any time "


I dare to say that right now there is no NATO infantry unit able to do it as a team in equipment they are required to carry on when outside the wire. It´s beating the same dead horse as we do for some years already.

There are assumptions a commander makes when deploying troops and one is the ability to get to where they are required to be with all their fighting kit over various types of terrain and distances.

I wonder if the now weight restricted movement of dismounted infantry is being factored in at Command & Staff Colleges and during other officer training? It seems it is impossible to expect the Michelin Man to conduct even a 10km approach march overnight and be ready to fight from first light.

This would lead to changes in the definition of "full kit" as required for the 2km fitness test FUCHS mentioned.

Would it be naive to assume that as wearing body-armour is now seemingly a non negotiable that it is now worn throughout basic training for recruits and during all field training (including range work) for trained soldiers?

[Fuchs]

Wearing flak vests during all outdoor training was common in Germany in the 90's, but full body armour incl plates? There are training plates that don't break, but it still makes no sense to burden recruits with 'em. Recruits need to build muscle and bone strength first.


I personally don't think that hard plate level IV body armour should be non-negotiable at all. It's a passive protection response to the specific threat spectrum of small wars and occupations.
Inter-state wars include a much much higher fragmentation threat and OPFOR does punish immobile opponents much more as well.
Both points towards a need for a full body fragmentation protection suit (http://defense-and-freedom.blogspot.com/2009/11/body-armour-update.html).

Likewise, the optimal APC for a large conventional war would probably not exceed the protection levels known from Cold war APCs (when APCs weren't optimised against a specific single threat).

[BushrangerCZ]

Responding to a post from FUCHS containing: "Infantry should be highly agile, a 2 km cross-country run with equipment should be possible at almost any time "



There are assumptions a commander makes when deploying troops and one is the ability to get to where they are required to be with all their fighting kit over various types of terrain and distances.

I wonder if the now weight restricted movement of dismounted infantry is being factored in at Command & Staff Colleges and during other officer training? It seems it is impossible to expect the Michelin Man to conduct even a 10km approach march overnight and be ready to fight from first light.

This would lead to changes in the definition of "full kit" as required for the 2km fitness test FUCHS mentioned.

Would it be naive to assume that as wearing body-armour is now seemingly a non negotiable that it is now worn throughout basic training for recruits and during all field training (including range work) for trained soldiers?

As far as I experienced, body armour is not worn during basic training (not enough plates and carriers), but it is commonly worn during training in regiments.

[Fuchs]

I attempted to draw a kind of genealogy of infantry tactics. It's least impossible for defensive tactics thanks to the relatively greater degree of order.

Too bad my output was utterly Germany-centric. Do you guy have anything to add?


Leading infantry defence concepts

late 19th century till 1914:
single shoulder-to-shoulder line in simple trench

1915:
interlocking machine gun fire with elaborate trenches, rifle fire is secondary

1916-1918:
forward trenches weak, if possible two better-manned rear trenches in up to several kilometres depth (out of range of most hostile field artillery)

1920's:
elastic defence with weak VRV (FLOT), strong HKL (main line of resistance) at up to 10 km depth, some concerns about use of terrain and mines for AT purposes

1939/1940:
Finnish motti tactics and first huge use of ski troops

1941:
hedgehog defence (company strongpoints) on overstretched front-line (due to inability to man it in depth), if possible one continuous patrol trench at VRV (FLOT), dependence on indirect fire support for domination of gaps between strongpoints

early 1950's (1st German Heer structure):
network of platoon strongpoints and squad or fire team resistance nests in between

early 1960's (2nd or 3rd German Heer structure):
network of platoon strongpoints

1960's: U.S. heliborne infantry
extreme mobility in permissive AD environment, but nothing special once on the ground

around 1970: U.S. LRRP
infantry as mobile forward observers / scouts in an environment with huge "blue" excess firepower (offence and defence difficult to separate)

1968 till 1989 Austrian "Raumverteidigung" by infantry militia
defence of key locations to slow down passage of invaders
(Swiss were similar, only that they considered much of their country as key location and emphasised fortifications more)

1970's German (later also Austrian) Jagdkampf
(similar terminology to offensive WW2 counter guerilla patrols, but different concepts) with reinforced platoon-sized Jagdkommandos as forward or even infiltrated skirmishers

~1980: theory: guerilla-like Jäger (Franz Uhle-Wettler's concept)
elusive infantry does not hold terrain, but persist as threat in a designated area of operations. High degree of autonomy, extreme tooth:tail ratio in favour of teeth

~1980's theory: Simpkin's network of Uhle-Wettler's concept
expansion in depth of the concept in order to make entire regions threatened (Uhle-Wettler was more concerned about how easily difficult terrain can be exploited for flanking movements if not guarded, see Ardennes 1940)

sometime 1990's: distributed operations
(this concept of dispersed infantry small units morphed over time into a mere buzzword)

[kaur]

Fuchs, one comment. Iif you mention Finns with skis, then you should mention also first wide scale use of bicycle troops. Germans? Most famous Finns were long range recce troops. Today their mission is called deep operations. During WWII British SAS had same mission, but they used jeeps instead of skis :) You just have to make compromise between your signature on terrain and mode of transport. Today you should also mention wide use of ATV's where climate favours this. In winter conditions you use snowmobile. Like Finns do.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=51d3s9FevyY

[Fuchs]

More important in winter than means of transport is logistics. You better always have a heated hut and better not operate far away from such necessities.


Military bicycles appeared in army exercises in the late 19th century, especially folding bikes are quite well-documented (as if carrying a 25+ kg bike on the back was somehow an advantage). It's difficult to pin down the first wide-spread use to me, and it surely wasn't a primarily defensive tactic in German use.
Germans used bicycle troops mostly as cheap cavalry and motorcycle infantry substitute, for example in the battalion plus-sized reconnaissance detachments.

[ganulv]

I’ll beat Ken to the METT-TC punch here. Any Inuit hunter knows the trade-off between snowmobiles and dog teams. Snowmobiles are always better, except when they break down or run out of gas. Then sleeping with them won’t keep you warm and they the parts can’t be used as emergency rations.

My guess is that those Finns don’t go out with on those snowmobiles without skis as part of their survival gear to this day. Also to give them an option of moving without being heard from miles away (snowmobiles are one of the most goddamn noisy things per unit of weight in the world).


More important in winter than means of transport is logistics. You better always have a heated hut and better not operate far away from such necessities.

You can do without in a pinch. Speaking from experience, a snowcave (http://www.fsavalanche.org/Default.aspx?ContentId=26&LinkId=31&ParentLinkId=3) might not keep you warm but it will keep you alive.

[Fuchs]

Speaking from experience, a snowcave (http://www.fsavalanche.org/Default.aspx?ContentId=26&LinkId=31&ParentLinkId=3) might not keep you warm but it will keep you alive.

That's not good enough if you face a tenfold numerical superiority of Russians.

[ganulv]

That's not good enough if you face a tenfold numerical superiority of Russians.

You can only hunker down so many nights in a row, sure, but someone who knows what they are doing and who went out with the right kit and provisions should be just fine for two or three nights. I don’t know a ton about the Winter or Continuation wars (I’ve tried on and off to find stuff as it is of interest to me but it’s not clear to me that there is that much on it in English) but my understanding is that fieldcraft did play a role.

[jmm99]

Where to bury the tenfold number of Russians.

Regards

Mike

[kaur]

If i do understand Finnish solution right, then they are trying to solve the longe range firepower/teeth problem (that once was done by longe range recce skiers) and tenfold Russians with this kind of moves.

http://www.dsca.mil/PressReleases/36-b/2012/Finland_12-25.pdf

... and Russians understand this point well if you can read comments here in Russian :)

http://bmpd.livejournal.com/252280.html

Snowmobiles are within aroured formations that screen the noise :)

It's all about Ken's METT-TC of course.

PS you can't ignore also this point, than can compensate some comfort deprivation.

http://www.hs.fi/english/article/Finland+-+a+leading+consumer+of+heroin+from+the+1930s+to+th e+1950s/1135245022270

[davidbfpo]

Kaur,

What a find, that last link! Just one example:
During the Winter War a ridiculous amount of drugs came to Finland. By the end of 1940, 1,511 kg. of opium alone was delivered to the military pharmacy in Helsinki. It was supplied mainly by the American Red Cross and the Swedish state.

[ganulv]

Kaur,

What a find, that last link!

I’ve seen passing mention of amphetamine use in the Wehrmacht, as well. Perhaps someone should start a “Combat and the use of performance enhancing substances” thread. I understand why it hasn’t happened, but some frank public discussion of steroid use amongst contemporary military personnel might not be a bad thing.

[Kiwigrunt]

I came across these links while browsing another forum.

An old document (http://www.forgottenweapons.com/wp-content/uploads/manuals/EM1manual.pdf) on the .280 Enfield.

And this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yUj-uFf6YBs) clip on the FN FAL, just for kaks and giggles. I think that JMA may be the narrator.:p

[ganulv]

Snowshoes come in various designs

I am dipping my toes into freelance writing and just got a piece up in Snowshoe Magazine on this topic. Thought I might as well advertise. :)
-------
The Morphology of Snowshoes (http://www.snowshoemag.com/2012/11/25/the-morphology-of-snowshoes/) | Snowshoe Magazine (http://www.snowshoemag.com/)

Expect for those which are either solid-bodied (such as those made from a single plank of wood or from injection molded plastic) or emergency devices made from bundled boughs, snowshoes include a one or two piece frame within and upon which additional components are attached. The frame shape as seen from above tends to be the most distinctive identifying feature for raquettes. […]

[Fuchs]

I'm still confused there's such a thing as a Snowshoe magazine.

Still, after having a glance at the article I cannot but wonder if the Russian wicker overshoes of days gone by wouldn't qualify as snowshoes as well, being meant for harsh winter (inevitably deep snow) and increasing the footprint a lot.

Not sure about details, but they might have been variations of the lapti.

[jmm99]

1757 Battle on Snowshoes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_on_Snowshoes_(1757)) ("The French in their reports claimed the British had a distinct advantage due to their snowshoes") and 1758 Battle on Snowshoes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_on_Snowshoes) ("The battle was given its name because the British combatants were wearing snowshoes");

but Bob Beavor's book (http://www.amazon.com/The-Battle-Snowshoes-Bob-Bearor/dp/0788406191) shows what looks like a French colonial soldat, a Canadian militiaman and an Indian warrior - on snowshoes (Hurons / Michigans, to my eye).

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/513JE6CKGFL._SS500_.jpg

So, the question is whether at least some of the French-side combatants wore snowshoes.

Just addressing the 1757 battle, I can see the regulars from the Languedoc regiment not having snowshoes. However, Langlade (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Michel_de_Langlade) and his Ottawas not having snowshoes in January - not likely.

Does anyone know the material facts ?

Regards

Mike

[ganulv]

I'm still confused there's such a thing as a Snowshoe magazine.

There is a magazine of everything on the Internet. Also, Rule 34 (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RuleThirtyFour).


Still, after having a glance at the article I cannot but wonder if the Russian wicker overshoes of days gone by wouldn't qualify as snowshoes as well, being meant for harsh winter (inevitably deep snow) and increasing the footprint a lot.

There is also the waraji in Japan which is sometimes used in the winter by climbers (well, trekkers, at least). Snowshoes in the North American sense typically combine traction and flotation. The lapti and waraji are essentially traction devices when used in ice and snow. As far as I know, prior to the Atlantic exchange (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_World) Europeans had skis only for flotation and the native peoples of North America had snowshoes only for the same (I do not know about Japan). The going theory relates this to differences in groundcover. The forested areas of North America were not welcoming to skis, though the longer types of snowshoes glissade pretty well.


http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_Tyynk8akO3I/S8w0sGU6rqI/AAAAAAAAAB0/edYxfUyikwU/s1600/Waraji.jpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waraji)

[ganulv]

So, the question is whether at least some of the French-side combatants wore snowshoes.

Just addressing the 1757 battle, I can see the regulars from the Languedoc regiment not having snowshoes. However, Langlade (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Michel_de_Langlade) and his Ottawas not having snowshoes in January - not likely.

Does anyone know the material facts ?

I don't know for sure, but that one has puzzled me, too. The two options I have come up with are that: 1) the AAR was doctored and 2) everyone on the French side of things removed their snowshoes in the course of setting up the ambush because of how much they added to their profiles. Their powder was wet and if the lampwick or whatever they were using for their bindings was, too, it would have frozen up while they lie in wait and they would not have been able to refasten it. In any case, refastening the bindings under fire doesn't seem very feasible to me, anyway.


http://www.bensbackwoods.com/catalog/2ec1_1_315_1.JPG (http://www.inquiry.net/outdoor/winter/gear/snowshoes/bindings.htm)

[jmm99]

French after action reports, written by regulars, tended to mention only the regulars - and noted Canadian militia and Indian allies only in passing. E.g., snips from an English translation of Contrecoeur's report of Braddock's Defeat (http://www.shsu.edu/~his_ncp/FrenBrad.html):


... on the 9th of the month he sent Monsieur de Beaujeu against the enemy and gave him for second in command Monsieurs Dumas and de Lignery, all three of them being captains, with four lieutenants, six ensigns, 20 cadets, 100 soldiers, 100 Canadians, and 600 savages, with orders to hide themselves in a favorable place that had previously been reconnoitred. The detachment found itself in the presence of the enemy at three leagues from the fort before being able to gain its appointed post. Monsieur de Beaujeu seeing that his ambuscade had failed, began a direct attack. He did this with so much energy that the enemy, who awaited us in the best order in the world, seemed astounded at the assault. Their artillery, however, promptly commenced to fire and our forces were confused in their turn. The savages also, frightened by the noise of the cannon rather than their execution, commenced to lose ground. Monsieur de Beaujeu was killed, and Monsieur Dumas rallied our forces. He ordered his officers to lead the savages and spread out on both wings, so as to take the enemy in flank. At the same time he, Monsieur de Lignery, and the other officers who were at the head of the French attacked in front. This order was executed so promptly that the enemy, who were already raising cries of victory, were no longer able even to defend themselves.
...
The enemies have lost more than a thousand men on the field of battle; they have lost a great part of their artillery and provisions, also their general, named Monsieur Braddock, and almost all their officers. We had three officers killed and two wounded, two cadets wounded. This remarkable success, which scarcely seemed possible in view of the inequality of the forces, is the fruit of the experience of Monsieur Dumas and of the activity and valor of the officers that he had under his orders.

Langlade (pretty decent bio here (http://www.uwgb.edu/wisfrench/library/articles/langlade/)) was there (as a commissioned ensign in the Colonial Marines in 1755), but without mention in Contrecoeur's report. Langlade received a better press from the British !

http://www.uwgb.edu/wisfrench/library/articles/langlade/main.jpg


Edward Willard Deming's well-known oil painting, "Braddock's Defeat" (left) shows Langlade (far left) commanding Wisconsin and Michigan tribes in July 1755.

Regards

Mike

[Firn]

The Ciaspolada (http://www.ciaspolada.it/) has become a rather big event. Ciaspole is a regional Italian/Raetoroman word for snow shoes.