Agreed, the fact that we are historically pathetic at
fire discipline (among other things...) is not due to the American psyche, it's due to poor training. The troops have always been more capable than they're allowed to be. These kids today are particularly good and deserve better, they'll do what they're trained to do.
The abysmally stupid Standards based training and the equivalent ARTEP were both disasters. The current too tentative switch to outcome based training needs to be accelerated and adopted Army wide ASAP.
Not quite what I said but close.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Sabre
So, let me make sure that I have this straight: the big problems with having MG's down in the platoons is that the platoon-level leaders don't have the experience to handle them, there is no depth of experience among the machine-gunner crews (no slots in the TOE for machinegun NCO's), and there are many tactical situations where the Company CO needs 3 or 4 guns to shoot the rest of the company onto the obj.
The major issues are that the GPMG is a tad tempermental mechanically and people who handle it exclusively do a better job than those to whom it is part time effort, it's too heavy to function well in an Infantry platoon, it complicates ammo resupply and that added firepower is only rarely needed at that level.
Quote:
*If* I were in charge, the company commander would have a heavy weapons group of say, 3 GPMG's (heck, you can even say they are in the "sustained fire role") and 3 60mm Mortars. Each platoon still gets their 2 or 3 MGs. Thus a support by fire position could have the 3 company GPMGs, plus a rifle platoon with 2 or 3 more, for a total of 5 or 6.
Only Ranger platoons have three guns; whether one has two or three, the issues at platoon level remain. I'd also note that your solution would significantly increase ammo usage which is far from an unalloyed good thing.
Quote:
...and if our infantry platoon leaders don't know how to employ belt-fed MGs, then we had better'd teach them, because they are about one sniper's bullet away from company command.
That's not the issue, knowing how to employ them is easy, it's the actual employment that is the issue. * The Platoon leader isn't the problem, the weapons squad leader and the vagaries of reassignment within the platoon are a part of the problem, finicky belt feds, massed fires, ammo resupply and coherent training are some other parts. It is easier to train a MG platoon to use their guns effectively en masse and to farm the Squads to rifle platoons as needed than it is to centralize fragmented and not trained together squads when that is required -- and in a high intensity conflict that will be the norm. At the risk of cycling Gian here, let me point out that we HAVE to organize and train to do high intensity combat, we can always scale down to do the easier COIN stuff when it's required.
I'd also suggest that the use of automatic weapons fire in the suppressive mode in urban COIN situations is not always advisable.
Quote:
Oh, and on the last note, I have been quite disappointed to see how the "great rifle caliber debate" has panned out. The competition between 6.8 and 6.5 only served to stall the process long enough for the "5.56 is good enough" idea to find a voice...We pay top dollar for this stuff - we can do a little better than just "OK"?
No argument from me -- I voted against the 5.56 over 44 years ago. You need to talk to PM Soldier and BG R. Mark Brown.
P.S.
When you talk to Brown, don't forget to tell him you're fully aware that we forced the 5.56 on a reluctant NATO and then signed a STANAG saying we'd stick with it, that we've sold a lot of weapons and ammo worldwide, that you know how many millions of rounds are in Depots in Europe, Okinawa and Korea as well as on the PrePo ships at Diego Garcia, Guam and elsewhere and that you fully understand the costs involved in a switch as well as the length of time and the training penalty it would take to do that.
P.P.S
* Our training of new entries, officer and enlisted is better than it's ever been but it still isn't good enough. However, as I said, employment is the problem. Next time you see a platoon running a live fire, try this; listen to the two guns, do they fire alternately; does one pick up the rate of fire while the other reloads, all automatically and without command? Then, ask them to place their beaten zone on a reverse slope as you would have to do if attacking a defender who used a reverse slope defense. After that, ask them to do a set up for night final protective fires. If they can do all that, you have just seen an unusually good Weapons Squad leader's product...
You're welcome. Same place, ten years
earlier. ;)
I don't guess I should even mention a Clinometer (LINK) should I? :D
Well, there's at least three of us...
May be a few more out there... :wry:
Armies better after a war for a while?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
William F. Owen
I concur. I am even moved to say that the best modern Army that ever existed, was the British Army of 1918-28. It could war fight and do pretty good COIN as well.
Wilf makes a good point and so moved to a new thread under History and called Armies decline after winning a war?
I have read about The Hundred Days campaign in 1918, by the Allied armies on the Western Front (including Australia, British, Canadian, French, Belgian and American). Plus a few wars afterwards, not always succesful e.g. Russain Civil War intervention and not to overlook a war with Afghanistan (The Third Afghan War).
What is interesting is why this prowess disappears. Personnel changes I'd expect to be the key and declining political understanding of waging war second. Logistically, war stocks will have run down and new supplies are required.
davidbfpo
Time marches on and HRC just gets dumber and dumber...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Sabre
Well, I would argue that instituting a specialty for machine-gunners (a la the USMC 0331, and for some reason I recall that the Army did have one, eons ago - my memory is no longer to 10/20 standards), and having NCOs in that specialty within the rifle company MTOE would do more to ensure a high level of training for gun crews than just grouping them at company level and not having a specialty, or specialist NCOs (I can recall 1SGs that would swap people around just as much between platoons as the PSGs did within platoons). Given the sheer number of MOS in the Army, I can't imagine that one more would destroy the system.
The Machine Gunner MOS left in 1954 to become just another 11B. Now they've foolishly done away with the 11M and said Bradley riders are 11Bs. They aren't, totally different mentality. Agree the MOS would help but disagree that a MG platoon would not be an added improvement.
Yes, idiot 1SGs used to do stuff like that, fortunately most of 'em are now gone.
Quote:
Machineguns "talking" to each other, and setting up for an FPL, that I saw, but I recall that knowledge about the beaten zone and indirect fire for an MG often didn't make it out of the FM.
Heh. I rest my case; really competent people not only train to but actually use every trick in the book because for them, it's easy and second nature. OTOH, the barely competent get by with the minimum they have to learn, do and teach...
The weapons Squad in a Rifle Platoon will rarely if ever take time to train separately and will not have time to get into the finer details of the art of machine gunnery *; a MG Platoon will because that's the reason it exists. That simple.
Ala my Brad / 11M comment above, obviously with repect to a MG Platoon we're talking only walking infantry; it's not appropriate for a Stryker or Mech platoon, they can put 'em where ever they wish.
Quote:
No argument about the absolute NECESSITY to continue to train for high-intensity combat. Given the budgets for the relevant parts of PEO Soldier/Natick, PEO Ammo, et al., compared to other programs in the military, it makes one wonder if the infantryman is the most important weapons system...
Getting better all the time, still needs to be carried further but it's a whole lot better than it was 30-40 years or even seven years ago.
* Unless they happen to have a really super Weapons Squad Leader or PSG. Not just good ones, super ones. Not too many of them around so better to design the system to cope with what the pipeline provides...
Worked in the Corps for a great many years.
Used to work in the Army...
It's not a problem; with a MG Platoon, 1st Sqd generally goes with 1st Platoon, 2d with the 2d, etc. if it's decided to put the guns with Platoons, thus there is a habitual working relationship (though one could obviously put four or even all six guns with one Platoon if that seemed necessary) -- just as there is with Corpsmen / Medics. That's a simple METT-TC decision. My personal preference would be to avoid that unless it was really necessary; in Viet Nam it got to be done habitually even though it didn't do anything but add mostly noise and ammo problems to Marine rifle Platoons, smart Co Cdrs didn't do it unless there was a need. As to OpTempo impinging, it obviously does sometimes impact the organizational sanctity of the MG Platoon but that's quickly counterbalanced when the Platoon reassembles.
The major benefit of a MG Platoon as opposed to the Army system of two guns per Weapons Squad is in training and competence of the gunners and crews and thus overall capability to get the full benefit of the weapon. either way obviously works; just in my experience and I've been in both types at one time or another and have employed both, the MG Platoon produces a far better product.
Ugh. Please. Avoid foul langwitch...
Shovels? DIGGING? Yeck... :D
Fieldcraft, Fieldcraft, Fieldcraft, Anyone seen Fieldcraft?
How many remember that shaving a chunk of bark off a tree makes a great aimimg stake? What about the good ole' notched log? Amazing in an urban environment what you can do with a little chalk or chemlight juice in a bottle. The key here is imagination that makes tactical sense day and night. One of the best FMs I use to this day is an old one FM 21-75 Combat Skills of the Soldier, 1984, they don't make em' like this anymore. I seem to remember some where along the way adding an additional guide rod spring to the M60 gave you a far better rate of fire for those times when you needed it most. Just to add I LOVE THE M60 you can keep the M240 give me back my PIG!!!!!
Many have done posts in regards to MG courses, unfortunately as usual in the Army many who instruct only know what is written in the POI. As nature of the beast most are there hiding out, riding out their time. Until the Army looks at this and makes the school house a choice assignment and gives instructors flexibility, the ones who need to be there teaching will stay as far away from TDA asignments as possible (including me). Many of us do not want to get stuck into the system where it takes your full three years to change it and by then it is out dated. I'm sorry but IMO everything weapons related should be a big part of basic training for every soldier. The fine tunning comes when you get to your unit. Today's soldiers will continue to decline in basic and advanced individual skills as the years progress due to OUR (I'll claim responsibility as well) to not call " a turd a turd", (I call em' just can't get rid of them). As soon as we stop advancing people up the rank structure just because they have stuck it out long enough the sooner we will get back on track, and then you have the "Well it is an E-6 position, but we don't have any then let's just make one to fill position thought as well." Bottom line we are killing ourselves.
Sorry kinda went on a tangent one of those days dealing with exactly the above. Now back to topic. Another unfortunate problem is the way we man the guns. Ammo bearers least experienced, they move up to become the gunner, and the gunner moves up to be the AG. Flat out the AG needs to be the most experienced guy. He controls the gunner!!!! A good AG can make any gunner excell. At one point in my career back around 97-98 I was a part of a once in a lifetime occurance. Myself and another E-5 in weapons squad as AGs with good E-4 gunners......squad leader only had to sit around and drink coffee. Lasted about 6 months but was a dream squad, the way it should be.
I'll end this with an example of inexperienced gun teams. A few years back while in an O/C role for our sister battalion conducting platoon live fires. We had to evac an AG and gunner because the gunner shot a tree in half in front of him that fell back on him and his gunner. Come to find out neither had been in weapons squad before and only had qualified with the gun. I went straight for the squad leader, not joe's fault when he hasn't been trained!!!!