Infantry Unit Tactics, Tasks, Weapons, and Organization
Rex Brynen on the Platoon Weapons Thread made the eminently sensible observation that when we are looking at Squad, Section, and Platoon roles, weapons, and compositions, we should be considering the larger tactical circumstances in which they are operating. Here are Rex's proposals:
http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/...1&postcount=32
Ken is the past imperfect tense...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Norfolk
Ken would be the perfect man to tell us about this; he bin' there, he dun it, and he'd probably have written the book about, but writing may not have been invented yet back then...;)
Was too. Wore out many a chisel on the stone tablets...
Quote:
I think the Army tried something somewhat similar (but in separate Batteries, not Platoons/Troops in each Battery) with the
Pentomic Division. Didn't work out real well.
Yep, each Battle Group, 4 or 5 BIG rifle Companies, a Hq Co and a Mortar Battery, manned by Artllery people. Said Artillerists HATED it and thought mortars beneath them. It worked okay tactically and they still had the DS 105 Bns in the DivArty. Biggest problem was that the human factors, specifically, full Colonels commanding only 12-1,500 troops instead of a 3K man Regiment or Brigade (that was beneath them...), didn't work out.
I can see no practical value to mixing the 120 / 105. The logistic and FDC problems UBoat509 cited are real and significant. Plus, IMO, the Bn having it's own indirect fire capability with a greater bursting radius if less range than the 105 is a good thing. The Army now trains 11Cs on all three mortars instead of a specific tube and TOEs are being modified so that both 60s and 81s are available at Company level; the tube carried being mission selected. The 120s are all being provided purpose designed trailers to haul 'em so they can go into and out of action more quickly.