To return to gute's original query how would the members improve or organise the mech inf platoon/coy? (obviously getting doctrine right would be a start)
For Enlightenment Click Here
Er, Ken, today Great Satan's Girlfriend discusses the Queen of Battle, which can be read by clicking here.
To return to gute's original query how would the members improve or organise the mech inf platoon/coy? (obviously getting doctrine right would be a start)
Form should follow function
Grabbed the title from an old car commerial. But I think it fits.
What your mounted infantry (mechanized, motorized or whatever) are carried by should derive from the planned role of said infantry on the battlefield.
Are they there to provide close-in protection for an armor/tank force? With a limited ability to perform "classic" infantry tasks/roles/missions (attack-defend in "close" terrain).
Another tag line I heard years ago was something like: Effective Infantry operations are like good parties, the more the merrier.
There in lies the issue with most/all IFVs, don't carry enough dismounted infantry. Adding more carriers only makes the issue worse in most cases. Adds to the overall log/sustainment requirement of the higher organization.
Think that 3 types of infantry makes sense: Light/dismounted for rapid strat movement and employment in close/very close terrainsets, medium, the general purpose infantry (APC mounted with HMGs/AGLs for fire support). and heavy infantry (IFV mounted and there for the offensive/counter strike roles).
Like the current SBCT company as a base. Would add another mortar to allow fire missions of 2X1 (smkXHE or HE/SMK etc) and would add anothe MGS to ease the doctrinal issue at the MGS/tank platoon level.
TAH
OK, I'd take my 130 man Coy, (4 x Platoons of 30 + 10 in HQ) and have them mount up in 17 x something like thisOriginally Posted by Tukhachevskii
These would arrive fully crewed from a carrier BN. Once the mission is over, the infantry would go back to their trucks or buses.
Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"
- The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
- If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition
I didn't think the MGS platoon was meant to be deployed like a tank plt (direct fire inf spt is what I had assumed; 1 per plt or as per Mett-t). Having three of them always did confound me . Never did comprehend the cancellation of the M8 Buford eitherIMO that was an excellent system.
So how would command and control work with this arrangement (i.e., who owns and directs the tracks whilst the infantry are mounted)? Would the infantry debuss at an assembly area or would the APC drop them just shy of their objective? Would the "carrier Bn" be something like the USMC AAV Bn? Would the "carrier Bn" be attached to a Bde or a Div (in which case you are looking at, what, a Bn's worth of lift per Bde? or a Bde per Div?) Excuse the questions but mech doctrine befuddles me at the best of times... it was the worst of times...OK, I'd take my 130 man Coy, (4 x Platoons of 30 + 10 in HQ) and have them mount up in 17 x something like this
These would arrive fully crewed from a carrier BN. Once the mission is over, the infantry would go back to their trucks or buses.
p.s. IIRC your platoons are organised into fireteam groups, right? So you're not looking at a pure 8 man section per APC either? (or, are you?). How would you manage C2 with your fireteams split up in various tracks or would you just wait for them to debus, reorganise/consolidate and more on to the objective once reorg was completed?
P.PS. Have you seen the Namera's Arab cousin? The Temsah
Last edited by Tukhachevskii; 06-28-2010 at 03:14 PM.
The Infantry Company Commander is in Command. He directs the Mech Commander as to where he wants to be, to dismount. The Mech commander is then to make best use of ground to achieve that.
Depends on ground, threat and light conditions. The idea is to drop the infantry into terrain that affords them some ability to manoeuvre.Would the infantry debuss at an assembly area or would the APC drop them just shy of their objective?
Don't know.Would the "carrier Bn" be something like the USMC AAV Bn? Would the "carrier Bn" be attached to a Bde or a Div (in which case you are looking at, what, a Bn's worth of lift per Bde? or a Bde per Div?)
Depends on the mission and the weapons set. The default on drop would be 8 man teams, but then shake out into multiples or other groups as needed. Regardless the object would be to fight as a platoon, not as sections.p.s. IIRC your platoons are organised into fireteam groups, right? So you're not looking at a pure 8 man section per APC either? (or, are you?). How would you manage C2 with your fireteams split up in various tracks or would you just wait for them to debus, reorganise/consolidate and more on to the objective once reorg was completed?
Indeed I have.P.PS. Have you seen the Namera's Arab cousin? The Temsah
Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"
- The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
- If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition
So the APCs are simply a means of conveyance rather than an element in the combined arms mix; i.e., they would not, I presume, provide any kind of intimate fire support with on board weapons which would be for self-protection only? If true what happens to the APC's ionce the infantry has debussed and begun assulting or moving to assult the objective; i.e., would they retire to a harbour/laegar(sp?) until the Inf needed a lift back to friendly lines? If the opposite is true how would the dismounted coy cdr co-ordinate with the APC coy cdr with regards to fire support; who's the chief, chief?
In Afghanistan I know of Royal Marine and para units being supported by BV tracked APCs which carry them to the assembly area and provide fire support under command of the sub-unit commander they have been attached to; rather like the old WWII bonnegruppa concept. Come to think of it. that's probably what you're suggesting too.
p.s. Can anyone tell me why the Temsah mortar variant (see site listed above) seems to have two mortars located in the rear? (Maybe I'm seeing things).
Last edited by Tukhachevskii; 06-29-2010 at 09:42 AM. Reason: ...added second thoughts.
Well I'd assume you'd be supported by a Tank Coy at the very least, so the Tanks would do the close support
The OC APC's job is to support the dismounted commander to the best of his ability. - CASEVAC, resupply, extraction etc etc.If the opposite is true how would the dismounted coy cdr co-ordinate with the APC coy cdr with regards to fire support; who's the chief, chief?
It is. The former CO of the that unit is a mate of mine.Come to think of it. that's probably what you're suggesting too.
Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"
- The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
- If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition
The Vikings are used to support other units too; Mastiff wheeled vehicles are used in the same way.
To WILF....
I've been mulling over your Carrier Bn suggestion and I find my self wondering about how CS elements would be handled, for instance, mortars. Would you have them carreid by APCs for dismounted us only of have dedicated mortar vehicles able either carrying mortars (so the coy doesn't have to) or, like the Stryker mortar vehicle, mounting two mortars one of which is dismountable.
What of anti-tank units? would they be Javelin type units who would mount and then dismount a la inf? If a tank coy is providing intimate support am I correct in understanding that there would be no specialed APC variants for AT or indirect/direct fire support? What if not tank coy in intimate support? Rely on AH/CAS/UAV?
In terms of fire support for the coy would the APC's weapons- 40mm GMG for instance- be dismountable for use in static or SBF positions? And if so, do the APC crews man them/own? I assume, but require clarification, that they would given you have the APCs attached for the duration of the mission.
I wonder also what happens to the carrier Bn say in an operational march conducted by an Inf Bn or Bde (say a follow on and support or follow tasking) where they are carried in trucks for the most part. Where would the carrier Bn be? To whom is it attached? Would it follow the Bde (perhaps carrying supplies or some such) or would there be a Bn attached to the Bde in which case a Bn would be mounted for immediate deployment with two more in trucks for reinforcement? (But then the APCs would be a bit knackered after the march). Really, I suppose I'm asking is what is the Bn doing when it isn't moving Inf? Presumably it's moving other infantry elsewhere? (But does it travel with a Bde as permamnet attachment or not? If not then I think I get that the assets wiill be attached where and when needed according to the operational plan.
8 into 24 goes three times...
Can anyone explain the reason for the US army fielding an APC with a 8 pax capacity(M39) to one, albeit eventually never put into production, which carried 24 (M44)? It's reminiscent of the USMC AAV7A1. Was it a viable idea to have a vehicle capable of carrying a platoon under armour? Can/should it be an idea that would find currency today given our advancements in passive and active armour? Or, is it just a big ol' elephant which deserved to die?
M44 picture
Last edited by Tukhachevskii; 07-05-2010 at 03:04 PM.
The Australian Army had/has a an organisation like this, Royal Australian Armoured Corps APC regiments/squadrons.
The RAAC APC squadron was capable of carrying an infantry battalion.
Each APC troop could carry a coy of infantry, each APC section could carry a platoon of infantry (i.e. 3 M113s). The squadron also had mortar tracks for the battalion's mortar platoon, and at least one spare APC section for an engineer troop/assault pioneer platoon etc.
There were some other odds and sods too, (e.g. I think there were some APCs at the sqn level for use as the inf battallion commanders rover, some extra M548s over and above what the APC squadron required for its own resup to assist in resup for the infantry battallion, maybe some extra M577s for inf HQ use etc).
I can't recall the exact TOE, as I was in a cavalry (recon not APC) roled unit and we never carried infantry and it's been 20 years since I did the RAAC indoctrination course.
As described by Wilf above, the APCs were under command of the infantry commander, the individual vehciles were under control of their RAAC crew commanders with the APC unit/sub unit commanders providing advice to the infantry commanders as to best employment of the vehicles. That is to say the infantry commander where he wanted to be an when and the armored commander would suggest routes etc within the capability of his vehicles.
The APC commander would also advice on tactics/co-ordination/control technique and appropriate drills (e.g. debuss drills) to make best use of the APCs capabilities, especially to relatively junior inf commanders who had not previously worked with APCs.
APCs would drop the infantry either short or onto the objective depending on the tactical situation. APCs would also provide fire support to the infantry, again depending on the tactical situation.
It should be noted here that the relationship between the APC squadrons and the battallions were fairly close. When I was serving there were 2 light inf brigades, each with 2 battalions of light inf and an APC squadron, engineers squadron, arty regt etc, so the same squadron worked with the same 2 battalions, and they'd typically work with them for years.
I believe this was roughly how APCs were employed by Australian forces from Vietnam through to the present, including Somalia and I believe Timor Leste. i.e. dedicated RAAC APC units carrying infantry units, with the same command/control arrangements described above.
I believe this type of organisation was effective for us then and I see no reason why it could not be now, assuming that it fits the needs of your force.
I.e. I don't see any inherent command and control issues, or any problems combining the two apparently disparate units, but if your battallions are going to always be mechanised/mounted, then maybe you're better off just issuing them vehicles, incrementing their manpower and training crews.
It was a good idea,heavily armored -- an early and larger
I know. I don't do "original ideas."
Having said that the Israelis are currently opting to equip their 11-man squad with a Namer. If they get an operation, not requiring the Namer, they park it and "everyone" goes on foot. They intend for there to be no differentiation from vehicle crew and squad.
Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"
- The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
- If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition
How do they protect the vehicle?
You mean when it's parked back at base out on the hard? Not their problem. Someone else does it.
Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"
- The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
- If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition
Sir,
thanks muchly() for your detailed reply! But.....
.....you mention there were mortar tracks. Were those tracks set aside for the carriage of mortars (which were used dismounted and thereby originated with/were owned by the infantry) or were they dedicated mortar tracks (ie., the baseplate was part and parcel of the vehicle). If the latter were those mortar tracks only ever for infantry usage when the APC sqn was attached? Did this mean that the Inf bn/coy had no integral mortar sub-units or did they combine (a la the US Strykers) and deploy dismounted and mounted (or self-propelled) mortars?
Thank you for the above link!
So why, speaking rhetorically to stimulate discussion, do we focus on squad/section carriiers? Why not plt carriers? Or at least half plt carriers; would ease reorg & C2 at the debuss point wouldn't it especially if used as per APC deployment as described above by Wilf and jtan163 rather than IFVs? Also fewer log requirements, etc.?
Last edited by Tukhachevskii; 07-06-2010 at 09:50 AM.
Loose one carrier and you loose a lot of folks.
Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"
- The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
- If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks