Platoon Weapons

[120mm]

I've thought about this issue for a couple months now, as something bothered me about it, but I couldn't think what it was. This afternoon, as I wrap up yet another meaningless Reserve Drill, it suddenly came to me:

This whole issue about PDWs and teenie-tiny projectiles and the statistical gunfight strikes me as being the modern day incarnation of the pre-WWII Royal Air Force "Area Attacks".

Basically, "Area Attacks" was based on the exact statistics that "prove" that individual fighter plans can't possibly accurately target enemy bombers, so therefore the RAF went to rifle caliber guns, instead of cannon, mounted 8 per aircraft, and synchronized to provide a "suppressive spray" at extreme range. And the squadron leader would maneuver the entire formation to "saturate" a box of sky, therefore "statistically" shooting down any bomber present in that sky "box".

"Area Attacks" were popular among theorists, and scientifically supported by all sorts of "facts"..... But were a complete and utterly impractical failure, that put the RAF back a year in the fight against the Luftwaffe, which valued individual marksmanship, airmanship, and automatic cannon mounted on aircraft, synchronized to hit at a focussed range.

The more I examine the analogy, the more I like it, and see it's relevance. Sure, well-emplaced GPMGs and Mortars will do excellent work on the majority of engagements, but I don't think that is a good reason to do away with the rifleman.

[Sabre]

Thank you, Wilf, for writing such a thought-provoking article.

Why only one GPMG or LMG per squad/section?
Assuming some flavor of FN MAG or FN Minimi, the weight of that extra gun would equate to 300 to 500 fewer rounds of ammunition. However, a squad/section that is otherwise equipped with PDW's, and, for whatever reason, loses its one and only GPMG/LMG is in dire trouble on the battlefield.


I must admit that my bias is that I spent most of my time in mechanized units, so I am used to having a vehicle handy for the carrying of stuff (heh, and almost unbelievably, once you add up body armor, weapon, ammo, radio, NVG's, spare batteries for everything, water, and some "because you never know" survival items, what one carries still pushes the 30% bodyweight limit). Of course, in Iraq, most units do have a vehicle handy, and the latest re-org in the US Army even puts a fair number of vehicles back into the light infantry brigade (and where, exactly, in the MTOE *are* we going to put all of those MRAPs?) So, I happen to fall into the category of person that would prefer a heavier round than 5.56...

[William F. Owen]

Thank you, Wilf, for writing such a thought-provoking article.

Why only one GPMG or LMG per squad/section?
Assuming some flavor of FN MAG or FN Minimi, the weight of that extra gun would equate to 300 to 500 fewer rounds of ammunition. However, a squad/section that is otherwise equipped with PDW's, and, for whatever reason, loses its one and only GPMG/LMG is in dire trouble on the battlefield.

Very happy and even honoured that you are happy. It was to provoke thought. Unfortunately that upsets a lot of people!

The one MG per section is actually one MG in 50% of the fire teams. The others have MGL.

GPMG/LMG is not the only way of creating useful fires, and I focus on the platoon, or multiple as the minimum element, not the section. Survivors from a badly mauled section, can always be usefully employed supporting the platoon in other ways.

As an aside, I am not sure I would support the move to a PDW, without extensive testing to prove the concept and then, if proved a huge education program to bring the boys up to speed. Hope this helps.

[Jones_RE]

What about adding some long range fire into the mix? Didn't the red army have platoons armed with nothing but submachine guns supported by a rifle and mg armed group? The ballistic characteristics of that PPsh SMG would be pretty close to the P90, so it's not a bad match.

Add in some long range rifles into the mix (not assault rifles) and you'd have a workable organization. Not one per team, but supporting the MG equipped teams. The MG teams would have a longer range, but they'd use that to stay far away. The MGL teams would work up close and do the assault/breach thing.

I'd propose doubling the LMGs in the heavy teams to two and giving the remaining members of those teams long rifles. That would answer any long range concerns. The unit as a whole is still better off because the light teams have gotten so much lighter.

[William F. Owen]

What about adding some long range fire into the mix? Didn't the red army have platoons armed with nothing but submachine guns supported by a rifle and mg armed group?

I agree. We actually talked about this else where. Something I am proposing in another article/paper is 2 x 7.62mm / 8.6mm rifles per "Platoon Group."

[Distiller]

I don't think that one per man per MGL can provide any meaningful fire for more than a single engagement. Might work for low-intensity with only sporadic fights, not against a conventional enemy. I think that as with a LMG you need two men per MGL.
I view a MGL-heavy section is kind of like a long-range shotgun unit, lotsa bang during the first ten seconds, then 30 sec reloading. And ballistics of the 40mm make hitting further out against moving targets not so easy.

Adding a long-range precision rifle to the squad is a good idea (the Germans had something similar). This would result in a "networked combined arms infantry squad" 1 Squadleader, 5 Riflemen Carbine, 1 Precision Automatic Rifle, 1 SAW, 1 MGL.
I say networked and combined arms because such a setup would have difficulty executing more than one engagement without resupply.

All in all I still hold up my view of a MG for the squad, and all other indirect fire and seldom-used multi-crew served weapons (MGL, RPG) should be grouped at platoon level.
That makes it easier for the

And regarding mini-caliber PDW I think that up to platoon level every single soldier should have a "full" IW. Bulk is not so much a factor when using bullpup rifles. PDWs like MP-7 are not sooo small either.