Platoon Weapons

[Norfolk]

"U.K. Platoon Weapons and the Weight Capability Myth" by William F. Owen (from RUSI Defence Systems June, 2007, Vol. 10, No. 1):

http://www.rusi.org/downloads/assets...on_Weapons.pdf

Another intersting article by William F. Owen, this time concerning the weapons of the British Army Infantry Platoon. Owen is looking for ways to reduce the carried load of the British infantryman, but ends up proposing a new Infantry Section organization as well. Owen comes out rather strongly against providing infantrymen with weapons and training for employment beyond 200 m; he contends that beyond that range, infantrymen are typically unable to effectively target the enemy with carefully-aimed individual weapons. According to battle surveys taken over the past decade and a half or so from the Balkans, Afghanistan, and Iraq, 80% of all firefights occur within 200 m. Furthermore, that even determined training has failed to enable infantrymen to deal effectively with targets with individual, point-weapons beyond 200 m. He also notes that 5.56 mm ammo is more-or-less ineffective much past 200 m anyway, but interestingly, he does not consider this to be a problem at longer ranges; he points out that the man under fire doesn't care what the calibre of the bullets striking at and around him are, he's going to go to ground anyway.

Instead, he proposes that firefights at ranges of over 200 m be dealt with by machine guns, grenade launchers, rockets, and mortars. He takes the British Army to task (and I very much agree) for removing the 51 mm Light Mortar from the Infantry Platoon HQ (effective range 800 m) as it claims that the 40mm Underslung Grenade Launcher (range 350 m) can replace it in the indirect-fire role (obviously it can't). He does however, approving take notice of the M-32 40 mm Medium Grenade Launcher with its 800 m range. Eventually, Owen proposes an Infantry Section composition of 8 men split into a machine gun team and a medium grenade launcher team.

William F. Owen - Quote:

"It is section weapons and HE projectors that win firefights, not IWs.
Where the performance of IWs is critical is at short range."

-Unquote

Interesting, but I'm not sure that either team is suited for the assault itself, and sadly, discussion of the Infantry Platoon gets waylaid in the course of the article. Although the issue of weight does get fair treatment, I think, and that reducing the typical British infantryman's load from 42 kg (52 kg for Section Commanders due to radio and batteries) to 26 kg is partially faciliated by some of Owen's proposals for Platoon Weapons. He does not sound optimistic that a clear recognition that solutions to the weight problem are readily at hand will in fact occur.

[davidbfpo]

Odd the reported removal of the 51mm mortar as the recent BBC-TV Panorama programme on Afghanistan showed soldiers using it. They may have had the underslung grenade launcher, but it is not so easy to spot.

Secondly the British Army has traditionally not issued 0.50 calibre machine guns beyond the armoured corps; now they are in wide use in Afghanistan, on Land Rovers and static posts.

From a non-military "armchair".

davidbfpo

[Rifleman]

Owen writes some interesting articles. I'm usually not quite sure how I feel about his proposals after the first reading though.

For instance: at first I liked his idea of re-organizing the infantry platoon into a smaller platoon subdivided into big fire teams (the "fire team group" platoon); after more thought it just seemed like re-arrainging the same old company furniture in the same old company living room just to give a different look.

Owen's articles are something I tend to think about and mull over quite a bit. I'll have to do the same with this one.

[jmcavin]

But it brings up two questions:

1) MOUT - house clearing generally requires machine guns in a support role - covering avenues of approach (streets, hallways, etc.). Mortars are limited, unless we're talking a Stalingrad or Hue situation. Rifles and riflemen will always be needed . . .

2) Why am I still qualifying from the 500?

[120mm]

Oh, I do hate "statistical firefights". Unfortunately, the 20% of the time you need to reach out and touch someone, it'd be "nice" to do so with IWs.

I've done some "cow-patty" shooting at the 600-800 meter range, and was amazed at how easy it was, under certain conditions, to "ID" the target, and then, how relatively easy it was to hit the specific area IVO the target, as well as the target itself. (Cow patties give a relatively spectacular secondary effect, whether wet or dry.)

I was shooting an Ishapore in .308 at the time, with iron sights. The terrain was rolling, with the longest possible shot right at a mile. (No joy at hitting a target at that range, though I might've scared it, should it be a vehicle).

Bottom line, I think there is a place for both 5.56 and .308 rifles in a serious military's arsenal. Machineguns are relatively inflexible, compared to a rifle.

[walrus]

I note that the writer has not touched on the logistics of supplying the various different types of ammunition, which might be a useful addition, even if only to argue that its not an issue.

Off topic, but there was a proposal many many years ago when we were armed with SLR's (FN 7.62) to ditch the sections single 7.62 GPMG and replace it with two Brens per section, recalibered in 7.62 and using a common (prepacked/disposable) magazine that fitted both weapons and infantrymen would carry extra magazines instead of link.

Section Commanders liked the idea (as far as I could tell) because it gave them two identical fire teams and it was felt that the ease of use of the Bren made up for the slightly slower rate of fire caused by Mag changes, it also simplified resupply and "load balancing".....but the proposal was squashed.

[William F. Owen]

Bottom line, I think there is a place for both 5.56 and .308 rifles in a serious military's arsenal. Machineguns are relatively inflexible, compared to a rifle.

I agree, so why not allocate 2 x 8.6mm or 7.62mm Long Range/Sniper Rifles to the platoon?