Infantry Unit Tactics, Tasks, Weapons, and Organization

[Rifleman]

Webb articulated his case for the larger fire teams well, but I have to agree with Wilf on this one: 18 man "squads" seem more like small platoons in action, especially if they have additional attachments.

The three fire team USMC squad made a lot of sense in the BAR days of WWII and Korea. It probably took 3 BARs to equal the suppression capability of one MG 42.

The more I read through everyone's posts again the more I think Paul Melody's ideas make sense: the squad can fire; the squad can maneuver; the squad shouldn't try to fire and maneuver (in the sense of enveloping attacks) as a regular practice. At least that seems sensible to me for the 8-10 man squads that most armys have.

US Army light infantry experience in Vietnam bears this out. The squad was usually reduced (by combat attrition) to 6-8 men with one M60, one M79, and a handfull of riflemen. It didn't have enough people to subdivide and conduct enveloping attacks at squad level. SLA Marshall's bright idea of a two team, 11 man squad suppressing with one team and flanking with another didn't cut it for very long.

Is anyone familiar with SOPs for the Vietnam era special projects? I'd like to know if Mike Forces, Mobile Guerrilla Forces, CIDGs, and SOG SLAM/Hatchet units normally used enveloping attacks at squad level or if that was a platoon function.

[William F. Owen]

"The platoon is, for all purposes, the unit for whose perfection we strive. Because, a perfect platoon means a perfect battalion and brigade or division: and the efficiency of any army corps is to be measured by that of its platoons."

Any chance you have the Canadian PAMs as .pdf's?

Yes, it is all about Platoons. The fixation on the perfect squad is what I call "Error 37" from the UK 1937 Platoon re-organisation.

Once folks lock into Platoon concepts and not section concepts, I get the impression we all seem to come back to same stuff and same approximate numbers.

I am not sure you need a Platoon HQ anymore. I don't think you needed one in 1918 or 1945. Modern radios like PRC-148 make dedicated Signallers/RTO a luxury, and not really relevant. Not having a platoon HQ does streamline a lot of stuff and IMO makes tactical conduct more efficient.

[Norfolk]

E-mail sent.

[Distiller]

Was busy + travelling, no time for the board for some time. Good to see some more discussion going on now


For my taste by putting the 60mm mortar into the platoon you'd create too large a body of men tasked with indirect fire into a fast acting direct-contact formation.

Does the platoon have the oversight for utilizing a 4000+ yards weapon? I think a MGL would be better suited.

And as long as you don't put six men for each barrel into the mortar section you don't have enough ammo for any meaningful fire in case you have to carry everything on your back.
And loading up the regular riflemen with grenades is also not good, as on contact their job is not to first run back to the mortar section and drop their load, but to instantly try to respond to enemy fire, or go for cover and act as fire directors for indirect fire or CAS.

If you put it at company level the mortar section can be more easily converted to a rifle section in case the mortar is not needed, without "braking up the harmony" of the platoon.

And I'm also not sure about a Lapua as marksman rifle. Might be too heavy, and for sure is a repeater. A 7.62 like the M110 is lighter and a semi-auto which can serve as high precision fire to supplement the high volume fire GPMG.
Again, a Lapua might be too long range for the horizon of a platoon.

Regarding coms I would say a dedicated man could come handy, but only if he has the equipment for some basic ELINT. Otherwise technology provides small enough equipment for miniaturized NavCom to be carried by each troop leader. Troop leaders should also be equipped with a precision engagement targeting device (laser or geo-location transceiver) for CAS and precision indirect-fire ammo.

Wilgram's views are sure interesting (and right), only thing is they are basically incompatible with current U.S.-dominated view of command and control. Giving the individual troops more or less tactical autonomy would be more German.

About section size: Don't forget you really should be able to fit into a IMV, IFV or UH-xx without splitting up the squad/section. Gives up a 8 or 9 men section. And not splitting up for mot/mech/air transport might be more important than the question of X men sections in a Y sections platoon.

All in all I think that concentrating on the platoon as smallest unit is more useful than concentrating on the squad/section. And what exactly would be the benefit of a 2 section platton? Why not go for a 6 section company then?

And not wanting to get into caliber discussion here, but a 6.5 Grendel is quite close to a 7.62 NATO. Might well go for a single caliber then. But also the more AK-47 style 6.8SPC for assault carbines and the 7.62mm NATO for MGs plus DMR should be considered.

[William F. Owen]

For my taste by putting the 60mm mortar into the platoon you'd create too large a body of men tasked with indirect fire into a fast acting direct-contact formation.

The 60mm mortars concerned are light hand held devices, operated by one man and in the direct fire role. They have been in UK platoons in one shape or another since 1937. 2-inch, 51mm and now 60mm!

http://www.army-technology.com/contr...enberger2.html

And I'm also not sure about a Lapua as marksman rifle. Might be too heavy, and for sure is a repeater. A 7.62 like the M110 is lighter and a semi-auto which can serve as high precision fire to supplement the high volume fire GPMG.
Again, a Lapua might be too long range for the horizon of a platoon.

The 8.6mm isn't just about range. The terminal effect of the round is amazing as is it's AP performance. It would be great to have both the M110 and the LRR, but how many types of ammo do you want to have across the platoon? If we could 5.56mm link for 7.62mm Ball, we might be in business!!

Troop leaders should also be equipped with a precision engagement targeting device (laser or geo-location transceiver) for CAS and precision indirect-fire ammo.

Concur. You can get all this for < 1kg.

Wilgram's views are sure interesting (and right), only thing is they are basically incompatible with current U.S.-dominated view of command and control. Giving the individual troops more or less tactical autonomy would be more German.

WIGRAM. Not as much as you may think. I may be writing something for Infantry Magazine.

About section size: Don't forget you really should be able to fit into a IMV, IFV or UH-xx without splitting up the squad/section. Gives up a 8 or 9 men section. And not splitting up for mot/mech/air transport might be more important than the question of X men sections in a Y sections platoon.

I disagree. This is a hold over from the Cold War. The APC, IMV or UH, is merely a tool. It is subservient to the dismounted organisation. If it is not, then you have Dragoons, Cavalry, Panzer Grenadiers or Recce Troops. If you are true infantry, then the cabs lift you. You don't jam into the cabs. This is not just "nice theory." It's a sound point of doctrine!

[Kiwigrunt]

An alternative for 2 sections in ‘my’ platoon would be to have this middle management as ‘floaters’ at platoon HQ and have any number of squads assigned to each, mission dependant. This would do away with the 2 sections and really make the 6 x 6 man rifle squads equal. Also makes it easier to assign other tasks to remaining floaters without making them feel that they are being stripped away from their section. I do see a potential though that this would affect the small unit bonds and the true flexibility within the section as described in my first post.

Wilf, in your platoon setup of some 5 or 6 5-man teams (most light, some heavy) how do you envisage the command structure of different combinations of these teams? Also with regards to your remark for not needing a platoon HQ.

Also on the 8.6 rifle, as Wilf touched on by mentioning AP capability, it has reasonable anti materiel capability. Not as spectacular as 12.7 but a lot better than 7.62 and for a rifle little heavier than a 7.62 (gives a mean kick though).

Just another thought, what are your thoughts on including an UAV at platoon level? (Regardless of platoon structure)


Another structure I quite like is that of the Austrian Jagers. The platoon looks a bit like the German platoon in WW2.
The coy has 214 pers and is led (of course) by a command and logistics element. It has 1 heavy weapons platoon with 3 anti-armour sections with 2x Carl Gustav each and one mortar section with 2x 81mm mortar, and a command section.
The 3 Jager platoons each have a command section of 10 including a signaler and 2 snipers (quite a large section, I don’t know what else is in there). Then there are 4 sections of 8, with 1 GPMG MG3 each.
The heavy weapons coy has a 50 man assault pioneer platoon, a mortar platoon with 4x 120mm mortar, a platoon with 4x20mm cannon and an anti-tank platoon with 4x2 Bill2.

These sections are too small for F&M. 2 combinations of 2 of these 8 man sections would be quite doable but then what have you got? 2 half platoons which is not that different from 'my' 2 section platoon.

[William F. Owen]

Wilf, in your platoon setup of some 5 or 6 5-man teams (most light, some heavy) how do you envisage the command structure of different combinations of these teams? Also with regards to your remark for not needing a platoon HQ.

Basically the same as Wigram Grouping. The Platoon Commander leads one light team and commands the other three or four.

Platoon Sergeant leads one weapons teams and command the other two or three. This is exactly the same as operating the platoon as a "multiple" with no HQ.

Also on the 8.6 rifle, as Wilf touched on by mentioning AP capability, it has reasonable anti materiel capability. Not as spectacular as 12.7 but a lot better than 7.62 and for a rifle little heavier than a 7.62 (gives a mean kick though).

12.7mm is a lot heavier alround, more expensive and not as accurate. UK trials showed it to be near 25-30% less likely to hit a target at 1,000m.

Just another thought, what are your thoughts on including an UAV at platoon level? (Regardless of platoon structure)

I have given this considerable thought, for some years. Not a good idea at the platoon level. There is a massive training and expense debt, plus huge C3I issues, of which only some are good. The only exception I can make is if you were operating as a Light Ant-armour company, and the OC had a dedicated UAV Platoon, as part of the screening element. I was a believer in this but having talked to a lot of UAV operators, I am no more!

Another structure I quite like is that of the Austrian Jagers. The platoon looks a bit like the German platoon in WW2.

Excepting your example, what did this look like? 214 bodies is a hell of a lot for a Company. Assuming a vehicle lift of 8 men per cab, this could mean 27-30 vehicles or more per company - and that's too many!

[Johannes U]

Another structure I quite like is that of the Austrian Jagers. The platoon looks a bit like the German platoon in WW2.
The coy has 214 pers and is led (of course) by a command and logistics element. It has 1 heavy weapons platoon with 3 anti-armour sections with 2x Carl Gustav each and one mortar section with 2x 81mm mortar, and a command section.
The 3 Jager platoons each have a command section of 10 including a signaler and 2 snipers (quite a large section, I don’t know what else is in there). Then there are 4 sections of 8, with 1 GPMG MG3 each.
The heavy weapons coy has a 50 man assault pioneer platoon, a mortar platoon with 4x 120mm mortar, a platoon with 4x20mm cannon and an anti-tank platoon with 4x2 Bill2.

These sections are too small for F&M. 2 combinations of 2 of these 8 man sections would be quite doable but then what have you got? 2 half platoons which is not that different from 'my' 2 section platoon.

I'm new to this website so I thought I'd just respond.

The austrian Jaegerkompanie was restructured in 2005.
It now consists of the following elements:

- command section (CO, 2ic, first seargent, signals nco, 2 sig/drivers, 2 sig/runners)
- supply section (ncos responsible for supply, vehicles, ammunition and weapons, medic ...)
- sniper squad (3 sniper teams à 3 soldiers - sniper, observer, driver)
- 3 jaeger plts
x command team (plt leader, 2ic, one sig/driver)
x 3 jaeger squads (squad leader, 2ic, 5 riflemen, 1 driver)
x 1 weapons squad (squad leader, 4 soldiers, 1 driver)
x each soldier has a steyr aug; in addition each jaeger squad has one
machine gun (mg74; 7,62x51) and a carl gustav; the weapons squad has
in addition to the steyr aug 2 mg74 and 2 carl gustavs
- 1 AT plt
x command team (plt leader, 2ic, one sig/driver)
x 2 AT squads with each 2 ATGM BILL

All in all, its now around 150 soldiers compared to the old 212 soldiers.
But the old structure came out of the positional defense systems used by the austrian armed forces during the late 70s, 80s and 90s.

The new one is much more flexible although I hope that it will change some more.

[Distiller]

The 60mm mortars concerned are light hand held devices, operated by one man and in the direct fire role. They have been in UK platoons in one shape or another since 1937. 2-inch, 51mm and now 60mm!

...

I disagree. This is a hold over from the Cold War. The APC, IMV or UH, is merely a tool. It is subservient to the dismounted organisation. If it is not, then you have Dragoons, Cavalry, Panzer Grenadiers or Recce Troops. If you are true infantry, then the cabs lift you. You don't jam into the cabs. This is not just "nice theory." It's a sound point of doctrine!

@ 60's: MGL sounds like a better solution. Can also fire other than explosives. Seen that parachute-round with the camera? Commando mortars don't carry enough ammo to be worth the hazzle. An MGL can really be used by one, and is fast enough to respond in ambush situations.

@ Vehicles: Agree to disagree (no matter what doctrine says). It's bad enough to assemble troops rapidly from march formation to battle formation without having to find the right guys from vehicles that might drive for cover, &c. Too likely to end up with three SRAAW and no riflemen in the one group and all riflemen without MG in another, and so on. One formation per transport, fully capable of delivering the full spectrum of direct contact weapons - close in weapons (assault carbines), direct fire volume fire (machine gun), indirect fire/shrapnel fire (grenade launcher). And these days you just CAN'T do a concept not compatible with mobility assets.

@ UAVs on platoon level: have the problem that the C2 station is still way too large for a fast moving direct-contact formation. Skylite B for example like a full-size fridge.

@ Austrian Jaegers: Despite the name never designed for maneuver warfare.

[William F. Owen]

[QUOTE=Distiller;43836]@ 60's: MGL sounds like a better solution. Can also fire other than explosives. Seen that parachute-round with the camera? Commando mortars don't carry enough ammo to be worth the hazzle. An MGL can really be used by one, and is fast enough to respond in ambush situations.[QUOTE]

A 60mm bomb has about 8x the terminal effect of an MGL. An MGL only goes to 400m with low velocity and 800m with medium velocity. 60mm also delivers more flare and smoke. You can still have M203s in the Platoon, so why an MGL? The UK has realised the mistake of getting rid of mortars and are now issuing the M6-640 for Afghanistan.

@ And these days you just CAN'T do a concept not compatible with mobility assets.

Well if that were the case then all organisation concepts are moot and irrelevant because you have to man vehicles and be panzer grenadiers or Motor Rifle troops, and thus not as effective when dismounted.

@ Austrian Jaegers: Despite the name never designed for maneuver warfare.

I don't believe in manoeuvre warfare. It's a myth based on poor history, and mythology.

[Kiwigrunt]

And not wanting to get into caliber discussion here, but a 6.5 Grendel is quite close to a 7.62 NATO. Might well go for a single caliber then. But also the more AK-47 style 6.8SPC for assault carbines and the 7.62mm NATO for MGs plus DMR should be considered.

This would only increase overall weight carried. 6.5 would replace both 7.62 and 5.56, or maybe even only 7.62, and therefore save weight for near equal performance (and that would need to be tested and proven of course). 6.8SPC cannot replace 7.62 because it does not have the range.