Infantry Unit Tactics, Tasks, Weapons, and Organization

[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!

[SethB]

Wilf, a friend of mine once accompanied Malcolm Cooper of Accuracy International on a demonstration to 10th SFG (A). While there, my friend shot a 4.4 inch group at 1000 yards with an AI AWSM (I believe you call it the L96A1). The M40/M118LR that the Army was using wasn't doing quite so well.

After the demonstration, Malcolm and my friend started shooting prairie dogs in the impact area. A Captain came up and rather angrily denounced their activity. Malcolm asked "Are you quite finished? See, you shouldn't be asking us why we are doing this. You should be asking why your men can't."

That said, the designers of the 6.8 SPC designed a larger cartridge to more effectively bridge the gap between intermediate and rifle cartridges.

The following was written by Gary K. Roberts, a Navy Reserve officer, and who I'm told is partly responsible for the mass issue of heavy OTMs (in 5.56) since the early days of the war. Unfortunately, some data has been omitted because I could not transfer it into this format.

Fortunately, while at USAMU, Cris Murray, one of the co-designers of the 6.8 mm SPC simultaneously developed an� assault rifle cartridge, with none of the platform imposed design compromises that limit both the 6.5 mm Grendel and 6.8 mm SPC. This an idealized� assault rifle cartridge, the 7 x 46 mm, offers better range and terminal performance than 6.5 mm Grendel, 6.8 mm SPC, or any other common assault rifle cartridges, including 5.45 x 39 mm, 5.56 x 45 mm and 7.62 x 39 mm. Since the 7 x 46 mm is based on the proven Czech military 7.62 x 45 mm cartridge, it has an established record feeding and functioning in both magazine and belt-fed full-auto fire. Likewise, recoil appears manageable and weapons remain controllable in FA fire, just as with the Czech cartridge. In addition, the 7 x 46 mm is optimized for shorter barrels and larger magazines than the heavier, bulkier, and harsher recoiling 7.62 x 51 mm/.308 cartridge. The 7 x 46 mm is truly the best assault rifle cartridge developed to date.

The main problem is that the 7 x 46 mm cartridge OAL is a bit too long to fit into the M4/M16 or other 5.56 mm size weapons/magazines, yet it does not need a receiver/magazine as large as those used by 7.62 x 51 mm/.308 platforms such as the M14, Mk11, M110.

As a result, the 7 x 46 mm requires new weapons--envision a rifle sized a bit larger than the AR15, but smaller than an AR10/SR25.

<Doc inserts ballistic gelatin shot using a 16 inch barrel, muzzle velocity of 2800 fps with a 120 grain bullert>

As you can see, 7 x 46 mm offers outstanding terminal performance very similar to 6.8 mm; 7x46 mm is just a bit better.

Both the 6.8 mm SPC and 7 x 46 mm were conceived and developed entirely by experienced end-users based on identified combat mission needs and end-user requirements as approved by their Commanders. Both the 6.8x43mm and 7x46mm were developed by the same design team at the same time. From day one everyone involved in this effort has acknowledged both cartridges, however, a decision was made to pursue deployment of 6.8mm initially, as it offered a more expeditious solution for improving current combat capability by simple, inexpensive modifications to existing weapons, while 7x46mm required new weapons platforms for optimal performance.

Again, bottom line:

-- 6.8 mm SPC is the best available solution to rapidly upgrade current 5.56 mm weapons.

-- If given a clean slate of paper and substantial development funds, the clear and obvious best cartridge for new design weapons is the 7 x 46 mm, as it offers greater soft tissue terminal performance, better intermediate barrier penetration, and greater maximum range and long distance performance than traditional assault rifle cartridges like the 5.45 x 39 mm, 5.56 mm, 7.62 x 39 mm, as well as the newer 6.5 mm Grendel and 6.8 mm SPC.

Currently no rifle has been designed for the 7x46, although some rifles have been modified as prototypes, using VZ58 magazines. Should the 7x46 become a contender, there is at least one rifle manufacturer that will have the ability to rapid prototype a design, as well as design magazines.

[JMA]

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.

This is essentially how we operated in Rhodesia. We had multiples of 4 man sticks in a platoon or whatever. Each stick of 4 had a MAG. Don't understand the difference between light teams and weapons teams? With or without machine guns?

[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.

[Tukhachevskii]

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.

Willkommen Johhanes U,

1. So there are no coy level mortars? (Sorry seems to be a theme these past few posts

2. If not what fire support can the company call on from Bn?

3. You mentioned "drivers"...what are their vehicles? Pandur II?

4. Five MG74s and five CG rcl per plt! Sweet

[Johannes U]

Hello Tukhachevskii

As we say in Austria, you push the knife even deeper into the wound.

1. When the jagerkompanie was restructured, the 81mm mortar section (with two mortars) which existed before, was cut from the TOE.

2. Concerning fire support on the battalion level, either in the HQCoy or in the weapons coy there exists a mortar plt with up to 6 120mm mortars (some jagerbataillone still have in addition (as in the arms room concept) the 81mm mortar in the same plt). This plt has only two (2) FO teams, but every jaeger PL is (or should ) now trained how to request and adjust fire support.

3. Our units, which go on missions abroad (as in the Kosovo or Afghanistan in 2004) usually have the PANDUR I. We are now buying (or have already bought) a few IVECO LMV (light multirole vehicle), but not enough for all jaegercompanies. The rest has mainly unarmored trucks or jeeps.

4. That is actually one thing I like . It is kind of a arms room concept. The jaeger PL can decide whether the squads have to take the MG74 or the Carl Gustav, or both, or none with them.

Greetings

[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.

[Sabre]

[QUOTE=William F. Owen;43838]

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.

I think that the point of saying that "these days you can't do an organization that is not compatible with transportation assets" is not to say that the rifle company needs to man the vehicles, or even train with them all of the time, but that it will, very often, find itself deployed in troop carriers, be it trucks, APCs, MRAPs, helicopters, etc, whether it likes it or not. For better or worse, many troop-carriers these days are designed to hold rather less than a 13-man squad (notably, the USMC has troop-carriers that can hold more, but that seems to be the exception). It doesn't even take the chaos of combat, but a vehicle that breaks down just before SP, or a patrol "plan" that becomes more convoluted over the course of a months-long deployment. One way or another, the natural tendency will be for the organization to breakdown along the lines of the vehicle load whenever mounted - again, whether we like it or not.
If one of the primary considerations in the design of a company or platoon is the cohesion of the troopers, then where will one be spending many of those critical moments just before going into action, or while in action, when the support of your mates is most important? Probably with whoever else happens to be in the same troop-carrier. Again, whether we like it or not. May as well formalize the arrangment, to the extent practical.
(That said, I am quite conviced that troop-carriers, even a cannon-armed MICV or HAPC can, and indeed do need to be designed to hold more than 6 or 7 dismounts.)

[Sabre]

I should add that I am quite relieved to see talk of "better platoons", to see the squad being taken in the context of the whole company and platoon... Instead of trying to do fire & maneuver within the squad, and beefing it up to sustain X% of casualties, since that seems to be merely delaying the inevitable, ultimately.

[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.