Results 1 to 20 of 307

Thread: Infantry Unit Tactics, Tasks, Weapons, and Organization

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Council Member William F. Owen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    The State of Partachia, at the eastern end of the Mediterranean
    Posts
    3,947

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kiwigrunt View 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.
    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!
    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

  2. #2
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    CenTex
    Posts
    222

    Default

    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.
    Last edited by SethB; 04-02-2008 at 06:40 PM.

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Durban, South Africa
    Posts
    3,902

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by William F. Owen View Post
    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?

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •