Page 10 of 16 FirstFirst ... 89101112 ... LastLast
Results 181 to 200 of 307

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

  1. #181
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    589

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Johannes U View Post
    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 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

  2. #182
    Council Member Johannes U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Hopefully somewhere in the Alps
    Posts
    25

    Default Ripping my heart out ...


    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
    Last edited by Johannes U; 08-23-2010 at 05:36 PM.
    L'audace, l'audace, toujours l'audace. (Napoleon)

    It's always easier to ask for forgiveness than permisson.

  3. #183
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    589

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Johannes U View Post

    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.
    Johannes, warum?

    What was the reasoning for removing the 81mm tubes from the company? Was it down to personell, a change in national force posture (i.e, out-of-area commitments) or a change in doctrine?

    Sorry about the wound, I usualy go for the throat or the back

    p.s. what's the standard issue sniper rifle used by the Austrian army?
    Last edited by Tukhachevskii; 08-23-2010 at 08:19 PM.

  4. #184
    Council Member Johannes U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Hopefully somewhere in the Alps
    Posts
    25

    Default Damn the politician - full speed ahead ...

    or something like that.
    As far as I know, the reason was a change in doctrine combined with lack of resources ie money.
    But I'll try to find out.
    That is by the way the reason why (in my initial post) I wrote of my hope for a further change of the TOE.

    The sniper rifle we currently field is the SSG69, a 7,62mm sniper rifle which ranges out to 600m (the fm says 800 but well...).
    http://www.steyr-mannlicher.com/inde...93b475a56bcafa
    The SSG69 is the weapon used by the company sniper squad.

    At the moment we also test the steyr .50 sSSG (heavy sniper rifle)
    http://www.steyr-mannlicher.com/inde...51fb369f1e7b01
    The sSSG will be used (if fielded) by the heavy sniper squad in the recce plt of the battalion
    L'audace, l'audace, toujours l'audace. (Napoleon)

    It's always easier to ask for forgiveness than permisson.

  5. #185
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    589

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Johannes U View Post
    or something like that.
    As far as I know, the reason was a change in doctrine combined with lack of resources ie money.
    But I'll try to find out.
    That is by the way the reason why (in my initial post) I wrote of my hope for a further change of the TOE.

    The sniper rifle we currently field is the SSG69, a 7,62mm sniper rifle which ranges out to 600m (the fm says 800 but well...).
    http://www.steyr-mannlicher.com/inde...93b475a56bcafa
    The SSG69 is the weapon used by the company sniper squad.

    At the moment we also test the steyr .50 sSSG (heavy sniper rifle)
    http://www.steyr-mannlicher.com/inde...51fb369f1e7b01
    The sSSG will be used (if fielded) by the heavy sniper squad in the recce plt of the battalion
    Thanks for that, just to give me some context what's the usual structure of a Battalion? For instance, am I right in thinking that the company snipers are organic NOT attached from the Bn recce plt (who are thus separate)? And we know there's a 6 tube 120mm mortar plt.

    Also, your first post described the company and your sections/squads ...
    ...jaeger squads (squad leader, 2ic, 5 riflemen, 1 driver)
    ...are they 7 men or eight? In other words is the driver "just" a driver or is s/he a member of the section/squad proper? Come to think of it do your Pandur's stay with the dismounted infantry or leave for a laager (or a beer!)?

    Although that might be a question best left for the CAV platoon thread.
    Last edited by Tukhachevskii; 08-24-2010 at 02:18 PM.

  6. #186
    Council Member Johannes U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Hopefully somewhere in the Alps
    Posts
    25

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tukhachevskii View Post
    Thanks for that, just to give me some context what's the usual structure of a Battalion? For instance, am I right in thinking that the company snipers are organic NOT attached from the Bn recce plt (who are thus separate)? And we know there's a 6 tube 120mm mortar plt.
    .
    1. The "normal" Austrian jagerbataillon looks as follows:
    - 1 HHQCoy stabskompanie
    x Commander and staff
    x transportation plt
    x signals plt
    x medical plt
    x maintenance plt
    x recce plt (including the heavy sniper squad)
    x heavy mortar plt (6 mortars)
    - 3 infCoys Jagerkompanien

    The mountain infantry batallions (all in all three in Austria) have in addition a combat support coy:
    x AT plt
    x heavy mortar plt (instead of the one in the HHQCoy)
    x recce plt (insteadt of the one in the HHQCoy)
    x support plt (engineer recce, NRBC recce)

    2. The sniper squad in the jaegerkompanie is organic to the coy.

    3. The driver is part of the squad. This means that in an infantry bn using the Pandur the squad consits of nine (9) soldiers (squad ldr, 2ic, 5 rifle men, driver AND gunner). In an infbn using an unarmored vehicle, it consits of 8 (as above minus the gunner).

    4. We try to have the Pandur as close to the dismounted troops as possible. It depends mainly on the enemy AT capabilities.

    So as you can see, it's a bit complicated.
    But that's why I'm here to learn and maybe things can change again.
    L'audace, l'audace, toujours l'audace. (Napoleon)

    It's always easier to ask for forgiveness than permisson.

  7. #187
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    81

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tukhachevskii View Post
    Also, I know the USMC has been planing to field composite 120mm/155mm batteries for MAGTF operations with some in the Corps advocating that the 120mms be organic to the inf bn. What's the deal with that?
    All the East Coast MEUs have already deployed w/them. 4 M-777 LW155s & 4 EFSS ITV/120mm combos.

    As far as making them Organic to the Inf BNs I doubt that'll ever happen.

    I can't speak w/authority for HQMC PP&O but a Marine Inf BN is pretty loaded out w/975 Marines & Sailors standard. There's already an 81mm Mortar Plt of about 72 Marines in the Weapons Company & a 60mm Section attached to every Rifle Coys Weapons Plt.

    And w/the potential switch to much more Robust Rifle Coys soon w/the ECO/CoLT (Coy Landing Teams) I don't think there be any room for them to be organic.

    Keep the responsibility for them, their trucks, & ammo, w/the Arty BNs & FAP'm over for deployment as part of the BLT (BN Landing Tm) then send them back.


    But what I did hear was that in A'stan in the more permanent Rifle Plt COPs they've retrained some of the 81s to man stationary 120s in those COPs. I'll try to find 1 of the articles I seen on this..
    You'll like this one, it involves cheerleaders.But I think its just been for Field Expediency.
    Last edited by COMMAR; 08-24-2010 at 08:47 PM.

  8. #188
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    589

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by COMMAR View Post
    All the East Coast MEUs have already deployed w/them. 4 M-777 LW155s & 4 EFSS ITV/120mm combos (et al).
    Ok. But I'm trying to get my head (too big for the miniscule brain contained within it) just why this arrangement is deem desirable. Ok, so you've got the 81mm mortar plt in the Bn weapons coy...so why a composite 120mm/155mm battery, why not just a pure battery of 155mm (yes, I know lift and deployment considerations come in to it but, for my money, the idea of a "rapid" reaction force or capability is a mis-nomer. Time is relative). Why not just replace the 81s with 120s (same manpower requirements IIRC)? If its a question of retaining the man-packable requirement then I understand but long range 81s have near identical ranges as 120s (excepting lethality of course). With this set up a MEU has to deal with four different ammunition cailbres (60, 81,120,155) not to mention the different natures. Don't mean to be a, (best French accent) how you say, dunce but it intrigues me is all.

    As an aside I don't much care for the recent sprouting of UK "cheerleaders" (I'm a cultural/political conservative) but I suppose they do have their uses (in terms of morale, I mean)

  9. #189
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    CenTex
    Posts
    222

    Default

    The EFSS is a rifled mortar. It is very heavy, well over 1,000 pounds. An 81, in contrast, is man portable.

    Similarly, the USMC is banking on computer simulations that show that four M777A2s have enough firepower to replace the six that you would find in an older Battery. Whether this has to do with better fire direction, better target location, improved control with DFCS or even better lethality with M795... that I can't say, but all those things have gotten better since the six cannon battery was standardized.

  10. #190
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    81

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tukhachevskii View Post
    Ok, so you've got the 81mm mortar plt in the Bn weapons coy...so why a composite 120mm/155mm battery, why not just a pure battery of 155mm (yes, I know lift and deployment considerations come in to it but, for my money, the idea of a "rapid" reaction force or capability is a mis-nomer. Time is relative).
    You definitely need something in between 81s & 155s. Most Light Infantry opt for the 105mm Howitzer to cover the gap btwn them.

    The Brits Para & RM along w/the US Army's Light Units use versions of the L-119/M-119 105s, which can be sling-loaded by Med-Lift Helos or driven off the back of most Heavy's.

    The USMC had also previously used 105s in that role, but when they committed to the V-22 they wanted a system that could fill the gap, but also be transported Internally to maximize the V-22s speed & range.

    It gives up a little range to the 105, 8km vs 13km, but it makes up for it exponentially in maneuverability & utility, 300mph & virtually rangeless (internally) vs 110mph & maybe 150mi (sling loaded 105).

    Quote Originally Posted by Tukhachevskii View Post
    With this set up a MEU has to deal with four different ammunition cailbres (60, 81,120,155) not to mention the different natures. Don't mean to be a, (best French accent) how you say, dunce but it intrigues me is all.
    Not at all, like I said most Light Inf use the 105 where the USMC is using the 120.

    It would actually be more to deal w/for those other units. They would have to deal w/the extra size & weight, more moving parts, & the combination of shell & charge with 105 howitzer vice the 120 mortar system.

  11. #191
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    CenTex
    Posts
    222

    Default

    The M119A2 has a 19.2Km range with RAP. The Denel G7 has a 40Km range with a VLAP projectile.

    The 105 has a drawback in effects, because the 120 has a lot more effect on the target than a standard 105, and the RAP round has even less explosive.

    Fundamentally you have to make a choice between range and effect. The angle of fall on a mortar has some advantages, too.

    The 155 just has a longer range and slightly better projectile design. The cost is size and weight.

  12. #192
    Council Member Fuchs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,189

    Default

    People look too often at the effect of a single round.
    105mm HE covers more area with fragments than 155mm HE per pound.

    The only real advantages of 155mm are the cargo rounds (bomblets!), less expenditures for fuzes per unit of effect and you can more easily achieve a long range.

    155mm's disadvantages are the ceteris paribus greater weapon weight and greater HE danger zone for friendlies.

  13. #193
    Council Member jcustis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    SOCAL
    Posts
    2,152

    Default

    In our current endeavor, 155mm PGMs can be overmatched by rockets and their inherent precision, range, and responsiveness. Excalibur is good, but cannot compete across range.

  14. #194
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    51

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SethB View Post
    The EFSS is a rifled mortar. It is very heavy, well over 1,000 pounds. An 81, in contrast, is man portable.

    Similarly, the USMC is banking on computer simulations that show that four M777A2s have enough firepower to replace the six that you would find in an older Battery. Whether this has to do with better fire direction, better target location, improved control with DFCS or even better lethality with M795... that I can't say, but all those things have gotten better since the six cannon battery was standardized.
    I've worked on enough simulations to know that you can basically "simulate" any way you want to achieve the pre-ordained "results" that you have been told to get. Not to disagree or agree with the topic at hand, but I imagine that the simulations were "dialed-down" to reflect more recent experience - I seriously doubt that they took into account the massive firepower used in say, Korea (or, for that matter, even during the Marines drive to Baghdad...)

    Personally, given the current conditions, I think eight 81mm and 4 M777 or 120mm is fine, considering that they won't get much of a workout anyway. In the long run, cutting batteries down to 4 from 6 (or to 6 from 8), while at the same time shedding artillery battalions from the OOB like fur from a furry cat on a hot day won't serve us well...

  15. #195
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    589

    Default Don't mean to offend or ruffle feathers...

    Quote Originally Posted by Sabre View Post
    In the long run, cutting batteries down to 4 from 6 (or to 6 from 8), while at the same time shedding artillery battalions from the OOB like fur from a furry cat on a hot day won't serve us well...
    When I first heard about "Transformation" I was as excited as when I hear "Transformers" was being turned into a live-action film. Have to say I was dissapointed by both. IMO the U.S. artillery brigade (Like the old Soviet Artillery Division) and Div Regimental Artillery Group) is EXACTLY what the so-called "Transformed" army needs. All that emphasis on ISTAR, long-range precision engagement, etc. and yet you chaps disband the only organisation that didn't need to be disbanded to continue performing its mission. IMO it would have been better to allocated nothing larger than a battery of 6-8 120mm per manourve (damn it, never can spell that word) Bn. NO artillery spy for the brigade. Instead each 2-5 bde division or UX or whatever its new fancy name is should have been supported by an artillery bde with four 155mm bns (24 guns) and two MLRS Bns (54) AS STANDARD. The Arty bn could be detached to a brigade when necessry as per Div 86. But fire support would be co-ordinated like it used ot be under the Bde HQ not "distributed" throughour the network only to end up with its "signal stregth" eroded (friction is a constant element) and no way to mass fires (which IMO is always a requirement). Now the Russians were well on their way, theroeetically and doctrinally, to just such a "transformed" army with similar bde groups but never, I repeat never, would they, have they or are they considering disbanding their arty bdes... their bemused question would be ....WHY? They've even upraged their 240mm SPM with a laser guided round, in fact, the 240 was used extensivly in FIBUA during the last Chechen conflict and even in the Georgian war. You can't guarentee air-superiority or you'r GPS wont be jammed. Whether or not the force design pendulum swings back in favour of infantry-heavy vs armoured heavy forces is irrelevant. The need for arty is and will always be a constant.

    So, why did the US Army disband the arty bde, perhaps the most lethal formation (especially with today's sensors/technology) in its arsenal next to the CAV regts?

  16. #196
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    CenTex
    Posts
    222

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sabre View Post
    Personally, given the current conditions, I think eight 81mm and 4 M777 or 120mm is fine, considering that they won't get much of a workout anyway. In the long run, cutting batteries down to 4 from 6 (or to 6 from 8), while at the same time shedding artillery battalions from the OOB like fur from a furry cat on a hot day won't serve us well...
    Don't discount the HIMARs. With the M30 GMLRS it can deliver almost the same amount of submunitions that a single round from a Battery can, except it does so with significantly more accuracy and with about three times the range. It isn't quite as responsive, but it has some punch.

  17. #197
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    CenTex
    Posts
    222

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tukhachevskii View Post
    So, why did the US Army disband the arty bde, perhaps the most lethal formation (especially with today's sensors/technology) in its arsenal next to the CAV regts?
    Each BCT has BN of organic artillery, and we have six FiBs that have 155MM cannons (towed or self propelled) and MLRS or HIMARs launchers.

  18. #198
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    81

    Default Sabre

    Quote Originally Posted by Sabre View Post
    I seriously doubt that they took into account the massive firepower used in say, Korea (or, for that matter, even during the Marines drive to Baghdad...)
    Its not really a matter of the enemy they're facing today.

    In the Korean War nor the Push thru Iraq did they have a weapon like the M-777. Its not just a new Light Weight replacement 155. It itself is a Smart Weapon, w/or w/out Excalibur.

    Similar to a Self-Prop it has a digital fire control system. Making its rate of fire much faster & far more accurate, meaning you need to fire far less rounds.

    Not only that but it knows exactly where it & all the other Guns networked to it are in relation to the enemy & the Battlefield. Making calculations & adjustments in seconds that used to take men minutes, allowing for Guns to operate w/much greater dispersion.

    Add to that the Excalibur & you give yourself a Standoff range that's nearly 2x that of the enemy.

    The M777 is easily worth at least 2 of the Guns it replaced not to mention any Korean War Era Guns.

    Personally, given the current conditions, I think eight 81mm and 4 M777 or 120mm is fine, considering that they won't get much of a workout anyway.
    It is correct that the Marine Arty Batts are cutting down from 6 155mm M-777 to 4.

    But it is not cutting down fr/6 Arty Pieces to 4. It is actually going up from 6 Pieces to 8; 4 M-777 + 4 EFSS 120mm Mortar Sys. It makes for a more versatile & tailored Fire Support package.
    Last edited by COMMAR; 08-29-2010 at 09:45 PM.

  19. #199
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    CenTex
    Posts
    222

    Default

    Much is made of DFCS' ability to shoot to the tenth of a mil, but it isn't the biggest improvement in artillery technology.

    On the FDC side we've got AFATDS to calculate more accurate firing solutions than previously possible. We've got digital communications between the gun line and the observer. We've got laser range finders that reduce Target Location Error.

    Artillery (and mortars) are more accurate now than ever before. And thanks to M483A1, M795 and other newer munitions, the rounds themselves are more lethal than they were in Korea.

    For that matter, a few Batteries of MLRS would have simplified the situation on the Korean Peninsula. The big downside remains the tremendous ammunition consumption of MLRS operations. That is why the goal is to go all GMLRS, thereby reducing ammunition consumption by a significant amount.

  20. #200
    Council Member Fuchs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,189

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by COMMAR View Post
    Its not really a matter of the enemy they're facing today.

    In the Korean War nor the Push thru Iraq did they have a weapon like the M-777. Its not just a new Light Weight replacement 155. It itself is a Smart Weapon, w/or w/out Excalibur.

    Similar to a Self-Prop it has a digital fire control system. Making its rate of fire much faster & far more accurate, meaning you need to fire far less rounds.

    Not only that but it knows exactly where it & all the other Guns networked to it are in relation to the enemy & the Battlefield. Making calculations & adjustments in seconds that used to take men minutes, allowing for Guns to operate w/much greater dispersion.

    Add to that the Excalibur & you give yourself a Standoff range that's nearly 2x that of the enemy.

    The M777 is easily worth at least 2 of the Guns it replaced not to mention any Korean War Era Guns.
    Does somebody pay you for this advertising or do you really believe all this corporate and army propaganda about this overpriced and glorified gun?


    The M777 isn't even close to the average response times of a well-crewed M109 because of its limited traverse.

    Excalibur out-rages opponents by factor 2? What opponent, 1960's howitzers?
    The published range of Excalibur Block Ib is 40 km. That is the HE-BB range of 155mmL/52 under hot conditions. Both the new Russian and new Chinese SPHs have significantly longer barrels and base range than M777, which was crippled by its weight limit. Their range with BB and RAP is close or better than M777 with Excalibur.

    The external ballistics of the M777 are reputed to yield a much inferior dispersion with dumb rounds in comparison to high quality 52cal barrels.

    The rate of fire is nothing extraordinary, and thus the gun cannot replace 2 M198 in fire missions that require much ammunition, such as suppression and smoke screen. I doubt that it can replace more than 1.2 M198s in any situation.
    Many fire missions cannot be done with "less rounds" at all.

    Digital fire control isn't that much faster than manual one unless you compare poor crews with each other.
    Ballistic calculations can be done on mobile phones nowadays. Even crews with old MilSpec hardware can easily benefit of this (and such ballistic computers have been common since the 80's, being introduced for the first time for field arty in late WW2).


    Let's see the M777 as what it is:
    * A towed howitzer (one generation after towed howitzers were deemed not survivable enough in artillery duels)
    * with limited traverse and thus at best mediocre response times (two generations after the first towed howitzers with all-round traverse!),
    * high personnel requirements (for quick turning beyond the base traverse) and
    * a 39cal barrel with obsolete external ballistics.

    The only good thing about it is the low weight, but I don't get why this was kept so low because CH-53 can easily lift much more over useful distances and the H-60 can't do under adverse weather conditions (hot) over good distances.

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
  •