Size of the Platoon and Company

[COMMAR]

With the ability to call upon Artillery and Air will really multiply the Squads impact and in turn the wider dispersal of Squads will allow a Platoon do the work of a Company, or even a Battalion if the stars are lined up right..

The Second Marine Division is standing up a Marine Expeditionary Brigade for Afghanistan this Spring/Summer and I hope some of the units in that MEB will employ the concepts listed above.

You've actually seen light flashes of it in one form or another since '04 Marines went into Anbar & started Distibuting Plt's out in COPs 60-70mi fr/the BN HQ.

It was seen & proven effective in Full Glory in a deployment of a Platoon that attached to the US Army's 10th Mtn in '06.

But its doubtful if they'll fully unleash it again for a few yrs, although Combat Hunter is standard PTP now. They want to get all the bugs worked out of the "Enhanced Company Operations", ECO Concept, before they fully expose it.

I don't see that happening until they solve Logistics & that won't be for another few yrs. They have alot of good ideas in the works but it will be 1-3yrs until they're proven effective.


Actually a few of the Log ideas are slated to be proven in A'stan next yr. One is the Ultralite J-PAD, the GPS guided parachute resupply system of about 200-700lbs of gear.

Another is the AH-6X "Little Bird" UAV slated to be able to carry 4 Marines, weapons, & over 2,000lbs of payload AUTONOMOUSLY. Now that is some serious Juice.

At about $5mil a pop, even at 10, if you could get 3-6 of them allocated per Dispersed Company it would change the game. They can be used for Log & Resupply, Manuever, CasEvac, Weapons Platform, Surveillance & Reconnaissance, the possibilities are endless..


"Future Weapons" video clip.
http://awwar.com/Military-Weapons/Ai...ittle-Bird-UAV

[Ken White]

COMMAR said:

"Combat Lifesaver is a program the Corps started in '02. 1 Marine fr/each squad is trained in CL Course which was basically a Combat Medic Course (lite).

Needles for IV, Trachea tubes for breathing etc. its a very in depth course. I believe the Army requires it now also.

The Army introduced the program in 1985, firmly pushed it into full execution in 1988. Troops from the 82d on an MTT to get Canada's first rotation to Kandahar were responsible for the Canadians also adopting the program.

We can all learn from each other.

[RJ]

The widely disbursed platoons and squads could be protected by this new artillery concept in Afganistan 24/7.

The Marine Corps Times posted this today about a Marine Reserve artillery battery in Helmand Provience

The reservists with Battery D, 2nd Battalion, 14th Marines, had been at Camp Barber only three weeks in February when they conducted a successful field test of their High Mobility Artillery Rocket System, a first for any Marine unit operating in Afghanistan and a sign of what’s in store for the insurgency there, officials said in a news release.

HiMARS is more advanced than a traditional howitzer, Maj. Frankie P. Delgado, battery commander, said in the release. With its three-man crew, the system cradles six 200-pound rockets. Its range can exceed 40 miles, and the rockets, guided by a Global Positioning System, are accurate to within 26 feet.

Has the US Army used HiMARS in Iraq or Afganistan?

Any pros or cons on the rockets and their accuracy would be appreciated.

Will the Squad or Platoons be the FO elements for this 40 mile radius weapon?

[William F. Owen]

Has the US Army used HiMARS in Iraq or Afganistan?

Any pros or cons on the rockets and their accuracy would be appreciated.

Will the Squad or Platoons be the FO elements for this 40 mile radius weapon?

Dunno, but the UK has been using GMLRS for the last 2 years. Last I heard, airspace de-confliction meant that missions took about 12 mins from request to attack.

Remember rockets attack in the low trajectory, so there are issues there, but in this day an age, it's not much of a step forward.

[jcustis]

Dunno, but the UK has been using GMLRS for the last 2 years. Last I heard, airspace de-confliction meant that missions took about 12 mins from request to attack.

Remember rockets attack in the low trajectory, so there are issues there, but in this day an age, it's not much of a step forward.

Accuracy differences between the systems are indeed significant steps forward.

[RJ]

What is the re-load time for the 3 man crew handling 6 200 pound rockets?

Can the individual six pack's handle multiple targets?

What's the TOT at maximum range of a rocket?

How fast can a battery shoot and scoot?

Can the rounds (rockets) be lazered to the target?

Can the launchers be sling hauled by helo and what is the smallest helo in the inventory capable of lifting them?

[William F. Owen]

What is the re-load time for the 3 man crew handling 6 200 pound rockets?

Doesn't MLRS have an auto-loader?

Can the individual six pack's handle multiple targets?

Yes

What's the TOT at maximum range of a rocket?

Well over 1 minute according to someone I know.

How fast can a battery shoot and scoot?

I think the "battery" is now one vehicle.

Can the rounds (rockets) be lazered to the target?

The Israelis have had a laser guided MLRS round for some time.

Can the launchers be sling hauled by helo and what is the smallest helo in the inventory capable of lifting them?

I think CH-47 can sling lift HiMARS.
You may want to look at this

[William F. Owen]

Accuracy differences between the systems are indeed significant steps forward.

For MLRS it's a step forward but for we've had <8m accuracy for some time. I think Copperhead, was around during GW1 and there has been a similar Russian systems in service for the last 5 years.

I fully accept it's an improvement, but it's not a game changer. Go back 30 years and 207mm artillery could hit bridges and individual vehicles, in the low trajectory, though it required some adjustment of fire.

[jcustis]

For MLRS it's a step forward but for we've had <8m accuracy for some time. I think Copperhead, was around during GW1 and there has been a similar Russian systems in service for the last 5 years.

I fully accept it's an improvement, but it's not a game changer. Go back 30 years and 207mm artillery could hit bridges and individual vehicles, in the low trajectory, though it required some adjustment of fire.

Wilf,

I totally disagree on the terms of the game changing or not, and here is why:

In this day and age, low CEP delivery systems have everything to do with the decision to employ those fires in the midst of a collateral damage calculus. I don't think Copperhead is really a player when you look at the comparative ranges involved, and the target designation requirement. You don't need to designate with the rocket systems.

HIMARS and the GMLRS rockets it employs are like night and day when compared to a Copperhead round, when you take into account the GPS guidance package.

In this day and age...in our small wars...we are frequently presented with a tactical problem that doesn't allow for adjusted fires. Pin-point accuracy (yes, a relative term) is required.

And as for airspace deconfliction, I'm not so sure that the rocket systems present a different problem than standard tube artillery. The three forms of deconfliction remain the same whether the round is dumb or not - lateral separation, separation by time, and separation by altitude. Determining the rocket path and telling aircraft to stay above or to the side of that path is an easy proposition, even if the rocket is going to alter it's course enroute; the stay-above has to be easy to plot and account for. Clearance delays are likely imposed due to the nature of the C2 system employed, not the calculations involved. Tighten up the procedures and all you have to deal with is flight time.

Am I a rocket fanatic? No...but if I can be ranged by rocket artillery where tubes cannot play, I''m not going to look down my nose at the support.