Organization & Distance

[Timothy OConnor]

Of course, as you go up the ladder of echelons, frontages (and depths) increase (see especially pages 5-5 and 6-3 to get an idea of what is involved here), depending upon the number of sub-units that units put on the line (ie 2 up, 1 back, vice versa, etc.) and spaces between sub-units of units, and units of formations.

Outstanding info! Love the the way the chart correlates weapon to frontage.

An interesting excercise would be to tag the weapons on the chart at the command level and concentration at which various weapon systems are organized.

This goes to the ATGM vs ATRL in urban warfare. Also goes to systems such as 60mm and 81mm mortars (and now 120mm!). Some American TO&Es show only 2 such weapons concentrated in a weapons platoon or weapons company respectively. Others have 3 or 4 and some have proposed as many as 8! This raises the issue of how many such weapons are required to develop a "critical mass" given their tactical roll. Too few 60mm mortars and do you simlpy have an overweight grenade launcher? Too many 81mm mortars and have you created an overweight maneuver element that ties down the battalion? Too few and are you simlpy engaging in small-scale H&I fire without really bending the enemy to your will through agile, rapid response indirect fires? Keep concentrated or disperse? (Some of my friends assert that the Germans dispersed their battalion-level mortars in 1s and 2s to the companies which makes sense due to poor comm technology in WWII.)

Actually got a deadline to deal with so I cannot give this the attention it deserves right now, but the critical aspect here is not really anything to do with weapons. It's sensors and communications equipment. How far you can disperse a given organisation is pretty much a function of the four critical freedoms of Fires, Observation, Communication and Manoeuvre. Your ability to do those things in time and space will define how far you can disperse and how quickly you can concentrate.

EG- A dismounted Coy with Spike ATGMS and a Man packed UAV can in theory cover a 3.5km x 3.5km area in terms of an anti-armour mission. Reality is somewhat different!

This goes to the heart of my interest. Looking forward to your reply!

Small units of dispersed light infantry can accomplish amazing feats of arms against the right enemy (ie those "more" easily found and engaged by supporting stand-off weapons!) But at what point does such dispersion become a liability when trying to clear and control battle space such as an urban environment? Such a force, a sort of rapier, has the attributes needed for quick, precise, and lethal strikes against the right opponent. But against a "hardened", dispersed opponent determined to stand his ground in higher numbers do you need a warhammer instead? Thus two different types of battalions?

My son and I had a discussion today about an "ideal" weapon system. The target acquisition and designation system would be very small and blend in with the environment so as to be innocuous. The muntitions are dispersed and hidden in hard to ID and hard to reach places, silent until called upon by the "hunter" so even when "fired" their release doesn't draw unwanted attention to a platform that matters any longer or a platform that's reachable by enemy weapons. We've nearly achieved that level of capability in some ways and for certain situations and clearly the trend is in that direction. But for now there are severe limits on such technologies when the trigger-pullers must clear and hold certain types of terrain (and without too many broken buildings resulting!) :-)