Infantry Unit Tactics, Tasks, Weapons, and Organization

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Logan Hartke]

First of all, let me just introduce myself since this is my first post. The reason that I joined this forum is that I found that many people here were discussing some of the same ideas I had been kicking around for a few years, down to individual pieces of equipment. In fact, that's how I found this in the first place. I was searching the web for anything and everything on the QLB06 (again) and noticed that this site was coming up, which it had not when I had originally been searching on it a couple of years ago.

Anyway, I've been putting together a hypothetical small unit modern TO&E for a few years now, and it's been evolving as my ideas do. It started off as a 13-man infantry squad with all 5.56 weapons and tons of attachments at the platoon level, gaining more and more attachments as you went up the chain. At that configuration, my infantry battalions were quickly taking on the look of a panzer division. I didn't realize this until I actually tried to stuff the unit into vehicles and found that I was hitting triple digits before I even started adding support and logistics vehicles. So, I started over.

Well, I won't bore you with all the iterations I went through, so I'll just post images of where the TO&Es currently stand with brief descriptions and will try my best to answer any criticisms or comments that anyone might have with them.

Infantry Tables of Organization and Equipment

Infantry Company TO&E
This shows the infantry company down to the fireteams that make up squads and supporting weapons teams.

Infantry Battalion TO&E
This is the full battalion TO&E. You can see, much of it doesn't look too earth-shattering, it's a basic triangular setup, but when you see the actual teams that compose the unit, you should see that it's not as conventional.

Infantry Team Composition

I'll admit, there's some gold-plating here. This isn't a TO&E for the Zimbabwean defence forces. This is aimed a bit more at a more typical Western nation for what it's able to spend on its units. Then again, I'm not buying Javelins, G36s, WA2000s, and XM307s, so it isn't a Star Wars unit, either.

I've got two fireteams of four men each for an eight man squad size. This was determined almost entirely by available personnel carriers. I wasn't interested in the super-expensive USMC EFVs, nor did I want to split my squad up between two vehicles. That was both for cost reasons and for cohesive leadership in combat.

For an example of how such a unit would break down into carrier vehicles, here's the TO&Es of that infantry unit in my Motorized Infantry Battalions.

Motorized Infantry Company TO&E

Motorized Infantry Battalion TO&E

...and on the other end of the scale, here's the same basic infantry group mounted in the heaviest infantry combat vehicles in my hypothetical military.

Heavy Mechanized Infantry Company TO&E

Heavy Mechanized Infantry Battalion TO&E

The Namer IFVs that they would be mounted in would be armed with the 40mm CTWS gun and SPIKE LR ATGMs on the Rafael's Samson RCWS turret. That might seem to be pretty heavy armament for infantry support, but--to be honest--it's done as a cost-saving measure. The SPIKEs and such aren't so much to protect the poor infantry from the big bad tanks, they're more a matter of protecting your investment. If you roll onto the battlefield with the big ol' Namer, barreling through artillery barrages and HMG fire to go into a town, the enemy is going to quickly catch on that they need something a bit heavier to deal with you. The RCWS is as much to deal with enemy tanks, IFVs, and ATGMs as it is enemy infantry. That being said, my IFVs are designed to support the infantry they carry, even after they've been dropped off. That's why my mechanized battalions dispense with the battalion-level ATGM teams. When every IFV has them, they're superfluous. It's also cost-saving, because you don't need as many MBTs in your army to escort your infantry into an area that might have two or three T-72s lurking in it.

That being said, I understand and value the role of APCs as opposed to IFVs, too. Where's the line? Well, there's an element of gray area, but for the most part, if the unit is "motorized" then their vehicles are primarily "battle taxis" and shouldn't be hanging out in the front lines most of the time. The infantry are expected to fight a primarily dismounted battle, only occasionally supported by the carrier vehicles (such as for AA or AT support). In the case of "mechanized" units, however, while still expected to fight primarily dismounted, the unit should still be expected to be able to fight "buttoned up" in certain situations. The main difference is that IFVs shouldn't be an uncommon sight on the battlefield supporting dismounted infantry in the case of a mechanized unit as opposed to a motorized unit.

That's enough for one post. I'll add more in subsequent posts. I have infantry battalion and company TO&Es for units equipped with CV90, PARS wheeled vehicles, Marine units, and Airborne units all based around this basic setup if anyone is interested in those, as well.

Logan Hartke

[Ken White]

I'll look those over in detail. Some good ideas at first blush.

Why not go to this LINK and scroll up a dozen or so posts to see what others have posted in the way of an introduction and then add a comment on that thread telling us a little about yourself and your background.

[Logan Hartke]

I'll look those over in detail. Some good ideas at first blush.

Why not go to this LINK and scroll up a dozen or so posts to see what others have posted in the way of an introduction and then add a comment on that thread telling us a little about yourself and your background.

Will do.

Alright, a bit about the unique bits of equipment. You'll see that much is standard, but that there is one thing that is consistent among all of the weapons. They're very light weight for their class of weapon. I really was on a weight-control program in building up this force. I wanted it to be light and fast, but very hard-hitting. That's why half of my line rifle units are armed with the 7.62mm NATO. They're the primary fire element in a classic fire and maneuver tactic. They're going to be able to lay down the harder-hitting, better-penetrating, more accurate fire, while the 5.56 half is much better suited to suppressing/covering fire, close combat, and house to house, where rate of fire is more important and long-range less so. That said, the 5.56 half is equipped with weapons no less accurate (moreso, in fact) than any current standard Western infantry squad and the 7.62 half has weapons light and controllable enough to do house-clearing and maneuver operations as easily as the 5.56-equipped units currently out there. I'm basically trying to have my cake and eat it too. The weapons are very similar except for the bolt, barrel, and ammunition, allowing weapons to be switched up without the need for much retraining. It also allows for a pretty common pool of spare parts for the small arms. While the unit has three total calibers--which may seem excessive--it's no worse than many units out there today. Almost all squads at this point have 9mm in one form or another, typically pistols, sometimes SMGs. Most Western militaries then use a 5.56mm basis for their assault rifles and either a 7.62mm squad marksman rifle or a 7.62mm machine gun not too far up the line. I have the 4.7mm, the 5.56mm, and the 7.62mm, just in more even proportions than is currently found in modern armies.

I don't have as many ATGMs as some people's TO&Es propose, but that's for a few reasons. First of all, this is just one arm of my hypothetical military. I drew up an air force and armor units, as well, although these are not pertinent here. They are very heavy in anti-armor resources. I'm not one of those airpower advocates foolish enough to believe that nothing larger than a well-camouflaged ATV is going to make it to the front lines in one piece, but at the same time, if a column of twenty T-72s has made it to the front lines intact and is battling my besieged infantry units, then something has gone terribly wrong and either I'm getting attacked by a force with way more tanks to throw around than it should have, or my air force and artillery arms have been thoroughly decimated. Anyway, the ATGM weapons I do have are very capable and even the almost squad-common PzF 3 I am equipping my forces with is multi-role, accurate, and very lethal--even to modern MBTs.

Also, my 120mm mortars can be used in that role in a pinch in most cases. Even if they weren't equipped with the guided 120mm AT mortar rounds, my most common 120mm mortar mount is the NEMO, followed by the AMOS, which can both be used in the direct fire role. Now granted, a 120mm mortar is no Rheinmetall 120mm gun, but a couple of even HE 120mm mortar rounds to the front of a T-72 is going to damage optics and explode ERA at the very least. They do have HEAT rounds for those 120mm mortars in the direct-fire role, too, and those could knock out an MBT.

The fact of the matter is that I believe I won't even be employing most of my AT assets most of the time. That's why most of them are dual-role. My SPIKE teams have 60mm Commando mortars to provide platoon-level 60mm mortar fire (it's assumed they'd be attached and under direct control of the platoon commander) if necessary, whether it be smoke, flares, or HE rounds. They also could serve useful against tanks, as they can lay smoke to cover the withdrawal of ATGM units that have exposed themselves. They wouldn't carry many rounds, but could easily and quickly be resupplied from the company-level mortars.

That brings me to the 60mm mortars I'm using. I've decided to go with the Vektor M6, which gives me a lot more range with hardly any more weight (no more than many 60mm mortars). I've provided them at the company level, which is occasionally a bit high for a 60mm mortar, but the increased range makes them nearly as effective as an 81mm mortar but at much less weight and without the extra caliber floating around my supply chain. I do have four of those tubes, however, three commando mortars, and the 120mm mortars with Battalion. I really want the platoon commanders to stay within visual range of the action and leading the squads up front. I don't need him hunkering in some firepit with his two 60mm tubes calling out orders to his squads over the radio. The company commander is better suited for command of the mortars.

The 4.7mm PDW is so attractive to me because it provides a submachine gun level of firepower in a pistol package, which greatly increases the practical firepower of a unit like mine in jungle or urban environments, even on the move, when many crew-served weapons crews are at their most disadvantaged. The body-armor penetrating potential of the round makes up for its lack of stopping power in this day and age, where Kevlar vests are starting to become as common as the bayonet once was (and far more useful). At first I wasn't interested as no one was using it, but Norway's large purchase of them alleviated those fears enough that I think it's worth it, especially s a carbine-like weapon for more of your service personnel.

Last of the really unique bits is the aforementioned QLB06 35mm grenade launcher. Don't get confused with the MG/AGL teams in my company. Their an either/or deal, not typically both. They don't have the people for it, and they're not both always going to be useful. It will be at the discretion of the commanders as to whether they want their teams using the 7.62mm MG, the 35mm AGL, or a combination of the two.

Anyway, comments and questions are welcome.

Logan Hartke

[Rifleman]

Welcome Logan,

I understand your fascination with organizational details at the tactical level. I like to mull over things like that myself.

There are several long threads here that will doubtless interest you: the one about rifle squad composition, for starters.

One of the things that came out of that thread was the belief (shared by most, anyway) that the current USMC 13-man squad design is probably the most capable of them all.

Something else that was discussed is that the Army will likely never have enough people for that kind of squad: for better or worse they are stuck with the nine-man squad for the foreseeable future. So, if that's the case, one of the ideas tossed around was should the Army give up the fire team sub-division and go with a squad similar in design to the WWII era German gruppe. Paul Melody had an interesting article that came to that same conclusion (more or less).

Somewhere in that long list of posts are links to Paul Melody's article and another about the WWII era German gruppe.

Oh yeah, Wilf is our board rebel on this issue (gotta love him! ). His view is that the focus should be on the platoon, and that the platoon should be made up of what you might think of as several large fire teams.

[reed11b]

Your TO&E seems very equipment centered. My experiance in TO&E is that they are either slight variations of current structure (fine-tuning so to speak) or radically differnt and based on unique training and/or command and control concepts (Wilf's is a great example of this). Question is..are there any non equipment related reasons behind your TO&E choices?
Reed

[Logan Hartke]

One of the things that came out of that thread was the belief (shared by most, anyway) that the current USMC 13-man squad design is probably the most capable of them all.

Something else that was discussed is that the Army will likely never have enough people for that kind of squad: for better or worse they are stuck with the nine-man squad for the foreseeable future. So, if that's the case, one of the ideas tossed around was should the Army give up the fire team sub-division and go with a squad similar in design to the WWII era German gruppe. Paul Melody had an interesting article that came to that same conclusion (more or less).

Trust me, I like the 13-man or so squad, it's just that I hate having to split up a squad to get it from point A to point B. If you're not splitting it up, then you have to pack it into a wheeled vehicle only slightly shorter than a stretch limo (get yourself a nice 10x10 Piranha) or just slightly smaller than a two-story house (EFV). That may not be a problem for the USMC, who likes to go places in landing craft, V-22s, or by foot, but for a real mechanized army, things get a bit more difficult.

I toyed with the idea of using APCs like the FNSS ACV-S, but even then I was having to do things that I didn't want to do with the vehicle. Reduce it to MG only, manned by a squaddie. Store all weapons and ammo on the exterior of the vehicle. Make the squad commander the vehicle commander, etc. I was able to get a 13-man squad, but only by neutering my IFVs, cramming guys in like sardines, and getting Battalions that had more armored personnel carriers than most African armies posses in toto. I had charts and charts of ways I could make it work, laid out on notebook paper and computer documents. I studied the USMC organization up and down. In my dream world where my rocket-pack troopers flew from one combat zone to another, the 13-man squad was ideal. But in the world where an EFV costs as much as a new MiG-29 and a V-22 costs as much as a Eurofighter, the 13-man squad was too much trouble to simply move around the battlefield. I liked it, too. I had a SMAW in each squad, etc. It was nice. In a modern day battle of Rorke's Drift or Krinkelt/Rocherath, it would have cleaned up. But knowing that I couldn't rely on the enemy to meet me on my terms on my prepared battlefield, I had to change it up a bit. I don't think I've lost much in actual effectiveness, however, as may of the pieces that the gold-plated 13-man squad had can be added on an as-needed basis once on the battlefield.

Your TO&E seems very equipment centered. My experiance in TO&E is that they are either slight variations of current structure (fine-tuning so to speak) or radically differnt and based on unique training and/or command and control concepts (Wilf's is a great example of this). Question is..are there any non equipment related reasons behind your TO&E choices?
Reed

That I'll admit to. This is primarily a way for me to envision what the requirements would be for equipping the kind of military I felt would be necessary for the defense of a nation. If you look at it, though, you'll see that there are a few very serious differences in the way this force would be employed compared to most modern militaries. One is the reemergence of the 7.62mm down to the squad. I'm not convinced that a whole squad of 7.62mm is best, however, so there's a mix. This isn't just a matter of one cartridge over another. This is a matter of putting the reach out and touch someone abilities back in the hands of the squaddie (or at least the squad commander), without going right back to the 1950s dilemma of an all 7.62x51mm unit with the supply and weight issues it came with.

There are very few holes in the battalion, where a unit would be terribly vulnerable to a certain type of enemy formation or tactic. Likewise, there are few parts of my structure that would be out of a job in a certain situation. The equipment I've chosen complements my strategy of "waste not, want not". Most of my units are at least dual-purpose and mobile enough to be equally effective on the offensive or defensive, in mounted or dismounted combat.

Much of my TO&E has been influenced by my immense respect for what McNair did to the US Army's organization at the start of WWII. It had a lot of problems, and many lessons were learned. It did, however, "cut the fat", which was its intention from the get-go. In most cases they US Army still ended up with a better TO&E than their opponents, lean as it was. While by no means copying it to a tee, that was my intention, as well. Get a highly-mobile basic building block to work off of, where a certain type of equipment could be replaced or substituted on an as-needed basis without turning the army on its head. An organization that was heavy on firepower, could readily accept whatever attachments necessary to accomplish the mission, yet was highly-standardized and required a relative minimum of support for the capabilities it offered.

I've been soaking up TO&Es from WWII British Commandos to Italian 2+2 Infantry companies to German Panzergrenadiers to Cold War Soviet Motor Rifle Divisions and American Pentomic Divisions to anything modern, from Swiss to Chinese formations. I can't say I have the best setup, by any means, but I've given a good deal of thought to every piece of the TO&E and while influenced from every corner of the globe from the past 60 years, but have copied nothing. I've studied the radical and have even toyed with the radical (6.5mm Grendel ammunition, modern rifle-grenades, UAVs in the squad), but in most cases found that they're radical for a reason.

I think I have been innovative in many ways. I've grown particularly fond of my half 5.56, half 7.62 squad. I also like the inclusion of the commando mortar in the ATGM squads. I've done the kg by kg math for each squad and crew-served weapon member to make sure that nothing I do is totally impractical. My planned reconnaissance units are to be pseudo-elite formations, like the British Recce groups in WWII, although employed far differently. They're a combination of the traditional recce roles and the modern FIST roles into one. Again, it's by no perfect or even revolutionary, but I've tried to come up with an organization that is, if nothing else, effective.


As much time as I have put into this, it's an evolving TO&E. With every book that I read, I make a change to it. My recent reading of "Steeds of Steel" has caused me to place a great emphasis on the combat needs of scout units and having a clear idea of what their role should be after making contact with the enemy. I'm very open to suggestion. My adoption of the next-generation LAWs, some of the 7.62mm firepower, the PzF 3, and the CV90 can all be attributed to suggestions by others after having heard my initial ideas. My current TO&Es wouldn't recognize my initial groups at all. That's why I'm posting them on here, to get some feedback on them, good and bad.

Logan Hartke

[Cavguy]

I think I have been innovative in many ways. I've grown particularly fond of my half 5.56, half 7.62 squad. I also like the inclusion of the commando mortar in the ATGM squads. I've done the kg by kg math for each squad and crew-served weapon member to make sure that nothing I do is totally impractical.

Disclaimer: I haven't read all of the above yet.

One big consideration is logistics tail. My concern for hybrid ammo squads is that now you have just increased the amount and type of ammo needed to carry and reduced interchangability in organizations. While the "tail" shouldn't wag the dog, we have learned that it does matter. This also applies to too many specialized vehicle types requiring different parts, and too many different weapons. Not to mention you begin to expand your support BN/HHC when you have to add specialized mechanics and technicians to troubleshoot all the different equipment models.

I'm not a big fan of the FCS (yet), but the idea of moving to a vehicle system with 80% parts commonality has huge logistical impacts in a positive way.

[Logan Hartke]

Disclaimer: I haven't read all of the above yet.

One big consideration is logistics tail. My concern for hybrid ammo squads is that now you have just increased the amount and type of ammo needed to carry and reduced interchangability in organizations. While the "tail" shouldn't wag the dog, we have learned that it does matter.

Actually, that's not going to be the case here. I address that consideration in the first paragraph of this post.

This also applies to too many specialized vehicle types requiring different parts, and too many different weapons. Not to mention you begin to expand your support BN/HHC when you have to add specialized mechanics and technicians to troubleshoot all the different equipment models.

I'm not a big fan of the FCS (yet), but the idea of moving to a vehicle system with 80% parts commonality has huge logistical impacts in a positive way.

That's actually interesting that you brought that up. In my TO&E, I have some of the largest number of different vehicle variants of any army structure I've looked at. That having been said, my battalions have some of the fewest unique mechanical components for any mechanized/motorized units that I've looked at. Take my Cobra motorized unit. It has a grand total of something like 25 different vehicle variants in that battalion, yet only two base vehicles, the Cobra and the FMTV family. I try to keep the types of unique spare parts and ammunition being shipped out to a unit down to the absolute minimum, but still getting the job done.

If the logistical aspect of the TO&Es is something you find interesting, I'll have to post some of the Excel sheets that I've made up showing total different vehicle variants, weapons calibers, and chassis types in a battalion.

Logan Hartke

[Kiwigrunt]

Actually, that's not going to be the case here. I address that consideration in the first paragraph of this post.

Hi Logan and welcome. Yeap, some of us just can't get enough of this stuff.

With regards to your ammo, 5.56 loose, 5.56 belt, 7.62 loose, 7.62 belt and 4.6 makes for 5 diferent types of ammo. But you are right in stating that we actually already have that in most modern units, in some shape or form.
Same aplies to 60 mm mortar ammo. M6 long range uses latest generation bombs at approx. 2.4 kg each. Commando mortars are effective enough with lighter weight 'older' generation bombs at around 1.6 kg each (less weight to carry at that level). So again you would be looking at 2 types of ammo.

[William F. Owen]

Wow...

What a lot to read. Needed two cups of java this AM!

To Logan

All good stuff mate!

Good work. I do like the level of detail, but some critical detail is missing. You preferences are vastly more complex than my own, but it's always excellent to have a starting point on which to base the discussion.

I have the following questions.

a.) What is the rank structure and manning establishment of our organisation?
b.) Who has what radios and what electro-optics?
c.) Any idea as to average carried weights?
and
d.) How do all these folks operate? Can I just strap on current UK or US tactical doctrine and walk out of the door.

Some of your equipment choices are interesting, and quite soundly reasoned, but others leave me a tad confused.

I thing we may have to correspond privately in some detail, so as not to bore the natives rigid!

[William F. Owen]

A couple of observations based on,

Infantry Team Composition

@ Based on the teams, I work out an infantry platoon at 44 men? That's a bit on the steep side.

@ The infantry squad appears to be a hybrid 2 x fireteam concept, which I don't like and I don't think works. – plus no mention of radios and all the important stuff.

@ Based on the variety of ammunition natures, Platoon (and Coy) re-supply would be a challenge, as would tracking section and platoon ammo states. Loading and scales would also need to be looked at.

@ Why do I want scouts and MG men in a platoon HQ? Where are the Signallers, and FOOs? The Company HQ also has the same problem.

@ Only two medics for a Company?

@ I count at least 3 different types of “sniper” weapons. I am big fan of close precision engagement, but this a bit over the top. Why no 8.6mm? Why M110 and 417?

@ A 3-man MG team may find itself over loaded, if it wants to employ tripods and carry about 1,000 rounds – which is a useful first line scale. I’d scale an M240 team at 3 guys for the light role (500 rounds) and 5 guys for sustained fire. Where are the radios and night vision? There are the same problems with the AGL – which looks an interesting weapon.

@ The Spike MR/LR team will be overloaded. Spike MR needs two men to carry it, and you probably also need a dedicated C3I guy or commander, because you are going to be doing some pretty complex edgy stuff when you are doing LOAL indirect shoots.

@ The Mortar team is good, but needs a radio, and a C3I guy. Who does the FDC? These days, you don't need a dedicated FDC, thanks to PDAs, but someone needs to be commanding and directing the fires.