Infantry Unit Tactics, Tasks, Weapons, and Organization

[SethB]

NLOS-C used a M777 as the base tube.

[Ken White]

or tube length -- but the Ammo and the employment...

It's not the equipment, it's how you use it as the Actress said to the Bishop. If the issue is mobility versus range capability, I'm a dumb grunt, I vote for mobility. Mobility contributes to agility, range capability contributes to using that extra yardage and so to minimal movement -- and thus to death...

Not much sense in investing heavily in any one type of weapon, buy and try a bunch -- history sort of indicates the 'next war' is highly likely to require something different than the last.

[SethB]

Ken, you almost sound like you'd like mortars...

From my perspective the longer range decreases the number of time that you need to displace to support a movement.

In the schoolhouse we simulated an assault in which the mortars were rarely able to support the maneuver element because they couldn't keep up.

That's why these things work best in systems...

[TAH]

Ken, you almost sound like you'd like mortars...

From my perspective the longer range decreases the number of time that you need to displace to support a movement.

In the schoolhouse we simulated an assault in which the mortars were rarely able to support the maneuver element because they couldn't keep up.

That's why these things work best in systems...

Count me in on mortars.

Great angle of fire for trenchs and streets. Good MINIMUM range and good MINIMUM safe distance.

Why could the mortars not keep up.

1. 81mms or 120mms?

2. A section of 2 or 3 in supporting one company? Make bigger sections (4 is a good number). Allows you to bound sections and still support. Or get battalion to take some of the load.

3. Wrong vehicle platform? Still running around with a 113 Family-of-Vehicle chassis? Pick a better one, Strip the turret off a Brad and you solve a bit of that problem. Or, pick another chassis all togther.

Way back at the beginning, I was cross-aatched as a tanker to a mech Co. One of the best things I liked about it was the ability to get fire support from the company mortar section with only the Co Cdr saying yes or no. Man it was great.

[SethB]

M113s, two vehicle platoon, 120MM mortars.

You can see the issue with displacement and occupation.

If you are going to step up to something newer, the AMOS on a CV-90 chassis can deliver a 14 round TOT. With the M971 DPICM round you can now use mortars against a wider range of threat vehicles. Assuming that that round is successfully developed and we buy it...

ETA: One thing about mortars. I had an instructor tell me that using a VT fuze in a city is a great way to clear off rooftops...

Ken, in preparing this post I saw that you are not a fan of PGMs. Here is my perspective.

For planning purposes, each M30 GMLRS round is assumed to have the same utility as six M26 rounds, except it has over twice the range. Given the logistical requirements of MLRS, I find this metric to be very significant.

[Ken White]

Excessive confidence in technology can lead to defeat.

Ken, you almost sound like you'd like mortars...

I do. They're simple, they work, they take little training and little maintenance -- and they're range limited so they have to move often. In combat, survival means movement (yes even in COIN and FID...). In combat forcing movement also breeds innovation and tactical agility which is better protection than all the Armor in the world.

From my perspective the longer range decreases the number of time that you need to displace to support a movement.

Er, I think you just made my point -- limiting the number of times you displace is a killer in this era. That added range breeds a bit of complacency and inertia. Today, any near peer competitor (as opposed to disgruntled insurgents and such) would be able to locate the gun positions in a matter of minutes and plop some counterfire on them. Inertia, lack of movement, is not good...

In the schoolhouse we simulated an assault in which the mortars were rarely able to support the maneuver element because they couldn't keep up.

Can't speak to the schoolhouse but I can point out that in combat, the Artillery often moves in Battery echelon and by bounds. In the Infantry an extra mortar in a platoon or section can give you two pairs of tubes that do the same thing (though it can done with a triangular element) -- alternately displace or leapfrog and thereby provide constant support even in rapid movement. Makes no difference if it's on foot or mounted, the Mortars move by the same method. Don't let anyone tell you that you can't get an extra mortar. At one time in Korea, several Marine Rifle Companies had four or six 60mms; in Viet Nam all the Cos in my Bn had four 81s (rarely used but handy on a few occasions...). Later, another Bn I served with had six 4.2s, two more than authorized and the Bn Cdr, tasked to provide one 4.2 to Division for 'base camp defense' offered them two of his DS M102s instead. My son's Co in the 82d had and used a totally unauthorized 120mm mortar in Afghanistan on his last trip...

That's why these things work best in systems...

Understood and agreed -- but all systems are subject to failure, particularly if misused. Systems can also breed inertia and encourage hidebound thinking to let the system do the work. Humans can trump systems...

Addendum:

Ken, in preparing this post I saw that you are not a fan of PGMs...

Not sure whence came that. I'm not Unfriending any PGMs.

I think they're great -- I also know that like all technology, the reliability is not 100% therefor I tend to urge not putting total trust in them to be all things to all people 'cause they'll let you down when you least want them to...

So, no, not true. I am a fan. I'm just not a 'rabid to the exclusion of all else' sort of fan...

Technology is good stuff and I'm in favor of it -- but in the end, I believe that innovative and agile humans can defeat any technology AND I am strongly convinced that having multiple arrows and types of them in the quiver is much better than having just a few with poisoned arrowheads...

P.S.

Metrics do not win fights or wars, people do (that's not an attack, honest -- just a reminder... )

[COMMAR]

(I)
Oh, really? I tell you artillery duels might become as much the centre of arty thinking as they were in the 80's once a Western force faces a true threat instead of beating up some almost defenceless remote country. The sensor and communication technologies have improved and might sense and track hostile artillery quite Star Trek-like.
Why did you mention" stand-off" ad compared with the range of other guns if you didn't think of an arty vs. arty threat??

(II)
"system of systems". You seriously drunk that Kool-Aid. It's a gun made of expensive metals.

"mass fires". Seriously, you cannot "mass fires" with a single arty battery. That term has already a defined meaning, and everybody with understanding of military doctrine and military history should think of something entirely different when he reads "mass fires" than the MAGTF is capable of.
Besides; how does this "mass fires" fit to your earlier focus on Excalibur???
"The defining role of the MAGTF is to (...) mass fires at the time & place most advantageous to the MAGTF."
The snake bites its tail.

(III)
SPHs are sitting ducks compared to a towed howitzer? I've never heard a greater defiance of reality. The M777 can leave its firing position in no less than a minute or two, while SPHs do so in seconds after their last shot.
The M777 is less off-road capable and slower when towed than a SPH and utterly dependent on aerial transportation (and a air situation that allows for the use of rotor aviation!) for any fast movement.
The M777 is the sitting duck.

(IV)
You sure don't understand the potential or history of SPHs. Hint: They were first developed for and deployed by armoured divisions. They were meant for mobile warfare, not for anything associated with slowness. That were the towed guns.

(V)
"Fast-Moving Expeditionary Setting"? Seriously, there has never been an expeditionary setting that beats the operational or advance speed of conventional warfare. The advance to Baghdad in 2003 was about as slow as some of Napoleon's campaigns, for example - a far cry from feats like 300 km in four days as they were achieved against multiple hostile divisions with tanks of 40 km/h top speed and trucks of 60 km/h top speed along only two roads.
I don't see why SPHs which are mobile on their own should have any problems in high-speed ops if well-maintained. Meanwhile, I can easily imagine how a M777 battery waits for helicopters and doesn't get that kind of transportation because of the threats and competing demands (or takes away this rare asset from very important competing demands).

(VI)
Oh, really? MAGTFs have tanks, right? I see absolutely no problem with a self-propelled system in an MAGTF. They're incapable of facing first rate forces without their heavy vehicles in any mission but defence on closed terrain anyway, lacking combined arms qualities. Therefore they could limit themselves to mortars on 100% airborne missions.

To pick thru this line by line would be to long & annoying b/c your not going to read it to try & comprehend another view. All your going to do is try & pick thru where you can argue back.

No matter how many times I said that a C-A Maneuver Force, like say a MAGTF, would never line up its Arty to trade rounds; it wouldn't match up any like weapons sys.

Its greatest weapon is speed & spacing and its Combined Arms Nature.

Fighters say styles make fights. When you closely integrate Arty, Gunships, & CAS w/Infantry & each can seamlessly flow fr/Lead to Supported & back the same holds true.

Speed isn't Kuwait to Baghdad but to your next engagement or maneuver point. How quickly can you cover 20, 30, 60km to stretch the enemy & capitalize on a weakness.

Then, I MEF CMDR, CMC GEN Conway told Gen Franks that at anytime during the march to Bagh. if you need, I can disengage & LIFT 1,000 Marines over 100nm in 12hrs or less for any contingency; thats speed & flexibility.

And yes, the MEF did used tanks in OIF, but SP's aren't tanks & OIF was an Invasion a Full Campaign; one that was proceeded by nearly 6mths of build up, hardly Expeditionary.

SPs are a great Weapon System. They serve their purpose in the role they're designed for. But when you need to get your Guns 60km in x-amount of time & hop them again shortly after that then an SP ain't the Gun for you.

It reminds me of the pre-WWII Battleship v Carrier argument.. Until something can be done to Neutralize Airpower, Tailored C-A Unit deployments are the way of the future. SPs will play a huge role depending on the purpose to which your tailoring the force; but thats for an Army not a MAGTF.

This can go on & on back & forth there a so many variables.. but either way I'm done.

[Tukhachevskii]

Why not?

HIMARs carries the ATACMS and MLRS families of munitions and is C130 transportable.

I think you may have meant LIMAWS rather than HIMARS. IMO the best system the British Army NEVER had

[Tukhachevskii]

(I)
(III)
SPHs are sitting ducks compared to a towed howitzer? I've never heard a greater defiance of reality. The M777 can leave its firing position in no less than a minute or two, while SPHs do so in seconds after their last shot.
The M777 is less off-road capable and slower when towed than a SPH and utterly dependent on aerial transportation (and a air situation that allows for the use of rotor aviation!) for any fast movement.
The M777 is the sitting duck.

(IV)
You sure don't understand the potential or history of SPHs. Hint: They were first developed for and deployed by armoured divisions. They were meant for mobile warfare, not for anything associated with slowness. That were the towed guns.

Though I agree with you on a number of points, and am a great beliver in the utility and worth of SPH/G, towed artillery is still a useful capability especially when you consider this;

A 105mm L118 Light Gun is being used by British gunners to such devastating effect against the Taliban that they have dubbed it the 'Dragon'.

The gun fired its first round in anger from a rocky outcrop in Helmand province in January 2009 and has been busy ever since protecting coalition and Afghan forces.

It sits atop a 40-metre-tall, rocky outcrop which provides an excellent vantage point with an eagle's eye view across a massive swath of territory.

Realising the strategic importance of this lofty location, British gunners hatched a plan to take the fight direct to the enemy. They intended to put a gun weighing over 4,000lbs (1,814kg) at the summit of the rocky cliffs, providing a firing point to provide protection for Forward Operating Base Edinburgh.

Moving the massive gun to the peak was a logistical challenge. The cliff face was riddled with deep cracks that threatened to crumble under the weight of the gun so a plan was devised to move the gun to the foot of the cliffs by helicopter.

Granted the operating envornment in Afghanistan is permissive with regards to these kinds of shenanigans but if it is why not especially if we have the capability? I doubt that SPGs would have the same kind of utiliy in that kind of terrain. Sure, NLOS fire missions could be accomplished as per usual but the Gunner's position was as much psychological as it was military.

[Fuchs]

It's a nice to have with a 155mm howitzer (can be done with 120mm mortar or 105mm gun as well, though). There's a huge difference between "nice to have for niche purposes" and all-out hyping, of course.

[SethB]

I think you may have meant LIMAWS rather than HIMARS. IMO the best system the British Army NEVER had

HIMARS drivers can let some air out of the front tires and back it into a C130.

[Tukhachevskii]

but here it is. On the advantages of towed and SP guns from The 1st UK Armoured Division in Iraq;

The L118 light gun also proved its worth, particularly when it was lifted along with sufficient ammunition onto the Al Faw peninsula early in the operation, thus freeing AS90s to commence tasks elsewhere. A proper balance of towed (both 105-mm and 155-mm) and self-propelled artillery would appear to be an essential future prerequisite.

[COMMAR]

(III)
SPHs are sitting ducks compared to a towed howitzer? I've never heard a greater defiance of reality. The M777 can leave its firing position in no less than a minute or two, while SPHs do so in seconds after their last shot.
The M777 is less off-road capable and slower when towed than a SPH and utterly dependent on aerial transportation (and a air situation that allows for the use of rotor aviation!) for any fast movement.
The M777 is the sitting duck.

Though I agree with you on a number of points, and am a great beliver in the utility and worth of SPH/G, towed artillery is still a useful capability especially when you consider this;

Agree w/what.. that if you slug it out btwn an SP & a Towed How. the SP wins; of course. But what we were talking about was its place in Combined Arms Team.

Its like this convo is being held in a vacuum, devoid of any Integrated Air Assets, its bonkers. An SP would be a sitting duck b/c if it pokes its head out a C-A Teams it'll get ripped to shreds by a combination of CA Airpower, HENCE COMBINED ARMS.

And if it were in a MAGTF it would slow it down b/c it can't be sling-lifted, 110mph vs 45mph=more speed. Not to the Overall Objective, like say Bagh, but to the Next Objective, then lifted to the Next.

[SethB]

When doing an air assault, how long does it take to rig and derig a M777?

[Ken White]

82Redleg, Xenophonand jkm 101 FSO can certainly provide more accurate info than I can.

However, IIRC, most crews rig faster than the 'standard' which for some obscure reason specifies only two people to rig. Don't need the whole crew but four can do it without getting in each other's way. Haven't seen a 777 rigged but the book time is the same for the M198 and I've seen that rigged and gone in about 10 minutes. Derigging depends on whether in combat or not -- if not, the crew has to be careful with the Slings and other gear so it can all be reused. In combat that's frequently not a concern. Derigging can be done in about half the rigging time -- then you can wait for the prime mover...

I've seen M102s derigged from an airdrop platform, far more webbing and padding than for sling loading, in a little over five minutes in exercises here in CONUS. Also seen them fired within 5 minutes of landing as a sling load with minimal to no derigging but that was with pretty highly experienced crews (and FOs) in Viet Nam where one could omit steps for effectiveness or speed, little things like survey...

That probably couldn't be replicated today due to safety restrictions...

LINK. M777 is at the bottom of the page.

[82redleg]

82Redleg, Xenophonand jkm 101 FSO can certainly provide more accurate info than I can.

Waiting for a response from a couple of buddies that actually used the new-fangled things.

That said, my crews regularly rigged 119s and 198s in less than 10 minutes (what it took to max the section certification test). Looking at the procedures, I can't see why the 777 could take longer.

[Sabre]

or tube length -- but the Ammo and the employment...

It's not the equipment, it's how you use it as the Actress said to the Bishop. If the issue is mobility versus range capability, I'm a dumb grunt, I vote for mobility. Mobility contributes to agility, range capability contributes to using that extra yardage and so to minimal movement -- and thus to death...

Not much sense in investing heavily in any one type of weapon, buy and try a bunch -- history sort of indicates the 'next war' is highly likely to require something different than the last.

OH MY GOD - That is perhaps only the second time in recent memory that I've heard the adage that "Armies are only good at preparing for the last war". Honestly that should involve getting an award.

Ya know, it's funny, but I heard that plenty in the 80's and 90's, but a great many people seem to have developed some awful short memories these days... Or are just over-eager to jump on the "we're only going to fight insurgencies in the future" bandwagon (and the perhaps concomitant "air power will do it all" bandwagon - a horrifically expensive method of providing fire support)

[Sabre]

The thing that I can't understand is this opposition to longer range - it's especially weird from the "we can now do more with less" crowd.

If you have to support X number of units spread out over a distance Y, with fire support needs that are infrequent and/or relatively small (not many rounds), but urgent when they do arise (a requirement)...
...then if each battery has a much larger range fan, you could support the requirement with fewer batteries (compared to batteries with smaller range fans). ...and since range fans vary with the square of the range, a 45km piece covers twice the area of a 30km piece.

(And yes, Ken, I do understand that forcing units to always stay "inside the range fan" is a silly idea, but I am working off a requirement, which I *did* define above.)
Besides, even when troops are not limited to operating inside the range fan, all else being equal, would it be better if they did happened to have some long-range tubes to call on, or not?

Moving often isn't precluded by having longer range - you can still move as much as you want. Let's say you wanted to move those 1,000 Marines to 4 different LZ's tonight, that happened to be spread out over 90km - you'd need to move one battery of 45km guns to support that, or two batteries of 30km guns - and you may not have the lift available to move two batteries. Given the requirement defined above, I don't see why 30km range is somehow "better".

The added weight and expense of a longer range gun is relatively negligible - not enough to make a difference - and if for some reason you have a religious objection to longer range guns, well, you don't have to use that extra range. (I'll have to look at the data, but IIRC at 30km, a 45km gun has almost the same accuracy as a 30km gun, which isn't terribly relevant in any case, given PGM.) As a commander, I would vastly prefer to have more capable weapons with the more options that that gives me. If I feel that my arty needs to move around a lot, then I can order them to do so.

Bottom line, I've never felt that intentionally limiting the capability of a weapon, solely to somehow influence the tactical behavior of guys in combat - to curb a bad habit - was a good idea... or even effective, for that matter.

I think that instead, the net effect is to leave commanders and troops between "a rock and a hard place". The lack of available options limits choices to those that are suboptimal.

Reminds me of the rationale behind the company (re)org in the Division 86 studies, that said "the available firepower of the modern company exceeds manageable limits". This was the rationale given for removing the company mortars from mech infantry companies. So instead, de facto, those company commanders were forced to choose between waiting for fire support that they may not get (time that they may not have), or assaulting without any suppressive artillery fires, when those could prove very useful to the assault.

[slapout9]

82Redleg, Xenophonand jkm 101 FSO can certainly provide more accurate info than I can.

However, IIRC, most crews rig faster than the 'standard' which for some obscure reason specifies only two people to rig. Don't need the whole crew but four can do it without getting in each other's way. Haven't seen a 777 rigged but the book time is the same for the M198 and I've seen that rigged and gone in about 10 minutes. Derigging depends on whether in combat or not -- if not, the crew has to be careful with the Slings and other gear so it can all be reused. In combat that's frequently not a concern. Derigging can be done in about half the rigging time -- then you can wait for the prime mover...

I've seen M102s derigged from an airdrop platform, far more webbing and padding than for sling loading, in a little over five minutes in exercises here in CONUS. Also seen them fired within 5 minutes of landing as a sling load with minimal to no derigging but that was with pretty highly experienced crews (and FOs) in Viet Nam where one could omit steps for effectiveness or speed, little things like survey...

That probably couldn't be replicated today due to safety restrictions...

LINK. M777 is at the bottom of the page.

Absolutely, in my time during an ORTT(operational readiness training test) you not only had to derig but shoot live rounds from the drop zone within a specified period of time. We were Airborne, what are safety restrictions sounds like Coast Guard stuff.

[Sabre]

Agree w/what.. that if you slug it out btwn an SP & a Towed How. the SP wins; of course. But what we were talking about was its place in Combined Arms Team.

Its like this convo is being held in a vacuum, devoid of any Integrated Air Assets, its bonkers. An SP would be a sitting duck b/c if it pokes its head out a C-A Teams it'll get ripped to shreds by a combination of CA Airpower, HENCE COMBINED ARMS.

Bonkers perhaps in the USMC, but certainly not for the US Army - the USAF has its own priorities.
Budget cuts will see to it that airpower isn't something that the Army will be able to count on (does anyone still believe that 2,500 Joint Strike Fighters will be procured???)

Besides, that is the whole point of artillery - fire support that is just so CHEAP (even SP) compared to air power - cheap enough that every ground unit can have its very own fire support, instantly available.