Rifle squad composition

[Ken White]

Don't forget to teach them how to dig a proper MG trench either (that's worth the better part of a day). And for those not using the old Browning .30 cal tripod (the US still does) but the full 6400-mil traverse tripod and gun cradle that comes with a Tritium lamp (Canadian have that) for the aiming stakes, all the joys that come with using the Mortar sight for registering targets and laying the gun.

The quest for quality does complicate life, does it not. Lights are for wimps.

We gots a new tripod on the way -- still no 6400 mil but note the weight!

[Sabre]

The major issues are that the GPMG is a tad tempermental mechanically and people who handle it exclusively do a better job than those to whom it is part time effort...
The Platoon leader isn't the problem, the weapons squad leader and the vagaries of reassignment within the platoon are a part of the problem, finicky belt feds, massed fires, ammo resupply and coherent training are some other parts.
At the risk of cycling Gian here, let me point out that we HAVE to organize and train to do high intensity combat, we can always scale down to do the easier COIN stuff when it's required.

Next time you see a platoon running a live fire, try this; listen to the two guns, do they fire alternately; does one pick up the rate of fire while the other reloads, all automatically and without command? Then, ask them to place their beaten zone on a reverse slope as you would have to do if attacking a defender who used a reverse slope defense. After that, ask them to do a set up for night final protective fires. If they can do all that, you have just seen an unusually good Weapons Squad leader's product...

Well, I would argue that instituting a specialty for machine-gunners (a la the USMC 0331, and for some reason I recall that the Army did have one, eons ago - my memory is no longer to 10/20 standards), and having NCOs in that specialty within the rifle company MTOE would do more to ensure a high level of training for gun crews than just grouping them at company level and not having a specialty, or specialist NCOs (I can recall 1SGs that would swap people around just as much between platoons as the PSGs did within platoons). Given the sheer number of MOS in the Army, I can't imagine that one more would destroy the system.
Machineguns "talking" to each other, and setting up for an FPL, that I saw, but I recall that knowledge about the beaten zone and indirect fire for an MG often didn't make it out of the FM.

No argument about the absolute NECESSITY to continue to train for high-intensity combat. Given the budgets for the relevant parts of PEO Soldier/Natick, PEO Ammo, et al., compared to other programs in the military, it makes one wonder if the infantryman is the most important weapons system...

[Ken White]

Well, I would argue that instituting a specialty for machine-gunners (a la the USMC 0331, and for some reason I recall that the Army did have one, eons ago - my memory is no longer to 10/20 standards), and having NCOs in that specialty within the rifle company MTOE would do more to ensure a high level of training for gun crews than just grouping them at company level and not having a specialty, or specialist NCOs (I can recall 1SGs that would swap people around just as much between platoons as the PSGs did within platoons). Given the sheer number of MOS in the Army, I can't imagine that one more would destroy the system.

The Machine Gunner MOS left in 1954 to become just another 11B. Now they've foolishly done away with the 11M and said Bradley riders are 11Bs. They aren't, totally different mentality. Agree the MOS would help but disagree that a MG platoon would not be an added improvement.

Yes, idiot 1SGs used to do stuff like that, fortunately most of 'em are now gone.

Machineguns "talking" to each other, and setting up for an FPL, that I saw, but I recall that knowledge about the beaten zone and indirect fire for an MG often didn't make it out of the FM.

Heh. I rest my case; really competent people not only train to but actually use every trick in the book because for them, it's easy and second nature. OTOH, the barely competent get by with the minimum they have to learn, do and teach...

The weapons Squad in a Rifle Platoon will rarely if ever take time to train separately and will not have time to get into the finer details of the art of machine gunnery *; a MG Platoon will because that's the reason it exists. That simple.

Ala my Brad / 11M comment above, obviously with repect to a MG Platoon we're talking only walking infantry; it's not appropriate for a Stryker or Mech platoon, they can put 'em where ever they wish.

No argument about the absolute NECESSITY to continue to train for high-intensity combat. Given the budgets for the relevant parts of PEO Soldier/Natick, PEO Ammo, et al., compared to other programs in the military, it makes one wonder if the infantryman is the most important weapons system...

Getting better all the time, still needs to be carried further but it's a whole lot better than it was 30-40 years or even seven years ago.

* Unless they happen to have a really super Weapons Squad Leader or PSG. Not just good ones, super ones. Not too many of them around so better to design the system to cope with what the pipeline provides...

[selil]

Ken W.,

Would non-unit operator training allow for the flexibility of having equipment tasked to a company level unit full time, but still allow for transfer of information between trainers and soldiers? The machine gunner in this case needs to be training with the infantry unit they will support, but also with other machine gun operators that use the same weapons systems. If you imposed that would it work or would operational tempo and mixed unit needs destroy any hope of it working?

[Ken White]

Used to work in the Army...

It's not a problem; with a MG Platoon, 1st Sqd generally goes with 1st Platoon, 2d with the 2d, etc. if it's decided to put the guns with Platoons, thus there is a habitual working relationship (though one could obviously put four or even all six guns with one Platoon if that seemed necessary) -- just as there is with Corpsmen / Medics. That's a simple METT-TC decision. My personal preference would be to avoid that unless it was really necessary; in Viet Nam it got to be done habitually even though it didn't do anything but add mostly noise and ammo problems to Marine rifle Platoons, smart Co Cdrs didn't do it unless there was a need. As to OpTempo impinging, it obviously does sometimes impact the organizational sanctity of the MG Platoon but that's quickly counterbalanced when the Platoon reassembles.

The major benefit of a MG Platoon as opposed to the Army system of two guns per Weapons Squad is in training and competence of the gunners and crews and thus overall capability to get the full benefit of the weapon. either way obviously works; just in my experience and I've been in both types at one time or another and have employed both, the MG Platoon produces a far better product.

[William F. Owen]

Don't forget to teach them how to dig a proper MG trench either (that's worth the better part of a day). And for those not using the old Browning .30 cal tripod (the US still does) but the full 6400-mil traverse tripod and gun cradle that comes with a Tritium lamp (Canadian have that) for the aiming stakes, all the joys that come with using the Mortar sight for registering targets and laying the gun.

That was all the stuff I was trying to avoid! Direct fire only.

...and in "Dicta Wilf" there are no trenches. There are hides and fire positions.

[Norfolk]

Ken White wrote:

The quest for quality does complicate life, does it not. Lights are for wimps.

The entire body of Machine-Gunners of the Royal Canadian Infantry Corps is crestfallen at this statement, Ken [Norfolk proceeds to sob uncontrollably].

That tritium lamp sitting on top of that aiming stake is, frankly, creepy, a dull green eye staring back at you in the distance. And if it ever blinked back at me, I'd be out of my trench so fast no tracer could catch me.

and:

We gots a new tripod on the way -- still no 6400 mil but note the weight!

I sees that - nice piece of kit; GPMG gunners the world over are drooling over it (I must admit to having been so afflicted myself, a little). But really, would't the Airborne and the Marines be better off it they shed that much weight themselves before they demanded it of an inanimate object that has no control over its BMI? (Reference Ken W.'s first comment).

Wilf wrote:

That was all the stuff I was trying to avoid! Direct fire only.

...and in "Dicta Wilf" there are no trenches. There are hides and fire positions.

I think Wilf's really an ex-Para masquerading as an ex-Royal Green Jacket. Only the Paras possess this level of phobia regarding trenches, shovels, and anything that requires digging.

[Ken White]

Shovels? DIGGING? Yeck...

[Rifleman]

I think Wilf's really an ex-Para masquerading as an ex-Royal Green Jacket. Only the Paras possess this level of phobia regarding trenches, shovels, and anything that requires digging.

Norfolk,

You sure the Green Jackets don't have the same phobia? I don't remember Sharpe and Harper ever digging in.

"Rifles forward! Form skirmish line (or whatever command they used to give)!"

[ODB]

How many remember that shaving a chunk of bark off a tree makes a great aimimg stake? What about the good ole' notched log? Amazing in an urban environment what you can do with a little chalk or chemlight juice in a bottle. The key here is imagination that makes tactical sense day and night. One of the best FMs I use to this day is an old one FM 21-75 Combat Skills of the Soldier, 1984, they don't make em' like this anymore. I seem to remember some where along the way adding an additional guide rod spring to the M60 gave you a far better rate of fire for those times when you needed it most. Just to add I LOVE THE M60 you can keep the M240 give me back my PIG!!!!!

Many have done posts in regards to MG courses, unfortunately as usual in the Army many who instruct only know what is written in the POI. As nature of the beast most are there hiding out, riding out their time. Until the Army looks at this and makes the school house a choice assignment and gives instructors flexibility, the ones who need to be there teaching will stay as far away from TDA asignments as possible (including me). Many of us do not want to get stuck into the system where it takes your full three years to change it and by then it is out dated. I'm sorry but IMO everything weapons related should be a big part of basic training for every soldier. The fine tunning comes when you get to your unit. Today's soldiers will continue to decline in basic and advanced individual skills as the years progress due to OUR (I'll claim responsibility as well) to not call " a turd a turd", (I call em' just can't get rid of them). As soon as we stop advancing people up the rank structure just because they have stuck it out long enough the sooner we will get back on track, and then you have the "Well it is an E-6 position, but we don't have any then let's just make one to fill position thought as well." Bottom line we are killing ourselves.

Sorry kinda went on a tangent one of those days dealing with exactly the above. Now back to topic. Another unfortunate problem is the way we man the guns. Ammo bearers least experienced, they move up to become the gunner, and the gunner moves up to be the AG. Flat out the AG needs to be the most experienced guy. He controls the gunner!!!! A good AG can make any gunner excell. At one point in my career back around 97-98 I was a part of a once in a lifetime occurance. Myself and another E-5 in weapons squad as AGs with good E-4 gunners......squad leader only had to sit around and drink coffee. Lasted about 6 months but was a dream squad, the way it should be.

I'll end this with an example of inexperienced gun teams. A few years back while in an O/C role for our sister battalion conducting platoon live fires. We had to evac an AG and gunner because the gunner shot a tree in half in front of him that fell back on him and his gunner. Come to find out neither had been in weapons squad before and only had qualified with the gun. I went straight for the squad leader, not joe's fault when he hasn't been trained!!!!

[Norfolk]

Ken White wrote:

Shovels? DIGGING? Yeck...

Yep, for all us Legs out there, you needn't assault a Lawn Dart's position to drive him from it...just toss a digging implement at him. He'll run faster than a scared jack-rabbit on speed.

Rifleman wrote:

Norfolk,

You sure the Green Jackets don't have the same phobia? I don't remember Sharpe and Harper ever digging in.

Actors don't dig (did Cool Hand Luke ever dig a full trench by hisself, even if he was in a labour-camp and on chain-gang, or perhaps there was just a "failure to communicate" this detail?). And TV producers are even more loathe to spend an entire season (or even a month) creating episodes featuring either the construction of the Lines of Torres Vedras, or Moore teaching the Pensinsular Army how to entrench on reverse slopes. Digging is just too unglamorous for all that.

Besides, the Riflemen at Bunker Hill were dug-in (IIRC), and we know how that one turned out.

Edited to Add:

Sorry ODB, didn't see your post until after I'd posted.

Just to add I LOVE THE M60 you can keep the M240 give me back my PIG!!!!!

Funny, I called the M-240 the G-PIG! (However, I would NOT swap it out for an M-60).

ODB, you mentioned the AG directing the gun: you didn't have a separate Gun Commander with binos directing it? You did have a Gun Controller to direct the combined fires of the guns, though, didn't you?

[slapout9]

Now your talking Entrenching tool combat.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1QwQu0jqdKc


Grrrrrrrrrrr! let me here growl!

[ODB]

ODB, you mentioned the AG directing the gun: you didn't have a separate Gun Commander with binos directing it? You did have a Gun Controller to direct the combined fires of the guns, though, didn't you?

The AG has/had binos to direct the gunner on target. The weapons squad leader if platoon level SBF would overall direct the guns. The weapons squad leader would initially emplace the guns and give them sectors of fire, shift fire sectors, etc... Then it was on the AG to ensure his gunner adhered to those limits. The weapons squad leader would oversee the whole SBF as many times (if you had smart leaders) the SBF would "beef up" with a SAW.

[Rifleman]

One of the best FMs I use to this day is an old one FM 21-75 Combat Skills of the Soldier, 1984, they don't make em' like this anymore.

I love FM 21-75! I've still got my tattered copy.

[Norfolk]

And one can find the 1984 edition of FM 21-75 here.

[ODB]

I love FM 21-75! I've still got my tattered copy.

Believe it or not I got a new one, found a stack of them and couldn't help not helping myself to a few of them......

[ODB]

Thought about making this it's own thread, if others think so as well please move it.

Many of the posts I've been reading lately seem to deal with today's soldiers tactical and technical proficiency within their respective MOS. As some may have read my posts, you know my thoughts, that basic individual skills are the foundation for everything a soldier will do and/or become. I myself have seen the Army shying away from basic individual skills and instead focusing on collective tasks. As a former infantryman turned SF this pains me to no end. Some prime examples are in land nav courses no longer being done with just a compass and map, EIB is done with a GPS and people still fail. Makes me scream WTF!!!! I go down the street where I grew up in the Army to see old buddies, hip pocket training is gone, no longer are NCOs taking advantage of work time to train there soldiers or cross train them. Unfortunately too many times this is due to these NCOs having to spend 80% of their time with those few turds problems than training those who deserve their time or sitting in joe's room playing video games. Amazing what we allow to stay in and attempt to rehabilitate these days of playing the numbers game. When was the last time someone saw troops on a range using iron sights? What happens when your optics batteries die? What would happen if we took away all the computers and had to do it by hand again? Might actually get some people out of their offices and out observing training, assessing their soldiers, and being leaders. Oops did I just say that out loud!!!!!

All the equipment in the world is great, if you can tactically employ it. You could give me a gun that aims itself, shoots around corners, and automatically obtains grazing fire over obstacles, but if I cannot employ it properly what good is it? If I can not get it into the fight? Can I use it at night? Can I use it effectively without optics? Can I hump it uphill both ways barefoot in 3 feet of snow? My point is technology can be a great thing if you know how and when to use it? Do I know why I am humping this 50 pounds of gun and ammo around? What am I going to do with it when I get there? When a soldier knows his individual tasks and why they are important to the task at hand the more effective and willing he will be to do it. Don't just tell him get behind that tree in training, tell him why he is, to provide security for the breech element, to provide cover for himself. Train him in his piece of the pie along with the other pieces and soon you will have a well oiled machine. I love a soldier that asks why?

Task Conditions and Standards = FLUFF FOR HIGHERS!!!!!! At one point in time I actually had to have task, condition, and standards on 3x5 cards for conducting PT Ken White mentioned this above, using enter and clear a room. Very basic task, when every soldier knows his resposibilities. Does not matter what the conditions are, his individual tasks do not change.

My questions I leave you with is this as I am typing this on my computer, using the internet, and watching satellite TV. Is technology the cause for our lack of basic individual soldier skills or is it simply lack of competency in our leaders? When looking at composition we need to look at tactical and technical proficiency vs technology IMO. Who's going to man the squad UAV? The squad recon robot? Then lets see someone shoot iron sights at night in the rain!!!!

[Kiwigrunt]

Fully agree with all your points OBD.

I remember a live fire exercise with M72. I couldn't quite remember (from basic training) how to use the sights so thought I'd ask the DS (a sgt). Did this for 2 reasons. First I realized that I was spending $800 of taxpayer's money. Second I felt it might be handy to know in case next time would be a 2 direction occasion. The sgt told me to just get on with it and fire the bloody thing so, being the good soldier I was, I fired the bloody thing and guess what, I missed.....wonder if the sgt actually knew.....

[Schmedlap]

I did 3.5 years National Guard and 5 years active, in that order. My NCO’s in the NG were all “old-school” guys who enlisted in the late 80s or early 90s. Mostly Panama and Desert Storm vets. They knew fieldcraft, were great at training the individual Soldier skills, and I soon took their expertise for granted. When I went on active duty, I suddenly encountered NCOs who were much younger, much less experienced, and far less competent. After working with my older NG NCO’s, I just assumed that all NCOs knew how to do things like explosive door breaches, how to properly correct a malfunction or do a magazine change, how to terrain associate. I assumed that all NCOs enforced basic standards, like dummy cording (and doing it to a certain standard), putting your trash in your ruck, crapping in a hole, cleaning your weapon instead of playing your Gameboy (seriously, when I first showed up Soldiers were bringing video games to the field – WTF????). Really basic stuff. I was shocked at how much I had to teach my NCOs on active duty, rather than vice versa.

What really blew me away was that they kept on getting promoted. Promotions were based entirely upon their promotion board performance. An NCO could be hopelessly incompetent, but if he could sing the Army Song with gusto, and recite his 3 General Orders, and answer some inane questions about AR 670-1, then he got a “(P)” tagged on to the end of his rank. My input to the process was meaningless because the commander went with what the First Sergeant said and our First Sergeant made himself look good by ensuring his Soldiers did well at the board and did well at the Soldier of the Month/Quarter boards – all three of which were absolutely worthless in sizing up NCOs for their current performance or future potential. I got into some long-winded debates with my commander over senior rater comments; regardless, it did not seem to matter. His position was always, “if your NCOs suck so bad, then you need to train them better.” My position was, “I agree. Let’s keep this guy at E-5 until he further develops. He’s not ready for E-6, but we’ll get there.” That was unacceptable to a CO/1SG combo that used the promotions of their NCOs in a defunct system as performance metrics for their own evaluations and completely disregard the professional responsibilities. The whole chain of command seemed to buy into this crap – maybe even the whole post. That might shed some light on the larger issue.

[Ken White]

operate like that. The bad news is that too many do...

The scary thing is that the system knows it and tacitly encourages it.

BS and time in service too often substitute for just simple competence. AR 600-200 needs a major rework...