Infantry Unit Tactics, Tasks, Weapons, and Organization

[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

[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.

[Logan Hartke]

I don't have the time to answer all of these questions in great levels of detail at the moment, but will be able to later today. Short answer for many of the questions, especially those concerning the detail of ranks and of commo equipment, is I don't know. That's part of the reason I came on here. I primarily composed my units from the smallest block up, trying to figure out what they would need to deal with different threats. I've come here to seek advice on shaking up the organization, fleshing out the details, and getting rid of the chaff.

There are goood reasons and thought behind some of what I've done, however, and I'll let you know honestly when I chose one thing because I didn't know better and when I did something because I thought I knew better.

Logan Hartke

[William F. Owen]

I've come here to seek advice on shaking up the organization, fleshing out the details, and getting rid of the chaff.

Personally, the best I could venture is that your organisations are generally heavy and complex, but a lot more sophisticated than a lot I have seen. A lot of what you have done is very sound but some other aspects are a tad unusual.

EG: - Your Namer Company is 24 x very thirsty Namreem. Does you "Fuel Platoon" of 3 x PARS Tanker, carry enough fuel to re-supply all the vehicles in one go? Does a PARS 10x10 Tanker even exist? I know the boys at FNSS pretty well.

What I can tell you is that there is no right and wrong in this area. I can point to aspects of what you suggest as being less effective or less efficient than other approaches, but loads, logistics, budgets, training, and tactical doctrine all exert huge influences. While in no way denigrating your approach, the TOE is the easy bit.

[Logan Hartke]

EG: - Your Namer Company is 24 x very thirsty Namreem. Does you "Fuel Platoon" of 3 x PARS Tanker, carry enough fuel to re-supply all the vehicles in one go?

Well, assuming they have a 2500 gallon tank, then I've provided my Namer battalion with refueling assets comparable to a US Abrams tank battalion, and the Abrams is a thirstier vehicle than the Namer. That is actually how I determined the refueling needs of the units. Assuming the Namer has the same fuel capacity as the Merkava 4 (1400 l), then within the company I have the refueler to top everyone off once. That's also why my motorized unit has fewer refuelers. That being said, I was working off a variant of my Merkava unit TO&E, which has fewer Merkavas than this battalion has Namreem. I'll go back through these again and see what the most appropriate number would be.

Does a PARS 10x10 Tanker even exist? I know the boys at FNSS pretty well.

It doesn't currently, although I know it well could. In fact, most of the proposed PARS variants do not yet exist. I am basing my family of wheeled armored vehicles off of the PARS, since I think it's a pretty good design that's highly adaptable. Also, one of its engine options is also used in other vehicles I've chosen. In many of these cases, while the vehicles themselves are different, the powerpacks are the same, so I'm still trying to play close attention to all aspects of the logistics game.

I've done some rough calculations as far as kg weight of the refueling equipment, the tank, and the JP8 itself, and I know that the 10x10 PARS chassis could at least carry the same equipment and fuel as the M978 HEMTT refueler. I wanted something that had at least some level of armor protection and cross-country mobility. Most of all, however, I'm very much trying to keep the parts commonality within a battalion as high as possible. If I can keep from adding a fourth vehicle type to that battalion, I'd like to.

I had a good deal of documentation on the vehicle from GPV on their proposed variants, as well, since it's essentially the same vehicle and they proposed resupply flatbed variants of the vehicle (I'm not even talking about the MTV). You could even use one of those as a basis, although that wouldn't be ideal, it may be cheaper.

You have good contacts at FNSS? I'm not in the defence industry at all, so that's an issue, but sometimes just getting them to respond to my email, let alone the questions therein can be like pulling hen's teeth. They don't have a ton on the PARS and I've got to mostly work off GPV's old stuff (before they changed their site) and I'm then primarily just seeing what weight I have available for payload and then making sure the equipment will fit in the dimensions.

I see that they refer to a PARS 8x8 and an 8x8L. Do you happen to know which of those corresponds to the GPV 8x8x8 Colonel and which corresponds to the 8x8x8 Captain? I assume the Colonel. Do you have more documentation on the PARS than the little bit on their site? I'm going off of some Armada publications on them, too. I know Cat powerplants used to be an option for the GPV, but it sounds like they're currently using Deutz. I presume the Cat still available to potential customers? If so, they'd share the same engine as the heavy end of my FMTV variants (the Cat C9).

A number of my variants are ones proposed by myself, but I don't consider them too far-fetched. For example, I have NEMO variants of the PARS, which I've not heard proposed yet, but I see no obstacle that would prevent it.

What I can tell you is that there is no right and wrong in this area. I can point to aspects of what you suggest as being less effective or less efficient than other approaches, but loads, logistics, budgets, training, and tactical doctrine all exert huge influences. While in no way denigrating your approach, the TOE is the easy bit.

I know this is the relatively easy bit, and I have other aspects thought out, but they're either not pertinent to small wars or they're not yet typed out.

This is only one piece of the hypothetical nation's military I've been throwing together. I have an air force structure and equipment worked out as well, along with a training progression laid out, but I'm just trying to keep within the topic of this forum and thread at the moment.

As I've said before, part of what I'm doing is trying to get some other ideas on how to organize it, equip it, employ it, etc.

Logan Hartke

[SWJED]

Actually, the way things seem to be shaking out there will come a time in the not so distant future that our forces will be required to be what some now term "multi-spectrum" capable. Buzzword aside, it looks like the DoD will not have the resources to dedicate to overly specialized GPF.

We most likely not see units in any significant numbers dedicated solely to COIN or GPF dedicated solely to training and advising. You can feel it in the air.

So with that I say that all proposed changes in T&O, T&E, and other elements of DOTMLPF will have to take into account that units will have to balance capabilities across the board. Any real significant tilt one way or another might not cut it if the wrong enemy shows up to play.

I haven't been following this invigorating discussion too closely and offer up the above simply as an observation and for consideration.

[Norfolk]

Actually, the way things seem to be shaking out there will come a time in the not so distant future that our forces will be required to be what some now term "multi-spectrum" capable. Buzzword aside, it looks like the DoD will not have the resources to dedicate to overly specialized GPF.

We most likely not see units in any significant numbers dedicated solely to COIN or GPF dedicated solely to training and advising. You can feel it in the air.

So with that I say that all proposed changes in T&O, T&E, and other elements of DOTMLPF will have to take into account that units will have to balance capabilities across the board. Any real significant tilt one way or another might not cut it if the wrong enemy shows up to play.

I haven't been following this invigorating discussion too closely and offer up the above simply as an observation and for consideration.

In a roundabout sort of way, Dave, you practically seem to be making the case for the Marine way of doing things - which does seem to offer the most flexibility without critically sacrificing fighting power. While the USMC isn't the best model for armoured/mechanized ops (obviously), for pretty much most other things, it does seem to be about the all-around (GPF if you will, but MPF if one must) best anyone has so far come up with. And there is no question that it works.

[William F. Owen]

Well, assuming they have a 2500 gallon tank, then I've provided my Namer battalion with refueling assets comparable to a US Abrams tank battalion, and the Abrams is a thirstier vehicle than the Namer. That is actually how I determined the refueling needs of the units. Assuming the Namer has the same fuel capacity as the Merkava 4 (1400 l), then within the company I have the refueler to top everyone off once. That's also why my motorized unit has fewer refuelers. That being said, I was working off a variant of my Merkava unit TO&E, which has fewer Merkavas than this battalion has Namreem. I'll go back through these again and see what the most appropriate number would be.

Based on the figures I have, a Namer has a tank of 1250, but lets go with 1400.

For 24 vehicles you need, 33,600 litres. This means you need 1,344 25l Jerricans. That requires you have to lift 64 Standard NATO pallets, which means you need 6 trucks with a 8 tonne payload, and assuming each vehicle can carry 12 pallets (figures from UK S4 Planning Handbook).

Probably better to have flat beds and pallets at the Sub-unit F Echelon than a gaggle of big ass tankers on vehicles that do not yet exist- and it's a lot cheaper.

Having a Platoon of 8 trucks, with level 1 armoured cabs at the sub-unit level is not impossible, and being flatbeds, they can carry other stores as well. It is not as efficient as tankers, but it is highly effective!

Plus, if you have all those RCWS 40 plus SPIKE ATGM, you probably need a lot more trucks to carry the ammunition re-supply.

Personally, I would not want Log vehicles at the Sub-unit level. You're dragging around vulnerable wheeled vehicles, that should be residing in the Unit level A1 echelon.