Platoon Weapons

[walrus]

I note that the writer has not touched on the logistics of supplying the various different types of ammunition, which might be a useful addition, even if only to argue that its not an issue.

Off topic, but there was a proposal many many years ago when we were armed with SLR's (FN 7.62) to ditch the sections single 7.62 GPMG and replace it with two Brens per section, recalibered in 7.62 and using a common (prepacked/disposable) magazine that fitted both weapons and infantrymen would carry extra magazines instead of link.

Section Commanders liked the idea (as far as I could tell) because it gave them two identical fire teams and it was felt that the ease of use of the Bren made up for the slightly slower rate of fire caused by Mag changes, it also simplified resupply and "load balancing".....but the proposal was squashed.

[William F. Owen]

I was pointed at this board by the guys at Reading University, and having read through what I could, I can see why.

I had no idea anyone actually read my stuff!

Give me some time to chew on this and I will attempt to reply to all points raised.

[Norfolk]

I was pointed at this board by the guys at Reading University, and having read through what I could, I can see why.

I had no idea anyone actually read my stuff!

Give me some time to chew on this and I will attempt to reply to all points raised.

Welcome to Small Wars Mr. Owen, and thank-you for joining us! Yes, your pieces have indeed been the object of interest and discussion. Now that you're with us, and if you are able to find the time for that as well (or wait until your sabbatical to do so), we would be pleased if you would review our Rifle Squad composition thread at some point. But by all means, treat with this thread and the PBID thread first.

Once again Mr. Owen, welcome and thank-you for joining the SWC.

Best,

Norfolk

[Tom Odom]

I had no idea anyone actually read my stuff!

It is at once thrilling and chilling

Welcome to SWC!

Tom

[William F. Owen]

The points I was basically trying to make are,

1. Far too much emphasis is put on the IW. We probably do not need ones as capable as those we have. Smaller, more compact and lighter would seem to be useful. The ability of “men under stress” to hit targets is very far short of that performance they demonstrate on the range.
2. What does the killing or creates the effects, are the platoon weapons, such as GPMG/M240B, Javelin, and other HE Projectors.
3. Very little attention is given to the weight and capability of sensors and communications equipment. For example, if you had a fire team of 4 men, could you sensibly trade the weight of their 5.56mm LMG for a thermal weapons sight and an MBITR – PRC-148/JEM. – Or do we just keep loading them up like pack mules?

This brings me to Platoon Organisation and I will address this else where and in more detail on the appropriate thread.

My article had to be cognoscente of its intended audience, the British Army, the majority of whom are not that reflective and open-minded when it comes to infantry doctrine. Therefore the overall basics of the platoon were not up for grabs or how it should operate. Suffice it to say, the platoon should be configured to manoeuvre the most effective weapons and sensors (including people) into the locations where they can break the will of the enemy. If you believe that the primary weapons of the infantry are the grenade and the bayonet, then you will have different ideas than if you believe it is the 7.62mm GPMGs and HE Projectors.

[William F. Owen]

1. I note that the writer has not touched on the logistics of supplying the various different types of ammunition, which might be a useful addition, even if only to argue that its not an issue.

2. Off topic, but there was a proposal many many years ago when we were armed with SLR's (FN 7.62) to ditch the sections single 7.62 GPMG and replace it with two Brens per section, recalibered in 7.62 and using a common (prepacked/disposable) magazine that fitted both weapons and infantrymen would carry extra magazines instead of link.

1. ... and the writer should have! This does actually concern me and I have a more than a few spread sheets and staff officers hand book tables dedicated to looking at this. Where this does become an issue is when you look at the number pallets A1 Echelon has to hold or how many ammunition natures of a particular sort you can allocate to re-supply loads. The few the types of ammunition held, the better, but remember to a logistician, 7.62mm ball and 7.62mm link are two very different things. If you want to carry an 84mm CG in the platoon, you might be adding up tp 4 different types of ammo nature (Smoke, HEDP, AT, and Illumination). A 51mm or 60mm light mortar adds three (Smoke, HE, and Illumination)

2. I was a section commander when this was done and talked about. This was post Falklands when 2 PARA had allocated two GPMG to each section. Some Royal Marine sections had a 3 man GPMG team and then gave the 5 man rifle group, a BREN LMG. This worked well by all accounts, though 30 round BREN LMG magazines are heavy and bulky, but L4A2/3/4 BRENs worked well with 20 round SLR/L1A1 Mags, and were very accurate. NOTE: You could not mount a Night Sight on a Bren!

- The thinking behind the idea was to validate the IW and LSW concept for the two balanced fire teams in a section - which I now believe to have been a great mistake.

hope this helps