Infantry Unit Tactics, Tasks, Weapons, and Organization

[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.

[Tom Odom]

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.

and that was the motivation in that Mil Review article; to build capabilities and depth necessary to adaptation. Time will tell but Dave you are on the mark regarding the future....

Tom

[Norfolk]

and that was the motivation in that Mil Review article; to build capabilities and depth necessary to adaptation. Time will tell but Dave you are on the mark regarding the future....

Tom

Love that article, Tom, and keep a print copy of it in the bookshelf next to my bed (Wilf, if you think you are obsessed...). For the benefit of those few lurkers who somehow may have missed it (it's a core, mandatory reading around here), here's the link.

[Rifleman]

Logan,

I'd like to throw out a couple of comments for consideration on your proposed eight-man infantry squad and leave the higher levels to those better qualified to comment on them.

If I understand your chart correctly, out of eight men you're showing two machine gunners, two grenadiers, and a squad DM. That leaves the squad leader, his assistant, and the man you have labled as lead scout as the three best suited for clearing. Yes, I'm sure that SAW gunners, grenadiers, and DMs have had to take the lead in clearing rooms, bunkers, and trenches. That doesn't mean it's an ideal role for them.

A small squad like you proposed will probably be fine with one belt fed light machine gun and one grenade launcher. That leaves more riflemen/carbiners for the close fight.

I don't much like the idea of DMs in the infantry squad. At least put them in the platoon's weapons squad. Even better would be a large squad of DMs in the company's weapons platoon. Enough to attach one or two teams out to each platoon, as needed. Or, if needed, the company commander could retain the whole squad at company level as a potent scouting, screening, and skirmishing element. I think they will be better able to do all that if they're organized as a single large squad under a senior staff sergeant in garrison for training.

[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.