Infantry Unit Tactics, Tasks, Weapons, and Organization

[Norfolk]

Wilf Owen:

Javelin: - Is that heavy. Rounds are 35lbs approx and the CLU far lighter. The UK version has a tripod for extended surveillance. Yes it is not light, but look at the capability. The Coy commander merely has to have radio contact with the teams in the Platoons (All informed Coy Net?) to control AT fires. He does not need to physically control them. Spike, with 4,000m fibre optic guidance, changes all the rules, including the need for mortars

Restricted terrain, like urban, forest and jungle means that each Platoon has got to fend for itself to a certain extent. Actually getting a weapon to a point and time in space to attack a fleeting target, is not best enabled by grouping weapons at the Coy level, IMO.

I settled for 2 x 60mm at the Coy level, because you can get the both crews into 1 vehicle. I think what a Stryker Company does with mounted (81mm) and dismounted (60mm) mortars is interesting.

For MMG I'd just issues SF kits to the GPMG teams in the platoons.

AGLs -ala Mk19 or H&K GMG can't be man-packed in an effective way. On RWS on an APC they are excellent, but I'd steer clear of them for dismounted ops. - same is true for .50 guns as well.

There is something else about Coy level weapons. For training and all the other issues they need to grouped into a Coy Level Weapons platoon. - That's a huge increase in costs and manpower. Cost is an issue.

Yes, the Javelin is 49 lbs in total (not including Tripod and Surveillance System, then it's what, 66-70 lbs?). But you are so right about the sheer capability that it provides. I just doubt that it, and the other Heavy Weapons of the Infantry Company should be organic to each Infantry Platoon, especially considering the loss of some of their effects and the increased difficulty in supplying them, when dispersing them to the Platoons. I still suspect that the best place, normally, is for them to be at Company level, unless terrain and cover make that impracticle; then attach them out to the Platoons.

We used organic Weapons Dets in The RCR each with a GPMG, Carl G, and 60 mm Mortar, one Weapons Det in each Platoon and Coy HQ. There was a lot of pressure from inside to form Weapons Platoons at Coy level in order to both faciliate training and to achieve better coordination of fires. Those are my chief concerns there. Having four of each type of weapon allows you to displace by Sections, of course, while still keeping the enemy under fire, or to attach a single weapon of each type to each Platoon and Coy HQ when terrain and cover require such detachments.

I was not recommending Mk 19s or even the new H&K GMG at Coy level - those are clearly BN-level; I was using the example of the Chinese Type 87 which is similar to a GPMG in weight (12 kg in Light Role, 20 kg with Tripod in SF Role) to propose a similar weapon based on the 40 mm Medium Grenade (not the full-power round used by the Mk 19 et al.). I would not enjoy humping even the H&K GMG over the boons, never mind the old Mk 19.

I must admit that I find the vision you propose of Javelin Teams attached to each Platoon HQ with their Surveillance Systems and all networked together to the Coy OC, to be quite intriguing. That is a concept pregnant with possibilities.

Now, on to IFV armament: it has been proposed that autocannons are a most usefull and effective main armament for IFVs; by contrast, Ken White and I regard that concept with some suspicion. We contend that the main purpose of the IFV is to get a full-size Infantry Squad or Section as close to its objective as practical, and that pretty much anything that detracts from that should be avoided. Of course, we single out the autocannon as such a detractor, as the internal space that it requires takes up a substantial amount of room that otherwise would seat more infantry.

We have proposed that HMGs are best suited for such vehicles; and I have gone further to propose that such vehicles armed with either an HMG or an AGL (ideally an even mix of such vehicles in each Platoon) and perhaps an ATGM launcher slaved to a Surveillance System are the heaviest practical armament for such vehicles.

That said, there is a strong case to be made for the autocannon. First off, is its snap-shot, hard-kill capability, especially against anything short of an MBT head-on. Second, and this apparently was one of the reasons GEN William E. DePuy wanted the 25 mm Bushmaster on the Bradley MICV in the first place, was to provide a potent capability to suppress ATGM crews at range. Now, of course the 25 mm only has a practical range of ~2,000 m, but there are 30-40 mm guns that are claimed effective out to ~4,000 m. That might make them effective suppressive weapons against infantry firing subsonic ATGMs. Thoughts on this?