Page 3 of 16 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 307

Thread: Infantry Unit Tactics, Tasks, Weapons, and Organization

  1. #41
    Council Member slapout9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    4,818

    Default

    We need some RAV's Redneck Assualt Vehicles... Haul anything you want anywhere you want.


    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O0cfn...eature=related

  2. #42
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    717

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by slapout9 View Post
    We need some RAV's Redneck Assualt Vehicles... Haul anything you want anywhere you want.


    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O0cfn...eature=related
    That must be the RAV-Heavy, slap.

    Here's the RAV-Medium:

    http://www.lilligren.com/Redneck/red...tack_truck.htm

    and the RAV-Light:

    http://www.lilligren.com/Redneck/redneck_gun_buggy.htm

    and this is the RAV-Logistics Vehicle:

    http://photos1.blogger.com/photoIncl...n%20Cooler.jpg

  3. #43
    Council Member Uboat509's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    CO
    Posts
    681

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jcustis View Post
    It slings a 30mm cannon.
    My bad. All the pictures of it that I have found show it with a remote .50 Cal and a remote 7.62. Can you post a link to some more info on it? I haven't found much on it other than that it is a Merkava chasis.

    SFC W

  4. #44
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    499

    Default

    I'll play, because it's fun (Lord only knows what a middle aged cop expects to achieve by doing this! ), but only at company level, since the further I get from that the more my lack of understanding shines through.

    The basic template will be three "line" platoons and a robust weapon's platoon.

    Line platoons: preferably, three big USMC style squads of 13 or 14 troops each, with the platoon leader receiving additional attachments from the weapon's platoon; more likely, three or four nine man squads (I'd convert the weapon's squad to a fourth squad) capable of fire or maneuver, but not both.

    If we had USMC style squads they really don't need much adjusting as far as organization and equipment goes. But it might be advantageous to consolidate all the LMGs into one fire team and to use true ARs in the other two teams for ease of maneuver in the assault. The USMC tested this and liked it but has not adopted it, or a true AR, at this time. This squad could suppress with two thirds and assault with one third. If it has additional attachments this "squad" is verging on being Wilf Owen's fire team group "platoon."

    If we have to go with nine man squads drop the internal fire team organization: one LMG paired with one UGL and seven "carbineers" (I like that term, Norfolk) for the close fight. Two of the carbineers are, of course, the squad leader and his assistant. No ARs in this squad.

    The carbineers could be equipped with modern rifle grenades. Good models are now available that are shoot through or bullet trap so we don't have to rely on the old blank cartridge models. This helps eliminate the need for an RPG organic to the squad and increases the carbineer's ability to suppress when the LMG needs to move. The Israelis love them.

    Notice we don't have a weapon's squad in the platoon. It's on it's way.

    Four big 13 man squads of three teams each and a squad leader in the company weapon's platoon: one long range rifle squad (DMs); one GPMG squad; one anti armor squad; one mortar squad. Each team crews one weapon's system in the GPMG, anti armor, and mortar squads. Each team has two buddy teams of riflemen in the long range rifle squad.

    Squads in the weapon's platoon can be held by the company commander or attached out to platoons as needed. Squad leaders in the weapon's platoon are cross trained and capable of advising a line platoon leader on the employment of any weapon in the weapon's platoon so this makes for a modular weapon's squad concept. Employ as pure squads or mix and match teams as needed.

    So, first platoon is defending a ridge above a small valley choked with boulders and brush. Not much need for anti armor weapons and little opportunity for effective grazing fire, although a GPMG would still help, but long range riflemen can make the difference here. So that squad leader can take two of his long range rifle teams and one GPMG team and attach out to the first platoon.

    Those are my thoughts on a light infantry company. I'm sure some of you will think other options are better. But have I listed anything that would really be tactically unsound or logistically impossible?
    "Pick up a rifle and you change instantly from a subject to a citizen." - Jeff Cooper

  5. #45
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    717

    Default

    Gendarme Battalion - Table of Organization and Equipment

    Principle Roles:

    Long-Duration Operations Other Than War such as SSO/Humanitarian Relief Operations and Internal Security/Aid to the Civil Power. Carries supplies within Battalion for 6-8 days.

    Some Battalions in the Balkans formed 250-man Companies to deal with the Manpower-Intensive Tasks of Peacekeeping Operations there. This Battalion organization is similiar in concept. This is principally a Western European and non-US English-speaking Battalion organization.

    Headquarters Company –

    •Command Section (Battalion CO, Battalion 2i/c, Battalion Staff)
    •Command Post (Company CDR, Company 2i/c, Regimental SGTMJR, 4 Clerks, 4 Runners/Drivers)
    •Intelligence Section
    •Police Platoon
    Platoon HQ (Platoon CDR, Platoon 2i/c, 2 Signallers, 2 Drivers)
    4 Police Sections
    Security Section
    Holding Section
    Armoured Car Section (5 vehicles, 3-man crews with Surveillance System; 1st-Line Maintenance provided by Battalion Armoured Car Company)

    •Signals Platoon (including Dispatch Riders on Motorcycles – Yeehaaww!)
    •Supply Platoon (Stores, Transport, and POL Sections)
    •Maintenance Platoon (including 2 Recovery Sections and 2 Mobile Repair Team Sections)
    •Medical Platoon (including Aid Station)
    •Mess Platoon (One Field Kitchen per Company)

    Infantry Company – (X4)

    •Company HQ (Company CDR, Company 2i/c, Company SGTMJR/1st Sgt, 4 Signalers, 4 Clerks, 4 Runners/Drivers)
    oCommand Section
    oCommand Post
    oCompany Quartermaster

    •Rifle Platoon (X4)
    oPlatoon HQ (Platoon CDR, Platoon 2i/c, 2 Runners/Drivers, 4 Designated Marksmen)
    Rifle Section (X4) – 16 men (Section CDR, Section 2i/c, and one RPG-7V2 per Section)
    -Weapons Squad (X2) (Squad CDR/Grenadier, LMG Gunner, 2 Riflemen)
    •Rifle Squad (X2) (Squad CDR, 3 Riflemen)

    •Weapons Platoon
    Platoon HQ (Platoon CDR, Platoon 2i/c, 2 Signalers, 2 Runners/Drivers)
    Machine Gun Section (Section CDR, Section 2i/c, Gun Controller, 2 Signalers)
    •4 Machine Gun Squads (each one 7.62mm MAG-58 and 4 men)
    Mortar Section (Section CDR, Section 2i/c, Mortar Fire Controller , 2 Signalers)
    •4 Mortar Squads (each one 60 mm M224 and 4 men)
    Anti-Tank Section (Section CDR, Section 2i/c, 2 Signalers)
    •4 Anti-Tank Squads (each one MBT-LAW and 4 men)

    Weapons Company –

    •Company HQ (Company CDR, Company 2i/c, Company SGTMJR/1st Sgt, 4 Signalers, 4 Clerks, 4 Runners/Drivers)
    •Command Section
    •Command Post
    •Signals Section
    •Company Quartermaster

    •Pioneer Platoon
    •Platoon HQ (Platoon CDR, Platoon 2i/c, 2 Signalers, 2 Runners/Drivers)
    •4 Pioneer Sections (each 18 men, as per Rifle Section)
    -Plant Section (Light Excavation Equipment, Local Power Generation Equipment, Local Water Purification Systems, etc.)

    •Reconnaissance Platoon
    •Platoon HQ (Platoon CDR, Platoon 2i/c, 2 Signalers, 2 Runners/Drivers)
    •4 Reconnaissance Sections (2 Reconnaissance Squads each of 4 Patrolmen/Surveillance System Operators, one Armoured Car per Section)
    •Sniper Section (Section CDR, Section 2i/c, Signaler, 4 2-man Sniper Teams)

    -Carrier Company (Company CDR, Company 2i/c, Company SGTMJR/1st Sgt, 4 Signalers, 4 Clerks, 4 Runners/Drivers)

    -Company HQ (Company CDR, Company 2i/c, Company SGTMJR, 4 Signallers, 4 Clerks, 4 Drivers)
    -Carrier Platoon (X5)
    -Platoon HQ (Platoon CDR, Platoon 2i/c, 2 Signallers)
    -Carrier Section (X5) (5 Armoured Cars per Section, 3-man Crew per AC)
    -Maintenance Section

    Note:

    This Battalion is not intended for anything but the lowest of Low-Intensity Warfare. It possesses enough firepower to deal with Partisans and Terrorists in most cases, but is more ideally suited to Cordon-and-Search, Surveillance, Riot-Control, and Internal Security missions. The Battalion HQ Company possess a full Police Platoon, rather than just a Section, in order to handle local LE tasks, Traffic Control, Handling and Processing of suspects/prisoners, and Security tasks. The Pioneer Platoon is trained and equipped for limited EOD/UX tasks, as well as capabilities in the way of Light Plant - sufficient to keep things maintained and to provide minor-scale Water Purification and Power Generation on short notice.

    Ordinarily a Field Engineer Squadron/Company and specialized EOD Teams would be attached to handle Heavy Plant (especially Heavy excavation equipment for construction of Infrastructure, Water Purification Plant, Power Generation, and Pipeline and Pumping Stations particularly for POL; and full EOD/UX tasks).
    Last edited by Norfolk; 12-31-2007 at 07:35 PM.

  6. #46
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    717

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rifleman View Post
    Those are my thoughts on a light infantry company. I'm sure some of you will think other options are better. But have I listed anything that would really be tactically unsound or logistically impossible?
    Sounds good so far Rifleman; I'd buy it, especially that part about Carbineers. Your Light Infantry Company is Light but can still Fight, and go toe-to-toe with the best of them.

    I'd still like to call the DM's Riflemen...are you sure you don't want to call anyone a Jaegar?

  7. #47
    Council Member slapout9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    4,818

    Default

    Link to FM 23-12 The Technique Of Fire For The Rifle Squad. Very Thorough Training if this really happened.


    http://ahecwebdds.carlisle.army.mil/...md=1&awdid=254

  8. #48
    Council Member slapout9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    4,818

    Default

    Here is a better link to the Field Manual. I am unable to edit my previous post.
    Thanks Norfolk

    http://ahecwebdds.carlisle.army.mil/...7O0fHTYSWe.pdf

  9. #49
    Council Member William F. Owen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    The State of Partachia, at the eastern end of the Mediterranean
    Posts
    3,947

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rex Brynen View Post
    Wilf:

    Why don't you have a go at the same--a full battalion TO&E.
    Thanks, but it doesn't really help. OOBs don't tell you how the Unit operates, trains or anything about the real world restraints that have to be accounted for.

    ...but, my work focusses on Sub-units, that can plug into Battle Groups, so all a unit needs to generate is a BG HQ and then a 1-3 Company groups depending on the operations. So you might attach a Company to another Battle Group or your BG HQ has two Tank Squadrons attached to it.

    My basic Company Orbat is 3 x 30 man platoons, each with 2 x LRR, 2 x GPMG, and 2 x ATGM like Spike or Javelin.

    Carrier Platoon with 16 APCs crewed by 32 men. APCs armed with 7.62mm or HV 40mm TI-RWS, plus ATGM.

    9 man Coy HQ, with a man packed UAV, and including a Casualty Evacuation Team (3 men).
    Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"

    - The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
    - If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
    Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition

  10. #50
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    717

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by William F. Owen View Post
    My basic Company Orbat is 3 x 30 man platoons, each with 2 x LRR, 2 x GPMG, and 2 x ATGM like Spike or Javelin.

    Carrier Platoon with 16 APCs crewed by 32 men. APCs armed with 7.62mm or HV 40mm TI-RWS, plus ATGM.

    9 man Coy HQ, with a man packed UAV, and including a Casualty Evacuation Team (3 men).
    This Company is superlatively efficient. It appears easy to control, wields heavy firepower especially for a sub-unit of its size, and is quite agile. The 40 mm in the RWS (et al) on the APC is a formidable weapon.

    I have questions about it:

    1. While Spike may be used in a role somewhat akin to that of a mortar, is it sufficient to replace the Mortar in all its roles? The 60 mm is good for laying down smokescreens quickly, and is useful for illumination to an extent. I am still impressed by its ability to supress with HE an enemy Section or Platoon position in combination with the GPMG and AT Weapons.

    2. Battle Losses: In The RCR, we were told that the 8-man Section would suffer 60% casulaties in the first 24 hours of offensive operations; I have never found an offical study that states this. The CTC at Gagetown was responsible for testing these sorts of matters. Either the Melody article or the Karcher article (or maybe both) state two general figures for Squad casualties rates: The US Army Infantry School, in an historical analysis of Infantry battle losses, concluded that the Squad typically operates 20-25% below authorized strength; I think it was Melody who mentioned a figure of around 30%, based upon what I am unsure, though Vietnam may have been a factor here.

    For Battle Losses, how is this Company designed or intended to cope with casualties, and at what rate?

    Once again, a supremely efficient Company structure.

  11. #51
    Council Member William F. Owen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    The State of Partachia, at the eastern end of the Mediterranean
    Posts
    3,947

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Norfolk View Post
    1. While Spike may be used in a role somewhat akin to that of a mortar, is it sufficient to replace the Mortar in all its roles?

    2. Battle Losses: In The RCR, we were told that the 8-man Section would suffer 60% casulaties in the first 24 hours of offensive operations;

    @ For Battle Losses, how is this Company designed or intended to cope with casualties, and at what rate?

    @ Once again, a supremely efficient Company structure.
    1. No, Spike cannot replace mortars but it can do certain jobs better than mortars.

    2. Losses purely relate to how you can re-organise to retain some capability. That's the logic. However the psychological effects of casualties are likely to be far more profound. The 30 man platoons can keep re-organising right down to a 5 man team. You don't just wait for sections to get wiped out. You keep re-organising the platoon. That's why principles of organisation are a better bet, IMO, than absolute organisation.

    @ Thanks, but it's just one stab at the possible.
    Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"

    - The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
    - If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
    Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition

  12. #52
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    19

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by William F. Owen View Post
    You don't just wait for sections to get wiped out. You keep re-organising the platoon. That's why principles of organisation are a better bet, IMO, than absolute organisation.
    Perhaps those who have been recently trained as team, squad, and platoon leaders can shed some light on this. Is low level organization seen as a hard and fast rule or a framework for real-time adjustments as needed?

    Given real-world small unit strengths when deployed for a few months, what do the actual teams, squads, and platoons look like in Afghanistan and Iraq over time? Size and organization?

  13. #53
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    717

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Timothy OConnor View Post
    Perhaps those who have been recently trained as team, squad, and platoon leaders can shed some light on this. Is low level organization seen as a hard and fast rule or a framework for real-time adjustments as needed?

    Given real-world small unit strengths when deployed for a few months, what do the actual teams, squads, and platoons look like in Afghanistan and Iraq over time? Size and organization?
    No, of course they are not hard and fast. You start with a basic structure that is optimized to accomplish its tasks while sustaining a certain level of casualties; after it has suffered sufficient losses to prevent it from accomplishing those tasks, or a task arises that requires a reorganization, you just go ahead and do it. Structures, like plans, are a common basis for change, they are not fixed. But it is important to have a solid base from which to adapt to whatever circumstances may arise.

    Take for example the USMC Squad in Iraq: right now, the 13-men are doctrinally organized into 3 4-man Fire Teams; but in practice, the demands of Close Quarter Battle have led many of them to reorganize into 2 6-man Fire Teams; 4-man Fire Teams don't have staying power after taking losses, and 2 out of the 4 men are carrying weapons (LMG and UGL) that are hardly handy for CQB. So they reorganize into 2 6-man teams with an LMG, UGL, and 4 Riflemen each. Much better. But you can't do that with the 9-man US Army Squad; you have to break up one Squad in the Platoon and reorganize the other two to accomplish that.
    Last edited by Norfolk; 01-01-2008 at 04:51 PM.

  14. #54
    Council Member slapout9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    4,818

    Default That Old Guy Again

    All the posts just lead me to believe that we are failing to understand what the Old Fox said (Ken White). There is no right size squad! The right size squad will depend on the mission... the enemy....the terrain....troops you have.....time to figure out the best option. METT-T Maybe we should just have a basic size for admin purposes but spend more time training squad leaders and squads to be flexible and work together to accomplish the Mission based upon the situation. SBST situation based squad training...Yea I just invented that


    And why I have everybody on the radio here wasn't the concept of a Commando Unit based upon the idea that it had no fixed size? It was expanded and contracted based upon the situation. You UK folks should know if this is correct or not.
    Last edited by slapout9; 01-01-2008 at 06:06 PM. Reason: add stuff

  15. #55
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    19

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Norfolk View Post
    Structures, like plans, are a common basis for change, they are not fixed. But it is important to have a solid base from which to adapt to whatever circumstances may arise.
    That has always been my understanding. There does seem to be a disconnect bewteen peace-time or standard platoon organization and that used during actual fighting. It seems at times the "solid base" is so theoretical as to be completely distinct from practice and therefore less valuable as a foundation.

    Perhaps a modular approach would be more appropriate whether peace time or not. Effectively the rifle platoon would be composed of a number of functional teams (of various and appropriate sizes) and about 3 group leaders which would then be tasked organized by the platoon leader.

    It seems to work that way in the real-world anyway but that's not how platoons are organized/train.

    To your point about minimum effective team size that's driven by tactical function, so the size of a given functional team would be what ever is most appropriate for the function (an extreme example would be FO/RATELO team of two men vs base-of-fire team vs a team designed for CQB).

    It's interesting that peace-time organization often revolves around neat and tidy balanced organizations in perfect multiples while fighting platoons very quickly dispense with such structures.

    Why not formalize the informal so that platoons better reflect their real-world operating environment? Has that ever been attempted?

    As an aside this problem goes back through history. In the 18th and early 19th centuries armies struggled with disconnects between administrative organization (and even ceremonial organization!) and functional battlefield organization. Such issues have been addressed at higher organizational levels over time (eg 18th century ad hoc brigades and such vs Napoleonic organization). As more functional capabilities are driven to lower tactical organizations we'll likely see a similar evolution at ever lower levels.

  16. #56
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default Yep, it's not only been attempted, it's been done.

    Quote Originally Posted by Timothy OConnor View Post
    . . .
    It's interesting that peace-time organization often revolves around neat and tidy balanced organizations in perfect multiples while fighting platoons very quickly dispense with such structures.

    Why not formalize the informal so that platoons better reflect their real-world operating environment? Has that ever been attempted?

    . . .
    As slapout noted, the WW II Commandos were organized that way; the 1st Special Service Force effectively operated that way, USSF and SOF essentially operate that way and as you point out, the structural design is essentially a bookkeeping measure and units in combat have always organized anyway they wish to accomplish the mission.

    That is likely to continue to be true and it works; why waste a lot of effort trying to create the 'Optimum' organization when, as soon as its committed, someone not privy to the design rationale will modify the organization to suit his mission?

    I have not seen every conceivable ad hoc organization of Army and Marine Scout and Rifle Platoons but I have seen hundreds of variations employed in combat. Most all of 'em worked.

  17. #57
    Council Member jcustis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    SOCAL
    Posts
    2,152

    Default

    It's interesting that peace-time organization often revolves around neat and tidy balanced organizations in perfect multiples while fighting platoons very quickly dispense with such structures.

    Why not formalize the informal so that platoons better reflect their real-world operating environment? Has that ever been attempted?
    Not so sure where we can make the assessment that the garrison structure (at least for squads) is routinely dispensed with when the bullets start flying (or even "quickly") as you put it. There's been a couple references made of anecdotal information concerning Marines shifting during the recent fights of Fallujah and back in Hue, but is this an indicator that it is repeated across the past 50 years of warfighting?

    The Israelis fight the way they are structured, right? Across the Marine Corps, we pretty much do the same, but I don't think it is because we default to a new structure because we didn't think about casualties. We restructure into bigger elements as a REACTION to casualties, troops-to-task requirements, etc. It doesn't mean that the original structure wasn't valid and effecient in the first place. If I've got squads that have sustained casualties, yet the squad leaders are still combat effective, I'm not going to subvert one squad under another just because it sustains 4-6 casualties. Now, I may make that understrength squad the duty SBF element (with supporting attachments), but ifI've trained in a multiple of three fighting organization, I'm going to ask for reinforcements or attachments to round me out before I resort to collapsing and consolidating down.

    Bottom line, I don't think the "neat and tidy" organizations are a product of peacetime requirements. They are a product of study, application, and a certain degree of forethought. Can some of them be better?...sure, but throughout all of these related threads, I still can't find a convincing argument that re-organization will result in marked increases in performance. We (i.e. US-CAN-UK-ANZAC) have been fairly effective on the real two-way range correct?
    Last edited by jcustis; 01-01-2008 at 08:59 PM.

  18. #58
    Council Member William F. Owen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    The State of Partachia, at the eastern end of the Mediterranean
    Posts
    3,947

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by slapout9 View Post
    All the posts just lead me to believe that we are failing to understand what the Old Fox said (Ken White). There is no right size squad! The right size squad will depend on the mission... the enemy....the terrain....troops you have.....time to figure..
    Well I agree and that was pretty much where I started from. That is why you need principles of organisation - but you also need a basic TOE as a starting point, and weapons as only 25% of what you need to consider.

    Quote Originally Posted by Timothy OConnor View Post
    Perhaps a modular approach would be more appropriate whether peace time or not. Effectively the rifle platoon would be composed of a number of functional teams (of various and appropriate sizes) and about 3 group leaders which would then be tasked organized by the platoon leader.
    levels.
    I wrote an article on the Fire team Groups a while ago... maybe that could form the basis of something....
    Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"

    - The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
    - If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
    Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition

  19. #59
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    717

    Default

    Well, this is my final Infantry Battalion TO&E organization as per Rex' request:

    Heavy Infantry Battalion - Table of Organization and Equipment

    Principle Roles:

    Decisive Offensive Operations, particularly in Open Country, but Close Country as well to a limited extent; Mobile Defensive Operations; Screening and Delaying Operations; ideally suited for General Wars, and to provide Heavy Mobile Reserve in Small Wars. Carries supplies for 6-8 days within Battalion. Suitable for European and English-speaking Armies.

    Headquarters Company –

    •Command Section (Battalion CO, Battalion 2i/c, Battalion Staff)
    •Command Post (Company CDR, Company 2i/c, Regimental SGTMJR, 4 Clerks, 4 Runners/Drivers)
    •Intelligence Section
    •Police Section
    •Signals Platoon
    •Supply Platoon (Stores, 2 Transport, and POL Sections)
    •Maintenance Platoon (including 2 Recovery Sections and 2 Mobile Repair Team Sections)
    •Medical Platoon (including Aid Station)
    •Mess Platoon (One Field Kitchen per Company)

    Infantry Company – (X4)

    •Company HQ (Company CDR, Company 2i/c, Company SGTMJR/1st Sgt, 4 Signalers, 2 Clerks, 2 Runners)
    oCommand Section
    oCommand Post
    oCompany Quartermaster

    •Rifle Platoon (X3)
    oPlatoon HQ (Platoon CDR, Platoon 2i/c, 2 Runners, 4 Designated Marksmen)
    Rifle Section (X4) – 8 men, due to carrying capacity of Infantry Carrier (Section CDR, Section 2i/c, and one RPG-7V2 per Section)
    -Weapons Squad (Section CDR/Grenadier, LMG Gunner, Rifleman)
    •Rifle Squad (Squad CDR, 4 Riflemen)

    •Weapons Platoon
    Platoon HQ (Platoon CDR, Platoon 2i/c, 2 Signalers, 2 Runners)
    Machine Gun Section (Section CDR, Section 2i/c, Gun Controller, 2 Signalers)
    •4 Machine Gun Squads (each one 7.62mm MAG-58 and 4 men)
    Mortar Section (Section CDR, Section 2i/c, Mortar Fire Controller , 2 Signalers)
    •4 Mortar Squads (each one 60 mm M224 and 4 men)
    Anti-Tank Section (Section CDR, Section 2i/c, 2 Signalers)
    •4 Anti-Tank Squads (each one MBT-LAW and 4 men)

    Weapons Company –

    •Company HQ (Company CDR, Company 2i/c, Company SGTMJR/1st Sgt, 4 Signalers, 2 Clerks, 2 Runners)
    •Command Section
    •Command Post
    •Company Quartermaster

    •Machine Gun Platoon
    •Platoon HQ (Platoon CDR, Platoon 2i/c, 2 Signalers, 2 Runners)
    •4 Machine Gun Sections (Section CDR, Section 2i/c, 2 Gun Controllers, 2 Signalers)
    2 Machine Gun Squads (each one 40mm GMG and 5 men)

    Mortar Platoon
    •Platoon HQ (Platoon CDR, Platoon 2i/c, 2 Mortar Fire Controllers, 2 Signalers, 2 Runners)
    •4 Mortar Sections (Section CDR, Section 2i/c, 2 Signalers)
    •2 Mortar Squads (each one 81 mm Mortar, and 6 men)

    •Anti-Tank Platoon
    •Platoon HQ (Platoon CDR, Platoon 2i/c, 2 Signalers, 2 Runners)
    •4 Anti-Tank Sections (Section CDR, Section 2i/c, 2 Signalers)
    •2 Anti-Tank Squads (each one ATGM launcher, 5 men)

    •Pioneer Platoon
    •Platoon HQ (Platoon CDR, Platoon 2i/c, 2 Signalers, 2 Runners)
    •4 Pioneer Sections (each 8 men, as per Rifle Section)

    •Reconnaissance Platoon
    •Platoon HQ (Platoon CDR, Platoon 2i/c, 2 Signalers, 2 Runners)
    •4 Reconnaissance Sections (each of 2 Reconnaissance Squads each of 4 Patrolmen)
    -2 Surveillance Sections (each of 3 Reconnaissance Vehicles, each with 3-man crew)
    •Sniper Section (Section CDR, Section 2i/c, Signaler, 4 2-man Sniper Teams)

    -Carrier Company

    -Company HQ (Company CDR, Company 2i/c, Company SGTMJR/1st SGT, Master Gunner, 4 Signallers)
    -Command Section
    -Command Post
    -Company Quartermaster

    -Carrier Platoon (X5)
    -Platoon HQ (Platoon CDR, Platoon 2i/c)
    -Carrier Section (X4)
    -Infantry Carrier (4 per Section, 3-man Crew per Carrier)

    Note:

    Normally, such a Heavy Battalion would possess such attachments (from Regiment/Brigade/Division) as a Heavy Anti-Tank Troop/Platoon (24 ATGM launchers on tracked chassis), Anti-Aircraft Troop/Platoon, as well as one or two Tank Squadron/Company(s), a 155mm Self-Propelled Gun Battery, and an Armoured Engineer Troop/Platoon or in the US case, a Company.

    However, for Commonwealth Armies, the Combat Team concept also allows for dispensing with the Company Team/Group of mixed Platoons of Armoured/Mechanized Infantry and Tanks in favour of pairing Armoured/Mechanized Infantry Companies with Tank Squadrons/Companies. In this case, a Heavy Infantry Battalion and a Tank Regiment/Battalion (of 4 Tank Squadrons/Companies) would of course normally exchange two of their own Companies/Squadrons for two of the other's, but instead of forming Company Teams from a subsequent cross-attachment of Platoons/Troops between Companies/Squadrons, would simply pair the Infantry Company and the Tank Squadron together.

    In this case, such a Heavy Infantry Battalion would consist of two Combat Teams, plus aforementioned attached Anti-Tank and Anti-Aircraft Platoons/Troops, and 155mm SPG Artillery Battery, Armoured Engineer Squadron, and Armoured Reconnaissance Squadron (all from Brigade/Division). Subsequently, each Combat Team, in addition to its Armoured Infantry Company and Tank Squadron, may have an Armoured Recce Troop and an Armoured Engineer Troop, etc., directly attached. This provides for a faster, heavier striking force than a Company Team, and much more capable of semi-independent operations and striking over longer distances and for greater duration.
    Last edited by Norfolk; 01-02-2008 at 05:43 AM.

  20. #60
    Council Member Ratzel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    81

    Default

    Norfolk, I noticed in your Battalion organization you have someone called a "runner." What does this person[s] do?
    "Politics are too important to leave to the politicians"

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •