Platoon Weapons

[Norfolk]

So, how does the enemy respond differently, when confronted with squads of PDW's?

Presumably, he makes taking out the crew-served and special weapons a fetish - it becomes his #1 tactical priority, and once that is accomplished, manuevers agressively to suppress and destroy the squad...?

I am not necessarily disagreeing with the idea of a platoon/squad partially equipped with PDW's, just wondering out loud if it makes the enemy's job a little easier, or allows them to focus better (since they should be focused on taking out the special weapons anyway).

I'd say you have it bang-on right there, Sabre. Even if PDW's proved adequate for their intended role, they help to set-up their own Squads and Platoons for piecemeal destruction as they can't even hope to offer a secondary (even if limited) capacity for longer-range fires in defence of the main weapons. Kind of like the time-honoured practice of using artillery to separate infantry from their tanks, and then to pick each off at comparative leisure.

[William F. Owen]

Don't "get" the "no one has really done the testing" thing. I think there is plenty of evidence that shows that light, fast bullets don't penetrate, and don't produce secondary effects anywhere near as well as heavier, slower projectiles.

You are correct. There is lots of data on the purely mechanical terminal effects. In 5 years of research I have found no open source data (or even foot prints of proprietary data) that any testing has been done on the tactical applications, human performance, or comparative organisations of the employment of PDWs.

Wilf, how would you test terminal effect? Gelatin, auto glass, intermediate barriers, what kind of testing do you think is necessary?

Pick a well reasoned criteria and test against it. Personally, I think the mechanical testing is not that important. Bullet design and testing is far from complex, and there are legal issues to contend with as well. Penetration is still the simplest, least contentious and easiest to achieve effect.

So, how does the enemy respond differently, when confronted with squads of PDW's?

Did the Germans respond differently to squads of Soviets equipped with PPsH, or any other weapon? This question assumes tactical problem to be in isolation.

To repeat, I am no saying, every man should have a PDW or even which PDW. I think big bullets are good. Big Bullets coming from GPMGs and Long range rifles is more effective than than from IWs. The concern and the only reason to look at this, is the issue of carried weight. I am not suggesting squads equipped with PDWs. I am suggesting optimising functions within the platoon, based on carried weight. That may mean, giving some, (or even a lot of) men PDWs

[120mm]

I think it would definitely be worth setting up some old-fashioned war games that test the concept.

I think you could even do something with micro-armor to illustrate how it would work: I mean, we know the terminal effects/range of each weapon, and we could make a range of estimations of ammo consumption.

[ODB]

Gentlemen,

We live and some of you fight in a time when a good Lance Corporal in the Marines can and does when necessary talk to air assets that have the ability to do a lot more damage to enemy personnel and equipment than any amount of sexy firepower we can equip a modern rifle squad with.

I hear the in some of the fighting in Iraq, stubborn houses, well defended, were dropped around the ears of the enemy by the communication between the ground grunt and hte pilot with a smart bomb.

Now we are seeing single safe houses flattened by drones that are flown by some guy in the rear with the gear.

Let not over think the need, if all things being equal, todays infantry grunt can bring the wrath of God down on fixed defensive postions just by talking to a fast mover or a geek sitting in an air conditioned van on a little strip 100 miles away..

Yes if you have priority of fires. Have to think on a worst case scenerio. Can I effectively take on an enemy force with my internal weapons/weapon systems. There has been many fights where the unit in contact did not have priority on A/C gun ships, fighter A/C, or UAVs, they had to slug it out the old fashion way. Unfortunately we have yet to develop the power/fuel source that can keep an airframe in the air indefinately. Soldiers need to be able to continue the fight when aircraft have to leave station to refuel or rearm. Additionally there are cases where units maintained contact with the enemy for hours with these assets available. When thinking of how to arm todays grunt these factors need to be addressed.

[Richard W]

A man can carry only so much. What are the limitations of the average, young man in terms of weight bearing? How far can he walk with a designated weight? Does the West still need foot platoons?

We know that prior to WWI that the Imperial German Army conducted exhaustive testing regarding the first two questions.(Certainly at that time there was no question as to the right answer to the third question.) We also know the results of the march testing. Generally speaking an average young man

1) Can carry about 1/3 of his body weight over extended distances.

2) He can march in day light on a reasonably surfaced road at a rate of about 3 MPH with a 10-minute break every hour for about 8-hours a day for a total of about 20-miles a day. Anything more than this is a "force march" and impacts on the health of the average young man.

3. Our young man can do this 6-days a week with a single day of rest.

If we assume that he weighs around 150 lbs then his marching weight his around 50lbs. As we all know if our young marcher is issued with an old 7.62 machine gun (M 60 or MAG 58) and about 400 rounds of link outside of its packaging then he will approach or exceed the 50 lbs limit without counting the other necessities of survival (The way things are going our young soldiers may soon be carrying 50 lbs in battery weight alone.)

The 1944/45 German infantry platoon solved this problem with issuing 2-4 pony carts to a platoon. The young German marcher put his machine gun, ammunition and much of his other gear in the squad cart and marched along carrying his basic webbing and pistol. Sadly I do not think that I could convince the Western Defense establishments to return to unshod ponies and wooden carts as the principal support vehicle for foot platoons).

My guess is that a foot platoon made up of average men and operating without vehicle support for a 6-day mission and relying on the carrying power of its young men would have the following limitations in terms of weapons and protection.

1. No body armor.
2. One belt fed machine gun per squad with 1,000 rounds split up among the squad.
3. Bullet trap rifle grenades that can also be hand thrown.
4. A very short range, disposable rocket launcher.
5. A small, light and handy firearm for each solider that fires a lot of little bullets and launches rifle grenades. (If memory serves the original Armalite weighed about 5.5 lbs).

But does the West still need foot platoons?

Regards

Richard

[William F. Owen]

My guess is that a foot platoon made up of average men and operating without vehicle support for a 6-day mission and relying on the carrying power of its young men would have the following limitations in terms of weapons and protection.

1. No body armor.
2. One belt fed machine gun per squad with 1,000 rounds split up among the squad.
3. Bullet trap rifle grenades that can also be hand thrown.
4. A very short range, disposable rocket launcher.
5. A small, light and handy firearm for each solider that fires a lot of little bullets and launches rifle grenades. (If memory serves the original Armalite weighed about 5.5 lbs).

Six days on foot is very demanding dismounted operation. Not impossible, but the circumstances that would cause it would be pretty specific, and you'd be trading weapons weight for Comms, rations and water.

Rifle Grenades are good, as are 66mm LAWs, but again, these had to be set against trade-offs in other areas. Do you need Rifle grenades if you have 40mm UGL? etc.

[Richard W]

William F. Owen:

Thank you for your kind reply.

You are indeed right in my opinion that a six day foot platoon patrol without a supply vehicle would be very demanding. However as you probably know Bigeard's elite, volunteer, 6th Colonial Parachute Battalion regularly used this as a standard in Indochina (as did his 3rd Colonial Parachute Regiment in Algeria). Bigeard copied this standard from the Viet Minh's conscript infantry. Who copied it from the Chinese Conscript Infantry. Who copied it from the Imperial Japanese conscript infantry (See Fall's, Roy's and Simpson's works on Dien Bien Phu as well as Burk's biography of Chesty Puller.) The US Army Ranger School up until around 1975 had at least one 6-day platoon size combat patrol (one C Ration per day).

My guess is that there are very few infantry platoon's in the Western Armies that could do this type of a mission today (and probably fewer Western Commanders who would risk it.)

In my opinion the two big questions are: 1) Can and will the Islamic Insurgents conduct extended and unsupported foot patrols? and 2) Do Western infantry platoons need to do so also?

If Western Infantry does not need to conduct extended and unsupported foot operations against Islamic insurgents then it may be wise to issue two sets of weapons to each platoon. One heavier set for immediate dismounted operations from vehicles and a second lighter set for short range foot patrols.

As to rifle grenade vs. tube launched grenade I think that for extended foot operations the rifle grenade may be superior. The tube launched grenade is limited in diameter. The rifle grenade is not. For instance around 1978 the French fielded a bullet trap antitank rifle grenade that was very good (and packed quite a kick). The USA used to issue a white phosphorous rifle grenade for the M14 that provided an enormous amount of smoke. Sadly it required a blank round. Most under the rifle grenade launchers weigh about 3- 3.5 lbs. A small but significant addition for extended foot operations. (I understand that the IDF uses both type of grenades within their infantry squad.)

My guess is that an infantry platoons' weapons will depend above all on what type of vehicles they are working with.

Regards

Richard

[Vic Bout]

In 1978 we conducted a 12 day patrol in the Florida phase of Ranger school and I think, a 6 dayer, earlier, in the mountains...

[mmx1]

I am reminded of a point that B.P. McCoy makes in his primer "The Passion of Command"

When assaulting a defensive position, bullets do the suppressing, but HE(high explosive) does the real work

He later recounted that of the casualties 3/4 inflicted in the march to Baghdad, the vast majority were due to HE, not small arms fire.

[Richard W]

Vic Bout:

Are your feet still attached to your body? Who did your Ranger class upset?

Regards

Richard

[Ken White]

for 15-20 days at a whack on multiple occasions was wrong? If so, I demand compensation for my pain and suffering!!! And hunger!!! And torn clothes!!! Where and who do I sue?

The 82d foot marched from mid-South Carolina back to Fort Bragg after a major exercise in 1962; 126 miles in four days. Did that, too. Does this mean I've been picked on????

[Tom Odom]

In 1978 we conducted a 12 day patrol in the Florida phase of Ranger school and I think, a 6 dayer, earlier, in the mountains...

Yep cause I did the same things in Class 2-77. Mountains in late Nov early December froze us and we all had pneumonia, Florida killed two of us--snowed in Miami that year...

For Ken: no it just means you are part goat.

Some of the boys in the RPA were absolute mountain goats. Couldn't carry caca but they could sure bust a hump with an AK and 200 rounds wearing rubber boots.

[Ken White]

Algeria)...My guess is that there are very few infantry platoon's in the Western Armies that could do this type of a mission today (and probably fewer Western Commanders who would risk it.)

I think you'll find that some units in Afghanistan are routinely doing that and being resupplied by air. Some of the mounted platoons are out for more than two weeks at a whack, the foot mobile guys go for a week. Obviously their Commanders are now 'risking' it.

In my opinion the two big questions are: 1) Can and will the Islamic Insurgents conduct extended and unsupported foot patrols? and 2) Do Western infantry platoons need to do so also?

The answer to the first is; depends. It's happening in Afghanistan. The answer to the second is yes (and it would be helpful if they could do it without the vests).

As to rifle grenade vs. tube launched grenade...

Having used both, I'll go with the 40mm.

[Tom Odom]

I think you'll find that some units in Afghanistan are routinely doing that and being resupplied by air. Some of the mounted platoons are out for more than two weeks at a whack, the foot mobile guys go for a week. Obviously their Commanders are now 'risking' it.

Absolutely and it was pretty much a standard for light infantry ops until we cranked up MREs here with heavy but not total emphasis on mounted ops.

Tom

[Richard W]

Gentlemen:

Are you saying that an entire Platoon is going on a foot patrol without a supply vehicle for six or more days while carrying everything on their own backs? Are they also wearing body armor?

Thank you.

Regards

Richard W.

[Ken White]

Er, you did note the aerial resupply, right?

[Richard W]

Ken White:

Thank you for your kind reply.

I am confused - as usual. Are you telling me that Western Infantry Platoons are not conducting extended foot patrols without a supply vehicle but are being supported by an aircraft? If a platoon on a foot patrol is being supplied by an aircraft then that Platoon is attached to drop and landing zones. It is in a similar position to a Platoon tied to a road net.

My first question is whether Western Platoons are, like their ancestors, conducting extended foot patrols depending on their own backs to carry the required weight?

My second question is whether they need to?

Thank you

Regards

Richard W

[Ken White]

...Are you telling me that Western Infantry Platoons are not conducting extended foot patrols without a supply vehicle but are being supported by an aircraft? If a platoon on a foot patrol is being supplied by an aircraft then that Platoon is attached to drop and landing zones. It is in a similar position to a Platoon tied to a road net.

They are conducting patrols in some cases without a supply vehicle; in other cases they move by vehicle to a point, dismount, the vehicles leave and return later to a different location for resupply or to pick them up. Vehicle type and locale dependent, those vehicles may or may not be tied to a road net.

Many are resupplied by air and they are not "attached to drop and landing zones," those are established on an ad hoc basis where ever the unit is, the aircraft land or make the drop where ever the unit happens to be at the time to include in terrain not normally considered for DZ/LZ use in peacetime. LINK, LINK.

My first question is whether Western Platoons are, like their ancestors, conducting extended foot patrols depending on their own backs to carry the required weight?

In some cases.

My second question is whether they need to?

In some cases. That's a METT-TC decision by the local commander, some will think the risk or effort worth it, some will not.

There's plenty of open source material available on that but this is no place to go into details on TTP

[Richard W]

Ken White:

Thank you for your kind reply.

It sounds to me from what you tell me that modern Western platoons are not foot patrolling like their ancestors. The French in Algeria believed that infantry had to cut loose of their bases, supply lines and yes, even aircraft, and foot patrol without support for extended periods. The resulting French patrols were very, very lightly armed; and of course they did not wear armor. The French were successful in pacifying the Algerian interior using this method (See Horne's A Savage War of Peace).

I imagine that if modern Western platoons patrolled as did the French in Algeria then radical changes would have to be made in both platoon weaponry and the amount of ammunition.

I wonder if that type of patrolling is necessary to fight Islamic insurgents?

Regards

Richard W

[Ken White]

Been my observation that very few platoons, eastern or western, do things like their ancestors did. Being older than most and thus qualifying as an ancestor of sorts and having done extended foot patrolling in locations other than Algeria at about the same time, I think this is a good thing.

Appropos of your comment, other than dropping the vest, I don't think much change in Platoon weapons and equipment would be needed but more training would be required and command attitudes would have to change. I think that type of patrolling would be of no benefit is some situations but might be helpful in fighting insurgents in some locations and situations; helpful but not totally necessary, IMO.