Infantry Unit Tactics, Tasks, Weapons, and Organization

[Distiller]

Couple of comments:

@ ATGM at platoon level: in a jungle or urban setting you don't need the range of a Javelin. Pure waste of money to use a USD75k+ weapon in a scenario when a RPG can do the job. And again: If you give squad leaders a precision targeting capability you have a lot of anti-tank/-structure capability w/o loading up lower formations with weight and weapons they might seldom need.

@ capabilities of Spike-MR: Very impressive, but no substite for the mortars.

@ MG 7.62 in lower formations: What about that FN Mk.48 at squad level? Doesn't have the range of a long-barrel GPMG, but a lot more punch than a Minimi. Coupled with a weapon like HK417 or the SCAT-HLB you'd have volume and precision.

@ using 35/40mm automatic grenade launchers for foot soldiers: I think for the weight a 60mm mortars delivers more capability. A thing like MGL-140 on platoon level looks more intersting to me.

@ my idea of a 80mm mortar at company level: I still like it, but the fact that you can haul only 50% of ammo compared to 60mm is a very strong point. Nevertheless one should look into the option of a short-barrel 80mm with a, say, 3.5kg grenade.

@ using 30mm+ to suppress ATGM crews: First you have to see them. Hard to do from a APC/IFV. When driving around in vehicles a system like AMOS/NEMOS seems more useful for the suppression job. (Besides hopefully having some kind of helicopter escort around, when you're in that situation -- not small war anymore, I guess).

And a question: What about the individual weapons of MG, mortar and missile teams? Nothing, or pistols, or MP7?

[William F. Owen]

Couple of comments:

@ ATGM at platoon level: in a jungle or urban setting you don't need the range of a Javelin. Pure waste of money to use a USD75k+ weapon in a scenario when a RPG can do the job.

Javelin was used a lot in Fallujah and in the US it is a Squad Weapon. Jungle is more problematic, but I don't see the need to have one weapon for Jungle and one for Urban. Urban can easily produce 2,000m + engagements, and some areas of jungle can produce long range shoots, especially mountains.

BTW, I live in Bangkok, so urban and jungle is something just outside my back door.

[Norfolk]

Couple of comments:

@ ATGM at platoon level: in a jungle or urban setting you don't need the range of a Javelin. Pure waste of money to use a USD75k+ weapon in a scenario when a RPG can do the job. And again: If you give squad leaders a precision targeting capability you have a lot of anti-tank/-structure capability w/o loading up lower formations with weight and weapons they might seldom need.

@ capabilities of Spike-MR: Very impressive, but no substite for the mortars.

@ MG 7.62 in lower formations: What about that FN Mk.48 at squad level? Doesn't have the range of a long-barrel GPMG, but a lot more punch than a Minimi. Coupled with a weapon like HK417 or the SCAT-HLB you'd have volume and precision.

@ using 35/40mm automatic grenade launchers for foot soldiers: I think for the weight a 60mm mortars delivers more capability. A thing like MGL-140 on platoon level looks more intersting to me.

@ my idea of a 80mm mortar at company level: I still like it, but the fact that you can haul only 50% of ammo compared to 60mm is a very strong point. Nevertheless one should look into the option of a short-barrel 80mm with a, say, 3.5kg grenade.

@ using 30mm+ to suppress ATGM crews: First you have to see them. Hard to do from a APC/IFV. When driving around in vehicles a system like AMOS/NEMOS seems more useful for the suppression job. (Besides hopefully having some kind of helicopter escort around, when you're in that situation -- not small war anymore, I guess).

And a question: What about the individual weapons of MG, mortar and missile teams? Nothing, or pistols, or MP7?

Interesting points Distiller. I would recommend only Pistols for the Gunners themselves, but Carbines or Rifles for the other members of the Crew.

As to Mk 48: FN Herstal is now offering the Minimi in NATO 7.62, and I believe that, like the Mk 48, is has eliminated the Magazine feed to save weight (and improve reliability):

http://www.fnherstal.com/html/Index.htm

Go down to New MINIMI TM Lightweight Machine Gun 7.62x51mm and
then click on "click here". Very much agreed Distiller. Take the pain and convert to 7.62mm Minimis. Many, many of the 5.56's are too old or worn out and have to be reaplced anyway. And as you pointed out in an earlier post, 5.56 link is effectively a different ammo, unless you've got lots of time to play with it. A 7.62 Minimi would give Squads and Sections the ability to perform true Fire-and-Movement at Platoon Level, with Squads and Sections alternating with each other in those roles - which 5.56 really doesn't provide, not efffectively anyway, notionally perhaps. And you can punch through a lot of things with 7.62 that 5.56 isn't going to touch. Not to mention, with a 7.62 LMG, you don't need even the appearance of a DM at Squad or Section, you've got the range to do it yourself, and leave the DM's at Platoon level, where they properly belong most of the time anyway. .

I am a big proponent of Mortars, especially at Company and Platoon Level. The ability of a 60 mm Mortar to lay down smoke or suppress a Platoon's objective impresses me; the ability of 4 said Mortars to drop nasty Stonks on the enemy at opportune times impresses me even more. I do not see a medium-weight 35-40 mm AGL as a replacement for Mortars, but as a complement to all the other Company and PLatoon Heavy Weapons. AGLs can get into defilades in a way that MGs cannot (especially at shorter ranges) and they provide a Light Anti-Armour capability that spares the ATGMs for use against the MBTs; furthermore, the use of Medium AGLs lessens the pressure on the Mortars (and especially their ammo supply) for certain Fire Tasks, freeing up the Mortars to concentrate more on Smoke, Illumination, and of course, Stonks, when the opportunity arises.

I rather agree about Spike MR used in the pseudo-indirect fire role: it is a useful capability, but I see it as complementing, not partially replacing, Mortars.

[Distiller]

The Mk.48 is the 7.62x51 Minimi
http://www.smallarmsreview.com/pdf/jul03.pdf


I don't see a A/MGL as replacement for mortars either. I think at platoon level weapons should be handle-able by just one man w/o special preparations before firing (even if others carry the ammo). And I also agree on the need for indirect fire support at the lowest possible echelon. Furthermore I think UGLs are distractive and don't provide real firepower (esp as only one man in the team has it), and as I said before a dedicated A/MGL man is probabaly more provicient with his weapon than a UGL-part-time-grenadier.

You are familiar with the Norinco QLB06 I assume?
http://www.sinodefence.com/army/crewserved/qlb06.asp
An nice alternative to the MGL-140. Interesting stuff out of China. Wonder at what level they integrate that thing.

[William F. Owen]

The Mk.48 is the 7.62x51 Minimi
http://www.smallarmsreview.com/pdf/jul03.pdf

No it's not. The Mk48 looks quite different to the 7.62x51mm Minimi - and was built and developed by FN Herstal, not FN Manufacturing.

[Norfolk]

You are familiar with the Norinco QLB06 I assume?
http://www.sinodefence.com/army/crewserved/qlb06.asp
An nice alternative to the MGL-140. Interesting stuff out of China. Wonder at what level they integrate that thing.

Oh yes, Distiller, I am. I prefer the Type 87 because of its ability to be used in the SF Role. The QLB06 can only be used in the Light Role. The PLA uses the Type 87 at Company Level I think. The Type 88 5.8 mm LMG was found to be inadequate for Company-level work and pushed down to Platoon.

[Norfolk]

For the Battalion-level, I propose something more or less along the following lines:

A Weapons Company consisting of a Heavy Machine Gun Platoon, with 8 or 9 40 mm GMGs; a Mortar Platoon with 8-9 81 mm Medium (Foot Infantry) or 120 mm Heavy Mortars (Armoured Infantry); an Anti-Tank Platoon with 16-18 Medium (Foot Infantry) or Heavy (Armoured Infantry) ATGM Launchers; a Pioneer Platoon of 3-4 Sections for Field Engineer Battlefield Tasks; and a Reconnaissance Platoon with 6-8 Recce Teams, and 3-4 Sniper Teams.

Also, in Armoured/Mechanized Infantry Battalions, a Carrier Company of 4 or 5 Carrier Platoons (4-5 APC/MICV/IFV each). This would centralise training and maintenance; each Carrier Platoon may be attached to a given Company on a habitual basis to encourage familiarity and tactical cooperation.

I am concerned however, that wherever possible, even Battalion-level Heavy Weapons should be capable of being man-packed (including in Armoured/Mechanized Infantry Battalions). As such, I view the 120 mm Mortar and the TOW (and like Heavy ATGMs) as something that I would prefer to see organized in their own Companies, and located at Regiment/Brigade level; not to mention that I suspect that they are more effectively used that way most of the time anyway. I would much prefer not to have 120 mm Mortars and TOW-type ATGMs organic to the Infantry Battalion, but rather attached to them from Regimental/Brigade-level.

[Rifleman]

Artillery and mortar types soundoff: would there be any advantage (or problems) in having a mixed battery of 105 howitzers and 120 mortars? Say a battery of four 105 tubes and four 120 tubes?

Would two types of ammo in the battery be a logistical problem? We have more than one type of small arms ammo in a company now and it doesn't seem to hinder operations.

I was just thinking (dangerous, I know): why to we need a heavy mortar platoon at battalion level at all when battalions have an artillery battery attached? It seems the 120s might fit better there.

[Norfolk]

Artillery and mortar types soundoff: would there be any advantage (or problems) in having a mixed battery of 105 howitzers and 120 mortars? Say a battery of four 105 tubes and four 120 tubes?

Would two types of ammo in the battery be a logistical problem? We have more than one type of small arms ammo in a company now and it doesn't seem to hinder operations.

I was just thinking (dangerous, I know): why to we need a heavy mortar platoon at battalion level at all when battalions have an artillery battery attached? It seems the 120s might fit better there.

Ken would be the perfect man to tell us about this; he bin' there, he dun it, and he'd probably have written the book about, but writing may not have been invented yet back then...

It seems kind of doubtful to me Rifleman. I'm no Gunner (my paternal grandfather was though), but it strikes me as just needlessly complicated for an Arty Battery. You'd need two sets of Plotting Tables, maybe even an extra radio set in order to get around the radio logjam for both the guns and the tubes; and maintainence and supply would be complicated. Calibration could be fun too. Survey shouldn't be a problem though, even if GPS weren't available to effectively avoid that "little" detail.

I think the Army tried something somewhat similar (but in separate Batteries, not Platoons/Troops in each Battery) with the Pentomic Division. Didn't work out real well.

[Uboat509]

Artillery and mortar types soundoff: would there be any advantage (or problems) in having a mixed battery of 105 howitzers and 120 mortars? Say a battery of four 105 tubes and four 120 tubes?

Would two types of ammo in the battery be a logistical problem? We have more than one type of small arms ammo in a company now and it doesn't seem to hinder operations.

I was just thinking (dangerous, I know): why to we need a heavy mortar platoon at battalion level at all when battalions have an artillery battery attached? It seems the 120s might fit better there.

The logistic problems of dealing with the different munitions would be a huge pain plus there is huge difference in the FDCs. Most of the infantry battalions I have seen have habitual relationships with external units that support them, ie. artillery, engineers, ADA etc. That frees up the battalion from logistical, administrative and maintenance support of these units but allows them to work together. Furthermore, this allows more flexibility to the brigade commander. If he needs to push more assets to one battalion he can do so without having to pull it out of the other battalions.

SFC W

[Rex Brynen]

For the Battalion-level, I propose something more or less along the following lines:

Of course its easy for me to suggest--given that it just takes me a ten second post to throw out the challenge--but it would be very useful (and fun) to pull together all of the discussions on platoon/fireteam organization, platoon weapons, and now battalion weapons into a proposed battalion TO&E (hint, hint, Norfolk).

A couple of modest suggestions for anyone who tries it:

1) Specify not only whether its a light/foot or heavy/mech battalion, but also whose battalion it is. If it is for a non-US force (and I'm including here Canada, Australia, parts of Europe) it may not need to be configured to handle high intensity conflict, but rather a spectrum that runs from fairly permissive (post-Dayton Bosnia) PKOs to Somalia-type humanitarian intervention to Afghanistan-type stabilization missions.

2) Specify the IFV (MICV, APC, whatever). It clearly makes some difference if you're fielding 4 mounted ATGM tubes or zero at platoon level, etc.

3) OK, this is the evil political scientist in me. The quipment has to exist now. Try to make some reasonable assumptions about procurement ...otherwise you'll all want Type III phasers.

[Norfolk]

Of course its easy for me to suggest--given that it just takes me a ten second post to throw out the challenge--but it would be very useful (and fun) to pull together all of the discussions on platoon/fireteam organization, platoon weapons, and now battalion weapons into a proposed battalion TO&E (hint, hint, Norfolk).

A couple of modest suggestions for anyone who tries it:

1) Specify not only whether its a light/foot or heavy/mech battalion, but also whose battalion it is. If it is for a non-US force (and I'm including here Canada, Australia, parts of Europe) it may not need to be configured to handle high intensity conflict, but rather a spectrum that runs from fairly permissive (post-Dayton Bosnia) PKOs to Somalia-type humanitarian intervention to Afghanistan-type stabilization missions.

2) Specify the IFV (MICV, APC, whatever). It clearly makes some difference if you're fielding 4 mounted ATGM tubes or zero at platoon level, etc.

3) OK, this is the evil political scientist in me. The quipment has to exist now. Try to make some reasonable assumptions about procurement ...otherwise you'll all want Type III phasers.

Sah! [Norfolk utters in his best Parade-Square Drill Voice]

I will get right on it, Sah!

PS: Does it hurt when you get zapped by a Type III Phaser, or is it over real quick?