I very much agree with you. This in 6.5 Grendel could be a very good start. Although I question their stated weight for this weapon as being 7.4 lbs. I think they could be a pound out with that heavy barrel.Originally Posted by Fuchs
Here is the real answer the Johnny 7 OMA (one Man Army) with 7 guns in one and your Communications Helmet.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HbD91SNiE9g
I very much agree with you. This in 6.5 Grendel could be a very good start. Although I question their stated weight for this weapon as being 7.4 lbs. I think they could be a pound out with that heavy barrel.
Nothing that results in human progress is achieved with unanimous consent. (Christopher Columbus)
All great truth passes through three stages: first it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
(Arthur Schopenhauer)
ONWARD
The Stoner Weapons systems. Common Lower receiver that cound adapt to carbine,rifle,AR with magazine or Box magazine.
http://world.guns.ru/machine/mg41-e.htm
Video of M16A3 Light Support Weapon with C-Magazine.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WriIGNW1nKY
Based on Melody's definitions, what both the USMC and US Army call "fire teams" are really "squads" (capable of fire OR maneuver, not both; the smallest, indivisible element, lead by a single leader) while what both services call "squads" are really "sections". However, the 4 man team is too small to be an effective "squad".
Proposal:
a. 6 man "teams" (the term doesn't really matter- we can call them teams in squads, or squads in sections)- 1 x LMG/IAR, 1 x UGL, 4 x rifles (including the leader).
b. 3 "teams", with leader and asst leader, makes a "squad" (again, I don't care if its teams in a squad, or squads in a section)= total is 20 pax
20 pax is plenty to conduct most operations in COIN independently, and much more robust (for all operations) than any currently fielded "squad", even if operating at the 75% strength that Melody says is typical.
A platoon composed of these "squads" would be huge (3 "squads" is 60 pax, plus weapons/MG squad, either organic or attached from weapons platoon), probably 75 pax or so.
Thoughts?
Last edited by 82redleg; 12-17-2009 at 01:56 AM. Reason: to make spacing better
I think he holds to that because that was the definition used by the 1946 Infantry conference.
Six-man fire teams was proposed by James Webb due to his combat experience with understrength squads in his platoon.Proposal:
a. 6 man "teams" (the term doesn't really matter- we can call them teams in squads, or squads in sections)- 1 x LMG/IAR, 1 x UGL, 4 x rifles (including the leader).
If a change that radical is to be made, I like Wilf's idea for a 30-man platoon divided into six five-man fire teams better.b. 3 "teams", with leader and asst leader, makes a "squad" (again, I don't care if its teams in a squad, or squads in a section)= total is 20 pax
See above.20 pax is plenty to conduct most operations in COIN independently, and much more robust (for all operations) than any currently fielded "squad", even if operating at the 75% strength that Melody says is typical.
So a company is to be 200 plus strong? Or will it have fewer big platoons?A platoon composed of these "squads" would be huge (3 "squads" is 60 pax, plus weapons/MG squad, either organic or attached from weapons platoon), probably 75 pax or so.
My thoughts have changed several times since I began lurking on this board and reading other's input, but here goes:Thoughts?
Increasing the Army squad back to 11 men would be benificial and cause the least amount of disruption; same doctrine, but a more robust and resiliant organization and with a couple of extra riflemen for close combat.
That probably won't happen so.....if the Army squad is going to have to stay at nine men (usually just seven or eight actually present) go with Melody's recommendations and ditch the fire team subdivision and ideas of squad fire and manuever. The squad would be similar in organization and function to the WWII era German squad and fire and manuever would begin at platoon level. Four squads lets the platoon leader suppress with two, attack with one, and have a reserve.
I think Wilf's ideas have merit, but I just think the US Army won't go that far, at least not all at once. Of course, once four squads in the above platoon are attrited a little, it won't look too much different than Wilf's platoon anyway.
For clarification, let me say that I don't think of manuever as just moving. I think of it as enveloping, flanking, attacking on a new axis, etc. So when I say forget squad fire and manuever I'm not talking about bounding part of an element moving ahead while the rest of an element covers.
Last edited by Rifleman; 12-17-2009 at 03:40 AM.
"Pick up a rifle and you change instantly from a subject to a citizen." - Jeff Cooper
The easier choice might be to simply go with only two squads as part of the platoon (not including HQ folks) and you'd stay close to the USMC T/O strength for a rifle platoon. It might become unbalanced in a supported deliberate attack if you wanted two elements in the support-by-fire position and only one element in the assault, but that really just means moving a team out of a squad and attaching it to the SBF.Proposal:
a. 6 man "teams" (the term doesn't really matter- we can call them teams in squads, or squads in sections)- 1 x LMG/IAR, 1 x UGL, 4 x rifles (including the leader).
b. 3 "teams", with leader and asst leader, makes a "squad" (again, I don't care if its teams in a squad, or squads in a section)= total is 20 pax
20 pax is plenty to conduct most operations in COIN independently, and much more robust (for all operations) than any currently fielded "squad", even if operating at the 75% strength that Melody says is typical.
A platoon composed of these "squads" would be huge (3 "squads" is 60 pax, plus weapons/MG squad, either organic or attached from weapons platoon), probably 75 pax or so.
Not sure I'd want to keep any SAWs in those 6-man teams though. Perhaps only a couple in the Plt HQ, to be treated as true LMGs.
Last edited by jcustis; 12-17-2009 at 06:45 AM.
Hehehe, the circle is complete. We’re pretty much back to the platoon I suggested in my very first post.
Just not sure I still like that either. Rifleman, your 4 x 8 or so men sections/quads to a platoon keeps things simple and I think flexible. With a commando mortar and a .338 rifle at platoon HQ. And I’d have one gun (group) per section with a 7.62 gun with the ability to group them together, perhaps under the platoon sergeant. I think I'd prefer that over doing it the other way around, with the guns in a support section and dishing them out to the sections when needed there. End result is the same but it gives each gungroup a home without the need for that extra section. And it appears that in Astan they more often than not end up at section level anyway.
I’d forget about AR’s. Not rubbishing them for what they are, just don't think they are worth the.......well, distraction, almost.
There is indeed a lot to be said for the Wilf-platoon. For some reason I just can't take to it though. Perhaps just too used to sections, and not to fire-teams.
Nothing that results in human progress is achieved with unanimous consent. (Christopher Columbus)
All great truth passes through three stages: first it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
(Arthur Schopenhauer)
ONWARD
I'm partial to keeping platoons smaller and attaching things like snipers/DMs and mortars from the company, as needed.
I like wilf's ideas about letting the mission dictate the internal structure of a platoon but I would start by giving the standard US Light Infantry platoon a haircut.
Basically remove the three, dedicated SL positions and have the SL command one fireteam and lead the other (8 man squads). Seems like 8 is easier to fit in vehicles (e.g. 2xHMMWV).
A platoon would be 32 soldiers,
PL HQ (8 soldiers)
1x PL
1x PSgt
1x RATELO
1x FO
2x GPMG gunners
2x Asst GPMG gunners
3x Squads (3x8 soldiers=24)
2xFire Teams, each with,
1xSL/ASL (Carbine/UGL)
1xGrenadier (Carbine/UGL)
1xCarbiner (Carbine)
1xAutomatic Rifleman (AR)
Yes, no LMG/SAWs. I could see having them available at the Company or Battalion level, as the mission dictates. But having all ARs in the squads means there are 24 soldiers in the platoon who can assault, room clear, etc.. And it lightens the fireteam loads and gets rid of one ammo type (5.56mm link).
The platoon could reorganize as 6x 5-man teams with a 2-man HQ, or other combinations.
32 soldiers will just fit in 8 HMMWVs, or 4 Strykers with seats to spare.
It would be nice if the carbines were modular like the German G36, allowing the carbine barrel to be swapped with a rifle barrel where longer-ranged engagements are expected.
It would be nice if the AR was based on the same modular carbine, but with a heavy barrel, open/closed bolt option, and a reliable, high capacity mag/drum.
I added a platoon FO, but I'm not sure if this should be attached from the company, rather than organic. Alternatives might be a medic, DM/Sniper, or GPMG squad leader. Each has advantages.
I would keep the company size at 130 like the US Army Light Infantry Company. This would allow 6 more soldiers at the company level to play with (by reducing the platoons from 34 to 32). My initial thought would be to add two to HQ to handle more ECO-like independent operations, and increase the Mortar Section from 6 to 10. That way it could have 3x60mm teams and a Section Leader. Or possibly allow them to swap out the 3x60mms for 2x81mm long-range mortars when foot-mobility is less important.
So the big minus is losing dedicated Squad Leaders. Is it worth the tradeoff?
Losing the SAWs is another potential issue. I considered increasing the company size to add an MG section that could be attached to platoons, as needed. But it seemed like just having SAWs available in an "arms room" at the company/battalion might be a better option.
All-in-all, it's still an austere unit, which may need augmentation from the Bn in many circumstances.
Back onto the IAR
The following message was released some while ago, and I just circled back around to read the fine print. Of note, six SAWs will be retained per infantry company (down from 27) and six for an LAR company (down from 14). I have no idea where those numbers came from, and since there are nine basic squads spread across three infantry platoons, a quantity of six does not offer balanced cross-leveling to the point of having one available per 13-man squad. It does, however, offer some interesting flexibility if it pans out that way, and I'm now even more curious about what sort of employment concepts will be developed for the IAR:
MSGID/GENADMIN,USMTF,2007/MARCORSYSCOM QUANTICO IWS// SUBJ/-INFANTRY AUTOMATIC RIFLE SOURCE SELECTION// GENTEXT/REMARKS/-REF/A/LETTER/MARINE CORPS COMBAT DEVELOPMENT COMMAND UNIVERSAL NEED STATEMENT FOR AN AUTOMATIC RIFLE (IAR) FOR THE INFANTRY CDTS # 01318UA/20NOV2002/ REF/B/CAPABILITY DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT FOR THE INFANTRY AUTOMATIC RIFLE, MROC DECISION MEMORANDUM 56-2007/18JUN2007/ REF/C/MARINE CORPS SINGLE ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE INFANTRY AUTOMATIC RIFLE/ POC/XXXXXX/CTR/PM-IWS/TEL DSN: 378-XXX/TEL:
703-432-XXXX/EMAIL: XXX.XXXXXX@USMC.MIL
GENTEXT/REMARKS/1. THIS IS A REQUEST FROM MARCORSYSCOM (PROGRAM MANAGER INFANTRY WEAPONS) FOR USER REPRESENTATION ON THE SOURCE SELECTION EVALUATION BOARD (SSEB) FOR THE INFANTRY AUTOMATIC RIFLE (IAR).
2. BACKGROUND. IAW REF A AND B, A REQUIREMENT EXISTS TO ACQUIRE AN IMPROVED AUTOMATIC RIFLE FOR THE INFANTRY. THE IAR WILL REPLACE THE
M249 SAW AS THE ASSIGNED WEAPON FOR AUTOMATIC RIFLEMEN IN INFANTRY AND LAR SQUADS. THE IAR WILL ENHANCE THE AUTOMATIC RIFLEMAN MANEUVERABILITY AND DISPLACEMENT SPEED, WHILE PROVIDING THE ABILITY TO ENGAGE THOSE TARGETS OF MOST IMMEDIATE CONCERN TO THE FIRE TEAM.
IAW REF C, PM INFANTRY WEAPONS (PM IW), MARCORSYSCOM, HAS INITIATED AN ACQUISITION STRATEGY TO PROCURE A MATERIAL SOLUTION TO SATISFY THE REQUIREMENTS IN REF B. SOURCE SELECTION WILL BEGIN SUBSEQUENT TO RECEIPT OF SUBMISSIONS AND CONCLUSION OF INITIAL TESTING OF BID SAMPLES RECEIVED FROM INDUSTRY.
3. DESCRIPTION OF EFFORT. PM INFANTRY WEAPONS, MARCORSYSCOM WILL CONVENE A SOURCE SELECTION EVALUATION BOARD (SSEB) IN ORDER TO EVALUATE PROPOSALS FROM INDUSTRY, DOWN-SELECT TO ONE OR MORE VENDOR(S), AND AWARD A PRODUCTION CONTRACT(S) FOR THE INFANTRY AUTOMATIC RIFLE. THE SSEB WILL BE COMPRISED OF REPRESENTATIVES FROM MARCORSYSCOM, MCCDC, AND THE OPERATING FORCES.
4. UNITS AND QUANTITIES TO BE FIELDED. THE ACQUISITION OBJECTIVE FOR THE IAR IS CURRENTLY 4,476. THE IAR WILL REPLACE THE M249 SAW AS THE T/O WEAPON FOR THE AUTOMATIC RIFLEMEN WITHIN INFANTRY AND LIGHT ARMORED RECONNAISANCE UNITS. EACH INFANTRY AND LAR COMPANY WILL RETAIN SIX SAWS FOR MISSION-DEPENDENT USE AS NEEDED.
5. ACTION:
5.A. REQUEST MARFORCOM DESIGNATE ONE INFANTRY OFFICER FROM II MEF TO SERVE AS A MEMBER OF THE SSEB.
5.B. REQUEST MARFORPAC DESIGNATE ONE INFANTRY OFFICER EACH FROM I AND III MEF TO SERVE AS MEMBERS OF THE SSEB.
5.C. REQUEST MARFORRES DESIGNATE ONE INFANTRY OFFICER FROM MFR TO SERVE AS A MEMBER OF THE SSEB.
5.D. REQUEST ALL MEMBER NAMES, RANKS, ORGANIZATIONS, TELEPHONE NUMBERS AND E-MAIL ADDRESSES BE PROVIDED VIA E-MAIL TO THE MARCORSYSCOM P.O.C. NO LATER THAN 21 JULY 2008.
6. CONVENING DATES AND ASSOCIATED INFORMATION.
6.A. ANTICIPATE SSEB MEMBERS WILL TRAVEL TO QUANTICO VA DURING THE FOLLOWING APPROXIMATE TIME FRAMES IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN THE
EVALUATION: 14 SEPTEMBER 1 OCTOBER 2008, SSEB CONVENES TO EVALUATE TECHNICAL PROPOSALS AND RESULTS OF VERIFICATION TESTING. REPRESENTATIVES ARE REQUIRED TO BE AVAILABLE AND PRESENT FOR THIS EVENT IN ITS ENTIRETY. 5-20 NOVEMBER 2008, SSEB CONVENES TO EVALUATE FINAL PROPOSAL REVISIONS. REQUIRED ONLY IF DISCUSSIONS WITH OFFERORS ARE HELD. 1-18 JUNE 2009, SSEB MEMBERS SERVE AS ADVISORS IN IDENTIFYING THE RECOMMENDED SOLUTION FOR THE IAR. PARTICIPATION DURING THIS DATE RANGE IS DESIRED, BUT NOT REQUIRED.
6.B. DATES ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE BASED UPON PROGRAM SCHEDULE; HOWEVER, PM INFANTRY WEAPONS WILL COORDINATE WITH USER REPRESENTATIVES PRIOR TO THE ABOVE TIME FRAMES IN ORDER TO FACILITATE EASE OF TRAVEL AND MINIMIZE IMPACT TO MEMBERS SCHEDULES.
6.C. REPRESENTATIVES WILL BE BREIFED ON THE ACQUISITION PROCESS AS DESCRIBED IN SECNAVINST 5000.2C, AND THE FEDERAL ACQUISITION REGULATIONS, TO ENSURE THOROUGH UNDERSTANDING OF AND COMPLIANCE WITH THE RULES OF SOURCE SELECTION FOR COMMERCIAL ITEMS.
6.D. PM INFANTRY WEAPONS WILL PROVIDE ORDERS AND FUNDING FOR REPRESENTATIVES TRAVEL, LODGING, AND PER DIEM.
7. REQUEST THAT DIRLAUTH BE GRANTED TO PM INFANTRY WEAPONS TO COORDINATE WITH THE MEF-LEVEL REPRESENTATIVE.
//
It appears a bit contradictory to suggestions made in other articles, like Eby’s.
Does that mean that they will be purchasing more later on or is 4476 enough to replace all ‘active’ SAWs, of which there are some 12000. So, with other words, what are the remaining 7500 SAWs currently doing if they are not with fire teams.THE ACQUISITION OBJECTIVE FOR THE IAR IS CURRENTLY 4,476. THE IAR WILL REPLACE THE M249 SAW AS THE T/O WEAPON FOR THE AUTOMATIC RIFLEMEN WITHIN INFANTRY AND LIGHT ARMORED RECONNAISANCE UNITS. EACH INFANTRY AND LAR COMPANY WILL RETAIN SIX SAWS FOR MISSION-DEPENDENT USE AS NEEDED.
That I get. I believe that’s how the USMC first got to the fireteam structure with 3 x BAR. In the dense jungle the teams lost contact with each other very quickly so each team needed it’s own support weapon. Currently though, and in all other armies that use the same principal, is the idea not also, and largely, to provide mutual support? That may still work, depending on the IAR, but this article would suggest that the IAR will be the heaviest support weapon at platoon level. Might make more sense to retain about 6 SAWs per platoon…..THE IAR WILL ENHANCE THE AUTOMATIC RIFLEMAN MANEUVERABILITY AND DISPLACEMENT SPEED, WHILE PROVIDING THE ABILITY TO ENGAGE THOSE TARGETS OF MOST IMMEDIATE CONCERN TO THE FIRE TEAM.
It never ceases to amaze me how good the military are at treating their people like mushrooms. You’d think that by now people like yourself, jcustis, would have been informed as to what’s going to happen.
Oh, silly me, what was I thinking?
Nothing that results in human progress is achieved with unanimous consent. (Christopher Columbus)
All great truth passes through three stages: first it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
(Arthur Schopenhauer)
ONWARD
Not a Marine, but my artillery battery had 1 M249 (MTOEd as an LMG, with tripod and spare barrel, not as an AR) per howitzer, FDC, CP and a couple more (I think there were 5 or 6 in the supply section of 2 pax, that ended up in the hands of the ammo sections). I'd imagine that the USMC is the same way- quite a few M249s as LMGs in non-fire team units, where they can remain. The idea of the AR is to enhance the mobility of the infantry fire team- other units, especially those with vehicles, can benefit from the enhanced firepower of the M249 without being as negatively effected by its negatives.
82redleg - with respect "Not a Marine, but my artillery battery had 1 M249 (MTOEd as an LMG, with tripod and spare barrel, not as an AR) per howitzer"
Your experience is primarily battery security and not infantry ops. First you have to accept the depth and range of a 13 man squad with three 4 man fireteams under the control of a Marine Squad Leader compared to a Army 9 man squad with two automatic weapons.
The flexibility of the robust Marine Line Company Squad is a full third more effective in firepower and manuever against enemy strogpoints.
The Marine Infantry is transiting to a automatic rifle to increase manueveability and nimbleness on the battlefield.
JMHO but your experience is using M249 in the defensive mode to protect the guns, not to project the power of infantry in the assualt against enemy targets or strong points.
Two completely different applications. The grunts are in their attack mode and your guns are in a support mode.
We (grunts) love the artillery and naval gunfire to disrupt and destroy our natural enemy (the other guys grunts.)
The M-249 is a great defensive position weapon, but a lighter automatic weapon is needed to provide eye-ball support to the infantry in the assualt mode as an intergral part of a squad. In my day we had the BAR , a 19.5 pound, 20 round magazine fed bull of a gun.
Machine guns are an addition, and a welcome one, but as a base of fire or a strong point in a defensive position. But cheek by jowl an automatic rifle is a better assualt weapon than a machine gun.
As an old Marine Line Company Grunt, I appreciated the role and the support of the LMG .30's we had in our Weapons Platoon and their skill and backup was always appreciated. The cry "Guns Up!" always resonated with the Marines I led as a squad leader and later as a Platoon Sgt.
Machine Gunners were a special breed and could lay fire down that was the closest thing to a bullet proof vest as I
had ever encountered.
I'll let Ken White wax poetic about the flexibility and the impact on the battle field of a section of well trained guns. But they were supportive weapons for the guys with bayonets stuck on the end of their rifles.
Merry Christmas 82redlegs. If the 503rd Airborne Infantry Regt. (The Rock)
is part of the 82nd Airborne Div. I send my best wishes to them and theirs as well. I was priviledged to jump with with them in training jumps on Okinawa in the late 1950's and early 1960's to maintain my Jump status and collect jump pay.
They used to chant "AIRBORNE, ALL THE WAY!" while running in the mornings and as a member of the 5th Marine Regt. I enjoyed the motto as my Regt.'s Motto, dating back to WWI happened to be the same sans the Airborne appelation..
RJ, I think you and 82Redleg ars saying the same thing. It appears that he was trying to highlight that there are M249s that exist in many other units besides the grunts.
Kiwi, if I read the slides and articles right, the IAR is scheduled to replace the M249s in the infantry formations, thus the small numbers.
I admire the USMC squad. But I think it's pointless for light infantry soldiers to wish for it. The Army doesn't have it and they're not going to get it. It's not even likely that the Army will return to their former 11-man squad, which, when an M60 was attached to it, could be a pretty potent and flexible squad too.
Point taken. No argument, but see above.The flexibility of the robust Marine Line Company Squad is a full third more effective in firepower and manuever against enemy strogpoints.
Understood. But some people pointed out that having one BAR among three M1s was a different capability than having one HK416 among three M16s/M4s is likely to be.The Marine Infantry is transiting to a automatic rifle to increase manueveability and nimbleness on the battlefield.....a lighter automatic weapon is needed to provide eye-ball support to the infantry in the assualt mode.....In my day we had the BAR , a 19.5 pound, 20 round magazine fed bull of a gun.....But cheek by jowl an automatic rifle is a better assualt weapon than a machine gun.
They are now the infantry element for the 173d Airborne Brigade in Vicenza, Italy.Merry Christmas 82redlegs. If the 503rd Airborne Infantry Regt. (The Rock) is part of the 82nd Airborne Div. I send my best wishes to them and theirs as well.
They still do that.They used to chant "AIRBORNE, ALL THE WAY!" while running in the mornings and as a member of the 5th Marine Regt. I enjoyed the motto as my Regt.'s Motto, dating back to WWI happened to be the same sans the Airborne appelation..
"Pick up a rifle and you change instantly from a subject to a citizen." - Jeff Cooper
RJ- roger on all that. As jcustis deduced (evidently I wasn't clear enough), I was trying to point out that there are other places where M249s serve, besides in infantry fire teams. And Rifleman got the current location of the 503d right- 2 battalions in 173d ABCT.
As
Roger that, right back at chew. I understand and agree.
Merry Christmas and a healthy and Happy New Year for you and all your comrades.
This discussion is fine as an abstraction...
...but the small unit is a constantly changing entity, with reorganizations and realignments happening dynamically as casualties, tranfers and replacements can make the actual boots-in-boonies count fluctuate +/- 50%. Squad leaders become platoon sergeants and even platoon leaders, and the role and relationships within the platoon and squad reflect a reality unheard of at the strategic level. In WWII, infantry units wanted as many BARs and Thompsons as they could get for jungle and urban conflict; in Vietnam an extra M-60 gave much more than just firepower...it gave confidence. From what my friends in Iraq and Afghanistant tell me, it's the same today. "Weapons systems" have the same role as the M1s...kill the enemy...and that requires the firepower to be in the right place and in the right hands to inflict maximum hurt for maximum effect.
If you agree with this, then the organization reliance of formal roles and static relationships some support for riflemen become somewhat laughable. Flexibility, cross-training, and aptitude-based assignments are essential to coming back alive...something no TOE table will ever help with.
Check out vids on Remington ACR (the old Masada) and Remington MSR bolt action here. Also the new UK DMR, the L129A1.
Nothing that results in human progress is achieved with unanimous consent. (Christopher Columbus)
All great truth passes through three stages: first it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
(Arthur Schopenhauer)
ONWARD
And here’s the MetalStorm 3GL 40mm Grenade Launcher.
Cool. Does add a bit more weight than a 203 though. And more length to an M4.
Nothing that results in human progress is achieved with unanimous consent. (Christopher Columbus)
All great truth passes through three stages: first it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
(Arthur Schopenhauer)
ONWARD
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks