Infantry Unit Tactics, Tasks, Weapons, and Organization

[Logan Hartke]

I don't have the time to answer all of these questions in great levels of detail at the moment, but will be able to later today. Short answer for many of the questions, especially those concerning the detail of ranks and of commo equipment, is I don't know. That's part of the reason I came on here. I primarily composed my units from the smallest block up, trying to figure out what they would need to deal with different threats. I've come here to seek advice on shaking up the organization, fleshing out the details, and getting rid of the chaff.

There are goood reasons and thought behind some of what I've done, however, and I'll let you know honestly when I chose one thing because I didn't know better and when I did something because I thought I knew better.

Logan Hartke

[William F. Owen]

Originally Posted by Logan Hartke

I've come here to seek advice on shaking up the organization, fleshing out the details, and getting rid of the chaff.

Personally, the best I could venture is that your organisations are generally heavy and complex, but a lot more sophisticated than a lot I have seen. A lot of what you have done is very sound but some other aspects are a tad unusual.

EG: - Your Namer Company is 24 x very thirsty Namreem. Does you "Fuel Platoon" of 3 x PARS Tanker, carry enough fuel to re-supply all the vehicles in one go? Does a PARS 10x10 Tanker even exist? I know the boys at FNSS pretty well.

What I can tell you is that there is no right and wrong in this area. I can point to aspects of what you suggest as being less effective or less efficient than other approaches, but loads, logistics, budgets, training, and tactical doctrine all exert huge influences. While in no way denigrating your approach, the TOE is the easy bit.

[Logan Hartke]

Originally Posted by William F. Owen

EG: - Your Namer Company is 24 x very thirsty Namreem. Does you "Fuel Platoon" of 3 x PARS Tanker, carry enough fuel to re-supply all the vehicles in one go?

Well, assuming they have a 2500 gallon tank, then I've provided my Namer battalion with refueling assets comparable to a US Abrams tank battalion, and the Abrams is a thirstier vehicle than the Namer. That is actually how I determined the refueling needs of the units. Assuming the Namer has the same fuel capacity as the Merkava 4 (1400 l), then within the company I have the refueler to top everyone off once. That's also why my motorized unit has fewer refuelers. That being said, I was working off a variant of my Merkava unit TO&E, which has fewer Merkavas than this battalion has Namreem. I'll go back through these again and see what the most appropriate number would be.

Originally Posted by William F. Owen

Does a PARS 10x10 Tanker even exist? I know the boys at FNSS pretty well.

It doesn't currently, although I know it well could. In fact, most of the proposed PARS variants do not yet exist. I am basing my family of wheeled armored vehicles off of the PARS, since I think it's a pretty good design that's highly adaptable. Also, one of its engine options is also used in other vehicles I've chosen. In many of these cases, while the vehicles themselves are different, the powerpacks are the same, so I'm still trying to play close attention to all aspects of the logistics game.

I've done some rough calculations as far as kg weight of the refueling equipment, the tank, and the JP8 itself, and I know that the 10x10 PARS chassis could at least carry the same equipment and fuel as the M978 HEMTT refueler. I wanted something that had at least some level of armor protection and cross-country mobility. Most of all, however, I'm very much trying to keep the parts commonality within a battalion as high as possible. If I can keep from adding a fourth vehicle type to that battalion, I'd like to.

I had a good deal of documentation on the vehicle from GPV on their proposed variants, as well, since it's essentially the same vehicle and they proposed resupply flatbed variants of the vehicle (I'm not even talking about the MTV). You could even use one of those as a basis, although that wouldn't be ideal, it may be cheaper.

You have good contacts at FNSS? I'm not in the defence industry at all, so that's an issue, but sometimes just getting them to respond to my email, let alone the questions therein can be like pulling hen's teeth. They don't have a ton on the PARS and I've got to mostly work off GPV's old stuff (before they changed their site) and I'm then primarily just seeing what weight I have available for payload and then making sure the equipment will fit in the dimensions.

I see that they refer to a PARS 8x8 and an 8x8L. Do you happen to know which of those corresponds to the GPV 8x8x8 Colonel and which corresponds to the 8x8x8 Captain? I assume the Colonel. Do you have more documentation on the PARS than the little bit on their site? I'm going off of some Armada publications on them, too. I know Cat powerplants used to be an option for the GPV, but it sounds like they're currently using Deutz. I presume the Cat still available to potential customers? If so, they'd share the same engine as the heavy end of my FMTV variants (the Cat C9).

A number of my variants are ones proposed by myself, but I don't consider them too far-fetched. For example, I have NEMO variants of the PARS, which I've not heard proposed yet, but I see no obstacle that would prevent it.

Originally Posted by William F. Owen

What I can tell you is that there is no right and wrong in this area. I can point to aspects of what you suggest as being less effective or less efficient than other approaches, but loads, logistics, budgets, training, and tactical doctrine all exert huge influences. While in no way denigrating your approach, the TOE is the easy bit.

I know this is the relatively easy bit, and I have other aspects thought out, but they're either not pertinent to small wars or they're not yet typed out.

This is only one piece of the hypothetical nation's military I've been throwing together. I have an air force structure and equipment worked out as well, along with a training progression laid out, but I'm just trying to keep within the topic of this forum and thread at the moment.

As I've said before, part of what I'm doing is trying to get some other ideas on how to organize it, equip it, employ it, etc.

Logan Hartke

[SWJED]

Actually, the way things seem to be shaking out there will come a time in the not so distant future that our forces will be required to be what some now term "multi-spectrum" capable. Buzzword aside, it looks like the DoD will not have the resources to dedicate to overly specialized GPF.

We most likely not see units in any significant numbers dedicated solely to COIN or GPF dedicated solely to training and advising. You can feel it in the air.

So with that I say that all proposed changes in T&O, T&E, and other elements of DOTMLPF will have to take into account that units will have to balance capabilities across the board. Any real significant tilt one way or another might not cut it if the wrong enemy shows up to play.

I haven't been following this invigorating discussion too closely and offer up the above simply as an observation and for consideration.

[Norfolk]

Originally Posted by SWJED

Actually, the way things seem to be shaking out there will come a time in the not so distant future that our forces will be required to be what some now term "multi-spectrum" capable. Buzzword aside, it looks like the DoD will not have the resources to dedicate to overly specialized GPF.

We most likely not see units in any significant numbers dedicated solely to COIN or GPF dedicated solely to training and advising. You can feel it in the air.

So with that I say that all proposed changes in T&O, T&E, and other elements of DOTMLPF will have to take into account that units will have to balance capabilities across the board. Any real significant tilt one way or another might not cut it if the wrong enemy shows up to play.

I haven't been following this invigorating discussion too closely and offer up the above simply as an observation and for consideration.

In a roundabout sort of way, Dave, you practically seem to be making the case for the Marine way of doing things - which does seem to offer the most flexibility without critically sacrificing fighting power. While the USMC isn't the best model for armoured/mechanized ops (obviously), for pretty much most other things, it does seem to be about the all-around (GPF if you will, but MPF if one must) best anyone has so far come up with. And there is no question that it works.

[Tom Odom]

Originally Posted by Norfolk

In a roundabout sort of way, Dave, you practically seem to be making the case for the Marine way of doing things - which does seem to offer the most flexibility without critically sacrificing fighting power. While the USMC isn't the best model for armoured/mechanized ops (obviously), for pretty much most other things, it does seem to be about the all-around (GPF if you will, but MPF if one must) best anyone has so far come up with. And there is no question that it works.

and that was the motivation in that Mil Review article; to build capabilities and depth necessary to adaptation. Time will tell but Dave you are on the mark regarding the future....

Tom

[Norfolk]

Originally Posted by Tom Odom

and that was the motivation in that Mil Review article; to build capabilities and depth necessary to adaptation. Time will tell but Dave you are on the mark regarding the future....

Tom

Love that article, Tom, and keep a print copy of it in the bookshelf next to my bed (Wilf, if you think you are obsessed...). For the benefit of those few lurkers who somehow may have missed it (it's a core, mandatory reading around here), here's the link.

[Rifleman]

Logan,

I'd like to throw out a couple of comments for consideration on your proposed eight-man infantry squad and leave the higher levels to those better qualified to comment on them.

If I understand your chart correctly, out of eight men you're showing two machine gunners, two grenadiers, and a squad DM. That leaves the squad leader, his assistant, and the man you have labled as lead scout as the three best suited for clearing. Yes, I'm sure that SAW gunners, grenadiers, and DMs have had to take the lead in clearing rooms, bunkers, and trenches. That doesn't mean it's an ideal role for them.

A small squad like you proposed will probably be fine with one belt fed light machine gun and one grenade launcher. That leaves more riflemen/carbiners for the close fight.

I don't much like the idea of DMs in the infantry squad. At least put them in the platoon's weapons squad. Even better would be a large squad of DMs in the company's weapons platoon. Enough to attach one or two teams out to each platoon, as needed. Or, if needed, the company commander could retain the whole squad at company level as a potent scouting, screening, and skirmishing element. I think they will be better able to do all that if they're organized as a single large squad under a senior staff sergeant in garrison for training.

[Logan Hartke]

Well, your room-clearing concerns are ones I certainly had, which is also the reason you see some of the pistols and the MP7 in the squad as well. The pistols show up entirely because of the experiences I've had relayed to me from the men that have been serving in Iraq multiple times.

For that reason, every man in the squad has a weapon available to them for that role. Most likely the worst off is the DM, but he could easily use one of the pistols assigned to the squad leader or asst leader. Even the DM, though, has a weapon with a 20" barrel, the same as a standard M16A1, not an impossible weapon to use in buildings.

On the matter of DMs, I know that that's another subject where opinions are divided, but your concept is interesting, especially for training. That being said, I definitely see their value being part of the squad in combat on a permanent basis. You need someone in the squad who is both equipped and trained to make very accurate shots at literally a moment's notice. It's the difference between an enemy gunner in window holding up a squad for 30 seconds or holding them up for 10 minutes.

On that note, however, you earlier stated that you feel that the current USMC squad is the most capable one out there, yet the four-man fireteams--each fireteam with a belt-fed machine gun and a grenade launcher--and the designated marksman can all be found in their organization.

Logan Hartke

[Rifleman]

Originally Posted by Logan Hartke

On that note, however, you earlier stated that you feel that the current USMC squad is the most capable one out there, yet the four-man fireteams--each fireteam with a belt-fed machine gun and a grenade launcher--and the designated marksman can all be found in their organization.

True, in that I believe the basic squad template has stood the test of time. But let's not forget that it developed in the days of one BAR and three M1 Garands per fire team. Ten basic riflemen in a full strength squad then, not as many today.

Also, the USMC has evidently never been quite comfortable with the M249 in what was originally an automatic rifle role. They have considered adopting a true AR for the fire teams and consolidating the M249s into: one squad per platoon; or, one fire team per squad. Both proposals were tested.

DMs can still live in a DM squad in a company weapons platoon for training and administration in garrison and be available to squad or platoon leaders for operations if needed. And in Army light infantry units, it wouldn't hurt if that company weapons platoon were led by a warrant officer weapons specialist either. Something similar to the USMC gunner program.

But that's another discussion, and besides, it may not be possible to produce that many quality WOs. As I understand it, only the creme de la creme of USMC Gunnery Sergeants and Staff Sergeants become Marine Gunners. But, I thought as long as we're dreaming.....

[William F. Owen]

Originally Posted by Logan Hartke

Well, assuming they have a 2500 gallon tank, then I've provided my Namer battalion with refueling assets comparable to a US Abrams tank battalion, and the Abrams is a thirstier vehicle than the Namer. That is actually how I determined the refueling needs of the units. Assuming the Namer has the same fuel capacity as the Merkava 4 (1400 l), then within the company I have the refueler to top everyone off once. That's also why my motorized unit has fewer refuelers. That being said, I was working off a variant of my Merkava unit TO&E, which has fewer Merkavas than this battalion has Namreem. I'll go back through these again and see what the most appropriate number would be.

Based on the figures I have, a Namer has a tank of 1250, but lets go with 1400.

For 24 vehicles you need, 33,600 litres. This means you need 1,344 25l Jerricans. That requires you have to lift 64 Standard NATO pallets, which means you need 6 trucks with a 8 tonne payload, and assuming each vehicle can carry 12 pallets (figures from UK S4 Planning Handbook).

Probably better to have flat beds and pallets at the Sub-unit F Echelon than a gaggle of big ass tankers on vehicles that do not yet exist- and it's a lot cheaper.

Having a Platoon of 8 trucks, with level 1 armoured cabs at the sub-unit level is not impossible, and being flatbeds, they can carry other stores as well. It is not as efficient as tankers, but it is highly effective!

Plus, if you have all those RCWS 40 plus SPIKE ATGM, you probably need a lot more trucks to carry the ammunition re-supply.

Personally, I would not want Log vehicles at the Sub-unit level. You're dragging around vulnerable wheeled vehicles, that should be residing in the Unit level A1 echelon.

[Logan Hartke]

Lotsa questions. A few answers.

Let me just address the slew of radio questions right off the bat here. I don't know much about military commo equipment yet. Just because I don't mention it, don't assume it doesn't exist. I just am not yet familiar enough with it to be able to specify what is needed with any level of confidence. Likewise, I don't have much of an idea what is best to use out there, so my choices would likely end up just looking like a copy of what the US Army or British Army or Bundeswehr or IDF uses (because that's all it'd be).

Originally Posted by William F. Owen

a.) What is the rank structure and manning establishment of our organisation?

The number of men, at least combat personnel, can be determined from what I already have, as you did with my platoon sizes. I've not done so yet, but I plan to when I get some of it a bit more finalized.

Originally Posted by William F. Owen

b.) Who has what radios and what electro-optics?

I have personnel in the command teams earmarked for that, but that's about as far as I've gone in that regard. To tell the truth, that's the area where I lack the most knowledge, so I have yet to build that portion up.

Originally Posted by William F. Owen

c.) Any idea as to average carried weights?

Well, it does depend on the soldier in question, as the front line soldiers are carrying more than the rear line folk and some of the support weapons guys are carrying more than your normal squaddie. Anyway, I'd done a bunch of those with an earlier setup, but I've not yet redone the totals since I introduced some of the new, lighter systems like the Mk.48 Mod 0. The only major issue with that is that while it pushes the heavier firepower down to the squads, it also pushes some of the heavier ammunition. As a result, and as a result of the planned tactical employment, the 5.56 guys would carry more grenades, for example, than the 7.62 folk.

Originally Posted by William F. Owen

d.) How do all these folks operate? Can I just strap on current UK or US tactical doctrine and walk out of the door.

That all goes in a manual I have yet to write.

Originally Posted by William F. Owen

@ Based on the teams, I work out an infantry platoon at 44 men? That's a bit on the steep side.

It may be a bit on the steep side, but just a bit, honestly. Many platoons organizations run over 40 men.

Originally Posted by William F. Owen

@ The infantry squad appears to be a hybrid 2 x fireteam concept, which I don't like and I don't think works.

Well, I know I've seen a lot both for and against. It kind of reminds me of the 5.56mm round. It has its limitations, to be sure, but it does work. It's not hard to find opponents to it, however.

Originally Posted by William F. Owen

@ Based on the variety of ammunition natures, Platoon (and Coy) re-supply would be a challenge, as would tracking section and platoon ammo states. Loading and scales would also need to be looked at.

Again, I don't have any more ammunition types than most militaries, I just have them in a completely different ratio than anyone else out there.

Originally Posted by William F. Owen

@ Why do I want scouts and MG men in a platoon HQ? Where are the Signallers, and FOOs? The Company HQ also has the same problem.

I wasn't aware that FOOs are normally organized at the platoon or company level. I'm working on the best way to organize them, but after having conversed with a number of FOOs and FISTs on the subject (obviously far more knowledgeable than I am on the subject), they seem to feel that the best place for forward observers is as part of the artillery units, assigned as the units support the forward line units. The exception to this is observers for the battalion mortars, obviously. I also expect the battalion recon units to be able fill that role as well.

Originally Posted by William F. Owen

@ Only two medics for a Company?

From what I could see, that wasn't too far off what many other militaries have, especially since those medics aren't counting the crews with the ambulances or first-aid facilities assigned to a battalion. The medics are just the first step in the medical units available to a battalion. A wounded soldier would then be gotten onto an ambulance vehicle as quickly as possible (there are enough assigned to a battalion to have at least one per company with a spare available). They would then be delivered to the battalion medical facilities where there would be medical facilites and trained personnel enough that life-saving surgery, initial burn treatment, and stabilization in preparation for longer-distance transport could all be undertaken. The medics should, in most cases, be with the line units, not needing to travel back and forth with patients to the aid station. That's the role of the ambulance units and the medical personnel operating with them.

Originally Posted by William F. Owen

@ I count at least 3 different types of “sniper” weapons. I am big fan of close precision engagement, but this a bit over the top. Why no 8.6mm? Why M110 and 417?

It depends on what you're really looking at here. The HK416/417 is the standard assault rifle. The weapon being issued to designated marksmen and scout-snipers is merely one variant of that weapon. In fact, with a two minute barrel change and the addition of the sighting system and bipod, any HK417 could become that weapon. As we all know, how a weapon is maintained and the quality of the ammunition used will have a great effect on its accuracy, so it won't be the same, but it's going be very close in combat given a chance to properly zero the weapon.

Why no 8.6mm? Well, not here. The "sniper" teams at the platoon level are not Special Forces sniper teams designed to be operating behind enemy lines or at distances beyond a kilometer. For those sort of missions, a shooter will definitely need something more along the lines of the .338 or even .408--but that's not what I'm looking for. The teams I have here are for the immediate support of the line units. That's also why I chose a weapon with both a silencer and a good rapid-fire capability...without compromising accuracy. The M110 is one of the best in that department. Basically, I chose the M110 for the same reasons and same role the IDF procured the SR25 for--the middle ground between designated marksman rifle and the more dedicated sniper weapons.

The XM500 isn't intended to be "yet another sniper rifle", either. Its employment is very much aimed at the kinds of targets that have often been getting Javelin attention as of late. Targets either too well-protected or concealed to be accurately brought under fire by standard 7.62mm weapons, but may not warrant a weapon originally designed to kill armored 50-ton monsters. Save anti-tank rounds for tanks. There's only one such weapon per company, so I don't imagine that these sorts of targets will be popping up like a game of whack-a-mole most days, but if a week or month of combat results in 50 rounds of well-aimed .50cal fire saving 10 SPIKE missiles, then it's easily earned its place. I don't see that as a totally implausible scenario.

Originally Posted by William F. Owen

@ A 3-man MG team may find itself over loaded, if it wants to employ tripods and carry about 1,000 rounds – which is a useful first line scale. I’d scale an M240 team at 3 guys for the light role (500 rounds) and 5 guys for sustained fire.

Well, for one thing, using the Mk 48 Mod 0 allows a team to carry 100-200 rounds more than the M240 team at the same weight. Likewise, since the Mk 48 operator can fire that weapon far more readily than any M240 operator, he needs no assualt rifle to lug around with it, adding to the weight savings (by another 100 rounds). A three-man Mk 48 team should be able to manage 700-800 rounds as an M240 team of the same size with no increase in weight.

Originally Posted by William F. Owen

@ The Spike MR/LR team will be overloaded. Spike MR needs two men to carry it, and you probably also need a dedicated C3I guy or commander, because you are going to be doing some pretty complex edgy stuff when you are doing LOAL indirect shoots.

I planned on having the team operate with just four rounds normally. I honestly just don't see most teams being able to last much beyond that (that's four separate engagements!) before either being hit or resupplied. Also, since the MR and LR systems are completely interchangeable, any MR-equipped team can restock with a few LR rounds from the nearest RCWS-equipped carrier.

Cheers,

Logan Hartke

[William F. Owen]

Originally Posted by Rifleman

I don't much like the idea of DMs in the infantry squad. At least put them in the platoon's weapons squad. Even better would be a large squad of DMs in the company's weapons platoon. Enough to attach one or two teams out to each platoon, as needed. Or, if needed, the company commander could retain the whole squad at company level as a potent scouting, screening, and skirmishing element. I think they will be better able to do all that if they're organized as a single large squad under a senior staff sergeant in garrison for training.

DMs, LRRs or even Snipers are fire supporters so yes, I agree group them at the platoon level in the Fire support squads. FS squads have to have LRF and other toys that the DMs can make good use of, so it makes sense.

The UK has been playing with a Coy Level "Manoeuvre Support Section" comprising snipers and MGs. It's not on establishment but some units do it. As with all the UK does, they've managed to make a virtue out of a necessity. Personally I would make one of my platoons an FS platoon to swing role as and when required.

[MattM]

Originally Posted by Kiwigrunt

With regards to your ammo, 5.56 loose, 5.56 belt, 7.62 loose, 7.62 belt and 4.6 makes for 5 diferent types of ammo. But you are right in stating that we actually already have that in most modern units, in some shape or form.

Totally agree, KiwiGrunt.

The standard US rifle companies load out with over 60 ordnance items (we call unique configurations DODIC items). This includes all the rifle ammo, LMG & MMG ammo, 60 mm, assault weapons, grenades, smoke, pyro, etc. Obviously, BN and BCT carry linearly more ordnance items with increased capabilities.

Thus, there is room to add PDW and 6.X ammo into the log train. This is not nearly as difficult as the batteries, rations, and medical supplies at the BN level.

From the Friendly S-4....

[William F. Owen]

Originally Posted by Logan Hartke

Lotsa questions. A few answers.

Good effort.

I have personnel in the command teams earmarked for that, but that's about as far as I've gone in that regard. To tell the truth, that's the area where I lack the most knowledge, so I have yet to build that portion up.

Well here is a good place to start. We have every level of command from L/Cpl to full Colonel present on this board

introduced some of the new, lighter systems like the Mk.48 Mod 0.

You may want to look at the new FN 7.62mm Minimi. Far better option than the Mk.48 Mod 0.

That all goes in a manual I have yet to write.

Well I've been writing one for 5 years, so I await with interest!

It may be a bit on the steep side, but just a bit, honestly. Many platoons organizations run over 40 men.

Very true. The new Australian Platoon is 40, but there is a limit to effective manning and scales, and big flow down effects when it comes to buying extra APCs to carry around the extra bodies. 30 men needs 4 Namer. 40 need 5 Namer. That is an extra platoon across a 4 platoon Company.

Well, I know I've seen a lot both for and against. It kind of reminds me of the 5.56mm round. It has its limitations, to be sure, but it does work. It's not hard to find opponents to it, however.

I respectfully submit it does not work, or at least not work well. I submit that F&M at the section level is a myth.

Again, I don't have any more ammunition types than most militaries, I just have them in a completely different ratio than anyone else out there.

I think you may well have more ammo types, and what is more there is a clear need to reduce the differing number of ammunition types.

I wasn't aware that FOOs are normally organized at the platoon or company level.

You are correct, so you may want to leave spare seat for them in some vehicles, because they certainly travel and operate at the platoon and company level.

From what I could see, that wasn't too far off what many other militaries have, especially since those medics aren't counting the crews with the ambulances or first-aid facilities assigned to a battalion.

Makes sense. You usually have an medical evacuation vehicle at the Company level and they carry the medics

Why no 8.6mm? Well, not here. The "sniper" teams at the platoon level are not Special Forces sniper teams designed to be operating behind enemy lines or at distances beyond a kilometer. For those sort of missions, a shooter will definitely need something more along the lines of the .338 or even .408--but that's not what I'm looking for. The teams I have here are for the immediate support of the line units.

Enemy lines? 8.6mm is now a standard infantry sniper round. The UK has used it at the platoon level and it is about to be the standard sniper round of the all the UK snipers.

... but if a week or month of combat results in 50 rounds of well-aimed .50cal fire saving 10 SPIKE missiles, then it's easily earned its place. I don't see that as a totally implausible scenario.

OK, but SPIKE rounds could be saved by the use of other weapons like AT-4, M72, or even 8.6mm.

A three-man Mk 48 team should be able to manage 700-800 rounds as an M240 team of the same size with no increase in weight.

Concur. The difference in weapon weight is 4.3kg, and 355 rounds of 7.62mm link 4 BIT weighs 4.3kg, so that is correct.

I planned on having the team operate with just four rounds normally. I honestly just don't see most teams being able to last much beyond that (that's four separate engagements!) before either being hit or resupplied. Also, since the MR and LR systems are completely interchangeable, any MR-equipped team can restock with a few LR rounds from the nearest RCWS-equipped carrier.

As I understand it, you want your Spike Team to carry a SPIKE CLU, Tripod, spare batteries, 4 rounds and a 60mm mortar plus ammo?
A Complete Spike system with 2 rounds requires 2 men. That leaves one man to pack a 60mm mortar and some rounds, and why is he even carrying a 60mm mortar anyway?

Hope this helps

[William F. Owen]

Originally Posted by MattM

The standard US rifle companies load out with over 60 ordnance items (we call unique configurations DODIC items). This includes all the rifle ammo, LMG & MMG ammo, 60 mm, assault weapons, grenades, smoke, pyro, etc. Obviously, BN and BCT carry linearly more ordnance items with increased capabilities.

Thus, there is room to add PDW and 6.X ammo into the log train. This is not nearly as difficult as the batteries, rations, and medical supplies at the BN level.

From the Friendly S-4....

The Companies may, but how many at the platoon level? The issue is not just numbers. The issue is actually managing the different natures at the platoon level. The bulk of natures expended are small arms ammunition.

EG: If my fire teams just have 5.56mm ball, link, and 9mm, that's three spaces on my log card. Add two more ammo types and that is time and effort spilling into my tactical pause that can probably be better spent on other things.

Personally, I'm pushing for a Platoon that has 5.56mm ball, 7.62mm link, and small quantities of 8.6mm and 9mm.

I am not saying it is impossible, or undoable, but we probably need to look at reducing the number of natures, not increasing it.

[JMA]

Originally Posted by William F. Owen

Basically the same as Wigram Grouping. The Platoon Commander leads one light team and commands the other three or four.

Platoon Sergeant leads one weapons teams and command the other two or three. This is exactly the same as operating the platoon as a "multiple" with no HQ.

This is essentially how we operated in Rhodesia. We had multiples of 4 man sticks in a platoon or whatever. Each stick of 4 had a MAG. Don't understand the difference between light teams and weapons teams? With or without machine guns?

[JMA]

Originally Posted by William F. Owen

I respectfully submit it does not work, or at least not work well. I submit that F&M at the section level is a myth.

Fire and Movement?

Would you care to expand further please?

[William F. Owen]

Originally Posted by JMA

Don't understand the difference between light teams and weapons teams? With or without machine guns?

Basically yes.

Originally Posted by JMA

Fire and Movement?

Would you care to expand further please?

RE: "I respectfully submit it does not work, or at least not work well. I submit that F&M at the section level is a myth."

One section may be able to do F&M, against ONE position. If there is more than one position to suppress, you need another base of fire, and that needs to be under someone's control to co-ordinate with the team trying to move - which is why most successful F&M against competent opponents seems to take place at the Platoon or even Company level.

[JMA]

Originally Posted by William F. Owen

Basically yes.



RE: "I respectfully submit it does not work, or at least not work well. I submit that F&M at the section level is a myth."

One section may be able to do F&M, against ONE position. If there is more than one position to suppress, you need another base of fire, and that needs to be under someone's control to co-ordinate with the team trying to move - which is why most successful F&M against competent opponents seems to take place at the Platoon or even Company level.

OK, consider this.

A company attack with two platoons up with each platoon in turn attacking with two sections up is in effect then four simultaneous section attacks involving section level fire & movement. Each platoon commander is observing their individual two section attacks and have the third section in reserve in case the attacks stall. This while the company commander observes the progress of his two platoons and hold his third platoon in reserve in case either of the platoon actions stall.

So I see it that the sections are not attacking isolation and have an objective and boundaries for each action (with the reserve section passing through to take on the next objective) the command and control is always with the next higher HQ.

Are we on the same page?