|
|
Post by yanmacca on Nov 18, 2015 20:17:58 GMT
Chuck I have posted this here (out of respect to others) to allow me to show you this TO&E of a US Marine LMG Platoon;
Section 5
The Light Machine Gun Platoon
a. The light machine-gun platoon consists of:
Platoon headquarters.
Three light machine-gun sections.
b. The platoon headquarters consists of:
A lieutenant (platoon leader), a gunnery sergeant, an ammunition corporal, and two runners.
c. Since each section has two light machine guns (.30 caliber Browning, M1019A4), the platoon has a total of six light machine guns. The rifle company headquarters carries six heavy machine guns (.3O caliber, Browning, M1917A1) in reserve to be used in place of or in addition to the light machine guns when the tactical situation demands.
Now what would be wrong if the M1917s were a permiant part of the LMG Platoon, giving up the M1919s to be distributed among the Infantry Platoons, as it seems a waste that these six MMGs are just sitting there doing nothing, because that to me is worse then having an LMG in one of the Inf Plts being out of the fight.
Yan.
|
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Nov 18, 2015 20:45:55 GMT
Two reasons Ian. The water cooled Browning is a bear to carry on offensive operations, and the M1919 is not stable enough for well dug in defensive operations.
We did the exact same thing with airborne Field Artillery. For an airborne assault the AFABN used the pack 75. As soon after the assault as possible, usually when the ground echelon showed up those pack 75's were swapped for the battalions 105mm howitzers.
Same thing as my wife making soup or Chile. The size of the spoon used to stir the pot varies on the thickness of what is being stirred. One size does not fit all situations, so you give the cook options appropriate to the situation.
|
|
|
|
Post by deadwoodgultch on Nov 19, 2015 0:14:32 GMT
Good stuff above, but I have only squeezed the M-60. Not terribly light but doable, in a need to carry situ. Resembles some old German hardware. I do like the .308.
Regards,
Tom
|
|
|
|
Post by deadwoodgultch on Nov 19, 2015 0:25:04 GMT
I wonder how many of those M-60's hung out the sliders on the Huey's over the years? I wonder how many may reside with the "50" boots on the ground, POTUS dispatched recently?
|
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Nov 19, 2015 12:35:15 GMT
Tom, the M60 reminds me of this WW2 German piece, probably the one you are thinking about; FG42 and M60  Attachments:
|
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Nov 19, 2015 12:37:44 GMT
The classic look alike though is the AK47, it looks a lot like the Stg44.   |
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Nov 19, 2015 12:48:57 GMT
I always thought that having say a M1919 at platoon level would allow the platoon leader the option of suppressive fire when on the attack, the three Infantry squads could move under the cover of this weapon as directed by the platoon leader, another use for it was in defence, its fire could supplement the three BARs.
I suppose the US Army did try and adopt a platoon LMG in the shape of the M1919A6, it sort of covered the ground between the Tri-pod mounted M1919A4 and the lighter BAR, but alas this was failure as it weight just as much but they still produced around 43.000 of them, I think they ended up mounted on vehicles rather than the “combat manoeuvre” roll what they were designed for.
Yan.
|
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Nov 19, 2015 17:22:52 GMT
Ian nothing stops a machine gun from being used for suppressive fire in an offensive situation, and nothing stops it from being used in the defense as well.
This discussion revolved around who allocates those guns based upon the greatest need. I gather from what you have posted that you believe the machine gun section of the weapons platoon operates together at all times. It does not. In fact when it does it is the exception to the norm, not the norm. The norm is to attach as many guns to the platoon as it needs for any given operation. Typically at least one will be allocated to each platoon, and from the time of allocation the fire of that gun(s) is controlled by the platoon leader.
The rifle platoons I led had a weapons squad with two machine guns and two 3.5 inch rocket launchers (anti-armor weapons). With the machine guns it was not often that I was ordered to detach those guns to some other place or platoon, but it did happen. With the 3.5" there is nothing quite as useless and a waste of four soldiers (armed only with a 45 Cal ACP) then to have anti-armor assets in dense woods. The 3.5 was useless and the 45 Cal as either an offensive or defensive weapon equally so.
So just because a MTO&E has them separated, do not ever believe they are routinely employed that way.
Am I not explaining this correctly. The Army pushed down the guns and RL's after Korea to platoon level. The Marine Corps has stayed constant allocating automatic and anti-armor weapons as the company commander sees fit.
It was not unknown for a 60mm mortar to be allocated to a rifle platoon either. It is not the ideal way of doing business, but sometimes the situation called for it.
There are very few differences between the M1919A4 and M1919A6, most notably a detachable butt stock. Most of the times the 1919A6 was mounted on a tripod. As far as I know the 1919A4 was identical in capability to the 1919A6, the difference was that the 1919A6 came with the attachable but stock and bipod in the gunners bag, and when both of these accessories were attached to the weapon it looked very similar to the German MG42.
The real advantage the heavy water cooled 30 Cal MG had was that the tripod was higher off the ground, and more stable, and both insured more accurate output of fire. Plus being water cooled meant not having to change barrels in the middle of a firefight.
Perhaps you are not understanding the word attached as it fits into the U S Army lexicon. When a person or thing is attached to you or your organization, it belongs to you, until someone higher than you detaches it from you. We also use the expression farmed out as a substitute for attachment meaning that the commander farming out the asset distributes the person or item according to the perceived need for that particular item in any given operation. The governing principle again is organize the base unit for what it needs all the time in every circumstance, then pool your other resources at some higher level and attach them lower based upon perceived need.
A good weapons platoon leader has all his assets farmed out or deployed in a combat situation. His MG's and Anti-armor weapons, and his mortar forward observers allocated to the rifle platoons, and his mortars placed under control of his mortar section sergeant. He can then concentrate on why he is there in the first place, to coordinate supporting fires along with the attached artillery Forward Observer, for the company commander. Generally it is he who takes initial command of the company if something happens to the company commander. The XO is generally in the rear, coordinating administration and logistics for the company. The weapons platoon leader is very often senior to the XO, by both rank and experience.
|
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Nov 19, 2015 19:08:39 GMT
Chuck, I do wander a bit when I discuss ww2 TO&Es with you, mainly because I have done research on loads of different companies and battalions from 25 different countries from this period, the US Army has a history of detaching hardware and forming independent battalions, and by the looks of it they did it even at company level.
Nearly every country had a platoon mortar located within the platoon HQ, most of these were usually 45mm to 50mm, but the French and Romanian’s used the same 60mm mortar that the US Army had in their weapons platoon, so just looking at some of the ideas I come up with may seem daft to how the US Army did things but these were the norm in other nations, many others built their Infantry sections around an LMG squad, but I don’t really class the US version of the BAR as a proper LMG.
But I get what you are saying and it was only a suggestion by me to see if this would have been viable, but alas that period of military history has gone.
|
|
|
|
Post by deadwoodgultch on Nov 19, 2015 19:54:56 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Nov 19, 2015 20:00:36 GMT
Nice touch Tom, one of the reasons you keep your anti-armour weapons close is that they can be used to knock out anything and being recoilless keeps the weight down, they can take out strong points such as pill boxes and fortified buildings.
Yan.
|
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Nov 19, 2015 20:18:17 GMT
Tom: Yes I can give you chapter and verse on it as I helped design an earlier iteration of that MTOE.
Ian: The only real difference between armies, is at what level you distribute weapons systems, and that depends upon the individual philosophy of each army, and at what stage they are in the development of doctrine. In WWI machine guns were found in the brigade and division machine gun battalions. By WWII that had evolved to machine guns being found at Infantry battalion and company level. After Korea the machine gun was found at the rifle platoon level. Today it is still at rifle platoon level, but found in the platoon headquarters. It is all about where the designers think the weapon can be most efficiently employed. Often there is no universal agreement, as we see with the US Army and US Marine Corps. My personal opinion is that the Marine Corp does it better.
The predominant theme in the U S Army in WWII was to have one man in charge of training and then employing all of the supporting weapons assigned to a rifle company, including mortars, machine guns, and light anti-armor weapons. The who was the weapons platoon leader.
The problem with having mortars at rifle platoon level is the inability to mass mortar fire. There is no controlling fire direction center, and with mortars at rifle platoon level, they belong to three different guys with three different tactical and fire support priorities. All that was solved by the grenade launcher.
I would suggest that you obtain a copy of "On Infantry" by John English to see how all these things developed and then evolved.
English tells you for instance why the Germans organized the rifle squad the way they did, into an MG team and another team of seven riflemen. The reason was the riflemen were armed with bolt action rifles, and the needed that MG34 or MG42, to make up for the lack of a high volume of fire. |
|
|
|
Post by deadwoodgultch on Nov 19, 2015 21:37:18 GMT
Chuck,
The link I added appears to give a fair amount of flexibility. Just a semi flyboy opinion.
|
|
|
|
Post by deadwoodgultch on Nov 19, 2015 22:56:28 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Nov 20, 2015 13:35:42 GMT
Tom, the French have always a soft spot for US built weapons, apparently French troops in Indochina were fond of the M1 Carbine.
Chuck, how accurate was the movie Pork Chop Hill, Peck plays a Lieutenant (no Captain) who is in charge of an Infantry company of about 130 men, his battalion commander issued him with his orders and said that his company would be minus their weapons platoon, but in the attack scenes Peck’s men are armed with M1919A4s, its funny how they can be without their Wpns Plt but still have their M1919s.
Yan.
|
|
