|
Post by quincannon on Jul 2, 2016 21:01:41 GMT
I have been in a UH60 with 14 PAX.
What a helicopter can carry varies from day to day and even hour by hour. There is a formula that aviators use to determine what they can carry that involves temperature, humidity, and some other stuff, but I cannot recall how it is calculated. It has been a long time. Typically though when you are in an assembly area the word is passed to you what their calculated capacity is, and you organize your sticks on the PZ to accommodate them. I have seen with a stick of eight in an old UH1D the crew chief throw the last man off because between the time you got the word and the time they landed to pick you up, their capacity changed.
You must be very flexible in an air assault, and consider yourself lucky if all your people are where they are supposed to be according to the tactical plan you formulated before the assault began. You learn to live with it and adapt.
Artillery: Have you ever heard of an artillery raid? It gives Ringgold's Flying Battery of the Mexican War all new meaning.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Jul 3, 2016 10:16:15 GMT
Sorry to continue with this everyone as I know it has shifted from sets of fours in 1876 to modern day warfare, but since I may one day decide to expand my web site to incorporate the Vietnam war and may extend to the date covered from 1920-1970, and I have Chucks attention on this matter I will endeavour to “pick his brains”
I would guess that the idea was to land each infantry platoon in a group area, this would mean that the entire platoon would be picked up in one life and dropped together on the target. If for instance you managed to cram you full platoon into four UH60s then I would guess that the CP would be split between two helicopters, just in case one gets hit, that way you don’t lose all of your command and leadership in one go.
I have already done a TO&E for a standard infantry platoon from the Vietnam era, as there is nothing like forward thinking.
The term artillery raid was new to me, probably because it was an American term, same as our boys called fires “Stonks” so these raids would be fire mission on various known targets similar to our modes of fire, I checked my data and the Royal Artillery have three terms that may cover this type of fire mission and they are, Predicted fire, harassing fire or sweep and search.
I have found the US army doctrine for these artillery fires and have posted it below in case anyone wants to see how it’s done;
Artillery Raids
Division and smaller-sized maneuver units normally conduct raids to seize and destroy critical assets or decisive points. Whenever possible, these units should be supported by field artillery fires.
Artillery raids may be executed as aggressive, short duration operations against high priority targets. Likely candidates are enemy command posts, air defense radars, ammunition and fuel dumps, or unprotected troop concentrations. The key consideration is subjecting vulnerable enemy units and facilities to intense artillery fires throughout the engagement area.
For example, displacing field artillery forward by air with enough and correct ammunition allows the air assault division to extend the range of its howitzers and to engage enemy targets with artillery to the maximum range of division aviation assets. Such artillery raids require extensive training and precision execution to achieve split-second timing and to reduce risks to the artillery and supporting assault helicopters.
Airmobile field artillery battalions normally plan and coordinate raids in battery strength. Habitual battery attachments include man-portable air defense system (MANPADS) Stinger teams, pathfinders, and attached infantry for security. Observers should also be available aloft or on the ground to adjust fires.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Jul 3, 2016 12:24:49 GMT
chuck, I was just checking my data for the infantry platoon (Vietnam) and it seems to have a few errors, mainly with the fire teams. I could post it on here if you care to see it or I could PM the doc.
|
|
azranger
Brigadier General
Ranger
Posts: 1,824
|
Post by azranger on Jul 3, 2016 13:17:15 GMT
I think that Custer used a horseholder for a total of 8 on some occasions. As far as what they could handle even 4 horses if not disciplined could be a problem.
I think the structure of the company led to the use of fours. I think that there was the ability to move single file , in column of twos, and column of fours. You would be responsible when you counted off to know who was two the right or left of you when changing in the number troopers in a the column.
It would be interesting to know what took place every day when breaking up camp and preparing to move on a march.
Regards
Steve
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jul 3, 2016 13:44:31 GMT
I tend to agree with Steve. Line up, count off, that is what we will do today. Tomorrow if you want to be beside your buddy, get out of bed quicker.
Artillery Raid Ian are designed to get someone's attention real fast. Surprise, swiftness in, swiftness on, and swiftness out are its hallmarks. If you don't have superb firing data before you start, don't start. Not good for any type of conventional linear combat, but in the desert, or irregular warfare, and in places where large swaths of territory are held by neither side, it can be very effective. I have heard of it being done with as little as two gun sections (two guns) and a jump FDC.
Infantry organization in Vietnam. Which one? There were many types of Infantry, and within those types several reorganizations over the years. In addition none of our folks were ever up to strength. My friend, a sometime Captain, who retired as the Command Sergeant Major of the 29th ID took over his first platoon upon receiving a battlefield commission in 1966, with a grand total of twelve people. He organized them into two squads of five each, an RTO, and himself.
PM.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Jul 3, 2016 13:51:07 GMT
I have just found this and have down loaded a copy, so if anyone wishes to do the same be my guest; linkJoel Ponsett says that the number four should always be on the extreme left the set of four, but in column of two’s the number four adopts a different order depending on the formation, see below;
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Jul 3, 2016 13:53:15 GMT
Chuck, I was sticking to the paper strength, otherwise it is impossible to hit the right number of men.
Here is my platoon;
U.S. Infantry Platoon (Early 1960s) Platoon HQ 1st or 2nd Lieutenant/Platoon Commander (M-14 Rifle) E-7 Platoon 1st Sergeant/Assistant Commander (M-14 Rifle) E-3 Pvt/FC Radio/Telephone Operator (M-14 Rifle)
3 x Rifle Squads Each: E-6 Staff Sergeant/Squad Leader (M-14 Rifle) 1st Fire Team. (ALPHA) E-5 Sergeant/Team Leader (M-14 Rifle) E-4 Corporal/Specialist Automatic Riflemen (M-14A1 Bi-pod Mounted) E-4 Corporal/Specialist Grenade Launcher (M-79 + .45 Pistol) E-3 Pvt/FC /Riflemen (M-14 Rifle) 2nd Fire Team (BRAVO) E-5 Sergeant/Team Leader (M-14 Rifle) E-4 Corporal/Specialist Grenade Launcher (M-79 + .45 Pistol) E-3 Pvt/FC Riflemen (M-14 Rifle) E-4 Corporal/Specialist Automatic Riflemen (M-14A1 Bi-pod Mounted)
Weapons Squad E-6 Sergeant/Team Leader (M-14 Rifle) 2 x E-4 Corporal/Specialist /MGs Gunners (M-60 + .45 Pistols) 4 x E-3 Pvt/FC Assistant MG Gunners (.45 Pistols) E-4 Corporal/Specialist Recoilless Rifle Gunner (M-67 Recoilless Rifle or LAW + .45 Pistol) E-3 Pvt/FC Rifleman. Ammo Bearer (M-14 Rifle)
M-16 Rifles replaced the M-14s after 1967
|
|
azranger
Brigadier General
Ranger
Posts: 1,824
|
Post by azranger on Jul 3, 2016 13:57:00 GMT
Ian
Here is what I think is the difference. The morning formation set the fours. The rest of the day you were in that set of fours unless renumbered such sending some off for pack train security. Being of average intelligence one could line up to be with his buddies.
Steve
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Jul 3, 2016 14:12:41 GMT
I agree Steve, but have you ever heard about the notion on who was chosen to be the number four, was it the older guy or family man?
If so the line sergeant may have to keep his eye on a bunch of young single guys who want to be together in the same set.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Jul 3, 2016 14:20:15 GMT
I may speak with young Beth and move this modern stuff to its own thread.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jul 3, 2016 14:34:23 GMT
Ian: Two riflemen in Bravo Team for a total of a ten man squad.
Weapons squad:
Two assistant machine gunners (45 Cal ACP), and two Ammunition bearers (can carriers) armed with the M14
Two Rocket launcher gunners (3.5 inch) and two assistant gunners, both armed with pistols. 2 RL's were standard until about 66-67 when the M67 theoretically replaced the 3.5, but the 3.5 remained in service a lot longer. I carried an M67 in a company sized problem while I was in the officer basic course in 67. My shoulder still hurts. Worst, and probably the most ineffective anti-armor weapon ever in the inventory. Sidebar. The 3.5 breaks down into two pieces. It was often we left the front part of the two part tube at home, opting to only carry the rear part. We learned that from a Marine that served with the 9th Marines in VN. Worked like a champ. There was no depeciation in the effectivness of the weapon.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jul 3, 2016 14:41:56 GMT
You must also remember Ian that in the early 1960's 58-63/64 we were still under ROCID/ROCAD (battle groups) In the rifle squad of the battle group you had eleven men, two identical balanced fire teams of five each, and a squad leader. ROAD came out in 1962, but was not fully implemented until 1965 when the 82nd ABD reorganized, away from ROCAD and into the more standardized ROAD.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Jul 3, 2016 14:51:13 GMT
Originally I thought that it was a 11 squad, I created this platoon a few years ago and I cannot remember the source.
Chuck is the 3.5in the M20 bazooka?
Here is an amended weapons squad.
Weapons Squad E-6 Sergeant/Team Leader (M-14 Rifle) 2 x E-4 Corporal/Specialist /MGs Gunners (M-60 + .45 Pistols) 2 x E-3 Pvt/FCs Assistant MG Gunners (.45 Pistols) 2 x E-3 Pvt/FCs Rifleman. Ammo Bearer (M-14 Rifles) 2 x E-4 Corporal/Specialist M20 Gunner (M20 Bazooka + .45 Pistol) 2 x E-3 Pvt/FCs Assistant M20 Gunners (.45 Pistols)
Side bar: when I was researching this stuff I came across an old US army document that said that the US army studied the way the British fought insurgence in Malaya, they wanted to adopt a similar approach in Vietnam and were impressed with the way we organised our fire teams in order to take the fight to the insurgents and strike them in their bases.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jul 3, 2016 14:56:08 GMT
Ian to answer an earlier question I missed.
In an airmobile assault, you are informed prior how many birds you have. If your company is assigned more than eight you are lucky. It also depends upon the size of the PZ as to how many birds can be accommodated at once. You take that number, and organize on the lift capacity that day. If they can carry six, you organize into six, If they can carry eight, nine or more, that is how you organize. Therefore you do not organize your ground plan in platoons. You would like for it to be that way, but it is not often the case. You land in bunches, and that is the best and only way I can describe it.
Think of an airmobile assault from the ground commander's perspective as a semi-organized cluster f**k, and you will not be disappointed often.
Look at Gibson's movie "We Were Soldiers" and you will get a pretty good idea of what I mean.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jul 3, 2016 14:58:12 GMT
Yes it is and if I ever caught a man referring to a 3/5 as a bazooka, I would skin him alive. It was called the Three/Five, or just simply the R/L. Bazooka is for bubble gum.
The Malaya campaign is the world standard for how such things are done, but it cannot be applied everywhere without modification to local needs and situation.
|
|