Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 10, 2021 0:09:07 GMT
OK. Reduced INF CO to 5, moved the SCT and ADA PLTs to the HHC, I was tempted to move the Assault Gun Platoon to the HHC, but decided to put sections in the INF Companies. Added a sniper and spotter to the PLT HQ, Increased the infantry squads to 11, wpn sqd to 13 (AT Gunner and Ammo Handler) Gave the Weapon Platoon 3 AT, 3 CV-90 (90mm or 105), and 3 120mm MORT (AMOS Turret). Left the Mortar Batter at 8 120mm Amos systems. 120 is equal to a 155mm shell effect and with the new mortar rounds and PGM/GPS capability, I think they are better for the BG than a 105mmT battery. I admit this preference is from my CAV PLT experience where I liked having my own mortar, wished many times I had the infantry squad, but obviously did not need another tank-like vehicle, since I had 4. Engineer company. For the Heavy Version, My preference would still be 3M1T for each company, but 3M2T or 4M1T (with a 4 tank platoon of 5 tanks each) would probably work. IF I was really in charge, 3 Scouts would be in 10 of the old ARSV for all organizations so the enemy couldn't tell what kind of unit they are fighting from the reconnaissance elements. Mortars and ATs would still be wheeled, I think. Puma or Lynx for the Infantry carrier. (Perhaps 5 or 6 vehicles per 1 for PL, 1 for PSG, 3 or 4 for squad carriers. The infantry carrier "might" have one ATGM on each side of the turret, but it would be reloaded from outside and the rounds either stored inside the cargo compartment or external in armored containers (2 only). The ARSV should be able to work as a ADA as well as an ATGM carrier. No need for a gun version in the Heavy flavor. The mech companies would have their own mortars again.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on May 10, 2021 5:42:53 GMT
Triangular companies are more manageable, nearly every nation who had square companies at the beginning of WW2, phased them out by 1945. I think the Italians had a binary set up with only two platoons per rifle company, but this was found to be too weak.
Three rifle companies per Bn Three rifle platoons per Coy Three rifle squads per Plt
Adding a HQ to each unit is paramount to command and control and support weapons at company level to he issued to platoons if and when they need them.
Having a AT weapon and crew will take two personnel out of your bayonet strength, I don't disagree with the advantage of having a AT asset, but the weapon should be available but crew should come from the rifle squad who requested the support, that way you don't have two wasted soldiers sitting about waiting for a tank to show up.
I don't know where the 81mm mortars are situated in the rifle companies, are they still at company or battalion level?
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on May 10, 2021 6:04:56 GMT
Chuck, I think we have our wires crossed here, you are talking about combat operations and I was regarding to troop movements.
Infantry do march, I agree, patrols and planned engagements are common, but I was on about the movement of large infantry units, surly you wouldn't expect the British to land a infantry battalion at Kabul airport and then ask them to walk to camp bastion.
Clemons did say push button warfare, but they did get transported by truck.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 10, 2021 12:23:59 GMT
AT weapons are useful for bunkes and such. They still carry a rifle.
You know, a lot of people (soldiers, hisetorians, wargame enthusiasts, and people in general) think a lot of funny things about unit organizations.
1. LT's are incapable of commanding combined arms units because they are too inexpereienced. Partly true. But I know for a fact my time as a cavalry platoon leader with my APC, 2 Scout Tracks, 2 TOW tracks, 4 tanks, and a mortar provided invaluable to me later on in my career, commanding 3 tank companies. Also important however, was my 18 months as a tank platoon leader. In my time, the tank company received 5 LTS from cav troops who showed they couldn't handle them, and only two of us went to cavalry platoons. My cavalry platoon was actually about the same size in terms of people as my tank companies. 2. Square companies. Cavalry troops, for a long time were triangular, organized as I said above. For a time, they went to a 3 scout 2 tank organization. Nobody had any trouble handling those. They also had a mortar section, so they were pentomic. 3. Square battalions. In my first tank battalion, it was triangular. This essentially made everything two up one back. Then we went to four for my last two battalions. I thought four was much better. You could defend on 2 regimental sizeed avenues of approach. Move to contact with three up and one back for a very large front and have a reserve. Move in two columns and many other flexible situations. Cavalry Squadrons at the time had four troops. We have gone back to three to economize and take spaces away from the comba arms to man more and more combat service support forces. 4. My tank platoon was 5 tanks, in a heavy section (me) and a light section (PSG). Now they are four. A cost saving measure to fund the M1. With 5 tanks you are likely to always have 3 or 4. With r, you will probably have 3, but maybe only two. Everyone with 3 tank platoons usualy only has two due to maintenance. 5. Infantry in the modern environment, in my opinion, need people with AT weapons all the time. The company commander, platoon leader, or squad leader can decide if and how many to carry. I put them in the weapons squad because there is already two much crap on the soldiers back. I believe in the bayonet, perhaps if cavalry had bayonets the LBH might have been a little different (in the details) but not made a difference in the end. There was a famous bayonet charge in Korea, Maybe one in Viet Nam, I think one in Afghanistan, and maybe a few others. Not used too often, but they have a lot of uses. Mostly for elevating the killing spirit, cutting wire, and opening your rations. Maybe cleaning your fingernails or picking your teeth. Everyone should have one. My last tank company carried them and I made my guys wear flak jackets, even inside the tank. A real bith that. 6. Our infantry today is overburdened with crap. In Afghanistan we suffer somewhat in the same way against the Talian, Al Qaida, and other people like the cavalry did against the Indians. Flak Jackets are important as well as elbow and knee pads, but the enemy skitters away like mosquitos from your hand. And as we add thermal goggles for every one, laser sights, individual radios, and goodness know what else, the burden increases.
I think infantry has its place. Great Britain has decided they only need two battalions of tanks and a few mechanized infantry. I think our force is overly infantry. But what are you gonna do? Everything costs too much, they say, and we can't afford it. Of course, when you persist in sticking your nose in other peoples business 10000 miles away, you are at the end of a long tail.
We had fewer people in WWII and less money, and yet we afforded the war. For England, it wa a war of survival. For the US, not so much. Our main foe was in the Pacific. (Your opinion will vary widely, but defeating Germany was important, don't get me wrong.) Likewise, all the concern over COVID 19. Again, many more deaths in 1918 and not nearly so many this time. We had fewer people in 1918 and more deaths. But no one mentions this. Why not? Also, consider this: Is it really possible for India (to this point) to have fewer deaths than the US? I can't asiimilate the numbers.
I saw a new T-shirt the other day, saying, "It's AmeriCAN, not Americacan't!"
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on May 10, 2021 14:20:25 GMT
Ian: I don't think we have any wires crossed at all.
Infantry is designed to walk everywhere they go. No I would probably have trucks waiting to transport that battalion from Kabul Airport to their camp,as a matter of efficiency, but the fact remains they could walk if they needed to, just the way Infantry walked before trucks were invented.
Earlier you pointed to Taliban snipers and IED's. What is the difference between them, and German snipers, mines, or booby traps? I don't see any at all. But there is a difference. You have been made more aware of these things through nightly bombardment by the BBC and CNN, and wherever else you get your news. News organizations have made them the boogy man. For an Infantry soldier these things are all just another day at the beach, something to be expected and overcome.
A road march is a combat operation, don't let anyone tell you differently.
Four maneuver companies per battalion are better than three. Four allows the battalion commander more flexibility.
Mortars are now found in the rifle company headquarters section/platoon.
Man portable AT weapons should be where the company commander wants them in my view. If he wants each platoon to have one or two they should be in the platoons. If he wants to pool them in the company headquarters and parcel them out as the situation calls for he should have that option as well. This is one of those areas where it is best to throw the TO&E and book away and not tell anyone what you are doing lest they tell you to change. With those situations though, you had damned well better have guessed right.
Mike is correct. Infantry is overburdened with a lot of stuff that they just DO NOT NEED. A rifleman NEEDS a weapon, ammunition, water, two days rations, canteen cup, spoon and a change of socks. Everything else is nice to have, and in most situations unnecessary.
|
|
|
Post by mhoyt on May 10, 2021 20:28:34 GMT
You do have to decrease the span of control or start putting Captains in charge of Platoons, and Majors in charge of Companies. Why - experience, the LTs can support the majority of staff work; and win their way an appointment into an unit. The span of control only works with an increase in rank and experience, or you have to have gifted leaders (and they aren't usually all gifted).
From my experience I think its better to have a core group of regular heavy forces that are active duty, and less light infantry but specialized (thus 82d Airborne/101st Air Assault/10th Mountain) augmented with the Ranger Battalions that exist is the current and probably right strategy (I will leave how you structure the brigade combat teams, task forces, battalions to your expertise, but you can't increase span of control without increasing experience in leadership).
Where I think the nation's strategy is wrong is trying to have to many heavy units in the Guard or Reserves, the problem with that is it doesn't hit the Guard's primary role of civil actions or disaster relief, and a heavy force has to have training with more expensive equipment, ranges, logistics and maintenance. Since the force takes so much time, their ability to maneuver when I evaluated them was very sub-par to an active unit. I would have kept those light infantry in the majority. The few heavy units I would use to augment or expand the unit structure in time of war. You just expand the structure and you have the leadership to do it -- if you put higher level leaders in charge of those units.
I also hope you have a ton of roads where you are going with those wheeled vehicles; because I am still a fan of going tracked with less armor to have mobility. VR Mark (#WheelsGetStuckWhereTracksDon't)
|
|
benteen
First Lieutenant
"Once An Eagle
Posts: 406
|
Post by benteen on May 10, 2021 20:29:49 GMT
Mike is correct. Infantry is overburdened with a lot of stuff that they just DO NOT NEED. A rifleman NEEDS a weapon, ammunition, water, two days rations, canteen cup, spoon and a change of socks. Everything else is nice to have, and in most situations unnecessary. And an E-Tool. Dont forget the E-Tool. Be Well Dan
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on May 10, 2021 23:43:23 GMT
What do you think the canteen cup is for Dan? Certainly not eating your MRE's in, but you do make a good point.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 10, 2021 23:51:57 GMT
That's funny, but I think the LBJ showed tincups are not so good for that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 11, 2021 0:06:57 GMT
Mark,
I differ about LTs, in part because of my experience in the 11th ACR. But we were blessed because we got to take our platoons to the field for 2-3 days a month, the troop went out for a week every quarter, and the squadron went out for a week every six months. Any alert could turn into a one week field problem. This did not include gunnery 4 or 5 times a year and daily border patrols/reaction drills for the troop on border watch (plus manning the OP). I was a tank platoon leader for 18 months and a cav platoon leader for six. My cav platoon had about 50 guys in it while my last tank company 60 guys.
Regarding the modern Army, I think we need to rethink ourselves. Possibly resurrect "Coastal Artillery" for Homeland Air/Missile Defense, Anti-Ship missiles to defend our coasts, particularly of our Pacific states, territories, and possessions. All this should be active duty troops. A highly deployable infantry heavy force, not necessarily Airborne because I think it is not survivable and too light, nor airmobile because I don't think it is survivable and too heavy for the buck, but equipped with 1-3 combines arms battalions and a core Heavy Force of three - four divisions, but limiting it to 10-12 division equivalents in 3 or 4 corps equivelents with robust service support.
I agree the Reserve Component should have a lot of Infantry and at least some of it should be in Stryker's, particularly in the SW or a lighter variety of tracked vehicles (M8 and something like the YPR-765), but again with some Heavy forces designed to supplement and replace losses of the active force.
We need to rething the balence between the Active Army, Army Reserve, and ARNG. A strong case can be made that states do not need combat forces. What they need are Combat Support and Service Support forces - particularly Engineers, Military Police, Chemical, Transportation, Medical, and Signal. The difficulty is that of cousre many of those people do the same thing as civilians as their Guard duty, even today. And activating the ARNG to assist the police can cripple a police department.
EDIT
I concur with Major's as company commanders however. The BG primary staff should probably be LTCs. Why not a BG as the commander. I think we should give them Gold Stars instead of silver (after all, they are apprentice generals, just like 2LTs and Majors) and should be called 'brigadier' instead of general. Same for the Navy, commodore instead of rear admiral (lower half).
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on May 11, 2021 10:47:02 GMT
Mike, I am not sure what the set up is now but back in WW2 a standard British Infantry company was commanded by a Major (OC) and a Captain (2/IC).
The company 2IC's job - as per the job description is to be prepared to step in and replace the OC if he becomes a casualty. In the meantime, he would maintain the radio link to battalion HQ. He would be a tactical bound behind the OC.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 11, 2021 13:30:24 GMT
The company commanders I met in the British army were majors.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 11, 2021 14:42:14 GMT
Here is a video of the Royal Marines using jet packs in a boarding exercise. They don't look exactly combat ready to me upon landing and of course no one was shooting at them as they came over. I wonder how much fuel they carry? www.youtube.com/watch?v=suHOLFhbwsM
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on May 11, 2021 19:31:03 GMT
You have to be James Bond to get into the Royal Marines these days, what next a WA-116 autogyro
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on May 11, 2021 19:41:47 GMT
Here is an interesting clip; link
|
|