Jump to content

Modern Infantry Co Toe


Recommended Posts

Thank you, this actually almost identical (other than squad composition) to the local '60/70s light infantry Co... :blink: Same 2:2 MG/AT support sections in plts and mortar section as only Co level support...

 

Definitely do not think the LMG/GPMG/MMG (whatever you prefer to call weapons like the PKM and M240) should be an organic squad asset. It's a different story in WW2 where the squad was not expected to be able to conduct fire and maneuver simultaneously, but today there's a lot of times it hinders and during missions where it helps there's no reason they can't be attached when prudent.

 

Squad can maneuver and conduct fire simultaneously by dividing to base of fire (LMG, assistant, DMR) and maneuver part. (squad leader, radioman, 2 x riflemen). SAW can go in either. W/O LMG your long range firepower is really bad, which is not a big issue for urban environment, but is a big issue for typical terrain in south Serbia.

Frankly, the better range of a 7.62long DMR over a 5.56 DMR should be negligible. Competent adversaries would not be visible in most of a 5.56 carbine's effective range.

 

 

I disagree, even with optics 5.56 is ~400m effective range, 7.92mm is about 800m effective from M76. There is a plenty of ground in Serbia where that range advantage would not be lost. Plus only few units got 5.56 rifles, most have 7.62x39.

 

The USMC is overburdening its infantry with 18+ kg of armour. I wouldn't even consider their riflemen as suitable for the manoeuvre element in a platoon assault. That's part of why they sit out so many contacts behind cover, calling for fire support instead of manoeuvring themselves.

This occupation warfare style is suicidal against peer opponents, for they too could call in support fires and infantry fixed that easily is as good as dead within the first few days if not hours of campaigning against a peer opposing force.

 

Peer opponents for Serbia would be who exactly? Russians ain't gonna come, neither will NATO. Croats are gutted heavily even if they are trying to reconstruct, half of Bosnians army would desert or refuse orders in case of war with Serbia. Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary - no chance in hell. Only realistic scenario is Albanians in south Serbia making troubles.

Edited by bojan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 109
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Depending on infantry tactics, long range (>300 m) firepower may be utterly pointless if not counterproductive (giving away your presence for very little beneficial effect).

To equip for much firepower past 300 m means to add much weight (and some bulk) to the equipment, which is extremely disadvantageous to already overburdened infantry.

 

Much has been added to firepower, communication and passive protection of the infantry since the 80's, at the expense of mobility. Peacetime training and occupation warfare downplay the importance of hostile indirect fires, which kill slow or fixed infantry easily. Serbian warfare experiences of the 1990's weren't gained against artillery- and mortar-strong opposition either.

Depending on which sources you read or listen to, 80-95% of casualties in Ukraine were caused by indirect fire. A doubling of firepower at the expense of 20% of survivability through mobility is unacceptable in such an environment.

 

Long range fires (>300 m) can and probably should be left to Bn support. It's intuitive to wish to be able to fight back from mountaintop to mountaintop or even from valley to mountaintop, but it's not wise. Infantry has its greatest strengths in terrain that's not passable by and thus not suitable to combat vehicles. These terrains (other than mountains) tend to have short lines of sight in most if not all directions. On mountains the extra weight of long range firepower hurts endurance and speed excessively.

 

A much better argument (than range) in favour of 7.62 long is penetration of weak obstacles such as many walls and tree stems, but particularly the former depends greatly on the area. The construction methods especially of residential areas vary greatly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Peer opponents for Serbia would be who exactly? Russians ain't gonna come, neither will NATO. Croats are gutted heavily even if they are trying to reconstruct, half of Bosnians army would desert or refuse orders in case of war with Serbia. Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary - no chance in hell. Only realistic scenario is Albanians in south Serbia making troubles.

... which is a very good reason not to spend much on the military and instead spend the taxpayer money on paying down debt and/or investment in future economic output.

The Albanians no doubt could be handled by law enforcement and paramilitary border guards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Definitely do not think the LMG/GPMG/MMG (whatever you prefer to call weapons like the PKM and M240) should be an organic squad asset. It's a different story in WW2 where the squad was not expected to be able to conduct fire and maneuver simultaneously, but today there's a lot of times it hinders and during missions where it helps there's no reason they can't be attached when prudent.

Squad can maneuver and conduct fire simultaneously by dividing to base of fire (LMG, assistant, DMR) and maneuver part. (squad leader, radioman, 2 x riflemen). SAW can go in either. W/O LMG your long range firepower is really bad, which is not a big issue for urban environment, but is a big issue for typical terrain in south Serbia.

You still have them, they're just at platoon level. They can still be attached to the squads to supplement them for patrols when appropriate, or tasked separately depending on mission requirements. For instance, for assaults and defense, the ideal place for your LMG to provide supporting fires may not be the ideal place for your maneuver element.

 

The squad still has it's own automatic weapons to support fire and maneuver on a local level, they're just lighter and less of a hindrance.

Edited by Burncycle360
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a very good reason that everyone who actually goes to war seems to wind up with PKMs at section level no matter what they start out with. If it is not organic, it can go away so these assets are invariably hoarded. The PKM is in a sweet spot where it is handy enough for individual usage but delivers full power .30cal automatic fire. The SAW has all the same problems that the PKM has (open bolt etc.) but with much less punch. It is a tradeoff that most combatants are happy to accept. Procurement decisions are invariably made for reasons other than actual utility. The PKM is ubiquitous because it really does perform like a champ.

 

If you put a PKM and a M249 out for an infantry unit to pick as they go out the wire, I suspect that after a while, the PKM will get the nod every time

 

Bribing the Albanians to go away is a really dumb thing to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

About the American TOE:

 

The Weapons squad lacks sufficient ammunition bearers (as porters and for all-round security). Javelin rounds are heavy, they won't carry more than two each, and even that's too much weight.

 

2 light mortars allows for leap frogging, but they have badly diminishing returns compared to a single "commando" mortar.

The Americans expect the 60 mm mortars to be relevant with HE, which most often requires little less effort and sophistication than to expect such support from the Bn fire support). Illum, IR Illum, SMK, coloured SMK, Signal (generally pyrotechnics) can be employed by a single commando mortar (tiny baseplate, no bipod, weight under 10 kg, typically no or but one auxiliary charge) well.

Using light mortars that require siting (big baseplate, bipod, proper orientation because of hazards of poorly aimed HE) doesn't exactly push the Coy leader towards very mobile, elusive tactics. It's rather a good fit for stationary and deliberate actions.

 

39 men per platoon is a lot, and de facto forces it to treat squads instead of itself as manoeuvre element. There's rarely enough cover and concealment for a 39-large element to use during manoeuvre. WW2 platoons were about as large in theory, but reduced to 20-25 in most actions. This is relevant to all TOEs; you should think of them as a starting point - the actual battle TO&E is different.

 

Javelin may be effective (its guidance can be soft killed), but it's heavy and very few rounds can be carried. 2 84 mm M3 MAAWS would make more sense unless the mission is AT defence or delay. One Javelin per rifle squad would make sense if the Coy was in a partially mounted delaying action or in an AT mission on somewhat open terrain.

 

The U.S. is lacking a munition to hand out to its troops (as munition, depending on need) that's a powerful threat to a T-90 at 300 m. Something like a Panzerfaust 3IT with a much bigger (warhead) calibre than the AT4. They tried to have this with 120 mm AT12-T 25 years ago, but the peace dividend killed it. Now they're lagging by 30+ years. Javelins are not very relevant in close terrain.

 

Again but one signaller at Plt level. He's neither available as runner nor able to listen to radio 24/7.

 

Where are the combat medics? I know they are somewhere in there, but I don't see them. Temporary attachments?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FN MAG/M240/GPMG weighs over 13kg.

 

That's like carrying 5 bricks in your hands.

 

A PKM should be more manageable at under 10kg.

Much more manageable, balance is also better, I tried once lifting a MAG to shoulder, it is all wrong balance for such use.

I am a big guy (196cm, 95kg back in 2006-7), but aimed firing of M84/PKM from shoulder is being practiced by all MG gunners locally. It is quite possible, and if you limit your bursts quite controllable and accurate. Here is a position from manual (minus skies those days ofc):

As you can see, position is such that gun will be nose heavy, and that will help with muzzle jump.

 

lastdingo, can you post German infantry Co so we can compare?

Edited by bojan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As important as the weight of the gun itself is, equally if not more important is the weight of ammunition. A machinegun is made to sustain a high rate of fire, and accordingly all its parts are bulky and heavy. According to a Greek manual that i have the normal rate of fire for a MAG is 100 rpm. That's more than 2.5kg of ammo. So for every minute in a a firefight a MAG consumes 2,5kg. Of course if the loadout is reduced, then the gunner will accordingly reduce the rate at which he fires. Which creates the question of why carry a 11-12 kg machinegun to do the job that a <8 kg light machinegun can do. The same question is true when you consider that a MAG has a 63cm barrel. It is made to shoot accurately to ranges of 800-900m, but that is practicable only when firing from a tripod. From a bipod its effective burst range is 200-300m. Which brings out the point that a shorter barrel, like the 45cm barrel of the HK11 light machinegun, can do the same job just as well.
The PKM, like the M60, which is heavy but better balanced to be easily carried than a MAG, seem to try to genuinly fit both the role of the squad automatic weapon as well as the general purpose machinegun.
Marine_M-60_machine_gun_team_fighting_in

 

The MAG, as well as the MG-3 and the MG-42 etc, seem to me too unwieldy to fit into the squad, at least in the way the Greek squads operate. The doctrinal position for these weapons in the Greek army is at the platoon level, with either one or two machineguns per platoon. The fact that they are so commonly found as SAWs in many armies suggests that either they use different squad tactics, or they consider the tradeoff acceptable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lastdingo, each platoon can expect a junior enlisted medic, and the company can expect an NCO company senior medic. On the TOE these are all consolidated with the battalion aid station in the battalion medical platoon. Each platoon can also expect a forward observer team (SGT Forward Observer and PFC RTO), and the company a Fire Support Team (LT Fire Support Officer, SSG Fire Support NCO, SPC Fire Support Specialist and PFC RTO) from the brigade's field artillery battalion.

 

Your points about ammunition bearers is valid, and known by everyone that implements the TOEs. As a manpower savings, we don't solve the issue, but in real life we'll have to do so somehow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What was in the back of my mind when I was a U.S.M.C. doc was that when war came, one corpsman per rifle squad was what was called for. Always made me wonder just how many casualties the Corps expected to take.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is America, every squad leader has encrypted VHF comm(PRC-148) Every troop has a intra-squad radio. Runners and signalers? OBE. Anti-tank in the attack? Abrams and helos, Javelins are for deliberate defense. We do lack an individual AT weapon, something like a modern Panzerfaust (huge warhead, lightweight, throwaway) would be very useful.

 

I'm of the opinion that the squad should be the basic maneuver element, since that's what you do all your routine patrolling with, not platoons. We've become firepower centric, since we don't have massive manpower anymore. S/F.....Ken M

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree the PKM is nice for a LMG and blurs the line especially when we consider the weight of a full up 249. But like the m240, the 249 is over weight too for the role we expect it to fill.

 

Mk46 runs around 12 pounds empty iirc, and they can get similar weapons down to about 8-9 lbs (both belt fed or magazine fed whatever your flavor).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is America, every squad leader has encrypted VHF comm(PRC-148) Every troop has a intra-squad radio.

 

I remember someone saying emitting RF on a battlefields wasn't such a clever idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

This is America, every squad leader has encrypted VHF comm(PRC-148) Every troop has a intra-squad radio.

 

I remember someone saying emitting RF on a battlefields wasn't such a clever idea.

 

 

Their output power is tiny, and the software can regulate it to the minimum necessary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

This is America, every squad leader has encrypted VHF comm(PRC-148) Every troop has a intra-squad radio.

 

I remember someone saying emitting RF on a battlefields wasn't such a clever idea.

 

 

I understand that. Which is why there are field phones. Also there's a significant difference in target value between infantrymen and a bleeding edge first world MBT. And the radios are freq-hop, I'm not sure if MMR is.

 

Still want someone to develop some thing like a TOW-2 warhead on a Panzerfaust tube. S/F....Ken M

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Still want someone to develop some thing like a TOW-2 warhead on a Panzerfaust tube. S/F....Ken M

Bofors developed a 120 mm muzzleloader munition (HEAT) for the Carl Gustav in the early 1980's.

A couple years later they offered a AT-4 style Bazooka with 120 mm Tandem HEAT instead.

The U.S.Army was interested, but then came the peace dividend.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Still want someone to develop some thing like a TOW-2 warhead on a Panzerfaust tube. S/F....Ken M

Bofors developed a 120 mm muzzleloader munition (HEAT) for the Carl Gustav in the early 1980's.

A couple years later they offered a AT-4 style Bazooka with 120 mm Tandem HEAT instead.

The U.S.Army was interested, but then came the peace dividend.

 

 

AT-12 ??.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0d6H2oPSuUg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, AT-12T.

In the early 80's they had a munition called FFV 597:

132 mm calibre
9.5 kg complete round
8 kg warhead muzzle loaded into Carl Gustaf
1.5 kg propellant unit breech loaded
long probe fuze
mv = 115 m/s
max velocity = 310 m/s
effective range claimed: 300 m
penetration claimed 900 mm
(all figures from jane's Infantry Weapons 86/87)

Even with packaging this is still cheaper (and much more powerful assuming equal shaped charge technology) than a PzF 3-IT if there's a M3 Carl Gustaf in the small unit anyway. It's just not of much use for reinforcing the unit with many anti-MBT munitions (for comparison, you could give every squad 4 Panzerfaust3 ready to fire as munitions).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Poland will be buying this year(at last) new lightweight single shot disposable at weapon to replace rpg-76.I am curious who will win ,contenders are:

 

Nammo - M72 family

Saab - AT 4

Instalaza - C90

Armar Corp. GTC - Armblast

Dynamit Nobel Defence - either RGW 60 or 90

 

Yes, AT-12T.

In the early 80's they had a munition called FFV 597:

132 mm calibre
9.5 kg complete round
8 kg warhead muzzle loaded into Carl Gustaf
1.5 kg propellant unit breech loaded
long probe fuze
mv = 115 m/s
max velocity = 310 m/s
effective range claimed: 300 m
penetration claimed 900 mm
(all figures from jane's Infantry Weapons 86/87)

Even with packaging this is still cheaper (and much more powerful assuming equal shaped charge technology) than a PzF 3-IT if there's a M3 Carl Gustaf in the small unit anyway. It's just not of much use for reinforcing the unit with many anti-MBT munitions (for comparison, you could give every squad 4 Panzerfaust3 ready to fire as munitions).

 

Watch from 1:20

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I look at the loads carried by "light infantry" the name Marius's mules. comes to mind.

 

When infantry go on a mission do they tailor their equipment? For instance if the enemy has no armored vehicles the javelin ATGM would not be needed. The Javelins would be an expensive option to knock down mud huts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...