Combat Team of tomorrow? Mechanized Infantry Company of tomorrow?

[Kirkhill]

I'm going to go all heretical here and declare that movement, with respect to the infantry, is over-rated.

Take the case of the LAV.

It presents the same size target as a tank and requires as much effort to dig in and conceal as a tank and at the end of the exercise you have an immobile autocannon and a machinegun sited as a single target.

With a bit of sweat, the same crew of the LAV could hump a pair of C16s, and a pair of C6s, dig them in along with as much ammunition as time and the QM will allow, and supply 4 equally effective but better protected targets.

In the defense I would take 8 men dug in to four U-trenches with SKOPs, and 2x C16 with 2x C6 over the single dug in LAV.

While one role of the infantry is "Close with and destroy" classically the infantry has been employed to "Occupy and Hold" as least as often.  Wellington's checkerboard of reverse slope squares at Waterloo comes to mind - predating the Kaiser's pill boxes of 1917 - or the Vietnam Fire Bases.

 

[a_majoor]

Humping a C-6 and the SF kit is one thing, but the C-16 dismounted is even less mobile than a .50 HMG, so I'm not buying that one.

USe of a LAV in the offense and defense is something of an art, my personal experience stops with tracks and AVGP Grizzlies but many of the principles from that time period can still be applied today (an M-113 or AVGP isn't that much smaller than a LAV III, and there was no way the earlier generations of APC's would be able to meet T-55, T-62 or T-64 on anything like an equal basis). Some of these lessons learned were rediscovered in MR 13.

As for movement in general, if you are not able or willing to move, then the enemy gets to set the location and pace of the engagement.

 

[Kirkhill]

....

As for movement in general, if you are not able or willing to move, then the enemy gets to set the location and pace of the engagement.

There are many instances where movement is neither possible nor desirable.

Fighting doesn't happen in a vacuum.  It happens with a purpose.  Ground has value.  The enemy may want/need to seize your population centres.  They can't move. You must hold.

Conversely, if you establish yourself across the enemy's LOC, with one move, and then dig in then you force the enemy to come to you.  You make him do all the attacking. 

Holding and defending is a lot more effective than driving around the countryside playing whackamole.  And sometimes it is the only option.

Marlborough's generation was obsessed with maintaining their bodies of troops intact and spent whole campaign seasons manouevring for advantage and never bringing the opposing force to battle.    He broke the mold by forcing battle rather than protecting his force in being.

War is about people.  People exist in places.  Places don't move.

 

[a_majoor]

But you have to choose where and when to move to a particular place (once you determine which place is most important). Mobility is one aspect of warfare which is important at all levels of war (Tactics is "fire and movement" while Operational art is defined by "mass and mobility") and even in operations where you are in the defense, you still need mobility to reinforce, resupply and respond to incursions with countermove and counterattack forces.

Even small changes in mobility have huge consequences: Fredrick the Great won many battles because he drilled his troops at the now customary 120 paces/min; but all other European armies of the time drilled at 60 paces/min. His troops could cross the battlefield twice as fast, change formations twice as fast and fire their weapons twice as fast; the opposition literally had no time to act or react to Prussian troops in the field. Rifle regiments march and drill faster than line regiments for the same reasons.

Operational and strategic mobility counts as well; Charles X of Sweden gave the Russians a very hard time through the simple expedient of marching in winter and thus being able to cross frozen rivers, lakes and marshes. George Washington pulled similar moves on the British, having the advantage of operating during the end of the Little Ice Age.

So, yes, being able to dig in and hold ground is important; being able to move across the ground is what gives you the ability to take control and actively impose your will on the enemy and the population.

 

[Kirkhill]

Agreed that mobility is an important component of the exercise.  But so is the ability to stand.

Bruce's Schiltrons.

Edward's Archers behind palisades.

Cromwell's Pikes.

Wellington's square's.

White City.

Not everybody can be Rupert, galloping off into the blue with his Cavaliers in full cry.

 

[KevinB]

If you can use the LAV, the M2 and C16 do not compare to the firepower of the LAV in this aspect, as well as the fire control system is much more useful.  Heck use all that you can in the defense...

In all honesty the role of the Infantry is to seize and hold ground, Close with and Destroy sounds cool, but your most often destroying the enemy just to take the ground their on.  If you don't need the ground they are on, go around and cut them off, make them come to you.

All else being equal - the defensive battle offers so many more advantages. 



I'd burn down all the HQ's above Bde level if I could free more PY's to the BN's.

 

[Kirkhill]

In practice, I would be inclined to dismount most of my infantry and have them dig in, replicating Wellington's squares, to break up the enemy front and reduce it to  bite sized pieces.  The LAVs and the Tanks form the mobile reserve to strengthen weak areas and eliminate breakthroughs. 

One of the advantages of the old M113s with the pintle mounts was you didn't need the whole vehicle to take advantage of the gun.  Nowadays we take a $100,000 vehicle, mount a $250,000 fire control system on it to control a $5,000 gun firing $1.00 rounds at the enemy.  The TAPV is a glorious case in point.

For the infantry how much effect could you bring to the battle field with a simple Quad and a Half Ton trailer?  How many Autocannons, GMGs, HMGs, GPMGs with SF kits can you carry in the trailer?  Together with FCSs like the Aimpoint FCS12?  Or you could go really upmarket to the man-portable ROWS like the Kongsberg Superlite.

(Or for that matter how many 81mm mortars can you tote behind a Quad in a trailer?)

Obviously ammunition would need additional quads, trailers or trips, or some combination, to create an effective position.

 

[KevinB]

LAV's are already there.

To me the LAV with an Infantry Crew is not a separate fighting vehicle -- it can do over-watch for dismounts - but should NOT be out running around with the TANKS trying to counter attack, as without its dismounts it cannot occupy ground.

Run up positions for Tanks and LAV's are well suited to the defense - and the LAV crew can always embark for a counter attack.

Regarding your M113 comments -- it is FIRE CONTROL systems that have revolutionized warfare -- you can do a lot more with with electro-optics and a weapon, than a weapon itself.  We can control the Night and Engage at Longer Ranges due to these Electro-Optics -- the FCS gives not just increased hit probability, but the ability to engage on the move in all weather and climate conditions (with certain degradations)

Having been a Grizzly Gunner - and then gone thru the LAV CC/Gnr class - the differences in the fire control are exponential.

I would argue the Quad - trailer option is quite viable for Light/ABN/AirMobile Infantry and SOF that it is for the Mech Inf

 

[GR66]

There are discussions on the Navy boards about the nature of future warships with some suggesting that we need smaller, cheaper ships with modular weapons systems that can be tailored to specific operational requirements rather than bigger, more expensive all purpose ships.  (Sorry I don't have a link at the moment but will try to find after work).  Perhaps the same argument can be made for land systems as well.  Mobility is obviously important but maybe vehicles should be designed as carriers for modular weapon systems rather than weapon systems in their own right.  You could have a variety of base vehicle types (for situations requiring different levels of protection and mobility) and have plug-in modular weapons systems that can work on any one of them (Autocannon, AT missiles, AA missiles, grenade launcher, etc) and have these modules dismountable so that they can be used in place when the situation demands.

If the platform and the weapon aren't integral to eachother then perhaps it would be cheaper to replace/upgrade each as new technologies come along.

 

[Kirkhill]

GR66 - I regret that you will find that I am the same person on the navy boards arguing in favour of a multiple of small platforms rather than one BHS.  FWIW 

Kevin - I am not going to argue too hard about the Mech Inf requirement.  Nor will I argue that the revolution in military affairs doesn't have a lot to do with modern FCS.

I will argue that the role of dismounted infantry on the modern battle field has been, and is still, under-rated.  Also that the FCS revolution equally applies to dismounted weapons.

Bruce's Schiltrons can be replaced with dug in crew served weapons with modern FCS and supplied/relocated with Quads and Trailers supported by 1 ton pickups, goose-neck trailers and Bobcats.

 

[MilEME09]

The plug and play option is viable, however with the battlefield always evolving I could see a integrated RCEME force then needed for the swapping out of those modules on the battle field. This means a vehicles for transporting and a crane to remove and install modules, This would probably be a section sized First line team supplied directly from the Service battalion.

 

[KevinB]

Kirkhill - for the most part utterly agree with you.

My point was that then it is no longer the Mechanized Infantry / Mech Cbt Tm.

I think you know me well enough by now that I would divest the INF of the LAV ASAFP...  The CAV would run the LAV and Inf units would thus need the Quad's or Small Utility Vehicle to move some of the heavier weapons (and sometimes themselves even) around.

CAV would run Armored Recce with LAV's that had Modular Sensor Suites - that if need be could be stipped out quickly to toss GIB's in.


Kevin's Canadian Army Structure would see this:

A primarily light and responsive force, Other than an Army HQ in NDHQ there would be no higher HQ than Brigade, primary pushing supporting entities into the units or the Bde HQ.

1 CDN PARA BN as a LI-SOC unit, (I would chop CSOR into the USSF SF Group model not a Ranger Batt, and send them out to mentor, do UW etc.), the Para's would be a robust BN, 4 Rifle Coy, and 1 Fire Support Coy consisting of two Mortar Pl's, and , 2 DFS/Heavy Weapons Pls (Anti-Armor, Heavy MG and GMG) plus 1 Reconnaissance Company, consisting of a Pathfinder Pl, Sniper Pl, Pioneer Pl, and an ISR Pl, they would operated with DHTC as needed and be the core response for NEO etc.  Would have organic vehicles like GMV Hummers - but the majority of vehicles would be light vehicle like quads, or side by side ATV's, DFS and Mortars would have a Side by Side 4x4 with a weapon station in back.

Regiments would then be compressed to 2 BN's each (LIGHT-Airmobile) in the same structure 4 rifle coy, and a cbt spt coy of a Mortar Pl, DFS, Recce and Pioneers Pl's but with Mobility Vehicle more suited to sling load than Jumping.  Cbt Spt would have BV-206 type vehicles
RCR, PPCLI, and Vandoo would be identical in TO&E

Armorer Reg't's would be LEO II, and retain a tracked Anti-Armor Pl.

CER - All Light, Each would have a Heavy Troop with a Tracked CCV type vehicle, 2 CER would retain a Jump Troop that could be attached to the Para Bn

Cav Regiments - 1 per Brigade
  LAV- APC x4 Sqn (each Sqn can move a Inf Coy +)
  LAV-Recce Sqn 2x Tp
  Fire Support Sqn w/ 2 Tp of LAV-Mortar (120mm) and 2x Tp LAV-AT


All RW assets (other than SOF Aviation) would be transferred to the Army, Army Aviation Bn's would be part of each of the 3 Bde's
1 AH Sqn
3 UH Sqn
1 CH Sqn

Artillery
  I'm burned out at this point so the guns can carry on 

All Army personnel would be run thru CABC (whatever it is now anyway) after their trade training prior to heading to their first unit. 

 

[GnyHwy]

So what I am inferring from your plan is that all armd and inf regts will have their own organic fire support.

I guess the guns will just go on leave and wait for you guys to get tired of blowing yourselves up and knocking helos out of the sky?  ;D

Perhaps it is just semantics, but once you remove the need for attachments, i.e. regiments/bns/coys already having everthing organic, it no longer can be called a team.  This goes against everything that I would define a cbt team as.  Instead of a grouping of experts and specialists, you will have a large group of persons that are "kinda" good at everthing. 

 

[KevinB]

No I am all for the guns I am just not sure what the best setup for the guns is.

I would want  at min 4 Bty's of M777's for each Regt as well a MLRS Bty, and ISR/ISTAR Bty.

Organic support is great as its organic and cannot be pulled away for a different task - but they are ranged, the Gun's offer a Bde and Div level support package.


Combat team wise - for certain operations the CAV units would embark the Inf and work with the Tankers - for other operations the Team may not be required.

  I was trying to envision a rapidly deployable and modular entity that would work for the current threats that are face.

 

[GR66]

The plug and play option is viable, however with the battlefield always evolving I could see a integrated RCEME force then needed for the swapping out of those modules on the battle field. This means a vehicles for transporting and a crane to remove and install modules, This would probably be a section sized First line team supplied directly from the Service battalion.

That's more complex than I was envisioning.  Certain weapon systems would out of practicality remain integral to the platform.  I don't see a crane lifting a 30mm Autocannon turret module out of a CCV and placing it as a pillbox.  However, a .50 cal, minigun, ATGM, AGL, mortar, etc. could be swapped from a vehicle mount to a tripod to a small wheeled chassis (similar to the old "infantry guns").  Sure there could be more complex swaps such as a sensor suite vs. C3 module vs. ambulance module vs. room for guys in back, etc but you wouldn't need to do those "on the fly" likely.

 

[MilEME09]

Okay I get where your coming from now, more "light" weapons right? Something like that I could see a C6/M2 mounted side by side with a C16 or ATGM

 

[a_majoor]

Fully agree with Kevin on the role of fire control. The ability to track and hit targets at long ranges is a huge change; even looking at 80's era articles like the "Emma Gees" or "First Clash" you see the ranges are only a fraction of what is possible today. Add PGMs and top attack munitions to the mix and the battlefield is far deadlier than ever before. 

 

[GnyHwy]

I know I have mentioned this before, but I will again.  I don't think it matters who is manning the tubes or guns, whether it be artyman, infantry or god help us crewman.  The idea of organic assets i.e. assets that cannot be stripped away is counter productive.  Fires need to be amassed at the right place and right time. 

For a cbt tm/BG to keep its tubes silent for the sake of having them organic, while an adjacent cbt tm/BG is fighting with only its own makes no sense to me.

Before Recceguy tears me a new one, I will explain my dig at the crewman.  I tease the armd because I am guessing that armd wouldn't place much value on the their tubes and they would likely be the redheaded stepchild within the regts, and would probably just deploy them as mobile smoke screen creators.  Which may not be a bad idea, but I would just give them 2 breach loaded mortars/sqn to be fired in low angle under a max ordinate of 500 m.

 

[KevinB]

Gny,

I am a firm believer in range bands.

The Section has a range band
The Pl has a range band
all the way up to the Div and higher.

Giving a Inf Bn back 81mm Mortars does not limit the Arty -- its not empire building, it is capability enhancement -- they can be used for support -- as well as remember we have more often than not deployed Inf units without Arty -- this at least allows a unit organic fire support.
  There is only 1 Arty Regt per Bde -- thus if we have multiple worldwide operations - the guns will not be able to go somewhere.

Ideally I want the guns crushing the enemy depth, and their guns if they have any, Inf can use its organic support to support limited operations ---

 

[a_majoor]

While the idea of range bands makes fire control relatively simple, I think we are moving beyond that concept.

Consider the Javelin or Gill/Spike ATGM. Both systems are man portable (in theory, every section could be issued one), and each can allow the platoon to engage targets out to 3000m away. Tanks can fire through tube missiles like LAHAT with a range of 13 kilometres. The Korean K2 also fires top attack rounds from the main gun. The Cockerill CT-CV turret can drop in to a LAV-III carrying a 105mm cannon with a 420 maximum elevation and a 10 km indirect range.

And modern sight systems provide a huge increase in effective range for traditional weapons like the Carl-G, or .50 HMG.

How to manage these capabilities and integrate the various weapons effects in an offensive or defensive operation is a question that needs to be addresed.