Infantry of Tomorrow

[Oldgateboatdriver]

  I haven't found another force in the world that had a pioneer platoon, and a reconnaissance and sniper platoon as separate entities (Marines has scout snipers, 4 tms per Bn). All of them mechanized.

Not necessarily mechanized, or 4 teams per Bn, but I think you will find that the Marines "stole" the idea of Pioneer/recce/sniper platoons as separate entities from the French Foreign Legion.

 

[Haligonian]

I was referring to us.

The Marines have a scout sniper platoon of four teams vs our recce platoon and our sniper "platoon".  Our Sense capability is substantially more.
Marines have no pioneers.

 

[Infanteer]

I'd be open to putting the Machine Guns in a company machine gun section as well where a company could mass machine gun fires.  I think this would result in a higher level of machine gunnery as well with a focus on employing proper machine gun techniques.

A valid concept - German MG section used to have 8 guys to service a Spandau - they carried ammo, spare barrels, tripod, etc.  An MG is so much more when it isn't Bloggins on his belly letting out short bursts.

The Regiment holds the majority of the trucks and has the Assault Amphibian Bn.  The Regt can task organize a Bn with either asset creating a motorized or mechanized Bn.

Remember, AAV Bns are actually a Divisional asset for the Marines (like tanks) and there are only 2 Bns for the entire Corps.  I worked with Marines from 3 Assault Amphib Bn as they were tasked to support the Regiment we were training with.

Not necessarily mechanized, or 4 teams per Bn, but I think you will find that the Marines "stole" the idea of Pioneer/recce/sniper platoons as separate entities from the French Foreign Legion.

Don't think it was FFL - most modern battalion organizations are First World War/Interwar creations.

 

[Haligonian]

Remember, AAV Bns are actually a Divisional asset for the Marines (like tanks) and there are only 2 Bns for the entire Corps.  I worked with Marines from 3 Assault Amphib Bn as they were tasked to support the Regiment we were training with.

Thanks for reminding there.  You of course are correct and the same goes for the trucks in the Log units as well, the guns, HIMARS, and all other cbt support.  Those assets are held at Division with the Regiments being infantry pure with either 3 or 4 Bns and having these assets attached to form either RLT/RCTs in the Ground Combat Element of the MAGTF. 

I think the best thing we could take from the Marines is the integration between their Ground Combat Element and the Aviation Combat Element.  If we could get the support from the Air Force that the GCE gets from the ACE then that would put us in a different league.  I have a hard time seeing this as a possibility as the Air Force is a completely separate element without an abundance of air frames to conduct Deep and Close Air Support.

 

[CougarKing]

Something that may be fighting alongside the infantry of tomorrow:

Defence Tech.org

Ripsaw UGV Can Reload Itself in a Fight
by MATT COX on MAY 12, 2015


Army weapons officials recently showed off its latest effort at arming an unmanned vehicle to keep soldiers safer on the battlefield.

The Ripsaw unmanned ground vehicle, though still in development, has been tested and is capable of driving up to 1 kilometer ahead of various types of formations, said Bob Testa, lead engineer for the Remote Weapons Branch of the Armament Research, Development and Engineering Center, or ARDEC.

Rather than reinvent something, Testa said his team selected a vehicle already produced by Howe and Howe Technologies, since it had remote driving capabilities. In 2009, “Popular Science” magazine named the Ripsaw the invention of the year.

Testa and his team converted the vehicle for Army use, according to a recent Army press release.
The Ripsaw is armed with a Common Remotely Operated Weapons Station, or CROWS, a system that’s been used in combat as far back as 2004 in Iraq.

(...SNIPPED)

 

[Haligonian]

Some interesting thoughts on the integration of drones at the section level.

http://warontherocks.com/2016/05/an-infantry-squad-for-the-21st-century/

 

[markppcli]

Whats your personal opinion on the of the section?

Since you asked and @Fabius suggested this to be the place to discuss I thought I’d offer my thoughts here.

I think the sections first and foremost needs to be defined by its tasks and the space it can fight in. Its tasks are known, but with the increase in thermal optics and small drones we can see platoon operating further and further apart. I’d suggest that a section however needs to be able to effect out to around 800 ms. I suggest that because it’s the practical range of shoulder fired weapons and MGs without tripods. Once we start requiring more static implements to be its outside of the sections purview.

What kind of effects? Well the section needs to do its jobs of assaulting small positions, ie two man trenches and Ops on its own and defending a portion of the platoons frontage. To do that we need to suppress infantry and destroy light armour / hard points. Ie we need automatic fire and the ability to project an anti armour effect, even better if it can also project HE as that aids in suppression. Right now we achieve that with two LMGs and M72s as needed. If we rethink the arms of the section to be the M72 is the first thing that needs to be corrected and the MG is going to stem from how that gets replaced. If we continue down the disposable route, ie AT4 or NLAW or some other option, then we don’t require a dedicated gunner and the two lmg solution can continue in a modernized form. However if we look and say we’d rather have a CGm4 in the section we’ll now we’ve pulled two more bayonets and I don’t think we can extend a laden CG team to be pepper podding along side riflemen. So then I’d want something heavier that can fire longer burst, preferable at greater range, in more of a fire group / assault group model. Ie a c6a1, the Danish m60, or something along those lines.

 

[KevinB]

One can always detach heavier systems to a platoon Weapons Det for certain operations, or leave them in the vehicle if not required.

I’m of the opinion that the Arms Room concept needs to be better embraced by the General Purpose Forces (non SOF). These requirements for operations are becoming to heavy for dismounted carry of all effectors, and so some sort of vehicle support is required outside of confined space areas.

 

[PrairieFella]

Since you asked and @Fabius suggested this to be the place to discuss I thought I’d offer my thoughts here.

I think the sections first and foremost needs to be defined by its tasks and the space it can fight in. Its tasks are known, but with the increase in thermal optics and small drones we can see platoon operating further and further apart. I’d suggest that a section however needs to be able to effect out to around 800 ms. I suggest that because it’s the practical range of shoulder fired weapons and MGs without tripods. Once we start requiring more static implements to be its outside of the sections purview.

What kind of effects? Well the section needs to do its jobs of assaulting small positions, ie two man trenches and Ops on its own and defending a portion of the platoons frontage. To do that we need to suppress infantry and destroy light armour / hard points. Ie we need automatic fire and the ability to project an anti armour effect, even better if it can also project HE as that aids in suppression. Right now we achieve that with two LMGs and M72s as needed. If we rethink the arms of the section to be the M72 is the first thing that needs to be corrected and the MG is going to stem from how that gets replaced. If we continue down the disposable route, ie AT4 or NLAW or some other option, then we don’t require a dedicated gunner and the two lmg solution can continue in a modernized form. However if we look and say we’d rather have a CGm4 in the section we’ll now we’ve pulled two more bayonets and I don’t think we can extend a laden CG team to be pepper podding along side riflemen. So then I’d want something heavier that can fire longer burst, preferable at greater range, in more of a fire group / assault group model. Ie a c6a1, the Danish m60, or something along those lines.

Does the CG ever go to the section level? I thought that they are held at the platoon or company level.

Would the infantry section of the UK be a good model where instead of two LMGs they have a GPMG and a sharpshooter?

 

[markppcli]

Does the CG ever go to the section level? I thought that they are held at the platoon or company level.

Would the infantry section of the UK be a good model where instead of two LMGs they have a GPMG and a sharpshooter?

CGs were a section weapon, then became a platoon weapon. For a long time the SRAAW H - Eryx was a section level weapon. Right now we don’t have that ability to defeat armour at the section level and I care more about that than I do a designated marksman. In the UK context they have NLAWs pushed to the sections.

 

[FJAG]

CGs were a section weapon, then became a platoon weapon. For a long time the SRAAW H - Eryx was a section level weapon. Right now we don’t have that ability to defeat armour at the section level and I care more about that than I do a designated marksman. In the UK context they have NLAWs pushed to the sections.

The MAW came out in the late 60s and was really spread around quite a bit. We even had four of them in each gun battery for local defence. This was the mech rifle section org starting in 68.

 

[FJAG]

Interesting article/video on the US light infantry battalion's new Multi-purpose company that is replaceing the bn's weapon's company.

 

[IRepoCans]

Since you asked and @Fabius suggested this to be the place to discuss I thought I’d offer my thoughts here.

I think the sections first and foremost needs to be defined by its tasks and the space it can fight in. Its tasks are known, but with the increase in thermal optics and small drones we can see platoon operating further and further apart. I’d suggest that a section however needs to be able to effect out to around 800 ms. I suggest that because it’s the practical range of shoulder fired weapons and MGs without tripods. Once we start requiring more static implements to be its outside of the sections purview.

What kind of effects? Well the section needs to do its jobs of assaulting small positions, ie two man trenches and Ops on its own and defending a portion of the platoons frontage. To do that we need to suppress infantry and destroy light armour / hard points. Ie we need automatic fire and the ability to project an anti armour effect, even better if it can also project HE as that aids in suppression. Right now we achieve that with two LMGs and M72s as needed. If we rethink the arms of the section to be the M72 is the first thing that needs to be corrected and the MG is going to stem from how that gets replaced. If we continue down the disposable route, ie AT4 or NLAW or some other option, then we don’t require a dedicated gunner and the two lmg solution can continue in a modernized form. However if we look and say we’d rather have a CGm4 in the section we’ll now we’ve pulled two more bayonets and I don’t think we can extend a laden CG team to be pepper podding along side riflemen. So then I’d want something heavier that can fire longer burst, preferable at greater range, in more of a fire group / assault group model. Ie a c6a1, the Danish m60, or something along those lines.

I agree on the section needing to be defined by tasks and threat range, but I wonder if the institution would demand or enforce sects and pls to exercise those tasks (given the number of times I've done a bunker assault within the context of a pl or coy attack, or lack thereof... I doubt it). The other issue is that the current dismounted/LI sect loadout most assuredly does not effect out to 800m let alone 600m.

I do believe the LMG needs to be replaced by something 7.62 (and there are solutions that allow for it to be as light as the C9 or lighter when loaded with 100-150rnds), I also maintain the belief that the sect kills primarily through the application of HE (grenades thrown or launched, and rockets) and that a sharpshooter rifle is a likely option but not necessarily an always drawn system. And for those that argue the logistics of mixed ammunition sections, our peers in Australia, New Zealand and the UK seem to make it work to great effect with no issues.

For LI Sects (or mech rerolled to task for a theatre) need a disposable man portable AT solution (NLAW fits the bill and is proven), and I'd argue Mech Sects should have ATGMs (Spike LR or Jav II, I'm partial to the Jav).

The current (latest) inf sect and pl operations publication has set some of the ground work for the above, but the company and bn organizations need to follow IOT properly define the role, tasks, pers and equipment of the sect and what can and should be moved up to a pl wpns det/sect (mech/light) or the company fire support group.

 

[KevinB]

The problem with very light machine guns is they are generally an assault machine gun, not a light version of a GPMG. So they are great guns for attacking or long walks, but not ideal for the defensive, as they generally lack any sustained fire ability, in terms of sustained volume or the ability to put into a tripod and record targets.

I’m a bigger fan of the arms room concept for MG’s in that one has 1-2 GPMG’s per section/squad/detachment for defensive positions that can be vehicle mounted when JT used for the defensive. Then LW AMG’s for offensive roles. I don’t think one needs 7.62mm at the section/squad with some of the current ammunition natures in testing.

I’m less of a believer in 40mm and smaller HE grenade payloads being effective mass killers.

 

[daftandbarmy]

The problem with very light machine guns is they are generally an assault machine gun, not a light version of a GPMG. So they are great guns for attacking or long walks, but not ideal for the defensive, as they generally lack any sustained fire ability, in terms of sustained volume or the ability to put into a tripod and record targets.

I’m a bigger fan of the arms room concept for MG’s in that one has 1-2 GPMG’s per section/squad/detachment for defensive positions that can be vehicle mounted when JT used for the defensive. Then LW AMG’s for offensive roles. I don’t think one needs 7.62mm at the section/squad with some of the current ammunition natures in testing.

I’m less of a believer in 40mm and smaller HE grenade payloads being effective mass killers.

Which is why you still need a 60mm MOR in the Pl Wpns Det, of course ...

 

[Fabius]

Some miscellaneous thoughts.

First, overall I think I prefer the concept of an assault element and a support element. Although the number of assault elements to support elements can differ I like the concept both for Section and Platoon.

Second, to a degree I believe that infantry sections who don’t fight from a IFV need to look different from those that do fight from an IFV. Most obviously in the fact that for IFV based infantry, the IFV is the support element.

Third, I agree in the arms room locker concept. This is one reason I prefer the assault and support elements vs all elements being the same. With an assault and support element construct your support element has more people allocated to carry either multiples of the same weapons and more ammo or different complementary weapons to cause compounding dilemmas for the En. However the arms room concept also allows the assault elements to draw on heavier crew served weapons if they are going static.

Fourth, the size of sections and the number of weapons and systems needs to be carefully considered in terms of mass, specialization, and sustainment. A section of 8 personnel with an 84mm, 2 MGs, a DMR, and a UAS and an IC and 2IC will compared to a WW2 German section have less ability to move the EIS and ammo for a proper fire plan for each wpn. The German section of 8 carried one MG42 with tripod and ammo.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Now for some humour, Canada's new anti-thermal gear

https://twitter.com/x/status/1908511114847023347

 

[PrairieFella]

Now for some humour, Canada's new anti-thermal gear

https://twitter.com/x/status/1908511114847023347

Snake? Snake? SNAAAAAAAAAKE!!!

 

[KevinB]

The MAW came out in the late 60s and was really spread around quite a bit. We even had four of them in each gun battery for local defence. This was the mech rifle section org starting in 68.

Pretty sure that ONLY 4 CMBG got a 84/section and it was a 1/Platoon for all other Infantry units, with 1 M72/Section.
The same way the 113's in Germany had M2 .50's for all, but in Canada there was a mix of C5A1's and M2's.

 

[IRepoCans]

The problem with very light machine guns is they are generally an assault machine gun, not a light version of a GPMG. So they are great guns for attacking or long walks, but not ideal for the defensive, as they generally lack any sustained fire ability, in terms of sustained volume or the ability to put into a tripod and record targets.

I’m a bigger fan of the arms room concept for MG’s in that one has 1-2 GPMG’s per section/squad/detachment for defensive positions that can be vehicle mounted when JT used for the defensive. Then LW AMG’s for offensive roles. I don’t think one needs 7.62mm at the section/squad with some of the current ammunition natures in testing.

I’m less of a believer in 40mm and smaller HE grenade payloads being effective mass killers.

I agree on an AMG vs a GPMG with an arms room concept, with the ammunition I don't see NATO (and with it Canada making any big moves out of the 5.56 and 7.62 combination); especially with all the difficulties plaguing the American programs for the M7 and the 338 Norma GPMG. But there are things from the program we definitely can make use of: the lighter weight casing and link where at a minimum we can achieve commonality between our AMG and GPMG in terms of ammunition logistics (plus I'm tired of having to teach the C9 as a 600m effective weapon system when the beaten zones past 300-400m say otherwise).

A light infantry locker being: 1-2 AMGs, 1-2 GPMGs, 2-4 lightweight disposable anti-structure munitions, 2-4 lightweight disposable ATGMs, 1 sharpshooter rifle and 2 grenade launchers (preferably stand alone) would give one hell of a multi-tool that can actually be tailored to task, let alone 3 sections with the same locker before even getting to the pl wpn det and/or coy FSG.

Some miscellaneous thoughts.

First, overall I think I prefer the concept of an assault element and a support element. Although the number of assault elements to support elements can differ I like the concept both for Section and Platoon.

Second, to a degree I believe that infantry sections who don’t fight from a IFV need to look different from those that do fight from an IFV. Most obviously in the fact that for IFV based infantry, the IFV is the support element.

Third, I agree in the arms room locker concept. This is one reason I prefer the assault and support elements vs all elements being the same. With an assault and support element construct your support element has more people allocated to carry either multiples of the same weapons and more ammo or different complementary weapons to cause compounding dilemmas for the En. However the arms room concept also allows the assault elements to draw on heavier crew served weapons if they are going static.

Fourth, the size of sections and the number of weapons and systems needs to be carefully considered in terms of mass, specialization, and sustainment. A section of 8 personnel with an 84mm, 2 MGs, a DMR, and a UAS and an IC and 2IC will compared to a WW2 German section have less ability to move the EIS and ammo for a proper fire plan for each wpn. The German section of 8 carried one MG42 with tripod and ammo.

Assault/rifle group and gun group have always existed, just the inexperience and/or laziness of the establishment saw the over exaggeration of balanced assault groups and frontals. It should be the standard practice, but there also is utility in having the section organized in a balanced manner (especially in the context of a point section / security element) but drilled into shaking out into a aslt/rifle and gun gp when fixing to launch an assault (which many NCOs here have done, myself included).

I would add that the mechanized sect would have the benefit of the IFV also being able to carry a portion of their locker should the sect/pl need to reorg to a new task before hitting a DP or moving to a rearward harbour area. (I see it more so carrying the optional/additional ATGMs the sect could dismount with).