- Reaction score
- 8,234
- Points
- 1,160
Littorally offensive?Too bad they can't find a more aggressive term than 'Littoral'.
Like, you know, 'The Water Rats' or something like that
Littorally offensive?Too bad they can't find a more aggressive term than 'Littoral'.
Like, you know, 'The Water Rats' or something like that
Keep in mind US forces have AD assets spread out in all levels as well.Purely symbolic, I’d say. NASAMS, with its short range, wouldn’t be my first choice against stand off cruise missiles, which have been the standard armament of the Russian bomber force since the 1980’s.
The sole US Army Air Defense unit in Alaska doesn’t even have an anti-aircraft role — it’s a ballistic missile defense unit oriented more against North Korea than Russia.
But then there's this:The US Marines are going to a 15 pax squad. 12-15 is a good number IMHO...
“I am very confident that we have to reduce the size of the infantry battalion, I’m confident of that. Exactly how much, we gotta experiment with that. I say that because, for example, if you’re going to be light and lethal and able to operate in an austere environment, you have to be a little bit smaller and more powerful, you have to be, because if you’re still at the size we are now, I haven’t done anything to make myself more able to disaggregate underneath the watchful eye of a pacing threat,” Smith said in a phone interview this week.
Marines Testing Regiment at Heart of Emerging Island-Hopping Future - USNI News
The Marine Corps is starting to form and experiment with the littoral regiment at the heart of its modern-day island-hopping strategy, the head of Marine Corps combat development told USNI News. The stand-up of this first Marine Littoral Regiment is among the first and most visible steps being...news.usni.org
See my last post about smaller and more lethal.Once upon a time I was a Captain in charge of a 200 man (with females attached sometimes) company, from time to time. At the ripe old age of between 25 - 28 years.
It worked great. Mainly because I believe that those who put me in the job had the confidence that I could do it, and I had the right support from a great CSM, Pl Comds, CQMS etc etc
Curious.Keep in mind US forces have AD assets spread out in all levels as well.
Down to MANPADS at the squad level...
Stinger upgrades have continued.Curious.
Has the Stinger been upgraded at all over the years, or are the MANPADS using stock launchers & stock missiles acquired ages ago?
The reason I ask is because our (the west) focus was on Iraq and Afghanistan for so long, any available R&D money I’m assuming went into improved armoured vehicles and personal kit.
I would suggest 4 pers
Historically most soldiers/leaders can only look after 3 additional people in stress environments. It increases with experience of the soldiers under command, but rifle sections are generally not filled with 10+ year troops.
This has been borne out by a lot of study at various levels of training/experience.
Plus when you start adding stuff to the LAV - room becomes a premium, and I would gladly sacrifice a rifleman to make room for other enablers.
4 Also works for a lot of other vehicles - and if you really want - you can push the section size to 12 with 3x 4 man bricks -
Which then admittedly requires a slew of LAV's
Here's a hybrid of my original thought and the comments from KevinB (4-man teams) and FJAG (more support weapon-to-rifle ratio) above.Okay, I'll play devil's advocate.
The suggested format essentially almost doubles the number of LAVs in a rifle company with a significant supply and maintenance burden. I sometimes marvel at how the Russians manage to have a platoon operate out of three BMPs/BTRs. They do this by reducing the platoon to a total of thirty with ten per vehicle.
In that respect then a Cdn/US platoon already exceeds the combat power of a Russian platoon by 10-15% for manpower and 30% in APCs.
Maybe we should go in a different direction.
I won't advocate for a three-vehicle platoon but do wonder as to whether we need ten or even eight or nine dismounts per section. Maybe we can reduce the actual "section" to a four man brick and maybe take up two more GIB seats with weapon specialists/enablers: GPMG, Javelin, drone operator, CarlG/grenade launcher/mortarman, what have you. A platoon would then have: four three-man crewed LAVs and dismounts of a three-man platoon command element; three four-man "sections"; and four two-man weapon specialist/enabler teams - all for a total of 23 dismounts but with a stronger emphasis on working around the support weapons and LAV support rather than the rifles. The pl comd controls the bricks, the WO the weapons/enablers.
That gives each LAV a total of 8 (for the pl comd veh) or 9 (for each sect carrier) which leaves a little extra room for a ride along or ammo.
IMHO - save the extra LAVs and create another battalion with them.
Same for the medium LAV brigade/battalion.
For light battalions I would stay with a two brick, nine-man section and concentrate the specialist weapons/enablers at the platoon level divided between the pl comds veh and a separate weapons carrier (The extra brick compensates for the lack of the LAV support).
Marines Testing Regiment at Heart of Emerging Island-Hopping Future - USNI News
The Marine Corps is starting to form and experiment with the littoral regiment at the heart of its modern-day island-hopping strategy, the head of Marine Corps combat development told USNI News. The stand-up of this first Marine Littoral Regiment is among the first and most visible steps being...news.usni.org
That is good to hear. Obviously AD is incredibly important, but with such a huge focus on Iraq and Afghanistan I thought any funding would have been directed at vehicles/capabilities relevant to those conflicts.Stinger upgrades have continued.
In the grand scheme the PPE upgrades and various vehicle upgrades are a very minor portion of the budget - and a lot of those where funded outside the standard line item budget.
Around 4 years ago DoD (especially the Army) pivoted back from the small wars and started looking back at Peer/Near Peer threats - it's gotten major play in the past two years, but the AD aspect never really came off the table - even with the major focuses to Afghanistan and Iraq.
I believe it is threat level dependent - but the scale of issue goes down to the squad.In effect they clear the ground vehicles can’t. Signallers have become less guy carrying a radio, and more platoon IT specialist with the advent of 152s anyways.
I’m very curious about Manpads at squad level, I don’t know that I’ve seen any source for that? Surely something like that could be held at BN?
So I did a quick google, they’re running maneuver unit guys through while standing up their 10 SHORAD battalions.I believe it is threat level dependent - but the scale of issue goes down to the squad.
Admittedly the Stinger is pretty brain dead - even I can use one.
I'm amazed how the Army can make what is a 3hour class to some MOS's a 5 week class for 11B's.So I did a quick google, they’re running maneuver unit guys through while standing up their 10 SHORAD battalions.
Army rebuilding short-range air defense
The Army is now standing up short-range air defense units, known as SHORAD battalions, and offering a five-week pilot Stinger course for Soldiers in maneuver units.www.google.ca
So how they push them “in theatre” is likely a command decision.
Littorally offensive?
I'm amazed how the Army can make what is a 3hour class to some MOS's a 5 week class for 11B's.
Also considering all we did in Afghanistan in the 80's was give them missiles - and the Mujahdeen figured out to use it with the pictogram on the side.
It is legitimately about as brain dead as the Javelin - both will have battery issues if left on, but the Stinger won't let you target a friendly AC - so it's not exactly requiring massive amount of teaching.
I would imagine it’s the difference between how to employ vs how to pull the trigger. I can only hope those 5 weeks talk about how to function in an AD network.I'm amazed how the Army can make what is a 3hour class to some MOS's a 5 week class for 11B's.
Also considering all we did in Afghanistan in the 80's was give them missiles - and the Mujahdeen figured out to use it with the pictogram on the side.
It is legitimately about as brain dead as the Javelin - both will have battery issues if left on, but the Stinger won't let you target a friendly AC - so it's not exactly requiring massive amount of teaching.
I imagine several days in wasted in unboxing and verify content (based on other programs)I would imagine it’s the difference between how to employ vs how to pull the trigger. I can only hope those 5 weeks talk about how to function in an AD network.
Now I know I’m going to get flamed for this. And rightfully so, as I realize not everybody joins the military as a military enthusiast, cadet, or any military involvement beforehand.I'm amazed how the Army can make what is a 3hour class to some MOS's a 5 week class for 11B's.
Also considering all we did in Afghanistan in the 80's was give them missiles - and the Mujahdeen figured out to use it with the pictogram on the side.
It is legitimately about as brain dead as the Javelin - both will have battery issues if left on, but the Stinger won't let you target a friendly AC - so it's not exactly requiring massive amount of teaching.