Infanteer said:
....
I am still a strong believer that if you can't carry it it isn't an infantry weapon. If the weapon needs a vehicle to move it then it belongs to either the Artillery or the Armoured. That means, in my view, that 2" to 81mm are infantry weapons.
I don't think such a sharp dividing line is necessary or useful. Weapon systems should be procured to provide capability requirements. If an Infantry Bn's job is to "own" ground from 2-3 kilometers, then maybe a towed heavy mortar is the right system. Let doctrine and tactics drive the requirement, not rigid equipment restrictions.
Question. Who mans the 120mm mortars in a Stryker Bn? I suspect they are 11 series mortarmen, but I could be wrong.
I'm guessing that you are probably right on the Stryker 120s. But there again they have Strykers.
Which brings us to the "dividing line".
Your point about hard and fast rules is valid. But every discussion, and every decision, needs a starting point. So perhaps we can view my assertion as analogous to being a Stop sign. Then we can agree to treat it with either Germanic precision or with Italian contempt - as circumstances and national temperament permit.
Suppose I offer as a compromise that the infantry battalion is primarily the riflemen in the rifle companies and that as the rifleman's battle is geared towards fighting in close proximity with the enemy (Apologies to TV and the Infantry School) "by day and by night, regardless of season and terrain". Then it makes sense to me that, when technically possible, the infantry should be supplied with as much support as can be brought to bear as possible.
Generally speaking the ability of the infantry to close with the enemy has been limited to a greater extent by its transport than by its own inherent limitations. By that I mean that men on foot can climb a mountain in a blizzard at night, potentially gaining a tactical advantage over the enemy, even if their supporting vehicles can't (Bandvagons and helos notwithstanding). Weapons exist that are compatible with that type of deployment. It makes sense to me to equip the footborne soldiery with the heaviest calibre, longest range weapons that can be carried by them so that they can take them with them under all circumstances.
Now should that stricture be limited to the Rifle Coys, or should it be applied more broadly to the Bn at large? That is another worthy topic of debate.
But.
I would argue that once you cross the vehicular threshold you end in very murky waters where it gets difficult to set boundaries within the continua of LOSVs to Leo2s and ATCs to LAV-Hs.
How are forces that are equipped with Bison/Coyotes, LAV IIIs and TAPVs fundamentally different in that, from a strategic point of view they are all equally deployable to the same theaters with the same long range transport facilities required?*
All the vehicles mentioned weigh something like 12 to 15 tonnes and require at least a C130 to move them.
Conversely an ATC/LOSV can be deployed by a Milverado or a Griffin.
A Milverado can be deployed by Cyclone or a Cormorant.
A BvS10 requires a CH-147 to deploy.
A CH-147F can't lift a Bison or a TLAV, much less a LAV-H, but it could lift an old fashioned Lynx, or AVGP-Grizzly, or even an empty M113A1.
Those factoids drive a whole bunch of other discussions that are far from the point of this thread but need to be considered when contemplating the whole and trying to decide how to divide it up into useful and manageable chunks.
My starting point is that for something to be considered suitable for infantry use it needs to be possible to haul it up that mountain side, in a blizzard, in the dark.
Pistols, bayonets, hand grenades and M72s are no brainers.
C6s, HMGs, and 60-81mm mortars have been hauled up as have tripod mounted TOWs.
Can the same be said about C16s and 120mm mortars?
*(Even TLAVs could be considered as a similar vehicle (tracks notwithstanding).)
Edit: Edited to add - perhaps some other metrics that could be considered:
The weapons that could accompany a Section on board a CC-144 Challenger (anything up to a C16 and an 81mm I am reckoning)
The weapons and carriers that could accompany troops on board a CC-150 Combi (anything the Challenger can carry plus ATCs, LOSVs and Iltis's but not Silverados, Bv206s or JLTVs).
And finally, which would you rather have accompany you on the first day of deployment in a single C-130: a bucket load of Gators, 4 to 8 Iltises or a single TAPV?
Sorry for the digressions but I can't see how any of these matters can be discussed without considering all the related factors.
My apologies to all.
