Ricks Napkin Challenge- The Infantry Section and Platoon

[GR66]

In a section or platoon? I think @Infanteer is trying to steer us back on topic.

I think it's relevant to the discussion as the concept of operations for the LAV mounted infantry at the Section/Platoon level could be different depending if the LAVs have ATGMs mounted.

I'm suggesting that @Infanteer is likely correct that in a LAV Army a dedicated ATGM vehicle and the Company/Battalion level is probably more appropriate than ATGMs mounted on every Section LAV.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Interestingly, all of the examples you provided (except the Stryker CROWS-J) are tracked IFVs and if I'm not mistaken the Strykers are part of a trial for the system by the 2nd SBCT only (50% of ISCs and Scout vehicles receiving the CROWS-J instead of the standard CROWS RWS).

Does that indicate that only those units with tracked IFVs that can keep up with their accompanying tanks are being considered for ATGM mounts on the vehicles at the Section/Platoon level? IFVs have the need for mounted operations but APCs providing transport for dismounted operations don't require?

In a Canadian context it may be one thing if we were to procure something like a CV90 or Puma that can keep up with our Leopards to consider the need for a vehicle mounted ATGM, but does it make sense for the LAV? If the main purpose and value of the LAV is the safe transport of the dismounted Section inside the vehicle then perhaps an APS would be a better investment than an ATGM for the vehicle.

Whether mechanized or not, viable Infantry formations need to be able to dismount and dig in their ATGMs and machine guns - as required - at fairly short notice.

I'm not sure what that means with respect to the mounting/ dismounting features on vehicle borne weapons...

 

[Kirkhill]

If by Light Armor you mean a standard car - yes.
M993 won't do much to something like a LAV.

No. It probably won't.

But a BTR are 200 m? A BMD? Grizzly/LAVII generation?
Of course an M2/M3 with AP would be nicer. But it's also heavier and requires a vehicle to port it. Just like a 40mm GMG needs a vehicle.

The C6 is likely to be on hand if the unit is on foot. The 50s and the GMGs? The M242s?

Either way, I would really like to have an assortment of man portable ATGMs, ASMs and SAMs available.

 

[Kirkhill]

Whether mechanized or not, viable Infantry formations need to be able to dismount and dig in their ATGMs and machine guns - as required - at fairly short notice.

I'm not sure what that means with respect to the mounting/ dismounting features on vehicle borne weapons...

2 CLUs and one set of Missiles?

 

[Infanteer]

10 minutes of searching to confirm.
German Puma - Contract signed in 2008 to integrate Spike L2 onto the Turrets.
Australian Land Force 300 - Both contenders (KF-41 Lynx and AS21 Redback) have integrated ATGMs (Spike L2)
Polish Borsuk IFV - Underway program with Spike L2 ATGMs integrated in the turret.
Dutch CV9035NL MLU -Spike L2 ATGMs integrated in the turret
US Army is retro fitting their Stryker Bde LAVs with CROWS-J RWS. Note these are the ISC variants being equipped NOT dedicated ATGM carriers.

I don't know but to be that's a fair number of Armys and its not 1970s tech on only BMPs and Bradleys.

I am not suggesting IFVs try to go toe to toe with MBTs, but you never know what happens. For Mech Infantry the IFV/APC/ whatever it is is part of the Infantry Section in my opinion and needs to be considered.

I forgot that the Germans had updated the Puma. As for the others, all projects underway, so not in service now (which is what I was referring to with my comment).

As well, these are the 2020s solution I was referring to above, as they all could have NLOS capability, which is a good thing. I could see these being cued from another location, which would reduce the vulnerability of the platform launching the missile. I'm not against this, but there is a risk that if you equip an IFV to destroy tanks, the impetus is to go and destroy tanks. The tactics need to be disciplined.

Wrong Technology for the Wrong Tactics: The Infantry Fighting Vehicle | Military Operations | Discussions On The Conduct Of War

The Journal of Military Operations is an online peer-reviewed publication concerned with warfare, the conduct of war. It focuses on engagement with the enemy; combat; fighting. Regular articles from leading authors.

www.tjomo.com

So something like the proposal for a Boxer mounting Brimstone launchers...or ideally a multi-munition tube launch system that can fire a variety of missiles/UAVs/Loitering Munitions depending on the threat environment?

That's the ticket for a Coy or Bn level anti-armour umbrella to allow the rifle platoons to do their business.

 

[Infanteer]

7.62 mm x 51 Armor Piercing 8 (M993) - Nammo

www.nammo.com

I don't even think we employ that ammo, nor would I really expect MG teams to carry it in case they needed to do a quick change to engage a very light AFV (which seems suicidal).

I'd probably park this one alongside the the guide the one Urban Ops commentator pushed on taking tank optics out with paintball guns.

 

[GR66]

Whether mechanized or not, viable Infantry formations need to be able to dismount and dig in their ATGMs and machine guns - as required - at fairly short notice.

I'm not sure what that means with respect to the mounting/ dismounting features on vehicle borne weapons...

I think it's accepted by all here that all of our infantry units (LAV or Light) require handheld ATGMs. The question is whether the LAVs require a vehicle-mounted ATGM as well.

As for MG's I guess some may be questioning if the C6 (or equivalent) needs to be available to the dismounts in the Mech Battalions, or if the 25mm/C6 on the vehicles is sufficient for support. Personally I'm of the opinion that the dismounts should have a GPMG available under the assumption that the LAV may not always be available (or alive) to provide the support.

 

[IKnowNothing]

I'm suggesting that @Infanteer is likely correct that in a LAV Army a dedicated ATGM vehicle and the Company/Battalion level is probably more appropriate than ATGMs mounted on every Section LAV.

Is there value in a middle ground? Not every section LAV but maybe 1 (even without reloads) as a platoon asset?

 

[markppcli]

Interestingly, all of the examples you provided (except the Stryker CROWS-J) are tracked IFVs and if I'm not mistaken the Strykers are part of a trial for the system by the 2nd SBCT only (50% of ISCs and Scout vehicles receiving the CROWS-J instead of the standard CROWS RWS).

Does that indicate that only those units with tracked IFVs that can keep up with their accompanying tanks are being considered for ATGM mounts on the vehicles at the Section/Platoon level? IFVs have the need for mounted operations but APCs providing transport for dismounted operations don't require?

In a Canadian context it may be one thing if we were to procure something like a CV90 or Puma that can keep up with our Leopards to consider the need for a vehicle mounted ATGM, but does it make sense for the LAV? If the main purpose and value of the LAV is the safe transport of the dismounted Section inside the vehicle then perhaps an APS would be a better investment than an ATGM for the vehicle.

It’s also worth noting that CROWs will be fielded side by side with the new Stryker Dragoons, presently in mixed platoons but who knows what the future holds.

It’s not just tracked IFVs, Freccias mount them as well, I believe the Aussie boxers are mounting them as well (not an IFV in role, but same chassis).

My original remark was more about @Kirkhill perhaps misinterpreting what I was getting at. While the section in the offence needs to be mobile and aggressive; it’s still needs to be able to provide its own base of fire. It also should be able to project explosives and anti tank rounds on its own. While the LAV is, and should remain, organic to the section, that doesn’t mean the section and platoon don’t get cut away from them, or that their appropriate tools for every job.


I don’t see the section itself needing to expand much beyond a 5-700 m range band frankly. A Carl Gustav M4, with the aim point BCS sight, and the ability to task tailor rounds is probably a very good option to fit that explosive projection. The 2 LMG vs 1 GPMG is something where I see both sides of the argument. Both can be left in the car if the job is to quickly assault something, or both brought out if needed.

@GR66 the question was really should we continue with C9s in the section, forming two identical fire teams, or shift to a C6 and operate as gun and assault groups.

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

What is an infantry platoon expected to be able to do? Going back to the first page, I assume that it is operating as part of a company/combat team that in turn is part of a battalion/battle group.

I figure that an infantry platoon needs to be able to retain a piece of terrain and be able to destroy any platoon-sized element that tries to take it from them, including a platoon of tanks. It should be able to defeat a company-sized attack of infantry but perhaps a tank company is too much to handle unsupported. How big is the piece of terrain? How big is a company battle position? What is the battlespace for a section, platoon and company? How far does it all have to reach?

For offensive operations, what size element do we expect one of our platoons to destroy? What is the balance between having lots of support weapons or having folks that are using grenades and small arms? How resilient in terms of being able to take casualties does the platoon need to be as it clears through an objective?

Regarding ATGMs on enemy force vehicles at CMTC, my takeaway from two MAPLE RESOLVES (one on either side of the battle) was that we should equip our forces with WES god guns. Those things are lethal AF. Invisible missiles that have no signature, fly like a laser and always kill are great!

 

[KevinB]

I’m always of the opinion that it is better to have (or the ability to have) equipment and not need it than need it and not have it.

But I think @Infanteer is 110% correct when he cautions that it may lead IFV’s to consider Tank Hunting.

I think every ISV should have a cannon and ATGM, but the ATGM is ideally NLOS, and viewed in the Defensive as part of the larger Anti Armor Plan - and in the mounted attack as more of a ‘oh shit’ emergency solution.

The Hellfire equipped Bradley was a test bed for this concept 10+ years ago, and it lingered only at Proof of Concept because just like the CA the US Army has ADHD combined with tunnel vision and often can only focus on the immediate problem in front of them, and is easily distracted by the next shiny thing.

My original remark was more about @Kirkhill perhaps misinterpreting what I was getting at. While the section in the offence needs to be mobile and aggressive; it’s still needs to be able to provide its own base of fire. It also should be able to project explosives and anti tank rounds on its own. While the LAV is, and should remain, organic to the section, that doesn’t mean the section and platoon don’t get cut away from them, or that their appropriate tools for every job.

Agreed.

However

I don’t see the section itself needing to expand much beyond a 5-700 m range band frankly. A Carl Gustav M4, with the aim point BCS sight, and the ability to task tailor rounds is probably a very good option to fit that explosive projection.

Ranges are getting longer.
I don’t like the idea of getting hit without being able to return fire.
CG84 in the M4 version isn’t a terrible system and has a role, but I think the option to field Javelin at the Platoon and Section needs to be considered in relation to the theater.
Against a Near Peer larger conventional army, I think you need to be able to push down those systems to ensure you can defend against a focused push. Bonus points if the CLU can be linked to higher and then be integrated in a larger AA plan.

The 2 LMG vs 1 GPMG is something where I see both sides of the argument. Both can be left in the car if the job is to quickly assault something, or both brought out if needed.

I think 2 LWGPMG are needed

 

[Infanteer]

What is an infantry platoon expected to be able to do? Going back to the first page, I assume that it is operating as part of a company/combat team that in turn is part of a battalion/battle group.

I figure that an infantry platoon needs to be able to retain a piece of terrain and be able to destroy any platoon-sized element that tries to take it from them, including a platoon of tanks. It should be able to defeat a company-sized attack of infantry but perhaps a tank company is too much to handle unsupported. How big is the piece of terrain? How big is a company battle position? What is the battlespace for a section, platoon and company? How far does it all have to reach?

For offensive operations, what size element do we expect one of our platoons to destroy? What is the balance between having lots of support weapons or having folks that are using grenades and small arms? How resilient in terms of being able to take casualties does the platoon need to be as it clears through an objective?

These are all the right questions to ask. We need to focus on the process and the task and how it is integrated in the larger whole, as opposed to the equipment (which many here get laser focused on). Just because a piece of kit is capable of something doesn't mean we should do it (Multi-Mission Effect Vehicle, anyone?).

Ranges are getting longer.
I don’t like the idea of getting hit without being able to return fire.
CG84 in the M4 version isn’t a terrible system and has a role, but I think the option to field Javelin at the Platoon and Section needs to be considered in relation to the theater.
Against a Near Peer larger conventional army, I think you need to be able to push down those systems to ensure you can defend against a focused push. Bonus points if the CLU can be linked to higher and then be integrated in a larger AA plan.

Related to the point above, ranges for equipment get longer, but not necessarily ranges for an organization. The process and issues like span of control and task are more critical in determining range than actual system performance.

In your example, the platoon and company are better situated to deal with a threat beyond the 700m band.

 

[KevinB]

Related to the point above, ranges for equipment get longer, but not necessarily ranges for an organization. The process and issues like span of control and task are more critical in determining range than actual system performance.

Agree there, which is one reason I think the CA is actually decently positioned - you don’t have anything currently, so new items can take advantage of the newer capabilities for data linkage (which requires Radio/Data and a switched on G6 effort understanding the issues too.

In your example, the platoon and company are better situated to deal with a threat beyond the 700m band.

Or perhaps just to coordinate it?
If you have the capability at Section level, you don’t needed as much additional equipment or PY’s higher, and those additions can be tied to coordination.

Also it creates redundancy as enemies will try to find/fix/destroy those assets prior to rolling their tanks - and if they are available across the spectrum it makes it much harder to isolate.

 

[FJAG]

I'm not against this, but there is a risk that if you equip an IFV to destroy tanks, the impetus is to go and destroy tanks. The tactics need to be disciplined.

That's a very thought provoking article and based on his definitions and the current characteristics of the LAV, we've already crossed over to an IFV by virtue of the reduced number of dismounts.

I guess the real question is what were the doctrinal specifications that got Canada to go with a turreted LAV (with limited dismounts) while the Americans went with the Stryker and a small RWS (with a full squad for dismounts)

Where does that get us then?

Do we modify the LAV to take off turrets and up the number of dismounts? Or up the weapon systems available to the three man LAV crew? or stay status quo?

For me its always been question of form follows function. There's very little usefulness in designing or redesigning the LAV until we have a very clear understanding what it is we expect from the rifle section. Unfortunately we're caught in a loop when we strive to have an across the board agile and configurable army that includes armoured infantry that is both medium (one where the dismounted section is king and the vehicle close to mere transport) as well as heavy (where the vehicle is an integral part of the fight)

Until we hammer out that doctrine--and IMHO separate our heavy force from our medium force both in equipment holdings and attitude--we will be compromising both functions by virtue of a neither fish nor fowl form.

 

[Kirkhill]

I don't even think we employ that ammo, nor would I really expect MG teams to carry it in case they needed to do a quick change to engage a very light AFV (which seems suicidal).

I'd probably park this one alongside the the guide the one Urban Ops commentator pushed on taking tank optics out with paintball guns.

Why would the mg team need to carry all the ammo types? Any more than why would the section need to carry all the CG84 types. Or all the M72s?

What happens if that kind of stuff is in the Battalion's 72 hour allotment and distribution is addressed during Prep for Battle?

It can also be held at CQ along with mines and barbed wire and machetes.

 

[KevinB]

Why would the mg team need to carry all the ammo types?

Outside of SOCOM M993 and M995 (the 5.56mm AP) is virtually non existent.
As opposed to WP where 7.62x54R API-T is near standard.

It just isn’t fielded currently non most NATO countries militaries.

Any more than why would the section need to carry all the CG84 types. Or all the M72s?

What happens if that kind of stuff is in the Battalion's 72 hour allotment and distribution is addressed during Prep for Battle?

It can also be held at CQ along with mines and barbed wire and machetes.

I don’t disagree with you in theory - but if you don’t ever have it, it can’t be issued.
It’s also $$ and wears guns significantly faster than the standard 4:1 ball/tracer belts.

 

[Infanteer]

Do we modify the LAV to take off turrets and up the number of dismounts? Or up the weapon systems available to the three man LAV crew? or stay status quo?

For me its always been question of form follows function.

Ack, and there is little to no difference between 7 and 8-pers sections, so do you pitch a multi-million dollar overhaul project to pull the turrets from the LAV fleet to make a seat for one more person, and add an unnecessary gun?

 

[Infanteer]

Why would the mg team need to carry all the ammo types? Any more than why would the section need to carry all the CG84 types. Or all the M72s?

What happens if that kind of stuff is in the Battalion's 72 hour allotment and distribution is addressed during Prep for Battle?

It can also be held at CQ along with mines and barbed wire and machetes.

Sure, he can put it right next to the paintballs.

 

[Kirkhill]

What is an infantry platoon expected to be able to do? Going back to the first page, I assume that it is operating as part of a company/combat team that in turn is part of a battalion/battle group.

I figure that an infantry platoon needs to be able to retain a piece of terrain and be able to destroy any platoon-sized element that tries to take it from them, including a platoon of tanks. It should be able to defeat a company-sized attack of infantry but perhaps a tank company is too much to handle unsupported. How big is the piece of terrain? How big is a company battle position? What is the battlespace for a section, platoon and company? How far does it all have to reach?

For offensive operations, what size element do we expect one of our platoons to destroy? What is the balance between having lots of support weapons or having folks that are using grenades and small arms? How resilient in terms of being able to take casualties does the platoon need to be as it clears through an objective?

Regarding ATGMs on enemy force vehicles at CMTC, my takeaway from two MAPLE RESOLVES (one on either side of the battle) was that we should equip our forces with WES god guns. Those things are lethal AF. Invisible missiles that have no signature, fly like a laser and always kill are great!

The only thing I would add T2B, is the critical impact of terrain on all aspects of combat. And ultimately that is where I struggle. I don't believe that that LAV force is a suitable force for all of Canada's needs. It can do much. It can't do all.

 

[Kirkhill]

My original remark was more about @Kirkhill perhaps misinterpreting what I was getting at. While the section in the offence needs to be mobile and aggressive; it’s still needs to be able to provide its own base of fire. It also should be able to project explosives and anti tank rounds on its own. While the LAV is, and should remain, organic to the section, that doesn’t mean the section and platoon don’t get cut away from them, or that their appropriate tools for every job.


I don’t see the section itself needing to expand much beyond a 5-700 m range band frankly. A Carl Gustav M4, with the aim point BCS sight, and the ability to task tailor rounds is probably a very good option to fit that explosive projection. The 2 LMG vs 1 GPMG is something where I see both sides of the argument. Both can be left in the car if the job is to quickly assault something, or both brought out if needed.

So just to be clear, the LAV Infantry section is expected to work indepently of the remainder of its platoon and cover a 1400 m frontage with one LAV, a 25mm, a 7.62mm coax, a pintle mounted 5.56mm and 7 dismounts equipped with 2 LMGs and a GPMG as well as a CG84 in the DFS/AT role.

And the 7 man dismount section may be separated from its LAV.