Ricks Napkin Challenge- The Infantry Section and Platoon

[Infanteer]

I would never expect to see a section work independently like that in a regular combat setting except for the odd patrol task.

 

[daftandbarmy]

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.

I recall that, in the Coy Gp defensive role, we would plan on digging in:

• 2 x MILAN firing posts (Range - 1850m) att from the BGp Anti-tank Pl and co-located more or less with
• 2 x GPMG (SF) (Range 1800m)

to cover our part of the Kill Zone assigned by the Bde Gp Comd to the BGp Comd.

The rest of the company would dig in 84mm co-located with GPMG (SF), at least one each per Pl, to cover other assigned arcs/KZ, but the main effort was to protect those two MILAN and the GPMGs laid on the Bde Gp KZ.

Priority of digging in was MILAN first.

 

[IKnowNothing]

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 if the right/proper/efficient combined arms combination is MBT+ Tracked APC, does that argument hold at all weights?
Ex, would the right/proper/efficient medium weight combined force be a Stryker in the APC role with dismounted infantry supporting something like a (potentially up armoured) French Jaguar? Or is combined arms a heavy only mechanized concept?

 

[FJAG]

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?

I'm not sure what unnecessary gun was being contemplated.

I was more questioning as to whether the crew goes to 2 with an RWS and the dismounts to 9 like in a Stryker. But that's really the doctrinal question--are two more dismounts per section (8 per platoon) of significantly greater value to the platoon than the one to four 25mms? And that's one I'm nowhere near qualified or current enough to answer. But it really is at the heart of Owen's article.

But you've partly answers the question. If one extra dismount isn't enough to justify such a drastic modification then two probably isn't either. Which leaves us comfortable with seven dismounts and a turret. (and I've actually wondered, what is the usual routine in defensive positions? Does one just leave the driver with the LAV? or the the driver and a gunner? or even a full three-man crew? I guess it depends on the situation)

So, assuming we're comfortable with a turret and the seven dismounts, then we should, as far as practical, plan to maximize the usefulness and versatility of the Zulu LAV.

 

[Kirkhill]

I would never expect to see a section work independently like that in a regular combat setting except for the odd patrol task.

So the platoon is working together. If the platoon is working together, under the control of the platoon commander, then isn't it up to the platoon commander, his OC and CO to decide on the mission and the kit and its employment?

If each IFV were configured like the Bradley would the Section Leader have 2 ready to fire ATGMs or would the Platoon Commander have 8? Who controls their release?

 

[Kirkhill]

I'm not sure what unnecessary gun was being contemplated.

I was more questioning as to whether the crew goes to 2 with an RWS and the dismounts to 9 like in a Stryker. But that's really the doctrinal question--are two more dismounts per section (8 per platoon) of significantly greater value to the platoon than the one to four 25mms? And that's one I'm nowhere near qualified or current enough to answer. But it really is at the heart of Owen's article.

But you've partly answers the question. If one extra dismount isn't enough to justify such a drastic modification then two probably isn't either. Which leaves us comfortable with seven dismounts and a turret. (and I've actually wondered, what is the usual routine in defensive positions? Does one just leave the driver with the LAV? or the the driver and a gunner? or even a full three-man crew? I guess it depends on the situation)

So, assuming we're comfortable with a turret and the seven dismounts, then we should, as far as practical, plan to maximize the usefulness and versatility of the Zulu LAV.

I still think that a LAV used by the infantry, while the infantry is dismounted an the LAV is in overwatch/support it only needs a crew of two. On the move it needs three.

 

[FJAG]

I still think that a LAV used by the infantry, while the infantry is dismounted an the LAV is in overwatch/support it only needs a crew of two. On the move it needs three.

Well beyond my experience. All I ever had to deal with was the .30/GPMG pintle on my M113. I do tend to believe in tunnel vision and that a gunner becomes fixated on the target he's engaging and needs another set of eyes to watch and search for other threats and targets.

 

[markppcli]

I still think that a LAV used by the infantry, while the infantry is dismounted an the LAV is in overwatch/support it only needs a crew of two. On the move it needs a three.

We’ve been down this road before; that over watch / fire base LAV is jockeying, very hard to be looking in your sight while controlling that. I suppose tactics could change.

I'm not sure what unnecessary gun was being contemplated.

I was more questioning as to whether the crew goes to 2 with an RWS and the dismounts to 9 like in a Stryker. But that's really the doctrinal question--are two more dismounts per section (8 per platoon) of significantly greater value to the platoon than the one to four 25mms? And that's one I'm nowhere near qualified or current enough to answer. But it really is at the heart of Owen's article.

Worth nothing that the “crew of two” is a bit misleading. Speaking to guys in Stryker units the squad leader is the vehicle commander. Typically they dismount but that may change with the new 30mm cannon.

But you've partly answers the question. If one extra dismount isn't enough to justify such a drastic modification then two probably isn't either. Which leaves us comfortable with seven dismounts and a turret. (and I've actually wondered, what is the usual routine in defensive positions? Does one just leave the driver with the LAV? or the the driver and a gunner? or even a full three-man crew? I guess it depends on the situation)

Typically the LAVs will be in a harbour fully crewed so they can move to their run ups / countermoves position.

So, assuming we're comfortable with a turret and the seven dismounts, then we should, as far as practical, plan to maximize the usefulness and versatility of the Zulu LAV

Agreed, and an ATGM may be useful here but then we have to be disciplined in its employment.

So the platoon is working together. If the platoon is working together, under the control of the platoon commander, then isn't it up to the platoon commander, his OC and CO to decide on the mission and the kit and its employment?

No, because the kit allotted to the platoon, company, and Bn is assigned based on the doctrinal organization of a those sections, platoons, and companies. Go back a few pages, I posted a short list of things we all agreed a section requires to meet its missions.

If each IFV were configured like the Bradley would the Section Leader have 2 ready to fire ATGMs or would the Platoon Commander have 8? Who controls their release?

Their individual vehicle commanders, subject to contraints imposed on them from higher.


Now that that’s out of the way; I would suggest that while a section or platoon is never going to be working on its own, and a section will not take up a 1400m frontage, they are both required to be able to take and host small objectives and isolated positions and also defend their own. To that end it’s useful to discuss how they may do that, and the equipment they carry will effect that to some degree.

 

[Infanteer]

I still think that a LAV used by the infantry, while the infantry is dismounted an the LAV is in overwatch/support it only needs a crew of two. On the move it needs three.

Nope. Gunner can't command a LAV if he's got his eye buried in the sight.

 

[FJAG]

We’ve been down this road before; that over watch / fire base LAV is jockeying, very hard to be looking in your sight while controlling that. I suppose tactics could change.

Worth nothing that the “crew of two” is a bit misleading. Speaking to guys in Stryker units the squad leader is the vehicle commander. Typically they dismount but that may change with the new 30mm cannon.

Typically the LAVs will be in a harbour fully crewed so they can move to their run ups / countermoves position.

Agreed, and an ATGM may be useful here but then we have to be disciplined in its employment.

 

[Infanteer]

But you've partly answers the question. If one extra dismount isn't enough to justify such a drastic modification then two probably isn't either. Which leaves us comfortable with seven dismounts and a turret. (and I've actually wondered, what is the usual routine in defensive positions? Does one just leave the driver with the LAV? or the the driver and a gunner? or even a full three-man crew? I guess it depends on the situation)

The crew is pretty much indivisible unless it's an admin move. As alluded to above, the crew would likely be back in a separate location - probably under the supervision of the LAV Capt - prepared to move to a run-up/support by fire position.

 

[Kirkhill]

Ukrainian 93rd Mech Brigade Tank Hunting.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1530197358113345538

Ukrainian paratroopers tank hunting.

 

[FJAG]

The crew is pretty much indivisible unless it's an admin move. As alluded to above, the crew would likely be back in a separate location - probably under the supervision of the LAV Capt - prepared to move to a run-up/support by fire position.

Thanks.

I was wondering if, in the defence, one or more of them might be employed in the dismounted role "on the line", so to speak. I presumed it was the way you said but wasn't sure.

 

[Kirkhill]

Well beyond my experience. All I ever had to deal with was the .30/GPMG pintle on my M113. I do tend to believe in tunnel vision and that a gunner becomes fixated on the target he's engaging and needs another set of eyes to watch and search for other threats and targets.

My thought is that when the infantry is dismounted, either in the assault or in the defence, then the LAV's turrets act like a 4 MG-SF Section with one point of focus and under one singular command. In the Ukrainian siituation lines are meant to be held.

 

[markppcli]

My thought is that when the infantry is dismounted, either in the assault or in the defence, then the LAV's turrets act like a 4 MG-SF Section with one point of focus and under one singular command. In the Ukrainian siituation lines are meant to be held.

So what I’m taking from this is that you thought that an IFV is static on an assault or defensive? And by “one point of focus” did you mean they only engage one target / kz? I also don’t get the Ukraine reference ?

 

[Infanteer]

My thought is that when the infantry is dismounted, either in the assault or in the defence, then the LAV's turrets act like a 4 MG-SF Section with one point of focus and under one singular command. In the Ukrainian siituation lines are meant to be held.

4 MG-SF sections don't move with restricted visibility.

What you are proposing is unsafe, against current policies regarding A vehicle utilization, and doesn't work with the way the turret's systems function. It's also tactically unsound for the proper employment of the drills within the vehicle.

Unless you have any experience in a LAV, I'd suggest folding your hand at this point, as this line of discussion is silly.

 

[Kirkhill]

Well, long past time for me to bid adieu to this and related threads.

My parting thought is that the RCAC fights its battles one way, the Light Infantry fights its battles another way and the LAV Infantry fights its battles their way. All good.

 

[KevinB]

My parting thought is that the RCAC fights its battles one way, the Light Infantry fights its battles another way and the LAV Infantry fights its battles their way. All good.

I'd argue they should and NEED to fight differently.

You can do thinks with a Tank that you cannot do with a LAV, and cannot do on foot, and vice versa.
I'm significantly opposite the opinion that LI and MI should be organized in similar manners, as they don't reflect the reality of the divergent capabilities.

4 MG-SF sections don't move with restricted visibility.

No, and the FCS and turret stabilization on the LAV allows much more effective use of the COAX than the C6 in SF kit.

What you are proposing is unsafe, against current policies regarding A vehicle utilization, and doesn't work with the way the turret's systems function. It's also tactically unsound for the proper employment of the drills within the vehicle.

Admin moves with two is fine -- I think the issue comes up with @Kirkhill not understanding the LAV turret and various RWS FCS and their effect on SA.

Unless you have any experience in a LAV, I'd suggest folding your hand at this point, as this line of discussion is silly.

I actually find it interesting, as he challenges the status quo.
Which as you well know I am a huge fan of tilting at windmills, and arguing against the that is the way we always do it mentality, and while he may be very wrong in this specific issue, I don't think it's incorrect for him to question the what/why/where.

 

[Kirkhill]

I'd argue they should and NEED to fight differently.

You can do thinks with a Tank that you cannot do with a LAV, and cannot do on foot, and vice versa.
I'm significantly opposite the opinion that LI and MI should be organized in similar manners, as they don't reflect the reality of the divergent capabilities.

No, and the FCS and turret stabilization on the LAV allows much more effective use of the COAX than the C6 in SF kit.


Admin moves with two is fine -- I think the issue comes up with @Kirkhill not understanding the LAV turret and various RWS FCS and their effect on SA.

I actually find it interesting, as he challenges the status quo.
Which as you well know I am a huge fan of tilting at windmills, and arguing against the that is the way we always do it mentality, and while he may be very wrong in this specific issue, I don't think it's incorrect for him to question the what/why/where.

Thanks Kevin but no worries at this end.

The situation is well in hand it seems.

Slainte.

 

[KevinB]

I would never expect to see a section work independently like that in a regular combat setting except for the odd patrol task.

I guess the question is what do we define as a "regular combat setting" these days.
I think just do to the same of Armies these days, the vast density and depth of WW2 is never going to happen -- too many mass effect weapons also make that sort of strategy self defeating.

Watching the videos of Russia pouring thermobarric and straight incendiary explosives into areas of Ukraine means that grouped forces will suffer significant casualties - even non OS footage doesn't show significant force densities on the attack or defense.

Maybe I have been drinking too much SOF cool-aid over the years, but I think one will see more and more dispersed operations in both defense and offensive actions, both due to the hazard of close groupings of a number of forces, and due to the effectiveness of ranged weapons.
I'm not suggesting penny packing Tanks, or isolated Section/Squads expected to cover massive areas - but as VAS systems get better you can detect forces further away even by direct vision, and the ability of ISR systems to capture data in multi spectrum ways and allow it to be analyzed means that in certain theaters cam and concealment will be extremely tough, and stealth almost impossible against a well equipped enemy.

I think because of all that the expectation of a Section/Squad only to have a sub 1km engagement range is extremely limiting and short sighted.
Even if you are fighting a technologically inferior foe - why fight them in an even manner - why not destroy them long before they can destroy you?

*This is coming from someone who absolutely despised the "Networked Army" and all the Digital Warfare symposiums for years.
I've come to the sad acceptance that information management and data transfer are key components of modern warfare.