Ricks Napkin Challenge- The Infantry Section and Platoon

[Kirkhill]

Manoeuvre enabled by ATGMs bolted onto an IFV? Is the IFV supposed to provide mobility to the infantry, or to be hunting tanks? It doesn't appear to me that if you are doing one, you can do the other.

Which leads back to my question about what weapons do the Guys in the Back need.

If they are Assaulters, and secondary to the Armoured force then they are better kitted out with 200m short-barreled weapons for the close fight to clear trenches, woods and buildings.

But if the vehicles are secondary to the Infantry force, supplying mobility first and fire support second, and ultimately discardable if the transport or terrain won't permit use of the vehicles, then the infantry needs long range man-portable weapons and administrative vehicles that can be ported by helicopter or air-dropped.

 

[Fabius]

Manoeuvre enabled by ATGMs bolted onto an IFV? Is the IFV supposed to provide mobility to the infantry, or to be hunting tanks? It doesn't appear to me that if you are doing one, you can do the other.

Yes, I do mean Mechanized Infantry Mounted Offensive Ops. Like Advance to Contacts, Pursuits etc.
Let see the CA has 6 Mech Inf Bns, so 18 mech Infantry sub units. We have basically two actual MBT squadrons.
The so what is that the Infantry are going to have to fight as Infantry Coy Grps with NO tanks. Therefore they need something to deal with En armour hence ATGMs, because depending on the En not having tanks in play seems pretty fictional.

We have played with this a bit on Ex MRs. The LAV Coy playing OPFOR now gets to simulate having turret mounted ATGMs and you know what, we killed a lot of Leo 2s at 5-6km with those missiles while advancing to contact and during a few hasty attacks and I didn't actually need Tanks.

Life was a lot more difficult when we went back to being Canadian LAVs only with no ATGMS.

 

[Kirkhill]

Yes, I do mean Mechanized Infantry Mounted Offensive Ops. Like Advance to Contacts, Pursuits etc.
Let see the CA has 6 Mech Inf Bns, so 18 mech Infantry sub units. We have basically two actual MBT squadrons.
The so what is that the Infantry are going to have to fight as Infantry Coy Grps with NO tanks. Therefore they need something to deal with En armour hence ATGMs, because depending on the En not having tanks in play seems pretty fictional.

We have played with this a bit on Ex MRs. The LAV Coy playing OPFOR now gets to simulate having turret mounted ATGMs and you know what, we killed a lot of Leo 2s at 5-6km with those missiles while advancing to contact and during a few hasty attacks and I didn't actually need Tanks.

Life was a lot more difficult when we went back to being Canadian LAVs only with no ATGMS.

So every Platoon Commander has 8 ready to fire ATGMs.
Every Company Commander has 30 ready to fire ATGMs
And a significant number of reloads.

 

[Infanteer]

Yes, I do mean Mechanized Infantry Mounted Offensive Ops. Like Advance to Contacts, Pursuits etc.
Let see the CA has 6 Mech Inf Bns, so 18 mech Infantry sub units. We have basically two actual MBT squadrons.
The so what is that the Infantry are going to have to fight as Infantry Coy Grps with NO tanks. Therefore they need something to deal with En armour hence ATGMs, because depending on the En not having tanks in play seems pretty fictional.

That sounds like "we don't have enough swords, so just charge and hit him with your shield." Just because tactics of poverty is the only option doesn't mean it's a good option.

We have played with this a bit on Ex MRs. The LAV Coy playing OPFOR now gets to simulate having turret mounted ATGMs and you know what, we killed a lot of Leo 2s at 5-6km with those missiles while advancing to contact and during a few hasty attacks and I didn't actually need Tanks.

Life was a lot more difficult when we went back to being Canadian LAVs only with no ATGMS.

I'm not disputing the value of an ATGM as an anti-platform system, only questioning the validity of "double-hatting" an IFV as an AT platform (Wainwright conquests aside) for offensive operations. Seems like a good way to slow momentum down and get IFVs, with a full load of infanteers, whacked.

 

[Kirkhill]

That sounds like "we don't have enough swords, so just charge and hit him with your shield." Just because tactics of poverty is the only option doesn't mean it's a good option.

I'm not disputing the value of an ATGM as an anti-platform system, only questioning the validity of "double-hatting" an IFV as an AT platform (Wainwright conquests aside) for offensive operations. Seems like a good way to slow momentum down and get IFVs, with a full load of infanteers, whacked.

Then go back to APCs and AFVs.

You can make the AFV smaller and better armoured and better armed. And not have to worry about losing the 7 passengers in the rear if it does get whacked.

As well you can carry a larger section (10?) and keep them out of the line of fire.



There are two questions being debated here.

1 Is there a need for an ATGM/Anti-Tank Complex?
2 Is the LAV an appropriate compromise for a multitude of tasks?

Me? IMHO?

Yes to number 1 and No to number 2.

But we're stuck with it (and the TAPV).

 

[Fabius]

Why is everyone else around us doing that then? Its not even a new idea to have ATGMs on IFVs just Canada has not done so.
I honestly don't see how momentum gets slowed down due to IFVs having the ability to kill tanks at long range without needing to reposition tanks from elsewhere in the battle space. In my experience it sped up momentum.

I think Kirkhill is right maybe and it is a debate about whether we fight a mounted fight using mobility and firepower and dismount as needed ( a la mounted rifles /dragoons) or if we fight dismounted and the vehicles just move us from place to place (a la current Stryker Bdes). My experience is closer to mounted rifles than otherwise.

 

[FJAG]

That sounds like "we don't have enough swords, so just charge and hit him with your shield." Just because tactics of poverty is the only option doesn't mean it's a good option.



I'm not disputing the value of an ATGM as an anti-platform system, only questioning the validity of "double-hatting" an IFV as an AT platform (Wainwright conquests aside) for offensive operations. Seems like a good way to slow momentum down and get IFVs, with a full load of infanteers, whacked.

I'm not sure if this is what you intend but it's beginning to sound as if you're advocating that the LAV 6's primary role should be to remain as a battlefield taxi. I know its limited now in high end combat with just the 25 but if there was an ATGM doesn't it present a whole new set of capabilities and tactical usages for the combat team both in offence and defence?

 

[Infanteer]

Why is everyone else around us doing that then? Its not even a new idea to have ATGMs on IFVs just Canada has not done so.
I honestly don't see how momentum gets slowed down due to IFVs having the ability to kill tanks at long range without needing to reposition tanks from elsewhere in the battle space. In my experience it sped up momentum.

I think Kirkhill is right maybe and it is a debate about whether we fight a mounted fight using mobility and firepower and dismount as needed ( a la mounted rifles /dragoons) or if we fight dismounted and the vehicles just move us from place to place (a la current Stryker Bdes). My experience is closer to mounted rifles than otherwise.

I'm not sure if this is what you intend but it's beginning to sound as if you're advocating that the LAV 6's primary role should be to remain as a battlefield taxi. I know its limited now in high end combat with just the 25 but if there was an ATGM doesn't it present a whole new set of capabilities and tactical usages for the combat team both in offence and defence?

Let's break this down a bit, and tie it to the subject thread (infantry section).

Does the infantry need a proper anti-armour weapon? Yes, of course. The Russo-Ukraine War is reinforcing this weapon's role as a critical battlefield anti-platform system, something that was first realized in the 1973 Arab-Israeli War.

Does the IFV need a mounted anti-armour weapon? Perhaps. I quick review confirmed that "everyone else around us" is not doing this - the BMP and Bradley are the only IFVs that currently mount an anti-armour system to the vehicle. I could see an argument to equip the vehicle with one as a self-defence weapon, but only if the opportunity cost is not high. The LAV cannon is sufficient enough to provide some suppressive effect to its infantry and to defend itself against other light AVFs.

Does the IFV need a mounted anti-armour weapon to conduct offensive operations where the IFV would be responsible for destroying enemy platforms, up to MBTs? I remain skeptical. Tank hunting from a vehicle and manoeuvring a section to an attack position/dismount point are two different tasks. Having a vehicle with an "L" in its title (for "Light") get into a running missile/gun battle with enemy tanks detracts from the most important job of an IFV - to keep the infantry protected until they can get on the ground and fight. Why you would want to do this is, again, tactics of poverty (there are other systems designed to do this) and I would argue that this proposal sees a defensive system jammed into an offensive role for which it may not be suited.

As a final point, the Bradley and the BMP set-up is very much a "1970s" concept - mounting a direct fire, LOS missile to an IFV. Should we mount an anti-armour system to a LAV? Absolutely, but I'd much rather look at a "2020s" concept. Have some LAVs at the Coy or Bn level with a bank of launchers for either an NLOS system or a loitering munition that is cued off of either a UAS or an FO. This can provide an umbrella for the rifle company to get its business done.

 

[FJAG]

I was in Shilo from 76 to 81 while the Germans were there and at the point where they started fielding Milan on their Marders. I had several discussions with various company commanders as to how they would be employing the system. It's worth remembering that at the time they were still a draft army with short terms of service which quite affected how tactically complex and efficient their soldiers could be.

Their primary use of the vehicle mounted Milan in the offence was operating from a bound behind the tanks and providing flank overwatch against possible positions bypassed by the tanks. (the initial missiles were limited in range but good enough for that job)

In the defence, the Marders' Milans would supplement the ground based Milan systems with mobile teams that could work in the gaps, or again, the flanks of the company position to augment but not replace the tanks (especially when some of the tanks were held back in reserve for counterstrike operations). battlefield density was greater in those days. I would think that these days, with lower densities, gaps between battalions and even companies would be greater and require even more security which the Zulu vehicles could provide (in addition to recce and any battalion ATGM platoons).

I agree with you that most IFVs come with guns only but most (many?) are also FF not FW missiles. The Lynx for example is FF optional Spike LR2 or even UAV launchers which allow the vehicle to reach out and touch someone at ranges far beyond Cold War ranges. While I wouldn't for a minute have any desire to take away comparable dismounted systems, it strikes me that having both a dismounted system with the dismounted defence elements and a more mobile mounted system (which could move away from suppressive fire and to blocking positions), if nothing else, increases, maybe doubles, the available AT fire power of the section/platoon/company.

I take your point about "opportunity costs" but think that the value goes beyond mere self defence. I presume we still study/war game varying organizations, doctrines and TTPs. I know my generation was famous for developing doctrines that we used rigorously in professional training but never actually organized or equipped the force to. From what I can see I suspect that the delta, as between the way we are and the way developing doctrine says we should be, has widened considerably. If there is one lesson I'm taking away from Ukraine it's that those folks that have and use modern anti armour systems (missiles, UAVs, loitering, what have you - oh! and artillery) in the defence, will seriously degrade attacking forces. Adding a missile capability to existing vehicles may be more expensive then a ground based one (but at the same time is relatively inexpensive in that the vehicle and its crew already exist) and provides the section and hence the platoon and company, with more firepower and flexibility.

I certainly agree that if this needs phasing, and it will, then start with what you suggest.

 

[Kirkhill]

Is this debate about the platform or the way the platform is used?

Every platform is going to be a compromise. It is going to do somethings well and other things not at all.

In our small army, to avoid micro-fleets the government and the army have opted for one vehicle to do multiple jobs. The demands increases in the compromises required. And it requires different tactics than other armies that are not using that equipment and making those compromises.

Ultimately every army has to be able to take ground from the enemy and hold ground against the enemy. The holding ground function has traditionally played to the infantry's strengths. The taking of ground requires getting in close to the enemy. The holding ground requires keeping the enemy at a distance. Taking ground requires closing the distance to the enemy as fast a possible. Holding ground requires preventing the enemy from closing the distance for as long as possible.

Holding ground generally requires fewer troops by more long range weapons that can be physically heavier, and crew served, because they are not going to move as often.

Taking ground generally requires three times more troops, lightly burdened so they can move fast and exploit the existing terrain, and equipped with short range weapons.

A traditional Canadian Infantry Battalion had four rifle companies and one weapons company. The weapons company excelled in, and anchored, the defence. The rifle companies excelled in the assault.

The weapons company included the Vickers MG, the stokes Mortars and the Pioneers. It added the Anti-Tank 2 pdrs, 6 pdrs, Recoilless Rifles and TOWs to do to the Tanks and APCs what the MGs and Mortars were doing to the Asssaulters - killing them at long range.

The rifle companies were equipped with knives, bayonets, rifles, shotguns, hand grenades, rifle grenades and Lewis guns. The Lewis was swapped for the Bren, the Bren for the C2 and the C2 for the C9. The rifle grenades were swapped for the 2", the 2" for the 60mm, the 60mm for the 40mm UGL.

It seems to me that it is easier to remember the different roles and tasks when the equipment is specific to the task. But once multi-purpose equipment enters the discussion there seems to be a tendency to get tunnel vision.

The C6 is a General Purpose Machine Gun. It replaces both the Vickers and the Lewis. With the right ammunition it is also a light anti-armour weapon at close range.

Do we issue one C6 and expect it to do all three things? Or do we issue three C6s to three people and train them to do all three things? Or do we issue three C6s to three people and train each one of them do one thing well - one to perform the LMG role of the platoon Lewis or the Section Bren, one to perform the HMG role of the battalion Vickers and one to use the C6 in the anti-vehicular role?

We have the same problem with the LAV and its roots in the Armoured Vehicle General Purpose. One vehicle for many roles. The Navy and the Air Force have their own versions of this same problem.

My personal view is that while the weapon can be common the units and their TTPs should be unique. Even with the same tool box units should specialize in using those tools for particular purposes.

The infantry needs people movers first and foremost
The RCAC moves guns first and foremost.

If we only have one vehicle with one gun then both elements are going to have to figure out how to use it to their best advantage.

For the Infantry, focused on moving people, then a man-portable ATGM system makes sense. They will move to position, dismount, engage, remount, relocate.

For the Cavalry who fight their vehicles, don't have the people to dismount then a mounted ATGM makes sense. They may well fire on the move.

If one General Purpose ATGM could be found that was an acceptable Infantry/Armoured compromise and that made the loggies happy that would be ideal.

The net effect of all this generalization though is every unit looks like every other unit and the specialist skill sets seem to be getting lost.
Even in a professional army it seems it is difficult for everybody to do everything and do everything well, let alone exceptionally.


You need to develop specializations even if everybody is equipped identically.

 

[Infanteer]

Is this debate about the platform or the way the platform is used?

The latter.

The C6 is a General Purpose Machine Gun. It replaces both the Vickers and the Lewis. With the right ammunition it is also a light anti-armour weapon at close range.

 

[Fabius]

I quick review confirmed that "everyone else around us" is not doing this

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.

 

[GR66]

Let's break this down a bit, and tie it to the subject thread (infantry section).

Does the infantry need a proper anti-armour weapon? Yes, of course. The Russo-Ukraine War is reinforcing this weapon's role as a critical battlefield anti-platform system, something that was first realized in the 1973 Arab-Israeli War.

Does the IFV need a mounted anti-armour weapon? Perhaps. I quick review confirmed that "everyone else around us" is not doing this - the BMP and Bradley are the only IFVs that currently mount an anti-armour system to the vehicle. I could see an argument to equip the vehicle with one as a self-defence weapon, but only if the opportunity cost is not high. The LAV cannon is sufficient enough to provide some suppressive effect to its infantry and to defend itself against other light AVFs.

Does the IFV need a mounted anti-armour weapon to conduct offensive operations where the IFV would be responsible for destroying enemy platforms, up to MBTs? I remain skeptical. Tank hunting from a vehicle and manoeuvring a section to an attack position/dismount point are two different tasks. Having a vehicle with an "L" in its title (for "Light") get into a running missile/gun battle with enemy tanks detracts from the most important job of an IFV - to keep the infantry protected until they can get on the ground and fight. Why you would want to do this is, again, tactics of poverty (there are other systems designed to do this) and I would argue that this proposal sees a defensive system jammed into an offensive role for which it may not be suited.

As a final point, the Bradley and the BMP set-up is very much a "1970s" concept - mounting a direct fire, LOS missile to an IFV. Should we mount an anti-armour system to a LAV? Absolutely, but I'd much rather look at a "2020s" concept. Have some LAVs at the Coy or Bn level with a bank of launchers for either an NLOS system or a loitering munition that is cued off of either a UAS or an FO. This can provide an umbrella for the rifle company to get its business done.

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?

 

[markppcli]

Yes, I do mean Mechanized Infantry Mounted Offensive Ops. Like Advance to Contacts, Pursuits etc.
Let see the CA has 6 Mech Inf Bns, so 18 mech Infantry sub units. We have basically two actual MBT squadrons.
The so what is that the Infantry are going to have to fight as Infantry Coy Grps with NO tanks. Therefore they need something to deal with En armour hence ATGMs, because depending on the En not having tanks in play seems pretty fictional.

We have played with this a bit on Ex MRs. The LAV Coy playing OPFOR now gets to simulate having turret mounted ATGMs and you know what, we killed a lot of Leo 2s at 5-6km with those missiles while advancing to contact and during a few hasty attacks and I didn't actually need Tanks.

Life was a lot more difficult when we went back to being Canadian LAVs only with no ATGMS.

It’s remarkable how effective ATGMs can be when you don’t have to actually lock on, fire, carry ammo, and have no option of missing. No to dismiss the value of training simulation; but just saying “you have ATGMs now” ignores a whole list of side effects. How did you simulate the weapon signature ?

 

[markppcli]

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?
View attachment 71035

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

 

[Kirkhill]

The latter.

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

www.nammo.com

The upper frontal plate measures 9mm thick at an angle of 64 degrees and the lower frontal plate is 9mm thick at 45 degrees. The bow deck between the upper glacis and the lower glacis is 7mm thick and it is sloped at 84 degrees with the trim vane laid on top of it. The interstitial plate joining the two plates measures 7mm thick at an angle of 87 degrees. The angled corners are the same thickness as the upper and lower front plates beside them. The sides of the hull are 9mm thick on both the upper and lower sides. Besides a relatively high thickness and an optimal hardness for protection from small caliber fire, the side armour of the hull has the additional benefit of between 20 to 30 degrees of vertical slope on both the upper and lower halves. Like the rest of the side hull armour, the side doors have a thickness of 9mm. The rear of the hull, and the roof and the floor all measure in at 7mm thick. This is enough against 7.62x39mm BZ rounds and various 7.62mm ball rounds, but 7.62mm M61 AP rounds would be enough to defeat this armour.

BTR-80

BTR-80 T he BTR-80 is an amphibious armoured personnel carrier, and is the successor to the BTR-70 and BTR-60 designs. Its inc...

thesovietarmourblog.blogspot.com

 

[Kirkhill]

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?
View attachment 71035

RCIC, RCAC or RRCA?

 

[GR66]

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.

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.

 

[Kirkhill]

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.

The IFVs and APCs both need to stay out of range of tanks.
ATGMs have longer ranges than tanks.
ATGMs also kill IFVs and APCs at the same ranges they kill tanks
And when an ATGM kills an IFV or APV at long range chances are it doesn't just kill the crew (driver/gunner/cc) it also kills the section in the back.

Which is the more valuable target? The Tank or the mounted section?

 

[KevinB]

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

www.nammo.com

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