Thinking about the Infantry Attack

[a_majoor]

So are you suggesting the C-6 remain a platoon weapon?

 

[silentbutdeadly]

oh no ! have each section have one , but use it say only on dismounted ops(urban patolling) but it won't be needed when you have a Lav with you. But keep one in the pl wpns det to. More hard hitting fire power the better. A infantry section now has more fire power and range , then a coy back in WW2.

 

[readyfourzero]

I'm a British Infantry Soldier and I'm quite interested in the way other Armies do things.  We work generally in 2 four man fire teams with the follow weaponry, 2 Minimi LMGs,  4 Rifles ( 2 with underslung grenade launchers) and 2 Light support weapons (heavy barreled SA80s - yeah we know, big heap of rubbish with bipod legs).  The only problem is only 2 people in the section can fit bayonets - we still like them even though they aren't PC anymore. 

We did toy with having a forth section, a manoeuvre support section, for a while with 2 GPMGs and a 51 mm light mortar but it was scrapped for some reason.  This was to help with the suppression of the enemy especially during a platoon attack, to take some of the pressure off the contact section.

If anyone wants to know our angle on things - fire away.  I'm conversant on most thing Infantry wise, including 81mm Mortar and STA.

 

[ArmyRick]

Ready40, what regiment are you from?

 

[readyfourzero]

1ST Bn Devonshire and Dorset Regiment soon to be the 1st Bn the Light Infantry with the latest round of our left wing governments cut backs, (we have gone from 55 Infantry Battalions to 36 in the last 15 years).  I know we aren't fighting the Cold war anymore but they are renting us out to just about every little conflict they can think of at the moment.  I guess it's the same for you guys.

 

[Kirkhill]

Hello readyfourzero.

Grandad was a Devon - 11th Battalion - Boy soldier in the Cycle Corps from Stoke-Fleming in 1914, shot-up and gassed Captain in charge of a PW camp by 1919.

Sad to see the Regiment die.  Any notion as to whether 1LI will be able to keep any of the D&D traditions or hardware? Or are you going to be totally subsumed in the Light Infantry culture?

 

[readyfourzero]

So I'm not the only Brit here then - I didn't think I would be! I don't know if you know we have a web site similar to this, an unofficial one-it's far far better than our official one. It can be found at www.arrse.co.uk it's called the army rumour service, but beware you need a sense of humour-definitely for grown ups only!

As to the name changing yes it will be sad to lose our identity and there are discussions going on at the moment as to what we may be able to retain on our uniforms, such as the Croix De Guerre etc but nothing is firm at the moment.

The plan at the moment is for the Gloucester element of the Royal Gloucester, Berkshire and Wiltshire Regiment will join the Devon and Dorsets, we will then become the basis of the 1st Bn Light Infantry (1LI), The present 1LI will become 2LI and 2 LI will become 3LI, (we are going to be 1LI as we are senior to the rest (11th of foot).  These 3 Bn will then become part of the Rifle Regiment along with the Royal Green Jackets so this gives soldiers a choice of 5 different Bns in which they can rotate, the units will be permanently posted to wherever and soldiers will trickle post in between.  Just like other arms.  The same is happening throughout the Infantry.  It allows us more flexibility in deployable Bns where as the old Arms plotting of moving whole units took about 8 Bns out of operation per year.

So in a nutshell that is the future of the Brit Infantry.  Another round of cuts by our masters-what was it Kipling said

it's Tommy this and it's Tommy that kick him out the brute
But it's the saviour of our country when the guns begin to shoot.

Only thing is we are still fighting and yet theres no war....apparently!

Do you guys feel the same as us

 

[Kirkhill]

Judging from the tone around here I think they do.  I am not in.  An Ex-Weekend Warrior me.

A question for you though, do you know the Devon and Dorset website? It has a page on the organization of the Battalion.  Here's the link.

http://www.army.mod.uk/devonanddorset/org.htm

Is that the situation on the ground or the staff picture?  If it is, how well does it work? 

Cheers

 

[readyfourzero]

I think its a bit of both, I know the Inf toyed with the idea of having 4 sections in a rifle platoon, one being a manouvre support section but i think it's not going to happen for one reason or another, mainly manning i think also it's a bit more difficult with Mech Bns like we are at the moment (not enough room in the back of a platoons allocation of APCs) I think it will be mainly Light role Inf that will do it.  I know the Marines have tried something similar and called it commando 2000, we called it the 2010 ORBAT.  I'm not sure what is going to happen post cut backs but it seems to work on our section commanders and platoon sergeants battle courses, it would give us a bit more flexibilty in the attack and we would have something like the following at our disposal in the attack: 2 x GPMGs, 1 X 51mm Mortar, 6 x Minimi LMGs, 6 x Light Support Weapons, 19 Rifles (6 with Grenade launchers) per rifle platoon.

 

[a_majoor]

For SG05, the "support platoon" concept is still "on" for now in the light Infantry companys, although there is no real doctrine to go with this yet. I also have not seen any modified ORBATS, so the three manoeuvre platoons still seem to have the usual compliments of mortars, 84mm and GPMGs. I suppose this will change in the next few months.

Support platoons will not be getting any real heavy weapons (.50 cal, "Javelein" fire and forget missiles, 81mm mortars) because we don't have any. Should be a great ex for those guys......

 

[PPCLI Guy]

For SG05, the "support platoon" concept is still "on" for now in the light Infantry companys, although there is no real doctrine to go with this yet.

I am a few months out of date, but was involved in the original discussions.   I think you will find that the intent is to mirror the DFS platoons of the Light Battalions, mixed with the ideas being floated out of the Infantry School last year.

Dave

 

[readyfourzero]

I still haven't got over the fact that you guys have lost all of you own Support Weapons Platoons, I cannot believe you have to rely on the Arty, Armour and Engineers etc.  The good thing about us Brits is at least we know we have guaranteed support from our own people.

 

[silentbutdeadly]

i am not really big on the ideal of a support platoon per say. I am just going off a more urban setting when its just pretty much your section , and it wouldbe nice to have a heavy mg with me, to cut down some of those mud huts, instead of waiting for a platoon to show up! i will have more on this next week , since we are have a leadership symposium and a Lt Col for the marines that fought in Falluajah anf several of his Pl comds and sect, comd are coming up to talk to us about COIN ( counter insergency) and how there section aka squads fought that urban battle!~  >

 

[Infanteer]

I still haven't got over the fact that you guys have lost all of you own Support Weapons Platoons, I cannot believe you have to rely on the Arty, Armour and Engineers etc.   The good thing about us Brits is at least we know we have guaranteed support from our own people.

I'm glad that other professionals (from outside of our Canadian box) can see the foolishness in this.   I'm not so much wrapped up around who's providing the support, but that the integral nature of the support is now gone - its an attachment (meaning, the unit commander doesn't always have it when he needs it).

i am not really big on the ideal of a support platoon per say. I am just going off a more urban setting when its just pretty much your section , and it wouldbe nice to have a heavy mg with me, to cut down some of those mud huts, instead of waiting for a platoon to show up! i will have more on this next week , since we are have a leadership symposium and a Lt Col for the marines that fought in Falluajah anf several of his Pl comds and sect, comd are coming up to talk to us about COIN ( counter insergency) and how there section aka squads fought that urban battle!~   >

Do take notes and post them here!

That being said, I'm beginning to see the utility in perhaps beefing up our sections as opposed to making strength increases further up the chain.   As diffusion on non-contiguous battlefields continues to grow, I have a feeling that a Section of 12 soldiers, with a variety of armaments and tactical flexibility, may be more effective then an 8-man cookie-cutter section that is forced to wait for the Platoon or Company support assets....

 

[Danjanou]

i am not really big on the ideal of a support platoon per say. I am just going off a more urban setting when its just pretty much your section , and it wouldbe nice to have a heavy mg with me, to cut down some of those mud huts, instead of waiting for a platoon to show up! i will have more on this next week , since we are have a leadership symposium and a Lt Col for the marines that fought in Falluajah anf several of his Pl comds and sect, comd are coming up to talk to us about COIN ( counter insergency) and how there section aka squads fought that urban battle!~   >

Then again who's to say that it is cast in stone that said Support platoon/section will alsways operate as a formed unit. Depending on the situation/need couldn't a portion say a 2 man (opps excuse me person) GPMG team be tasked attached to a section as needed.

Back when dinosaurs ruled the earth and we had integral support weapon platoons in our Bns one would rarely see all of say ADP deployed as a unit. More often than not dets would be attached to Coys/Cbt Teams as needed/required.

 

[Kirkhill]

Then again - 3 large companies with 3 rifle platoons and a 4 mounted support platoon OR 3 small rifle companies with a 4th mounted support company?

Where is most of the fighting to be done?  As a unit, a company, a platoon or a section?  And which structure offers maximum opportunity for training in all configurations to allow for "Max Flex".

The "traditional" model has the advantage of Concentration of Forces for training on common systems as well as keeping everybody on the same base so that they can train with "all-arms".

After all, it seems to me that if a company commander can figure out how to employ his company in concert with machine guns on jeeps it is not too much of a leap to convert the jeeps to LAVS and the MGs to 25mms, or even to convert to "Co-operation" with MBTs.  Likewise, if he can co-ordinate 60mm mortars and 81mm mortars how difficult is it to learn how to appreciate and incorporate 105s, 155s, MLRSs or Harpoon IIs, or for that matter TACAIR or greater?

The USMC battalion is a great model for my money.

 

[silentbutdeadly]

i agree on the USMC model , we as an army relate to them the most, hence maybe them coming up here to talk to the senoir and jr leadership in the 1st and 3nd bn's PPCLI. I like the 12 man sections also , but we have to include the Lav also , when not in a urban setting. Like i said before , i like the C6 when in a urban setting , not in mounted ops , for the reason that you have a 25mm. We were all talking about this in our office here between the sect comd's and agree it would be nice to have a C6 in the section, so when the shit happens right there , there is no waiting time for heavy wpns support(urban) until the lav rolls up. I have on me a req reading for visit by the marines and it lays down alot of lessons learn, ask and you shall receive! >

 

[GO!!!]

The emphasis in this forum seems to concentrate heavily on the use of the LAV family of vehicles, with little attention given to their many significant weaknesses and inability to be used in many types of complex terrain and especially urban settings.

The LAVs do not offer significant protection for crew or mounted section in terms of the most common weapons being used by our enemies (or enimies of our allies) being the RPG 6 and 7, and no protection in terms of the newest - the RPG 29 (vampire), which is already popping up in Iraq, albeit in limited quantities.

The LAVs are used primarily for convoy escort, when they are not down with maintenance problems, and secondarily as rear security at dismounted temporary satellite patrol formations. (USMC Lessons Learned) When possible, the Marines prefer to use Humvees w/ no doors and more Heavys (Mk19 M2), due the far smaller target and ease of dismounting the bullet magnet that all vehs are when the rounds start flying.

The emphasis for the Marine Infantry and light armour over the last few years has shifted in a big way to Low intensity conflict and the skills associated with patrolling and controlling exclusively urban areas, in which the LAVs have been spectacularly ineffective, due to a high profile, large size, limited fields of vision and fire and serious maintenance problems which are difficult to rectify in a fwd location. The Humvee has in fact become the tpt of choice... leading them to believe that light forces are the way of the future.

I can already hear rounds coming downrange for this one...

All of this is available on the USMC lessons learned site though.

 

[Infanteer]

I don't think the ideal arrangement is a "cookie-cutter" section that can do the Light Force game and the Mech game with the same structure.  A Mech section, by having integral fighting vehicles and protection, does not need to be as extensive in terms of what the dismounts need to be able to do.

Perhaps "Light Infantry" would be better off with a large section (12 troops) that allows fluid and independent action by the section in complex environments may be the better path to focus on.  It can and should be designed (as the Light Force doctrine states) to act independent of any platforms.

Mech Infantry (or as some theories have designated as Cav) is, by nature, constricted by the platform from which it deploys and fights with.  Look at the discussion over changing Infantry doctrine and structure with the movement from the M113 to the LAV III.  I think mech sections and platoons can allow for the Zulu callsigns to provide the suppressive capabilities that we are giving extra boots to Light Infantry structures.

Now, I think any "mech" force structure should give thought to independent action of the dismounts if the vehicles are unable to take part in the fight (disabled, complex terrain, etc, etc) but conversely, I don't think we should limit the capabilities of our Light Infantry by holding these sections and platoons to being able to fit into an IFV.

 

[ArmyRick]

Infanteer, you make a valid point. Especially when you consider that the LAV III accomadates how many? according to the PAM 7 passengers.
At least with the M113 (A vehicle I have lots of expirience with) we could cram in 8-10 troops plus driver and crew commander. Keep in mind that is CRAM in their.