Ricks Napkin Challenge- The Infantry Section and Platoon

[FJAG]

Much like a light Bn ‘s DFS platoon?

Except on a larger and broader scale. In my day DFS platoons were basically anti-armour - first SS11 then TOW.

A DFS platoon (again in my day) was part of the battalion's overarching anti-armour plan and not generally parcelled out to rifle companies (more sharing in location than anything else)

Yes at company and beyond I would agree. Platoon and below, the topic of this conversation, less convinced.

When a light battalion has four heavy weapons platoons to deploy (including attaching them to rifle companies) then that has a knock-on effect as to what the rifle platoons/sections need to have. A weapons platoon adds 18 people in four squads. If one generally thinks of a company with two platoons up either in the offense or defense then that adds eight people with heavy weapons to each forward platoon. That's a significant factor in how to organize the rest of the rifle platoon when we discuss the fire support available to them.

I don't think one should ever discuss a rifle platoon or section in isolation from what a company, battalion or even a brigade can bring to the fight that helps them do their job.

 

[IKnowNothing]

There’s 4 C16s per company so they hold one of them.


Which four crew served weapons ?

Thanks. Is that it?

As per Section/Platoon in Operations: C6, "Anti-Armour weapon," "Light Mortar", as needed C16.

 

[KevinB]

I don't think one should ever discuss a rifle platoon or section in isolation from what a company, battalion or even a brigade can bring to the fight that helps them do their job.

Except there are numerous examples of Platoons and Sections being isolated or intentionally dispersed on their own.

I agree it’s not what one wants, but when one looks at the CA, you have a slew of holes across the formations. I’m not sure all the missing items are at Coy+ level, and when you start talking about Brigade the ice gets really thin.


Going back to the original premise of the thread, the Section and Platoon, they seems to be a lot of willingness to field subpar systems at the Section and Platoon for fear that better systems have too far a range.

LWCLU Javelin seems to be a poster child for this.

 

[markppcli]

Going back to the original premise of the thread, the Section and Platoon, they seems to be a lot of willingness to field subpar systems at the Section and Platoon for fear that better systems have too far a range.

LWCLU Javelin seems to be a poster child for this.

I’m not super convinced I want 4 of my 7 man section operating the support weapons. That’s where I like an NLAW / Spike SR in a section. I realize I was also suggesting an 84 in every LAV but I’ve come away from that view.

Thanks. Is that it?

As per Section/Platoon in Operations: C6, "Anti-Armour weapon," "Light Mortar", as needed C16.

With respect anything that quotes a light mortar is out of date by about a decade. I’m not saying that the 2016 edition doesn’t say it the weapons det has one, but the 60 was replaced by the c16. There were a couple comments from a doctrine guy in the Force 2025 thread talking about how they some times right what we “should have” instead of what we “do have.”

 

[IKnowNothing]

With respect anything that quotes a light mortar is out of date by about a decade. I’m not saying that the 2016 edition doesn’t say it the weapons det has one, but the 60 was replaced by the c16. There were a couple comments from a doctrine guy in the Force 2025 thread talking about how they some times right what we “should have” instead of what we “do have.”

Granted ,but we don't have any section anti armour weapon, and the platoon one is a CG84. This is a hypothetical discussion about what we "should have."
Within the last couple of pages mortars came up. If Santa brought them tomorrow the status quo "should" would be to add them to the platoon weapons det, which would create the situation I described, leading to the thought that permanently manned coy mortars would be better

 

[KevinB]

@markppcli better to have and not need, than need and not have

Remember the LWCLU is an exceptionally good networked TI as well. It doesn’t always need the missile.

 

[markppcli]

Granted ,but we don't have any section anti armour weapon, and the platoon one is a CG84. This is a hypothetical discussion about what we "should have."
Within the last couple of pages mortars came up. If Santa brought them tomorrow the status quo "should" would be to add them to the platoon weapons det, which would create the situation I described, leading to the thought that permanently manned coy mortars would be better

Sorry I thought we were still talking about the existing pl weapons bet being over tasked with four weapons. Technically we have anti armour weapons for the section, the M72.

@KevinB i get that, but Are we assuming then at all three sections have enough missiles in the network that they can all work at the same time? Who’s managing the missile network ? For me, and maybe I’m lacking in vision here, as a section commander I want to be able to look at whom ever is carrying the weapon and tell him to make something explode and know that it’s going to happen.

 

[KevinB]

Sorry I thought we were still talking about the existing pl weapons bet being over tasked with four weapons. Technically we have anti armour weapons for the section, the M72.

Which are great if one is going up against a T-62 or T-54/55.

@KevinB i get that, but Are we assuming then at all three sections have enough missiles in the network that they can all work at the same time? Who’s managing the missile network ?

I’m assuming that same folks who will also be analyzing data from Section and Platoon UAS feeds
I think one needs to accept their will be more needs for Sigs/Int-analysts at the Coy and Bn levels are part of a networked Military.

In the prepared defense, I would assume that the Weapons would be initially controlled and managed at the Bn level to achieve the most effective salvo with specific targets assigned to each missile system.

Granted this requires bandwidth, integrated ISR and a functioning team.

This has been what the US Army has been focusing on with the DCGS program (it also has a lot of integrated logistics, Int etc aspects to it as well).

 

[GR66]

Which are great if one is going up against a T-62 or T-54/55.

I’m assuming that same folks who will also be analyzing data from Section and Platoon UAS feeds
I think one needs to accept their will be more needs for Sigs/Int-analysts at the Coy and Bn levels are part of a networked Military.

In the prepared defense, I would assume that the Weapons would be initially controlled and managed at the Bn level to achieve the most effective salvo with specific targets assigned to each missile system.

Granted this requires bandwidth, integrated ISR and a functioning team.

This has been what the US Army has been focusing on with the DCGS program (it also has a lot of integrated logistics, Int etc aspects to it as well).

If these weapons are going to be controlled and managed by the Bn should they be a separate Bn asset assigned to support a Section/Platoon/Company rather than taking a Section member away from the Section leader? The dismounted Section (that is actually at the disposal of the Section leader) drops to 5 once the AT Gunner & Loader are effectively under higher level command.

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

If we are fighting a mechanized opponent I could certainly get behind a Javelin in each Section. The US now have a rig to fire them mounted from their Stykers using the remote weapon station while retaining the ability to dismount them. That gives the company commander quite a bit of flexibility. Have six in trenches taking advantage of concealment and terrain while three stay mounted as a AT reserve, for instance.

I could see, though, that having a dismounted Javelin in each section would make them quite clunky.

Anyhoo.

 

[markppcli]

Which are great if one is going up against a T-62 or T-54/55.

Didn’t say it was great, just that it existed.

If we are fighting a mechanized opponent I could certainly get behind a Javelin in each Section. The US now have a rig to fire them mounted from their Stykers using the remote weapon station while retaining the ability to dismount them.

I would imagine that’s broadly similar to what I saw with the Spanish and Italian lighter vehicle ATGM mounts.

That gives the company commander quite a bit of flexibility. Have six in trenches taking advantage of concealment and terrain while three stay mounted as a AT reserve, for instance.

Absolutely.

I could see, though, that having a dismounted Javelin in each section would make them quite clunky.

Anyhoo.

Right so the question is how do you still project HE / AT rounds while dismounted and offensive if you’re all in on something the size of a Javeline?

 

[FJAG]

If these weapons are going to be controlled and managed by the Bn should they be a separate Bn asset assigned to support a Section/Platoon/Company rather than taking a Section member away from the Section leader? The dismounted Section (that is actually at the disposal of the Section leader) drops to 5 once the AT Gunner & Loader are effectively under higher level command.

Too right. Having weapons at the section or platoon controlled by battalion only turns the sections into pack mules. One is far better off to have a dedicated team from battalion and company which has transport capable of carrying plentiful reloads and have them "in location" with platoons but far enough away to not be counterfire magnets.

We're essentially trying to find the thin dividing line between a section having a sufficient supply of light, manageable but capable self defence anti-armour weapons and those heavier systems (including the people to operate them) that form part of the battalion (or at its lowest, the company) anti-armour defence plan.

If the M72 is no longer a capable self defence anti-armour weapon for the section then maybe the first step is to find a suitable replacement for the M72 at the section level which can be issued as ammunition without needing dedicated teams and light enough to haul several around. Build your first dedicated anti-armour teams at the platoon weapon det level and not the section.

I think one needs to be careful to not turn the section into a primarily tank hunting organization or into a Swiss Army knife whose section vehicle is an arms locker for every eventuality. In a properly organized attack there should still be a host of dismounted infantry protecting the armoured vehicles and trying to work their way into our defences. They too will require significant attention from the section and should not be ignored. The question, once again is, where do we start changing from pure self defence anti armour weapons to teams specifically equipped and tasked for the job of armour killing and in what places do we put them in a battalion's establishment and how do we employ them?

 

[Brad Sallows]

I’m not super convinced I want 4 of my 7 man section operating the support weapons.

Couple of "facts" (beliefs with some evidence, really) to dump into the mix:
1. After artillery, the "support weapons" are what do most of the killing (of soldiers and vehicles).
2. People on crewed weapons tend to reliably be active participants in battle (not sure of the epistemic status of the psych stuff which underpins that).

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Couple of "facts" (beliefs with some evidence, really) to dump into the mix:
1. After artillery, the "support weapons" are what do most of the killing (of soldiers and vehicles).
2. People on crewed weapons tend to reliably be active participants in battle (not sure of the epistemic status of the psych stuff which underpins that).

The Germans in WW2 would keep the crew served weapons functioning at the expense of everything else in an Infantry Coy. No, they did not win, but I agree with Brad.

 

[GK .Dundas]

Too right. Having weapons at the section or platoon controlled by battalion only turns the sections into pack mules. One is far better off to have a dedicated team from battalion and company which has transport capable of carrying plentiful reloads and have them "in location" with platoons but far enough away to not be counterfire magnets.

We're essentially trying to find the thin dividing line between a section having a sufficient supply of light, manageable but capable self defence anti-armour weapons and those heavier systems (including the people to operate them) that form part of the battalion (or at its lowest, the company) anti-armour defence plan.

If the M72 is no longer a capable self defence anti-armour weapon for the section then maybe the first step is to find a suitable replacement for the M72 at the section level which can be issued as ammunition without needing dedicated teams and light enough to haul several around. Build your first dedicated anti-armour teams at the platoon weapon det level and not the section.

I think one needs to be careful to not turn the section into a primarily tank hunting organization or into a Swiss Army knife whose section vehicle is an arms locker for every eventuality. In a properly organized attack there should still be a host of dismounted infantry protecting the armoured vehicles and trying to work their way into our defences. They too will require significant attention from the section and should not be ignored. The question, once again is, where do we start changing from pure self defence anti armour weapons to teams specifically equipped and tasked for the job of armour killing and in what places do we put them in a battalion's establishment and how do we employ them?

The M 72 still provides a direct fire weapon that still allows you to suppress an enemy position quite nicely
Beats a hand grenade all to hell and gone ,don't it !
However the question is whether or not it will take out an AFV effectively?
I Assume we can always see if we can pick up some assorted ifvs and tanks and begin testing
Assuming we haven't given all of our M 72s to the Ukrainians.

 

[markppcli]

Couple of "facts" (beliefs with some evidence, really) to dump into the mix:
1. After artillery, the "support weapons" are what do most of the killing (of soldiers and vehicles).
2. People on crewed weapons tend to reliably be active participants in battle (not sure of the epistemic status of the psych stuff which underpins that).

I agree with both those points; however if we are going to employ a gun group / assault groups methodology then we have to account for numbers and some positions. If we have two men operating a C6 say, and a further two operating some kind of ATGM in the vein of a javelin that leaves 3 left in the section. One of those is the 2 IC, presumably running the support weapons, so then I have the Sect Commander and that one “rifleman” for assaults. Not ideal in my mind. Now if we adjust to the MG and single soldier operated disposable ATGM like Spike SR or NLAW, light enough to be carried in the assault, then it’s a four man assault which is enough to form a stack.

 

[daftandbarmy]

The M 72 still provides a direct fire weapon that still allows you to suppress an enemy position quite nicely
Beats a hand grenade all to hell and gone ,don't it !
However the question is whether or not it will take out an AFV effectively?
I Assume we can always see if we can pick up some assorted ifvs and tanks and begin testing
Assuming we haven't given all of our M 72s to the Ukrainians.

I doubt they would want these ineffective Cold War relics when they could have the 'tank fist':

 

[GK .Dundas]

The M 72 still provides a direct fire weapon that still allows you to suppress an enemy position quite nicely
Beats a hand grenade all to hell and gone ,don't it !
However the question is whether or not it will take out an AFV effectively?
I Assume we can always see if we can pick up some assorted ifvs and tanks and begin testing
Assuming we haven't given all of our M 72s to the Ukrainians.

Which leads me to my next pet peeve.
We are restocking the ammo bunkers, aren't we ?

 

[GR66]

Too right. Having weapons at the section or platoon controlled by battalion only turns the sections into pack mules. One is far better off to have a dedicated team from battalion and company which has transport capable of carrying plentiful reloads and have them "in location" with platoons but far enough away to not be counterfire magnets.

We're essentially trying to find the thin dividing line between a section having a sufficient supply of light, manageable but capable self defence anti-armour weapons and those heavier systems (including the people to operate them) that form part of the battalion (or at its lowest, the company) anti-armour defence plan.

If the M72 is no longer a capable self defence anti-armour weapon for the section then maybe the first step is to find a suitable replacement for the M72 at the section level which can be issued as ammunition without needing dedicated teams and light enough to haul several around. Build your first dedicated anti-armour teams at the platoon weapon det level and not the section.

I think one needs to be careful to not turn the section into a primarily tank hunting organization or into a Swiss Army knife whose section vehicle is an arms locker for every eventuality. In a properly organized attack there should still be a host of dismounted infantry protecting the armoured vehicles and trying to work their way into our defences. They too will require significant attention from the section and should not be ignored. The question, once again is, where do we start changing from pure self defence anti armour weapons to teams specifically equipped and tasked for the job of armour killing and in what places do we put them in a battalion's establishment and how do we employ them?

I'm wondering if something reusable and multi-purpose like the Carl-G would be better replacement for the M72 or a single-shot ATGM in the Section. Still much lighter than the Javelin but effective against a wide range of targets and not just a one-shot wonder.

Perhaps a spot for a single NLAW could be found in the LAV as well for those "oh shyte" moments as well.

 

[FJAG]

I doubt they would want these ineffective Cold War relics when they could have the 'tank fist':

When I was doing my last post I spent a little time looking around at alternatives and the Panzerfaust 3 was one of the first things that I looked at. Unfortunately the firing unit alone weighs in at 5 pounds and the projectiles come in at 25 to 29 pounds. A new lightweight Carl G clocks in at 14 pounds with ammo at roughly 7 pounds per round. An M72 at roughly 7 pounds.

A Javelin CLU at 14 pounds (LWCLU at roughly 8-9 pounds) and the round at 35 pounds

There's obviously a big weight tradeoff for effectiveness that needs careful consideration. For a PzF 3 you could issue Javelins.