Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Platoon OrBat & the LSW/GPMG debate

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    It's gas; I remember getting shot down for suggesting getting the HBAR Steyr for the then-FCA as a Bren replacement years ago & here we are again! I suggested it as a low-cost alternative to the MAG for the pre-integrated Reserve. It would have minimized the training required; given Reservists a support weapon they could have actually used on exercise and, given that any real-world operation they would have carried out would have been an internal security one á la the 70's, been adequate for requirements.

    Even if there wasn't a question over the Beta mag's reliability, I always thought that it looked very unwieldy on the Steyr. You'd have to stick with the 42-round magazine, or if you're really walting, get Surefire to come up with a compatible version of their 60-round mag.
    "The dolphins were monkeys that didn't like the land, walked back to the water, went back from the sand."

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by apod View Post
      Beta C mags are very prone to stoppages.The wing no longer use them.
      PSO section strength is 10 troops. 8 dismounts and two APC crew.That is doctrine and SOP.
      We kept the MAG after our experience in Timor and the advice from both the Aussies and Kiwis who lamented getting rid of theirs.We only bought the new model 3-4 years ago.No change coming anytime soon.
      The wing first got the Minimi and M203 for Timor.
      A couple of points.
      PSO section will change with the Mowag modernisation. The crew of the mowag will go to three (Driver, Gunner and vehicle Commander) with the introduction of the RWS, which will reduce the number of dismounts for a start.
      More importantly the optics on the RWS will allow precision fire support from the vehicle to support the dismount team to a far greater extent and at much greater ranges than the existing turret.

      Secondly while only the RWS has been announced it’s also likely that there will be changes to the mowag that will improve its level of mine protection .In particular seating that will improve crew survivability against IED blasts. But that will further reduce interior space leaving space for seven or potentially six dismounts (just like the Canadian LAV).


      Thirdly, the whole idea of having a weapon like the mag in the section dates back to cold war doctrine and fighting tanks. The idea was that the FSG would fire at armoured vehicles forcing their crews down from hatches reducing visibility and thus the rest of the section could use its anti-armour weapons to engage the targets. However fighting tanks is no longer a priority, the actual priority is small groups of insurgents mixed in with and hard to tell apart from the civilan population.

      A key lesson from the Brecon experience for me is from the notes on slide 50

      During a pl attack with TES a Pl on PSBC grouped their 3 x GPMG as a fire support group. The first objective was an open fire pit with 2 x enemy in it. At H Hr the GPMGs began to engage at a rapid rate, The first Section then launched. It dropped off a Fire Team (with an LMG) as a point of fire. It then dropped off another pair (with an LMG) as a point of fire. The final pair then assaulted. This meant that at one point there were 9 men, with 5 belt fed weapons, engaging the enemy position. When the TES data was interrogated it showed that the first two rounds fired on H Hr had hit and killed the two enemy. The enemy had then neither moved nor fired for the rest of the attack. Therefore for approx 5 mins the Pl had fired several thousand rounds at two dead bodies.

      I’m not advocating getting rid of the mag but it shouldn’t be a section weapon, it’s a platoon level weapon. That’s what the US do and given the optics and training available today and the fact that the mag is a heavy awkward ****er to move about, I’d agree with Brecon that it makes sense to deploy it at platoon level, where it is an area suppression weapon (along with a 60mm commando mortar to fire illume and smoke to support the platoon.). And that’s what the Canadians do in their lav platoons.

      A key thing for the brits is that their Northern Ireland experience has led them to use multiples more often than platoons, and that cuts to their budget will result in them bringing down the numbers even more. I’d suggest Brecon are looking at the platoon at slide eleven onwards as pretty standard.

      If I were them, and looking at what they’re advocating, I’d argue their thinking about keeping the platoon HQ as it is, and removing three men from each section to from a platoon level FSG with a single MAG and improved optics (Corporal, gunner assistant gunner). That leaves three sections each with six men, and by Afghanistan standards they’ll have 2 UGLs, 2 Minini and 2 rifles for the Corporal and his lance, (Possibly one is the sharpshooter?).

      Basically the future British section is going to be more like an enlarged fire team with six members. Again going by slide 41 they’re looking at moving away from belt fed weapons and moving the section more towards assault.

      I’d argue that they’re not going to bring back the LSW as anything other than an interim measure , its just too shit for words, but they’ll look at something like the M-60E6 the Danes have just bought (low recoil, low rate of fire, in 7.62mm, that people can crawl around buildings and hedgerows with) and just have one per section, and possibly only one grenade launcher.
      Last edited by paul g; 28 April 2014, 16:04.

      Comment


      • #33
        Hi all,
        This smells of the 7.62 versus 5.56 argument, which just goes around in circles. Cold hard experience is what really decides and I think that removing a machine-gun from a section is a bad idea, as well as reducing the section size. If you look at the Iraq and Afghan experience, what usually happens is that taking even one casualty reduces the effectivity of a reduced-size section drastically, as they have to use at least two men to treat and move a casualty or get them away from an IED as well as defend themselves so you are soon down to three of four people capable of firing, one of whom is attempting to be in charge of the immediate situation as well as spend a huge amount of his time trying to maintain credible comms. Also, the firepower demanded invariably goes up from section rifles to machine-guns to section-fired explosives such as 203/hand grenade/AT-4 to platoon-level mortars or HMGs to vehicle weapons, right up to aircraft weapons.Also, the physical burden being placed on men is not sustainable, because it drives up the casualty rate for non-combat injuries such as heat exhaustion/ muscle and bone injuries and so on. Anything that can be done to ease the load has to be considered.

        regards
        GttC

        Comment


        • #34
          Not going into too much detail
          9 man section with 1 x GPMG - 6 people available to bayonet enemy
          8 man section with 2 x LMG - 6 people available to bayonet enemy

          The section will have a casualty - you need at least 6 people to CASEVAC 1 casualty even a short distance

          Comment


          • #35
            There is no one right answer

            There are a lot of factors to take account of:
            - ground (length of fields of fire)
            - cover (penetration required)
            - dispersal of en (size of beaten zone vs accurate fire)
            - ROE
            - likely hood of collateral damage

            The whole fire team idea is that they are interchangible. If the DF want to go down that route we need twice as many (and a new (probably 5.56)) LMG. The huge distance is that you can't go larger than 10 per section (too hard to control, spread over 2 vehicles etc), anything less than 8 is really useless as 1 casualty more or less means the whole section is gone). So that leaves 8 or 9.

            The more riflemen you have the more flexible you are.

            The huge advantage we have over a lot of armies is we have coy level support weapons.

            Comment


            • #36
              PSO section will change with the Mowag modernisation. The crew of the mowag will go to three (Driver, Gunner and vehicle Commander) with the introduction of the RWS, which will reduce the number of dismounts for a start.
              No need for that to happen.At present once the section(8 pax) is mounted the section commander is the car commander.Once dismounted the gunner becomes the vehicle commander.So their is no need to change the current structure.If the car comes under contact while the gunner is "UP" he can easily drop down and man the RWS(section dismounted)but if contact is imminent he will be hull down anyway.
              "Let us be clear about three facts. First, all battles and all wars are won in the end by the infantryman. Secondly, the infantryman always bears the brunt. His casualties are heavier, he suffers greater extremes of discomfort and fatigue than the other arms. Thirdly, the art of the infantryman is less stereotyped and far harder to acquire in modern war than that of any other arm." ------- Field Marshall Wavell, April 1945.

              Comment


              • #37
                you also need men to build defences/ stand guard/man VCPs/maintain a food and water supply/detain PoWs/service vehicles, who are usually robbed out of sections for the task.........build the section, for the moment, without considering the vehicle size, as it may not always be Mowags that move them. In fact, section size may be dictated by helicopter cabin size or accomodation size. In fact, build the section on a fighting patrol scale around the ten-man ideal.

                regards
                GttC

                Comment


                • #38
                  Because you are unlikely to have a full section - atts/dets, work parties, patrols, duties, leave, casualties

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by apod View Post
                    No need for that to happen.At present once the section(8 pax) is mounted the section commander is the car commander.Once dismounted the gunner becomes the vehicle commander.So their is no need to change the current structure.If the car comes under contact while the gunner is "UP" he can easily drop down and man the RWS(section dismounted)but if contact is imminent he will be hull down anyway.
                    Depends where they put the controls

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Truck Driver View Post
                      They've been booting around the Curragh Camp recently in some very gucci sand coloured quads
                      "The dolphins were monkeys that didn't like the land, walked back to the water, went back from the sand."

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        It seems like sections of 9/10, split into three groups (of 3 pers' each minimum), offers the most flexibility in many respects.

                        Having only 6-8 pers' sections could possibly lead too quickly, to having sections split into two small halves, and if one half becomes ineffective, it leaves the other very vulnerable, and with no backup. Similarly, it would too easily lead to only pairs of soldiers operating together and again, same danger that if one becomes ineffective, the other becomes very vulnerable and has no backup.

                        Working in threes would much better provide for cover, and backup - e.g. if 1 pers in 3 is injured = 2 to CASEVAC and cover initially, or in case of section groups, there will always be the backup (MMG) group to reinforce, provide cover for, or RV point for the other two groups - especially if one of the first two groups becomes ineffective. The practice has worked for a long time...

                        The possibility of ...retreat... in the case of things going badly should not be forgotten (!), and in that case - the 'hangback in the background' MMG /FSG element with the MAG could come into its own.

                        (Otherwise, visualise it as this; each group as a dot/point - with a line - linking it to the next. And think in terms of movement of these points,.. or elimination of these points by attack from any angle. With only two points you can only make a line, and if one point disappears - you are immediately left with one vulnerable unsupported point.
                        With 3 points - a line or, a circle can be made, and if one point disappears - it is not a disaster, as at least there is a mutually supporting linked pair).

                        9/10 Section:
                        A group - Steyr (box fed) LMG [to close to objective]?
                        B group - K3 LMG (low ROF belt fed/Steyr box compatible) [manoeuvers in support of 'A']?
                        C group - MAG - MMG as exists (belt fed) [holds a rear position in support of 'A' & 'B']

                        ???? - above two simple LMG additions combined with the exiting army's Section format and MMG, offer a lot of flexibility (e.g. pick and choose elements for missions)...purchase price of Steyr LMG and K3 LMG would probably be quite reasonable, and if obtained minus (mostly extraneous) accessories...

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          The British Army is set to move away from its use of the FN Para Minimi or L110A2 at the fire team level. The move will reopen debate around suppresive fire


                          UK looking at getting rid of Minimi

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            The return of the FAL?
                            For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by na grohmití View Post
                              The return of the FAL?
                              Has been back for a few years.... for sniper pairs

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                As one of the Arrse posters pointed out, the Minimi was fine until the Taliban copped on and stayed back at 800m range and used their usual PKM, so you had 5.56 being upstaged by a round first brought into service a century ago...

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X