Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Platoons

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

  • Platoons

    Rethinking the 'Rifle' Platoon

    Reorganize the platoon around crew-served weapons

    by Capt Phillip K.S. Sprincin - published April 2007, US Marine Corps Gazette


    Ever since the German Army developed storm troop tactics in World War I (WWI), the effects and employment of crew-served weapons (CSWs) have dominated infantry combat. A distinguishing feature has been the migration of these weapons to smaller and smaller units. Most armies started WWI with machineguns (MGs) as a regimental-level asset, but by WWII automatic weapons were being used as the nucleus of squads and even fire teams. The Marine Corps was a pioneer in this area when it reorganized the infantry squad into fire teams built around an automatic weapon-the Browning automatic rifle. However, today CSWs do not penetrate in a meaningful way below the company level, potentially leaving Marine units dangerously short of firepower in a future high-intensity conflict. This article proposes reorganizing the rifle squad and rifle platoon into infantry squad and infantry platoon and providing each with organic CSWs.

    Integration of CSWs and their use in combined arms is a basic principle of current infantry doctrine. Infantry units have three types of CSWs: MGs that provide a high volume of fire to suppress targets, indirect fire weapons that provide extended range and the ability to engage targets in defilade, and assault/antiarmor weapons (rockets and missiles) that provide destructive high-explosive force against point targets. Organizationally the pattern is for three maneuver units to be paired with a weapons unit containing each of these three weapon types. Thus the company weapons platoon has M240G general-purpose MGs (GPMGs), M224 60mm mortars, and Mk153 shoulder-launched multipurpose weapons (SMAWs) while the battalion weapons company has M2 .50 caliber and Mk19 heavy MGs (HMGs), M242 81 mm mortars, and TOW and Javelin antitank guided missiles. Combined arms integration is also advertised as belonging to the infantry squad-and even fire teams-using the M249 squad automatic weapon (SAW), the M203 grenade launcher, and M136 AT-4 rockets.

    There is, however, a significant gap in this pattern. The rifle platoon and squad possess no organic CSW assets. The trend for the last 100 years has been for combat to become more decentralized and for CSWs to be used by smaller units. Today the focus is on operations conducted by platoon- and squadsized units, yet there are no CSWs to pair with them. In some ways this makes us less tactically/organizationally advanced than the Wehrmacht of WWII who built their squads around a full-sized GPMG, the excellent MG38/42. As a practical matter, many company commanders resolve this issue by attaching MGs, particularly SMAWs, from their weapons platoon to their rifle platoons. This strategy, however, robs the company commander of weapons with which he can influence his fight and does nothing to increase the number of CSWs or trained operators. Also, the probable replacement of the M249 SAW by an "infantry automatic rifle" (IAR) (with reduced sustained fire ability due to a smaller 100-round magazine and no belt feed, no specified quick change barrel, and no requirement to mount on a tripod) will only serve to reduce further the organic firepower of the platoon.

    The Infantry Platoon

    The recommended solution is to reorganize the rifle platoon into an infantry platoon. Each rifle squad would become an infantry squad with a rifle team, an MG team, and a rocket team. Additionally, a mortar team would be attached to the platoon headquarters. The result would be a balanced combined arms team at the levels in which we currently operate the most-the squad and platoon. The following organization assumes that the IAR replaces the SAW and that the M4 is available for issue as an individual weapon......

    (see the whole article at
    http://www.mca-marines.org/gazette/j...le_platoon.asp)

  • #2
    I think that what's proposed in that article swings too far the other way, loading pretty much everyone down with either a crew served weapon or ammo for a crew served weapon, which seriously reduces the bayonet strength of the squad.

    Comment


    • #3
      Sure the weapons unit that is described here is not a single unit it is a group of weapons that are organised to be attached to sections and platoons.

      M203 could be described as a kind of "aimed close range light mortor" so by increasing the number of these in a platoon that would increase the firepower of the section but still allow it to be highly mobile.
      It is only by contemplation of the incompetent that we can appreciate the difficulties and accomplishments of the competent.

      Comment


      • #4
        Not a bad idea for mounted/motorised/mechanized Infantry, but Light Infantry is heavy enough as it is. The organization discussed in the article would seriously hamper the mobility of dismounted units.
        "On the plains of hesitation, bleach the bones of countless millions, who on the very dawn of victory, laid down to rest, and in resting died.

        Never give up!!"

        Comment


        • #5
          Today the focus is on operations conducted by platoon- and squadsized units, yet there are no CSWs to pair with them. In some ways this makes us less tactically/organizationally advanced than the Wehrmacht of WWII who built their squads around a full-sized GPMG, the excellent MG38/42.
          With a GMPG in each section, what exactly am I missing here?
          "Attack your attic with a Steyr....as seen on the Late Late Show..."

          Comment


          • #6
            GPMGs SRAAWS, M203's. What more do you want!?
            "The Question is not: how far you will take this? The Question is do you possess the constitution to go as far as is needed?"

            Comment


            • #7
              Quad bikes!
              Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

              Comment


              • #8
                Taking a look at their squad layout



                They're essentially replacing their minimis with these new IAR ideas (which is basically a rifle with a heavy barrel - LSW anyone?), and carrying a M240/GPMG at squad level again. But they're loading down men with MGLs (6 shot grenade launcher) and SMAWs (rocket launcher), both in addition to their rifles. As zulu said, M203s and SRAAWs do the job fine for a lot less weight.

                It's interesting that the yanks and brits abandoned the idea of carrying a GPMG at section level a few years ago, but are coming back to it now. The minimi obviously just isn't capable of delivering the weight of fire required, and the 2 fireteam concept means that attacks become less going up one flank with a FSG covering you, and more "up the middle with smoke" using fire and manoeuvre. Meanwhile, the Irish army carries on with the 9 man section with GPMG, and it seems we were right all along

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Barry View Post
                  I think that what's proposed in that article swings too far the other way, loading pretty much everyone down with either a crew served weapon or ammo for a crew served weapon, which seriously reduces the bayonet strength of the squad.
                  Promote that man!

                  Keeping the enemys head down is only of some use if you have some troops left to take the position (who aren't carrying heavy weapons).

                  Around the time of the Falklands, the BA had the Carl Gustav 84 as a section weapon (and I don't mean a SRAAW) and a GPMG.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Barry View Post
                    ........

                    It's interesting that the yanks and brits abandoned the idea of carrying a GPMG at section level a few years ago, but are coming back to it now. The minimi obviously just isn't capable of delivering the weight of fire required, and the 2 fireteam concept means that attacks become less going up one flank with a FSG covering you, and more "up the middle with smoke" using fire and manoeuvre. Meanwhile, the Irish army carries on with the 9 man section with GPMG, and it seems we were right all along
                    This was posted on another site (MG4 is a H&K Minimi lookalike):

                    "The Germans replace the MG3 (1) by MG4 (2) in the infantry squad, but retain all MG3 on vehicles (new Puma IFV will have MG4).

                    The MG3 is powerful, but it's tough to have two per squad in anything but defense. Weapon, spare barrel and ammo simply weigh too much for that.
                    Having only one MG per squad means that continuous suppressive fire is unattainable - a myriad of possible reasons* why the machinegunner cannot fire for suppressive effect means lots of windows for the enemy to pin the squad down.
                    Two MG per squad is a very good idea - and MG3 is too heavy for that for all squads short of 12 men strength.


                    *:
                    no line of sight
                    on the move
                    pinned down
                    WIA
                    KIA
                    reloading
                    changing barrel
                    repositioning machinegun (has bipod in infantry use, no tripod)
                    smoke in LOS
                    dust in LOS
                    impaired by blast
                    misunderstood enemy position
                    machinegun damaged
                    machinegun jammed (possible with dirty links)
                    psychological reasons (except being pinned down)
                    distracted"

                    Prior to the particular conditions of Afghanistan, theat seemed to be the trend: two Minimis/SAWs/MG4s in the section/squad, but to retain the 7.62mm MAG/GPMG/M240 in a platoon level weapons section.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      This is another interesting aspect of the proposal, having a 60mm at platoon level,



                      Presumably the 'commando' version of the 60mm mortar, which is much lighter, would be the most appropriate at this level.

                      AFAIK, the Brits used to have a 51mm mortar in the platoon, and the Germans had something similar in WWII.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Is there a need with the M203 ? Fits the role fairly nicely, and we already have the 60 mortar

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Lets compare an Irish infantry battlion (home organisation) with a British Army light infantry battalion (not a Para one):

                          Section level - Brits have LSW & Minimi, rest of weapons broadly the same
                          Platoon level - Brits have 51mm mortar, we don't have any at platoon level
                          Coy level - Brits have no coy level support weapons (we have 60 mortar, 84 A/T & SF, which could go down to pln level)
                          Bn level - Brits have SF as a battalion support weapon (we have HMG) rest is broadly the same

                          In effect an Irish infantry battalion could be considered to have better support weapons than a British one with the possible exception of section level.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by easyrider View Post
                            This is another interesting aspect of the proposal, having a 60mm at platoon level
                            I'd wonder how many rounds the detachment could carry, and if they're going to be able to provide sustained fire with said allotment.
                            "Attack your attic with a Steyr....as seen on the Late Late Show..."

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by DeV View Post
                              Is there a need with the M203 ? Fits the role fairly nicely, and we already have the 60 mortar
                              Main difference is in range, max 350 metres for the 203, 1,000+ metres for a commando 60mm. And presumably a 60mm bomb makes a bigger bang...

                              The argument for assigning more support weapons to the platoon is that a lot of military activity these days is carried out by sections/squads or multiples/half-platoons or platoons, but rarely by companies or batallions. Support weapons can be attached from company as required, but (a) sometimes the need for such weapons might not have been anticipated, and (b) training would be better if the support weapons are an integral part of the team, rather than an occasional add-on.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X