Quote from: Infanteer on May 22, 2005, 04:58:59
Next, give this article a read - very good stuff ...
http://www.defence.gov.au/army/AbstractsOnline/AAJournal/2003_W/AAJ_w_2003_04.pdf
My overall impression is that the article does a great job of summing up the nuts-and-bolts of the tactical battle the Infantry will face.� To sum it up:
1) Suppression is the key to winning the tactical battle.
2) Maneuver remains essential before and after the battle - it is required to "set up" a tactical victory by finding the right points and to secure the tactical victory by properly exploiting the gains of the battle.
I have circled back to this thread since it ties in some of the meandering I was doing in "Future Armour" and "Thinking about the Infantry attack"
In all cases, light , medium or heavy forces, we will need to equip the troops with a means of Manoeuvre. The model of close combat is a series of actions against local strong points and bunkers, using high volume of fire (or magic bullet PGMs) to suppress the enemy and break his will, allowing the unit to advance.
Light forces will need air or Helicopter mobility, or alternatively some sort of tactical vehicle with similar characteristics to the HMMVW. This gives them the ability to get in and out; setting up the tactical victory and allowing them to exploit the gains of the battle. This also provides a means to win the suppression battle, since vehicles can transport extra weapons and ammunition, and act as firing platforms as well. HMMVW sized vehicles have been demonstrated with almost every IF and DF weapons station imaginable (missiles, machine guns, cannons and AGLs), and while we can argue about the relative virtues of each, whatever they carry should be versatile against a wide range of targets and be relatively easy to use. Resurrecting weapons like the 106mm RR should be considered, since it gives light troops and vehicles the means to deal with hard targets like bunkers and AFVs. A section of vehicles attached to each platoon could provide suppression fire with HMGs or AGL's, while DF fire could come from an organic "fire support company".
Medium forces like the proposed Armoured Cavalry or LAV based combat teams need to emphasise fire more, adding extra sections of LAV "gunships" which can manoeuvre independent of the Infantry company to provide fire from flanks or other positions is one suggestion I would push very strongly. Equipping the LAV-TOW with a more potent weapon like ground launched HELLFIRE, BRIMESTONE or FOG-M would help a lot, as well as upping the amount of LAV-mortars available. I will discount MGS in its present form since it doesn't carry a worthwhile amount of ammunition, and while the MMEV as conceived now may be able to use its long range to manoeuvre independently and take flank shots from outside the zone of engagement, improved LAV-TOW can do the same thing. This concept relies on "magic bullet" firepower to substitute for tank fire.
Heavy forces can be done in many ways, but the essential DF tasks will still rely on a vehicle resembling a tank. The tank itself will have to evolve to be more mobile, without sacrificing too much in the way of protection and lelethalityCovering fire should come from an artillery weapon with a high rate of fire, the FH-70 6X6 with a 155 howitzer feeding from a 24 round magazine and autoloader comes to mind. Infantry should rereceiveaximum protection, I would argue for a HAPC like the ACHZARIT for this task. A heavy "gunship" vehicle to provide extra fire support is also a must (as on the models above).
Organizationally, I think a section of vehicles (without dismounts) attached to each platoon is about right in providing extra firepower and some reserve mobility without making the platoon commander's job too difficult (A "weapons Sgt" position would be created for controlling the movement and fire of the vehicles). The primary job of these vehicles is to move to points of observation; place fire on the enemy until they either flee, are destroyed or are "cracked" and can be assaulted, and cover the move of the dismounted force as they caterpillar to the next point of observation. Since they are similar in size and layout to the other vehicles in the team, they can carry troops if the primary carriers have been damaged or destroyed.
Supplementing the extra vehicles and firepower is improved situational awareness. This starts from the bottom with PRR so the troops can communicate both within and between sections, vehicle mounted situational awareness suites and the ability of team leaders and vehicle commanders to get off board information, such as viewing the "next bound" though a TUAV before crossing. A company should also have an organic section of TUAVs attached as well.
The combat team of tomorrow will be a bigger organization, and bristling with more "teeth" and "eyes", but should also be able to move much faster and be able to fight more effectively as a result.
(Edited to correct the spell checking!)
and am quite happy in the reconnaissance world. I agree wholeheartedly that we need to adapt to our new structure. I became a believer in the LAV/Coyote overseas and these forces excell at security/stability operations. I think that reconaissance and surveillance are also tasks that they can do very well even in a conventional warfighting scenario. My only point (if I indeed have one) is that we need to accept that the loss of the tank means that the Mech Inf need to adapt as well for conventional operations. Part of this adaptation should perhaps include a new role (closing with and destroying the enemy may have to modified somewhat) and not simply new tactics. 
