Infantry Rifle Company Wpns Dets

[Pikache]

So here‘s my feeble attempt to generate some theoretical discussion.

Currently a platoon weapons det has
1x C6
1x Carl G
1x 60mm mortar

Plus another weapons det attached to company, it gives a company
4x C6
4x Carl G
4x 60mm mortar

The question is, are the weapons assigned to wpns det utilized most efficiently?

One 60mm mortar tube isn‘t that effective (esp. in light role). Should it be grouped with rest of the mortars in the company to form a 4 tube mortar det?

Should also all the Carl Gs be grouped into some sort of anti tank det for company?

Should platoons have another C6 for more firepower?

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Where does the Eryx fit in?

 

[portcullisguy]

From what I understand, the PL wpns dets are often assigned to the coy, in the larger scale of things.

A pl operating alone has the majority of its firepower in the wpns det. A coy operating as three pl‘s has the majority of its firepower in the 3 wpns dets, and the mortars and C6‘s become coy assets. The coy comd is responsible for assigning the tasks and locating the wpns to best support the coy as a whole.

I believe this concept is carried up the chain to battalion, brigade, etc. Thus a battalion will have a support element made up of the coy‘s wpns dets.

Of course, you already know the wpns dets do not always have to stay grouped together, and even at the pl level, the pl comd can decide where to position each element of the det. In the defensive role, a C6 might be on one flank, while the Carl G is on the other, covering high speed appraoches. The mortar might be with the rear sect, or the HQ sect, if not assigned to the coy.

Since they are all pl assets, the entire pl is responsible for carrying the ammunition for the wpns det. Adding a C6 would add to the load of ammunition, but is probably not an unreasonable idea.

Assuming the 3:1 attack ratio, a pl would be attacking a sect size enemy, and in that role a lone 60mm mortar would be more than useful, when used together with the other support wpns.

Of course, a pl in the defensive might want a few more mortars... but then again, any they had would probably be placed in a coy wpns det anyway.

 

[Jungle]

Originally posted by RoyalHighlandFusilier:
[qb]Plus another weapons det attached to company, it gives a company
4x C6
4x Carl G
4x 60mm mortar
[/qb]

The weapons listed above are kept by the CQ as spares. There is no weapons det at Coy level.
The grouping of 60mm mortars at Coy level has been done before and is quite effective, but it is not current practice.

Ex-Dragoon: the ERYX is distributed as follows:
- Mech Infantry: 1 per section
- Light Infantry: 1 per Platoon

 

[MJP]

One 60mm mortar tube isn‘t that effective (esp. in light role). Should it be grouped with rest of the mortars in the company to form a 4 tube mortar det?

IIRC this how 3vp used the 60mm in Afghanistan(or least was prepared to use it in this fashion).

Should platoons have another C6 for more firepower

Yes

I remember reading somewhere(CIA reading site from gagetown IIRC), that this would be looked at as a standard for the wpns det. I will try and find the article, or at least post the url for others to read.

Where does the Eryx fit in?

The Eryx is a section weapon and there are three per plt. Now where they‘re sited(in the defence) are out of the sections hands as this is usually done by the plt or coy comd in accordance with the BN anti-armour plan. In the offense, they are unwieldy to carry and are usually left in the vehicles on the attack, but are readily accesible to site in hasty defense. This again is for mech AFAIK, eryx is issued on a scale of one per plt for light BNs.

 

[devil39]

Originally posted by RoyalHighlandFusilier:
[qb] So here‘s my feeble attempt to generate some theoretical discussion.

Currently a platoon weapons det has
1x C6
1x Carl G
1x 60mm mortar

Plus another weapons det attached to company, it gives a company
4x C6
4x Carl G
4x 60mm mortar

The question is, are the weapons assigned to wpns det utilized most efficiently?

One 60mm mortar tube isn‘t that effective (esp. in light role). Should it be grouped with rest of the mortars in the company to form a 4 tube mortar det?

Should also all the Carl Gs be grouped into some sort of anti tank det for company?

Should platoons have another C6 for more firepower? [/qb]

It really depends on the task.

Wpns dets should have 2 x C6 in the light role in my opinion.

Pl wpns dets are the most efficient use of the weapons. You can always group them at Coy level if you have to. You should always allow the Platoons to have the flexibilty to conduct operations without begging for support.

I wouldn‘t bother grouping 84‘s. They will seldom be grouped at Coy level, and if need be they can, but are better off as a platoon asset.

One mortar at the coy level has significant utility based on your requirements and fire support situation. I can think of situations where one mortar with smoke bombs will significantly aid your operations at the coy level. They can be grouped when need be, in an indirect role even, if you can find an Advanced Mortar qualified NCO or Officer.

My personal opinion is that light infantry weapons dets should be 8 or 10 pers at platoon and coy level.

This would make it significantly larger than your current proposed establishment at the coy level. ie:

8 x C6
4 x 60
4 x 84
Options for marksman exist with a 10 man org, and threat and op requirements allow you to mix and match within this org.

One should never feel constrained by the doctrinal version when faced with real operations and their attendant constraints and demands.

 

[Infanteer]

Remember, all these weapons usually require ALOT of ammunition to be effective. You can‘t add too many to a light company before all the riflemen are converted into ammo bearers.

My ideal thoughts (after long hours of guard shack discussion in BiH) is:
-------
Platoon Weapons Det (7 pers):
1 Det Commander - MCpl
2 C6 teams (4)
1 84 team (7)

Attached to the Coy HQ
Mtr Section (11 pers):
1 Mtr Section Commander - Sgt
1 Mtr Section 2ic - MCpl
3 60mm Mortar Teams (9)
MG Section (11 pers):
1 MG Section Commander - Sgt
1 MG Section 2ic - MCpl
2 C6 Teams (9)
-----

Also, of interest, the US Marines possess a weapons platoon within their companies (staying consistant with their 3+1+1 theory; three rifle elements:1 support elementne command element). They are commanded by officers and have Platoon NCOs. Any thoughts of the advantages/disadvantages of this approach?.

 

[devil39]

Originally posted by Infanteer:
[qb] Remember, all these weapons usually require ALOT of ammunition to be effective. You can‘t add too many to a light company before all the riflemen are converted into ammo bearers.

My ideal thoughts (after long hours of guard shack discussion in BiH) is:
-------
Platoon Weapons Det (7 pers):
1 Det Commander - MCpl
2 C6 teams (4)
1 84 team (7)

Attached to the Coy HQ
Mtr Section (11 pers):
1 Mtr Section Commander - Sgt
1 Mtr Section 2ic - MCpl
3 60mm Mortar Teams (9)
MG Section (11 pers):
1 MG Section Commander - Sgt
1 MG Section 2ic - MCpl
2 C6 Teams (9)
-----

Also, of interest, the US Marines possess a weapons platoon within their companies (staying consistant with their 3+1+1 theory; three rifle elements:1 support elementne command element). They are commanded by officers and have Platoon NCOs. Any thoughts of the advantages/disadvantages of this approach?. [/qb]

All riflemen at one time or another will become ammo bearers. C6 link, grenades, mor bombs, 84 rounds, etc.

I will buy your configuration less the 3 man C6 tms at the coy level.

As I said earlier, you will mix and match based on the tactical situation. Your bottom line and mine are not that different. I would keep my single mortar at the Pl level in many operations based on the fire support situation with an option to group them.

Do not think that an 8 or 10 man weapons det will carry its own ammo. All riflemen will become ammo bearers (after long hours of walking through mountains).

 

[Infanteer]

Do not think that an 8 or 10 man weapons det will carry its own ammo. All riflemen will become ammo bearers (after long hours of walking through mountains).

Believe me, I know that. I was cautioning against bringing so much fire support to the effect that their is not enough ammo. This should be considered when designing light infantry support doctrine (not accusing you of ignoring it).

As for mixing and matching, 100% agree with you. No point bringing an Anti-Armour Company if your going to fight Al-Queda terrorists in the mountains. Different missions call for different approaches and hence different tools.

For a bit of a shift in topic, what about ideas on the Direct Fire Support companies that are being tossed around for the new Light Infantry Battalion doctrine. Any thoughts. I liked the American use of light vehicles with a mix of TOW, M-2, and M-19 as something to build off of.

 

[xFusilier]

Don‘t know about TOW, its a great anti-armour weapon, but for bunker busting and the like, its sort of like using a $70,000 diposable sledge hammer to kill a fly.

Anybody remember the work they were doing at T&E about 8 years ago on the 106mm RR with the CLASS site, now that mounted on a Pinzgauer, would be the ideal light infantry DFS weapon.

As for the 60 mm Mortar at Coy, level, I‘ve never really thought of the 60 as any more that a smoke projector and a means to provide effective illumiation at the PL/Coy level. Then again perhaps when deployed as an indirect fire group. Given the choice between 3 GPMG‘s in the SF role and 3 60 mm Mtr I‘d take the GPMG‘s.

 

[gate_guard]

I still like the idea of keeping a 60 at platoon level. It‘s easily portable and at the very least gives more options for close indirect fire support. I think there are times, ie mountainous terrain, where a 60 can be useful. Again as was stated above, adapt to the role and environment.
As for C6s, haven‘t we already adopted 2 per platoon for light infantry doctrine?

 

[gate_guard]

.

 

[devil39]

The Mk 19 is an excellent weapon. It would be an excellent veh mount for both infantry and our CSS bretheren for their self defence on the current battlefield.

I was reading about the new XM307 in Jane‘s (I believe that is the designation). It is supposed to be a 25 mm grenade launcher firing fused shells. Wpn has an integral laser that sets fuse timing. The next generation of the Mk 19. Weighs in at 18 kg including mount. That is man-portable firepower.

 

[MJP]

Here is the link I mentioned above, you will require DIN access.

ftp://gagetown.mil.ca/infantry/

 

[hhour48]

The Russian infantry uses AGS-17 (similar to Mark-19) automatic grenade launcher in the light-role.
It is manpackable, although heavy as F***, but provides formidable firepower.

A similar weapon would definitely be an asset.

 

[Jarnhamar]

I figure the 60mm would be effective even at platoon level. I‘ve read the mortar was one of the best weapons the americans had at platoon level during their fighting in afghanastan. The only draw back they had was that aircraft wouldnt drop down below a certian level for fear of being hit by a mortar round (i supose).

I think a major consideration is man power. Things look great on paper or when someone i splanning something at the beginning of a yea or training cycle but when you have guys on leave, tasked away to the next level of command or on sick chits (hurt while playing hockey) it makes a pretty big strain on the platoon. Just as an example i‘m tasked as the platoon signaller, transport NCO, hq driver/sometimes storesman and (durning war fighting) the #1&2 on the carl gustav.
Maybe if platoons had a few more people floating around it would be easier to fill in gaps?

 

[Steel Badger]

I remember reading something from the CTC which indicated that Light Infantry companies would be increaased in str by the creation of a support platoon to include an MG, Mortar and Recce Section...

Has anyone else seen this document or know where I put mine?

 

[bdcasey916]

Just my bit of input, usually its not worth much, but one never knows.
When I worked at the infantry school, the battle task standard was updated to have C6x2 per platoon wpns det.  We went out on ex, and 2 GPMG's came with us, and if it was in defensive, we had both with SF kits.  I know my unit follows this, but since it is based right beside Gagetown, we get all the updated BTS. 

 

[pbi]

One should never feel constrained by the doctrinal version when faced with real operations and their attendant constraints and demands.

Well said, Devil. Use what you have to do the job, however it needs to be done.

A couple of comments:

Except in a very hasty or very dispersed defense situation, the siting of the major weapons systems is done by the company commander, usually working from the battalion fire effects plans. This has to be in order to ensure that both the battalion and the company plans are cohesive, mutually supportng, and make best use of what is available.


Ref the 60, it is still a very good little system and is in regular use by the US forces). The "coy  mortar group" can be constituted in the attack or the defence, and if you have the fourth tube and the crew members from coy HQ you can thump in some pretty respectable fire.

Devil: that AGL you were referring to: is it the same as the "Striker" we were looking at a few years ago? I agree 100% that a company should have at least some AGLs: it has limitations but it seems very useful and flexible in both offense and defense. Cheers.

 

[IPC10]

I believe that in Oct of 03 DAD signed off on a proposed light infantry structure, the structure was based on the numbers required in a LAV Coy and includes positions for the additional LAV leadership â “ LAV Sgts, LAV Capt etc.   The idea was that if you parked the LAVs a mech company would form as such.   It would also be used for the light battalions.   I am not putting this out there to say that Mech Inf and Light Inf are the same, that argument is in another thread, I am just putting out some info on Light Inf Orbats.

A Light Infantry Platoon is a 36 man structure (1-5-30):
Pl HQ 1-1-2 (4);
Wpns Sect 0-1-7 (8);
3x Rifle Sect 0-1-7 (24 total).

The LAV Sgt posn becomes the Wpns Sect commander, this is simular to the US AASLT, Airborne and Ranger Orbats and distinctly different than the US Light Inf Orbat (no wpns squad leader â “ like our old wpns det).   Every element has a commander so the Pl 2IC can focus on his job.

At the Company level you get the following Orbat 6-21-119 (146):

Coy HQ 2-1-5 (8);
Coy CSS 0-2-3 (5);
3x Rilfe Pl 1-5-30 (36 each); and
Coy Wpns Pl 1-3-21 (25).

So the LAV Capt position becomes your Wpns Pl Comd.   Wpns Pl, like the Wpns sect will use the â Å“tool boxâ ? or â Å“arms roomâ ? principle and have access to all of the wpns and just take what they need â “ C6, ALAAWS, Eryx, 84mm, 60mm and yes CASW.

As I posted on the peacekeeping brigade thread if you took all of those positions and filled out the exisiting brigades (the hollow army) then this could become a reality.

As for the notes on the 60mm......the Rangers put out an interesting article on "getting the 60mm back into the fight."  And the 60mm Mk 19 Cdn is the longest ranging weapon in the current Inf Coy arsenal (be it Mech or Light).  The fact is that we fail to fully untilize it.