• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Informing the Army’s Future Structure

Give us 40 more Leo 2s, 48 K9s, and 24 MSHORAD and we’re about there. Who’s going to man that is a whole other kettle of fish


connor franta hipster GIF
 
Oh interesting; can you point out some different TTPs they’ve developed ?

Does this qualify?

In the trenches, fields and streets around the Ukrainian city of Bakhmut, Ukrainian tanks are delivering brutal strikes on Russian troops, but not in direct face-to-face combat. Instead, the old T-64 tanks are being used as indirect artillery, with targeting handled by drones or combat helicopters.

Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty filmed some of the tank crews utilizing their armor to bolster Ukrainian artillery. It’s a combined arms tactic that is netting successful strikes, even as both sides fail to break through the other’s lines. If Russians try to target the tanks, they move to a different position and resume barrages.

How about citizens that engaged the Russians with 3 days of "training"? Did they have time to absorb ANY TTPs?

Sections equipped with an assortment of Javelins, NLAWs, Panzerfaust 3s, Matadors, AT4s, CG84s, M72s, RPG7s, RPG22s, Stingers, Starstreaks, Martlets, Milans, etc. Using whatever they can get ahold of to kill whatever is in front of them.

60mm mortar crews using DJIA drones to launch artillery raids. Was that in a pam somewhere? Printing plastic fins to screw onto anti-tank grenades that were jerry-rigged to drop from DJIA drones into trenches, chimneys and hatches.

SU-27s launching HARM missiles. Brimstones launched from trucks. Pickup trucks with HMGs, Autocannons and 70 to 120mm rockets and missiles.

Artillery raids rather than barrages. Small units of guns, employed with precision and short bursts of fire.

Naval drones.

Some of this is no doubt in some manual somewhere but we can't deny that the Ukrainians have shown an extraordinary propensity for innovation and little tendency to be bound by rule books.
 
Does this qualify?



Tanks have been firing indirect since WW2, aerial spotters have existed since the advent of military aviation. Even our Tac Hel pilots train to adjust fires.
How about citizens that engaged the Russians with 3 days of "training"? Did they have time to absorb ANY TTPs?

Are we resorting to this for a three day old post ? Obviously armed civilians raised as temporary militias are going to be operating differently. My understanding is they were being led by active soldiers ?

Sections equipped with an assortment of Javelins, NLAWs, Panzerfaust 3s, Matadors, AT4s, CG84s, M72s, RPG7s, RPG22s, Stingers, Starstreaks, Martlets, Milans, etc. Using whatever they can get ahold of to kill whatever is in front of them.

We’re they equipped at section level ? Do you assume there was no control of the issue of those weapons and it was just a max scramble to push stuff out ? Probably in February / March but certainly less so now.

60mm mortar crews using DJIA drones to launch artillery raids. Was that in a pam somewhere? Printing plastic fins to screw onto anti-tank grenades that were jerry-rigged to drop from DJIA drones into trenches, chimneys and hatches.

Are you honestly asking if using UAVs to sport for artillery is something no one else has done ?

For the record ISIS was doing the home made grenade thing nearly a decade ago.

SU-27s launching HARM missiles. Brimstones launched from trucks. Pickup trucks with HMGs, Autocannons and 70 to 120mm rockets and missiles.

Artillery raids rather than barrages. Small units of guns, employed with precision and short bursts of fire.

Naval drones.

Some of this is no doubt in some manual somewhere but we can't deny that the Ukrainians have shown an extraordinary propensity for innovation and little tendency to be bound by rule books.

I think assuming they aren’t operating with some kind of TTP, or structure, is frankly absurd. They’re creating some improvised equipment to cover gaps from losses, the system remains unchanged. Of course TTPs are going to adapt in a conflict; but those improvised vehicles and weapons get a disproportionate amount of attention because the people reporting want clicks.
 
Tanks have been firing indirect since WW2, aerial spotters have existed since the advent of military aviation. Even our Tac Hel pilots train to adjust fires.


Are we resorting to this for a three day old post ? Obviously armed civilians raised as temporary militias are going to be operating differently. My understanding is they were being led by active soldiers ?



We’re they equipped at section level ? Do you assume there was no control of the issue of those weapons and it was just a max scramble to push stuff out ? Probably in February / March but certainly less so now.



Are you honestly asking if using UAVs to sport for artillery is something no one else has done ?

For the record ISIS was doing the home made grenade thing nearly a decade ago.



I think assuming they aren’t operating with some kind of TTP, or structure, is frankly absurd. They’re creating some improvised equipment to cover gaps from losses, the system remains unchanged. Of course TTPs are going to adapt in a conflict; but those improvised vehicles and weapons get a disproportionate amount of attention because the people reporting want clicks.

Never mind. Slainte.
 
It’s be like any other conflict; we’ll piggy back of the US. I don’t disagree about the ability to deploying being different; but we’ve also send under equipped forces to Asia in the name of expediency in our past and we should learn from that mistake.

I don’t see much threat of Chinese military expansion, but that’s just me.
China is the largest threat to our nation likely since the US decided they wanted us to be part of them.

Easiest example being Taiwan, if we lose their semi-conductor manufacturing capabilities we go back to the 90s technologically with no real effective way of being ourselves back to the present.

Also our steadily increasing reliance on Chinese goods and manufacturing coupled with our steadily decreased capabilities for both manufacturing and maintaining equipment is putting us more and more into their hands.

They don’t necessarily need to invade Canada to do a ton of damage to us. Whether or not we are their directly intended target or not doesn’t mean it won’t have a serious effect on us.
 
Video of Aussie DFSW Platoon

Sustained Fire Systems - MAG 58 - 7.62, M2 - 12.7, M47 - 40, all mounting C2 sights for direct and indirect fire.
Anti-Armour systems - CG-84 M3/4 with AT,HE and Ill rounds as well as Javelin
 
Video of Aussie DFSW Platoon

Sustained Fire Systems - MAG 58 - 7.62, M2 - 12.7, M47 - 40, all mounting C2 sights for direct and indirect fire.
Anti-Armour systems - CG-84 M3/4 with AT,HE and Ill rounds as well as Javelin
There are some pretty decent FCS out there now that allow for direct and indirect fire without the need for the C2 sight - and the issues of teaching folks how to lay the system and record aiming marks etc.
I'm a big fan of knowing the analog systems - but being able to do it in the dark in seconds without any pre-registering is a nice add that the new stuff allows.
 
There are some pretty decent FCS out there now that allow for direct and indirect fire without the need for the C2 sight - and the issues of teaching folks how to lay the system and record aiming marks etc.
I'm a big fan of knowing the analog systems - but being able to do it in the dark in seconds without any pre-registering is a nice add that the new stuff allows.

Like the types of things Saab has been hanging from their CG84s that can also be employed on MGs and rifles?

 
Like the types of things Saab has been hanging from their CG84s that can also be employed on MGs and rifles?

Sort of, there are some much more expensive and advanced systems though -- and just like the Aimpoint FCS you wouldn't want to put them on rifles or MG's though - the nature of those means bulky beast.
 
Sort of, there are some much more expensive and advanced systems though -- and just like the Aimpoint FCS you wouldn't want to put them on rifles or MG's though - the nature of those means bulky beast.

Is that as major problem for a Support Platoon Weapon, firing from fixed positions, as it is for assaulters?
 

It seems to me that it would cover the entire range of weapons of the DFSW Platoon, minus the Javelin but potentially including Anti-Materiel Rifles such as the Barrett and the Alligator that the Ukrainians seem to like.

 
FCS 12 Aimpoint on Carl Gustaf

big-bore-weapons-shooting-station-shooting-subammo-training-rounds-from-84mm-recoilless-rifle-carl-gustav-saab-bofors-dynamics-with-aimpoint-fcs12.jpg


FCS 12 on 40mm AGL

big-bore-weapons-shooting-station-shooting-hk-gmg-40mm-with-the-aimpoint-fcs12-scope-1.jpg


FCS 12 on M2HB

big-bore-weapons-shooting-station-shooting-the-hmg-fn-50-m2hb-qcb-with-rds-aimpoint-mps3-1.jpg


The FCS 12 is the earlier generation of the FCS 13 RE.


Seems that a little bit of bulk is tolerable if it improves effects.
 
There are some pretty decent FCS out there now that allow for direct and indirect fire without the need for the C2 sight - and the issues of teaching folks how to lay the system and record aiming marks etc.
I'm a big fan of knowing the analog systems - but being able to do it in the dark in seconds without any pre-registering is a nice add that the new stuff allows.
On that topic, did we ever get the FCS on the C16 CASW Automatic Grenade Launcher to work? When I left the field force it was still incapable of registering targets — a bracket for a C2 sight would have been an upgrade.
 
FCS 12 Aimpoint on Carl Gustaf

big-bore-weapons-shooting-station-shooting-subammo-training-rounds-from-84mm-recoilless-rifle-carl-gustav-saab-bofors-dynamics-with-aimpoint-fcs12.jpg


FCS 12 on 40mm AGL

big-bore-weapons-shooting-station-shooting-hk-gmg-40mm-with-the-aimpoint-fcs12-scope-1.jpg


FCS 12 on M2HB

big-bore-weapons-shooting-station-shooting-the-hmg-fn-50-m2hb-qcb-with-rds-aimpoint-mps3-1.jpg


The FCS 12 is the earlier generation of the FCS 13 RE.


Seems that a little bit of bulk is tolerable if it improves effects.
Not for a 240/C6 or smaller.
 
On that topic, did we ever get the FCS on the C16 CASW Automatic Grenade Launcher to work? When I left the field force it was still incapable of registering targets — a bracket for a C2 sight would have been an upgrade.
No idea. Which one did the CAF get?
Some of the RM designs are pretty slick. Those are the only ones I’ve seen on the GMG that actually have worked for that.
 
On that topic, did we ever get the FCS on the C16 CASW Automatic Grenade Launcher to work? When I left the field force it was still incapable of registering targets — a bracket for a C2 sight would have been an upgrade.
It works ish it’s just a really shit system in that it doesn’t give you like a pip to put the cross hairs on. Given the weight and bulk of that FCS it doesn’t come out on ex much. Mind you neither does the C16.
 
It works ish it’s just a really shit system in that it doesn’t give you like a pip to put the cross hairs on. Given the weight and bulk of that FCS it doesn’t come out on ex much. Mind you neither does the C16.

So at least it is following the example set by the 60mm MOR it replaced as an 'Armoury Queen' ;)
 
Back
Top