Informing the Army’s Future Structure

[Kirkhill]

Too bad they can't find a more aggressive term than 'Littoral'.

Like, you know, 'The Water Rats' or something like that

Littorally offensive?

 

[Kirkhill]

Something suitably and inoffensively Canadian? Regional Defence Group? Ground Based Air Defence Battery - fine. Coastal Defence Troop instead of that Long Range Precision Fires stuff. Infantry Battalion - fine.

 

[KevinB]

Purely symbolic, I’d say. NASAMS, with its short range, wouldn’t be my first choice against stand off cruise missiles, which have been the standard armament of the Russian bomber force since the 1980’s.

The sole US Army Air Defense unit in Alaska doesn’t even have an anti-aircraft role — it’s a ballistic missile defense unit oriented more against North Korea than Russia.

Keep in mind US forces have AD assets spread out in all levels as well.
Down to MANPADS at the squad level...

 

[FJAG]

The US Marines are going to a 15 pax squad. 12-15 is a good number IMHO...

But then there's this:

“I am very confident that we have to reduce the size of the infantry battalion, I’m confident of that. Exactly how much, we gotta experiment with that. I say that because, for example, if you’re going to be light and lethal and able to operate in an austere environment, you have to be a little bit smaller and more powerful, you have to be, because if you’re still at the size we are now, I haven’t done anything to make myself more able to disaggregate underneath the watchful eye of a pacing threat,” Smith said in a phone interview this week.

Marines Testing Regiment at Heart of Emerging Island-Hopping Future - USNI News

The Marine Corps is starting to form and experiment with the littoral regiment at the heart of its modern-day island-hopping strategy, the head of Marine Corps combat development told USNI News. The stand-up of this first Marine Littoral Regiment is among the first and most visible steps being...

news.usni.org

That's kind of where I'm heading - smaller and more powerful but more of them with broader capabilities.

 

[FJAG]

Once upon a time I was a Captain in charge of a 200 man (with females attached sometimes) company, from time to time. At the ripe old age of between 25 - 28 years.

It worked great. Mainly because I believe that those who put me in the job had the confidence that I could do it, and I had the right support from a great CSM, Pl Comds, CQMS etc etc

See my last post about smaller and more lethal.

I also think senior captains (who've had a few years as platoon commanders, company 2i/c, a battalion staff tour, and the combat team commanders course) are the perfect folks to command companies.

 

[CBH99]

Keep in mind US forces have AD assets spread out in all levels as well.
Down to MANPADS at the squad level...

Curious.

Has the Stinger been upgraded at all over the years, or are the MANPADS using stock launchers & stock missiles acquired ages ago?

The reason I ask is because our (the west) focus was on Iraq and Afghanistan for so long, any available R&D money I’m assuming went into improved armoured vehicles and personal kit.

 

[KevinB]

Curious.

Has the Stinger been upgraded at all over the years, or are the MANPADS using stock launchers & stock missiles acquired ages ago?

The reason I ask is because our (the west) focus was on Iraq and Afghanistan for so long, any available R&D money I’m assuming went into improved armoured vehicles and personal kit.

Stinger upgrades have continued.
In the grand scheme the PPE upgrades and various vehicle upgrades are a very minor portion of the budget - and a lot of those where funded outside the standard line item budget.

Around 4 years ago DoD (especially the Army) pivoted back from the small wars and started looking back at Peer/Near Peer threats - it's gotten major play in the past two years, but the AD aspect never really came off the table - even with the major focuses to Afghanistan and Iraq.

 

[GR66]

I would suggest 4 pers
Historically most soldiers/leaders can only look after 3 additional people in stress environments. It increases with experience of the soldiers under command, but rifle sections are generally not filled with 10+ year troops.
This has been borne out by a lot of study at various levels of training/experience.

Plus when you start adding stuff to the LAV - room becomes a premium, and I would gladly sacrifice a rifleman to make room for other enablers.

4 Also works for a lot of other vehicles - and if you really want - you can push the section size to 12 with 3x 4 man bricks -
Which then admittedly requires a slew of LAV's

Okay, I'll play devil's advocate.

The suggested format essentially almost doubles the number of LAVs in a rifle company with a significant supply and maintenance burden. I sometimes marvel at how the Russians manage to have a platoon operate out of three BMPs/BTRs. They do this by reducing the platoon to a total of thirty with ten per vehicle.

In that respect then a Cdn/US platoon already exceeds the combat power of a Russian platoon by 10-15% for manpower and 30% in APCs.

Maybe we should go in a different direction.

I won't advocate for a three-vehicle platoon but do wonder as to whether we need ten or even eight or nine dismounts per section. Maybe we can reduce the actual "section" to a four man brick and maybe take up two more GIB seats with weapon specialists/enablers: GPMG, Javelin, drone operator, CarlG/grenade launcher/mortarman, what have you. A platoon would then have: four three-man crewed LAVs and dismounts of a three-man platoon command element; three four-man "sections"; and four two-man weapon specialist/enabler teams - all for a total of 23 dismounts but with a stronger emphasis on working around the support weapons and LAV support rather than the rifles. The pl comd controls the bricks, the WO the weapons/enablers.

That gives each LAV a total of 8 (for the pl comd veh) or 9 (for each sect carrier) which leaves a little extra room for a ride along or ammo.

IMHO - save the extra LAVs and create another battalion with them.

Same for the medium LAV brigade/battalion.

For light battalions I would stay with a two brick, nine-man section and concentrate the specialist weapons/enablers at the platoon level divided between the pl comds veh and a separate weapons carrier (The extra brick compensates for the lack of the LAV support).

Here's a hybrid of my original thought and the comments from KevinB (4-man teams) and FJAG (more support weapon-to-rifle ratio) above.

Each Section reduced to two 4-man Fire Teams.
Weapons Detachment and Command team move from separate LAV to join the Section LAVs

• Platoon Commander with Signaler
• Platoon 2 I/C with a System Operator (similar to USMC Squad System Operator)
• Weapon Detachment Commander with Designated Marksman

 

[Kirkhill]

If looking at Dutch, Danish, Swedish and Norwegian practice a couple of things seem to stand out

3 or 4 vehicles in a group with permanently mounted crews of 3. The vehicles are fought as a group.

There are empty seats in the back.

The basic block in the back is a group of four primarily organized around an AT Gunner (Carl Gustaf, Panzerfaust), the assistant and a pair of machine gunners with 2x C9. In the vehicle a C6 and a DMR. AT Gunner has his personal weapon.

That leaves 1 to 3 empty seats in each vehicle. Those are taken by Command elements, (Section Leaders, Section 2ics, Dismount Leaders) and various atts like medics and FCs.

No dismount signallers. I guess everybody is assumed to have his own PRR.

The Pl Ldr generally stays with the vehicles and fights the vehicles.

Typically there are 6 bodies in the back as a section. The Section Ldr, the 2ic, the AT gnr and assistant and the 2 MG gunners.

These teams are not designed for the bayonet charge. They are designed to destroy vehicles with the MGs protecting the AT gunners who are protecting their vehicles, or to breach and clear houses and bunkers used as fighting positions, or to establish a defensive firing line anchored by AT weapons, MGs and DMRs.

 

[Dale Denton]

Marines Testing Regiment at Heart of Emerging Island-Hopping Future - USNI News

The Marine Corps is starting to form and experiment with the littoral regiment at the heart of its modern-day island-hopping strategy, the head of Marine Corps combat development told USNI News. The stand-up of this first Marine Littoral Regiment is among the first and most visible steps being...

news.usni.org

If I may be hopeful, I think we could cheaply offer to placate our friends and join AUKUS on the cheap, by offering to take over and specialize in one useful area so they can rely on us for that. We could offer up 'Marine Coastal Defence Groups' that could be Island Logistics (NSS orders), GBAD (on a LAV platform), Airfield setup/defence. Cheaper than buying long-range missiles.

 

[markppcli]

In effect they clear the ground vehicles can’t. Signallers have become less guy carrying a radio, and more platoon IT specialist with the advent of 152s anyways.

I’m very curious about Manpads at squad level, I don’t know that I’ve seen any source for that? Surely something like that could be held at BN?

 

[CBH99]

Stinger upgrades have continued.
In the grand scheme the PPE upgrades and various vehicle upgrades are a very minor portion of the budget - and a lot of those where funded outside the standard line item budget.

Around 4 years ago DoD (especially the Army) pivoted back from the small wars and started looking back at Peer/Near Peer threats - it's gotten major play in the past two years, but the AD aspect never really came off the table - even with the major focuses to Afghanistan and Iraq.

That is good to hear. Obviously AD is incredibly important, but with such a huge focus on Iraq and Afghanistan I thought any funding would have been directed at vehicles/capabilities relevant to those conflicts.

During the height of each of those conflicts, I would always read about new armoured vehicles, sensors, jammers, etc. I didn’t hear a peep about AD.

I’m glad the Stinger has been upgraded. I was worried it would end up being the TOW 1 if the sky.

 

[KevinB]

In effect they clear the ground vehicles can’t. Signallers have become less guy carrying a radio, and more platoon IT specialist with the advent of 152s anyways.

I’m very curious about Manpads at squad level, I don’t know that I’ve seen any source for that? Surely something like that could be held at BN?

I believe it is threat level dependent - but the scale of issue goes down to the squad.
Admittedly the Stinger is pretty brain dead - even I can use one.

 

[markppcli]

I believe it is threat level dependent - but the scale of issue goes down to the squad.
Admittedly the Stinger is pretty brain dead - even I can use one.

So I did a quick google, they’re running maneuver unit guys through while standing up their 10 SHORAD battalions.

Army rebuilding short-range air defense

The Army is now standing up short-range air defense units, known as SHORAD battalions, and offering a five-week pilot Stinger course for Soldiers in maneuver units.

www.google.ca

So how they push them “in theatre” is likely a command decision.

 

[KevinB]

So I did a quick google, they’re running maneuver unit guys through while standing up their 10 SHORAD battalions.

Army rebuilding short-range air defense

The Army is now standing up short-range air defense units, known as SHORAD battalions, and offering a five-week pilot Stinger course for Soldiers in maneuver units.

www.google.ca

So how they push them “in theatre” is likely a command decision.

I'm amazed how the Army can make what is a 3hour class to some MOS's a 5 week class for 11B's.
Also considering all we did in Afghanistan in the 80's was give them missiles - and the Mujahdeen figured out to use it with the pictogram on the side.

It is legitimately about as brain dead as the Javelin - both will have battery issues if left on, but the Stinger won't let you target a friendly AC - so it's not exactly requiring massive amount of teaching.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Littorally offensive?

I'm amazed how the Army can make what is a 3hour class to some MOS's a 5 week class for 11B's.
Also considering all we did in Afghanistan in the 80's was give them missiles - and the Mujahdeen figured out to use it with the pictogram on the side.

It is legitimately about as brain dead as the Javelin - both will have battery issues if left on, but the Stinger won't let you target a friendly AC - so it's not exactly requiring massive amount of teaching.

Dude, you've just destroyed about 10,000 staff jobs with one missile

 

[markppcli]

I'm amazed how the Army can make what is a 3hour class to some MOS's a 5 week class for 11B's.
Also considering all we did in Afghanistan in the 80's was give them missiles - and the Mujahdeen figured out to use it with the pictogram on the side.

It is legitimately about as brain dead as the Javelin - both will have battery issues if left on, but the Stinger won't let you target a friendly AC - so it's not exactly requiring massive amount of teaching.

I would imagine it’s the difference between how to employ vs how to pull the trigger. I can only hope those 5 weeks talk about how to function in an AD network.

 

[KevinB]

I would imagine it’s the difference between how to employ vs how to pull the trigger. I can only hope those 5 weeks talk about how to function in an AD network.

I imagine several days in wasted in unboxing and verify content (based on other programs)

 

[markppcli]

Also, sorry this should have been in the original post, I’m fundamentally against the “oh we can just implement X Y Z weapon.” It is a scar we have from exercises where we don’t have actual support weapon ammunition. Kirkill posted an article a while ago about how effective e strikers with Javelins were in JRTC, well I guarantee they weren’t carrying spare dummy missiles every time they took a position. Similarly having been in a “tow capable section” where we were expected to carry a tow inside the LAV, there isn’t the space for the rounds, and no one really tried to figure out how we’d do that. We need to have the logistics and the support figured out when shit gets hot.

 

[CBH99]

I'm amazed how the Army can make what is a 3hour class to some MOS's a 5 week class for 11B's.
Also considering all we did in Afghanistan in the 80's was give them missiles - and the Mujahdeen figured out to use it with the pictogram on the side.

It is legitimately about as brain dead as the Javelin - both will have battery issues if left on, but the Stinger won't let you target a friendly AC - so it's not exactly requiring massive amount of teaching.

Now I know I’m going to get flamed for this. And rightfully so, as I realize not everybody joins the military as a military enthusiast, cadet, or any military involvement beforehand.

But that’s how I felt about BMQ once I’d been an instructor on like 2 courses.


“Am I seriously explaining to people how to thread their boots, and tie their shoes?”

“Did we seriously just take a weekend to be told not to be racist, sexist, rapists?”


Like many other organizations, someone did something with “Exhihit A” - in this case a Stinger, and now for liability purposes we have to make sure we check EVERY box, so we can say ‘Bloggins passed the course.’