Ricks Napkin Challenge- The Infantry Section and Platoon

[KevinB]

AT-4 > M72
It’s more the CAF has always had M72’s IMHO.

That said, the M72 is lighter and for Light vehicles works just as well.

 

[GR66]

The facts and figures are useful but I feel like the point of my question was missed.

AT4 doesn't take up much more space than an M72 and seems to me to have the same role. Single use light AT weapon and also and anti structure weapon. It's heavier and packs more punch. Is that not something that could just be swapped out right now in platoon organization and make them more effective or does the M72 have some feature that is valuable besides cost.

Is the weight difference between the AT4 and the light-weight Carl G enough to justify having a one-shot weapon vs. a reusable weapon with multiple warhead effect options?

 

[KevinB]

Is the weight difference between the AT4 and the light-weight Carl G enough to justify having a one-shot weapon vs. a reusable weapon with multiple warhead effect options?

The AT-4 is an individual weapon as opposed to the CG84 needing a #2.
I wouldn’t view it as an either/or

 

[Kirkhill]

The facts and figures are useful but I feel like the point of my question was missed.

AT4 doesn't take up much more space than an M72 and seems to me to have the same role. Single use light AT weapon and also and anti structure weapon. It's heavier and packs more punch. Is that not something that could just be swapped out right now in platoon organization and make them more effective or does the M72 have some feature that is valuable besides cost.

Sorry for missing the point.

I'll try again but I'm afraid it involves more tables of numbers.

The problem is very much akin to the Navy's VLS problem, the Air Forces's F18 problem or the Artillery's 155mm problem. There are a large variety of "Warheads" that can be employed. They all have benefits in particular situations. Some are generalist rounds and some are specialist rounds.
Hopefully, at time of contact you have the appropriate round on hand and ready to launch.

Even the Javelin is running into that problem because it has both Anti-Structure and Anti-Armour missiles. Now someone has to make a choice of which and how many.

And as @markppcli rightly points out there is only so much room in a LAV, or a CQ truck, or Bn Tpt or in the Brigade Maintenance Area.

THe M72 evolved from a 700 gm rifle grenade to a 2.5 kg, pre-packaged rocket propelled version of the same grenade with a bit more range, a bit more accuracy and less wear and tear on rifles, and allowed the USAF to adopt the smaller 5.56mm M16.

That system had one primary function, as a LAW, a Light Anti-Armour Weapon. It eventually became obsolescent in its primary role but was found to be useful in other applications. NAMMO kept the system alive by adding a bunch of new capabilities but that resulted in heavier weapons. The 700 g anti-tank rifle grenade morphed in to the 5.8 kg Anti-Tank and Anti-Structure grenades that could be safely fired from a confined space (just like the original 700 g anti-tank rifle grenade of the same calibre).

The AT4 is a larger, weightier version of the M72 but with a much larger selection of ammunition types. Anything that can be launched from a Carl Gustaft. Variety is good but space is limited.

The AT4 is a 3-5 kg Carl Gustav round prepackaged in a 4 kg Carl Gustaf launcher. You throw away the launcher.

The CG84 is a 3-5 kg Carl Gustav round loaded in a 6.6 kg Carl Gustaf launcher. You keep the launcher and reload it.

3 FFV502 HEDP rounds in 3 AT4s weigh 21 kg
3 FFV502 HEDP rounds in 1 CG84 M4 weigh 16.5 kg
With the 4.5 kg weight saved, and the space saved by elimating 2 launchers you could add another round or two. And you can carry a greater variety of options.

So again, I'm sorry if I made things muddier but in terms of the M72 versus the AT4 I can't see them as direct replacements.

The original M72 was light enough to be carried on patrol by a rifleman in addtion to his other kit, much the same way a handgrenade would be carried.

Now the 66mm M72 is improving its capabilities into some overlap with the 84mm Carl Gustav rounds but at the expense of ever increasing weight. Its mass is approaching that of the AT4 rounds. But it is limited by its calibre of 66mm vs the 84mm caliber. On an apples for apples basis a 66mm HEAT round will not be as effective as an 84mm HEAT round.

If you are going to have to carry a load it might as well be the most effective load you can carry.



The other point is that if you are going to go to the 84mm round instead of the 66mm round does the disposable launcher system gain you anything over the reloadable launcher. My view is that after 2 rounds the reloadable launcher has paid for itself.

Given limited space, weight and budget I would much sooner stick with the Carl Gustaf M3/M4 and a variety of rounds than either the M72 or the AT4.


Which is why I suggested that if you were going to add a pre-packaged disposable round to the Section/Platoon kit I would be recommending the NLAW. It is bigger, heavier and uglier but it kills tanks reliably. It does one thing and does that thing reasonably well. And it does it better than anything in the CG84/M72 inventory can.


Now, if you go the Kevin route and issue a 6.4 kg CLU to the section instead of a 6.6 kg CG84 M4 then you can decide which 15.9 kg (but 6 km) Javelin would like to carry instead of the 12.5 kg NLAW which has a maximum range of 800m.


My first preference would be every section in the platoon gets CG84 M4 (6.6 kg) and a Light Weight CLU. (<5 kg?)

The LWCLU is first and foremost an observation device, It can pick up UAS drones at 5 km.
It is also a missile launcher capable of launching Javelin Anti Tank and Anti-Structure missiles as well as Stinger SAMs from stand-off distances greater than 5 km.
And if I am understanding Kevin properly development is turning it into a communication device which might allow the dismounted operator to launch, or at least control, missiles from third party launchers.


M72s, AT4s and NLAWs, along with Claymores and Paraflares, are the type of stores I would be dropping off at a defended locality to thicken up the defences.

			Mass	Calibre
			kg	mm
M31		HEAT Rifle Grenade	0.7	66
M72		HEAT Rocket Propelled Grenade	2.5	66
M72A1		HEAT Rocket Propelled Grenade	2.5	66
M72A2		HEAT Rocket Propelled Grenade	2.5	66
M72A3		HEAT Rocket Propelled Grenade	2.5	66
M72A4		HEAT Rocket Propelled Grenade	3.6	66
M72A5		HEAT Rocket Propelled Grenade	3.6	66
M72A6		HEAT Rocket Propelled Grenade	3.6	66
M72A7		HEAT Rocket Propelled Grenade	3.6	66
M72A8	FFE	HEAT Anti-Armor	5.8	66
M72A9		HE Anti-Structure Munition (Legacy)		66
M72A10	FFE	HE Anti-Structure Munition	5.8	66
M72A11		HE Airburst		66
M72A12		Anti-Structure Munition	4.2	66
M72 (ASM-RC)		Anti-Structure Munition Reduced Calibre	3.7	42
M72 EC		Enhanced Capacity Anti-Armour	3.4	66
AT4 HEAT		HEAT Rocket Propelled Grenade	7	84
AT4 HEDP		HE Dual Purpose	7	84
AT4CS HP	CS	HEAT High Penetration	8	84
AT4CS RS	CS	HEAT Reduced Sensitivity	8	84
AT4CS ER	CS	HEAT Extended Range	9	84
AT4CS AST	CS	Anti-Structure Tandem	9	84
AT4CS HE	CS	HE	9	84
AT4 GMM		Guided Multipurpose Munition
Carl Gustaf M4			6.6	84
FFV401		Area Defence Munition - Flechettes	2.7	84
FFV441D		HE - Point Detonation or Airburst - Balls	3.2	84
FFV441D RS		HE - Point Detonation or Airburst - Balls	3.2	84
FFV448		HE - Point Detonation or Airburst - Pellets	2.6	84
FFV469C		Smoke	3.1	84
FFV502		HE Dual Purpose - Point Detonation or Delay	3.3	84
FFV502 RS		HE Dual Purpose - Point Detonation or Delay	3.3	84
FFV509		Anti-Structure Munition	4.2	84
FFV545C		Illumination	3.1	84
FFV551		HEAT - Rocket Assisted Projectile	3.2	84
FFV55C RS		HEAT - Rocket Assisted Projectile	3.5	84
FFV552		Practice Round	3.2	84
FFV651		HEAT - Rocket Assisted Projectile	4.0	84
FFV655 CS		HEAT - Confined Spaces	4.8	84
FFV751		HEAT Tandem Warhead	3.8	84
FFV756		Multi-Target Tandem Warhead	4.4	84
GMM-CS		Guided Multipurpose Munition - Confined Space	5.0	84
CS = Can be fired from Confined Spaces
FFE = Can be Fired From Enclosures
RS = Reduced Sensitivity - less likely to explode when hit by incoming

 

[Kirkhill]

The AT-4 is an individual weapon as opposed to the CG84 needing a #2.
I wouldn’t view it as an either/or

Kevin, as I understand it the new M4 can be safely carried loaded, just like an AT4.

 

[markppcli]

Kevin, as I understand it the new M4 can be safely carried loaded, just like an AT4.

Yes but as Kevin is pointing out, you’ll still be tiring up two guys to reload it and fire.

 

[markppcli]

Couple of questions/thoughts.

M72 is currently issued to platoons. If that was replaced 1:1 with AT4 would that change the Anti Tank capabilities of the platoon significantly? Or would that be stepping on the CG too much? Lots of discussion revolving around TOW and Javelin and how you could integrate or those weapons but the M72 is already there, perhaps it just needs to be swapped out without changing to much in the platoon org.

Given that the thrust here seems that support weapons do the killing, isn't a 25mm/C6 in the LAV essentially a support weapon for the section? Does that not feed into the platoon organizational calculus? There is a lot of discussion of what you can cram into the LAV but if you're only using it as an APC and weapons locker what's the point of the turret then? Just jettison them and go with a LAV 6-section carrier instead.

It does enter into the calculus, the LAV is of course engaging in an attack, but that may or may not be the same target as the section. The 25 should be targeting En AFVs and hard points, and while it’s taking the section to objective, it can only support them so close. We’re also working on the assumption these two things will be separated at a point, see discussions on the defensive and on deliberate attacks.

 

[Kirkhill]

Yes but as Kevin is pointing out, you’ll still be tiring up two guys to reload it and fire.

But with the AT4 you will only get one shot. No?

In the back of your LAVs which will take up more space? 4 AT4-HEDPs or 1 CG84 and 4 HEDP rounds. Are you going to have one or your troops hump all four AT4s?

And after the rounds are down range aren't both your AT Gunner and #2 free to continue as rifles?

I can see the AT4 being carried on a dismounted patrol as a back up plan if the threat doesn't warrant any of the many options the CG84 offers. But I still think I would prefer, if I had a LAV to carry me around, to "waste" a bit of space and weight on a CG84.

 

[Kirkhill]

In the same vein - discovered today a Ukrainian Ammotech showing the locals how to turn your RPG into a CG84 knockoff.

I think I have met this mechanic's cousin.

https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/v4qk06

 

[AmmoTech90]

In the same vein - discovered today a Ukrainian Ammotech showing the locals how to turn your RPG into a CG84 knockoff.

I think I have met this mechanic's cousin.

https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/v4qk06

Yep, RPG7 ammo is easy to modify and break down. This mortar mod has been around for ages. There's also YouTube videos on how to removed the SD element. This means that if you have the facilities you can replace it with a shorter SD, getting an airburst at ranges where it is somewhat accurate.

 

[KevinB]

I’m as guilty as anyone as trying to crank more capabilities lower.

But we all need to be cognizant of soldier load.

What systems are needed versus redundant?
As well as what different spectrums of battle does one need to prepare for, and an acknowledgment that some systems needed for some threats will be unnecessary against others.

There needs to be means to defend and attack in all spectrums.
Yes this leads to the Arms Room concept.
But a properly implemented Arms Room may not see some equipment even brought into theater.
Or held in depots and only pushed as needed.

Fighting the Russians or Chinese will require a lot more Anti Armor and Air Defense capabilities that fighting Somali warlords.
As well as the potential for CRBN threats cannot be ignored.

There needs to be provisions to fight at the high end of the spectrum as well as lower ends - the CAF decidedly allowed it’s high intensity capability to erode

 

[daftandbarmy]

I’m as guilty as anyone as trying to crank more capabilities lower.

But we all need to be cognizant of soldier load.

Now we're drifting into the realm of logistical support, of course.

If you look at most soldiers in contact wit the enemy they are very lightly equipped. This suggests that they have a well developed logistics tail, and a risk managed approach to leadership.

Where logistics suck, and leaders are too risk averse, the troops will start to look more like pack mules.... and act like it

 

[Kirkhill]

Now we're drifting into the realm of logistical support, of course.

If you look at most soldiers in contact wit the enemy they are very lightly equipped. This suggests that they have a well developed logistics tail, and a risk managed approach to leadership.

Where logistics suck, and leaders are too risk averse, the troops will start to look more like pack mules.... and act like it


View attachment 71193

MacDonald Fraser's "Quartered Safe Out Here" of Burma 43-45 also cites his ammunition load as "50 rounds apiece, in a canvas bandolier draped across the buttocks". He does not make clear if his 10 rounds on the rifle and "one up the spout" were part of or in addition to this.

His pouches contained 2 grenades in one and 2 Bren magazines of "between 25 and 30 rounds" 0.303 in the other.

Other weapons were a variety of sharp and heavy things - Gillette razor blade (issued), Fairbairn-Sykes fighting knife (acquired), 1914 sword bayonet (issued), Kukhri (acquired), entrenching tool handle (issued). (Private in a Line Infantry Regt (Br) - "The Border Regiment" (English. Not the KOSB's)).

SMG issued was the Thompson, not the Sten-ch.

Ammo load WWII Infantry

Looking for information/clarification. The sources I've read indicate that the infantrymen's basic ammo load for the CDN and other commonwealth contries for WWII was 50 rounds of 303. Now realizing that basic load and actual loads are two different things I'm wondering why only 50 rounds? It...

www.army.ca

Although I wonder if Fraser would have agreed on the "well developed logistics tail". Slim did better than most but Burma was not an easy place to keep troops supplied

 

[FJAG]

Yes but as Kevin is pointing out, you’ll still be tiring up two guys to reload it and fire.

Okay. Honest question here from a guy that fired the CG decades ago (actually closer to half a century).

Do you really need a two man team or is that just more efficient for ammo carriage? How hard is it for a single gunner with a small stockpile of rounds to fire and load them himself? Could we distribute additional rounds around the section the way we did with Bren gun and C2 magazines? Is the second man the real issue or is it the weight of the projectiles for a dismounted section?

It's not that I think we should reduce the team from two to one, but it seems the fact that the CG is a two-man det seems to be an issue for some people who have used it way more than I in an infantry role.

 

[Infanteer]

Reloading would be awkward, and the number two also acts as a safety for the back blast area.

You could probably have one person load and fire a howitzer, but would you want to?

 

[KevinB]

I’ve solo run the C6 - 800rds in a LBT 3day pack on live fires while the RSO with me debated the practice of using my fingers up near the front sight to judge how far I should lead troops. It’s entirely doable as the Wpn Det Commander to solo it in the Light role.
The MG role in SOF teams is a solo position.
Solo running requires experience however.



The CG as @Infanteer notes requires the #2 to both effectively reload, conduct IA drills and as a backblast safety.

 

[ArmyRick]

I have to agree with my infantry brothers. I fired a gazillion rounds on the 84 and have been #1 and #2.

I can tell you it would be extremely awkward to handle the 84 solo and should be reserved for emergencies only (like the #2 is lying dead and the platoon is about to be overrun)

With a 2 man crew, the CG can be extremely fast to bring into action, fire and reload fire again, etc.

 

[markppcli]

Okay. Honest question here from a guy that fired the CG decades ago (actually closer to half a century).

Do you really need a two man team or is that just more efficient for ammo carriage? How hard is it for a single gunner with a small stockpile of rounds to fire and load them himself? Could we distribute additional rounds around the section the way we did with Bren gun and C2 magazines? Is the second man the real issue or is it the weight of the projectiles for a dismounted section?

It's not that I think we should reduce the team from two to one, but it seems the fact that the CG is a two-man det seems to be an issue for some people who have used it way more than I in an infantry role.

Because of how it reloads, ie from the back after opening it up, it’d be very awkward to do as a solo operation. The safety issue has been mentioned as well, and that’s honestly an easier work around.

 

[markppcli]

But with the AT4 you will only get one shot. No?

Correct

In the back of your LAVs which will take up more space? 4 AT4-HEDPs or 1 CG84 and 4 HEDP rounds. Are you going to have one or your troops hump all four AT4s?

The AT4s will, and no you’ll spread them, but can task one To a fire base or keep the others in the LAV.

And after the rounds are down range aren't both your AT Gunner and #2 free to continue as rifles?

Maybe ? That is very situational. If we’re talking gun group / rifle group that Carl G round was probably part of the suppression and I doubt we want everyone waiting around those guys to gun around to the the assault position.

I can see the AT4 being carried on a dismounted patrol as a back up plan if the threat doesn't warrant any of the many options the CG84 offers. But I still think I would prefer, if I had a LAV to carry me around, to "waste" a bit of space and weight on a CG84.

And that’s fair, I’m just pointing out that it’s going to effect your man power.

 

[Kirkhill]

Correct


The AT4s will, and no you’ll spread them, but can task one To a fire base or keep the others in the LAV.


Maybe ? That is very situational. If we’re talking gun group / rifle group that Carl G round was probably part of the suppression and I doubt we want everyone waiting around those guys to gun around to the the assault position.



And that’s fair, I’m just pointing out that it’s going to effect your man power.

Can I offer this observation?

The one thing I think we can all agree on is: It Depends.

Situation
Mission
Execution
Support
Command and Control

Prep for Battle
Advance to Contact
React to Effective Enemy Fire
Locate the Enemy
Winning the Firefight
Approach
Assault Through the Objective
Consolidate/Reorg

And there, perhaps is a problem in training. In ancient days training ended with the Consolidate or Reorg step. Everybody survived, reformed their original groupings, reclaimed their original roles and went for coffee.

There was little sense of this - the military version of Continuous Improvement. A journey without end.

Situation
Mission
Execution
Support
Command and Control
Prep for Battle
Advance to Contact
React to Effective Enemy Fire
Locate the Enemy
Winning the Firefight
Approach
Assault Through the Objective
Consolidate/Reorg
Situation
Mission
Execution
Support
Command and Control
Prep for Battle
Advance to Contact
React to Effective Enemy Fire
Locate the Enemy
Winning the Firefight
Approach
Assault Through the Objective
Consolidate/Reorg
Situation
Mission
Execution
Support
Command and Control
Prep for Battle
Advance to Contact
React to Effective Enemy Fire
Locate the Enemy
Winning the Firefight
Approach
Assault Through the Objective
Consolidate/Reorg
Situation
Mission
Execution
Support
Command and Control
Prep for Battle
Advance to Contact
React to Effective Enemy Fire
...


I'm trying to remember where I heard/saw the phrase "the hardest job in the army is section leader".

The answer to everything is: It depends.

And the job of everybody else is to support the section leader with intelligence, fire, things and people.

What is in the warehouse and how quickly can you get it forwards to support that section leader?

Back to Daft&Barmy's observation about the role of logistics.

And the other ancient shibboleth - MaxFlex, or as the USMC has it, adapt and overcome. But adaptation takes time and time has to be bought.


That alone argues for a large, cohesive contact element under a single mission commander - something in the 12 to 20 range. Something that includes its own tactical reserve. A tactical reserve that can not just be used to reinforce or counter but also be used as a funnel through which additional reinforcements can be fed and familiarized with the ground situation.

The Swedish Ground Combat Element - 3x6 +1 = 19
The US Bradley Element A - 2x9 = 18
The US Bradley Element B - 2x9 + 5 = 23
The USMC Squad 2022 - 15 + 1 = 16
The Royal Marines trials - 12 to 20 in groups of 4

The Royals trials were based on a Commando of 150 with a Close Combat Element of 60 - everybody else in support of those 60 with the 60 including specialists attached to sections of 12, resulting in 3 teams of up to 20.

For Canada?

4 LAVs = 28 seats available for a Ground Combat Element

If that Ground Combat Element is reduced to 18 (1 Fire Team of 4 per LAV, a Leader and an 2iC) that leaves 10 seats for stowage or specialists or even platoon members if one of the LAVs goes down.