Thinking about the Infantry Attack

[Kirkhill]

we will need to examine such things as the soldiers basic load (They will need to carry a lot more ammunition both individually and as a platoon),

I know we are raising supermen these days but how come the infanteers basic load has started at about 60 lbs per man and topped out at about 100 lbs per man since the days of Marius's mules?  There is only so much carrying capacity in a human spine.

And if you want to increase the number of "mules" in the platoon doesn't that mean more mules to feed, water, clothe and supply with rifles and web gear? 

If vehicles can get into the terrain with supplies why can't they get into the terrain with a heavy weapon with coax and umpty-ump rounds of link?

 

[a_majoor]

The load carrying capability of the human body is one limiting factor (although most of MY sergeants did not believe that concept.....), so everything around also needs to change. Advanced weapons like the hypothetical parallel engagement fire support vehicle are one possibility, those troops can contribute a sufficient volume of fire in a sufficiently compressed time to overwhelm local opposition, speeding up the suppression phase of the battle.

Even if it is decided that the section/platoon/company org is maxed out, streamlining command and control to pass through new units for exploitation faster will have a similar effect (the bad guys will face a succession of closely spaced assaults faster than they can fall back and reorg).

The supporting echelons also need to be examined in order to resupply and replenish combat units and sub units faster, keeping a continuous pressure on an enemy force (even an irregular force, which will no longer see breaks in the action as attacking/persuing units can seemingly continue without letup).

This topic sort of bleeds into the Infantry of the Future thread as well.

 

[Kirkhill]

(although most of MY sergeants did not believe that concept.....),

  ;D LOL

I am still a great fan of air mail - whether by mortar, gun, missile (cruise, ballistic or guided) helo, aircraft, UAV or even satellite.  Why carry it in when you can call Fed Ex and have it delivered direct to the customer?  You have already stipulated you need to improve the supply chain - why not shorten it up by getting rid of all the middle men driving trucks and stuff and getting shot at into the bargain (thereby necessitating armour, which reduces the load, increases gas consumption, wear and tear on the roads and generally increases costs?) 

I know the counter is persistence - but UAVs can loiter overhead above the weather for up to two days now and guided missiles like the LAM/PAM types can loiter on the ground up to 40 km away or loiter overhead for 30 mins.  Another counter is weather, but GPS/INS is reducing that problem....etc ad infinitum ad nauseum.

Just sayin', there are a lot more tools in the tool bag these days and not all of them need to be hand delivered.

 

[mainerjohnthomas]

The biggest change I would like to see is not equipment, but doctrine.  Right now when you need fire support, you have to go a long way up the chain to get it.  If you want a position suppressed, then having a section leader being able to call and direct  105mm or mortar fire on the target works as well as tasking a SAW team or Carl G, and you don't have to carry it.  With GPS and the growing ability to link targeting information from sensors on scout vehicles, and even some rifle mounted systems, there is a hugely greater ability for infantry to direct accurate and realtime fire support than our forebearers had, but to call fire we are using the same ponderous procedures that WWI and WWII vets would recognize. 
    If we shortened the loop for fire support, we would have all of the punch required to support an infantry attack, without forcing the pongos to hump it all in.  Swap the 105mm direct fire POS MGS for a 120mm mortar, and you would have a vehicle that might be worth buying.
    It means that we will have stress the individual initiative of low level leaders more, but using 21st century technology with 20th century tactics has left us using 100% of our backs, and 60% of our skills.

 

[Kirkhill]

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/38090.0.html

Further to MJT's post on doctrine - it might be worthwhile taking another look at this posting.  It's all about shortening the loop when calling for fire support.

Also:

Swap the 105mm direct fire POS MGS for a 120mm mortar, and you would have a vehicle that might be worth buying.

Regardless of the MGS-105's merits, money spent there might be better spent on laptops as described above, mortars that can be mounted, towed, airlifted or humped and a pile of ammunition.

Here's a question, logical absurdity time - supposing that reaction time for fire support was reduced to zero,  would a soldier need to carry a weapon?  As I said this pushes the bounds of the absurd but suppose that when confronted with an enemy force (1 or 1000 it makes no difference) all the soldier had to do was tap a button on her wrist to call for support and designate the target and immediately have the target removed (dead, neutralized, hoisted into another dimension etc).  Would the soldier be able to do her job?  Would she be a police officer? Would she convey the necessary threat and sense of authority being unarmed except for the "button"?  Or would the "button" itself become the threat?

Maybe that should go into the "Infantry of Tomorrow" thread but the attack is surely one of the things that will define the infantry of tomorrow.

 

[MdB]

The biggest change I would like to see is not equipment, but doctrine.

I heard they are currently reviewing ALL the doctrine documents to comply with the Transformation. What's done and what's to come is not for me to say. Some people are way better informed than me.

 

[rifleman]

Unfortunately, by the time the doctrine is released for transformation, we will be in re-transformation.

 

[dapaterson]

Rifleman:

I think too many people are thinking of "transformation" as a process vice an endstate.  We stagnated in a cold-war mindset for two generations - "The Soviets are coming through the Fulda Gap!"  Now, we're being told that situations change, and that me must be able to respond to changing circumstances.  So transformation will be the norm, an iterative process designed to learn and change as the world around us changes.

I think the endstate will have the Canadian Forces as good Maoists - embracing a process of continuous revolution.

 

[rifleman]

I think too many people are thinking of "transformation" as a process vice an endstate.  We stagnated in a cold-war mindset for two generations - "The Soviets are coming through the Fulda Gap!"  Now, we're being told that situations change, and that me must be able to respond to changing circumstances.  So transformation will be the norm, an iterative process designed to learn and change as the world around us changes.

I think the endstate will have the Canadian Forces as good Maoists - embracing a process of continuous revolution.
[/quote]

I'm a bit confused. Transformation isn't a process but it is an iterative process.

 

[dapaterson]

You're not confused - I'm just unclear.    (That'll teach me to type without sufficient caffeine in my system!)

What I meant to say:

Transformation isn't a process leading to a final endstate, with that endstate as the goal.

Rather, it's the transformation process itself that is the goal - the institutional ability to learn and change on a continuous basis.  The world will continue to change - the CF and the Army must be able to change and adapt as well, rather than fixating on a single possible threat.

 

[rifleman]

Rather, it's the transformation process itself that is the goal - the institutional ability to learn and change on a continuous basis.  The world will continue to change - the CF and the Army must be able to change and adapt as well, rather than fixating on a single possible threat.

Well, thats nothing new, We've been doing that since I been in. Someone must have copied my estimate.

 

[mainerjohnthomas]

Kirkhill wrote:
Here's a question, logical absurdity time - supposing that reaction time for fire support was reduced to zero,  would a soldier need to carry a weapon?  As I said this pushes the bounds of the absurd but suppose that when confronted with an enemy force (1 or 1000 it makes no difference) all the soldier had to do was tap a button on her wrist to call for support and designate the target and immediately have the target removed (dead, neutralized, hoisted into another dimension etc).  Would the soldier be able to do her job?  Would she be a police officer? Would she convey the necessary threat and sense of authority being unarmed except for the "button"?  Or would the "button" itself become the threat?
   
In reply I would have to say that a weapon would still be required.  Refer to the bayonette thread for the reasoning.  If a civvy, or guerilla sees me with a tac radio that is allready on the arty net, with a tasked battery awaiting my call for fire, and a rifle in my hand, they will recognize the threat of the rifle, when it is the radio that can call for the hammer of freaking Thor to take out everything in the area.  In some respects, the purpose of a weapon can be to intimidate.
    If one day a glance with a targeting helmet system and muttered command "HE, execute" will suffice to wipe out your target, then I guess dress swords will come back into fashion; to keep the bad guys aware that we are not to be trifled with, and to remind us that we are still soldiers.

 

[vonGarvin]

Regardless of the MGS-105's merits, money spent there might be better spent on laptops as described above, mortars that can be mounted, towed, airlifted or humped and a pile of ammunition.

Well, such a beast exists, and, with minor adjustments, could be da' bomb.  The 81mm Bison carrier thingy (Wolf?  Dragon?)  Anyway, add an INS into the beast with a killer GPS (so that it knows where it is and which direction it's facing), and computerise the base such that when firemission comes in, punch in the target grid (depending on distribution of fire, naturally), and the base rotates and elevates the barrel in seconds.  That would seriously close the loop. 
Imagine driving down the road in A'stan and then you hear "Fire mission group.  Grid 123456, direction 1600.  Insurgents in open.  10 rounds, fire for effect".  The vehicle stops, the control post operator digitally transmits the grid and distribution of fire to his four mortars, and within 15 seconds, bombs are being dropped down the barrels and then on their way.  The technology exists today

Here's a question, logical absurdity time - supposing that reaction time for fire support was reduced to zero,  would a soldier need to carry a weapon?  As I said this pushes the bounds of the absurd but suppose that when confronted with an enemy force (1 or 1000 it makes no difference) all the soldier had to do was tap a button on her wrist to call for support and designate the target and immediately have the target removed (dead, neutralized, hoisted into another dimension etc).  Would the soldier be able to do her job?  Would she be a police officer? Would she convey the necessary threat and sense of authority being unarmed except for the "button"?  Or would the "button" itself become the threat?

Maybe that should go into the "Infantry of Tomorrow" thread but the attack is surely one of the things that will define the infantry of tomorrow.

Sounds more like the "Infantry of Star Trek", but very interesting concept.

 

[Kirkhill]

Sounds more like the "Infantry of Star Trek", but very interesting concept.

Remember "Star Trek" brought you your cell-phone and Arthur C. Clarke (science fiction writer and WW2 RAF radar tech Sgt) brought you your comms and GPS sattelites.

50 years goes by in a real hurry.

Cheers.

 

[MdB]

Anyway, add an INS into the beast with a killer GPS (so that it knows where it is and which direction it's facing), and computerise the base such that when firemission comes in, punch in the target grid (depending on distribution of fire, naturally), and the base rotates and elevates the barrel in seconds.

Well, now how come it's not already in the field. It's a lot less complicated than other systems, let's just mention ISTAR (though I think the coordinates would be transferred through it...), and it's completely workable today! GPS-positioning howitzer isn't Star Trek technology at all, we have robots building cars for 10 years.

I read somewhere that Navy and Air Force technologies have made a quantum leap since WWII, whereas the Army jumped a lot less far than her counterparts. Yes, there's NV googles, flash-bang and smoke grenades, but overall I wouldn't say that the leap is the same as the two others. I'm also aware that next generation (no hint to Star Trek here ;D) of infantry weapons is already in testing, but it's not in the field yet.

 

[Kirkhill]

I read somewhere that Navy and Air Force technologies have made a quantum leap since WWII, whereas the Army jumped a lot less far than her counterparts. Yes, there's NV googles, flash-bang and smoke grenades, but overall I wouldn't say that the leap is the same as the two others. I'm also aware that next generation (no hint to Star Trek here ) of infantry weapons is already in testing, but it's not in the field yet.

Perhaps it is related to the fact that the Royal Navy went into WW1 with both computers (mechanical for calculating fall of shot) and long wave radios.  Both the Air Force and the Navy are focused on their platforms.  As crowded as those platforms are they can make space for critical capabilities so that they can carry them with them.

Armies, by contrast and despite their current focus on gadgets and gizmos, may still be focused on "equipping the man" rather than "manning the equipment" and thus consciously/unconsciously limit themselve to the 60-100 lb weight limit that the individual soldier can carry.  Interestingly the artillery, which "mans the guns" has historically been one of the most technologically advanced portions of the army.  Wasn't the Bison fielded as infantry kit?

 

[dapaterson]

Wasn't the Bison fielded as infantry kit?

(covers head, crouches down and whimpers as the "Militia LAV" discussion rears its ugly head again)

 

[Kirkhill]

(covers head, crouches down and whimpers as the "Militia LAV" discussion rears its ugly head again)

Nasty man, Sir.  Get your mind out of the gutter.  No such impure thoughts crossed mine.  ;D

 

[vonGarvin]

Wasn't the Bison fielded as infantry kit?

Yes it was, but it has since evolved.  It is a great piece of kit.  Now, regarding the bison mortar and why it's not digitised: I don't know why.  Go ask the Gunners, cause we mortarmen were told to drop our baseplates and fix bayonets.

 

[Kirkhill]

I'm realising, belatedly, that my screw up is in danger of taking this thread far off topic.  When I typed in Bison I was thinking about the Bison-Mortar variant which I believe was sometimes designated Wolf.

The issue I was trying to get at in a back-handed manner was whether the Wolf came out of an Infantry background or an Arty background. 

As you said though,  vonGarvin, in some respects the matter is moot because of the transfer of the mortars to the Arty.

Cheers and 'pologies.