Thinking about the Infantry Attack

[a_majoor]

The "Wolf" mortar carrier is a perfect example of using existing kit in innovative ways to provide what we need without paying a huge bill. The basic Bison was well thought out and if it had been purchased in sufficient numbers, it could have been the "M-113" of the LAV family, adaptable for all kinds of roles. I could even picture a scratch fire support version mounting the venerable 106mm recoilless rifle as part of the family (with modern sights, laser rangefinders and ammunition you could reach out and touch someone from quite a bit further, although the 1800m effective range I vaguely recall will suffice for most purposes).

vonGarvin has indirectly pointed out the real problem. In the Canadian Army we are stripping away capabilities, going 1800 from all our allies who are integrating weapons and capabilities farther and farther down the food chain. Our Infantry companies will have to call "G" to get mortar support; a SBCT or USMC LAV Coy has these assets integral to the company. Given the idea that suppression is the key to winning battles (regardless of the platform you are mounted on), then assets like mortars and direct fire should be in the Company commander's hip pocket

 

[vonGarvin]

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. 

The Wolf (redesignated "Dragon" for some reason) came out of an Infantry background, with the Inf School, in conjunction with the Trials and Evaluations unit, ramrodding the show.  Following extensive testing, and deployment in Bosnia with the CANBAT du jour over there, it was quite the beast.  Fast into action (even using the prismatic compass to sight them in), no need to bed in rounds, and actually had a smaller beaten zone due the stability of the vehicle surpassing that of it in the ground mount.  In a country with a decent roadway system (the Bison can go off road fairly well), the Dragon can keep up with the fastest of battlegroups/convoys/whatever.  Yes, the range is limited vis a vis 105mm and 155 mm, but in terms of flexibility, I am of the opinion that it surpasses both.  It can be put on someone's back, and two or three rounds given to each rifleman in a company means enough rounds for a day's action.  
So, as a quick response to a convoy in say, oh, I dunno, Afghanistan, and you want the capability to have guaranteed integral indirect fire, pack a group or even a platoon of mortars in the convoy, one up front, one towards the rear, digitise them with a data link to the CPO so that distribution of fire is passed on at the speed of light.  Now imagine that this convoy is going all, minding it's merry way, when suddenly (and, without warning, I may add), the front of the convoy is ambushed, and the enemy are beginning to cause mounting casualties on us.  A platoon commander up front is feeling outgunned, and calls on the Coy net for mortars.  The MFC sends the fol:
"Fire mission group.  Grid 237 435.  Direction 3200 over"
"Fire mission group.  Grid 237 435.  Direction 3200 out"  (At this time, the CPO is punching in this data to his onboard computer.  The data is not yet sent to the group as his distribution of fire is not yet resolved.  The other Dragons have stopped and they are prepping ammo.)
"Insurgents in hill.  Linear 200, attitude 2500.  10 rounds, 1 round fire for effect over"
"Insurgents in hill.  Linear 200, attitude 2500.  10 rounds, 1 round fire for effect out"  (The CPO now types in the distribution of fire, confirms safety with the group commander electronically, and hits "Transmit".  IMMEDIATELY the mortars in the other dragons whirl into action, rotating and elevating to the proper solution.  The Det Comd's verify that their mortars are ready.  They all give the thumbs up to the line NCO, who then drops his arm and four rounds are on their way)
"Shot 25 over"
"Shot 25 out"
24.8 seconds later, the MFC observes the fall of shot.
"Right 50, add 50, fire for effect over"
"Right 50, add 50, fire for effect out"
(The MFC went to his final correction so quickly, because with his LAV OPV, INS, Lasers and all that, combined with the GPS, INS and others on each of the Dragons removes the greatest variables to indirect fire: survey)
The CPO types in the corrections, his "Transmit", and IMMEDIATELY the mortars do their minute corrections.  The Det Comd's again verify that they are ready and give thumbs up tothe line NCO.  He drops his arm and the mortars all begin sending their 9 packages each to the enemy.
Now, had the only fire support been 155's, they better hope that they are within range of base camp!  And I doubt that the response time would be that quick.  
This scenario is totally made up, but with technology availabe TODAY, this could be reality tomorrow (not the "poetic" tomorrow as in "Army of Tomorrow", but rather the literal tomorrow, as in "today is Friday, tomorrow is Saturday"

Now, where do I patent this idea and sell it to the CDS? ;-)

 

[readyfourzero]

Right 50 add 50 fire for effect!!!! surely with 4 barrels that are in a line 40m apart giving you a spread of 120m and build in the danger area (providing they are all paralleled properly - sorry we don't do that any more do we with the use of GLS) the target will come within the beaten zone anyway and their will not be any need for such a small adjustment.

I take it when you send the adjusting round that's just one barrel firing and not all four so as to save unecessary expenditure.

 

[vonGarvin]

Right 50 add 50 fire for effect!!!! surely with 4 barrels that are in a line 40m apart giving you a spread of 120m and build in the danger area (providing they are all paralleled properly - sorry we don't do that any more do we with the use of GLS) the target will come within the beaten zone anyway and their will not be any need for such a small adjustment.

I take it when you send the adjusting round that's just one barrel firing and not all four so as to save unecessary expenditure.

As I remember it, the 50 m correction was for "finessing" on the objective.  Given the 30 killing radius, it was the smallest correction available: it puts the beaten zone directly on the target, and in this fictional case, perhaps the met was the only unknown (or the most "fuzzy" variable).  Now, remember, in my fantasy Bison Dragon, each vehicle has GPS/INS/Inertial Dampeners/Dilithium (whatever it is that says "I am here": is it an Inukshuk?  Whatever).  So, no need for paralell by sight unit or bugger all.  They could be 20 m apart (the usual) or 40 m apart, whatever.  The computer in the CPO "shack" sends the target info to the software in each carrier, and the computer in each carrier calculates bearing and distance for it's own share of the pie.
The adjusting fire didn't happen: it was one round, fire for effect.  Again, in my made-up-land, first round accuracy is more commonplace, so no more "Adjust fire.....drop 800.....add 400.....drop 200....drop 100.....drop 50, FFE"
It also allows the MFC to confirm attitude, in this case, of the linear mission

 

[Michael OLeary]

As I remember it, the 50 m correction was for "finessing" on the objective.  Given the 30 killing radius, it was the smallest correction available: it puts the beaten zone directly on the target, and in this fictional case, perhaps the met was the only unknown (or the most "fuzzy" variable). 

It was also the smallest correction that could be effectuively managed by most CPOs on the manual plotter. Though I did know a few NCOs who were artists at making and reading the finest dots you ever saw come off the point of a Staedtler pencil.

I do remember the early days of the HP-41C, teamed with good L16 barrels, NM123 HE and you would find people experimenting with, and seeing on the ground, 25 metre corrections.  Even the occasional 10 metre correction on a point target was tried occasionally on calm days - though it wasn't exactly a practical application.

 

[a_majoor]

In these discussions of a mechanized mortar carrier, it seems the carrier is "smart" while the ammunition hasn't changed all that much since Korea. Perhaps I am talking through my hat since my own mortar experience is limited to hand held 60mm, but given the need to snap shoot elusive targets, shouldn't some thought be given to including "smart" mortar rounds to the package as well?

BaE had the Merlin 81mm round with a milimetric radar "seeking" warhead, and Sweden has the STRIX 120mm mortar round with an infa red seeker, so the proof of principle is there. Smart mortar rounds can take out the problem of making fine corrections since they do that last part themselves, shortening the cycle of performing a fire mission. Frightened or confused soldiers calling for fire to break an ambush need only to specify the target "box" in the ideal case. For mortars that are fixed in position at the FOB or in a conventional defensive position, "dumb" rounds can still be used, since the corrections are more or less known and pre plotted.

 

[GO!!!]

majoor,

The mortar carrier idea is a good thing, but I read an article awhile ago (although I cannot find it to source it for you ) that you might find interesting.

It was a Russian "lessons learned" of  a motorised rifle company which was either moving through, or patrolling in Chechnya. They were travelling in BTR 80s, and were ambushed by dismounted insurgents with RPG, an HMG, IED and rifle fire. The Russians called for mortar fire to break the ambush, but the rounds that were fired (the article was not too clear) were of a "large chunk of metal seeking variety".

This had the effect of making the Chechen's ambush exponentially more effective, as a platoon of armoured vehs was destroyed with the opening volley!

 

[a_majoor]

majoor,

The mortar carrier idea is a good thing, but I read an article awhile ago (although I cannot find it to source it for you ) that you might find interesting.

It was a Russian "lessons learned" of  a motorised rifle company which was either moving through, or patrolling in Chechnya. They were travelling in BTR 80s, and were ambushed by dismounted insurgents with RPG, an HMG, IED and rifle fire. The Russians called for mortar fire to break the ambush, but the rounds that were fired (the article was not too clear) were of a "large chunk of metal seeking variety".

This had the effect of making the Chechen's ambush exponentially more effective, as a platoon of armoured vehs was destroyed with the opening volley!

Ouch!

Fire procedures for "Smart" rounds will have to be smart as well, including some sort of IFF system to discourage the round from seeking you, and making sure you don't go into the target box. The actual mechanisms to do this are beyond me, but if the MFC can bring rounds within 25-50m of the target, the seeker should be able to do the last part.

Of course, firing anti-armour or metal seeking rounds at dismounted insurgents firing infantry small arms is a pretty dumb thing to do in the first place.....

 

[vonGarvin]

Smart Rounds are indeed the future: it's just a trade off of HE versus the smart stuff.  Having said that, I imagine it's possible.  But, not being a techno geek (my version zero "blackberry" consists of a pack of players with the calendar on the back), I wouldn't know how to build it, or even know 'what' I would want it to do.  Vs tanks, perhaps Explosively Formed Projectiles (EFPs) when the wave finds a "target", I dunno.  But my point is that perhaps existing technology be applied to a mortar carrier would be the first step.
All the software would need to know in each carrier is
(a): where am I?
(b): which direction am I facing?
(c): how far is the target?
(d): which direction is the target?
After all, that is the info that a CPO needs to engage a target.  The software would then take these answers, "convert" it to bearing and elevation and charge for the ammo, apply said bearing and elevation to the tube and tell the loader what charge to apply to the round, and BAM!  There's all you need.
Now, vs personnel, a bigger spread (beaten zone) may be what you need.  Vs very point targets, it may be possible to try to put one down the pipe, literally.
So, take what we have now, and then begin the work on smarter ammo.
Now, where do I apply for the patent? ;-)

 

[Kirkhill]

Von Garvin:

Here may be part of your solution - targeting data.

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

This is for coordinating Air Force assets but I don't see why putting the same system in your mortar carrier with a GPS wouldn't work as well.

 

[rampage800]

Kind of an interesting article so I figured I'd throw in here. Back to the Wolf/Dragon thing, I've heard that the reason (and I'm not bilingual)they changed the name was "Dragon" is the same thing in English as it is in French whereas "Wolf" is translated differently. Anyhow could be urban myth and I probably should have researched it a bit more but ah what the hell eh......With regards to the "smart ammo" it probably can be done, however in the case Von Garvin is making it wouldn't be very practical, reason being that someone still has to set those rounds ie fuze, marking the tgt with a laser, confirming coords, etc.(all the stuff or combination thereof that makes the dumb bomb smart)That stuff takes time I would believe and I think if I read the thread correctly we're trying to suppress or neutralize ASAP. The targeting data would work that Kirkhill was talking about if you had a UAV or plane on station but if not how do you get an overhead view(sure you could use a "moving map" with Falcon view but someone still has to confirm where the tgt is, just like what the JTAC was doing by drawing big arrows to the tgt) So what does all this mean.....? Well maybe we just do it the old fashioned way using a ref pt method and polar coords onto the tgt. It may not be bang onto the tgt but at least after the first rounds are off you have positive data on the ground and can adjust from there. Even with all the computer gizmos and no met I think mortar round being so light your chances of a first round hit are slim anyhow and if things are really bad the tube comds canbypass the CP all together and revert to the "crank"method. Anyhow I'm no SME but I thought I'd throw that out there.
                                                                                                                                                                     

 

[a_majoor]

The point on beaten zones is well taken, although based on recent activity the enemy is likely to be firing out of rock sangers, inprovised bunkers or the local schoolhouse, where even a near miss might not put them out of comission. Smart rounds which need to be guided on target by laser designators are probably too "slow" for what we are talking about (although the follow up volley by a Hellfire packing Apache will do the trick  ), so I am suggesting this:

1. A "dragon" mortar carrier tricked out with VonGarvin's kit list so the vehicle can reference and prep the moment they get a fire mission (even while the driver is pulling off the road). This gets the barrel pointed in the minimum amount of time.

2. The gun commander grabs a "smart" round off the ready rack, pulls the saftey pin (which should also activate the seeker) and drops it down the tube.

3. At the top of the arc, the round's seeker goes active, and starts looking for the target while avoiding IFF or ambiguous signals. The "box" can be pretty narrow, since the launch vehicle has good target data to start. Given what I am reading here, a 50X50m box should suffice, but a 25X25 would be better.

4. BOOM! Insurgents are scattered in small pieces.

5. If there are more/bigger targets then can be supressed with the sudden appearence of a smart bomb, the mortar crews carry on the mission with the usual compliment of "dumb" bombs.

In essence, this is a very scaled down version of what the M 777 artillery crews will be doing in Afghanistan with the 155 smart rounds.

 

[vonGarvin]

The point on beaten zones is well taken, although based on recent activity the enemy is likely to be firing out of rock sangers, inprovised bunkers or the local schoolhouse, where even a near miss might not put them out of comission. Smart rounds which need to be guided on target by laser designators are probably too "slow" for what we are talking about (although the follow up volley by a Hellfire packing Apache will do the trick  ), so I am suggesting this:

1. A "dragon" mortar carrier tricked out with VonGarvin's kit list so the vehicle can reference and prep the moment they get a fire mission (even while the driver is pulling off the road). This gets the barrel pointed in the minimum amount of time.

2. The gun commander grabs a "smart" round off the ready rack, pulls the saftey pin (which should also activate the seeker) and drops it down the tube.

3. At the top of the arc, the round's seeker goes active, and starts looking for the target while avoiding IFF or ambiguous signals. The "box" can be pretty narrow, since the launch vehicle has good target data to start. Given what I am reading here, a 50X50m box should suffice, but a 25X25 would be better.

4. BOOM! Insurgents are scattered in small pieces.

5. If there are more/bigger targets then can be supressed with the sudden appearence of a smart bomb, the mortar crews carry on the mission with the usual compliment of "dumb" bombs.

In essence, this is a very scaled down version of what the M 777 artillery crews will be doing in Afghanistan with the 155 smart rounds.

OK, it's a deal.  The Bison Mortar carrier will be "tricked out" with my kit (I prefer "pimped out", but hey, that's alright), and it will be called the übervonGarvinmörserschützenpanzer (üvGmsPz).  The rounds will be the "Ultra-Majoors", Mk I. 
This post, copyright vonGarvin, 2006

But, in all seriousness, THAT is exactly the kind of stuff we could need.  Sure, the beaten zone has it's moments, but in the case mentioned above (or a million like that), a 25x25 "box" would rock (and through rocks everywhere).

PS: other than the "übervonGarvin" Part, that would be (close) to proper German: huge sausage words.

Garvin out.

 

[a_majoor]

Been a while since this thread got the attention it deserves.

Israel is beginning production of a new heavy IFV based on the Merkava 4 hull and mechanicals (although I did read the first batch of Namera's were getting rebuilt power packs from Merkava 1's to speed production. No word on the fate of the tanks, though). The Namera embodies the heavy armour protection and mobility of a tank philosophy that the earlier Achzarit and numerous Centurion tank conversions introduced on a purpose built hull.

We have seen this has been very advantageous for the IDF when working in complex terrain, either built up areas in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, as well as southern Lebanon. Since engagements are at close range, the mounted troops have very little time to react to incoming weapons fire so the heavy armour allows them to survive the initial impact. From our point of view these vehicles seem very under armed, usually carrying one OWS mounted weapon, a number of GPMG's and an on board 60mm mortar rather than the power operated turret carrying an automatic cannon and machine gun which most western armies favor.

Personally, I believe a balanced force should have something like this for the assault (Infantry carriers, Engineer section vehicles as well as some "funnies" to deal with difficult targets and situations. An armoured ambulance version is also a must have), as well as more general purpose vehicles for other tasks like rear area security, exploitation and patrolling. Who many and where they should go is an interesting conundrum.

 

[ArmyRick]

When you think about it, maybe for heavy infantry forces (Bradley, warrior, puma, etc, etc) They should just do like the israelis and go real heavy and opted for protection.

I wonder if they will expand on the merkava concept and have a MBT that carries a full 8 man sectiobn in the rear?

 

[vonGarvin]

When you think about it, maybe for heavy infantry forces (Bradley, warrior, puma, etc, etc) They should just do like the israelis and go real heavy and opted for protection.

Makes sense to me.  Think of an M-113 in terms of firepower (eg: not much, if any), but a Leo 2A6M in terms of protection and mobility.  Given that the APC would not be alone on the battlefield, "someone else" (eg: tanks) would deal with most of the bad guys at 50+ metres.  Closer than that, the APC disgorges its load and the infantry close with and destroy.  An all signing, all dancing LAV is nice, but if you can build 3 of these types of APCs for the industrial effort for one LAV 3 type, then to my simple mind, the choice is obvious:  sacrifice firepower in order to have better mobility and protection.

 

[a_majoor]

The HAPC concept makes the most sense in complex terrain, but there may be an argument for upgrading the firepower of such a beast. I would suggest that in complex terrain, the escorting vehicles might not be in a position to cover your HAPC; being screened by buildings, terrain features or vegetation. An engineer vehicle based on an HAPC should have a powerful, if short range weapon to reduce barricades and fortifications, and the HAPC itself needs firepower sufficient to suppress enemies in buildings and improvised fortifications.

A Merkava 1 *could* be used as an HAPC (or HIFV), but the down side would be the rear ammunition compartment would be sacrificed for the mounted section, and the section's situational awareness would be rather minimal. The section commander would still be able to shoot in an dismounted attack with a 105mm cannon, and be supported with multiple machine guns. The PUMA with the level "C" uparmour kit has about the same protection (and weight) as a Leopard C2, and comes with a turret mounted 30mm cannon. It is probably possible to do something similar to an Achzarit or Namera if desired.

The real downside of these machines is both the cost (especially the turret and associated FCS) and the logistical bill for any sort of HAPC/HIFV, not to mention tactical limitations due to size and weight. HAPC/HIFV's are most useful for complex terrain and assaults, but smaller "general purpose" machines are still needed for other roles.

 

[vonGarvin]

The real downside of these machines is both the cost (especially the turret and associated FCS) and the logistical bill for any sort of HAPC/HIFV, not to mention tactical limitations due to size and weight. HAPC/HIFV's are most useful for complex terrain and assaults, but smaller "general purpose" machines are still needed for other roles.

That's the point (for me, anyway) is the logistical bill for such a beast.  Ideally, Firepower, Mobility and Protection would all be "A+".  Now, I realise that even within a combat team of 4 tank troops, 3 infantry platoons, field engineer troop, arty tac and so forth, there will be times that a carrier would be on its own.  So, for firepower, perhaps something like the Kongsberg RWS with a .50 cal (firing SLAP-T, of course)?

 

[PPCLI Guy]

Ideally, Firepower, Mobility and Protection would all be "A+". 

It is a trade off.  You just described a tank. 

A Mech Inf Sections greatest strength is not the "A+" factor - it it the section that dismounts...so lets focus on the whole, not just the parts.

 

[mainerjohnthomas]

I worry about investing in such a heavy vehicle for infantry deployment.  My worry is that the vehicle will become central in the thinking, and the infantry will become no more than a screen for the bus, and not an arm of attack.  Combined arms wins battles, yes, but by focusing on the infantry carrier, it is easy to quickly find the infantry tactics being based on the vehicle, and not on the men.

Mechanized infantry are a great tool, but the mechanized part is their to support the infantry.  Too expensive a tail soon wags the dog.  It is hard to justify exercises and training for mechanized forces that do not employ the expensive and highly visible equipment.  This limits the ability to train your infantry, and its leaders, to explore the uses of the dismounts as a weapon, and not as attachments to the heavily armoured behemoth that began as a bulletproof taxi.

Likewise, if the vehicle becomes the accepted heavy weapons for the infantry section, what happens when terrain or mines forces the infantry to fight without the vehicles.  If we become too reliant on vehicle systems, our infantry is forced to fight at a disadvantage when employed alone. 

Lastly, this is Canada.  I would rather see us have a larger number of general purpose hulls and the doctrine to employ them in a variety of roles, than a small number of absolutely fabulous hulls that exist in such low numbers as to limit the size of the forces equipped and trained with them, making them just expensive hanger-queens, and undeployable.

I'm probably talking out my a$$, but when I see a heavy tank as an APC, I have my doubts that the owners will still think like infantry, and not turn into closet blackhat treadheads.