Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Australia Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Is 2 x 4 better than 3 x 3???
Robbo    1/23/2010 10:41:40 PM
Hey guys I've just come across this board and had a look at some of the threads and it's great to see some intelligent informed dicussion happening!! So many other places uninformed idiots drag conversations on these issues down to kindergarden levels!!! Just wondering peoples thoughs on the new 4 man building blocks the Army is moving towards for light infantry and as I understand the wider Army. Hand in hand with having native DFSW in each now larger platoon of 40 Digs? As far as implementation goes, the battalions deploying are using the 4 man Teams as far as I know, but doctinally the 9 man section is still being taught throughout training establishments. Possibly still ironing out some of the finer point berofe they train all the green newbies??? (I've decided to move to the Dark Side and doing my GRES FAC through MUR and there has never been a mention of 4 man team at Duntroon) Robbo.
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6   NEXT
YelliChink       1/25/2010 7:32:04 PM
 
[quote]
CAMP HANSEN, Okinawa (May 5, 2006) -- ''Contact right!" bellows from a fire team leader as the enemy comes into sight. The warriors take a defensive position while firing a hail of bullets. Moving like a well-choreographed group, the six-man reconnaissance unit moves out of the open into covered positions while maintaining constant engagement with the enemy.
[unquote]
 
Quote    Reply

YelliChink       1/25/2010 8:08:17 PM
 
During Operation Desert Storm:
 

Corporal Lawrence M. Lentz commanded

a seven-man team comprising

Corporals Scott A. Uskoski, Scott A. Wagner,

Lance Corporals Marcus C. Slavenas,

Alan L. Cooper, Jr., Jude A. Woodarek,

and Hospital Mate Carlos Dayrit. Corporal

Charles H. Ingraham III commanded

a six-man team consisting of Corporal

Jeffery D. Brown, Lance Corporals Harold

S. Boling, David S. McNamee, Patrick A.

Sterling, and Hospital Mate 1st Class

Kevin Callahan. The teams were part of

3d Platoon, Company A, 3d Reconnaissance

Battalion. Company A had been attached

to 1st Reconnaissance Battalion

for Operations Desert Shield and

Storm.'29

 
Quote    Reply

Raven22       1/25/2010 8:10:43 PM

The USMC uses 13 man squads consisting of three four-man fireteams and a squad leader, so obviously they do things a bit differently. It is also why the Amtrac and EFV is so big.

Either way, as I've said, looking at the new organisation from the POV of the four man brick wandering around the jungle by themselves is missing the point. They are not designed for that, although of course there are some limited missions they can carry out independently. They are called bricks because they are building blocks that can be task organised as required. That is the main reason the change has been made - since we don't fight with barracks organisation but are constantly combat teaming, the new organisation allows that to happen without breaking up the low level teams. For example, when I deployed I commanded three infantry bricks as part of my cavalry organisation. One was usually used as shooters, I could use the other ones as a single section or split the bricks across the patrols or whatever I wanted. Very handy.
 
You could probably find a lot of literature that proposes an alternate low level organisation - hell, I've written an article myself - but that doesn't mean the new organisation is a bad idea. I think the real litmus test is that you'd be very hard pressed to find someone that has deployed recently that preferes the old organisation to the new.
 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunneragain       1/25/2010 9:57:59 PM
On another note, a 40 person platoon sounds like a pretty big admin workload for 1 Lieutenant and 1 Platoon Sergent. Is the Army intending to provide any extra NCO's to assist?
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       1/25/2010 10:32:59 PM

"but the US had almost no major experience in small wars (not their focus) and their primary task was fighting at a large massed level trying to change the equation by manouvre and nukes."

 

Vietnam?

I'd still regard Vietnam as a large war rather than something that at a country level would be defined as a small war.
 
granted they didn't use nukes - but they still initially tried large engagements under westmoreland vis a vis Korea under the vain hope that they could bleed the enemy in major engagements.  It never worked.  I was actually the trigger for the first considered use of black teams at a contrarian level because they force on force efforts were not giving up the results.
 
in terms of air support, no other war had B-52's doing circle work over anderson because they had too many going in and out for work.  they literally had too many aircraft on the run.  thats not a small war mentality in a theatre sense.
 
although, I take your point.
 
my overall view is that this is a letter submitted just like you see in USNI Proceedings.  ie someone has an idea and throws it in for comment.  Its hardly corporate intent or messaging. :)
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust    typo fix   1/25/2010 10:45:20 PM




"but the US had almost no major experience in small wars (not their focus) and their primary task was fighting at a large massed level trying to change the equation by manouvre and nukes."





 



Vietnam?




I'd still regard Vietnam as a large war rather than something that at a country level would be defined as a small war.

 

granted they didn't use nukes - but they still initially tried large engagements under westmoreland vis a vis Korea under the vain hope that they could bleed the enemy in major engagements.  It never worked.  It was actually the trigger for the first considered use of black teams at a contrarian level because they force on force efforts were not giving up the results.

 

in terms of air support, no other war had B-52's doing circle work over anderson because they had too many going in and out for work.  they literally had too many aircraft on the run.  thats not a small war mentality in a theatre sense.


 

although, I take your point.


 

my overall view is that this is a letter submitted just like you see in USNI Proceedings.  ie someone has an idea and throws it in for comment.  Its hardly corporate intent or messaging. :)


 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunneragain    Raven   1/25/2010 11:18:13 PM

You mentioned larger mortar platoons. How many tubes are they looking at having and is there any talk of bringing in 120mm tubes? I reckon that that would be about the best thing that they could do to complement the capabilities of the new M777 howitzer and the new SP's. 6 x 120mm tubes and 6 x 81mm per battalion would do just nicely.

 
Quote    Reply

Raven22       1/26/2010 12:39:41 AM
On another note, a 40 person platoon sounds like a pretty big admin workload for 1 Lieutenant and 1 Platoon Sergent. Is the Army intending to provide any extra NCO's to assist?
 
They'll have four full tracks and five lance jacks, so there shouldn't be too many complaints. 40 isn't that many anyway - I had 62 diggers last year. More NCOs just means more PARs to write anyway.
 
 You mentioned larger mortar platoons. How many tubes are they looking at having and is there any talk of bringing in 120mm tubes? I reckon that that would be about the best thing that they could do to complement the capabilities of the new M777 howitzer and the new SP's. 6 x 120mm tubes and 6 x 81mm per battalion would do just nicely.
 
The new mortar pl is three 3-tube sections for 9 in total, all 81mm (although the new 7000m range jobbie). 120mm mortars will probably be introduced for the mech battalions and cav regts as part of Land 400, although that is a long way off. There is a bit of a push for a 60mm mortar to be brought in after experience in Afghan, but that won't happen either.
 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunneragain       1/26/2010 1:17:42 AM
They'll have four full tracks and five lance jacks, so there shouldn't be too many complaints. 40 isn't that many anyway - I had 62 diggers last year. More NCOs just means more PARs to write anyway.
Am I right in assuming that this means that there will be one full track for the entire fire support element of the platoon, assisted by two lance jacks? 
The new mortar pl is three 3-tube sections for 9 in total, all 81mm (although the new 7000m range jobbie). 120mm mortars will probably be introduced for the mech battalions and cav regts as part of Land 400, although that is a long way off. There is a bit of a push for a 60mm mortar to be brought in after experience in Afghan, but that won't happen either.
 
Shame on the 60mm, I understand that it is an eminantly flexible and useful piece of kit.
 
I also think that they should be looking at 120mm's for the entire Army, not just the mech and cav. I was reading that a 120mm tube only costs $70,000 US (2006 dollars) at that price we would be able to fit out all five of the ARA light infantry battalions with 6 tubes each for around $3 million, which is basically nothing in terms of todays defence expenditure. Whats more the tubes come with a sub-munition system that allows practice with 81mm ammo, way cheap. The 120mm systems are also eminantly heliportable, an MRH-90 would be able to lift an entire 3 tube section, crew and a fair number of rounds in one lift. It would be a massive increase in firepower at a bargain basement price and it annoys me that we didn't do it 20 years ago.  
 
Quote    Reply

Raven22       1/26/2010 2:26:47 AM
Am I right in assuming that this means that there will be one full track for the entire fire support element of the platoon, assisted by two lance jacks? 
 
The manoeuvre support section consists of three bricks which each have a commander (F88), grenadier (GLA), marksman (7.62 marksmen rifle, possibly SR-25) and a gunner (with Mag 58/84). One brick in each section will also have a QCB or perhaps AGL, with ATVs to move them. LCPLs will command two of the bricks, with the third being commanded by a CPL who also commands the entire section. When grouped into an MS platoon at company level it will be commanded by a SGT, although there is talk of having an extra LT at company level as an LO that would command this element if required.
 
Shame on the 60mm, I understand that it is an eminantly flexible and useful piece of kit.
 
The 60mm is a handy weapon, but to get it you'd have to give up something else to get it. The thinking is that between GLAs and the new command detonated AGLs, the capability for short range indirect fire has been met.
 
I also think that they should be looking at 120mm's for the entire Army, not just the mech and cav.
 
The biggest hindrance to 120mm mortars for the light infantry is its weight - both of weapon and particularly the ammunition. Even though the mortar platoonn will almost always have access to vehicles to move their weapons, they still need the ability to manhandle the tubes and rounds if required. Its worth noting what happened to the 120mm mortar at hells halfpipe in Op Anaconda as an example. Theres also other issues such as SSDs etc, but with a range of 7000m the 81mm do a good job. 
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics