Infantry of Tomorrow

[KevinB]

OICW is DEAD.

  The US SCAR is looking like it is dying on the vine and the Hk416 seems to be the drop on shoe in.  Hk417 (7.62x51) seems to be the next US DMR as the KAC SASS was just stop dropped as well.

  While I am out - we run 4 or 5 man dets for our ops and so do other entities in this field.

I'm still sold on the 4 man block add in a 5 mobility man to run the vehicle if you are setup that way - still gives you 4 men on the ground that for dedicated tasks can be twinned for HR/Entry tasks

 

[Kirkhill]

Or a  3-man crew with a 4 man det if the vehicle requires?

 

[KevinB]

Yes if nec. - but I dont like large vehicles 

 

[48Highlander]

OICW is DEAD.

What about the OCSW?  I know the OICW got canned because it was way too damn bulky, but the OCSW seems like a great piece of kit with a lot of potential, yet I haven't heard anything about it for quite a while.  You know anything about it?

 

[KevinB]

No idea -- I am a little out of the loop from some stuff I wanted to get together with some of my USASOC leaks, and drink beer and tell lies two weeks from now at SHOTSHOW- but I could not get my leave till April - so I am shit out of luck for insider dirt...

 

[a_majoor]

This was on display at AUSA as the XM -307, with one interesting twist. Since the programmable ammunition seems to be the sticking point right now, the action and barrel can be replaced with units allowing you to fire the venerable .50 HMG round! The idea is probably to get some sales and a customer base today, then at some future date they can be sold either 25mm actions and barrels or a compliment of new weapons chambered for 25mm.

http://www.gdatp.com/products/lethality/xm307/xm307.htm

 

[a_majoor]

One point brought up quite a bit earlier was the weight/volume of the equipment when you are carrying a full battle load plus the platoon ammunition. After toiling down the road with all that kit (plus rucksack and body armour) for a few hours there would be very few people in any state to carry out combat operations. This also has an effect on the supply chain when it is stuffed full of all this equipment for the troops, and this was noted by SLA Marshal in "The Soldier's Load and the Mobility of the Nation". BH Liddel Hart also made mention of this in several books, especially "Paris, or the Future of War", and later in "Deterrent or Defence?"

Perhaps we have a real issue here. Maybe the issue of load carriage is a symptom rather than a cause. Certainly it is desirable to be prepared for every eventuality, but do we have to carry everything including the kitchen sink to do so? I suspect a combination of very "out of the box" training (say high intensity marksmanship training so every round will count), adaptation of advanced material science (lighter helmets, armour, packframes etc.) and rethinking how we use technology (compare the types and amounts of data a RAD B can transmit compared to a RIM Blackberry or GARMIN RINO, for example) could cut down the amount of equipment a soldier "really" needs to take to battle. Soldiers who can move quickly and sustain their effort for a prolonged period will certainly be more useful than soldiers who cannot because they are being used as pack mules.

This is not to say we should see Canadian soldiers in sandals, black Cadpat pyjamas and a small bag of poutine tied to their belts, but we certainly can't continue the way we are now either.

 

[tomahawk6]

Here is an article from today discussing the reasons why Marines are choosing not to wear addon body armor.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060326/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_unused_armor

 

[Red 6]

Ya'll bring up some good points about the Soldier's load and how it adds to/inhibits his ability on the battle field. In my experience, if you make a bigger rucksack, the Army will find a way to jam it to overloaded. Mobility is often talked about in terms of operational level, but the grunt with his gear is wehere the (boot sole) rubber meets the road.

Load planning is always a problem. During the pre-operational phase, we always tried to figure out what we needed. "Load creep" invariably set in as more and more "what ifs" were added to the mix. That's how you wind up with 100 pound rucks that Soldiers need help to get saddled up. The issue of modern technology is really a moot point so long as the subsistence load is so out of control. I'd be willing to bet infantrymen are humping a heavier load than ever before.

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

T6 could you cut and paste.  The link isn't working anymore.
As for 031 of the future, I'd like to think it would be something like Starship Troopers (the book).

 

[a_majoor]

I'd be willing to bet infantrymen are humping a heavier load than ever before.

Up until the First World War, the soldier's load seems to have been fairly constant at about 60-70 Lbs (or @ 32 Kg). This figure can be applied to a Hoplite heavy Infantryman in Classical Greece, a Roman Legionary, Frankish Huscarl, Spanish Tercio....the "Tommie's" climbing over the top at the Somme also carried 60 Lbs of "stuff", and WW II GIs were reputedly drowned in amphibious landings if they tripped in the water, since they could not get up again unassisted.

Red 6 is quite correct. Even though today's soldiers are probably much bigger and stronger than ever, with improved physical training to boot, the idea of carrying 100+ Lbs (British Infantry in the Falkland Islands war reputedly "yomped" with 120 lbs of kit) is just insane. Do the black pyjama thing and "out G the G", or have trained "Intel snipers" like the 173rd Long Range Surveillance Detachment http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/23394/post-152788.html#msg152788 slip through the streets and alleys. They will be able to get the job done in a different but effective manner.

 

[GaelicSoldier]

Quote,

"Even though today's soldiers are probably much bigger and stronger than ever, with improved physical training to boot, the idea of carrying 100+ Lbs (British Infantry in the Falkland Islands war reputedly "yomped" with 120 lbs of kit) is just insane."

I totally agree with you on this,  that's like packing an 8 year old child on your back.  As if what we need to do isn't getting harder, last thing we need is more 'stuff' to pack around.

We'll need to do a lot more ushup: 's if more weight is in store  ;D

 

[Rory]

That 8 yearold must eat from two troughs  ;D(then again lookin at society and fitness you may only need a 6 or 7 yearold). The way I see it for the weight adding up is that everyone may need grenades in field or extra mags etc when crap hits the fan. A cheap solution would have one or two carry the extra grenades and someone else the extra mags! But the problem with that even is that if they go down in the open or away from the section, platoon, what ever your SOL in the fight for your extra magazines and grenades. Maybe we just have the mindset in field that you'd rather be caught with it on you then not when something happens, precaution is going to bite a soldier in the arse for weight.

(Put me in my place if I strayed from my lane, just going on what I have read here and what I can gather from my thoughts about this)

 

[GaelicSoldier]

Quote,

That 8 yearold must eat from two troughs  ;D  (then again lookin at society and fitness you may only need a 6 or 7 yearold).

End quote,

Its the damn fast food that the all the corporations are jamming down these kids throat. :threat:

If I'm outta place here lemme know

Cheers :cheers:

 

[paracowboy]

Its the damn fast food that the all the corporations are jamming down these kids throat.

I disagree. It's the parents allowing that garbage into their children's faces because they're too lazy to prepare proper food.

 

[GaelicSoldier]

I disagree. It's the parents allowing that garbage into their children's faces because they're too lazy to prepare proper food.

A very valid point, lucky for me my parents were brought up on the meat and potatoes diet and kept it going with me.

Cheers :cheers:

 

[boondocksaint]

No-one is going to fight a prepard postion battle in this day an age - for the US Air Force will reduce it to rubble

yeah, not so much, attacked several prepared positions, air support is valuable, as is artillary, but if timmy taliban is dug in, he aint moving, and the air support dont generally hit everything you need them to

4 man fireteams worked
m-72 for everyone who could carry them, they worked well
4-6 grenades per rifleman
12 ish m203 rounds per gunner, hopefully the new american ammo, ours is not as effective, mounted on c-8
600-800 c-9 per gunner to start
lav3 a must for intimate support, firebases are a thing of the past as far as fibua fighting, which was about 99% of our TIC's having the beast firing over head or within a few feat of you in contact is a big morale boost,
can the carl-g, junk junk junk heavy junk m-72 did the job fine
fine line in using dismounted c-6, TIC's were generally too free flowing to get good use out of it, better off with 2 more rifleman with m-72's in most fights

if further from lav's then the c-6 came in a bit more handy

 

[a_majoor]

The way I see it for the weight adding up is that everyone may need grenades in field or extra mags etc when crap hits the fan. A cheap solution would have one or two carry the extra grenades and someone else the extra mags! But the problem with that even is that if they go down in the open or away from the section, platoon, what ever your SOL in the fight for your extra magazines and grenades.

The WWI section and platoon was divided in such a fashion, with the hitting power coming from the Lewis gun and rifle grenediers, each weapon having a few "personal attendents" carrying the extra lewis gun magazines and grenades, and the riflemen acting as bodyguards to cover the other weapons during magazine changes. The headquarters section in a modern platoon has some of these characteristics (C-6, 84mm and sometimes the 60mm mortar), but is lacking in manpower to employ these weapons effectively. If we look at the WWI platoon for inspiration, then perhaps the HQ section should be expanded so all the crew served weapons can be employed, and the rifle sections lightened up (heretical thought, ditch the LMG's and M-203's) so they can escort and protect the firepower.

Infanteer has posted an article somewhere on this board of a USMC experiment which does something along these lines, taking the LMG's (similar to our C-9's) out of the squad and placing them in a single squad in the platoon. (Marine squads are bigger than our sections, so there is no one for one comparison here). Overall we need to look at a number of interrelated and overlapping factors:

1. The role of firepower and winning the firefight (See "Thinking about the Infantry attack" http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/18270/post-218528.html#msg218528)

2. The importance of individual mobility (i.e. weight of equipment)

3. Changing tactics to maximize effectiveness

4. Adopting advanced technology to support points one and two

5. Adopting different organizational models to enhance points one through three.

 

[daftandbarmy]

... and before the Falklands there was the Radfan campaign

http://www.britains-smallwars.com/Radfan/45.htm

Heavy loads, rough terrain, killing heat, hard fighting against fanatical Islamic rebels - sound familiar?  45 Cdo and 3 PARA converted their support companies into 'pack mules' to man pack ammo and water and other supplies so that the rifle companies could go into action with relatively lighter loads. Depth companies resupplied point companies, depth platoons platoons resupplied  point platoons, logisticians operated way up front etc etc. It apparently still wasn't ideal - 70 to 80lbs per man was still normal - but was do-able. There may never be an answer to the loads carried by those at the sharp end. I guess we'll still need to do pushups and ruck marches...

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

If we look at the WWI platoon for inspiration, then perhaps the HQ section should be expanded so all the crew served weapons can be employed, and the rifle sections lightened up (heretical thought, ditch the LMG's and M-203's) so they can escort and protect the firepower.

Infanteer has posted an article somewhere on this board of a USMC experiment which does something along these lines, taking the LMG's (similar to our C-9's) out of the squad and placing them in a single squad in the platoon. (Marine squads are bigger than our sections, so there is no one for one comparison here). Overall we need to look at a number of interrelated and overlapping factors:

AMajoor

At least one platoon organized a "weapons section" of sorts with two C6 and a 60mm mortar (plus an AR-10 I seem to remember) when operating without vehicles.  You could mix and match weapons I suppose, but I like the principle.

daftandbarmy,

Interesting perspective from recent history with some food for thought there.