Page 282 of 496

PostPosted: Tue Dec 29, 2015 3:39 pm
by Husseinarti
DnalweN acilbupeR wrote:
Taihei Tengoku wrote:Do you want a symmetrical or asymmetrical squad (fireteams of equal size/composition or not), and do you want two fireteams or three? Is your line infantry in vehicles? If so, how many people can it hold?


I think that "research" has shown that separating the support and maneuver elements of a squad was more effective than having a symmetric structure, IIRC, for what it's worth.


In fact no that is wrong totally wrong.

gg

You need redundancy in a squad, if you just have a section of assault and a section of suppress, whats the assault element supposed to do if the suppressing element becomes suppressed?

A structure that allows redundancy and mutual support and interaction with one another is much better.

DnalweN acilbupeR wrote:
Immoren wrote:
Someone once argued that carbines have already replaced rifles. Because he opined that all modern service assault rifles are too short to be called rifles. :p


The M16 is still 20"..

I'd reckon if GPC will be a thing someday you will see a stop to this miniaturization if not longer barrels..


Sorry CTA is the next big leap in firearms not some dumb fucking 'GPC' shit.

PostPosted: Tue Dec 29, 2015 3:45 pm
by EsToVnIa
GPC would've been the thing in the 70s/80s, not present-day

now it's CTA and PCTA like san said

PostPosted: Tue Dec 29, 2015 3:50 pm
by Kazarogkai
DnalweN acilbupeR wrote:
Taihei Tengoku wrote:Do you want a symmetrical or asymmetrical squad (fireteams of equal size/composition or not), and do you want two fireteams or three? Is your line infantry in vehicles? If so, how many people can it hold?


I think that "research" has shown that separating the support and maneuver elements of a squad was more effective than having a symmetric structure, IIRC, for what it's worth.


I Usually include them as integral parts in my interwar-WW2 organization, The maneuver(or fire as I call them) elements being 8 troops in total while the support elements are 4 troops in total. As follows:
I Rifle Section
A Support
- 1 Truck
- 1 Section Leader(Rifle)
- 1 MMG Crew(3)(MMG + 3 Carbines)*1
B Fire Team
- 1 Team Leader(Rifle)
- 1 Rifleman(Rifle)
- 1 Grenadier(Infantry Mortar)
- 1 Automatic Gunner(LMG)
C Fire Team
- 1 Team Leader(Rifle)
- 1 Rifleman(Rifle)
- 1 Grenadier(Infantry Mortar)
- 1 Automatic Gunner(LMG)

II Assault Section
A Fire Team
- 1 LUV
- 1 Section Leader(SMG)
- 1 Storm Trooper(SMG)
- 1 Point Man(Shotgun)*2
- 1 Automatic Gunner(LMG)
B Fire Team
- 1 LUV
- 1 Team Leader(SMG)
- 1 Storm Trooper(SMG)
- 1 Point Man(Shotgun)*2
- 1 Automatic Gunner(LMG)
C Fire Team
- 1 LUV
- 1 Team Leader(SMG)
- 1 Storm Trooper(SMG)
- 1 Point Man(Shotgun)*2
- 1 Automatic Gunner(LMG)

*1: The Ammo Carrier will usually function as the designated driver when on transit
*2: Pointman functions as Driver when they are on transit

PostPosted: Tue Dec 29, 2015 3:52 pm
by Aqizithiuda
Estovnia wrote:GPC would've been the thing in the 70s/80s, not present-day

now it's CTA and PCTA like san said


PCTA ETC GPC

I think that the GPC is more of a 1940s-1970s sort of thing world wide, at which point everyone caught microcaliber fever, which continues into the present. The next adopted step is probably going to be polymer conventional cases in present calibers, eventually followed by caseless in like 50 years when they work out how to make durable, cleanly combusting polymer cases. Then we'll either see CLTA or just caseless ammunition along the conventional design. I'm hoping for the former, expecting the latter (at least until 20 years after it became viable and 2 separate disastrous programs, at which point they choose the CLTA).

PostPosted: Tue Dec 29, 2015 4:05 pm
by Gallia-
bundeswehr are the true innovators

all 5.56x45mm

PostPosted: Tue Dec 29, 2015 4:25 pm
by DnalweN acilbupeR
The way I see things is the following.

1. Separate maneuver and fire, in other words have an asymmetrical (in terms of weapons and capabilities not necessarily manpower) structure. This has supposedly been demonstrated to be more effective than the opposite.

2. Have each squad in its own vehicle. This allows for better flexibility and maneuver and is IMO easier to manage. It should also help with better bonding with the vehicle crew - the dismounts aren't simply "baggage" to be lugged around and dropped off into battle by the vehicle crew, they are an integral part of the squad and vice-versa.

3. Have a uniform structure all throughout as far as units and their sub-divisions are concerned. What this means is that instead of being uniform in terms of manpower, my platoons are uniform in number of squads, and so on. This results in tiny platoons for forces using small vehicles manpower-wise, but that is considered to be an advantage in itself and part of the whole point of said type of force - having a light footprint. Generally this will mainly apply to SOF, who are considered special little snowflakes who can punch above their weight which should somewhat compensate. In other words, different types of forces aren't really uniform in manpower nor in capabilities, acknowledging the fact that each is unique and comes with its own set of advantages and disadvantages. If you find yourself needing to say, use 2 of your squads to engage one enemy squad or something similar to this situation, well, you will, however that's probably a clue you either have the wrong forces for that job or the wrong job for those forces.

4. Separate vehicle crews from dismounts. This will either be impossible or unwanted with certain types of units/vehicles, mainly those with a small troop capacity (especially considering #3). However, when possible, it awards greater flexibility and even firepower to the squad: as the dismounts maneuver or engage or do whatever action, the vehicle crew can actively support them (or vice versa) or even another squad by maneuvering to a different location and/or using the on-board weapons etc.

5. The quintessential weapon around which a squad should be formed should be a belt-fed machine gun, whether a LMG or GPMG (typically distinguished by the type of round used, intermediate vs. full size), but preferably a GPMG. Because of the way it is built, it is literally so many things in one - it can provide suppressive fire, precision fire to a greater range (marksman), area fire, and if it uses a full size round it can penetrate things the rest of the squad can't with their rifles. I would say that being belt-fed is essential because it lowers the weight of the ammunition in effect as you don't have to lug the weight of many magazines around. Many LMGs can accept both belts and mags (not simultaneously) without modifying anything, in case you run out of belted ammunition. This is IMO most effective when deployed with a rifleman/ammo bearer, who either has a heavier overall load or IMO preferably a lighter load of their own to maintain the same mobility as the gunner if not riflemen.

6. I would reckon the second most useful and important "support" weapon in the squad is the so-called "automatic rifle" - this is commonly an "overbuilt" assault rifle commonly with a longer barrel, sometimes called an LMG (as with the RPK) although I dislike this naming convention. It is essentially what #5 offers, scaled down into being a compromise between a MG and a rifle. Different magazines have been built of varying reliability designed to increase the ammo capacity (and thus suppressive/area fire capability) of such weapons, such as quad-stacks, drums and Beta (dual drum) mags. The automatic rifle offers a suppressive, area and precision (marksman) fire capability that is viable at fireteam level.

7. The third thing you should have (if you can) would probably be a dedicated grenadier wielding something like a MGL or Norinco LG6. I do not like the idea of a RPG-er at squad level as I consider that the ammo is too heavy even with an ammo bearer to justify lugging around the weight of the launcher (after you'll expend all your rockets :lol: ). The grenadier could potentially have an ammo bearer/rifleman for maximum effectiveness.

8. The fourth thing would probably be a DMR. The DM shouldn't use a lot of ammo so there is completely no need for an ammo bearer unlike with the rest of the support weapons.

9. The rest of the firepower of the squad will be provided through the UBGLs mounted to the SL's and possibly S2IC's rifles, individually issued disposable rockets, hand and/or rifle grenades, and obviously run-off-the-mill rifles.

PostPosted: Tue Dec 29, 2015 4:30 pm
by EsToVnIa
Husseinarti wrote:
Kazarogkai wrote:
That would probably be including support elements(driver, squad leader, APC crew, etc).

"The squad, 班, or section was the basic unit of the National Revolutionary Army (the Republic of China), and would usually be 14 men strong. An infantry squad from an elite German-trained division would ideally have one light machine gun and 10 rifles, but only one of the three squads in a non-elite Central Army division would have a light machine gun. Furthermore, the regular provincial army divisions had no machine guns at all.[5]"
Source

Husseinarti wrote:I guess if its like 1945 that'd be cool.


Also even at most allot of squads tend to be just 11 people if you include the 'support elements' such as the vehicle crew. I fail to see how a SL is a 'support element' but okay.


my squads are 9-10 people when i include vehicle crew 8)

SL doubling as vehicle commander ftw ~~~~~

PostPosted: Tue Dec 29, 2015 4:40 pm
by DnalweN acilbupeR
Husseinarti wrote:
DnalweN acilbupeR wrote:
I think that "research" has shown that separating the support and maneuver elements of a squad was more effective than having a symmetric structure, IIRC, for what it's worth.


In fact no that is wrong totally wrong.

gg

You need redundancy in a squad, if you just have a section of assault and a section of suppress, whats the assault element supposed to do if the suppressing element becomes suppressed?

A structure that allows redundancy and mutual support and interaction with one another is much better.


No one's said there is no "mutual support and interaction" in an asymmetrical structure. What I mean by an assault and a support element isn't "HURR DURR FIRETEAM 1 IS 4 GPMGS, FIRETEAM 2 IS 4 RIFLES". The maneuver("-oriented") element can have organic support relevant through its mobility to itself in the form of IARs and MGLs as opposed to GPMGs and RPGs.

DnalweN acilbupeR wrote:
The M16 is still 20"..

I'd reckon if GPC will be a thing someday you will see a stop to this miniaturization if not longer barrels..


Sorry CTA is the next big leap in firearms not some dumb fucking 'GPC' shit.


that's the same thing i think of today's shitplinking pussi "intermediates"

PostPosted: Tue Dec 29, 2015 4:46 pm
by EsToVnIa
the nice thing about opinions is that, while everybody can have them, they can also be wrong :)

PostPosted: Tue Dec 29, 2015 4:49 pm
by DnalweN acilbupeR
Estovnia wrote:the nice thing about opinions is that, while everybody can have them, they can also be wrong :)


i know that. generally when your opinion of what should be done differs significantly from what is done IRL that's a good sign you may be wrong, I acknowledge this

edit: my fixation with a bigger intermediate leaning into GPC territory could, thinking about it, have something to do with my fetish for "battle rifles"

actually, i've remembered that a lot of folks here had a problem with the term "battle rifle" although I don't get the point behind this. language is supposed to serve us by making communication easier and more convenient. it is after all a easy way of differentiating between automatic rifles firing intermediate and full power cartridges, the former being commonly called "assault rifles". i don't get what the big fuss is all about, or why some have to be so anal about it. yes, the terms may not explain every little detail and cover every single nuance or borderline case, but that's not what individual terms are for, they're still useful in usual parlance.

*cue someone spelling out a long story about how the two referred to the same thing initially or started at the same point and thus weren't really different in the beginning or how one or another term was coined by the "media" or the average Joe and thus isn't worthy enough of being used or w/e bullshit*

PostPosted: Tue Dec 29, 2015 4:51 pm
by Dostanuot Loj
New Nirvash wrote:
Dostanuot Loj wrote:Edit:

Heavy barrel FAMAS as LSW y/n?

It's open bolt, so sure.


No it isn't.
And closed bolt LSW is best anyway.

Roski wrote:so when you are assembling a squad, in practical terms, for regular run of the mill cannon fodder infantry, what should this sqaud composition be?


Squads are, generally, built around two approaches: Symmetrical, or asymmetrical.

The basis of fire and maneuver in the commonwealth, German, and older US structures, is asymmetrical. A gun group with an LMG, and an assault group with rifles. The idea being very simple, the gun group fires while the assault group closes. Assaults are simple and thus easy to think about under fire. Left, right, or up the middle. It is really effective, and always has been. But you are putting a lot of firepower on one team, and that can lead to problems if it gets suppressed.

Symmetrical squads were brought about to solve some issues, but bring their own. You tend to have less firepower in either individual team, but both teams can act as the suppressive fire team. It makes thing easier, and much more flexible. Plus, if you really want, you can convert to an asymmetrical team pretty easily. Most asymmetrical teams can't convert to symmetrical teams very easily*.

* Canadian sections in the FN FAL days are an exception. The section was 10 men, three of them in the gun team with a team leader and two C2 FALOs, a section leader and 6 riflemen with C1 FALs. This easily converted (And was done often) into two 5-man teams each with a C2 and four C1s.


So.... Pick something you like and go with it.

PostPosted: Tue Dec 29, 2015 5:06 pm
by Kazarogkai
By asymmetric I assumed you meant in terms of man power not composition of individual teams. My system is sort of a mixture.

PostPosted: Tue Dec 29, 2015 5:10 pm
by Gallia-
composition determines manpower

PostPosted: Tue Dec 29, 2015 5:11 pm
by Dostanuot Loj
Kazarogkai wrote:By asymmetric I assumed you meant in terms of man power not composition of individual teams.


I'm not sure how you expect that to mean, I'm speaking firepower, which tends to mean members of the teams.

Most 10-man asymmetrical sections/squads tend to have 3-men in a gun team with the LMG, and the rest in the assault group with rifles.
The Germans have 7-man dismounts, two in the gun group and five in assault. Or three and four, depends on the squad leader. The gun group has an MG3 though.

Symmetrical squads like the US Army have two equal 4-man teams each with a SAW. USMC has 3.

PostPosted: Tue Dec 29, 2015 5:12 pm
by DnalweN acilbupeR
Dostanuot Loj wrote:
New Nirvash wrote:It's open bolt, so sure.


No it isn't.
And closed bolt LSW is best anyway.

Roski wrote:so when you are assembling a squad, in practical terms, for regular run of the mill cannon fodder infantry, what should this sqaud composition be?


Squads are, generally, built around two approaches: Symmetrical, or asymmetrical.

The basis of fire and maneuver in the commonwealth, German, and older US structures, is asymmetrical. A gun group with an LMG, and an assault group with rifles. The idea being very simple, the gun group fires while the assault group closes. Assaults are simple and thus easy to think about under fire. Left, right, or up the middle. It is really effective, and always has been. But you are putting a lot of firepower on one team, and that can lead to problems if it gets suppressed.

Symmetrical squads were brought about to solve some issues, but bring their own. You tend to have less firepower in either individual team, but both teams can act as the suppressive fire team. It makes thing easier, and much more flexible. Plus, if you really want, you can convert to an asymmetrical team pretty easily. Most asymmetrical teams can't convert to symmetrical teams very easily*.

* Canadian sections in the FN FAL days are an exception. The section was 10 men, three of them in the gun team with a team leader and two C2 FALOs, a section leader and 6 riflemen with C1 FALs. This easily converted (And was done often) into two 5-man teams each with a C2 and four C1s.


So.... Pick something you like and go with it.


i'd reckon symmetrical probably works best with good/large platoon level support

PostPosted: Tue Dec 29, 2015 5:15 pm
by DnalweN acilbupeR
Dostanuot Loj wrote:
Kazarogkai wrote:By asymmetric I assumed you meant in terms of man power not composition of individual teams.


I'm not sure how you expect that to mean, I'm speaking firepower, which tends to mean members of the teams.

Most 10-man asymmetrical sections/squads tend to have 3-men in a gun team with the LMG, and the rest in the assault group with rifles.
The Germans have 7-man dismounts, two in the gun group and five in assault. Or three and four, depends on the squad leader. The gun group has an MG3 though.

Symmetrical squads like the US Army have two equal 4-man teams each with a SAW. USMC has 3.


do note, however, that the M249 SAW is a toned-down MG in a sense with its firing an intermediate cartridge (and incidentally being lighter and firing lighter ammo) and being able to feed from a magazine as well as a belt. It is "fireteam-ified" if you want. I'd wager a Stoner LMG would have worked better, but w/e

PostPosted: Tue Dec 29, 2015 5:19 pm
by EsToVnIa
i'm willing to bet $50 that it would've worked just the same

PostPosted: Tue Dec 29, 2015 5:20 pm
by Dostanuot Loj
DnalweN acilbupeR wrote:
Dostanuot Loj wrote:
I'm not sure how you expect that to mean, I'm speaking firepower, which tends to mean members of the teams.

Most 10-man asymmetrical sections/squads tend to have 3-men in a gun team with the LMG, and the rest in the assault group with rifles.
The Germans have 7-man dismounts, two in the gun group and five in assault. Or three and four, depends on the squad leader. The gun group has an MG3 though.

Symmetrical squads like the US Army have two equal 4-man teams each with a SAW. USMC has 3.


do note, however, that the M249 SAW is a toned-down MG in a sense with its firing an intermediate cartridge (and incidentally being lighter and firing lighter ammo) and being able to feed from a magazine as well as a belt. It is "fireteam-ified" if you want. I'd wager a Stoner LMG would have worked better, but w/e


None of this changes anything, really.

Minimi is not a MAG.

PostPosted: Tue Dec 29, 2015 5:21 pm
by Sevvania
DnalweN acilbupeR wrote:actually, i've remembered that a lot of folks here had a problem with the term "battle rifle" although I don't get the point behind this. language is supposed to serve us by making communication easier and more convenient. it is after all a easy way of differentiating between automatic rifles firing intermediate and full power cartridges, the former being commonly called "assault rifles". i don't get what the big fuss is all about

I distinguish between "assault rifles" and "battle rifles," but terms like "full-power" and "intermediate" are ultimately relative terms. It's hard to get more specific than "you'll know the difference when you see it" when it comes to telling the two apart, and terms can vary based on doctrine and language.

Wikipedia defines an "intermediate cartridge" as one that is less powerful than a round like .30-06, but with a longer effective range than a pistol cartridge. With these vague specifications, you could make the argument that 7.62x51mm is an intermediate cartridge.

PostPosted: Tue Dec 29, 2015 5:22 pm
by Husseinarti
DnalweN acilbupeR wrote:
Estovnia wrote:the nice thing about opinions is that, while everybody can have them, they can also be wrong :)


i know that. generally when your opinion of what should be done differs significantly from what is done IRL that's a good sign you may be wrong, I acknowledge this

edit: my fixation with a bigger intermediate leaning into GPC territory could, thinking about it, have something to do with my fetish for "battle rifles"

actually, i've remembered that a lot of folks here had a problem with the term "battle rifle" although I don't get the point behind this. language is supposed to serve us by making communication easier and more convenient. it is after all a easy way of differentiating between automatic rifles firing intermediate and full power cartridges, the former being commonly called "assault rifles". i don't get what the big fuss is all about, or why some have to be so anal about it. yes, the terms may not explain every little detail and cover every single nuance or borderline case, but that's not what individual terms are for, they're still useful in usual parlance.

*cue someone spelling out a long story about how the two referred to the same thing initially or started at the same point and thus weren't really different in the beginning or how one or another term was coined by the "media" or the average Joe and thus isn't worthy enough of being used or w/e bullshit*


You should really try this great thing called 'reading' instead of 'talking out your ass'

PostPosted: Tue Dec 29, 2015 5:35 pm
by DnalweN acilbupeR
Estovnia wrote:i'm willing to bet $50 that it would've worked just the same


3 kg of 5.56 drums is like what, an extra 200 rnd magazine?

PostPosted: Tue Dec 29, 2015 5:45 pm
by The Kievan People
DnalweN acilbupeR wrote:actually, i've remembered that a lot of folks here had a problem with the term "battle rifle" although I don't get the point behind this. language is supposed to serve us by making communication easier and more convenient. it is after all a easy way of differentiating between automatic rifles firing intermediate and full power cartridges, the former being commonly called "assault rifles". i don't get what the big fuss is all about, or why some have to be so anal about it. yes, the terms may not explain every little detail and cover every single nuance or borderline case, but that's not what individual terms are for, they're still useful in usual parlance.


"Battle rifle" is only a term because automatic rifle isn't hi-speed lo-drag enough for some people.

PostPosted: Tue Dec 29, 2015 5:45 pm
by Roski
Husseinarti wrote:
Roski wrote:so when you are assembling a squad, in practical terms, for regular run of the mill cannon fodder infantry, what should this sqaud composition be?

I like the US squad layout the best.

Squad Leader: M4 rifle
Alpha Team Leader: M4 rifle
Rifleman: M4 rifle, M136
Grenadier: M4 rifle, M203A1/M320
Automatic Rifleman: M249 LMG
Bravo Team Leader: M4 rifle
Rifleman: M4 rifle, M136
Grenadier: M4 rifle, M203A1/M320
Automatic Rifleman: M249 LMG

The Squad Leader, at his discretion or by a set SOP, can instead give the grenade launchers to the team leaders as they can then see and shoot at things that need to be dealt with without the TL having to direct them. Also, each platoon has three Javelin Command Launch Units with a bunch of the men in the platoon knowing how to operate and fire them. Three men in each platoon, one per squad, is a designated Anti-Armor Specialist. There is an issue with this since if you have all 9 of your CLUs issued out to set people, then you can't have massed ATGM defense, which may not be an issue with the HBCT squad since the company has 14 IFVs, but the IBCT or the SBCT is going to be seriously impacted with the fact that you can't mass your ATGMs unless you change up your squads.

There are also 18 12-gauge shotguns allocated to the company HQ. Which are lessons of OEF/OIF probably.

Also the US, before they transitioned to the M240/M249 would issue a single M60 to each squad, with an additional number of M60s given to the Platoon HQ to be issued where needed.

While I can't say for certain that it was common, but Colonel Hal Moore and the 1st Battalion, 7th Cav changed out their rifle companies' AT squads for additional M60s. I think one company kept their LAWs due to the lack of time in requesting and getting the equipment, but they came in handy none-the-less. That happened during his involvement in the Ia Drang, I don't remember how 2/7 or 2/5 fared, but they were laid out in a similar way.

I can be useful c:


I am assuming this would still work with the HK-416 and M27?

PostPosted: Tue Dec 29, 2015 5:46 pm
by EsToVnIa
it's all the same

using x instead of y doesn't change much of anything

PostPosted: Tue Dec 29, 2015 5:47 pm
by Roski
Estovnia wrote:it's all the same

using x instead of y doesn't change much of anything


Just making sure

Thanks to both, I think im going to work with that

Thanks other who answered (symmetrical works)