NationStates

Puzikas wrote:

Puzikas wrote:Infantry
Combat
Is
Predicated
On
Volume
Of
Fire

alternative facts

-Alemannia- wrote:

Puzikas wrote:

alternative facts

Said the French in August 1914.

Fake news

just give everyone m16s

no lsws
no grenades

just m16s

:1975:

just have a 13 man squad and fill it with :
-2 IARs
-1 SAW
-2 DMRs
-1 RPG/CG/Lrac/whatever 2 man at weapon
-5 ARs
-3 Carbines

Theodosiya wrote:just have a 13 man squad and fill it with :
-13 M16A1s

ftfy

how do you gonna blow up tonks and suppres?

is a 6-man squad with like 4 m16a2s (two of them with 40mm UGLs) and two m249s sufficiently HSLD to be air cavalry, or should I swap the m249s for LSW-ified m16s??

sorta considering trading one UGL for a carl gustaf too btw


actually

m16a1 with handguard, sight, flash hider, etc from a2 instead of m16a2s y/n

Theodosiya wrote:how do you gonna blow up tonks

own tanks

Theodosiya wrote: and suppres?

full auto

Ardavia wrote:is a 6-man squad with like 4 m16a2s (two of them with 40mm UGLs) and two m249s sufficiently HSLD to be air cavalry, or should I swap the m249s for LSW-ified m16s??

all m16a1s

marching fire

yellow scarves

cav all day everyday

what would be the disadvantages/advantages of p.e. 8 men squads vs 12 men squads in a ww-2 ish scenario?
also, 2 LMGs doesn't seems to be very common for ww2 squads, what are the primary reasons for this?

Ardavia wrote:is a 6-man squad with like 4 m16a2s (two of them with 40mm UGLs) and two m249s sufficiently HSLD to be air cavalry, or should I swap the m249s for LSW-ified m16s??

sorta considering trading one UGL for a carl gustaf too btw


actually

m16a1 with handguard, sight, flash hider, etc from a2 instead of m16a2s y/n

an m16a2 with full auto switch exists it's called m16a3

m16a1 had a superior handguard and stock to m16a2 anyway

Forward assistant are bad

Laywenrania wrote:also, 2 LMGs doesn't seems to be very common for ww2 squads, what are the primary reasons for this?

LMGs didn't exist yet

forward assist makes the gun stronger ):

The only thing it assists is in cancer :<

Puzikas wrote:Forward assistant are bad

Laywenrania wrote:also, 2 LMGs doesn't seems to be very common for ww2 squads, what are the primary reasons for this?

LMGs didn't exist yet

FM 24/29 thingies

Laywenrania wrote:

Puzikas wrote:Forward assistant are bad


LMGs didn't exist yet

FM 24/29 thingies

For the British military it was an issue of supply, there was only a finite number of LMGs available so they decided to make sure that under ideal situations every infantry section would have one gun, or three per platoon.
Towards the end of the war when the guns start becoming more plentiful you start to see an increase in the number of guns per platoon in some units.

Laywenrania wrote:what would be the disadvantages/advantages of p.e. 8 men squads vs 12 men squads in a ww-2 ish scenario?
also, 2 LMGs doesn't seems to be very common for ww2 squads, what are the primary reasons for this?

Advantages: A bit more flexible and easier to control

Disadvantages: Less able to absorb casualties.

To put it in perspective; Imagine the minimum number of men you need in order to maintain an effective unit is 7. Below that size and your force just won't be all that effective and will be forced to retreat more than likely. A 12 man squad could suffer 50% casualties, or 6 men, before this becomes an issue. An 8 man squad on the otherhand only 25% or 2 guys.

As to the LMG question, doctrine and resources were some of the reasons behind that. Many countries(like china) had difficulty providing just a single LMG to all of their Squads/Sections. Heck It wasn't uncommon for their squads/Section to be just all rifles especially in the warlord levies they relied on. 2 would have been difficult. The only major country that I know that had more than 1 LMG per squad/section was Italy. The reason behind that probably was twofold: their LMGs were pretty crap so they had to have a lot of them to compensate, and two more importantly their squad section was massive(20 men) and could have classified as a miniature platoon honestly.

For me the reasoning was a little simple. Seeing the need for reform my guys desired to increase the firepower of the rifle sections. Though a few wished to do so via the creation of a new standard automatic rifle like the americans did they instead settled on simply equipping the troops with more LMGs(from 2 to 4 LMGs per platoon) with a commitment to eventual motorization at a later date. Mix that in with the fact that they were too lazy to try to change the organization of the basic platoon(2 rifle sections, 1 HQ section) and well that is the result.

Puzikas wrote:The only thing it assists is in cancer :<

Forward assists are good for those quiet moments where you need to let the bolt down and seat when you have Charlie ten feet away or something operating operationally.

All I see are an automatic rifle, a machine rifle, an abomination, and a Submachinegun

:')

Puzzles got me thinking again.

If bulk of mechanized infantry are little more than tank escorts (suck it squishies), how might I structure them?
Breaking this down into deployments, with "combined arms" doctrinal down to the battalion level, specifically tank-infantry cooperation. Although to be fair this is a battalion of 2-3 tank squadrons and an infantry company. That infantry company is there to provide local security to the battalion, and of course infantry capability.

So, that gives me an infantry company who must support their tracked masters. How do I want to work this down? Let's assume the battalion as a whole has some assets we can address later like 120mm mortars, that can be used in support of the infantry. This infantry company must therefore do two things, 1: fight mounted in support of advancing tanks, and 2: fight dismounted in defense of not-advancing tanks. So clearly mobility and firepower are essential. Perhaps then the company will have it's own organic ATGM teams, which can be sprinkled to lower infantry formations or used concentrated as needed, as well as a dedicated signals team to help coordinate this mess.

Platoons will number as squadrons. Three tank squadrons in the battalion means three infantry platoons. Platoon HQ would literally just be PL, PLSgt, and a FO.
Triangular-ish platoons? Three rifle sections and a weapon section. Would "weapons room" concept for weapons section be doable without weird issues? I mean, specifically that say the weapons section has three 3-man teams. One member of each team is trained specially to operate each the GPMG, Carl G, and 60mm mortar. Of course there will be cross-training, and the guy who does mortar will assist the Carl G or GPMG, and so on. Doable without issue? The idea being that the platoon has three of each available, and the platoon commander can deploy them in any combination necessary, together or split to the rifle sections.

Rifle sections are fun too. 10-man sections? Section leader and three 3-man fireteams. Each fireteam has a rifleman with rockets like LAW or AT4, a rifleman with a ubgl, and two have autorifles while the third has an lmg. Autorifle doubles as a DMR due to optics and stuff.

So platoon is carried in armoured transports of 12-men total capacity. Two crew, ten seats for the lazy ones. Platoon leader and platoon sgt can command one APC each, plus two other APC commanding NCOs and four drivers. 39 total seats taken by sections, plus one seat for the FO somewhere. 48 total?

Company therefore has its three platoons. Also has company HQ which includes signals, heavier ATGM section for Javelin or TOW like fun. Also a medical team of a few guys, and a sniper team of a few guys. Say this is another four APCs total, so the company runs 16 APCs deep. Company sits then at about 176-180 personnel.

Battalion provides 120mm mortars, UAV, MANPADS, and more stuff to both tank and infantry units.

I feel like I am missing something.

I was considering having IFVs carry 6-7 personnel. No weapons team ala US army mechanized troops. Maybe have the company HQ have some real machine guns to give out.

Two automatic rifles, some grenade launchers, a dude with an ATGM or just an AT launcher and some misc. riflemen and the leader with a rifleman who thinks he is the second in command.

The 6-7 man squad is more or less to flank said IFV on each side during a slow foot advance. However more or less it'll act as a single blob team whenever doing anything else.

Foot/motor infantry get cool like 10 man squads with more machine guns and riflemen.

Husseinarti wrote:I was considering having IFVs carry 6-7 personnel. No weapons team ala US army mechanized troops. Maybe have the company HQ have some real machine guns to give out.

Two automatic rifles, some grenade launchers, a dude with an ATGM or just an AT launcher and some misc. riflemen and the leader with a rifleman who thinks he is the second in command.

The 6-7 man squad is more or less to flank said IFV on each side during a slow foot advance. However more or less it'll act as a single blob team whenever doing anything else.

Foot/motor infantry get cool like 10 man squads with more machine guns and riflemen.

I was considering something simmilar but do you think a 7-man dismount squad has enough ability to take casualties?

Dostanuot Loj wrote:

Husseinarti wrote:I was considering having IFVs carry 6-7 personnel. No weapons team ala US army mechanized troops. Maybe have the company HQ have some real machine guns to give out.

Two automatic rifles, some grenade launchers, a dude with an ATGM or just an AT launcher and some misc. riflemen and the leader with a rifleman who thinks he is the second in command.

The 6-7 man squad is more or less to flank said IFV on each side during a slow foot advance. However more or less it'll act as a single blob team whenever doing anything else.

Foot/motor infantry get cool like 10 man squads with more machine guns and riflemen.

I was considering something simmilar but do you think a 7-man dismount squad has enough ability to take casualties?

Well instances of taking losses with a mechanized force is probably going to be a dude during their fighting or all of them when their vehicle gets hit, at least on how I'd see it.

I'd want to avoid the tom-foolery that is the US Army's two Bradleys per squad kinda sorta just throw dudes in the back of them fgt system in any sense.

New around these parts, and I'd love to participate before we run this thing to the fucking ground.

Before I make a fool of myself, what exactly do we post here? Just your military's arms and armour, and you *constructively* criticise the function and realism of the crazed ramblings the AN just posted?