Infantry Discussion Thread, Mk. 8 Mod. 0 [No Kaiju]

[EsToVnIa]

the only thing you might want to do is just have some FN MAGs at platoon level that can be dished out

[Husseinarti]

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.

I want sources that are relevant to the modern day, not WW2. But I don't think you have any of those.

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.

We've been trying to do this, and have pretty much done it, for the past forever in warfare, so okay this is literally the only correct thing in its entirety you post.

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.

SoF organization and tactics are typically much different than the regular infantry, squad layout and weaponry can become more specialized as training and requirements also increase. I fail to see how having small platoons even does anything different considering that the expenditure will still weigh on the company. Also you always want to have numerical superiority over your enemy it isn't as you state 'you either have the wrong forces for that job or the wrong job for those forces' or whatever nonsense you like to just let fall out, but literally 11/10 infantry commanders agree that having more people to fight less enemies is a good idea. You never try to fight an enemy head on, thats fucking dumb as fuck and should be avoided. Infantry on infantry combat is literally 50% ambushes and 50% being ambushed, you don't make yourself known to your enemy on purpose.

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.

So you mean the driver should go and jump out with his 6.8mm GPC rifle and go suppress the enemy at 1,000 meters because his rifle has the ballistics of the 7.62 battle rifle but the wounding of a 5.56 assault rifle????????????

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.

You do this allot. You have a semi correct idea but then shit it up. LMG and GPMG aren't distinguished by rounds, they are typically distinguished by weight of the rifle and if its belt or magazine fed. An RPK is an LMG, but the M249 is an LMG. LMG and GPMG are void terms in allot of cases, as weapons apply and don't apply based on the operators choice at the time. The PKM, being in the same weight range as the M249 can be considered either an LMG (Because of its weight) or a GPMG (Because of its caliber and its ability to fire for longer-sustained bursts, but the M249 can do the same thing in terms of sustainment of fire.

Also the two major LMGs able to take belts and mags is an old Russian modification of an RPK/PKM hybrid which didn't go anywhere and the FN Minimi, this isn't 'many LMGs', its two. 2. Two. It isn't good for the FN Minimi either. You want to keep spent magazines to reload them later because disposable magazines aren't. The bolt of the FN Minimi crushes the feed lips of STANAG mags and I'm pretty sure it shatters the PMAG feed lips. You get the magazine and its 30 rounds once, then you have wasted a magazine. Automatic Riflemen carry thousands of rounds on them, they don't run out as fast a rifleman will though his ammo.

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.

The second most important weapon is the GRENADE LAUNCHER. 5/6 are completely redundant and do the same thing. Sustained automatic fire is good. Also are the PK and M249 not able to provide marksman fire? The PK has a 23 inch barrel and fires a 7.62x54mmR round, isn't that enough?

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 ). The grenadier could potentially have an ammo bearer/rifleman for maximum effectiveness.

No, dedicated grenade launchers like the MGL are dumb to issue per standard to a guy. You might not like the idea of the Anti-Tank Grenadier as they are called, not some retarded 'RPG-er' or whatever words you like to make up. Guess what Anti-Tank Grenadiers do? They do allot. An RPG-7 has a number of warheads that perform a number of support duties. Its light enough for the operator to carry a service rifle, mags for his rifle, and additional rockets for his launcher. There is a dedicated infantryman who carries more rockets for him and reloads it. The capabilities of the RPG-7 greatly increase the effectiveness of the squad, as it gives them a literal anti-tank weapon that can also kill fortified infantry, AFVs, and other nasty things that can hurt them. Do you think that an RPG gunner (Another proper term) just wastes all his ammo in the first firefight? Really?

Also how does that make the MGL any better than the RPG-7? Unless you load PG-7VR or TBG-7V warheads into the launcher, a loaded RPG-7 is never more than five pounds heavier than the loaded MGL and trades away a single highly effective round for six possibly effective shots. You can issue MGLs to like, the company commander or whatever, but don't make it standard issue.

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.

'The DM shouldn't use allot of ammo'. Yeah. No. The Designated Marksman isn't a sniper. Hes a rifleman with typically a bit more marksmanship training and a rifle with a moderate power optic. He is able to take more accurate fire, but he can also suppress when needed to, because he can dish out accurate suppressing fire. Its one thing to fire your M4 at someone allot, its another to use something like an M110 and keep putting very close rounds to them that they can hear or see landing near them.

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.

Okay, second thing not totally wrong.

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?

If you use the M27 IAR then I'd recommend having a mix of the M27 and M249 in your platoons. The Russians had a shit load of RPKs, but issued two RPKs at the platoon to give to infantry squads to replace the RPK. The USMC does a similar thing with having the larger USMC squad of like 13 people or whatever replacing all their M249s with M27s, but having the M249s still given to the platoon/company HQ to issue as needed.

[Fordorsia]

None of this would need to be discussed if you gave every infantryman a SAW

[Kazarogkai]

composition determines manpower

It's hard to explain what I was thinking. The basis is I thought he meant by asymmetrical/symmetrical meaning something like this:

Asymmetrical Section(9)
A Team(2)
- APC Crew(2)
B Team(3)
- 1 Section Leader
- 1 GPMG Crew(2)
C Team(4)
Team Leader
- SAW Gunner
- Grenadier
- Marksman

Symmetrical Section
A Team(3)
- Squad Leader
- APC Crew(2)
B Team(3)
- 1 Team Leader
- 1 GPMG Crew(2)
C Team(3)
- 1 Team Leader
- 1 SAW Gunner
- 1 Grenadier

Asymmetrical has different numbers of troops for each Team while symmetrical has the same number of troops in each team, though different composition.

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

snip

dude you're being so fucking annoying. idk what i've done to piss you off or whatever but you're coming off as being very condescending and acting as a know it all. you can either cut out the crap or have someone else talk to you. i understand this wouldn't be a tragedy for you, it wouldn't be for me either. i've repeatedly clarified, whether directly or indirectly (through things such as "supposedly" or "i think that") that i'm only expressing my opinions. i've never stated that i'm very knowledgeable on the subject, or even more knowledgeable than someone else here. it IS my 2 cents and nothing more and I've repeated this countless times.

now if you can't help but use the tone that you're using because you dislike someone's opinions, stated as such, that's not my problem

edit: not to mention that you're literally misconstruing like half of my arguments

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

None of this would need to be discussed if you gave every infantryman a SAW

#errymanaM27

[EsToVnIa]

snip

dude you're being so fucking annoying. idk what i've done to piss you off or whatever but you're coming off as being very condescending and acting as a know it all. you can either cut out the crap or have someone else talk to you. i understand this wouldn't be a tragedy for you, it wouldn't be for me either. i've repeatedly clarified, whether directly or indirectly (through things such as "supposedly" or "i think that") that i'm only expressing my opinions. i've never stated that i'm very knowledgeable on the subject, or even more knowledgeable than someone else here. it IS my 2 cents and nothing more and I've repeated this countless times.

now if you can't help but use the tone that you're using because you dislike someone's opinions, stated as such, that's not my problem

edit: not to mention that you're literally misconstruing like half of my arguments

the thing is you've been around these threads long enough where you should know all this stuff

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

dude you're being so fucking annoying. idk what i've done to piss you off or whatever but you're coming off as being very condescending and acting as a know it all. you can either cut out the crap or have someone else talk to you. i understand this wouldn't be a tragedy for you, it wouldn't be for me either. i've repeatedly clarified, whether directly or indirectly (through things such as "supposedly" or "i think that") that i'm only expressing my opinions. i've never stated that i'm very knowledgeable on the subject, or even more knowledgeable than someone else here. it IS my 2 cents and nothing more and I've repeated this countless times.

now if you can't help but use the tone that you're using because you dislike someone's opinions, stated as such, that's not my problem

edit: not to mention that you're literally misconstruing like half of my arguments

the thing is you've been around these threads long enough where you should know all this stuff

calling a guy wielding an RPG a "Anti-Tank Grenadier" instead of a 'retarded RPG-er or whatever dumb words you like to make up' isn't something to be learned, it's a personal quality of being anal about things that you must be born with

[EsToVnIa]

yes, let's focus on the mundane things like "he said my nomenclature fore this was retarded" rather than try to learn from it, i like it

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

yes, let's focus on the mundane things like "he said my nomenclature fore this was retarded" rather than try to learn from it, i like it

it's not something i have to learn, i knew this already, i just couldn't be pissed to type it all . smh

this is an internet forum based around fictional nations not some official meeting

[Gallia-]

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 ). 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.

1. Define "more effective". More firepower? More flexible? Casualty absorption? Cheaper paychecks? There are a lot of ways something is better, and a lot of ways it is worse. There is no universally good "squad", it depends on individual preferences and historical precedent. One cannot automatically say a French infantry squad/section is superior to an American squad, or an Anglo section, or a German Jaeger squad is better than a Panzergrenadier squad, or anything of that sort. You can really just examine what attributes they possess in comparison with each other and where these attributes are useful, and where they aren't.

An infantry squad from the Army of the United States would be able to sustain greater casualties, and (ostensibly) produce more firepower, than an Army of Excellence/Force XXI/Transformation infantry squad would, based on the dismount sections alone. The notional Objective Force squad would outperform both in all relevant faculties, and be able to read their thoughts too.

An asymmetric layout has the unfortunate advantage of concentrating all your firepower with one team, and reducing it significantly when that team inevitably must move.

2. Splitting the squads is an Army of Excellence thing, TBH. I don't know of any other armies that have squads that can't fit inside their IFVs. Korea, maybe, but not since K21, and Stryker platoons are fine. It works. It might reduce maneuver to section level (a section is an organizational intermediary between the squad and platoon in the US Army), bute in practice since infantry platoons tend to operate in squares rather than triangles, so two-by-two maneuver (aka two-shooting-two-moving) is almost standard the (Western) world over.

3. I don't know what you're saying here, you seem to say one thing in the opening, and then disregard that and directly contradict it in the next. A real life example: Mechanized/heavy infantry in the US Army lack weapons squads, but this is by each squad possessing a M240 and Javelin for dismounted use; light infantry in the US Army have the largest organization with CCM (Close Combat Missile) and M240 teams in their weapons squads, and medium infantry are somewhere in between with M240 teams but no CCM teams.

All platoons have the same weapons, but their mounts (or lack thereof) determine the manpower they can be comprised of.

A heavy/Bradley platoon consists of three rifle squads and four Bradleys in two sections (A and B). Each rifle squad has one M240 and one FGM-148 CLU. The riflemen in each squad (two men) are trained to use either the M240 or the Javelin missile, and when they use these they are employed in two-man teams.

A medium/Stryker platoon consists of three rifle squads, a weapons squad, three snipers, and four Strykers. Stryker organization is interesting because each element from squad and up has organic snipers, and the weapons squad shoulders the M240s (machine guns being the most powerful weapons a platoon leader can command) while each squad has Javelin missiles. The weapons team lives in the HQ truck, and the snipers are each one rifleman in the Stryker squad. The other rifleman is trained to use the Javelin missile, being the "Antiarmor Specialist".

A light/Infantry platoon has three rifle squads, a "full" weapons squad consisting of two M240 machine guns and two CCM teams with Javelin missiles. Each rifle fireteam has a sniper in place of the Javelin/M240 trained rifleman, which is twice as many as the Stryker squad.

The organizations are the "same" for each squad, but they aren't. The roles overlap and are rolled up successively as the ability to mount men decreases. Platoons operate differently and have wildly different capabilities from each other on the micro-level, but as the platoons are looked at as a whole, the differences tend to disappear.

The Bundeswehr is even funnier. Jaeger squads are balanced formations with symmetric weapon organization. They all are armed with 5.56x45mm weapons (MG4 is used by the Jaegers), while Panzergrenadiers are asymmetrical and use the MG-3 as the organic squad maneuver machine gun.

4. You're contradicting yourself again. You said in #2 you shouldn't split squads, but you're splitting squads right here. Vehicle crewmen are an integral part of a "squad" or "section". Unless you're doing something like attaching the vehicles from a battalion motor/transport pool, you shouldn't be doing anything like this at all.

Squads in modern mechanical armies have two elements/teams/whatever, usually, the mounted and the dismounted. They are both part of the same squad or section.

5. This is debatable. A belt-fed machine gun is a very powerful weapon. It is also very heavy, and requires bulky ammunition, and unless it's a very small machine gun such as the Minimi or MG4, it will be eating two squad members to maintain it. Additionally, it will entice section leaders to keep their machine gun in action despite casualties, which is the correct course of action, but you're using twice as many men as you would with a lighter automatic weapon/LSW like L86 or M27 or RPK.

Since you've specified a weapon like MAG or M60 or PKM, you're going to need two men to use a weapon, which basically ties you to having an asymmetric layout. This isn't bad, but it's not very flexible. Barrier penetration is mostly overrated for a cartridge, like the mythical "stopping power", and the "range dilemma", so that's not a terribly convincing argument.

Medium machine guns are powerful because they can shoot faster and further than a rifle can. This is true of all machine guns, though. Magazines do not take up significant weight, and weight isn't the real factor. Bulk is. You can carry around 200-250 rounds of 7.62x51mm if you're a bro, you can't do that in belts. That would be like 4-5 belts on your person. That's going to make you like as wide as a door with pouches. You're going to start wearing a Bullet Vest just to keep all the belts for your machine gun around.

Belt-fed medium machines have been tried, and found lacking, as section automatic rifles. Light support weapons went from magazine-fed medium MGs to belt-feds, and both of these were bad because they required two-men to operate. A 100% increase in crew size over something like Minimi or MG4 or L86 or RPK, all superior weapons.

A belt-fed might be good, it provides a lot of firepower immediately, but belt-fed machine guns (even Universal Machine Guns) tend to weigh somewhere north of 10 kilograms loaded, which is bad. That's literally twice the weight of an automatic rifle like RPK-74. Have fun with that, and the ammunition too.

Real life armies have gravitated towards lightweight "universal" belt-fed MGs like Minimi/MG4/PKP that can be operated by one man like an automatic rifle, or automatic rifles like FALO/IAR/RPK/L86, since the 1970s. This is what a squad should have, not a man-eater like MAG or M60.

Of course, the platoon itself can and should have crew-served machine guns because they are the most powerful weapons for small unit leaders, and they should be organized under the platoon in a weapons squad when possible to allow the lieutenant to mass his fires or distribute them as necessary.

6. You can't really have your cake and eat it too, TBH. Army of the United States had a belt-fed MMG in the squad (M60). Each squad had one. The US Army has hated asymmetric layouts since time immemorial and constantly tried to replace it with a universal MG which ended up as M249.

You can have two crew-served machine guns in a massive squad, like USMC sized, and be fine. Two six man maneuver elements and a squad leader will give you what you want. It'll be bloated, unwieldy, heavy and inefficient compared to a section with universal MGs and half the men.

7. A grenade launcher like MGL provides less firepower per unit of weight than an RPG-7 or a Carl Gustav. That's a poor choice. There's a reason no army in the world has something silly like MGLs everywhere.

8. In theory the DMR/sniper can be done by a machine gun/automatic rifle, but that requires a bit too much multiplicity of roles for a single man to do.

That said, snipers tend to use the same rifles as the other riflemen, with heavier barrels and optics, or a sniperized variant of the automatic rifle like SDM-R or PSL. They aren't really necessary either, they're an artefact of police actions, like the "range dilemma", the oughties revival of outdated ideas like the GPC, and LWMMG.

9. No. Section leaders are too busy directing to use grenade launchers. Like a machine gun, they belong with their own operator who can use them at the direction of a squad/section or fireteam leader.

[Fordorsia]

If everyone is done, I tacticooled 1906

[Vortukia]

https://docs.google.com/document/d/15RR ... sp=sharing


Yeah there is no way I'm posting that here, haha.

The newer one is about double the length.
-More statistical data, MATH YEAH!
-More scientific data, physics could never be so sweeter.
-Double the length, double the fun.


I put a lot of research into the science, and physics and data.

(Yes it's very powerful, yada yada. If you looked into the history, and age of my nation, you'd understand.)

[Silangan]

What are the pros and cons of using asymmetric structure in one's army organization as opposed to symmetric structure?

[The Kievan People]

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).

The foreseeable future of small arms is TrackingPoint and TrackingPoint accessories.

[Gallia-]

5.56x45mm will be used until we all die.

And then centuries afterward.

[Fordorsia]

The future is clearly swords

[Kazarogkai]

5.56x45mm will be used until we all die.

And then centuries afterward.

Until we get smart bullets. Or someone decides to switch to lasers. I would much rather have the smart bullets though.

[Rhodesialund]

5.56x45mm will be used until we all die.

And then centuries afterward.

Until we get smart bullets. Or someone decides to switch to lasers. I would much rather have the smart bullets though.

Caseless cartridges.

[Vortukia]

What are the pros and cons of using asymmetric structure in one's army organization as opposed to symmetric structure?

Asymmetric is better suited to fighting a power of a different size, and/or capacity to project vorce. Such as the Viet-Cong, vs the United States.


There really is no actual idea of Asymmetric structure, asymmetry just means two sides aren't the same. In truth all warfare is asymmetric in some degree. If France and Italy went to war today, they both reasonably can fight conventionally however since both sides are EXACTLY the same in size, force projections, ect. It's technically asymmetric.

So to answer your question you can't build your structure asymmetrically, you can build your military to fight a asymmetric war, which would involve making them suited to fighting a nation much bigger and stronger, or much smaller.

Guerrilla, or counter-insurgency is what it boils down to. Are you the cat? Or are you the mouse? Sometimes it's better to be either or in a circumstance, but there are too many variables to give you a answer of to which.

Building your military you shouldn't pick one or the other, however at the end of the day if you are a Guerrilla you will eventually loose if the bigger power refuses to give up, and is disproportionately bigger to the point rendering your tactics, and fighting inert.

In my advice, go with all three. Make a balanced force to fight conventionally on a equal power, a ranger-esq variety to fight away from supplies, communication and against a larger threat, and a counter-insurgency to fight the guerrilla.

Best of luck, and if you need help writing, shoot me a telgram.

[Rhodesialund]

So to answer your question you can't build your structure asymmetrically, you can build your military to fight a asymmetric war, which would involve making them suited to fighting a nation much bigger and stronger, or much smaller.

In my advice, go with all three. Make a balanced force to fight conventionally on a equal power, a ranger-esq variety to fight away from supplies, communication and against a larger threat, and a counter-insurgency to fight the guerrilla.

Best of luck, and if you need help writing, shoot me a telgram.

Speaking of, how would one build a military suited for such a strategy using a balanced force?

[Gallia-]

Here is a notional, full strength, Gallan (mechanized) infantry section (also called a "squad", but pedantically this implies the inclusion of the mounted/vehicle team). You can see it possesses two four-man fire/maneuver teams, and a two-man weapons team. The organization is designed to be fairly flexible, with three NCOs responsible for two-three men each, while still fitting within the confines of an armoured personnel carrier (APC) or infantry fighting vehicle (IFV), and providing the maximum amount of firepower to the small unit leader as feasible. Normally, the section consists of:

Two riflemen, armed with M16A1 assault rifles.
Two grenadiers, armed with M16A1 assault rifles and M203 grenade launchers.
Two machine gunners, armed with Colt 750 automatic rifles.
Two fireteam leaders (One corporal, one lance corporal) armed with M16A1 assault rifles (or Colt 653s).

A grenadier, armed with an 84mm Carl Gustav recoilless rifle and a 9mm pistol.
An assistant grenadier, armed with an M16A1 assault rifle.

A section leader (Sergeant) armed with an M16A1 assault rifle. He may also possess an optic.

The riflemen in each fireteam are trained either to operate the 6.5x55mm light machine gun in each squad, or the Javelin CLU. One rifleman will be trained in either system, with the second rifleman acting as his assistant. This also applies to the section weapons team. In this organization, the squad will possess a four-man weapons team armed with either the light machine gun or the command/launch unit and the 84mm recoilless rifle, and two, three-man fire/maneuver teams. This provides the section with a significant amount of firepower and maneuver capability for its size, although its ability to absorb casualties is sharply limited compared to the older, asymmetric, 11-man section layout of the 1940s through '60s.

Generally, the weapons team is under the direction of the sergeant squad leader, while the corporals control the assault teams. Each man is cross-trained on all section weapons (exceptions are the 84mm rifle, light machine gun, and CLU) and can replace any one member in the eventuality of a casualty.

While the section possesses a large amount of maneuver capability and firepower, this can be rather limited when understrength. Often as the case with many things, the section is rarely able to be manned or perform to its fullest extent, so an understrength organization is the norm:



Here, all the most powerful section weapons are manned. The 84mm rifle, the automatic rifles, and the grenade launchers. One of the riflemen may substitute an automatic rifleman or a grenadier. The ranking NCO commands the weapons team in a reduced strength organization, while the deputy section leader (corporal) or third team leader (lance corporal) commands the maneuver team. Alternatively, the leadership roles may be reversed, which is more common in closed terrain such as cities or forests, with the ranking NCO commanding the maneuver/assault team and the preceding NCO commanding the weapons team.

Since a section can be expected to operate at 75% of its nominal strength in combat, it is important that the most powerful weapons of the section remain in action. This includes the crew-served light machine gun and the automatic rifles, which provide the bulk of section firepower. The similarities between the 8-man, reduced/understrength section, and the older 11-man, asymmetric section are also noticeable, with one five-man assault group and one weapons group comprising the dismounts.

When a section operates understrength/reduced as a result of injury or casualties, the most important positions should be filled first, in descending order; section leader, fireteam leader, 84mm grenadier, assistant grenadier, section automatic weapons, 40mm grenadier, riflemen. Fire/maneuver teams in sections will cease to exist with a dismount strength of eight or fewer, as shown, limiting the section's ability for organic maneuver. A section can operate all of its weapons down to seven men. A section of six men will find difficulty in manning all their weapons and filling all necessary leadership roles. Below six men, a section should be considered combat ineffective and reconstituted with other section members within the platoon.

The "arms room" concept applies even with reduced strength sections, so that the 84mm rifle team may also man the light machine gun or the anti-tank missile, if the section leader feels this is more important than the recoilless rifle.

[Fordorsia]

Future

Is

Swords

[Gallia-]

no

[Fordorsia]

:c