Improved Infantry Squad Capabilities Article

[BluntForceTrauma]

This article provoked me: Arming the Next Infantry Squad.

Quotes:

" 'Lethality is a concern,' Barnett said, describing some of the weapons-related improvements the Army is considering."

"For one, infantry officials are looking at developing a compact version of the service's M110 Semiautomatic Sniper System for squad-designated marksmen."


"Since the beginning of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, infantry squads have become more capable of killing enemies positioned beyond the range of the M4 carbine."


"Squad-designated marksman first carried Vietnam-era M14 rifles chambered for 7.62mm. They were pulled out of storage and equipped with a range of scopes. Then weapons officials modernized the outdated weapon into the M14 Enhanced Battle Rifle. The new weapon featured a custom aluminum stock equipped with rails for mounting optics and other high-tech shooting essentials."


"Infantrymen give the EBR high marks for its accuracy out to 800 meters, but said its 15-pound unloaded weight is a burden. There's also a concern that the enemy can easily spot designated marksmen carrying the EBR and target them."


"The M110, made by Knight's Armament Company, is also easy to recognize since it's 46.5-inches with suppressor, more than 13 inches longer than the M4. But Knight's also makes a carbine version of the M110 that's very similar to the M4 and weighs just over eight pounds."


OK. Wow. Here's a thought: How about a weapon that shoots like the M110 and yet is an M4 platform? Hmmm. . . . Radical.


Yet again, if somebody is willing to think outside the box, there is a solution out there. . . .


Very difficult not to lose patience with these guys. . . .



John

[Variable]

I hear you bud! LRRPF52's beltfed and the DMR/whatever they want to call it could darn sure do well in Grendel....

[stanc]

Here's a thought: How about a weapon that shoots like the M110 and yet is an M4 platform?

Sounds good, John. Do you know of one?

Yet again, if somebody is willing to think outside the box, there is a solution out there. . . .

Very difficult not to lose patience with these guys. . . .

Uh, this may be an awkward question, but has anybody demo'd a Grendel to them? I mean, if they haven't actually shot one...

[BluntForceTrauma]

And I should note that when the guy says, "Lethality is a concern," I take that to mean, "Marksmanship is a concern." He thinks he means a technological solution, but that ain't necessarily so.

This is because lethality or incapacitation is primarily a matter of marksmanship, whatever the cartridge. I don't make much differentiation between a 5.56 NATO or 6.5 Grendel headshot, for example.

But one school of thought takes it to mean, "Rapidly upsetting and fragmenting bullets are a concern." While it's true that is a part of the equation, a technological solution, it's a small part. Mostly because you give up penetration of combat barriers when you construct bullets that easily fragment.

But, I digress. . . .

Lethality is Marksmanship. Marksmanship is Lethality. Yes, it's ultimately a training issue. But where the 6.5 Grendel "edge" comes in is that, ideally, one wants a laser beam. A projectile that hits where one points no matter the distance.

In the man-portable, shoulder-fired weapon we call the assault rifle, a compact cartridge that yet minimizes bullet drop and wind drift (the closer to the "laser" ideal, the better) is a cartridge that maximizes marksmanship for the masses and thus maximizes lethality.

John

[LRRPF52]

Most of that article talked about challenges and potential solutions to 2 of the squad's important weapon systems:

The DMR

The LMG

Weight & compactness were the dominant issues mentioned. They incorrectly listed the SAW at 17lbs, which was the weight of the M249E1 Minimi when it was first fielded with the skeletal stock, no heat shield, & conical flash suppressor before the "upgraded" M249E2 came along, tipping the scales at 23 lbs.

M249E1


M249E2


Then came the Paratrooper Model, which I used more than the E2



Then the PEO model:



With the RAS for end, optics, & PEQ-2, they were weighing close to what a 240 weighs, especially with the Elcan.

This crap has to stop. I realize they have ATIPAL's now rather than PEQ-2's, but the pig is still the pig, which is a term the M60 held and owned, at a lighter weight of 23 lbs!

This is the true weak link of the Infantry Squad, no matter how you look at it. The DMR is easily addressed in the interm with a SOPMOD Block II M4 with a drop-in Geissele trigger, and Mk262 ammunition, plus training for the shooters.

The SAW needs to be replaced entirely, with another belt-fed LMG that weighs no more than 12lbs empty, preferably 11lbs or under.

[HuXXXford]

I've read and heard a lot of talk about the HK M27 IAR being examined as a possible replacement...not for the M4, but the SAW. I'm confused by this. Yes it has some nice features being piston driven with an adjustable gas system, it's proven to be very accurate in full-auto, and it's obviously lighter, but how can it really replace a belt fed?

[LRRPF52]

I've read and heard a lot of talk about the HK M27 IAR being examined as a possible replacement...not for the M4, but the SAW. I'm confused by this. Yes it has some nice features being piston driven with an adjustable gas system, it's proven to be very accurate in full-auto, and it's obviously lighter, but how can it really replace a belt fed?

It can't. HK pulled a fast one over on the Marines, and there is no way a 30rd-mag fed, 45rd-mag fed, or even 60rd-mag fed AUTO Rifle can replace the firepower of a belt-fed. The Ultimax 100 was tested during the IAR trials, and the evaluation reports I read indicated that there was more favor by actual SAW gunners for the Ultimax, which is no surprise. If you observe how the Ultimax handles, using the constant-recoil system, you see real quick why it is superior. The IAR concept is chasing a lighter, more maneuverable Squad Support weapon. They sacrficed firepower to achieve the lightweight and maneuverability. We need both lightweight, and belt-fed firepower. The KAC LMG already provides this, but there is so much politics involved, KAC isn't even interested in trying to push their design, and they're a major contractor for small arms for the US already.

[video=youtube;ev2yJeeyn5A]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ev2yJeeyn5A[/video]

[usmc1371]

if the dod does come up with a solution it will cost a shit pot of money. then it will cost 2 shit pots to get to work properly. look at what happened with the bradley.

[stanc]

The Ultimax 100 was tested during the IAR trials, and the evaluation reports I read indicated that there was more favor by actual SAW gunners for the Ultimax, which is no surprise. If you observe how the Ultimax handles, using the constant-recoil system, you see real quick why it is superior.

Has anyone investigated feasibility of Grendelizing an Ultimax?

[Tony Williams]

This article provoked me: Arming the Next Infantry Squad.

Add that to this one: PEO Solder report on Battlefield Effectiveness. Some extracts:

“A Soldier must be able to engage the threat he’s faced with – whether it’s at eight meters or 800,”

Ultimately, Army service rifles must be general purpose in nature and embody a series of tradeoffs that balance optimum performance for a wide range of possible missions in a range of operating environments. With global missions taking Soldiers from islands to mountains and jungles to deserts, the Army can’t buy 1.1 million new service rifles every time it’s called upon to operate in a different environment.

Ultimately, the “best” weapon for an operator with a unique target set will not be the same weapon as the best weapon a large Army facing a wide range of targets.

To be effective in all scenarios, a Soldier needs to have true “general purpose” rounds in his weapon magazine that are accurate and effective against a wide range of targets.

Weapons….must be accurate and capable of engaging the enemy at overmatch distances.

All of which makes a powerful case for general-purpose rifles and ammunition effective at all small-arms combat ranges.

So why is the US Army buying new 5.56mm carbines? There seems to be a disconnect somewhere...

[JASmith]

One could speculate that either the current ammunition, or the next generation of 5.56 ammunition, will be 'good enough' to distract or disable at 500 meters, provided a hit is obtained.

Add to this the expectation that electronic sights will soon be about as inexpensive as the current generation of holo sights. One could then surmise that holdover for range would become a matter of putting the cross-hair on the intended impact point.

Wind will still be an issue, because I don't expect a technical solution to be both viable and inexpensive enough for the line infantryman in the near term.

[LRRPF52]

“A Soldier must be able to engage the threat he’s faced with – whether it’s at eight meters or 800,”

Ultimately, Army service rifles must be general purpose in nature and embody a series of tradeoffs that balance optimum performance for a wide range of possible missions in a range of operating environments. With global missions taking Soldiers from islands to mountains and jungles to deserts, the Army can’t buy 1.1 million new service rifles every time it’s called upon to operate in a different environment.

Ultimately, the “best” weapon for an operator with a unique target set will not be the same weapon as the best weapon a large Army facing a wide range of targets.

To be effective in all scenarios, a Soldier needs to have true “general purpose” rounds in his weapon magazine that are accurate and effective against a wide range of targets.

Weapons….must be accurate and capable of engaging the enemy at overmatch distances.

Whoever is writing this is obviously out-of-touch with what it takes to achieve hits at 800m, and how a cartridge/rifle system capable of that is a liability at the 8m range. Even among the infantry squad, there are weapons capable of reaching out to 800m, where a rifleman can't even see a target unless he's using optics. This really sounds like an officer sitting is some air-conditioned building who hasn't even served in a combat arms units writing these requirements. The statements are made as if riflemen are the only soldiers on the battlefield.

[JASmith]

...The statements are made as if riflemen are the only soldiers on the battlefield.

Concur--

That myopia exists even in our thread discussions.

How can we illustrate the overlapping weapons capabilities available to the squad, platoon, company, and so on? The focus should be on those assets organic to the unit. Air and artillery are always there, but but time and "higher" approval is not on the side of a small unit under immediate pressure.

Our discussion of the ideal infantry cartridge will become a lot more meaningful once that combination of capabilities is laid out.

[Tony Williams]

Whoever is writing this is obviously out-of-touch with what it takes to achieve hits at 800m, and how a cartridge/rifle system capable of that is a liability at the 8m range. Even among the infantry squad, there are weapons capable of reaching out to 800m, where a rifleman can't even see a target unless he's using optics. This really sounds like an officer sitting is some air-conditioned building who hasn't even served in a combat arms units writing these requirements. The statements are made as if riflemen are the only soldiers on the battlefield.

To be fair, the report also stresses the importance of the forthcoming DInGO electro-optical sight featuring high magnification, image enhancement, a laser rangefinder and a ballistic computer. I believe that the 800m range mentioned assumed the use of such a sight. Plus, of course, a firm base on which to rest the bipod!

[Tony Williams]

How can we illustrate the overlapping weapons capabilities available to the squad, platoon, company, and so on? The focus should be on those assets organic to the unit. Air and artillery are always there, but but time and "higher" approval is not on the side of a small unit under immediate pressure.

Our discussion of the ideal infantry cartridge will become a lot more meaningful once that combination of capabilities is laid out.

Sure. But it is noticeable that recent conflicts have involved dealing with insurgents who are embedded in a local community which it is politically important to keep onside. This means that collateral damage needs to be avoided as far as possible, implying the use of anti-personnel weapons of considerable precision and very limited destructiveness - which nicely describes a long-range rifle...

[JASmith]

Tony,

I share your views about the long-range rifle.

This is part of why we need to spell-out the equipment and weapons currently available to the squad, platoon, and so-on.

Having that list of available weapons gives us an opportunity to explore the degree of precision of force application associated with each and its relevance to probable future engagements.

Further, once we inject individual infantryman laser-rangefinding and ballistic computers into the discussion we become obliged to explore the ramifications for grenade launchers, including downsizing. The implied downsizing of effects radius and more precise impacts will also affect the debate.

There will also be implications for medium machine-gun cartridges and weapons.

The results of those discussions will both affect our view of ideal cartridges and give significantly improved traction for advocating them.

Cheers!

[LRRPF52]

This is the Infantry Squad Organization Structure I encountered in every light infantry and airborne unit I was in. The crazy thing is that this structure is based off the Bradley Fighting Vehicle, which I never set foot in.



Here's an old school TO&E from what appears to be the WWII era:





For a dismounted Infantry Squad, I do prefer a unit that can be divided into 3, with no less than 4 soldiers per sub-unit (Team size). This allows you to conduct ambushes, gives you more ability to maneuver while sustaining the fight, as well as maintain a solid fighting capacity with casualties. The 9-man Squad is one man away from becoming ineffective, since the entire team needs to casevac the injured, taking their focus away from being able to support the other team.

In WWII, they had 1 BAR gunner for fire support. Now each Squad has 2 SAW gunners, and Squads are often augmented by a gun team from the Weapons squad, which adds a lot of firepower, but hinders maneuverability significantly.

I'm not sure how Designated Marksmen are officially incorporated into the Squad & Platoon, since the feedback I've gotten is that Team and Squad Leaders have performed that role in units that didn't understand the DM concept, due to sub-standard leadership at the PSG and PL levels, even though the Infantry has sanctioned the DM concept, to include running official DM courses and pushing the issue at doctrinal levels.

Either way, the LMG is the weak point, in addition to too few soldiers for an Infantry Squad. An LMG with an increased capability that is lighter weight would negate the need for augmenting the squad with a GPMG in 7.62, and make the squad more maneuverable if the LMG weighed in at 11lbs or less, unlike the 23lb+ SAW.

[JASmith]

So,

We have two Grenadiers and to automatic riflemen in the classic formation and today it is two grenadiers and two SAW gunners.

What gets added when we look at the platoon as a maneuver unit?

[LRRPF52]

Here's an updated Dismounted Infantry Platoon TO&E Diagram, which is different than what we had from the 1980's-at least 2003. One difference is that I had 2 Javelin (Anti-Tank) gunners in the Weapon's Squad. When I joined in 1994, we had Dragon M47 anti-tank gunners. The Javelin is way better, but you really need vehicle support to transport the Javelins, if even just a 4-wheeler or MULE ATV, which was driven by 1SG's a lot to supply the Platoons with Ammo, meals, and other beans/bullet/band-aids type supplies.

In this new TO&E, I see the DM takes the place of one of the Riflemen in the "B" Fire Team, while the AT position is in the "A" Fire Team.

[LRRPF52]

If you could take the bodies from the Weapons Squad and distribute them into the Rifle Sqauds, and place the WPNs SQD LDR E-6 slot in the Platoon HQ as an assistant PSG/PL, it owuld make a lot more sense operationally, however, you run into the same problem we had in Scout Platoons/Sniper Squads with losing the training focus on engaging targets at distance that Weapons Squads undergo during Machine Gunners Leadership Course, and MG-specific ranges.

If you could add 2 soldiers to each Rifle Squad, you would have a 3-man Squad Leader/Recon & Security element, and 2 complete Fire Teams in addition to the R&S element.

Operationally, the Weapons Squad Leader often integrates with the PLT HQ element anyway, with at least one gun team attached to one of the rifle squads, and one gun team with the HQ element under direct control of either the PL, PSG, or WPNS SL to orient that gun team to the situation when needed.

You will usually have a Rifle Squad in the lead, with the PL & RTO trailing them with a gun team trailing the PL, and the PSG, FO, and Combat Medic trailing the last Rifle Squad. An Infantry Platoon is an ungainly beast in the woods and desert, and is very difficult to manage from a leadership standpoint. Larger Squads are really the way to go when maneuvering, and this is often what is done anyway, as long as the Squad has an FO, Medic, and Gun Team with them.