Infantry Vehicles

[FJAG]

IMHO it should be knows as the I1/2SV, because it really can't take all the troops it's supposed to take.

From what I hear on this site, infantry platoons rarely have more than 6 or 7 people anyway, so it should handle all of them and their snivel gear quite well.

It is supposed to be for "light" infantry.

 

[KevinB]

Wouldn't want to be #3

High.
Back to the Enemy.
No armour.
Parked beside a really large gas tank.

Plus side?

Bailing out is easy.

And the Dvr and CC get armour at the expense of The Grill.

I was thinking the M-Kills were going to be pretty likely ... but looking at that rig any hit was going to be a K-Kill. But at least the CC's family would recognize their kid's face.

Grills where actually armored.
The cut the sheet metal away but there is armor in front of the radiator.

Some of the versions had armor for the rear gunner as well. There were two main ones, one with a M2 .50 in the rear and the one with the dual Lewis guns. But like any enterprising SOF entity, there were a lot of sub variations, some with 2 M2’s front and rear and a Vickers for the driver, I’ve also seen a dual rear Vickers and a front M2…

 

[KevinB]

From what I hear on this site, infantry platoons rarely have more than 6 or 7 people anyway, so it should handle all of them and their snivel gear quite well.

It is supposed to be for "light" infantry.

My belief is Light forces need to be Vehicle agnostic- so no dedicated driver and the ability to dismount any mounted systems.

 

[Kirkhill]

My belief is Light forces need to be Vehicle agnostic- so no dedicated driver and the ability to dismount any mounted systems.

One advantage of the ISV with its 9 at a squeeze configuration is that if the vehicles were deployed at the rate of 2 per squad and one were damaged you could CM, or get out of town, at a squeeze.

 

[Spencer100]

Ok for the people think the Roxor is too basic. And we can't get a snatch rover.

I give you the INEOS Grenadier!


You say....that's looks like Land Rover Defender?

Well the thing is what's the use of having screw you money of you never say screw you. So Billionaire chemical business guy say hey you cancelled my Defender 110 and now the new ones are just like every other expensive SUV.

Fine I'm just going going to build my own then. Then gets his team of engineers, oh by the way they are the F1 mercedes team. He tells them I want a Defender like 4x4 SUV. Ok then if you want one you might as well built 50,000. Ok then he goes to Mercedes and says I'll buy your Smart car plant in France. VOILA The INEOS Grenadier!

Not that he his not done it before.... go on a bike ride.....build me a workd cycling team. Goes to F1....I like fast cars....I'll take the Mercedes F1 team. Sailing looks fun....I think I would lkke the America's Cup...get me that. I played football as kid I'll take a few teams in a couple leagues too. Lol

 

[FJAG]

My belief is Light forces need to be Vehicle agnostic- so no dedicated driver and the ability to dismount any mounted systems.

I'm with you on that. Which gets me back to an earlier post about IFVs and that none of them fit your typical dismounted squad/section organization. I've suggested that we either build vehicles that do take them or redesign the squad/section/platoon (and maybe even company) organization and tactics from the ground up that work with the vehicles that we do have.

For me, the rule of five (while inexact) makes a nice starting point and should limit the number of squads to five making six vehicles the limit. Squad size also becomes six. (add to that one driver per light vehicle and a three man crew for the IFV.

That gives you a limit of a light platoon of 42 and a mech platoon of 54. Obviously support weapons platoon will vary as between a light company and a mech company - a mech company may not need one at all. With a 6 +1 light configuration you should be able to use everything from a pickup truck to a light armoured car.

Just spitballin'.

 

[Kirkhill]

I'll give you 6x4 for a Platoon (Cmd, Spt, 4x Close Cbt) = 24).

When employed in the Armoured/Mech role attach the Crews to the Platoons (or the Platoons to the Crews if you prefer) permanently.

Or something like this... (previously discussed)

British Army experiments with Dstl study on urban combat

The British Army’s Experimentation and Trials Group (ETG) have been testing improving future urban operations using a new experimental force concept.

www.gov.uk

2 platoons of 3 sections of 2 teams of 4 with a 2 person command element in each section

2 Platoons, 3 Sections, 6 Teams, 60 rifles.

Plus a CG84 SDE (Sensor Decider Effector) team (4?) for each Platoon ( 8 rifles)

Plus a Cmd Element for each Platoon (Pl Cmd, Pl 2iC, Pl Sys Op (Pl Medic?)) - (8 rifles)

38 per platoon - requires 6 vehicles or attachment to a 6 vehicle Troop.


And I like swapping the 3rd platoon for the Manoeuver Support Group with its 2 patrol dets with MFCs, its two 81 mortars and its 3 Javelins.


It looks as if the intent is to increase the CO's Area of Influence from the 5 km of the 81mm to the 25 km of Brimstone.

 

[KevinB]

I'm with you on that. Which gets me back to an earlier post about IFVs and that none of them fit your typical dismounted squad/section organization. I've suggested that we either build vehicles that do take them or redesign the squad/section/platoon (and maybe even company) organization and tactics from the ground up that work with the vehicles that we do have.

Tactical requirements change faster than vehicles.

For me, the rule of five (while inexact) makes a nice starting point and should limit the number of squads to five making six vehicles the limit. Squad size also becomes six. (add to that one driver per light vehicle and a three man crew for the IFV.

What about ATV’s, Snowmobiles, Dirt Bikes, etc. I’d go as far as saying no more than 4 vehicles for a Section/Squad, but I won’t put a limit on Platoon vehicles as it shouldn’t matter.
The Pl Comd just needs to be able to command the sections and Wpn Det, he shouldn’t be occupied by the additional Squad/Section vehicles, that’s the WO and the Section Comd job.


Armored vehicle’s need a dedicated crew, light vehicles IMHO don’t as they aren’t designed to primarily fight from. They are a means of conveyance only.

That gives you a limit of a light platoon of 42 and a mech platoon of 54. Obviously support weapons platoon will vary as between a light company and a mech company - a mech company may not need one at all. With a 6 +1 light configuration you should be able to use everything from a pickup truck to a light armoured car.

Just spitballin'.

Frankly for IFV’s I like a 6-8 vehicle platoon
6x6 for 36 Dismounts on the low range and 8x6 for 48 on the high.

I like 48 for a Light Platoon
3x 12 man Section/Squad
12 man HQ inc Weapon Det(s)
Pl Comd, Sig, DMR, Pl UAS guy
Pl WO, Sig, x2 Medic
4 pers Wpn Det.

 

[Dana381]

Falklands vet: Vehicles what the hell do you need an isv for? In my day we yomped 56 miles and still kicked ass when we got there. You youngsters are just spoiled

 

[Kirkhill]

Falklands vet: Vehicles what the hell do you need an isv for? In my day we yomped 56 miles and still kicked ass when we got there. You youngsters are just spoiled

How's your trench foot doing? Recovered yet?

 

[RangerRay]

Falklands vet: Vehicles what the hell do you need an isv for? In my day we yomped 56 miles and still kicked ass when we got there. You youngsters are just spoiled

I think those Brits would have been a lot happier if they hadn’t lose all of their helicopters and vehicles on the Atlantic Conveyor.

 

[OldSolduer]

I think those Brits would have been a lot happier if they hadn’t lose all of their helicopters and vehicles on the Atlantic Conveyor.

Still this has pointed out that the need to be fit is still there. You may have to hump many miles to get to the attack position - carrying all your ammo etc.

 

[Dana381]

I think those Brits would have been a lot happier if they hadn’t lose all of their helicopters and vehicles on the Atlantic Conveyor.

I agree totally, it was purely a joke.

 

[daftandbarmy]

I agree totally, it was purely a joke.

Although they did alot of marching, there were various bits and pieces of 'local transport' that helped out a bit, with farmers' Land Rovers helping out a bit. The few helicopters, including the sole surviving Chinook, did yeoman service shifting ammo etc.

The (much hated before the war) Blues and Royals were very helpful too, as it turned out, by shuttling heavy loads up various hills etc with their (excellent) Scimitars.

Regardless, it caused a big rethink, after the conflict, about how troops needed to be conveyed around the battlefield if, as had happened during the war, their helicopters were sunk on the way down.

It also clarified for the many (chubby) doubters that the fitness standards had to be increased and enforced amongst those who were 'paid to plod'. The Guards units, for example, were desperatley unready compared to the Marines and PARAs.

 

[FJAG]

Marines moving forward with Polaris

US Marine Corps Begins Fielding Polaris ULTV | Joint Forces News

US Marine Corps Systems Command begins fielding cutting-edge ULTV (Ultra Light Tactical Vehicle) version of the Polaris MRZR Alpha 4.

www.joint-forces.com

 

[Kirkhill]

Marines moving forward with Polaris

Ca 2019-2021 -

3 teams of 4 plus a Squad Ldr, an Assistant, a Systems Operator and a Medic - 15 + the Corpsman = 16
4 groups of 4.

ULTV - 4 seats
1x ULTV per team
4x ULTV per squad....

kosher

Ca 2023

4x ULTV per squad

2 groups of 6 + Squad Ldr + Assistant.

Now what does the loading look like?

4 teams of 3 with 4 spare seats for Leader, Asst and Atts?

The future Marine Rifle Squad as explained by a machine gunner - Sandboxx

The Marine Corps does a lot of things well. One of those things is to do more with less, and as you'd expect as a result, another is to innovate. However, the plans for the new Marine Corps rifle squad seem to suggest the Corps might be moving away from that ‘more with less’ reputation.

www.sandboxx.us

The 3rd Marine Regiment: A Look at the Marine Rifle Squad

In the past couple of years, the U.S. Marine Corps has experienced some upheaval as the Corps is recalibrated and dramatic changes are made to its ranks. Most notably, the Corps got rid of its armor assets and tanks are no longer a thing in the Marines. Enter the Marine Littoral Regiment to...

www.usamm.com

 

[KevinB]

I suspect you will see 4-6 ULTV in the USMC Rifle squad.
They are retaining the 3x4 teams, and doubt the SL will want to ride with the ASL, and no one wants to cross load squads.

Plus the ULTV really isn’t big enough for 4 Marines and all their gear in a combat load out.

 

[OldSolduer]

I suspect you will see 4-6 ULTV in the USMC Rifle squad.
They are retaining the 3x4 teams, and doubt the SL will want to ride with the ASL, and no one wants to cross load squads.

Plus the ULTV really isn’t big enough for 4 Marines and all their gear in a combat load out.

Precisely what I keep saying - the vehicle you think will do often bulks out quickly.

 

[ueo]

How's your trench foot doing? Recovered yet?

Wrong gear, not physical "do it ness"

 

[Kirkhill]

Wrong gear, not physical "do it ness"

Absolutely - but I'm guessing it might have been nice to be able to be driven across the wet bits. Or at least have a couple of extra pairs of dry boots with the CQ.