• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Ricks Napkin Challenge- The Infantry Section and Platoon

markppcli

Full Member
Reaction score
402
Points
830
You need to come visit Benning or Bragg, we have a new toy you need to see ;)
I’d be happy with a couple used toys. I’m not anti Javelin, I just really like what I saw working with Spanish and Italian spike teams. If we adopt the MRs why not the SR as well? It’s effective out to 1600m and 3kg lighter.
 

KevinB

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Reaction score
6,853
Points
1,110
I’d be happy with a couple used toys. I’m not anti Javelin, I just really like what I saw working with Spanish and Italian spike teams. If we adopt the MRs why not the SR as well? It’s effective out to 1600m and 3kg lighter.
Spike results are pretty bad honestly.
Javelin has a 95%+ hit-kill rate.
Spike is under 66%

I was significantly underwhelmed by Spike that I’d give it a hard pass.

Keep in mind Javelin is basically the little brother of MMW Hellfire, so expect future blocks to offer similar capabilities;)
 

markppcli

Full Member
Reaction score
402
Points
830
Spike results are pretty bad honestly.
Javelin has a 95%+ hit-kill rate.
Spike is under 66%

I was significantly underwhelmed by Spike that I’d give it a hard pass.

Keep in mind Javelin is basically the little brother of MMW Hellfire, so expect future blocks to offer similar capabilities;)
Fair enough, i honestly haven’t done a deep enough dive into it. Spike is in our system though so I’d expect it to be the way forward regardless.

I don’t know what the capabilities are in the new Javelin CLU, but if it includes a data link to the missile’s targeting and allows lock on after launch in very interested.
 

daftandbarmy

Army.ca Relic
Reaction score
9,381
Points
1,160
Does that constitute a comprehensive list of the fire support you consider necessary or would it be fairer to suggest that you want the support of anything that can be brought to bear?

HMS Ambuscade might have difficulty supporting ops in Wainwright, or even Larkhill. Would you accept a pair of F35s instead? ;)

Beggars can't be choosers!

However, I'm guessing I'd tend to lean on the long term relationship provided by committed partners like the artillery as opposed to, you know, those 'fly by night' love 'em and leave 'em pilots ;)
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
2,953
Points
1,060
Beggars can't be choosers!

However, I'm guessing I'd tend to lean on the long term relationship provided by committed partners like the artillery as opposed to, you know, those 'fly by night' love 'em and leave 'em pilots ;)


Well, the Vikings did drag boats overland on rollers.... anyfink's possible.
 

markppcli

Full Member
Reaction score
402
Points
830
I frankly also very much like the Dutch platoon / section structure. The Pl WO could essentially act as the LAV Sgt, with the SOP being the forth section habitually uses the GPMG as weapons det.

 

ArmyRick

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
279
Points
880
I frankly also very much like the Dutch platoon / section structure. The Pl WO could essentially act as the LAV Sgt, with the SOP being the forth section habitually uses the GPMG as weapons det.

Have you watched Battle Order's YouTube videos?
 

KevinB

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Reaction score
6,853
Points
1,110
@markppcli you are right better to move here.
So you have 1 MCpl crew commander, 1 as a 2 IC. If we have two LAVs I’m assuming you’re adding a third to command that other LAV? Or do we have two crew commanders and two team leads? That’s where get to to are these “teams” not just those same small sections?

I think the manpower issue just means you need to commit more platoons or sections to that task. Mechanized troops get their faster but have less foot print. For the record reports from Ukrainian urban fighting cite heavy use of 30mm to support that infantry. So it’s not as though it always doesn’t matter but get your point that 4 “stacks” for the platoon isn’t ideal.

Either way we’re probably better to move this to the infantry paper napkin thread.

I assume each LAV has a Pte/Cpl as Gunner and Driver and a M/Cpl as Crew Commander with the exception of the LAV SGT.
I view them ‘outside’ the dismount Section, so my ‘robust’ Section for Mech has

1 SGT
2 M/Cpl Dismount Team Leaders
2 M/Cpl Crew Commanders

I was looking for a way that Light Units could easily become GIB for Mech units in a manner that would support a large scale conflict where either Light Operations became impractical - or the Armored and CA heirarchy realized that their Armored Recce ideas where insane and committed those LAV to be Infantry Carriers - and used either LI or Reserve troops to be dismounts.
 

markppcli

Full Member
Reaction score
402
Points
830
@markppcli you are right better to move here.


I assume each LAV has a Pte/Cpl as Gunner and Driver and a M/Cpl as Crew Commander with the exception of the LAV SGT.
I view them ‘outside’ the dismount Section, so my ‘robust’ Section for Mech has

1 SGT
2 M/Cpl Dismount Team Leaders
2 M/Cpl Crew Commanders

I was looking for a way that Light Units could easily become GIB for Mech units in a manner that would support a large scale conflict where either Light Operations became impractical - or the Armored and CA heirarchy realized that their Armored Recce ideas where insane and committed those LAV to be Infantry Carriers - and used either LI or Reserve troops to be dismounts.
I see where your going there I just think your essentially describing two sections that are moving together. It’s not super different then how they’d align in a mechanized quick attack.
 

Infanteer

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Donor
Reaction score
3,263
Points
1,160
Well I'm sure everyone is happy to throw out an infinite amount of combinations, discussions on the organization of the platoon and section should first consider "what is the task of the section? Of the platoon?"

After that, you can start building to your heart's content, but I'd offer the following:

1. It is worth noting that, historically, no section size has proven optimal. They all work, and they all quickly function with fewer people due to casualties.
2. The comments that the seats in a vehicle limit the section size are apt. May as well keep it in the realm of reality.
3. Consider span of control and relate it to the original question regarding task. Do we want a section commander trying to control multiple vehicles and groups of dismounts? Is that optimal?
 

OldSolduer

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
3,490
Points
1,010
Well I'm sure everyone is happy to throw out an infinite amount of combinations, discussions on the organization of the platoon and section should first consider "what is the task of the section? Of the platoon?"

After that, you can start building to your heart's content, but I'd offer the following:

1. It is worth noting that, historically, no section size has proven optimal. They all work, and they all quickly function with fewer people due to casualties.
2. The comments that the seats in a vehicle limit the section size are apt. May as well keep it in the realm of reality.
3. Consider span of control and relate it to the original question regarding task. Do we want a section commander trying to control multiple vehicles and groups of dismounts? Is that optimal?
Speaking as just another old guy I think the section size is fine.

A section commander controlling multiple vehicles and troops? NO - one vehicle and his troops. The battlefield is confusing enough already.
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
2,953
Points
1,060
Speaking as just another old guy I think the section size is fine.

A section commander controlling multiple vehicles and troops? NO - one vehicle and his troops. The battlefield is confusing enough already.

How about somebody controlling the vehicles and somebody controlling the troops? :D
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
2,953
Points
1,060
Back to the Swedes with their 3-Car Platoons

I tend to see them as fighting a Vehicle Element under one commander - the superior in charge of the overall manoeuvre battle , and the Ground Element of three sections of 6 under a separate commander - subordinate to the manoeuvre commander.

By contrast it appears to me as if the Canadian Platoon is fought as three separate Vehicles with the Vehicle Commander in charge of the Section.

The Canadian solution feels to me like splayed fingers, best suited for isolated, dispersed patrols. The Swedish solution feel more like a closed fist.

In the Swedish case, when the Ground Element is dropped it has enough mass to form a fixed node and an all around defence which, with MR ATGMs can form an anvil against which the three cars of Vehicle Element can strike, like a hammer.
 

daftandbarmy

Army.ca Relic
Reaction score
9,381
Points
1,160
Back to the Swedes with their 3-Car Platoons

I tend to see them as fighting a Vehicle Element under one commander - the superior in charge of the overall manoeuvre battle , and the Ground Element of three sections of 6 under a separate commander - subordinate to the manoeuvre commander.

By contrast it appears to me as if the Canadian Platoon is fought as three separate Vehicles with the Vehicle Commander in charge of the Section.

The Canadian solution feels to me like splayed fingers, best suited for isolated, dispersed patrols. The Swedish solution feel more like a closed fist.

In the Swedish case, when the Ground Element is dropped it has enough mass to form a fixed node and an all around defence which, with MR ATGMs can form an anvil against which the three cars of Vehicle Element can strike, like a hammer.

I have no idea if this is a factor in the Swedish approach, but they are organized and trained in a mainly 'Defend Sweden' mode, as opposed to an expeditionary military that is common in other countries like the US, UK and Canada.

For example, I recall attending a lecture on cold injuries given by a Swede and one of the first 'actions on' was to find a local cabin and take the casualty there for treatment. This, of course, was unthinkable to us. The 'S' Tank is another example of a home defence focus.

Having said that... please carry on! ;)
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
2,953
Points
1,060
Back in the OLDEN days the Pl WO took control of the vehicles when the platoon was dismounted.
How OLDEN are we talking?

M113 with pintles?
Grizzlies?
Bisons?
LAVIIIs?
Chariots and Ponies? :giggle:
 
Top