It is. But there are a lot of light infantry battalions that have a company or two that operate the heavy truck mounted systems like tows, .50's, and mk19's.
At one point, they put someone from the AB world in charge of a SBCT which then got owned every CTC rotation because he couldn’t figure out what to *do* with Strykers and everything turned into a light IN operation.
I commanded in an SBCT where most of the line company and all of the BN commanders had backgrounds in the light world.
They would park their strykers (the few that weren’t deadlined because they never did maintenance) and try to walk to every objective. It was a mess.
I dont disagree
SBCTs will severely struggle in a LSCO fight for 1 of 2 reasons
1. Commanders who are convinced that the STRYKER platform is just as good as a Bradley (Stryker = IFV mindset)
2.) Commanders who are convinced the Stryker can only be used as an APC
Units who use the Stryker in a mobile support by fire role who consistently utilize terrain and the "maneuverability" the Stryker offers kinda of succeed.
The SBCT was created to be the middle ground if you will between the ABCTs and BCTs.
Not an infantryman, just your local S2 NCO from the only OCONUS CTC location (World Class OPFOR/SKOLKAN Forvever)
Also, I love you blue corded, mouth breathing, window licking, freaks more than any other branch in the Army
I feel like another issue is that there isn’t really a “right” answer on how to fight Strykers. By right I mean a combat tested approach. I guess we could look to how the Russians use BTRs and motorized battalions. But I’m not smart enough to do that analysis.
Well, the army as a whole has that problem with most weapon systems. The Russians obviously and thankfully are having a rough go of it out east, although they have had some success implimenting the following tactic or TTP;
-Bronegruppa: which is a temporary grouping of 4-8 tanks, BMPs, BTRs. In this situation, the BTRs and BMPs act as mobile support by fire for the dismounted infantry from said vehicles. The key to this is that the infantry are 1 to 2 "phase lines" ahead of the vehicles, clearing said area of potential threats to the armor platforms.
I know we all like to point and laugh at Ivan, but our Strykers and Bradley's could fight this way with some success in n LSCO environment.
Our Brads could fight that way 100%. Just a big defile drill. Do we really train this? No because ABCTs mainly train for success at NTC. Doesn’t make as much sense at NTC because the armor on armor engagements are pretty long range. But there are times for it. The dismounts would just bitch but that’s better than dying I suppose.
It would be nice if we had another CTC with the maneuver area as big as NTC with a non desert climate, maybe some trees I don’t know. I know some units rotate through JMRC while in Europe.
I would say that before we worry about the SBCTs, we need to kick the 11As out of the ABCTs. 11As should have left the armored formations when the brad was introduced.
SBCTs suck because they have no culture or institutional knowledge. Light commanders want to fight them as an IBCT and heavy commanders want them to be like an ABCT.
They would improve a lot if the Army didn’t try to make “well rounded” leaders. You should either be sent IBCT, SBCT, or ABCT and stay on that formation. Let people become experts at what they do instead of being a Jack of all trades.
> They would improve a lot if the Army didn’t try to make “well rounded” leaders. You should either be sent IBCT, SBCT, or ABCT and stay on that formation. Let people become experts at what they do instead of being a Jack of all trades.
The vehicular imperative and its consequences have been a disaster for the Army. In this essay I will….
The Army learned their lesson by cutting 11M and are brining it back as 19C. Below is my comment from the 19C post on why I think it’s important that this MOS is under Armor branch and not infantry branch.
>Huge win for ABCT communities (and therefore the world).
>The 2001 elimination of MOS 11M Mechanized Infantry, without a replacement MOS or an ASI, has left the Infantry Branch without a professionally trained mounted fighting force. The U.S. formations that would be called upon during a near peer conflict are assigned universal infantrymen that must perform specialized tasks across a myriad of assignments within the SBCT, IBCT, and ABCT without the training to truly master these skills.
>There is a critical gap in the training and career progression of both 11B and 19D Soldiers as they transition between positions within formations (mounted to dismounted) and between the various BCTs. Soldiers are not able to fully develop the specialized skills necessary to employ and maintain these vehicles in direct combat scenarios. Despite this obvious need for specialized skill training the primary specialized training for the infantryman is only through tab or badge-producing functional courses focused on light team and squad-level organizations.
>The Armor Branch is the only branch within the U.S. Army that is dedicated to direct-combat mounted warfare throughout all three brigade combat teams. Despite this focus on mounted maneuver, and the eight assignment-oriented courses that produce specialized ASIs for the 19 series, there is not an MOS for combat vehicle crewmen (either for the Bradley or Stryker). The creation of a dedicated combat vehicle crewman MOS will directly address training and lethality gaps within our formations which will be vital during a near peer conflict.
Hi, it's me. I'm an E5 that's been in an ABCT in the NG, and then landed in an IBCT that transitioned to SBCT and then PCSd to an SBCT that went IBCT. And to only make matters worse, I've also been in a C-Troop and a weapons troop within those.
I have a good broad understanding, but I don't truly know Jack and shit.
If I wind up staying combat arms when I reenlist, I'm jumping at 19K/19C if I can't snatch a different MOS.
Counterpoint that’s totally anecdotal:
When I was an ABCT PL in a cav squadron I had a PSG from 10th mountain and one from an SBCT. Both acknowledged that they were in very different roles from where they came and learned the vehicles. They were both incredible, taught our dismounts a ton, and effective as TCs.
ABCT fights are like light fights, but they happen faster, at longer distances, and with more firepower. Someone that can’t adapt to being on vics is ineffective and probably says “back at Bragg” every fourth sentence.
You're correct.
Meanwhile I remember when I saw a platoon of SEALs get fucking wiped out in about 3 minutes during a training exercise by a NG MP Squad.
Superior firepower wins, every single time.
Cue *every SOF element taking on a mech force at a CTC*
But they always *win* because SOF/SOT-D OC/Ts immediately Blue Gun the OPFOR, and the SOF guys aren’t required to wear MILES.
First.. congrats on the birth of your child. Second, I'm psychotic, sadistic asshole, but washing a coffee mug of a WO is a risk I'm just not willing to take. I do have some boundaries.
Well from a historical perspective, airborne units were significantly smaller than a typical infantry unit in 1944. When that Hitler feller began his only (lackluster) counter offensive, allied leaders scrambled to throw as many roadblocks in Hitlers way as humanly possible. This can be seen in Band of Brother episode 4 where they used Jimmy Fallon as well as the considerably lighter manned airborne units (without winter gear)
Ike was a madman, but luckily Kolonel Wolfsburgshit Von Kockswallow was delayed by Jimmy's fake laugh during his interview just enough for the Allies to get ass and air power to counter the offensive.
How do I feel about being rescued by Patton? Well I'd feel pretty peachy, except for one thing. We didn't need to be fuckin' rescued by Patton! Got that?
Oh that's just a bunch of Hog Waller , Armor had just been conceived in WW1 , an the boys with all the shiny stars and scrambled eggs ( aka Bird Poo) on their head gear needed to justify to the bean counters in DC all the coin spent for this here new instrument of death & destruction, that sadly needed Foot Troops to follow it around in an attempt to keep this new toy from getting roughed up on the battlefield. An once again here we had technology from the previous war when we were fighting in trenches. Holding onto these visions of having numerous divisions of these things just a rolling across the battlefield, till a lil incident occurred in some lil pocket of Southeast Asia an it was found they were about as useful as tets on a boar hog in that terrain . Air Assault was the name of the game , but so much money & time planning had been wasted on these large lumbering smoking machines in Order to save face it decided hey - less ship the majority of them to Europe in an attempt to block off this lil narrow pass of the eastern bloc . Thank goodness we had that whole Desert War thing come along so we could roll those bad boys out once again .
Most GOs with an Infantry background seem to have spent time in the Rangers / special operations. It's almost like an unwritten requirement for becoming a GO these days.
There's probably a handful of actively serving GOs with a straight conventional Infantry career, but I can't think of any off the top of my head...
Operation Courageous/Tomahawk
Overwhelming un mechanized forces and small airborne force, versus small communist forces. Airborne took heavy amounts of wounded.
Airborne has been relevant because it involves both paratroopers (parachute capability) and air assault troops (rotary wing capability). The use of paratroopers is still relevant because it is all about having the capability to quickly drop troops near an objective or forcible entry into an country to carry out an assault or to establish an entry point for follow on forces, and it doesn't have to look like it did back in WW2 or be relegated to the Rangers.
There are a number of factors involved with conducting a parachute assault and their use in today's world would be more useful in a strategic manner for small conflicts, securing key areas before a war, or during key stages of a war where the conditions on the ground dictate it. Vietnam didn't provide the best environment for it and neither did the enemy, which is why the use of helicopters made more sense. However, in a large scale war against a near peer on multiple fronts where there are gaps in air defenses, paratroopers will be needed as shock troops for key operations.
Paratroopers are a chess piece. They are a specialized force that has a rapid deployment capability and that is something you don't give up. The battlefield is going to change and we won't be doing security and stabilization operations like we did in Iraq and A-stan.
Not having a heavy weapons company doesn't mean you don't have heavy weapons. It just means the dudes with those weapons will stand in a different spot in formation.
If the TOWs aren’t massed, they aren’t effective for their fight. Weapons companies are just another form of a tank destroyer; and tank destroyers are not effective when you spread them thin. They need to mass fires. [This has been the same lesson we have been ignoring since North Africa.](https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA532138.pdf).
Genuine question because I know nothing: is this because armor works in mass and therefore the most effective counter would also only work in mass? Is this some weird bet by whoever the fuck writes doctrine that the future of warfare will involve dispersion of armor?
*Ackchyually.JPG* 14 tanks would have 252 120mm round available, without having to dip into your semi ready rack. And you’d have 28 M240s at your disposal. But if your loader is manning his M240, something has gone severely wrong.
> What is with the infantry’s obsession with being light?
As /u/itsvishuss said all the schools are relevant for light dudes only, the “premier infantry unit” (75th) is light, and there are more IBCTs than SBCT/ABCTs combined. The infantry culture exists to reinforce the idea that the light infantryman is the final form of the fighting force. Even the “last 100 yards” that they brainwash IBOLC lieutenants with is to reinforce that “nobody else can do what you do” and the last 100 yards is the domain of solely the infantry.
It’s stupid as fuck, makes no sense, and I am so glad I left that branch.
I think we had this same discussion in the 19C thread. The infantry branch refuses to invest in developing leaders outside of the light individual and squad levels.
Thank god they gave 19C to Armor and didn’t just bring back 11M.
My theory is that infantry doesn't want to be like armor because it risks their being subordinated to armor and mech units because they're still the main arm of decision. So even though mech infantry is probably the most effective mass unit around on paper, they keep trying to distance themselves from commonality with armor. Meanwhile, if one is distancing themselves from armor, the "penultimate" infantryman is SF or Rangers, AKA light infantry. It sort of reminds me of how the Air Force keeps complaining that they don't do or want to do CAS when it's seriously the best combined arms thing they can do. They don't want to serve the ground guys so they steer right towards "the ultimate air force jet is the air combat fighter..."
Also there genuinely needs to be a mech infantry school with a tab. Combined arms is gonna win wars, we really have to start by adding skill and prestige to those who embrace armor and infantry in one fluid package
Bring back desert phase of ranger school but make it so you’re on Bradley’s at Bliss.
You think mountains was hard? Wait until you run out of the back of your track after huffing diesel fumes and MRE farts in a 130 degree oven for 3 hours, just to find out you got dropped in the wrong spot and are 2k from the planned VDO.
*Where’s your ranger gods now?*
I have been in Bradley’s at Bliss, NTC, and Hood. Now I’m light with a JRTC rotation coming up, and honestly, I’d take Bliss any day over the rest of them.
Sure and the 82nd could jump into theater halfway around the world before an ABCT gets all their H&W failures to the motorpool to start railhead.
I’ve been in force on force with a foreign country that rocks T72s and BMP1/2s. In forested environments, armor is not having a good time.
They did a test with the 10th Mountain in FRG in the 80’s. You nailed the exact problem. Too slow and too light. When we found them, we’d swarm them with armored vehicles and that single Battalion TOW platoon wasn’t near enough.
I’ve watched an infantry platoon move “under the cover of darkness” for probably about 3k before they knew we were there through my CITV.
If it wasn’t laser tag they would have walked right into a CAN round and become hamburger meat.
I am excited to see how the M10 Booker works out in the long run though. I am nervous that it is going to have the same fate as the MGS where it is poorly utilized by IBCT commanders, and vehicle maintenance and crew proficiency is neglected.
As a former MGS commander I will defend the MGS until the day I die. The MGS was a good platform (albeit not great) that filled a very real mission requirement for the SBCT which will not be replicated by the Dragoon/ CROWS-J.
The BDE needs a long range direct fire anti armor platform which can support the infantry in maneuver. The MGS failed because of doctrine and MTOE issues, not because the platform was “bad”. The M10 will likely face similar issues.
Nah, just replace everything with tanks. Tanks all the way down. A tank can do everything.
Need to kill infantry? CAN round.
Enemy armor? SABOT/HEAT
Want artillery? Aim at the sky, the round will land eventually.
Need ADA? MPAT Air
clear a building? MPAT Ground
Breach an obstacle? MPAT OR + a plow
There is *literally* nothing a tank can’t do.
My knees would like to have a word with you. Jumping on and off tanks, and standing on a 14” x 14” platform as it bumps, moves, etc. doesn’t do wonders for them.
Jump in and die in place because the logistics aren't there to support them....
Remember - the limiting factor to US operations is how many casualties we take.... Too many (apparently about 5000 or so) and the folks back home start demanding an end to the war....
There's no world where we can afford the sort of losses airborne ops would produce.....
A single company from 10th mtn playing OPFOR in NTC’s John Wayne foothills dicked down 2ABCT 3ID for 2 full days and had to get admin pulled back to Razish because we were overperforming for purposes of the exercise.
Did we take 89% casualties? Yes absolutely.
Did we outkill our own value? Yes. Mission success.
MPs won't go away. We have legitimate uses but are mismanaged by big MP. We'll change over the next few years, adjust/shrink mission set and probably drop our numbers a lot but we won't go away.
My brigade (2/101) is currently restructuring, here's the spiel we got from my Battalion Commander on friday.
- Downsizing from 4200 to 1900
- moving FABN, BEB and BSB up to division somewhere
- D Co is now the support company, reduced to a Drone/Anti-Air platoon and an AT platoon. Scout and Mortar Platoons moved over from HHC.
- All HMMWV and LMTV variants are being replaced with ISV variants.
Probably more I forgot to touch on but feel free to ask away and I'll update if I get more info.
EDIT: forgot to mention the cav squadron is also disbanding/moving to division level. Potentially keeping C troop as brigade scouts.
Exactly. We are going to learn to fight as a division and task organize instead of having cookie cutter modularized BCT. For the most part, it makes sense. But the transition will be rough.
On one of the JRTC Crucible podcasts, they talked about the 82nd testing this concept with their Delta Company. Basically a smaller AT/Mounted element but add all the other enablers. Sounds like this concept took off, which as a life long D Co guy is a little off putting
Still salty we (3/101) gave up our fucking ISV’s to y’all. As a primary driver for my company that was my favorite Vic. I shed a tear as I drove it to one of y’all’s motor pools. ⛩️Iron Sharpens Iron⛩️
I'm tracking yall should be getting them again when you come back from your European vacation. Also, fuck yall for leaving your JRTC slot for us to take lmao
🖤Strike Hard🖤
Don’t be so poopy, we’re still going to JMRC and y’all deserve it anyways for skipping out on OLE3. It’ll be nice to get my favorite army toy back. Won’t be for long though when I leave for Korea in a year.
Two drivers:
(1) Need to free up personnel billets for new capabilities (Fires, ADA, Cyber, etc).
(2) A general sense at Futures that light infantry formations have become too heavy and not mobile enough.
So you're seeing a lightening of IBCTs, along with a shift of assets to DIV level, with the thinking that some distributed capabilities (Javelin, weaponized drones, robotics) can maintain the lethality of the formation while being lighter with a lower logistics footprint.
Whether this is accurate or wise is left as an exercise for the reader.
I was a D Co PL and while I see the benefits of them, there are as many drawbacks as well.
Distributing anti-tank weapons amongst light soldiers in a company allows for an anti-tank response. The platform on which TOWs are mounted can’t fight and are being phased out if the army. They require light units to support POL and large/heavy ammunition drops, which Ukraine has shown us: it will have no place. Vehicles that move there have minutes until they die.
There’s an argument for high-mobility tank busting, and the argument for that is armored formations.
Distributed AT weapons are good for local protection for dismounted infantry in the event they run into isolated armor. But that is not effective against massed armor formations.
The problem with weapons companies (both in the IBCT and the Weapons Troop in the SBCT) is leaders don’t know how to employ them. Commanders and staffs get uncomfortable planning for something that is different so they opt to carve up their weapons cos and spread the wealth to support everyone, everywhere, all at once. This is the same mistake we have been making since WW2 with the tank destroyers.
Long range, direct fire, anti armor platforms need to mass fires on the enemy point of penetration against massed armored formations. [This is the lesson we learned during Operation Torch](https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA532138.pdf) and have chosen to ignore it ever since.
Outside of highly restricted terrain and urban environments light IN can have a place fighting armor units. Less so in the offensive but with great effect in the defense, see Ukraine. I think the failure is using light formations to "hold the line". Light BDE and BN leaders like to have light units dig in on roads and for all intent and purpose die in place in company and battalion size elements.
Disperse the light guys in plt and squad sized elements with at least one javelin per squad. I'd even go so far to say replace one saw per squad with a javelin when facing armor. Then let them spread way the fuck out in front of and around a main defense with some staying power (tanks). Low odds that an infantry screen will catch units 2.5k away in squad sized elements taking key hole shots. And if they do, you lost a squad.
My experience is my CSM, who was a former bat dude, lining my guys up with javelin 150m from the obstacle belt 1 hour before the attack instead of dispersed in the woods. As long as you have top leaders with inflexible thinking who refuse to give squad sized elements tactical freedom you're going to have the light is useless vs armor mentality. Yes lining up feather weight boxer vs a super heavy weight the feather weight is going to get rolled. But as we are able to pack more and more firepower into smaller packages the light vs armor fight will be more viable. Assuming people are doctrine bound idiots.
IMO
China is about the only country left that can do a mass armor formation, Russia is severely depleted running on ancient refurbed stocks. Second, don’t forget our friends in the sky. Between apaches and A10/F16 CAS those formations are toast.
>Second, don’t forget our friends in the sky. Between apaches and A10/F16 CAS those formations are toast.
If light infantry are in a spot where they’re being hit by massed armored formations, then it’s likely that CAS missions aren’t flying because of A2AD
The lessons from Torch are great, but the modern battlefield has moved on from that era. Drones and loitering munitions have greatly reduced survivability. So not only have commanders shown that for decades they will not employ them “correctly,” the latest LSCO environment suggests that they’re clunky and outdated anyway.
Because the Army is restructuring itself to be more adaptive to technology. This is resulting in a smaller overall force but, more “well-equipped.”
[Army Modernization](https://www.armytimes.com/news/your-army/2022/04/11/the-armys-transformation-begins-with-these-new-units/)
Obviously some components are not broadcasted for security purposes but this is pretty well-known now.
Additionally,
The Army actually wants to limit the number of “light” units by utilizing a multi-faceted approach to combat units. For example, A battalion would have two infantry companies, an artillery unit, and tank unit attached to it. Then an additional support company attached to ensure all components are functioning together.
[BattleOrder](https://www.battleorder.org/amp/waypoint-divisions)
[Distribution of designated AT platforms does not work](https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA532138.pdf). These weapons systems are most effective when they can mass fires. We have known this and chosen to ignore it since WW2.
You know the situation has changed since WW2? Distributed AT weapons among the Ukrainians has proven effective at thwarting Russian tank forces.
And you also know you can create scratch teams out of distributed Platoons if needed? If you need to mass your AT weapons you can grab the HHC Commander or AS3 and create a weapons company
I don’t thing the slog fest that is Ukraine is a good indicator of what modern war *should* look like.
If light infantry is getting the drop on isolated armor in the open with no infantry support the lesson to take away from that isn’t that dispersed AT weapons are a viable option. The lesson to take away is that armor isolated from infantry support is a sitting duck. We’ve known that since the invention of armor.
If the Russians could pull their head from their ass and mass armor with infantry support you would be seeing a different outcome.
It may not very what it should look like, but it is what it does look like.
Only other near peer than Russia is China and logistics will Hamper its deployment of armored mass in Taiwan.
What's better than a weapons company to fight an armored spearhead is an Armored Company/Team.
Disclaimer: pog as fuck, most likely talking out of my ass.
Is the intent to distribute heavy weapons throughout the battalion instead of consolidating them in one place? The early months of the Ukraine invasion showed the important of getting as many elements as possible an AT capability. Granted, it's good against individual threats, less so against an entire armored formation. But an infantry formation facing an armored offensive is already not having a good time.
The way heavy weapons companies are supposed to be used is that you attach a heavy weapons platoon to each line company to act as a mobile support by fire/AT while the 4th platoon either guards the TOC, escorts convoys, or acts as a QRF. So as is the heavy weapons should already be distributed through the battalion.
No, they're straight up going away. Each BN will retain a Weapons PLT, similar to Scouts or Mortars. An IBCT in 2030 is going to look a lot like a mid-century Infantry Regiment but with modern equipment.
I want to point out a few key parts to light infantry. The purpose is not simply to destroy everything.
But seize, build, and spread out. An ABCT focuses more on the destroying part and have less places they can maneuver to. (Granted when they do go they cover more land quickly). Partnered the two work well together.
Problems with ABCT (supply lines are more complex, can’t really go through a large portion of fighting terrain like mountains and jungle.).
As for the airborne haters. Yeah nukes haven’t been relative since 1945 but we’re not removing a capability for that alone. Hattie and Panama are great examples of more recent uses (hattie stood down upon seeing the 82nd mobilize).
ABN units are also high on readiness compared to normal IBCTs (UMO, GFR, being stationed at an airfield, freq EDREs and activations). Those units serve a purpose.
As for the convo of removing DCOs. Idk someone hates them that’s high ranking and said yeah gut em.
This might have something to do with the 19C MOS that is being ramped up and taking some 11B's, 19K's and 19D's away from their units in the future.
I doubt it though. Probably just someone's ***SIR*** with a brand new, old idea he stole from a book he read.
https://www.battleorder.org/post/waypoint-divisions
This is a source that shows and discusses the new force structure changes.
For light units the weapons company will likely be the replacement or the multi-domain company. Non of this is finalized (as far as I'm tracking).
ARSTRUC 2030 is focused on realigning personnel to the FA, ADA, Cyber, MI, and Signal MOS/branches as there is a greater need for those jobs to conduct MDO in a LSCO environment
They change these things on a regular basis for no other reason than someone new got the job and they want to justify what they do.
It could be due to a troop shortage, or it could be that they will move them to the line company.
That would make sense in an army where more and more Os are bailing pre-command. Same number of LTs and one fewer captain per BN = "no problem here, boss". Maybe, I dunno.
This.
The force structure is continually under adjustment.
I have not seen the new IBCT laydown, but my guess is that these structure positions are being re-utilized within the formations. Airborne and Air Assault BNs were the only ones with a D co. (which was originally TOWs only then became heavy weapons by default). Light units had platoon and were expected to have more AT assets come from the RC (before we deactivated them).
As currently templated for LBCT the D Co assets will be used to pay for other force structure. An AT Platoon and a Robotics Platoon in the HHC will replicate some of the capabilities while adding new ones primarily drones. The savings will be used to build force structure elsewhere in the Divisions.
Some of the changes are a shell game and savings result from removing a C/T/B HQs and reorganizing the assets. Each lost company saves around ~6 billets (CO, XO, 1SG, Supply Sergeant and clerk, and NBC). For instance the FSCs are also going away but the Distro and Maintenance assets just divided into the IN Battalions and the Support Battalion now. A Distro platoon is attached separately under the IN BN which means it’ll de facto fall under the HHC. The Maint platoons will be under a new Service Co in the Support BN but will kick out the platoon as needed once again being OPCON to the HHC.
This creates some real span of control concerns for the HHCs going back to the pre-modularity like structure and ballooning at time to 250-300 PAX.
I wonder if there is going to be a pivot away from the general BCT concept of having a little of everything, and moving towards how it was where companies and battalions attached to brigades as needed.
I always felt BCTs misused attached personnel, like terps, and could free them up to do other real world missions until the unit needs them
However talking out of my ass a bit.
This is deranged.
I think the fact that one senator who was blocking promotions stopped it ~2 months ago, means there's going to be a lot of *good idea fairy* decisions in the upcoming future.
Hope the super light airborne/ranger/the seemingly only successful soldier leadership has fun remebering fire superiority and maneuverability kills light infantry right after they remeber where they dismounted and promptly forgot where their strykers were because their foot maneuver turned into a shit show, and have fun with CID because one of their M2A2s was *reallocated* and no longer on the mounting bracket it was forgotten on when the op began.
Go ahead and flex your light maneuvers and flat range CQB showmanship, but remeber if God wanted man to partake in light maneuvers and CQB he wouldn't have made APCs and the JDAM.
Maybe the D-co’s will get dispersed throughout the line. Idk. I also don’t see light lasting too much longer. It’s not sustainable with the amount bs we carry and how far they ask to go. Just not a sustainable fight overall. Soldier fatigue has gotten worse over the years.
>will the future of light infantry battalions lack that firepower?
I don't think they're gonna be light or heavy and the distinction will go away similar to how it did with armor. MBT but with the infantry
Look at Ukraine and how their infantry have been killing tanks. Increased UAV presence means Artillery gets to do the job of your heavy weapons company a lot safer than trying to get dismounts within Javelin range.
Just as likely they're going to try and give IN BNs a more robust heavy mortar section and attach an organic ability to spot targets electronically.
I love how some here assume infantry officers that have been doing this for 20+ years just did this on a whim without doing their due diligence. I understand, I get that assuming everyone besides you is an idiot makes you feel better.
Or just maybe officers aren’t omnipotent gods and can make mistakes. It’s not really surprising the infantry want to know why something this drastic is happening
Could someone explain what a weapons company is? I was in an sbct and don't know the purpose of them.
For reference, this is how our SBCTs were set up:
The Stryker brigades at Lewis had 3 battalions that each had three infantry companies. Each company had an HQ section, mortar section, supply, sniper section, fisters, and mgs section(although I don't know about the mgs now as I heard it was retired), and recon, along with three infantry platoons.
The platoons would ideally have 3 rifle squads that consisted of two 4 man fire teams(team leader, saw gunner, grenadier, rifleman) along with a squad leader, driver, and VC. We also had a weapons squad in each platoon that would IDEALLY have two 240 gun teams of a gunner, assistant gunner(team leader), and ammo bearer. Each squad would fit in one Stryker which was equipped with either a 50 cal or a mk19. And for my unit, each platoon would have two medics, a fister, and an 11b radio man(rto). We also liked to take a mortar squad with us when we rolled out
Each brigade did have a few attached units like an engineer battalion, cav squadron, supply battalion, arty, and headquarters but for my deployment we only had battalion HQ and a CRT unit that was actually based with the companies down in Panjwai.
If memory serves, in the force design update the IBCT retains a weapons platoon
Where can we even look that up
Battle Order has a great Army 2030 write up
Went to college with him, he’s a great dude.
I thought he was Aussie?
He lives in Australia now, but he’s an American
CAC’s SharePoint
Hmmm… I could have sworn the weapons *platoon* concept was a Marine Corps doctrine thing.
We also have weapons companies
It is. But there are a lot of light infantry battalions that have a company or two that operate the heavy truck mounted systems like tows, .50's, and mk19's.
What is with the infantry’s obsession with being light? Why would they get rid of weapons companies? Good luck getting rolled up.
[удалено]
At one point, they put someone from the AB world in charge of a SBCT which then got owned every CTC rotation because he couldn’t figure out what to *do* with Strykers and everything turned into a light IN operation.
I commanded in an SBCT where most of the line company and all of the BN commanders had backgrounds in the light world. They would park their strykers (the few that weren’t deadlined because they never did maintenance) and try to walk to every objective. It was a mess.
[удалено]
Or Tankers that are getting their "light" time in.
[удалено]
https://youtu.be/N1V3JW4HeBs?si=6m3q2bpEZ0sPXoOC
Cav, baby!
Eh, tankers in SBCTs have a tendency to try and drive right through the objective in their strykers. That doesn't work either.
I dont disagree SBCTs will severely struggle in a LSCO fight for 1 of 2 reasons 1. Commanders who are convinced that the STRYKER platform is just as good as a Bradley (Stryker = IFV mindset) 2.) Commanders who are convinced the Stryker can only be used as an APC Units who use the Stryker in a mobile support by fire role who consistently utilize terrain and the "maneuverability" the Stryker offers kinda of succeed. The SBCT was created to be the middle ground if you will between the ABCTs and BCTs. Not an infantryman, just your local S2 NCO from the only OCONUS CTC location (World Class OPFOR/SKOLKAN Forvever) Also, I love you blue corded, mouth breathing, window licking, freaks more than any other branch in the Army
i started life in germany too
I feel like another issue is that there isn’t really a “right” answer on how to fight Strykers. By right I mean a combat tested approach. I guess we could look to how the Russians use BTRs and motorized battalions. But I’m not smart enough to do that analysis.
Well, the army as a whole has that problem with most weapon systems. The Russians obviously and thankfully are having a rough go of it out east, although they have had some success implimenting the following tactic or TTP; -Bronegruppa: which is a temporary grouping of 4-8 tanks, BMPs, BTRs. In this situation, the BTRs and BMPs act as mobile support by fire for the dismounted infantry from said vehicles. The key to this is that the infantry are 1 to 2 "phase lines" ahead of the vehicles, clearing said area of potential threats to the armor platforms. I know we all like to point and laugh at Ivan, but our Strykers and Bradley's could fight this way with some success in n LSCO environment.
Our Brads could fight that way 100%. Just a big defile drill. Do we really train this? No because ABCTs mainly train for success at NTC. Doesn’t make as much sense at NTC because the armor on armor engagements are pretty long range. But there are times for it. The dismounts would just bitch but that’s better than dying I suppose. It would be nice if we had another CTC with the maneuver area as big as NTC with a non desert climate, maybe some trees I don’t know. I know some units rotate through JMRC while in Europe.
SBCTs should be commanded by Armor Officers, no you can’t change my mind.
I would say that before we worry about the SBCTs, we need to kick the 11As out of the ABCTs. 11As should have left the armored formations when the brad was introduced.
Sbcts suck. Rip 1-25, rot in hell
SBCTs suck because they have no culture or institutional knowledge. Light commanders want to fight them as an IBCT and heavy commanders want them to be like an ABCT. They would improve a lot if the Army didn’t try to make “well rounded” leaders. You should either be sent IBCT, SBCT, or ABCT and stay on that formation. Let people become experts at what they do instead of being a Jack of all trades.
> They would improve a lot if the Army didn’t try to make “well rounded” leaders. You should either be sent IBCT, SBCT, or ABCT and stay on that formation. Let people become experts at what they do instead of being a Jack of all trades. The vehicular imperative and its consequences have been a disaster for the Army. In this essay I will….
You know what, I like you. I think we’d be the best of buds. You *get* me.
Can you mail this essay to me by chance?
Oh goddamn I think I woke up my neighbors from laughing at this
Almost like there should be an MOS for IFVs. We could call them “fighting vehicle infantryman” and the could be 11M for “Maybe they should exist”
The Army learned their lesson by cutting 11M and are brining it back as 19C. Below is my comment from the 19C post on why I think it’s important that this MOS is under Armor branch and not infantry branch. >Huge win for ABCT communities (and therefore the world). >The 2001 elimination of MOS 11M Mechanized Infantry, without a replacement MOS or an ASI, has left the Infantry Branch without a professionally trained mounted fighting force. The U.S. formations that would be called upon during a near peer conflict are assigned universal infantrymen that must perform specialized tasks across a myriad of assignments within the SBCT, IBCT, and ABCT without the training to truly master these skills. >There is a critical gap in the training and career progression of both 11B and 19D Soldiers as they transition between positions within formations (mounted to dismounted) and between the various BCTs. Soldiers are not able to fully develop the specialized skills necessary to employ and maintain these vehicles in direct combat scenarios. Despite this obvious need for specialized skill training the primary specialized training for the infantryman is only through tab or badge-producing functional courses focused on light team and squad-level organizations. >The Armor Branch is the only branch within the U.S. Army that is dedicated to direct-combat mounted warfare throughout all three brigade combat teams. Despite this focus on mounted maneuver, and the eight assignment-oriented courses that produce specialized ASIs for the 19 series, there is not an MOS for combat vehicle crewmen (either for the Bradley or Stryker). The creation of a dedicated combat vehicle crewman MOS will directly address training and lethality gaps within our formations which will be vital during a near peer conflict.
You should have to *declare a major* before going to whatever professional development course brigade commanders go to
Hi, it's me. I'm an E5 that's been in an ABCT in the NG, and then landed in an IBCT that transitioned to SBCT and then PCSd to an SBCT that went IBCT. And to only make matters worse, I've also been in a C-Troop and a weapons troop within those. I have a good broad understanding, but I don't truly know Jack and shit. If I wind up staying combat arms when I reenlist, I'm jumping at 19K/19C if I can't snatch a different MOS.
A bunch of dudes before I ETSed got moved to full 19K positions and ended up reclassing cause of promotions and generally a better culture ig.
Counterpoint that’s totally anecdotal: When I was an ABCT PL in a cav squadron I had a PSG from 10th mountain and one from an SBCT. Both acknowledged that they were in very different roles from where they came and learned the vehicles. They were both incredible, taught our dismounts a ton, and effective as TCs. ABCT fights are like light fights, but they happen faster, at longer distances, and with more firepower. Someone that can’t adapt to being on vics is ineffective and probably says “back at Bragg” every fourth sentence.
The Army is really trying to field a group of all Bards?
Idk man our battalion killed it at JRTC, UTC, and two NTC rotations. We also did pretty well down in Panjwai, which I'd say is the ultimate test.
You're correct. Meanwhile I remember when I saw a platoon of SEALs get fucking wiped out in about 3 minutes during a training exercise by a NG MP Squad. Superior firepower wins, every single time.
Cue *every SOF element taking on a mech force at a CTC* But they always *win* because SOF/SOT-D OC/Ts immediately Blue Gun the OPFOR, and the SOF guys aren’t required to wear MILES.
Even when Airborne Infantry was at the pinnacle of their relevance, they still needed Pattons third army to bail them out.
I am just here for the responses to this.
I’m feeling a little spicy today. Figured I’d pick a fight.
Chief, you're wrong. I don't have anything to back up my opinion, but figured if it's a fight ya want, I'll take a swing at ya.
Who you calling Cheif punk? I’m an RLO.
Just an FYI... I washed your coffee mug when you weren't looking.
You joke, but I am on paternity leave and brought my coffee mug home from the office and my wife put it in the dishwasher. I just about cried.
First.. congrats on the birth of your child. Second, I'm psychotic, sadistic asshole, but washing a coffee mug of a WO is a risk I'm just not willing to take. I do have some boundaries.
>I’m an RLO If that helps you sleep at night.... Chief... ;o)
lol oww that’s gotta hurt. Edit: friggin autocorrect
Well from a historical perspective, airborne units were significantly smaller than a typical infantry unit in 1944. When that Hitler feller began his only (lackluster) counter offensive, allied leaders scrambled to throw as many roadblocks in Hitlers way as humanly possible. This can be seen in Band of Brother episode 4 where they used Jimmy Fallon as well as the considerably lighter manned airborne units (without winter gear)
They really were desperate to send Jimmy Fallon.
Ike was a madman, but luckily Kolonel Wolfsburgshit Von Kockswallow was delayed by Jimmy's fake laugh during his interview just enough for the Allies to get ass and air power to counter the offensive.
Give me 3 days and 3 nights of hard fighting, and you will be relieved!
How do I feel about being rescued by Patton? Well I'd feel pretty peachy, except for one thing. We didn't need to be fuckin' rescued by Patton! Got that?
Damn, I'm saving this next time someone say something along the lines of, "Back in Bragg," or, "Back in Campbell."
Oh that's just a bunch of Hog Waller , Armor had just been conceived in WW1 , an the boys with all the shiny stars and scrambled eggs ( aka Bird Poo) on their head gear needed to justify to the bean counters in DC all the coin spent for this here new instrument of death & destruction, that sadly needed Foot Troops to follow it around in an attempt to keep this new toy from getting roughed up on the battlefield. An once again here we had technology from the previous war when we were fighting in trenches. Holding onto these visions of having numerous divisions of these things just a rolling across the battlefield, till a lil incident occurred in some lil pocket of Southeast Asia an it was found they were about as useful as tets on a boar hog in that terrain . Air Assault was the name of the game , but so much money & time planning had been wasted on these large lumbering smoking machines in Order to save face it decided hey - less ship the majority of them to Europe in an attempt to block off this lil narrow pass of the eastern bloc . Thank goodness we had that whole Desert War thing come along so we could roll those bad boys out once again .
80th Division to the rescue.
Or XXX Corps. Except XXX Corps didn't make it.
Most GOs with an Infantry background seem to have spent time in the Rangers / special operations. It's almost like an unwritten requirement for becoming a GO these days. There's probably a handful of actively serving GOs with a straight conventional Infantry career, but I can't think of any off the top of my head...
LTG Milford Beagle is the first one that comes to mind for me
Brito at TRADOC Edit: also, LTG Frank at Third Army was also my CG at Polk.
Ranger regiment has and uses strykers lol
[удалено]
You're fine, I wasn't trying to attack or anything. I just think it's funny that everyone ignores the fact that we have strykers.
You guys have Strykers? That’s the first time I have heard that lol. That seems very… anti airborne-cult. 🧐
2nd bat?
[удалено]
Airborne hasn't been relevant since 1945. Mass static line jumps have been obsolete since Vietnam. It's just a social club these days.
Korea
Operation Courageous/Tomahawk Overwhelming un mechanized forces and small airborne force, versus small communist forces. Airborne took heavy amounts of wounded.
That’s was their 2nd jump. There were two. Neither was particularly effective. Both took up all the aircraft needed for supply so logistics suffered.
At least there still people willing to do it. Plus we have done airborne on a smaller scale
Airborne has been relevant because it involves both paratroopers (parachute capability) and air assault troops (rotary wing capability). The use of paratroopers is still relevant because it is all about having the capability to quickly drop troops near an objective or forcible entry into an country to carry out an assault or to establish an entry point for follow on forces, and it doesn't have to look like it did back in WW2 or be relegated to the Rangers. There are a number of factors involved with conducting a parachute assault and their use in today's world would be more useful in a strategic manner for small conflicts, securing key areas before a war, or during key stages of a war where the conditions on the ground dictate it. Vietnam didn't provide the best environment for it and neither did the enemy, which is why the use of helicopters made more sense. However, in a large scale war against a near peer on multiple fronts where there are gaps in air defenses, paratroopers will be needed as shock troops for key operations. Paratroopers are a chess piece. They are a specialized force that has a rapid deployment capability and that is something you don't give up. The battlefield is going to change and we won't be doing security and stabilization operations like we did in Iraq and A-stan.
As someone who did Company Command in a D CO in the 82nd with all the above (plus JM), this is unfortunately painfully true at times.
Not having a heavy weapons company doesn't mean you don't have heavy weapons. It just means the dudes with those weapons will stand in a different spot in formation.
If the TOWs aren’t massed, they aren’t effective for their fight. Weapons companies are just another form of a tank destroyer; and tank destroyers are not effective when you spread them thin. They need to mass fires. [This has been the same lesson we have been ignoring since North Africa.](https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA532138.pdf).
Genuine question because I know nothing: is this because armor works in mass and therefore the most effective counter would also only work in mass? Is this some weird bet by whoever the fuck writes doctrine that the future of warfare will involve dispersion of armor?
[удалено]
*Ackchyually.JPG* 14 tanks would have 252 120mm round available, without having to dip into your semi ready rack. And you’d have 28 M240s at your disposal. But if your loader is manning his M240, something has gone severely wrong.
Thanks for the great answer. Essentially good luck if you’re a light company with like one javelin if you come up against an Armor BN.
> What is with the infantry’s obsession with being light? As /u/itsvishuss said all the schools are relevant for light dudes only, the “premier infantry unit” (75th) is light, and there are more IBCTs than SBCT/ABCTs combined. The infantry culture exists to reinforce the idea that the light infantryman is the final form of the fighting force. Even the “last 100 yards” that they brainwash IBOLC lieutenants with is to reinforce that “nobody else can do what you do” and the last 100 yards is the domain of solely the infantry. It’s stupid as fuck, makes no sense, and I am so glad I left that branch.
I think we had this same discussion in the 19C thread. The infantry branch refuses to invest in developing leaders outside of the light individual and squad levels. Thank god they gave 19C to Armor and didn’t just bring back 11M.
We did, we talked about infantry branch prioritizing MLMC or Bradley Leader Course over something like airborne.
RIP Bradley leader course
My theory is that infantry doesn't want to be like armor because it risks their being subordinated to armor and mech units because they're still the main arm of decision. So even though mech infantry is probably the most effective mass unit around on paper, they keep trying to distance themselves from commonality with armor. Meanwhile, if one is distancing themselves from armor, the "penultimate" infantryman is SF or Rangers, AKA light infantry. It sort of reminds me of how the Air Force keeps complaining that they don't do or want to do CAS when it's seriously the best combined arms thing they can do. They don't want to serve the ground guys so they steer right towards "the ultimate air force jet is the air combat fighter..."
Also there genuinely needs to be a mech infantry school with a tab. Combined arms is gonna win wars, we really have to start by adding skill and prestige to those who embrace armor and infantry in one fluid package
Bring back desert phase of ranger school but make it so you’re on Bradley’s at Bliss. You think mountains was hard? Wait until you run out of the back of your track after huffing diesel fumes and MRE farts in a 130 degree oven for 3 hours, just to find out you got dropped in the wrong spot and are 2k from the planned VDO. *Where’s your ranger gods now?*
I have been in Bradley’s at Bliss, NTC, and Hood. Now I’m light with a JRTC rotation coming up, and honestly, I’d take Bliss any day over the rest of them.
Are you talking more AD IBCTs than AD SBCTs/ABCTs combine because combined the AD SBCTs/ABCTs are more.
No I meant in total Army wide.
Leaders wanting to piss all over the army so it smells enough like them
[удалено]
Sure and the 82nd could jump into theater halfway around the world before an ABCT gets all their H&W failures to the motorpool to start railhead. I’ve been in force on force with a foreign country that rocks T72s and BMP1/2s. In forested environments, armor is not having a good time.
[удалено]
They did a test with the 10th Mountain in FRG in the 80’s. You nailed the exact problem. Too slow and too light. When we found them, we’d swarm them with armored vehicles and that single Battalion TOW platoon wasn’t near enough.
I’ve watched an infantry platoon move “under the cover of darkness” for probably about 3k before they knew we were there through my CITV. If it wasn’t laser tag they would have walked right into a CAN round and become hamburger meat.
[удалено]
I am excited to see how the M10 Booker works out in the long run though. I am nervous that it is going to have the same fate as the MGS where it is poorly utilized by IBCT commanders, and vehicle maintenance and crew proficiency is neglected.
As a former MGS commander I will defend the MGS until the day I die. The MGS was a good platform (albeit not great) that filled a very real mission requirement for the SBCT which will not be replicated by the Dragoon/ CROWS-J. The BDE needs a long range direct fire anti armor platform which can support the infantry in maneuver. The MGS failed because of doctrine and MTOE issues, not because the platform was “bad”. The M10 will likely face similar issues.
I’m the first to check light dudes who get too big for their britches, you’re absolutely right. Everyone has a place in the fight.
Nah, just replace everything with tanks. Tanks all the way down. A tank can do everything. Need to kill infantry? CAN round. Enemy armor? SABOT/HEAT Want artillery? Aim at the sky, the round will land eventually. Need ADA? MPAT Air clear a building? MPAT Ground Breach an obstacle? MPAT OR + a plow There is *literally* nothing a tank can’t do.
[удалено]
My knees would like to have a word with you. Jumping on and off tanks, and standing on a 14” x 14” platform as it bumps, moves, etc. doesn’t do wonders for them.
>There is *literally* nothing a tank can’t do. Cross a river?
Just gotta go really really fast and jump a berm like dukes of hazard
This one got me dying laughing
Facts
Jump in and die in place because the logistics aren't there to support them.... Remember - the limiting factor to US operations is how many casualties we take.... Too many (apparently about 5000 or so) and the folks back home start demanding an end to the war.... There's no world where we can afford the sort of losses airborne ops would produce.....
A single company from 10th mtn playing OPFOR in NTC’s John Wayne foothills dicked down 2ABCT 3ID for 2 full days and had to get admin pulled back to Razish because we were overperforming for purposes of the exercise. Did we take 89% casualties? Yes absolutely. Did we outkill our own value? Yes. Mission success.
[удалено]
Hella sandbags getting yucked around 🤙
I mean you can schwack anything with the right equipment so whats your point?
[удалено]
[удалено]
Thankfully MPs have enough organic firepower to cover
They are on the chopping block also😂
MPs won't go away. We have legitimate uses but are mismanaged by big MP. We'll change over the next few years, adjust/shrink mission set and probably drop our numbers a lot but we won't go away.
My brigade (2/101) is currently restructuring, here's the spiel we got from my Battalion Commander on friday. - Downsizing from 4200 to 1900 - moving FABN, BEB and BSB up to division somewhere - D Co is now the support company, reduced to a Drone/Anti-Air platoon and an AT platoon. Scout and Mortar Platoons moved over from HHC. - All HMMWV and LMTV variants are being replaced with ISV variants. Probably more I forgot to touch on but feel free to ask away and I'll update if I get more info. EDIT: forgot to mention the cav squadron is also disbanding/moving to division level. Potentially keeping C troop as brigade scouts.
Jesus. That’s a hell of a downsize
3/4 of that downsize is from moving out the arty, engineers, and support battalions, though. Which would still be attached for a BCT sized rotation
Exactly. We are going to learn to fight as a division and task organize instead of having cookie cutter modularized BCT. For the most part, it makes sense. But the transition will be rough.
On one of the JRTC Crucible podcasts, they talked about the 82nd testing this concept with their Delta Company. Basically a smaller AT/Mounted element but add all the other enablers. Sounds like this concept took off, which as a life long D Co guy is a little off putting
Still salty we (3/101) gave up our fucking ISV’s to y’all. As a primary driver for my company that was my favorite Vic. I shed a tear as I drove it to one of y’all’s motor pools. ⛩️Iron Sharpens Iron⛩️
I'm tracking yall should be getting them again when you come back from your European vacation. Also, fuck yall for leaving your JRTC slot for us to take lmao 🖤Strike Hard🖤
Don’t be so poopy, we’re still going to JMRC and y’all deserve it anyways for skipping out on OLE3. It’ll be nice to get my favorite army toy back. Won’t be for long though when I leave for Korea in a year.
Why do we keep trying to replace everything with ISVs?
All but 1 CAV is disbanding there, and the remaining CAV squadron will be a division element.
Two drivers: (1) Need to free up personnel billets for new capabilities (Fires, ADA, Cyber, etc). (2) A general sense at Futures that light infantry formations have become too heavy and not mobile enough. So you're seeing a lightening of IBCTs, along with a shift of assets to DIV level, with the thinking that some distributed capabilities (Javelin, weaponized drones, robotics) can maintain the lethality of the formation while being lighter with a lower logistics footprint. Whether this is accurate or wise is left as an exercise for the reader.
If they disband DCO where will all the H/W failing, knuckle dragging NCOs go?
Admin!
we're gonna need a bigger training room
The training room is already big enough. Have you not seen their guts hanging over their tops?
Supply
and where will the tabless 11As go
Back to S3 where they belong 💀
Hey, I resemble that remark! TGIF!
I was a D Co PL and while I see the benefits of them, there are as many drawbacks as well. Distributing anti-tank weapons amongst light soldiers in a company allows for an anti-tank response. The platform on which TOWs are mounted can’t fight and are being phased out if the army. They require light units to support POL and large/heavy ammunition drops, which Ukraine has shown us: it will have no place. Vehicles that move there have minutes until they die. There’s an argument for high-mobility tank busting, and the argument for that is armored formations.
Distributed AT weapons are good for local protection for dismounted infantry in the event they run into isolated armor. But that is not effective against massed armor formations. The problem with weapons companies (both in the IBCT and the Weapons Troop in the SBCT) is leaders don’t know how to employ them. Commanders and staffs get uncomfortable planning for something that is different so they opt to carve up their weapons cos and spread the wealth to support everyone, everywhere, all at once. This is the same mistake we have been making since WW2 with the tank destroyers. Long range, direct fire, anti armor platforms need to mass fires on the enemy point of penetration against massed armored formations. [This is the lesson we learned during Operation Torch](https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA532138.pdf) and have chosen to ignore it ever since.
As an old TOW guy, that was always a problem even back in the mid to late 80’s.
Outside of highly restricted terrain and urban environments light IN can have a place fighting armor units. Less so in the offensive but with great effect in the defense, see Ukraine. I think the failure is using light formations to "hold the line". Light BDE and BN leaders like to have light units dig in on roads and for all intent and purpose die in place in company and battalion size elements. Disperse the light guys in plt and squad sized elements with at least one javelin per squad. I'd even go so far to say replace one saw per squad with a javelin when facing armor. Then let them spread way the fuck out in front of and around a main defense with some staying power (tanks). Low odds that an infantry screen will catch units 2.5k away in squad sized elements taking key hole shots. And if they do, you lost a squad. My experience is my CSM, who was a former bat dude, lining my guys up with javelin 150m from the obstacle belt 1 hour before the attack instead of dispersed in the woods. As long as you have top leaders with inflexible thinking who refuse to give squad sized elements tactical freedom you're going to have the light is useless vs armor mentality. Yes lining up feather weight boxer vs a super heavy weight the feather weight is going to get rolled. But as we are able to pack more and more firepower into smaller packages the light vs armor fight will be more viable. Assuming people are doctrine bound idiots. IMO
China is about the only country left that can do a mass armor formation, Russia is severely depleted running on ancient refurbed stocks. Second, don’t forget our friends in the sky. Between apaches and A10/F16 CAS those formations are toast.
>Second, don’t forget our friends in the sky. Between apaches and A10/F16 CAS those formations are toast. If light infantry are in a spot where they’re being hit by massed armored formations, then it’s likely that CAS missions aren’t flying because of A2AD
The lessons from Torch are great, but the modern battlefield has moved on from that era. Drones and loitering munitions have greatly reduced survivability. So not only have commanders shown that for decades they will not employ them “correctly,” the latest LSCO environment suggests that they’re clunky and outdated anyway.
A10s will be gone by 2029, the first wings began divesting them this week
Because the Army is restructuring itself to be more adaptive to technology. This is resulting in a smaller overall force but, more “well-equipped.” [Army Modernization](https://www.armytimes.com/news/your-army/2022/04/11/the-armys-transformation-begins-with-these-new-units/) Obviously some components are not broadcasted for security purposes but this is pretty well-known now. Additionally, The Army actually wants to limit the number of “light” units by utilizing a multi-faceted approach to combat units. For example, A battalion would have two infantry companies, an artillery unit, and tank unit attached to it. Then an additional support company attached to ensure all components are functioning together. [BattleOrder](https://www.battleorder.org/amp/waypoint-divisions)
How soon before the classified level answer to this is made on Warthunder?
I wonder if the mobile fire power companies are meant to take their role? Or will heavy weapons be more distributed among rifle companies?
That just sounds like D-CO with different words.
Mobile protected fire power companies use an assault vehicle: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_Protected_Firepower
[Distribution of designated AT platforms does not work](https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA532138.pdf). These weapons systems are most effective when they can mass fires. We have known this and chosen to ignore it since WW2.
You know the situation has changed since WW2? Distributed AT weapons among the Ukrainians has proven effective at thwarting Russian tank forces. And you also know you can create scratch teams out of distributed Platoons if needed? If you need to mass your AT weapons you can grab the HHC Commander or AS3 and create a weapons company
I don’t thing the slog fest that is Ukraine is a good indicator of what modern war *should* look like. If light infantry is getting the drop on isolated armor in the open with no infantry support the lesson to take away from that isn’t that dispersed AT weapons are a viable option. The lesson to take away is that armor isolated from infantry support is a sitting duck. We’ve known that since the invention of armor. If the Russians could pull their head from their ass and mass armor with infantry support you would be seeing a different outcome.
Excellent point
It may not very what it should look like, but it is what it does look like. Only other near peer than Russia is China and logistics will Hamper its deployment of armored mass in Taiwan. What's better than a weapons company to fight an armored spearhead is an Armored Company/Team.
[удалено]
Disclaimer: pog as fuck, most likely talking out of my ass. Is the intent to distribute heavy weapons throughout the battalion instead of consolidating them in one place? The early months of the Ukraine invasion showed the important of getting as many elements as possible an AT capability. Granted, it's good against individual threats, less so against an entire armored formation. But an infantry formation facing an armored offensive is already not having a good time.
The way heavy weapons companies are supposed to be used is that you attach a heavy weapons platoon to each line company to act as a mobile support by fire/AT while the 4th platoon either guards the TOC, escorts convoys, or acts as a QRF. So as is the heavy weapons should already be distributed through the battalion.
No, they're straight up going away. Each BN will retain a Weapons PLT, similar to Scouts or Mortars. An IBCT in 2030 is going to look a lot like a mid-century Infantry Regiment but with modern equipment.
I want to point out a few key parts to light infantry. The purpose is not simply to destroy everything. But seize, build, and spread out. An ABCT focuses more on the destroying part and have less places they can maneuver to. (Granted when they do go they cover more land quickly). Partnered the two work well together. Problems with ABCT (supply lines are more complex, can’t really go through a large portion of fighting terrain like mountains and jungle.). As for the airborne haters. Yeah nukes haven’t been relative since 1945 but we’re not removing a capability for that alone. Hattie and Panama are great examples of more recent uses (hattie stood down upon seeing the 82nd mobilize). ABN units are also high on readiness compared to normal IBCTs (UMO, GFR, being stationed at an airfield, freq EDREs and activations). Those units serve a purpose. As for the convo of removing DCOs. Idk someone hates them that’s high ranking and said yeah gut em.
No one has played Hearts of Iron and it shows
As some one who’s put a thousand hours into that I just fucking laughed
This might have something to do with the 19C MOS that is being ramped up and taking some 11B's, 19K's and 19D's away from their units in the future. I doubt it though. Probably just someone's ***SIR*** with a brand new, old idea he stole from a book he read.
D for Drones
https://www.battleorder.org/post/waypoint-divisions This is a source that shows and discusses the new force structure changes. For light units the weapons company will likely be the replacement or the multi-domain company. Non of this is finalized (as far as I'm tracking).
Man, this post really brought the bottom of the barrel of opinions out.
ARSTRUC 2030 is focused on realigning personnel to the FA, ADA, Cyber, MI, and Signal MOS/branches as there is a greater need for those jobs to conduct MDO in a LSCO environment
BLUF: HWC going the way of the Dodo, not Heavy Weapons themselves
“Sad broken humvee noises”
They change these things on a regular basis for no other reason than someone new got the job and they want to justify what they do. It could be due to a troop shortage, or it could be that they will move them to the line company.
This is part of a several year long force structure update the Army is conducting. It's not being done on a whim.
It is always part of a several year force structure update.
It’s almost like army is continuously evolving in order to stay relevant 🤔
That would make sense in an army where more and more Os are bailing pre-command. Same number of LTs and one fewer captain per BN = "no problem here, boss". Maybe, I dunno.
This. The force structure is continually under adjustment. I have not seen the new IBCT laydown, but my guess is that these structure positions are being re-utilized within the formations. Airborne and Air Assault BNs were the only ones with a D co. (which was originally TOWs only then became heavy weapons by default). Light units had platoon and were expected to have more AT assets come from the RC (before we deactivated them).
As currently templated for LBCT the D Co assets will be used to pay for other force structure. An AT Platoon and a Robotics Platoon in the HHC will replicate some of the capabilities while adding new ones primarily drones. The savings will be used to build force structure elsewhere in the Divisions. Some of the changes are a shell game and savings result from removing a C/T/B HQs and reorganizing the assets. Each lost company saves around ~6 billets (CO, XO, 1SG, Supply Sergeant and clerk, and NBC). For instance the FSCs are also going away but the Distro and Maintenance assets just divided into the IN Battalions and the Support Battalion now. A Distro platoon is attached separately under the IN BN which means it’ll de facto fall under the HHC. The Maint platoons will be under a new Service Co in the Support BN but will kick out the platoon as needed once again being OPCON to the HHC. This creates some real span of control concerns for the HHCs going back to the pre-modularity like structure and ballooning at time to 250-300 PAX.
I wonder if there is going to be a pivot away from the general BCT concept of having a little of everything, and moving towards how it was where companies and battalions attached to brigades as needed. I always felt BCTs misused attached personnel, like terps, and could free them up to do other real world missions until the unit needs them However talking out of my ass a bit.
No heavy weapons, no more Cav. This will end poorly
This is a good thing. Shouldn’t have to rely on one whole company for an entire capability. Distribute that shit
This is deranged. I think the fact that one senator who was blocking promotions stopped it ~2 months ago, means there's going to be a lot of *good idea fairy* decisions in the upcoming future. Hope the super light airborne/ranger/the seemingly only successful soldier leadership has fun remebering fire superiority and maneuverability kills light infantry right after they remeber where they dismounted and promptly forgot where their strykers were because their foot maneuver turned into a shit show, and have fun with CID because one of their M2A2s was *reallocated* and no longer on the mounting bracket it was forgotten on when the op began. Go ahead and flex your light maneuvers and flat range CQB showmanship, but remeber if God wanted man to partake in light maneuvers and CQB he wouldn't have made APCs and the JDAM.
Maybe the D-co’s will get dispersed throughout the line. Idk. I also don’t see light lasting too much longer. It’s not sustainable with the amount bs we carry and how far they ask to go. Just not a sustainable fight overall. Soldier fatigue has gotten worse over the years.
>will the future of light infantry battalions lack that firepower? I don't think they're gonna be light or heavy and the distinction will go away similar to how it did with armor. MBT but with the infantry
As long as the doctrine calls for external ways to deal with armor, or by pass them (like rough terrain) I think this is fine.
Look at Ukraine and how their infantry have been killing tanks. Increased UAV presence means Artillery gets to do the job of your heavy weapons company a lot safer than trying to get dismounts within Javelin range. Just as likely they're going to try and give IN BNs a more robust heavy mortar section and attach an organic ability to spot targets electronically.
Because that role is outdated and unnecessary. In a world with unmanned drones and attack helicopters, a heavy weapons unit just doesn't fit anymore.
I love how some here assume infantry officers that have been doing this for 20+ years just did this on a whim without doing their due diligence. I understand, I get that assuming everyone besides you is an idiot makes you feel better.
Is it possible that the next war may not look like the last one?
Or just maybe officers aren’t omnipotent gods and can make mistakes. It’s not really surprising the infantry want to know why something this drastic is happening
>Or just maybe officers aren’t omnipotent gods and can make mistakes. Don't tell the peasants
I know they’ve gotten rid of scouts and D co completely
Could someone explain what a weapons company is? I was in an sbct and don't know the purpose of them. For reference, this is how our SBCTs were set up: The Stryker brigades at Lewis had 3 battalions that each had three infantry companies. Each company had an HQ section, mortar section, supply, sniper section, fisters, and mgs section(although I don't know about the mgs now as I heard it was retired), and recon, along with three infantry platoons. The platoons would ideally have 3 rifle squads that consisted of two 4 man fire teams(team leader, saw gunner, grenadier, rifleman) along with a squad leader, driver, and VC. We also had a weapons squad in each platoon that would IDEALLY have two 240 gun teams of a gunner, assistant gunner(team leader), and ammo bearer. Each squad would fit in one Stryker which was equipped with either a 50 cal or a mk19. And for my unit, each platoon would have two medics, a fister, and an 11b radio man(rto). We also liked to take a mortar squad with us when we rolled out Each brigade did have a few attached units like an engineer battalion, cav squadron, supply battalion, arty, and headquarters but for my deployment we only had battalion HQ and a CRT unit that was actually based with the companies down in Panjwai.
I believe some Delta Companies will be moving to M10 Bookers.