Infantry Section Organization

[Mountie]

How is the basic rifle section (mechanized in the LAV-III) structured and can it be improved upon?  If so how?  I know the organization of the section, but how is it structured in battle?  More specifically the dismounted element.  How does the 7-member dismounted element fight?  Does it operate similar to a US fire-team structure with two 3-member teams plus the section commander?  I've read where the senior corporal acts as the dismouted 2i/c (section 3i/c of sorts). 

I've been reading a few papers on section/squad tactics and the argument between the 8-member British section where the section commander and 2i/c each command a 4-man fire-team and the 9-man US squad where the squad leader is independent of the two 4-man fire teams.  The opinions seemed to favour having the section commander independent and free to control the section and not worry about controlling his fire-team as well.  What is the opinion of those in the infantry?

 

[canadian_moose]

1x Lav Driver
1x Lav Gunner
1x Sect Comd
1x Sect 2ic
4x Rifleman
2x C9 Gunner

 

[Mountie]

As I said I know the basic organization.  How do the dismounts structure themselves?  The typical 8-member rifle section is divided into two 4-member groups.  But with only 7 dismounts I'm just curious how they group.  One group of 3 and one of 4, two of 3 plus the section commander independent of the group? 

 

[GAP]

1x Lav Driver
1x Lav Gunner
1x Sect Comd
1x Sect 2ic
4x Rifleman
2x C9 Gunner

Others can correct me, but if you look at the positions above, someone(s) has to stay with the LAV, the rest breaks down quite nicely....

 

[vonGarvin]

With the LAV crewed, there are 7 dismounts (yes, I know, basic math).  There are many ways to skin that cat, and the thing to not forget is that the LAV is an integral part of the section.  Some section commanders will use the LAV as a rolling firebase on an attack.  Other times, the LAVs may be part of a platoon firebase as the section manoeuvres to a flank.  So, essentially, you have either an intimate (integral is probably a better term) LAV or you are dispersed.  If integral support, the LAV can walk you in, with the section commander usually dismounted and controlling the section, that is, the LAV and the six other dismounts.  If dispersed, it's similar, except that the LAV is out of the picture (the immediate picture, anyway), and the Section Commander will manoeuvre solo, controlling two 3 man groups.
In defensive battles, again, the section commander will either have the LAV close or far (especially if they are grouped under the LAV captain on firing lines, countermoves tasks, etc).  In any case, the rifles and LMGs, if employed properly, are sited around a support weapon (MG, AT Missile det, whatever) and the section commander will have within his section position more than just his six other guys. 
While trying to give an answer, the answer really is "depends".  There are many options, and in some cases, the Section Commander will remain mounted and crew command the LAV.
I hope this helps rather than hinders.

 

[Mountie]

That helps.  Thanks.  Just wondered if the loss of the 8th dismount played havock with the assault group/fire team doctrine. 

 

[Mountie]

I'll pose another question for discussion's sake.  If room in the LAV-III and PYs weren't a factor would you prefer an even dismounted section of 8 with two 4-man groups, or an odd section with 7 or 9 allowing the section commander to be independent of the two groups?  This was the topic of the paper I read recently.  The argument was whether the section commander was more effective independent of the two groups or while leading one group himself.  Some said that leading a group (or in the US case a fire team) limited the section commander (squad leader) from effectively controlling the section (squad).  I assume a Canadian light infantry section is still 8 strong?

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Does each 7 man section have 2 or more M203s?

 

[dangerboy]

Usually two M203 per Sect.

 

[Mountie]

Does each 7 man section have 2 or more M203s?

It has whatever you want it to have.  This is just for discussion, put what you want in it. 

I was thinking something like:

Section Commander (Sgt) - C7A2
2 x Fire Team Leader (Cpl) - C7A2 & M203
2 x Light Machine Gunner (Pte) - C9A2
2 or 4 x Rifleman (Pte) - C7A2

 

[McG]

Does each 7 man section have 2 or more M203s?

Two per.  One interesting Russian Lesson Learned from Grozny was that every rifle should have an underbarrel grenade launcher.  On that note, they use a 30 mm so the weapon and ammo would not be as much a load burden on the carrier.  At the same time, if all four riflemen were rifle grenadiers, then the ammunition could be distributed across more people.  It would be possible to get a higher rate of grenade fire in situations where it was more appropriate than rifle fire, and (especially in complex terrain) it will be twice as likely that the first person to see an appropriate M203 target will also be an M203 gunner (through this shortening the time from sensing to killing).

 

[Fusaki]

Two per.  One interesting Russian Lesson Learned from Grozny was that every rifle should have an underbarrel grenade launcher.  On that note, they use a 30 mm so the weapon and ammo would not be as much a load burden on the carrier.  At the same time, if all four riflemen were rifle grenadiers, then the ammunition could be distributed across more people.  It would be possible to get a higher rate of grenade fire in situations where it was more appropriate than rifle fire, and (especially in complex terrain) it will be twice as likely that the first person to see an appropriate M203 target will also be an M203 gunner (through this shortening the time from sensing to killing).

I respectfully disagree.

A 203 adds significant weight to the rifle, therefore slowing the time required for the soldier to take a sight picture and reducing the effectiveness of the 5.56.

As well, there was a Reservist in Pet who accidentally kicked a 40mm UXO out in front of J-Tower a few years back. He lost his foot to the accident and became a story that NCOs tell troops to illustrate the point that you need to watch where you're stepping out in that part of the training area. But my point is this: If you can step on a 40mm bomb and only lose your foot, how close does it need to detonate to the bad guy in order to take him out of the fight? If you were going to drop the caliber from 40mm to 30mm in order to save weight, how much more lethality are you losing on top of that?

Another consideration is the 25mm Cannon. A mechanized section has quite a bit of firepower. Does it really need a couple more 203s to throw HE at bunkered targets when HEI-T is doing the job faster, more lethally, at longer ranges? I'd prefer the dismounts to focus on doing what the LAV can't do.

Personally, I think the x2 C9s and x2 M203s with the dismounts are good to go. I'd also like to see the other two dismounted riflemen get C8FTHBs, CCOs, and 9mm pistols. That way you get two fireteams of C9+203 and a fireteam for searching/handling PWs/first in the breach/ect. The Section Commander can tack himself onto whatever team he feels he's needed most at.

Just my .02

 

[vonGarvin]

Another consideration is the 25mm Cannon. A mechanized section has quite a bit of firepower. Does it really need a couple more 203s to throw HE at bunkered targets when HEI-T is doing the job faster, more lethally, at longer ranges? I'd prefer the dismounts to focus on doing what the LAV can't do.

Consider the times when dispersed from the LAV.  From all accounts that I've heard, the M 203 is the way to go.

 

[MJP]

I am in total agreement with wonderbread.  M203 are a nice thing and a great addition to the firefight, but you need guys in the section with no additional burdens on their weapons.  Think of the close terrain and built up areas that we currently fight in.  It is much much easier for that number one and hopefully two in a stack to clear a room a compound when they are with C8FTHBs with no M203 attached  The slower C7/8 w/ M203 & the section Comd fill in as 3 and 4.

Besides from personal experience I found our 40mm ammo lackluster especially when compared to the American ammo.  They sure scare the crap out of the Taliban and what not but unless you get a close hit your not inflicting real damage although you do keep their heads down from the blasts.

Want more boom bring more M-72s.....they rock and everyone from the section commander down should be carrying 1-2.

 

[-rb]

M203 = good to go ... IMHO. Although the kill radius may not be that great they can certainly be employed in other fashions...flushing people out from behind walls where you can't get a clean shot or through doors and windows etc. Is two per section enough? I think so, just bring twice as many bombs as you think you need

In regards to the m-72, couldn't agree more, I wouldn't replace the 203 but definitely agree they should be factored in to the equation more than they are now (IE. a bit of an afterthought in many cases)


As far as an ideal section breakdown, I think the real key is the flexibility that a section can have, not all scenarios are going to enable the optimum number of troops to be divided as per a set doctrine ... a strong section commander should be able to coordinate and complete said task regardless if he is part of a rifle team or the overall dismount commander so to speak.

cheers.

 

[a_majoor]

Going back a really long way......

In WWI the standard formation was a platoon, built around the Lewis gun, his ammunition carriers and a team of rifle grenadiers or "bombers". There were riflemen, but their primary duty was to protect the machine gun and the bombers on the move, and provide covering fire while they were reloading etc.

So much of the dismounted section's firepower is now concentrated on the C-9 and the M-203 that we can see a somewhat similar situation; the riflemen essentially serve a bodyguards for the C-9 and M-203, the other primary duty they are best suited for is the assault and room clearing (where their relative lack of encumberance helps). While this is perhaps an overgeneralization, this has been the topic of some discussion and experimentation with our allies, the USMC has experimented with reorganizing the platoon and creating what in our terms would be called a "firebase section" with all the C-9's grouped together. Other organizations are also possible.

The current organization of the section is balanced and relatively flexible (the section commander can shuffle weapons around if it seems desirable, and platoon commanders can do the same thing if they feel it would be advantagious), it is hard to see how it could be changed without making major changes to our equipment (such as a smaller, lighter grenade/grenade launcher, or replacing the C-9) or drastic changes to the organization (like a 3X3 section of 9 men, or something else).

A lot of this has been discussed in other threads, especially Infantry of Tomorrow, so reviewing that thread might bring out points of interest.

 

[George Wallace]

............it is hard to see how it could be changed without making major changes to our equipment (such as a smaller, lighter grenade/grenade launcher, .................

Or we go back to using the Rifle Grenade, which every soldier could carry and fire.  The French have a Rifle Grenade that does not require the use of blanks, and can be used by firing Ball.

 

[ArmyRick]

The way I see it, the current section works. 7 dismounts is the same as 8 dismounted with a casualty. So lets not get hamstrung by numbers.

The dismounts can be configured in different ways
(1) 2 x 3 man teams with a C9, M203 in each team
(2) If assaulting a building, shake it up within the platoon so that C9s form a fire base and the 5 remaining soldiers in each section, become a stack.

There is far better 40mm grenade launchers than our hefty peice of kit.

I like the M72 but I do wonder if they cannot design a war head to function more like a HEP or a HESH round (HEAT more ideal for penetration and blast). These other systems are good for just blast effect.

 

[Gasplug]

I like the M72 but I do wonder if they cannot design a war head to function more like a HEP or a HESH round (HEAT more ideal for penetration and blast). These other systems are good for just blast effect.

I wonder if anything ever came out of the idea of developing a thermobaric warhead for the M-72 or at least an 84mm round for the Carl-G?  It certainly was something DRES and then-SNC Tec were "informally" discussing back in 2000-2002???  That would certainly make the M72 more effective in other roles.

Cheers,

Gasplug 

 

[McG]

A 203 adds significant weight to the rifle,

This is basically what I expected and why I noted the weight of our larger weapon.  Just because something works for another military with their kit, it does not mean that it will work for our military with our kit.

If you were going to drop the caliber from 40mm to 30mm in order to save weight, ...

At this time, I see no reason to change the caliber of our grenade launchers.  I wouldn't even have the information to make a side-by-side comparison of 30 mm to 40 mm  ... but it would be interesting to see that comparison.

Another consideration is the 25mm Cannon. A mechanized section has quite a bit of firepower.

What of the dismounted section or the airmobile section?

... there was a Reservist in Pet who accidentally kicked a 40mm UXO out in front of J-Tower a few years back. He lost his foot to the accident and became a story that NCOs tell troops to illustrate the point that you need to watch where you're stepping out in that part of the training area. But my point is this: If you can step on a 40mm bomb and only lose your foot, how close does it need to detonate to the bad guy in order to take him out of the fight? ...

As the grenade is designed to injure through frag, it is possible that this individual's foot covered and absorbed much of the frag.  This would have saved injury across the rest of his body and possibly to others around.  Had the grenade not been directly obscured by a foot, it is possible that it would have produced frag injuries large enough to take another pers or two out of battle (provided they were not doped on opium)

... it is also possible that our ammo for the 40 mm is an underachiever, but I wouldn't know this.