Infantry used to make up 70-80 percent of an army but due to industrialization and mechanization, armies eventually replaced a lot of muscle power with machines. So ten guys with a shovel become one guy with an excavator, an infantry platoon suddenly has the firepower that a company used to have, airplanes, tanks, long-range artillery are all in the broader sense labor-saving devices. You will always need poor bloody infantry but logistics and mechanized forces tend to become much more important the further past the industrial revolution you go.
Back in WW2, Ernie Pyle phrased it as "substituting machines for lives." And it does exactly what it says on the tin.
In 1914, a British infantry division had 24 Vickers machine guns, assigned two to a battalion.
Today, a US Army platoon has two M240 machine guns, plus 6 smaller M249s, and that’s not counting the .50s at battalion level.
Not to mention every grunt carries what is technically a select fire weapon, even if they are rarely used that way. The option is available in SHTF situations. Even an M16/M4 on semi is still a huge RoF increase over an Enfield.
And every platoon also has numerous underslung or stand-alone grenade launchers, ATGMs or small recon drones. As we're seeing in Ukraine, those are all force multipliers. Plus on-call air strikes and artillery.
My armchair general opinion is that microdrones are the single most important development for the infantry squad since either reliable body armor, camouflage uniforms, or something with an engine to ride in. (Pick your favorite.) I can't even begin to describe how valuable squad-level reconnaissance like that is, but luckily I don't need to. We're already seeing the benefit.
Like sure, the Microsoft hololens stuff seems like sci-fi (rather, it will once they fix it) but that's still limited by being strapped to a guy's head. That can't compare to a floating vantage point a dozen meters overhead and a hundred meters to the front or flank.
I really wonder what's going on with the militarized Hololens. I personally have used the Hololens 2 for business purposes and I don't feel the strain described by soldiers in the news article about it.
I do suppose experiences are not built equal, and that what you expect from a technology changes when your life begins to depend on it. Also I can definitely see how there might be additional strain in low light environments with those flashy lights for Augmented Reality view.
But if they get the Hololens capability working for the individual soldier, it would be such a boom in terms of information flow to the infantry. Right now drone view is only viewable by one person and their monitor, but imagine if that person can then share that screen to all of the squad mates to notify them of where the enemy is emplaced.
Not only that, imagine a small GPS map present in view of the solder, and the augmented reality presenting IFF colors for all the nearby infantry to reduce potential fratricide.
If the military figures out some kind of HUD like Hololens, they should be able to do better than just sending the drone camera feed to everyone.
Drones with thermal cameras should be able to mark targets, track them, and broadcast that location data in real time. HUD users could then just see their enemies’ locations by looking in the right direction. Maybe as a red box scaled by how far away the target is
I feel like they’ve been working on something like that but I can’t recall exactly
Watch The Peripheral on Amazon, it has a very good (fictional obviously) look at that concept.
A squad of soldiers who are networked together, and have a drone overhead marking targets, just demolishing an attacking force. It’s in the second episode I believe, and there’s likely clips on YouTube.
How long do you have to wear hololens? Now think of an infantryman wearing a bullet proof helmet on top of the weight of hololens, and doing it for 12 hours straight. Plus, to ruggedize hololens, you probably have to add even more weight.
Even more than that, you can look over the next hill, or check out a compound from a kilometer or more away.
You can fly high and not be noticed, or go buzz in close, potentially causing a well concealed foe to break cover and shoot at you.
I mean you could go peer in the window of a house if need be, or closely check out a ditch.
I could also see a use as radio relays in steep mountain valleys.
I wasn't sure about the specifics, but yeah, a kilometer range would be incredible.
The radio relay idea is inspired. Do they have the comms equipment for that built in, or do you mean more like that could carry an antenna connection up real high?
Let’s put it this way on range. I’ve got a $400 bottom of the decent hobby range drone.
I definitely have not taken it out at least a km or two away, because that would be illegal mr FAA man. Definitely not. For sure. Admittedly that didn’t happen over water, so perfect line of sight.
A larger more expensive model could do much further, and with worse line of sight.
I don’t know if any drones are set up to do that, but I can’t see why you couldn’t. It’s getting satellite signals and talking back and forth to the ground for a controls and the video link. It would be some more weight and power to send stuff on, but perfectly possible.
Look at YouTube videos of the DJI Atava, that’s one that you could potentially put through a window and search a house with, at least if the doors are open.
Drone resupply? Payloads aren’t large but a few kilos of ammo would probably help in a pinch.
Though possibly not more than the same drone dropping the same weight in grenades on whatever you’re shooting at.
This is an interesting comparison. Soooo… for the M240 comparison, *just* counting them assigned to line platoons, would put the count at 6 per company, 18 per battalion and 54 per brigade. Assuming a triangular division that’s 162 per division!
That being said, every regular infantry company should have at least one more 240 per company for the HQ/mortars. The HHC then has 4 for its mortar platoon and idk how many on POG trucks. Same with the forward support company. The Weapons Company will also have one 240 mounted with each ITAS.
So you can more than double the 164 per division number. That being said, those vickers were water cooled, and allowed incredibly long rates of fire without barrel changes, they were also on much better mounts. With that being considered, maybe we’d better compare them to a .50 for comparison. In an IBCT every rifle platoon has a .50 assigned for mounting on a HQ vehicle and then the Weapons Company has 4x Assault Platoons with a .50 each. I actually don’t really know if/how many .50’s HHC is MTOE’d off the top of my head, but let’s just say it’s only 1. That’s *at least* 8 per battalion, 24 per battalion and 72 per triangular division not including the support or aviation brigade.
I think you’re overrating the Vickers, honestly. Water cooling went away because the quick-change barrel was just better. A good crew does not take long enough to change a barrel to be that relevant tactically. I’m also not sure that the difference in tripods is that significant, if it exists.
As for all the extra machine guns in the ORBAT, I didn’t count them because 1) I had already matched like for like, with 2 rifle-caliber machine guns, and 2) a lot of those extra guns are meant for defense of the attached units. A machine gun on a truck is there to protect the truck, not attack the enemy.
Also, I looked at ATP 3.21-20, and I can’t find most of the guns you cite. All I can see are the 2 240s per infantry platoon, with the weapons company having at least 22 more.
>I think you’re overrating the Vickers, honestly. Water cooling went away because the quick-change barrel was just better.
I have no idea really, I’ve never shot a water cooled machine gun.
What I do know is that if you want to assualt with a belt fed weapon like an M240 (anything like it, M60/MG42, IDC) it can’t be water cooled and quick change barrels allows you to keep firing the gun even after you’ve turned your barrel into a glowing bar of steel.
I don’t think quick change barrels are necessarily better in the context of WWI, especially considering their spectate hassles, like zeroing. They’re a compromise to make the machine guns mobile.
>A good crew does not take long
I agree.
>enough to change a barrel to be that relevant tactically.
Errrr… I’m a weapons squad leader in a rifle platoon in a rifle company in an infantry battalion in an IBCT.
What you mean by tactically depends if I agree with you or not. You can certainly flub a barrel change. You also only have so long (many rounds) until both your barrels are ridiculously hot and they’ll burn through your barrel bags/have malfunctions/lose accuracy/become dangerous to the user/glow so bright under night vision the gunner can’t see targets.
>I’m also not sure that the difference in tripods is that significant, if it exists.
I noticed a significant difference between the M122A1 tripods and the M192 tripods we use now and both are lighter than what a Vickers would be mounted on and don’t offer all the capabilities a vickers had. Once again, it’s a compromise. This also comes with the army no longer having ammo bearers when they added the second anti-armor team (and now a Carl G) so I see why it makes sense.
>As for all the extra machine guns in the ORBAT, I didn’t count them because 1) I had already matched like for like, with 2 rifle-caliber machine guns, and 2) a lot of those extra guns are meant for defense of the attached units. A machine gun on a truck is there to protect the truck, not attack the enemy.
First off, no need to get defensive, I thought of it as a interesting topic to dive into.
Second, I can’t imagine those vickers were being used partially “offensively,” like on the assault, they’re too heavy/bulky.
Third, they’re both rifle caliber, but used very differently. For instance, vickers were used for long range indirect fire to use their beaten zone to suppress trenches at several kilometers.
That’s simply not trained or practiced with the US Army snd M240’s. That’s more an M2/MK19 kinda gig.
>Also, I looked at ATP 3.21-20, and I can’t find most of the guns you cite.
I’m not going to look at it, I know not everything in a pub is accurate and I can literally just go look in peoples arms rooms if I wanted.
Each rifle company has three weapons squads with 2x M240L and the HQ/Mortar Section (I forget which is MTOE’d it) has an M240L/B and there’s an M2 for the company to mount on a truck. (I could see the argument that the HQ M240/M2 are purely defensive)
The battalion mortar platoon has one for mounting on each of their four truck towing 120mm mortar trailers. Idk the exact number of other 240/M2’s for the other HHC trucks. (I could see the argument that the HHC M240/M2’s are purely defensive)
The Weapons Company has four Assault Platoons with five trucks each. One thin skin for the PSG, two ITAS trucks with an M240 on a mount next to the ITAS and then one each M2 and M19 truck mount on CROWS. (None of these weapons are “defensive”)
The Forward Support Company has some number of M240/M2’s, I just can’t remember how many they are supposed to have. (I could see the argument that their M240/M2’s are purely defensive)
This is all more to your point though that highly capable weapons are just thrown to the support dudes “just incase.” Though those elements certainly have needed them historically.
>All I can see are the 2 240s per infantry platoon, with the weapons company having at least 22 more.
22 what? Belt feds? Belt feds 7.62 and higher? Just 240’s?
I didn’t mean to come off as defensive, merely explaining my logic.
Water-cooling mattered in a context where colonial wars were still a Big Thing. Battles like Isandlwana, Rorke’s Drift, and Omdurman were at the forefront of military theory. Light machine guns were intended for cavalry, not assault troops. To give you the feel, the Vickers was the lightest of the pre-War Maxims, at ~20 lbs. Add a 250 round belt, and a gallon of water hanging off the end. This isn’t to say that there aren’t situations where that level of sustained firepower doesn’t come in handy, but the solution is more guns, and maybe more spare barrels if sufficiently forewarned. And/or a bucket of water to really cool things down quickly.
For tactically, I mean that an MG is pretty much always going to be firing in bursts. Changing a barrel shouldn’t take much longer than changing a belt. And both should be faster than pouring another gallon of water into the jacket.
Beaten zones via indirect fire is as much a matter of training and doctrine as equipment. But as you say, we have more appropriate equipment now, which is why .30 MGs aren’t trained for it.
Sure, Tommy wasn’t hauling a Vickers across No Man’s Land to directly shoot Germans, but he was using it from his trench to suppress the German trench. It’s an offensive use in that it directly supports an attack. Meanwhile to use the pintle gun on a mortar carrier means either putting your mortars in the line of fire or abandoning them to their fate, both bad ideas.
The pub l referenced lists the strength of a weapons company as 4 platoons, each of two sections, each of two squads. So three vehicles per section (2 squads and a leader vehicle), plus a platoon leader’s vehicle and thin-skin for the psg. 7 combat vehicles per platoon means 28 for the company. The given load out was 2 TOWs, 2 Mk19, and 2 M2 per company, with an unspecified number of M240. 28 vehicles minus 6 equals 22.
If I had to break it down, MGs in the infantry platoons and weapons units are offensive; their primary goal involves taking the fight to the enemy. The MGs of the mortar platoon or the HHC are defensive, in that their goal is protect this specific thing. Getting brought to the enemy instead of waiting for the enemy to come to them.
Thanks for all the info man.
Water cooling wasn’t important in the trenches to hold off massed infantry assaults from the trenches?
>The pub l referenced lists the strength of a weapons company as 4 platoons, each of two sections, each of two squads. So three vehicles per section (2 squads and a leader vehicle), plus a platoon leader’s vehicle and thin-skin for the psg. 7 combat vehicles per platoon means 28 for the company. The given load out was 2 TOWs, 2 Mk19, and 2 M2 per company, with an unspecified number of M240. 28 vehicles minus 6 equals 22.
I see where you’re coming from after looking at it. I think it’s just a weird way of describing the situation. The PSG is the platoon trains, the PL leads his vehicle and another to form a section and the section leader has his vehicle and another to make his. So it’s only five vehicles.
[This](https://www.benning.army.mil/infantry/magazine/issues/2016/AUG-DEC/pdf/16) and [this](https://www.benning.army.mil/infantry/magazine/issues/2014/Oct-Mar/Halverson.html) article talk about how the company and platoons are arranged.
Edit: first link has a random ) in it, so here’s the link https://www.benning.army.mil/infantry/magazine/issues/2016/AUG-DEC/pdf/16)Freeman_HeavyWeapons.pdf
>Water cooling wasn’t important in the trenches to hold off massed infantry assualts?
Important, but not essential is the best way I would describe it. The moonscape terrain did it’s fair share to break up waves, and in a lot of cases there just wasnt enough time in an assault for a gun to overheat.
So, cooling was essential; it’s a machine gun. But there’s a reason that water cooling jackets fell by the wayside once people figured out the quick-change barrel.
>Today, a US Army platoon has two M240 machine guns,
Good luck trying to fire a hundred thousand rounds a day with them like the Vickers could do. It was a beast - an elegant weapon for a for a more civilized age.
Can't see why you couldn't if you swapped barrels enough.
Through the real reason is that sort of thing isn't needed and is a massive waste of ammo.
A couple 81mm mortars could have done the same job with way less ammo.
Infantry is only part of what we need to consider.
In the maneuver warfighting function (WFF), you have infantry, armor, cav. The people who kill people. These are like the infantrymen of old, but they have things like bradleys, tanks, and strykers in addition. They perform the "close with and destroy" part of the Army's mission.
All other parts of the mission command doctrine (ie, the rest of the Army) support this function.
There are a lot of warfighting functions that support maneuver. Here they are, listed roughly in order by how much equipment and flesh is required to make them happen.
The easiest to wrap one's brain around is sustainment. Food, water, ammunition, and all other classes of supply. This includes maintenance and transportation.
Less obvious is fires. These people support the maneuver by causing large swathes of earth to spontaneously explode. Interestingly, part of cyber is in this WFF too.
Next is protection. This includes CBRN protection, military police, air defense, etc. They secure the division rear, round up prisoners, and do the USR. The other half of cyber lives here.
Second to last is command and control. This includes signal. Signal is important because maneuver commanders are generally not fluent with computers or radios, fires is useless without them, sustainment happens at the speed of a mule train, and intelligence cannot gather intelligence without a network.
Then we have intelligence. There is a very large intelligence apparatus to help the maneuver commander best decide where to maneuver. This is important because maneuver commanders are not omniscient.
So anyway. You know how a spear is just one tiny, useless chunk of iron without the shaft, trained thrower, eyeballs, and a field to throw at? It's a lot like that.
Source: It came to me in a dream, which I later published as ADP 3-0.
>Source: It came to me in a dream, which I later published as ADP 3-0.
As a recent CGSC grad, this explains sooooooo much.
Good overview otherwise. People underestimate the "tooth to tail" ratio required for proper modern military operations at brigade and above. As someone much older and wiser than me once said: amateurs talk strategy, professionals talk logistics.
You may find this paper (it's quite long, but I think quite good) interesting: https://www.armyupress.army.mil/portals/7/combat-studies-institute/csi-books/mcgrath_op23.pdf
It doesn't ask the question at the infantry vs non-infantry level, but at the combat arms vs logistics vs headquarters level. I think siblings posters have done a good job especially explaining the other combat arms, so I think it's still relevant.
One bit that this paper would indicate is that even back in WW1 (which the paper justifiably defines as the start of the modern US army) 'only' 53-65% of the AEF were combat units. In WW2 European Theater, it was ~40% combat units. The combat arm percentage has been in slow steady decline since then, with significant growth in both logistical and headquarters functions.
Some bits to consider with respect to the growth of logistical and headquarters functions. Since WW1 (and I guess really before), there as been a continual trend towards 'emptying of the battlefield'. Front line combat densities have decreased as weapons lethality and targeting/sensor system capability have increased. For a fixed number of combat units, if you increase their dispersion, their logistic load will increase (you have to move supplies over a larger distance - makes sense ya?). Also the intrinsic logistical burden of units have generally grown as systems become more complex. Infantry men don't just need bullets, food and water now, they'll also need batteries.
But also the load on your headquarters functions will increase as well. You need to integrate information coming from wider, more diverse sources, it's harder to keep tabs on your subordinate units - so you need to bring in more headquarters functions. Also, the advance in IT and communications technology makes is viable for higher level commands to keep track of subordinate units to a greater degree of detail and frequency than before. And there's no organizational structure in the world that can withstand the crushing pressure of decades of middle managers being put in a position where they could micro-manage more.
I was 100% with you until the very last sentence.
I think there's more nuance to it. A battalion commander can't conceivably synthesize and act on all the information that flows into an infantry battalion, much less anything more technical.
Yes, staffs are huge these days. They seem ridiculous, but I absolutely promise there's method to the madness, especially once you get out of garrison and start piling on all the extra duties that S1, S2, FUOPS, and special staff do in theater.
G6/J6 though, we need to just cleanse with fire and start anew. Except maybe keep GAIT, GAIT is pretty cool.
They focus on automations and networks.
It's fine and dandy, but 90% of the army needs to run on VHF and HF radio, because the next war is going to be in a space denied/degraded environment. That means we won't have enterprise networks.
The other thing is *some countries* really like snipping undersea cables. You can get away with ad-hoc networks using strategic-level transmission (undersea cables, long distance fiber, civilian microwave relays), you can get away using exclusively space-based transmission, but you can't get away with both unavailable without *really* training radio.
Internet was literally designed to survive the nuclear holocaust and was a military project that leaked to civilian use. It has so much redundancy, error correction etc. than it's simply impossible to kill.
You can run enterprise networks on a [god damn pidgeon](https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2549).
Internet protocol will be the last way of communication that will stop working. You can transmit it using any medium and any technology and mix & match and it will all work flawlessly together.
Your good ol' backpack of suffering radio with frequency hopping already does internet. It's a digital packet radio. All you need is a cable to plug it into a router and you can get email spam in the middle of nowhere.
I'm a signal officer. 9 years of training and experience, as well as broadening into other fields, went into my comment.
You might be sure. But that doesn't make you right.
Pigeons are also notably one-way. You may or may not know that.
Radio is also one-way. So is telephone, copper, fiber, semaphores, morse and horse messengers. Simplex, half-duplex and duplex must be unfamiliar concepts to you? Just get 2 pigeons for full duplex communication.
I used to teach this to cadets for a living along with doing some research on the side. Apparently you weren't one of my students because this is 'introduction to radio networks' material. Nowadays they buy software defined radios.
Just because you aren't aware of the underlying fundamentals and technologies doesn't mean they don't exist. Even for AN/PRC-77 there are digital to analog converters to push internet packets through it.
How do you think all of those fancy tactical tablets and smartphones with fancy real time map markers and messaging work? Satellite? lol.
Edit edit:
#WHAT HAPPENS TO HOMING PIGEONS WHEN WE JUMP TOC, HUH???
Anyway.
Please bear with me whilst I quote myself:
>but you can't get away with both unavailable without *really* training radio.
An expeditionary *intranet* is not the same as the strategic *internet*. I'm not going to explain DoDIN or enclaves to you because it's beneath me. Explaining GAIT to you is also beneath me.
What I will explain is that the enclaves required to synchronize maneuver and do all the other functions of signal are dependent on a precious few RHNs that have hard-wired access to DoDIN. They are well known, and not a particular secret.
So let's say you set up a THN. Now you have an expeditionary hub node, right? No. You still need routing through RHNs for reachback. Even still, THNs depend on satellite.
Can I use a CNR gateway and HCLOS to establish an ad-hoc network within a brigade? Absolutely. Will I have reachback without strategic internet or satcom? Maybe. Depends on what I have available from an ESB.
Can an ESB support reachback transmission for every brigade in a division? Oh fucking hell no. So what do I have? HF, VHF.
>network packet over PRC-77
No shit? And here I was thinking TAC-CHAT and AFATDS over HF worked by a tiny man in the box shouting through the radio waves. Don't insult me. Even if you have a mesh LAN over CNR, that *doesn't help you with reachback.*
Now. Back to quoting myself. The reason CNR/radio is important is because *now,* all waveforms are exclusively digital because of the encryption requirement. Even SINCGARS is digital, wow! Now. Without DoDIN wired into my CPN, without GAIT, and without satellite because of absence of head-end or the bird, *I still need reachback transmission.*
How do I get that?
Radio. As discussed previously.
Also, the mappy thingy is called FBCB2/BFT/JBC-P, depending on when we're talking. Yes, it runs on c-band SATCOM. No, I did not mention that at any time, because it's not directly relevant.
Now. If I wanted to be bitched at by retiree-washouts who have too much shit floating in their brains to be useful, I'd join my local CAP squadron or the rotary club.
Edit edit edit: I'm so sorry, I got pissed off and forgot to tie my ideas together neatly.
The overall main point is that while I can build networks within a brigade, and maybe within a division, space based infrastructure (all bands) and ground based infrastructure (support the space based and other routes of transmission) are critically vulnerable. Without those, I'm left with digital radio for reachback capability to corps (maybe) and theater/MACOM headquarters (definitely). This is a significant gap because the training isn't at a point where we can rely on these things to perform that function.
Apart from the explanation here, there are also another factor that aren't mentioned but it's necessary to be mentioned:
The increasing distinction between military world and civilian world.
In the past, war is essentially a nation-level undertaking. The US spent **44%** of GDP on the military during WW2. A society like this is essentially undergoing a national reorientation - All aspects of the entire country, if they are not going to war, then they support the war.
Hence logistic & "super POG job / REMF" wise, there can be a lot of overlaps between the military and civilian world. This result in the military can devote most of their effort into combat arms or combat support arms, and reduce "super POG / REMF" jobs by using civilians, either directly or indirectly. Like using non military personnel for mail, burial, etc.
Today, there is no such thing. Despite the "bloated" military spending, the US only spent 3. 3% of its GDP to the military today, and there's more emphasis in separation between the two. The goal is that the civilian world should be as undisturbed as possible, "The military is at war, America is at the mall" kind of thing.
Hence the military will also needs their clerks, cooks and other "super POG / REMF" personnel, including jobs that in theory can be outsourced but no, to be also from the military, which adds more of such jobs.
I’m just an outside observer, but I would assume that most active Army personnel are doing skilled jobs that take years of training like radar operators or mechanics. The current infantry force is probably fine for the low intensity engagements the Army assumes it’ll be in.
If we get into a great power war it’ll fall on citizens to provide the vast majority of infantry.
Infantry used to make up 70-80 percent of an army but due to industrialization and mechanization, armies eventually replaced a lot of muscle power with machines. So ten guys with a shovel become one guy with an excavator, an infantry platoon suddenly has the firepower that a company used to have, airplanes, tanks, long-range artillery are all in the broader sense labor-saving devices. You will always need poor bloody infantry but logistics and mechanized forces tend to become much more important the further past the industrial revolution you go. Back in WW2, Ernie Pyle phrased it as "substituting machines for lives." And it does exactly what it says on the tin.
In 1914, a British infantry division had 24 Vickers machine guns, assigned two to a battalion. Today, a US Army platoon has two M240 machine guns, plus 6 smaller M249s, and that’s not counting the .50s at battalion level.
Not to mention every grunt carries what is technically a select fire weapon, even if they are rarely used that way. The option is available in SHTF situations. Even an M16/M4 on semi is still a huge RoF increase over an Enfield.
And every platoon also has numerous underslung or stand-alone grenade launchers, ATGMs or small recon drones. As we're seeing in Ukraine, those are all force multipliers. Plus on-call air strikes and artillery.
My armchair general opinion is that microdrones are the single most important development for the infantry squad since either reliable body armor, camouflage uniforms, or something with an engine to ride in. (Pick your favorite.) I can't even begin to describe how valuable squad-level reconnaissance like that is, but luckily I don't need to. We're already seeing the benefit. Like sure, the Microsoft hololens stuff seems like sci-fi (rather, it will once they fix it) but that's still limited by being strapped to a guy's head. That can't compare to a floating vantage point a dozen meters overhead and a hundred meters to the front or flank.
I really wonder what's going on with the militarized Hololens. I personally have used the Hololens 2 for business purposes and I don't feel the strain described by soldiers in the news article about it. I do suppose experiences are not built equal, and that what you expect from a technology changes when your life begins to depend on it. Also I can definitely see how there might be additional strain in low light environments with those flashy lights for Augmented Reality view. But if they get the Hololens capability working for the individual soldier, it would be such a boom in terms of information flow to the infantry. Right now drone view is only viewable by one person and their monitor, but imagine if that person can then share that screen to all of the squad mates to notify them of where the enemy is emplaced. Not only that, imagine a small GPS map present in view of the solder, and the augmented reality presenting IFF colors for all the nearby infantry to reduce potential fratricide.
If the military figures out some kind of HUD like Hololens, they should be able to do better than just sending the drone camera feed to everyone. Drones with thermal cameras should be able to mark targets, track them, and broadcast that location data in real time. HUD users could then just see their enemies’ locations by looking in the right direction. Maybe as a red box scaled by how far away the target is I feel like they’ve been working on something like that but I can’t recall exactly
Might be thinking of the Land Warrior program that happened at the turn of the century.
Watch The Peripheral on Amazon, it has a very good (fictional obviously) look at that concept. A squad of soldiers who are networked together, and have a drone overhead marking targets, just demolishing an attacking force. It’s in the second episode I believe, and there’s likely clips on YouTube.
How long do you have to wear hololens? Now think of an infantryman wearing a bullet proof helmet on top of the weight of hololens, and doing it for 12 hours straight. Plus, to ruggedize hololens, you probably have to add even more weight.
Even more than that, you can look over the next hill, or check out a compound from a kilometer or more away. You can fly high and not be noticed, or go buzz in close, potentially causing a well concealed foe to break cover and shoot at you. I mean you could go peer in the window of a house if need be, or closely check out a ditch. I could also see a use as radio relays in steep mountain valleys.
I wasn't sure about the specifics, but yeah, a kilometer range would be incredible. The radio relay idea is inspired. Do they have the comms equipment for that built in, or do you mean more like that could carry an antenna connection up real high?
Let’s put it this way on range. I’ve got a $400 bottom of the decent hobby range drone. I definitely have not taken it out at least a km or two away, because that would be illegal mr FAA man. Definitely not. For sure. Admittedly that didn’t happen over water, so perfect line of sight. A larger more expensive model could do much further, and with worse line of sight. I don’t know if any drones are set up to do that, but I can’t see why you couldn’t. It’s getting satellite signals and talking back and forth to the ground for a controls and the video link. It would be some more weight and power to send stuff on, but perfectly possible. Look at YouTube videos of the DJI Atava, that’s one that you could potentially put through a window and search a house with, at least if the doors are open.
the volume of fire that a platoon can put out in FPF is astounding, if short-lived
Space Force really oughta be working on orbital resupply drops.
that sounds cost prohibitive even for the US military... probably
Drone resupply? Payloads aren’t large but a few kilos of ammo would probably help in a pinch. Though possibly not more than the same drone dropping the same weight in grenades on whatever you’re shooting at.
Soon: the 82nd ODST Division.
Not to mention the 8 m2 s, 8240s 8mk19s and 8 tows in just the weapons company
This is an interesting comparison. Soooo… for the M240 comparison, *just* counting them assigned to line platoons, would put the count at 6 per company, 18 per battalion and 54 per brigade. Assuming a triangular division that’s 162 per division! That being said, every regular infantry company should have at least one more 240 per company for the HQ/mortars. The HHC then has 4 for its mortar platoon and idk how many on POG trucks. Same with the forward support company. The Weapons Company will also have one 240 mounted with each ITAS. So you can more than double the 164 per division number. That being said, those vickers were water cooled, and allowed incredibly long rates of fire without barrel changes, they were also on much better mounts. With that being considered, maybe we’d better compare them to a .50 for comparison. In an IBCT every rifle platoon has a .50 assigned for mounting on a HQ vehicle and then the Weapons Company has 4x Assault Platoons with a .50 each. I actually don’t really know if/how many .50’s HHC is MTOE’d off the top of my head, but let’s just say it’s only 1. That’s *at least* 8 per battalion, 24 per battalion and 72 per triangular division not including the support or aviation brigade.
I think you’re overrating the Vickers, honestly. Water cooling went away because the quick-change barrel was just better. A good crew does not take long enough to change a barrel to be that relevant tactically. I’m also not sure that the difference in tripods is that significant, if it exists. As for all the extra machine guns in the ORBAT, I didn’t count them because 1) I had already matched like for like, with 2 rifle-caliber machine guns, and 2) a lot of those extra guns are meant for defense of the attached units. A machine gun on a truck is there to protect the truck, not attack the enemy. Also, I looked at ATP 3.21-20, and I can’t find most of the guns you cite. All I can see are the 2 240s per infantry platoon, with the weapons company having at least 22 more.
>I think you’re overrating the Vickers, honestly. Water cooling went away because the quick-change barrel was just better. I have no idea really, I’ve never shot a water cooled machine gun. What I do know is that if you want to assualt with a belt fed weapon like an M240 (anything like it, M60/MG42, IDC) it can’t be water cooled and quick change barrels allows you to keep firing the gun even after you’ve turned your barrel into a glowing bar of steel. I don’t think quick change barrels are necessarily better in the context of WWI, especially considering their spectate hassles, like zeroing. They’re a compromise to make the machine guns mobile. >A good crew does not take long I agree. >enough to change a barrel to be that relevant tactically. Errrr… I’m a weapons squad leader in a rifle platoon in a rifle company in an infantry battalion in an IBCT. What you mean by tactically depends if I agree with you or not. You can certainly flub a barrel change. You also only have so long (many rounds) until both your barrels are ridiculously hot and they’ll burn through your barrel bags/have malfunctions/lose accuracy/become dangerous to the user/glow so bright under night vision the gunner can’t see targets. >I’m also not sure that the difference in tripods is that significant, if it exists. I noticed a significant difference between the M122A1 tripods and the M192 tripods we use now and both are lighter than what a Vickers would be mounted on and don’t offer all the capabilities a vickers had. Once again, it’s a compromise. This also comes with the army no longer having ammo bearers when they added the second anti-armor team (and now a Carl G) so I see why it makes sense. >As for all the extra machine guns in the ORBAT, I didn’t count them because 1) I had already matched like for like, with 2 rifle-caliber machine guns, and 2) a lot of those extra guns are meant for defense of the attached units. A machine gun on a truck is there to protect the truck, not attack the enemy. First off, no need to get defensive, I thought of it as a interesting topic to dive into. Second, I can’t imagine those vickers were being used partially “offensively,” like on the assault, they’re too heavy/bulky. Third, they’re both rifle caliber, but used very differently. For instance, vickers were used for long range indirect fire to use their beaten zone to suppress trenches at several kilometers. That’s simply not trained or practiced with the US Army snd M240’s. That’s more an M2/MK19 kinda gig. >Also, I looked at ATP 3.21-20, and I can’t find most of the guns you cite. I’m not going to look at it, I know not everything in a pub is accurate and I can literally just go look in peoples arms rooms if I wanted. Each rifle company has three weapons squads with 2x M240L and the HQ/Mortar Section (I forget which is MTOE’d it) has an M240L/B and there’s an M2 for the company to mount on a truck. (I could see the argument that the HQ M240/M2 are purely defensive) The battalion mortar platoon has one for mounting on each of their four truck towing 120mm mortar trailers. Idk the exact number of other 240/M2’s for the other HHC trucks. (I could see the argument that the HHC M240/M2’s are purely defensive) The Weapons Company has four Assault Platoons with five trucks each. One thin skin for the PSG, two ITAS trucks with an M240 on a mount next to the ITAS and then one each M2 and M19 truck mount on CROWS. (None of these weapons are “defensive”) The Forward Support Company has some number of M240/M2’s, I just can’t remember how many they are supposed to have. (I could see the argument that their M240/M2’s are purely defensive) This is all more to your point though that highly capable weapons are just thrown to the support dudes “just incase.” Though those elements certainly have needed them historically. >All I can see are the 2 240s per infantry platoon, with the weapons company having at least 22 more. 22 what? Belt feds? Belt feds 7.62 and higher? Just 240’s?
I didn’t mean to come off as defensive, merely explaining my logic. Water-cooling mattered in a context where colonial wars were still a Big Thing. Battles like Isandlwana, Rorke’s Drift, and Omdurman were at the forefront of military theory. Light machine guns were intended for cavalry, not assault troops. To give you the feel, the Vickers was the lightest of the pre-War Maxims, at ~20 lbs. Add a 250 round belt, and a gallon of water hanging off the end. This isn’t to say that there aren’t situations where that level of sustained firepower doesn’t come in handy, but the solution is more guns, and maybe more spare barrels if sufficiently forewarned. And/or a bucket of water to really cool things down quickly. For tactically, I mean that an MG is pretty much always going to be firing in bursts. Changing a barrel shouldn’t take much longer than changing a belt. And both should be faster than pouring another gallon of water into the jacket. Beaten zones via indirect fire is as much a matter of training and doctrine as equipment. But as you say, we have more appropriate equipment now, which is why .30 MGs aren’t trained for it. Sure, Tommy wasn’t hauling a Vickers across No Man’s Land to directly shoot Germans, but he was using it from his trench to suppress the German trench. It’s an offensive use in that it directly supports an attack. Meanwhile to use the pintle gun on a mortar carrier means either putting your mortars in the line of fire or abandoning them to their fate, both bad ideas. The pub l referenced lists the strength of a weapons company as 4 platoons, each of two sections, each of two squads. So three vehicles per section (2 squads and a leader vehicle), plus a platoon leader’s vehicle and thin-skin for the psg. 7 combat vehicles per platoon means 28 for the company. The given load out was 2 TOWs, 2 Mk19, and 2 M2 per company, with an unspecified number of M240. 28 vehicles minus 6 equals 22. If I had to break it down, MGs in the infantry platoons and weapons units are offensive; their primary goal involves taking the fight to the enemy. The MGs of the mortar platoon or the HHC are defensive, in that their goal is protect this specific thing. Getting brought to the enemy instead of waiting for the enemy to come to them.
Thanks for all the info man. Water cooling wasn’t important in the trenches to hold off massed infantry assaults from the trenches? >The pub l referenced lists the strength of a weapons company as 4 platoons, each of two sections, each of two squads. So three vehicles per section (2 squads and a leader vehicle), plus a platoon leader’s vehicle and thin-skin for the psg. 7 combat vehicles per platoon means 28 for the company. The given load out was 2 TOWs, 2 Mk19, and 2 M2 per company, with an unspecified number of M240. 28 vehicles minus 6 equals 22. I see where you’re coming from after looking at it. I think it’s just a weird way of describing the situation. The PSG is the platoon trains, the PL leads his vehicle and another to form a section and the section leader has his vehicle and another to make his. So it’s only five vehicles. [This](https://www.benning.army.mil/infantry/magazine/issues/2016/AUG-DEC/pdf/16) and [this](https://www.benning.army.mil/infantry/magazine/issues/2014/Oct-Mar/Halverson.html) article talk about how the company and platoons are arranged. Edit: first link has a random ) in it, so here’s the link https://www.benning.army.mil/infantry/magazine/issues/2016/AUG-DEC/pdf/16)Freeman_HeavyWeapons.pdf
>Water cooling wasn’t important in the trenches to hold off massed infantry assualts? Important, but not essential is the best way I would describe it. The moonscape terrain did it’s fair share to break up waves, and in a lot of cases there just wasnt enough time in an assault for a gun to overheat. So, cooling was essential; it’s a machine gun. But there’s a reason that water cooling jackets fell by the wayside once people figured out the quick-change barrel.
>Today, a US Army platoon has two M240 machine guns, Good luck trying to fire a hundred thousand rounds a day with them like the Vickers could do. It was a beast - an elegant weapon for a for a more civilized age.
Fire without maneuver is suicide.
*Obviously*, the solution to this is to mount the Vickers gun on a vehicle. Maybe even give it an RWS.
Now we're cooking with 8mm Lebel!
Alas 8mm Lebel is smokeless, otherwise we could justify the RWS because a thermal imager would allow the gunner to see through the gunsmoke.
Why would you ever need to do that as part of a modern mechanized force
They also said this >an elegant weapon for a for a more civilized age Which is an idiotic statement about any point in history.
It’s a quote from Obi Wan in Star Wars. I think they were just joking.
Can't see why you couldn't if you swapped barrels enough. Through the real reason is that sort of thing isn't needed and is a massive waste of ammo. A couple 81mm mortars could have done the same job with way less ammo.
Thanks for this info it is very interesting!
Infantry is only part of what we need to consider. In the maneuver warfighting function (WFF), you have infantry, armor, cav. The people who kill people. These are like the infantrymen of old, but they have things like bradleys, tanks, and strykers in addition. They perform the "close with and destroy" part of the Army's mission. All other parts of the mission command doctrine (ie, the rest of the Army) support this function. There are a lot of warfighting functions that support maneuver. Here they are, listed roughly in order by how much equipment and flesh is required to make them happen. The easiest to wrap one's brain around is sustainment. Food, water, ammunition, and all other classes of supply. This includes maintenance and transportation. Less obvious is fires. These people support the maneuver by causing large swathes of earth to spontaneously explode. Interestingly, part of cyber is in this WFF too. Next is protection. This includes CBRN protection, military police, air defense, etc. They secure the division rear, round up prisoners, and do the USR. The other half of cyber lives here. Second to last is command and control. This includes signal. Signal is important because maneuver commanders are generally not fluent with computers or radios, fires is useless without them, sustainment happens at the speed of a mule train, and intelligence cannot gather intelligence without a network. Then we have intelligence. There is a very large intelligence apparatus to help the maneuver commander best decide where to maneuver. This is important because maneuver commanders are not omniscient. So anyway. You know how a spear is just one tiny, useless chunk of iron without the shaft, trained thrower, eyeballs, and a field to throw at? It's a lot like that. Source: It came to me in a dream, which I later published as ADP 3-0.
>Source: It came to me in a dream, which I later published as ADP 3-0. As a recent CGSC grad, this explains sooooooo much. Good overview otherwise. People underestimate the "tooth to tail" ratio required for proper modern military operations at brigade and above. As someone much older and wiser than me once said: amateurs talk strategy, professionals talk logistics.
God, ADP 3-0 100% feels like a fever dream sometimes. Appreciate it, I feel very strongly about it lol
You may find this paper (it's quite long, but I think quite good) interesting: https://www.armyupress.army.mil/portals/7/combat-studies-institute/csi-books/mcgrath_op23.pdf It doesn't ask the question at the infantry vs non-infantry level, but at the combat arms vs logistics vs headquarters level. I think siblings posters have done a good job especially explaining the other combat arms, so I think it's still relevant. One bit that this paper would indicate is that even back in WW1 (which the paper justifiably defines as the start of the modern US army) 'only' 53-65% of the AEF were combat units. In WW2 European Theater, it was ~40% combat units. The combat arm percentage has been in slow steady decline since then, with significant growth in both logistical and headquarters functions. Some bits to consider with respect to the growth of logistical and headquarters functions. Since WW1 (and I guess really before), there as been a continual trend towards 'emptying of the battlefield'. Front line combat densities have decreased as weapons lethality and targeting/sensor system capability have increased. For a fixed number of combat units, if you increase their dispersion, their logistic load will increase (you have to move supplies over a larger distance - makes sense ya?). Also the intrinsic logistical burden of units have generally grown as systems become more complex. Infantry men don't just need bullets, food and water now, they'll also need batteries. But also the load on your headquarters functions will increase as well. You need to integrate information coming from wider, more diverse sources, it's harder to keep tabs on your subordinate units - so you need to bring in more headquarters functions. Also, the advance in IT and communications technology makes is viable for higher level commands to keep track of subordinate units to a greater degree of detail and frequency than before. And there's no organizational structure in the world that can withstand the crushing pressure of decades of middle managers being put in a position where they could micro-manage more.
I was 100% with you until the very last sentence. I think there's more nuance to it. A battalion commander can't conceivably synthesize and act on all the information that flows into an infantry battalion, much less anything more technical. Yes, staffs are huge these days. They seem ridiculous, but I absolutely promise there's method to the madness, especially once you get out of garrison and start piling on all the extra duties that S1, S2, FUOPS, and special staff do in theater. G6/J6 though, we need to just cleanse with fire and start anew. Except maybe keep GAIT, GAIT is pretty cool.
Nonmilitary guy here, what's the problem with G6/J6?
They focus on automations and networks. It's fine and dandy, but 90% of the army needs to run on VHF and HF radio, because the next war is going to be in a space denied/degraded environment. That means we won't have enterprise networks. The other thing is *some countries* really like snipping undersea cables. You can get away with ad-hoc networks using strategic-level transmission (undersea cables, long distance fiber, civilian microwave relays), you can get away using exclusively space-based transmission, but you can't get away with both unavailable without *really* training radio.
Internet was literally designed to survive the nuclear holocaust and was a military project that leaked to civilian use. It has so much redundancy, error correction etc. than it's simply impossible to kill. You can run enterprise networks on a [god damn pidgeon](https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2549). Internet protocol will be the last way of communication that will stop working. You can transmit it using any medium and any technology and mix & match and it will all work flawlessly together. Your good ol' backpack of suffering radio with frequency hopping already does internet. It's a digital packet radio. All you need is a cable to plug it into a router and you can get email spam in the middle of nowhere.
I'm a signal officer. 9 years of training and experience, as well as broadening into other fields, went into my comment. You might be sure. But that doesn't make you right. Pigeons are also notably one-way. You may or may not know that.
Radio is also one-way. So is telephone, copper, fiber, semaphores, morse and horse messengers. Simplex, half-duplex and duplex must be unfamiliar concepts to you? Just get 2 pigeons for full duplex communication. I used to teach this to cadets for a living along with doing some research on the side. Apparently you weren't one of my students because this is 'introduction to radio networks' material. Nowadays they buy software defined radios. Just because you aren't aware of the underlying fundamentals and technologies doesn't mean they don't exist. Even for AN/PRC-77 there are digital to analog converters to push internet packets through it. How do you think all of those fancy tactical tablets and smartphones with fancy real time map markers and messaging work? Satellite? lol.
Edit edit: #WHAT HAPPENS TO HOMING PIGEONS WHEN WE JUMP TOC, HUH??? Anyway. Please bear with me whilst I quote myself: >but you can't get away with both unavailable without *really* training radio. An expeditionary *intranet* is not the same as the strategic *internet*. I'm not going to explain DoDIN or enclaves to you because it's beneath me. Explaining GAIT to you is also beneath me. What I will explain is that the enclaves required to synchronize maneuver and do all the other functions of signal are dependent on a precious few RHNs that have hard-wired access to DoDIN. They are well known, and not a particular secret. So let's say you set up a THN. Now you have an expeditionary hub node, right? No. You still need routing through RHNs for reachback. Even still, THNs depend on satellite. Can I use a CNR gateway and HCLOS to establish an ad-hoc network within a brigade? Absolutely. Will I have reachback without strategic internet or satcom? Maybe. Depends on what I have available from an ESB. Can an ESB support reachback transmission for every brigade in a division? Oh fucking hell no. So what do I have? HF, VHF. >network packet over PRC-77 No shit? And here I was thinking TAC-CHAT and AFATDS over HF worked by a tiny man in the box shouting through the radio waves. Don't insult me. Even if you have a mesh LAN over CNR, that *doesn't help you with reachback.* Now. Back to quoting myself. The reason CNR/radio is important is because *now,* all waveforms are exclusively digital because of the encryption requirement. Even SINCGARS is digital, wow! Now. Without DoDIN wired into my CPN, without GAIT, and without satellite because of absence of head-end or the bird, *I still need reachback transmission.* How do I get that? Radio. As discussed previously. Also, the mappy thingy is called FBCB2/BFT/JBC-P, depending on when we're talking. Yes, it runs on c-band SATCOM. No, I did not mention that at any time, because it's not directly relevant. Now. If I wanted to be bitched at by retiree-washouts who have too much shit floating in their brains to be useful, I'd join my local CAP squadron or the rotary club. Edit edit edit: I'm so sorry, I got pissed off and forgot to tie my ideas together neatly. The overall main point is that while I can build networks within a brigade, and maybe within a division, space based infrastructure (all bands) and ground based infrastructure (support the space based and other routes of transmission) are critically vulnerable. Without those, I'm left with digital radio for reachback capability to corps (maybe) and theater/MACOM headquarters (definitely). This is a significant gap because the training isn't at a point where we can rely on these things to perform that function.
Apart from the explanation here, there are also another factor that aren't mentioned but it's necessary to be mentioned: The increasing distinction between military world and civilian world. In the past, war is essentially a nation-level undertaking. The US spent **44%** of GDP on the military during WW2. A society like this is essentially undergoing a national reorientation - All aspects of the entire country, if they are not going to war, then they support the war. Hence logistic & "super POG job / REMF" wise, there can be a lot of overlaps between the military and civilian world. This result in the military can devote most of their effort into combat arms or combat support arms, and reduce "super POG / REMF" jobs by using civilians, either directly or indirectly. Like using non military personnel for mail, burial, etc. Today, there is no such thing. Despite the "bloated" military spending, the US only spent 3. 3% of its GDP to the military today, and there's more emphasis in separation between the two. The goal is that the civilian world should be as undisturbed as possible, "The military is at war, America is at the mall" kind of thing. Hence the military will also needs their clerks, cooks and other "super POG / REMF" personnel, including jobs that in theory can be outsourced but no, to be also from the military, which adds more of such jobs.
I’m just an outside observer, but I would assume that most active Army personnel are doing skilled jobs that take years of training like radar operators or mechanics. The current infantry force is probably fine for the low intensity engagements the Army assumes it’ll be in. If we get into a great power war it’ll fall on citizens to provide the vast majority of infantry.