Close Area Suppression Weapon (was Company Area Suppression Weapon)

[vonGarvin]

Yes, but you have 60mm mortars to call down fire on his position...

:rofl:


Not if DLR has its way ;D

 

[vonGarvin]

Do we not have 33 x LAVIII Infantry Section Carriers (The LAVIII without turrets equipped with nanook RWS)?

Why not equip some of thos with the AGLS?

Because that makes perfect sense, that's why.  I say this because the plan, right now, is to make them all tripod-mounted.  All we have to do is think of the AGLS as a 40mm-Fifty Cal (similar roles, characteristics, etc), and use accordingly.  IMHO anyway.

 

[Infanteer]

I don't see how this undermines anything.  I'm talking about individual weapons, and their capabilities, what they allow an infantry platoon to do with various tools.
"Point fire" I loosely define as one person firing one weapon at one target.

Yes, but I could suppress you with point fire and I could provide point fire with an LMG or GPMG.

 

[SeanNewman]

I'm not a fan of the use of "point fire" and those weapon systems.

You can use a MG or C16 to hit a specific truck for example, but you could not use them to hit one person in a group of many.

In the Infantry context I would save point/precision fire for something like the C7 inside of 200m (book says 400m but that is unrealistic if moving around the battlefieeld) and a sharpshooter rifle potentially doubling that (the book will say 600m).

I don't know what else one could call it though, so maybe there is a distinction between point and precision, even in the Infantry context.

(*Note*, Infantry "precision" for me means one specific person, where as in the Sniper context it has a more precise meaning).

 

[vonGarvin]

Yes, but I could suppress you with point fire and I could provide point fire with an LMG or GPMG.

No, you can't, not effectively.  But you are completely missing the point.  I mean, I can also open beer bottles with a C7.  I'm talking about the main roles of individual weapons and how they can be used. Hell, a LAV 3 APC can fire single shot, right?  Big friggin' deal.

If I were to argue that an LMG or a GPMG can be used for both direct area suppression fire and point fire, then why have rifles?  That is the kind of question that "they" would ask.

Now, we all know that weapons can be used in a variety of ways.  The point is the unique capabilities that each brings to the fore.  The fact that some can be carried and operated by one person (eg: rifle) and others require a crew (GPMG) and others aren't very man-portable (LAV 3 APC), this requires some overlap.

So, my question reverts to: what can the AGLS bring that is not already there to the infantry platoon?

 

[vonGarvin]

I'm not a fan of the use of "point fire" and those weapon systems.

You can use a MG or C16 to hit a specific truck for example, but you could not use them to hit one person in a group of many.

In the Infantry context I would save point/precision fire for something like the C7 inside of 200m (book says 400m but that is unrealistic if moving around the battlefieeld) and a sharpshooter rifle potentially doubling that (the book will say 600m).

I don't know what else one could call it though, so maybe there is a distinction between point and precision, even in the Infantry context.

(*Note*, Infantry "precision" for me means one specific person, where as in the Sniper context it has a more precise meaning).

So, "precision" has a more "precise" meaning?  :rofl:
(Sorry, couldn't resist)
As loose definitions, I would offer that "point fire" means the ability to hit a man sized target most of the time, where "precision fire" means the ability to hit a man sized target all of the time. (50% of the time, it works every time! ;D)

But, in all seriousness, that distinction would need to be fleshed out, lest some bean counter "up there" look down and say "Well, your rifles do the same.  If you want longer ranges for that capability, then why doesn't everyone get it?"  Though I think that you and I both know that there is a difference.

 

[Kirkhill]

Yes, but I could suppress you with point fire and I could provide point fire with an LMG or GPMG.

Or for that matter a section of riflemen.  Just as a section of riflemen can engage a target behind a ridge simply by pointing their rifles to the sky and adjusting their aim in response to a third party observer calling fall of shot.

Both of those are possible, and effective, and have been trained for in the past (circa 1910) but mechanisation, in the form of MGs (rifle calibre, cannons and grenade caliber as well as Quick Firing field guns with shrapnel and even automatic mortars) made the business of chucking lead pellets at the enemy much more efficient in terms of applied PYs.

How many lead pellet chuckers do you need to get the job done?  How many do you need to be able to kill a specific individual and how many do you need to broadcast the pellets?

 

[SeanNewman]

How many do you need to be able to kill a specific individual and how many do you need to broadcast the pellets?

Basic tactics say a section because wherever there is a lone enemy there may be 1-2 more nearby, so in order to keep something resembling a 3:1 ratio we need a section.

And in that section we have:
2 x LMGs.
5 x C7s, two of those with M203s.
1 x sharpshooter rifle (pending).

 

[Kirkhill]

Basic tactics say a section because wherever there is a lone enemy there may be 1-2 more nearby, so in order to keep something resembling a 3:1 ratio we need a section.

And in that section we have:
2 x LMGs.
5 x C7s, two of those with M203s.
1 x sharpshooter rifle (pending).

In my continuing effort to be obnoxious I would offer that your M203s are also designed to "chuck lead pellets" in broadcast fashion just as the 81 mm HE is.  However they can broadcast them on the other side of a brick wall or a ridge in an effiecient manner with minimal expenditure of PYs. 

Also, unlike MGs and massed riflemen, you dont have  to worry about springs breaking at inopportune times and imposing a maintenance burden on folks like our Aussie brother who must not be named.

Mortars don't break down as often or as easily as MGs and QF guns, therefore their availability is higher than an MG

                                                 
An interesting addendum to further the discussion: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/7-90/Appb.htm




.

 

[Kirkhill]

Or ask yourself another question:

If all your MGs breakdown or run out of ammunition and you are reliant on hand grenades, rifle grenades, M203s and/or 60 mm mortars could you broadcast pellets to suppress both an attack on open ground to your front and enemy forming up over a ridgeline?

Now ask the same question only this time relying on MGs and similar automatic weapons.

My money suggests that the simple, high angle, low velocity weapons are both more reliable and more flexible and thus more useful than complex reciprocating machines throwing individual highly energetic pellets.

 

[vonGarvin]

This appears to be taking another tangent, and for that I apologise.

In any event, even the basic capabilities I listed above are only the tip of the iceberg of the various capabilities and characteristics of each system.  But the basic capabilities are a quick indicator of what each system does.  So, again, for the mechanised infantry platoon, what does it provide that cannot be provided by another, existing system?

 

[vonGarvin]

Now an historical example from the US Army:

a. Company C was leading the 39th Regiment's advance, with its 1st and 3d platoons in front and 2d platoon trailing. Suddenly, the Germans opened fire with flak cannon and machine guns from hidden positions. The 1st and 3d platoons were pinned down, unable to move. At the same time, German mortars and artillery began to fall on the 2d platoon and the company command group.

b. The company commander took the 2d platoon and a machine gun section with him and tried a sweeping maneuver to the right. He was unable to get any farther forward than the right flank of the 3d platoon. With all its rifle platoons pinned down by close and accurate enemy direct fire, the company was facing heavy casualties.

c. Fortunately, the weapons platoon had placed its three 60-mm mortars into action and began to deliver fires on the German positions. The 81-mm mortar platoon of the heavy weapons company also assumed firing positions and began to adjust fire onto the enemy.

d. With the combined assistance of its own 60-mm mortar platoon, the 81-mm mortar platoon from Hvy Wpns Company, and the 60-mm mortar platoons of its sister E and F companies, and aided later by the 26th FA battalion, C Company riflemen were able to move forward again to close with the enemy. After several hours of bitter fighting, during which hundreds of mortar rounds were fired, the enemy broke. By 2400 hours the position was clear.

e. The commander later credited the immediate and accurate mortar fire from his weapons platoon with saving the company during those first critical moments. He said the combined fire of the battalion's other mortars and the field artillery "broke the back" of a determined enemy resistance. Because they were organic, the company's mortars were able to deliver fires faster and closer than the artillery. Their fires complemented and supplemented the heavier FA fires.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Now an historical example from the US Army:

It would be nice to have a platoon of these in direct support of a company attack, no?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0kBdmLgzBKY

Of course, this is the way I preferred to fire them:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdbMpLHE8ww&feature=related

And an example of the Royal Marines using the 51mm MOR in their firebase... which you couldn't do with a GMG in the dismounted role

@ 1:23  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XqJ-QQB8LcQ&feature=related

 

[Infanteer]

No, you can't, not effectively.  But you are completely missing the point.  I mean, I can also open beer bottles with a C7.  I'm talking about the main roles of individual weapons and how they can be used. Hell, a LAV 3 APC can fire single shot, right?  Big friggin' deal.

If I were to argue that an LMG or a GPMG can be used for both direct area suppression fire and point fire, then why have rifles?  That is the kind of question that "they" would ask.

I'm not missing the point - I'm asking the question based on the model you presented.  In your model, you make a distinction between a rifle and a machine gun which I questioned.  Everyone here seems to agree that "point fire" and "suppressive fire" are two completely different concepts, thus pointing to flaws with your model which attempts to use "weapons effects" as indicator of effectiveness and utility.  "Weapons effects" may be a useful model (I think so, at least), but as far as I can tell we haven't classified them properly.

Is "suppression" even a capability of a weapon, or an effect of its employment when combined with other factors?  "Suppressive fire" seems to be a characteristic of anything that shoots, no?

We can write this off as semantics, but I think such vague definitions don't do our understanding of weapons, effects and organization any good.  A rational model is good for starters, but we need some empirical data to add to the mix.  We wouldn't want to take a faulty model to them, would we?

 

[Kirkhill]

Wouldn't a sniper picking off people that stick their head above the parapet, a la WW1, and thus discourage them from sticking their heads up, as is required by machine gun crews, be considered suppressive fire?

 

[ArmyRick]

First lets talk modern operations (or I am going to grab my winchester and hop on my granddad's horse)

Look at the current threat. An elusive enemy that blends itself in with local population and wears no distinct uniform. He can adapt to our Tactics, Techniques and Procedures and makes some use of modern technology (such as cell phones).
They prefer to attack us with IED (sometimes with impressive results) and then may/may not follow up with an attack with RPG, AK and RPK weapons.
They do make use of trucks and motorcycles and even on occassion will form together to fight.
They can have unique information network based on watching us when we do not realize it.
They will intimidate and attack local populations or friendly forces they can overwhelm

That is the current THREAT.

I do not agree with references to WWI, napolean or any other war fought more than 20 years ago. Technology, tactics and the threat have changed the shape of warfare.

How does GMG/AGLS fit into this?

I agree, I do not see it having a place within the LAVIII equiped platoon unless that platoon has a ISC. However for other vehicles involved with Recce, force protection, etc, etc. Sure fire away!

 

[vonGarvin]

I'm not missing the point - I'm asking the question based on the model you presented.  In your model, you make a distinction between a rifle and a machine gun which I questioned.  Everyone here seems to agree that "point fire" and "suppressive fire" are two completely different concepts, thus pointing to flaws with your model which attempts to use "weapons effects" as indicator of effectiveness and utility.  "Weapons effects" may be a useful model (I think so, at least), but as far as I can tell we haven't classified them properly.

Is "suppression" even a capability of a weapon, or an effect of its employment when combined with other factors?  "Suppressive fire" seems to be a characteristic of anything that shoots, no?

We can write this off as semantics, but I think such vague definitions don't do our understanding of weapons, effects and organization any good.  A rational model is good for starters, but we need some empirical data to add to the mix.  We wouldn't want to take a faulty model to them, would we?

I'm sorry, but you have missed the point.  Completely.
At no time do I "attempt to use "weapons effects" as indicator of effectiveness and utility".  I simply point out what their capabilities are.  Their main capabilities, in general terms on an internet forum.  And at no time do I divert from the infantry platoon, I don't speak of organisation and use admitedly simplistic terms, but in my simplicity, I believe I have hit the nail on the head (my lack of skill with carpentry notwithstanding).
To revisit:
Target: one individual or vehicle.
Target Area: several targets within an area
Point Fire: loosely defined as the ability to quickly hit a man-sized target with a high possiblity of success.
Precision Fire: loosely defined as the ability to hit a man-sized target with near 100% possibility of succes AND that fire has negligible effects on others.
Area Suppressive Fire: loosely defined as the ability to engage a target area with the effect that those within the target area lose their freedom of action.

Anyway, you have diverted from my question: what does the AGLS bring to the table that isn't already there in an infantry platoon?  But, if you can do better, the floor is yours.

I'm outta here.

Edit to add: your questions add no value and you seem to be diverting from the points I laid out previously, and I admit that there is more to any weapon that it's capability.  There are such things as the terminal ballistics involved, ease of use, portability, flexibility, etc.  If you wish to clutter things  up by getting all philosophical on the matter, that's fine.  I would prefer to keep the discussion in easy to comprehend terms. 

And, to emphasise my point:

WHAT DOES AN AGLS PROVIDE TO AN INFANTRY PLATOON????  ANYONE?  BUELLER???

 

[vonGarvin]

First lets talk modern operations (or I am going to grab my winchester and hop on my granddad's horse)

Look at the current threat. An elusive enemy that blends itself in with local population and wears no distinct uniform. He can adapt to our Tactics, Techniques and Procedures and makes some use of modern technology (such as cell phones).
They prefer to attack us with IED (sometimes with impressive results) and then may/may not follow up with an attack with RPG, AK and RPK weapons.
They do make use of trucks and motorcycles and even on occassion will form together to fight.
They can have unique information network based on watching us when we do not realize it.
They will intimidate and attack local populations or friendly forces they can overwhelm

That is the current THREAT.

Yeah, got it. That's today's threat in one single theatre of operations.  Thanks for that.

I do not agree with references to WWI, napolean or any other war fought more than 20 years ago. Technology, tactics and the threat have changed the shape of warfare.

Yes, warfare may have changed.  Oh, wait, the Boers did this shit years ago.  And back 21+years ago, there was zero threat of fighting in an urban setting.  Oh, wait, Germany was full of cities, but they were Germans, so, they don't count. 

Listen, bullets still hurt, bombs still fall from the sky.  Yes, I agree, "warfare" may have changed.  But then again, maybe not that much...

How does GMG/AGLS fit into this?

That's the question du jour, though, isn't it?  I don't see it fitting into an infantry platoon.

I agree, I do not see it having a place within the LAVIII equiped platoon unless that platoon has a ISC.

I disagree, it doesn't fit within that infantry platoon, LAV 3 APC or not.  If the LAV 3 APC is there, there are four 25mm chain guns, stabilised, at that.  If that platoon goes dismounted, we need a few Schwarzeneggers to carry the thing and tripod.  Then there's the ammo.

However for other vehicles involved with Recce, force protection, etc, etc. Sure fire away!

Perhaps, I'll let those in Recce, force protection, etc, comment on that.  And remember, kids, the Mensa candidates at DLR have decreed that it will be ground-mount only. 

 

[ArmyRick]

Technoviking,

Did you carefully read my 2nd last line you qouted? I said I do NOT see it having aplace within a LAVIII platoon unless one of those LAVs has no turret and is equipped with the RWS instead.

We actually agree on that point, don't we. Basically if we have all the LAVs with 25mm then no GMG for the platoon.

 

[vonGarvin]

Technoviking,

Did you carefully read my 2nd last line you qouted? I said I do NOT see it having aplace within a LAVIII platoon unless one of those LAVs has no turret and is equipped with the RWS instead.

We actually agree on that point, don't we. Basically if we have all the LAVs with 25mm then no GMG for the platoon.

/facepalm/
I misread it, sorry.  I think we are in violent agreement.  an AGLS would make PERFECT sense mounted on a  vehicle.  (sorry)  (I misread ISC and thought you mean "infanty section carrier")



Mea Culpa