Fiddle's Green

[dragoon500ly]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

Even being Army I have to admit the ones who really get hind tit are the Marines. They have the oldest gear, and get the good stuff last.

They also boost that they are the only branch that returns part of their budget back to the Treasury at the end of the fiscal year.

Remember the buying sprees that went on when October came around?

Where in heaven's name did a armored company need 12 pizza ovens?!?!?!?!!

[Abbott Shaull]

Well you know that is 3 Pizza Oven per Platoon and three for the HQ element of the Company. Have to keep the company well fed...lol

[Panther Al]

Originally Posted by dragoon500ly

The ole fritz was replaced with one with improved webbing suspension...then updated with padding. The new advanced combat helmet has a different mix of plastic and kevlar, the improved suspension and padding and adds the bolt on plate to attach a NVD.

As for the VII Corps and its use of woodland BDUs in Desert Storm...it worked out in the end, the PSYOP people were dropping leaflets telling the Iraqis that the Allies had even pulled the troops from Germany to fight them, you know, the ones that had spent 20+ years training to kill Russians! And the Iraqis could tell these Soviet-killers apart becuase they would wear green and brown camouflage. It always comes down to the delivery, doesn't it?

And it was also a sad testiment that the Army was simply not equipped to conduct large scale desert operations.

*laughs* I remember that. They still thought that when we went back over this last time. I recall talking to an IP in Fallujah, who was wondering if he should be glad we didn't send the Russian killers down this time, or insulted that we didn't feel the need to send our best troops.

[Abbott Shaull]

Originally Posted by Panther Al

*laughs* I remember that. They still thought that when we went back over this last time. I recall talking to an IP in Fallujah, who was wondering if he should be glad we didn't send the Russian killers down this time, or insulted that we didn't feel the need to send our best troops.

LOL... There are times when PSYOP did too good of job. Just think if the 3rd Mechanized and the Marine units in the initial invasion would of been in their woodland cammies instead of the desert cammies...lol

[Abbott Shaull]

No it just a testament to an Army that was geared to fight a war in Europe. Every where else is secondary option that they hope they had time to build up for.

[dragoon500ly]

Originally Posted by Abbott Shaull

Well you know that is 3 Pizza Oven per Platoon and three for the HQ element of the Company. Have to keep the company well fed...lol

Ha!

What was really funny was in Jan-Feb when IG time came around....kinda makes one wonder just how many stashes of "excess" equipment were buried around the ole motor pool!

[bobcat]

its amazing how soldiers always leave an instalation with a tons of kit that noone has any record of.

[Graebarde]

Originally Posted by dragoon500ly

Ha!

What was really funny was in Jan-Feb when IG time came around....kinda makes one wonder just how many stashes of "excess" equipment were buried around the ole motor pool!

Sort of like the engineer company that buried two containers of excess along with a jeep that wasn't on the books.

We always had excess to hide, and I imagine most units did too. And the IG was not a bunch of duds either, as they had played hide the thimble games themselves in previous assignments.

[helbent4]

Originally Posted by Graebarde

Sort of like the engineer company that buried two containers of excess along with a jeep that wasn't on the books.

We always had excess to hide, and I imagine most units did too. And the IG was not a bunch of duds either, as they had played hide the thimble games themselves in previous assignments.

Grae,

It reminds me of what a friend who was in a local militia regiment (Seaforth Highlanders) said, that when their unit was converted to light infantry and gave up their mortar section, they kept an 81mm tube (just "in case") and stored it with the signals equipment listed as a "signaling device". Further, they had C9 SAWs (FN Minimis) that had been stricken from the records as worn out but completely rebuilt, and several FN C1A1s (FALs) weren't passed along when they upgraded to C7s (AR-15s).

Tony

[Abbott Shaull]

Well that and at many units they had more M16s than they were authorized for used while under fire. I mean when a good third of the Company didn't carry a M16s when we went to the field, yet come qualification day everyone had one from the company armory. Yes the supply room was usually excessively full too.

[Panther Al]

Got something I would like to bounce off of those here for comments, ideas, suggestions, and even flames. Group I hang out with are always futzing about with various scenarios from various time frames ranging from the second world war to the next one. We've used various rules systems to game them out, and the current debate is on how things aught to be done (Yes, its a dead horse here).

Currently, I'm putting together a combined arms company like everyone else, with the idea is something along the lines of a well manned us cav troop mixed in perhaps with a little infantry.

I'm giving it a pair of command variant IFV's in the HQ along with a APC and a TOC, a maintenance section of 2 ARV's, a mortar section (Using the AMOS) of 2 SPM's, 3 platoons of 6 IFV's with 5-6 man sections in each, and a 4th platoon of 6 Large Caliber Gun vehicles (that could be held as a support force or chopped into 3 two vehicle sections attached to the first three platoons).

Naturally it being me, these are all CV90 based, but, the idea is to give a balance of mobile firepower, with enough boots to actually be able to do something outside the vehicles without being stretched.

So, am I missing something, is this to off the wall, or?

[Abbott Shaull]

Originally Posted by Panther Al

Got something I would like to bounce off of those here for comments, ideas, suggestions, and even flames. Group I hang out with are always futzing about with various scenarios from various time frames ranging from the second world war to the next one. We've used various rules systems to game them out, and the current debate is on how things aught to be done (Yes, its a dead horse here).

Currently, I'm putting together a combined arms company like everyone else, with the idea is something along the lines of a well manned us cav troop mixed in perhaps with a little infantry.

I'm giving it a pair of command variant IFV's in the HQ along with a APC and a TOC, a maintenance section of 2 ARV's, a mortar section (Using the AMOS) of 2 SPM's, 3 platoons of 6 IFV's with 5-6 man sections in each, and a 4th platoon of 6 Large Caliber Gun vehicles (that could be held as a support force or chopped into 3 two vehicle sections attached to the first three platoons).

Naturally it being me, these are all CV90 based, but, the idea is to give a balance of mobile firepower, with enough boots to actually be able to do something outside the vehicles without being stretched.

So, am I missing something, is this to off the wall, or?

How about this, for the 3 platoons. Have two APC with 9 man squad, four IFV or (two IFVs and two AFVs) with small section carrying capabilities. The APC would have something similar to .50 caliber and 40 mm Grenade launcher. This would give you an almost well rounded assortment of weapons, and still give you full dismounted infantry platoon when needed.

With the platoon of 6 Large Caliber Gun vehicles, make two platoons one standard 4-tank Platoon and then 6 vehicle platoon that LCG or something like the M901. Where the 6 vehicle platoon can be either farmed out to the three main platoons or used to protect their own sector as needed, their could be command vehicle for this platoon where the platoon leader doubles as operation officer for the company. The tank platoon could be the muscle that is needed or used as point during move out.

Yes, I know in theory this would be a very large company, but I see the one platoon mostly operating as section attached to the other platoons during most operations, adding to those platoon firepower. Also each of these platoons would have the manpower on the ground too. If the Company gets into position where they have too operate in fair size town they have enough men on the ground and still can have fair size reaction force too.

Another option is to have two of the hybrid infantry platoons in some six vehicle combination like the old ARC scout platoons with two tank platoons with again an addition 6 LCG/Anti-tank Missile Platoon that could be farmed out as needed.

Just some thoughts.

[Panther Al]

I thought about a 5th platoon, but three things kept me from doing so:

1, I thought it was getting a little on the cumbersome side, and the more vehicles the more of a tail the notational higher level unit needs.
2, I always liked the 3 line platoon, 1 weapons platoon format that the Wehrmacht used in the second world war - and occasionally you would find a pair of morts in the HQ section.
3, But most importantly, we have some limits on what we could do: No upper limits on spending - yet - but the manpower limits are in the 150-250 men range, so had to take that into account.

I based it off of the current ACR troop, but instead of straight up Cav, I flexed towards Mounted Rifle, sort of a primarily recce, but with the manpower to do line if needs be. Hence the larger number of not only dismounts, but IFV's as well. I went with 3 squads of 2 sections to keep manpower down, while making sure that the vehicles can actually carry them and their equipment easily.

I seriously considered doing the APC/IFV mix: And I might do so if the group puts a spending limit on us, I figure for most uses, a OWS is good enough. If the platoon is mixed APC/IFV, or if 3rd is a 'shock' platoon with IFV's and the first two with APC's is still up in the air. I am leaning to shock just for the coolness factor of it.

[Abbott Shaull]

The thing back in the late 1980s when Mechanized Battalion was suppose to have 4 Mechanized Companies, HQ, HCC, Support Company as well as the Anti-tank Company. Like the Light Infantry cousins with their Weapons Company, the Company rarely served as combat unit in the field with the platoons and sections attach directly to the other combat units and HQ/HCC.

About the only time they did serve together was when the Battalion would be in the defensive position and they would cover high speed avenues of approaches to the defensive position that the cross-attach armor company(ies) didn't cover. Also during the offensive they and the various M113 based vehicle was limiting factor of how fast the battalion could move forward. Kinda hard to move to fast when many of the FO, FIST, and Ambulance were still based on them.

[Abbott Shaull]

Yeah never understood how anyone could think 4 M2 or 6 M3 could provide the proper number of dismounts for an Mechanized Infantry or Cavalry/Armor Cavalry platoon to perform their functions. Then again with some Divisional Cavalry and Battalion Scout Platoon converting to 6 HMMWV still had limited number of dismounts, for the Divisional Cavalry and Battalion Scout Platoon you wanted to have smaller dismounts for it was their job to screen, locate, and give the information to higher HQs.

Where the Armor Cavalry had this mission at Corps-level as well as misleading the enemy recon units in to thinking they were facing a much stronger force than a Troop, Squadron or Regiment. Thus tying up resources before their main body ran into the Corps main body.

[Abbott Shaull]

Yeah it is the one things I don't understand with the 2nd ACR now being Stryker Brigade and plans of changing the 3rd ARC into one. They have increase manpower, but they exchange the increase of manpower with the lost of combat punch.

I find it ironic that the new Heavy Brigades are similar to Armor Combat Commands of World War II. With similar irony that when these Brigades and the new Infantry Brigades were deployed they usually had third combat battalion attached to the Brigades. Rarely when they did deployed a Heavy and Infantry Brigade would also cross-attach a Battalion to give the lighter armed Infantry Brigade some punch and Heavy Brigade more manpower on the ground.

So yeah having a Company with up to 5 combat platoons seems to unwieldy. Yet, like I said the one platoon parsed out to the other platoons. Having 3 mounted infantry platoons companies would serve as the Mechanized companies/troops while the other company with 2 Infantry and 2 Tank platoons would served 'ideal' mix to give armor punch, but still have plenty of boots on the ground.

[Legbreaker]

What's the cost of an M2 or M3 compared to a Stryker?
What's the cost of maintenance?

Which one looks better on the annual budget papers?

In other words, which one can the politicians point to and say, "yes, we have more armoured vehicles on the ground at a reduced cost"?

[Abbott Shaull]

Yeah only if the Stryker and it family of vehicle had been able to do what they were suppose to do, but that is another story.

Reason they weren't adopted before 2000, was that at the same time when the Army had been testing the LAV-25 with Marine Corps, the plans were in motion to buy the M2/M3 family for the Mechanized forces. I have always felt that the Wheeled Mechanized Brigade would fit in the US Army, especially like say the second Mechanized Brigade of the Mechanized Divisions and with the 2nd Infantry Division. Many other nations had done this with many of their Mechanized Division with one Brigade/Regiment being track and rest wheeled.

Yet, the M2/M3 was too new and they didn't want to dilute the supply chain with another vehicle since the older M113 and it variants would still be soldiering on for many years to come. What I find ironic is the Stryker Brigades are the only Brigades still established with 3 Stryker Infantry Battalions while the Heavy and Infantry Battalion have 2 Heavy Task Forces or Infantry Battalion(Light).

It sad that even the last true ACR is being converted to Stryker Brigade, had hoped that at least one decent Brigade size unit would survive intact...*ugh*

On side note if they took a Stryker Battalion from every two Stryker Brigades and move things around they would still be able to raise the 5th Brigade the Army had planned on being Infantry Brigades but cancelled in early 2010....Oh Well.

[Panther Al]

As mentioned in another thread, the Iraqi army has spent over two billion dollars on US equipment over the past few years, including such things as ODS Brads and M1A1SA's. Just enough of both to equip an "elite" division extremely well, while the rest will be getting rebuilt WarPac grade (The high end granted) equipment. So far, the universal opinion is that now the Iraqi's really have a good grasp at just how game changing the M1 is when it comes to armoured warfare in the region, and how much training makes a difference. At any rate, even though they have not received them all yet, nor have the finished training all the personnel that will field this largesse of stuff, they are already looking at their most likely threats (Iran and Turkey) and seeing something they might change. Was talking with a buddy is part of the US troops training them and he says their officers are already pointing out that M1's, and in particular this division, is not equipped nor trained for urban combat, but for open field. And since they don't have to worry about trees and such blocking turret traverse, how hard will it be to install a longer calibre gun tube in the Abrams, if not a 140? Seems that they accept the fact that they won't get their hands on DU ammo, so are looking for ways to maximize what they do have.

[Abbott Shaull]

Yeah it is grand we are re-arming their elite unit with our ancient materials of war while the rest of their army is still Pact armed.

[Legbreaker]

Still, experience has shown that 20+ year old western cast-offs appear to be better quality than the best they already had. You would expect a tank should be able to withstand a shot or two from it's enemy counterpart and be able to return effective fire. From what we know the T-72's etc popped like a pricked balloon, even before they knew the M1s and Challengers were there.

[Panther Al]

Actually, the M1's are not cast offs: They are fresh off the refurbishment line at Lima. Damn near brand spanking new - newest ones around actually, and will all have the latest goodies save for Battlefield Management. From what I understand, the Brads are also being rebuilt to new condition as well. I hear A3, but most places I have read all say ODS, so, I'm leaning to the majority on this one.

[pmulcahy11b]

From what I understand, most armies are replacing their DU-based penetrators with tungsten-based penetrators due to fears (possibly unfounded) of hazmat problems on battlefields and ranges. Anyone have current experience or knowledge on this?

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by Panther Al

Actually, the M1's are not cast offs:

Cast offs, downgrades, whatever - they're not the absolute best available anyway.

[Panther Al]

No idea, we was issued DU when we rolled into Iraq, even got to shoot a few off at live targets, but never heard word one on if it was bad for us or not. And with the e-kick the military was on, if there was any hard evidence to that, they would have said something. So my money is on none to negligible negative impact. In honesty the environmental impact from using tanks is worse than any effect DU has in my opinion. After all, the D stands for Depleted. IE: Safe, Non Radioactive, not bad for you 'less you get hit with it, and so on and so forth. As to the spalling, anything will cause that, hell WP is worse.

[Panther Al]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

Cast offs, downgrades, whatever - they're not the absolute best available anyway.

Of course not, no one has gotten any of the full up SEP's except for the US. Thats fairly obvious. Even you all only got the M1A1SA's... which come to think of, so did the Iraqi's.

Granted, the SA isn't a bad tank, almost as good as a SEP, and just as good in all the ways that really count when its time to lay tube on target.

[Abbott Shaull]

Actually the T-72 we encounter in Iraqi as well as all Pact/Soviet/Russia vehicles were the actual top of the line models one would find say in the Russia or other Soviet Republics military arsenals. Even with their allies in the Warsaw Pact wouldn't get the same capabilities built in as their Soviet counterparts.

Still up until the the US M1 and other NATO tanks of that generation of AFVs started to come online, the Soviets T-62, T-64, and T-72 units probably would probably been able to carry the day easily due to sheer numbers. It one of the reasons it took over 10+ years and couple false starts for the US to come up with the replacement for the M60 MBT.

It still makes one wonder though for lot of the Pact units were still equipped with T-55 and T-62s. They were still in the process of updating the front line units in the Warsaw Pact even as the wall coming down with the major exception being the East German Army which seemed to be more heavily armed as their units were suppose to function as components of the Soviet Armies...*shrug*

[dragoon500ly]

One of the main reasons that the T-55 was kept in service in the Warsaw Pact countries is that, for its environment, it was a good tank. The perceived battle ground of West Germany has a lot of terrain that doesn't allow for long range tank sniping. One NATO study gives an average range of 900 meters, well within effective range of the 100mm main gun. The Soviets (and the WP) trained for short range engagements, where whoever gets the first round off, wins the fight. They also used an intresting gunnery technique that compensated for the poor fire control system.

You see, the Russians do not practise one-on-one engagements.

What they practise is platoon-on-one engagements. A typical four-tank platoon would start with the platoon leader's tank calling out his estimated range and firing. The second tank in the platoon, would call out their adjustment and fire, then the third and fourth tanks would repeat the process. With four tanks engaging, the assumption is that the NATO tank would find itself overwhelmed by targets and forced into breaking off its engagement by firing its smoke grenades or abandoning its fighting position, thus allowing the Soviet platoon to close the range and negate the superior NATO fire control systems.

It was only with the issue of the new generation of laser-rangefinders and digital computers that NATO was able to come with a counter to this technique.

As for a lot of the T-55s poor rep...it has a lot to do with the Middle East Wars of 1967 and 1973...the T-55 was used in an environment that allowed for long range sniping by tanks as well as terrain that features dunes and sharper hills than those found in the Central Russian steppes. Here the numerous design flaws of the T-5s were brought into view and ruthlessly exploited by the IDF.

[Abbott Shaull]

That and the pure numbers of T-55s produced. Yeah, it always been the Soviets goal attempt to overwhelm an enemy tank with the numbers games.

[dragoon500ly]

And why not...it worked in the World War II and the Russians have also been big fans of don't mess with a working method.