US Army Mechanized Infantry AT Companies

[schnickelfritz]

I'm trying to flesh out the Mechanized Infantry Battalions of the US 5th ID(M), using 3-187 Infantry in Kings Ransom and the US Army Vehicle Guide as a starting point.

My current quandry is fleshing out the likely strength of the Battalion AT companies before/during the Battle of Kalisz.

I'm thinking at this point a couple of M901's and a several HMMWV's with TOW launchers seems likely.

Any thoughts?

Dave

[HorseSoldier]

Probably most efficient to pull one and twos of surviving M901s out of the infantry battalions and pool them in a provisional AT company or battalion. 901s were rough dogs at the best of time and could never keep up with M1s, Brads or 113A3s. All pooled in a single holding unit would allow the division commander to plus up points of max vulnerability without slowing down the show otherwise.

(Assuming the division has enough TOWs to go round -- ripping the hammerhead and missile racks out to just run them as APCs might really appeal on a lot of levels.)

Some truck mounted launchers are possible but not anywhere in the MTOE. Could be a last ditch add on -- of course given the scarcity of ammo circa 2000 (and likelihood a lot of it is bad) line battalions might put all their surviving Javelins into the hands of Echo Companies with humvees for the same reasons why 901s might be pulled out of the battalions.

[dragoon500ly]

My own vote would be for the Echo Companies to have been disbanded with the troops going to the line companies as replacements.

I can also see the brigade commander grouping the surviving M-920/M-901s into a single antitank company. But numbers wise, I doubt that more than a dozen total.

[pmulcahy11b]

When we went through Bradley Transition at 2/7, Echo Company was equipped with what were essentially Scout Bradleys -- Bradleys with extra stowage for TOW II missiles (I think they actually carried a few more TOWs than the standard scout Bradley). Bear in mind, though, this was 1988, and things could have changed vastly since then.

[Abbott Shaull]

Yeah with the transition from M2 Battalions I felt the best vehicle for the job would of been M3.

So my question was there ever M920. I thought it was one of many vehicle that never were.

Yeah, Paul, it would make sense in deploying the M2 or M3 with extra missile load into the Anti-Armor Companies. The sad thing is that after the M2 came along, many felt the Anti-Armor Companies weren't needed. Along with the fact that many officer felt that with the anti-missile capacity of the M2 turned them into tank killers.

[Tegyrius]

Originally Posted by Abbott Shaull

So my question was there ever M920. I thought it was one of many vehicle that never were.

There was an M920, but not a tank-killer in normal use:

http://www.fourwheeler.com/featuredv...8x8/index.html



- C.

[HorseSoldier]

If I recall correctly, no one from European based units took their Echo companies with them to the desert for the '91 war. Does anyone know if 24th ID and other units from CONUS brought them? The mobility differential in the desert looked like a lethal problem to a lot of people.

Once the Bradley came into play the AT companies -- as equipped -- were sort of a redundancy. I could see using M3s to replace M901s, though what was really needed was something that gave the AT companies a real expanded anti-tank capability compared to the Brads. A ground launched Hellfire was GDW's idea and it's not a superb one, as is . . . but if you were able to network it like the Longbow Apaches, especially if you issued laser designators to the dismounts in the line companies and could have the G-Hellfire carriers sit back out of sight and just lob top attack missiles onto targets identified by guys in fighting positions, that might have been a winner. (Though that wasn't 1996 or 2000 technology.)

[Abbott Shaull]

Yeah, that is the thing I wouldn't think with M2 Battalions you would be hard press to justify the AT Company. Especially if and when some grow a brain to make the cross attachment idea permanent. Two M2 supplied Mechanized and two Armor Companies should provide enough anti-tank fire to make having an AT-Company redundant.

Even Battalions and Brigades that had been equipped with M1 tanks but still had M113s as their primary Mechanize Infantry carrier would have be hampered due to the fact that M113 wouldn't keep up.

[schnickelfritz]

I have a copy of a Challenge Magazine that has an article on US 2.5 and 5 ton gun trucks, specifically listing the 5th ID as an example. I would assume that even in a (pre-summer T2K offensive) well equipped US Mechanized Infantry Division would have at least half of its infantry truck-borne.

Being that gun trucks in the APC role are limited in firepower to pintle/ring mounted MG's and Grenade Launchers, I think the most sensible thing to do would be to use the trucks (armored or not) to flesh out M2 or M113 Battalions, with the M2's in this case, providing the cannon and ATGM fire support that the trucks cannot.

Ironically, there is a M35A2 2.5ton local to me that has been restored and converted to represent a Vietnam era Gun truck. I see it sitting outside a lot, and plan on stopping to talk to the guy when spring comes.

I'll probably end up deleting the bulk of the M901 strength, using what remains to provide additional backup to the more truck-borne companies, especially those of 2-256 and 3-256 Infantry.

Thanks!
Dave

[Abbott Shaull]

Originally Posted by schnickelfritz

I have a copy of a Challenge Magazine that has an article on US 2.5 and 5 ton gun trucks, specifically listing the 5th ID as an example. I would assume that even in a (pre-summer T2K offensive) well equipped US Mechanized Infantry Division would have at least half of its infantry truck-borne.

Being that gun trucks in the APC role are limited in firepower to pintle/ring mounted MG's and Grenade Launchers, I think the most sensible thing to do would be to use the trucks (armored or not) to flesh out M2 or M113 Battalions, with the M2's in this case, providing the cannon and ATGM fire support that the trucks cannot.

Ironically, there is a M35A2 2.5ton local to me that has been restored and converted to represent a Vietnam era Gun truck. I see it sitting outside a lot, and plan on stopping to talk to the guy when spring comes.

I'll probably end up deleting the bulk of the M901 strength, using what remains to provide additional backup to the more truck-borne companies, especially those of 2-256 and 3-256 Infantry.

Thanks!
Dave

Yeah much of the infantry would be truck borne either in utility configured HMMWV, or larger vehicles. In WWII it is part of the reason why the Army dropped Motorized Infantry Divisions and converted them to regular Infantry Divisions. In many cases the Infantry Division was able to move at least one Regiment by via truck if not more it with what was organic to it already. Which most of the time was all that was needed to move at a time anyways with the rest of the Division either engaged or waiting their turn to move.

Even the Light Division in the US Army in 1980's and on could deploy quite bit of their Light Infantry Battalion on HMMWVs and larger vehicle when sources were pooled together. Of course, many of these battalions were also airmobile trained too.

Even in the Pact side when Catagory C and Mobilized Only Divisions were activated they didn't have enough equipment to mover their Motorized Rifle Regiments in the Motorized Rifle Division and would have borrow lorries somewhere to get their 3rd Regiment motorized, in some case even their 2nd Regiment.

So by 2000 many of the Armor/Panzer/Tank and Mechanize/Panzergrenadier/Motorized Rifle Divisions on either side would have all sorts of vehicles to provide transportation to their Mechanized Infantry elements. I think in most cases there would be Brigade/Regiment would be what they Division could field properly equipped. The rest of the Division would have to rely on various other means to stay mobile. One thing many of these new rides, they would operate as old APCs used to be thought of in the US Army in that they take to within so far to the actually fighting. Then you would have to get out and walk the rest way in. It is part of the reason why the US Army pushed for IFV so that the Infantry can ride right into battle before deploying from the vehicle instead of having to fight their way forwards...

Just some thoughts.

[dragoon500ly]

Originally Posted by HorseSoldier

If I recall correctly, no one from European based units took their Echo companies with them to the desert for the '91 war. Does anyone know if 24th ID and other units from CONUS brought them?

1st Cavalry brought their Echo companies, they were theater reserve and not released until late in the ground fighting.

1st Infantry Division brought theirs, they were the breaching force and did make more use of their M-901s, but there are a lot of reports of stuck ITVs as well as issues with sand contamination of the hammerheads themselves.

24th Infantry also brought their Echo companies and reported mobility issues with the M-901s. There is a story that so bad was the problem that the brigade commanders, "grouped" the M-901s and had them follow along as best as possible or escort supply convoys forward.

Offically, the Army reported that the M-901 worked well and that there were no troop compliants...

[Abbott Shaull]

Originally Posted by dragoon500ly

1st Cavalry brought their Echo companies, they were theater reserve and not released until late in the ground fighting.

1st Infantry Division brought theirs, they were the breaching force and did make more use of their M-901s, but there are a lot of reports of stuck ITVs as well as issues with sand contamination of the hammerheads themselves.

24th Infantry also brought their Echo companies and reported mobility issues with the M-901s. There is a story that so bad was the problem that the brigade commanders, "grouped" the M-901s and had them follow along as best as possible or escort supply convoys forward.

Offically, the Army reported that the M-901 worked well and that there were no troop compliants...

Of course the Army would report there were no complaints.

Yeah for the most part the AT Companies that still had M901 would be more or less pulled from their Battalions and put in places where they could be used for convoy protection and other duties. Maybe used as flank protection on exposed flanks. Yeah sand would seem to be a real problem with them out there.

[Abbott Shaull]

Which leads to another idea, would Echo companies be stripped out of the Mechanized Battalion and then consolidated into a Battalion or 2 of their own under the Divisional Command control where they can used as need. Or they could be used to make 4th Combat Brigade with 3 Brigades with 1 Armor, 1 Mechanized, and 1 AT Battalion.

[dragoon500ly]

Originally Posted by Abbott Shaull

Which leads to another idea, would Echo companies be stripped out of the Mechanized Battalion and then consolidated into a Battalion or 2 of their own under the Divisional Command control where they can used as need. Or they could be used to make 4th Combat Brigade with 3 Brigades with 1 Armor, 1 Mechanized, and 1 AT Battalion.

I would expect to see the Echo Companies, either disbanded and their personnel reassigned to the rifle companies. If there was any consolidation at all, it would most likely be along the lines of a Brigade level AT Company. If there was a divisional level AT Battalion, it would spend most of its time broken up into attachments, defeating the purpose of such a consolidation.

[Abbott Shaull]

Originally Posted by dragoon500ly

I would expect to see the Echo Companies, either disbanded and their personnel reassigned to the rifle companies. If there was any consolidation at all, it would most likely be along the lines of a Brigade level AT Company. If there was a divisional level AT Battalion, it would spend most of its time broken up into attachments, defeating the purpose of such a consolidation.

Yeah but that was part of the problem with the original Echo Company in the Mechanized Battalion. They were usually broken up into various attachments to the other Companies of the Battalion.

Yeah more than likely they would be reassigned to the rifle companies with the Echo Companies being disbanded. On another hand, it does lend itself to other option too.

[pmulcahy11b]

A lot of National Guard units might still have the M113/M901 mix, or did not receive enough Bradleys to replace the Echo company.

[Abbott Shaull]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

A lot of National Guard units might still have the M113/M901 mix, or did not receive enough Bradleys to replace the Echo company.

Yeah seeing lot of National Guard units still having the M901 even if they had been given M2 for the other companies or even LAV-25 or something similar. One of the thing when the Battalion is holding a line, the M901 has it place. While the Battalion is in attack mode, it is invitation for set up of being ambushed, especially if the other Companies are in anything other than M113. If they are in the M113, think of the joy the Pact Tank Company Commander would feel when he found these slow movers in and catch them in their flank...Ugh makes my head spin to think about. Then again there enough Pact APC and lighter units would their commanders would have to worry about the same things.

After the war starts I can see the Mechanized Companies having their M113s replaced when possible. The Echo Company especially in battalions being converted to M2s would be low priority since each Bradley already had two TOW ready to fire. The M113 and all those various type of vehicle based off this chassis would be in support at best. Even at the rate the 3rd Mechanized moved in Iraq, they at time had to slow things down so support units and HQ could keep up with their displacement and set up.

[Panther Al]

You know with all this talk about the slowness of the 113 platform kinda boggles my mind. True, I accept the basic idea that the 113 can not keep up with the Abrams. OK, Got that. The last vehicle I was the TC of before I got sucked into recruiting was our 77 track (A M113). I can't count the number of times I was told over the radio to slow down so that the M1's can catch up (Especially when we was off road - in any terrain that wasn't smooth and flat, all our 113 platforms smoked our Abrams and Brads). So, while I accept the premise in general, I would tend to think that as the TW went on, the 113's that survived would be, on average, those that seem to be a might bit faster than the rest. Just something to think about...

[Legbreaker]

I'd have to agree. The M113's I've been riding in were capable of some damn fine speed over rough terrain.
I have no experience with M1s and M2s though so can't really compare.

[dragoon500ly]

Originally Posted by Panther Al

You know with all this talk about the slowness of the 113 platform kinda boggles my mind. True, I accept the basic idea that the 113 can not keep up with the Abrams. OK, Got that. The last vehicle I was the TC of before I got sucked into recruiting was our 77 track (A M113). I can't count the number of times I was told over the radio to slow down so that the M1's can catch up (Especially when we was off road - in any terrain that wasn't smooth and flat, all our 113 platforms smoked our Abrams and Brads). So, while I accept the premise in general, I would tend to think that as the TW went on, the 113's that survived would be, on average, those that seem to be a might bit faster than the rest. Just something to think about...

M-113s are surprisingly nimble little vehicles and they can outrun and outmaneuver a M-1/M-2 in tight terrain. But in the more open terrain, the only M-113 that ever out ran a M-1 was the Motor Pool Chief's personal ride, and that was only due to him having reset the timing on the governers. But then the first time we pulled a quarterly maintenance on our M-1, we went into the pack and reset our governer too.

Will say this, in my time on the "beasts" (8 years) I can count the times I've thrown a track on a Abrams or on a -113 on one hand. An M-60A1 on the other hand...look at it wrong in the motor pool and it will lock its brakes and throw a track.

[Abbott Shaull]

Never been in Heavy units, but everything that I have read up to this point has pointed to that the M113 was much slower than M1. Then again this could be attributed to people trying to sell their M2 to go along with the M1s in the first place, by claiming the M113 were too slow. How else could they sell an vehicle the cut the dismount portion of an Mechanized Platoon by a third. Other reason why the LAV-25 wasn't approved of, even though the Marine Corps thought they good idea.

Then hearing this, then it gives me some ideas. Take 2 M2s and 2 M113s for Mechanized Platoons of Mechanized Team. While Armor Teams would have 4 M2. Then their the Anti-Armor Company and Scout Platoons that offer so many combinations.

Like I said with the introduction of the M2 into Mechanized Battalions, I can see many of the Echo Companies being dispersed since the M2s in the 4 line companies already have two anti-tank missiles per unit. Yet, if they mix a Mechanized Battalion that had mixed of M2 with either M113 or LAV-25 or something similar to the Stryker, then having the Echo Company would still hang along.

[HorseSoldier]

Originally Posted by Panther Al

You know with all this talk about the slowness of the 113 platform kinda boggles my mind. True, I accept the basic idea that the 113 can not keep up with the Abrams. OK, Got that. The last vehicle I was the TC of before I got sucked into recruiting was our 77 track (A M113). I can't count the number of times I was told over the radio to slow down so that the M1's can catch up (Especially when we was off road - in any terrain that wasn't smooth and flat, all our 113 platforms smoked our Abrams and Brads). So, while I accept the premise in general, I would tend to think that as the TW went on, the 113's that survived would be, on average, those that seem to be a might bit faster than the rest. Just something to think about...

113A3s can hang pretty well.

M901s were underpowered and pokey things even compared to pre-A3 113s, though.

I still suspect that late in the Twilight War, a lot of them would have the 901 components just scrapped or cannibalized for used elsewhere and basically be converted back to M113s, or as close as DISCOM maintenance assets could manage by 1999-2000.

[dragoon500ly]

Originally Posted by HorseSoldier

113A3s can hang pretty well.

M901s were underpowered and pokey things even compared to pre-A3 113s, though.

I still suspect that late in the Twilight War, a lot of them would have the 901 components just scrapped or cannibalized for used elsewhere and basically be converted back to M113s, or as close as DISCOM maintenance assets could manage by 1999-2000.

The M-901 is certainly underpowered for its weight class, but then hang about 1,800kg of hammerhead turret and don't change out the engine....

The biggest drawbacks of the M-901 is that it is top-heavy, even with the hammerhead in the down position; under-powered due to the above mentioned failure to up-engine the thang when the funny-looking thang was added on top. Another major failure is that the hydralic system, well SUCKS!!! I've seen hammerheads fail to extend/retract, fail to spin, fail to stop spinning and flat out say to hell with it all and blow thier lines.

To its advantage...a M-901 in a down postion with the hammerhead just barely exposed is a nightmare to spot before it fires. It has a decent thermal sight and is a vast improvement over the old M-150...

Still, given the choice of crewing a Hammerhead or crewing a M-1A1....give me the Abrams, hands down!

[HorseSoldier]

When I first got in ('93) the Cav unit I was in was still running a sort of transitional MTOE with tankers in mid-NETT for M1A1s, 4.2" mortars, and 113 based scout platoons with 3 x M113A3s and 3 x M901s. The thermals were nice but otherwise they were a PITA. For the stuff we were actually doing circa 1993 I think we would have been better off with 6 x 113s or M2 Bradleys running four man dismount teams each, but then the army never asked me about my ideas for fixing MTOE. (Though my unit did eventually do a JRTC rotation as the heavy team element for a brigade where we did go with 6 x M2s instead of M3s per platoon and our 19Ds plussed up with 11Bs to fill all the seats in the back. Since we were running mixed platoons of 2 x M1A1s and 3 x Bradleys, it meant we could also put 18 dismounts on the ground on top of the firepower. Promised to be really solid, except that the OPFOR just avoided us like the plague until the mechanized attack at the end.)

[Abbott Shaull]

Yeah never understood why they would use the M3 as a scout vehicle, when the M2 offered more dismounts for the scouting. On the other hand M3 used to replacement in the AT Company would be just about right, if one was interested in keeping the Echo Company still active.

[HorseSoldier]

Agreed. The M3, with it's bigger load of ammunition, was an artifact of the "built by committee to satisfy no one" aspect of the Bradley. A Recce AFV carrying two dismounts can and should have been smaller, but we got stuck with the Bradley as the chassis. So they opted to jam extra ammo in, since the space (and large profile) was obligatory, but that wasn't the ideal solution.

[Abbott Shaull]

Originally Posted by HorseSoldier

Agreed. The M3, with it's bigger load of ammunition, was an artifact of the "built by committee to satisfy no one" aspect of the Bradley. A Recce AFV carrying two dismounts can and should have been smaller, but we got stuck with the Bradley as the chassis. So they opted to jam extra ammo in, since the space (and large profile) was obligatory, but that wasn't the ideal solution.

Yeah, it wasn't ideal for means of it mission. Now for an Anti-Tank company it wouldn't be quite as ideal as the M901, but if they are used in ambush setting where they don't have dismounted spread out, they can fire, then pull back to position where they can reload. Still have 25mm auto cannon and coax MG for protection.