thats a hard to understand question there pal. i'm struggling with your wording. do you mean what kind of platoons does each military have in firepower terms? or what support a typical platoon in a specific force has at their disposal?
On the 8th day God created Ben-Britain and he took over!
"when I get home people'll ask me,'hey Hoot, why do ya do it man? Why? Just some war junkie?' Ya know what I'll say? I won't say a goddamn word. Why? They won't understand. They won't understand why we do it. They won't understand it's about the man next to you, and that's it. That's all it is."
SGT 1st Class Norman Hooten
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Well in a typical squad, there'd be one guy with a SAW, one guy with rifle-mounted grenade launcher, and another with either LAW or AT4... That's what I think...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Republic of Korea Marine Corps (ROKMC) The Few, the Proud, the Best.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
It depends. What type of platoon are you talking about?
In the USMC each infantry company consists of 3 rifle platoons and a weapons platoon. Additionally infantry battalions consist of 3 rifle companies, a headquarters and service company, and a weapons company. It may be reinforced by a TOW platoon, a scout/sniper platoon, a reconnaissance platoon, an assualt amphibian platoon, a LAR(light armored reconnaissance) platoon ect, ect. It may also have an artillery battery providing support, or an attached tank platoon ect.
To get a full picture of weaponry and fire support you'd have to go battalion level IMO.
A rifle platoon has approx 18 M-16s, 9 SAWs, and 12 M203s.
The American Marine Division has the highest combat effectiveness in the American armed forces. It seems not enough for our four divisions to surround and annihilate its two regiments.
---Mao Tse Sung to General Song, prior to Chosin Reservoir
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
A platoon size of men basically consists of 4 sections...with 8 men each...there would be typically 4 M203 launchrers, 4-8 (M-72's (LAW), 8 C-9 (SAW, i think the americans call it that), and one medium anti-tank, and also 2 C-6 (m60 for americans)
thats what i know it as
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
A platoon size of men basically consists of 4 sections...with 8 men each...there would be typically 4 M203 launchrers, 4-8 (M-72's (LAW), 8 C-9 (SAW, i think the americans call it that), and one medium anti-tank, and also 2 C-6 (m60 for americans)
thats what i know it as
Well for just a platoon size unit/patrol, fire support would be what the platoon commander deems necessary for it to be really, depending on what size/type of force you will be going up against
Remember, all fire should be 'appropriate fire' i.e You don't want to go wasting rounds on a fvckin great tank, viceversa there's no point in using a MILAN to take out a 2 man position. So, all fire support should be 'appropriate'.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Yes thats true but most likely youre going to be going against the same force or larger so you need to survive the attack, most likely maybe spend all ammo and munitions, er-supply cq will mostly likely be able to re-arm after an attack such as a raid, or ambush.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Yes thats true but most likely youre going to be going against the same force or larger so you need to survive the attack,
Although most Battalion/Battlegroup sized battles are planned, the same can't be said for contacts whilst patrolling & result in soldiers resorting to section/platoon level battle drills. At Battalion/Battlegroup level there is a whole amount of fire support i.e. Arty, Mortars etc. etc. & other support i.e recce/sniper, assault pioneers.
In the fire support, i'm not too sure what arty guns are used, I think it's 25 pounders, but for mortars at platoon level the 51mm mortar is used, but in fire support at battalion level the 81mm mortar is used because of the differences in the range.
most likely maybe spend all ammo and munitions, er-supply cq will mostly likely be able to re-arm after an attack such as a raid, or ambush.
You're more likely to spend all ammo & munitions in a surprise attack at section/platoon level i.e whilst on patrol, & it will go quickly (the ammo that is). Re-supply is unlikely as HQ Coy most probably won't want to divert battalion assets to aid a section/platoon, so you'll be expected to break contact & extract rather sharpish. Situations dictate.
An ambush is a (static) surprise attack on an unsuspecting enemy. Skills & drills have to be sh*te hot to carry out an ambush & the very nature of an ambush doesn't really allow itself to a re-sup because the last thing you want is the QMs crowd bimbling about in the background, so all ammo & munitions will be carried into position.
This message has been edited by BATCO_Barry on Mar 11, 2004 5:16 PM
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Britain fought a Brigade sized war in the Falklands in 1982, against a corps sized (much larger) Argentinian force. Much of the battles that took place there were battalion/battlegroup size batles, in most the Brits turned up in battalion sized strebgth against an Argentine battlegroup (approx 3x battalion size)
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
The kind of structure I know is this. One squad---8 men. 2 SAW, 2 M203, 1 LAW, 3 plain rifles (2 of these guys will carry some ammo for the M203 guys, the third one is the squad commander). And fire support for the battalion is in the form of heavy weapons---120mm mortar installed on M-113.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Pity we haven't seen 2 equal powers fighting in true Battle Fields like in WW2. Well, let's hope there will no real war more.
Don't really know what to make of this comment. I think, in the case of the falklands war, you have to consider that Quality versus Quantity was how the war was matched. Although the British fighting forces were far superiour in quality, the Argentines boasted superiour quantity.
There does come a time, when Quantity (but lacking in quality) does become an issue to a better trained force. There are also other factors that have to be considered i.e are you defending or attacking. The powers that write the manuals say that, for an attacking force to be successful, it should outnumber the defenders by AT LEAST 3:1, no matter of quality & of course, assuming the defenders are adequately armed according to their numbers. The British (attacking) forces were generally outnumbered by a lot more than this.
Lets add up the pros & cons for both nations during the Falklands war. Just to see how level the battlefield really was, or the scales may tip in favour of the Argentinians.
Argentina
Pros:
DISTANCE FROM ISLANDS - Makes logistics easier, both for increased manpower & resupply's. Also bringing its full airforce to bare.
SUPERIOUR NUMBERS - Again, this should have been a major factor in the war. Also, with the distance to the Islands, there was always the option of increasing the ratio to British forces within a short timescale, an option British forces didn't really have, at least not within a short timescale anyway, & if it became necessary to, I think Thatcher may have had second thoughts.
EQUIPMENT - It is a well documented fact that the FN-FAL rifle used by the Argentines were a superiour weapon to the SLR used by the Brits. "They were the same weapon" I hear you say, but there were subtle differences in the rifles. Night sights were better quality than that used by the British forces & there were more per platoon than in the British forces. Boots were better designed with a rigid tongue to stop water from getting in. The list goes on..............
Cons:
QUALITY - Although the Argentines did have some top notch units in the Falklands i.e Buzo Tactico, Army commandos & a Marine Brigade, the rest were of poor quality. However, it must be stated that when 2 special forces units (Buzo Tactico & RM Mountain & arctic warfare cadre) from either country, did meet in battle, on an 'equal' (well, equal in numbers only, but BT was in a defensive position at Top Malo house) footing, the RMs took the Buzo Tactico unit out in quite a convincing manner.
MORALE - Morale is one of those funny things during war, I hear people say "The Argentines lacked morale......" or "The Iraqis lacked morale.......", let me tell you something, it don't matter what countries army you fight in or how well trained you are, once you get into a war zone, your morale will take a nosedive. Its the self discipline that pulls you through but you do get demoralised. The Brit soldiers would have been as demoralised as the Argentines is my guess, but they did their job.
Pros & cons for the Brits were total opposite to the Agentines.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
I am trying to get more info about the Falklands War.
I think at that time Britain was sure about winning the war, although it was such a long distance, but with that large scaled Fleet, Britain shouldn't have any problem to occupy a landing place, as long as there was a landing place, you can drop your troops into the island one after another.
BTW, with superior navy especially the subs, you could cut down the Agentinians' supply line easily, then you were actually fighting against a isolated troop of Argentinia on that island, given time, you must win finally.
I think the moral of Argentinians waslow because they knew they could not count any support from mainland Argentinia, they were actually abandoned troops, they knew their days were counted, while Brits at that war must have very high moral cuz you knew you had a strong Backbone Support and super navy.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
I think the moral of Argentinians waslow because they knew they could not count any support from mainland Argentinia, they were actually abandoned troops, they knew their days were counted, while Brits at that war must have very high moral cuz you knew you had a strong Backbone Support and super navy.
I don't really know about this. You have to remember that the last view of most of the British soldiers/Marines offloaded at the beach head, was of the Argentine Pucaras steaming down the Falkland sound & successfully bombing RN ships & seeing & hearing of ships being sunk. Not very good for morale!!! I have spoken to Falkland vets that were still serving & believe it or not, once they left the beach head, they had the same feeling of being abandoned. One said that there was always a gut feeling that once they'd won the land war, there would be no RN to take them back home.
With battlegroup support, although you know its there somewhere, you don't always trust that it'll be brought to bare to get you out of the Sh*te. Remember, Artillery fire was only used to soften up targets, but both sides had Artillery. Also, support at battalion level for both forces was near identical i.e mortars, HMGs etc.
In the conditions faced by the forces in the Falklands, the last thing being thought of by your average grunt would be backbone support. When I was a mere rifleman, all I wanted to know was where & when to fire, & when would I next get some sleep, scoff & change out of my wet kit. At the forefront of his mind would be surviving the cold weather. It snowed, rained, blew a gale & most of the time, British forces weren't dug in because they had to fight a battle, regroup then move on to their next objective, so they weren't sheltered from the elements & suffered because of it, but still pushed on. Because they were an attacking force, digging in was not a long term option.
In situations like this, morale comes in the form of a nice hot brew!!!!!
This message has been edited by BATCO_Barry on Mar 12, 2004 5:07 PM This message has been edited by BATCO_Barry on Mar 12, 2004 5:04 PM
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
As for a individual soldier, he/she may feel abandoned as you said in the story, but as a whole Landing Troop like that of RN in Falkland, they would not feel abandoned cuz behind them there was a strong navy.
BTW. I thought during that war, the RAF did much work bombing the hell out of life while Argentina barely had any airforce support, therefore those platoon battles were not really decisive factors winning the war, but the airforce, as we say in Yugolavia and Iraq.
Well, you do have to use ground troops to occupy Land, that is the war about, but today's war is mainly about air strikes.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Even if they had 100% full support from Mainland Argentina....they still would have got their asses wooped like they did... thats called treason argentina, and you felt it!
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Current Topic - Fire Support of Platoon size of troops
