Jump to content


Photo

Georgia Wants Javelins


  • Please log in to reply
63 replies to this topic

#21 FALightFighter

FALightFighter

    Red-Legged Ilk

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,394 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:USA

Posted 23 November 2017 - 1242 PM

KV7,

 

Not dedicated recon assets at company level in the US Army.

 

Manuever battalions have a "scout" platoon- technically a reconnaissance platoon in the IBCT infantry battalions. They've had a variety of organizations across the various organizations (A/S/I BCTs), but the current proposals is to go to a single, consolidated organization of 6 reconnaissance vehicles and 36 personnel for all platoons, with the only variations supposed to be in the vehicles used- M3 CFVs in the ABCTs, M1127 Stryker RVs in the SBCTs, and JLTV variants in the IBCTs. Although there was a proposal for a Light Recon Vehicle that was a separate system for the IBCTs, I think that has died.


  • 0

#22 KV7

KV7

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,341 posts

Posted 23 November 2017 - 1713 PM

KV7,

 

Not dedicated recon assets at company level in the US Army.

 

Manuever battalions have a "scout" platoon- technically a reconnaissance platoon in the IBCT infantry battalions. They've had a variety of organizations across the various organizations (A/S/I BCTs), but the current proposals is to go to a single, consolidated organization of 6 reconnaissance vehicles and 36 personnel for all platoons, with the only variations supposed to be in the vehicles used- M3 CFVs in the ABCTs, M1127 Stryker RVs in the SBCTs, and JLTV variants in the IBCTs. Although there was a proposal for a Light Recon Vehicle that was a separate system for the IBCTs, I think that has died.

Thanks. I ask because the support platoon is motorised but as above you don't really want to use it as an 'assault' or recon role as the weapons are longer range. I can see the case for giving the companies with the assault platoons another vehicle and a scout section and maybe a sniper riding in it.


  • 0

#23 bojan

bojan

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 10,259 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Belgrade, Serbia
  • Interests:Obscure tanks and guns.
    Obscure facts about well known tanks and guns.
    Obscure historical facts.

Posted 24 November 2017 - 0516 AM

...

Im surprised Georgia still has a Soviet based establishment, in line with their having fought in Afghanistan and their trying to get into NATO for donkeys years.

 

NATO probably has as many co/bn orgs as it has member countries, so I don't see why would they "copy" any org in particular. UK has Co almost w/o heavy weapons, US has a lot of heavy weapon at Co, France even more so (at one moment their motorized infantry even had AA guns at Co level!), other vary a lot. Dutch mech inf has (or had, I did not pay that much attention last 10 years) 120mm mortars at Co level, UK does not have them at all... Some have ATGMs at Co level, some at plt, some only at Bn.

There is nothing inherently wrong Soviet org. It is a bit manpower light, and I don't like plts w/o support section, but for some kinds of rough terrain it might be actually better that way.

 

Also most "NATO standard" brigades are awfully short on arty, while "Soviet style" ones are much less so, and if Syria and Ukraine (especially Ukraine) showed anything is that quantity of arty still plays very important role on battlefield.


Edited by bojan, 24 November 2017 - 0520 AM.

  • 0

#24 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Novichok is the New Black

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 44,830 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eloiland

Posted 24 November 2017 - 0531 AM

 

...

Im surprised Georgia still has a Soviet based establishment, in line with their having fought in Afghanistan and their trying to get into NATO for donkeys years.

 

NATO probably has as many co/bn orgs as it has member countries, so I don't see why would they "copy" any org in particular. UK has Co almost w/o heavy weapons, US has a lot of heavy weapon at Co, France even more so (at one moment their motorized infantry even had AA guns at Co level!), other vary a lot. Dutch mech inf has (or had, I did not pay that much attention last 10 years) 120mm mortars at Co level, UK does not have them at all... Some have ATGMs at Co level, some at plt, some only at Bn.

There is nothing inherently wrong Soviet org. It is a bit manpower light, and I don't like plts w/o support section, but for some kinds of rough terrain it might be actually better that way.

 

Also most "NATO standard" brigades are awfully short on arty, while "Soviet style" ones are much less so, and if Syria and Ukraine (especially Ukraine) showed anything is that quantity of arty still plays very important role on battlefield.

 

 

Im not saying its wrong, and in fact Ive always rather liked the functional simplicity of the Soviet battalion orbat (something even the Russians seem to be moving away from). Im just suggesting im surprised they have stuck with it, when the US example would be rather more relevant from Afghanistan I should have thought. Devolving Antitank missiles down to the company level may well make sense, but that isnt the way the US does it 'pure'. That said, I note that the stryker orbat has a weapons squad which has AT4s If im reading it right, and im presuming other battalion formations do as well.. So it has a similar layout, its just the weapon is different.

http://orig15.devian...anl-d5wa9vz.png


Edited by Stuart Galbraith, 24 November 2017 - 0537 AM.

  • 0

#25 KV7

KV7

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,341 posts

Posted 24 November 2017 - 0657 AM

 

...

Im surprised Georgia still has a Soviet based establishment, in line with their having fought in Afghanistan and their trying to get into NATO for donkeys years.

 

NATO probably has as many co/bn orgs as it has member countries, so I don't see why would they "copy" any org in particular. UK has Co almost w/o heavy weapons, US has a lot of heavy weapon at Co, France even more so (at one moment their motorized infantry even had AA guns at Co level!), other vary a lot. Dutch mech inf has (or had, I did not pay that much attention last 10 years) 120mm mortars at Co level, UK does not have them at all... Some have ATGMs at Co level, some at plt, some only at Bn.

There is nothing inherently wrong Soviet org. It is a bit manpower light, and I don't like plts w/o support section, but for some kinds of rough terrain it might be actually better that way.

 

Also most "NATO standard" brigades are awfully short on arty, while "Soviet style" ones are much less so, and if Syria and Ukraine (especially Ukraine) showed anything is that quantity of arty still plays very important role on battlefield.

 

Yes, exactly, and for other reasons.


  • 0

#26 FALightFighter

FALightFighter

    Red-Legged Ilk

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,394 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:USA

Posted 24 November 2017 - 1216 PM

Stuart,

 

The US has light ATGMs (Javelin) within rifle platoons in all current forms of conventional infantry- in weapons squad in IBCTs, and in the rifle squads of both mechanized and Stryker infantry. The TOWs are organized very differently- they are in the rifle platoon vehicle section in mechanized infantry, in a separate company in each battalion in the IBCTs, and in a separate company at the brigade (recently attached to the cavalry squadron) in SBCTs.

 

AT4s are issued as rounds of ammunition, depending on the requirements of the theater. What I've seen (my experience is all light & airborne infantry, except for a brief period as M113 mechanized in the 1990s) is that each squad gets a couple in COIN operations. If we were going to fight an armor/mech threat, I'd expect that everyone in the squad would have one, with a bunch more on every possible vehicle.


  • 0

#27 Rick

Rick

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,824 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Muncie, Indiana

Posted 24 November 2017 - 1229 PM

 

 

...

Im surprised Georgia still has a Soviet based establishment, in line with their having fought in Afghanistan and their trying to get into NATO for donkeys years.

 

NATO probably has as many co/bn orgs as it has member countries, so I don't see why would they "copy" any org in particular. UK has Co almost w/o heavy weapons, US has a lot of heavy weapon at Co, France even more so (at one moment their motorized infantry even had AA guns at Co level!), other vary a lot. Dutch mech inf has (or had, I did not pay that much attention last 10 years) 120mm mortars at Co level, UK does not have them at all... Some have ATGMs at Co level, some at plt, some only at Bn.

There is nothing inherently wrong Soviet org. It is a bit manpower light, and I don't like plts w/o support section, but for some kinds of rough terrain it might be actually better that way.

 

Also most "NATO standard" brigades are awfully short on arty, while "Soviet style" ones are much less so, and if Syria and Ukraine (especially Ukraine) showed anything is that quantity of arty still plays very important role on battlefield.

 

 

Im not saying its wrong, and in fact Ive always rather liked the functional simplicity of the Soviet battalion orbat (something even the Russians seem to be moving away from). Im just suggesting im surprised they have stuck with it, when the US example would be rather more relevant from Afghanistan I should have thought. Devolving Antitank missiles down to the company level may well make sense, but that isnt the way the US does it 'pure'. That said, I note that the stryker orbat has a weapons squad which has AT4s If im reading it right, and im presuming other battalion formations do as well.. So it has a similar layout, its just the weapon is different.

http://orig15.devian...anl-d5wa9vz.png

 

A company HQ has less men than a platoon HQ in a stryker company?


  • 0

#28 Chris Werb

Chris Werb

    In Zod We Trust

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,814 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Orkney, Scotland, UK
  • Interests:But it's got electrolytes! They're what plants crave!

Posted 24 November 2017 - 1629 PM

 

 

 

In the US Army (USMC is different) a company has 6 javelins, 2/platoon. So a battalion has at least 18- there are some in the weapons company of IBCT infantry battalions, too. 72 launch units, including 2 spares, is ~3 battalions worth at that scale. I don't know how Georgian infantry are organized. 

 

During the Cold war when we had Milan, we had 24 firing posts to a battalion.

 

 

I'm sure some battalions, particularly TA had either a lot less or none at all. Is 24 the number the battalions in 24 Airmobile Brigade had? It seems an awfully high number. This ORBAT site is interesting: http://www.fireandfu...odcwbritish.pdf

 

 

Ive got a feeling 24 Airmobile, in line with its armour stopping role, had enhanced establishment of Milans. I think if memory serves as high as 48 to a battalion. But the usual for BAOR battalions was 24. I think a feeling home defence battalions had 12, but the usual would have been 6 wombats.

 

Not sure about the Commando or Parachute Brigades. Ive a feeling they started off at 12 and upped to 24, but I cant swear to it.

 

 

Im surprised Georgia still has a Soviet based establishment, in line with their having fought in Afghanistan and their trying to get into NATO for donkeys years.

 

 

Stuart, I think home defence roled TA battalions had no MILAN and only two 81mm mortars.


  • 0

#29 FALightFighter

FALightFighter

    Red-Legged Ilk

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,394 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:USA

Posted 24 November 2017 - 1650 PM

Rick,

 

The layout depicted in the darth panda link is misleading.

 

The Stryker infantry company HQs has 12 personnel:

1- Company Commander

2- Company Executive Officer

3- First Sergeant

4- Stryker Vehicle Commander

5- Stryker Vehicle Commander

6- Stryker Driver

7- Stryker Driver

8- Radiotelephone Operator

9- Radiotelephone Operator

10- Supply Sergeant

11- Supply Specialist

12- Forward Signal Support Sergeant

 

One of these personnel is not shown on the darth panda link.

 

In addition, the company can expect the attachment of a fire support team from the field artillery battalion (4-men) and an medical NCO from the battalion medical platoon. The fire support team is shown as a 3 man team in the darth panda, but the medical NCO is not shown. Darth panda does show a single evacuation vehicle with 3-man crew that may or may not be attached to the company (the battalion has 4 evac vehicles, 2 squads of 2 vehicles each).

 

In addition, in the company but not in the three rifle platoons are a 3-man sniper team and a10-man mortar section

 

The Stryker rifle platoon headquarters has three personnel:

1- Platoon Leader

2- Platoon Sergeant

3- Radiotelephone Operator

 

In addition, the platoon can expect the attachment of a forward observer (from the field artillery battalion) and a combat medic (from the battalion medical platoon)- these are the 5 men shown in the darth panda link

 

The rifle platoon mounted element has 8 men, 4 x drivers and 4 x vehicle commanders.

 

The 3 rifle squads have 9 men each, the weapons squad has 5 men.

 

Some of the differences may be TOE updates (the MGS platoon has been moved from the infantry companies to the weapons troop of the cavalry squadron under recent changes; the FISTs, which were formally organic to the company have been consolidated into the FA battalion- the crew may have been changed from 3 to 4 at the same time), some may just be decisions about how to show the normal attachments vs the organic structure of the company.


Edited by FALightFighter, 24 November 2017 - 1704 PM.

  • 0

#30 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Novichok is the New Black

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 44,830 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eloiland

Posted 25 November 2017 - 0259 AM

 

 

 

 

In the US Army (USMC is different) a company has 6 javelins, 2/platoon. So a battalion has at least 18- there are some in the weapons company of IBCT infantry battalions, too. 72 launch units, including 2 spares, is ~3 battalions worth at that scale. I don't know how Georgian infantry are organized. 

 

During the Cold war when we had Milan, we had 24 firing posts to a battalion.

 

 

I'm sure some battalions, particularly TA had either a lot less or none at all. Is 24 the number the battalions in 24 Airmobile Brigade had? It seems an awfully high number. This ORBAT site is interesting: http://www.fireandfu...odcwbritish.pdf

 

 

Ive got a feeling 24 Airmobile, in line with its armour stopping role, had enhanced establishment of Milans. I think if memory serves as high as 48 to a battalion. But the usual for BAOR battalions was 24. I think a feeling home defence battalions had 12, but the usual would have been 6 wombats.

 

Not sure about the Commando or Parachute Brigades. Ive a feeling they started off at 12 and upped to 24, but I cant swear to it.

 

 

Im surprised Georgia still has a Soviet based establishment, in line with their having fought in Afghanistan and their trying to get into NATO for donkeys years.

 

 

Stuart, I think home defence roled TA battalions had no MILAN and only two 81mm mortars.

 

 

Dont know enough about it to comment Chris. I can only relate I bought a document off the national archive that related a fair bit of stuff we assumed was for home defence, in an emergency might actually get sent to West Germany. Off the top of my head, there was a training artillery battery at Catterick, some of the Radio Units at Blandford Forum, and (this staggered me) removing at least some of the units from Northern Ireland, and withdrawing the Chieftains from BATUS in Canada and sending those as well.

 

My own father when he was in the TA had a home defence role. He described how he and his fellow troopers from the Gloucestershire Hussars had the role of going into nuclear strike zones and reestablishing security, ala 'Threads' I guess. But he still had a Ferret armoured car, and he related receiving training in the 3.5 Inch bazooka.  So perhaps the line between home defence and Germany reinforcing was not quite as clean as we now think.

 

I have to agree though, I have a job envisaging where they would have found more milan firing posts from. Likely wombats and conbats all round I would have thought.


Edited by Stuart Galbraith, 25 November 2017 - 0301 AM.

  • 0

#31 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Novichok is the New Black

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 44,830 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eloiland

Posted 25 November 2017 - 0300 AM

Rick,

 

The layout depicted in the darth panda link is misleading.

 

The Stryker infantry company HQs has 12 personnel:

1- Company Commander

2- Company Executive Officer

3- First Sergeant

4- Stryker Vehicle Commander

5- Stryker Vehicle Commander

6- Stryker Driver

7- Stryker Driver

8- Radiotelephone Operator

9- Radiotelephone Operator

10- Supply Sergeant

11- Supply Specialist

12- Forward Signal Support Sergeant

 

One of these personnel is not shown on the darth panda link.

 

In addition, the company can expect the attachment of a fire support team from the field artillery battalion (4-men) and an medical NCO from the battalion medical platoon. The fire support team is shown as a 3 man team in the darth panda, but the medical NCO is not shown. Darth panda does show a single evacuation vehicle with 3-man crew that may or may not be attached to the company (the battalion has 4 evac vehicles, 2 squads of 2 vehicles each).

 

In addition, in the company but not in the three rifle platoons are a 3-man sniper team and a10-man mortar section

 

The Stryker rifle platoon headquarters has three personnel:

1- Platoon Leader

2- Platoon Sergeant

3- Radiotelephone Operator

 

In addition, the platoon can expect the attachment of a forward observer (from the field artillery battalion) and a combat medic (from the battalion medical platoon)- these are the 5 men shown in the darth panda link

 

The rifle platoon mounted element has 8 men, 4 x drivers and 4 x vehicle commanders.

 

The 3 rifle squads have 9 men each, the weapons squad has 5 men.

 

Some of the differences may be TOE updates (the MGS platoon has been moved from the infantry companies to the weapons troop of the cavalry squadron under recent changes; the FISTs, which were formally organic to the company have been consolidated into the FA battalion- the crew may have been changed from 3 to 4 at the same time), some may just be decisions about how to show the normal attachments vs the organic structure of the company.

 

 

I actually found a US military one that was far better, but I think it just concentrated on the physical equipment rather than the personnel.

 

Thanks for that btw, its all good.


  • 0

#32 bojan

bojan

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 10,259 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Belgrade, Serbia
  • Interests:Obscure tanks and guns.
    Obscure facts about well known tanks and guns.
    Obscure historical facts.

Posted 25 November 2017 - 0646 AM

 

Stuart, I think home defence roled TA battalions had no MILAN and only two 81mm mortars.

 

Only 2 x 81mm per Bn? What year, 1939? :P

 

Local TO company had 2-4 x 60mm, (usually, 2-3, but independant Cos could have 4) Bn had 4 or 8 x 81mm (independant Bns had more, those that were part of the regiment had less) and regiment had 8-12x120mm.They were however  awfully short on long range AT firepower with no ATGMs until regimental level. Only AT firepower came from single AT plt (3-4 x AT weapon) per Co, 4-6 82mm RCLs at Bn level and another 8-12 at regimental. OTOH they were mostly intended as a "stay behind" element, so limited AT firepower might not have been that much of a problem.


  • 0

#33 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Novichok is the New Black

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 44,830 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eloiland

Posted 25 November 2017 - 0722 AM

If those figures are correct, it may be a case of having 2 as a token measure so they can go to the ranges with them. There probably wasnt a lot of use for the in a home defence role unless the VDV started landing.

 

Home defence in our context was more about maintaining control of the population in crisis, and guarding establishments against sabotage. Ive read one of the reasons why John Nott was pushing for airmobile forces is that when the rest of BAOR collapsed, we might be able to bring something back to defend the country. Though im not sure an airmobile brigade would have gone very far.


  • 0

#34 shep854

shep854

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,656 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Birmingham AL, USA
  • Interests:Military History, Aviation

Posted 25 November 2017 - 0901 AM

Will the US flavor of Carl Gustav replace AT4s down in plt/sqd, or simply be available for need?


  • 0

#35 bd1

bd1

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,896 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:estonia

Posted 25 November 2017 - 1025 AM

If those figures are correct, it may be a case of having 2 as a token measure so they can go to the ranges with them. There probably wasnt a lot of use for the in a home defence role unless the VDV started landing.

 

Home defence in our context was more about maintaining control of the population in crisis, and guarding establishments against sabotage. Ive read one of the reasons why John Nott was pushing for airmobile forces is that when the rest of BAOR collapsed, we might be able to bring something back to defend the country. Though im not sure an airmobile brigade would have gone very far.

the 81mm were meant for shooting illumination to spot looters  :)


  • 0

#36 bojan

bojan

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 10,259 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Belgrade, Serbia
  • Interests:Obscure tanks and guns.
    Obscure facts about well known tanks and guns.
    Obscure historical facts.

Posted 25 November 2017 - 1212 PM

...Edit for stupidity... 


Edited by bojan, 25 November 2017 - 1218 PM.

  • 0

#37 Chris Werb

Chris Werb

    In Zod We Trust

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,814 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Orkney, Scotland, UK
  • Interests:But it's got electrolytes! They're what plants crave!

Posted 26 November 2017 - 0737 AM

There was a scheme at one time to take the MILANS off two home-roled TA battalions and give them to one battalion going to BAOR resulting in the latter getting triple the allocation (18) and the home based ones keeping none. This was apparently to happen for more than one BAOR roled TA battalion.


  • 0

#38 KV7

KV7

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,341 posts

Posted 26 November 2017 - 1818 PM

If those figures are correct, it may be a case of having 2 as a token measure so they can go to the ranges with them. There probably wasnt a lot of use for the in a home defence role unless the VDV started landing.

 

Home defence in our context was more about maintaining control of the population in crisis, and guarding establishments against sabotage. Ive read one of the reasons why John Nott was pushing for airmobile forces is that when the rest of BAOR collapsed, we might be able to bring something back to defend the country. Though im not sure an airmobile brigade would have gone very far.

I am a little surprised that 'maintaining control of the population in crisis' was considered such a large potential problem.


Edited by KV7, 26 November 2017 - 1818 PM.

  • 0

#39 lastdingo

lastdingo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,790 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Germany

Posted 26 November 2017 - 1913 PM

There was a lot of hysterical nonsense written during the Cold War about sleeper cells, leftist uprisings in the event of war or crisis et cetera.


  • 0

#40 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Novichok is the New Black

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 44,830 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eloiland

Posted 27 November 2017 - 0307 AM

 

If those figures are correct, it may be a case of having 2 as a token measure so they can go to the ranges with them. There probably wasnt a lot of use for the in a home defence role unless the VDV started landing.

 

Home defence in our context was more about maintaining control of the population in crisis, and guarding establishments against sabotage. Ive read one of the reasons why John Nott was pushing for airmobile forces is that when the rest of BAOR collapsed, we might be able to bring something back to defend the country. Though im not sure an airmobile brigade would have gone very far.

I am a little surprised that 'maintaining control of the population in crisis' was considered such a large potential problem.

 

 

In my fathers case, I think it was more a case of what happened after the Atomic bombs fell. IE, stopping looting, maintaining food queues that kind of thing. His basic mission (so he told me he had been informed) was going into a nuclear strike zone and taking back control. The TA also had a role defending the regional seats of government, and if the display I saw at Blandford Forum was correct, TA communications units would have been running the communications facilities in them.

 

My father left in the late 60s before civil defence was effectively disbanded, but im not entirely sure the role actually changed. They probably just had fewer soldiers doing it.

 

 

There was a lot of hysterical nonsense written during the Cold War about sleeper cells, leftist uprisings in the event of war or crisis et cetera.

 

I was reading somewhere that the Royal Observer Corp (whom ostensibly only had the role to plot where the Atomic Bombs fell) also had a secondary role to report suspicious characters, possible Spetsnaz that kind of thing. I actually asked about this on the Subterranea Britannica newsgroup and they angrily rejected it. Mind you, they always were somewhat opinionated.

 

I think it fair to suggest the TA in wartime would have been in much the same kind of roles the Home Guard had. They would just have been wearing NBC whilst doing it is all.

 

 

Maddeningly little written on it. All ive found is how Government rerolled in the lead up to war, not much on what military units would have been doing what whilst in it. Other than as said, that one document already mentioned, which is pretty rare. A WINTEX exercise describes arresting potential agitators and strike leaders on the lead up to war, for fear of their interfering with reinforcing NATO.


Edited by Stuart Galbraith, 27 November 2017 - 0308 AM.

  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users