Ideas for Light Infanty Upgrades.

Well, consider this:

The War in Afghanistan is the 11th deadliest war the US has been involved in. In it's 11th year, beating it are such conflicts as the 10 years of heaviest involvement in Vietnam, the 3 years in Korea, 1 year in World War I, even the 2 year Mexican-American War.

Also traditionally, more have died from "other" (like disease, accidents and food poisoning) then combat, not in this case. And in most conflicts, the ratio of dea to wounded is around 2 or 3 to 1. In this conflict, it is more like 9 to 1. A person who is wounded in Afghanistan is over 4 times more likely to survive then a wounded soldier in other wars.

So yes, obviously the gear and equipment is working, and working very well. Or else we would have very different numbers.

 

The meaning of light infantry needs to be revisited.

Flak jacket, front SAPI, back SAPI, side SAPI, throat protector, neck protector, groin protector, shoulder protector, squad automatic weapons, ect.

The light infantry is over burdened and over encumbered

 

I think they're starting to learn this lesson in Afghanistan. In Iraq too many mothers and politicians got into the "protection game" and began demanding all this ridiculous and heavy protective equipment. Some of it was warranted, but a lot of it isn't useful outside of mounted patrols on established roadways. My units first deployment to Afghanistan after I got out saw the entire BN sporting plate carriers, M-4s, para-SAWs, and PEQ-15s across the board. This probably meant each Marine was carrying a good 10-15lbs less than my first deployment to Iraq; a considerable improvement.

 

The Army and Marines are looking into unmanned cargo trucks, as well as cargo helicopters.

Ground commanders want the ability to send ground convoys without people, as some of the highest casualty rates during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan came from Army and Marine convoys getting hit by IEDs.
Often times manned cargo aircraft created air bridges from the airport to FOBs in country, to limit the exposure ground vehicles had to IED's, but this is an expensive endeavor compared to ground vehicles.

The unmanned K-MAX cargo helicopter has done well in field testing, and learning to fly and/or steer these vehicles/aircraft has a relatively short learning curve.

I see the future as going more and more unmanned, at least the peripheral support jobs.

 

This seems like the direction of the future. My only question would be one of vulnerability. Clearly in these asymetrical wars ground transportation is more vulnerable than air transport. In a more conventional war with actual lines though, it seems to me that air transportation would be a lot more vulnerable to the enemy than ground transportation. Most modern ATGMs double as anti-air systems (in a limited way), and when you mix in dedicated AA systems and enemy aircraft, I can only imagine what an easy target a big lumbering cargo UAV would be.

 

Apparently some of the military test vehicles are autonomous, they don't even have remote drivers...they drive themselves. Amazing technology.

[video=youtube;C9ggv4I4q6g][http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C9ggv4I4q6g][/video]

 

Actually, the definition is based upon what equipment is indiginous to the unit, not the actual weight of the Infantrymen themselves.

Light Infantry is when the unit primarily moves by foot. No vehicles at all except some for Heavy Weapons and logistics purposes.

Medium Infantry has enough vehicles so that everybody has a vehicle to ride. This is pretty much gone, but is generally what was meant by "Mechanized Infantry" during WWII.

Heavy Infantry is when everybody rides in some kind of armored vehicle, like the old M-113 or the Bradley.

The differences is all in what equipment is built into the unit. Marine Infantry can often be upgraded with LAAVs, but these do not belong to the unit themselves. It is another assett that is assigned to the Battalion during times of need, then put back into the Division Pool when the mission is complete.

And trust me, Give me that equipment, it definately saves lives. Look at the survival rate of casualties in the latest conflicts, compared to those of even 20 years ago.

 

What's an LAAV?

 

Actually, there are many names for the same vehicle. The Amphibious Assault Vehicle (AAV) is also sometimes known as an "Light Amphibious Assault Vehicle", or even "Amphibious Tractor", "Amphtrack" or just a "Track".



Each Marine Division has a Battalion of "Tracks", and at any one time can support around 2-3 Infantry Battalions. Each Division also has a "Light Armored Recon" Battalion, which uses the LAV-25 wheeled vehicle. This Battalion is the closest thing the Marine Corps has to "Heavy Infantry", and there are only 3 Battalions of such (one in each Division).



But since they are a Recon element, they are not intended to slug it out with the enemy, just to "shoot and scoot".

 

Ah, you mean AAVs. I've never heard them called LAAVS.

As for LAVs.....I spent almost 4 years in an LAR BN so I'm up to date, haha.

 

Interesting thread, especially with our military guys to comment.

From my (civilian) point of view it seems like light infantry is riskier for the soldiers involved and is used because you don't have another option. So it would seem like a good move would be working on those other options. It seems like they're working on that with things like the V-22 transportable growler, allowing you to get a proper automated 120mm mortar and plenty of ammo in ridiculous places.

The other thing that sticks in my mind from things I've read is the problem with the rules of engagment. With people tending their goats all over the mountainside and insurgents actively trying to blend into the population in general it sounds like the problem often isn't a matter that the weapons can't kill their targets, but rather that you aren't supposed to pull that trigger.

To that end I'd think they might want to consider superior and heavier optics on some people. Obviously they've got their spotting scopes now. But I'm thinking more systems to really let you see abody and what they're carrying. Maybe infrared able to discern if a gun is screening the body's heat signature, etc.

 

It is probably an obsolete term now. Remember, I served in the 1980's, and the AAV was just coming online then. So the LAAV term was probably phased out at about the same time. Sometimes I tend to show my age in things like that

 

It all really depends on the mission. Remember, Marines are pretty much "Shock Troops". We do hard and fast assaults, then hunker down tight and then hold off all attackers. For these kinds of missions, lots of armour can actually be a disadvantage. Lots of APCs and tanks gives the enemy lots of nice targets to shoot at. It is much harder to hit an infantry squad on foot then it is when they are riding around in this big noisy metal can.

The Marines tends to work things quite differently then the Army does. We generally do not have a lot of built in heavy equipment, but it is with the Division, and assigned out as needed. This makes the service much "leaner", since they have to support less heavy equipment (like a division worth of armored vehicles, or a division worth of tanks or helicopters). But if the mission calls for such, then they are given out as needed. And the battalions are all trained in how to use all of these things. I have done helicopter assaults from land bases as well as off of Navy ships (something that only "Air Assault Infantry" generally does in the Army). I have also done amphibious assaults in WWII era "Mike Boats", as well as Amphtracks. And hundreds of miles of forced marches to attack land targets on foot. I have trained for warfare in the jungles, mountains, desert, and winter conditions, as well as combat inside cities and villiages. This is generally something that "Heavy Infantry" can't do, since it can't take it's equipment with them to many of these conditions.

And we also normally have much lighter weapons, since we can take our stuff with us anywhere we go. The 120mm may be a great weapon, but it is in no way "man portable". The thing weighs over 300 lbs, and each round weighs in at around 30 pounds. The normal Company level 60mm mortar weighs in at less then 50 lbs (the newer version is 40 lbs), and each round weighs 3-5 pounds. So a Battalion can hike into a remote location that is inaccessable to vehicles, with it's "pocket artillery", and enough rounds to hold off quite a sizeable force. Plus this mortar can even be used in a "hand held" mode, without a bipod at all. So it is capable of being used during an assault, and moving up with the front line troops.

And at the Battalion level, they have the 81mm mortar. It's 4 componants weigh in at 91 lbs, no single piece more then 36 lbs. And as each round weighs in at 7-10 lbs, you can bring a fair amount of these along as well (the newer M252A1 weighs in at only 70 lbs). So while the 120mm seems like a better weapon, if you have to leave your vehicles and move to the top of a mountain via goat trail, the thing is left behind and useless.

Plus you can fire the smaller mortars at a much smaller range. The minimum range of the 120mm mortar is 200 meters. So if you are in terrain where the enemy can sneak up that close, the weapon then becomes useless. The 60mm mortar can fire at ranges from 70 meters to 3,500 meters. The 81mm from 90-6,000 meters. For ranges greater then that, you really should be using artillery.

And scopes are not all that great, trust me there. One thing that many people forget is that they seriously degrade your field of view. And there are tactics and techniques that are used to help in that as well (OP and LP). But Companies and Platoons do have low light devices, and they are issued as needed.

 

Infantry is the most flexible asset on the battlefield. It's the best way to scout an area and gather hard intelligence, and it's the only way to clear and hold an enemy area, build a real relationship with the local populace, and chase down every last insurgent.

More firepower is definitely NOT a viable solution to winning Afghanistan. In fact, many units leave their heavy weapons in the U.S. when they deploy. This war will only truly be won by building up the local Afghan governments and their security forces with U.S./NATO forces. This is how the military campaign in Iraq was won.

Rules of engagement are tricky but neccessary. You don't build good will by killing civilians by mistake. One perfectly considered rifle shot is often 100 times more valuable than a barrage of 155m rounds.

The military has already upgraded it's optics a lot. I don't really see much room for improvement. On any given patrol my platoon would have our rifle RCOs, NVGs, PAS-13s (thermal), PEQ-15s (infrared), Binoculars, MTIs (thermal), and PAS-22 (thermal).

 

There were quite a few Airman utilized in light infantry roles assisting mainly the Army in Iraq.

Lt. Col. Gerald Goodfellow of the 28th Operations Group at Ellsworth AFB in South Dakota comments (from 2007):

"I personally hope that all the services are currently striving to organize in a way that will largely prevent Air Force personnel from conducting 'in-lieu-of' taskings in the future," he wrote. "This is because I do not believe the Air Force should be in the business of fighting combat operations on the ground."

Amen.

Who controls the air controls the fight.

The most modern, lightest and deadliest rifle issued to ground troops means jack squat unless the canopy of air superiority over their heads is maintained.

It was a given in Iraq and Afghansitan...future wars might not have the friendliest skies.

Bear that in mind, when folks complain about USAF getting all the expensive toys, or the Joint Strike Fighter going to the Marines and Navy.
Air superiority should never be taken for granted.

 

Clearly air support is important, but it doesn't win wars. We could have 500 F-22s dominating the skys over Afghanistan for 1,000 years and it wouldn't make much difference in winning the war. The article was clearly written from an Air Force perspective. All the expensive toys are important and certainly valuable in combat. They should NOT come at the expensive of the meat and bones of warfare...which is ground combat. I think we got too caught up in the shiney expensive toys during the cold war and immediately following. A few thousand poorly trained Ak-47 wielding insurgents have shown that multi-billion dollar aircraft/submarine/tank programs can be made inconsequential with the correct strategy. The fastest, stealthiest billion dollar bomber means jack squat if there's no one to go down and find the bad guys.

 

The purpose of air superiority is ultimately to support the ground troops. The conversation seemed to be steering in the direction of mainly future asymmetric insurgency battles, and I was pointing out that conventional warfare shouldn't be completely forgotten about.

 

Current grunts fighting in the sandbox are often weighted down like pack mules. Sometimes up to 130+ lbs of stuff for forced road marches. All this extra wieght is causing our guys to injure their joints and bodies at a faster rate, thus reducing their "shelf life" in the infantry. I would think any lighter-weight equipment would be an impovement, guns, AT weapons, or whatever.

I don't think many grunts would give up their body armor, but on a routine foot patrol, shouldn't they mainly carry water and ammo., their weapons and a few other basic items?

For larger company patrols, they make many of these poor souls carry mortar rounds. Are mortars still relevant, or can better grenade launchers and rockets replace them?

 

A bit off-topic, but there is a point...

Air Force desk jockey turned "infantryman" filling in Army tasking for communications support attached to a provincial reconstruction team.
He took a combat skills training course prior to deploying to Afghanistan for 8 months...and his duties in Afghanistan included going out on convoys in addition
to remaining on the FOB.



Should we expand our professional infantry forces to avoid future "cross-over" necessitated by a shortage of trained recruits?
or is this the future?

Everyone, and I mean everyone...across the service branches, will have basic combat skillls instruction...regardless of their MOS/AFSC..beyond what is acquired in basic military training.

The Lt. Col., I mentioned in an earlier posting, believes each service branch should excel at their specialty and leave the ground fighting to the professional ground fighters.

Personally I'm more in alignment with the Colonel, and believe specialization is the way to go...however if we experienced a shortage of ground combat trained troops in the recent past, what is to prevent a repeat of history in future conflicts?

 

Communications support and PRT teams aren't Infantrymen. Every once in a while my platoon would be tasked out to pull security for a key leader engagement for the local PRT team. They usually had a few military guys attached to them providing support. This airman was filling in as a comm. guy. I don't really see the problem. He's a trained "communicator" providing military support for the State Department. I don't see why a Marine/Army communicator would be more or less qualified to do the same job. Army/Marine comm. guys communicate with air power all the time, what's wrong with an airforce guy communicating with ground forces?

 

The trainng for PRT is overseen by the 189th infantry brigade. (U.S. Army)

It's technically part of Army affairs...not Air Force.

 

OK, now I am not sure how much (if any) experience you have as a grunt. So more then likely, I have much more experience.

All equipment is a trade-off between weight and protection. This was the case when the most advanced weapon was a stick tied to a rock, and it is still true today. Yes, we can make body armor that is impervious to almost all weapons, but the poor grunt will be unable to do his mission. So a trade-off is made of necessity.

We can make lighter weapons and armour. But then it will not provide either the firepower needed, or the protection. Therefore we don't. There is nothing stopping us from sending people into combat naked except for a .22 rifle, other then common sense.

And no, on foot patrol most grunts do not go around with 130 lbs of equipment. Sure, some will, but that is far from the norm. You generally only see those kinds of weights when moving in an actual battelfield assault, where they are moving permanently from one location to another. And within moments, they can drop 80% of that weight and leave it at the side of the road.

And yes, when you are talking about large permanent movements (as discussed earlier), everybody in the Platoon-Company-Battalion will carry mortar rounds, machine gun rounds, AT4s, SMAW rounds, and other ammo for the Weapons Platoon-Company. Because they want that still available if the brown slimy stuff hits the circulating object. It sucked, but I did it because if I needed it, I wanted the weapons to be able to fire to support me.

And yes, Mortars are still very needed. Grenade launchers and rockets have their time and place, but both are mostly direct fire flat-trajectory weapons (unless the 40mm grenade gunner is very skilled). Very few gunners I knew could place a round behind a wall with any kind of accuracy. And for shooting at individual targets, a rocket is not only wastefull, but it is against the Laws of Land Warfare.

A mortar however is designed to do just that. Fire behind a wall, into a trench, and out to hundreds of meters, much farther then a rocket or grenade launcher can reach. A mortar is the "instant artillery" that the Company or Battalion (or Regimental) commander can call on within his own unit, at a moments notice. Something that can't be done with conventional artillery.

And as for carrying their water, if you think they are not going to carry that you are insane. Try operating in 135+ degree temperatures, and see how long you last without water.

 

Being trained by an Infantry brigade doesn't mean you're pulling Infantry missions. PRTs also aren't part of any one agency. They're typically commanded by an Army Colonel but have Department of State, Department of Agriculture, USAID, Department of Justice, and various other military attachments from different branches. They're suppossed to be civilian/military collobrative efforts to rebuild the government.

 

Also, the Marine 26th MEU and the 82nd Airborne spent several months guarding Kandahar airbase for the Air Force. That's technically the job of AF security forces, but someone else did it. Everyone needs to be prepared to do whatever's neccessary.

 

I have several suggestions for the leaders of the Light Infantry units. And the leaders at all levels of the Army.

a. Be leaders, not careerists.

b. Reward excellence, and punish mediocrity.

c. Allow NCO's to be technically & tactically proficient, not just pretty-boys with all the answers memorized for the 'soldier of the month' board.

d. Encourage your junior officers to take risks in the name of mission accomplishment and team-building. Let them know you have their back.

e. Hold regular classes and sensing sessions on topics such as sexual harassment, cultural diversity, and equal opportunity, but ONLY IF YOUR ORGANIZATION HAS DEMONSTRATED THAT IT HAS PROBLEMS IN THESE AREAS.
If not, then don't bother with such touchy-feely, politically-correct, namby-pamby, kinder-gentler bull$hit. You have more important things to do.

f. If you realize that you have officers like these two (see links below) in your midst, GET RID OF THEM. They are useless, arrogant jacka$$es.

http://timesleader.com/stories/Report-details-generals-lavish-travel-spending,192773

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2012/07/army-colonels-sentence-bigamy-case-outrage-070112/

g. If your men have busted their ass all week, reward them by buying them all a cold beer.

h. Say 'hooaah' less. It is a tired and hackneyed phrase, and its very over-use stifles meaningful and necessary communication. Sometimes the answer to every question is not 'hooaah'.

i. Challenge your Army Civilians to police their own. The civil service has turned into a lazy, lethargic welfare-state. Only 1/3rd of them are doing any meaningful work, and this is a reflection on the poor leadership above the middle 1/3rd (who technically show up for the hours they are paid, and do little else), and the bottom 1/3rd, who are NOT showing up for the hours they are paid, and are laughing all the way to the bank.

j. Give more than you take.

k. Take care of your wife and kids. When you take them out for a movie and dinner, leave your cell phone and blackberry in the trunk of the car. They'll appreciate your undivided attention, if only for those rare and special hours.

That's all I have for now. I'm sure I will think of more later.