The Armored Cavalry Squadron

Moving up the table, Armored Cavalry units can’t use the term “battalion,” because that’s what lame units without horses in their history use. They prefer “Squadron” at that level of organization. Let’s take a look.

  • HQ & HQ Troop
  • (3) Armored Cavalry Troops
  • (1) Tank Company
  • (1) Artillery Battery

We’ve already discussed what’s in the Armored Cavalry Troop (circa 1990). Let’s look at the other components.

HQ & HQ Troop

  • Squadron HQ
    • (4) M998A1 HMMWVs
    • (2) M1038A1 Cargo HMMWVs
    • (3) M939 cargo trucks with cargo trailers
    • (1) M934 Expansible Van with trailer
    • (2) M3A2 Bradley CFV
    • (1) M113A3 APC
    • (3) M577A3 Command Vehicles
  • Troop HQ
    • (1) M998A1 HMMWV
    • (1) M1038A1 Cargo HMMWV
    • (1) M939 cargo truck with water trailer
    • (1) M934 Expansible Van with trailer
  • Battalion Communications Platoon
    • (1) M998A1 HMMWV
    • (1) M934 Expansible Van with trailer
    • (1) M577A3 Command Vehicle
  • Fire Support Element
    • (1) M998A1 HMMWV
    • (1) M577A3 Command Vehicle
  • AVLB Section
    • (3) M60 AVLBs
  • Battalion Medical Platoon
    • (1) M1038A1 Cargo HMMWV
    • (2) M577A3 Aid Stations
    • (8) M113A3 Medevac APC
    • (2) M934 Expansible Vans with trailers
  • Battalion Support Platoon
    • (1) M1038A1 Cargo HMMWV with cargo trailer
    • (6) M939 cargo trucks with cargo trailers
    • (7) M977 Cargo HEMTTs
    • (8) M978 Fuel Tanker HEMTTs
    • (2) M49 tankers with tanker trailers
  • Battalion Maintenance Platoon
    • (2) Cargo HMMWVs
    • (1) Cargo HMMWV with cargo trailer
    • (2) M934 Expansible Vans with cargo trailers
    • (1) M984 HEMTT Wrecker
    • (1) M936 Wrecker
    • (3) M88A2 Armored Recovery Vehicles
    • (5) M939 Cargo Trucks with cargo trailers

Tank Company

  • Company HQ
    • (2) M1A1 Abrams MBTs
    • (1) M113A3 APC
    • (1) M998A1 HMMWV
    • (1) M1038A1 Cargo HMMWV
    • (1) M939 cargo truck with water trailer
  • (3) Tank platoons, each with:
    • (4) M1A1 Abrams MBTs
  • Company Maintenance Section
    • (1) M1038A1 Cargo HMMWV
    • (1) M113A3 APC
    • (2) M934 Expansible Vans with trailers
    • (1) M88A2 Armored Recovery Vehicle

Artillery Battery

  • Battery HQ
    • (1) M998A1 HMMWV
    • (1) M1038A1 Cargo HMMWV
    • (1) M939 cargo truck with water trailer
    • (1) M978 Fuel Tanker HEMTT with M989 HEMAT ammunition trailer
  • Communication Section
    • (1) M1038A1 Cargo HMMWV with cargo trailer
  • Survey Section
    • (1) M1038A1 Cargo HMMWV
  • (2) Firing Platoons, each with:
    • (1) M998A1 HMMWV
    • (1) M1038A1 Cargo HMMWV
    • (1) M934 Expansible Van with trailer
    • (1) M577A3 Command Vehicle
    • (4) M109A6 Paladin Self Propelled Howitzers
    • (4) FAASVs
  • Fire Support Team Section:
    • (4) M981 FIST-Vs
  • Combat Observation/Lasing Team section:
    • (2) M981 FIST-Vs
  • Ammunition Section
    • (8) M977 Cargo HEMTTs
  • Battery Maintenance Section
    • (1) M113A3 APC
    • (2) M934 Expansible Vans with trailers
    • (1) M578 Light Recovery Vehicle

Some things to note. First, it interests me that the 4th company is a tank company. You can’t argue with that armor, I suppose. I’m also really happy to see that the squadron has some organic artillery capability. I rather like this idea. More artillery is always good, and I like having some always available to the squadron commander, on account of being organic to the squadron. My only complaint is a lack of any sort of anti-aircraft capability, but that’s a pretty common failing for US Army TO&Es. It’s also pretty easily fixable.

Wednesday What We’re Reading (Dec. 5, 2018)

Defense

Science, Industry, and Technology

The Armored Cavalry Troop

Armored Cavalry units had an interesting table of organization that pushed combined arms. These units were designed to hit hard, and a look at a troop (company-level asset) TO&E shows that they brought a lot of firepower to battle. Each troop consisted of a headquarters section, two scout platoons, two tank platoons, a maintenance section, and a mortar section. Let’s break it down and then we’ll provide commentary.

  • Headquarters Section:
    • One M1A1 Abrams
    • One M3A2 Bradley
    • One M577 Command post
    • Three HMMWVs
    • One 5-ton truck with water tank trailer
  • Two Scout Platoons:
    • Six M3A2 Bradleys (each)
  • Two Tank Platoons:
    • Four M1A1 Abrams (each)
  • Troop Maintenance Section (18 men):
    • One M88A2 armored recovery vehicle
    • One M113A3 APC
    • Two 5-ton trucks with cargo trailers
  • Mortar Section
    • Two M106 mortar carriers

Some variation in utility vehicles can be found in tables depending on era. My primary source is Tom Clancy’s Armored Cav which is regrettably light on the details of support units in an early-90s troop.

The first thing to note is that there’s not a lot of infantry here. The M3-series Bradleys have only two dismounts a piece, which gives the troop only 24 dismountable soldiers. On the other hand, the M3s have twice the stowed ammo of an M2, so they bring lots of firepower to the table. This is also one of the few places where a platoon with six subelements (namely the M3s) can be found in an official table.

The troop also brings some form of all three elements of combined arms: infantry, armor, and artillery (the mortars). I really like that. Would that it had more infantry though. It wouldn’t be too hard to replace the scout platoons for conventional mechanized infantry platoons. While I’m talking changes, I’d prefer to replace the M106s with some sort of turreted mortar carrier like the Rak.

I’m also curious how a mechanized infantry platoon might work if it had six IFVs in it. I would probably assume a nominal organization where a “squad” is the IFV and it’s dismount team. But there are other thoughts; the US army has indicated a desire to go this way in the future with the dismounts grouping into larger squads after disembarking.

Overall though, I really like the core concept here. As always, pushing more differing vehicle types to lower levels pushes more logistics and maintenance requirements lower as well. The US Army was able to make it work, at least as long as a plausible serious threat was present. I’ll probably shamelessly crib from this all the same.

Heavy Machine Gun Platoon

While it’s not too terribly difficult to find detailed breakdowns of the regular rifle squad, it’s a lot harder to find tables for the other units. Today, we’ll take a look at the Wehrmacht’s Heavy Machine Gun Platoon, courtesy of Collector Grade’s German Universal Machineguns. A heavy MG platoon meant that its MGs all had tripods and support equipment to maximize the effectiveness of the MGs. This platoon was divided into two groups of two machine guns. The platoon had, of course, a Platoon commander, plus an additional man to take care of the horses used to transport equipment. Each of the two machine gun groups had a group leader, plus a rangefinder and a messenger.

Each machine gun group had two MG “Squads” (for want of a better term). Each squad was based around an MG34/42 and a lot of ammo. They consisted of an MG leader, the MG gunner, MG assistant gunner, and no fewer than three ammunition bearers.

The gunner carried the machine gun, with a 50 round belt in a drum attached to the machine gun, in case it had to be used before the squad got set up. The MG leader carried the MG Z sight, a 300-round ammo can, and a spare barrel. The assistant gunner carried the tripod. The three ammo bearers each carried two 300-round ammo cans, and two of them carried spare barrels.

In terms of secondary weapons, the MG Leader, Gunner, and Assistant Gunner all carried pistols. The ammo bearers each had a service rifle. The MG Group Leaders and MG Platoon Leader had a submachine gun or a pistol. Both rangefinders had pistols, and the messengers and horseman were issued service rifles.

In total, each squad carried 2,150 rounds of belted 8mm Mauser, for a total of 8,600 belted rounds per platoon.

As always, these are the “by the book” figures, and actual platoons may vary.

Wednesday What We’re Reading (Nov. 28, 2018)

The good news is, we’re on time this week. The bad news is, we didn’t spend much time on article-reading over the holiday week, so we don’t have many stories for you.

Defense

Technology

  • NASA extends the American dominance in terms of Mars landings – The Soviets technically succeeded in landing a probe on Mars, but it stopped working so quickly that you can’t really count it.
  • China’s social credit score isn’t real – In which Foreign Policy notes that sure, there’s a national system of blacklists and citizen information on anyone who has opened a credit card or taken a loan, and that system is often arbitrary and capricious and certainly totalitarian, but it’s okay because it’s not a single, unified, national system with a single top-line score. I dunno. Seems like an implementation detail to me.

Book Review: US Cruisers: An Illustrated Design History

Norman Friedman has written some excellent Illustrated Design History books for several types of US Navy ships. Let’s look at one today.

Cruisers goes all the way back to early steam-powered warship designs, focusing on ships built for independent operation away from the fleet, or to screen the fleet from same. For my interests, I found it got really good once they were working on designs related to the Great War, and it stayed good until about the 1950s. At that point, missiles were “in”, and there weren’t many new cruiser designs because of the large number of existing ships to convert.

Friedman does a great job of covering various proposals, desired force structures, and treaties. Like the other Illustrated Design Histories, he traces design proposals, offering a large number of comparative characteristic tables as well as plenty of design sketches. There are also a good number of pictures which illustrate completed designs and how they were altered by war experience.

The chapters on the war experience are the best part of the book. Due to the large number of cruisers available during the Second World War, and the paucity of larger surface combatants, cruisers saw lots of combat. It’s really nice to read about design tradeoffs and expectations and then see how these worked out in actual surface actions.

The missile age eventually sees the end of the independent surface ship, at least in American design practice. As a result, there’s not much in the way of actual Cruiser designs covered; the Long Beach is featured, as are the Command Cruisers, but that’s pretty much the end of it. Being published in the mid 80s, not much is left to cover.

Note that while the ill-fated Typhon system is mentioned in depth, Aegis is covered only briefly here. It is covered in more detail, along with the Ticonderogas and Burkes in Friedman’s Destroyers: An Illustrated Design History. A review of that is forthcoming.

Now, as with any good review, let’s talk price and value. Unfortunately, this book is out of print. As such, pricing is inconsistent. In general, prices are high. A peek at Amazon as this goes to press (late November, 2018) shows a price of about $122 being the best available. Whether or not this is too much for you depends greatly on your interest. If you like Cruisers pre-1947 a lot, that’s a fair price for an out-of-print, detail-laden book. Otherwise, you may wish to watch and wait for a deal. I got my copy for just under $60, and it was in good condition. At that price, which is much closer to the print-run pricing, it’s unquestionably worth it for the student of naval history and design.

Chinook Howitzer

Back in 1972, the Advanced Concepts division of the Aircraft Weapons Division came up with a unique idea. They wanted more aerial firepower. They wanted to super size the gun in helicopter gunship. And so they worked up a proposal to put two 105mm howitzers onto a CH-47C Chinook helicopter. The two howitzers would be mounted won on each side of the fuselage, facing forward, and had an automatic loading system for the two guns. Continue reading

Wednesday What We’re Reading (Nov. 14, 2018)

Maybe I should start thinking of these as Tuesday What We’re Reading, so when I’m a day late I’m actually on time.

Defense

Guns

Technology

Politics-ish

The SAIFV

There are two consistent complaints about the Bradley. One is that it doesn’t carry enough dismounts. The other is that it’s not well protected enough. The US Army has made several attempts to rectify both of these issues. Today, we’re going to look at an alternative design to fix the latter problem: the Special Armor IFV, which dates to around 1978. Continue reading