US Army Proposes Smaller Squads, Lighter Vehicles (or goodbye GCV?)

Manned (LAV/30mm) and remote (ACV/40mm) air burst cannon rounds. Similar to previous tests so maybe just comparing effectiveness of old vs new.


 
Foo Fighter said:
Are they still trying to get smaller squads and if so are they still expecting those smaller units to do the same jobs or will they increase the number of squads in the unit?
Click to expand...

The US Army abandoned the penta-squad principle at the end of the Cold War.

The latest plan - for fewer soldiers per squad/vehicle reminds me of a quote from a Viet-Nam era staff officer. He was glowing about how great it was to have two or three headquarters groups controlling the same batch of infantrymen. That chain of command allowed HQs to quickly transfer infantry to other targets .... but nobody seemed to care that short-handed infantry units were being reduced by casualties and marched off their feet. Fewer soldiers to patrol the same number of acres of enemy terrain. Fewer soldiers to kill the same numbers of enemy. Fewer soldiers per squad means fewer shovels to dig the same number of latrines, mortar pits, etc. Fewer guys to stand the same number of sentry watches. Fewer guys to stand the same number of hours of radio watches. Fewer guys to do the same amount of vehicle maintenance, etc.

As long as staff officers get opportunities for promotions, who cares about the poor bloody infantry?
Sarcastically ...
Hah!
Hah!
 
Last edited:
I have the same issue with tank crews of two. It was suggested that follow up vehicles would have spare crew member etc but they would have to be able to GET to those vehicles to do so. SNAFU.
 
Any reason you couldn't just add an RWS to AMPV and call it a day on the Bradley replacement?
 
riggerrob said:
Foo Fighter said:
Are they still trying to get smaller squads and if so are they still expecting those smaller units to do the same jobs or will they increase the number of squads in the unit?
Click to expand...

The US Army abandoned the penta-squad princile at the end of the Cold War.

The latest plan - for fewer soldiers per squad/vehicle reminds me of a quote from a Viet-Nam era staff officer. He was glowing about how great it was to have two or three headquarters groups controlling the same batch of infantrymen. That chain of command allowed HQs to quickly transfer infantry to other targets .... but nobody seemed to care that short-handed infantry units were being reduced by casualties and marched off their feet. Fewer soldiers to patrol the same number of acres of enemy terrain. Fewer soldiers to kill the same numbers of enemy. Fewer soldiers per squad means fewer shovels to dig the same number of latrines, mortar pits, etc. Fewer guys to stand the same number of sentry watches. Fewer guys to stand the same number of hours of radio watches. Fewer guys to do the same amount of vehicle maintenance, etc.

As long as staff officers get opportunities for promotions, who cares about the poor bloody infantry?
Sarcastically ...
Hah!
Hah!
Click to expand...
Sounds like a sci-fi book, stark's war. all the zobs are in the troopers ears, your too slow, your behind the timeline, shoot that, dont shoot this.....in the end they mutiny and kick their asses. Good read.
 
marauder2048 said:
Any reason you couldn't just add an RWS to AMPV and call it a day on the Bradley replacement?
Click to expand...
I mean anything is possible, but power generation, armor, growth, and mobility issues existing with Bradley wouldn't be addressed. So at that point why even use AMPV when you could just put a new coat of paint on Bradley? AMPV is an M113 replacement, which is not a spearhead/frontline/first rank/[enter your term here] vehicle and doesn't have the Army has different concerns+requirements in that role than they do for an IFV.
 
Moose said:
marauder2048 said:
Any reason you couldn't just add an RWS to AMPV and call it a day on the Bradley replacement?
Click to expand...
I mean anything is possible, but power generation, armor, growth, and mobility issues existing with Bradley wouldn't be addressed. So at that point why even use AMPV when you could just put a new coat of paint on Bradley? AMPV is an M113 replacement, which is not a spearhead/frontline/first rank/[enter your term here] vehicle and doesn't have the Army has different concerns+requirements in that role than they do for an IFV.
Click to expand...

Not having the Bradley turret intrusions into the hull makes things easier.

How much of AMPV is still Bradley-based seems to diminish every time they describe it.
 
Last edited:
bobbymike said:
breakingdefense.com

Army Wants Smaller Brigades, Stronger Divisions & Lots Of Robots - Breaking Defense

New technologies and organizations will give soldiers an edge, Maj. Gen. Patrick Donahoe said, but tanks and foot troops will still face brutal close combat.
breakingdefense.com breakingdefense.com
Click to expand...
Forward Line Of Unmanned Aerial Systems (FLUA) try Forward Line of Unarmed Toy Trash (FLUTT)

oh suicide drones..they crash into something maybe and you are left wondering what or if they hit anything. ..oh launch another and another...dont know if the target over hill was ever hit. The expensive turret on the Medium broke on the last standard crash landing so we cant do any BDA. UAS is the centerpiece of land warfare and the US is Model A(ing) it.
 
riggerrob said:
Foo Fighter said:
Are they still trying to get smaller squads and if so are they still expecting those smaller units to do the same jobs or will they increase the number of squads in the unit?
Click to expand...

The US Army abandoned the penta-squad principle at the end of the Cold War.

The latest plan - for fewer soldiers per squad/vehicle reminds me of a quote from a Viet-Nam era staff officer. He was glowing about how great it was to have two or three headquarters groups controlling the same batch of infantrymen. That chain of command allowed HQs to quickly transfer infantry to other targets .... but nobody seemed to care that short-handed infantry units were being reduced by casualties and marched off their feet. Fewer soldiers to patrol the same number of acres of enemy terrain. Fewer soldiers to kill the same numbers of enemy. Fewer soldiers per squad means fewer shovels to dig the same number of latrines, mortar pits, etc. Fewer guys to stand the same number of sentry watches. Fewer guys to stand the same number of hours of radio watches. Fewer guys to do the same amount of vehicle maintenance, etc.

As long as staff officers get opportunities for promotions, who cares about the poor bloody infantry?
Sarcastically ...
Hah!
Hah!
Click to expand...
Thing is, the US Army actually did a study on infantry squad size and the optimal squad size was... 11 or 13. I'll have to see if I still have my copy.
 
Robotic mule contract...
Doubles as mine-clearance operatives ??
 
jsport said:
Higher performance guided 30mm rds is about the least that could be done for ground forces involved in high intensity conflict survival if the autocannon target practice drone otherwise known as Reaper is being offered as a CAS solution.
Click to expand...
Since when is a Reaper at an altitude low enough for 30mm cannons to be a serious threat?


GruntFox said:
Thing is, the US Army actually did a study on infantry squad size and the optimal squad size was... 11 or 13. I'll have to see if I still have my copy.
Click to expand...
More recent studies say 15, 3 teams of 5, is the best grouping. Then a group of 150, 200, 250 etc up to about 500. "Ape politics" they called it. https://www.armytimes.com/news/your...can-help-decide-the-best-size-for-your-squad/


bobbymike said:
I can’t help but see that big flat deck and envision about a dozen vertically launched JAGMs.
Click to expand...
That would be a rude surprise for any mech unit trying to rampage in the backfield where the AMPVs usually lurk!
 
I must admit to wondering at the industry promo video's. I suppose no frills information would be a bit dry for the target audience though.
 
isayyo2 said:
AMPV Counter-Unmanned Aircraft System​

View attachment 709440


www.defensenews.com

BAE preps adaptable armored vehicle turret for counter-drone missions

BAE hopes its prototype adaptable turret for the AMPV will show the Army that the vehicles can be easily modified for more missions like targeting drones.
www.defensenews.com www.defensenews.com
Click to expand...
I'd want a different set of missiles for counter UAS. Or at least not a pure Stinger armament. Stingers, APKWS, and maybe Hellfire if someone sends a Ka50/Mi28 over.
 
Scott Kenny said:
I'd want a different set of missiles for counter UAS. Or at least not a pure Stinger armament. Stingers, APKWS, and maybe Hellfire if someone sends a Ka50/Mi28 over.
Click to expand...

It's the same RIwP turret used on M-SHORAD, which has a mix of Stinger and Hellfire as the standard load. So the armament is quite flexible.

2021RIwPArray_layers.png
 
TomS said:
It's the same RIwP turret used on M-SHORAD, which has a mix of Stinger and Hellfire as the standard load. So the armament is quite flexible.

View attachment 709452
Click to expand...
Cool!

I think I'd want to swap 4x Stingers for 12x 70mm rockets (assuming APKWS) with the Directed Energy emitter and the Hunter/Gunner sights if possible. That'd be my anti-drone setup.
 
TomS said:
It's the same RIwP turret used on M-SHORAD, which has a mix of Stinger and Hellfire as the standard load. So the armament is quite flexible.

View attachment 709452
Click to expand...
Scott Kenny said:
Cool!

I think I'd want to swap 4x Stingers for 12x 70mm rockets (assuming APKWS) with the Directed Energy emitter and the Hunter/Gunner sights if possible. That'd be my anti-drone setup.
Click to expand...
According to Moog's datasheet on the Reconfigurable Integrated-Weapons Platform (RIwP), the RIwP is also offered in two different cupola configurations: Standard and Tall. The RIwP Standard Cupola has an elevation of +60°, while the RIwP Tall Cupola has an increased elevation of +80°.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom