personal body armor

[GSX]

LOL, Gurkhas are made for the Mountains thats for sure.....

[Midnight Warrior]

I wonder if in a MOUT setting the body armor pays it way in that perhaps in that setting protection is more important than mobility?

[Bigduke6]

Midnight Warrior, you're asking the 64K question. To my mind the answer depends on the quality of the opposition. If the guys in the body armor are up against opponents who can only fight from a fixed location, and who are pretty much incapable of manuever, that's one thing. But if the opponent is disciplined and smart enough to work for flanks, hold fire, improvise ambushes, misdirect, etc., then it would seem to me you would pay a higher price for body armor and low mobility.

I think the former Commonwealth has a far better infantry tradition, and that if you were to take the average infantry soldier or officer straight out of school, the former Commonwealth version would be superior in pretty much every infantry job with the possible exception of working in a combined arms team.

BUT the U.S. military has been in active wars for most of the 1990s one way or another, and half of the present generation. That's a ton of combat veterans in leadership positions other militaries just don't have. And I view combat experience as the number one way military units develop real skill.

Another point is the U.S. military has plenty of problems, but systematically looking at combat experience, and trying to learn from it, isn't one of them.

[ October 19, 2005, 12:03 AM: Message edited by: Bigduke6 ]

[flamingknives]

As opposed to the British Army which, along with other Commonwealth nations, has been involved in light infantry conflicts since 1945?

[Sixxkiller]

Most soldiers use as much non issued acceptable gear they can get away with as some army gear isnt all that great. I actually spent about $1800 on a boron carbide insert plate which is not heavy and rated to be able to stop penetration from an AK-47 at even close range. Thank God I havent had it tested by catching one there. There was this Navy Corpsman on one op around Qalat who took a round center mass and suffered through the worst brusing I have ever seen. He actually blacked out for a while but he lived...

In todays Army protection and mobility go hand in hand and since my load out is usually around anywhere from 98-107 lbs, a few extrapounds of armor doesnt matter all that much to mobility.

And I challenge any of you to strap even 50 lbs on your back and go hiking let alone climb anything and see how you can be combat mobile. Now do it while trying to avoid ambushes on limited sleep for 3 or 4 days.

-Ray

[Bigduke6]

Flame,

Good point, I forgot about that. Still, I think if you look at the overall force the Americans have a good deal more experience being shot at, killing people, calling in combined arns, looting mildly without the 1st Sergeant finding out. You know, real war stuff.

MantaRay,

Fair comment. If you want read the article I posted the link to - it seems at least some of the troopers in the 82nd Airborne have a different opinion than yours.

[flamingknives]

Bigduke6;

We were talking about light infantry stuff though, weren't we?

Besides, in a comparison based on size, I'd say that the British get shot at etc. in more or less equal measure. Possibly even more so if one accounts for 'blue-on-blue'.

Plus British Squaddies tend to stay in longer, AFAICT.

[GSX]

British Squadies do tend to stay in longer, thats true, also british small unit leadership tends to be more effective. In general more responsibility is given to JNCO and SNCO personnel. Even senior privates can and do lead a mission if all goes wrong.

More like the Marines really.

[ng cavscout]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

snip

There will be no option in CM:SF to go without body armor on soldiers. Sorry, but that isn't a realistic option available to low level commanders in the field these days. In fact, the regulations about wearing of body armor were changed to increase usage. Basically, if you aren't on base you are supposed to be wearing body armor. Or something like that!

Steve

From first hand experience, before each mission (convoy escort) each and every crew is checked for individual body armor, kevlar helmet, sufficient ammo, medical supplies (cls bag), water, etc. Now this is mounted Infantry, actually, in our case, a Infantry Battalion, made up of Infantry, Engineers, and a Cavalry Troop (E Troop 105th Cavalry "Out In Front") and configured in an MP TO&E performing a Cavalry mission. I cannot speak for line infantry preparing for a stand up fight (rather than a bug hunt).

The Army has learned at least some lessons from Mogadishu as we bring NVG's and extra supplies on every mission, even if it is a milk run just a short distance across the border. And for every movement, even in a friendly country such as Kuwait, the soldiers are required to have weapon and ammunition.

just my $0.02

[Splinty]

Originally posted by GSX:

British Squadies do tend to stay in longer, thats true, also british small unit leadership tends to be more effective. In general more responsibility is given to JNCO and SNCO personnel. Even senior privates can and do lead a mission if all goes wrong.

More like the Marines really.

I really would like to know where this myth about U.S. Army NCOs having less responsibility for their soldiers than their foriegn/ other service counterparts comes from. The entire concept of the chain of command starts at the Squad Leader, a Staff or Buck Sergeant. He (or she) leads the Squad in combat, he gives the relevent Operations or Fragmentary Order, he comes up with his part of the plan, and he suceeds or fails with his squad, not the Platoon Leader or Platoon Sergeant and not the Company Commander. In day to day garrison life the First Sergeant runs the Company, and the Platoon Sergeants run the platoons not the CO or the Platoon Leaders. There are NCOs deeply involved in everything at every level of the chain of command from Corporals and buck Sergeants at the team level to Division and Corps Sergeants Major. I actually suspect that in the daily running of things U.S. Army NCOs are MORE responsible for the how things go than in most other Armys.

[hellfish]

In the US infantry, at least, you're supposed to be able to function at one or two levels above your assigned responsibilities. So technically privates can act as team leaders and specialists can lead squads if necessary.

I had a couple FTXes where I lead a squad after my team leader and squad leader were "killed". Hell, at JRTC nearly all the NCOs were "killed" for speeding in a humvee and it was a handful of E-5s and E-4s leading the platoon for about 24 hours.

A difference that might make a British or Commonwealth infantryman more able to lead, however, is that you can remain a private or corporal for a really long time, IIRC. There's not much of an "up or out" policy, where if you don't have a certain rank by the time you're in service for a certain number of years you're kicked out. I cross trained with a company from the British East of England regiment (I don't remember what brigade or battalion they were, but their epaullettes had "East of England" on them) and they have privates that had six or more years of service. That's practically unheard of in the US Army - promotions are pretty much automatic for Pfc and Spc.

[Battlefront.com]

Thanks NG Cavscout. That's what I've read, but always good to see from 1st hand experience.

The Army has learned at least some lessons from Mogadishu as we bring NVG's and extra supplies on every mission, even if it is a milk run just a short distance across the border.

You know... after I saw a bunch of pictures of guys running around at high noon with NVGs (Night Vision Goggles) I thought that was a rather interesting thing to do since it adds weight and risks the equipment being broken. Then I thought of Mogadishu and found the answer.

This actually touches on some discussions we've had in the past about WWII. Some guys insisted that for normal combat ops soldiers would strip down to nothing but ammo and water for a fight. While it is true they usually left their baggage back in the "trains", they still carried a full combat load most of the time. A soldier can't afford to find himself in a situation and think "boy, I really wish I had my entrenching tool, or my rain poncho, or some rations because the Captain was wrong about a great number of things".

One of the advantages of the Stryker and Bradley units is that their rides are organic and right there alongside them. They can afford to leave some stuff behind because it really isn't. For example, the Javelin is by default stowed in the Stryker ICV, not lugged around. If the Squad feels they need it, probably only takes a few minutes to get it out. Much better than lugging that thing around for days and then being too tired to use it when the chips are down

Steve

[lucero1148]

Thanks for all the replies. Learned quite a lot from all the posts.

So in actual game play then US infantry in CMSF would be heavy infantry and move as fast as a CMBB AT rifle team? It would also take repeated hits to put it out of action (KIA/WIA). So in a running fight exhaustion helps influence on the negative of the pysch aspect of the troops. So would they panic faster because of their state of exhaustion? Seems complicated or is this abstracted?

all best

Patrick

[Battlefront.com]

We have a different system for modeling movment and fatigue. Soldiers will basicaly move at about the same speed on the US side, but certain ones will tire out a lot quicker (like a Javelin or M240 team). Terrain is also a big factor. Big difference between running down a paved street than negotiating extremely rough and rutted terrain.

Steve

[lucero1148]

Ok that's understandable. However in CMBB terms when troops are exhausted they are easier to panic.

Is the morale factor in cmsf the same as cmbb? As the parameter's for troops panicking in cmsf would be different5 because US troops are better educated, veteran troops with better training, communications and support. How is all that taken into account? Or would US troops never panic in cmsf?

All best

Patrick

[Battlefront.com]

I'm not sure about panicking quite yet. One thing that is VERY different in CMx2 is that Suppression and Morale are two different factors. Tired troops will be Suppressed more easily than rested troops. That is pretty much a no brainer cause and effect relationship.

US troops will Panic in CMx2 if you screw up enough. Remember, there is a difference between Panic, Routed, and Broken. Panic is a temporary state that hinders the unit's ability to do what is expected of him right then and there. Probably not something that is dire. Routed means the unit has progressed to a more deeply troubled state that it will need quite a bit of time to recover from. Broken means the unit is, for all intents and purposes, combat ineffective for the rest of the game. We had difficulty in CMx1 getting this to behave as well as we wanted it to sometimes, but generally that is how it worked. In CMx2 it will just work better.

Steve

[cassh]

The wearing of body armour in MOUT/FIBUA environment is crucial. The FIBUA battlefield is a very high threat environment. The chances of getting hit are that much higher when street fighting.

There is a higher probability of encountering:

</font>

• Friendly-fire</font>
• Ricochets</font>
• Fire-channels (rounds paralleling/skimming along the walls)</font>
• High velocity debris (building materials such as concrete, metal, wood and glass)</font>
• Grenade and RPG fragments</font>
• Small-arms and direct fire weapons</font>

Speed (in bounds) is important in FIBUA, but against a proper defence, deliberate moves are required.

No amount of speed will help you safely cross more than about twenty metres of ground. The majority of moves must be co-ordinated with practical needs of locking down enemy positions at the forefront of the junior leader's mind.

The ratio of fire/suppressing elements to moving elements in a FIBUA battle should be around six to one - i.e. two platoons are required to manoeuvre one section/squad of men. Why?

Getting as many interlocking and mutually supporting fields of fire to suppress and cover suspect buildings/locations so assault teams can advance/withdraw is crucial. Without this level of covering/suppressing fire you give the enemy far too much opportunity to have a crack.

Any basic 2-story building street layout will easily require this level of cover to advance teams building by building up the street.

So although speed in the bound from house A to B is important, it isn't half as important as your supporting fire covering houses B, C, D, and maybe E and F.

The additional weight of body-armour will of course lead more quickly to fatigue in troops conducting FIBUA. However, the important thing is you're more likely to become combat ineffective not wearing body armour than you are from getting tired/fatigued.

What's gonna ruin you day more?

A punctured torso from some fragment/round/shell

or

Being tired because you've been fighting in the most challenging environment warfare has to offer

Give me tired every day.

I think we shouldn't loose any sleep over BFC's decision to default the body armour on as this is SOP in most NATO armies and something any sensible commander or junior leader would insist on.

[BARMAN1950]

I am a little hesitant to jump in here with "war stories from Korea", but I thought that it might be informational.

In Korea we (infantry) carried weapon, ammo, canteen, intrenching tool, and a pancho. all of our other gear was usually back with the Regt service company. They would, if possible, bring up chow, sleeping bags,etc if we were to be in some location for more than a day or so. For chow we would carry a days supply of C-rations. I presume that these were sent up to our position by "somebody". Our Regt Had a Platoon (P& A )who were responsible for getting ammo up to the line companies. Anytime that we were to be in a defensive status we could get extra granades and ammo for our foxholes. If not used the extra stuff would be collected by the P&A platoon before we moved out. I was a BARman so my regular ammo load was 12 magazines (20 rounds each) in my belt, and an additional 100 rounds of loose ammo in a pouch for reloads. I also usually carried a couple of granades,and a 45 pistol. My asst gunner carried a bag with 10 or so extra (loaded) magazines, and a machine gun box of loose ammo for reloads. even with all of this ammo it seems that we were always stripping M-1 clips to get more ammo for the BAR.

Most of the time this equip was sufficient. There were times (winter 1950) when we did not get the proper winter gear, and froze our asses off. But all in all our combat load was sufficient.

I see our troops today with all of the gear that they carry, and I think that these guys are in a hell of a lot better shape than I was.

I do not have a good feel as to weather or not the current system is better or worse than WW II or Korea. If our soldiers are more at ease having all of the gear that they carry, and train that way then it must be OK.

As an aside, I think that in todays military there is an over concern about "collateral damage". In WW II and Korea we figured that the best way to take a town or village was to flatten the SOB with artillery or bombs, then send in the Infantry. That way we killed a lot of combatants, and the civilians usually got out of the way. Did some innocents get killed? You bet, but those civilians who didn't get killed soon learned to get out of the way. Is this the way to fight a war? I don't know. But in my (not so humble opinion) if a war must be fought then "let slip the dogs of war" and get it over with. War should be so brutal that the population want it to be over as soon as can be. Sorry if I've gone off topic, but when I see day after day the military pussyfooting around because they are worried about "collateral damage" it makes my blood boil. Either fight a war or don't fight a war. But get the job done with the least casualties on your side.

[Peter Cairns]

An additional factor in Afghanistan is altitude, living high above sea level all your life gives you a distinct advantage.

I know the Royal Marines had problems when people who could carry a 100lb pack all day at sea level strated fainting after a couple of hours at 15,000ft.

Body armour more than makes sense if you are close to transport and facing 5.54mm's, but in rough open country when you need to be able to move, it's not going to be much use if you get caught in the open by a Russian 14.5mm.

You assess the situation and make a tactical choice and then cross your fingers you've got it right.

Not very scientific but there you go.

Peter.

[cassh]

I tend to agree. I think in broken country, desert, mountains etc my instict would be to go as light as possible - i.e. fighting order/belt order - probably even ditch the battle-bowler.

Afghanistan and other light infantry environments require highly leg-mobile troops that can advance to contact and pressure an enemy force, not allowing them to withdraw. This allows either firepower or coordinated action to be brought to bear on them. You have to remain in contact - and this can mean having to move pretty fast.

If your boys are berganned-up to the eyeballs and knackered when contact is made there is little chance of pushing home any form of manoeuvre.

The problem is that most US infantry units that we know will appear in CMSF are not true light infantry. So the debate over whether mobility in broken country is more favoured is a moot point.

The infantry will be tooled up in full kit and plodding.

I think once the modules come along we can see some true light fighters - Rangers, Delta, SF A-Teams, SEALS, USMC Recon, IDF SF, British Para Recce, Marines and SF, German Paras, French Foreign Legion, Dutch Marines etc.

[ng cavscout]

Originally posted by BARMAN1950:

I am a little hesitant to jump in here with "war stories from Korea", but I thought that it might be informational.

snip

Is this the way to fight a war? I don't know. But in my (not so humble opinion) if a war must be fought then "let slip the dogs of war" and get it over with. War should be so brutal that the population want it to be over as soon as can be. Sorry if I've gone off topic, but when I see day after day the military pussyfooting around because they are worried about "collateral damage" it makes my blood boil. Either fight a war or don't fight a war. But get the job done with the least casualties on your side.

The thing I like about being mounted, in todays conflict, is the RV aspect of it. We can bring coolers of Gatorade, extra ammo, radios, sleeping bags, extra chow, everything you could want, and just leave it in the HMMWV.

I see your point about collateral damage, and civilian casualties, but in todays world, with instant video feeds on CNN and Al-Jazeera, I am afraid that is just not an option any more. And I think that may be a good thing.

The whole reason I am able to support our effort in Iraq, and I am over here right now, is that we are (hopefully) trying to make the country a better place for individual Iraqi's. The WMD argument, which I believed at the time, fell through, and I don't think Saddam was a player in 9/11. If I can't believe that we are at least trying to give Iraq democracy, then I am left with nothing but revenge for what the enemy has done so far, and I don't think that is enough.

There is the argument that better to fight the terrorists in Iraq than in the US, but I don't know if I buy that or not. I do know that if we leave Iraq as it is now, we will be abandoning those who have stepped up to a hideous fate, and we will have a bigger mess than we started with. A failed state is against everyones best interests.

I do know that if we (the troops) stopped looking at Iraqi's as people, as hard as they make that some time, things would get even uglier over here, very quickly.

Anyway, back to my point, I don't think that we can, either in Iraq, or in a hypothetical Syria, afford to ignore both world opinion and the "hearts and minds", by ignoring civilian casualties. The good news is that with modern technology, and good tactics, you can at least minimize friendly casualties.

just my 2 cents, sorry for the speech, incoherent as it was.

[Bigduke6]

Barman, thanks for your post, information from a person like you is just gold for this forum.

[Battlefront.com]

Barman... thanks for the comments. We don't get many from Korea, so they are of particular interest to us grogs. Also, thanks for the logical explanation of your handle. I was thinking you were serving suds and whiskey back in 1950, not manning the brute of a weapon that was the Browning BAR

NG Cavscout... as a civilian watching all of this on the sidelines, I couldn't have put it any better myself. I'm also a supporter of the sensible application of Realpolitik concept to high level political/military decisions. That made my position on Iraq, prior to invasion, rather complex. I didn't believe the stated reasons, but didn't think going into Iraq the "right way" was a bad idea. Now that we are there and trying to leave the place in better shape than we found it, as quickly as possible, all of this stuff is rather moot. As Colin Powell supposedly advised the President prior to comitting troops... "you break it, you own it."

As for the light infantryman concept... yup, there is a lot of sense to that line of argument. But as some of you have figured out, until we get a sense that the military (whichever one we are simulating) is thinking along the same lines we won't be supporting it.

BTW, an interesting thing to note. Until very recently you saw very little in the way of body armor, frag or ballistic, protetection for anybody but the West and certain elite units of various nation states. The helmets were still steel, the troops "naked". When they went on peace keeping missions they were either walking around with nothing more than cotton for protection or "loaner" vests and helmets from UN or another country's stocks (UK, France, and US were common donators). But now, even the smaller nations are fielding these vests in their own patterns. I am sure they are far from universal, but obviously they are moving in that direction.

Steve

[ng cavscout]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

snip

NG Cavscout... as a civilian watching all of this on the sidelines, I couldn't have put it any better myself. I'm also a supporter of the sensible application of Realpolitik concept to high level political/military decisions. That made my position on Iraq, prior to invasion, rather complex. I didn't believe the stated reasons, but didn't think going into Iraq the "right way" was a bad idea. Now that we are there and trying to leave the place in better shape than we found it, as quickly as possible, all of this stuff is rather moot. As Colin Powell supposedly advised the President prior to comitting troops... "you break it, you own it."

As for the light infantryman concept... yup, there is a lot of sense to that line of argument. But as some of you have figured out, until we get a sense that the military (whichever one we are simulating) is thinking along the same lines we won't be supporting it.

BTW, an interesting thing to note. Until very recently you saw very little in the way of body armor, frag or ballistic, protetection for anybody but the West and certain elite units of various nation states.

snip

But now, even the smaller nations are fielding these vests in their own patterns. I am sure they are far from universal, but obviously they are moving in that direction.

Steve

Thanks, sometimes it is difficult to put my position into words that don't make me sound like a complete gibbering idiot.

Mongolian and Georgian troops recently arrived in theatre, the Mongolians were issued US IBA, I believe that the Georgians brought their own. This is just from observing them, I don't have an official source.

[M Hofbauer]

BARMAN:

Did some innocents get killed? You bet, but those civilians who didn't get killed soon learned to get out of the way. Is this the way to fight a war? I don't know. But in my (not so humble opinion) if a war must be fought then "let slip the dogs of war" and get it over with. War should be so brutal that the population want it to be over as soon as can be. Sorry if I've gone off topic, but when I see day after day the military pussyfooting around because they are worried about "collateral damage" it makes my blood boil. Either fight a war or don't fight a war. But get the job done with the least casualties on your side.

come to your senses, BARMAN ! you're kidding, right?

your attitude might be explainable if you're in an all-out total war like WW II, but in today's conflicts like OIF the question is not whether or not you win the war at all, not who will eventually win the military conflict itself, but the question is with how little casualties and damage this can be achieved, and the real chellenge lies in the aftermath of the military conflict itself.

I can see where the soldier at the sharp end of the stick would prefer any and everything that will make his job easier or his safebeing likelier - but winning the hearts and minds of the liberated (or occupied, depending on how you see it) populace, and establishing a new society, *that*is the real issue today.

which was obvious in the case of iraq to virtually everyone except to the US government and, sorry to say that, people with your opinion/assessment.

it's not like korea where the outcome was very much at stake and the UN troops were in real danger of being thrown into the sea by the reds, or like WWII where Alphonse Schicklgruber posed a very real threat to the whole world and his defeat had to be ensured by all means available.

think of todays wars of US vs (insert unfortunate country here) more like the police vs. robbers with hostages in a bank...the police could simply come with big guns and shoot everybody to pieces...but they won't do...outcome and superiority is not in question...but how well you do it is the problem.

like NG cavscout so very well explained... there is little reason for the (military) effort to aid the iraqi populace if you kill them;

it is essential to "win their hearts and minds" not only because that facilitates your movement and existence among them, but also because to improve their situation is often the very raison d'etre for the whole war (or, in the case of iraq, like NG cavscout said, the sole (IMO dubious) remaining reason left to be there at all).

[ October 24, 2005, 08:47 AM: Message edited by: M Hofbauer ]