A militia for the 2020's (V)

Defence and Freedom is different. Here you may find a five-part series about a fantasy force design that might be an answer to challenges, but the guns and things that go boom would be covered in the fifth part, not the first one, as a matter of principle.
So this is what I'm thinking of regarding weaponry and tools:
carbine / assault rifle
  • calibre 5.56 or 5.45 mm, cheap LED red dot sight (easier aiming, less shooting training), folding buttstock (to fit in cars), 905 nm laser with trigger in front grip, MOA better than 2, 30 rds magazines fed by stripper clips, preferably select fire and ambidextrous
  • carbine/assault rifle adapted for light machinegun role; requirements are 150 rds in 1 minute without trouble, bipod, MOA better than 2.5, may use bigger magazines in addition to 30 rds magazines 
all-in one hand grenade 
  • red phosphorous bursting type with added flash powder (flash bang functionality) to affect eyes, hearing and analogue night vision devices. This bursting grenade would provide multispectral smoke, be incendiary, highly uncomfortable in a useful radius and it would not be as hazardous to its user as a defensive hand grenade. I understand if someone would rather want a offensive/defensive hand grenade in addition, but I don't see a need for it - to have many smoke hand grenades for breaking contact is more promising to me given the aforementioned doctrine of hit and run.
light antitank weapon
  • Nammo M72EC. Its weight is bearable and it's easily powerful enough against BMP/BTR/BMD/MT-LB vehicles and its fuse design should defeat bar armour and also cope with the BMP's very much angled upper glacis.
anti-MBT weapon
  • The most suitable one is almost certainly the RPG-28*, which weighs just as much as other anti-MBT weapons,but utterly lacks finesse. Its brute force approach limits it to 300 m effective range, but it also allows for a very cheap price. A new NLAW would easily cost 10...20 times as much as an unlicensed RPG-28 copy.
  • The ideal mortar would be the 2B25 with its HE-PFF munition (PD fuse). The practical choice would rather be any 81.4 or 82 mm mortar, as those are readily available, even in many NATO countries' stocks. 60 mm mortars require the same effort for less effect and 120 mm mortars could not be easily lifted into a trunk.
heavy machinegun
  • Countries with inventories of 12.7 or 14.5 mm machineguns or cheap access to foreign  inventories of such guns could make use of those. The primary mode of employment should be an ambush from a tripod against vehicles, but a low swivel mount fixed on a pickup might also have its uses.
  • preferably a daytime-only launcher with Bolide missiles, but this may be more expensive (and is rather crew portable than man portable) than the more common infrared guided ManPADS. My preference for a laser beamrider design stems from doubts about the ability of infrared guidances to overcome the best countermeasures (especially DIRCM).
I would not add drones to the list, as surveillance should be feasible and reasonably safe if done by normal means. Drones might betray their users when they return. A really cheap kamikaze drone with a HEDP warhead might make sense once available, but there's a risk that it entices the militia troops into a risk-averse low intensity approach rather than setting up ambushes and conducting nighttime raids for more decisive effects. The controller station would also give its position away with RF emissions and would thus have to relocate ASAP.

Finally, the topic of night vision. Team leaders should have a handheld thermal imager monocular (Leupold LTO 2) to aid detection of camouflaged hostiles in day and night. The main night vision would be digital night vision goggles for everyone. Yes, digital night vision cannot achieve the same vision ranges as generation 3 devices, but it costs less than 10% as much and is not as easily broken by user mistakes or flashes. The militia would pick its fights, and it would pick them with support troops. Regular infantry needs to be capable of fighting well against battle-ready hostile infantry. Thus my approach of issuing gen 3 analogue night vision to regular infantry and digital night vision to everyone else in the theatre of war. The digital night vision combined with throwable LED NIR lightballs and weapon-installed invisible NIR lasers allows for firefights out to 60...100m distance depending on other light sources. That's a lot more than or at least as much as hostile support troops are capable of. The element of surprise would favour the militia, thus it would be very much superior during nighttime raids on the invader's support troops.
Heavy machineguns, mortars and ManPADS would be sued by special teams, and one anti-MBT weapon would be carried instead of two light anti-tank weapons when contact with MBTs is a reasonable expectation. This should be a fairly reliable expectation because moving MBTs are very noisy and raids would be prepared for with scouting.

The team leader in particular would have many additional tools such as a encrypted frequency-hopping handheld format radio, the hand grenades, throwable NIR LED lightballs, 8x22 binoculars, concertina wire cutter tool, lockpicking set, digital camera with 8x optical zoom, all demolition equipment, some extra medical supplies.

I did decide against a Minimi-style or universal machinegun because of commonality of training, commonality of munitions (no link belts required, rounds in stripper clips as with the assault rifle) and low expected physical fitness of reservists.


*: I believe the publicly mentioned penetration figures are nonsense. A little better than 800 mm RHAeq CE is a more realistic penetration power. It should still be able to penetrate T-64/-72/-80/-90 series tanks reliably on the flanks and sometimes from the frontal 60°. Hardly any man-portable anti-tank munition can be expected to penetrate as much, as the RPG-28 has a very large calibre. The much more expensive Eryx ATGM likely penetrates better.


  1. What about commando-mortars and grenade-launchers or grenade pistols?

    Also if i understand your concept correctly, the militia is fighting mainly as an guerilla. I think this could be quite problematic fighting as an guerilla in an camo uniform with the sad weapons right amongst the people. Traitors, collobarators, drones and mass surveillance (cameras etc) would very fast enable to hunt down the guerilla fighters. The overall structure and terrain of the german federal republic is also not very guerilla friendly in many areas, one could of cause fight especially in the greater urban areas.

    For the named wepaonery i want to make some additional thoughts:

    I would not use a carbine/assault rifle AND a carbine/lMG - but instead only one type of weapon, like the IAR of the USMC. But perhaps i did not understand you correctly here and you mean exact that. Two different weapons with different kind of abillities i would not recommend here. For Guerillawarfare also silencers would be of outmost importance and short / compact weapons. Therefore the caliber choice is not optimal imo.

    I would instead recommend the .300 Blackout als caliber and a Universal Carbine/Assault Rifle as the only bullet type weapon. IMO a newer version of the SIG MCX would be here a good solution (folding stock, very lightweight, short)

    Also small compact pistols would be ideal. I would use the Glock 43 for that, also with silencers. This would be ideal for short range assasinations and such attacks.

    CS gas grenades are also extremly useful for many purposes, especially if you are evading enemy hunting parties (also against dogs etc) and for fog and for attacking the enemy.

    And as asked at the beginning grenade pistols and other such short lightweight grenade launchers are extremly useful for that style of fighting.

  2. Continuation:

    Regarding the rocket launchers: In my opinion, it makes no sense to use rocket launchers other than the regular troops. In addition, these should definitely be technically designed in such a way that they can be fired from rooms, vehicles, etc. Of course, the systems mentioned are significantly cheaper, but saving money here would be saving at the wrong end, as I believe that these rocket launchers are the most valuable and effective means of the guerrilla. Therefore, these should be of the RGW60 and RGW110 type.

    As for the mortars, I have nothing to say, that system would be ideal.

    However, I would not use heavy machine guns, even if they are available, so as not to limit logistics and mobility.

    As a possible MANPAD I would imagine something like the British Starstreak system. This would also have the advantage that Starstreak can also be used as a surface-to-surface missile against vehicles.

    This would result in the following list of weapons:

    Every soldier:

    Glock 43 (with silencer)
    SIG MCX in .300 Blackout (with silencer)
    Grenade Pistol 40mm
    All in one hand grenades


    CS Gas Grenades


    2B25 mortar

    Starstreak MANPAD

  3. Continuation:

    Todays modern computer optics like the Tracking Point System allow nearly every soldier to deliver precise shots over very great distances. Such sniping is invaluable for guerilla warfare, especiall for urban sniping. So i want to add a sniper rifle with such an tracking point optic, so that one can have more snipers / precision shooters in the militia than otherwise possible.

    These sniper rifles should also function as some kind of anti-material rifle. Despite the special optic the rifle should be the same model as in the regular army and as i caliber i would recommend the .300 norma magnum.

    Also the PIKE 40mm missile is an interesting concept which would be ideal for such an guerilla force. So this two wepaons would add long range precision fire power for single and area targets and i want to add my specialist list with:

    G29 in .300 Norma Magnum (with silencer and tracking point optic)

    PIKE munition (in combination with the grenade pistol/launcher)

    1. commando mortars: too training-intensive for HE

      UBGLs and grenade pistols: not a fan

      German militia would rather not fight at home, but deploy to Poland save for some object security efforts

      IAR: LMG capability is heavy and that's an unnecessary drawback for leaders, special teams and grenadiers hauling a RPG-28

      silencers do not seem to be relevant for guerillas, they're rather a niche for underground fighting. Even the sturdiest silencers are rather unfit for LMG use

      .300 Blackout is not a standard calibre, supply would be insufficient in wartime. Military bullets are not being mass-produced for this calibre.

      pistols are irrelevant in warfare and assassinations of non-combatants is a crime anyway

      The use of CS gas in war is a war crime since 1925

      rocket launchers: confined spaces capable anti-tank weapons are about 50% heavier and RPG-28 is the only truly affordable promising MBT killer
      never been a fan of the weight-inefficient RGW series

      large calibre machine guns may be necessary to deal with nimble bulletproofed convoy escorts (4x4 and such) in open terrain where you could not hit them so well with M72EC

      Starstreak is not cheap and by concept rather unsuitable against the relatively small drones. The three darts depend on direct hits.

      electronics are too expensive, especially when one takes into account for how long they remain usable when stored
      sniper rifles would entice to pursue a low intensity harassing campaign, which is unsuitable. The stay behind militia platoons should destroy minimum one vehicle per day on average.

      PIKE is too expensive for the concept and its effect is too small, it would also entice towards less decisive standoff engagements

    2. Stay Behind Guerilla with german militia in poland: i do not think that this could work. How are militia troops supposed to fight in a foreign country in which the do not even speak the language? I highly doubt the value of such troops there.

      Commando Mortars: There are new sights for Commando Mortars that are much easier to hit. This means that even inexperienced users can score hits with the first shot, all you need is the exact distance.

      UBGLs and grenade pistols: i agree with your about UBGLs, but grenade pistols are extremly useful, especially in a guerilla warfare scenario. The compact size, the low weight and the versatility are tremendously good.

      IAR: i came here to the same conclusion and therefore if you have read what i have written, my solution would be an SIG MCX in .300 Blackout with an integrated silencer which is for sure not an IAR. This is an extrem compact, extreme lightweight weapon. A true Carbine.

      Silencers: are relevant in todays infantry combat for everyone. Every soldier should have one, as this precious tools does not only prevent muzzle flash, increase accuracy at longer ranges, make it immensely harder for the enemy to determine the shooter's location, and are immensely useful inside buildings because of the blast load, and they even improve protection against overheating, etc They are so useful, that every bullet type weapon including Machine Guns should have such a device. And there are silencers which can be used with machine guns and even medium to heavy machine guns.

      Pistols are irrelevant in conventional warfare, but have an high value in guerilla warfare. That said, i wonder what do you think about guerilla warfare and what would be your guerilla doctrine. As it seems to me, that you are not talking about a real guerilla here.

      To claim that the RGW series is weight inefficient i find curios. The RGW 110 weighs ca 10 kg, is only 1 meter long and has a range of 800m. The RPG-28 weighs 13,5 kg, is 1,2 meter long and has a range of only 300 m and cannot be fired from contained spaces, but for the RGW only 15 qm of room are sufficient. Also for the RGW110 there are Counter-APS Variants, which the RPG-28 lacks.

      Since at this point you are again bringing the question of costs, as is the case with other systems such as the Pike, you are saving here at the wrong end. For the cost of just a modern warship, all this would already be easily affordable. A significantly superior armament is not only advantageous in combat, it is also psychologically important, which is particularly important for a guerrilla.

      Strastreak is able to hit very fast and very nimble ground vehicles. How to fight against small drones is a question that remains. IMO such drones can be shot with carbines with modern optics as i have seen for myself. For example with an tracking point system.

      I wonder why you do not like longe range harrassing, as this is an very important part of guerilla warfare. Sniper Rifles do bind suprisingly high numbers of troops by there very presence and could be also used against material, for example against tires of vehicles, motorblocks etc. you can destroy a vehicle per day by simply shooting through his motor which would be possible with the named rifle and caliber. More economy of force is nearly not thinkable: 1 Bullet - 1 vehicle.

      also i realy wonder about your statement in your last sentence of standoff engangements. Less decisive standoff engangements are the core of guerilla warfare to say at least.

    3. What works for guerillas in a 10-year war is useless for a stand-behind militia that's tasked to decisively hurt the invader's support forces over a course of a few weeks.

      RGW 110 is not even in the same league as the much bigger calibre RPG-28. Only much more expensive explosives and liner could yield comparable effect on MBTs, and that means its price would inevitably be higher.
      There is no counter-APS variant of the RGW 110; its development was merely announced.

      I have yet to see a silencer that copes with my requirement of 150 rds in 1 minute. Besides, the firing signatures are not all that important in the ambush and raid scenarios. The raid targets would not be ready for a fight and the ambush targets would be extremely disadvantaged as well. Silencers would not matter much, and are unnecessary trouble.

      German militia in Poland would not be an issue whatsoever because I wrote that the militia is supposed to avoid civilians anyway.

      Grenade pistols still make no sense IMO. The fundamental issue is that you can shoot with bullets at what you can see, and shouldn't shoot at what you cannot see, especially when you don't have access to a reliable supply system. To add a grenade pistol to an assault trifle also adds a lot of weight that I consider to be inappropriate for likely physically unfit troops.

      Expensive electronics for commando mortars make those too expensive. Furthermore, the mortar user would need a carbine as well, and would be overburdened.

      SIG MCX doesn't even deserve a brief thought because it's expensive. We will likely have plenty G36 ready for a minor reworking soon, and our allies have plenty old small arms as well. This is not an unlimited budget fantasy force, this is about a self-disciplined effort to devise a highly useful force at a small budget.

      You seem to generally not apply the same constraints (budget and physical fitness) that I apply. Different or no constraints obviously leads to different results.

    4. Many thanks for your response. In principle, what you are describing here is not a guerrilla, but a conventionally fighting light infantry whose task is to be rolled over and then to tackle the logistics chain. At first glance, this has little to do with a guerrilla, especially if, as you describe, you deliberately avoid civilians. That would certainly be feasible in parts of eastern Poland, but then encounters the problem that the areas in which this would be feasible are militarily irrelevant.

      Along possible lines of Russian advances it would undoubtedly be necessary to fight in the midst of the civilian population here.

      But we could discuss that in more detail in the other parts, since this is primarily about the question of weapons.

      Commando mortars: as you have read, I do not envisage commando mortars at all. For me, the reason is mainly the logistical question, since you then have to use another type of ammunition and the units already carry many different weapons. That clearly speaks against commando mortars.

      I can't understand your statements about the RGW 110. Even the penetrating power is completely identical to an RPG-28, with less weight and a significantly greater effective range. The RGW 110 penetrates more than 1000 mm behind ERA. This is pretty much what is stated for the RPG-28, only with a much longer range and the option to fire from enclosed spaces or even vehicles.

      So like with the SIG MCX the main argument would be the costs. Of cause the weapon systems i named are much more expensive, but the same is true for the very lives of the militia fighters. Superior infantry weapons does cost more, but overall they are cheap in comparison for example to an modern warship. For the price of two warships you can pay the higher price easily. Now for the psychological question of superior weapons. There are factors calles weapon push and wepaon pull in an fire fight. To have superior weapons does therefore deliver more fighting power than one would expect only from the weapons themselve. Because of that psychological reasons.

      So arming an "guerilla" force with inferior cheap weapons does not exploit this factor, but to the opposite this would decrease the fighting power more than one would expect only from the weapons itself.

      But there are practical reasons too. Lets take for example the silencers. They are invaluable in ambush and raid scenarios. I have been in such scenarios in afghanistan for myself. With a silencer it is not possible to detect the position of the shooter so fast and this is very crucial for the success of raids and ambushes. And if they are in the middle of the night hiding the flash is again of high importance. As you seem to not know silencers for machine guns, here you are:


      But please note that i do not even would use machine guns for an guerilla force.

    5. Continuation:

      >>>>To add a grenade pistol to an assault trifle also adds a lot of weight that I consider to be inappropriate for likely physically unfit troops.>>>

      SIG MCX in .300 Blackout - 2,7 kg / seperate grenade pistol M320 standalone (not ! attached to the rifle but sepperate - 1,5 kg.

      And you are seriously claiming that this is to much for your militia fighter? Also i wonder heavily: you claim that your militia is physically not fit enough to carry that weight, but you regard them fit enough to live outdoors for months and to fight in the wilderness far away from civilians in eastern poland ?! Seriously ?

      Claiming my modest proposals an unlimited budget fantasy force is funny to say at least. As your whole milita is nothing else than an fantasy force as you have written for yourselve. But let me assure you, that i do not wrote about an unlimited budget, this troop would still be very cheap in comparison to other military units.

      For example: for the price of only 6 PUMA IFV one can buy 4000 PzF-3 with 80.000 rounds of munition for them. To spare for the light infantry makes therefore no sense at all. Spare only some IFV and you can buy all the state of the art systems in high numbers.

      So your claimed constraints are artifical and result only from your political views that one have to spare everywhere in the armed forces. But this is the wrong place for that. And if the physical fitness is not high enough for 4,2 kg of weapons forget about your milita anyway.

      My thesis is that your caonstraints are articifal and result not from military logic but only from your political agenda. Even with all the weapons i mentioned it would be still an cheap force, but at the same time an much stronger force which is necessary for your task to fight an kind of conventional war after the enemy combat troops passed. A kind of schlagen aus der nachhand without moving. Especially for that you need better weapons, not only for the effects, but for morale and psychological reasons as well.

    6. I wrote on Twitter that the whole concept is somewhat similar to 1990's understanding of Jagdkampf.

      I know silencers for machineguns for two decades, and never in those decades have I seen the slightest hint or even only claim that they could cope with the kind of burst that I asked of the LMG here. And the slight difference in noise (which is mostly reduced to sides and back, very little to the front) doesn't mean much compared to the best flash hiders that basically eliminate muzzle flash for the naked eye and that's what the threat has.

      40x46 mm cartridges weigh 250 grams each. That 1.6 kg M320 + possible sight (night aiming is an issue) + 10 rds exceeds 6 kg. This sacrifices two M72EC that are seriously useful against AFVs. Yes, I am clearly against this trade-off. It's also one more weapon to train for, which means extra training time required. Also, more complicated tactics.

      I wrote nowhere of militia living outdoors or in wilderness for months. I wrote about not being based in barracks. The individual equipment part even mentioned no tents and no tarps.

      Regarding the claimed penetrating poiwer of RPG-28 and RGW 110; I already wrote that equal technology (explosive, liner and the optimum shaping formula that all developers know) yields much higher penetration with much bigger calibre. The relationship pen:calibre is almost linear (not with tiny calibres). So either RGW 110 had more expensive materials and is thus more expensive or it has weaker penetration. Consistent production quality would be achieved either way in Western production.

      "So arming an "guerilla" force with inferior cheap weapons does not exploit this factor, but to the opposite this would decrease the fighting power more than one would expect only from the weapons itself."

      I placed equipment into the last part for a reason. The equipment is the least important thing of the concept. The raids and ambushes would enjoy advantage of surprise. No Gucci gear is necessary, just weapons and munitions that work on the targets and a night vision advantage over support troops.
      This is not a military gear enthusiast blog. The challenge with a militia for Jagdkampf is not to find the optimum gear, it's to find cheap gear that works. One could spend tenfold as much on equipment, but the effect on deterrence would be zero and the effect on defence would be impossible to discern in the noise of other, much more important factors (except if the equipment lures into a low intensity approach).
      Support troops can easily be overwhelmed with the kind of equipment I listed, they would often not even put up a serious resistance.

    7. I totally agree with your last paragraph. A complete TOE / structure and a little more about the question of how this troop is actually used in practice would now be very interesting. I think that's a bit too general until now.

      >>>10 rds exceeds 6 kg. This sacrifices two M72EC>>>

      10 rounds are in general better than two rounds for an guerilla force behind enemy lines. So the question which of the two weapon systems is better depends heavily on the question how exactly you are fighting and whom exactly you are fighting.

      What you are describing is not an true guerilla force - and a focus on the vehicles of the support troops makes of cause light rocket launchers the better choice.

      Silencers: i have seen silencers on machine guns with my own eyes and i used them and also modern flash hiders. The silencers are better overall, and for several other reasons (overheating, precision, recoil etc). Moreover you are again and again writing here about silencers not able to handle the burst you asked from an lMG, but i did not even included one.

      RGW110: the penetration is the same as with the RPG-28, despite the smaller caliber and lower weight. And that is for sure an reason why an RGW110 is much more expensive. But that is not the main thing here. The RGW110 will become the successor to the PzF3 in the german armed forces. To have the same AT Weapon as the standard forces is advantagous for several reasons from training to logistics to the price of the weapon and more. But the main argument of mine is the range. The effective range of the rgw110 is much higher than the effective range of the RPG-28 and that is the main argument here imo. Much more range is here for the purpose invaluable. You claimed that weapon to be against MBT. The 300 m of the RPG-28 are here against such an target insufficient in many circumstances and would be much to risky if the enemy fights correctly.

      Such a longer range also creates tremendous tactcial problems for the enemy and has serveal other effects. The same for the abbility to be fired from confined spaces - mainly this again creates tactical chances for us and problems for the enemy.

      As MBT would be not the main target of such an militia and such encounters seldom, investing more money in the Anti-MBT munition is no waste, but to the opposite.

  4. Continuiation:

    >>>I wrote nowhere of militia living outdoors or in wilderness for months. I wrote about not being based in barracks. The individual equipment part even mentioned no tents and no tarps.>>>

    I was writing here about how such an militia then lives in war. Then the militia could not stay in the barracks, and you wrote, that it should avoid civilians if possible. Either it would stay amongst civilians or it would stay outdoors. No barracks and staying away from civilians means in eastern poland, living in the forest, living in the wildernes. Which is perfectly fine if you have the skills for it, even without tents which are overrated.

    >>>The raids and ambushes would enjoy advantage of surprise. No Gucci gear is necessary, just weapons and munitions that work on the targets and a night vision advantage over support troops.>>>

    As support troops of the enemy will perhaps also have training as infantry, will perhaps have RWS with machine guns and also night vision equipment raiding them is perhaps not that easy as it sounds here. Also it is hubris to simply declare they would not offer even an serious resistance.

    If you then have an range advantage - for example because your rocket launchers have 800 m and not only 300 m and you can fire them out of houses / rooms - this enables you to defeat and destroy support troops much more easily and much more effective.

    So gear matters. Of cause there are many other and also some more important factors as you have written, but the weapons are not and unimportant factor here. And their importance is greater for the militia than only the question of their range, penetration power, weight etc, the gear has also an very important psychological impact.

    But you are right overall, that now more details on other factors would be interesting. Especially how you would organise your troop exactly for the Jagdkampf. Traditionally a Jagdkommando would be a strengthend platoon and would be lead by the brigade, seldom by an infantry bataillon. The overall strucutre of your militia bataillons and how it changed in the phases you mentioned would be interesting.

    1. Civilians flee from a battlefield or at least stop going to work. There would be plenty buildings (including basements under ruins) that could be used. The idea is NOT to eat & rest outdoors in wartime.

      "As support troops of the enemy will perhaps also have training as infantry (...)"
      That's a fantasy opponent, not the actual threat force, the Russian army. I turned away from advocating preparation against a very competent threat to advocating preparing against the actual (now exposed) threat.
      Moreover, the ambushers/raiders would have substantial advantages, especially surprise.

      300 m is a very long distance actually. 500 m more range matter little. See, invader forces going after militia would not see the militia until they're much closer than 300 m, so no extra range needed. Raids against troops with MBTs would only be conducted in closed terrain, where infantry has advantages. Ambushes against MBTs would only be conducted to help withdrawing militia teams, and again 300 m is enough. There's a fundamental difference between stay behind militia/Jagdkommando and regular infantry; the former doesn't need to be fit for as many scenarios, as it can limit its fights to few scenarios.

      The organisation would depend on how many militia members actually show up upon mobilisation. In some teams the members would know each other from past exercises, others would be ad hoc. The platoon leader would be elected, and PltLdr may be in command of 3...10 teams. There may be a HMG team or not, may be a ManPADS team or not (actually doesn't matter terribly much, as the risk should already restrict hostile aviation activity). At least one mortar is a must-have IMO.

      No more than two teams per hideout, most non-special teams would also run observation posts and collect intel. Movement between OP and hideout only at night or with concealment.

      The leader and his team would collect and assess the intel and either report to the regular military (by HF or SatCom )or arrange for raid or ambush actions. They might also get tasked to do BDA after an air or arty strike or to determine the state of roads. That means a scout team of two would be sent out, with a withdrawal route secured by an ambush.

      Object security would look different, as reconstituted VDV/Spetznatz would be the OPFOR. That would use the usual repertoire; pickets + defensive positions + QRF.

      Battlefield phase; mostly what I wrote back in the "defensive reconnaissance" blog post. Two personnel + car + radio, and hidden observation posts. The Plt Ldr Team with its longer-ranged radio collects the reports and reports to the Corps or Bde HQ, possibly even requests for arty strikes on coordinates. Some ambush sites might be prepared for counter-reconnaissance.

    2. Many thanks for your remarks. In fact, I fundamentally misunderstood your intention, when I read guerrilla-phase I was thinking of a guerrilla operation, not of an operation like the one you describe here which is much more conventional - simply true light infantry tactics.

      As a result, my choice of weapons, which was specifically intended for a guerrilla, is partly wrong.

      In my opinion, the most dangerous opponent of the militia you describe here is a combination of drones - loitering ammunition - mortars and enemy artillery. In my opinion, there is therefore a lack of the ability to detect and combat small reconnaissance drones, without which the enemy cannot use their NLOS weapons with sufficient precision.

      One would therefore need directional jammers (anti-drone "guns) and smart optics that enable the assault rifles/lMG to shoot down small drones as well.

      Following this, every soldier should have a Hybrid Assault Rifle/Light Machine Gun.

      For example, a Surefire MGX with a flash suppressor which takes out the muzzle flash and further reduces the almost non-existent recoil. This can then be used in very long bursts of fire against drones.

      Of course, this is also very useful for ambushes, raids and especially on the defensive for object protection.

      A few more quick questions: 1. What would you think of rifle grenades in this context and with the described way of fighting?

      2. Isn't it a mistake to focus on a current enemy when that enemy may be very different in the future? Both different in skill and different in equipment, doctrine, etc?

  5. So a new list for an true light infantry fighting in uniform (instead of an guerilla):

    Surefire MGX with an smart optic (tracking point)


    GS-777/PSRL-2 (instead of the Namo M72; weighs only 3,5 kg and is much more versatile, also it can be separated into two pieces for compact carry) (with PG-7VR ammunition it could also fulfill the Anti-MBT role so one launcher fits it all)


    2B25 Mortar

    G29 with supressor and smart optic in .300 Norma Mag

    Starstreak (as it could also be used against vehicles / for anti-tank and against other such ground targets)

    1. I rejected reloadable LAWs because those don't give salvo ability. 4 M72EC are a very different capability than a quasi RPG-7. I understand the latter has nice 40 mm HE rounds, but the salvo ability is a big deal for the tactics.

      The anti-drone jammer is a nice idea, but MALE drones won't be jammed by small equipment and you don't necessarily know whether jamming worked. I'd rather rely on breaking line of sight by running 200 m underground or such. You wouldn't be able to spot and aim at the drone during nighttime without much equipment and during daytime you can limit raids and ambush executions to times without a spotted hostile eye in the sky. There would be enough opportunities along a MSR.

    2. Starstreak is not useful against small targets and AFAIK unlike Bolide no longer on the market. Bolide's warhead has a secondary shaped charge function, likely better penetration than M72EC.

    3. The weight of the GS-777/PSRL-2 is realy extreme low, only 3,5 kg for the launcher. The ammuniton has additional weight of cause too, but you have much more flexibility and versatility and if you are shooting more shots than one per launcher, it becomes more weight efficient.

      4 x M72EC weight overall 13,6 kg

      4 x GS-777/PSRL-2 weight of the launchers 14 kg, weight of the warheads 8 kg, overall 22 kg

      This is only 8 kg more - means only 2 kg more per soldier. But you have then an better weapon and you can make a sekond shot and a third one and so on from the same launcher and then it becomes interesting in terms of weight. Lets assume three shots per each soldier.

      12 shots with M72EC weight overall 40,8 kg

      12 shots with the GS-777/PSRL-2, weight of the launchers still 14 kg, weight of the warheads 24 kg, overall 38 kg

      So the GS-777/PSRL-2 becomes more and more weight efficient, the more you are shooting with it and then you begin to spare weight.

      It is easier and lighter to transport new Ammunition for the relodable LAW than for the disposable LAW. And especially if you want to have an salvo ability this makes the relodable LAW better.

      MALE drones are not the target of the jammer, but the small uavs which are the main problem for light infantry. This small uavs are not targets for the MANPADS, you need therefore other devices for them.

      The advantage of starstreak is imo the speed of the missiles, that it is better against ground targets in comparison to bolide - it has also a better penetration than the M72EC and it cannot be countered or jammed. Also it is lighter. And it is still on the market, only under another name. For example the indonesian army has bought it 2020.

    4. No twelve shots of M72EC would be carried by a team of four, more like 4...6. The rest would be in vehicles, caches or hideout, weight irrelevant.

      The publicly assumed penetration of Starstreak is at most 100 mm RHAeq KE, which is much less than M72EC and Bolide (apparently) have. It would penetrate BTRs and BMDs, maybe BMP or maybe not BMP. The size of Bolide's shaped charge in drawings indicates a HEAT calibre equal or better than M72EC's.

      You may see the figure of 1,000 mm RHA penetration for Starstreak on the internet, but that goes back to the mistake of one person known to me and he didn't correct the nonsense after I told him the correction about 15 years ago already. 1,000 mm RHAeq is more than the single long rod of 120 or 125 mm APFSDS (big cartridge for tank cannon) is believed to penetrate. So it's obvious that the 1,000 mm RHA figure is utter nonsense.

      Bolide's guidance is laser beamriding just as Starstreak's, so Starstreak's strength against countermeasures is no argument against Bolide unless you think the time of flight difference allows rapid concealment.

  6. "So a new list for an true light infantry fighting in uniform (instead of an guerilla)"

    The militia men are soldiers, the term "guerilla" referred to the fighting style not the status of the men/women.
    Read the part again.

  7. Why range can matter / an example for such a militia - even using civilian cars /


  8. What would be the expected ammo usage per day? Since Ukraine it occurs to me that ammo could be the most expensive part of equiping a militia.

    1. See part II:
      Security phase: close to zero munitions consumption (at most refresher training)
      Battlefield phase: Difficult to tell, should not be high, as it's not meant for intense combat
      guerilla phase: austere by necessity

      The territorial defence battalions of UKR are fighting as dug-in frontline infantry battalions. That's very different. They certainly have much use for mortar HE munitions.

      I suppose the radio equipment could cause a large share of the budget needs. Mil spec radios are really pricey.