Abandon squad/section levels of organization?
We've cussed and discussed just about every conceivable rifle squad design on another thread. And I, for one, have really enjoyed everyone's input.
So moving on to a different take on the same issue: should light infantry organizations organize into permanent squads at all?
I'll start the ball rolling with two links to articles by British author William Owen. Owen advocates a small platoon divided into several big fire teams. The platoon leader could control all the teams himself or mix and match the teams into ad hoc squads for operations as he saw fit. So, using that theory, at different times you could have light squads, heavy squads, mixed squads, two team squads, three team squads, and various combinations.
Here are the links:
Quote:
A small amount of study will reveal that the vast majority of the world’s infantry units are organised along roughly the same lines. This is often interpreted as being indicative of certain well-founded principles. Close examination shows this to be less than certain.
Complete article here: http://www.geocities.com/drakonok/Or..._Infantry.html
Quote:
The purpose of this article is to describe an alternate tactical doctrine, training, and organization for light infantry units and subunits. The intended purpose of presenting an alternative is not to criticize current or existing concepts, but to aid thought and understanding by showing an alternative that may have some positive merit, if correctly understood and applied.
Complete article here:http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...n16346580/pg_1
It seems to me that Owen's proposals would require the addition of one or two more platoons in a company to keep the end numbers roughly the same.
The firing line is ready. Commence firing!
The 5-man Fire Team Reborn...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Rifleman
You know, I read what I wrote again and realized that I didn't even believe it myself. :o
COIN, LIC, OOTW, etc., seems to be more of a platoon and squad fight, so it probably won't matter if the company end numbers are the same. Platoons, squads, and fire teams need to be where the robustness and sustainability is.
Here's to Owen's big five man fire teams.....grouped into big platoons and squads. ;)
Especially in BIG Squads and Platoons.
Here, Here!:)
More Paternalism, Less Maternalism
Small group/unit cohesion and bonding that starts with a boot camp platoon should be disrupted by totaling reasigning everyone, completely mixing them up about half ways through and then again in infantry training. Granted, bonding is critical but small group bonding is familial in nature, maternal, and family roles can assume at times importance and status almost equal to the mandates of command and control, doctrine and discipline. You are putting people into an alien environment and they form family roles, very subtle things to understand, and I am only suggesting that C&C, D&D, which is paternal, has to intially take absolute precedent over the hearts and minds of the green weenies. Once they get into the real life of the military and direct application, they will bond with their brothers. 7 is a magic number when it comes to crew size IMO.
Aside from the fact that SWC took too long to
talks to those guys, the even more devastating item is your comment that I highlighted below. The trend is, apparently in the direction of OVER control -- when it should be just the opposite.
Sad. :mad:
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Steve Blair
...
. . .
... Some very interesting "compare and contrast" stuff in there, including the SOG guys feeling that they had much more control over mission planning than units do today.
(emphasis added / kw)