Rifle squad composition

[William F. Owen]

For William Owen. What do you think of each squad member having a radio that he can talk to everyother squad member like Police Officers ro SWAT teams have?

The British Army has PRR, (as does the USMC?) and it is, by all accounts excellent. The critical issue is that the PRRs are kept as low cost items for low powered voice communications. - so better than shouting. No data, or streaming video or other silliness. The other important issue is that there is a time to use them and there is a time not to. Sometimes they need to be switched off and everyone has to know when to switch them on.

I should add, that I have never used PRR, so best get the opinion of those that have. I have only ever come across 1 man who thought the idea was rubbish and he a full Colonel who had never used it either!

[Cavguy]

The British Army has PRR, (as does the USMC?) and it is, by all accounts excellent. The critical issue is that the PRRs are kept as low cost items for low powered voice communications. - so better than shouting. No data, or streaming video or other silliness. The other important issue is that there is a time to use them and there is a time not to. Sometimes they need to be switched off and everyone has to know when to switch them on.

I should add, that I have never used PRR, so best get the opinion of those that have. I have only ever come across 1 man who thought the idea was rubbish and he a full Colonel who had never used it either!

Almost all Army ground team leaders/NCO's in Iraq now have PRR equivilant. We actually bought (or were loaned) a lot of the actual UKo nes in OIF 1 due to our shortages.

I never understood why it took a war and tons of soldiers buying motorola radios out of pocket to figure out the obvious - urban combat requires a lot of radios due to the terrain if you want to operate effectively. The US Army saw the light in early 2004 and by 2006 when I returned they were densly fielded.

[Distiller]

What about such a setup?

SQUAD (9 men)
- 1 Ldr (assault carbine, NavCom-equipment)
- 2/3-men serving 1 GPMG 7.62 (MG42-esque weapon, high volume of fire more important than high precision)
- 1 bipoded marksman-capable Automatic Rifle 7.62 (FG42-esque weapon, like HK417 with heavy barrel)
- 4/5 men Assault Carbine (short barrel HK416 with integrated UGL40, or MP7 plus AT4)

PLATOON
3x SQUAD
+ Mortar Team(s) 60mm
+ RPG Team(s), if not integrated into the squad

COMPANY/BATTALION/REGIMENT
Xx PLATOON
+ heavy indirect fire, snipers, ATGM teams, MANPADS teams, other toys, CS/CSS, &c

About the logistics side of two calibers in a squad: Belts and mags for 5.56 have the same effect. If you really need it there is no time to strip a belt.
A GPMG would give reach and volume (question is if you take 2- or 3-man crews), a FG42/L86 type would give reach and precision, and for the rest of the squad MP7 (would it have enough fire power further out? would you need it if you have a GPMG?) or short barrel 5.56 (with truely integrated UGL, not just a bolt-on solution with another grip). In case RPGs are prefered, MP7s plus RPGs might be a way.

[jcustis]

What about such a setup?

SQUAD (9 men)
- 1 Ldr (assault carbine, NavCom-equipment)
- 2/3-men serving 1 GPMG 7.62 (MG42-esque weapon, high volume of fire more important than high precision)
- 1 bipoded marksman-capable Automatic Rifle 7.62 (FG42-esque weapon, like HK417 with heavy barrel)
- 4/5 men Assault Carbine (short barrel HK416 with integrated UGL40, or MP7 plus AT4)

PLATOON
3x SQUAD
+ Mortar Team(s) 60mm
+ RPG Team(s), if not integrated into the squad

COMPANY/BATTALION/REGIMENT
Xx PLATOON
+ heavy indirect fire, snipers, ATGM teams, MANPADS teams, other toys, CS/CSS, &c

About the logistics side of two calibers in a squad: Belts and mags for 5.56 have the same effect. If you really need it there is no time to strip a belt.
A GPMG would give reach and volume (question is if you take 2- or 3-man crews), a FG42/L86 type would give reach and precision, and for the rest of the squad MP7 (would it have enough fire power further out? would you need it if you have a GPMG?) or short barrel 5.56 (with truely integrated UGL, not just a bolt-on solution with another grip). In case RPGs are prefered, MP7s plus RPGs might be a way.

Taking the means of conveyance out of the picture, a squad of only 9 men barely allows you to post security to the four corners of a structure, and doesn't allow for much coverage of urban deadspace surrounding that same structure. It also makes setting an inner cordon somewhat awkward because those 2-man buddy teams are doing nothing but pulling 100% security the entire time. I think every organic member of the squad needs to be capable of the assault.

Perhaps (1) 60mm mortar team utlizing a PDA-sized ballistic computer would fair well in providing indirect supporting fires. Ammo supply would be contentious, but there are a number of ways to work around that through smart load-outs and march planning.

Considering the flexibility of the RPG, I'm actually surprised we haven't transitioned to a similar system. AT4s may be one trick ponies and the SMAW is a beast (albeit an effective one)...and neither have a comparable range.

And on the note of automatic fire, nothing in my mind is more important than accurate, reliable, ease-of-humping fire that allows the rifleman to close to within hand grenade range.

[Rifleman]

Taking the means of conveyance out of the picture, a squad of only 9 men barely allows you to post security to the four corners of a structure, and doesn't allow for much coverage of urban deadspace surrounding that same structure. It also makes setting an inner cordon somewhat awkward because those 2-man buddy teams are doing nothing but pulling 100% security the entire time. I think every organic member of the squad needs to be capable of the assault.

I think what you say is true. Several people here have convinced me that the 13 man USMC squad is best overall, and a USMC squad with attachments would be really close to what Wilf Owens believes a platoon should be.

But I think the Army is stuck with 9 man squads for the foreseeable future. Put more men in a squad? Fantasyland. Most soldiers are yearning for another battalion for each brigade. Reinforcing the squad would seem to be way down the list of concerns, if it's on the list of concerns at all. So the question for the Army is how to best use the nine men they have.

All things considered I believe Paul Melody's idea to reorganize the squad without fire teams and to plan on using it for fire or maneuver instead of fire and maneuver makes the most sense for the Army. Really, it would just be standardizing the approach, since it's something that's often ended up happening anyway.

Norfolk articulated this idea pretty well on the sino defense forum:

http://www.sinodefenceforum.com/blog...-part-xvi.html

[jcustis]

All things considered I believe Paul Melody's idea to reorganize the squad without fire teams and to plan on using it for fire or maneuver instead of fire and maneuver makes the most sense for the Army. Really, it would just be standardizing the approach, since it's something that's often ended up happening anyway.

I hear ya, but something about unity of command bugs me. If we have squads that are used for either fire or maneuver, then who is in overall change of the attack/asslt?

Are we talking about three 9-man sqds or four 9-man sqds in an Army platoon? I have to admit ignorance of T/O sturcture in an infantry platoon, but my question remains. Who is in charge if you have two squads taking down a small objective? Does this require the platoon commander or platoon sergeant to be on scene, or is the senior of the two SLs the defacto honcho?

[Rifleman]

I can only answer for how it was in my unit in the '80s. The platoon leader is in charge of platoon fire and maneuver unless he delegates it to someone else for some reason. It was more of an SOP than a requirement.

During my time the platoon was three rifle squads, nine men each at full strength (rarely), and a weapons squad. The weapons squad was seven men then but I think it might be nine men (on paper) these days also.

[jcustis]

During my time the platoon was three rifle squads, nine men each at full strength (rarely), and a weapons squad. The weapons squad was seven men then but I think it might be nine men (on paper) these days also.

That's right, I forgot the weapons squad. Remembering that that asset is available, the support-by-fire element is more tenable with one or two of the squads (if we follow Kilcullen's recommendations) attaching MG teams to provide suppressive fires. That makes sense. I was thinking in terms of just three squads and that was making me cringe somewhat.

[jcustis]

What about such a setup?

SQUAD (9 men)
- 1 Ldr (assault carbine, NavCom-equipment)
- 2/3-men serving 1 GPMG 7.62 (MG42-esque weapon, high volume of fire more important than high precision)
- 1 bipoded marksman-capable Automatic Rifle 7.62 (FG42-esque weapon, like HK417 with heavy barrel)
- 4/5 men Assault Carbine (short barrel HK416 with integrated UGL40, or MP7 plus AT4)

Would there be something to be gained from:
-1 Ldr
-4 riflemen
-2 men running HK417s
-2 men manning a MK48 Mod 1 LMG

[jcustis]

The literature that I am reading has the Marine squad doing the three teams bit. However as James Webb wrote once the team takes two casualties then if effectively ceases to be a maneuver element. I read that Marines in Iraq are naturally reverting to two 6 man teams, in order to sustain casualties and still keep at least a fire and maneuver capability. So we increase the fire team to 6 troops as James Webb advocates.

For those who may have been too lazy to run a google string on it, here's the article ROKMAN referenced: http://www.jameswebb.com/articles/va...teflexfire.htm

I ran across it while looking for articles on the Corps' search for a true automatic rifle. Which makes me remember that I need to get down to a neighboring command and invite Gunner Eby to join in here if he finds himself so inclined. He's a good mofo when it comes to understanding the voodoo involved here.

[Uboat509]

I honestly like the setup the way it is now.

1 X fire team =
-1 x Teamleader w/M4 (though I wouldn't hate to see 417s)
-1 x Grenedier w/M4 and M203 (when I was a teamleader I carried the 203 and had two riflemen)
-1 x Automatic Rifleman w/M2498 SAW
-1 x Rfleman w/M4

Squad = 2 x fireteam + squadleader w/M4

Platoon = 3 x squads + weapons squad and Hq

Weapons squad =

-2 x M240 gunners
-2 x assisantgunners w/M4
-1 x squadleader w/M4
I believe that some MTOEs still have one ammo bearer per gun but I have never seen that position manned.

HQ =

-1 x Pl w/M4 (if he is allowed a gun )
-1 x PSG w/M4
-1 x RTO w M4
-attachments (usually a medic and a forward observer)

Company =
-3 x Platoons
-1 x mortar section
-2 x 60MM mortars
- 2 x gunners
- 2 x assistant gunners
- 2 x ammo bearers
- 1 x section leader
- 1 x FDC
-HQ
-Commander
-1SG
-XO
-Supply
-Admin

-I am not a huge fan of the M249 but I have not seen any other belt fed guns that can still be carried into a house during CQC or can be maneuvered with the moving element during fire and maneuver.

-The Army will never allow the mortar to go below company level. indirect fire requires a significant amount of coordination and the PL (never mind the squadleader) is too far into the fight to deal with that. Often, even the company commander is too involved to deal with fires coordination which is why the mortars have their own section with a section leader and an FDC. Furthermore mortar ammo is heavy and a squad isn't going to be able to carry a hell of a lot of it along with all the other crap they carry. On top of all that you don't want your mortars with any element that you expect to make contact. They need to be back behind the squads with the company headquarters.

-The rifleman position would be where I would put the DM. I might also add two DMs with the weapons squad. The DMs in the fireteams would have additional training for longer range engagements but not special weapons which do not fair well in CQC or fire and maneuver. The DMs in the weapons squad would postentally have some type of special weapon ie. SPR(5.56MM).

-The four man fireteam is the smallest element that is used as a maneuver element and is also the basic element for CQC. I believe that nine man squad is based on ensuring that the entire squad can be transported togother.

-I am not a fan of non-standard ammo. Sure the ballistics may be slightly better but it will complicate the logistics and experience tells me that the platoon will get shorted anything out of the ordinary. In any case the ammo that we have is sufficient for its purpose. If you are looking at angaging targets past 600 meters or so then you have left the realm of the DM and moved into the realm of the Sniper which is a battalion asset. If you are going to have an odd caliber weapon then that is where it would be.

SFC W

[William F. Owen]

-The Army will never allow the mortar to go below company level. indirect fire requires a significant amount of coordination and the PL (never mind the squadleader) is too far into the fight to deal with that. Often, even the company commander is too involved to deal with fires coordination which is why the mortars have their own section with a section leader and an FDC.

No one is talking about platoons having mortars for indirect fire (at least I never would) We are talking about ligth mortars for direct fire like the UK's 51mm and a whole bunch of other light 60mm mortars there are out there.

They are superb weapons and highly effective. The only thing putting a shadow on them is the advent of medium velocity 40mm, which means a UGL can shoot to 800m, with 30% more effect, but they still can't compete with a well used light mortar in the direct fire role

The UK got rid of 51mm platoon mortars, after 66 years, only to discover that they still needed them and are now out looking for 60mm to replace them

USSF RTs of old often carried 60mm mortars. They cut down the old M19s.

[Uboat509]

The 60MMs that we have in our inventory would still require coordination at the very least at company level. They have a range of around 3000 or 3500 meters. The Army is not going to give control of any indirect fire assets to any element that is not tied into the indirect fires system. That is not going to happen below company level unless you are thinking of putting an FDC at platoon level and then the question would be why. The platoon can only really deal with direct fire weapons anyway. A good FO can have indirect fires inbound in a matter of minutes with the added advantage that the mortar team is not trying to put rounds down range while under fire. When I was OPFOR at JRTC we ran into mortar team on occasion and my experience was that in a direct fire engagement the mortar crews were dead before they could put any kind of accurate fire on us even with a hip shot. It is best to keep them out of the platoons where they will likely end up in direct fire engagements.

SFC W

[William F. Owen]

... my experience was that in a direct fire engagement the mortar crews were dead before they could put any kind of accurate fire on us even with a hip shot. It is best to keep them out of the platoons where they will likely end up in direct fire engagements.

Having carried a 51mm mortar and used it, I would disagree. I had a whole platoon infront of me who were going to make contact first, so I was never in a 'hip shoot.' If you know what you are doing you are no more exposed than a standard MG team. One man can used a light mortar as long as it is trigger fired.

..plus the danger close template for a hand held 60 or 51 is vastly smaller than for indirect 60mm.

Wigram, Jary, and Foreman -all WW2 UK infantry officers all state how effective the old 2-inch was and the 51mm was developed based on Falklands war experience, were everyone wanted an effective HE projector at the platoon level that weighed less than the 84mm, and which you could fire from behind cover and with no back blast.

All the guys out in Helmand and Basra used them to very good effect till the UK ran out of ammo - which is no longer made, so we go for a 60mm.

US MACV-SOG RTs used direct fire 60mm to great effect albeit in Jungle. The South Africans carry a 60mm at the platoon level.

[Uboat509]

I will admit to knowing absolutely nothing about the 51MM mortar. We don't have them in our inventory. But the 60s we have do leave you more exposed than a MG team. I am not saying that we don't use 60s in a direct fire mode but those are generally for specific missions such as defense or deliberate assault, in which case they can be attached to the support by fire element as needed.

SFC W

[Norfolk]

We used the Korean-War vintage M-19 60mm, one per Rifle Platoon and Rifle Coy HQ Weapons Det in the hand-held role with the light baseplate, with 2-man crew. Worked great and you could load, aim, and fire lying down if you had to.

jcustis said:

For those who may have been too lazy to run a google string on it, here's the article ROKMAN referenced: http://www.jameswebb.com/articles/va...teflexfire.htm

I ran across it while looking for articles on the Corps' search for a true automatic rifle. Which makes me remember that I need to get down to a neighboring command and invite Gunner Eby to join in here if he finds himself so inclined. He's a good mofo when it comes to understanding the voodoo involved here.

I have to admit, when I first read this piece by Webb back in the summer, I was both shocked and amazed. The idea of a 19-man Squad running around seemed grossly excessive at first, but then I though about it for a while, and it makes some sense, in an intereting way. I considered it this way: What about a 20-man Rifle Section, with a 2-man HQ, and three 6-man Rifle Squads
each based upon an LMG and with the Squad Leader doubling as the Grenadier, leaving four Riflemen for CQB. I agree with Webb that it could take battle losses, and there would be no lack of either Firepower for Winning the Firefight and Suppressing the Enemy, nor any lack of Riflemen for the Assult and Fighting Through and Clearing the Objective. I believe that Melody did identify an optimum Leader-to-Led ratio of 1 to 5 - a 6-man Squad would fit this perfectly.

Furthermore, for Mechanized Infantry such an organization would allow for the Section to be split into two halves (in cases of APCS and the odd MICV/IFV that can accomodate 10-men at a time), given that many Squads are dispersed amongst two or more tracks anyway these days. As long as the 2-man Section HQ splits, with the Section Cmdr going with 9 men and the Section 2i/c going with the remaining 9 to another track, if one track is lost, you still have a 10-man Squad/Section to fight with.

I just thought this interesting; I am rather unsure that it would be useful in practice, but fun to contemplate.

[Steve Blair]

US MACV-SOG RTs used direct fire 60mm to great effect albeit in Jungle. The South Africans carry a 60mm at the platoon level.

Glad to see someone else remembered SOG using the 60mm, though they were slightly more common with the Hatchet Force companies than they were the RTs.

[William F. Owen]

Glad to see someone else remembered SOG using the 60mm, though they were slightly more common with the Hatchet Force companies than they were the RTs.

Very true. I stand corrected, though I believe RT California ran as a heavy team, as did New Hampshire and I think both carried a 60mm at one time or another.

as I have said before, I think SOG Detachments are a very powerful infantry model.

[slapout9]

Title: Optimum Composition of the Rifle Squad and Platoon.Here is a link to this study done in the early 1960's but it is not on line. Does anyone know how to access this so it could be put online?

http://stinet.dtic.mil/oai/oai?&verb...fier=AD0815038

[Norfolk]

Title: Optimum Composition of the Rifle Squad and Platoon.Here is a link to this study done in the early 1960's but it is not on line. Does anyone know how to access this so it could be put online?

http://stinet.dtic.mil/oai/oai?&verb...fier=AD0815038

I'm searching too, slap. I thought I had saved this one when I came across it a few weeks ago, but I guess I didn't.

This piece by Ahmed Hashim and LtGEN Paul VanRiper (yep, that GEN VanRiper), covers the Navy/Marine Corps view of the Squad, and covers the 1961 Army OCRSP Tests on Pages 32-34:

http://www.cna.org/documents/D0002705.A1.pdf