Rifle squad composition

[ROKMAN]

Sorry for the long response ROKMAN.

It's all good. Your explanation is helpful.

So basically having an independent Squad Leader (SL) and an Assistant Squad Leader (ASL) to make up a squad of 3 teams each with 4 troops centered around a machine gun (GPMG) is the ideal? Then wouldn't that make the team too small, wouldn't there be a need for an additional ammo carrier? Essentially making it a 5 man team? If this is the case then that would make the squad have 17 troops. Also how would they be able to assault with the GPMG? Should the assaulters then be equipped with LMG (SAWs in fact) to make them effective assaulters?

Recently a friend of mine proposes that the Marines and Army should use a 20 man squad (more like section) built up of 3 teams and a HQ team. The HQ team has the SL, an ASL (communicating with the Company), 2 Sharpshooters, and a medic. Each line team has a fireteam leader, GPMG, 2 GPMG Assistants/Ammo carriers, and an assaulter/grenadier. Basically it seems like a heavier version of Tom Odom's idea. I argued that this itself is more like a section rather than a squad and can act independently from a platoon. Hence a company should be made up of 4 of these sections plus a CO HQ section or squad. He still insists on having platoon organizations to make this up. Resulting in a 300 man plus company. Which I think is too big.

This leads me to a another question. How is the modern German Bundeswehr organize their squad/platoon/companies. From what I can tell the Germans still use a derivative of their MG42 but now chambered for 7.62, which make it so that they are using a GPMG in their squads. Do they still fight in the same way that did since WWII or do they break it down into fire teams now? If so how many fire teams to a squad and how many troops in a fire team?

Lastly the Royal Marines use of the Commando 21 organization for a battalion sized force is a good system but the 8 man squad needs to be ditched for something more robust. Is that right?

Thanks

[wm]

Recently a friend of mine proposes that the Marines and Army should use a 20 man squad (more like section) built up of 3 teams and a HQ team. The HQ team has the SL, an ASL (communicating with the Company), 2 Sharpshooters, and a medic. Each line team has a fireteam leader, GPMG, 2 GPMG Assistants/Ammo carriers, and an assaulter/grenadier. Basically it seems like a heavier version of Tom Odom's idea. I argued that this itself is more like a section rather than a squad and can act independently from a platoon. Hence a company should be made up of 4 of these sections plus a CO HQ section or squad. He still insists on having platoon organizations to make this up. Resulting in a 300 man plus company. Which I think is too big.

This sounds like the same kind of thinking that brought the US Army the current Brigade Combat Teams that are supposed to be capable of extended independent action. I shudder to think about the sustainment tail needed for this "squad" and its associated platoon, company, and higher echelons.

[Norfolk]

This sounds like the same kind of thinking that brought the US Army the current Brigade Combat Teams that are supposed to be capable of extended independent action. I shudder to think about the sustainment tail needed for this "squad" and its associated platoon, company, and higher echelons.

wm's right to be nervous, and that's just with the existing new BCT structure, never mind something else.

ROKMAN, Senator and former SecNav James Webb proposed something not too different in his "Flexibility and the Fire Team" article in 1972 in the Marine Corps Gazette - minus machine guns - and an 19-man Rifle Squad with three 6-man Fire Teams:

http://www.jameswebb.com/articles/va...teflexfire.htm


Well, here's another long-winded post.

Your observation about requiring 5-men in a fire team equipped with a GPMG is good, the role of the Machine-Gun in the Rifle Squad/Section is disputed. What I have to say is this: the current small-calibre Light Machine Guns lack sufficient firepower and reliability compared to the medium-calibre MMGs/GPMGs. The WWII Germans never complained about having two MG-34s or 42s in Panzer-Grenadier and certain other Rifle Squads, other Rifle Squads making do with just one. Until recently, the Bundesheer Rifle Squads carried a single MG-3 in 7.62mm in a 10-man squad (I think); this is now being replaced by two small-calibre (5.56mm) MG-4s in a 10-man squad of 2 fire teams.

The thing is, in order to get the same suppression as an FN MAG 58 (never mind an MG-3), a Minimi or other LMG in 5.56mm or some such requires about twice the ammo to do the same job. A good example of this is jcustis' description of the Rhodesian 4-man teams in the Bush War - 3 men with FN rifles and a GPMG gunner with about 400 rounds of ammo - sweet. A team with a 5.56mm LMG on the same op should carry about 800 rounds. When I was an LMG gunner, I carried a box mag (in bandolier) on each leg, one on my webbing, and another one the gun (of course). When I was a GPMG gunner, I carried no more than 3 belts, preferably 2 (I seem to remeber carrying 4 belts once, and I loathed the experience), with the one in the gun quartered into 55-round lengths (one in the gun, one in each leg-pocket, and the fourth in a shirt pocket with the other 220-round belt over my shoulders. The Germans got around this with those nice 50-round belt drum magazines

Effective suppression isn't just about the highest rate of fire - it's about keeping the enemy's head down, and killing whoever pops up - and the 7.62mm is much better at this than 5.56mm - not least because the GPMG has a larger cone of fire than the LMG, but about the same rate of fire with more destructive rounds - less ammo needed to do the same job. The GPMG in the light role is good to 800m - LMG is rather ambiguous at this range, and more or less useless beyond it - little point in putting it on a tripod. And that's another thing: with GPMGs/MMGs, each Squad/Section can have its own SF (Sustained Fire) capability if provided with SF Kit and Tripods. GPMG is also much more reliable than LMG, for technical reasons.

But as you point out ROKMAN, a GPMG in close-quarter battle is not fun; the LMG is somewhat better, but isn't of much use as an assault weapon either. Carbines and rifles are needed for trench- and room-clearing; machine guns just get you there. And this is where the GPMG/MMG runs into real difficulties. In a 4-man team, the GPMG gunner has to carry the ammo himself, which with 2 belts is fine, but an SF Kit and 6 more belts of ammo requires three more men to carry on the march; a five-man team just spreads this out a little better, and even six-men is nothing more than a full-strength foot-infantry MG crew. An LMG just requires the gunner, although preferably a second man to carry a little more ammo as well. But, with that 250-round belt rattling away inside the box magazine, don't expect to sneek up on someone.

The problem here is that the LMG is not quite IMO up to the job, but the GPMG may be a little much for the job. What is required is an LMG (not an Automatic Rifle as some maintain) that has a changeable barrel (unlike AR) with the gunner carrrying 2 spare barrels, is magazine-, not belt-fed (50 round drum would be ideal), bipod, and is of about 7 mm/.280 calibre, effective to over 600m, and weighs not more than 20 pounds loaded - quite a bill to fill. Then the 4-man fire team is in pretty good shape; otherwise, the GPMG should be used instead of the existing LMG, but the SF capability foregone (just as the Germans did) at squad/section level.

ROKMAN, I agree about the RM 8-man section, it should be changed to USMC-ish; Commando 21 otherwise sounds pretty good.

As for the Squad/Section argument, you're right about that. The "Fire Team" is more or less the Squad of old, but reorganizations over the years have confused terminologies, and thus, the existing US "Squad" is already really a "Section". The USMC Rifle "Squad" with its three 4-man "Fire Teams" is the archetypal Rifle "Section", never mind proposed larger organizations. But wm is right about the dangers of too large "squads" and "sections". Personally, I think that the USMC Rifle Squad, provided that it received a dedicated ASL free from any of the fire teams, to assist the SL, especially with communications, sitreps, resupply. etc., would be about the best you can expect to get, although at the risk of expanding too large, a 5th man per fire team would be doable, and perhaps advisable. A 17-man rifle "Section", with 2 NCOs in the Section HQ and 3x5-man "Squads" each led by an NCO (doubling as Grenadier) and composed of an MGnr and 3 Carbineers/Riflemen would be interesting. But I'd like to have it proven first.

As for higher-level fire support, I tend toward the USMC and German models: centralize MMGs, light mortars, and light ATGM at Company, detaching them to platoons only when cover and terrain compell it; and HMGs, AGLs/GMGs, medium/heavy mortars, medium ATGM, etc. at battalion, detached to companies when tactical circumstances warrant. Some people like heavy weapons assigned more or less permanently down to the lowest level possible; this reduces their overall effectiveness, except when terrain and cover mask their fires at battalion or company level. And it can be deceptive to think that it's an improvement having an organic weapons squad/section at platoon level; while the platoon (and a squad with such firepower attached) may enjoy the additional firepower under its own control, the rest of the company (or platoon) suffers its loss.

A platoon normally should have no more than a handful of riflemen IMO (equipped with bipods and scopes on their rifles - Designated Marksmen if you will) and a handful of light ATGM men - a lot to be sure, and these can be attached out to squads as tactically necessary, but while company and battalion suppress the main enemy positions, the Platoon HQ's Riflemen and light ATGM gunners take out enemy crew-served weapons and fighting positions/vehicles while the squads suppress the enemy positions on their own objective and try to break-in with one of them. With 3 fire teams, the squad can both rotate between fire teams clearing ahead in trenches and stil cover the break-in point, and while sustaining losses that would stop a two fire team squad. In room-clearing, the squad reorganizes its three teams, puts two of its three MGs on a roof with the security element, puts one with the support element, and leads with the assault element composed of a handful or so carbineers/riflemen.

I still suspect that the USMC and Tom Odom are on to something very good; for all practical purposes, the best. Thus endeth the lecture. Time for a beer... or two... or...

[ROKMAN]

wm's right to be nervous, and that's just with the existing new BCT structure, never mind something else.

ROKMAN, Senator and former SecNav James Webb proposed something not too different in his "Flexibility and the Fire Team" article in 1972 in the Marine Corps Gazette - minus machine guns - and an 19-man Rifle Squad with three 6-man Fire Teams:

http://www.jameswebb.com/articles/va...teflexfire.htm


Well, here's another long-winded post.

.....

I still suspect that the USMC and Tom Odom are on to something very good; for all practical purposes, the best. Thus endeth the lecture. Time for a beer... or two... or...

Last thing so basically an infantry company is best organized with 4 17-20 man sections divided into "teams". Because these enlarged squads don't need to be organized into platoons. Right?

[Norfolk]

Last thing so basically an infantry company is best organized with 4 17-20 man sections divided into "teams". Because these enlarged squads don't need to be organized into platoons. Right?

No, I wouldn't go that far. For a rifle company to use an organization of four sections of 17-20 men each wouldn't provide enough troops to take and hold ground, let alone after taking losses. Without all these squads/sections being part of platoons, they still don't have enough suppression or manpower to attack, or even to defend. Even with a squad or section of 13-14 men each, with three of these per platoon, and three platoons per company, there are going to be times when serious manpower shortages occur in high-intensity warfare. Take the authorized strength of a rifle company, and cut it in half, and that's what it will actually be operating with a great deal of the time, sometimes even less than that. Every single attempt that has ever been made to reduce the need for infantry in the line companies has failed come wartime, or been made necessary out of sheer lack of manpower.

The USMC Rifle Squad in WWII began with 8 men, was increased to 10 men in early 1944, and in late 1944 was authorized 13 men, which has stuck ever since - 63 years unchanged - the US Army meanwhile has gone from 12 men in WWII to 9 men since the 1980's, with at least half a dozen reorganizations, many more studies and tests, and is still no happier than they were in WWII. The German Army started WWII with 12 men auhtorized in each squad, but was forced by manpower constraints, and then manpower losses to reduce to 8-9 authorized, and they lost much of their offensive capacity doing so. As the USMC found, wartime loss rates made the large squad necessary. And going from 9 such squads/section per company down to 4 by removing the platoon from the equation, even with 17-20 man "sections" in their place, still leaves those companies with too little in the way of manpower (and firepower) to do their jobs and take losses doing so.

jcustis has it about right; the USMC Rifle Company has about the best organization there is, although I would make a few changes personally. Personally, I think that 4 GPMGs at Company level are quite good enough, along with 4 60mm light mortars and 4 light anti-tank missile launchers; in addition, I would like 4 light automatic grenade launchers to complement the GPMGs (a la the Chinese Type 87 35mm, with bipod range of 600m, on tripod 1,750m, 11m blast radius, 80mm armour penetration, 6 round drum mag in light role, 15 round drum mag in SF role, 45 rds/min practical rate of fire - very nice piece of kit - 12kg in light role, 20 kg in SF role - about the same as GPMG).

In the RCR, each Rifle Platoon and Company HQ included a Weapons Detachment with 1 GPMG, 1 60mm mortar, and 1 Carl Gustav 84mm, for a total of 4 of each per Rifle Company. I didn't like the dispersion, and often commanders would place all or some of them under centralized command when posible (with manpower constraints, it was not really possible to have a dedicated Weapons Platoon at Company, even though that was favoured by many). The point of having equal proportions of each heavy weapon was to provide the ability to place the enemy under "Triple Jeopardy".

The enemy had to duck to avoid GPMG fire, then they had to go into fortified postions to escape mortar fire, then they have to leave the bunkers when the Carl Gustavs took them out, and then they would die in their trenches as our infantry assaulted. If the Weapons Dets were operating in the Light Role, the SF Kits and Bipods for the GPMGs, 60mm Mortars and Carl Gustavs would be left at Company HQ, and each Weapons Det would accompany a Rifle Platoon (with one at Company HQ) and be used in the hand-held roles. If the Weapons Dets were centralized at Company (especially in defence), and used in the SF Role, then the SF Kits and Bipods would be used for the GPMGs, 60mm mortars and Carl Gustavs. Light Automatic Grenade Launchers would have complemented this arrangment perfectly.

So, side from adding a 14th man to each Marine squad, this is how I'd like the
weapons platoon at company organized - similar, but not quite identical to the Marines' version.

[Rifleman]

I can see the advantages to the 13 man Marine Corps squad. Since I think that won't happen in the Army I would at least like to see the Army return to the old 11 man squad of two five man fire teams and the squad leader.

Organize the 11 man squads into big platoons of 50 soldiers: three 11 man rifle squads, one 11 man weapons squad, and two three man command cells. I wouldn't even mind seeing a platoon zeroed out of each company, if necessary, to fill up two big 50 man platoons. How many two up/one back company attacks are we doing these days anyway?

11 men is a bigger than usual weapons squad but I think it makes sense. Base each five man team around a GPMG gunner and his assistant. Now add in a grenadier to cover the gunner's dead space, a sharpshooter/DM (might as well put all the 7.62 weapons in the same squad), and maybe rocket launcher. It would probably be best to have the grenadier be the team leader.

The old 11 man squad isn't as flexible as the Marine Corps three team squad but it's more robust and sustainable than what we have now.

[Norfolk]

I can see the advantages to the 13 man Marine Corps squad. Since I think that won't happen in the Army I would at least like to see the Army return to the old 11 man squad of two five man fire teams and the squad leader.

The old 11 man squad isn't as flexible as the Marine Corps three team squad but it's more robust and sustainable than what we have now.

And sad to say Rifleman, the Army will not get even that.

[CPT Holzbach]

Take a look at this article, written by COL Hackworth. It's about how he re-organized one of his battalions to fight the VC in Vietnam. Fascinating look at adapting to circumstances on the ground in terms of MTOE and a guerrilla enemy. Oh, and Norfolk, I think you'll like the picture at the top...