Kiwigrunt's last post regarding M-72's got me thinking about rockets and AT weapons in the Squad/Section, and it reminded me of an article by Wilf in Asian Military Review a few months ago on the requirement for LAW-type weapons in the Platoon and Section. His chief point seemed to be that LAW-type weapons were best for Infantry Sections not only due to weight issues but especially becuase their distribution throughout the Section reduced or eliminated the requirement for having to site dedicated, heavier (and more readily identifiable to the enemy) AT weapons teams along likely avenues of approach at the Section and Platoon level. And to be honest, the force of his argument is pretty difficult to resist.
Now, I will admit to having been strongly influenced by Lester Grau's piece on the RPG-7 (amongst others), and most especially by Eric Hammel's Fire in the Streets: The Battle for Hue, 1968. During the fighting for Hue, the US Army and the USMC found that the M-72 was of marginal use against fortified positions and fighting positions in buildings. The best weapons were found to be the main guns of tanks, 106mm RR, and the old 3.5 inch rocket launcher (our original predecessor site, The MOUT Homepage has a piece on Hue and the use of such weapons in it by two of the participants), and the latter was also particularly effective for mouseholeing, while the M-72 was useless for the task. And of course, it was in action against NVA/PAVN T-55s that the M-72 was discovered to be practically useless against MBTs. Not that the RPG-7 is substantially better against tanks; only the odd hit on a weak spot will take an MBT out, but like the (more or less) long-gone 3.5" bazooka, the RPG-7 is fairly decent for taking out field fortifications and fighting positions inside buildings.
It's also a pretty nasty thing to run into during a firefight, and a number of armies issue one or two rocket launchers to each squad/section to enable them to win the firefight as quickly as possible (as well as for use against armour and field fortifications). The PLA, for one, issues a pair of PF 89's to each 8-10 man Squad, but sees fit to issue only a single AR. The NVA/PAVN carried (and still carry) at least one RPG in each 9-man Squad, as does the NKPA, in addition to the Section's single LMG or AR. Grau's article points out that the Iranians liked to issue a pair of RPGs to each Squad, and of course the Russians themselves carry an RPG in each 10-man Section in addition to its pair of ARs.
The observation that I'm trying to point out here is that a rocket launcher or recoilless gun in the 12-15 pound range, that can be carried, loaded, and fired with ease by just one man is a pretty handy and useful piece of kit to have in the Squad/Section, and mainly for non-AT tasks. The M-72 LAW, and roughly comparable weapons, are more or less ineffective in the AT role (just as the RPG and similar weapons are) but are also more or less ineffective dealing with field fortifications, buildings, and of course in the suppressive role during firefights. The RPG and similar weapons, however, are more or less effective in those areas.
Now, weapons like the Carl Gustav, the Mk. 153 SMAW, the RPG-29, and the MBT-LAW are much more effective against armour, and have the advantage of greater range in the AT role than the RPG and similar-type weapons. And of course, they are as good or better than RPG- or 3.5" inch RL-type weapons against field fortifications and, certainly in the Carl G's case, more effective against infantry in the open and for laying smoke. But, these weapons are well over twenty pounds each (they tend to be in the 25-29 pound range), and while they can be carried, loaded, and fired by one man, it is slow and cumbersome to do so in comparison to the RPG-7 or the old 3.5" bazooka. And a good deal more ammunition can be carried for the same weight for an RPG or 3.5" RL than for a Carl G, SMAW, MBT-LAW, etc, which is good for use in the firefight as well as in sustained fighting through field fortifications or urban areas.
Mechanized Infantry Sections have carried the M-3 version of the Carl Gustav, but within the operational context that the Battalions they were a part of were intended for mainly defensive operations against a potential Soviet attack, so losing 2 men out of a (nominally) 8- or 9-man Section was judged tactically appropriate given the prevailing and anticipated METT-T conditions. That may well have had to give if conditions were rather different and sustained offensive operations were expected to be necessary.
I guess my contention/proposition is that if any light AT weapon short of a top-attack (and fairly heavy) weapon like MBT-LAW, BILL, Javelin, and the like, stands no better than a gambler's chance of taking out an MBT (and for some of the same reasons as when a gambler actually wins), then light AT weapons like the RPG and the old 3.5" rocket launcher should be carried by Infantry Platoons with a view to winning the fire fight and busting up field fortifications and fighting positions within buildings. With LMGs/ARs, underslung grenade-launchers, the addition of RPG-type rocket launchers provide a solid "triple jeopardy" tactical capability at Squad, Section, and Platoon levels. I may well be wrong, but I rather suspect that existing LAW-type weapons won't provide this, or like the cancelled Predator, only at a weight that rivals or approaches that of top-attack weapons.
If this contention/proposition is more or less correct, then in what proportion should an RPG- or 3.5" RL-type weapon be present in the Platoon and especially is Squads or Sections? One per Squad/Section, or one per Fire Team? And if so, what will this do to Squad/Section sizes?
I suppose it indeed depends on the size of bang we want, the bigger the bang, the bigger the weapon. Check out Bofors new AT4 AST (anti structure tandem) on You tube. Can be set to blast a big hole through a wall (bigger it seems than standard Metador) or for increased behind penetration effect.
Reloadables have their advantages, certainly with regards to lighter and more compact ammo. I still like the idea of diposeables though, increased flexibility without the need for dedicated operators.
Nothing that results in human progress is achieved with unanimous consent. (Christopher Columbus)
All great truth passes through three stages: first it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
(Arthur Schopenhauer)
ONWARD
I'd prefer to have my hands on a disposable as well. The SMAW-D was touted as having the high explosive blast capabilities needed to urban jackhammer effects, but I believe only the Army procured any. Does anyone have experience using this round?
I'd like to throw two French weapons into the discussion - and a Chinese one.
LRAC F1
It's the French equivalent of the Carl Gustaf M3, but lightweight.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LRAC_F1
Section or platoon support weapon?
SARPAC
Think: Reloadable M72. A weight advantage over M72 kicks in with the 2nd shot. More warheads than just HEAT were available.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarpac
Section or fire team support weapon?
QLB-06
A 35mm grenade rifle.
http://www.sinodefence.com/army/crewserved/qlb06.asp
Platoon support weapon?
German Squad/Platoon 40-45
Gentlemen:
I stumbled upon this thread while serving. It may be closed. However I add the following in hopes it will be of interest to some.
German Rifle Platoon Evolution from France 1940 to East Front 1945
In 1940 the German Rifle Platoon was authorized an impressive establishment (Note: I was shocked to discover the many different authorizations. I was equally shocked to find out that local commanders were granted wide latitude to modify their authorized organization. I will focus on the most common organization.)
The Platoon was authorized four 10-man Squads. Each built around a 3-man light machine gun team. In addition it was authorized a Leader, his deputy and 5-riflemen. The Platoon headwaters ("Zug Trup") was authorized a 3-man light mortar team, two messengers, medic, a horse cart leader, a horse wagon leader and of course a Platoon Leader (2/3 of the Platoon Leaders were non-commissioned officers).
The horse drawn vehicles afforded the Platoon considerable lift. It allowed the soldiers to march with minimal equipment (even the machine guns were carried in the wagon). The wagon was road bound. The cart could leave the road. It was used for resupply.
As the war progressed and casualties increased one squad and the mortar team were removed from the authorization. The 4th machine gun was retained in "Zug Trup". Field strength dropped to around 6-men. I do not think that there was any formal attempt to produce a sub-unit maneuver scheme for the small squad. Instead fire and maneuver was carried out within the platoon.
By all accounts this organization worked very well outside of built up areas. However the increasing defensive and urban nature of the war, especially on the Eastern Front led to a final, and very interesting, 1945 authorization.
The 1945 authorization called for two submachine gun squads (of 9-men). The third Squad was designated as a rifle squad (also of 9-men). It was authorized two machine guns. A third machine gun was retained in the "Zug Trup". Apparently because of massive enemy indirect fires, the rifle squad manned the main line of resistance with 2-3 machine gun teams. The two submachine gun squads were placed to the rear, often out of 82mm mortar range. They were tasked with outpost, patrol and counter attack duties. The 1945 authorization replaced the somewhat cumbersome horse cart/wagon lift with soviet style pony carts ("panje wagons", which reportedly were true all terrain and all weather vehicles. The "Zug Trup" was authorized the usual messengers , horse leaders, medic, and leader.
Of interest were the so-called "kiwi" or helpers, usually noncombatant former prisoners, assigned throughout the platoon who were tasked with various re-supply and evacuation tasks. These invaluable helpers compensated in part for the Platoons very low field strength of around 20-men. This small platoon generated an enormous amount of automatic fire power; and with hand held antitank weapons was a formidable opponent. The pony carts enabled the platoon to march vast distances with considerable ammunition in all weather and across most terrain.
Mindful of the manpower shortage in the West the 1945 model may be worth studying.
Finally a note of thanks. I have enjoyed and learned much from this thread.
Regards
Richard
Minor quibbles
Not a Carl Gustaf equivalent but rather an M20 rocket launcher equivalent. Like the M20, unwieldy and not too accurate.Originally Posted by Fuchs
The LAW was reloadable also though the intent was to toss it after use. It too had various warheads (LINK) and there were a couple of variants the article doesn't mention. Biggest difference between the SarPac and the LAW was the latter sold well, the former did not. There's usually a reason for that.SARPAC
Think: Reloadable M72. A weight advantage over M72 kicks in with the 2nd shot. More warheads than just HEAT were available.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarpac
Section or fire team support weapon?
Fuchs, Richard W, welcome to the Small Wars Council.When you have the time, please formally introduce yourselves here.
Fuchs, interesting pieces of kit there, especially the LRAC F1. Could come in handy at either Section or Platoon level, it's light enough, though I will defer to others here and concede that it would probably be best normally held at Company level. The 35mm QLB-06 AGL is an interesting piece of kit, but cannot be employed in the SF role; the PLA uses the earlier Type 87, which can be used in the SF role. There are six of them normally held at Company level, I think; very nasty piece of kit. They replaced the Type 88 5.8mm GPMG at Company level, of which I believe there are a pair now at Platoon level; not such a great piece of kit.
Richard, the German Group (Section) and Train (Platoon) organization was very flexible, and almost always in organization flux. You are quite correct that tactics also normally focused at the Platoon, not the Section, level, the way it should usually be. As a former Bundeswehr man recently told me, the present German Platoon (doctrinally) usually organizes itself into 3 elements for an attack: assault, support, and reinforcement. Similar in some ways, but certainly not identical to the way that many other (especially English-speaking) Armies like to organize into Assault, Support, and Security elements for raids. I strongly suspect that German dismounted infantry tactics have not, in general terms, changed too much since WWII, though the new 10-man Infantry Group with the pair of MG-4 LMGs may change that now. I've got an English translation on the way of the Wehrmacht's 1942 H.D.v 120/2a The Infantry Squad, Platoon, and Company, and this will certainly help to confirm whether this is so or not. (Note to slapout9: this is the translation of the Military Intelligence Service Information Bulletin No. 15, "The German Rifle Company; For Study and Translation" manual that we found at Carlisle, but was in German only - and in the old German script at that. A gentleman in eastern Ohio translates some of the old wartime German manuals.)
The Squad/Section level existed more for command and control purposes during infiltration, and broke itself down into the Machine Gun Truppe (Troop - Squad) that you mentioned, and a Rifle Truppe, with the latter following the former in the Approach and Development phases (Advance/Movement-to-Contact). The Machine Gun Troops were normally used to win the Firefight (as part of the Platoon Firefight), and the Rifle Troops (under the combined command of the Platoon Leader) remained under cover until the Firefight was won by the MGs and it was time to perform the assault.
The organization you describe was, as you note, introduced late in the war. It only occurred on a very limited scale, as the StG-44 assault rifle was not produced in sufficient quantity to replace more than a fraction of the standard Kar 98 carbine. The loss of the MG 34 or 42 in the two Groups armed with StGs was not made up for by the firepower of said assault rifles, even with the pair of MGs retained in the third carbine-armed Group (Section) as well as the "reserve" MG held at Train (Platoon) HQ. In short, it was an interesting case study in the early problems encountered with the integration of assault rifles into the Platoon. It is intersting that the Bundeswehr retained until just the past couple years more or less the same Section and Platoon organization (minus the horses and their handlers, etc.) that the Wehrmacht doctrinally held to.
Edited to Add:
Ken W. wrote:
Toss it, and then step on it, hard, so nobody could turn around and turn the LAW tube into an improvised mortar tube. The only people, of course, to reload the LAW were the VC. After they started doing this, the manufacturer designed a "fault" into the LAW tube to make it much easier to smash by stepping on it. Maybe it was Ken who was one of those who made this recommendation?The LAW was reloadable also though the intent was to toss it after use. It too had various warheads (LINK) and there were a couple of variants the article doesn't mention. Biggest difference between the SarPac and the LAW was the latter sold well, the former did not. There's usually a reason for that.
Last edited by Norfolk; 05-19-2008 at 11:28 PM.
@ - Exactly. This is slightly different to the organisation I am aware of. What's the source? However the format I know of was near identical with each 9 man squad comprising 1-2 MG-42 and then SMGs and AT Weapons. The emphasis on Outposts, patrols and counter-attack, exactly reflects what the Germans knew about operations by that time.
@ Concur. Very useful points Richard W. Many thanks.
Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"
- The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
- If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition
Source
William F. Owen:
Thank you for your kind reply.
In reply to your question regarding my source for the German Rifle Squad organization I offer the following:
German Squad Tactics In WWII by Matthew Gajkowski. A privately Published First Edition 1995. The author appears to have also privately published about a dozen works on various military organizations. The instant work further appears to be a translation in part of a WWII German publication. On pages 103, 104 and 106 the author gives the organization for the November 1944 Grenadier, Jager and Ski Platoons respectively (note: I believe that by 1944 all German, non-specialized infantry platoons wee designated as "grenadier".)
I find these organizations interesting for the following reasons:
1. Modern Western Infantry formations, like the 1944/45 Germans, are relatively few in number, undermanned and heavily equipped with a variety of weapons. The only exception that I know of is the USMC 13-man Squad which maintains a relatively high field strength.
2. Western Infantry formations have become extraordinarily motorized ( I understand that even the American Ranger battalions have mounted their platoons in various light trucks.) This motorization has by necessity tied the infantry platoons all too often to operating near road nets. These road nets can of course be easily interdicted by home made mines and command explosives.
3. Recently, as you no doubt know, the Royal Marines changed their battalion organization from 3-rifle and 1-weapons company to 2-rifle and 2-weapons companies. This may be a trend. The organizational change calls for even more vehicles. This means more road use. It also means more enemy interdiction of road nets by explosives.
4. The 1944/45 German Infantry responded to similar problems by the use of off road, all terrain, all weather support vehicles (pony carts) and non-combatant helpers (freed prisoners) and very small fighting platoons (field strength of around 20- fighting men - See Paul Carrel Hitler Moves East).
The Western pool of potential fighting infantrymen is shrinking yearly. It may be wise to lay the ground work for a radical change in organization, weapons, equipment and tactics.
Regards
Richard.
I was tangentially involved in arguing against this, and may have had some small success. From what I now here, it will go back to 3 Rifle Coy and 1 FSS Coy, and there is another re-think in the pipeline.
The "trend" was caused by a slightly odd misreading of the operational record, which thinned out Coy Support and put it at the BG level. Why? I could never get a straight answer!
Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"
- The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
- If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition
Good For You
William F. Owen:
God bless you if you had anything to do with limiting the erosion of Infantry from Western armies.
Regards
Richard
Guy Sajer's Forgotten Soldier
This thread has prompted me to reread Guy Sajer's The Forgotten Soldier. Sajer was a French citizen with a German mother who was drafted into the German Army and volunteered for service in the elite Gross Deutchland Division on the Eastern Front.
Rifle Squad
He describes in great detail the organization (10-men: Squad leader, two 2-man light machine gun teams, two grenadiers and 3-riflemen. No mention of a fire team or squad subunit.) combat and disintegration of a German Rifle Squad in an assault and hasty defense (Pages 169 - 211).
However a 10-man squad was the exception. Usually the Squad strength was about 5-men built around a single light machine gun. (everyone carried linked ammunition for the gun.)
Throughout his account he emphasizes the importance of leadership and comradeship at the Squad level.
Light Machine Gun:
The Germans appeared very comfortable with the 10-man squad. It appeared to give them enough men to carry all of the weapons and ammunition needed for an assault. The light machine guns were without a doubt the key weapons. (interestingly it appears that the Germans took their light machine guns into building during urban combat. The machine gunners fighting if necessary with the their pistols,)
German Light (trench) mortar
Although the light mortar had disappeared from the platoon authorization by November 1943 (See German Squad Tactics in WWII by Gajkowske page 93) Sajer describes it (trench mortar) as in use fairly frequently but in urban combat.
German K 98 Mauser Rifle
This weapon appeared to be used almost as a personal defense weapon by the German Soldier. He was trained to use it at relatively short ranges. The light machine gun was used to engage targets at longer weapons. The German soldiers appeared to be fond of it because of its simplicity and reliability.
Russian "Grenade throwers"
I have no idea what this weapon is. Sajer cites it repeatedly as the most feared Russian weapon for the German infantry. (Did not Wilf or someone write that grenade projectors did most of the killing?)
Regards
Richard W.
* The 5cm light mortar (platoon level) production run ended quite early in the war due to insufficient effect, high complexity/price/weight and most likely also due to manpower shortages. Captured mortars, old production 5cm mortars and 8cm weapons were used later on.
* The Germans used the K98 predecessor (almost identical) for rapid assault repelling fire in WW1 and the weapon was certainly as capable as in WW1.
I'd rather call it a squad defensive weapon than a personal defence weapon (my freshly invented term, but more descriptive imho). It was often replaced by captured or regular production SMGs. The offensive tactics changed a lot with the introduction of assault rifles.
* The Russian "Grenade thrower" (Grenade thrower = incorrect / direct translation of Granatwerfer = which is about the same as a "Mörser" = mortar) was most likely the Russian 5cm company mortar. An ubiquitous weapon, but quite forgotten nowadays.
50mm Rotni minomjot obr.1940 g (50-RM 40)
12 kg
0.9 kg projectile (rather heavy for this calibre)
800 m range
The Russians were notorious for their extreme quantity of mortar fire (mostly small calibre), although nowadays it's easier to find info about their high quality (in comparison to Wehrmacht; lower weight, more range, heavier medium calibre gun - not all at once) field artillery pieces and the MRLs.
German Grenade Thrower
Fuchs:
Thank you for the information.
German Rifle Grenade?
I just finished the Forgotten Soldier. Towards the end Sajer describes a fight between his company and partisans wherein the German appear to be armed with both a light mortar and grenade throwers. Could the German "grenade throwers" be rifle grenades? Did the Germans actually use rifle grenades in the field?
Assault Rifle 44?
Sajer at one point writes that he was armed with the "new P.M.". He also writes that the new P.M. has the characteristics of both the old P.M. and F.M. I think Sajer means MG 34/42 when he writes F.M. (I saw a National Geographic show about 6-months ago. They followed a British battlefield archaeologist in East Germany. He was accompanied by former East German EOD soldiers. They found along old defensive lines buried German assault rifles. The old Communist EOD guys claimed that this was common. Based solely on this one TV show I wonder if the German assault rifle was issued more frequently in the East than we thought?)
Translation
Sajer was a native French speaker. He never quite mastered German. He was very young. He served in the German Army between his 16th and 19th years. He wrote about his experiences in long hand French at night during asthma attacks. This was translated into German It was translated back into French. Then into English.
Thank you very much for your time.
Regards
Richard W
The Germans had a spin-stabilized rifle grenade system ("Schießbecher") similar tot eh U.S. one since 1942, a discharger cup at the muzzle, a propellant-only cartridge and theoretically a sight at the left of the carbine. 30mm calibre, and it had due to spin a poor performance against armour.
http://www.lexikon-der-wehrmacht.de/...ranatgerat.htm
P.M. or MP? MP or MPi is Maschinenpistole, = submachine gun. "New" were indeed only the Maschinenkarabiner/Sturmgewehr (quite the same weapon) if he wasn't in a para unit (as non-national I would have expected Waffen-SS instead of Heer anyway).
The K43 was a Garand equivalent and most likely not what he wrote about.
Why should the StG44 have been issued more in the West/South than the East? I never heard/read any such suggestions before.
It's difficult to deal with Americans about this, but the main effort of the Wehrmacht was in 1941-1945 the Eastern Front. The Heer was grinded to its skeleton there, only part of its remains delayed the Allies in the West, and the Eastern Front always had high priority in the Heer.
Fuchs:
Thank you for your kind reply.
I must have been unclear in my post. Sajer writes that he was issued a new "P.M." in 1944. At that time he was an 18 year old serving in the Gross Deutchland Division on the Eastern Front. Sajer was French. He may have inverted the initials. I think he meant "MP" 44. The documentary I saw suggested that the MP 44 was issued on the Eastern front in far greater quantities than we previously thought.
Did the German infantry use the rifle grenade in combat. It appears that the American infantry, in the main (with the exception of units like the Canadian - American 1SSF) rarely used the rifle grenade.
Thank you for your help.
Regards
Richard W
I've still not seen any credible info about rifle grenade importance for Germans in WW2. All I know is that the hardware existed, was produced, standard equipment and the AT rifle grenades were too weak.
I guess it takes someone who reads more of the nostalgic first-hand accounts (like in the "Der Landser" journal) than me to answer this question.
Thanks
Fuchs
I appreciate all of your time.
Regards
Richard W
Squad 1945 to 2008 R&D Funds?
I have just finished reading Guy Sajer's The Forgotten Soldier and Max Hastings Overlord. Both books gave in depth descriptions of the 1944 German Infantry Squad. Sajer carries his description into 1945. There is of course a danger of worshiping all things German when it comes to WWII history. But The Germans seemed to have done somethings right with their WWII Rifle Squad composition. So right that if we compare the German 1945 Squad as described by Sajer to the 2008 American Squad we may fairly ask where have 63-years of Infantry research and development funds gone to?
The 1945 Gross Deutchland Division Squad was at full strength 10-men. It consisted of a leader, and two 2-man light machine gun teams armed with the superb MG 42 (7.92 x 57), and five riflemen (one the deputy leader) armed with the new assault rifle (MP43?MP 44/STG 44 in 7.92 x 33). (Note: I cannot figure out what the 1945 squad used for a grenade launcher. Whether the new assault rifle had the capability or they retained one or two K 98's or used the new double barrel flare pistol.)
In comparison an American 2008 Army Squad has 9 men at full strength. It consists of a leader with an M 16, 2-fire team leaders with M 16s, 2 grenadiers with 203's, 2 SAW Gunners with the M 249 and two riflemen with M 16s.
It would appear that in terms of fire power the 2008 American Army Squad is not a great improvement on the 1945 German Squad. (Some might argue that the MG 42 is superior to the M 249.) (OK Panzerfaust v Law/AT4 - I guess the AT4 wins.)
Indeed the only clear advantages that the 2008 squad has is in radios, night vision and body armor. However these advantages add weight (and cost). The weight slows the 2008 squad down compared to the 1945 squad. Maybe there are just some things that cannot, in a major way, be improved on. But I wish we could have spent all that money to make a large number of very good minor changes in our Rifle Squad.
Regards
Richard W.
The Wehrmacht got some 2.7cm grenade pistols (overcalibre ammunition) looking like the MZP-1 (equivalent of M79, but skeletonized). It was based on 2.7cm flare gun tech. The effect was too small and it was not considered as successful, but might have been in use with teams who had no carbine. I do not remember photos or texts that mate StG44 and Schießbecher.
One important advance over 40's tech that you missed is the proliferation of optical sights. An ACOG for normal riflemen is a huge improvement (IIRC the USMC introduced these as standard?). Some German sniper of WW2 had only a 1.5 power scope, 3-6 power were not standard. The squad that you described lacked the ability of accurate single shots beyond 200 m entirely.
The German late WW2 squad was a defensive squad, intended much less for attacks than for positional defense and delaying actions/ambushes. Its morale was much reduced, most of the enthusiastic/aggressive soldiers were lost long ago.
WW2 ammunition and weapons were heavy (not good idea for offensive actions), the need for body armor and radios was small due to the long foot marches and the use of field fortifications.
The modern U.S. squad is rather an all-round design.
Squad TO&E are like plans anyway - the troops in the field don't need to care much about that anymore once in contact. Some squads add firepower with heavier weapons/more machine guns, some discard unnecessary equipment, some get mixed with other squads for a new platoon organization, some adopt captured weapons, some ground forces insist even in peacetime on ad hoc platoon team designs for assaults, many squads are down to 80% when operations begin due to plain lack of personnel or simply sick personnel and some squads are down to 4-6 men after their baptism of fire.
It's more important to ensure that the troops in the field adapt quickly than to optimize the peacetime TO&E for 1-10% more efficiency.
I've read few times that squads became or become the smallest maneuver element - but I saw many hints that platoons have been the smallest maneuver element for many decades.
Many analysts look at the platoon and much less at the squad/section.
Last edited by Fuchs; 05-30-2008 at 08:29 AM.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks