Abandon squad/section levels of organization?

[Rifleman]

As for your "mix'n'match" proposal Adam, there's nothing particularly wrong with that. I don't see any particular difficulty in reorganizing a platoon or its squads as its commander sees fit to meet the tactical situation. But it seems that a large squad, of 3 teams, and a large platoon of 3 such squads, normally organized along the lines the USMC prefers, works quite well for most conventional infantry combat with little or no major modification.

And in those situations where major reorganization is required to meet less conventional (unconventional?) tactical situations, this organization provides a good, solid base upon which to make necessary changes. I think that a smaller squad, and a smaller platoon might much more hard-pressed to make such changes out of hide, not least because it's starting out with less, and with only 2 rather than 3 teams per squad, it has less flexibility to begin with.

I know I'm going off topic here, but read what Norfolk wrote substituting brigade for squad and battalion for team.

There have always been times when two battalions were enough. There have always been times when four were needed. Hasn't a three battalion brigade proved to be a good, common sense sized base element to task organize up or down from? I'm talking about line battalions in a brigade. I'm not counting the cavalry squadron.

I remember reading somewhere that in light units some of these new two battalion brigades have deployed with a third battalion attached.

[Coldstreamer]

Since when did military logic dictate the size of a force?

[Ken White]

Benefit of 'civilian control.' Good news is that the "Force" allotted will make it work, mostly. If at considerably more cost than was expected...

[William F. Owen]

Since when did military logic dictate the size of a force?

Since when did we create military logic?