Infantry Unit Tactics, Tasks, Weapons, and Organization

[SWJED]

Actually, the way things seem to be shaking out there will come a time in the not so distant future that our forces will be required to be what some now term "multi-spectrum" capable. Buzzword aside, it looks like the DoD will not have the resources to dedicate to overly specialized GPF.

We most likely not see units in any significant numbers dedicated solely to COIN or GPF dedicated solely to training and advising. You can feel it in the air.

So with that I say that all proposed changes in T&O, T&E, and other elements of DOTMLPF will have to take into account that units will have to balance capabilities across the board. Any real significant tilt one way or another might not cut it if the wrong enemy shows up to play.

I haven't been following this invigorating discussion too closely and offer up the above simply as an observation and for consideration.

[Norfolk]

Actually, the way things seem to be shaking out there will come a time in the not so distant future that our forces will be required to be what some now term "multi-spectrum" capable. Buzzword aside, it looks like the DoD will not have the resources to dedicate to overly specialized GPF.

We most likely not see units in any significant numbers dedicated solely to COIN or GPF dedicated solely to training and advising. You can feel it in the air.

So with that I say that all proposed changes in T&O, T&E, and other elements of DOTMLPF will have to take into account that units will have to balance capabilities across the board. Any real significant tilt one way or another might not cut it if the wrong enemy shows up to play.

I haven't been following this invigorating discussion too closely and offer up the above simply as an observation and for consideration.

In a roundabout sort of way, Dave, you practically seem to be making the case for the Marine way of doing things - which does seem to offer the most flexibility without critically sacrificing fighting power. While the USMC isn't the best model for armoured/mechanized ops (obviously), for pretty much most other things, it does seem to be about the all-around (GPF if you will, but MPF if one must) best anyone has so far come up with. And there is no question that it works.

[Tom Odom]

In a roundabout sort of way, Dave, you practically seem to be making the case for the Marine way of doing things - which does seem to offer the most flexibility without critically sacrificing fighting power. While the USMC isn't the best model for armoured/mechanized ops (obviously), for pretty much most other things, it does seem to be about the all-around (GPF if you will, but MPF if one must) best anyone has so far come up with. And there is no question that it works.

and that was the motivation in that Mil Review article; to build capabilities and depth necessary to adaptation. Time will tell but Dave you are on the mark regarding the future....

Tom

[Norfolk]

and that was the motivation in that Mil Review article; to build capabilities and depth necessary to adaptation. Time will tell but Dave you are on the mark regarding the future....

Tom

Love that article, Tom, and keep a print copy of it in the bookshelf next to my bed (Wilf, if you think you are obsessed...). For the benefit of those few lurkers who somehow may have missed it (it's a core, mandatory reading around here), here's the link.

[Rifleman]

Logan,

I'd like to throw out a couple of comments for consideration on your proposed eight-man infantry squad and leave the higher levels to those better qualified to comment on them.

If I understand your chart correctly, out of eight men you're showing two machine gunners, two grenadiers, and a squad DM. That leaves the squad leader, his assistant, and the man you have labled as lead scout as the three best suited for clearing. Yes, I'm sure that SAW gunners, grenadiers, and DMs have had to take the lead in clearing rooms, bunkers, and trenches. That doesn't mean it's an ideal role for them.

A small squad like you proposed will probably be fine with one belt fed light machine gun and one grenade launcher. That leaves more riflemen/carbiners for the close fight.

I don't much like the idea of DMs in the infantry squad. At least put them in the platoon's weapons squad. Even better would be a large squad of DMs in the company's weapons platoon. Enough to attach one or two teams out to each platoon, as needed. Or, if needed, the company commander could retain the whole squad at company level as a potent scouting, screening, and skirmishing element. I think they will be better able to do all that if they're organized as a single large squad under a senior staff sergeant in garrison for training.

[Logan Hartke]

Well, your room-clearing concerns are ones I certainly had, which is also the reason you see some of the pistols and the MP7 in the squad as well. The pistols show up entirely because of the experiences I've had relayed to me from the men that have been serving in Iraq multiple times.

For that reason, every man in the squad has a weapon available to them for that role. Most likely the worst off is the DM, but he could easily use one of the pistols assigned to the squad leader or asst leader. Even the DM, though, has a weapon with a 20" barrel, the same as a standard M16A1, not an impossible weapon to use in buildings.

On the matter of DMs, I know that that's another subject where opinions are divided, but your concept is interesting, especially for training. That being said, I definitely see their value being part of the squad in combat on a permanent basis. You need someone in the squad who is both equipped and trained to make very accurate shots at literally a moment's notice. It's the difference between an enemy gunner in window holding up a squad for 30 seconds or holding them up for 10 minutes.

On that note, however, you earlier stated that you feel that the current USMC squad is the most capable one out there, yet the four-man fireteams--each fireteam with a belt-fed machine gun and a grenade launcher--and the designated marksman can all be found in their organization.

Logan Hartke

[Rifleman]

On that note, however, you earlier stated that you feel that the current USMC squad is the most capable one out there, yet the four-man fireteams--each fireteam with a belt-fed machine gun and a grenade launcher--and the designated marksman can all be found in their organization.

True, in that I believe the basic squad template has stood the test of time. But let's not forget that it developed in the days of one BAR and three M1 Garands per fire team. Ten basic riflemen in a full strength squad then, not as many today.

Also, the USMC has evidently never been quite comfortable with the M249 in what was originally an automatic rifle role. They have considered adopting a true AR for the fire teams and consolidating the M249s into: one squad per platoon; or, one fire team per squad. Both proposals were tested.

DMs can still live in a DM squad in a company weapons platoon for training and administration in garrison and be available to squad or platoon leaders for operations if needed. And in Army light infantry units, it wouldn't hurt if that company weapons platoon were led by a warrant officer weapons specialist either. Something similar to the USMC gunner program.

But that's another discussion, and besides, it may not be possible to produce that many quality WOs. As I understand it, only the creme de la creme of USMC Gunnery Sergeants and Staff Sergeants become Marine Gunners. But, I thought as long as we're dreaming.....

[William F. Owen]

I don't much like the idea of DMs in the infantry squad. At least put them in the platoon's weapons squad. Even better would be a large squad of DMs in the company's weapons platoon. Enough to attach one or two teams out to each platoon, as needed. Or, if needed, the company commander could retain the whole squad at company level as a potent scouting, screening, and skirmishing element. I think they will be better able to do all that if they're organized as a single large squad under a senior staff sergeant in garrison for training.

DMs, LRRs or even Snipers are fire supporters so yes, I agree group them at the platoon level in the Fire support squads. FS squads have to have LRF and other toys that the DMs can make good use of, so it makes sense.

The UK has been playing with a Coy Level "Manoeuvre Support Section" comprising snipers and MGs. It's not on establishment but some units do it. As with all the UK does, they've managed to make a virtue out of a necessity. Personally I would make one of my platoons an FS platoon to swing role as and when required.