Redundancy in small unit organization

[William F. Owen]

Mr. Owen, have you written any articles on your ideas for squad organization? If so, can you link it?

I have and they are linked in other threads. - or some that others may point you at.

A.) A lot of the criticism of my ideas as outline in the "Fire team Group" is valid in the context that some state. So I am not dismissive of the critiques, nor are any of my insights necessarily greater than those who think I'm full of sh*t. but what sh*t I am full of, I know very well!

B.) My ideas have moved on a bit in the last 5 years. I think a Platoon has to be able to adjust its organisation based on Mission, Threat, Terrain etc. The article that is often cited was written to provoke debate.

C.) I believe that the Core Functions - Find, Fix, Strike, and Exploit are a very strong basis on which to train and organise. A Platoon that adheres to that is in, IMO, pretty good shape.

D.) Doctrine, training, education and leadership, matter far more important than precise Squad or Platoon Size.

E.) and I currently think a platoon should be about 30 men, organised into 3 x 10 man sections. Each Section contains a Recce Group and Weapons Group (6 & 4?).
1 Section is lead by the Platoon commander, and a L/Cpl.
2 Section is lead by the Platoon Segreant and a Corporal.
3 Section is lead by a Corporal and a L/Cpl.
If necessary,
The Platoon can form as two "Multiples". The Recce Multiple is the 4 x 5 man teams under the Platoon commander, two L/Cpls and a Corporal.
The Weapons Multiple is 2 x 5 Man teams under The Platoon sergeant and a Corporal.

[Ratzel]

I have and they are linked in other threads. - or some that others may point you at.

A.) A lot of the criticism of my ideas as outline in the "Fire team Group" is valid in the context that some state. So I am not dismissive of the critiques, nor are any of my insights necessarily greater than those who think I'm full of sh*t. but what sh*t I am full of, I know very well!

B.) My ideas have moved on a bit in the last 5 years. I think a Platoon has to be able to adjust its organisation based on Mission, Threat, Terrain etc. The article that is often cited was written to provoke debate.

C.) I believe that the Core Functions - Find, Fix, Strike, and Exploit are a very strong basis on which to train and organise. A Platoon that adheres to that is in, IMO, pretty good shape.

D.) Doctrine, training, education and leadership, matter far more important than precise Squad or Platoon Size.

E.) and I currently think a platoon should be about 30 men, organised into 3 x 10 man sections. Each Section contains a Recce Group and Weapons Group (6 & 4?).
1 Section is lead by the Platoon commander, and a L/Cpl.
2 Section is lead by the Platoon Segreant and a Corporal.
3 Section is lead by a Corporal and a L/Cpl.
If necessary,
The Platoon can form as two "Multiples". The Recce Multiple is the 4 x 5 man teams under the Platoon commander, two L/Cpls and a Corporal.
The Weapons Multiple is 2 x 5 Man teams under The Platoon sergeant and a Corporal.

OK, What weapons do these two "Groups" carry? Please lay out each man according to section and group. When labeling each mans' weapon, don't use m-4 or 240B use AR (Assult Rifle) or LMG (light machine gun). Make sure to have a different label for SAW-like, light machine guns as apposed to 240B GPMG. Sorry, if I'm being a pain in the a**, I just need to visualize this.

[William F. Owen]

OK, What weapons do these two "Groups" carry? Please lay out each man according to section and group. When labeling each mans' weapon, don't use m-4 or 240B use AR (Assult Rifle) or LMG (light machine gun). Make sure to have a different label for SAW-like, light machine guns as apposed to 240B GPMG. Sorry, if I'm being a pain in the a**, I just need to visualize this.

It doesn't matter! Really. We can all train set up equipment, but that causes folks to focus on the wrong stuff! But...

Recce groups focus on finding and manoeuvring, so short-barrelled ARs, and maybe some UGLs like M-203s.
Weapons groups focus on "attrition" so GPMG, (M240b) 84mm RCL or Javelin

The important stuff is ranks, radios and sensors, like Thermal Weapons Sights and Night Vision. Every man should have a PRR and Every ranks should have HHDR, like PRC-149, or 710MB.
Budget is vastly important so cut the cloth to fit the body.

[Ratzel]

It doesn't matter! Really. We can all train set up equipment, but that causes folks to focus on the wrong stuff! But...

Recce groups focus on finding and manoeuvring, so short-barrelled ARs, and maybe some UGLs like M-203s.
Weapons groups focus on "attrition" so GPMG, (M240b) 84mm RCL or Javelin

The important stuff is ranks, radios and sensors, like Thermal Weapons Sights and Night Vision. Every man should have a PRR and Every ranks should have HHDR, like PRC-149, or 710MB.
Budget is vastly important so cut the cloth to fit the body.

No, it does matter. We were told before going down range in OIF I that a certain size building required a certain size force. The average Iraqi home was supposed to take a platoons worth of dismount infantry. Well, after we got there, it turned into a squad taking down a house and sometimes a team. The section you described, would have difficulty taking down a house. The 5-6 man recce group would have to do all the work while the weapons group would have to stay in the rear. You could line up the 3 recce groups to do the house clearing but then you'd have groups and sections split up all kinds of ways.

I'm not sure what you mean by sensors, but as far a night-vision and radio's, you're 100% correct. Each soldier should have a set of new night vision equipment. The best ones when I was in were called "NVG 14's." When we went down range, we had people still with NVG's that were 15 years old. Radio's, optics, NVG's, Body armour, web-gear, boots, first-aid, should all be top-notch, with everyone properly trained on how to use and maintain them.

I think your section/group idea is worth thinking about regarding the woods, or open terrain, but a MOUT environment is much different. The best people at MOUT in the world, don't bring 240B's along with them and surly don't form weapons groups, they do the exact opposite.

As you know, our wars for the next 30 years will be taking place in cities, caves, and probably even Jungles again. The regular forces need to become more SOF-like which, IMO, means smaller weapons, smaller teams, bigger brains.

If anything, which I think we can all agree on, there's a need for much more training, and much more time in rank before promotion. The average Infantryman should have at least six months of training before going to the line, and at least 4 years before becoming an NCO. We need better people. We need more college grads as well. The only way this is going to happen is buy $howing the MONEY! Its also time THE AMERICAN PEOPLE START PAYING MORE IN TAXES! The US defense budget is about 4.5% of GDP. There were times during the Cold-war where it was 8%. If this country is serious about "MAKING THE WORLD SAFE FOR DEMOCRACY" then they better start paying for it.

Sorry I got off track, but I do think its matters what weapons are carried by whom. That way we can visualize how it will work in combat. I'm starting to like the Marine Platoon, but want to learn more about it. That doesn't mean, by any means, that I won't listen to your ideas, I'm just pretty sure I don't like this one. I would like to read more of your work though.

[William F. Owen]

@ No, it does matter. We were told before going down range in OIF I that a certain size building required a certain size force. The average Iraqi home was supposed to take a platoons worth of dismount infantry.

@ I think your section/group idea is worth thinking about regarding the woods, or open terrain, but a MOUT environment is much different. The best people at MOUT in the world, don't bring 240B's along with them and surly don't form weapons groups, they do the exact opposite.

@ As you know, our wars for the next 30 years will be taking place in cities, caves, and probably even Jungles again. The regular forces need to become more SOF-like which, IMO, means smaller weapons, smaller teams, bigger brains.

@ I'm starting to like the Marine Platoon, but want to learn more about it. That doesn't mean, by any means, that I won't listen to your ideas, I'm just pretty sure I don't like this one. I would like to read more of your work though.

@ Well if you think my opinion matters, I'm very flattered , now telling soldiers that X type of building requires X type of force is not quite the dumbest thing I have ever heard, but close. - see later.

@ I don't know who are the best people in the world at MOUT. I see nothing wrong with an M-240, or GPMG. No you don't search and exploit into structures with it. You use it outside, as you would Javelin or an 84mm RCL. You have to be able to fight between structures, not just in them. Once you've secured the space, bring up the weapons teams to reduce suppress the next structure. 5.56mm won't go through too much as you know. Don't assume Iraq is the defining MOUT experience.

@ I don't know where the wars of the next 30 years will be taking place. Nor does anyone else. Should we be prepared to operate in all types of close terrain? Yes! - so we don't want to establish platoons on Iraqi dwelling take downs.
- I live in 36 storey apartment block, in central Bangkok. I estimate it would take 3 platoons about two hours or more to clear.
If you want to be more SOF like, just have 5 x 6 man teams. Each team has 2 x LMGs, 4 x M4/UGL - and accept the limitations of that weapons set. - Still 30 men, 6 ranks, 6 radios (one rank and radio spare - always useful)

@ If you want to be more Marine like, split the platoon in two. So you have two squads of 3 x 5 man teams. One Squad is commanded by the platoon commander and the other the platoon sergeant, each assisted by a Cpl and L/Cpl. Each 5 man team could be 2 LMG, 2 M4/UGL and one spare, with an M4 to carry the AT-4 or whatever. Still 30 men, 6 ranks, 6 radios.

Does this help any?

[Ratzel]

@ Well if you think my opinion matters, I'm very flattered , now telling soldiers that X type of building requires X type of force is not quite the dumbest thing I have ever heard, but close. - see later.

@ I don't know who are the best people in the world at MOUT. I see nothing wrong with an M-240, or GPMG. No you don't search and exploit into structures with it. You use it outside, as you would Javelin or an 84mm RCL. You have to be able to fight between structures, not just in them. Once you've secured the space, bring up the weapons teams to reduce suppress the next structure. 5.56mm won't go through too much as you know. Don't assume Iraq is the defining MOUT experience.

@ I don't know where the wars of the next 30 years will be taking place. Nor does anyone else. Should we be prepared to operate in all types of close terrain? Yes! - so we don't want to establish platoons on Iraqi dwelling take downs.
- I live in 36 storey apartment block, in central Bangkok. I estimate it would take 3 platoons about two hours or more to clear.
If you want to be more SOF like, just have 5 x 6 man teams. Each team has 2 x LMGs, 4 x M4/UGL - and accept the limitations of that weapons set. - Still 30 men, 6 ranks, 6 radios (one rank and radio spare - always useful)

@ If you want to be more Marine like, split the platoon in two. So you have two squads of 3 x 5 man teams. One Squad is commanded by the platoon commander and the other the platoon sergeant, each assisted by a Cpl and L/Cpl. Each 5 man team could be 2 LMG, 2 M4/UGL and one spare, with an M4 to carry the AT-4 or whatever. Still 30 men, 6 ranks, 6 radios.

Does this help any?

There's no metric that calculates bodies per square footage, but yes, before taking down a structure, there is some sizing up. There is some general agreement about what size a unit should be, before it attempts to take down a structure. There was even an understanding that a unit should be ready to take about 30% casualties during urban combat.

While we're on the subject of second dumbest ideas, are you certain about this idea of Platoon leaders and Platoon Sergeants leading squad size units?

I guess arguing about why the squad should be this or that size is waste, until I understand your argument for why your squad size is best. If you can, tell me the advantages of the squad size you propose, and explain why its superior to the current size. Or, if you already did this, give me a link to where I can read it.

And No, your opinion doesn't matter, but I'm always open to new ideas and I appreciate your passion for these subjects.

[William F. Owen]

@ There is some general agreement about what size a unit should be, before it attempts to take down a structure. There was even an understanding that a unit should be ready to take about 30% casualties during urban combat.

@ While we're on the subject of second dumbest ideas, are you certain about this idea of Platoon leaders and Platoon Sergeants leading squad size units?

@ I guess arguing about why the squad should be this or that size is waste, until I understand your argument for why your squad size is best. If you can, tell me the advantages of the squad size you propose, and explain why its superior to the current size. Or, if you already did this, give me a link to where I can read it.

@ Sure there is an understanding of troops to task, but no one should use the size of one possible type of dwelling to formulate infantry organisation.

@ All this means is no Platoon HQ. It's about leader leading. Works well for the IDF. Works well in Patrolling. Works well in SF. Why do you need a Platoon HQ?

@. I am not saying my squad size is best. I want to be perfectly clear on this. All I am saying is that you need to apply principles of organisation. 30 men, and 6 ranks gives you 3-4 different ways to organise the Platoon (not squad) so as you can best accomplish your mission. It is merely an example of a set of principles in application.

Send me a PM if you want to keep discussing this - which I am more than happy to. It's just I am sure we must be boring everyone else to tears.

[novelist]

I have and they are linked in other threads. - or some that others may point you at.

A.) A lot of the criticism of my ideas as outline in the "Fire team Group" is valid in the context that some state. So I am not dismissive of the critiques, nor are any of my insights necessarily greater than those who think I'm full of sh*t. but what sh*t I am full of, I know very well!

B.) My ideas have moved on a bit in the last 5 years. I think a Platoon has to be able to adjust its organisation based on Mission, Threat, Terrain etc. The article that is often cited was written to provoke debate.

C.) I believe that the Core Functions - Find, Fix, Strike, and Exploit are a very strong basis on which to train and organise. A Platoon that adheres to that is in, IMO, pretty good shape.

D.) Doctrine, training, education and leadership, matter far more important than precise Squad or Platoon Size.

E.) and I currently think a platoon should be about 30 men, organised into 3 x 10 man sections. Each Section contains a Recce Group and Weapons Group (6 & 4?).
1 Section is lead by the Platoon commander, and a L/Cpl.
2 Section is lead by the Platoon Segreant and a Corporal.
3 Section is lead by a Corporal and a L/Cpl.
If necessary,
The Platoon can form as two "Multiples". The Recce Multiple is the 4 x 5 man teams under the Platoon commander, two L/Cpls and a Corporal.
The Weapons Multiple is 2 x 5 Man teams under The Platoon sergeant and a Corporal.

It sounds like you are a Marine. Don't know alot about Marines, except what I learned from my cousin, who was an E-6 at Pendleton. It sounds like you are talking about a recon platoon, because you have x 20 men dedicated to reconnaissance. You have another x 10 men dedicated to weapons, and I assume those weapons have to be along the lines of machine guns and anti-armor systems. This is x 30 men. O.K., so you have two 10-man recon elements and a 10-man weapons element. If you are using weapons during a recon mission, you're not going to last. That means the "eyes and ears" of the battalion commander are going to be put out of commission; that combat information off of which the S-2 can deduce "actionable intelligence" is going to be cut off; and that toes are going to be tagged. On the other hand, if you're talking about a x 30-man rifle platoon, there's no need for x 20 recon men. The Corps has a number of x 32-man platoons already, and for their force structure this is not bad because you need small units to fit everybody on amphib ships, AAV's, etc. Small, sufficiently mobile units with a very high degree of lethality are what I think the Army & Marines are looking for in the future. Marine squads have three fire teams totaling x 13-men, x 14 with a Navy Hosp Corpsman. Each team has a machine gun, SAW or newer M-27, TL, grenadier, and a rifleman. If you are thinking " x 30-man rifle platoon" you should take this into consideration to reorganize a x 41-man platoon into a x 30-man platoon. If you're thinking recon, they aren't fighters unless they get caught by the enemy. I'm not trying to be critical, just throwing a few thoughts your way. Maybe an x 8-man weapons section, (x 4 Bravo 240's) with three x 6-man teams having a TL, x 2 SAW/M-27 gunners, a grenadier, and x 2 riflemen for a total of x 26. Add a four man platoon HQ Group of the PL, PSG, Corpsman, and RTO and you have a x 30-man platoon with a very high degree of lethality. Hope you consider it, especially as far as part C) of your writing above goes.

[JMA]

Wilf, is a Brit - an ex NCO I believe - who no longer posts here.

With respect to him and a number of others who have indulged in speculative theory around here their lack of wartime experience undermines their contributions to such debates.

It sounds like you are a Marine.

[novelist]

Well, I just came to this sight yesterday and lance corporal is a Marine rank. Please excuse my failure to recognize my mistake.

[Compost]

Wilf, is a Brit - an ex NCO I believe - who no longer posts here.

With respect to him and a number of others who have indulged in speculative theory around here their lack of wartime experience undermines their contributions to such debates.

JMA
Your first comment may be accurate but it was also mindless kidney punching. Your second comment was mostly valid and is a cautionary to me as a self-appointed commentator and incidentally an ex-reserve infantry NCO.

Overall and usefully demonstrating one hazard of self inflation the phrasing of your post revealed a Blimp with bile line showing. Don’t bother to respond because my future reading will exclude anything attributed to you.

[JMA]

Much of these discussions - about the organisation and structure of fire teams/sections/platoons etc - is a waste of time.

What trumps most arguments or motivations for change is the constraints of military budgets.

Thereafter all your planning and training can be undone minutes into the first battle.

Let me explain.

Take the 4th Battalion of the Somerset Light Infantry - as part of the 43rd Wessex Division - experience in the taking of Hill 112 for example.

Out of its original strength of 36 officers and nearly 700 other ranks, The 4th Battalion, The Somerset Light Infantry, received reinforcements of 15 officers and 541 other ranks, between the 5th and 18th July 1944 leaving it below its full strength. This is admittedly a radical case.
(source 18 Platoon by Sidney Jary)

So how long will all these theoretical organisations and structures survive after battle is joined?

The answer is how do the units taking casulaties adapt. The key lies in the abilities of the officers and NCOs - who survive - to show initiative and get on with what they have got. History provides those interested with many examples of how soldiers have risen to the challenge in the most dire situations.