Redundancy in small unit organization

[Rifleman]

I know I need a better grasp on how some minimum unit is structured and why--for example, why X number of rifleman, Y number of LMGs, Z number of grenadiers and under what circumstances? Is this minimum unit treated atomically or do planners try to achieve redundancy at that fine grain?

In other words, what is the "basic infantry element?"

Oh, boy. Go to the threads (and numerous links!) about the rife squad, fire team group platoon, etc.

Insightful (I thought) was Paul Melody's article: http://stinet.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=...fier=ADA225438

That will keep you busy for a while.

[Ratzel]

In other words, what is the "basic infantry element?"

Oh, boy. Go to the threads (and numerous links!) about the rife squad, fire team group platoon, etc.

Insightful (I thought) was Paul Melody's article: http://stinet.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=...fier=ADA225438

That will keep you busy for a while.

I read the article, and thought the author made some good points about squads not likely to fire and maneuver in wartime. We did conduct training in which the squad would make contact, team A would lay a base of fire and team B would flank the enemy. We would also do the same with the two squads. First squad would be the base of fire and second squad would flank the enemy. When we would do force on force at NTC or JRTC, we would generally use both squads in this situation. Therefore, as the author pointed out, having two fire teams, may have been a waste of resources.

However, that was the woods, or the desert. In an urban environment, having two teams seems to work out better. The team leaders' control the two teams and communicate with the squad leader who communicates with the Platoon Leader. While the two teams aren't necessarily "firing and maneuvering," they are operating apart from each other. Using the squad leader to control a team reduces his ability to communicate with the PL and increases his risk of becoming a casualty. Therefore, I conclude that the two team squad is better for the terrain the army finds itself in today.

[Rifleman]

Yes, I understand. Light infantry units do it that way also.

But the authors basic contention is that you need to start with big squads of 12 or 13 people for the fire team structure to hold up under attrition. Even if two teams in a smaller squad is better in theory the fire team structure will soon break down in smaller squads due to combat attrition.

Few Vietnam Army infantry vets remember their squads operating with fire teams very often, even though the two fire team structure was doctrine during that time. Ask them how many people they remember in a squad and you hear things like "five to seven," or "six to eight."

When that's reality does it matter if two teams are better in theory?

We've hashed this out pretty well on other threads.