Organization & Distance

[krsna]

History of war dates to duel between two unsocialised animals called Homo Sapiens. Has the society imposed the 4-5 limit on base as you suggest? Buddy system is the base of organised combat (Synergy of the twins, as against rivalry of twins-Kane and Abel). You can build anything upwards on this. Think about it.

[William F. Owen]

There are actually two issues at play here.

a.) The optimum team size for a complex and stressful task.
b.) Span of Control - not Command as is commonly expressed.

A lot of discussion assumes they are the same thing. I suggest they are not, thus I view task organisation as being the balance of those two items. Under great stress the span of control shrinks and can shrink down to two! However a team trying to accomplish a task, gets less effective as it gets smaller. This is why I argue so much for flexible and/or modular Platoon and Company groupings.

[Timothy OConnor]

However a team trying to accomplish a task, gets less effective as it gets smaller.

I think it really depends on the task at hand.

For example, conventional wisdom held that sniper teams should be very small to enhance their ability to avoid detection. But in Iraq American sniper teams have discovered that too small a team is easy pickings once discovered. As a result they've been working with larger teams to enhance security.

But, they've also discovered that if too large their ability to remain undetected truly is compromised such that they become ineffective as the bad guys avoid them. Thus the team is unable to meet its intended purpose if too large.

So, it all depends...

[krsna]

I think it really depends on the task at hand.

For example, conventional wisdom held that sniper teams should be very small to enhance their ability to avoid detection. But in Iraq American sniper teams have discovered that too small a team is easy pickings once discovered. As a result they've been working with larger teams to enhance security.

But, they've also discovered that if too large their ability to remain undetected truly is compromised such that they become ineffective as the bad guys avoid them. Thus the team is unable to meet its intended purpose if too large.

So, it all depends...

I agree with the concept of span of control as much as the need for innovation to suit ground reality. But consider that span of control stems from research in the management field where the supervisor has average span of control over 7-8 subordinates. Our squad span has brought it down to four. This is to to suit the buddy concept upwards than halve the span of control for greater control. The sniper teams signify this concept that the buddies have limit to independence in their sustenance. They must return to base or base must extend support to sustain them. Most of these concepts need to take Urban Warfare than Jungle or Mountain Warfare in our future deliberations.

[Rifleman]

For example, conventional wisdom held that sniper teams should be very small to enhance their ability to avoid detection. But in Iraq American sniper teams have discovered that too small a team is easy pickings once discovered. As a result they've been working with larger teams to enhance security.

Variations of this have always been done.

I've read sniper employment SOPs for 3rd Marine Division and 9th Infantry Division sniper operations in Vietnam. Both called for the two man sniper team to be secured by a fire team to squad size element. I don't think it was usually a case of the security element occupying the same hide site, but they would have been close enough to overwatch and provide supporting fire.

[kaur]

Some time ago, in the beginning of this thread somebody posted one table in pdf format about Candadian small arms shooting distances. Now this attatchement is gone. I do have discussion with my friends in another forum and would like to use this material as good illustration. I'd like to ask this person to post this table one more time. PM is maybe better option.

[Eden]

I've followed this thread off and on as it has wended its way back and forth over various subjects. Just wanted to comment on one recurring theme that I've seen - the idea that there exists an 'optimum' base or span of control that effects dispersion, dictates organization size, and limits the 'flatness' of a particular organization.

I would just ask that people keep in mind that you can find examples of teams or spans of control that far exceed 4 or 5 or a dozen or whatever.

150 years ago one man routinely controlled, with a fair degree of precision, the movement of a regiment. He could do this because the 'team members' had been rigourously trained in fairly simple tasks, they could all be communicated with simultaneously, they all had organic markers to guide their actions (dressing of ranks, presence of the colors, etc), and the leader could monitor their actions with a glance.

60 years ago, one bombardier in a B-17 could control dozens of bombers during their run over a target. He did this without communicating because all the members of that particular team could perform the enabling tasks (fly the plane, drop the bombs, fend off enemy fighters) without supervision, the conduct of the run itself was a well-rehearsed drill, and because of the simplicity of the control mechanism (follow me in your preassigned relative positions, drop your bombs when I do).

Finally, a quarterback controls ten other men in extremely complex tasks every play, with only a few seconds notice as to what task is required. He can do this because of a well-developed communications system (huddles, audibles, hand signals), a pre-determined way of reacting to opposing countermeasures (pass routes, blocking schemes, option handoffs, etc.), and, of course, practice, practice, practice.

My point is that optimal span of control and organizational size is a function of many factors - training, complexity of the task, weapon systems, willingness to accept risk, and many others. To state that there is an inherently optimal number - probably drawn from 20th Century management theory - and design your weapons, tactics, or organizations from that seems to me bassackwards.

And apologies to my Commonwealth friends for the American football example.

[William F. Owen]

My point is that optimal span of control and organizational size is a function of many factors - training, complexity of the task, weapon systems, willingness to accept risk, and many others. To state that there is an inherently optimal number - probably drawn from 20th Century management theory - and design your weapons, tactics, or organizations from that seems to me bassackwards.

It's actually military research, done by the DERA in the 1980s that proved the span of control was 4-5 and shrinks under pressure. This assumes that all of the 4-5 elements are doing different tasks.

The Napoleonic Army, B17 formation, football teams tasks are all "self synchronised" actions, that do not require explicit and direct control.