The Roles and Weapons with the Squad

[Rifleman]

I would have thought that by now we would have seen some (structural/weapons/equipment) innovations (probably initiated by special forces) filter their way through to the line infantry?.....

.....Is there really an ideal squad size or equipment scale? Surely you go to a new place and look, listen and learn and adapt before you have to put too many troopies in body-bags?

It's been suggested. That was one of Wilf Owen's big things: a platoon of 30 or so divided into big fire teams without a permanent squad organization. His idea was that you could mix and match the fire teams in various ways. METT-TC as always.

SEALs and DELTA do it now: their 16-man troop can be employed 4x4, 2x8, 1x8 plus 2x4, etc.

But to do it with line infantry and keep the company end numbers the same you would have to add a platoon or two to the company. Maybe that's why it doesn't catch on: it messes up the idea that a rifle company is three rifle platoons and a weapons platoon because.....well, because it's three rifle platoons and a weapons platoon, of course.

[Pete]

The TO&E is an admin-log thing, done to simplify the manning and equipping of a lot of units in a hurry, such as in the U.S. during 1942-45. At the time of Pearl Harbor the U.S. Army had Tables of Organization and Tables of Equipment, which in the early days required a lot of cross-referencing back and forth between the two. Then around '42 or '43 someone at DA got smart and decided to combine the two together into the TO&E.

Those standard templates of organization should not drive tactics. Just because you're in a triangular straight-leg Infantry division or in an Armored division with three combat commands, it doesn't mean the organizational structure dictates tactics. Same for Pentogonal, ROAD, and whatever it is we have these days.

[Rifleman]

The TO&E is an admin-log thing, done to simplify the manning and equipping of a lot of units in a hurry, such as in the U.S. during 1942-45. At the time of Pearl Harbor the U.S. Army had Tables of Organization and Tables of Equipment, which in the early days required a lot of cross-referencing back and forth between the two. Then around '42 or '43 someone at DA got smart and decided to combine the two together into the TO&E.

Those standard templates of organization should not drive tactics. Just because you're in a triangular straight-leg Infantry division or in an Armored division with three combat commands, it doesn't mean the organizational structure dictates tactics. Same for Pentogonal, ROAD, and whatever it is we have these days.

Pete,

I understand how we got there and I agree it should not drive tactics but it often does, doesn't it?

One example is a Bradley platoon. With four Brads in a platoon each able to hold up to six dismounts it seems sensible to me to deploy as four big fire teams under the PL for dismounted ops. Yet, the last FM I saw called for them trying to form standard squads after un-assing the Brad. Done to stay consistent with light infantry doctrine for their dismounted ops, I suppose.

Is that still doctrine for dismounts in the mech community?

[Pete]

The experience of World War II led the U.S. Army to become more of a massive administrative and logistical apparatus rather than a professional fighting force. It has to do with combining guys of the right MOSs with LIN numbers of equipment. In part it dates from organizing an Army in a hurry during War I. So we put together guys who graduated from shake-and-bake school training with industrial output, weapons and vehicles, and voila, we have divisions. We report on whether they're combat-ready on DA Form 2715 every month, mainly in terms of the personnel and equipment they have assigned to them.

Much of what I've read about on SWJ/SWC has been about taking this business of forming organizations with personnel and equipment to a higher level of proficiency -- leader developent, soldier development, and tactics, tactics, tactics ...

[Compost]

Time flies and back in March 2011 I speculated that FN and/or HK might have enough corporate energy to develop bullpup variants of their 7.62mm Mk17 and HK417 rifles. Since then they have shown only modified versions of fwd-mags.

However, in the interim Thales has upgraded its F88 variant of the 5.56mm AUG bullpup and is now offering the 5.56mm EF88 for export with additional features as the F90. It comes with a choice of barrels as the F90 carbine (407mm barrel in 700mm overall) and F90 marksman (508 in 802mm) each with optional 40mm UGL. There is also an F90 CQB carbine (360 in 653mm).

It is possible that Thales has enough corporate energy remaining to develop a 7.62mm version of the EF88/F90. That would be a suitable outcome and reward for the apparent ‘easy as it goes’ or timid attitudes of FN and HK.

[ganulv]

Time flies and back in March 2011 I speculated that FN and/or HK might have enough corporate energy to develop bullpup variants of their 7.62mm Mk17 and HK417 rifles.

Going to war with a bullpup is like going to the beach in a Speedo. It just doesn’t work for Americans.

[Ken White]

If I ever saw it...

[Compost]

Going to war with a bullpup is like going to the beach in a Speedo. It just doesn’t work for Americans.

Amusing response but do Americans insist on swimming everywhere in boardshorts ? Some obviously do and will continue to. However, Speedo was bought out by an American conglomerate in the 1990s.

The F90 is probably aimed first at targets in Europe such as succeeding the 5.56mm Famas. Complementing the M16/M4 might come later.