The Roles and Weapons with the Squad

[ODB]

lost somewhere in the other jibberish. I was wondering if anyone knew why 12 men or was it more of that is just the way it worked out after looking at leadership requirements and having 2 of everything? Didn't know if some one thought 12 was the right amount of personnel and then tailored the make up to this number or the other way around. Understand the comparison is apples to oranges in some aspects.

A question that arises is also mobility assets. Under the current composition a 9 man squad can move by two gun trucks or 1 UH-60(seats in of course). If the squad size increases then do our mobility platforms need to increase in size as well or do we simply increase the footprint (more vehicles). Might simply be to far into 9 man squads in the Army to change at this point. How do the other services handle this?

[Rifleman]

ODB,

Add vehicles. I think trying to keep unit size matched to transport size is a loosing battle.

It doesn't matter what the unit or transport type is either. It's a nice idea, but in the end we just have to accept the fact that crossloading and breaking up elements for transport will have to happen and get on with the job without worrying about it too much.

Hasn't it usually had to be sorted out in the assembly area anyway? Even if it was a hot LZ in the Ashau Valley? I think a UH-1D usually carried six for a combat assault. How many times was a platoon able to divide by six and have it come out even?

[Ken White]

Add vehicles. I think trying to keep unit size matched to transport size is a loosing battle.

It doesn't matter what the unit or transport type is either. It's a nice idea, but in the end we just have to accept the fact that crossloading and breaking up elements for transport will have to happen and get on with the job without worrying about it too much.

Hasn't it usually had to be sorted out in the assembly area anyway? Even if it was a hot LZ in the Ashau Valley? I think a UH-1D usually carried six for a combat assault. How many times was a platoon able to divide by six and have it come out even?

It's not desirable but it's often necessary and it doesn't really have too bad an effect. Unit integrity is great; just hard to attain...

[Uboat509]

I thought that the original ODA was ten men but they added a captain to act as a commissioned advisor to the Team-Sergeant and then a Warrant to do all the paperwork.

SFC W

[ODB]

I tried googling it numerous times and could find nothing about it. Thank you Ken for the historical perspective.

I know it never comes out even but looking at the possibility if squad sizes increased would we increase vehicle capacity or increase the number of vehicles? Personally I'm a fan of the insert an infantry company plus with three CH-47's and extract with 2, 70 personnel per bird + 15,000 foot mountain passes makes for a lot of puking soldiers and over torqued aircraft.

[Ken White]

I thought that the original ODA was ten men but they added a captain to act as a commissioned advisor to the Team-Sergeant and then a Warrant to do all the paperwork. SFC W

and a Lieutenant to provide someone to listen to the Captain.

Warrants were a later-- and good -- idea...

[Rifleman]

So now that ODAs have WOs - who were once probably SFCs - who listens to the Captain?

[Ken White]

.............

[ODB]

So now that ODAs have WOs - who were once probably SFCs - who listens to the Captain?

This is the sole reason for the 18X program. They had to find someone who would listen to the Captain

[William F. Owen]

I thought that the original ODA was ten men but they added a captain to act as a commissioned advisor to the Team-Sergeant and then a Warrant to do all the paperwork.

SFC W

The original ODA was 2 Officers and 13 NCOs, as mandated by TOE 33-510. Ir was designed to train and then staff a 1,500 strong guerilla Army.

- so it might have some pointers for Unit command, but as you point out, it's nothing to do with Squad dynamics

[Ken White]

The original ODA was 2 Officers and 13 NCOs, as mandated by TOE 33-510. Ir was designed to train and then staff a 1,500 strong guerilla Army.

Combination of spinning half the Group to Germany as the 10th (and further splitting a Det from that to Berlin -- with a different TOE) and forming the 77th at Bragg with the other half of the original Group created a minor shortfall in people (as well as new commanders), thus the TOE mod to 12 for the A Teams while the B Teams stayed at 15.

[Ken White]

lost somewhere in the other jibberish. I was wondering if anyone knew why 12 men or was it more of that is just the way it worked out after looking at leadership requirements and having 2 of everything? Didn't know if some one thought 12 was the right amount of personnel and then tailored the make up to this number or the other way around. Understand the comparison is apples to oranges in some aspects.

skills, generally doubling the number for redundancy (and insuring cross training to reinforce that) and was broadly based on the organization and experience of OSS Detachment 101 in Burma during WW II, by far the most successful large irregular warfare operation and way ahead of the success of the Jedburgh Teams.

The very different US Rifle squad, OTOH, is based primarily on Korean War experience and the two fire team leaders specifically date from there and a perceived need to have another NCO for both redundancy and for the training stream. The AR Man in each team (as opposed to a Machine Gun / Gunner) was due mostly to lack of an acceptable MG at the time plus the old "not invented here" syndrome which says that if another nation is doing 'A' we must do 'B.'

A question that arises is also mobility assets. Under the current composition a 9 man squad can move by two gun trucks or 1 UH-60(seats in of course). If the squad size increases then do our mobility platforms need to increase in size as well or do we simply increase the footprint (more vehicles). Might simply be to far into 9 man squads in the Army to change at this point. How do the other services handle this?

The nine man squad is an abortion; it was introduced in the 80s simply to free up the other two men from the Squad to provide numbers to increase the number of Army divisions -- a process that sliced TOEs to the bone and really hurt the Divisions even as it created two more from the same manpower. Dumb idea then and a dumb idea now. Much more effective was the 11 man squad -- more staying power, also...

Part, not all , of the size of our vehicles is based on justifying that nine man squad -- can't be like anyone else...

Other organizations handle larger sizes with (a) bigger vehicles; and (b) splitting their squads -- just like the US Army has to do all too often...

[Sabre]

The nine man squad is an abortion; it was introduced in the 80s simply to free up the other two men from the Squad to provide numbers to increase the number of Army divisions -- a process that sliced TOEs to the bone and really hurt the Divisions even as it created two more from the same manpower. Dumb idea then and a dumb idea now. Much more effective was the 11 man squad -- more staying power, also...

Part, not all , of the size of our vehicles is based on justifying that nine man squad -- can't be like anyone else...

Other organizations handle larger sizes with (a) bigger vehicles; and (b) splitting their squads -- just like the US Army has to do all too often...

Whoa, whoa, there Ken, the process only sliced TOEs to the bone for Infantry (and Cavalry). Some other branches (most notably Military Intelligence) have seen their representation consistently increased with every reorg (for little or no corresponding increase in combat effectiveness).

I agree with the vehicle size comment, the USMC, to site the obvious example, does design tracks and helos to accommodate more men. However, I think that there is a limit to how big a heavy APC can be, in terms of volume under armor (such as the Israeli Namer). Perhaps not relevant in this war, but in others such a vehicle might prove very useful. I would submit that as perhaps the one actual limit to carrying capacity.

Personally, I think vehicle carry capacity matters for any ("permanently") mounted unit, as operations go on and entropy naturally increases, the unit will find itself de facto organized along those lines more often than not.

[Ken White]

Whoa, whoa, there Ken, the process only sliced TOEs to the bone for Infantry (and Cavalry). Some other branches (most notably Military Intelligence) have seen their representation consistently increased with every reorg (for little or no corresponding increase in combat effectiveness). (emphasis added / kw)

I rest my case...

Personally, I think vehicle carry capacity matters for any ("permanently") mounted unit, as operations go on and entropy naturally increases, the unit will find itself de facto organized along those lines more often than not.

Also true -- and a generally not well considered synergy by the force structure folks...

[RJ]

The T/O of a SF Team is a going away peek from the standard infantry squad size and mission.

The Marines have let out contracts fo rtheir new AR for Infantry and Recon squad usage.

It is a magazine fed design.

FYI - Corps moves to replace M249

Staff report
Posted : Friday Jan 2, 2009 10:04:16 EST

The Corps has awarded four contracts to three companies to produce prototypes of the 5.56mm Infantry Automatic Rifle, which is slated to supplant the M249 Squad Automatic Weapon, or SAW, according a Dec. 26 Marine Corps Systems Command announcement.

The three firms will compete for a contract that could be worth up to $27 million. The firm selected will manufacture from 4,476 to 6,500 rifles.

The three companies are:

• FN Herstal of Herstal, Belgium.

• Heckler and Koch Defense of Ashburn, Va.

• Colt Defense of West Hartford, Conn.

Colt received two contracts because it has two candidate weapons sufficiently different to warrant separate evaluations, according to SysCom.

“Each [company] will produce and deliver a minimum of 10 weapons. The Marine Corps will next evaluate these weapons and then intends to select one weapon system from one company to meet the IAR requirement,” Marine officials said in a news release.

The IAR is a lightweight, magazine-fed weapon. It will provide a one-for-one replacement of the M249 in Marine rifle squads within infantry battalions and in the scout teams in light armored reconnaissance battalions.

The weapons will be tested by infantry Marines as SysCom works to solicit input from throughout the operating forces, the release states.

Happy New Year, y'all

[RJ]

The Marine Corps Times has an up dated article on the new AR's the Marines are testing to replace their current automatic squad weapon.

To long to C&P for this forum, but ifyou are interested check it out at MCT.

[SethB]

DefenseTech.

I asked Mellors about the limited capacity a 30 round mar gives an automatic rifleman with this kind of setup. First of all, he said they'd been in talks with Maul to develop a higher capacity "quad-stack" mar akin to an experimental AK-74 one that feeds four stacks of ammo through a single channel in one 55-round magazine. But the company was reluctant to pitch the new mar with its IAR for fear it would undercut their bid as being too risky.

I found this online. It reiterates some of what I was told nearly a year ago, but it would have been inappropriate for me to mention it.

[Kiwigrunt]

The Marine Corps Times has an up dated article on the new AR's the Marines are testing to replace their current automatic squad weapon.

Looks like only the big players get to play.......

They also seem to like the 40mm sixshooter. Not necessarily at squad level though.

[COMMAR]

William F. & RJ can I interject & refer back to your back & forth on page 3.

I believe RJ's best support for his position comes half way thru his long article when refering to the separation of the Marine SqLdr allowing him to coordinate the manuevering while separate fr/ the actual activity of the manuever.

Which frees his mind fr/ controlling his squad & his individual team. It also allows him the freedom to command the scene & float freely amongst the teams for optimum control.



I think the 2 of you are having a hard time sync-ing on this 1 b/c you fundementally view the Operations of the squad & SqLdr thru the eyes of your Institutions.

W. F. Owens, fr/ the little I know about Brit formations the Squads are design to operate pretty tightly together, under the control of the PLT CO.

Marine Squads operate much differently, much looser, the control of a Sqd fr/a SqLdr a Plt Cdr less of a direct control & is designed to be more fluid, more independent over a much larger area.


So W.F.O, its my take that when you visualize RJ explain to you about a separated SqLdr your visualizing a Brit Manuever w/ the Plt Cmdr exhibiting tight control over the Squads in his Plt.

Your not visualizing a USMC style Manuever, w/more men & more dispersion, covering much more ground where the SqdLdr is acting more like a Plt Cmdr throughout the Manuever.



The answer to the Q? of Squads... the right #'s & formations etc, etc, all comes down how do you does the Individual ENVISION them being used. Everything else is plug n play.

[William F. Owen]

W. F. Owens, fr/ the little I know about Brit formations the Squads are design to operate pretty tightly together, under the control of the PLT CO.

Marine Squads operate much differently, much looser, the control of a Sqd fr/a SqLdr a Plt Cdr less of a direct control & is designed to be more fluid, more independent over a much larger area.


So W.F.O, its my take that when you visualize RJ explain to you about a separated SqLdr your visualizing a Brit Manuever w/ the Plt Cmdr exhibiting tight control over the Squads in his Plt.

Your not visualizing a USMC style Manuever, w/more men & more dispersion, covering much more ground where the SqdLdr is acting more like a Plt Cmdr throughout the Manuever.

Interesting. Obviously the level of fluidity or control is product of training, experience and even personality. UK Platoons also operate as Multiples, of 12-20 men in fire teams, either under a Sgt or Plt Cmd so are near identical to USMC 3 x 4 squads.

Point being, the organisation is subservient to the training and leadership. So my start point is how do you organised ANY given number of men, with any mix of weapons, to gain the levels of control you require to perform your mission. - and not many folk ponder than question.