The Roles and Weapons with the Squad

[Jones_RE]

I think the alternative is a three team squad, which has twice the potential for suppression all other things being equal, or a two squad "section." Wilf's "fire team group" potentially offers both of those options at the same time.

Obviously, the SAW can work well. We know that because you've said that you've seen it happen. So can squad level fire and maneuver - we know that for the same reason. I don't think anyone can credibly say that the curretn weapons and tactics aren't working at all. However, your experiences (and those of basically every soldier using the same weapons and tactics) don't tell us how other weapons or techniques would have faired in the same situation. Or how the current system would do in more challenging circumstances.

The burden is almost always on those who would challenge existing doctrine. Especially when that doctrine has produced success in the past. If our weapons and tactics had lead to bloody failure everyone would be ready for change . . . .

That said, I'm concerned that we're drawing lessons from success that may not be justified. The current squad structure, equipment, and tactics were validated against an enemy force that is on the whole considered to be poorly trained, often badly outnumbered, and incredibly outgunned.

[Ken White]

...That said, I'm concerned that we're drawing lessons from success that may not be justified. The current squad structure, equipment, and tactics were validated against an enemy force that is on the whole considered to be poorly trained, often badly outnumbered, and incredibly outgunned.

The question applies to most Squads, USMC, US Army, commonwealth armies...

[Uboat509]

I think the alternative is a three team squad, which has twice the potential for suppression all other things being equal, or a two squad "section."

I think that the issue of adding more members to each team (which I favor) or adding more teams to the squad is separate issue from the one I was addressing. No matter how many men you have in your team/squad/section/gaggle or whatever, one thing remains constant somebody is shooting (base of fire element) and somebody is moving (maneuver element). At least that is my take and I am wondering what the alternative that is that Reeb seemed to be alluding to.

As for squad composition I like the idea of adding a man to each of the fire teams that we have now. That way there are three riflemen, an AR with LMG and the team leader with an M203. I just don't think that three maneuver elements are needed at the squad level. The squad leader for the squad in contact is going to be in the fight. He needs to be thinking about firing element and his maneuvering element (if he has one). He doesn't need to be worrying about a reserve or whatever the third maneuver element would be doing. The platoon leader should be more removed from the immediate fight and can therefore initiate more complex tactics which is why three maneuver elements is a good thing at the platoon level and not so good at the squad level. In my opinion anyway.

SFC W

[Norfolk]

I think that the issue of adding more members to each team (which I favor) or adding more teams to the squad is separate issue from the one I was addressing. No matter how many men you have in your team/squad/section/gaggle or whatever, one thing remains constant somebody is shooting (base of fire element) and somebody is moving (maneuver element). At least that is my take and I am wondering what the alternative that is that Reeb seemed to be alluding to.

As for squad composition I like the idea of adding a man to each of the fire teams that we have now. That way there are three riflemen, an AR with LMG and the team leader with an M203. I just don't think that three maneuver elements are needed at the squad level. The squad leader for the squad in contact is going to be in the fight. He needs to be thinking about firing element and his maneuvering element (if he has one). He doesn't need to be worrying about a reserve or whatever the third maneuver element would be doing. The platoon leader should be more removed from the immediate fight and can therefore initiate more complex tactics which is why three maneuver elements is a good thing at the platoon level and not so good at the squad level. In my opinion anyway.

SFC W

Generally speaking, many posters here seems to be thinking of using the third element not as a reserve but as part of the support element, with two teams suppressing while a third assaults. One Up, Two Back and all that.

Edited to Add:

Much agreed that Platoon should be the focus, just that Squads sometimes find themselves caught in situations where they have to provide for themselves what Platoon normally provides to the Squads.

[Ken White]

No matter how many men you have in your team/squad/section/gaggle or whatever, one thing remains constant somebody is shooting (base of fire element) and somebody is moving (maneuver element). At least that is my take and I am wondering what the alternative that is that Reeb seemed to be alluding to.

The most significant advantages of a third fire team are a little more redundancy in combat (always a good thing) and flexibility in personnel assignments. The additional Team Leader gives you some training flexibility as well.

Having worked with both the 13 man Marine Squad and the 50-70s era Army Squad with 11 men, both work well, the Marine version gives you an added AR / SAW and two more people to cover combat losses which can easily reach 40-50% in MCO. Maneuvering the Marine Squad is not difficult, most usually, you just use two Fire Teams as the base of fire and you can swap (more correctly, allow the Team Leaders to swap out as they see fit) base and maneuver elements easily. It is also possible to add the third AR / SAW to the base of fire and use rifles only for the movement / assault element.

I agree with you that there's no real alternative to fire and movement -- the only issue is the level at which that takes place. Generally, it will be at Company level, less frequently at Platoon and rarely at Squad -- but Squads will be forced to do it more often than not in the process of operating within a Platoon or Company effort. I'll flat guarantee you that Miles does not replicate MCO at the Platoon and Squad level; it's better than nothing but it can give you a false sense of your ability to move under fire.

[Sabre]

I just don't think that three maneuver elements are needed at the squad level. The squad leader for the squad in contact is going to be in the fight. He needs to be thinking about firing element and his maneuvering element (if he has one). He doesn't need to be worrying about a reserve or whatever the third maneuver element would be doing. The platoon leader should be more removed from the immediate fight and can therefore initiate more complex tactics which is why three maneuver elements is a good thing at the platoon level and not so good at the squad level. In my opinion anyway.

SFC W

I find it interesting that those who put the focus on the platoon-level are less concerned with there being three fire-teams in a squad. I happen to agree that the fight is at the platoon level (unless you are SF...) and that two fire teams is fine for a squad - as long as there are at least FOUR squads in a platoon - that gives the organization the depth it needs to sustain casualties, and still more tactical options for the platoon leader, beyond flipping a coin to decide when to go from "one up two back" to "two up one back"... (so you end up with four squad leaders instead of three, and 8 team leaders instead of 9, so (very) slightly more leadership depth, in theory...)

I don't see the advantage to specializing the squad and platoon weapons too much - others here have more experience than I, but I can't seem to recall one single plan that went sufficiently smoothly that some squad that was supposed to "just" be assault didn't end up being support, and vice-versa. So I will have to agree with Uboat on that point as well (and I strongly agree with the "if you start with two, you will have one when you need it, and if you only start with one, you will have none when you need it" adage).

I also wonder at least a little bit at the focus on ensuring that the squad can take casualties and still not be reduced to functioning as one big fire team - why wait for that inevitable moment? After all, the three-fire team Marine squad was born of Pacific island battles where casualties were sometimes well past the 50% mark that would reduce even the mighty three-team USMC squad down to the strength of a single large fire-team.

I guess that I will have to go on record as being in basic agreement with Wilf and SFC W.

[William F. Owen]

After all, the three-fire team Marine squad was born of Pacific island battles where casualties were sometimes well past the 50% mark that would reduce even the mighty three-team USMC squad down to the strength of a single large fire-team.

.

Having researched to origin of fire teams in some detail, I think I am safe in saying that the 3-Team Squad was copied from the Chinese, whom Evans Carlson observed them using in the 8th Route Army. I am still trying to confirm if the PLA still use the same structure. Apparently, and I am still trying to confirm this, some IDF platoons use 3 x 12 man squads, each of 3 fire teams.

[Sabre]

Ah, Wilf. Now that you mention it, I have read that before. Probably in something that you had written. Perhaps I could have called it the "three teams of four men each" structure - I seem to recall that the Chinese used cells of three men each. Correct me if I am wrong.

Getting data on IDF organization isn't as easy as it is for other armies... I would be very interested in what you find /have found.

[William F. Owen]

I seem to recall that the Chinese used cells of three men each. Correct me if I am wrong.

You probably read it in Doug Pikes work on the PAVN. - The three-person cell (to ba nguoi) is often referred to as the glue welded cell (to keo son) or the three participants cell (to tam gia).

[RJ]

Sabre posted - "After all, the three-fire team Marine squad was born of Pacific island battles where casualties were sometimes well past the 50% mark that would reduce even the mighty three-team USMC squad down to the strength of a single large fire-team."

The 13 man, 3 four man fire teams was developed in the Pacific as you stated. It has remained thru thick and thin the basic Marine squad configuration for more than 65 years. Longer than any other successful other infantry squad configeration since WWII.

In today's environment 50% casualties are not the norm, and that fact increases effectiveness of the 13 man squad.

There are a hundred reasons for the difference in squad size, and that will probably remain the case well into the future.

65 years is a strong indicator that the Marines might have found the answer and see no need to change their tactical
basic unit.