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
All true
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...Originally Posted by Rifleman
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
Thank you for the history.
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.
ODB
Exchange with an Iraqi soldier during FID:
Why did you not clear your corner?
Because we are on a base and it is secure.
Nah, the Captain was always there, they added the Intel Sgt
and a Lieutenant to provide someone to listen to the Captain.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
Warrants were a later-- and good -- idea...
So now that ODAs have WOs - who were once probably SFCs - who listens to the Captain?
"Pick up a rifle and you change instantly from a subject to a citizen." - Jeff Cooper
Crickets...
.............
X-rays
This is the sole reason for the 18X program. They had to find someone who would listen to the CaptainSo now that ODAs have WOs - who were once probably SFCs - who listens to the Captain?
ODB
Exchange with an Iraqi soldier during FID:
Why did you not clear your corner?
Because we are on a base and it is secure.
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.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
- so it might have some pointers for Unit command, but as you point out, it's nothing to do with Squad dynamics
Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"
- The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
- If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition
True, however that didn't last very long.
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.
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.
True. But...
I rest my case...
Also true -- and a generally not well considered synergy by the force structure folks...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.
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
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.
DefenseTech.
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.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.
Looks like only the big players get to play.......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.
They also seem to like the 40mm sixshooter. Not necessarily at squad level though.
Last edited by Kiwigrunt; 02-03-2009 at 12:12 AM.
Nothing that results in human progress is achieved with unanimous consent. (Christopher Columbus)
All great truth passes through three stages: first it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
(Arthur Schopenhauer)
ONWARD
Kiwi - It looks like the Marines have adjusted their thoughts on the multi-grenade 40MM for squad level use.
The Marine Corps Times has a picture that shows the QRF enjoying the power of their new toy. Here is the caption!
CPL. ERIC C. SCHWARTZ / MARINE CORPS CAMP AL QA'IM, Iraq- Marines with Quick Reaction Force, Headquarters and Support Company, Task Force 1st Battalion, 4th Marines, attached to Regimental Combat Team 2, complete the sustained machine gun training and the Multiple Grenade Launcher 32, familiarization, fire and movement exercise at Camp Al Qa'im, Iraq. The training teaches Marines how to properly engage multiple targets performing suppressive fires and implementing a six-round semi-automatic grenade launcher instead of the single-shot M203 traditionally used by Marines in combat.
Use of multishot grenade launchers to grow
By Dan Lamothe - Staff writer
Posted : Monday Feb 2, 2009 17:20:01 EST
MARINE CORPS BASE QUANTICO, Va. Prompted by its success in defending against convoy attacks and ambushes, the Corps will vastly expand the availability of a 40mm, six-shot rotational grenade launcher first fielded in Iraq on an experimental basis in 2006.
The article is new and the specs and uses are listed in it.
The picture is the first time I've seen the weapon. Its non lethal applications make it a multi-use weapon and the beefed up version has added significant range tothe weapons bag of tricks.
Enjoy the read!
An interesting historical video clip that fits well with this thread: http://www.realmilitaryflix.com/public/250.cfm
"Pick up a rifle and you change instantly from a subject to a citizen." - Jeff Cooper
It is interesting because it's not actually how the German squad worked. They are putting allied thinking on to the Germans.
Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"
- The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
- If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition
That doesn't surprise me.
"Pick up a rifle and you change instantly from a subject to a citizen." - Jeff Cooper
William F. & RJ
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.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks