Size of the Platoon and Company

[Sabre]

Sabre, that was the kind of info I was looking for. However, since we are so rarely up to full strength, I am interested in a company design of just (and it's close) under 200, with the four platoons being approximately 45, with their medic and FO. I wonder what things can be done to bring larger organizations to have a closer feel of community. Obviously, training hard together and having competitive sports outside of training will help bond a military organization. But would it suffice for a company that is that robust? I had a tank platoon attached to a Marine infantry battalion in Ramadi, and the weapons company was right at the 200-man mark, and seemed to have good cohesion.
Tankersteve

Heh, when I design a rifle company, I end up with 180ish personnel.
USMC Rifle Co's clock in at what, just over 180?
Army Rifle Co's are (with FO's and medics) just under 150.

I don't know that 150 is a "hard" limit, but stray too far away, and at some point (perhaps past 200?) things will not go so smoothly.

Perhaps cohesiveness was a poor choice of words. I think that it is more about "knowing" everyone. In combat, that means details about them that could be very important. I catch sight of someone, and I should know their name, so I have a better chance of getting their attention, and I know where they fit in the organization (that is so-and-so, from 1st platoon - and what the heck is someone from 1st platoon doing there???), and hopefully, I know a little about them (perhaps some idea of how agressive they are, any special skills, etc). I can envision situations where these little details can make a big difference.
I'm not sure that there is too much that you can do to enhance things for a large organization - one with, say, 300 pax. How could you change the 3-to-6 span of control, for example? At battalion and above, you can have a staff to handle all of the "moving parts", but not really at company and below.

That's my understanding of it, anyway.

As a side-note, I find it interesting that the Army seems to be loath to add additional leadership at the company or below level (e.g., a company gunny), which in the current BCT designs would have "cost" 6 to 12 people in total, but will happily add 40 staffers to each BCT...

[Ken White]

Heh, when I design a rifle company, I end up with 180ish personnel...I don't know that 150 is a "hard" limit, but stray too far away, and at some point (perhaps past 200?) things will not go so smoothly.

However, lately I've been rethinking that as some comments here triggered my recall of being in a ROTAD Rifle Company in the 101st long time ago. Four Rifle Platoons, weapons Platoon and Co Hq for a net (IIRC) of 233. It was definitely unwieldy...

As a side-note, I find it interesting that the Army seems to be loath to add additional leadership at the company or below level (e.g., a company gunny), which in the current BCT designs would have "cost" 6 to 12 people in total, but will happily add 40 staffers to each BCT...

True. Really dumb -- but true...

[Rifleman]

I've got two thoughts about the light rifle company:

1) Don't put Designated Marksmen/sharpshooters in platoons and squads full time. Instead, have a DM squad in the company weapons platoon led by a senior staff sergeant for training and administration. Attach a couple of teams out to each platoon for operations as needed. The platoon leader can further attach them out to squads if needed.

2) Would it be so hard for the Army to have a WO program similar to the Marine Gunners? One WO weapons specialist per rifle company? Perhaps leading the weapons platoon? Seems to me he might also temporarily take over a rifle platoon if the situation demanded; rifle platoon leader casualties, etc.

Does the Army have enough SFCs and SSGs for an Infantry WO pipeline? Is this feasable?

[tankersteve]

Ken,

This usually is more of a garrison requirement, but frequently in OIF, a new mission would arise. Sometimes this was from the Good Idea Fairy, sometimes it supported improving the security in the populace. And it became difficult for the battalion HQ to track the things I was doing. For instance, in Tal Afar, some of my tasks in my company were:

Maintain limited visibility overwatch all night, every night along a 3.5 km stretch of the outer ring highway, the MSR for the brigade FOB. 2 tanks could do this, but we usually split the time into 2 4-5 hour periods, thus consuming a whole platoon.

Maintain random nighttime patrol presence in some of the neighborhoods - prevented the bigger booms by never giving the enemy a chance to emplace HMMWV-killing (or bigger) IEDs, such as 3ACR had previously in my sector. Now in hindsight, don't think this was the best way to do it, but my method then was through a pretty high optempo.

Each platoon partner and conduct a joint patrol with IA every single day. Later, this got turned into every U.S. patrol had IA with it.

Patrols during the day, focused on a neighborhood, looking at gathering atmospherics, looking for ways to interact with the neighborhood, etc. We were not experts in COIN but we kind of understood that talking to the locals was important. This was pre 3-24 (COIN manual) so we fumbled alot. We should have been gathering info like census and complete demographics.

Assist my Fire Support section with IP partnership, sometimes requiring a squad or platoon for patrols or training.

Maintain 24/7 COP defense - nighttime visits to local houses or random patrols, 4-man guard force.

Escort EOD in sector. I had the EOD team living with me (for good reason, unfortunately).

Maintain QRF ability at +10 minutes (usually quite less). If I had 2 platoons in sector, I could designate either to be the QRF. If only 1, then I had to have one from the COP.

Maintain liaison with IA battalion, assisting however I was able. Lots of visits, lots of chai, lots of planning, discussions, getting to know (and genuinely like) each other. Many combined operations, including everything done at a larger scale.

In addition, other things that came up were:

Some actionable intel, with night-time cordon and search.
Escort TPT or THT (I liked TPT, never found value with our THT, but that is a discussion for another thread).
Hospital liaison visits, IP station visits, Sheik visits, CMO projects (quite a bit - bn cdr wanted money spent!), Cave and ravine searches, joint training opportunities, new patrol base recon, admin movement support (meetings at bn hq, hauling generator back to the FOB, etc).

My BN CDR was pretty good about managing missions with his companies, but sometimes things came down that didn't get a lot of mental muscle from the staff. I was always taught that you didn't say you couldn't do something, you said that I can do the mission but here is what I won't be able to do or do at the same level. In Iraq, you have many directed missions, but so many that you pick up on your own, due to variances in each company AO, that the battalion doesn't always realize how busy you are.

Sorry for my long post, but I found it rather cathartic. There is the haunting that every commander lives with after his combat tour, about what he did and didn't do, and how he could have done things differently. Being at NTC, and reliving Iraq every month, can be a mixed bag for this.

Tankersteve

[Ken White]

limited knowledge expanded.

My BN CDR was pretty good about managing missions with his companies, but sometimes things came down that didn't get a lot of mental muscle from the staff. I was always taught that you didn't say you couldn't do something, you said that I can do the mission but here is what I won't be able to do or do at the same level. In Iraq, you have many directed missions, but so many that you pick up on your own, due to variances in each company AO, that the battalion doesn't always realize how busy you are.

Understand all the missions and can visualize most ( I hate Chai... ). Thanks. Only comment to that is that IMO your Bn doesn't need to know what you're doing in anything near total knowledge but should be enough aware that barring an urgent situation, they wouldn't task you to do things that degrade the total mission. I didn't say that well but I'm sure you know what I mean -- adding that I wasn't there so that's just a generic comment.

Sorry for my long post, but I found it rather cathartic. There is the haunting that every commander lives with after his combat tour, about what he did and didn't do, and how he could have done things differently.

I know. Some things 42, 58 years ago I still wonder about -- and know what I should've done in others. I appreciate the length and detail.

Being at NTC, and reliving Iraq every month, can be a mixed bag for this.

I can imagine but my spies tell me you guys are doing good stuff out there now. Units still try to do too much and I'm sure Joe gets as much jerk around due to that as ever but it's better than its ever been. You guys do good work.

Thanks again for the education.

[RJ]

The big Marine Infantry Squads (13 x 3) = 39
Platoon Ldr, Platoon Sgt, Radioman x 3 = 9 = 126
Weapons platoon to reach the 180 figure is 54
personnel for MG sections and assorted items that
fly thru the air and go boom and a Plt. Ldr, Plt. Sgt and Radioman.

Ability to absorb casualties, cover more ground in defensive postions and in the assualt. Firepower volumne 1/3 higher than the 9 man US Army Squad.

Six and a half decades of proven combat power and effectivness.

This ground has been covered in the Squad thread. Especially the first four pages of that tome.

The conversation petered out because the ground had been plowed to dust.


I'm still looking forward to the 12 man Marine Squad critique based on a tour in Afganistan.

It makes the platoons only 3 men lighter and the 180 reduced to 171 at the standard Company level.

A mere pittance in power loss, but perhaps an efficency under fire drop without 9 stand alone Squad Leaders fighting their 3 - 4 man Fire Teams.

[tankersteve]

Unfortunately, I didn't see the specific details on the company size before, so I do appreciate that. And you did answer the question on the size of the company - big companies are doable. Since the Marine squad (as you pointed out unchanged in 6 1/2 decades) may be changed, this discussion is definitely not over. Sounds like even the USMC isn't completely satisfied or sees room for improvement?

However, while I understand that other armies have the squad leader also leading one of the fire teams (all of them perhaps smaller squads, i.e., 8 men), I see the Marine squad as much more optimal, especially with a focus on more decentralized operations. As the SL starts performing duties typically identified with a platoon commander (in a COIN environment), he will have less time to directly deal with the 3 men in his fireteam. Plus, with this big a squad, it definitely seems advantageous to have the SL free to look at a larger picture. I am not sure where the benefit is, other than reducing 27 junior Marines from each battalion structure.

This seems to be nickel and diming the manpower - be careful where this leads, as the US Army went this way several decades ago, and look at where we are now!

Question: Where are the FO/ANGLICO the company uses, or is the platoon commander/platoon sergeant and squad leaders expected to do all their own call for fires? Are they in the weapons platoon or attached from a supporting artillery unit, as the Army does? Corpsmen the same way or within the battalion? When scheming my company structure, without attachments such as a commo guy for the HQ and 5 medics and the forward observer element, the total size is 184, right in line with what the Marines are at now.

Thanks.

And Ken, not trying to insult your intelligence or experience , just wanted to break out the whole gamut of duties/missions that tend to get lost in the sauce by higher HQs.

Tankersteve