Interesting. I used to love to debate the finer points of Platoon and Company TO&Es, wondering if adding/subtracting one or two soldiers here or there would make a difference. Then I actually commanded a platoon and found that:
1. Our doctrine is extremely disjointed - I can look in 3 different manuals (Bn/Coy/Pl) and find 3 different line diagrams for what a Platoon and/or Company should look like;
2. You never get a TO&E Platoon in garrison - vacant spots, courses, or other events mean your platoon is always different than the prescribed version;
3. You never get a TO&E Platoon in the field - casualties, leave (Canada pulls guys out of theater for a few weeks of leave on each tour), atts/dets, vehicles going down - you name it; it turns your 40-man organization into a 28-man or a 44-man in a flash. You work with what you got, not with what sounded good over beers in the Mess; and
4. Mission will always dictate - Getting tied to TO&E could take away from this. "Well, I have 3 Sections (are term for "Squads"), so I have 3 Tasks for this Mission". The mission may best be handled with 5 elements (busting up sections) or 2 (putting 2 together).
....This has led me to the belief that a TO&E's main purpose is twofold - administration and affiliation. Not tactics. The administrative part fills the legal requirements of "who is responsible for this guy" and "who manages his career, etc, etc".
The affiliation function is more interesting. I've found that each level fills a certain sociological function. A Platoon is "the family" - everyone knows everyone else. The Platoon Commander knows all his soldiers (or at least he should) and their specifics. All the troops know eachother and what is going on. The Company is "the clan" - companies have real personalities - platoons have personalities too, but these are often really shaped by the Company; you have a general idea who everyone is and recognize them. Experience is usually defined at the company level (Remember when we were in A Coy and we did that raid?). Battalions are "the neighbourhood" - you work in the same building but, for the large part, you don't know everyone. However, it is your neighbourhood, it is better than anyone elses, and it defines "where you were in the Big Army" at any point in time. Anything else is "Big Army" and really doesn't have a factor on day to day soldiering (aside from the more esoteric things like Regimental/Division identity).
I guess this is where the "So What?" comes into play. The So What? is that a TO&E is merely a start point - how you manage soldiers not actually fighting and what you (try) to launch to the fight with. Once you launch, princples, more than line diagrams, become the important thing.
1. Span of Control - Platoons are probably the size they are (and have been since their inception at the beginning of the 20th century) for a reason. I'm not talking about 8 or 9 or 12 man squads. I'm talking about roughly 40 dudes against 60 dudes/80 dudes/100 dudes. As a Platoon Commander, I've commanded, with atts, 7 other organizations that more than tripled the size of my Platoon. I never really "commanded" these guys (although there was a legal command relationship involved), but rather gave them my intent and some guidance (after questioning them on what they brought) and sent them on their way. I did this because it was not physically possible to command that many guys. I can command 3-5 NCOs who can command 3-5 dudes (or a Section with their 2IC). I can, through command, exhibit a degree of control over the other odds and sods that came out, but I really focussed my "command" on those 3-5 dudes. Otherwise, span of control would break down. So, in designing a TO&E for a Platoon, keeping it from 35-45 personnel is prudent.
2. Flexibility - Different missions require different tools for the job. In our Rifle Platoons, the commanders have (or at least should) 2 GPMGs, a 84mm Recoiless Rifle, a 60mm mortar and, these days, a DM Rifle. Depending on the mission, I can pick which 1 or 2 systems I need. I've seen this described as the "tool-box" or the "golf-bag" approach and it is really good. Give me a host of tools and I'll pick which one best suites the specific tactical problem. TO&Es should apply this approach to skillsets as well. I'm lucky enough to have a wide variety of skillsets in my NCOs. One guy is Urban Ops Instructor and knows all about angles, stacking, searching and breaching. Another guy is Gunnery Instructor which means he is a SME in vehicle gunnery. Another guy was Advanced Recce/Mountain Ops which meant he was the "Light Fighter". Having this variety of skillsets enabled the platoon to have the "toolbox" for different tactical problems. So, in designing a Rifle Platoon TO&E, the primary organizing principle after Span of Control should be Effects and the equipment and personnel required to employ those effect. A TO&E should prescribe the weapons and skillsets that are allocated to the Platoon "Golf Bag" so as to ensure effectiveness in any tactical scenario.
3. Fire and Movement - As long as your organization can do this and do it well, it will fight and it will win. It doesn't matter if an Section has 8 or 9 or 12 men. If it can do this, it should be good to go. If all that other stuff above comes into play and your using 7-man sections (as Canadian Dismounted sections are, ideally) you still see success. Heck, I've heard of 4 guys with a LAV III shooting them in being an effective tactical grouping. Therefore, in designing a rifle platoon TO&E, having enough leadership to be able to effect this (2-3 guys per section) is vital - it doesn't matter if they have 5 bayonets or 11.
4. Rule of Fours - For some reason I've found that conducting a mission usually forces you to adapt a "Rule of Four" even if your organization is built around a "Rule of Three" or a "Rule of Five". It could be "Assault, Support, Depth, Reserve" or "Assault, Firebase, Specialist, Security" or "Forward Security, Main Body, Close Security, and Rear Security". None of these elements are permanent nor are they the same size. This "rule" isn't a hard and fast rule, and there are always exceptions and variations, but I found that four offered the most flexibility in return for effort. So, in designing a TO&E, encouraging a "Rule of Four" for a Platoon is good - this means four Sections that can be grown/shrunk as the situation dictates.
Therefore the ideal Platoon is 35-45 guys, has about 8-12 NCOs with a "golf bag" of weapons and skillsets and can apply a "Rule of Four". Anything beyond that doesn't really affect the effectiveness of such an organization.
I believe these principles apply across the spectrum of conflict (ie: there is no such thing as a "COIN Platoon") and at the Company Level as well (just up the numbers).
Well, I'm rambling. There it is for y'all to take apart.
Cheers,
Infanteer
Bookmarks