Size of the Platoon and Company

[Sabre]

My question: What is the optimal size of a platoon? And then, how large the company? Is there a known or preferred (I am sure) maximum? Where do effectiveness and span of control intersect and where do they diverge?

I am primarily focused on the infantry platoon and company. However, comments on other forces would certainly be of interest.

Something that has always interested me...

To answer (part of) the original question, there appears to be a some research evidence that indicates something like 150 people should be the maximum size of a "community", as a rifle company is. Studies were done on various groups by different researchers, and often came to this conclusion, whether it was military company-echelon units, religious communities, or business units within a commercial company. There may be a sort of limit in the way that human brains are "wired" in the average person. Beyond that limit, not everyone "knows" everyone else, and knows where they fit in the organization (i.e., at any given moment you could glance at someone and think "that is so-and-so, from 1st platoon). From personal experience, in a unit that was brought up to full strength at 144, I'd say that did seem to be pushing closer to the limit (this was before I read any of the studies). I also recall support and HQ companies that were massive, up to 300+ personnel, and talking to folks in those companies, the units simply didn't have the same cohesiveness.

Given that units are often notoriously under- strength, and need to be able to absorb casualties, I can't see a reason to make it much less than 150, either. In fact, I'd pack a few more in, just in case. I'd rather have too many, than have a company that melts away too quickly. I would definitely divide the company into at least four platoons (with a smaller fifth "weapons" platoon or section), just so the company commander can have more tactical options beyond "one up, two back" and "two up, one back". From what I have seen, a good company commander can handle five or six platoons just fine, and a bad one can hose things up, even if he only has two platoons to worry about.

Dividing 150, or 160, or more, personnel into four rifle platoons (+ HQ and weapons) means each platoon will have to have maybe... 30 to 36 personnel. As an aside, I don't see a convincing reason that any other company-level unit design can't stay strictly within the 150 limit. Rifle companies are special, in that they are expected (and historically do) take more casualties than other unit types.

[Ken White]

but I'd rather be ten people short than one man overstrength. Overstrength consumes resources and effort; understrength works harder and poses fewer personnel management problems while easing the control problem.

A rifle squad exists to put at least a man or two left functional on a piece of ground, the difference between six and nine men will be one guy instead of two; got to an 11 man squad and you get maybe three. Got to any other mission and anywhere from five to nine is adequate for most things...

For mounted units, overstrength means crowded vehicles among other things...

[tankersteve]

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.

I understand the desire to have more platoons, but that requires more officers and more NCOs and ends up with less Soldiers. There is a fine line out there somewhere between what the average new LT can control and what will overwhelm him. However, with fewer leaders, I see the ability to be more selective in our leaders.

Ken, you have to remember, there is always room for 'one more' in a Bradley, especially when going back to base. (I have personally been in the back with 10 not-so-small infantrymen, while towing a disabled Bradley) Being fat on personnel, to me, is never an issue, and I definitely disagree with you on that point. Being short of troops requires me to go to the boss, lay out my whole troop-to-task, and explain that while I CAN do his latest mission, this is what will suffer or not get done.

Note: as a tanker, I have had to deal with the 63-man company, plus attachments and maintenance and been tasked like an infantry company. I was substantially plussed up in Iraq, and didn't have major difficulties accomplishing my missions. However, it made me very partial to more robust organizations. The problem with the tank company is the size of the platoons, though. While they are effective on a tank, they don't offer much for the PL to maneuver with and do not work well off of the tank.

Tankersteve

[Ken White]

Ken, you have to remember, there is always room for 'one more' in a Bradley, especially when going back to base. (I have personally been in the back with 10 not-so-small infantrymen, while towing a disabled Bradley).

Believe me, I've seen that. Though primarily a light inf type by strong preference, I've been Cav and Mech -- but we're talking M75 and M113 here...

Though this probably isn't the place to get into 'can you top this one?' That's better done over a drink...

Being fat on personnel, to me, is never an issue, and I definitely disagree with you on that point. Being short of troops requires me to go to the boss, lay out my whole troop-to-task, and explain that while I CAN do his latest mission, this is what will suffer or not get done.

As I said we can disagree. However, I do have a question; serious and no disrespect of anyone or anything intended. Why would you have to go to your Boss and do that? Why have you been given a mission as if someone above is not cognizant of your PFD strength?

Note: as a tanker, I have had to deal with the 63-man company, plus attachments and maintenance and been tasked like an infantry company. I was substantially plussed up in Iraq, and didn't have major difficulties accomplishing my missions. However, it made me very partial to more robust organizations. The problem with the tank company is the size of the platoons, though. While they are effective on a tank, they don't offer much for the PL to maneuver with and do not work well off of the tank.

Tanks -- been there done that, too -- obviously are different on the matter of strength; a tank pretty well has to be full. I've always contended that Tank Cos ought to have the Security section in Co Hq -- four full crews -- as potential replacements; they'll be necessary in MIC or hotter. Infantry, OTOH...