Abandon squad/section levels of organization?

[Norfolk]

I’ve been following this thread and the “Rifle squad composition“ and I just have to point out/ask a few things.

• What type of operation is the best “squad” being created for, or is it a “one size fits all.” Can one size fit all? Is there a better fit depending on service or section there of.
• I have been seeing a big range in size of platoons, squads, etc. and I am wondering if it is even reasonable to compare and 8, 13, 17 man squad. Are they even the in the same ball park?
• Should the concept be better trained fireteams 3-7 men (for the sake of argument 4) with the capability to be combined into squads of different sizes and capabilities based on the demands of the operation. What I am really asking is should there be “sub” parts to squads and platoons to enhance flexibility. Should a 16 man squad be able to break down into 2 x8 man squads, or take 2 x 16 man squads and break it into 2 x 12 man squads + and 8 man squad. My point and question is should there be more of a move away from doctrine that will never meet every requirement and towards a more flexible system?

Now, please tell me whats wrong with this.

Adam L, I think we're looking for a basic and generic rifle squad to build upon. I might be wrong, but it seems that a rough consensus is emerging in favour of larger squads. Tom, Ken, jcustis, and I like 13-14 men in a squad, and Rifleman likes it too, but would settle for the old 11-man if he could get it. And the reason for that preference seems to comes down to three major things.

The first is a preference for "1 Up, 2 or 3 Back" formations, especially in the attack, in order to maximize suppression of the enemy and minimize friendly losses. Of course you can get away with just two fire teams in a squad in a company or a platoon attack, but it's harder to do in an independent squad attack, since you don't have that third team to perform the assult while the other two suppress.

The second is the size of the rifle squad after sustained battle attrition. Cleary, an 8 or 9 man squad doesn't have to lose very many people before it becomes just a fire team, whereas a 13 or 14 man squad may still muster two small fire teams after suffering very heavy losses.

The third is that the 3-fire-team squad seems to naturally lend itself to adaptation, either by detaching fire teams out, or receiving attachments from elsewhere; the 3-team squad's triangular structure is shared more or less all the way up the hierarchy of echelons, where all sorts of task-organizations and cross-attachments occurr as a matter of course. And with this concept of the 3-team Squad in mind, it only seems natural that the Squad can likewise be task-organized when tactically appropriate. So, it can be expanded by adding fire teams or heavy weapons teams, or it can reduce or split up as needed (patrols, OPs/LPs, guard duties, etc.) But the 3-team structure always acts as the base, a basis for change. The 2-team squad seems a little more rigid in some ways, not least because if it detaches just one of its teams, it's reduced to a single team itself.

As for your "mix'n'match" proposal Adam, there's nothing particularly wrong with that. I don't see any particular difficulty in reorganizing a platoon or its squads as its commander sees fit to meet the tactical situation. But it seems that a large squad, of 3 teams, and a large platoon of 3 such squads, normally organized along the lines the USMC prefers, works quite well for most conventional infantry combat with little or no major modification.

And in those situations where major reorganization is required to meet less conventional (unconventional?) tactical situations, this organization provides a good, solid base upon which to make necessary changes. I think that a smaller squad, and a smaller platoon might be much more hard-pressed to make such changes out of hide, not least because it's starting out with less, and with only 2 rather than 3 teams per squad, it has less flexibility to begin with.