Quote Originally Posted by Norfolk View Post
Structures, like plans, are a common basis for change, they are not fixed. But it is important to have a solid base from which to adapt to whatever circumstances may arise.
That has always been my understanding. There does seem to be a disconnect bewteen peace-time or standard platoon organization and that used during actual fighting. It seems at times the "solid base" is so theoretical as to be completely distinct from practice and therefore less valuable as a foundation.

Perhaps a modular approach would be more appropriate whether peace time or not. Effectively the rifle platoon would be composed of a number of functional teams (of various and appropriate sizes) and about 3 group leaders which would then be tasked organized by the platoon leader.

It seems to work that way in the real-world anyway but that's not how platoons are organized/train.

To your point about minimum effective team size that's driven by tactical function, so the size of a given functional team would be what ever is most appropriate for the function (an extreme example would be FO/RATELO team of two men vs base-of-fire team vs a team designed for CQB).

It's interesting that peace-time organization often revolves around neat and tidy balanced organizations in perfect multiples while fighting platoons very quickly dispense with such structures.

Why not formalize the informal so that platoons better reflect their real-world operating environment? Has that ever been attempted?

As an aside this problem goes back through history. In the 18th and early 19th centuries armies struggled with disconnects between administrative organization (and even ceremonial organization!) and functional battlefield organization. Such issues have been addressed at higher organizational levels over time (eg 18th century ad hoc brigades and such vs Napoleonic organization). As more functional capabilities are driven to lower tactical organizations we'll likely see a similar evolution at ever lower levels.