Rifle squad composition

[Ken White]

I've got a question.
This "patrol" thing as mentioned all the time by U.S. and Commonwealth people doesn't fit into well to what Germany armies did. Patrols of such sizes (squad to platoon) were usually mounted or patrolling along the lines the gaps between Eastern Front strongpoints (usually along otherwise empty trenches or channels).

Commonwealth and US patrols are used for for that. Commonly called Contact Patrols (sometimes by some Communications Patrols). No sense sending a Platoon or even a Squad if a Team sized patrol is adequate, the size is very much situation dependent...

...afaik stealth is not desired in Kunduz anyway because the patrols shall and do deter the Taleban from using 107mm rockets.

That too. "Presence" patrols. A squad sized patrol is ideal for that, big enough to deter the casual shooter (if said Squad acts like it knows what it's doing) and small enough to be reasonably agile while allowing more time and space coverage than a Platoon sized patrol...

The most common battlefield scouting mission in German armies was a stealth-oriented 2-3 men team that infiltrates a short distance (2 km for example) and reports back (or, if it just scouts without infiltration it was often a lieutenant with one or two soldiers).

A whole lot of that, the bulk of patrols in fact (outside COIN / LIC where the presence patrol does both show the flag and recon work). Reconnaissance (US 'Recon,' Commonwealth 'Recce') patrols -- except it's generally 4 or 5 people and only very rarely is an Officer sent. Four is pretty common for the simple reasons that's the size of a US fire Team (a half squad) and allows two buddy pairs.

Platoon-sized dismounted ops were either "Stoßtrupp" actions; strictly offensive, to take out a single position or to take prisoners or they were movement to contact.

Generically called Combat Patrols in the US. The same except that the minimum number required for the mission is usually sent to reduce exposure; no sense sending a Platoon of 40 plus if ten or twelve people are adequate for the mission.

I'm a bit confused about this focus on patrolling in U.S. and UK. Maybe it's a consequence of the many LIC in the past two generations?

Not really, most of our 'doctrine' was developed in WW I, refined in WW II (both Theaters of Operations) and has really received only minor tweaks since then; aggressive and extensive patrolling was found to avid surprises and to develop a lot of intel. That proved true also in Korea, in Viet Nam and today. It is still with us since, generally, it works. It could be improved in some instances but Armies change slowly...

About the M240; it may suffice, but it's much heavier than necessary. Even the Russian PKM and its decendant Pecheneg is better in some regards. I would recommend the SS-77 from South Africa for the U.S.Army: 2+ kg saved without a loss of capability and the tactical employment would be the same (unlike with the MG3 which is different because of its high ROF, but also lighter than M240).

All true but we have a bad problem with the "it wasn't invented here syndrome." I recall a Bundeswehr LTC pointing out that the US would buy the Karcher Decon device, engineer it for seven years until it no longer worked and then adopt it. He was about right...