I don't see organization being subservient to training & leadership, but to Usage & Intent.
Again, it comes down to how you (whoever is creating said squad) visualizes its squad's usage & visualizes it in action.
And yes fluidity is the product of training, etc. But if you have a system that is designed for the Plt Cmd to exhibit tight control over the squads so "he" can keep the Plt's formation tight & concise during manuever then their make-up will reflect that, being tight & concise, streamline in its makeup. You will have fluidity, but fluidity relative to the concise design of how your Plt Manuevers.
--In a system like that, a 44 man Plt of 3x 13man squads w/ independently moving & directing SqLdrs would be far too large & unwieldly. In that kind of system the SL's independent movements & direction would seem redundant to that of the PC.
But when the USMC visualizes a Plt manuever they don't evision a concise tightly moving Plt based on the direction of a Central figure.
They envision using alot of Space & alot of Firepower coming fr/ multiple sides & angles over an area of dispersion that is too large for one man to -directly- control.
In that type of system you need independently operating SqdLdrs who can control & direct all of that FP, while controlling the spacing, & act in the sted of the Plt Cmdr, moving by the feel of the PC's overall intention & not his by direction.
Not saying this doesn't happen in concise more centralized Plt's but do to design its to a much different degree.
Bookmarks