The Roles and Weapons with the Squad

[Faceman]

Hi guys, new member here so first of all just thought I'd say Hi

Secondly, I just have a question regarding the makeup of roles and weapons in Infantry squads (specifically, the Army). From what I understand squads are made up of 2 or 3 "fireteams", of which each fireteam consists of:

• A Team Leader with an M16 or M4 rifle.
• A Grenadier with an M16 or M4 rifle with an M203 grenade launcher.
• An Automatic Rifleman with an M249 SAW.
• A Rifleman with an M16 or M4 rifle.

Assuming that's correct, I'm wondering where the other weapons and roles come in to the squad. For example:

• M240 machinegun
• M136 AT4
• M24 sniper rifle
• M16 SDM-R

I thought maybe in addition to the fireteams, the squad might have a "weapons team" or "specialist team" or something along those lines - basically a team that carries heavier and more specialised weapons (like the M240, M136 and SDM-R) to suppress and destroy hard targets.

Also, where do roles such as Snipers (or Advanced Marksmen), Squad Designated Marksmen and Medics come into the squad? Are they separate from the fireteams or do members of the fireteam also take on these roles in addition to their original assigned roles; in effect performing dual responsibilities?

Cheers guys.

[Ken White]

Welcome.

Go here (LINK), hit the 'Reply' button and tell us a little about yourself.

[tankersteve]

Faceman,

The squad is the smallest maneuver element. It is a pretty pure system in the U.S. Army, although a tad small, especially once you take casualties.

The medic is in the platoon, not the squad. However, 1 man in each fireteam usually is a Combat LiveSaver (CLS) and has additional training and an advanced aid bag. Nowadays, the intent is everyone is CLS qualified, but only 2 kits per squad.

No snipers at this level - that is specialized training that is usually at the company or battalion level. SDMs are an interesting point - many are in the squad, doing double duty as a rifleman.

M240s are at the platoon level as well - they are attached where needed. However, in the mech platoon, squads have the option of bringing an M240 in lieu of an M249. They don't have separate MG crews.

Is this an ideal organization? Probably not. The four-man fire team is nice in 2 buddy pairs, but in a complex urban environment, 2 men is a little light to hold a position/pull security. So now we put the whole fire team there, which isn't a great use of manpower.

I would like to see the squad become 11 men, with 3x 3-man fire teams - no extra rifleman - and a squad leader with a SDM to walk with him. The SDM would carry either an M16A4 or an M14 with an alloy stock/rail system (mission dependent). Three maneuver elements are key in the assault. 2 can suppress, with the SDM, and the 3d team, with the squad leader assaults.

Or, attach a MG team and 1 fire team (plus SDM) to suppress, with 2 fire teams (and SL) on the assault.

Anyway, hope this helps.

Tankersteve

[reed11b]

I would like to see the squad become 11 men, with 3x 3-man fire teams - no extra rifleman - and a squad leader with a SDM to walk with him. The SDM would carry either an M16A4 or an M14 with an alloy stock/rail system (mission dependent). Three maneuver elements are key in the assault. 2 can suppress, with the SDM, and the 3d team, with the squad leader assaults.

Or, attach a MG team and 1 fire team (plus SDM) to suppress, with 2 fire teams (and SL) on the assault.

Anyway, hope this helps.

Tankersteve

Does this arraingment have 3 x LMG's per squad as well Steve?
Reed

[Rifleman]

tankersteve,

If we're going to wish, we might as well wish big because it doesn't cost a thing. As long as we're wishing, let's just wish for the 13 man USMC squad with it's three four-man fire teams.

The 2nd Marine Raider Battalion tried a squad with three three-man fire teams in the early days of WWII. Later the three fire team squad was adopted by the entire USMC but they found it necessary to add a man to each fire team for sustainability. So, I believe the basics of the squad organization that you propose have already been tried and found to be lacking in sustained combat.

But let's be realistic: the Army light infantry isn't going to get a bigger squad. So, it seems to me the question shoud be how to best organize and use the nine men (on paper) that the squad has. This has been pretty well hashed out in other threads.

Maybe it's because of Army personel issues, or maybe it's because of Army vehicle size considerations, but I think that brigades will get a third battalion before squads get more men.

[William F. Owen]

tankersteve,

If we're going to wish, we might as well wish big because it doesn't cost a thing. As long as we're wishing, let's just wish for the 13 man USMC squad with it's three four-man fire teams.

Why not wish for two 15 man squads of 3 x 5 man fireteams? They could re-organised (as per METT_C) as 3 x 10 man squads or 5 x 6 man patrols. Just my same old, same old...

[RJ]

Gentlemen,

Here is a item I just picked out of the Marine Corps Times.
The Corps is looking at a adopting a new Infantry Automatic Rifle in the 12.5 pound range.

FYI - Corps testing lighter alternatives to belt-fed M249
By Matthew Cox - Staff writer
Posted : Saturday Sep 13, 2008 7:31:52 EDT

Marine infantry units soon may replace their light machine guns with new automatic rifles designed to help gunners move faster on assaults.

Weapons officials at Marine Corps Systems Command in Quantico, Va., are testing magazine-fed weapons from at least six gun makers in a search for a lighter alternative to the M249 Squad Automatic Weapon, which weighs close to 17 pounds unloaded.

At the squad level, “the biggest hindrance to being able to effectively fire and maneuver is the weight of the SAW,” said Patrick Cantwell, capability integration officer for the Infantry Automatic Rifle program at SysCom.

The winning IAR design — which the Corps wants to weigh no more than 12.5 pounds — could begin replacing the SAW in infantry squads as early as next year.

“We see this being the automatic rifleman’s primary weapon,” Cantwell said. “We obviously want it as soon as possible, but we are looking at sometime in 2009.”

The M249 has been in service with the Corps since the mid-1980s. The standard model weighs about 22 pounds when loaded with a 200-round belt of 5.56mm ammunition.

Despite its weight, the weapon spits out up to 750 rounds per minute, providing small units with a tremendous rate of sustained automatic fire.

Why the Army says no thanks
That’s why the Army, which also uses the M249, has ruled out a soldier version of the Marine IAR.

“We are not considering adopting an auto rifle for the infantry squad,” said Col. Robert Radcliffe, director of the Infantry Center’s Directorate of Combat Developments at Fort Benning, Ga.

Currently, Marine and Army infantry squads equip their fire teams with one M249 each. The difference, Radcliffe said, is that Marine squads have three fire teams, and Army squads have two fire teams.

“It’s really all about firepower. The Marine Corps has a 13-man squad; we have a nine-man squad — that’s a four-man difference.”

I feel strongly that the Marine 13 Man Squad is still the best infanty assualt unit. Three automatic weapons provide flexibility and supression for the squad are always better than the two in the 9 man squads. And like the man said - That's a four man difference.

[bikewrench8541]

I'm a little worried about this. None of the programs in the past have worked out that well.
M-16A1(in an AR role), LSW, the Norwegian Marines AR (correct?) et al.
In fact the M249 is one of the more popular and effective weapons in a rifle squad. Some are very worn but...

[RJ]

The Marine Corps is only looking at an inital order of 4,000 IAR's. And half of those will be retained for testing and the other 2,000 will be tested in the field.

Hey, most Marines thought the M-1 Grand was a pos in the early 1940's. After they aquired a few from Army units on Guadacanal, they switched to the M-1 and got rid of the 03A1 bolt action Springfield as fast as they could.

The upgrade to the M-14 was easy in the early 1960's.
I saw my first M-14 and M-60 MG when the 503rd Airborne Regt. arrived on Okinawa in late 1959. The Paratroopers let us play with their new toys at a Fam-Fire exersize in the Northern Training Area on the Rock.

The Marine Divisions started getting M-14's in 1961. Then switched out to the M-16 after the Vietnam War Started.

They didn't like that shift at all.

I think you have to keep exploring the possibilities. If they can develop a solid IAR that is 6 pounds lighter, that will transfer into the ability of increase the individual AR gunner to carry more ammo, water, etc.

[Rifleman]

Three things from infantry combat in WWII that I think are notable:

1) The big USMC squad with it's internal fire team structure developed around three automatic rifles, not light machine guns. I believe there were three squads to a platoon.

2) The smaller German squad with no internal fire team structure developed around a single light machine gun. I believe there were four squads to a platoon.

3) Both squads were successful in heavy combat. I think it would be hard to make a good argument that one squad proved more successful than another.

[William F. Owen]

As I have said before, the M249 is based on a misreading of light weapons doctrine.

The barrel length of the M249 is 20 or 14 inches. Same as the M16 or M4 so it has the same muzzle velocity.

It’s cyclic rate is practically the same as the M4/M16, so it has no better terminal effect than an M16/M4 Carbine. It appears to be no more accurate, bar the bipod. – and it weighs more than double and eats rounds at an embarrassing rate.

Why is it even there?

This is sharp contrast to almost all other support weapons doctrine, where the “Squad LMG” has had a provably better performance than all the other squad weapons. UK testing seems to indicate that the M-249/LMG has a worse performance than all the other section weapons. It has added carried weight to the section for no useful increase in performance.

The other big problem is the very odd idea that all “Fireteams” need to have the same weapons mix. Again, I suggest this is doctrinally flawed.

IMO, the USMC search for some type of solution is long overdue, and everyone else should take note.

[1258dave]

So what sized SQD (and PLT?) did you come up with? How was it armed?

Also:

How long does it take to train a SQD?
What would the "personnel cycle"/rotation policy be like?
And most importantly - how would you build the NCO leadership cadre?

We all do the #s of widgets pretty well, but the purpose of the SQD is to enable decentralized NCO leaders to conduct fire and mnvr. So "how do you build a NCO" should be part of the equation.

Thanks.

[RJ]

1258 Dave - How long to train a Squad?

Well, if the troops were trained in Boot camp and then the Marine version of AIT (Advanced Infantry Training) in my day ITR (Infantry Training Regt.) and then fed into a regular Marine Infantry Line Battalion as parts of a Squad - I'd guesstimate they would be functioning as a well oiled Marine infantry squad in 4 to 6 months, after being introduced tothe Infantry Battalion.

The Squad leaders and most fire team leaders would have at least one to two cycles of leadership exposure before the "new guys" were intergrated into the system.

Leadership exposure being trained up to the level of fireteam leader or Squad leader in previous cycles.

It has been working since the eary 1940's for the US Marines.

There have been very few instances in the history of the Marine Corps that a speeded up "shake and bake" system was used to create leadership for Marine Rifle Squads.

What type of time line has the history of the US Army 9 man Squad system been exposed to. Has there been a conserted effort to train young privates and PFC's to the responsibilities of Fire Team Leader?

Very few, Marine Squad Leaders become SL's unless they have passed thru the crucible of running a Fire Team under a Squad Leader who had paid his dues in that slot for a sufficient amount of time to be evaluated by his Squad Leader and his Platoon Sgt. They inturn pass on their opinions to the Platoon Cmdr and then up the line to the Co. Commander.

Time in grade does not a Squad Leader make. They are evaluated at many levels before being given the responsibility of running a squad. It is not a matter of being there, but it is a matter of measuring up. Marine Rifle Squads are made by proven building blocks.

I hope that helps understand the system the Marine Big Squad evolves from.

[Blah]

In my opinion, the adequacy or inadequacy of the 5.56's lethality could be argued all day, but in the absence of any satisfactory scientific studies on the matter, the only things that can be provided are anecdotes.

That said, there are more concrete and indisputable attributes of both 5.56 and 7.62.
To isolate 2: The 7.62 provides superior penetration of light cover, potentially allowing troops to end the engagement faster. The 5.56 allows a greater amount of ammunition to be carried, letting them operate longer without resupply.

All very obvious stuff. My question is... If we were to go back in time to 2003 and make 7.62 the service cartridge, would we have been hearing about troops running out of ammo in 2 minutes instead of insurgents taking 30 rounds and not falling? (Hyperbole was intentional)

I often hear something along the lines of, "You cannot carry enough 7.62 in a modern war!" I've never heard an actual quantitative figure stated. How much ammo do you "need" exactly? I realize there is no "average" firefight, which makes the answer to that question more elusive. However, the less that number is, the less the difference in weight between those 2 cartridges. Something to keep in mind.

[Pete]

Way back when, what was the main reason for equipping Infantry with small arms?

[Ken White]

In my opinion, the adequacy or inadequacy of the 5.56's lethality could be argued all day, but in the absence of any satisfactory scientific studies on the matter, the only things that can be provided are anecdotes.

It is not an issue that can be decided by "scientific studies." There are too many variables in human physiology and psychology (both shooter and target, two almost infinite variables right there...), in range, in atmospheric conditions, weapons quality and cleanliness, time of day, vision aids, shooter's ability, cartridge consistency and other factors to really do that. Nor is there any need.

That said, there are more concrete and indisputable attributes of both 5.56 and 7.62.
To isolate 2: The 7.62 provides superior penetration of light cover, potentially allowing troops to end the engagement faster. The 5.56 allows a greater amount of ammunition to be carried, letting them operate longer without resupply.

Those are a few for both, there are more, not least range. Add recoil and ease of training...

All very obvious stuff. My question is... If we were to go back in time to 2003 and make 7.62 the service cartridge, would we have been hearing about troops running out of ammo in 2 minutes instead of insurgents taking 30 rounds and not falling? (Hyperbole was intentional)

I often hear something along the lines of, "You cannot carry enough 7.62 in a modern war!" I've never heard an actual quantitative figure stated. How much ammo do you "need" exactly? I realize there is no "average" firefight, which makes the answer to that question more elusive. However, the less that number is, the less the difference in weight between those 2 cartridges. Something to keep in mind.

Not really. State of training of troops and / or their net combat experience (not time in a 'combat zone' but actual fire fight experience) make a tremendous difference in the amount of ammo carried and used. Basically, the newbies fire on full auto or just fire a lot; the old guys do not. New people will want to carry a LOT of ammo, ten or more magazines plus a few cartons in the pack.

Consider the fact the the basic load for a rifleman in Korea was a full cartirdge belt plus two bandoleers. 10x8 + 2x6x8 = 176 rounds occasionally plus 8 in the M1 for a total of 184. Initially many new guys wanted a couple of more 6 clip bandoleers -- so the old guys who didn't want to carry unnecessary weight would hand over theirs. Old hands went out with 88 rounds and rarely fired all of it while the new guys had 2-300 or more and tended to fire it all in a day...

Viet Nam saw the same thing except with 20 round magazines. Seven was the issue norm, thus 140 rounds -- but the new guys scrounged extra mags and carried cartons, sometimes as much 10 mags plus ten or twelve cartons -- 400 or more rounds. Not likely many ever fired anywhere near that. Most older hands carried their seven mags and found that was more than enough.

Same thing is happening today. I saw an article last week on the topic on present day experience in Afghanistan. Can't find it right now but I'll keep looking and if I find, I'll post a link on this thread.

Bottom line on amount of Ammo is that it's absolutely METT-TC related. One may need more or less than the planned basic load depending on the mission -- but the fact is that a statement like this ""You cannot carry enough 7.62 in a modern war!"" is totally specious IMO.

[RJ]

Ken,

Remember "Every Marine is a rifleman first"!

The Marines still require all manner of its troops to qualify annually with a rifle. That includes pilots, air crew and the scopedopes from the Marine Air Control Squadrons. And I believe the requirement includes all Women Marines as well.

Point of fact, after the Fall of Baghdad, the 11th Marie Regt. (Artillery) began rotating their big gun units back to California. Volunteers were called for from the ranks of the cannoncockers to flesh out the Infanty units that had taken casulties. Many of the 11th Marines stayed in Iraq for another three months while 0311 replacements were shipped in to replace them. The volunteers included cooks and bakers from the Artillery Regt who performed as infantrymen.

Picking the fly ash out of the pepper and arguing about the best choice is all well and good. It seems to me the M-16 and its variants wa excellent in Iraq for the most part. More city town activity and not a lot of long range rifle requirements.

Afgahanistan is a wider and more spread out Area of Operations. Seems a 7.62 or 6.5 lupara round is needed to reach out to 800 or 1,000 yards.

There are a lot of Britsh .303 Enfields in Afganistan and the range of that
old man killer is 1,000 yards.

It is very inconvient to have a 20 round magazine that cannot kill the guy who is killing your friends because the shooter is 300 yards beyond their capacity to kill him.

Some where last year in this thread, some Marine units were experimenting with a 12 man squad configeration and possibly using some of the automatic rifles the Marines are concidering to replace the SAW. I believe there are 4 different AR's in the study.

Has any feed back on those activities floated to the top yet?

[Granite_State]

Some where last year in this thread, some Marine units were experimenting with a 12 man squad configeration and possibly using some of the automatic rifles the Marines are concidering to replace the SAW. I believe there are 4 different AR's in the study.

We bought the HK model, it is now being fielded by five Marine Corps battalions as the M27 Infantry Automatic Rifle (mine's one of the five). Spent most of today sitting through classes on it, will be on a range with it (more watching than shooting) tomorrow afternoon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M27_Inf...utomatic_Rifle

[JMA]

Picking the fly ash out of the pepper and arguing about the best choice is all well and good. It seems to me the M-16 and its variants wa excellent in Iraq for the most part. More city town activity and not a lot of long range rifle requirements.

and the 5.56 could adequately penetrate the brick and concrete cover found in such urban environments?

There are a lot of Britsh .303 Enfields in Afganistan and the range of that old man killer is 1,000 yards.

But luckily, not too many shooters who can achieve that are to be found there.

Have you heard of any ISAF troops been taken out by single aimed shots from 400m and beyond?

[kaur]

JMA asked RJ

Have you heard of any ISAF troops been taken out by single aimed shots from 400m and beyond?

I found those claims.

Recruited from Pakistan, Egypt and Chechnya, the snipers could kill from up to 650 yards away and were considered a serious threat by British commanders.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...r-strikes.html

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...LEFTTopStories