Size of the Platoon and Company

[tankersteve]

There was a pretty good-sized thread about squad composition that eventually petered out. However, some thought that the platoon should be the focus of the discussion. Near the end of the afore-mentioned thread, some commented on a 40-man platoon being too large.

My question: What is the optimal size of a platoon? And then, how large the company? Is there a known or preferred (I am sure) maximum? Where do effectiveness and span of control intersect and where do they diverge?

I am primarily focused on the infantry platoon and company. However, comments on other forces would certainly be of interest.

[tankersteve]

I like playing with MTOEs a bit, seeing how much more effectiveness I could generate (suitable for full-spectrum operations, sustainable in combat, etc) if I was in charge of the military for a day.

An Army mech platoon is often 40 or more men:

12 men to man the Bradleys
3x 9-man squads
PL, RTO, Medic

Theoretically, you can't fit that many dismounts in the back of the Bradley, but the 2 platoons I worked with in Iraq always had room for "1 more". Especially after a mission. And this was definitely a result of higher (division) really getting the platoons up to full strength (and even beyond) which caused one platoon sergeant to comment that he had never been in a full platoon before.

A typical Marine platoon would probably have similar numbers, although with much larger squads.

I am more inclined to go with Wilf's idea of multiple fire teams but I would like to align them in 2 sections. However, my platoon is 45 men, including the HQ element. I have 2 20-man sections, with 3 6-man squads/fire teams in each section and a small section HQ. Is 40+ men really too big for a platoon?

Tankersteve

[1258dave]

Does anybody have any feedback on the IDF MTOE and task org for Gaza? Or general comments about the IDF SQD/PLT/CO?

Also, any feedback about the British experience in "up" and "down" armoring units for Operation Banner? (support to civil authority in Ulster)

My understanding is that units would rotate to Ulster and fall in on wheeled armored vehicles. So a light unit from the UK would "up" armor, and a mech unit from the British Army on the Rhine would "down" armor. Sounds like OIF/OEF.

Since that is what we have been doing, and probably will be doing, that should be part of the discussion about PLT/Co size.

[William F. Owen]

]I am more inclined to go with Wilf's idea of multiple fire teams but I would like to align them in 2 sections. However, my platoon is 45 men, including the HQ element. I have 2 20-man sections, with 3 6-man squads/fire teams in each section and a small section HQ. Is 40+ men really too big for a platoon?

The idea behind the Fire Team Group, was Lt Col Jim Storr's, and I merely modified it. The whole point is to loose the section level of command. You go Coy - Pltn - Fireteam. Yes, you can Task Org into multiples, but that is task organisation and so specified by the task.

Does anybody have any feedback on the IDF MTOE and task org for Gaza? Or general comments about the IDF SQD/PLT/CO?

The IDF has fairly ad-hoc platoon organisation, depending on Brigade. Platoons are basically 36 and organised either as 3 x 12 man sections of 3 fire teams, or much like a US Platoon of 36, except they only have one M240/FN-MAG, and not all fire teams have SAWs/LMGs.

My understanding is that units would rotate to Ulster and fall in on wheeled armored vehicles. So a light unit from the UK would "up" armor, and a mech unit from the British Army on the Rhine would "down" armor. Sounds like OIF/OEF.

To simplify 30 years of operations, all units on Op Banner re-roled to the Light role and were supported attached specialist armoured vehicles (Saracen and Pig). Later on it became a bit more complicated, (Saxon was an standard issue vehicle) but the basics still stand.

Since that is what we have been doing, and probably will be doing, that should be part of the discussion about PLT/Co size.

Is should, but rarely is.

[tankersteve]

Sounds like the Brits almost formalized the process of task organizing for the mission in Ireland. For US forces, it seems to be fairly ad hoc. However, most people I think tend to forget that the light units getting HMMWVs and MRAPs is just as much of a 'change' in status/capability, as a heavy unit trading down to the same platforms. In fact, since the heavy guys have mechanics, they might have an easier time doing it. I won't say the same is quite true for armor guys to start dismounted patrolling.

Wilf, while trying not to sound like a giant asskisser, I was hoping to hear from you. Is 36 men OK, but 45 too many? Where do span of control and effectiveness intersect and where do they diverge? I like larger formations - had to do too much with little ones and know the pain. I know there is a limit - you seem to be a good source on previous research - but what has been shown?

Tankersteve

[William F. Owen]

Wilf, while trying not to sound like a giant asskisser, I was hoping to hear from you. Is 36 men OK, but 45 too many? Where do span of control and effectiveness intersect and where do they diverge? I like larger formations - had to do too much with little ones and know the pain. I know there is a limit - you seem to be a good source on previous research - but what has been shown?

Tankersteve

I think I should point I'm not more qualified on this question than many others, however my current research would indicate the following,

A Fire team between 3-5 seems good. 6 may be a bit big.
Given that most people can control up 5 entities, then a the platoon would seem to be 6 x 5 man fireteams, organised around one level of command. This is my preference, however, 36 man platoons seem to work perfectly well if you include two levels of command, and that may apply to 45. There is no really right or wrong answer. It's the method and how you train in light of that method. Personally I see great merit in getting rid of one level of command.

[novelist]

I like playing with MTOEs a bit, seeing how much more effectiveness I could generate (suitable for full-spectrum operations, sustainable in combat, etc) if I was in charge of the military for a day.

An Army mech platoon is often 40 or more men:

12 men to man the Bradleys
3x 9-man squads
PL, RTO, Medic

Theoretically, you can't fit that many dismounts in the back of the Bradley, but the 2 platoons I worked with in Iraq always had room for "1 more". Especially after a mission. And this was definitely a result of higher (division) really getting the platoons up to full strength (and even beyond) which caused one platoon sergeant to comment that he had never been in a full platoon before.

A typical Marine platoon would probably have similar numbers, although with much larger squads.

I am more inclined to go with Wilf's idea of multiple fire teams but I would like to align them in 2 sections. However, my platoon is 45 men, including the HQ element. I have 2 20-man sections, with 3 6-man squads/fire teams in each section and a small section HQ. Is 40+ men really too big for a platoon?

Tankersteve

The fire team is the basic building block of the squad. Army has two, Marines have three. In terms of the Bradley Platoon, it varies. The M2-A2 has a four 3-man crews (x4 vehicles) and carries 6-men per vehicle. This gives the platoon a total strength of x 36. With the A3 Bradley, it is basically the same, except that an extra man has been added, 7-men per vehicle which gives you a x 40 man platoon. The vehicle space doesn't actually support x 3 squads, only two with an additional 5-man team to serve as the platoon Base of Fire. The platoon FO is an important part of the unit as he is the primary shooter for the mechanized infantry. In a tank-heavy combined arms company task force, there's only going to be one Bradley Platoon and two Tank Platoons, so the larger x 40-man platoon is more conducive to infantry support for the tanks. a x 45-man platoon is good, in my humble opinion. Standard Rifle Platoons used to carry x 46-men. Now, in terms of standard infantry platoons with x 3 rifle squads and x 1 weapons squad, or x 36-men you add a platoon HQ's with the PL, PSG, RTO, x 2 FO' s, a medic, and x 4 engineers (to be attached to each squad) you get x 46-men. This gives you the wpns squad as a Base of Fire, two maneuver squads with an engineer/demo expert for breaching tasks, the platoon HQ's and a squad in tactical reserve providing security for the PHQ. Anything less will degrade the overall combat effectiveness and fire capability of the standard infantry platoon. There is no difference between this platoon and the Airborne except that one is jump certified and the other isn't. In terms of (non-Stryker) Light Infantry Platoons, you have a 9-man platoon HQ and three 9-man squads, which gives you a total strength of x 36. But "light fighters" are "infiltrators," so their mission task is not exactly to close with, capture, kill, or destroy the enemy by means of fire and maneuver like the standard or mechanized infantry. If we're talking light infantry, the smaller platoon is more desirable. Standard Infantry needs a larger platoon. Forty (40) men is not too big. It's a basic platoon organizational structure.

With all due respect, I don't see how a Bradley Platoon can be larger than x 40-men without adding an extra vehicle. It's difficult to see four Bradley's carrying x 45-men. I can see it if it is equipped with the M-113, because the Gavin carries 11-men, the dvr, TC, and a 9-man squad for a total of x 44-men, (you could probably squeeze an extra man in).

[tankersteve]

No such vehicle. There is the M113 APC, but no one is contemplating going back to them, as the Army is ready to phase them out.

This thread was started 5 years ago. Much of what you say does not seem current with how US Army infantry platoons are organized.

And I was talking about going to a 5-vehicle mech platoon.

Tankersteve

[novelist]

No such vehicle. There is the M113 APC, but no one is contemplating going back to them, as the Army is ready to phase them out.

This thread was started 5 years ago. Much of what you say does not seem current with how US Army infantry platoons are organized.

And I was talking about going to a 5-vehicle mech platoon.

Tankersteve

Oh, O.K. Sounds interesting. I wonder if tank platoons will go back to a 5-tank organization to match the 5-vehicle Bradley platoon. That is how Patton originally organized them as U.S. Tank Corps commander for the AEF in 1918, I think. That organization was in place as late as Vietnam. So returning to that original organization to match what you've told me seems logical. Although the M-1A2 bears the name of General Abrams, do you still think of them as "Patton's Tanks?" By the way, what is projected to replace the M-113? Thank you for your response. I really appreciate it. (The infantry organization I mentioned is Vietnam era.)

[82redleg]

Oh, O.K. Sounds interesting. I wonder if tank platoons will go back to a 5-tank organization to match the 5-vehicle Bradley platoon. That is how Patton originally organized them as U.S. Tank Corps commander for the AEF in 1918, I think. That organization was in place as late as Vietnam. So returning to that original organization to match what you've told me seems logical. Although the M-1A2 bears the name of General Abrams, do you still think of them as "Patton's Tanks?" By the way, what is projected to replace the M-113? Thank you for your response. I really appreciate it. (The infantry organization I mentioned is Vietnam era.)

Tankersteve was proposing a 5 x Bradley platoon in this thread- it is not under serious consideration in the Army. And no one is talking about 5 x tank platoons, either. That was the organization used until the M1 was fielded- extensive tests were conducted at FT Hood with 3-, 4- and 5- tank platoons- the Army decided that the increased capability of the M1 justified a reduction to 4 x tanks per platoon.

I'm a light/ABN guy, not a mech guy, but I've never heard anyone (in person or in writing) refer to US tanks generically as "Patton's Tanks"- I've heard the M48 & M60 series referred to as "Pattons"- usually by non-military people.

The Army is desperately trying to develop a replacement for the M113, with no success so far- both FCS and GCV programs were cancelled for budget reasons. I've seen proposals to put Strykers in some of the positions (which sort of works, for some of them) and developments of Bradley variants for some others (which generally cost too much). Now there is the JLTV program, which doesn't really work that well as an M113 replacement, either. I guess we'll see.

[82redleg]

I am lost as to where your description of what IS ends, and your proposal of what SHOULD BE begins.

The fire team is the basic building block of the squad. Army has two, Marines have three.

Yes, this is true. And both US services have a separate squad leader (which is NOT universal- the section leader in most Commonwealth armies is also the leader of one of the fire teams).

In terms of the Bradley Platoon, it varies. The M2-A2 has a four 3-man crews (x4 vehicles) and carries 6-men per vehicle. This gives the platoon a total strength of x 36. With the A3 Bradley, it is basically the same, except that an extra man has been added, 7-men per vehicle which gives you a x 40 man platoon. The vehicle space doesn't actually support x 3 squads, only two with an additional 5-man team to serve as the platoon Base of Fire.

The Bradley-based mechanized infantry platoon HAS VARIED- there is only one standard US Army organization, and it was NOT based on the variant (as far as I know). Originally (early-mid 80s), the Bradley was part of the infantry squad, which was 9 men- 3 vehicle crew and 6 as part of the "dismount team". The platoon had 3 squads (27) plus a headquarters that consisted of PL, PSG, gunner, driver and RTO (32 total in the platoon, 12 vehicle crew and 20 "dismounts"= there may have been a "jump gunner" to allow both PL and PSG to dismount, but I'm not sure). This didn't last very long, and the decision was made to formally split the dismount element from the vehicle crews. The vehicle crews have remained 3/vehicle, but the dismounted element has changed. Initially, the 18 dismounts (after PL & RTO) were organized as 2 x 9-man squads (standard Army squads with SL + 2 x 4-man fire teams). Then, a 5-man (SL + 2 x 2-man MG team) weapons squad was added. Then, the change to the current organization of 3 x 9-man rifle squads was made in the early 00s. And, yes, there is a seating issue, no matter the model, with 27 men in rifle squads, plus PL, RTO, medic and FO (31) in 4 Bradleys.

Why do you need a dismounted "platoon Base of Fire" when you have 4 Bradleys with stabilized 25mm cannon, M240 co-ax MGs and TOW launchers? Dismounting 2 x M240s doesn't seem to bring much to the table.

The platoon FO is an important part of the unit as he is the primary shooter for the mechanized infantry.

Yes and no- in fact, we didn't have platoons FOs in the mech infantry for a while because we used the spaces to fill additional COLT teams in the BDE. They are back now, but I think that their utility is limited. They are useful during dismounted operations, but limited during mounted operations. None of the platoon's Bradleys have a radio to support the Fires net, nor do they have a seat where the FO can see (unless you put him in the turret, which takes a member of the crew out of the direct fire fight). I think that we would be much better off to centralize the 36 platoon FOs in the Armor BCT (2/PLT x 3 PLTs/CO x 6 COs/BCT) and mount them in M7 BFISTs or M1200 Knights and provide the BCT CDR with 9 x 4-man mounted observer teams that he can task organize as required (in addition to the 12 x CO FISTs he already has to habitually associate with each company).

In a tank-heavy combined arms company task force, there's only going to be one Bradley Platoon and two Tank Platoons, so the larger x 40-man platoon is more conducive to infantry support for the tanks. a x 45-man platoon is good, in my humble opinion.

Where did you get 45 men per platoon?

Standard Rifle Platoons used to carry x 46-men. Now, in terms of standard infantry platoons with x 3 rifle squads and x 1 weapons squad, or x 36-men you add a platoon HQ's with the PL, PSG, RTO, x 2 FO' s, a medic, and x 4 engineers (to be attached to each squad) you get x 46-men. This gives you the wpns squad as a Base of Fire, two maneuver squads with an engineer/demo expert for breaching tasks, the platoon HQ's and a squad in tactical reserve providing security for the PHQ. Anything less will degrade the overall combat effectiveness and fire capability of the standard infantry platoon. There is no difference between this platoon and the Airborne except that one is jump certified and the other isn't.

Where did this organization come from? Is this your proposal?

Since 1993 (when I started hanging around the Army), the Airborne Infantry platoon has been the same- PL HQs with PL, PSG & RTO, with habitual attachments of a 2-man FO party and a medic; 3 x 9-man rifle squads as described above; and a 9-man weapons squad, with SL, 2 x MG, 2 x MG/AG, 2 x AT (Dragon, later Javelin) and 2 x AT/AB. The were earlier permutations, including a 10-man squad (with imbalanced fire teams, 1 x 4-man and 1 x 5-man, plus SL), and the weapons squad has varied. There have never, AFAIK, been Engineers organic to the Airborne Infantry platoon, although a squad or team from the brigade's habitual Engineer company could be task organized.

In terms of (non-Stryker) Light Infantry Platoons, you have a 9-man platoon HQ and three 9-man squads, which gives you a total strength of x 36. But "light fighters" are "infiltrators," so their mission task is not exactly to close with, capture, kill, or destroy the enemy by means of fire and maneuver like the standard or mechanized infantry. If we're talking light infantry, the smaller platoon is more desirable. Standard Infantry needs a larger platoon. Forty (40) men is not too big. It's a basic platoon organizational structure.

The Light Infantry Division (not ABN/AASLT) that existed from 1984(ish) through 2005/2006 had 3 x 9-man rifle squads, 2 x 2-man MG teams and a PLT HQs with PL, PSG, RTO (34 total, with the habitual attachment of a 2-man FO party and a medic). The AT gunners were in a 13-man section in the company (Section leader + 6 x 2-man teams of AT and AT/AB)- the only difference between this organization and the ABN/AASLT was 2 NCOs (3 weapons squad leaders vs 1 AT section leader). Since 2005, the platoons in all Infantry Brigade Combat Teams (IBCTs) have been identical, following the ABN/AASLT organization described above- there is no more distinction between Light and ABN/AASLT.

Strykers are organized differently, but similarly to the Bradley, platoons. Strykers have 3 x 9-man squads, a weapons squad (which I have seen as variously 5 or 7 men), a PLT HQs and a vehicle section. Originally (99-00) the FO was organic, but I think we've fixed that, and there is always an habitual medic. I believe that the vehicle section is only 7 pax, because the PL and PSG are both vehicle commanders, but only one "jump VC" is provided, but I'm not sure. I am not as up on Stryker as I am on light (ABN/AASLT) and mech.

I disagree with your characterization of the mission of "light" infantry, but that is another discussion.

With all due respect, I don't see how a Bradley Platoon can be larger than x 40-men without adding an extra vehicle. It's difficult to see four Bradley's carrying x 45-men. I can see it if it is equipped with the M-113, because the Gavin carries 11-men, the dvr, TC, and a 9-man squad for a total of x 44-men, (you could probably squeeze an extra man in).

So suddenly we are back to the mech platoon. I still don't see where you get 45 from- in my second paragraph, I showed you 31 dismounts (+ 12 vehicle crew) for 43. We know that there are only 7 seats/Bradley (x 4 = 28 in the platoon) for dismounts, so there are 3 personnel too many. I don't think there is an official solution for this, since full platoons are so rare, as pointed about by someone not too long ago.

Sorry for the long reply.

[Sabre]

My question: What is the optimal size of a platoon? And then, how large the company? Is there a known or preferred (I am sure) maximum? Where do effectiveness and span of control intersect and where do they diverge?

I am primarily focused on the infantry platoon and company. However, comments on other forces would certainly be of interest.

Something that has always interested me...

To answer (part of) the original question, there appears to be a some research evidence that indicates something like 150 people should be the maximum size of a "community", as a rifle company is. Studies were done on various groups by different researchers, and often came to this conclusion, whether it was military company-echelon units, religious communities, or business units within a commercial company. There may be a sort of limit in the way that human brains are "wired" in the average person. Beyond that limit, not everyone "knows" everyone else, and knows where they fit in the organization (i.e., at any given moment you could glance at someone and think "that is so-and-so, from 1st platoon). From personal experience, in a unit that was brought up to full strength at 144, I'd say that did seem to be pushing closer to the limit (this was before I read any of the studies). I also recall support and HQ companies that were massive, up to 300+ personnel, and talking to folks in those companies, the units simply didn't have the same cohesiveness.

Given that units are often notoriously under- strength, and need to be able to absorb casualties, I can't see a reason to make it much less than 150, either. In fact, I'd pack a few more in, just in case. I'd rather have too many, than have a company that melts away too quickly. I would definitely divide the company into at least four platoons (with a smaller fifth "weapons" platoon or section), just so the company commander can have more tactical options beyond "one up, two back" and "two up, one back". From what I have seen, a good company commander can handle five or six platoons just fine, and a bad one can hose things up, even if he only has two platoons to worry about.

Dividing 150, or 160, or more, personnel into four rifle platoons (+ HQ and weapons) means each platoon will have to have maybe... 30 to 36 personnel. As an aside, I don't see a convincing reason that any other company-level unit design can't stay strictly within the 150 limit. Rifle companies are special, in that they are expected (and historically do) take more casualties than other unit types.

[Ken White]

but I'd rather be ten people short than one man overstrength. Overstrength consumes resources and effort; understrength works harder and poses fewer personnel management problems while easing the control problem.

A rifle squad exists to put at least a man or two left functional on a piece of ground, the difference between six and nine men will be one guy instead of two; got to an 11 man squad and you get maybe three. Got to any other mission and anywhere from five to nine is adequate for most things...

For mounted units, overstrength means crowded vehicles among other things...

[tankersteve]

Sabre, that was the kind of info I was looking for. However, since we are so rarely up to full strength, I am interested in a company design of just (and it's close) under 200, with the four platoons being approximately 45, with their medic and FO. I wonder what things can be done to bring larger organizations to have a closer feel of community. Obviously, training hard together and having competitive sports outside of training will help bond a military organization. But would it suffice for a company that is that robust? I had a tank platoon attached to a Marine infantry battalion in Ramadi, and the weapons company was right at the 200-man mark, and seemed to have good cohesion.

I understand the desire to have more platoons, but that requires more officers and more NCOs and ends up with less Soldiers. There is a fine line out there somewhere between what the average new LT can control and what will overwhelm him. However, with fewer leaders, I see the ability to be more selective in our leaders.

Ken, you have to remember, there is always room for 'one more' in a Bradley, especially when going back to base. (I have personally been in the back with 10 not-so-small infantrymen, while towing a disabled Bradley) Being fat on personnel, to me, is never an issue, and I definitely disagree with you on that point. Being short of troops requires me to go to the boss, lay out my whole troop-to-task, and explain that while I CAN do his latest mission, this is what will suffer or not get done.

Note: as a tanker, I have had to deal with the 63-man company, plus attachments and maintenance and been tasked like an infantry company. I was substantially plussed up in Iraq, and didn't have major difficulties accomplishing my missions. However, it made me very partial to more robust organizations. The problem with the tank company is the size of the platoons, though. While they are effective on a tank, they don't offer much for the PL to maneuver with and do not work well off of the tank.

Tankersteve

[Ken White]

Ken, you have to remember, there is always room for 'one more' in a Bradley, especially when going back to base. (I have personally been in the back with 10 not-so-small infantrymen, while towing a disabled Bradley).

Believe me, I've seen that. Though primarily a light inf type by strong preference, I've been Cav and Mech -- but we're talking M75 and M113 here...

Though this probably isn't the place to get into 'can you top this one?' That's better done over a drink...

Being fat on personnel, to me, is never an issue, and I definitely disagree with you on that point. Being short of troops requires me to go to the boss, lay out my whole troop-to-task, and explain that while I CAN do his latest mission, this is what will suffer or not get done.

As I said we can disagree. However, I do have a question; serious and no disrespect of anyone or anything intended. Why would you have to go to your Boss and do that? Why have you been given a mission as if someone above is not cognizant of your PFD strength?

Note: as a tanker, I have had to deal with the 63-man company, plus attachments and maintenance and been tasked like an infantry company. I was substantially plussed up in Iraq, and didn't have major difficulties accomplishing my missions. However, it made me very partial to more robust organizations. The problem with the tank company is the size of the platoons, though. While they are effective on a tank, they don't offer much for the PL to maneuver with and do not work well off of the tank.

Tanks -- been there done that, too -- obviously are different on the matter of strength; a tank pretty well has to be full. I've always contended that Tank Cos ought to have the Security section in Co Hq -- four full crews -- as potential replacements; they'll be necessary in MIC or hotter. Infantry, OTOH...