This thread is why I joined the forum.

Wow it has so much information I have to take a few days to absorb it. Timing is every thing as I’m actually researching a similar topic for an article I’m writing for Special Warfare magazine on the restructuring of ODAs to adopt a more modular flexibility.

Many of my resources have been quoted here already but there are so many additional points brought up in this thread that I have to reconsider some of my points. I understand that the topic was more based on an Infantry Squad but IMO base building blocks of “what works” in small unit tactics..well…works. The enemy doesn’t know he’s facing Infantry or Rangers or SF (maybe we’re older) so I feel the points brought up are definitely applicable to my article.

However I try to look at the structural needs for the full range of SF core mission sets ie. What is needed for FID (re JCETs), UW, COIN, SR, DA etc. I try to use historical examples and show there is precedence to a smaller sub structure that can be managed within the ODA construct. (ie 3 X 4 Man “stacks” or “cells”). This will allow for adaptation WITHOUT any serious MTOE changes that will shake up the old hands resistant to change. A 12 man ODA can still exist but instead of breaking down into a MOS driven split team (current not practiced TTP) it would be able to split into the 3 MOS immaterial cells. Of course mission to mission the MOS factor may come into play as needed but in the middle of a firefight is not the time to have to think the junior Bravo is supposed to be the number one man and the senior Charlie is the number two man. Assault stacks are kept generic because each man may/will have to fill each position based on area coverage. The same for fire and maneuver, MOS is really not an issue at that point.

The 4 man element also works well in our current mobility tactics as 2 cells can fully man a two vehicle element.

Again I need to read and look closely at the great points made about heavy vs light etc and the types of fire power a single stack/cell realistically would have. I truthfully approached this from the generic modularity stand point thinking we should better suborganized to be better suited for the full range of missions and didn’t look at it from a straight tactical/Infantry POV.

Any/all ideas of course are welcome. Thanks again for this post.

Duke