The Roles and Weapons with the Squad

[JMA]

His finger on the trigger is the mistake, but he really is not shooting to the wall 50cm in front of him, he is just looking over the wall, with all respect Sir, it´s obvious.

Do modern sergeants make "mistakes" like that? Things are slipping.

With this attitude, you could cut off the sights at all, as Taliban fighters do sometimes. If you have ACOG, you can use it successfully also as an observation device. I am not going to discuss if it´s advantage or not. And yes, we have armourer, but there is no Sa58 recoil pad. Israelis do nice, cheap new stocks and that solves the problem, as they ship for free worldwide.

Perhaps I should say that I note that the line infantry units are tends to mimic and adopt the "special forces" way of doing things which in most cases is not a good idea for line infantry. I suggest that it is good to question what is going on around you rather than just go with the flow.

For example you may consider asking the question as to the point of having optics on weapons if they are used to improve individual observation but are seldom used in a contact (see a hundred examples on YouTube).

Second how many times have you heard on a YouTube clip a commander issuing a fire-control order? You suppress the enemy by winning the "fire fight" through laying down directed and controlled section fire into likely cover on their position.

I could go on.... sadly I see little evidence of the current crop of soldiers questioning, adapting and above all thinking about how better to close with and kill the enemy. Maybe it is because of a lack of depth in their training I don't know.

[82redleg]

Do modern sergeants make "mistakes" like that? Things are slipping.

A modern US Army "sergeant" is not the same thing as the "sergeants" I've seen in the Commonwealth armies I'm familiar with. I have no idea where the Rhodesian Army fits into the spectrum, but it seems the rough equivalent of ranks (in responsibility and time to achieve the promotion) between US Army, USMC and Commonwealth is:

USArmy USMC Commonwealth
PVT Pvt PVT
PV2 Pfc
PFC LCpl
SPC LCpl
SGT Cpl Cpl
SSG Sgt
SFC SSgt Sgt
MSG GySgt/MSgt WO1
SGM/CSM MGySgt/SgtMaj WO2

[JMA]

A modern US Army "sergeant" is not the same thing as the "sergeants" I've seen in the Commonwealth armies I'm familiar with. I have no idea where the Rhodesian Army fits into the spectrum, but it seems the rough equivalent of ranks (in responsibility and time to achieve the promotion) between US Army, USMC and Commonwealth is:

USArmy USMC Commonwealth
PVT Pvt PVT
PV2 Pfc
PFC LCpl
SPC LCpl
SGT Cpl Cpl
SSG Sgt
SFC SSgt Sgt
MSG GySgt/MSgt WO1
SGM/CSM MGySgt/SgtMaj WO2

The photo comes from here, they are Marines, so you must help me understand the Marine rank structure.



E5 is the fifth rank level? Who (what rank) would be the platoon sergeant?

The Brit (Rhodesian) platoon sergeant would be the fourth rank level. How long does it take the average marine to make E5 or platoon sergeant? Five years? Seven years?

Look by the end of the war (1980) we had some pretty over promoted guys at all rank levels so don't take my comment the wrong way.

[82redleg]

E5 is the fifth rank level? Who (what rank) would be the platoon sergeant?

A rifle platoon sergeant is supposed to be a SSgt (E6). Specialty platoons (weapons, mortars, snipers, etc) are supposed to be GySgt (E7). Often may be a rank lower due to shortages.

The Brit (Rhodesian) platoon sergeant would be the fourth rank level. How long does it take the average marine to make E5 or platoon sergeant? Five years? Seven years?

Based on the Marines I've worked around, promotion at the minimum times (either service or grade) are not as common as in the Army.

2001 statistics for average promotion points in the USMC:
* Private First Class (E-2) - 6 months
* Lance Corporal (E-3) - 14 months
* Corporal (E-4) - 26 months
* Sergeant (E-5) - 4.8 years
* Staff Sergeant (E-6) - 10.4 years
* Gunnery Sergeant (E-7) - 14.8 years
* Master Sergeant/First Sergeant (E-8) - 18.8 years
* Master Gunnery Sergeant/Sergeant Major (E-9) - 22.1 years

Promotion to E2 and E3 are automatic, but above that it is based on vacancies. I would expect these numbers to have been reduced somewhat since 2001, based on expansion and wartime changes. These numbers appear somewhat lower than the equivalent Army positions (USMC Cpl = US Army SGT = fire team leader; USMC Sgt = US Army SSG = squad leader).

[Ken White]

at three words a minute (Hey, I'm old and never learned to type, takes longer with one or two fingers...), I submit this better late than never compost. Er, composition...

The 'E' designations below are Enlisted Pay Grades, 1 being the lowest, 9 the highest. Here are a couple of charts: LINK, LINK.

In the US, Marine LCpl (E3) and Army Spc [Specialist] (an E4) are effectively senior privates, normally not in leadership positions -- though the good ones become de facto leaders or 'acting' leaders on occasion. Marine Corporals are Team (4 man) Leaders and Sergeants (E5) are Squad (13 man) Leaders. The US Army does not use generally use the rank of Corporal and uses Sergeants(E5) as Team (4 man) leaders while Staff Sergeants (E6) are Squad (9 man)Leaders. A Marine Platoon has three rifle squads and a small Hq element; an Army Platoon has three rifle squads , a Weapons Squad with assigned or organic MG and ATGW as well as the small HQ element.

Note the Marines have lower rank leading more people. Or the Army rewards leaders with more pay...

In peacetime, Team Leaders in both services will normally have about three to five years service, Squad Leaders four to eight. In wartime, those periods will be less and will vary considerably depending on many factors. Marine Platoon Sergeants are as 82Redleg noted while Army Platoon Sergeants are by TOE, E7s and that rank is hit at about 10-15 years in peace time and only slightly more rapidly in war time. Obviously, persons one or even two ranks below the TOE or normal rank are sometimes leading units and often, Platoon Sergeants are acting Platoon Leaders in the absence of an Officer -- as a Platoon Sergeant for almost seven years, I spent about five of them as an Acting Platoon Leader in three different Battalions on three continents in war and peace.

I even ran across an Artillery Battery in Viet Nam that had a SGT (E5) as First Sergeant (Co Sgt Maj), normally an E8 position. The Kid was doing a good job, too. To top that off he was not a long service NCO but a graduate of the NCO Candidate Course, a Viet Nam era 90-day school to convert likely Privates to Sergeants to replace the high losses in NCOs in Viet Nam. Not present today.

A part of the problem is that our promotion system in all services must, by Congressionally written laws and pressure be totally 'fair.' As you can envision, that forces mediocrity.

It is also my opinion that our training is, while better than it has ever been, still sub-par in many respects. We try to cram too much in too short a period to "save money." As usual, penny wise - pound foolish...

That training shortfall is most apparent with initial entry people, officer and enlisted but it also applies to NCO training. That, too is better but it's still not adequate and it focuses on too many things not remotely germane to combat proficiency.

While many in the US Armed Forces have fought and are today fighting, the broader Armed Forces and the Nation missed that. The Nation and the bulk of the Forces have been at peace since 1945 -- and it shows...