Redundancy in small unit organization

[William F. Owen]

OK, What weapons do these two "Groups" carry? Please lay out each man according to section and group. When labeling each mans' weapon, don't use m-4 or 240B use AR (Assult Rifle) or LMG (light machine gun). Make sure to have a different label for SAW-like, light machine guns as apposed to 240B GPMG. Sorry, if I'm being a pain in the a**, I just need to visualize this.

It doesn't matter! Really. We can all train set up equipment, but that causes folks to focus on the wrong stuff! But...

Recce groups focus on finding and manoeuvring, so short-barrelled ARs, and maybe some UGLs like M-203s.
Weapons groups focus on "attrition" so GPMG, (M240b) 84mm RCL or Javelin

The important stuff is ranks, radios and sensors, like Thermal Weapons Sights and Night Vision. Every man should have a PRR and Every ranks should have HHDR, like PRC-149, or 710MB.
Budget is vastly important so cut the cloth to fit the body.

[Ratzel]

It doesn't matter! Really. We can all train set up equipment, but that causes folks to focus on the wrong stuff! But...

Recce groups focus on finding and manoeuvring, so short-barrelled ARs, and maybe some UGLs like M-203s.
Weapons groups focus on "attrition" so GPMG, (M240b) 84mm RCL or Javelin

The important stuff is ranks, radios and sensors, like Thermal Weapons Sights and Night Vision. Every man should have a PRR and Every ranks should have HHDR, like PRC-149, or 710MB.
Budget is vastly important so cut the cloth to fit the body.

No, it does matter. We were told before going down range in OIF I that a certain size building required a certain size force. The average Iraqi home was supposed to take a platoons worth of dismount infantry. Well, after we got there, it turned into a squad taking down a house and sometimes a team. The section you described, would have difficulty taking down a house. The 5-6 man recce group would have to do all the work while the weapons group would have to stay in the rear. You could line up the 3 recce groups to do the house clearing but then you'd have groups and sections split up all kinds of ways.

I'm not sure what you mean by sensors, but as far a night-vision and radio's, you're 100% correct. Each soldier should have a set of new night vision equipment. The best ones when I was in were called "NVG 14's." When we went down range, we had people still with NVG's that were 15 years old. Radio's, optics, NVG's, Body armour, web-gear, boots, first-aid, should all be top-notch, with everyone properly trained on how to use and maintain them.

I think your section/group idea is worth thinking about regarding the woods, or open terrain, but a MOUT environment is much different. The best people at MOUT in the world, don't bring 240B's along with them and surly don't form weapons groups, they do the exact opposite.

As you know, our wars for the next 30 years will be taking place in cities, caves, and probably even Jungles again. The regular forces need to become more SOF-like which, IMO, means smaller weapons, smaller teams, bigger brains.

If anything, which I think we can all agree on, there's a need for much more training, and much more time in rank before promotion. The average Infantryman should have at least six months of training before going to the line, and at least 4 years before becoming an NCO. We need better people. We need more college grads as well. The only way this is going to happen is buy $howing the MONEY! Its also time THE AMERICAN PEOPLE START PAYING MORE IN TAXES! The US defense budget is about 4.5% of GDP. There were times during the Cold-war where it was 8%. If this country is serious about "MAKING THE WORLD SAFE FOR DEMOCRACY" then they better start paying for it.

Sorry I got off track, but I do think its matters what weapons are carried by whom. That way we can visualize how it will work in combat. I'm starting to like the Marine Platoon, but want to learn more about it. That doesn't mean, by any means, that I won't listen to your ideas, I'm just pretty sure I don't like this one. I would like to read more of your work though.

[William F. Owen]

@ No, it does matter. We were told before going down range in OIF I that a certain size building required a certain size force. The average Iraqi home was supposed to take a platoons worth of dismount infantry.

@ I think your section/group idea is worth thinking about regarding the woods, or open terrain, but a MOUT environment is much different. The best people at MOUT in the world, don't bring 240B's along with them and surly don't form weapons groups, they do the exact opposite.

@ As you know, our wars for the next 30 years will be taking place in cities, caves, and probably even Jungles again. The regular forces need to become more SOF-like which, IMO, means smaller weapons, smaller teams, bigger brains.

@ I'm starting to like the Marine Platoon, but want to learn more about it. That doesn't mean, by any means, that I won't listen to your ideas, I'm just pretty sure I don't like this one. I would like to read more of your work though.

@ Well if you think my opinion matters, I'm very flattered , now telling soldiers that X type of building requires X type of force is not quite the dumbest thing I have ever heard, but close. - see later.

@ I don't know who are the best people in the world at MOUT. I see nothing wrong with an M-240, or GPMG. No you don't search and exploit into structures with it. You use it outside, as you would Javelin or an 84mm RCL. You have to be able to fight between structures, not just in them. Once you've secured the space, bring up the weapons teams to reduce suppress the next structure. 5.56mm won't go through too much as you know. Don't assume Iraq is the defining MOUT experience.

@ I don't know where the wars of the next 30 years will be taking place. Nor does anyone else. Should we be prepared to operate in all types of close terrain? Yes! - so we don't want to establish platoons on Iraqi dwelling take downs.
- I live in 36 storey apartment block, in central Bangkok. I estimate it would take 3 platoons about two hours or more to clear.
If you want to be more SOF like, just have 5 x 6 man teams. Each team has 2 x LMGs, 4 x M4/UGL - and accept the limitations of that weapons set. - Still 30 men, 6 ranks, 6 radios (one rank and radio spare - always useful)

@ If you want to be more Marine like, split the platoon in two. So you have two squads of 3 x 5 man teams. One Squad is commanded by the platoon commander and the other the platoon sergeant, each assisted by a Cpl and L/Cpl. Each 5 man team could be 2 LMG, 2 M4/UGL and one spare, with an M4 to carry the AT-4 or whatever. Still 30 men, 6 ranks, 6 radios.

Does this help any?

[Ratzel]

@ Well if you think my opinion matters, I'm very flattered , now telling soldiers that X type of building requires X type of force is not quite the dumbest thing I have ever heard, but close. - see later.

@ I don't know who are the best people in the world at MOUT. I see nothing wrong with an M-240, or GPMG. No you don't search and exploit into structures with it. You use it outside, as you would Javelin or an 84mm RCL. You have to be able to fight between structures, not just in them. Once you've secured the space, bring up the weapons teams to reduce suppress the next structure. 5.56mm won't go through too much as you know. Don't assume Iraq is the defining MOUT experience.

@ I don't know where the wars of the next 30 years will be taking place. Nor does anyone else. Should we be prepared to operate in all types of close terrain? Yes! - so we don't want to establish platoons on Iraqi dwelling take downs.
- I live in 36 storey apartment block, in central Bangkok. I estimate it would take 3 platoons about two hours or more to clear.
If you want to be more SOF like, just have 5 x 6 man teams. Each team has 2 x LMGs, 4 x M4/UGL - and accept the limitations of that weapons set. - Still 30 men, 6 ranks, 6 radios (one rank and radio spare - always useful)

@ If you want to be more Marine like, split the platoon in two. So you have two squads of 3 x 5 man teams. One Squad is commanded by the platoon commander and the other the platoon sergeant, each assisted by a Cpl and L/Cpl. Each 5 man team could be 2 LMG, 2 M4/UGL and one spare, with an M4 to carry the AT-4 or whatever. Still 30 men, 6 ranks, 6 radios.

Does this help any?

There's no metric that calculates bodies per square footage, but yes, before taking down a structure, there is some sizing up. There is some general agreement about what size a unit should be, before it attempts to take down a structure. There was even an understanding that a unit should be ready to take about 30% casualties during urban combat.

While we're on the subject of second dumbest ideas, are you certain about this idea of Platoon leaders and Platoon Sergeants leading squad size units?

I guess arguing about why the squad should be this or that size is waste, until I understand your argument for why your squad size is best. If you can, tell me the advantages of the squad size you propose, and explain why its superior to the current size. Or, if you already did this, give me a link to where I can read it.

And No, your opinion doesn't matter, but I'm always open to new ideas and I appreciate your passion for these subjects.

[William F. Owen]

@ There is some general agreement about what size a unit should be, before it attempts to take down a structure. There was even an understanding that a unit should be ready to take about 30% casualties during urban combat.

@ While we're on the subject of second dumbest ideas, are you certain about this idea of Platoon leaders and Platoon Sergeants leading squad size units?

@ I guess arguing about why the squad should be this or that size is waste, until I understand your argument for why your squad size is best. If you can, tell me the advantages of the squad size you propose, and explain why its superior to the current size. Or, if you already did this, give me a link to where I can read it.

@ Sure there is an understanding of troops to task, but no one should use the size of one possible type of dwelling to formulate infantry organisation.

@ All this means is no Platoon HQ. It's about leader leading. Works well for the IDF. Works well in Patrolling. Works well in SF. Why do you need a Platoon HQ?

@. I am not saying my squad size is best. I want to be perfectly clear on this. All I am saying is that you need to apply principles of organisation. 30 men, and 6 ranks gives you 3-4 different ways to organise the Platoon (not squad) so as you can best accomplish your mission. It is merely an example of a set of principles in application.

Send me a PM if you want to keep discussing this - which I am more than happy to. It's just I am sure we must be boring everyone else to tears.

[Presley Cannady]

Thanks all for your remarks, especially Rifleman and Mr. Owen. I did read the "Abandon squad/section levels of organization" thread, but thought I should probably ask my basic questions in a separate line of discussion.

Rifleman: If I'm reading "The Infantry Rifle Squad" correctly, Melody's work is essentially a lit review and he arrives at his conclusions and recommendations deductively; the same can be said of his student Timothy Karcher in "Enhancing Combat Effectiveness."

Mr. Owen: Thanks for the heads up. I've spent some months mining what I lit I could find for empirical research on engineering small unit sustainability. I've unfortunately turned up nothing of the sort. Is there any research on the horizon that might shed some much needed light in this area?

[Surferbeetle]

Presley Cannady,

I am currently chipping away at Guide to Organisation Design by Naomi Stanford (ISBN 978-1-86197-802-8) and just finished Managing and Using Information Systems by Keri E. Pearlson & Carol S. Saunders (ISBN 978-0-471-71538-2). Both are interesting reads and discuss some the 'what do effective organizations look like?' questions that often pop up at work. Neither book, however, provides a definitive number of personnel for a team. Some of the organizational models mentioned include: Mckinsey 7-S Model, Gailbrath's Star Model, Weisbord Six Box Model, Nadler and Tushman Congruence Model, and Burke-Litwin Model.

My answer to 'how some minimum unit is structured and why?' is it depends upon the situation, the equipment (can one leverage MIS ?, etc) and the quality and experience of the personnel provided to accomplish the mission.

I have been in some 'kicking' two man CA Teams running around europe, latin america and the middle east. I have also been in some so-so six to eight man CA Teams in the middle east. Security issues drove the larger sized teams, while straight language and technical skills drove the two man teams. All of my teams accomplished their missions. The ROI, if it could be quantified, would be different for each team however. Relationships and are cultural/geopgraphical/operational experience are some the issues that should be added to mission accomplishment when calculating the ROI. It's 'squishy' and I don't know how to produce a 'hard' number thats reproduceable.

As a young soldier I was introduced to tables which predicted casualty counts for different MOS types and units based upon different offensive and defensive maneuvers. It was a bit much for a young guy with a short attention span, so I have no reference for you to refer to for these tables. Google?

Steve

[William F. Owen]

Mr. Owen: Thanks for the heads up. I've spent some months mining what I lit I could find for empirical research on engineering small unit sustainability. I've unfortunately turned up nothing of the sort. Is there any research on the horizon that might shed some much needed light in this area?

1. Call me Wilf.

2. That's because there is none, and none on the horizon. However there are things we know because people keep doing them. They get written into manuals and they are testable. It is my opinion that researching the ideal squad or platoon is useless. What you have to have is principles of organisation that allow you to adapt to changing missions and circumstances Thus discussion should focus on the testing and validity of the principle, not the search for absolutes

[William F. Owen]

Rifleman: If I'm reading "The Infantry Rifle Squad" correctly, Melody's work is essentially a lit review and he arrives at his conclusions and recommendations deductively; the same can be said of his student Timothy Karcher in "Enhancing Combat Effectiveness."

I just printed this out and read it in my lunch hour. To summarise,

Karcher believes the 11-man squad is better because it can take more casualties, and has more firepower, compared to a 9-man squad. Thus More men is better, when it comes to redundancy and weight of fire.

Would 11 man squads mean an SBCT Platoon would need 5 vehicles to carry everyone, not 4?

...and this took 89 pages to explain in support of an MA Thesis?

Am I missing something?