The Roles and Weapons with the Squad

[William F. Owen]

I think the problem is that some folks seem to want a single fire-team model that does everything. I don't and I rejected it long ago.

I have concentrated on GPMGs with 1 gun in 3-5 man fire-team. That team is protected/Supported by 1-2 other teams with, with carbines/rifles only, and some HE Projection (RG, 40mm and maybe M-72A6-9).

basically a platoon has a mix of two types of team. The first type is "Recce/CQC" and the second type is stand-off fires, GPMG/Sniper team. Change emphasis and weapons mix, based on METT-C.

There is fairly substantial historical evidence that this works. We just choose to ignore it.

[Norfolk]

I think the problem is that some folks seem to want a single fire-team model that does everything. I don't and I rejected it long ago.

I have concentrated on GPMGs with 1 gun in 3-5 man fire-team. That team is protected/Supported by 1-2 other teams with, with carbines/rifles only, and some HE Projection (RG, 40mm and maybe M-72A6-9).

basically a platoon has a mix of two types of team. The first type is "Recce/CQC" and the second type is stand-off fires, GPMG/Sniper team. Change emphasis and weapons mix, based on METT-C.

There is fairly substantial historical evidence that this works. We just choose to ignore it.

No argument that this will work; Fire Team roles and compositions very much tend to reflect the parent Army's real opinion of its Infantry, thus the belt-fed LMGs that have appeared over the last quarter-century. Once again, the equipping of each Fire Team with a belt-fed LMG is a sort of "safe" option, hoping that whatever else a Fire Team may or may not be able to do, it will at least be able to bury its enemies under streams of lead. Pragmatic, up to a point, but probably unnecessary with properly schooled and disciplined troops, especially ones that aren't too bad at locating the enemy before the enemy locates them. Again, a matter of an Army's real estimation of the capabilities of its Infantry. And no argument with the basic premise that the Platoon needs to be as refined as possible. My concern arises from my understanding of how the Infantry's support weapons are best used - normally.

Where we fundamentally disagree here is on where the "Main"/"Support" Weapons should normally go - though the disagreement itself is perhaps not critically important. Normal pooling of heavy weapons at either
Company or Platoon works either way; personnally, having observed how it works at Platoon level, I think it really is better for them to normally be at Company level, though of course attached out to the Platoons as needed. Easier to haul, maintain, train, supply, and coordinate their fires and to greater effect, and without encumbering the Platoons directly, except when said weapons are attached out to the Platoons. As such, one ends up with identical Fire Teams, which is not such a bad thing if the main role of the Platoon's Fire Teams is locating the enemy for the Company's Main Weapons (or Platoon if the main weapons are detached from Coy), and then providing local suppression while one Squad or Fire Team from a Platoon performs an assault. Though it certainly leads to much larger Platoons, 40-50 men easily, and with greater command requirements.

Readily conceding that your placement of GPMGs and a 60 mm mortar at Platoon is effective, and may well be fully sufficient, I do think that it may heavy up the Platoon itself a little more than necessary, while sacrificing a little of the potential effect of the main weapons if they were normally held at Company level instead. Still, it works, and with some 32 men or some such, the Owen Platoon covers its bases, and with a maximum of efficiency and simplicity. It would be interesting to see what, if any, difference in wartime sustainability there would be between these two concepts. Unquestionably, though the Owen Platoon would be easier to maintain during peacetime, and this would reduce or eliminate at least one perennial resources/funding problem.

As to belt-fed LMGs in the Fire Teams, if it were to turn out that either the ARs or magazine-fed LMGs that are contemplated for the USMC somehow don't turn out to work in practice, either because of some unanticipated defect in the weapons themselves, or by inadequate training/conditioning provided to the users, then belt-fed LMGs are certainly something to fall back on. But while GPMGs are too unwieldy for CQB, neither are most LMGs fully a match in handling compared to a well-trained enemy with a rifle or carbine in the next room or around some dark corner. But then, Infantry Squads/Sections, if they're doing things right, are using their LMGs for support or security during CQB, not assault if they can at all help it. SF are another matter, and have access to weapons that are substantially different than what their conventional counterparts normally have, and in tactical circumstances that can be radically different.

[Uboat509]

But then, Infantry Squads/Sections, if they're doing things right, are using their LMGs for support or security during CQB, not assault if they can at all help it.

The infantry units that I have been do use the LMGs for support in CQC but as local support vs. the support by fire position where the GPMGs were. As we moved we could drop off SAW gunners to cover areas that the SBF could not cover for whatever reason. Those that did come into the building with us stayed at the back of the stack and generally pulled rear security although there were times when we used them to fill a particularly tough room with lead. SAWs were also great because you could place them in the rooms of the building that you had just cleared to cover your movement to the next building.

SFC W

[Rifleman]

Uboat509,

You give good examples about why you believe in the benifits of squad level LMGs. But do you think one SAW per squad would be enough in the situations you described?

I ask because one of the things that stands out to me in Paul Melody's article about the current nine-man rifle squad is his belief that one LMG per squad is just about right; that it's difficult to effectively employ more than one LMG in a nine-man squad - much less in an understrength squad that's really just an overstrength fire team.

Thoughts?

[Uboat509]

Arguments about ideal squad size aside, I always liked having two LMGs per squad for the simple fact that it gave me one LMG for each of my maneuver elements. Whichever of them made contact first could lay down the same base of fire while the other moved. It was also nice even if my whole squad was the base of fire for another element. One saw can put down a lot of rounds but two saws talking to each other puts down a impressive amount of fire power and it helps keep the gunners from burning out their barrels. There is an old saying that two is one and one is none. Over the years I have come to wholeheartedly believe that. If I only have one LMG in my squad then when I need it most I will have no LMG in my squad.

SFC W

[SethB]

There is quite a bit of experience in this thread, so I'd like to ask how many rounds a box magazine would have to hold to make an AR viable.

Given length limitations, there is only so much longer you can make a 5.56 magazine. Variations include Steyr with 42 round magazines and the RPK-74 with a 45 round magazine. At a certain point these get rather long. How long is too long?

Second, how wide is too wide? There is the possibility of using a number of stacks to feed more rounds. The Russians and the Italians have done this with varying degrees of success.

The M16 magazine well will not be of assistance if a quad stack magazine is developed, but it may be the only way to get 60 or 75 rounds into a magazine that will both work and allow a decent prone position.

So, how many rounds would a magazine need to hold to viably replace a SAW?

[Ken White]

50 ideal -- more would be too heavy and unwieldy and of benefit only if one subscribes to the theory that the more rounds fired regardless of accuracy the better. A proposition I emphatically do not agree with.

The old 60 rd Drum for the Ultimax was okay, the 100 is too heavy as is the C-Mag.

[reed11b]

Arguments about ideal squad size aside, I always liked having two LMGs per squad for the simple fact that it gave me one LMG for each of my maneuver elements. Whichever of them made contact first could lay down the same base of fire while the other moved. It was also nice even if my whole squad was the base of fire for another element. One saw can put down a lot of rounds but two saws talking to each other puts down a impressive amount of fire power and it helps keep the gunners from burning out their barrels. There is an old saying that two is one and one is none. Over the years I have come to wholeheartedly believe that. If I only have one LMG in my squad then when I need it most I will have no LMG in my squad.

SFC W

The binary orgsnization was pioneered by the Italians in WWII, in larger echelons, but for very simalier tactics. They found that the structure and tactic left them predictable and unable to truly "maneuver". Thw Army "base of fire" squad concept suffers the same failings. It makes sense at a glance, but IMHO does not work well.
Reed

[Uboat509]

The binary orgsnization was pioneered by the Italians in WWII, in larger echelons, but for very simalier tactics. They found that the structure and tactic left them predictable and unable to truly "maneuver". Thw Army "base of fire" squad concept suffers the same failings. It makes sense at a glance, but IMHO does not work well.
Reed

I'm not sure that any problems that the Italians had in WWII were due to their tactics so much as their general lack of competence. The tactic has generally worked well for me when properly executed but what is the alternative?

SFC W

[William F. Owen]

Where we fundamentally disagree here is on where the "Main"/"Support" Weapons should normally go - though the disagreement itself is perhaps not critically important. Normal pooling of heavy weapons at either
Company or Platoon works either way; personnally, having observed how it works at Platoon level, I think it really is better for them to normally be at Company level, though of course attached out to the Platoons as needed.

I'm not sure we do dis-agree. If you can 2-3 Fire Support teams in the 30-man Platoon, I don't see why you can't have a 1 Fire Support Platoon in a 3 Platoon Company.

The point is, that ANY of these fire support elements can become a normal fireteam, merely by ditching their Support weapon and picking up a couple of LAWs or rifle grenades.

Still, it works, and with some 32 men or some such, the Owen Platoon covers its bases, and with a maximum of efficiency and simplicity. It would be interesting to see what, if any, difference in wartime sustainability there would be between these two concepts. Unquestionably, though the Owen Platoon would be easier to maintain during peacetime, and this would reduce or eliminate at least one perennial resources/funding problem.

I'm not sure there is an "Owen Platoon", but I do advocate very simple and flexible principles of organisation. These work regardless of the overall number of men. The more you reduce the number, the less the flexibility becomes. What works with 30, works with 24. I guess it's really "Wigram Grouping."