Results 1 to 20 of 49

Thread: Redundancy in small unit organization

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Posts
    310

    Default Redundancy in small unit organization

    I've always been curious how planners calculate redundancy (the structure and amount of a reserve force) afforded to small units, but I have no idea how they go about it. I know I need a better grasp on how some minimum unit is structured and why--for example, why X number of rifleman, Y number of LMGs, Z number of grenadiers and under what circumstances? Is this minimum unit treated atomically or do planners try to achieve redundancy at that fine grain?
    Last edited by Presley Cannady; 12-29-2007 at 08:05 PM.

  2. #2
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    499

    Default

    If I understand your question correctly you're asking about planning to have more than enough troops to accomplish a given mission?

    The only thing I ever heard was that we should have a 3 to 1 advantage in attacking a prepared defense. Beyond that, I really don't know.

    As far as organizing small units with a built in redundancy.....it seems to me that the Army doesn't. Instead they try to get by with the bare minimum. And often in times past when the Army wanted to stand up additional big units, or was looking for manpower savings, the squad was the level that had to learn to make do with less.

    This last go around the squad came out intact though. Instead, the brigade took the hit. The Army wanted more brigades so they got more brigades..... but now brigades have fewer maneuver battalions.

    It seems to me that redundancy planning for the Army usually happens at higher levels. For example, many people think that Schwartzkopf didn't need as many divisions as he asked for to kick the Iraqis out of Kuwait. But he made sure that he had more than enough before starting an offensive.
    "Pick up a rifle and you change instantly from a subject to a citizen." - Jeff Cooper

  3. #3
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    499

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Presley Cannady View Post
    I know I need a better grasp on how some minimum unit is structured and why--for example, why X number of rifleman, Y number of LMGs, Z number of grenadiers and under what circumstances? Is this minimum unit treated atomically or do planners try to achieve redundancy at that fine grain?
    In other words, what is the "basic infantry element?"

    Oh, boy. Go to the threads (and numerous links!) about the rife squad, fire team group platoon, etc.

    Insightful (I thought) was Paul Melody's article: http://stinet.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=...fier=ADA225438

    That will keep you busy for a while.
    Last edited by Rifleman; 12-29-2007 at 10:07 PM. Reason: Fixed link
    "Pick up a rifle and you change instantly from a subject to a citizen." - Jeff Cooper

  4. #4
    Council Member Ratzel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    81

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rifleman View Post
    In other words, what is the "basic infantry element?"

    Oh, boy. Go to the threads (and numerous links!) about the rife squad, fire team group platoon, etc.

    Insightful (I thought) was Paul Melody's article: http://stinet.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=...fier=ADA225438

    That will keep you busy for a while.
    I read the article, and thought the author made some good points about squads not likely to fire and maneuver in wartime. We did conduct training in which the squad would make contact, team A would lay a base of fire and team B would flank the enemy. We would also do the same with the two squads. First squad would be the base of fire and second squad would flank the enemy. When we would do force on force at NTC or JRTC, we would generally use both squads in this situation. Therefore, as the author pointed out, having two fire teams, may have been a waste of resources.

    However, that was the woods, or the desert. In an urban environment, having two teams seems to work out better. The team leaders' control the two teams and communicate with the squad leader who communicates with the Platoon Leader. While the two teams aren't necessarily "firing and maneuvering," they are operating apart from each other. Using the squad leader to control a team reduces his ability to communicate with the PL and increases his risk of becoming a casualty. Therefore, I conclude that the two team squad is better for the terrain the army finds itself in today.

  5. #5
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    499

    Default

    Yes, I understand. Light infantry units do it that way also.

    But the authors basic contention is that you need to start with big squads of 12 or 13 people for the fire team structure to hold up under attrition. Even if two teams in a smaller squad is better in theory the fire team structure will soon break down in smaller squads due to combat attrition.

    Few Vietnam Army infantry vets remember their squads operating with fire teams very often, even though the two fire team structure was doctrine during that time. Ask them how many people they remember in a squad and you hear things like "five to seven," or "six to eight."

    When that's reality does it matter if two teams are better in theory?

    We've hashed this out pretty well on other threads.
    "Pick up a rifle and you change instantly from a subject to a citizen." - Jeff Cooper

  6. #6
    Council Member William F. Owen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    The State of Partachia, at the eastern end of the Mediterranean
    Posts
    3,947

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Presley Cannady View Post
    -for example, why X number of rifleman, Y number of LMGs, Z number of grenadiers and under what circumstances? Is this minimum unit treated atomically or do planners try to achieve redundancy at that fine grain?
    I have been researching this for the past 5-6 years (which is no proof I'm right). Here's what I have concluded from studying the UK.
    I suspect the US is not much different, but I may be wrong.

    @ It's all based on opinions. There is little actual evidence, but there is some which is usually dismissed as not giving the right answer. - and this I have written proof of.

    @ There are no well articulated principles of organisation. Again, just an arbitrary collection of opinions.

    @ Huge amounts of time and money have been wasted asking the wrong questions, EG:- How should the section be organised, not "How do we develop task organisation." - this is usually only done in respect to discrete activities like Patrols.

    @ People believe that Section organisation is what enables Fire and Manoeuvre. - so major sections of doctrine, like Core Functions - have no impact on squad/section organisation!

    @ The need to be able to sustain casualties, and continue the mission, is usually argued as an absolute statement of numbers and not a percentage of overall organisations. - EG: A company suffers 3 dead and 6 wounded. A Platoon suffers 3 dead and 6 wounded. A squad/section suffers 3 dead and 6 wounded. - so thus 9 casualties makes the 9 man Squad unsustainable, so you need bigger squads. What is a Platoon suffers a 100% loss of one APC/MICV?

    @ Cost is the major driver. How much money a section/platoon takes to equip, train and sustain, is actually the base line for most decisions. Organisations beyond the platoon, EG: How the Company and Battalion is organised impacts disproportionately on the platoon.

    @ The payload and equipping of APCs and MICVs is seen as being a driver in terms of manning and equipment costs, despite the fact that, logically, infantry should be organised to fight dismounted and not organised for transport. To support the MICV, the vehicle crew is established as part of the squad.
    Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"

    - The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
    - If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
    Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition

  7. #7
    Council Member Ratzel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    81

    Default

    Mr. Owen, have you written any articles on your ideas for squad organization? If so, can you link it?

  8. #8
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    499

    Default

    An interesting article written by Wilf proposing a "Fire Team Group Platoon."

    http://www.geocities.com/drakonok/Or..._Infantry.html

    I think this is what you're asking for.

    It's being discussed here: http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/...ead.php?t=4172
    Last edited by Rifleman; 12-30-2007 at 05:50 AM.
    "Pick up a rifle and you change instantly from a subject to a citizen." - Jeff Cooper

  9. #9
    Council Member Ratzel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    81

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rifleman View Post
    An interesting article written by Wilf proposing a "Fire Team Group Platoon."

    http://www.geocities.com/drakonok/Or..._Infantry.html
    I tried this link but it said it was "not found."

  10. #10
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    499

    Default

    Not sure what happened. Go to the link I posted for the discussion thread, the second link, and you will see the first link in the first post on that thread.
    "Pick up a rifle and you change instantly from a subject to a citizen." - Jeff Cooper

  11. #11
    Council Member William F. Owen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    The State of Partachia, at the eastern end of the Mediterranean
    Posts
    3,947

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ratzel View Post
    Mr. Owen, have you written any articles on your ideas for squad organization? If so, can you link it?
    I have and they are linked in other threads. - or some that others may point you at.

    A.) A lot of the criticism of my ideas as outline in the "Fire team Group" is valid in the context that some state. So I am not dismissive of the critiques, nor are any of my insights necessarily greater than those who think I'm full of sh*t. but what sh*t I am full of, I know very well!

    B.) My ideas have moved on a bit in the last 5 years. I think a Platoon has to be able to adjust its organisation based on Mission, Threat, Terrain etc. The article that is often cited was written to provoke debate.

    C.) I believe that the Core Functions - Find, Fix, Strike, and Exploit are a very strong basis on which to train and organise. A Platoon that adheres to that is in, IMO, pretty good shape.

    D.) Doctrine, training, education and leadership, matter far more important than precise Squad or Platoon Size.

    E.) and I currently think a platoon should be about 30 men, organised into 3 x 10 man sections. Each Section contains a Recce Group and Weapons Group (6 & 4?).
    1 Section is lead by the Platoon commander, and a L/Cpl.
    2 Section is lead by the Platoon Segreant and a Corporal.
    3 Section is lead by a Corporal and a L/Cpl.
    If necessary,
    The Platoon can form as two "Multiples". The Recce Multiple is the 4 x 5 man teams under the Platoon commander, two L/Cpls and a Corporal.
    The Weapons Multiple is 2 x 5 Man teams under The Platoon sergeant and a Corporal.
    Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"

    - The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
    - If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
    Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition

  12. #12
    Council Member Ratzel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    81

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by William F. Owen View Post
    I have and they are linked in other threads. - or some that others may point you at.

    A.) A lot of the criticism of my ideas as outline in the "Fire team Group" is valid in the context that some state. So I am not dismissive of the critiques, nor are any of my insights necessarily greater than those who think I'm full of sh*t. but what sh*t I am full of, I know very well!

    B.) My ideas have moved on a bit in the last 5 years. I think a Platoon has to be able to adjust its organisation based on Mission, Threat, Terrain etc. The article that is often cited was written to provoke debate.

    C.) I believe that the Core Functions - Find, Fix, Strike, and Exploit are a very strong basis on which to train and organise. A Platoon that adheres to that is in, IMO, pretty good shape.

    D.) Doctrine, training, education and leadership, matter far more important than precise Squad or Platoon Size.

    E.) and I currently think a platoon should be about 30 men, organised into 3 x 10 man sections. Each Section contains a Recce Group and Weapons Group (6 & 4?).
    1 Section is lead by the Platoon commander, and a L/Cpl.
    2 Section is lead by the Platoon Segreant and a Corporal.
    3 Section is lead by a Corporal and a L/Cpl.
    If necessary,
    The Platoon can form as two "Multiples". The Recce Multiple is the 4 x 5 man teams under the Platoon commander, two L/Cpls and a Corporal.
    The Weapons Multiple is 2 x 5 Man teams under The Platoon sergeant and a Corporal.
    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.

  13. #13
    Council Member William F. Owen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    The State of Partachia, at the eastern end of the Mediterranean
    Posts
    3,947

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ratzel View Post
    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.
    Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"

    - The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
    - If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
    Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition

  14. #14
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by William F. Owen View Post
    I have and they are linked in other threads. - or some that others may point you at.

    A.) A lot of the criticism of my ideas as outline in the "Fire team Group" is valid in the context that some state. So I am not dismissive of the critiques, nor are any of my insights necessarily greater than those who think I'm full of sh*t. but what sh*t I am full of, I know very well!

    B.) My ideas have moved on a bit in the last 5 years. I think a Platoon has to be able to adjust its organisation based on Mission, Threat, Terrain etc. The article that is often cited was written to provoke debate.

    C.) I believe that the Core Functions - Find, Fix, Strike, and Exploit are a very strong basis on which to train and organise. A Platoon that adheres to that is in, IMO, pretty good shape.

    D.) Doctrine, training, education and leadership, matter far more important than precise Squad or Platoon Size.

    E.) and I currently think a platoon should be about 30 men, organised into 3 x 10 man sections. Each Section contains a Recce Group and Weapons Group (6 & 4?).
    1 Section is lead by the Platoon commander, and a L/Cpl.
    2 Section is lead by the Platoon Segreant and a Corporal.
    3 Section is lead by a Corporal and a L/Cpl.
    If necessary,
    The Platoon can form as two "Multiples". The Recce Multiple is the 4 x 5 man teams under the Platoon commander, two L/Cpls and a Corporal.
    The Weapons Multiple is 2 x 5 Man teams under The Platoon sergeant and a Corporal.
    It sounds like you are a Marine. Don't know alot about Marines, except what I learned from my cousin, who was an E-6 at Pendleton. It sounds like you are talking about a recon platoon, because you have x 20 men dedicated to reconnaissance. You have another x 10 men dedicated to weapons, and I assume those weapons have to be along the lines of machine guns and anti-armor systems. This is x 30 men. O.K., so you have two 10-man recon elements and a 10-man weapons element. If you are using weapons during a recon mission, you're not going to last. That means the "eyes and ears" of the battalion commander are going to be put out of commission; that combat information off of which the S-2 can deduce "actionable intelligence" is going to be cut off; and that toes are going to be tagged. On the other hand, if you're talking about a x 30-man rifle platoon, there's no need for x 20 recon men. The Corps has a number of x 32-man platoons already, and for their force structure this is not bad because you need small units to fit everybody on amphib ships, AAV's, etc. Small, sufficiently mobile units with a very high degree of lethality are what I think the Army & Marines are looking for in the future. Marine squads have three fire teams totaling x 13-men, x 14 with a Navy Hosp Corpsman. Each team has a machine gun, SAW or newer M-27, TL, grenadier, and a rifleman. If you are thinking " x 30-man rifle platoon" you should take this into consideration to reorganize a x 41-man platoon into a x 30-man platoon. If you're thinking recon, they aren't fighters unless they get caught by the enemy. I'm not trying to be critical, just throwing a few thoughts your way. Maybe an x 8-man weapons section, (x 4 Bravo 240's) with three x 6-man teams having a TL, x 2 SAW/M-27 gunners, a grenadier, and x 2 riflemen for a total of x 26. Add a four man platoon HQ Group of the PL, PSG, Corpsman, and RTO and you have a x 30-man platoon with a very high degree of lethality. Hope you consider it, especially as far as part C) of your writing above goes.
    Last edited by novelist; 07-28-2014 at 12:41 AM.

  15. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Durban, South Africa
    Posts
    3,902

    Default

    Wilf, is a Brit - an ex NCO I believe - who no longer posts here.

    With respect to him and a number of others who have indulged in speculative theory around here their lack of wartime experience undermines their contributions to such debates.

    Quote Originally Posted by novelist View Post
    It sounds like you are a Marine.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •