Infantry Unit Tactics, Tasks, Weapons, and Organization

[Rifleman]

Welcome Logan,

I understand your fascination with organizational details at the tactical level. I like to mull over things like that myself.

There are several long threads here that will doubtless interest you: the one about rifle squad composition, for starters.

One of the things that came out of that thread was the belief (shared by most, anyway) that the current USMC 13-man squad design is probably the most capable of them all.

Something else that was discussed is that the Army will likely never have enough people for that kind of squad: for better or worse they are stuck with the nine-man squad for the foreseeable future. So, if that's the case, one of the ideas tossed around was should the Army give up the fire team sub-division and go with a squad similar in design to the WWII era German gruppe. Paul Melody had an interesting article that came to that same conclusion (more or less).

Somewhere in that long list of posts are links to Paul Melody's article and another about the WWII era German gruppe.

Oh yeah, Wilf is our board rebel on this issue (gotta love him! ). His view is that the focus should be on the platoon, and that the platoon should be made up of what you might think of as several large fire teams.

[reed11b]

Your TO&E seems very equipment centered. My experiance in TO&E is that they are either slight variations of current structure (fine-tuning so to speak) or radically differnt and based on unique training and/or command and control concepts (Wilf's is a great example of this). Question is..are there any non equipment related reasons behind your TO&E choices?
Reed

[Logan Hartke]

One of the things that came out of that thread was the belief (shared by most, anyway) that the current USMC 13-man squad design is probably the most capable of them all.

Something else that was discussed is that the Army will likely never have enough people for that kind of squad: for better or worse they are stuck with the nine-man squad for the foreseeable future. So, if that's the case, one of the ideas tossed around was should the Army give up the fire team sub-division and go with a squad similar in design to the WWII era German gruppe. Paul Melody had an interesting article that came to that same conclusion (more or less).

Trust me, I like the 13-man or so squad, it's just that I hate having to split up a squad to get it from point A to point B. If you're not splitting it up, then you have to pack it into a wheeled vehicle only slightly shorter than a stretch limo (get yourself a nice 10x10 Piranha) or just slightly smaller than a two-story house (EFV). That may not be a problem for the USMC, who likes to go places in landing craft, V-22s, or by foot, but for a real mechanized army, things get a bit more difficult.

I toyed with the idea of using APCs like the FNSS ACV-S, but even then I was having to do things that I didn't want to do with the vehicle. Reduce it to MG only, manned by a squaddie. Store all weapons and ammo on the exterior of the vehicle. Make the squad commander the vehicle commander, etc. I was able to get a 13-man squad, but only by neutering my IFVs, cramming guys in like sardines, and getting Battalions that had more armored personnel carriers than most African armies posses in toto. I had charts and charts of ways I could make it work, laid out on notebook paper and computer documents. I studied the USMC organization up and down. In my dream world where my rocket-pack troopers flew from one combat zone to another, the 13-man squad was ideal. But in the world where an EFV costs as much as a new MiG-29 and a V-22 costs as much as a Eurofighter, the 13-man squad was too much trouble to simply move around the battlefield. I liked it, too. I had a SMAW in each squad, etc. It was nice. In a modern day battle of Rorke's Drift or Krinkelt/Rocherath, it would have cleaned up. But knowing that I couldn't rely on the enemy to meet me on my terms on my prepared battlefield, I had to change it up a bit. I don't think I've lost much in actual effectiveness, however, as may of the pieces that the gold-plated 13-man squad had can be added on an as-needed basis once on the battlefield.

Your TO&E seems very equipment centered. My experiance in TO&E is that they are either slight variations of current structure (fine-tuning so to speak) or radically differnt and based on unique training and/or command and control concepts (Wilf's is a great example of this). Question is..are there any non equipment related reasons behind your TO&E choices?
Reed

That I'll admit to. This is primarily a way for me to envision what the requirements would be for equipping the kind of military I felt would be necessary for the defense of a nation. If you look at it, though, you'll see that there are a few very serious differences in the way this force would be employed compared to most modern militaries. One is the reemergence of the 7.62mm down to the squad. I'm not convinced that a whole squad of 7.62mm is best, however, so there's a mix. This isn't just a matter of one cartridge over another. This is a matter of putting the reach out and touch someone abilities back in the hands of the squaddie (or at least the squad commander), without going right back to the 1950s dilemma of an all 7.62x51mm unit with the supply and weight issues it came with.

There are very few holes in the battalion, where a unit would be terribly vulnerable to a certain type of enemy formation or tactic. Likewise, there are few parts of my structure that would be out of a job in a certain situation. The equipment I've chosen complements my strategy of "waste not, want not". Most of my units are at least dual-purpose and mobile enough to be equally effective on the offensive or defensive, in mounted or dismounted combat.

Much of my TO&E has been influenced by my immense respect for what McNair did to the US Army's organization at the start of WWII. It had a lot of problems, and many lessons were learned. It did, however, "cut the fat", which was its intention from the get-go. In most cases they US Army still ended up with a better TO&E than their opponents, lean as it was. While by no means copying it to a tee, that was my intention, as well. Get a highly-mobile basic building block to work off of, where a certain type of equipment could be replaced or substituted on an as-needed basis without turning the army on its head. An organization that was heavy on firepower, could readily accept whatever attachments necessary to accomplish the mission, yet was highly-standardized and required a relative minimum of support for the capabilities it offered.

I've been soaking up TO&Es from WWII British Commandos to Italian 2+2 Infantry companies to German Panzergrenadiers to Cold War Soviet Motor Rifle Divisions and American Pentomic Divisions to anything modern, from Swiss to Chinese formations. I can't say I have the best setup, by any means, but I've given a good deal of thought to every piece of the TO&E and while influenced from every corner of the globe from the past 60 years, but have copied nothing. I've studied the radical and have even toyed with the radical (6.5mm Grendel ammunition, modern rifle-grenades, UAVs in the squad), but in most cases found that they're radical for a reason.

I think I have been innovative in many ways. I've grown particularly fond of my half 5.56, half 7.62 squad. I also like the inclusion of the commando mortar in the ATGM squads. I've done the kg by kg math for each squad and crew-served weapon member to make sure that nothing I do is totally impractical. My planned reconnaissance units are to be pseudo-elite formations, like the British Recce groups in WWII, although employed far differently. They're a combination of the traditional recce roles and the modern FIST roles into one. Again, it's by no perfect or even revolutionary, but I've tried to come up with an organization that is, if nothing else, effective.


As much time as I have put into this, it's an evolving TO&E. With every book that I read, I make a change to it. My recent reading of "Steeds of Steel" has caused me to place a great emphasis on the combat needs of scout units and having a clear idea of what their role should be after making contact with the enemy. I'm very open to suggestion. My adoption of the next-generation LAWs, some of the 7.62mm firepower, the PzF 3, and the CV90 can all be attributed to suggestions by others after having heard my initial ideas. My current TO&Es wouldn't recognize my initial groups at all. That's why I'm posting them on here, to get some feedback on them, good and bad.

Logan Hartke

[Cavguy]

I think I have been innovative in many ways. I've grown particularly fond of my half 5.56, half 7.62 squad. I also like the inclusion of the commando mortar in the ATGM squads. I've done the kg by kg math for each squad and crew-served weapon member to make sure that nothing I do is totally impractical.

Disclaimer: I haven't read all of the above yet.

One big consideration is logistics tail. My concern for hybrid ammo squads is that now you have just increased the amount and type of ammo needed to carry and reduced interchangability in organizations. While the "tail" shouldn't wag the dog, we have learned that it does matter. This also applies to too many specialized vehicle types requiring different parts, and too many different weapons. Not to mention you begin to expand your support BN/HHC when you have to add specialized mechanics and technicians to troubleshoot all the different equipment models.

I'm not a big fan of the FCS (yet), but the idea of moving to a vehicle system with 80% parts commonality has huge logistical impacts in a positive way.

[Logan Hartke]

Disclaimer: I haven't read all of the above yet.

One big consideration is logistics tail. My concern for hybrid ammo squads is that now you have just increased the amount and type of ammo needed to carry and reduced interchangability in organizations. While the "tail" shouldn't wag the dog, we have learned that it does matter.

Actually, that's not going to be the case here. I address that consideration in the first paragraph of this post.

This also applies to too many specialized vehicle types requiring different parts, and too many different weapons. Not to mention you begin to expand your support BN/HHC when you have to add specialized mechanics and technicians to troubleshoot all the different equipment models.

I'm not a big fan of the FCS (yet), but the idea of moving to a vehicle system with 80% parts commonality has huge logistical impacts in a positive way.

That's actually interesting that you brought that up. In my TO&E, I have some of the largest number of different vehicle variants of any army structure I've looked at. That having been said, my battalions have some of the fewest unique mechanical components for any mechanized/motorized units that I've looked at. Take my Cobra motorized unit. It has a grand total of something like 25 different vehicle variants in that battalion, yet only two base vehicles, the Cobra and the FMTV family. I try to keep the types of unique spare parts and ammunition being shipped out to a unit down to the absolute minimum, but still getting the job done.

If the logistical aspect of the TO&Es is something you find interesting, I'll have to post some of the Excel sheets that I've made up showing total different vehicle variants, weapons calibers, and chassis types in a battalion.

Logan Hartke

[Kiwigrunt]

Actually, that's not going to be the case here. I address that consideration in the first paragraph of this post.

Hi Logan and welcome. Yeap, some of us just can't get enough of this stuff.

With regards to your ammo, 5.56 loose, 5.56 belt, 7.62 loose, 7.62 belt and 4.6 makes for 5 diferent types of ammo. But you are right in stating that we actually already have that in most modern units, in some shape or form.
Same aplies to 60 mm mortar ammo. M6 long range uses latest generation bombs at approx. 2.4 kg each. Commando mortars are effective enough with lighter weight 'older' generation bombs at around 1.6 kg each (less weight to carry at that level). So again you would be looking at 2 types of ammo.

[William F. Owen]

Wow...

What a lot to read. Needed two cups of java this AM!

To Logan

All good stuff mate!

Good work. I do like the level of detail, but some critical detail is missing. You preferences are vastly more complex than my own, but it's always excellent to have a starting point on which to base the discussion.

I have the following questions.

a.) What is the rank structure and manning establishment of our organisation?
b.) Who has what radios and what electro-optics?
c.) Any idea as to average carried weights?
and
d.) How do all these folks operate? Can I just strap on current UK or US tactical doctrine and walk out of the door.

Some of your equipment choices are interesting, and quite soundly reasoned, but others leave me a tad confused.

I thing we may have to correspond privately in some detail, so as not to bore the natives rigid!

[MattM]

With regards to your ammo, 5.56 loose, 5.56 belt, 7.62 loose, 7.62 belt and 4.6 makes for 5 diferent types of ammo. But you are right in stating that we actually already have that in most modern units, in some shape or form.

Totally agree, KiwiGrunt.

The standard US rifle companies load out with over 60 ordnance items (we call unique configurations DODIC items). This includes all the rifle ammo, LMG & MMG ammo, 60 mm, assault weapons, grenades, smoke, pyro, etc. Obviously, BN and BCT carry linearly more ordnance items with increased capabilities.

Thus, there is room to add PDW and 6.X ammo into the log train. This is not nearly as difficult as the batteries, rations, and medical supplies at the BN level.

From the Friendly S-4....

[William F. Owen]

The standard US rifle companies load out with over 60 ordnance items (we call unique configurations DODIC items). This includes all the rifle ammo, LMG & MMG ammo, 60 mm, assault weapons, grenades, smoke, pyro, etc. Obviously, BN and BCT carry linearly more ordnance items with increased capabilities.

Thus, there is room to add PDW and 6.X ammo into the log train. This is not nearly as difficult as the batteries, rations, and medical supplies at the BN level.

From the Friendly S-4....

The Companies may, but how many at the platoon level? The issue is not just numbers. The issue is actually managing the different natures at the platoon level. The bulk of natures expended are small arms ammunition.

EG: If my fire teams just have 5.56mm ball, link, and 9mm, that's three spaces on my log card. Add two more ammo types and that is time and effort spilling into my tactical pause that can probably be better spent on other things.

Personally, I'm pushing for a Platoon that has 5.56mm ball, 7.62mm link, and small quantities of 8.6mm and 9mm.

I am not saying it is impossible, or undoable, but we probably need to look at reducing the number of natures, not increasing it.