Rifle squad composition

[Fuchs]

I've got a question.
This "patrol" thing as mentioned all the time by U.S. and Commonwealth people doesn't fit into well to what Germany armies did. Patrols of such sizes (squad to platoon) were usually mounted or patrolling along the lines the gaps between Eastern Front strongpoints (usually along otherwise empty trenches or channels).

"We" apply some different patrols for base security around Kunduz, but I don't know the size. Maybe they use squads now. There are certainly not enough men in the base for proper patrolling in more than squad strength. Kundus is unique because the terrain offers no opportunity for stealth unless you move at night and hide at day on high ground. But afaik stealth is not desired in Kunduz anyway because the patrols shall and do deter the Taleban from using 107mm rockets.

The most common battlefield scouting mission in German armies was a stealth-oriented 2-3 men team that infiltrates a short distance (2 km for example) and reports back (or, if it just scouts without infiltration it was often a lieutenant with one or two soldiers).

Platoon-sized dismounted ops were either "Stoßtrupp" actions; strictly offensive, to take out a single position or to take prisoners or they were movement to contact.


I'm a bit confused about this focus on patrolling in U.S. and UK. Maybe it's a consequence of the many LIC in the past two generations?

------

About the M240; it may suffice, but it's much heavier than necessary.
Even the Russian PKM and its decendant Pecheneg is better in some regards.
I would recommend the SS-77 from South Africa for the U.S.Army: http://world.guns.ru/machine/mg13-e.htm
2+ kg saved without a loss of capability and the tactical employment would be the same (unlike with the MG3 which is different because of its high ROF, but also lighter than M240).

[reed11b]

Hey WilF, good to see you are still putting out new thought provoking work, keep it up.
Fuchs, the patrol focus in this discusion is probably my fault since I used it incorrectly to define offensive movements outside the wire (Iraq).
My concept on "squad" size is based on there not being a need for squads and that a fire-team based platoon is more aplicable to modern ops. Arrainging squads for the assault or defense or even patrol like you see in many "perfect squad size/compisition" discusions makes very little sense since the enemy and the conditions you fight in have a say in what is ideal anyway. My ideas differ from WilF's only in minor details, so reading his article is the best way to figure what I am trying to say since I am doing a poor job of it myself.
Reed
Anychance of getting an imbedded spellchecker? that would be grate..errrr great.

[Kiwigrunt]

Anychance of getting an imbedded spellchecker? that would be grate..errrr great.

Dew knot trussed yore spell chequer two fined awl yore mistakes!

[Black Brunswicker]

First of all, hello to all, it's my first post. The reason that I joined this forum is that I found that many people here were discussing some of the same questions and ideas then I. I am thinking since some years about Infantry organization, tactics and weapons.

For the infantry platoon this is where my thinking currently stands:

Rifle Platoon of 32 Men: 1 Officier, 1 Sergeant, 4 Corporals, 26 other ranks (I choose 32 Men because they can ride in 4 common APC)

Basic Organisation:
- Platoon HQ and Support Section: 1 Officier, 1 Sergeant, 1 Radio Op, 1 Medic, 1 Forward Observer, 2 Mortar Operators with 1 x 60mm Mortar, 1 Sniper
- 3 x Rifle Sections with 1 x Section Leader, 1 x Assistent Section Leader, 2 x Machinegunners and 4 x Riflemen; with 2 x LMG, 2 x 40mm Grenade Launchers and antitank weapons

There various variation how the platoon can also be organised, like 4 Rifle Sections of 7 + HQ or 2 x Rifle Sections of 2 Sections of 12 + Support Section + HQ

There are also some variation the sections can be organised
- 2 x Fire Team of 4
- 1 x Assault Team of 5 and 1 x Support Team of 3 with 2 LMG and 1 40mm GL)
- 1 x Assault Team of 4 with 1 x LMG, 1 x 40mm GL and one Support Team with the anittank grenade launcher and 1 x LMG


Basic Equipment:
- 26 x Short Assault Rifles 5.56mm like HK416 or SIG SG551 (about 8 of them with a telescopic sight like ACOG)
- 6 x light machineguns like FN Minimi, Negev or Ultima 100
- 6 x 40mm Grenade Launchers like AG36 (I like the ones which you can convert into a stand-alone weapon) or HK69A1
- 1 x Long Range Rifles (8.6mm) like Sako TRG-42
- 1 x 60mm Mortar
- 3 x Antitank Grenade Launchers like Carlgustav M3
maybe some AT4CS if required
riflegrenades and handgrenades
- 9 x Radios VHF, Portable
- 2 x Radios VHF, Manpack

which weapons exactly is for me not so important. Important is a powerfull mix in the platoon and in the sections. I want some antitank , antipersonel (mortar and 40mm grenade launchers) and suppressiv fire (MG) capabilities.

It is diffcult to chose the right mix of weapons, I considered a lot of different weapons for the platoon like

7,62mm Machineguns like FN MAG or the Mk 48
7,62mm Semi-Automatic Sniper Rifles like the M110 SASS
different 40mm grenade launchers (like the M32) and light mortars
antitankweapons like NLAW, Panzerfaust 3, Carlgustav and AT4

but I couldn't integrate all into one platoon.

There is no right answer for the weapons, I also just looked for a well out-balanced platoon and for flexible weapons. One of the main problems are the antitank (support) weapons, which are heavy and have some other disadvantages.

I first started with a 8-man section with 2 x FN Minimi, 2 x M203 and 1 x Panzerfaust 3. Then I thought about a 8-man section with 1 x Carlgustav, 1 x FN MAG and 1 x HK69A1 40mm grenade launcher, which is already a good mix - I think - but not so flexible. I also thought about a squad with a 5-men AT/assault group with 1 x UGL 40mm and 1 x MBT LAW and a 3-men Support Group with a 7,62mm Mk 48 and a 40mm MGL.

I didn't want to create a very big platoon and I also believe that small sections of 8 or 9 men are easier to command and to lead. I tried to keep the organization and the weapons simple, but sometimes it contradicts with other objectivs.

Any feedbacks?

[William F. Owen]

I didn't want to create a very big platoon and I also believe that small sections of 8 or 9 men are easier to command and to lead. I tried to keep the organization and the weapons simple, but sometimes it contradicts with other objectivs.

Any feedbacks?

Welcome.

I could say great minds think alike or fools seldom differ. Good to see you put the radios in.

Why do you make these assumptions?

Dunno how much of these forums you've read (my guess is most - ) but almost every aspect of your suggested TOE is discussed in depth in about 5-6 threads other than this one.

[RJ]

I want to thank all who have contributed to these 20 pages. Great insight and every possible angle and configeration a rifle squad can be stretched of shrunk too.

When I got the feeling (de ja vu) the second time in the last 8 pages, I recycled myself and went back to the first 4 pages. If anyone joined this discussion in the middle and hasn't read pages 1 - 4 ----I recommend you take the time to do so.

The results of a 12 man Marine DO Squad in combat will be most interesting to this old 13 man Rifle Squad and 9 man Recon Squad leader after about two cycles thru the effort in Afganistan.

Thanks again. I am amazed of the things that have changed and those that have remained.

[jcustis]

When I got the feeling (de ja vu) the second time in the last 8 pages, I recycled myself and went back to the first 4 pages. If anyone joined this discussion in the middle and hasn't read pages 1 - 4 ----I recommend you take the time to do so.

You are absolutely right. Those first four pages are gems, and reminded me that I needed to print off some of the text and linked material and offer to a motivated Aussie cavalry exchange officer.

[Ken White]

I've got a question.
This "patrol" thing as mentioned all the time by U.S. and Commonwealth people doesn't fit into well to what Germany armies did. Patrols of such sizes (squad to platoon) were usually mounted or patrolling along the lines the gaps between Eastern Front strongpoints (usually along otherwise empty trenches or channels).

Commonwealth and US patrols are used for for that. Commonly called Contact Patrols (sometimes by some Communications Patrols). No sense sending a Platoon or even a Squad if a Team sized patrol is adequate, the size is very much situation dependent...

...afaik stealth is not desired in Kunduz anyway because the patrols shall and do deter the Taleban from using 107mm rockets.

That too. "Presence" patrols. A squad sized patrol is ideal for that, big enough to deter the casual shooter (if said Squad acts like it knows what it's doing) and small enough to be reasonably agile while allowing more time and space coverage than a Platoon sized patrol...

The most common battlefield scouting mission in German armies was a stealth-oriented 2-3 men team that infiltrates a short distance (2 km for example) and reports back (or, if it just scouts without infiltration it was often a lieutenant with one or two soldiers).

A whole lot of that, the bulk of patrols in fact (outside COIN / LIC where the presence patrol does both show the flag and recon work). Reconnaissance (US 'Recon,' Commonwealth 'Recce') patrols -- except it's generally 4 or 5 people and only very rarely is an Officer sent. Four is pretty common for the simple reasons that's the size of a US fire Team (a half squad) and allows two buddy pairs.

Platoon-sized dismounted ops were either "Stoßtrupp" actions; strictly offensive, to take out a single position or to take prisoners or they were movement to contact.

Generically called Combat Patrols in the US. The same except that the minimum number required for the mission is usually sent to reduce exposure; no sense sending a Platoon of 40 plus if ten or twelve people are adequate for the mission.

I'm a bit confused about this focus on patrolling in U.S. and UK. Maybe it's a consequence of the many LIC in the past two generations?

Not really, most of our 'doctrine' was developed in WW I, refined in WW II (both Theaters of Operations) and has really received only minor tweaks since then; aggressive and extensive patrolling was found to avid surprises and to develop a lot of intel. That proved true also in Korea, in Viet Nam and today. It is still with us since, generally, it works. It could be improved in some instances but Armies change slowly...

About the M240; it may suffice, but it's much heavier than necessary. Even the Russian PKM and its decendant Pecheneg is better in some regards. I would recommend the SS-77 from South Africa for the U.S.Army: 2+ kg saved without a loss of capability and the tactical employment would be the same (unlike with the MG3 which is different because of its high ROF, but also lighter than M240).

All true but we have a bad problem with the "it wasn't invented here syndrome." I recall a Bundeswehr LTC pointing out that the US would buy the Karcher Decon device, engineer it for seven years until it no longer worked and then adopt it. He was about right...

[William F. Owen]

Not really, most of our 'doctrine' was developed in WW I, refined in WW II (both Theaters of Operations)

Yep, the epistemology of US/UK thoughts on patrols and patrolling is one that essentially says the Patrols are some type of optional or specialist activity. Most manuals still have a separate section or chapter on "Patrols" or "Patrols and Ambushes" as though they are somehow distinct from Attack and Defence. Most armies are still stuck in a WW1 mindset.