Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Marines Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: New USMC Section organisation
interestedamateur    2/7/2006 9:53:06 AM
Some news in this weeks JDW regarding this. Main facts: - Infantry sections reduced to 12 men. - The spare 3 men are going to the platoon HQ unit to form a 2nd platoon HQ (under the Platoon Sergeant) so as to provide continuous 24 hr platoon C2. Aim is to allow dispersed operations over a wide area. - Each section will contain a rifleman who can call in close air support This looks sensible (a bit like a SOG A-team), but won't the fact that a section leader is now presumably part of a fire-team make his job much harder? The 1/3 Marines have already tested this concept in Iraq by the way.
 
Quote    Reply

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest

Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5   NEXT
stinger       11/2/2007 3:20:54 PM
a third m-240 has been added to the weapons section, is that true? if so that would mean 1 240 per squad, can anyone comment or add truth to this..
 
Quote    Reply

longrifle       11/2/2007 4:26:36 PM
If you ask me - okay, so nobody did, I'll tell you anyway  - things are more of a squad fight than ever.  With that in mind.....the USMC should stick with the traditional 13 man squad of three fire teams. 
 
I thought the C2 team at squad level sounded interesting to begin with.  The more I think about the proposal the more it seems too specialized.  It seems like the squad wouldn't be so much of a rifle squad anymore but a big recon/forward observer/CAS direction team.  Is that really what's needed in the "Three block war?"
 
The only thing I can think of that might improve the USMC squad's capability is to heavy up one of the fire teams and lighten the other two.  We know: the Germans were pretty successful employing the MG42 at squad level in WWII; close combat will always require an adequate number of riflemen to clear a position.  It's possible to have both too little and too much suppression.
 
With those two things in mind maybe the USMC should consider keeping their tried, tested and true squad structure, yet putting a GPMG and squad DM in one team and removing the SAWS from the other two.  One suppression team and two clearing teams for the squad fight in the "Thee block war."  Something similar to this was suggested in the automatic rifle article. 
 
Having machine gun and rocket squads at platoon and company level seems like you're organizing for a more open, traditional fight with conventional attacks in a German forest and grazing fire in the defense. 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Carl S       11/3/2007 12:33:41 AM
Nearly twenty years ago (has it really been that long?)  Commadant Grey sarcasticlly remarked that "I've never seen a hill captured by a T/O platoon." His point was folks get wrapped around the axle on the finer points of orgaization, forgetting that the friction of war like KIAs men getting seperated & lost ect... make such nuances irrelevant.  Veterans know that the various wepons and specialists need to be forward where then can engage the enemy, that the situation dictates the mix, and that the leader present from lowly Corporal to salty Captain needs to know what to do with all the weapon teams likely to show up inside is command sphere.

In my 40+ years of military reading and training theres been dozens of proposals for reorganizing the USMC rifle squad.  All were perfectly valid for the circumstances concieved for, and none perfect or desirebale for a majority of the likely circumstances.  As we often sarcasticlly said  "Semper Flexibility".   
 
Quote    Reply

stinger       11/3/2007 5:04:52 AM
3 m-240,s is the way to go  that will fill in the squad....
 
Quote    Reply

Carl S       11/3/2007 9:43:43 AM
The guys on the firing line are arguing for lighter squad MG.  For true auto rifles.  At least those I've seen in print.   Still it makes lots of sense to have the M240 close at hand. 
 
Quote    Reply

longrifle       11/3/2007 11:09:16 PM
Again, here's two different examples of tactical success from WWII: the USMC settled on a 13 man squad, subdivided into three fire teams, with three M1s and one BAR per team; the Germans settled on a 10 man squad, with no real internal subdivision, made up of an MG 42 crew and riflemen.  And make no mistake about it, the Germans had a lot of tactical success with this organization.  It just couldn't make up for the strategic blunders.

The squads had more in common than just tactical successes: each organization is based around the primacy of an automatic weapon and both organizations proved to be reasonably flexible.

Are there lessons to be learned from this?  I think so.  I think the ideas can be successfully merged and retain a squad that is general purpose and not designed just for a specific task or environment.

If one fire team is a heavy team with a GPMG crew and a DM and the remaining two teams are light teams of riflemen (and automatic riflemen, if a true AR is adopted) then you have the basic German squad idea - GPMG crew and riflemen - on the more flexible and easier controlled USMC three team template.  Enough suppression to gain access to a building, bunker, or trench line with enough riflemen for clearing.

The automatic rifle article that appeared elsewhere pretty much arrived at the same conclusion.  Of the test formations used the one that worked best was placing all the squads SAWS into one fire team and using riflemen and ARs for the other two.  If a true AR is adopted I'd drop the SAW altogether for a GPMG team and a DM but the general ideal is the same.  Guns will often be attached directly to squads anyway in, especially in a "Three block war," so formalize the doctrine. 





  

 
Quote    Reply

longrifle       11/3/2007 11:37:39 PM
I actually trained with the squad I outlined above on a few occasions.  The Army light infantry/airborne squad was only two fire teams but if you were the lead squad in a movement to contact you would usually have a MG crew directly attached.  That might give you around 11-12 men and made you into something close to the USMC squad.

Since the Army rifle platoon only had two MG crews in the weapons squad we never could make all three squads into three team squads.  Too bad, I thought the three team squad was "the cat's meow" when we could manage it.

 
Quote    Reply

stinger       11/3/2007 11:46:11 PM
i  believe the army ranger squads are made up this way, 2 fire teams and a m-240  now they are adding the Mk-48 when it comes on line but for now they use the 240b. but i do think the rangers,  if anything should add a third fire team.
 I've actually heard of a 8 man seal squad in which four of them were carrying m-60s, now that's fire power down range..
 
Quote    Reply

longrifle       11/3/2007 11:58:19 PM
That's great if all you needed was firepower down range.

If you have to clear buildings, bunkers, and trench lines you need enough suppression to get on the objective but not so much that you don't have enough riflemen left to clear with.
 
Quote    Reply

stinger       11/5/2007 12:48:39 AM
referring to the 10 man squad the Germans had in ww2 built around a mg-42 gun team is pretty impressive, i don't know how many squads they had in a platoon, but if somebody know the mtoe of that, that would be cool. also does the current German army still made up into a 10 man squad ??thank you
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5   NEXT



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2012StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy