Hum - it sounds as though most people think that the 13 man squad is remaining. The source for my info was the canadian army forum: http://forums.army.ca/forums/index.php/topic,18270.0.html You might have to trawl your way through the thread to find the source, but it's worth it. Some of the other forums are also good. It'll be interesting to see how the USMC uses the M140. If its within the Squads, then presumably it will displace a M4/203 combination. If they do that, will the Grenadier have to lug around an M4 as well as the M140 or will he be without an assualt rifle? I can't see them creating platoon weapons squads, so the only other location is the company weapons platoon, but I can't see it going there either (less effective than the existing 60mm mortars). Any thoughts?

Just to clarify I count the SAW as a LMG, & it is a squad weapon. The company machineguns I count as MMG. Its a remanat from the way we trained to use them back in the 1980s and 1990s

>>It'll be interesting to see how the USMC uses the M140. If its within the Squads, then presumably it will displace a M4/203 combination. If they do that, will the Grenadier have to lug around an M4 as well as the M140 or will he be without an assualt rifle? I can't see them creating platoon weapons squads, so the only other location is the company weapons platoon, but I can't see it going there either (less effective than the existing 60mm mortars). Any thoughts?<< The other option is the mobile arms room concept -- issue out M140s as needed, but not have it assigned as a permanent individual weapons system. The US Army is getting into that idea, which makes sense for many weapons systems (i.e. you may or may not have any need whatsoever for manpack ATGMs in a given mission). Not sure if the Marines are likewise taken with it -- their relative lack of motor transport and funding may make such ideas seem decadent.

You know, I love the concept. It is both reasonable to expect a high level of weapons expertise across a fairly broad spectrum, and the need for specific weapons systems tailored to given scenarios. But if I've ever heard of an "Oh, sh!t" scenario, this would be it. Heaven help the squad, who live like mushrooms anyway, who close like a butterfly but can't sting like a bee because they weren't dressed for the right occasion. Or something like that. (:-)

lack of motor transport? since when? unless things have changed, their is not a lack, and in the late 80s and early 90s, their def. was not a lack.... It depends on how many they buy...I could see them using them like the SMAW-attach it to the wpns plt of a inf. co. and dispatch them where they are needed per mission

Back to the orignal subject. I recall reading about the proposed 12 man squad (Marine Corps Gazette maybe?) If i recall correctly, overall Platoon strenth would reamin the same but one person form each squad would be moved to the Platoon Headquarters, exact functions I cannot recall. I cut my teeth on the 13 man squad and like it, though I do not like the Fire Team Leaders also being designated as the M203 gunner now. The last time the Corps updated the old FMFM 6-5 (Marne Rifle Squad), now called MCWP 3-11.2 was in 2002. A good source for many Marine doctrine and "war fighting publications": https://www.doctrine.usmc.mil/aspweb/ground-ops.asp

So, as it stands a marine corps platoon is three sections of 13 plus the 4 of the HQ section, so 43? Thats a large platoon.

Not so large when you consider the Marine Corps is an Infantry centered organization. Army Colonel Daniel P. Bolger made my favorite quote about this. In his book Death Ground: Today’s American Infantry in Battle ( a good read). “If Army infantry amounts to a stern monastic order standing apart, on the edge of the wider secular soldier world, Marine infantry more resembles the central totem worshiped by the entire tribe” The Marine Corps is big on combined operations but almost everything is based on a ground combat element with and infantry unit at its core. That size comes in handy for numerous reasons lets take the worse first-casualties: Most urban combat studies by the Corps showed casualty rates of anywhere from 30% on up for really intense situations. If a Marine Rifle Platoon sustained 30% casualties it would still be almost equal to an Army full strength Platoon. Urban Combat is a very manpower, boots on the ground demanding form of warfare, what civilians call labor intensive. When you considering securing multiple floors and rooms, isolating building etc those extra boots and leaders come in handy. Other reasons: For a small unit offensive operation you have an assault element, support element and a security element (HQ normally attached to one of the other elements) With 3 fire teams per Squads etc, you already have three elements that can be reinforced by attachments or organized according to METT-T and you have the team leaders available in the Fire teams leaders. If you want more firepower in the suppression element/base of fire you can group the Squads 3 SAWS (as opposed to the Army’s 2) in the support element as an example. How much suppressive fire can a Marine unit put on the objective with just organic assets compares to its Army Counter part? This extra manpower is not just at the Squad and Platoon level. It goes all the way up. A Marine Rifle Battalion has over 950 personnel, bigger by almost a third or more than their Army Counter-parts (depending on type of Army Battalion). So if you sent 1/4 (1st Battalion 4th Marines) into and area or the 1st of the 504th (US Army Airborne) you have 950+ Marines on the ground vs 650+ Soldiers. You have more guys to distribute the load; your unit can carry more mortar rounds, AT-4s or Javelins into actions. I also like the option of 3 maneuver units at squad level. Of course I am comparing Marine Infantry to Army non-Mech Infantry organizations. Let us also remember that Army organization is also structured base do the vehicles that carry them. It would be hard to put a 13-man rifle Squad in a UH-60 with the 101st and it would certainly play havoc with a Bradley or Stryker equipped unit. I do feel that the Light Divisions could go to 13 command squads but that would just overly complicate things for leaders and soldiers moving between different types of units-moving from 10th Mountain to 101st Airborne.

Napoleon opined that God is on the side that has the bigger battalions.

well, this might be embarrassing for me, but unless it has changed in the last 10 yrs, no, there is not 43 in a plt....there is 40....3 squads plus the plt commander-a lt....the hq is made up of the origional members pulling double duty(and sometimes, easy duty)