Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Australia Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Is 2 x 4 better than 3 x 3???
Robbo    1/23/2010 10:41:40 PM
Hey guys I've just come across this board and had a look at some of the threads and it's great to see some intelligent informed dicussion happening!! So many other places uninformed idiots drag conversations on these issues down to kindergarden levels!!! Just wondering peoples thoughs on the new 4 man building blocks the Army is moving towards for light infantry and as I understand the wider Army. Hand in hand with having native DFSW in each now larger platoon of 40 Digs? As far as implementation goes, the battalions deploying are using the 4 man Teams as far as I know, but doctinally the 9 man section is still being taught throughout training establishments. Possibly still ironing out some of the finer point berofe they train all the green newbies??? (I've decided to move to the Dark Side and doing my GRES FAC through MUR and there has never been a mention of 4 man team at Duntroon) Robbo.
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6   NEXT
Barracuda       1/25/2010 3:10:11 AM
Hey, given the status of failure from US public school system, that's quite unfair remark. I doubt many armies can take US military's weapons qualification en mass. Even US military can't put every soldiers through all infantry weapons qualification. That simply cost too much. As for commies, it's better not to underestimate them.
 
Perhaps that is unfair ... I just can't understand a system in which every soldier in a rifle platoon is not qualified on every weapon system in the platoon.
 
Quote    Reply

Volkodav       1/25/2010 4:54:49 AM
or train them with training ammo and certify them with live ammo engaging variety of targets from 50m all the way to 400m, and do fail them if they miss 20% of the target, then pressure them to pass the exam 1 week later or have their leaves revoked for next 3 months?
 
Well thats how I did it when I was qualified on the M79 19 years ago in an Australian Army General Reserve unit.  I don't think anyone failed either, we were all putting rounds through door ways and windows at various ranges out to (from memory) 300m.
 
I was only ever a reservist, in RAINF and then RAAC and was trained and qualified in just about every weapon we had at the time and cross trained as a rifleman, pioneer, recon scout, sig, before transferring to armour and qualifying as in driving & servicing, as well as radio operator / gunner.  By the time I went inactive in 99 I was qualified on SLR, AR, M60, Browning High Power, F1 SMG, Claymore, M79, F88, M2 HB, M1919 and M113 FOV (less the Beast and ARVL).
 
I was nothing special, this is how the ADF works, our people are generalists rather than specialists, with every soldier able to operate any of the gear in their section / platoon.  Ours is a volunteer force with personnel usually serving much longer than in conscript armys therefore providing generally more experienced and capable soldiers and jounior leaders.  This means they can in many cases be more autominous than those of similar rank in larger, more specialised forces.
 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunneragain    Yellichink   1/25/2010 5:03:17 AM
A single shot 40mm grenade launcher is both light and about the easiest weapon to train a soldier on other than a bayonet. The instructors for NORFORCE, a reserve unit with patrol duties in the Northern Territory, used to teach the M-79 it to the Aboriginal recruits there by saying "You ever fired a shotgun? Try this". They would play with it for a couple of minutes, be given some live rounds and then be dropping them into garbage bins at 100 metres in no time. The M-203's that the army uses now only ad 1.3kg to the Austeyr rifle, taking it up to about 6kg in total. The ammo only weighs .25kg per round, so a grenadier is going to be able to take a bandoleer of them and only add about 5kg to his load. In total that is nothing and you wouldn't bother taking it off your rifle under any circumstances, it is too useful an addition to the firepower of the block.
 
As for 6 soldier  "blocks", it is widely accepted that one person can only effectively control 4 others for a total 5 man team. Given that a 5 man team is awkward to fire and move, you wouldn't go with that, 4 is a better number.
 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunneragain    Barracuda   1/25/2010 5:16:32 AM
Sorry this animal does not exist outside SOG.  Anyone conducting a four man infantry recon is just asking for trouble.  Even a PLCOMD doing his night harbour or ambush recon should take at least six.  I always liked to sweep my night harbour with the whole PL then go back.
 
I know that the Kiwi's used 5 man patrols in East Timor, see about 3/4 of the way down this web page.
 
 
Now that every block is carrying an F-89 it would be acceptable to do local patrols that aren't too far away from the patrol base using 4 soldiers. A block would also be useful for an OP or a standing patrol. They used 4 man standing patrols commanded by privates in Vietnam, from memory a prominant example being at Coral.
During a routine follDuring a routine follow
 
Quote    Reply

Barracuda       1/25/2010 9:03:22 AM

Sorry this animal does not exist outside SOG.  Anyone conducting a four man infantry recon is just asking for trouble.  Even a PLCOMD doing his night harbour or ambush recon should take at least six.  I always liked to sweep my night harbour with the whole PL then go back.

 I know that the Kiwi's used 5 man patrols in East Timor, see about 3/4 of the way down this web page.

 Gee give me a bit of stuff to read.  I hope you are refering to the RNZInf casualty or else I will need to read it again True it was a five man patrol, however it was not a true recon patrol.

Once spoke to a Kiwi officer that was debriefed at their OCU by the OC of the unit regarding that contact ... It was the PLCOMD conducting his recce to clear his harbour loc.  Him, a SECTCOMD & two scouts.  Unfortunately the poor Kiwi got clipped.  His PL was at the bottom of the feature.  Allegedly his OC would not release the PL to counter attack once the PLCOMD returned to his PL.  Apparently they could hear the militia at the top of the hill whilst the OC arrived to take charge.  They then swept the feature, recovered the Kiwi and secured the feature.  Once there they could still hear the militia at the bottom of the hill.  The OC would still not release his Coy for an attack.

Perhaps not what I would do ... but then I don?t know the full details.

Now that every block is carrying an F-89 it would be acceptable to do local patrols that aren't too far away from the patrol base using 4 soldiers. A block would also be useful for an OP or a standing patrol. They used 4 man standing patrols commanded by privates in Vietnam, from memory a prominent example being at Coral.

 Again standing patrol or Op? s are always with distance from light arms support. So again I still would hesitate to send out a recon patrol of less than a section(2 Bricks) & never too far from the Coy.

 In regards to a four man recon patrol it happens very rarely ... if at all. It should never happen without being in support of a nearby PL, as in the RNZInf example.

 
Quote    Reply

YelliChink       1/25/2010 1:37:44 PM


As for 6 soldier  "blocks", it is widely accepted that one person can only effectively control 4 others for a total 5 man team. Given that a 5 man team is awkward to fire and move, you wouldn't go with that, 4 is a better number.

Just because you have never learned or practiced six-man firing team drills and tactics, it doesn't mean it's bad.
 
[quote]
Flexibility and the Fire Team
by Capt. James H. Webb
April 1972
 
The proposed six-man fire team would provide a more viable maneuver unit, capable of fulfilling its mission while sustaining casualties.
[unquote]
Read it through and you'll find that I'm not crapping things out completely out of thin air.

Granted that 1972 USMC isn't a professional force and consisted of many conscripts. It doesn't change the fact that somebody has thought it through and consider that six-man fire team is good in certain circumstainces.
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       1/25/2010 4:49:49 PM


Read it through and you'll find that I'm not crapping things out completely out of thin air.

Granted that 1972 USMC isn't a professional force and consisted of many conscripts. It doesn't change the fact that somebody has thought it through and consider that six-man fire team is good in certain circumstainces.

well I'm not suggesting that you're pulling things out of thin air - but it has to be looked at in context.  In 72 was basically at the bottom of the barrel at a land forces capability - in fact its almost universally accepted that in a major land war the soviets would have absolutely creamed the US and its allies at a conventional level.  all over red rover sans nukes within 4 days of an initial push.  with no disrespect as the times are the times, but the US had almost no major experience in small wars (not their focus) and their primary task was fighting at a large massed level trying to change the equation by manouvre and nukes.
 
the fundamental issue is that doctrine has dramatically changed since the 90's.  the small war evaluation and capability based on real experience across a number of countries has shown a trend towards smaller teams.  leadership control, cross skilling, composition, etc have all been determined by experience across different theatres and with different militaries.  The USArmy  in 72 was  nowhere near the sophistication of what smaller more professional forces have learned since - and thats a major key - the lessons learned.
 
I'd add, that when I'm required to look at technology and capability relevance for the warfighters, the people I deal with will interact and get detail from those who've been on the job (like barracuda, rawcs and raven)
 
we've moved away from unsupportable theory - and the raft of small wars that have occurred 80's on has been a gold mine of what we should do (and what others are doing)
 
 an extra 2 team members might empirically add 50% more firepower and 50% more team redundancy, but the negatives that accompany it across other areas has resulted in a number of countries not deeming it practical.
 
me?  I have NFI but its not my job to develop and construct these vignettes - its why those who develop and define doctrine get paid the bucks and give us the task of developing or sourcing gear which maximises the numbers they've determined in the first place 
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunneragain       1/25/2010 6:39:41 PM

Sorry this animal does not exist outside SOG.  Anyone conducting a four man infantry recon is just asking for trouble.  Even a PLCOMD doing his night harbour or ambush recon should take at least six.  I always liked to sweep my night harbour with the whole PL then go back.

 I know that the Kiwi's used 5 man patrols in East Timor, see about 3/4 of the way down this web page.

 Gee give me a bit of stuff to read.  I hope you are refering to the RNZInf casualty or else I will need to read it again True it was a five man patrol, however it was not a true recon patrol.

Once spoke to a Kiwi officer that was debriefed at their OCU by the OC of the unit regarding that contact ... It was the PLCOMD conducting his recce to clear his harbour loc.  Him, a SECTCOMD & two scouts.  Unfortunately the poor Kiwi got clipped.  His PL was at the bottom of the feature.  Allegedly his OC would not release the PL to counter attack once the PLCOMD returned to his PL.  Apparently they could hear the militia at the top of the hill whilst the OC arrived to take charge.  They then swept the feature, recovered the Kiwi and secured the feature.  Once there they could still hear the militia at the bottom of the hill.  The OC would still not release his Coy for an attack.

Perhaps not what I would do ... but then I don?t know the full details.

Now that every block is carrying an F-89 it would be acceptable to do local patrols that aren't too far away from the patrol base using 4 soldiers. A block would also be useful for an OP or a standing patrol. They used 4 man standing patrols commanded by privates in Vietnam, from memory a prominent example being at Coral.

 Again standing patrol or Op? s are always with distance from light arms support. So again I still would hesitate to send out a recon patrol of less than a section(2 Bricks) & never too far from the Coy.

 In regards to a four man recon patrol it happens very rarely ... if at all. It should never happen without being in support of a nearby PL, as in the RNZInf example.


Yeah, sorry about the read (though it is interesting), the format wouldn't let me cut and paste. I was talking about the patrol prvate Manning got killed. Suffice to say that I agree that you wouldn't do a 4 man recon patrol far from the platoon in anything other than the special forces, but having a 4 man brick is a convenient breakdown for when you do. The instance of a standing patrol in Vietnam that I read about (can't find the reference) was just outside of a firebase.

 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunneragain    GF   1/25/2010 6:41:39 PM
"but the US had almost no major experience in small wars (not their focus) and their primary task was fighting at a large massed level trying to change the equation by manouvre and nukes."
 
Vietnam?
 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunneragain    GF   1/25/2010 7:03:46 PM





As for 6 soldier  "blocks", it is widely accepted that one person can only effectively control 4 others for a total 5 man team. Given that a 5 man team is awkward to fire and move, you wouldn't go with that, 4 is a better number.




Just because you have never learned or practiced six-man firing team drills and tactics, it doesn't mean it's bad.


link
 

[quote]

Flexibility and the Fire Team

by Capt. James H. Webb

April 1972

 

The proposed six-man fire team would provide a more viable maneuver unit, capable of fulfilling its mission while sustaining casualties.

[unquote]


Read it through and you'll find that I'm not crapping things out completely out of thin air.



Granted that 1972 USMC isn't a professional force and consisted of many conscripts. It doesn't change the fact that somebody has thought it through and consider that six-man fire team is good in certain circumstainces.

 
 
 
I wouldn't call the USMC anything but a professional force at any time in its history. In any case, I can't ascertain out of this article whether or not this structure has ever been actually used by the USMC or whether it is just this Marine Captain's baby. I suspect the latter.
 
"There is a better system which is easily adaptable to today's Marine Corps. It involves no changes in manning levels and has been combat-tested. It involves changing the fire team from its present four-man-structure to a six-man team composed of a fire team leader, assistant fire team leader, and four riflemen. Let's examine the advantages using the triangular concept as a reference point."
 
I don't like the way the squad has three layers of command , a squad commander (sergent), two fire team commanders(presumably corporals) and to assistant fire team commanders(presumably lance corporals) with 7 soldiers, as opposed to the 2 x 4 structure of a section commander (a corporal) and a 2IC (a lance corporal) with 6 soldiers. It is too top heavy and the extra layer of command would just lead to slower, less precise communication. Not to mention that all of those extra NCO's salaries would make it a lot more expensive.
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics