"US infantry platoon, Vietnam (generic)" Topic

I have about 30-odd Britannia minis' US Infantry, which I have organised as follows:

Platoon LT with RTO and Kit Carson Scout, Medic, PLTSGT (HQ)

'A' Squad:
Fireteam with Squad Leader, M79, 2 grunts
Fireteam with M60 and No. 2, 2 grunts

'B' Squad:
Fireteam with Squad Leader, M79, 2 grunts
Fireteam with M60 and No. 2, 2 grunts

'C' Squad:
Fireteam with Squad Leader, M79, 2 grunts
Fireteam with M60 and No. 2, 2 grunts

Each squad has an M113, just in case they need to go anywhere. It's loosely based on the organisation described in 'Platoon Leader', and what I was wondering was if this organisation sounds OK – or if not, what bits am I missing for a generic platoon holding a village with a platoon-size firebase in the late 1960s?

just in case they need to go anywhere

That made me laugh

Would a generic platoon holding a village with a platoon-size firebase in the late 1960s have an M113 for each squad? I thought most infantry in Vietname were just that – leg infantry.

GeoffQRF said,
"" just in case they need to go anywhere"

That made me laugh"

Me too. I know this is off topic but my first couple of units (A Co. 5/21 In (L) and B Co. 1/9 In (L)) were in 7th ID (L) Ft. Ord and Ft. Lewis. We had ZERO vehicles assigned to the company and Battalion had 33 Humvees and two 5 tons. Obviously we didn't have enough vehicles in the battalion to move ourselves internally, we always needed outside assistance. One of my XOs likened us to baby birds, "Feed me, move me, help me" as the slogan was "too light to fight and too heavy to run"! When I finally got to the 82nd Airborne in the mid 90's I was amazed at the complaints that they walked to much!

I haven't read Platoon Leader but does that break down include the crew of the M113s or did you leave them out? Also if they were in a firebase would they have the M113s there?

Jason
Stafford, VA

Weren't the M60s platoon weapons in Vietnam??

Mainly thinking of PJ Caputos platoon holding the village in 'A Rumour of War'. As it was mid 60s and USMC maybe not quite the same as US Army late 60s!

Looks more like a mech platoon which probably wouldn't be in a firebase…at least not as the garrison…otherwise it sort of looks like the book…

Well, the idea is that for games based around the firebase they wouldn't have the M113s, but for other games, e.g. convoy escorts or what have you, then I break out the M113s.

To be honest I will have to re-read Platoon Leader but as far as I can remember the M60s got handed out to the squads to give them a bit more firepower.

Certainly in 'Nam – a book of recollections – there's a squad-level M60 gunner talking about firing 3-round bursts to make sure the VC/NVA didn't realise he was using an MG…!

EDIT: Crews of M113s not counted. If they're hit they're dead! I don't want to get figures for 'em :p

According to the official TOE, each of the three rifle squads had two M79 grenade launchers, while the platoon weapons squad fielded two M60 MGs.

link

Of course the actual organisation on the field might have depended on the situation – certainly not helped by a lot of companies being understrenght.

M113s would not have been issued to leg infantry units. Mechanized infantry units and armored cavalry units would have had them. On paper, the mechanized infantry and leg infantry would have essentially been identical, with the exception of each squad having an M113 and an additional member (vehicle driver), plus the mortars being mounted.

The understrength nature of Vietnam and the nature of the fighting meant that infantry unit organizations were very fluid, with platoons reshuffling elements to try and form full strength squads. The M60s might have remained grouped together or may have been included in the new rifle squad organizations. The anti-tank gunners would have been utilized as infantrymen most likely, and if mortars were left behind on operations, the same would possibly have happened to their gunners.

"Weren't the M60s platoon weapons in Vietnam??"

Yes, standard infantry organization (even with modifications for Vietnam) had the rifle squads armed with only M16s and M79s. Two M60s and a 90mm recoilless rifle (usually left behind) were in the weapons squad.

See, for example, Stanton and Westmoreland, "Vietnam Order of Battle".

For typical organization for combat, which allowed for personnel shortages, see Rottman, "The US Army in the Vietnam War".

However, a mech platoon's three rifle squads were each assigned an M60--with no specific gunner authorized by MTOE. So you can be flexible.

Firebases (more correctly, fire support bases) were usually established with a minimum of an infantry company, plus a howitzer battery, etc. A single infantry platoon could and did secure a howitzer battery firebase if needed, but again, this was normally a company mission, or one for multiple companies.

Allen

Well, in that case, I'm sticking to my TO&E…!

From what I understand the Weapons Squad was sometimes broken up to give each rifle squad an M-60 Team

Standard Rifle Squad 1x Sgt, 1x CPL, 2x M79, 6x M-16, and then 2x M60 (attached)

There were a number of different types of bases.. not all were "fire support" bases, some were logistics, some were road security, some were built at part of the civil security program. So, not all had artillery. Some just had mortors. Some only had one mortor mostly for illumination.

"From what I understand the Weapons Squad was sometimes broken up to give each rifle squad an M-60 Team
Standard Rifle Squad 1x Sgt, 1x CPL, 2x M79, 6x M-16, and then 2x M60 (attached)"

Well, with only two in the platoon, there weren't enough to give *each* rifle squad one, much less two.

"There were a number of different types of bases.. not all were "fire support" bases, some were logistics, some were road security, some were built at part of the civil security program. So, not all had artillery. Some just had mortors. Some only had one mortor mostly for illumination."

And weren't called firebases, for the most part, except in bad movies.

Allen

As usual, Allen is correct. Doctrinally the US Army placed the M60 in a weapons squad. Naturally shortages of men and equipment affect deployment but armies aren't completely free form structures and tactical doctrine is really what makes armies distinct.

No doubt if you were to look hard enough you will find an example here and there where the M60s were deployed with squads but I suspect they will be the exception that proves the rule. Apparently there were occasions where the 90mm RCL was substituted for a third machinegun but it is still lkely they would deploy separately. Incidentally the US army still uses this formula with regard to GPMGs they aren't fielded within the squad only SAWs ( M249). The Vietnam equaivalent ( doctrinally) was supposed to be an auto fire M-14 and later the isuing of a bipod to some M-16s.

In US Army doctrine there really isn't anything called a GPMG. There are LMGs and HMGs. The current US Army formula is a bit more complicated across the various infantry types. Also, in the field in Afghanistan for instance there are instances of the LMGs (M240s) being deployed attached to squads yet again. If the decision is made to standardize the replacement of the M249 with the Mk 48 Mod 0, as is being done on a limited basis, then the terms will really become convoluted.

In a mech platoon, the tracks belong to the platoon. The drvr and TC are actually members of the squad they carry. It gives a mech plt a lot of firepower having 4 .50 cals. The tracks are generally kept close to hand also to provide transport and firepower as needed. The Army did not use the Soviet system developed in Afghanistan of an "armored group"
employed as another maneuver unit.
And, Bored, your organization is fine.
Weaselhoffen.

Having considered my options, and without access to my library of Vietnam books, I am heartened that the general consensus backs my gut instinct up; e.g. "Doctrine is all very well, but in reality, you did what you could with what you had".

I may in future develop my collection further but at the moment I'm happy as it stands, and am merely adding an ACAV variant for the Troop HQ to my three standard M113s.

Which means my grunts can do double duty as mech inf or leg inf. Now, on to Charlie Cong!

"From what I understand the Weapons Squad was sometimes broken up to give each rifle squad an M-60 Team
Standard Rifle Squad 1x Sgt, 1x CPL, 2x M79, 6x M-16, and then 2x M60 (attached)"

Well, with only two in the platoon, there weren't enough to give *each* rifle squad one, much less two.

Oops… sorry meant 1 M-60 with 1 Loader with M-16 not 2 M-60s.

Yes, the point has been already made … only MECH Infantry units would have M113s. Armored Cav units have M113s too, but they ain't Infantry Grunts, they're CAV, and they'd make sure you got the difference. And most Infantry units in Vietnam were not Mech … The M113 was part of the Mech Squad, Plt, Co., did not come from a Transport Pool or something like that. Mech units at Fire Bases would only be there if the unit was assigned there or passing thru. M113s make terrible "Pill Boxes" … And if "Light" Infantry "needed to go somewhere", they'd use Hueys or Chinooks. The term "Leg" Infantry is what Airborne(Parachute) Infantry call(ed) non-parachute qualified units or personnel … I commanded an Air Assault Rifle Plt in the 101 and later a Mech Co. in a separate Mech Bde of the 18th ABN Corps … So I had served as both types …

Interesting re the M16 with bipod being the SAW per at least the TO&E as had always thought it would be an M60 – even with a 30 round mag it wouldn't give much firepower advantage over a normal M16 since I imagine that at least in jungle fighting one might not even have the chance to use the bipod

Btw ref the 11 Bravo link ref T&OEs – whilst I don't doubt that might be the book version that gives a breakdown for a rifle squad of

1 x Sgt 1st Class
2 x Sgts
4 x Corporals
3 x PFCs 1st Class

7 NCOs out of 10!
Indeed there's not a single E2 private in the whole company – is that right? No wonder there is confusion maybe on joint exercises when in a British unit many people have not got any stripes despite being in for several years. I'm a Brit of course where junior leadership is expected of corporals who are section (squad)leaders with only a Sgt at the platoon level – the above does seem a bit OTT and looks like giving people rank for pay purposes a la the South African Police several years ago where one unit had various majors/capts/lts, 287 Sgts and 3 Constables/Konstabels. I presume that though a PFC look to us like a lance corporal (who would be section 2ic in the British Army) in a US squad at least then he commandeded nothing as there's no-one else left!