"Small Unit Organization" Topic

link

Above is an interesting article about squad to company level organization. Currently squads consist of fire teams all of which are the same (two teams in US army squads, three in US marine squads).

The article (from 2007) proposes a squad composed of three different team types (rifle, MG, and rocket) and a 60mm mortar team at platoon level.

Anyway, it's an interesting read for both modern gamers and sci-fi gamers. Our near-future and sci-fi troops are sort of organized like this in that our platoons are composed of task-specific teams rather than generic squads. So we have "rifle" teams, automatic weapons teams, AT teams, fire support teams, etc.

Each team is composed of 2-4 models but we don't consider individual figures in our rules so whether using 28mm figures or 15mm figures we can now use individually or group-based figures (most of our 28mm figures are individually based but I'm basing mine on group based of 2-3 figures…my boys still prefer individuals…the cool part is that current rules work perfectly well with both).

Oooh, a rifle section with a GPMG and a MAW -- now where have I seen something like that before?

All the best,

John.

Oooh, a rifle section with a GPMG and a MAW, and a light mortar for the platoon -- now where have I seen something like that before?

All the best,

John.

Interesting concept and a good article as many in the Gazette are.

One of the issues with having non identical squads is the lack of symmetry that can cause issues with manuver, firepower and balance for a lack of a better term. When I was in the USMC we did experiment wirth a number of different squad configurations including one with a machine gun group and a rifle group ala the British Army of the time. In the end we found the 13 man squad to be the best.

One other issue with squad like the one in the article is training.It can be overwhelming to try and co-ordinate and manage training with squad such as those discussed in the Gazette article.

John,

You should read the article in full. He mentions WWII units specifically.

One significant difference from WWII…the modern 60mm mortar is cleary more flexible compared to WWII light mortars when fired by hand instead of by base plate.

My question for Near Future and also if we ever find a way to get to other solar systems in a timely manner, say a year or less, is what size do you make your fire teams and squads when replacements are an infrequent occurance? Do you add a man to each fire team or do you increase the platoon HQs with extra riflemen?

Good reading. I may implment it in my stryker platoon.

"You should read the article in full. He mentions WWII units specifically."

Well, them mighty Germans, naturally.

The organisation described is a postwar British infantry platoon with a GPMG in each rifle section, an integral mortar and bangy rockety things to shoot at tanks.

Such an organisation worked fine for well over 50 years(including WW2 experience using Brens insyead of GPMGs) so I'm sure modern troops could cope with it perfectly well too.

The assymetrical squad structure of gun group and assault group for instance always left the feeling that one or the other was in the wrong place……I did a lot more running about before the switch to balanced fireteam structure….and then they gave us the 'jimpy' back……and the minimi…..

The assymetrical squad structure of gun group and assault group for instance always left the feeling that one or the other was in the wrong place……I did a lot more running about before the switch to balanced fireteam structure….and then they gave us the 'jimpy' back……and the minimi came in…..

"A tripod mounted g-pig in a section? Really?"-Ditto

Probably just the bipod and used as an LMG.

Yes, the tripods were kept at company HQ for sustained fire use, just like they were for Brens. In static positions infantry platoons might mount one or more of their LMGs on a tripod though.

Sorry, I must have missed it. Is the article proposing allocating a *tripod mounted* MG to every infantry section??

Well, good luck carrying that around… I thought it just meant bipod GPOMG/M240s.

With the way things are going… populations expanding… more urbanisation I can see the fire-teams replacing HMGs with automatic shotguns with a variety of rounds for support (standard, single ball, explosive 'grenades' and laser timed detonation rounds – all either available or in trials at the moment).

Shorter assault rifles can now have an underslung grenade launcher (USGL) as standard, vastly increasing the support options and reducing the need for anti-personnel type mortars.

Anti armour would normally be one-shot wire guided missiles now… but in the future, the same sort of space may be able to carry more rounds… and what about armour piercing rounds (with shaped charges) for the automatic shotguns or automatic grenade launchers?

Fire-teams of four make perfect sense for tactical manouvers and there are enough people to load share if they need to.

Tripod mounted kit is a ball-ache. Unless you have a relatively fixed position to defend or support from, they are a pig to carry and get set-up quickly. I'd go for bi-pods if possible and leave the legs dangling :).

There will always be LOTS of opinions of what makes the most flexible fire-team organisation but when push comes to shove, the environment and what is available at the time plays a huge hand… hence combined ops and using attached, specialist units in Platoons and larger organisations.

In my Future army (an urban Grymn force), I have fire-teams of four. Two troops have an SMG, one has an SMG plus single shot anti-armour missile and one has an HMG. Two fire-teams make up a squad and each of the fire-teams can support the other one when manouvering. Heavier kit is held in the support platoons for attachment to the infantry platoons if required.

If the Grymn had miniatures with assault rifles with USGL, I would have four troops with them including one with an additional anti-armour missile (getting rid of the HMG).

Insomniac,

What rules do you use? When fighting with a platoon per side, do your fire teams maneuver, fight, and test morale as a complete squad or individual teams? How do you handle the squad leaders?

One aspect of this issue that I find interesting and which we've discussed previously is the role of squads and squad leaders in platoon level fights.

Squads certainly exist on paper but many combat memoirs seem to indicate that once the shooting starts and things get really confused the formal squad organization goes out the window and squad leaders sort of function like roving supervisors. In most cases they happen to oversee their own assigned teams because they happen to be located with them but in many other cases they may also supervise any other teams from the platoon that happen to be nearby and in need of direction.

How this should work on the wargame table is debatable.

A detailed approach might have individual squad leader figures serving as command and control elements influencing teams composed of 2-4 figures. So a platoon might have an LT, a platoon Sgt, and 3-4 other NCOs as well as the various fire teams and weapons teams running around.

An abstract approach might have the platoon command team and six to eight or so fire teams and weapons teams with the whole command and control thing abstracted in the rules (after much trial and error this is the approach we settled on with our home grown rules). The platoon command team still serves a special leadership function but otherwise the influence and quality of the platoon's NCOs are abstracted into other mechanics (eg actions, maneuver rules, etc.)

One reason we settled on the abstract approach is to make our figure collections more flexible and so individual vs group basing doesn't matter. Anytime you start utilizing individual figures in game mechanics you force the collector/gamer to worry about whether or not he has some exact figure to play. This flexible approach means we can use pretty much any figures we happen to already own or would like to buy.

I don't wargame… so I don't have a ruleset BUT…

in answer to your question, each fire-team has an I/C and would be taken as the smnallest unit for manouver, fight and morale checks.

Generally, the overall squad leader would be a Cpl but the 2I/C would be a L/Cpl. So when the two fire-teams are patrolling together, the Cpl would take charge but in manouvers, each of the fire-team leaders would take charge under the direction of the Squad leader and platoon command unit.

Squad:
Fireteam 1 – Cpl +3 troops
Fireteam 2 – L/Cpl +3 troops

Platoon:
Squad x3
Command Squad (Lt, Sgt, Cpl, L/Cpl)

The Command Squad will the the 'roaming' leadership, the Squad/fire-team leaders stick with their troops.

I based the organisation loosely on the modern British army.

I just had a chance to read the article I really like the concept of the mortar at platoon level. Even a 60 mm mortar can dislodge a defender from a postion.

The GPMG in each section could be a headache due to ammunition weights.

The GPMG in each section could be a headache due to ammunition weights.

Which is why I think we're going to be stuck with the current organization until someone changes ammo calibers.

The 6.5 Grendel is a reasonable replacement for the 7.62NATO ballisticly, and weighs about half as much per round. Then I'd go to a light auto-GL, like the 25x59mm for the 'HMG' role.

Lion in the Stars wrote:

Dragon Gunner wrote:

The GPMG in each section could be a headache due to ammunition weights.

Which is why I think we're going to be stuck with the current organization until someone changes ammo calibers.

…and yet, within living memory, plenty of armies put GPMGs into rifle sections routinely. At least, the UK, the USA, the USSR, West Germany, France, Australia, off the top of my head, all in 7.62 NATO, 7.62 R or 7.5mm calibre.

All the best,

John.

"…and yet, within living memory, plenty of armies put GPMGs into rifle sections routinely"- John Salt

Then they go through a cycle where they remove them.

The British and the Russians, at least, seem to have put them back again.

While I agree that 6.5 Grendel or something very similar would be a better standard bullet than either 5.56 or 7.62 NATO, people take an long time to change standard calibres.

I suspect that the fashion for 5.56mm weapons in the section LMG role was predicated on the assumption that infantry would always have IFVs close by if fighting a serious enemy. Not that there's probably an enormous difference in effectiveness at most battle ranges, but recall the old saw:

"In peace, the cry is always for speed into action; in war, for weight of shell."

All the best,

John.

"…and yet, within living memory, plenty of armies put GPMGs into rifle sections routinely"- John Salt

Then they go through a cycle where they remove them.

That was *before* the 6.5 was developed.

It wasn't until Afghanistan that the US Army really felt the need for a longer-ranged basic rifle. So they started putting M240s back into the squad (Stryker Platoons have 2 in the Weapons Squad) and now they're complaining about the weight of the M240, to the point that there is a modified M249 Minimi in 7.62 (only a couple pounds heavier than the 5.56 version).

On the other hand, making all the basic infantry weapons 6.5mm (rifles and SAW) is nothing more complex than a barrel&buffer change. Those are wear items, and get replaced on a regular basis anyway. The problem is the massive amount of existing ammo in the supply chain.

Lion in the Stars wrote:

That was *before* the 6.5 was developed.

6.5mm Grendel, yes. But the Avtomat Fedorova, the original work-of-genius assault rifle from 1915, was designed in 6.5mm, which Tony Williams considers would have made a dam' fine standard calibre:

link

As has already been mentioned several times in other threads, the Garand was originally designed around a 6.25mm round found to be ideal by the Pig Board studies in the 1930s, and the EM-2 and Taden were designed for the 7mm round recommended by the ideal calibre studies from the 1950s.

6.5mm Grendel and similar rounds represent the fourth try over a century at getting armies to adopt the sort of calibre that has long been known to offer the best balance of range and lightness. Let's hope it's 4th time lucky.

All the best,

John.

The problem is the massive amount of existing ammo in the supply chain.

Surely nothing a gradual phasing and release of the stockpiles to the free ammo market wouldn't eventually fix?

Stuff worth a lot more gets obsoleted every decade in the quest to secure even more funds for the mil-in-complex.

It's probably just a problem in the heads of the deciders, there's not enough momentum to switch to a capable long-distance round not as easily deflected by soft cover(nothing to do with terminal ballistics).

Another thing I don't understand is why there isn't a DMR in every fireteam already in Afghanistan. Is full automatic capability from an extra AR really important there, assuming the fireteam has a capable SAW or LMG?

Well, there generally *IS* a DMR in every squad. Or at least that's how my buddy's Stryker BRIGADE was operating.

Pretty much all of them are converted M14s. So, in any given 'rifle squad', you have 3 bog-standard M4 carbines, 2 M203s, 2 SAWs, a DMR and a guy with a Javelin (who may also be carrying an M4). There are more 'support weapons' than there are basic rifles. One of the M203s might be replaced with the XM25, there has been an interesting debate about that.

One of the problems is getting over the USMC decision to seperate CWS 'specialities' from infantrymen.

I know one Cpl who is an 81mm mortar number, MFC A and B, 60mm mortar qualified (hand and bipod), .50, GMG and GPMG(SF) trained. He is trained on, but not current with UGL and Javelin – although having used both operationally that is merely a matter of catching up on ranges. He is looking for a sniper course to become a one man FSG! These have accumulated through courses that he has attended in order to deploy in different roles and been maintained by the need to qualify and instruct on successive deployments.

If the USMC insists on continuing with excessive specialisation (in my opinion), why shouldn't the fire teams be more balanced but with a single 331, 341 and 351 in each – roll out the M240, XM-32 or SMAW as required by role.

Decide what the Firepower-Manpower-Distance bubble that the squads in the platoon will fight at and allocate accordingly, which solves the question of massing appropriate firepower. Or, for DO, you can put one of each into each team.

Applying the F-M-D bubble principle to all levels I am suprised that SMAWs are held at Coy+ when these are clearly going to be employed in the section / squad fight, I am equally concerned that we are pushing longer range and greater firepower weapons into the squad, potentially inviting them to become decisively engaged with the enemy where the Distance is too great for their Manpower to deal with.

Being a Brit, I missed my 51mm mortar and am still trying to work out how we use 60mm to fully cover the gap it leaves. I cannot generate the firepower but must stop my JOs from over extending themselves because they can now reach out and touch someone at far greater range. I find the hand held version beautifully compliments the GPMG(SF) but can lead to junior commenders over commiting if it is used alongside their organic weapons.

Dragon Gunner –

Weight of ammuniton? Never been a problem! Certainly not after the first time you get down behind one for real! From that point every man in the fire team is willing to carry extra belts. They aren't as happy doing that for the M249, which achieves only a little more than their rifles.

"Weight of ammuniton? Never been a problem! Certainly not after the first time you get down behind one for real!"-Adam

When I was in we already had to carry extra ammunition for the two M60's in the weapon squad. Oh and I have fired one "for real".

Apologies – more tongue in cheek than challenging. Shame there is not 'tone' on forums.

"WITH a belt of two hunnerd rounds, LOAD!"

"GUN, two hundred metres, target to your FRONT, in your own time, effing obliterate it!"

Ah, happy days…

All the best,

John.

Just because you have a SAW/pipod MG in each squad does not mean they have to stay there. In the Falklands attacking the school house they grouped all the MG's from the squads to form a firebase and then assulted from 90 degrees using the rifles. With well trained men you look like you can task organise. Grouping all MG's together will not help unless you get the rest of the squad/platoon to cart the ammo before the baloon goes up.

Rules. Maneouver Group is a bit abstrackt but comes close. Squads can operate as squads or Fire teams. Squad leaders are not directly modelled. Each team gets ist own go (Maneouver Group is I go U go). The platoon leadership is allocated to a man the PL. He can by radio, or voice/direct contact give "extra goes" to a Fireteam or squad. The basis is that the "boss" job is getting things going in difficult circumstances. More complex models are possible but this seems just enough to get somewhere near. The aim has always been to get somewhere near with the least effort. The aim is to move the troops to get the result you want without excessive wrestleing with the rules.

Tripods need an extra man to carry them and the squad to carry additional ammmo to drop off at the tripod if the MG is going to function as an SFMG. Clearly extra ammo is avaiable in a pre set position.

Yup, and that's kinda the problem with 7.62 (whether Nato or x54R). Needs lots of ammo to be able to operate as a sustained-fire MG, and all that ammo is heavy. 6.5 Grendel is about half the weight per round, so that the same weight of ammo lasts twice as long. Interestingly, it's very similar to the 6.5x55 Swedish Mauser round, ballistically.

It's not a perfect round, but it's probably the best option for a uniform small-arms round. If the .338 Lapua wasn't such a long cartridge (half an inch longer than .30-06!), I'd consider it for use in platoon SFMGs.

=======
I would think that a more interesting question is the role/doctrine of the squad MG. Should a nation follow the WW2 German example, where the riflemen exist to support the MG in his mission? Or should you follow the current NATO idea where the squad MG is there to support the squad?

Somehow I can't find this Maneuver Group ruleset. Well, I found one for microarmour that was close, but I assume you didn't mean that.