"Cold War Squad or Fire-Team Based Tactics?" Topic

I know the US tends to fight in coordinated fire-teams, with their squads, and suspect many, if not most may do this, either officially, or unofficially, as the battlefield dictates.

However, I do seem to recall reading that perhaps some others do not, e.g. most notably the West Germans and Soviets. From what I've read, on-line, it appears that their squads tend to generally try to stay grouped together as fighting units. Not sure if that is correct, but I do recall reading that somewhere – presumably, other squads would act as the maneuver units, if necessary, instead of breaking up their squads into smaller fire-teams.

So, I'd appreciate it if anyone more knowledgeable on the subject would comment on that (a simple yes/no will probably do, though feel free to add more info on the subject, if you'd like), and also for the following other European combatants, during the Cold War (1950s – 1989):

Belgians,
British,
Danes,
Dutch,
Finns,
French,
Italians,
Norwegians,
Swedes,
and West Germans.

For the Soviets/Warsaw Pact:

Soviets,
Czechs,
East Germans,
Poles,
etc..

British – 1985 was a watershed. Existing doctrine split the section of 8-10 men into a 3 man 'Gun Group' armed with the GPMG in the Light Role, and 5-6 men in the 'Rifle Group' armed with SLRs. This was evolving, with the introduction of the SA80 and Light Support Weapon SAW, into 2 equal 'Fire Teams' each of 3-4 SA80 and 1 LSW.

Either way, both parts of the section would alternate with bounding fire and manoeuvre, in the first case ending with the gun group firing in the Rifle group into the final assault onto the objective, breaking down into pairs covering each other, or possibly with 2 of the Rifle group crawling in the last few yards to dispense grenades…

Beaten to it by Bruce!!

The WP chaps often seemed reluctant to leave their BMPs, however videos and reports indicate that the attack would consist of lines of dismounts followed closely by BMPs/BTRs and MBTs.

When it came to reality, in Afg, Chetznia etc it the Russians spent more time sitting on top of their AIFVs/APCs.

Having been in BMPs and BTRs I can see why!!

Tally Ho!

With the SA80/SLR swap over. I know started in 85, but how many years after that did infantry unit have SLRs. Sure support arms much longer.

Thinking of doing a SLR equipped unit for Sabresquadron, and would like to know how many years after 85 is usable for.

Tend to horse`s mouth info here not what book says.

We trained in '88 with SLR's and GPMG's using both doctrines, rifle and gun groups and two 'equal' teams…..later whilst equipped with SA80/LSW combo we retained the GPMG at section level too……being undermanned in 1990 I recall a section of 1 LSW, 1 GPMG and 2 SA80's……the two riflemen spent the day charging mags and feeding belts………
Infantry units had priority for re-equipping with the SA80 etc …..but it was
a gradual shift phased in and not completed for several years…..by the early '90's the second line troops had completed the swap to the SA80 too…….( albeit with iron sights only)……and then the saga of the SA80 redesign and rebuild started…….

As to doctrine for others, the WP would follow Soviet practice, manoeuvre with squads….the Russian shortfall in 'leaders' handicapping their ability to subdivide further than 'dismounts' and 'crew' for their BMP/BTR's.
IIRC Belgian,Dutch, Danish and Norwegian doctrine followed that of the UK, the Italians may have continued with their large squad doctrine from WW2.The Swedes may have followed the Germans…..take a peek at the OOB's of various nations, the distribution of MG's being the key to the system unless of course the MG's are listed at platoon support level and then distributed accordingly.

I just recalled being yelled at for using 'blob formation' in a platoon attack, we didn't use the 'approved' fire team manoeuvres as we were expected to……

Once the BMP is introduced, the motor rifle squad is only 6 guys or so, so splitting them up would probably render them relatively ineffective.

While working on our next release we talked to a number of vets and some fellows involved with developing doctrine for western armies. We learned that there's:

A. doctrine on paper (and literally that…doctrine as described in documents and not even that which is taught).

B. actual practice based on the fact that first squads's Sgt. Snuffy was wounded yesterday, 3rd squad is down three guys, and the LT doesn't totally trust the fireteam leaders in second squad

I know it sounds obvious that there's a difference between doctrine and practice but it's not just a gap, it's often a freakin' huge chasm!

In looking at this specific issue of fireteam, squad, and platoon tactics we learned that teams almost never operate in isolation or independently in the field. At the scale and scope most wargames are fought teams function as larger groupings. In Iraq this sometimes caused conflict between sniper teams which liked to stay small and stealthy and higher command which insisted on larger security details for them.

Squads can operate as independent entities under certain conditions but this is less common than one would think. An isolated squad lacks the staying power and depth to both fight and handle casualties which is a HUGE issue and one not often considered by we gamers.

A nominally 9-man squad might only have 6-8 actual warm bodies in the field. Just 1 or 2 casualties means the remaining 4 to 7 guys are stuck trying to fight AND save their comrades. Teams and squads can quickly become combat ineffective if fighting in isolation.

When it comes to command and control one Vietnam vet we spoke to scoffed at the idea of a platoon leader managing 3-4 squads let alone 6-8 individual teams under combat conditions. Pure fantasy he said. In his experience the platoon would be divided into two maneuver elements in most cases: one under his leadership and the other under with his platoon sgt. He would lead the assault element and his sgt. would lead the base of fire. In defense he would just arrange his troops in their positions and focus one a critical section or flank. Anything more complicated just doesn't work under combat conditions if only for the simple fact that the platoon leadership is trying to stay alive too.

He also said combat is just too dynamic at squad and platoon level to get hung up on paper definitions of fireteam and squad. They CAN provide useful shorthand in combat ("Sgt. Smith, get your guys to the south wall now!"). But more often than not casualties and terrain make it really difficult to worry about that stuff, especially when you need to avoid fratricide. You gotta keep things simple and there's nothing more simple than fighting your platoon as one or two elements rather than 6 to 8 little groups.

The same was true for vehicle platoons which tend to operate as complete entities in the case of fewer vehicles and two wings in the case of larger platoons. Nobody tries to fight a platoon as 4 to 5 individual vehicles in combat conditions. Instead the vehicle platoon fights as two wings of 2 or (at most) 3 vehicles per wing. Vehicle sections/platoons of 2 or 3 vehicles fight as a leader and one or two wingmen who maneuver on the leader's positioning. Things are especially tough on vehicle platoon leaders who also must find their own vehicle.

For company level actions (a company per side) this means that your force is composed of platoons and each platoon is best represented by a couple of sections at most whether infantry (assault and base of fire) or vehicle (two wings). And the sections should generally work together to support one another with respect to casualties, firepower, and command and control issues.

I would also encourage you to check out combat footage from current conflicts. You'll notice that the teams and squads of western forces operate as synchronized, seamless parts of the total platoon. And I do mean seamless. So the team and squad organization is important in that it allows the platoon to function as a seamless, organic entity. What it doesn't mean is that teams and squads are running around in isolation on the modern battelfield as we gamers often do. :-)

Certainly the Platoon Commander should not be micro managing fire teams…..( met several who've tried), the division between Lt and Sgt is a familiar one, subordinate NCO's should be sorting out section/squad and the lower level fire teams………
Rules that stipulate a 'zone' of control/communication/cohesiveness etc are better at portraying the necessity of posting troops to watch/guard rearward as well as stuffing every guy in the front arcs…..also the natural preference of troops to bunch together or at least not spread out over large areas and lose contact with each other……….

In the UK context of 4 x 432s in a Platoon, the Platoon Commander will be with the HQ Section, with the 3 sections being led by Cpls, my memory fails a little but I think that generally the Platoon Sgt stayed with the Platoon HQ.

One aspect that seldom filters down to a wargame is planning and orders. This is how, as VIS mentions above, the Plt acts as a seamless organic entity. Each stage of an operation is carefully planned, recce'd and rehearsed at all levels.Once the operation has started the Plt Cmdr is responsible for coordinating the sections and ensuring that the plan is working, he is not there to tell the section commanders where to put their gun groups, etc etc.

Of course no plan ever survives first contact with the enemy, which is why the soldiers from rifleman to section commander are encouraged to use their initiative,

Tally Ho!

The problem with this analysis above is that you are conflating Section and Platoon tactics, which are entirely different beasts.

The section tactics I've described above are for a section of 10-8 men to take out a lone pair of enemy or sniper. Anything approaching an enemy force of 3-4 men, platoon tactics would apply. Here all the gun groups would be concentrated with one of the sections to shoot in the remaining riflemen into the assault.

Any enemy force larger than a squad, company tactics would apply. I am hazy on these, never did Coy Cdr's course, but imagine an entire platoon would shoot in the assault, combined with organic mortars if not artillery.

So you really need to be clear what level of tactics you are applying…based on the size of enemy, the multiply by 3 – equal points systems only apply on the tabletop!

Intra squad manoeuver, as per the OP, whilst the initial training tactics taught, only apply in small scale mopping up operations, rounding up aircrew, saboteurs, etc….

Thanks for all the replies.

That really helps.

Basically, I'm interested in the general tactics nations use, in order to help me determine what figure basing scheme I want to go with for the minis, e.g. just one squad per base, two fireteams per squad, a couple of rifle fireteams and a LMG team, individual basing, etc., etc.

Of course, it will also help me with tactics on the tabletop as well, if/where that data is available.

I suspect this will be a bit dependent upon the rules used, scale of minis, etc., etc., too. Probably squads for micro-armor scale minis; squads and/or fireteams for 1/144th; squads, fireteams, and perhaps even some individual basing for the 15mm guys, etc., etc..

Oh, and on those BMP squads, it appears that numbers changed over time, as for the US mechanized infantry squads too (generally getting smaller with time passage), e.g. 8 dismounts for the BMP back in the 1970s, and perhaps earlier (watched some video footage of that last night, of BMP-1s, with eight guys getting in, and/or advancing beside each vehicle), then, supposedly dropping to 7 for the BMP-1s and BMP-2s, in the 1980s. I've even seen mention of 6, but don't know if that is correct (that is the number for dismounts in those little BMDs, apparently).

US mech. squads were reduced from 11 to 9 (two fireteams of 4, plus the squad leader). I get the impression this was done primarily to fill out the units, due to manpower shortages, more than anything else, but perhaps there were other drivers too, e.g. with more SAWs added to a squad (one per fireteam), it has a lot more firepower to make up for the reduced troop numbers.

So, you need to consider the era in which you are gaming, as unit TO&Es dropped too, over time, e.g. for the West German Army, 16 x Marders in a company (1 x HQ and 3 x platoons of five), then to 13 (HQ plus 3 platoons of 4), and then 11 (HQ of 2, and 3 x platoons of 3).

US mech. squads were reduced from 11 to 9 (two fireteams of 4, plus the squad leader). I get the impression this was done primarily to fill out the units, due to manpower shortages

An M2 can't fit 11 … not because of any troop shortage.

but perhaps there were other drivers too, e.g. with more SAWs added to a squad (one per fireteam),

There are no "extras" in a TO&E. Every one in the unit has a duty position. None of those positions are "extra guy with SAW", etc. … As I have said before each of my M113 Squads, '87-'89, had 2 5 man Fire Tms + SL. Each Tm had an M203, M249 and either an M60 MG or M47 Dragon. Plus a Tm Ldr who packed a M16. And the 5th Tm member usually an M16 and extra ammo for the M60 or M47. Which meant with the driver & TC in the track, you'd have 9 dismounts. My rule was every dismount carries a heavy weapon … That is why we all cross train and qualify with every weapon in Company TO&E.

With the 9 man M2 Bradley Squad, you'd get only 6 dismount. As a Driver, TC and Gunner stays with the track … 6 dismounts is too small, IMO. Some feel the firepower of the Bradley's 25mm Bushmaster and TOWs makes up for the lack of dismounts. As opposed to the M113's mounted M2 .50 cal. HMG. Which was usually dismounted in the defense. Again, it may depend on the "situation & terrain", but 6 dismounts still seems too small. Add in the sick[or WIAs], on leave, etc. … your 6 men could rapidly become 1/2 that.

I understand the M113 is an APC and the M2 an IFV … but in reality that makes little difference. As sooner than later, your Grunts have to dismount to do their jobs. And yes, the Bradley's firepower in support of the dismounts is considerable, vs. the M2 .50 Cal. … But the terrain and situation don't always play fair … like in the FM …

Legion,

Can you comment on the different Bradley platoon dismount TO&Es?

I've come across a couple of versions. In one there are three standard dismount squads but each squad converts one rifleman to an M240 gunner as needed. Therefore each squad has 9 men, two fireteams, and 3x MGs (2x M249 and 1x M240).

The other shows two normal squads of two fireteams each and one weapons squad of two M240 teams and a couple of AT teams.

In both cases the three squads were divided up among the four Brads in a manner that split squads and teams between vehicles.

What I can't pin down is when and where these were in effect. Any help would be appreciated! For our up coming rules the main effect is one has the firepower of 9x belt-fed MGs while the other has 6x belt-fed MGs abstracted into the unit's total firepower.

Never commanded an M2 unit. But IIRC, the M2 had 2 3 man Fire Tms per squad. With as I said, the 3 man carrier Tm. Each 3 man Dismount Fire Tm, would have an M203, M249 and an AT Gunner [AT-4, Javelin] and the other Tm the same but with an M240[which replaced the M60] instead of a Javelin. That is the way I remember it in training discussions. And each Squad was assign an M2 IFV, that is part of their Squad like the M240, etc. … That is the way it was with M113s. Not like Strykers where IIRC the Vehicles do not belong to the squad. But like a Bn Transport Pool and the Driver and Vehicle Commander come with the transport and are not part of the Infantry Squad.

In both cases the three squads were divided up among the four Brads in a manner that split squads and teams between vehicles.

Again IIRC, each 9 man squad had an organic M2 IFV. The 4th M2 was the PL's Command vehicle which carried the CP troops and medic. The PL SGT would probably ride in one of the squad tracks. So the Plt could manuever in 2 Track Sections. One covering, one bounding, etc. … Again based on terrain and situation.

The other shows two normal squads of two fireteams each and one weapons squad of two M240 teams and a couple of AT teams.

I don't know if I ever heard of that. The US ARMY dropped Weapons Squads awhile ago ? But they may have gone back to them ? But I'd think the standard was more effective with keeping the MGs in the squad. However, that could be a special Task Organized unit based on mission ? I don't know if there are any M2 Commanders here ?

For our up coming rules the main effect is one has the firepower of 9x belt-fed MGs while the other has 6x belt-fed MGs abstracted into the unit's total firepower.

For gaming purposes, I'd think, the M249 SAWs and M240 MG would be abstracted into the units' firepower. If you are going to to do it that way. As opposed to having each SAW/MG fire separately.

Just so we're clear, by the term "drivers", I meant issues pushing for a reduction in the squad size, not extra men to "drive" the vehicle.

I was looking mainly at the older, Cold War M113 vehicles, and their passengers, from an organizational standpoint.

Wow, and M60 and and M249 in the same 5 man fireteam?

That is a lot of firepower. The other one with the M249 and Dragon/SMAW/AT-4 (mid-late 1980s) is pretty heavy too.

I understand … And I was an old Cold Warrior. And many in the Squad were trained to be drivers. Just like with all in the squad were crossed trained in all weapons from M16 thru .50 Cal. And yes, that is a lot Firepower ! With each Mech Squad having 2 M203 GLs, 2 M249 SAWs, 1 M60 MG and 1 M47 MAW. With a track you could carry the extra ammo for all of it. And yes, even with stowing gear on the outside … it was a bit cramped …

Legion,

Getting back to Mako's original question, how rigid was your loadout? It sounds like it was peace time so maybe more set in stone. In Iraq and Afghanistan I've been told that it's pretty flexible which also goes back to Mako's question.

For example, on paper a current US Army platoon has three squads, each of two identical fireteams (2x M16s/M4s, 1x M16/M4 with M203, 1x M249), and a weapons squad of 2x M240s and 2x AT specialist teams (weapons squad varies based on unit type…can range from 3x MG teams and no AT to simply 2x MGs attached directly to the platoon command group). Marine platoons are very similar with three squads, each of three identical fireteams and no weapons squad. So an army platoon has 6x identical fireteams and the marine platoon 9x.

But in Iraq's urban combat those TO&Es apparently went out the window in many situations. When assaulting a building the belt-fed weapons were concentrated in a security group which remained outside the building. M4s and shotguns were used by the assault group. Essentially the platoon was divided into two elements: an MG group with massive firepower to make sure the building perimeter was secure and an agile assault group armed to breach doors and fight at close quarters.

In Afghanistan I've heard that the longer engagement ranges called for more M240s and DMRs and that the M4 wasn't as useful. Units were allowed to customize their loadout to a certain degree based on fighting conditions. It would be interesting to hear from anyone else who was there (my info comes from veteran friends who served there and combat memoirs).

For example, on paper a current US Army platoon has three squads, each of two identical fireteams (2x M16s/M4s, 1x M16/M4 with M203, 1x M249), and a weapons squad of 2x M240s and 2x AT specialist teams (weapons squad varies based on unit type…can range from 3x MG teams and no AT to simply 2x MGs attached directly to the platoon command group).

That's the Light Infantry and Stryker organization. Bradley org doesn't have the weapons squad, they have Bradleys to carry the MGs (and Chain Guns and TOWs).

Getting back to Mako's original question, how rigid was your loadout? It sounds like it was peace time so maybe more set in stone. In Iraq and Afghanistan I've been told that it's pretty flexible which also goes back to Mako's question.

I was not on active duty for either of those operations. But yes, that was the standard TO&E we worked with based on the FMs, etc. … But a commander could modify his weapons' issue based on mission. However, in most cases all that firepower would be applicable to many situations. The M47 and LAWs could be used against structures as well. And in general the .50 cal. could chew up bricks, etc., too. Also note, M72 LAWs were issued like grenades or mines. As expendable ammo. And that issue mix again would be based on the mission, etc. …

So again the commander could modify his weapons issue and even organization within his Plt. The PL SGT could cross level troops from one squad to another based on shortages, etc., etc. …

For example a squad sized Ambush could have another M60 and Gunner with Asst. Gunner/Ammo Bearer assigned from another Squad. To augment the Ambush Squad's firepower. As in an "L-shaped" Ambush. Two M60s were placed along the short end of the "L" to fire across the long axis of the Kill Zone. And create flanking fire with other troops postitioned along the long "L" axis, firing across the Kill Zone. Some times referred to as a "Cross Fire".

But as I said, the general standard TO&E weapons mixed would have worked in most operations. And as noted is a lot of firepower.

Thanks for the updated intel Lion. No one ever heard of a "Stryker" when I got off active duty in March of '90 …

Lion,

For Brads then is it currently three standard 9-man squads in two fireteams each with an extra M240 for eaxh squad? That was the latest info that I've found on the interwebs.

Thought this might be of interest to the group. This TO&E assumes that each Bradley carries 6 or 7 dismounts.

In this Version of the Bradley platoon there's just two squads and an MG squad with 2x MGs:

This third version shows three squads, each with an extra M240 MG in addition to their two M249s for a total of 3 (!!!) belt-fed automatic weapons per squad.

Note that these are all images taken from official US field manuals.

A link to some classic videos of the late 70s that we were shown during trg,

YouTube link

Tally Ho!