Tuesday, August 13, 2013

Praxis: Squad Size. 9, 12 or 13?

The US Army believes that "Nine Is The Magic Number."
Dunnigan's article is based on this RAND report on necessity for future Ground Combat Vehicle (GCV) to carry nine dismount Soldiers. A friend forwards it with the comment "Very interesting reading with a good historical summary of US Army squad size, WWII to present."
From the Abstract:
The Army has examined the lessons of half a dozen significant conflicts, starting with World War II, has conducted numerous studies over the last 65 years, and has found time and again that an ability to conduct dismounted fire and maneuver is the fundamental squad-level tactic. It has also consistently determined that squads should be organized around two fire teams and should contain no fewer than nine soldiers — though a larger number has usually been preferred — to accomplish fire and maneuver doctrine, but also for reasons of squad resilience, lethality, and leader span of control. To support fully enabled mechanized infantry squads, the Army has, for the last fifty years, tried to develop and field survivable, lethal infantry fighting vehicles that are also capable of carrying a full nine to eleven man squad that can dismount to fight on foot. The Army has not been able to do this for a variety of reasons, and its current infantry fighting vehicle, the M2 Bradley, cannot carry enough soldiers to enable squad-level fire and maneuver from a single vehicle. As a result, today's mechanized infantry are more at risk when transitioning from mounted to dismounted operations, and squad-level dismounted fire and maneuver is compromised in some situations. The Ground Combat Vehicle (GCV), if developed as planned, will finally provide the infantry with an IFV that can accommodate a full squad. For this reason, the Army considers the program to be one of its most important.
Here is the pdf of the entire report.
And of what utility is this discussion to those of us who don't have an armored vehicle to put 9 dismounts in? I have always been a fan of the four-man fire team times three plus an NCO for a thirteen man squad of armed citizenry. We don't have access to the fun toys of the regulars so we must maximize what we have, which is aimed rifle fire. Also, the fire team is the basic building block of militia, small enough to be within organizational reach of a neighborhood defense organization. The discussion in this report covering the history of the squad is thus useful for thinking about what works for constitutional militia.

10 comments:

Anonymous said...

History teaches that a small (six to nine man) infantry team will be very quickly reduced to one to five men. The major advantage to large squads(12+) has allways been having replacements "ready at hand" and Having a large "ammo Bearer" contingent. We must think more like WW-1 or civil war infantry. Fighting in small "teams" was a great tactic in Vietnam. But we are an Army that will move by foot or Mule. Gasoline will disappear two weeks to a month into this, and every "modern" military tactic is based on, On time-unlimited re-supply. Unlimited mobility buy Air- Land- Sea transport. Unlimited secure communications. Unlimited casualty evacuation and treatment. ALL of them dependent on unlimited supply's of petroleum. AND ALL OF IT THE STUFF WE DON'T AND WON'T HAVE.

Old Dog said...

Actually used the 9 Body concept back when I was an SFC many years ago. We were a support outfit (CEWI) and our basic deployment was a Support slice.

Three vehicles with three Bodies each pretty well defined that when dismounted in a fight we had to use the 9 Body Squad.

Once I got the weapons splits right and some training knocked into some Technical type heads it worked fairly well!

B said...

Something I have toyed with for years -- The ideal saize of the squad is thirteen. SL, three TL, and then three fireteams. The Company generally has three maneuver elements, the platoon generally has three maneuver elements, so the rule of 3 to 5 states that the squad should have three maneuver elements. It would give flexibility, autonomous firepower, and spacial command and control at the squad lever.

No special skills int he squad. Just three fire teams that can each accomplish all of the basic infantry missions -- all three teams can function in a scout role, assault role, and defense role. All three teams have a DM. The teams are interchangeable.

B
III

drjim said...

Why the one guy with the 1903 Springfield?

Sniper?

William Flatt said...

I agree with Anon@1:58 as well as Mike. 12 to 15 is the way to go. I prefer three fire teams for obvious fire and maneuver tactics that have been well honed by our Marine brethren. ALWAYS USE THREES. So three teams of four is dandy, plus your Squad leader, RTO, and Medic. That's 15. But I believe that while movement will be done in threes (1 moves while 2 cover), the militia platoon will be the primary unit, with the smallest unit being the 15-man squad. A militia platoon would be your 15 man squad times three (minimum, a platoon could have as many as 5 squads), Plt. Ldr, PSG, RTO, and 2 Platoon Medics senior to the squad medics who have a greater knowledge of field medicine / surgery. A militia unit WILL NEED that many medics on hand, because you will NOT have the medevac resources that the enemy will have!!

SWIFT said...

In conventional warfare, I like the number 12, for the fire power. In guerrilla warfare, I like the number 7. Seven is about all a squad leader can keep quiet,alert, directed, informed and highly motivated upon both ingress and egress of a target. The bigger the team, the bigger the potential for mistakes, noise, non-combat injuries, and bone headed moves.

California Midwesterner said...

@drjim,

The Assistant Squad Leader has the 1903 because he's also the Grenadier, with the M1 Rifle Grenade Launcher.

Until mid-WW2 or so, the M1 Rifle's launcher, the M7, wasn't working well enough (nor the rifle with it) to be general-issue for launching rifle grenades. Ordnance eventually solved the problem with the spring-loaded gas plugs that deactivate the gas system when the GL is mounted.

So until that point, though, the ASL had the 1903, which could launch grenades with no problem. Just had to put a blank in the chamber and the grenade on the launcher, and off you go.


As to the point of the article, I'd say the ideal size depends on a bunch of factors.
I like the idea of 4-man teams making up the squad, and I like the idea of making the SL not double-up as a TL.
So I'd say 12 is out, for that reason. Maybe 10, though: SL, SDM, and 2 4-man fire teams.

Just an amateur spitballing, though.

Gunny G said...

I like the Corps' 13 man squad. three fire teams so two can manuever on an objective while one has a base of fire, the SL has command. They are going to 2 five man fire teams and one SL now.

SWIFT had a great point with 7 in guerrilla warfare. Kudos.

Chuck said...

Back in the early '80s when I started in the Infantry, the Army was just transitioning from the 11 man rifle squad (SL, two five man fire teams) to the 9 man squad. I prefer the 11 man squad.

The problem with any squad, no matter what size it is on paper, is that it's almost never fully manned: guys get sick, they have extra or special duty like KP, guard duty, go on leave, go to school, etc. In combat they get wounded or killed in addition to the previous things.

The 11 man, two fire team squad has more depth than the 9 man, two fire team squad, but is more controllable than the 13 man, three fire team squad.

drjim said...

Thanks, CM.

I thought of "grenade launcher" right after I posted.