BTW TO&E tables of organization and equipment
> Thomas Barclay wrote:
> I'm thinking in 2183, we can get some idea of formation sizes:
<Note: my comments are directed at infantry not PA.> IMO an ideal section (BTW
we call them SQUADS here in the US, in some conrers a section is two squads or
half a platoon) I believe that 8 or 9 is a good number for a rifle squad. A
squad should have two manuever elements (We call them teams). This way, in
trouble, you have one firing, one manuevering. I'm not a fan of threes. I
think it should be an even number so you have buddy teams, so that leaves two
4 man buddy teams or 4 guys in a fire team. Tacked together with another team,
that
leaves you 8 men. (2 w/ SAWs) A corporal running each team and one sgt
squad leader. When you put three squads (and or a weapon squad togetehr in a
platoon, it leaves you with a pretty articualte little unit. Our mech units
were (they still may be) 9 man squads but they had a 6 man dismount team and 3
guys in the vehicle. They monkeyed with one 6 man manuever element and also
two three man manuever elements, but IMO it's never been as stable as a
regular light infanrty squad,
(Which used to have 2 5-man teams and a SL)
Now if you have a lower quality army or one with fewer leaders, then the first
thing to dispsense with is the fire team concept and centralize on the squad
leader and one manuever unit. SO I guess I see infantry organization as:
(let's make this simple and call it a parachute or airmobile air assault unit,
no IFVs) Rifle squad (section, whatever) 9 men
Rifle Platoon (3 squad, PL, PSG, <RTO/ECM>? and weapons squad <2 hvy
autos or PPGs or GMS) 38 men
Rifle company (3 plts. weapons plt (mortars/GMS) HQ section 140 men
Battalion (3 rifle companies, 1 support company (AT <GMS> plt, ADA section,
ENG section, scout section, Mrtar plt=100 men). 1 HHC company (bn staff
planning and ops, maintenance plt, medical plt, commo platoon, supply platoon,
intel section,
ECM section, other stuff=140 men)= 660-700 men
Note this battalion would be augmented with additional engineer platoon, armor
platoon, artillery battery, FAC/FDC section, intelligence collection
(sensor section,radar section, ADA, etc etc) so you are looking at a battalion
task force ready for deployment anyhwere with all of its support at 1000 men
or bit more. This thing has all the tail it needs. It can also farm out it's
assetts so that it can mrph into 3 seperate company task forces for seperate
actions.
> John M. Atkinson wrote:
> Hrm. I note you include an organic Engineer platoon. Is US only army
Haa! I knew you'd ding me on this as soon as I wrote it down. And yes I agree
with your the Eng should be seperate (note: that I added them in as
attachmenst at the Bn TF level) so nix the Eng. squad and give me a pair of
sniper teams. I would defer to all your assessments on things, engineer. I do
think though tat the same ENg platoon shoudlalways be farmed out to eth same
bn in order to establish a good working relationship.
> t[1]F*ck You Buddy, I'm Detached. IOW, "I'll take my assets and go
I've been there, done that. YEars 3 and 4 of my army carrer saw myself as a
Remote sensor specialist. Our team of 3 guys was farmed out to line bns along
with two GSR
temnan (Ground Surveillance radars) Bn s-2s had very funky ideas about
what to do with sensors (Gee go bug the enemy bn's TOC) so we found ourselves
in the occassional pissing
contest (WHy it's important to have a stable working relationship w/ the
host bn.)
> Not that I'm parochial or anything. . .
I know, you are just looking out for the best interests of the MOS....
> Los wrote:
> Rifle squad (section, whatever) 9 men
I'd add both an AT element and a GPMG element (VRF Gauss guns or whatever)
> Battalion (3 rifle companies, 1 support company (AT <GMS> plt, ADA
Hrm. I note you include an organic Engineer platoon. Is US only army that
doesn't do this? I note that both the Canadians and the Aussies on the list
refer to Assault Pioneers, who seem to be filling the role us Combat Engineers
do in the US. I kinda like having the Engineers in a seperate formation, under
a single officer who's on the division staff. Like artillery, this allows them
to be concentrated on the divisional main effort when necessary. This also
permits the Engineers to "FUBID[1]" when the infantry officers are too far
disconnected from reality to let us support properly. Of course, I also prefer
having a Brigade (not Group, the difference being that a Brigade has a proper
staff to support us!) in divisions like US Heavys rather than having a single
batallion like in the US Light divisions. Of course, in my TOs, I also
included a Heavy Junk Batallion in the division since it's a usual attachment
down from Corps, so why not get the Engineer staff used to controlling this
asset in peacetime, right?
[1]F*ck You Buddy, I'm Detached. IOW, "I'll take my assets and go back
to the rear and scrounge some coffee while you do this your own damn self 'coz
you're too stupid to take advice on how use us properly." Which I've been part
of once.
Not that I'm parochial or anything...
A
> Hrm. I note you include an organic Engineer platoon. Is US only army
That's not quite accurate. Assault Pioneers included as a platoon in the
Combat Support Company in a Battalion are not Combat Engineers. There are
combat engineer units at the Brigade level and above who do the same sorts of
jobs that US Combat Engineer units do. Assault Pioneers are infantrymen who
have been cross trained in some of what the engineers do. Their battlefield
roles include mine clearance, demolitions, etc. This gives the infantry
company and battalion commanders an integral unit of troops at their disposal
who can react quickly in battle when they need a path through a mine field,
etc etc. They also act as a battalion reserve, and are fully capable combat
troops. The Combat Engineers call them wannabe's who couldn't make it as a
real engineer, but that's another story...
> Los wrote:
all > your assessments on things, engineer. I do think though tat the same ENg
platoon
> shoudlalways be farmed out to eth same bn in order to establish a good
Definitely. Like Armored batallions and WWII Infantry division, the
attachment should be semi-permenant where possible. But the chain of
command/OERs should flow up a branch-specific formation.
> temnan (Ground Surveillance radars) Bn s-2s had very funky ideas about
Yeah--ideally, every time the Infantry take to the field, they take
their slices of divisional assets so that they get used to doing things right,
with all the appropriate specialists so they don't get into any bad habits.
This also allows the Engineer (and other specialists) to get used to working
with that particular set of maneuver commanders, so they learn what to expect
from each other same as any staff officer
(which the poor Engineer O-1 effectively is over and above having the
responsibility of leading the platoon in the field, and a very junior staff
officer at that) This is sometimes difficult to coordinate.
Hmm,
Well Los, seems that you have an Australian Battalion organisation almost
exactly here! Add a fourth Rifle company and it is just about picture perfect!
Three 3 man teams(Groups) is doctrine for Oz; Section Commander (Oz
Cpl/US
Sgt) and two scouts make the Command Group, then with teh doctrine being
implemented for the Minimi you have two groups of a Minimi and two rifles; one
of these is designated the Gun Group and contains the section 2IC LCpl. The
philosophy of the 'buddy' system is imperative in a team framework. The the
three groups provide a 'Seco' the flexibility to respond to any situation. He
will always have 'One foot on the ground' and depending on the threat level
can have one element moving and two providing cover or two moving and one
covering.
The fourth Rifle Company gives the CO greater flexibility in establishing a
cut off or providing a Brigade Reserve, although with a fixed nuber of troops
given to a Division manning you obvisouly end up with less Manouver Units
(Battalion being the basic MU).
Now how do we see the ESU or other 'human wave' types unfolding??
Cheers,
Owen
[quoted original message omitted]
> who have been cross trained in some of what the engineers do. Their
I don't think so. Their job is more limited - again, we have engineer
units who do that kind of stuff, and have the equipment/training needed.
The assault pioneers are there to supplement the engineers, provide an extra
source of "trained" manpower, and provide a base level of expertise
when actual engineer units are available - organic to the infantry
units...
> infantry company and battalion commanders an integral unit of troops
Keep your hat on. No, I'm not - we all know that there are innumerable
instances of Combat Engineers demonstrating their combat prowess - hey,
even the commanding officer at Rourke's Drift was a Brit. Engineer officer
(who were often the most professional and best trained officers in the British
army)...
I don't know about the US military, but in many others the pure combat
training for supporting elements is not as intense as it is for the line
units. In the Can. forces, Service Battalion personnel are expected to be
combat qualified, but don't get the same intense training that the line
infantry units do. This is, I believe, generally true in most militaries.
There are lots of specific examples where there are exceptions to this
(airborne service/support types, for example), but as a broad
generalization, it should be ok. Combat Engineers take their name because
they are COMBAT engineers - they fight. In the Canadian army, Combat
Arms consists of FOUR branches (Infantry, Armour, Artillery, and Combat
Engineers), not three as in many other armies - our Engineers take
fierce pride in their professionalism and ability to kick ass. All I meant
about the "fully capable combat troops" comment was that the Assault Pioneers
are
not part of the lesser-trained support elements of the force they are
in. This wasn't meant as a slam on the Engineers.
Oh dear we have prickled the Ginger Beer's favourite subject again.
OK, so the use of "combat capable" was probably not the most accurate term.
Take the comments in context and I believe you will have to agree that Assault
Pioneers; who are infantry soldiers employed in a specialist role
(as are Mortar Platoon, Signals Platoon, Anti-ARmour Platoon and Recon
Platoon), will, by definition, have better infantry combat skills than any
other branch. Engineers are a specialist Corps, so employing them in a role
that is best suited to Infantry is a misuse if there are infantry available.
Is your "<cold scorn>" a professional appreciation or a personal expression?
Cheers,
Owen G
[quoted original message omitted]
> Adrian Johnson wrote:
> who have been cross trained in some of what the engineers do. Their
In other words, the stuff we normally just attach a squad of engineers down to
an infantry company to handle. Do they do complex obstacles, engineer recon,
obstacle instalations?
> infantry company and battalion commanders an integral unit of troops
<cold scorn>Are you in any way implying that Combat Engineers are not
fully capable combat troops? </cold scorn>
> Glover, Owen wrote:
> Oh dear we have prickled the Ginger Beer's favourite subject again.
Ginger Beer? And the list is doing real good at jerking my chain this week.
First the Real Romans comment, now this...
> OK, so the use of "combat capable" was probably not the most accurate
Nooooooo...
> Take the comments in context and I believe you will have to agree that
Right. Of course, sometimes there aren't. And Engineers can be remarkably
effective given their access to all sorts of fun toys. Especially in the
defensive (Like the Ardennes, where Engineer units fought Panzer Kampfgruppes
to a standstill, buying time for their brethren to blow the bridges that
actually stopped the German
offensive). But the split is 60/40. IOW, What we do is about 60%
common between us and the Infantry, and 40% Engineer specific. And granted
it's just a National Guard division, but we (229th Engineer Batallion) have a
reputation as the best infantry batallion in the
division--a squad from my company took the Divisional Squad Competition,
which was a series of raids this year.
> Is your "<cold scorn>" a professional appreciation or a personal
Yes.
> Adrian Johnson wrote:
> The assault pioneers are there to supplement the engineers, provide an
I'm still not sure where it is these guys fit--I guess your doctrine
requires more Engineering support. Or maybe your Engineers don't like 22 hour
days to get the maneuver commanders all squared away.
> Keep your hat on. No, I'm not - we all know that there are
Hrmph... Flattery is good...
> I don't know about the US military, but in many others the pure combat
Right.
> combat qualified, but don't get the same intense training that the
Right. It just looked an awful lot like you were sticking us Sappers in that
category.
> There are lots of specific examples where there are exceptions to this
Ah. I see. I think. In the US Army, the Combat Engineers are
considered Combat Arms (and are all-male, at least in the line
companies) but are not one of the Big Three (Infantry, Armor, Artillery, in
that order) from which are drawn most generals and Those Who Make
Budget Decisions. Which is why Engineers still use 1960s-era garbage
equipment rather than the neat toys that aren't going to hit the field until
2002 given today's budget climate.
Actually Ginger Beer is more of an 'honorific' proudly worn by Engineers; just
as 'Grunt' is by infanteers.
On the subject of sections/squads winning Mil Skills type competitions;
the Australian army have two Mil Skills competitions in the Div. One for
Infantry units and the other for Non-Infantry. Sure this wasn't the case
for
the NG Div? It seems a little strange that a Non-Infantry unit would be
entered in a competition for Infantry.
Giving the benefit of the doubt, it is easy to pick 10 guys in a unit and
train them really hard for a section/squad competition. This doesn't
make the unit the best UNIT in the Division. Just means that those 10 guys are
better at the competition than any other ten.
Just some thoughts,
Owen G
[quoted original message omitted]
> The assault pioneers are there to supplement the engineers, provide
I'm not sure of the historical reasons why we developed Assault Pioneers
-
in the end, however, the Canadian Forces don't have many Combat Engineers, so
we need the support of the Pioneers. Maybe some of the Australians on the list
can explain further what Assault Pioneers are about.
> There are lots of specific examples where there are exceptions to
To be honest, I think one of the main reasons our Combat Engineers were
redesignated part of the "big three" (now four) is that the actual number of
personel in our combat arms units was so pathetically low, and the government
was receiving criticism for sending the same small group of people on
stressful overseas deployments, that they redesignated Combat Engineers, and
that in one fell swoop increased the numbers of "combat" troops. The
government looks like they have been "reforming the military" to "change the
balance of administrative personnel to operational personnel" etc etc etc. The
poor Engineers are caught in the middle of all this, with their 1960's era
garbage equipment, etc etc. Sound familiar?
As a side note, the Canadian Forces officially went "co-ed" in all units
(except, I believe, submarine crews). Theoretically, we can have women in all
of our front line units, though there have not been that many who have made
the attempt, passed the training, etc. (I don't want to open a
sociological/political discussion on why this is the way it is - this
was more of a FYI than anything else...). I read an interesting account of a
woman who was an Infantry Platoon commander in Bosnia, and the reactions she
had to deal with not just from allied forces, but from the locals. Very
interesting.
> Glover, Owen wrote:
> On the subject of sections/squads winning Mil Skills type
Nope--our BC argued his way into entering a squad in the Infantry one.
> Glover, Owen wrote:
> On the subject of sections/squads winning Mil Skills type
Nah, I'm sure it was one competition. Again ENgineers are infantry capabnle
forces, it;s not like all tey do is drive dump trucks. Also squad competition
is generally 50% individual tasks (range estimation, weapons breakdown,
physical fitness and ma reading, and then some squad based events (land Nav,
Immediate action drills, and some situatiuonal training exrcizes (Sounds like
John;s was a raid). It's not difficult to put together a winning squad as long
as the guys are motivated to put in the extra time it takes to prepare.
> Giving the benefit of the doubt, it is easy to pick 10 guys in a unit
Yep.
> At 22:54 25/10/98 -0800, you wrote:
Cockney slang John. It rhymes. Examples... "trouble and strfe" = wife "dog and
bone" = phone "dead horse" = tomato sauce (which you yanks call ketchup which
doesnt work) "ginger beer" = engineer
As for pulling your chain its just a stir 'cause you bite so well:)