Infantry Section Organization

[Fusaki]

What of the dismounted section or the airmobile section?

For the amount if time we spend away from the LAVs, I don't see the extra firepower as a necessary tradeoff to having a couple dismounts as unencumbered as possible.  It would be nice to have a backup in case the 25 goes down or the LAV can't reach you, but you reach a point where being prepared for every contingency becomes too heavy for the dismount's most important job: closing with the enemy in places the LAV can't get to.

Knowing before you leave KAF that you're going to be airmobile or light is a different story. In those cases you'll have plans and issue gear according to the mission. But when our intent is to be mechanized, my opinion is that x2 M203s is the point where the dismounted section's flexibility is balanced by it's specialization.

 

[daftandbarmy]

In NI we deployed with 3 x 4 man teams: a 'Multiple'. The platoon split into two 'multiples' of 3 bricks each for the tour: one commanded by the Pl Comd, one by the Pl Sgt. It worked great. Obviously the conditions in Central Asia are somewhat different. Nevertheless, even though Napoleon said that God is on the side of the big battalions... I always believed that, in COIN ops, God is on the side of the big sections.

 

[Fusaki]

God is on the side of the big sections.

God is on whichever side moves through the OODA loop faster.

 

[Infanteer]

This discussion reminds me on how much "The Infantry Section and Platoon in Battle" needs to be updated.

Do not get wrapped around numbers, as they never survive first contact.

For example, A TO&E Infantry Platoon has 39 soldiers (40 with att medic).

HQ Section:
-  Pl Comd
-  Pl 2IC
-  LAV Sgt (or HQ Sect Comd if you will)
-  Wpns Det Comd (or HQ Sect 2IC if you will)
-  Driver
-  Gunner
-  Signaller
-  2 x Wpns Crew (for whatever you want to deploy)
-  (add the medic and this gives you 10 in HQ)

Rifle Sections x 3
-  10 troops as previously detailed

Now, with TO&E laid out, we now have to recognize that a Rifle Platoon will never operate as such.  First, the 2IC is not going to ride in the HQ car.  He will usually head to whatever car is in depth (usually Charlie by default, but never assume so as rotation is necessary).  He may take the medic with him to enable him to immediately fire up a CCP - if so, your bouncing two pers out of a section.  One school of thought sees the LAV Sgt not crew commanding the HQ car, but rather the lead car (usually Alpha by default, but never assume so as rotation is necessary) so now we have crew commanders bouncing about.  Add in some specialist assets that need a lift, and now you have some LOB, or at very least, some dudes in a small det riding in another organizations car (I've seen this done with Engineers).

As well, we are moving towards 2 x DP2B (PLQ Inf) pers per section - in effect giving a MCpl in the Crew Commanders seat and a MCpl dismounting with the Section Comd.  When a Mech Platoon is away from its cars, this may very well set the Section Commander up for the "2 Groups commanded by MCpls" idea that was referred to above (and that we see in the US Military), leaving a lone fireteam partner for the Section Commander so he can put his Fireteam where he wants.

All this goes that TO&E only acts as a manning guideline.  Again, it never survives first contact and flexibility is key.

 

[vonGarvin]

This discussion reminds me on how much "The Infantry Section and Platoon in Battle" needs to be updated.

Do not get wrapped around numbers, as they never survive first contact.

For example, A TO&E Infantry Platoon has 39 soldiers (40 with att medic).

HQ Section:
-  Pl Comd
-  Pl 2IC
-  LAV Sgt (or HQ Sect Comd if you will)
-  Wpns Det Comd (or HQ Sect 2IC if you will)
-  Driver
-  Gunner
-  Signaller
-  2 x Wpns Crew (for whatever you want to deploy)
-  (add the medic and this gives you 10 in HQ)

Rifle Sections x 3
-  10 troops as previously detailed

Now, with TO&E laid out, we now have to recognize that a Rifle Platoon will never operate as such.  First, the 2IC is not going to ride in the HQ car.  He will usually head to whatever car is in depth (usually Charlie by default, but never assume so as rotation is necessary).  He may take the medic with him to enable him to immediately fire up a CCP - if so, your bouncing two pers out of a section.  One school of thought sees the LAV Sgt not crew commanding the HQ car, but rather the lead car (usually Alpha by default, but never assume so as rotation is necessary) so now we have crew commanders bouncing about.  Add in some specialist assets that need a lift, and now you have some LOB, or at very least, some dudes in a small det riding in another organizations car (I've seen this done with Engineers).

As well, we are moving towards 2 x DP2B (PLQ Inf) pers per section - in effect giving a MCpl in the Crew Commanders seat and a MCpl dismounting with the Section Comd.  When a Mech Platoon is away from its cars, this may very well set the Section Commander up for the "2 Groups commanded by MCpls" idea that was referred to above (and that we see in the US Military), leaving a lone fireteam partner for the Section Commander so he can put his Fireteam where he wants.

All this goes that TO&E only acts as a manning guideline.  Again, it never survives first contact and flexibility is key.

Don't forget, 25% on HLTA, so you have "roughly" 25-30 dudes.
WRT the LAV Sgt, the problem with him (or her) in anything other than the lead car is that now that car has two sergeants in it.  The WO is NOT in the HQ car.  Imagine if it gets brewed up: Pl Comd, Pl 2IC and the senior sgt in the platoon all in one shot.  Not good. 
The "doctrine" (which is a guide, not gospel) has the LAV Sgt crew commanding the HQ, though I've seen him (or her) gunning for the Pl Comd, until she (or he) dismounts, in which case the LAV Sgt takes over, and the gunner jumps up.  Or better yet, the LAV Sgt is a GIB (Guy in the back) or "trunk monkey" until his (or her) nibs gets out and they trade up.  Whatever.  But the key is flexibility.  The LAV Sgt will usually by default control the platoon "zulu" vehicles to support the Pl Comd's plan.

Hope this doesn't confuse too much.

 

[Infanteer]

Don't forget, 25% on HLTA, so you have "roughly" 25-30 dudes.

Yeah, there is always that.  There are a few interesting ways around it, one of which my unit is trying (the old 110% trick)

WRT the LAV Sgt, the problem with him (or her) in anything other than the lead car is that now that car has two sergeants in it.  The WO is NOT in the HQ car.  Imagine if it gets brewed up: Pl Comd, Pl 2IC and the senior sgt in the platoon all in one shot.  Not good. 
The "doctrine" (which is a guide, not gospel) has the LAV Sgt crew commanding the HQ, though I've seen him (or her) gunning for the Pl Comd, until she (or he) dismounts, in which case the LAV Sgt takes over, and the gunner jumps up.  Or better yet, the LAV Sgt is a GIB (Guy in the back) or "trunk monkey" until his (or her) nibs gets out and they trade up.  Whatever.  But the key is flexibility.  The LAV Sgt will usually by default control the platoon "zulu" vehicles to support the Pl Comd's plan.

The theory was pitched to me by someone a few grades higher then us, and it made sense as another way to skin a cat.

WRT WO's and Sgts.  Everyone is replacable - I've seen MCpl's acting as Pltn 2IC's and doing a decent job at it.  The reason, IMHO, for seperating the Pl Comd and the Pl WO is less for one of preserving leadership in a K-Kill (although it does have some bearing) and more on battlespace influence.  In a Platoon fight, the Comd and 2IC have two seperate roles.  If the WO is in HQ car, as opposed to the depth car, he is kind of away from where he is supposed to be.

As for the LAV Sgt, same goes - I'm not concerned about two Sgts in the same car; that just means I've got some extra MCpls in another one.  I'm more concerned about placing him where he is going to be most able to prosecute his part of the battle.  It may be in the lead car or it may be in back.  I guess that is part of the Estimate.

 

[vonGarvin]

Whoa!  Doing an estimate in order to determine troops to tasks?  Who taught you THAT?!?  That's junk!



;D

 

[daftandbarmy]

WRT WO's and Sgts.  Everyone is replacable - I've seen MCpl's acting as Pltn 2IC's and doing a decent job at it.  The reason, IMHO, for seperating the Pl Comd and the Pl WO is less for one of preserving leadership in a K-Kill (although it does have some bearing) and more on battlespace influence.  In a Platoon fight, the Comd and 2IC have two seperate roles.  If the WO is in HQ car, as opposed to the depth car, he is kind of away from where he is supposed to be.

As for the LAV Sgt, same goes - I'm not concerned about two Sgts in the same car; that just means I've got some extra MCpls in another one.  I'm more concerned about placing him where he is going to be most able to prosecute his part of the battle.  It may be in the lead car or it may be in back.  I guess that is part of the Estimate.

Section commanders should be MCpls. I think we 'over control and under delegate' in this regard as a legacy from the Cold War. Commanding a section is not 'rocket surgery', or shouldn't be. Have a senior CPL as sect 2IC in a development position. Make the Sgts Pl 2ICs, like in other armies. Use the WOs as Pl Comds. A mix of SNCOs and Jr Offrs in the Coy as Pl Comds works well. You get a good mix of ideas and experience at the Coy O GP level.

Back to my armchair....

 

[McG]

This discussion reminds me on how much "The Infantry Section and Platoon in Battle" needs to be updated.

A good reminder that the organization of the section must be considered within the context that it will be employed.  If sections will always be employed in a platoon context, then it may not be the section that holds the solution to reduced firepower when the LAV is not around.

... Commanding a section is not 'rocket surgery', or shouldn't be. ...

I'd argue that section commander is a very demanding job which does demand an intelligent, competent and experienced leader.  Particularly in a COIN environment against an intelligent enemy while surrounded with a pervasive global media.  Section Commanders will win or loose tactical fights.  At the same time, the power is in the hands of Section Commanders to make decisions which can loose the war.  We cannot afford to trivialize the importance of this position.

Make the Sgts Pl 2ICs, like in other armies.

There are also other armies that that employ sergeants as Section Commanders.  I don't think we need to revisit the "what title do we apply to that rank that does this job" debate.  That's already floating out on the boards ....  http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/24425.0.html

 

[vonGarvin]

Section commanders should be MCpls. I think we 'over control and under delegate' in this regard as a legacy from the Cold War. Commanding a section is not 'rocket surgery', or shouldn't be. Have a senior CPL as sect 2IC in a development position. Make the Sgts Pl 2ICs, like in other armies. Use the WOs as Pl Comds. A mix of SNCOs and Jr Offrs in the Coy as Pl Comds works well. You get a good mix of ideas and experience at the Coy O GP level.

Back to my armchair....

If I hear the term "Cold War" used in anything other than a history lesson, I'm going to snap.  Do a google search for "Operation Aray".  It was conducted last month.  Check out what the combat team did.  It's all open source, I'll let you be the judge.


In short, what went on there was pretty well "cold war-ish".  Just because we are NOW in a shooting war, it's not time to throw away all lessons learned in the past and come up with the ideas you've posted above. 
Call our section commanders corporals for all I care (that's what they were, once).  That does NOT mean that the corporals of today can be section commanders.  The name may be the same, but the difference is vast.
Our system works.  Give it a chance.  No need to go breaking it.

 

[Michael OLeary]

This discussion reminds me on how much "The Infantry Section and Platoon in Battle" needs to be updated.

There have been several abortive attempts to rewrite Section and Platoon in Battle over the past couple of decades.  the problem, in my opinion, is that people kept trying to write it around specific platoon ORBATs that usually didn't last as long as the planning/writing cycle for the publication.

What we need is a decent small unit tactics publication that can be used as a baseline for instruction and training, one that is independent of Corps influence and detailed organization/weapon mix.

 

[Infanteer]

Section commanders should be MCpls. I think we 'over control and under delegate' in this regard as a legacy from the Cold War. Commanding a section is not 'rocket surgery', or shouldn't be. Have a senior CPL as sect 2IC in a development position. Make the Sgts Pl 2ICs, like in other armies. Use the WOs as Pl Comds. A mix of SNCOs and Jr Offrs in the Coy as Pl Comds works well. You get a good mix of ideas and experience at the Coy O GP level.

Back to my armchair....

Semantics.  A post-unification Sergeant is similar to a pre-unification Corporal.  A Canadian Sergeant and a British/Aussie Corporal are fairly equivalent in qualification (JLC - PLQ - ISCC - whatever you want to call it).  The fact that our Sergeants may be a little senior only helps out our section commanders in grappling what is, as MCG and Rockpainter identified, is a very challenging job.

 

[daftandbarmy]

The 'rank' discussion should probably pull pole from this thread and relocate over here (my bad):

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/24425/post-774468.html#new