My campaigns wartime platoon reorganization...

[Fusilier]

I'm on the other end of the spectrum having been in a different Army. To me, the manpower here could easily be two platoons composed of smaller squads. 8 or less in a section (or "squad" for an American unit like Paul mentioned).

I guess there are pros and cons to both organizing methods.

[Targan]

Originally Posted by Fusilier

I'm on the other end of the spectrum having been in a different Army.

Same here. Matter of fact in T2K US officers might be less resistant to change than IRL because of their exposure in the field to the ways that the small units of other NATO armies operate.

[Abbott Shaull]

That is the sad reality of the US Army, in that it has always been slow change things. The basic light Infantry unit from Squad on up to Battalion has overall change very little since WWII. It one of those things the more it changes, the more it stays the same.

The basic Infantry Battalion is very easily to Motorized too. Whether one uses various HMMWVs or other motorized means. You can take a regular Rifle Squad and almost equip it with 2 HMMWV equipped with 1 MG and 1 Auto-matic Gernade Launcher, which would give the ground element the fire support.

Just some thoughts.

[Webstral]

I think just about everyone is going to come up with a platoon TO&E that makes use of their manpower, equipment, and ideas of tactics. My rifle company was mobilized for Iraq with three platoons and a headquarters section. The mortars were warehoused, and the soldiers put on the line. When we arrived in Baghdad, we were assigned to 4-64 AR, 4th BCT, 3rd ID. We swapped a platoon of rifles to D/4-64 in return for a platoon of tanks. The tankers and our remaining two platoons were then divided into four sections (Red, White, Blue, and Green), each with 20-22 soldiers (tankers and infantry). Blue Section was promptly sliced off for D/4-64, leaving us with just enough soldiers to man a checkpoint or man four trucks for a motorized patrol in each twelve-hour shift.

The Green Jackets of Vermont in 2000, however, have shifted to fewer and larger platoons in response to manpower and firepower issues. The Green Jackets use two six-man fire teams to build a rifle squad. Three rifle squads plus a platoon leader’s team (platoon leader, platoon sergeant, RTO, medic), a mortar crew (with 60mm mortar), a machine gun crew, and a support weapon crew make for an infantry platoon of about 50 soldiers. An additional machine gun and crew can be assigned. These big platoons are intended to operate as fairly independent entities.

By 2000, the Green Jacket Regiment, which is the primary combat formation of the State of Vermont, is more a conglomeration of small fighting units than a traditional US light infantry regiment/brigade. Most US Army formations by late 2000/early 2001 have gone down this path to one degree or another. Like the Black Watch of the UCSV (United Communities of Southern Vermont), the Green Jackets have taken decentralization to the point at which platoon-level actions predominate. The rifle company has been abolished; majors command small battalions with 4-5 platoons and some support personnel.

The Green Jackets stand in marked contrast to the Granite Brigade of the State of New Hampshire/Manchester cantonment. The Graniteers have become highly dependent upon the firepower of their gun trucks and improvised rocket launchers. The Graniteers use small platoons for short-range patrols. Larger actions are company-sized. Support weapons are all found at the company level. The force is more reaction and firepower-based when compared to the Green Jackets. The Jackets, along with the Black Watch, conduct frequent patrols well beyond their respective defense perimeters. The large platoons move into an area of interest many miles beyond the defense perimeter and establish a patrol/light fire base. Squad-sized patrols are conducted from the fire base over the course of 2-3 days. The large platoon has enough combat power to meet a variety of contingencies.


Webstral

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by Fusilier

I'm on the other end of the spectrum having been in a different Army. To me, the manpower here could easily be two platoons composed of smaller squads. 8 or less in a section (or "squad" for an American unit like Paul mentioned).

Oops, forgot to pay attention to whom I was speaking -- to paraphrase an old saying, "we are the same people, separated by a common language."

[Abbott Shaull]

Originally Posted by Webstral

I think just about everyone is going to come up with a platoon TO&E that makes use of their manpower, equipment, and ideas of tactics. My rifle company was mobilized for Iraq with three platoons and a headquarters section. The mortars were warehoused, and the soldiers put on the line. When we arrived in Baghdad, we were assigned to 4-64 AR, 4th BCT, 3rd ID. We swapped a platoon of rifles to D/4-64 in return for a platoon of tanks. The tankers and our remaining two platoons were then divided into four sections (Red, White, Blue, and Green), each with 20-22 soldiers (tankers and infantry). Blue Section was promptly sliced off for D/4-64, leaving us with just enough soldiers to man a checkpoint or man four trucks for a motorized patrol in each twelve-hour shift.

The Green Jackets of Vermont in 2000, however, have shifted to fewer and larger platoons in response to manpower and firepower issues. The Green Jackets use two six-man fire teams to build a rifle squad. Three rifle squads plus a platoon leader’s team (platoon leader, platoon sergeant, RTO, medic), a mortar crew (with 60mm mortar), a machine gun crew, and a support weapon crew make for an infantry platoon of about 50 soldiers. An additional machine gun and crew can be assigned. These big platoons are intended to operate as fairly independent entities.

By 2000, the Green Jacket Regiment, which is the primary combat formation of the State of Vermont, is more a conglomeration of small fighting units than a traditional US light infantry regiment/brigade. Most US Army formations by late 2000/early 2001 have gone down this path to one degree or another. Like the Black Watch of the UCSV (United Communities of Southern Vermont), the Green Jackets have taken decentralization to the point at which platoon-level actions predominate. The rifle company has been abolished; majors command small battalions with 4-5 platoons and some support personnel.

The Green Jackets stand in marked contrast to the Granite Brigade of the State of New Hampshire/Manchester cantonment. The Graniteers have become highly dependent upon the firepower of their gun trucks and improvised rocket launchers. The Graniteers use small platoons for short-range patrols. Larger actions are company-sized. Support weapons are all found at the company level. The force is more reaction and firepower-based when compared to the Green Jackets. The Jackets, along with the Black Watch, conduct frequent patrols well beyond their respective defense perimeters. The large platoons move into an area of interest many miles beyond the defense perimeter and establish a patrol/light fire base. Squad-sized patrols are conducted from the fire base over the course of 2-3 days. The large platoon has enough combat power to meet a variety of contingencies.


Webstral

I have always looked at the way military units would operate from 1999 - until civilization is rebuilt would be much like how the military operations in Iraq. Where you have everyone basically doing infantry foot patrol, or motorized patrols. How units adapt to what is needed to be done, and get by with what is on hand.

The main difference would be there is no rotation, or steady supply of 'trained' replacements.

One thing is on paper the US military seems to be very uniformed, but in reality it has been flexible. It part of the reason why when people TO&E of various units, they don't match the authorized TO&E, even during times of peace. Especial Forward units seem to always not have enough men or equipment to go around, and they seem to have extras too.

Just some thoughts.