Does the Army infantry squad need to be reorganized?

SPC Ryan Melanz — Sun, 27 Oct 2019 14:19:45 -0400

Does anyone else here feel that the current 9 man squad feel inadequate for squad level missions and objectives? Or that current technology and training should allow a change in organization?

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 27 at 2019 2:28 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 27 Oct 2019 14:28:01 -0400

I've been out of the infantry for 2 years now but size wise no. A 9 man squad is sufficient. If anything, I think more units should focus on small unit training/ SGT's time training. I received a vast amount of training and knowledge from SGT's training. And that's when I was in a 11B capacity. I was a Chuck and did 11B work from time to time including my second deployment. Technology is ever evolving, and I believe with our Army's vision for future conflicts will bring about better technology and tactics for the infantry.

Response by SPC Erich Guenther made Oct 27 at 2019 2:33 PM

SPC Erich Guenther — Sun, 27 Oct 2019 14:33:15 -0400

I believe they are going to change the organization of an Infantry Bn and BDE based on former SecDef Mattis desire to make Infantry squads more lethal. That is if they are still following his mandates. One item I read in another RP article is reintroduction of the Stinger ADA in each Mech Infantry formation at least at the BN level, possibly further down. I personally feel as former Cold War era Infantryman you guys need more conventional warfare training. The insurgency training you got as part of GWOT was probably good but it should no longer dominate now that those wars are ending. There should be more of a balance now as there was prior to GWOT.

Response by MAJ Ronnie Reams made Oct 27 at 2019 3:11 PM

MAJ Ronnie Reams — Sun, 27 Oct 2019 15:11:02 -0400

I remember back in the day when I was in we had 11 man rifle squads, 1 SL 2 TLs, 2 grenadiers, 2 Autorifles and 4 riflemen. Weapons Squad had 1 SL and 3 MG teams of 3 men each. PLT HQ was 1 PL, 1 PSG, 1 RTO and attached medic. Never really had that many due to casualties, details such as KP, R&R, etc. Often no PSG, not a current rank, with a SSG or SGT acting as such, same same for the LT.

Response by SFC Ralph E Kelley made Oct 27 at 2019 3:25 PM

SFC Ralph E Kelley — Sun, 27 Oct 2019 15:25:56 -0400

:D
Hey! I only have three fingers, so lets not change it upwards.

Response by LTC Jason Mackay made Oct 27 at 2019 6:20 PM

LTC Jason Mackay — Sun, 27 Oct 2019 18:20:58 -0400

Used to be 13, then squads shrank to 9. Part of it was to fit in a Bradley

Response by SGM Bill Frazer made Oct 27 at 2019 6:33 PM

SGM Bill Frazer — Sun, 27 Oct 2019 18:33:46 -0400

Tough one, right it is balanced, 2 of everything- If you add more SAWs, you won't be able to carry enough ammo, ditto, grenadiers- because we have crappy ammo conservation/fire rates.

Response by SFC Luis (Coolwhip) Ochoa made Oct 27 at 2019 7:25 PM

SFC Luis (Coolwhip) Ochoa — Sun, 27 Oct 2019 19:25:28 -0400

Ok SPC, explain why do you think it should change and/or why is it inadequate?

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 28 at 2019 12:25 AM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 28 Oct 2019 00:25:41 -0400

Squad level operations arent a thing anymore. They used to be, even during GWOT, but why we dont do then anymore is a whole other discussion.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 28 at 2019 1:01 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 28 Oct 2019 01:01:53 -0400

If a squad is operating as a squad, it should have a gun team attached, making 11-12 personnel.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Oct 28 at 2019 11:18 AM

MAJ Ken Landgren — Mon, 28 Oct 2019 11:18:55 -0400

Does the platoon have the flexibility to augment a squad?

Response by SSG Leo Curtis made Oct 28 at 2019 12:02 PM

SSG Leo Curtis — Mon, 28 Oct 2019 12:02:17 -0400

It's not so much the squad size it depends on the mission. That is why we train in squad platoons and company level. Remember me all work together. Not one squad at a time.

Response by CPL Adrian Peavy made Oct 29 at 2019 11:28 AM

CPL Adrian Peavy — Tue, 29 Oct 2019 11:28:51 -0400

Maybe a extra rifleman for each team.....if anything maybe a extra squad for the platoon

Response by SSG Lewis Shaffer made Oct 31 at 2019 1:14 AM

SSG Lewis Shaffer — Thu, 31 Oct 2019 01:14:38 -0400

A squad requires a dedicated radio operator, each team also should have a SAW and M203 operator bedsides a couple of riflemen. A dog trained to sniff out explosives wouldn't hurt either.

Response by MSG Danny Mathers made Nov 5 at 2019 8:38 PM

MSG Danny Mathers — Tue, 05 Nov 2019 20:38:17 -0500

The 9 man squad was adopted for mechanized infantry. The track was a support element which the remainder of the squad was a maneuver or assault team. I believe more is better which combat vehicles today are larger and can carry more Soldiers. A 11 to 13 man squad allows more flexibility by providing its own security element supporting both the support and assault teams. The Infantry Squad is the blade of the sword. It can operate on hits own or part of larger units. The Queen of Battle represents its lethality.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 7 at 2019 10:02 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 07 Nov 2019 22:02:28 -0500

The 9 man squad will work sufficiently for actual squad tasks or drills. The issue you may be seeing is a robust training exercise that's not actually supposed to be for a squad size element but there's a overzealous leader who wants to challenge the squads. Which is good but the squad first needs to be trained and validated on actual squad tasks. If you're speaking from an operational theater standpoint, yes the "squads" need to be larger due to whatever theater guidance is in place for patrolling and that's there for a few reasons. But in a traditional sense 9 man is good to go.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 13 at 2019 10:35 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 13 Nov 2019 10:35:12 -0500

Using combined arms tactics, an infantry squad is an incredibly lethal force. No one should be talking about reorganizing, only about what sort of training the squad should receive in order to squeeze every bit of lethality out of the soldiers and leaders in that squad. Pushing call for fire training, to include CAS, LZ/PZ procedures, leadership training, training with assigned weapons out to the limits of their range, learning about how other elements interact with the infantry squad such as the arty, the cav, the engineers, the company and battalion mortars, linking up with pilots and other support personnel to learn their best practices, and interfacing with drone pilots regularly to find out their capabilities, plus advanced hand to hand combat and close quarters combat training. That's all the infantry squad needs, not reorganization.

Response by SFC James Cameron made Jan 9 at 2020 9:20 PM

SFC James Cameron — Thu, 09 Jan 2020 21:20:29 -0500

The transition a from a Marine 3 fire team squad to an Army 2 fire team squad was difficult for me at first as I could not perform Assault, Support, and Security functions organically. But the doctrine is different been Marines and Army.

I see no legitimate reason to change the TO&E.

Response by MSG Danny Mathers made Dec 21 at 2020 3:00 PM

MSG Danny Mathers — Mon, 21 Dec 2020 15:00:57 -0500

The 9 man squad was started in mechanized infantry in Vietnam. The reason being was it the right number of personnel and equipment sauited to the M113. The leadership recongnized this after Vietnam and made it the TO&E for mechanized infantry units. The weapons squad was eliminated which each squad had its own machinegun, the M60 at the time which the M2 was availble if needed in a ground position. The Infantry Platoon was now 3 squads with a platoon sergeant and an assistant platoon sergeant. This was pretty much the standard in the 70's. The 9 man squad was not condfigered for the Bradley but the M113A1. The Bradley kept the 9 man squad but was used differently which had a manuever team and a support team remaining with the APC. That was the way it was back in my day.

Response by CW2 Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 11 at 2021 7:58 PM

CW2 Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 11 Mar 2021 19:58:30 -0500

I think it's more complicated than that and should be adjusted based on the type of fight and terrain. We've shown the success of 9 in urban ops, but when was the last time we really went to town in jungle? Actually used the Bradley as intended? Arctic? Against a real Army? All may require differences.

IMHO. We need the 11M, 11D, and 11H back. A more specialized Army, not a more generalized one.

Response by SSG Harry Outcalt made Mar 16 at 2021 6:26 AM

SSG Harry Outcalt — Tue, 16 Mar 2021 06:26:15 -0400

Yes for certain types of Infantry units. Like the 25th Infantry Division Heavy. 82nd Airborne Division Light Infantry. 101st Airborne Division Air Assault Light Infantry. Are the 3 Infantry Divisions that would gain so much in the Squads expansion to 3 Fireteams per Squad vs the current 2 . It would change the Warfare doctrine as it has been practiced since the last 3 war's and bring our non mechanized Infantry units into the modern world of combat with greater capabilities and abilities to adapt to the quick changing battlefield environment of today's world by adding increased lethality through greater firepower and ability to maneuver like a higher echelon unit . I. E. A Platoon, Company, Battalion, Regiment, Brigade, Division, Corp, and Army.....