Reducing the Squad to Six Soldiers?

2013-11-25T19:13:57-05:00

I'm interested in some opinions here. While at first I thought this was a horrible idea at face value, considering the fact that many units have used their Team Leaders as their grenadiers for years now successfully, we're really talking about cutting three riflemen. Is it feasible to fight a squad with just a Squad Leader, two Team Leaders/grenadiers, two SAW gunners, and a rifleman? I think there would be some serious implications in a high intensity fight when you're down 33% of your strength to start, but from a purely capabilities standpoint, there is some logic to the argument. Thoughts?

http://www.armytimes.com/article/20131125/NEWS/311250009

Army forecasts shrinking squads, smaller vehicles

For the Army, everything is on the table.

Response by SFC James Baber made Dec 12 at 2013 10:57 PM

2013-12-12T22:57:25-05:00

I agree 100% Sir, it reduces the effectiveness and puts the smaller team at a greater risk to me.

Response by SPC Christopher Morehouse made Dec 18 at 2013 11:41 PM

2013-12-18T23:41:22-05:00

That seems pretty light. Less men to maneuver with, less rounds on target, less hands to carry special gear. We don't just have riflmen because the army doesn't want to buy all saws and 203s, they have there place in the fight. And heck, if your squad has a crew served weapon then what? Your pretty much just a big fire team.

Doctrine calls for us go engage with a numerical advantage of 3 to 1 typically, doesn't it? Your taking 3 rifles out but not adding anything as a force multiplier. Unless the army is going to start issueing ironman suits or something for that single riflmen, I don't see shrinking squads as a good idea.

I mean, who's going to carry all the extra ammo to feed the saw? That stuffs heavy.

Response by 1SG(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 19 at 2013 6:38 PM

2013-12-19T18:38:52-05:00

Sir, I'd like to address the team leader as grenadier issue. Over a decade ago when I was in the Infantry, many fire team leaders, to include myself, did carry the M203. I even opted to carry it as a squad leader. You're probably aware that the intent was for those leaders to use that weapon to mark targets. There was never an intent to just have the team leader be the grenadier. If you could get away with it, you'd have two 203's per fire team. I even finagled it so that I had one fire team with two SAWs. I just don't want folks to think, "Well we've done this anyway. Therefore it's a good idea." without considering the original intent.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 19 at 2013 6:54 PM

2013-12-19T18:54:31-05:00

My last deployment to Afghanistan I was a Rifle Team Leader and as a PLT we all decided that the Team Leaders would carry the M320's to mark and engage targets. My Team typically consisted of Team Leader (M4 and M320), Rifleman (M4), Automatic Rifleman (SAW M249) and the occasional Gunner (MK48) and we where a very affective team, so it can be done with only 6 soldiers in a squad and also be affective.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 19 at 2013 7:22 PM

2013-12-19T19:22:22-05:00

At that point you're more like a team. As former infantry soldier, I could not even imagine having a squad of that size.

Response by PO1 Rudy Lopez made Dec 19 at 2013 7:36 PM

2013-12-19T19:36:01-05:00

Concept is sound for a light strike team or harassment operations. However, for serious engagements and the taking of objectives, a six man squad just wont do unless you have supporting elements along the lines of 2-3 satellite six man teams in fairly close proximity that can react and support a team that is either engaged or is planning to engage a target. As a former member of a Marine Reconnaissance team who has worked in 5-6 man reconnaissance teams and had plenty of engagements, you are better off not dropping your squads below 12 men. If you are working in a 6 man squad and your team gets ambushed by an equal or greater size force than your own, your survival chances become greatly diminished. On top of that, depending on your mission objectives you load out changes to where all you are carrying is ammo and water, also your weapons diversity is reduced. My team used to load out with a 240 gunner, SAW gunner, 3 M-4's, 2 203's, and 1 of the 2 snipers in my team would carry their choice of long gun. Then we would have to make rooms for optics, radios, batteries, etc... The amount of ammo you will need to carry also increases as the team size shrinks. When I had the 240 I carried 1000 rounds as the SAW gunner 1400 rounds, if I was rolling with an M-4 I had 16 magazines. Yes, when you get caught in the open and your team is ambushed (personal experience) you want as much rounds down range in order to facilitate movement to cover/concealment; in other words you want to put down a wall of led between you and the enemy. Unless a 6 man squad is just doing a security patrol or doing reconnaissance missions it is not worth dropping the size of the squad because you lose firepower and the ability to effectively maneuver to engage, close with, and destroy the enemy.

Response by SSG Patrick Kinsella made Dec 20 at 2013 8:57 PM

2013-12-20T20:57:48-05:00

Personally, I say bad idea. As it is, it's difficult to field all of the equipment you need on a patrol with just nine men, let alone reducing it to six. Two SAWS, Two 203s (and I think every rifle should have a 203 under it), SDM (mine carried an M4), now you add combat life saver bag, WALK Kit, TSE Kit, HIDE, AT-4, some kind of breach gear - then add the platoon goodies, like ammo for the 240s, and some mortars for the 60s. As a squad leader I found myself often humping the AT-4 and a shotgun because my guys were too busy carrying their own fighting gear. Reduce to 6 man squad? No thanks.