Do we need Platoons and Battalions anymore?

Avgas

Do we need Platoons and Battalions anymore?

A question: do modern land forces need, really need, traditional platoon and battalion intermediate structures anymore? Has any army experimented with a leaner, simpler less hierarchical tactical deployment?

I was wondering if platoons could be replaced by larger sections….instead of the 4, 4, 2 format or the 8 man double fire team concept…one could make the case for a reinforced infantry section…something like a 16 strong reinforced infantry section…this would allow the section to have more organic firepower…Some countries do have bigger sections (USMC 13 'man' squads). This logic makes some sense if you buy into the idea that to be effective infantry need specialist fire support…either mortars….or extra GMPGs….or perhaps even section level organic EOD trained troops…in certain theatres…

One could then have an infantry coy made up of a number of reinforced sections-say six sections of 16 soldiers. It would perhaps allow greater tactical flexibility……or would it?

In theory an existing coy OC has about anywhere from 9 to 12 basic tactical sub-units to play with-if one allows for 3-4 sections per platoon, and 3 platoons per coy. So my proposal would involve reducing the number of sub-units by anywhere between a third and half. The trade-off is that each tactcal sub-unit is now more autonomous and capable, and within it has more micro flexibility. A larger section can itsef divided into three fire teams and a support team, rather than the more usual two fire teams, or a fire and manouvure team combination of old.

Working upwards from the section-platoon-coy level, have not bog standard infantry battalions become rather anachronistic as formations…would they ever fight and deploy as an entire battalion…about 400 effectives…..? In reality would any army not require a battle group of a reinforced infantry battalion with added on sappers, artillery and cavalry?

My question is that given one typically needs more specialised units which mix and match different tactics and tools…...then why bother with the traditional infantry battalion formation at all…other than for legacy, tradition?

It seems the basic building blocs of most recent land operations appear to have been either sections at the micro level, reinforced coys at the messo level, and light brigades at the macro level, and the latter often with just one battalion effectives of infantry rather than the classic two (or three) of years gone by……and almost nobody can afford entire 'real' divisions anymore except on paper……..is it not time then to embrace a leaner simpler tactical and organisational structure?

Obviously persons serving will say: don't fix what ain't broke and stick to the day job laddie.:)

But your 'professional' (or otherwise) comments would be a welcome distraction from NAMA, Merkel, Budget cuts and Ryan Tubridy's new book.

Mr. Av.

OS119

i know that lots of BA inf platoons are, for combat, divided into two 'multiples' instead of 3 sections. the platoon/section infrastructure remains, but that, like many of the 'holies' we held dear, the concept of the 8 man section just didn't do the job in combat.

i think the problem you'll find is that the intermediate hirachy is neccesary on a practical front - 3 of anything, Brigades, Bn's, Coy's, Platoons, Sections and Fire Teams - seems to be about the most any commander is able to coherently command/manage at any one time, so a coy commander trying command/manage half a dozen sections in operational conditions - particarly when he himself will often be involved in action - is just begging for chaos with your bowl out.

BigDuffman

TBH the 9 man section lay out, in my opinion isn't the most adaptable (unsure if any of this delves into the realms of OPSEC so will avoid too much detail).

The concept of 8 man = 2 fire teams, seems to give a lot more flexibility to the 9 man, FSG + Man group concept. Particularly when 9 man section is taken out of rolling pastures of cemetery hill!

Assaults on multiple positions can be slowed down due to the reliance of fluidity in the platoon. As opposed to a section being able to diversify itself regard FSB etc.

I've always thought instead of dropping a man and going for 2 teams, maybe adding a man (up to 10) and having 2 fire teams would be beneficial.

I've no idea how the 13 man section works on the ground so cant comment.

But in saying all of this I'm sure the powers that be do everything for a reason:D

Avgas

OS119 wrote: »

- "3 of anything, Brigades, Bn's, Coy's, Platoons, Sections and Fire Teams - seems to be about the most any commander is able to coherently command/manage at any one time,"

Interesting what you say about BA 'acceptance' that in reality 8 strong fire teams are too weak to be effective……and I agree with what big duffman says that a 10 soldier fire team seems better...but even then probably lacking in staying power.....

But I'm a bit confused….are you contradicting yourself a bit OS119?
[not being narky just teasing this out]
You end by saying managing more that three of anything is too much for a Coy OC….which sounds like a plea for 'business as usual'…BUT previously….you note the rise of 'multiples' as the basic tactical building block for recent BA ops.

If the BA practice is to increasingly split up the traditional triangular platoon into a handier binary structure which combines several fire teams (call them multiples or demi-platoons or whatever) then in reality any BA Coy OC is already playing around with a doubling of tactical sub-units over the 'textbook' 3 platoons?

If my maths are right…a 'multiplised' BA inf Coy actually would then have 6 substantive sub-units. Which is pretty much what I'm suggesting.

Query: How does the BA platoon commander, the 2Lt, cope with the multiplised platoon? How does the command and control change that much? Has the sky fallen in?

Wouldn't it be plausible to suggest that any Coy OC faced with six substantive tactical units to play with over the traditional three, could simply continue to focus on giving orders/taking info to/from three main 'multiplised' sections commanded by 2lts, and let them in turn control their binary 'brother section' commanded by a senior NCO?

Plus consider that the existing section/platoon/coy structure has been developed from a time when personal radio communication was rare…now intra section communication is becoming more a norm if not quite 'there' yet…..[this doesn't mean I'm an uncritical fan of digitisation/future soldier gimmickery]. BUT the technology should be there to make a Coy OC's life a bit easier….at least in theory…

If you start from a stronger infantry section or squad (both in terms of raw numbers and types of weapon/support)….you build in greater flexibility and capacity….the section leader can now have three fire teams playing out 'two up on each flank and one in reserve' movements. There could even be a distinct support fireteam with a mortar or overwatching GPMG/DM rifles. A 16 strong unit can just about lug around all that gear and do that-an 8 or 10/11 strong unit is less convincing IMveryHO.

The major tactical gain is concentration of firepower at the section level over current weakness at that level (which as you say the BA admits textbook binary fireteams lack).

Another gain is more operational-a coy with 6 strong sections who can look after themselves might allow a Coy OC more and better territorial coverage of a particular terrain, rather than the boring old three platoons assigned to three locations, or worse, a Coy fragmented into 9+ puny section sized posts, each of which probably lacks the means to defend themselves. This could be vital for modern COIN and many PK missions.

The trade-off is that reinforcing the sections in this way ends up diluting and fragmenting the triple platoon structure into a larger number of stronger sections or multiples. You ruin the platoons to build up the sections-on purpose.

So my original question still stands why bother much with platoons at all, if as you say practice is forcing alternative structures?

OS119

sorry, i don't think i made myself clear - the platoon is still used as the building block of the Coy, its just that the building block of the Pln is sometimes 2 12 - 15 man multiples instead of 3 8 man sections.

the command structure within the Pln is the Pln Cdr takes one multiple, and the Pln Sgt the other - the two multiples are mutually supporting, rather than independent units that can be farmed off to seperate tasks.

the experience of Afghanistan is that formations of less than Pln strength have real problems operating on their own - in effect that it takes the firepower/C-IED/ISTAR force of a platoon (and remember quite how much firepower a current BA infantry Pln has - 3 7.62mm DMR, 3 7.62mm GPMG, 3 5.56mm Minimi, probably 8 40mm UGL, a 60mm Light Mortar and and 20 5.56MM assault rifles...) to move through hostile terrain. we've learnt a harsh lesson that 8 blokes can't search for IED's, fight off the enemy while they do it, and deal with a casualty...

Avgas

OS119 wrote: »

we've learnt a harsh lesson that 8 blokes can't search for IED's, fight off the enemy while they do it, and deal with a casualty...

But 16 blokes would be different-and that is what I'm suggesting.

I concede your point about the plt makes sense and your making the rational case for using the platoon as the building bloc....however, just for discussion I'd point out:

1. The platoon may become less flexible in movement/occupying terrain with a switch from a triangular format (3x fireteams) to a binary multiple format (2 x multiples).

2. There may be cases where the autonomous action of one multiple may be both required and defensible-patrolling I would have thought would be the obvious scenario. If an overly strict rule of each multiple being within 'reach' of the the other is relied upon then terrain is perhaps not being covered as extensively. Also the signature of 16 moving is lower than 30+...which maybe be desirable in COIN generally.

3. The discussion reveals that existing fire-teams and sections are really too small and weak...regardless of whether one thinks platoons are still heavily needed (you and most people with sense/experience) or less essential (me and armchair crazies), there is agreement that much stronger and bigger sections seem advisable.

In fact while your right a platoon sized outfit is the minimum needed to survive and win a firefight/ambush...yet being realistic to prevail and win even the platoon level would be likely too small and lack depth. That is why I linked beefier sections (multiples) to a beefier coy structure. I think building strong sections (really starting from multiples) only makes sense if you also build up the organic capacities of the Coy structure...I'm thinking here what the USMC are exploring as 'enhanced company operations'......[more jargon:rolleyes:]

The multiples find the OPFOR and have just enough firepower to extract or fix for a limited period of time, and then the beefed up Coy has the mobility, flexibility and firepower to 'finish' the fight.

As an aside, how are the Taliban structured in terms of usual 'section' equivalent....platoon equivalents...and coy equivalents......? How systematic are they in how they fight and has this been studied?