Glubokii Boy Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 Hello... I'm just curious. Why have the americans and the russians changed the set-up of their squads from having 3 teams to now only having two ? During WW2 the americans, brittish and russians had 3 team squads (atleast in CM they do...). Only the germans had 2 team squads if i'm not wrong... I don't have CMSF installed on this computer right now but i seem to recall that in that game the americans still used 3 team squads. Why have they changed....? What is the reason ? What are the bennefits ? The Ukranians still use 3 team squads i see... I can see no obvoius bennefit with this... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oakheart Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 Us Army breaks their infantry squads into two teams, thats why. United States Marines still use 3 fireteams a squad(Because we are awesome). 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 (edited) Composition and organization of units—at any level—are complex issues. To start with, an army must decide what tasks each unit is expected to perform in a prospective war. With that in mind, it can them go about designing units to perform those tasks. When it comes down to designing squads and teams, specifically how many men are to be assigned, there are a couple of things to be kept in mind (actually, quite a few but as some of them do not come into play in CM, I will pass over those at present). Larger (i.e., more men) teams tend to have greater firepower and are better able to absorb casualties and still retain some combat effectiveness, assuming weaponry and the general quality of the individual soldier remains the same. On the other hand, since in larger units the leader to men ratio drops, problems of control of the men under the stresses of combat might be expected to increase. In their infinite wisdom , the US and Russian armies have decided that for various reasons larger teams are the order of the day. Since leadership goes on in CM under the hood, it remains somewhat mysterious and unaccountable, but its effects can show up statistically over a large enough sample. Firepower and resilience are more directly observable. Michael PS: One thing I forgot to mention is that if a squad of a given size breaks down into more teams, it potentially gains some tactical flexibility. But that might not be a net gain if each team is thus weakened to the point where it is less likely to succeed at its given tasks. Edited February 10, 2015 by Michael Emrys 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 Really, in CMRT Steve didn't want to break up Russian inf squads at all. He wanted them to fight as a big cumbersome unitary unit. But there was the requirement to be able to break them to fit them onto tanks for tank riding. So... split Soviet infantry squads. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
astano Posted February 11, 2015 Share Posted February 11, 2015 (edited) One thing to keep in mind not explicitly stated in these responses is that squad size itself has changed (for the US at least, I can't speak with any authority on the Russians) since CMBN times. You'll note that in CMBN, US Army squads were 12 men broken into 3 teams with an uneven distribution of equipment. Modern US Army squads are smaller at 9 men organized into two 4 man teams with largely identical equipment plus a squad leader. You could only get three teams out of such a squad if you had three men in each, and I believe that four is considered preferable because four men have more firepower than three, are more capable of sustaining casualties and still functioning, and have a built-in buddy team split of two and two. Regarding CMSF, US Army squads are substantially unchanged - it was the USMC squads that still had a three team structure. I believe the basic reason for the 9 man squad is simply that today's volunteer military is smaller than the massive conscript forces fielded in World War 2, and you can have the same number of squads/platoons/on up if you just make them smaller. Today's 9 man squad also has a massive increase in firepower over 12 men in World War 2, with two belt-fed weapons, two grenade launchers, portable AT weapons, every man having an automatic fire capability, and (at least in the US Army) multiple magnified optics per squad. I've heard it said that going to the smaller rifle squads was originally intended not to be a permanent measure, that instead the idea was that 9 men were supposed to form a core, professional cadre fleshed out to 12 by the addition of 3 draftees per squad in the event of war. I've never seen any sources to back that up so take it with a massive grain of salt, but it's an interesting theory. Of course if anyone knows differently feel free to correct me. Edited February 11, 2015 by astano 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spitzenhund Posted February 11, 2015 Share Posted February 11, 2015 I feel like more than anything, it's the mechanization of warfare that caused squad size to be reduced. Transport Helicopters such as the Huey (atleast in vietnam when the army used it) and the M113 (And now the Bradley) force smaller squads. Compared to the USMC which use landing craft and now the AAV, CH53 and CH-46. (All Giant Vehicles) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted February 11, 2015 Share Posted February 11, 2015 I feel like more than anything, it's the mechanization of warfare that caused squad size to be reduced. Transport Helicopters such as the Huey (atleast in vietnam when the army used it) and the M113 (And now the Bradley) force smaller squads. Compared to the USMC which use landing craft and now the AAV, CH53 and CH-46. (All Giant Vehicles) Yeah, this is my thought as well. Doesn't mean that astano is wrong, I don't think he is, but the critical factor is the maximum capacity of the vehicles that the infantry ride around in. There are limits to how big those can be made and still operate on roads and bridges, be transported by rail and ship, etc. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
astano Posted February 11, 2015 Share Posted February 11, 2015 (edited) Re: Spitzenhund and Michael Emrys - I'm sure that's a factor but I don't know if it's the factor. For example, IRL M2 Bradleys have a maximum capacity of six dismounts, but the squad is still considered 9 men - my understanding is that in reality this is just achieved by some complicated cross-loading throughout the platoon. (CM gets around this by artificially making the IFV Bradleys capable of holding 9 men so the player doesn't have to fool with that.) I guess my point there is that if they wanted to, the US Army could just as easily say that a "squad" is twelve men carried across two Bradleys, or six men in one Bradley, but instead they chose a Bradley and a half as the measurement of a squad. The size of the squad therefore is perhaps artificial, if you will, rather than inherently tied to the size of the vehicles. I suspect that the 9 man number was arrived at based on considerations like those identified by Emrys above balanced against resource constraints (money, manpower, logistics), and the 6-man capacity of the Bradley arrived at separately based on (again as you say) limits on the size of the vehicle and other considerations. Additional evidence for this might be the size of IBCT (i.e., totally dismounted) rifle squads, which are still 9 men even though carrying capacity of a vehicle isn't necessarily an issue. Like I said, I don't know one way or the other. I'd be really interested to see some primary sources on the subject but frankly I don't have the time or the energy to hunt them down. It occurs to me as well that two other links between mechanization and squad size are (1) the additional massive increase in firepower offered by an IFV like a Bradley, which obviously means that you don't necessarily need as many dismounts, and (2) the additional manpower considerations caused by the fact that every squad now also has an associated three-man IFV crew; although I don't believe the US Army considers the Bradley crew technically a part of the squad, it does mean that in a sense US Army mech squads are still 12 men. Edited February 11, 2015 by astano 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jammersix Posted February 11, 2015 Share Posted February 11, 2015 (edited) IRL, in 1975, infantry, (the real infantry, not mech infantry) airborne, air mobile and Ranger squads had eleven men-- two 5 man teams and one E6 squad leader. Two E5 team leaders and two corporals, two specialists and four poor little bastards to take the blame. (At full TO&E). I'm sure it's coincidence that 11 full loads is exactly what a Huey carried. Edited February 11, 2015 by Jammersix 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Macisle Posted February 11, 2015 Share Posted February 11, 2015 I accept the reasons given for the modern two-team squads, but I gotta' say, I much prefer those big WWII squads--especially the US one. I love having the three maneuver teams with 3-4 guys in them. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panzersaurkrautwerfer Posted February 11, 2015 Share Posted February 11, 2015 Here's a few factors: 1. Firepower. The amount of hurt a modern 9 man squad can belt out vs larger 1970's organization is impressive (especially in terms of LMGs, grenades launchers etc). 2. The mechanization is a big deal. Sure Bradleys need to crossload to get all three nine man squads, but the four Brads to move them isn't a big deal. You need seven Bradleys to move the same number of 13 man squads+HQ. I like the smaller squads because in general they do more for smaller sizes, and the use of body armor in general makes them just as robust as the historical larger teams. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A co Posted February 11, 2015 Share Posted February 11, 2015 Fitting in one squad per bird was never a goal in Air Assault operations, at least in my day (previous millennium). You would reform the squads from the 'chalks', ('chalk' being the helicopter-load of people) on the LZ after landing. We had 11 man squads, plus maybe Dragon or M60 teams added, plus platoon HQ & RTO, etc. and the squads were almost never at full strength anyway. So the real size of the squad could not be predicted much in advance, certainly not to match it neatly to the capacity of the aircraft. (Which varied according to the atmospheric pressure anyway.) Don't know how Mech infantry used to do it, in their M-113's. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glubokii Boy Posted February 11, 2015 Author Share Posted February 11, 2015 Thansk for your ansers... I had a closer look at the russian units... Their veichles have room for between 8-10 passangers. The squads are still only 6 to 7 men strong, devided into 2 teams. These squads are very light on Heavy firepower. Only one PKP machinegun/squad. The Company weapon platoons have some additional machineguns (and other Equipment AGLs, ATGM) but there is only enough for 1 additional machinegun/platoon if you spread the evenly...Leaving the platoon fairly weak on support weapons. Why not squeeze some additional men into the squads to fill up the veichles atleast (the squads themself certanly could use some more firepower). Are the spare seats in the russian IFVs and APC ment for allowing attached company assets to travel with the squads in the same veichle ? This is not possible in the game though as it seems. Trying to move a weapon platoon machinegun team into the spare seats of a squad IFV gets blocked. Does this only happen in the game ? IRL is it common for weapon platoon assets to travel in the same veichle as the squads ? Do the russians rely on their IFVs in pretty much all cercomstances to be right up there with the line infantry to provide support ? Dismounted they seem fairly weak....(if the squad have been allocated extra machineguns and AGLs that is obviously not the case but these weapons cant be everywhere...). Atleast on the russian side there seems to be room for larger squads (to fit in the veichles)... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glubokii Boy Posted February 11, 2015 Author Share Posted February 11, 2015 And one other thing... Why are the platoon HQ-team traveling in the same veichle as one of the squads ? This seems like a less then perfect set-up. If the platoon is spread out over a larger area and the HQ wants to move to another squads- or maybe the company Hqs location he would have to 'steal' one of the squads veichles to do so... I might be missing something here but not being a professional soldier a set-up like this seems like a much better idea.... Increase the squads with for example an extra machinegun team or perhaps a hand-held AGL (if the ruskies has such a weapon) or something like that. Give the HQ their own veichle so that they can move around more freely and also bring with them any attached heavy weapons that the platoon might have been allocated. Or is it perhaps like when the troops dismount they will never fight very far from eachother ? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.