Leslie Bates (via tml list) wrote:
>
> While going through some old files I found this bit of correspondence
> with SF NCO from 18 years ago.  I'm thinking of using this in the place
> of the canonical Dorsai organization for my bad guys.
>
> Well now, let me think. Below is all meat. HQ guys not included (who
> would equal about 60 folks altogeter.)
>
> *Squad:
>
>      1 x MAG58 GPMG
>      2 x M79 Grenade Launchers (Grenadiers/FT Leaders also have MP5 SMG)
>      1 x RPG9 (Grenadier also has MP5 SMG)
>      8 x M14 Rifles
>      SL x MP5 SMG
>
>               ___
>              |___|SL
>              |
>        ----------------------
>        |         |          |
>      MAG58      M79        M79
>      Rifleman   Rifleman   Rifleman
>      RPG9       Rifleman   Rifleman
>                 Rifleman   Rifleman
>
>      The advantage of a twelve man squad is that is can absorb
> casualties and still have sufficient balanced firepower to accomplish
> its mission.
>
>      Platoon:
>
>      3 x Squads (36)
>      1 x Weapons Squad (14)
>          2 x four man MG teams (MAG58 w/tripod)
>          2 x three man 60 mm Mortar teams.
>
>      1 x PL (MP5)
>      1 x PS (MP5)
>      1 x Medic (unarmed)
>      2 x RTO (M14)
>      2 x Runners (M14)
>
>      Total Platoon Strength = 57. Pretty big compared to "modern"
> thinking, but lots of ooomph and staying power.

First off, your weapons count seems to add up to a 13-man squad. (1 GPMG
Gunner + 2 x M79 Grenadiers + 1 x ATGM Gunner + 8 x Riflemen + 1 x Squad
Leader = 13).  In terms of total personnel, that matches what I've seen
of TO&E USMC squads.

Further, I'm not sure what combat scenario would see both 9mm SMGs and
7.62mm battle rifles as being needed for the same mission.  Some
situations might call for short-range suppressive fire, while others
might call for long-range aimed fire.  Were I designing a mercenary
force that might have to deal with various combat environments, I would
consider arming most of my troops with a modular system along the lines
of the AR-15, with different calibers to match the combat environment.
The simplest would be to have two-to-three upper receivers for each
lower receiver.

For combat in urban environments, I would use an upper receiver
chambered in something equivalent to 300 AAC Blackout (300BLK).  Since
that round is effective in both supersonic and subsonic loadings, you
should be able to get by with only one upper receiver for both loadings.
  For best effect in close urban combat (e.g., clearing buildings),
having an easily-attached suppressor would be ideal with this cartridge.

Meanwhile, for combat in more open environments, upper receivers
chambered in something along the lines of 6.8mm SPC or 6.5mm Grendel
would be preferable.  The smaller bore would give higher muzzle
velocities, which would increase range.  While the current 6.8mm SPC and
6.5mm Grendel cartridges require bolts with different dimensions than
bolts for 5.56mm NATO and 300BLK, centuries of development would likely
lead to a single bolt design.  A commander would decide, based on a
given mission profile, which caliber would be needed.  For generic
mission profiles out to 300-meter engagement ranges, I would suggest the
300BLK cartridge, but that's just a personal preference.

Finally, I don't much care for the idea of the grenadiers having to drop
one weapon (the grenade launcher) and pick up another weapon for
close-combat defense.  I much prefer a weapon system along the lines of
the M16/M203, mainly because it's quicker to bring the rifle into play
if needed for close-quarters combat.  Of course, there's no accounting
for taste.... ;-)

A force that fervently believes in a "three sisters, plus a support"
doctrine might come up with this force structure:

1 x Squad Leader (1 x AR-15 equivalent, with laser designator)

3 x Fire Team Leader (1 x AR-15 equivalent, with laser designator); 1
per Fire Team
   3 x Grenadier (1 x AR-15 equivalent, with 1 x M203 equivalent); 1 per
Fire Team
   3 x Autorifle Gunner (1 x M249 equivalent); 1 per Fire Team

1 x Support Team Leader (1 x AR-15 equivalent, with laser designator)
   1 x AT Grenadier (1 x AT heavy weapon, plus 1 x light AR-15
equivalent or 1 x pistol)
   1 x AT Assistant Grenadier (1 x AR-15 equivalent, plus extra ammo for
the AT Grenadier)
   1 x GPMG Gunner (1 x GPMG, plus 1 x pistol)
   1 x GPMG Assistant Gunner (1 x AR-15 equivalent, plus extra ammo for
the GPMG Gunner)
   1 x Squad Designated Marksman (1 x M21 equivalent)

That would give a 16-member squad, with four fire-team leaders for the
squad leader to supervise.  The squad leader would have three maneuver
teams at his disposal, plus a support fire team.

A platoon Weapons Squad might have the originally-suggested composition,
although I would probably prefer to have a heavy AT team over one of the
heavy GPMG teams.

For Platoon HQ, depending on the TL of the scenario, the RTO positions
will likely be redundant.  I would designate what you call "Runners" as
Platoon HQ Security (though, in the presence of heavy enemy EW, they may
well end up acting as messengers).  The Medic should have at least a
pistol for self-defense.  All non-Medic Platoon HQ personnel would carry
an AR-15 equivalent firearm.

One additional advantage of this force structure is that every squad
leader would already be trained, and have practice, in the principles of
commanding three maneuver elements, plus a fire support element.  That
should make it easier to turn trained squad leaders into trained leaders
of higher echelons.

As Mr. Chalik points out, factors such as vehicle capacity will
influence force structure.  For for a mounted force, my proposed force
structure would probably work best with one vehicle per fire team, and
the squad leader riding with one of the maneuver fire teams.