Imperial Marines and "Small Wars"

[Uncle Bob]

If you look at the dynamics of urban combat, each objective is secured by a fire team with another fireteam in support. Open field objectives can often be engaged by entire platoons, including support elements. This means the CO of a 250 man company, rather than mananging 2-3 objectives has to worry about allocating support to about ten objectives.

And that kind of leadership is not just data management. The company commander needs to know his men individually, to know which sergeants will make a stubbon defence, which a reckless attack, which SAW gunner wastes ammo, which mortar crew never misses. And the personal difference. A movie example of this is from "She Wore a Yellow Ribbon" (Written by a guy who grew up on frontier outposts.) Captain Brittles tells LT Cohill to take two squads and secure the river crossing.
Cohill calls out, "!st Squad! 3rd Squad!"
Brittles: "3rd Squad has too many old, married men."
Cohill; "1st Squad, 5th Squad, with me!"

The last time armies were organized for OOTW was in the late 19th Century, when the American and British armies has companies of 80-120 long-service professionals. 250 man companies were introduced by the French and Germans before the turn of the century to double the size of their peacetime armies with reservits and draftees.

 

[jwcarroll60]

Squad sizes have gotten smaller mainly because APCs morphed into AIFVs and the armament took up room that was previously used for troops. The advances in small arms alowed smaller squads without loss of too much firepower. Smaller squad size has proved a problem in MOUT operations, and in light role operations. Less men = less survivability. IMTU I use platoons of 30-42, companies of 100-130, and battalions of 440-720.

 

[aramis]

Originally posted by jwcarroll60:
Squad sizes have gotten smaller mainly because APCs morphed into AIFVs and the armament took up room that was previously used for troops. The advances in small arms alowed smaller squads without loss of too much firepower. Smaller squad size has proved a problem in MOUT operations, and in light role operations. Less men = less survivability. IMTU I use platoons of 30-42, companies of 100-130, and battalions of 440-720.

The 1870's squad ranged from 10 to 30 men. A gun crew would be the smaller end. 500 man companies were not unheard of.
The WW I US squad ranged from 10 to 25 men
The Nam Era squad ranged from 8 to 20
The modern squad is still the 8 to 20 range, but clusters more towards 12.

Go read your BH Liddell-Hart.

 

[The Oz]

kaladorn, Uncle Bob:

I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree about this. I believe the historical trend to smaller tactical units is valid and ongoing, and will continue on into the TRAVELLER future because it's based on logical assumptions about weapons and tactics. I built my Imperial Marines based on that.

All you've said about losses and OOTW are true, but I feel that the decreased vulnerability is worth it. And IMTU the Army takes care of OOTW, and the Army is not organized like the Marines.

 

[kaladorn]

Oh, Oz, I'm sure we can disagree and still get on amicably!

Seriously, you've thought out your take on things and that's all one can ever ask - I don't mind a disagreement with someone who at least has thought out their position respectably

I myself tend to use platoon sizes around 36 counting comms/sniper/medic attachments. My companies will thus tend to be about 120-150. My battalions somewhere between 400 and 750 for a heavy battalion with attachments.

The Army will handle OOTW, after the Marines go in. However, the Army takes time to mobilize and transship. The Marines fill the gaps, kinda like the USMC or the 101 Airborne. So sometimes they will (IMTU) be stuck doing 3 months of OOTW.

Squad sizes have tended to get smaller. However, to argue that this will be a continuing trend indefinitely is silly. Taken ad absurdam, we end up with the 1 (or zero) man squad. So obviously there is some point, balanced by technology and operational factors, that reflects the ideal.

Chances are various types of warfare will require differing TO&E so I'd go so revoltingly far as to suggest that a *fixed* TO&E might be a bit antiquated. I'd expect (and you want to talk about trends, this is one) to assemble 'combat teams' for a given campaign as required for the expected types of operations. Kind of a 'mix and match' and 'build as you need' organization. Organizational flexibility will be the key to optimal force levels and efficiencies.

And as to the whole issue of how many objectives for MOUT, and the example cited, I make two points:

The Lt. in question would be a platoon commander. He should know his troopies. The Company commander probably not so much, esp in a lossy war. He can't take the time to get to know the men. Patton said something to the effect of know where the units one level below or above you and that's it. Too much attention to this kind of detail is bad for a company commander. Similarly, the Pltn Cmdr is supposed to be doing his job, as are the Squad leaders, etc.

As to the MOUT objective count: So what? If Oz's company can only move on 4 objectives, and mine can on 10, then he's doing the job of a platoon. If we've only got 4 objectives, we don't send the whole company. I'm assuming his TO&E is similarly light in excess officers, so he can easily command those 4 objectives, but I've got extra officers and sergeants and such and consequently my company can control the battle to take 10 objectives.

I just note that many who have argued for smaller lighter forces is rarely someone who has served in a hot war in combat. There are a lot of things that look different when you're on the short end of the stick than when you're back at the Pentagon or sitting imagining what a force should look like. Lots of nice statistical or trend based theories go out the window when Mr. Murphy comes knocking. But that's just a personal perspective from having too many friends in places where people WERE trying to kill them and they didn't have the requisite resources (in my, or their, opinion), I suppose.

 

[Uncle Bob]

Originally posted by Aramis:
The 1870's squad ranged from 10 to 30 men. A gun crew would be the smaller end. 500 man companies were not unheard of.
The WW I US squad ranged from 10 to 25 men
The Nam Era squad ranged from 8 to 20
The modern squad is still the 8 to 20 range, but clusters more towards 12.

Go read your BH Liddell-Hart.

Yeah. Liddell-Hart championed the 7 man squad.

"Squad" originally meant 1/4 of a company'r rifle strength so in US use it could be 16-20 men. Practically it was 8-12 under a NCO.
IIRC the US WWI rifle squad was 8 men.
In 'Nam US Army squads had 10-11 men. Marine squads started at 14, ended at 13.
Cold-war Soviet squads had 9.
Currently Marine rifle Squads still have 13, Army rifle squads have 9 (Bradley) to 11 (Ranger)
500 man companies? Not in the US or UK armies. In the late 19th century full strength was 100 US or 125 UK. In practice this was 80-100.

Maybe I missed something. Who used 500 man companies or 20 man squads?

 

[Uncle Bob]

The Oz, I am on your side. I just didn't like your reasons

 

[Uncle Bob]

I tend to work in big squads, myself. Actually, sections of 18
SGT, RSO, 4 teams of 4, ea under a CPL (RSO is a "remote systems operator")
A company has 4 sections, a weapons section, and a headquarters section. Add a Captain, 2 LTs and you get a 115 man company (actually about a hundred).

A battalion has four companies, plus support for a 600 (~500) man battalion.

 

[The Oz]

Well, some TRAVELLER species have gone in for the one (or zero) man squad. The Hivers are the most extreme example, using warbots for all ground fighting (I'm talking Hivers themselves here, not the other races federated with the Hivers). The Zhodani still have regular grunts, but they also make heavy use of warbots. My Marines make extensive use of drone missiles and drone vehicles, especially for additional firepower and increased sensor coverage. So I would argue that it's not silly to accept that the trend to smaller squad sizes will continue into the TRAVELLER future. It already has, in a way.

 

[kaladorn]

But there is a logical limit. Or else humans exit the picture entirely. And of course, do we think one guy running 200 subordinate self-directing AIs, each running 200 H/K bots, would make for a fun game setting/reality? I doubt it. Yes, he would be the few, the proud, etc. but he'd be one guy.

Interestingly, Traveller warbots are all *BIG*. A lot of modern efforts are *small* - ATV or smaller, many smaller than a breadbox. Why? Cost... reduced vulnerability.... less loss... and they can still do some jobs. Deployability too. So, following your logic with the smaller company, this kind of approach should apply in Warbots too. (If we weren't using 1970's computers). If you're going to update the manpower/setting as it pertains to soldiery, I suppose one should do the same for tech, esp combat AIs etc.

Besides, my answer for the Hivers is different: Ithklur.

 

[marginaleye]

As to the Soc thing, recall that Soc is a modifier to get into nav acad, to army acad, and probably into the navy period, but not the run of the mill army.

The British Navy had a lot of powerfully connected men in it. And quite a few titled sorts, and if you have connections, it was easier to get on the Captain's List and get assigned to a boat, rather than sitting around beached. Marines, OTOH, were generally not of any kind of royal blood or aristocratic blood, even their officers.

I tend to agree...
As I see it, in the canonical Traveller universe, political power really only flows out of the barrel of one sort of gun: the spinal weapon of a capital ship -- thus, the "second sons" of the aristocracy tend to gravitate in that direction. The emperor lives in chronic anxiety about the ultimate loyalties of his admirals, and is thus understandably reluctant to blatantly use the supposedly "imperial" fleet against the great noble houses. Since the other services are so utterly dependent upon the navy (in a way that has no equivalent in present day real life), they have far less political significance (and thus prestige).

 

[jwcarroll60]

Aramis, Liddell-Hart is over rated, read Julius Caesar & Tacitus. Roman squads (Optios) were 8 men, the amount that would fit into a standard legionary tent. We were dealing with basing squad size on small arms lethality in the REAL WORLD post WWII. If you throw in the ACW you have Battalions of Infantry and Reiments of Cavalry with 100 to 600 men.

 

[Straybow]

ACW unit sizes were simply the result of localized recruiting. A colonel would be commissioned to raise a regiment from certain counties in the state, and he might raise 200 or 800. Essentially political rather than arising from any conscious mil doctrine.

 

[kaladorn]

Marginal Eye:
Your take is good, but anything that can deploy a missile cluster with nuclear heads is a serious threat, so any spacefairing service should get some respect. In this context, Navy has to come first (oh boy oh boy do they). But COACC should rate too I guess.

Navy,
COACC,
Army,
Marines

The Army moreso for the fact they have strong ties to the land - The Duke of Reginwald's Huscarls, etc. This means they probably have local nobility or the like involved. And ties to the local political structure. And they (boots on the ground) ensure local Imperial Nobles the control of their fiefdoms, which will endear them to the Nobility.

Marines are the few, the proud, and the chronically mistreated, considering their potence. Well equipped on the small scale (BD etc) but chronically short of members, of high salaries, and of huge organic support assets, instead getting support from the Navy (when "Navy Priorities" don't disagree).

Remember, MARINE stands for Move ARound In Navy Equipment.

 

[jatay3]

Someone said that they would put the Marines toward the more dangerous spots. I think I would do the reverse. The Marines are most useful as a reserve for quick reaction missions. The closer they are to the front the more likly they are to be chewed up in day to day border war. They should be held back for when they are actually desired. This way a unit closer to the center would have a shorter route to a crisis at a given place than one who has to travel all the way across.
Also they could form a sort of "praetorian guard" to guard the empires authority(including against the Imperial Guard proper: they would guard each other so to speak). In that case it would make another reason to hold some to the Core.
To make this work the Marines would have a regular system of rotating between border duty and core duty. More important they would have to have unusually fast purpose built(not merely merchantmen grabbed here,there and everywhere)troop transports. When there is trouble the first reinforcements to arrive in a subsector would be the Marines. They would also have implications in the offense.The Imperium could assemble Marines for an operation before they are spotted.

 

[kaladorn]

Hmmm....

This logic applies on the micro scale of say a planet, where the marines can get around quickly using grav vehicles. There such a strategy isn't a bad idea. Though they should be somewhat distributed, since concentrating them in one place will encourage some sort of take-out attack on that location. (Think Beirut 1983 IIRC).

It doesn't apply strategically, due to the weeks involved in jumps. Because by the time someone has jumped out to call for help, and back, 14 days at least have elapsed. And we all know that's a long time....

If you've ever sat around and done the math, a trip from border to core could take you a year each way, easily. Are you *really* going to move good troops that distance and have them sitting in transports the whole time? (And will they want to be freezersicles for that long?)

Of course, the one aspect of this is frontier soldiers would not have any in-core loyalties, and the transit delays would serve to further erode any prior contacts.

IMTU, the Marines and the Navy are a big check on Noble aspirations (to the extent they aren't tied together). There are enough common-born officers in the Marines and Navy that actually remember their oath is to the Empire and the Emperor, rather than cousin X, Archduke of someplace, that they represent a check on the Nobility.

 

[Andrew Boulton]

the Marines and the Navy are a big check on Noble aspirations

Unfortunately, they sometimes have their own aspirations (don't they, Admiral Plankwell?)

 

[BMonnery]

Muscles
Are
Required
Intelligence
Not
Essential

Bryn

 

[BMonnery]

A roman cohort after Julius was 480 men strong (exclusive of Centurions etc.)

A century was 80 men in 10x 8 man squads, plus the command group (Centurion, Optio, Tessarius etc.)

A cohort was 6 centuries. To confuse matters, tactically centuries were paired into Maniples of 160 + officers. Confusing matters further, each century manned a Scorpion, and each cohort an Ononager, which may have additional manning requirements.

To confuse matters further, under Julius, the 1st cohort has 800 men strong, not 480.

The Original Battalion Structure which the west has inherited is the Swedish one (under The Lion of the North). This had ~100 man companies, and a platoon is simply a half company (~50 men).

These days, a squad will be however many can be reasonably fit into an armoured fighting vehicle. As the size of these is prettymuch set, 7-10 man squads/ sections is likely to continue.

Bryn

PS: Time to dust off my copy of "Serve to Lead" and find the quotes from Jary's "18 platoon"?

 

[The Oz]

I just read a serious proposal to reduce the number of infantrymen in a fighting vehicle to only 4 men, on the grounds that you could then design smaller vehicles (which would make the same weight of armor give more protection), and you'd lose less men per vehicle hit.