Ship's Crewing...

[Hal]

Hello Folks,
I thought I'd pose a question for you all and see what you all think

Ships troops for TRAVELLER's HIGH GUARD indicates that the number of ship's troops can be between 3 per 1000 dtons on up to 3 per 100 dtons. It then goes on to state that the organization of the Ship's troops would be as per Book 4, Mercenaries.

That begs the question then, of whether or not ship's troops would be any old random number, or whether the number of troops should conform to the organization listed within Mercenary.

Page 33 of MERCENARY lists the numbers associated with specific organizations of men and they are:

Fire team: 4 men
Squad: 9 Men
Section: 19 Men
Platoon: 41 Men
Company: 127 Men
Battalion: 452 Men
Reinforced Battalion: 635 Men
Brigade: 1500 Men

Ok, so lets look at a sample "problem" if you will. Lets say you're about to detail a 3,000 dton military craft for your hypothetical Imperium. Per the rules, the range of men number between: (3,000 dtons/1,000 dtons x 3 men) or 3 men, all the way up to (3,000 dtons/100 dtons x 3 men) or 90 men.

The closest organization that meets the need for 3 men is a fire team. The closest organization that meets the need for 90 men is two platoons plus some odd number of men or roughly 36 men shy of a full company.

Now, Looking more closely at the rules from High Guard on page 33 (odd how 33 is THE page to look at in either of Book 4 or Book 5!), it states for Maintenance crew, that the number of such crew is to be listed as being 2 men per 1,000 dtons of ship, or 3 if there are no ship's troops available. Looking more closely at the description for Ship's troops, one of the duties for the troops is "Damage control".

Presumably then, the extra maintenance crew required when there are no ship's troops is for the extra Damage Control parties required by the ship.

So, looking at our hypothetical Ship above at 3,000 dtons, our service crew would be set at 6 men, and require and extra 3 men in the event that ship's troops are not present.

This makes me wonder just a little. Note that the number of maintenance crew for any given ship in the Imperium is expected to equal the minimum number of Ship's troops required by that hull. Note too, that if you subtract the minimum required Maintenance crew from the Maximum required Maintenance crew, that ship's troops at their minimum levels will always be 33% of the minimum required ship's Troops level (if any are present aboard ship)

Would it be safe to presume based on that "logic", that the following is true:

Minimum Maintenance is 1 man per 500 dtons
Minimum Damage Control is 1 man per 1,000 dtons

Would it also be safe to presume that most naval ships in the Imperium should contain a minimum of a fire-team as that is the smallest "unit" of men, and that if a Naval Captain is expected to secure the safety of his ship, he probably will have a larger contingent of men aboard than a simple fire team?

Per the Traveller history, it seems like a 3,000 dton warship is the equivalent of a Destroyer. Would you expect a Destroyer class ship to contain anything less than a Platoon of Naval Marines permanently stationed aboard the ship for "security reasons"?

In looking at Supplement 9: Fighting Ships, I note that the example of a Destroyer lists the following:

Jump4, Maneuver6, Power B, 2 50 ton cutters (requiring flight crew), 2 Screens (requiring 8 men), 3 defensive batteries (3 gunners), 1 Bay (requiring 2 men), 5 offensive batteries (requring 5 men).

Engineering requires 10 men outright.
Bridge/Command requires 10 men as well (7 officers plus 50% ratings)
Gunnery: 1 Officer plus 1 NCO per weapon type gives us 7 men plus 1 gunner per battery plus the requisite men per weapon system. I'm going to presume that if a system requires 4 men, that one of them can be an NCO in charge of the unit in question. So:

Gunnery Section Officer: 1 Man
Nuc Dampner: 4 Men
Meson Screen: 4 Men
Accelerator Bay: 2 Men
Missle Turret Gunner: 2 Men - one to man the turret (an enlisted) plus an NCO
Laser Turret Gunner: 4 Men.
Sandcaster Turret Gunners: 3 Men.

Total For Gunnery Section is 20 men. (this is one man too many compared to the program High Guard Shipyard by the way)

Flight Crew: 4 men (1 pilot plus one ground crew x 2) (High Guard Shipyard lists 5 men, presumably adding a Flight Deck Officer).
Maintenance/Service crew: 3 men per 1,000 dtons (no ship's troops) 9 men
Frozen Watch: None

Totals:
Command section: 10 (rounded down, HGS lists 11)
Engineering: 10 (same as HGS)
Gunnery Section: 20 (HGS lists 19 men)
Service Section: 9 (HGS lists 6 in service section +3 security)
Flight Section: 4
53 men is what I get using strict interpretation of the rules given in HIGH GUARD versus the 33 given in FIGHTING SHIPS.

My question is: why the huge disparity?

For the record? I recreated the Midu Agashaam class Destroyer on page 16 of SUPPLEMENT 9 FIGHTING SHIPS and found that it has 13 displacement tons left over for use as cargo - something that the FIGHTING SHIPS claims should be zero. I was hoping to see some guidelines on how many ships troops a military craft should have and was surprised that it had NONE. Kinda sad actually

 

[Captain Midnight]

Now, Looking more closely at the rules from High Guard on page 33 (odd how 33 is THE page to look at in either of Book 4 or Book 5!), it states for Maintenance crew, that the number of such crew is to be listed as being 2 men per 1,000 dtons of ship, or 3 if there are no ship's troops available. Looking more closely at the description for Ship's troops, one of the duties for the troops is "Damage control".

Presumably then, the extra maintenance crew required when there are no ship's troops is for the extra Damage Control parties required by the ship.

Look at the sentence in HG right before the one that discusses "damage control" for ship's troops -- it points out that they pull security duty. I always presumed that the extra service crew allotment was for security specialists. They don't have to be Marines, but they'll be something like Military Police. They might also get assigned to damage control when the ship goes to "General Quarters", but if the word is passed to either "Prepare the boarding party" or "Prepare to repel boarders", they'll start performing those duties instead.

Would it also be safe to presume that most naval ships in the Imperium should contain a minimum of a fire-team as that is the smallest "unit" of men, and that if a Naval Captain is expected to secure the safety of his ship, he probably will have a larger contingent of men aboard than a simple fire team?

Per the Traveller history, it seems like a 3,000 dton warship is the equivalent of a Destroyer. Would you expect a Destroyer class ship to contain anything less than a Platoon of Naval Marines permanently stationed aboard the ship for "security reasons"?

I'd be very, very surprised to see a unit as large as a platoon of Marines on board a combatant as minor as a 3,000 ton destroyer. Instead, I'd expect to see a number of ship's crew who were cross-trained with some sort of personal weapon, and that body used as a "boarding party" that handles security issues. You MIGHT see a solitary Marine who was cross-training as some sort of gunner or medic, depending on how screwed-up you want to portray the Imperial Navy's Bureau of Personnel, and if he got assigned to such a ship, he'd almost certainly be assigned a slot on the "boarding party" detail.

While a 3,000 ton ship may indeed be classified as a "destroyer", don't try to draw a very close parallel with today's destroyers, which are actually significant combat units in the US Navy. Instead, think of something like WWII-era "tin cans" -- they can generally smack around any civilian they care to engage, but when up against major fleet units, they're in deep trouble (see the story of the USS Johnston for an example).

<snip description of crewing a Midu Agashaam according to HG>

53 men is what I get using strict interpretation of the rules given in HIGH GUARD versus the 33 given in FIGHTING SHIPS.

My question is: why the huge disparity?

For the record? I recreated the Midu Agashaam class Destroyer on page 16 of SUPPLEMENT 9 FIGHTING SHIPS and found that it has 13 displacement tons left over for use as cargo - something that the FIGHTING SHIPS claims should be zero. I was hoping to see some guidelines on how many ships troops a military craft should have and was surprised that it had NONE. Kinda sad actually

Very few of the published designs in any of the various "Fighting Ships" books are totally accurate according to the design rules, and many are given very odd features -- why give a 3,000 ton DD a meson screen, for example? Even if you decide to give it one, why give it such a scrawny one? Why bother using 10 of your hardpoints for a 50-ton PA bay, when you could use 6 of them for an equivalent battery, and then use the other four for something else?

In general, you should take the basic concepts presented for each design and rewrite to suit your own game. The DD listed above is "3,000 ton, J4, 6G, Ag-6, anti-fighter", and could be rewritten in any number of ways to be more effective than the published version. My own personal favorite is pairs of fusion-gun turrets, as they give a factor-6 weapon, and since you are using them for point defense or anti-fighter work, the "short range only" restriction is irrelevant.

 

[Icosahedron]

I think the rules are vague precisely to give you free choice in your allocation of troopers. Yes, I think your troops should be arranged as standard military units, but the numbers of them will vary depending on the role of the vessel. Gunners often double as security or boarding parties (by the time you're boarding, the ship's weaponry has already done its job).

 

[Hal]

(in response to both of you gentlemen)

The original wording of how the numbers of men for any given ship are both vague and precise In trying to reconcile the prospect of military ships and their "marine" contingent, I try to imagine how a ship that is roughly 3,000 dtons in volume can be defended by a mere 3 men. Why three men? Note that the number of men you gain for your ship depends on whether you have a marine contingent (ships troops), or if failing that, the extra men who become part of the "service" contingent (which High Guard Shipyard classifies as security).

Lets look at the crew numbers for the vaunted Midu shall we? You pull into port, and as Captain, your job is to keep this Imperial warship ship secure at all times. Ok, so lets assign the ship's roster to the task of normal day to day operations.

11 of your shipboard personnel are non-security types just by virtue of being Officers and command personnel enlisted (I had always presumed the ratings were NCO's for some odd reason). That is 7 Officers and 4 Ratings who tend to handle the duties of command.

So, subtracting 11 from 33 leaves us with 22 men. Divide 22 men by 3 (as there are 3 shifts of 8 hours in a 24 hour day), and we have 7 men plus one odd man out. Assuming that you want to establish a perimeter for your ship and maintain that 24 hours a day, this leaves you with 7 men who maintain such a perimeter daily at any given time. Is this even likely? Note that those 7 men come at the expense of operational crews doing their own shipboard duties required for running the ship. High Guard states that if you can have enough men in Frozen Watch to equal half of your crew numbers, you have a frozen watch and are able to bring the ship to operational status. So in theory, the minimum required crew for a ship of the Midu Destroyer class is 33/2 or 17 men. Subtracting 17 from 33 leaves us with 16 men. That is ALL the excess a ship's captain can count upon for his "security". 16 men for a period of 24 hours gives us about 5 men per shift.

With a platoon of ship's troops however, you have 41 extra men. That is in excess of what the ship requires for crewing (per the original FIGHTING SHIPS)! However, with 41 men, who are ground pounders in a big way, you have the ability to utilize 4 squads of 9 men with a command section/platoon of 5 men. Ie, out of 41 men, you have 9 x 4 = 36, with 5 left over. Now THAT gives you more than enough manpower to see to the security needs of your ship while in port, permit you to let off a portion of your crew for liberty or shore duties, and still be able to keep a running crew aboard to run day to day duties such as taking care of the power grid or keeping the manuever drives warmed up.

Now, lets take this a step further. Lets say you utilize a mere 3 squads of men instead of a full platoon. Commanding these three squads aboard the ship is a smaller command section, whose function is to act as a command core for dirtside or boarding actions. Call it a Lieutenant plus two Sergeants. Net total? 30 men. Now you have 3 watches worth of armed men able to secure the needs of both security dirtside, and have some offensive punch while boarding an enemy ship. If you have to pull away all of your gunners plus a handful of "service personnel" just to mount a boarding party - what are you going to do if you lose a portion of those men in shipboard combat?

I can see it now...

The Midu Agashaam class warship closes to board with an enemy combatant. Pulling off all of its gunners, 3 for the sandcasters, 4 for the lasers, 2 for the bay, and 8 for the defensive screens, not to mention the extra three "security types", we now have 20 men to tackle the needs of boarding. With say, 25% casualties, you now have 15 men left. Of those 5 who became casualties, you lost full crewing needs for your Bay weapon, your Meson Screen, and one of your sandcasters.

That implies to me right there, that a Warship should never engage in boarding actions, let alone any kind of planetside actions where the captain stands to potentially lose his troops.

In looking on the internet to see what I could find about shipboard marines, I found an example of the USS SACREMENTO, a "gunboat" smaller than a United States Destroyer during the Second World War. At 1425 tons displacement, the crew of 163 included a ship's complement of marines totalling 1 officer plus 30 men. That amounts to approximately 20% of the ship's complement as being Marines (ship's troops).

Overall? I suspect that each GM will crew their ships more or less as they see fit. My question was based on the "logic" involved in the rules as written. I could care less really, how I think about the crewing needs so much as I would want to have some set of guidelines to follow that is independent on what any given GM will assign for THEIR Traveller universe. Why? Lets say for the sake of argument, that someone wanted to have a program to design High Guard Ships. They would want to have those elements that MUST be aboard the ship clearly defined. They would also perhaps want a "suggested guideline" of Ship's troops for their ship building - even if they later on decide not to utilize ship's troops for the crewing of their High Guard ships. The devil as they say, is in the Details.

Frankly? The only reason I asked in the first place is because the rules themselves are vague. A spread of 3 men per 1,000 dtons to a spread of 3 men per 100 dtons of ship gives us a unit size that is between 9 and 90 men. Note that the wording of the Ship's Troops heading itself says:

"Most ships over 1000 tons have a marine (or military) contingent aboard which ranges in size from a squad to a regiment."

The guidelines themselves are relatively loose because there doesn't seem to be any set policy per se as to how many men are to be assigned to any given warship. Some might have a mere squad (note that 3 men per 1,000 dtons of hull fits the Midu class ships PERFECTLY at 9 men, which is also the size of a single squad per MERCENARY). Others might be designed to contain a platoon.

 

[Hal]

Just for giggles, I considered what it might be like to have a Broadsword class ship go up against a destroyer class ship in a boarding attempt.

The Broadsword class ship has 24 military personnel plus an additional complement of 7 (cutter pilots, runners, etc). Net total: 31 men. There are other "crew members" but they won't add anything to the boarding, so I left them out of the consideration.

The Midu Agashaam class destroyer as listed does not have even a Marine Contingent, let alone an outright "Military" ship's troops contingent. This places the classification of the Midu's troops as being "non-marine, non-troop crew". Net total: 33 men.

Per the rules, one side gets a total of +3 to their die roll (the Broadsword) while the other side (the Midu) gets a +0. Why? You only gain a +1 bonus to the die roll for every 50 non-marine, non-troop crew. With every 10 military non-marine type, you get a +1 bonus to the die roll.

Analyzing the odds on who would win in a boarding action between the Broadsword and the Destroyer class ship, I get the following results:

Wins for the Imperium: 3
Wins for the Broadsword: 30
Ties: 3 (thus discounted and rerolled)
Net possibilties: 36

Average Casualties inflicted in Wins by the Imperium: 11.33 men. Max: 12
Average Casualties inflicted in Wins by Broadsword: 13.73 men. Max: 18

In short, with the way the Midu is crewed now, it stands to win only 9% of its engagements in this match-up.

Now, lets look at what happens with the addition of 10 marines...

Wins for Imperium: 10
Wins for Braodsword: 21
Ties: 5

Average casualties when Imperium wins: 14 men. Max: 16
Average casualties when Broadsword wins: 14.66 men. Max: 18

That is a win ratio of 32%

Lets see what happens with 15 Marines:

Wins for Imperium: 15
Wins for Braodsword: 15
Ties: 6

Average casualties when Imperium wins: 15.33 men. Max: 18
Average casualties when Broadsword wins: 15.33 men. Max: 18

That is a win ratio of 50%

Bear in mind overall, that boarding actions only occur in space after a ship has been disabled and has been left behind (ie if the friendly fleet was at short range and changed it to Long). I happened to choose the Broadsword as an example. This "example" would hold true if the enemy fleet were to have used a boarding party of 15 Marines themselves.

Overall? Unless the ship is specifically crewed with marines outright, and gunners by definition are NOT marines but part of the regular ship's complement of "crew", then it stands to be boarded only too easily. If in YOUR traveller universe you specify that ALL gunners are Marines, that's fine. But if you look at the Midu Agashaam, you will note that of its 33 crew, 15 of them are gunners and/or screen operators (ie non-essential to ship operations). The most "marines" you can have using that arrangement is 15. This works out to roughly 45% of that ship's complement being marines (which is not the standard ratio of naval personnel to marines in real life).

My take on this? Always keep a detachment of Marines aboard your ships. At least 10 if you want the full bonus for having marines in boarding actions. I realize that takes at least 24 dtons out of your allotment of internal space, but it makes for a better balanced ship IMO.

 

[Captain Midnight]

Lets look at the crew numbers for the vaunted Midu shall we? You pull into port, and as Captain, your job is to keep this Imperial warship ship secure at all times.

The problem here is defining just what it takes to be "secure". As the ship's captain, you're going to make your job easier by not getting into some situations, just because your resources are inadequate to the demands that might be placed on them. Much of what I'm going to describe here is based on current naval practice; there's not a lot of good analogies for present-day ships, but the closest is probably a US Navy SSN or FFG. The major limiting factor is the low number of warm bodies, so some other things will have to be done to keep that from being a critical weakness.

To start with, as a warship, you're not likely to be given orders to dock in a hostile port (or given permission to do so by the controlling polity, either). If there's a significant possibility of trouble, you'll stand off at a distance, and use small craft to shuttle necessary personnel and supplies back and forth. It's possible that local craft may approach to sell you supplies or bring you, um, "companionship" (local craft doing these sorts of trading are known as "bumboats"), but if there's a real likelihood of trouble, the locals will stay away. Any locals that do approach may be trying to maneuver close for some sort of attack (a la USS Cole), so prudence will dictate keeping them under close observation and being ready to open fire or take evasive action.

In neutral or friendly ports, there will be arrangements made for warships. You will get a controlled-access berthing of some sort; if you need to dock internally, you won't be sharing a berth with anyone besides another warship from your own polity (barring emergencies, of course). That's going to make securing the ship easier, as you're not going to have to secure a perimeter; instead, you're going to be securing a hatchway or an airlock. If it's a port with some sort of official presence from your polity (like an embassy/consulate), you may have access to their security personnel, or to local security providers vetted by the embassy staff.

There's going to be someone on board at all times who is a designated Officer of the Watch (aka "watchstander"); this is going to be an officer (or senior NCO if you don't have many officers). There will also be some sort of "anchor watch", which will include a qualified member of the engineering staff to watch the "kettle", some number of other crew on various jobs, and I'd expect at least one gunner ready to swing into action with a laser or sandcaster. This means that you won't have huge numbers of the crew dirtside at any one time, which from a Navy point of view, is a feature, not a bug.

There will be external monitors in action, along with a very capable Anti-Hijack program, so that sneaking aboard becomes much more problematic. There will also be measures taken to secure the berth itself, which can be very nasty if trouble is considered likely; GMs can use their creativity here.

Overall? I suspect that each GM will crew their ships more or less as they see fit. My question was based on the "logic" involved in the rules as written. I could care less really, how I think about the crewing needs so much as I would want to have some set of guidelines to follow that is independent on what any given GM will assign for THEIR Traveller universe. Why? Lets say for the sake of argument, that someone wanted to have a program to design High Guard Ships. They would want to have those elements that MUST be aboard the ship clearly defined. They would also perhaps want a "suggested guideline" of Ship's troops for their ship building - even if they later on decide not to utilize ship's troops for the crewing of their High Guard ships. The devil as they say, is in the Details.

Frankly? The only reason I asked in the first place is because the rules themselves are vague. A spread of 3 men per 1,000 dtons to a spread of 3 men per 100 dtons of ship gives us a unit size that is between 9 and 90 men. Note that the wording of the Ship's Troops heading itself says:

"Most ships over 1000 tons have a marine (or military) contingent aboard which ranges in size from a squad to a regiment."

The guidelines themselves are relatively loose because there doesn't seem to be any set policy per se as to how many men are to be assigned to any given warship. Some might have a mere squad (note that 3 men per 1,000 dtons of hull fits the Midu class ships PERFECTLY at 9 men, which is also the size of a single squad per MERCENARY). Others might be designed to contain a platoon.

It's also important to keep in mind that the canonical examples often fit the rules poorly, and have suboptimal design decisions. The troops assigned to a specific ship will reflect the anticipated needs; evidently, the canonical anticipation for troops for boarding actions was sparse, as only the Broadswords and Kinunirs are the only examples in Fighting Ships at less than 30,000 tons with troops, and the Gionettis only have 20 troops. The Tigress doesn't get any troops, either.

Obviously, with crews as small as the canonical ships have, and with such sparse levels of troops, they're not going to fare well in boarding actions. If you think those are ever going to be significant for your ships, you should change the designs to allow for more Marines. There are ways to handle basic security that don't require a lot of troops beyond what's needed to secure an airlock, and captains will be expected to keep their ships out of situations that they aren't equipped to handle.

 

[Major B]

Hal,

I see your point and comprehend the weakness in the book designs. Let me give you some more food for thought and topics for further discussion.

Your point on designing shipboard troop contingents around units rather than individuals is a valid one but leaves out an important point. The troop unit sizes from Book 4 are representative of only infantry organizations so they lack any of the specialized combat support or combat service support units and individuals that will be needed. Also, the Book 4 guidelines are just that - guidelines.

My point is that the troop contingent should be tailored to meet what you expect the unit to do. An organization designed to guard the ship while is is "beached" will require a different composition from a force designed for boarding actions. Similarly, both of these organizations will be configured differently than a unit designed for strike missions or raids against high value targets.

Remember that your riflemen are much more effective with support troops. Put an infantry squad on board the ship, then add a medic to stabilize wounded while they await transport to the ship, then add a fire support NCO to call in Ortillery, then add in a commo specialist to keep everyone talking, and you have a unit much more capable than just the squad you started with. In ideal situations the riflemen can handle tasks like this as additional duties, but they will never be as skilled as a specialist and freeing up your riflemen to shoot people and break things while someone does the supporting tasks full-time is a much better solution to the tactical problem.

Again, designing the unit for its intended mission or missions is important. If boarding actions are likely, maybe they need an electronics technician (to bypass security systems and open electronically locked doors) or a demo expert who can create doors where none existed before.

Also, look on page 27 in Book 4 where you will find more detail than the table on page 33. The fundamental rule that applies is to use the "building blocks" approach to building the unit, but there can be much variance within that organization. For example, I prefer larger fire teams of six (for a lot of reasons that I'll explain later if you want to hear it). I also like squads of 3 teams rather than two. That is why I have E5 Sergeants leading my teams (rather than a Corporal) and an E6 leading the squad. This gives me a squad of 18 soldiers, twice the size of the unit with that name listed on page 33.

 

[Hal]

Hi Major B,
I'm always interested in how others set things in motion for their universes You don't need an invite from me to expand into more detail. Others who read the archives or read this may be inspired by your example.

 

[Major B]

Thanks Hal,

I joined this forum to help me work through a bunch of ideas I have that all relate to how anyone can really seize control of a developed system. I mean as opposed to destroying it (which would be much easier from a technical standpoint). I appreciate any chance to talk about the related technical and tactical 'stuff' that applies but I have to control my tendencies to lecture and get long-winded.

At the risk of getting too far off the subject of this thread - I like larger fire teams for a bunch of reasons but the most important is cohesion. The fire team must be able to continue fighting as an integral unit despite suffering casualties and a 6-man team can do that better than a 4-man team.

Also, a 6-man element can subdivide to accomplish complex tasks better than a 4-man element. I think that the pair is the smallest tactical formation rather than the individual. No soldier should ever accomplish a task alone but always with another to, if nothing else, provide security while the first concentrates on the task. When both are assigned a common task (such as suppressing an enemy position), one can be firing while the other reloads allowing for constant fire on the target.

A 4-man team has two 'pairs' so can internally assign one to fire while one maneuvers (for example). However, once this team takes a casualty it has only three effectives left. They can re-form into one 'trio' but can now only effectively accomplish one task.

A 6-man team has three 'pairs' allowing the team leader more flexibility. He can assign one to fire and one to maneuver and still have one 'pair' to hold in reserve, provide rear security, or reinforce one of the other two elements. Also, this team can suffer two casualties and still be an effective 4-man element.

So, the 4-man team is good until the shooting starts. Once they take their first casualty, low-level leaders will have to improvise, hastily reorganizing teams from the survivors of remaining elements. A 6-man team does not have to start this reorganization until after it sustains 3 casualties (50%).

Major B

 

[chshrkt]

Thanks Hal,

I joined this forum to help me work through a bunch of ideas I have that all relate to how anyone can really seize control of a developed system...

<snip>

Tasty, crunchy goodness says I!

Thanks for the useful and informative points Major B.

 

[atpollard]

Remember that your riflemen are much more effective with support troops. Put an infantry squad on board the ship, then add a medic to stabilize wounded while they await transport to the ship, then add a fire support NCO to call in Ortillery, then add in a commo specialist to keep everyone talking, and you have a unit much more capable than just the squad you started with. ...

... For example, I prefer larger fire teams of six (for a lot of reasons that I'll explain later if you want to hear it). I also like squads of 3 teams rather than two. That is why I have E5 Sergeants leading my teams (rather than a Corporal) and an E6 leading the squad. This gives me a squad of 18 soldiers, twice the size of the unit with that name listed on page 33.

Very interesting thoughts.
How do Specialists fit in with your 18 man Squad?
Are the specialists concentrated into a 'support team' held with the E6, or spread among the infantry 'teams'?

 

[Major B]

The specialists are both inside the squad and on call from outside.

What I mean is that I borrowed a concept from the US Special Froces where every member of a team trains in a particular specialty. For the infantry that training would not be as in-depth but still enough to impart skill-1 in a particular supporting skill.

Each entry-level E1 assigned to the infantry is assigned one of four specialties:

05C Heavy Weapons Specialist
05D Field Medical Specialist
05E Engineer Demolitions Specialist
05F Communications Specialist

So in addition to the Combat Rifleman-1 and Grenade Launcher-0 skill from basic training each soldiers will receive either -0 or -1 in Heavy Energy Weapons (05C), Medical (05D), Demo (05E), or Commo (05F).

Soldiers stay in their MOS from E1 (Private) to E4 (Specialist). E4s that show leadership ability are given the lateral promotion to E4 (Corporal) and awarded MOS 05B - Infantry NCO. As NCOs are promoted to E5 (Sergeant) and beyond they remain in MOS 05B.

The Infantry Combat Team (ICT) is composed of:
one E5 (05B) Team Leader (Sergeant)
one E4 (05B) Asst Team Leader (Corporal)
and one each of the four specialists whose rank can vary from E1 to E4

In one of the ICTs in the infantry squad, the E5 Team Leader is replaced by an E6 Squad Leader (the SL leads his team and directs the other two)

The platoon HQ has soldiers in other specialties available that can be retained there or attached to the squads or teams. Available specialists include:
03C Signal Specialist/NCO
04D Medical NCO (EMT)
04H Medical Specialist
06F Fire Direction Specialist