traveller military orginization

[Gruffty]

With regards to UK regiments, they used to be numbered as well. They generally recurited locally by county (but my old local Regiment, the Northamptonshires, used to recruit right up to Rugby in the North and down as far as Aylesbury in the south). Much of this changed in WW2, and the Regiment disappeared in the re-org of the 1960s into the Royal Anglians ( who??)

 

[BetterThanLife]

The US does have regiments. but, aside from the Cavalry Regiments, they are mostly honorific and historic. For example the 16th Infantry Regiment is assigned to the 1st Infantry Division. (Well in numbering anyway.) There is no Regimental HQ, etc. There is the 5th Bn /16th Infantry Regiment, the 2 of the 16th, the 3rd of the 16th and the 4th of the 16th. In 1986-1989 the 2nd of the 16th was assigned to 2nd Brigade/1st Infantry Division (Mechanized). The 5th of the 16th was 1st Brigade and the other two were 3rd Brigade. 1st Squadron 4th Cav Regiment was the Division Cav Squadron and as far as I could tell the only Squadron in the 4th Cav Regt.

Now each of these regiments has a very long history and that history predates the formation of the First Division. Even though the US Army doesn't deploy Regiments the history of those Regiments is maintained. (There are Armor Regiments and Artillery Regiments as well.)

A Military without History and Tradition is no more than an Armed Mob.

When units are created they are created out of a list of units which have already been created. As long as there is a US Army and it has Divisions there will always be a 1st Infantry Division (The Big Red One). Other Divisions and lower echelon units are formed and disbanded, and reformed as needs require and they maintain their history and unit honors. I served in the 163rd MI BN (TE) at Ft. Hood and the Unit had been formed, disbanded, redesiginated, reformed through serveral convuluted contrivances but the History of the Unit is maintained. (The 1st MI Company, became, eventually, B Co., 101st MI BN (CEWI) and is the longest continous serving Military Intelligence in the US Military. (Partly because it has always been part of the Big Red One since it was formed in 1941.) It even still fills the same mission HUMINT for 1st ID.

But Units of several of the US Divisions that have served continously since the WWI are rare. ANd the others have interesting disjointed Histories but they still have a history.

 

[Glen Allen Mcinnes]

Ok we know what they looklike orginasion wise but what about skills and how they are dispersed throughout the uint how I have run it in the past is.

each fire team is broken down in to two teams or sections (the grunts and their officers know what their talking about)each consting of a weapons team/section of a rifle man and a weapons operator (LMG, Tac-missle, plasma gun ect.) and a "spechilist" team/section consiting of a rifle man and a spechilist (medic, tech, demo ect.) or two compatibly skilled spechilists (scout teams, sniper teams ect.) each squad has a "lead section" consiting of the paltoon officer and a spechilist (usaly comms) or NCO and a spechilist or rifile man as needs and personal alow. on acitasion the paltoon officer or seinior NCO may be paired with an inexperancted office for the purpouses of battefeild orentaision and seasoning.

this I feal spreads out the spechilists and fire power and makes the squads dependint on each other fostering better teamwork, eariler in the depolyment of newaly formed uints.

 

[aramis]

I disagree with 313...

a 4 man rifleteam is, at least as documented on film, 4 riflemen, OR 2 Riflemen and a HW pair.

Other specialists are platoon level assets, or higher. (based upon striker). The Platoon Command stand is the Lt, the PSgt, the medic and the commo.

The 4man fire team is, coincidentally, the figure ratio per base for Striker I. 1 base, 4 men.

Armorers, who can generally support on a 100:1 or larger ratio for modern units, are company level assets.

Paperwork details (Admin, Pers, PAO, Supply) can be free floating NCO's, or form a fireteam of rifle. (In vehicle units, they'd be assigned duties, more than likely...)

One problem I've seen with many Traveller combat vehicle designs: they have a driver, gunner and a commander, but few have space to carry a mechanic/supernumerary... put an extra seat, and the staff can be spread out amongst the vehicles...

One of my rationales for not all marines having Battledress as armor is that I assumed that Vacc would let you wear (and based upon the DGP stuff, not use the special functions of) the armor; the special functions, and user maintenance, are what BD skill is for.

 

[BetterThanLife]

Typical Modern US Infantry Model.(Why pick US, well I have the most experience with it though I have almost as much info on the Soviet Model, problem is the Soviets lost.

)

Typical Fireteam, 4 soldiers. Generally two with Rifles, one (generally the Team Leader) with Rifle and Grenade Launcher, One Squad Automatic weapon.

Typical Infantry Squad, two to three fireteams. (Based on transport.) Bradley is three teams, two as described the third is the Vehicle Crew.

Typical Infantry Platoon. 3 Squads as described, Plus a weapons squad. (2 GPMG (M60/M240) teams and an anti-armor team, generally.) Platoon Leader, Platoon Sergeant and a Medic attached from company HQ.

Typical Infantry Company. 3-4 Platoons plus a HQ element which would include a maintenance section, Supply Sgt, Company Clerk, Supply Clerk/Armorer, Commander, First Sergeant, and the actual assignment for the Company's Medics.

An Infantry Company may or may not have a Tank Platoon attached, may or may not have vehicles, etc.

Soviet Model. Smallest unit is the Squad. 3 Squads is a platoon, 3 platoons in a company. Squad is 10 men, includes 2 machineguns (Generally light machineguns RPK type consistent with Assault Weapon type.) and an RPG. Plus each squad has an IFV (Infantry Fighting Vehicle) The Company has 3 Sniper Rifles distributed, generally to the best three marksmen in the Company. A Motorized Rifle Company may have a Tank Platoon attached.

 

[Golan2072]

Originally posted by Bhoins:
3 man fire teams? Interesting. Kind of sidesteps the old military ideal that everyone has one buddy they are responsible for and who is responsible for them. (Two = one, one = none) It also causes problems when it comes time to defend an area. generally foxholes are set up as two person positions. (Primarily so you aren't falling asleep by yourself, and because nobody in a defensive position fires straight ahead. (You fire out at an angle left and right from a position, and deny an enemy a straight shot from their lines into your position.)

You have a point. However,my rationale was that in a specialist team (machinegun/plasma), you'll have one gunner, one loader/support and one gun commander; in a normal team, you'll have two troopers walking in front, and one defending their rear/flank. Remember, this is a Marine unit organization; small, mobile teams operating in relatively hostile territories. Having 3 directions of fire is a good idea.

 

[Glen Allen Mcinnes]

My Cousin maried a guy who is a carpenter for the army (he is a builder for deffence force housing) and he must stay qualified as a rifle-man as do all the sparkies, bricklayers and plumbers he works with, also got a bunch of AJ (& Ex-AJ) mates and their all riflemen and somthing else as well (some times two somthing eleses) and the way they talk spechilists are orginised at verous leavals of the TO&E but are enbeded in not attched to their uints unless their mode of operaision demands otherwise, providing for "Lean & Mean" uints, but we Auissies do have the best light Infantry (Regluar) forces in the world. (any one who knows otherwise please corect me if I am wroung, thank you)

 

[Fritz_Brown]

313: Are you asking someone to correct your TO&E or your assertion about Aussie light infantry?

(BTW, loved Brisbane when I was there five years ago.)

 

[BetterThanLife]

Actually Machinegun teams are 4 man units. Gunner, Assistant Gunner, and two ammo carriers. (At least on the tables of organization.) (Everyone except the Gunner also carries an assault rifle.) When I ran a weapons squad in a Light Infantry company in the Indiana Army National Guard, we had 3 machineguns and 2 dragons on our TOE. (Though our manning on a regular basis left us with two machinegun teams and they never let us play with the Dragons.) We were authorized 13 people, including me. Which meant that we either were to go with 2 Machineguns and 2 Dragons or 3 Machineguns, though a Dollar says that I would have found a way to take all of it.

(Probably by using 3 man teams for the Machineguns and carrying one myself.

)

I would think that PGMP/FGMP teams would be two person teams. One gunner and a Rifleman (who carries an extra fuel pack). Though since they are self contained I like the one man per FGMP myself.

IMTU, The Imperial Marines are organized into 4 man teams, two per squad (8 Marines per squad) 3 Riflemen and a Fusion Gunner per team. 3 Rifle Squads and a Energy Weapons (6 FGMP and 2 Riflemen per squad) Squad Plus Platoon Sergeant, Platoon Leader, and Medic per Platoon. Or 35 Marines, not Coincidentally the number of Marines that fit on a Type-T (Squad) and a Kinunir (Platoon).

150 Marines in a Company. (4 Platoons and a Commander, First Sergeant, Supply Sergeant, Company Clerk, Supply Clerk/Armorer, Senior Medic and 4 Mechanics.) (What fits on an AHL.)

So far I haven't had to actually break down anything larger than a Company. But I would put a Batalion at 4 Rifle Companies, an Artillery Battery, a Recon Platoon, a Maintenance Platoon, A Batalion Aid Station and the Batalion HQ Staff. (With a possible attached Armor Company.)

Originally posted by Employee 2-4601:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Bhoins:
3 man fire teams? Interesting. Kind of sidesteps the old military ideal that everyone has one buddy they are responsible for and who is responsible for them. (Two = one, one = none) It also causes problems when it comes time to defend an area. generally foxholes are set up as two person positions. (Primarily so you aren't falling asleep by yourself, and because nobody in a defensive position fires straight ahead. (You fire out at an angle left and right from a position, and deny an enemy a straight shot from their lines into your position.)

You have a point. However,my rationale was that in a specialist team (machinegun/plasma), you'll have one gunner, one loader/support and one gun commander; in a normal team, you'll have two troopers walking in front, and one defending their rear/flank. Remember, this is a Marine unit organization; small, mobile teams operating in relatively hostile territories. Having 3 directions of fire is a good idea. </font>[/QUOTE]

 

[BetterThanLife]

Funny I thought the SAS were the best Light Infantry Forces in the World. Or did you mean Non-Spec Ops Forces? (And yes I do rate the Austrailian SAS as in the top 5 Spec Ops Forces in the World (Probably number 3 or 4). Which considering their relative lack of combat experience, until recently, is saying something. The Question on 3 or 4 is based on my lack of personal knowledge of the British SBS. Considering that I am a Yank, and we have all sorts of Spec Ops units, I only put one of ours in the top 3 and the next one might make 5, but more likely 6. (The SEALS, by their own admission are number 2 in the world to the British SAS.

)

Originally posted by 313:
My Cousin maried a guy who is a carpenter for the army (he is a builder for deffence force housing) and he must stay qualified as a rifle-man as do all the sparkies, bricklayers and plumbers he works with, also got a bunch of AJ (& Ex-AJ) mates and their all riflemen and somthing else as well (some times two somthing eleses) and the way they talk spechilists are orginised at verous leavals of the TO&E but are enbeded in not attched to their uints unless their mode of operaision demands otherwise, providing for "Lean & Mean" uints, but we Auissies do have the best light Infantry (Regluar) forces in the world. (any one who knows otherwise please corect me if I am wroung, thank you)

 

[BetterThanLife]

Oh as far as Ranks go.
IMTU Team Leader is a Sergeant, Squad Leader is a Staff Sergeant, Platoon Sergeant is a Gunnery Sergeant, Platoon Leader is a First Lt., Company First Sergeant is a First Sergeant and Company Commander is a Captain. Batalion Commander is a Lt. Col and the Bn Senior NCO is a Sergeant Major. Those are ideal situations. You may find a person one rank down filling a leadership role.

IMTU
E-1 is a Private
E-2 is a Private First Class
E-3 is a Lance Corporal
E-4 is a Corporal
E-5 is a Sergeant
E-6 is a Staff Sergeant
E-7 is a Gunnery Sergeant
E-8 is a First Sergeant (Master Gunnery Sergeant in a Staff Position)
E-9 is a Sergeant Major.

Though I am considering adopting the Honorverse rank structure for Marines. Eliminating the Gunnery Sergeant/Master Gunnery Sergeant ranks and replacing them with Sergeant First Class and Master Sergeant then calling the Senior NCO of a unit Gunney.

That is the enlisted Structure for the US Marine Corps.

Officers in the Imperial Marines, IMTU are as follows.
O1 Second Lieutenant
O2 First Lieutenant (Platoon Leader)
O3 Captain (Company Commander, Bn Staff officer)
O4 Major (Batalion XO, Brigade Staff Officer)
O5 Lieutenant Colonel (Batalion Commander, Division Staff Officer)
O6 Colonel (Brigade Commander, Division Department head)
O7 Brigader General (Independent Brigade Commander)
O8 Major General (Division Commander)
O9 Lieutenant General (Corps Commander)
O10 General (Army Group, Sector Marine Commander, Chief of Staff, etc.)

This is all heavily influenced by US doctrine. But then again with the fall of the Soviet Union, there appears to be two choices in Large Armies to base the tradition on and I don't speak Chinese.

While I am not putting down the British Army, the Austrailian Army or any of our allies, or friends or even enemies with that statement and I mean no offense by it, it is basically true that there are only two modern large Armies (And I am not so sure about the Moderness of the Chinese Army.) to form future doctrine from. The British and Austrailian Armies, while very good are just smaller.

 

[Andrew Boulton]

They'd be bigger if the US military didn't keep bombing them by mistake...

 

[BetterThanLife]

I'm sorry, that isn't really funny. But I needed that laugh today. Thanks. Besides I was under the impression it was Canadians we keep bombing.

Originally posted by Andrew Boulton:
They'd be bigger if the US military didn't keep bombing them by mistake...

 

[aramis]

Originally posted by Bhoins:
3 man fire teams? Interesting. Kind of sidesteps the old military ideal that everyone has one buddy they are responsible for and who is responsible for them. (Two = one, one = none) It also causes problems when it comes time to defend an area. generally foxholes are set up as two person positions. (Primarily so you aren't falling asleep by yourself, and because nobody in a defensive position fires straight ahead. (You fire out at an angle left and right from a position, and deny an enemy a straight shot from their lines into your position.)

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Aramis:
Now, from MTU...

certain elite merc units use:
3 man FT: 2 pvts and a LCpl/Cpl
2 FT + Sgt/SSgt = Sqd
1 Tank=Sqd

</font>[/QUOTE]The three man teams worked out the way they did as two soldats and a LCPL...

The campaign where this org originated was from an elite merc unit... and defined for MTU the nature of elite forces IMTU.

Y'see, the guy with the plasma is the prime target; the rest of the team needs to support him. The SL moves teams at a time. Then again, the squad comm is usually lasercomm backed up by radio...

I recently used a more traditional org for a marine In-service game. Interesting thing is that they set up a system of comm channels.
Each squad had a channel of it's own. All members TXRX
Each Plt had a channel of it's own, All NCO's and Plt Ldr TXRX, platoon memebers Rx only.
Each Co had an All call (CO, XO, Ops, 1Sgt, PltLdrs and Plt Sgts TXRX, all others in Co Rx Only), a Cadre (All NCO's and Officers, TXRX. No "members", and Co Chat (all members TXRX, No official data...)
Each Bn had a Bn All Call (Bn CO, XO, B1Sgt, all Bn Staff Officers, all Co CO XO and 1Sgt TXRX, all others Rx only), BnCadre (Bn CO, XO, B1Sgt, all Bn Staff Officers, all Co CO XO and 1Sgt TXRX), Bn Staff (CO, XO and staff officers and staff not assigned to subordinate units, all TXRX), and BnHQ (All persons in the HC plt TXRX), plus Tac1-5 (each is not a normal Rx, but is available to all persons)
Reg HQ added Reg All Call (Reg CO, XO, RSM, Ops, Bn CO's B1Sgt's all TXRX, all others in regt Rx Only), Reg Cadre (All Reg NCO's and officers TXRX), Reg HQ, FDC Call (all qualed FO's TXRX, Battery and Gun Commanders TXRX, Gun Crews Rx), and Compound Watch (current watch detail TXRX, all others Rx), plus comms reprog channel (Reg & Bn Signalman TXRX, all others auto RX).

What is interesting in what they did is that the suboardinate leaders had transmit and recieve, but their subordinates were generally recieve only, and that the chat channels were for just that, idle chat. All the coms were equipped with Voice recognition switching.

They made excellent use of them... and had detailed override priorities, too.

Good for them the Regiment was the deployed unit. Too bad they were "Drop Deployed" (IE, the naval support did NOT stick around after insertion), and they were on "Take then hold until relieved" orders.

 

[Glen Allen Mcinnes]

On the Australian Army is the best light infantry force in the world I did (in brackes) say regular as I know that their are speshlist, elite and spechial forces unint out their that would eat aussie grunts for brekfarst, but wo do have the best grunts pound for pound cause we spend the cash to make sure we do!

as for the Paltoon leaval setup of TO&E please tell me if its wroung to have combat feild spechilists like demo (not full blowen EOD) guys and sutch at the pointy end, I mean its grate for comedy value to have some dude who sounds like his mothers his brother and fathers his cousin (you know shalow end of the gean pool types) go "Hey Sar'nt, can U get the ell-tee to call the capin' and get dem dar boom squad boys to run up hear, cause I think I dun found me a wire" but its not how I'd like to head out in to less than freindily tertory knowint that me and the boys N' gals I work with can handle most situations all on our lonsome if need be.

 

[Falkayn]

Originally posted by Bhoins:

I'm sorry, that isn't really funny. But I needed that laugh today. Thanks. Besides I was under the impression it was Canadians we keep bombing.
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Andrew Boulton:
They'd be bigger if the US military didn't keep bombing them by mistake...

</font>[/QUOTE]That just shows how good the Aussies are!

Seriously though, it's pretty pointless doing the mine's better than yours gig as it depends (a lot) on the parameters you use to measure them by.

[What I want to know is which army has the best food? That's what I call an important measure - probably the Italians.]

Aussie soldiers are great - but we tend to specialise in small unit operations. I doubt we'd be able to pull off a decent invasion if we were asked to (although we are great at helping a large army like the US do so).

 

[BetterThanLife]

I remember the 7th, the 25th and the 9th did quite a bit of training with the Aussies in the Late 80s early 90s. (Before the 7th and the 9th were downsized.) And the people I knew in those exercises spoke positively about the experience.

My personal experience unfortunately didn't head in that direction. (My time in the US Army had me focused on the European Theatre primarily, so while I did get to meet and interact with some of my British Counterparts and SAS boys I never did get the opportunity to meet any Aussies.

Though I did, in BNOC, get very well aquainted with Aussie Beer. (Because there was a limit on how many cans we could have in the fridge but not the size of the cans and Fosters comes in those nice big cans.

)

I do know some guys that were in the 7th and the 9th that would definitely disagree with you, though I can't say they were right. (Although in those days over 75% of the 9th were Ranger Qualified.) Is a US Ranger Batalion SOF or just Light Infantry?

As for specialists on point? Doesn't happen, normally. Though each Infantryman is trained on detecting and navigating minefields, hell even us REMFs were (I was a REMF long before I actually got my Infantry training.). (For those interested that is Rear Echelon....

)And most are trained in dealing with booby traps. And of course setting mines and boobytraps. THe specialist EOD/Engineer guys were for clearing paths after the Infantry guys already were across and secured the other side. There is some definite training but not as extensive as the EOD guys get. And since the EOD guys get the extensive training they aren't allowed to actually find the minefield by walking into it. (They are too valuable to blow up by accident, I guess.

)

Originally posted by 313:
On the Australian Army is the best light infantry force in the world I did (in brackes) say regular as I know that their are speshlist, elite and spechial forces unint out their that would eat aussie grunts for brekfarst, but wo do have the best grunts pound for pound cause we spend the cash to make sure we do!

as for the Paltoon leaval setup of TO&E please tell me if its wroung to have combat feild spechilists like demo (not full blowen EOD) guys and sutch at the pointy end, I mean its grate for comedy value to have some dude who sounds like his mothers his brother and fathers his cousin (you know shalow end of the gean pool types) go "Hey Sar'nt, can U get the ell-tee to call the capin' and get dem dar boom squad boys to run up hear, cause I think I dun found me a wire" but its not how I'd like to head out in to less than freindily tertory knowint that me and the boys N' gals I work with can handle most situations all on our lonsome if need be.

 

[BetterThanLife]

If I were to measure who I would want on my side and/or have to share a foxhole with the Aussies would definitely be near the top of my personal choice list. (And the top of that list is definitely impressive.)

Originally posted by Falkayn:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Bhoins:

I'm sorry, that isn't really funny. But I needed that laugh today. Thanks. Besides I was under the impression it was Canadians we keep bombing.
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Andrew Boulton:
They'd be bigger if the US military didn't keep bombing them by mistake...

</font>[/QUOTE]That just shows how good the Aussies are!

Seriously though, it's pretty pointless doing the mine's better than yours gig as it depends (a lot) on the parameters you use to measure them by.

[What I want to know is which army has the best food? That's what I call an important measure - probably the Italians.]

Aussie soldiers are great - but we tend to specialise in small unit operations. I doubt we'd be able to pull off a decent invasion if we were asked to (although we are great at helping a large army like the US do so). </font>[/QUOTE]

 

[alanb]

Originally posted by Bhoins:
it is basically true that there are only two modern large Armies (And I am not so sure about the Moderness of the Chinese Army.) to form future doctrine from. The British and Austrailian Armies, while very good are just smaller.

There are a whole bunch of British style armies out there: India, Pakistan...

There are also a bunch of "European style" forces too, mainly in French-influenced Africa, plus odd cases like East Timor, whose army has had at least part of its training provided by Portugal(!).

The real sleeper, though, would be the forces that grow up from guerrilla and militia forces, not to mention the ones that are descended from the old Soviet model. These are still around, and will continue to stay around.

While it's easy to dismiss them, they are still often effective military forces. See Vietnam for further details.

 

[aramis]

Technically, a Ranger Unit is a SOF, since there are non-ranger LtInf units, rangers have special traaining required to be assigned in unit, and that training is (supposedly) not routinely available and is (supposedly) harder than MOS trainging.

Special Operations Forces are not of need Elite; by many measures, the entire USMC is a SOF... I disagree, but hey...

The continuing nature of specialization of units in the US military tends to blur the SOF (SpecOpsForces). Of all of the SOF's, the rangers seem to be the "least special", partly because there are so many of them.

And not all SOF types are considered Elite, either...

My how the ranger image has changed since their inception.

And AlanB is quite right... a lot of colonials of various powers have non-US/UK origins.

Soviet GF ranks are one of the earliest codifications of rank; the rank structure in modern use is essentially that put in place by Peter the Great, in the table of ranks.

Side note, quite valuable idea for Traveller HGTU's: During Tsarist period, those who rose through the ranks also could, and usually would, upon attaining flag/general ranks, be eleveated to a minor peerage... same for equivalent government civil service ranks. The Prikaz covering this is the same one which gives the table of ranks.

And I was thinking, and I recalled that not all soviet GF used Caporal... I think the other term is Efreytor, but I am not certain...