If you want a written summary of each of these squad organizations, check the link in the description for the companion article to this video! Also, here are the time stamps for each of the years covered if you are looking for just one of them: 0:41 - 1918 (WW1) 1:36 - 1920 (Interwar) 2:04 - 1927 (Interwar) 2:15 - 1938 (Interwar) 3:19 - 1942 (WW2) 4:02 - 1943 (WW2) 4:15 - 1944 (WW2) 4:44 - 1945 (WW2) 5:47 - 1948 (Cold War) 6:30 - 1950 (Korean War) 6:55 - 1952 (Korean War) 7:27 - 1956 (Cold War) 8:25 - 1960 (Cold War) 8:52 - 1963 (Vietnam War) 10:01 - 1967 (Vietnam War) 10:29 - 1970 (Vietnam War) 10:49 - 1975 (Cold War) 11:24 - 1984 (Cold War) 12:00 - 1986 (Cold War) 12:12 - 1992 (Post-Cold War) 12:18 - 2007 (GWOT) 12:36 - 2016 (GWOT)
Question for you. ....Did the modern army not abolish the spec4f rank and now is just secialist (SPC)? I think all the other specialist ranks E5 and above no longer exist!
I have a question that’s of a theoretical nature. What do you believe the evolution of the infantry squad would look like? Looking a few decades in the future with new weapon systems, communication systems, a possibly more efficient supply chains, do you predict any substantial changes to unit size and organization? I ask because I like to play tabletop war games and I notice many games really limit players in terms of weapon options and usage. For example, it’s very common to have a series of 5 or 6-man teams fielded with only one special weapon operator included. That seems like a poorly-equipped unit, in my opinion, but I wonder if it could explained adequately?
According to the official Army documentary “Kelly’s Heroes “ , the 1944 squad consisted of ten Thompson SMGs and one M1919. M1911s were also issued to everyone.
It was wartime. "Issuing" wasn't necessary. It wasn't hard to pick up a dead man's weapon and keep it. Who was going to complain about having too much firepower ?
I know this is a joke...but let me be autistic here for a second: 1: There's _one_ rifle in that unit, what are you talking about? 2: It's an almost entirely off-the-books operation. 3: All of their weapons were acquired through "unofficial requisitioning". 4: You forgot the 2 BARs. 5: You forgot Oddball's entire unit including: - Custom Engines and transmission boxes on their M4s. - 76mm guns on Small turret M4s. - Custom barrel shrouds to make the guns look bigger. - Paint ammunition. - Dat Boombox The entire point of that entire cadre is that absolutely nothing is standard there and the "heroes" is sarcastic.
@@The_Crimson_Fucker Oddballs outfit was also equipped with time travel equipment to go forward in time and obtain records of a song that was produced 15 years after the war ended, ya know incase the Germans threatened Paris or even New York they could move in, and stop them.
My grandfather was in the army (1952-1954) and when I saw pictures of his rank, I saw the 3 chevrons over 1 rocker and assumed he was a staff sergeant even though he always said he never remembered being promoted to that rank. Thanks for clearing the brief rank change up, I couldnt find this information anywhere on the internet.
As an Infantry Squad Leader in Iraq in 04-05 my squad weapons consisted of 1 M-14, 2 M-203, 2 M-249 Short barrel, 4 M-4's, 1 Mossberg 500 with dual pistol grip, 1 M-9 and my "Unofficial" Browning Hi-Power I traded an Iraq Police chief with for some unaccounted for smoke grenades. When we left Theatre I was down to 5 men. Me the Squad Leader with the M-14, 2 SAWS and 2 Grenadiers. My 1114 Up armored Hummer had a .50 mounted so one of my SAW Gunners was also the .50 gunner with the saw on a side mount in case the .50 went down. So boots on ground my Squad was a fire team by the end.
What did you think of the M-14 compared to the M-4? I worked on a Navy chartered container ship in 03-04, and we had a small armory; M-14, M-9 and the Mossberg. Really enjoyed shooting the M-14 in qualifying, but thats a WHOLE different world than taking it on patrol in combat...
@@stephenbritton9297 I liked the M-14 for longer range work and stopping cars. I got a Bronze Star w/ V and an ARCOM w/ V due to what I was able to do with the M-14. For Combat Shotguns I prefer anything over the Mossberg I had a failure in Iraq that required armorer level to unfuck.
Mike Brase We used the A1 and when I see the m4 with the scope and other attachments I keep thinking of getting snagged up in the pucker brush and vines. Can you strip them down in case we end up in say the Philippines?
@@hoppes9658 you can configure them however you like with the modular rail system. The rails have helped take lethality to a whole nother level. IR lasers, IR floodlights, flashlights etc. Can all be mounted or demounted to fit the mission/ environment.
Reid Parker No. You dig a hole to sleep in. Before that you set trip wire for flares and wire up your claymores on any trail or area that comes close to your spot.
When I deployed to Afghanistan in 2014, my squad consisted of a squad leader, two team leaders with the M320, one SAW gunner, and three riflemen. Our platoon medic was part of our squad for accountability reasons but would be on our platoon sergeant's hip if we took contact. I was in a light Cav squadron but even so, the squads in the regular infantry battalions were more or less in the same shape my squad was. Makes me believe that the Army should increase squad size to account for manpower shortages but my opinion ain't worth much to generals.
To increase unit size, you must recruit more folks overall. Or get ready to disappoint a lot of folks who joined up to be veterinarians, or chopper mechanics, etc. The best squad size is 12. SL, AR, GRN, and 3 riflemen. ASL, etc. ,1 rifle is RTO in fire team 1. ASL is RTO in fire team 2. This gives each fire team base of fire plus a significant maneuver element. But the best is the enemy of the good enough. Hell, everybody rides now, in their own mini tank anyhow. Except for Airborne, are there any light units left? Rangers are Airborne, so I just lumped them in.
Love how u mentioned lower ranks filling in for tl and sl. Also like how u mentioned the jr guy tends to get the saw, rather then the sr spc that doctrine says. When i was sl in a line squad i always gave the saw to one of the jr guys. Id rather the sr spc have the GL. The reason was he was next up for TL and tendes to be acting tl, and i didnt want him encumbered by a SAW or have to trade it off. Also he had put in his time and deserved to carry something a bit lighter. The 40mm is also a bit more tricky to utilize properly and could be more dangerous to friendly troops and civis, so id rather a guy with more seniority do that role. Its funny how in the infantry majority of leaders go against official doctrine and mtoe when it comes to stuff like this. Besides the example i gave above, another perfect one is that i have been a weapons squad leader for a while, and my SR guys are Assistant gunners rather then the doctrinally correct gunner. For many many reasons. And pretty much ever WSL i have ever meet that is at least half way decent runs it that way.
Best reasoning I ever heard and applied was if you’re in buddy teams the tl should be with the SAW so you’ve got most experience with least experience plus control of highest casualty producing weapon, and next most experienced guy buddied with other as rifle/grn for same reasons you posted.
My service was with the 101st in vietnam in 1970. Our infantry platoons were variable but often composed of 5 five man squads. I was the medic attached to a heavy weapons platoon of 4 m60 machine guns. Thus the first squad of 5 consisted of an officer, a radio man, senior non com, medic and one infantry man. The officer was a lieutenant and the senior non com was a platoon Sargent. The other 4 squads consisted of one gunner and assistant gunner and 3 infantry men. The m16 was commonly carried. Some times one man in each squad carried the m79. Ranks varied from Sargent to corporal for the gunner. Every one else were pfcs or spec 4. New guys rarely came in at lesser rank. Dr. K
im glad you mentioned putting privates as saw gunners. they give it too the new guy because it sucks the worst to carry. 1200 rounds, plus the machine gun and your own barrel bag. 240 gunners got ammo bearers and people to carry barrels. i carried a saw for 2 years before becoming grenadier then team leader.
I carried an M-14 in Iraq 04-05 they had been drill rifles for some ROTC unit. When my DM got hit and evac'd to Germany I took his rifle, even though I was a Squad Leader. I was 33 so I was always the trail vehicle and used the 14 on more than one occasion to stop a car ignoring the big fucking machine gun atop my 1114. The M-14 is the weapon system I credit with being responsible for my Bronze Star with V/ Device that and the M-118 ammo I got from the sniper section.
I carried a Winchester M14. I knew through history that I was holding the rifle my grandfather used in basic, and kinda relished that moment. I did stuff to the rifle that would make people throw up nowadays. I used the barrel mount for an M4 to mount a Paq4 to the barrel definitely destroying the harmonics. Looking back it was the cool guy weapon over there. In order to get it, you had to know you're fecal matter. Kirkuk 04-05
I trained in mid 80s with royal Engineers at camp Patawawa, I was with 1st Engineer Big Red One. Yes we shot your. 30 caliber Machine gun it was our ww2 weapon,. So I hear ya.
@@suspicioususer that line is from The Pacific. And on Guadalcanal it was true. The Marines there were still using 03 rifles. The Army adopted Garands in 1938, so... The Marines also were short on Thompson SMGs. They used Reisings.
Why did grenadiers in Vietnam only carry an m79 and a pistol? I'd figure they'd issue an m1 - m2 carbine or something that was more powerful than a pistol. Just curious.
The M79 was considered their primary weapon. At this point, the pistol had come back into vogue replacing the Carbine as the PDW of weapons crews. Between the 30-40 grenades they carried and the rifle sized weapon there wasn’t much room for rifle in addition (at least officially)
See I was was thinking M3 grease guns.... but perhaps not... There is a good reason why NOT to issue them anything more than a pistol (whether you are talking about the carbine or the grease gun, or for that matter any other long arm) actually several reasons 1 The M79 is heavy, the ammunition is heavy. The M1 is heavy the ammunition is heavy 2 every tried carrying 2 long weapons? Switching between them in combat is going to be tedious and awkward. Find a place to put the weapon you are not using is going to be difficult
Logistics: it would have been a problem supplying ammo for a weapon that only 3 men in a rifle platoon carried. And by the late 60’s the carbines were surplussed out of service because they were worn out pieces of shit by that point.
Awesome video. I would point out that we got M4 Carbines (along with the M240) in 1997-1998 timeframe in the Light Infantry Divisions (25th ID and 10th MTN), 82nd Airborne, and 101st Airmobile. We got M4 carbines in my 3rd Scout Platoon in 25th ID around September-October of 1997. Ranger Regiment already got M4A1s in 1994.
I was in the Army from 1990-1994, and our Team Leaders doubled as our Grenadiers. The reasoning behind this was that they could direct fire with Grenades. I was a primarily a SAW Gunner, but I was also an RTO for two years and I was a qualified Dragon Gunner, even though I was lucky enough to never have to fill that role.
Just a little thing, but we usually gave the rifleman in our fire team an acog 4x optic so they could fill the role as a designated marksman. But dude to shortages, sometimes they'd make due with a m68 instead.
Really cool. Would it be possible do give the 12B's a treatment? We cold war engineers would appreciate it. How many 203 gunners out there? Both 11B & 12B.
Good vid. Simple, clear, and with enough allowance for the various preferences and vagaries inherent in the infantry. I also want to commend the narrator. Clearly he's younger than me [I'm in my mid-50's] and avoids the casual 'bro' speech patterns ['Hey dudes, whut is uuup?...']. Your speech style is that of an instructor and it lends your video an air more of a teaching tool and less of a bar room conversation. There is a time and place for both styles, but 'teacher style' fits the purpose of this video.
Also common practice is to rotate positions in training so guys get familiar with all roles and weapons, would suck to have your SAW gunner go down and nobody else knows how to load an open bolt gun. We did this constantly and including to swapping out as TL with SL supervision and training for same reason.
Nice video. My dad was a S/Sgt Platoon Guide for the 3rd Platoon of the 3rd Batallion of the 112th Infantry Regiment of the 28th Infantry Division (D-Day+46) Omaha Beach. I remember him telling of how they went from a squared division to a triangle but never fully grasped the time line he was referring to. It appears you've answered that question @ the 3:19 mark of this video. RU-vid has been filling in the gaps for a bunch of lingering questions I've had about my dad's time in the army. He told a lot of interesting stories but they were seldom put into any kind of chronologial order; that made sense to me. Thanks for helping fill in some of the blanks.
Im guessing the Philippines scouts in 1941 retained the 1938 squad configuration and armament. The 1903 Springfield was more common in the us forces of the far East . Many older people my parents know are sons and daughters of Philippine scout and army veterans who were fighting in bataan from 41 and 42 then captured. They remembered being issued the 1903 and used well during the ill fated campaign to defend their homeland from Japan.
Generally speaking for regular infantry, submarine guns were issued unofficially. After June 1944 each rifle company had 6 they could distribute, but there would be nothing to stop some soldiers from trading a few drivers in another unit to get their issued Thompsons
@@JonathanJonoMiller Airborne were a bit of a different story. By late in the war, Airborne and Standard Rifle Companies had 6 submachine guns in reserve technically, but Airborne units got a lot more unofficially due to their special mission. Six submachine guns would be enough to give 6 out of 9 rifle squads in the company a submachine gun, so with the official allotment not every squad would be able to be armed with even one submachine gun. Who got them was at the company leadership's discretion. However, that doesn't include any unofficial procurement. For example, if a rifle company wanted to trade something with a vehicular unit (all vehicle drivers and tank crewmen were allotted a submachine gun) then they could theoretically have more
The WW2 Army rifle squad was based on the French rifle squad with a fire element (the BAR team) and a maneuver element (riflemen). The 1944 Marine rifle squad was three elements that were combined fire and maneuver elements. Eventually the Army adopted the Marine combined fire and maneuver elements but only two fire teams per squad. The Marines did go to two fire teams during the 1980's but returned to three fire teams per squad. The Army was more mechanized and its squad carriers were a factor limiting squad size--the Bradly IFV originally had a six-Soldier dismount squad. www.militaryfactory.com/armor/detail.asp?armor_id=5 Vehicle capacity limited Army squads. Marine Corps rifle squads were more often foot mobile and not vehicle mounted. As noted, Army rifle squads went into combat understrength, which can compromise the fire team system when the squad is only at 70% strength. Not only did battlefield casualties reduce front-line strength but non-battle injuries, illness, administrative attrition (didn't prioritize keeping the squad at full strength, diverting personnel to support and service functions) usually meant that squads would not fill out their TO&E. Army operations were more often sustained combat and the Army rifle squad often began with less than full squads. Marine operations generally permitted having full rifle squads at the beginning of an operation and the shorter, more intense combat operations of the Pacific Theater permitted this--with longer periods between operations to replace missing Marines. Priority for manpower usually meant that fewer riflemen would be in understrength squads--and if there was only one Soldier per squad, that would most likely be the designated squad leader, followed by the automatic rifleman (or SAW gunner). Rifle squads don't exist in a vacuum and when there's not enough Soldiers to fully staff a squad, the most important positions get filled first. When rifle squads are too understrength the practice is to combine underfed rifle squads into a single, better-staffed squad--that level may be a three-Soldier squad but typically if a squad is smaller than a fire team, it will be merged with another understaffed squad in the same platoon. Keeping the 9 rifle squads in a rifle company up to strength is difficult enough in garrison. Pulling "support troops" from the rifle company (company clerks and bakers and even radio operators) mean that there's nobody left in the company to bring rifle squads up to full strength--but despite consolidating administrative personnel at battalion the companies still have a lot of support and service functions that they have to perform on their own. Using civilian contractors for logistics operations (a return to the past--why use trained soldiers for supply operations?) and automation help--until the unit goes into combat and the logistics tail gets left behind. The day-to-day life of Soldiers makes the tables of organization more Fantasy Island than reality. And then there's the organic fire team organization versus putting a squad on a defensive perimeter and then tasking that squad to cough up a scouting patrol. The perimeter is organized on a fire team basis, placing every key weapon on the perimeter. Now take 50% of your squad to pull a foot patrol out five kilometers (to the horizon on flat terrain)--do you leave behind most of the firepower and keep the perimeter intact or do you maintain unit integrity and send an entire fire team out, leaving a gap in your perimeter? Do you instead do a Hey You mob (cobble together a patrol using personnel from each fire team) instead of using a fire team that has worked together as a unit? The squad began the 20th Century as an administrative unit for messing, billeting and other duties--the First World War made the rifle squad a tactical unit and this is reflected by the First World War rifle squad versus the rifle squads of World War Two. The Great War rifle platoon had several specialty squads. By 1944 the US Army rifle platoon consisted of a platoon headquarters and three rifle squads and all squads were, on paper, equal. Every solution produces new problems.
So very interesting.... thanks for educating me - such a contrast to the organisation of a Rifle or Cavalry Assault Section in the Australian Army during my time in uniform 1975-1985
WWII squads may also have had a 2 man scout team equipped with a M-1 Thompson, or later, an M-3 submachine gun. The scout "C" team would accompany the squad leader on his leaders reconnaissance, would provide frontal or flank security when not in contact with the enemy, and would augment the maneuver "A" team in the assault while the "B" team provided fire support with the BAR. The Squad needs two fire teams led by Sergeants, and a scout section to find the enemy, so neither fire team is pinned down after the enemy is located.
7:05 Could the Army's reversal in its opinion regarding how many men a squad leader could effectively control come from the likelihood that they had more experienced NCOs during the Korean War vs during WWII?
Truman was very unfair to the men who had already served in WWII, but knew that experienced leadership would save lives. So the old guys were drafted again, and Korean war casualties were lower than those in Vietnam under the Whiz Kids.
I was in from '83-'91. I became a sqaud leader in late '85. I had two fire teams of 5 men each, not including a medic and sometimes air defense. We got the M249 in late '85 but kept the M60. Dragon and 90mm RR was interchangeble and sometimes we would take a M2. So 1 SSG SL, 2 SGT Squad leaders mostly with the M203, 2 SPC with M249, leaving 4 men with crew served weapons, 2 for 90MM RR/Dragon but each also had an M16, and 2 for the M60 with 45/9mm. We got the M16a2's in '86 and if it had a 203 that was also replaced. This was "light" infantry and I am not sure the layout differences between divisions but most of the 75th, 503rd, 23rd battalions and guys I knew from the 25, 82, 101 and 10th all had about the same layouts during those times. A bit different and we never dropped down to 9 man while I was in so that must have been in the works. Not mechanized ever so I do not know about those units.
the introduction of the mk48 variant of the m240b 7.62 medium machine gun changed squad line up in afghanistan. the 249 5.56 didn't have the punch or range of the 7.62 guns. the mk48 is a medium machine gun with weight of light machine gun making it possible. the squad replaced both m249 gunners with 1 mk48 gunner and an assistant gunner giving every squad a medium machine gun that worked with great affect. this currently the dream line up but not fully implemented stateside yet for lack of mk48 medium machine guns.
I can't comment on current organization and tactics, but when I worked with the Air Force Security Police Air Base Ground Defense training program back in the 1980s they had patterned their squads after Marine units. As I recall, each flight (platoon) was composed of at least three 12-man or 13-man squads which were broken down into three fire teams. In addition to the squad leader, we had two or three team leaders armed with M16s. Each team leader controlled a rifleman (M16), grenadier (M16/203) and a M60 gunner. This heavy arrangement gave each squad more reach and firepower than a typical Army infantry squad of that time. Our emphasis was on defense more than offense, and since our forces did not have to do extended long range patrolling, it may have been a more practical arrangement for us.
@@Damo2690 Can say that again! Always awkward when doing exercises with the US/Canada army due to how their ranks are so mismatched but have the same names as Brit/Aus/NZ armies. Seeing someone think a platoon sergeant is 'just' a fireteam leader is always awkward.
I still think the 11 man squad was the superior format, being better at absorbing losses while being similarly controllable. But I understand why it was decreased to 9 men. It is difficult enough to fit 9 men in the back of an IFV (and the Bradley can't even manage that), and designing one to fit 11 would have been especially challenging (though I'm not convinced it would be impossible). And 9 men allows you to have more divisions in an army of the same size.
GREAT Video - it would be very interesting to add to each of these doctrine squads the rounds per minute of sustained fire and time until all ammo spent...
Man... I still remember waking up in the middle of the night to re-clean and lube my 249. That thing would not run magazines reliably but ate those belts like a hungry hog!
I was in the army when we transition away frome the M203 to the M320. The m320 is grait when in its independent mode sucks when attached to the M4. Most of us the knew better whished they had just stuck to the M203.
FWIW, In 1976, my infantry platoon in A Co, 1/4 Inf had three 11 man squads, at full strength, which was almost never. At Platoon level, I had one 76mm recoilless rifle for AT and one M60 for fire support. We were told we would never be too far from our tracks so the real firepower came from the .50 cals.
Wow! The ranking system makes no sense these days. A sergeant used to be the Platoon Leader's assistant. Squad Leaders were corporals and riflemen were privates. A Staff Sergeant as a Squad Leader makes no sense. Those stripes need to be earned, not given away. Godspeed!
That’s how it is for most armies honestly. The US has a huge rank inflation. I can understand the rationale behind raising it during WW2 but seems to just be a holdover from there.
My vision of a future US army rifle squad 2020 through 2025. Sig wins a big military contract for replacing current gen weapons. The Squad leader would have the Sig MCX Virtus 5.56 carbine, 5 other riflemen would have the Sig MCX SPEAR rifle, 2 guys would have the Sig MG 6.8, last man in the squad will have the H&K M110A1 SDMR.
Can I request you to make some videos about South Korean Mechanized Infantry Squad? Those military are the unique one which still keep the Cold-War style massive ground forces even in 21C
Yeah, its simply laziness on the rest of tge squad to give it to the new private. The 249 provides the majority of the squads suppressive and defense fire power, and is more complicated than the basic rifle. Combin that with most of them needing an adept hand because it should have had a depot level rebuild over a decade ago, and it just becomes idiocy to give it to the new guy.
@username_371 yep. Sounds like his experience is based upon the units being habitually understrength leading to the canabilation of the 3rd squad and the wpns squad. Or it could be he was in an mech inf unit that was clinging to old doctrine, as 80s mech inf doctrine provided an MMG to each rifle squad if the unit was still fielding m113s.
We don't have a solid answer as of right now. They are not included in any of the regimental TO&Es of the time. As they were often commercially procured, they may have been regimental or divisional spares (as was the case during WWII for the Marine Corps) that were issued when needed for offensives or patrolling duties.
Short answer: None Long answer: the use of shotguns by the Americans in the First World War is so exaggerated and over blown as to almost be a myth. Trench guns were typically only used on various forms of sentry duty and saw very limited use in offensive action. Shotgun ammo of the day was hideously unreliable in the wet conditions of trench warfare. The paper hulled shells would often swell in the chamber and mag tube, making cycling and feeding impossible. It actually wouldn’t be until the Second World War when brass hulls were issued that shotguns really gained a fearsome combat reputation. As for the Germans diplomatic protest that everyone makes a big deal out of, everyone protested everything. Earlier in the war the British had protested German sawback bayonets. It really was not a big deal.
One of the biggest reasons they cited as to why they decreased the size of the squad was the fact that 12 people is harder to control by conscripted NCOs and replacement conscripts will find it easier to integrate with a smaller squad. However we haven’t had conscripts since 1973, 47 years ago. They also made the incorrect assumption they’ve always made that “weapons development will increase individual firepower and compensate for the lack of firepower in the squad.” Like when they took out the BAR when the M1 was adopted. And even if this is a correct assumption, those improvements are also true for the adversaries of the US, thus negating that advantage and presenting a new disadvantage of having less firepower and personnel in the squad level and making them more susceptible to attrition.
War aways changes. The organizations and the structures of groups change. Weapons and equipment change. The reason people fight change. Nothing is ever the same ever again. No ammount of recreation will the same as the orriginal, but it can be more efficient and more than its past.
"Specialists armed with M249 SAWs although these would not be pravaliant until the early 1990s" Is that because the M16 HBAR was mostly issued as a stopgap measure?
Yeah, im gonna call bull shit on that one bud. The singular m113 for the company 1st sgt doesn't count as "m113 based". Unless you can provide proof a NG unit that still uses m113s for the rifle squads, i will remain believing everything ive seen and herd that postulates that the M113 was removed from rifle squad use (in all facets of the army) almost 3 decades ago in the mid 1990s.
I imagine the French army would work closest to the US Army. Although it's a section-sized element, it also has two team leaders under a single commander. 8-men sections like in Britain is what I'd like to know. I imagine the commander controls his own team while the 2IC's team works semi-independently with the overall section goal in mind.
I have a question, was there any point during the transition to the m14 that arms were mixed in with the weapons they were replacing? (Ie. M14s issued along side BARs and m1s)
Hello, I noticed in your article on the US Army rifle company that the company headquarters had a dedicated bugler (private/PFC) as late as 1944-5. What was the purpose of the bugler and was it used in relaying orders in combat?
Interesting ~! I always wondered how the USA & USMC Squad Structures compared to an Australian (Section) or the British system. Interesting that your US Squads are led by Sgt & SSgt But ours are lead by Cpl. With a LCpl in charge of the one AR (It has probably changed since I left) I like the two fire team system with both AR & Grenade launcher options.
Australian and British Light Infantry cultures are some of the best in the world. Same with Canadians, Danes, Norwegians, and Germans. The British Infantry Center produces high quality infantrymen. My Long Range Surveillance unit was heavily influenced by the proven concepts and techniques that were fundamental in the UK Recon community. We sent a lot of guys to the Brecon Beacons for Cambrian Patrol, as well as to ILRRPS in Germany where all the cadre are senior NATO Special Operations and LRRP soldiers with combined experience you would never find anywhere else in the world. The US Army has a difficult task of training much large groups of Infantrymen, but has doubled the length of Infantry OSUT within the past several years and revamped the whole program. I went through OSUT in early 1994 for 13 weeks. Most of the training was on-the-job which can be great in a unit with excellent leadership, and totally unsat in a unit with risk-averse garritroopers.
The US military has more enlisted ranks than the UK/Australian militaries. A sergeant in the British Army and Royal Marines is equivalent to a Sergeant First Class in the US Army and Staff Sergeant in the USMC, they're usually platoon sergeants, at least as far as 'line' infantry units go. More specialised/elite units might have a sergeant in charge of a smaller unit, like a recce team. It takes about 10-15 years to reach sergeant in the British Army and Royal Marines so they're usually in their 30s and even 40s now, as promotion is slow. There are not many SNCO slots.
I don’t know if anyone else noticed but I picked on the music in the back. Medal of Honor: European assault. Took me back to when I was younger blowin nazis to hell on my PS2
I liked your video but I think some items are wrong. Rifle grenades where introduced in WW1 1918 check out the WW1 museum in Kansas City, MO. Where is the thompson machine gun which is so prevalent in WW2. I know it was there because family members who served in Army Infantry units are holding it in their photos. Also team leaders where exclusively the grendares in the 90s.
My signal retransmission team in Korea 2017 was funny. 1Sgt (M4/M320), 2 SPC (2 M4's & 1 M240 & 1 M249), 1 Katusa (M4). Hanging out at high elevation w/radios
@@NUCL3ARTAC0S drive up, but sometimes we'd have to send one or two guys to go to another hill top. so they'd go with manpack (back pack with a radio) on a little hike just for the day, never sleeping away from the main group.
@@NUCL3ARTAC0S I recognize those numbers, but my main thing wasn't radios so I didn't learn much or remember much. I just did what I was told well enough not to be scolded lol, and I still got 2 AAM's in that one year in Korea
Nice vid mate. And love your desings about army structure. Wanna ask sth. Why some troops in an army unit are attached to their higher level organizations? As an example weapons platoon. İnstead of deploying each wpns squad with a rifle platoon why do they have dedicated unit? The thing goes same for all types of units, artilerry, recon, medic, AA.
It hasn’t been like that in the Army for generations. Weapons Squad was always part of the Rifle Platoon when I was in. We still had M60s in Weapons Squad, which was replaced by M240Bs in the late 1990s. We also had the Anti-Armor Weapons in Weapons Squad, with the Dragon at first, then replaced by the Javelin. I was in 3 different Battalion-level Recon Platoons, as well as Corps Long Range Surveillance. Battalion-level Recon Platoons help with training the Reconnaissance soldiers, but teams end up basically working for the different line companies often doing recon for them before they hit their objectives. Snipers would also be attached to each line Company operationally. It’s funny because there was no MTO&E for Snipers in the Battalion, but every Light Infantry Battalion I was in had a 9-man Sniper Section in the Recon Platoon, complete with the Sniper Systems. The Army was still trying to figure out how to train and employ Snipers, and still hasn’t got it right. They need Division-level Sniper Schools that can authorize and award the Additional Skill Identifier. The Marines have Division-level schools that award the Sniper MOS, while using Quantico as their Scout Sniper Instructor Course to manage the quality of Instructors who will run the Division-level schools. The Army also needs a formal Designated Marksman course. That should really be taught and run in Infantry OSUT along with a Grenadier, SAW Gunner and Machinegunner Course.
This was very nice on the line infantry squad, but the WW2 US Army Parachute, Ranger, Cavalry and Armored infantry squads varied a great deal from the line infantry squads. The Armored and later Mechanized infantry squads differed a great deal from the line infantry particularly in using Browning MMG (M1919A6) & M60 GPMG into the 1970's, if memory serves.
Ranger and Airborne squads had the M1919 in the squad during WW2. At the time, the armored infantry had no machine guns officially (except for the M1917A1 or M2 mounted on the half-track; the platoon had a dismounted M1919 squad) but they'd often unofficially equip a BAR. The automatic rifle situation of the Cold War kind of necessitated mechanized infantry to use the M60 at squad level in their 'tracks'.
