Research: optimal dismount number for infantry squads

[Aaron Fox]

So, I've been doing some research for various settings, and one thing that shows up is the argument of just how large the dismount squad should be. One very old study indicates somewhere between 11-15, and an article -using 'ape politics' research- indicates that three teams of 5 (for a total of 15) are optimal.

So far, my Google-fu has been lacking, and it's a lot harder than I realize to find such studies.

In addition, the only good links I've got are from Reddit -specifically WarCollege- of all places.

 

[The Whispering Monk]

The problem with anything much over 6 personnel un-assing a vehicle is that it is REALLY easy to get something screwed up. Squeezing grunts into/out of sardine can may be simple, but it's not easy. How much time does the vehicle have to stay still to mount and dismount? This directly correlates to how long it and it's squishies are sitting targets.

Also, if you go much bigger than a 6-man load you have to start making your mechanized unit MUCH bigger to fit them and their equipment in. Bigger vehicle is a bigger target, means it's harder to relocate both tactically and strategically, and it's more expensive to upkeep in money and time.

 

[Marduk]

The problem with anything much over 6 personnel un-assing a vehicle is that it is REALLY easy to get something screwed up. Squeezing grunts into/out of sardine can may be simple, but it's not easy. How much time does the vehicle have to stay still to mount and dismount? This directly correlates to how long it and it's squishies are sitting targets.

Also, if you go much bigger than a 6-man load you have to start making your mechanized unit MUCH bigger to fit them and their equipment in. Bigger vehicle is a bigger target, means it's harder to relocate both tactically and strategically, and it's more expensive to upkeep in money and time.

It's not 1960's anymore and a IFV being slightly bigger or smaller makes no difference for all the computer guided weapons it needs to be protected against. The bigger issue is squeezing all the gear an armored vehicle needs for decent survivability (anti mine, anti air, anti missile, anti KE, EM warfare, anti-fire, sensors, anti-sensors, weapons to defend itself and so on) alongside the grunts. An early cold war era metal can would just be that, a metal can with engine, tracks or wheels, a machinegun or something bigger in early IFVs, and a lot of room for dismounts. Which is why most of the new IFVs, if not constrained by need for aeromobility or amphibious capability, tend to end up big, heavy, and with few dismounts anyway.
Now any new first rate IFV is effectively a light, if not medium tank that also happens to carry a few dismounts.

 

[Aaron Fox]

It's not 1960's anymore and a IFV being slightly bigger or smaller makes no difference for all the computer guided weapons it needs to be protected against. The bigger issue is squeezing all the gear an armored vehicle needs for decent survivability (anti mine, anti air, anti missile, anti KE, EM warfare, anti-fire, sensors, anti-sensors, weapons to defend itself and so on) alongside the grunts. An early cold war era metal can would just be that, a metal can with engine, tracks or wheels, a machinegun or something bigger in early IFVs, and a lot of room for dismounts. Which is why most of the new IFVs, if not constrained by need for aeromobility or amphibious capability, tend to end up big, heavy, and with few dismounts anyway.
Now any new first rate IFV is effectively a light, if not medium tank that also happens to carry a few dismounts.

It should be noted that technology also has a large determining factor in this sort of thing. Oddly, technology forces squad sizes to increase, not decrease. The future will likely have you adding someone with an E-War package or drones as standard for a squad, not some platoon or company-level asset.

We've seen in Ukraine where just having a low number of dismounts is a death sentence.

 

[Marduk]

It should be noted that technology also has a large determining factor in this sort of thing. Oddly, technology forces squad sizes to increase, not decrease. The future will likely have you adding someone with an E-War package or drones as standard for a squad, not some platoon or company-level asset.

We've seen in Ukraine where just having a low number of dismounts is a death sentence.

And there is a good argument why storage and power for this gear should be vehicle based, rather than taking from the very limited carrying capability of the dismount's backs.

 

[Aaron Fox]

And there is a good argument why storage and power for this gear should be vehicle based, rather than taking from the very limited carrying capability of the dismount's backs.

That heavily depends on the technological context, to be honest. We're just heading into a context where you'll need more people, period.

 

[Marduk]

That heavily depends on the technological context, to be honest. We're just heading into a context where you'll need more people, period.

Not necessarily people, and not necessarily right on the frontline. I'd say more of the people would be wrangling machines and software instead of performing the roles that machines and software took over from people.

 

[Husky_Khan]

A multiple of four to have proper fireteams so twelve ideally plus one for the Commissar to motivate them to leave the safety of their IFV., maintain the Emperor's faith and purge the cowardly. So lucky 13.

Or otherwise subdivided like 4+4+5 or somesuch.

 

[Aaron Fox]

A multiple of four to have proper fireteams so twelve ideally plus one for the Commissar to motivate them to leave the safety of their IFV., maintain the Emperor's faith and purge the cowardly. So lucky 13.

Or otherwise subdivided like 4+4+5 or somesuch.

It should be noted that the USMC is going for a 15-man squad regime thanks to experiences in Iraq, where 13 is just not good enough.

 

[The Whispering Monk]

Honesly, three-man teams work well too.

 

[Aaron Fox]

Honesly, three-man teams work well too.

From what the USMC discovered in Iraq? No. Especially if the enemy knows your playbook.

[give thanks to Battle Order]

Basically, between the fact that 3-man teams are deemed too risky (especially when the enemy knows your playbook and plans around them) and evolving conditions, the USMC decided that 15 men are going to be required (especially given that the squad leader is going to get some help in offloading his duties, because people can't generalize after a certain point despite Heinlein or those with similar thoughts (i.e., 'soft' science isn't science, "humans aren't ants", the like) comments of the contrary).

 

[Marduk]

It should be noted that the USMC is going for a 15-man squad regime thanks to experiences in Iraq, where 13 is just not good enough.

It could well be, for USMC. It's not like Army mechanized infantry, for starters they don't even use IFVs, which is a fundamental divergence from classic mechanized infantry that does.
No one is going to design IFVs for those who won't use them anyway.
Secondly, Iraq was a COIN fight, so YMMV.
Loosen RoE, add more artillery and airstrikes, add IFVs, and you suddenly are fighting a very different war than USMC in Iraq. One where for starters the squad needs to carry a lot less heavy weaponry and ammo for it on their backs, because the IFVs are out there with their heavy weaponry and spare ammo.

 

[Zachowon]

Unless it is light infantry or airborne.

Honestly, the Army currently has What is needed.
You have 2 fire teams of 4 with a Squad leader and often a radio or other type of support.
So 9 to 10 people total in a squad

 

[Aaron Fox]

Unless it is light infantry or airborne.

Honestly, the Army currently has What is needed.
You have 2 fire teams of 4 with a Squad leader and often a radio or other type of support.
So 9 to 10 people total in a squad

The problem is that the studies that the army did say the opposite; you need something on the order of 3 groups of 3 or 4 to be effective from the older studies, ala the USMC, but given that the 'rule of two' is so heavily embedded into the Army (that rule was created during the Korean War), such a change is impossible.

It could well be, for USMC. It's not like Army mechanized infantry, for starters they don't even use IFVs, which is a fundamental divergence from classic mechanized infantry that does.
No one is going to design IFVs for those who won't use them anyway.
Secondly, Iraq was a COIN fight, so YMMV.
Loosen RoE, add more artillery and airstrikes, add IFVs, and you suddenly are fighting a very different war than USMC in Iraq. One where for starters the squad needs to carry a lot less heavy weaponry and ammo for it on their backs, because the IFVs are out there with their heavy weaponry and spare ammo.

It should be noted that ISIS was basically an infantry-heavy army, ala Vietnam, by that point, and the lessons learned there are viable in peer-tier conflicts as well.

 

[Zachowon]

The problem is that the studies that the army did say the opposite; you need something on the order of 3 groups of 3 or 4 to be effective from the older studies, ala the USMC, but given that the 'rule of two' is so heavily embedded into the Army (that rule was created during the Korean War), such a change is impossible.

It should be noted that ISIS was basically an infantry-heavy army, ala Vietnam, by that point, and the lessons learned there are viable in peer-tier conflicts as well.

Except a squad never operates truly alone.
You have 4 squads per platoon. A platoon is often what assaults ans is the level often needed for an attack or assault

 

[Marduk]

The problem is that the studies that the army did say the opposite; you need something on the order of 3 groups of 3 or 4 to be effective from the older studies, ala the USMC, but given that the 'rule of two' is so heavily embedded into the Army (that rule was created during the Korean War), such a change is impossible.

It should be noted that ISIS was basically an infantry-heavy army, ala Vietnam, by that point, and the lessons learned there are viable in peer-tier conflicts as well.

Still COIN with perfidious opponents hiding among civilians, rather than a proper military with clear military targets, supply lines, state of origin and so on.
Between that, and the heavy focus on "optics" that comes with COIN as far as US is concerned, that makes it a much more infantry focused fight than others would be, with far greater involvement of armor and fires.
The lessons may be more relevant to specific scenarios that force infantry based fights (like, say, jungle with air denial), but not so much others, but then again, to many of such scenarios, IFVs are not appropriate due to the nature of the scenario anyway, as anywhere you can bring them, you can usually bring tanks and artillery too.

 

[Zachowon]

The US Army has made the squad it has remain the same since we trained for LSCO...just the make up has changed