Shotgun -- it's clear you've not led a Singaporean infantry
section before. By doctrine, the 7 man section is divided into 3
fireteams or "groups", with 2 men each, and the section leader
accompanying one of the teams (usually the first "assault" team).
Other ad hoc arrangements are possible.
My personal take on this is that a 7 man team is appropriate. It's
not just a matter of manpower. In close terrain, large elements are
difficult to maneuver and coordinate. A 2 man group is about right
for both FIBUA and jungle fighting, in my experience. This leads
naturally to a 7 man section with a section commander.
Why not larger teams? Contrary to what people think, larger teams
do not mean more firepower. You still need to deploy your men with
appropriate spacing between them, so a 10 man section has just as
many "men per metre" as a 7 man section. Firepower is a measure of
the equipment carried by the soldier and his skill at using
it.
The size of your combat formations is a training or command and
control issue, rather than a firepower issue. The pros and cons of
larger vs smaller combat formations, IIRC:
1. Larger formations have room for redundancy. One of the posters
mentioned how combat and administrative losses might make our 7 man
sections inoperative in combat. This is true, and a weakness of our
formations. If one man in a 3 man fireteam is killed, it's bad. But
if one man in a 2 man fireteam is killed, the team has been
rendered ineffective.
2. Larger sections can be more diverse and flexible in terms of
equipment. That seems to be the main thing being focussed on in
this discussion. It's hard to carry 4 or 5 types of weapons to deal
with a wider variety of situations if there are just a few men in
your section. However, I feel that this is overstretching the role
of an infantry section. It's much easier to evade in jungle or
urban terrain, so it isn't as necessary to be able to take out all
kinds of threats you might run into. Also, carrying all that stuff,
reduces the strength of the section in its primary roles. Jack of
all trades, master of none.
3. Larger formations need more space to deploy. If your men are
used to fight in 10 man sections, then they will need around 30
metres to deploy "3-up". Find me a 30 metre wide space in jungle.
They can of course deploy differently, but they aren't trained or
used to doing that. They will have a tendency to "cluster fuck".
This small example is only the tip of the iceberg. The size of your
section has to be appropriate to the terrain.
4. Larger formations are harder to control. In jungle, you can
hardly see 5 metres in any direction standing up. How are you going
to effectively command 9 other men deployed across 30 metres while
prone? (Where are my men? Can they hear me? Who is the one shouting
goddammit? Where is the fucking enemy?) It's not easy. It is not
uncommon for the 2 men in a fireteam to lose each other in a
maneuver in jungle. Imagine 10 men trying to maintain coherency.
Then imagine trying to command three of these in a platoon. In an
ambush, the front will be getting massacred, and the back won't
even know what the hell that noise in front is. In contrast, in
desert, you can see clearly for hundreds of metres in all
directions, so command and control is a lot easier.
In Vietnam, US Army and Marine Corps commanders often split their
10 man sections into smaller 2 man fireteams for these reasons. I
feel that the situation as it stands now is OK. Regarding
administrative and combat losses, redistribution of men between
sections in a company can usually make up for this, since there are
only 3 kinds of man in an infantry section (LAW, M203, SAW), though
it is still a weakness.
