METTC

>>29470634
What in the actual hell does this have to do with the question

>>29470504
Tradition, communication, doctrine, etc.

>>29470634
>>29472034
>wow its fucking nothing

step it up /k/omrades

>>29470634
Hey guys, I found the ROTC cadet

>>29472112
Well, what do you want me to say? There's a reason why we don't use the Pentomic Division. Human beings can only coordinate so many individual units at once, that's why we have an officer corps to delegate responsibility.

>>29472421
Heh, watch he's gonna start getting indignant in his own defense...

>>29470504
It's about finding a balance between concentration of firepower and ease of communication/logistics.

>>29472495
I don't even know what the Pentomic division is. That's what I'm trying to find out - do the Soviets do huge units because they have few officers, does the US prefer 3 plattons per company instead of 4 because it's actually easier for an officer to control, is it easier to do more units at higher levels (for example a captain can only manage three platoons but a Brigade commander can handle five units) all that stuff.

>>29472559
Pretty much this. And the current officer managing doctrine will provide his reasoning for this.

>>29472577
The smaller something it is, the more "tactical control" you have, but there are obviously limits to this.

For example, in a rifle squad, two fire teams of four guys each is good (especially for transport), but attrition will affect them more than a squad that has extra guys. If your team is small enough that every man technically has a different role, that's really efficient, but also means losing even one guy means someone has to pull double duty. In fact, that seems to be the purpose of "rifleman": guy who carries extra stuff and can pick up the slack if you lose a grenadier or something (at least in theory).

But the real advantage of smaller units is just that it gives you more options to deploy your guys right where they are needed without wasting any of them.

>>29472591
Any examples?

>The Pentomic systems was found to be flawed in several ways.

>Training: Officers would command with long periods of time between assignments to maneuver units. This would erode the experience and competence of Battle Group commanders once the experienced officers of World War II and Korea retired.

I don't understand what the issue is here - or at least, not how it's unique to the Pentomic system

Bump for the morning

>>29473045
I forget the name of the theory or whatever, but it talks about how one many can't actually control/lead more than 5 or 6 other men.

So for a company, the CPT is really only in charge of 5 or 6 Lieutenants. 3 or 4 of those Lts actually do the maneuvering, then you have 2 or 3 that normally stick to the CPT like his FSO and XO. Each of those Lts only lead 4 to 5 men, which are his Squad/Section leaders and Platoon Sergeants.

Things start to lose connection and get murky when you try to actually lead more than 6 or so men. Yes, these commanders might actually command hundreds of men overall, but they only truly lead/control their main 5 or 6 subordinates.

The same applies to higher levels, an Army brigade may have 6 battalions in it, but the BDE Commander doesn't actually lead every single officer, he leads his Lt. Cols, who then lead their MAJs and CPTs, so on down the ranks. Down to the team leaders who lead fire teams of 4 or 5 men.

>>29477681
This was actually meant for this guy >>29472577

>>29472577
>few officers

dont they have a fuck ton of career generals in staff positions? like an extremely excessive amount?