Platoons - a natural unit size for a modern army
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 8 ก.ย. 2024
- Support me on Patreon: / lindybeige
More weapons and armour videos here: • Weapons and armour
I recall being confused in my youth about what the various parts of an army were - the sections, companies, battalions, brigades, platoons and the rest. Here I take eight minutes to describe the workings of a World War Two British infantry platoon, which serves as a model for platoons from all modern armies. I of course do not waste the opportunity to take a swipe at a few films while I'm at it.
Lindybeige: a channel of archaeology, ancient and medieval warfare, rants, swing dance, travelogues, evolution, and whatever else occurs to me to make.
▼ Follow me...
Twitter: / lindybeige I may have some drivel to contribute to the Twittersphere, plus you get notice of uploads.
Facebook: / lindybeige (it's a 'page' and now seems to be working).
Google+: "google.com/+lindybeige"
website: www.LloydianAspects.co.uk
Platoons - a natural unit size for a modern army
/ user "Lindybeige"
![[Full Episode] MasterChef Junior Thailand มาสเตอร์เชฟ จูเนียร์ ประเทศไทย Season 3 Episode 13](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/NlY2uzrALY8/mqdefault.jpg)
![[LIVE] MCHOICE & MINT AWARDS 2024 at TRUE ICON HALL, ICONSIAM](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/wMewUeT5nbY/mqdefault.jpg)
1:55 "A leftenant is called a leftenant because he is left with the tenancy of command. He is in lieu of the captain. The lieu-tenant." WOW I never actually knew that... Mind blowing.
"Lieu" means place or position.
@@busterbiloxi3833 in "lieu" means in place or position of the senior officer who is not around to command.
"Lieu" means place. That's all it means. It's not "in lieu".
No connection to a captain at all. The two words simply mean "place keeper", whether "in lieu" of someone or not.
In French, Lieu = place, tenant = holder, lieutenant = placeholder.
In Old French, lieu was pronounced "LI-EV" and the Normans brought that pronunciation to Britain where it's now "Leftenant". In France the pronunciation became "Li-oo" which is why the rest of the world says "loo-tenant"
You sport that helmet incredibly well.
And once again, another top rate production.
More like...top HAT production!
I'll show myself out
+BoarhideGaming No, come back, your puns will save the world!
+Squire Did you know, that if you turn this kind of hat around, you can use it to make some...COFFEE...YES!
+BoarhideGaming With applause. :-)
+Squire Rubbish helmet. Everybody now uses the basic German shape :)
I got out of the US Army in 2009, and I thought I’d share some supplementary info.
In the 101st Airborne, in Iraq from 2005-2009 (just speaking from first hand experience), rifle companies were made up of three infantry platoons and a HQ platoon including the comms, armorer and mortar sections.
The three platoons were organized with three normal squads and a weapons squad.
The regular squad has two fire teams, as well as a squad leader, and designated defensive marksman.
A fire team is organized thusly:
Team leader
-M4 with M203 grenade launcher
Gunner
-M249 SAW machine gun
Assistant Gunner
-M4 and additional ammo
Anti Armor
-M4 and AT-4 launcher
The teams are designated “Alpha” and “Bravo,” preceded by the squad designation, either 1, 2 or 3.
Squad leaders carry the M4, as well as mission essential equipment.
Designated Marksman carry a variant of the M14 battle rifle occasionally called an M21.
This is a ten man squad, and there are three.
There’s also a “Weapons Squad” consisting of two machine gun teams, a medic, and a Radio Telephone Operator and a Forward Observer.
A gun team is organized thusly:
Gunner (team leader)
-M240B machine gun with an M9
Assistant Gunner
-M4 and tripod
Ammo bearer
-M4 and additional ammunition
Often the Platoon Sergeant acts as the squad leader for Weapons Squad.
Lastly, there is the Platoon Leader.
Callsigns are easy. You would say the company first, followed by platoon, then squad and finally team. Charlie Company for instance, might have the callsign “Warriors”. So, if I wanted to speak to the alpha team leader in third platoon’s second squad, I’d call:
“Warrior 3-2-Alpha”
There’s rarely communications equipment below the team level.
Also, let’s say I just want their squad leader, I’d call:
“Warrior 3-2-Actual”
For the sake of callsigns, weapons squad is just fourth squad, with the gun teams designated “Example X-4-Alpha” and “Example X-4-Bravo”
Platoon Leaders are their own special thing, so, back in Charlie Co., if you need second platoon’s PL, you’d call:
“Warrior 2-6-Actual”
Although, typically you’ll be calling the Radio Operator whose call sign is “Warrior 2-6-Romeo.”
Lastly, the platoon sergeant’s call sign is “Warrior 2-7-Actual.”
So, here it is:
6-Actual
7-Actual
1-Actual
SDM
1-Alpha
SAW
AB
AA
1-Bravo
SAW
AB
AA
2-Actual
SDM
2-Alpha
SAW
AB
AA
2-Bravo
SAW
AB
AA
3-Actual
SDM
3-Alpha
SAW
AB
AA
3-Bravo
SAW
AB
AA
Alpha Gun
AG
AB
Bravo Gun
AG
AB
RTO
Medic
Forward Observer
That’s a total of 41 troopers.
This is very helpful. Thanks!
This post is better than the video honestly.
@@jpoopist gotta remember that the United States and United Kingdom organizes their armies differently
k
This was like FM 7-8 in a TH-cam comment. Hooah 😆
Give me a battalion of guards! - No, that's exactly he wants! Take one brigade - King Arthur.
Why make trillions, if we can make... billions? - Dr. Evil.
Masters of logic.
Bruno Giao of course he is - he was raised by Belgians!
Well, except one was going from a smaller amount to a larger and the other a larger to a smaller. In the context of First Knight, I had assumed that the villains were predicting a smaller force and they sought to overwhelm them.
Pretty sure they didn't have battalions or brigades back in King Arthur's day...whenever that was exactly. I noticed Bernard Cornwell's Warlord Chronicles on the book shelf behind Lloyd, a much more believable depiction of Arthur.
Well, in Braveheart, the English army circa 1297 supposedly has "corporals". A little "anachronism" light lit up when I first saw the film at that point..
Indeed you're right, he also has a line where he says "look lively sargeant!" In one of Lindybeige's other videos he talks about a conversation with a 'historical advisor' who worked on a movie and while pointing out errors in the script was largely ignored and spent his days on set "eating Mars bars" such is the reality of hollywood movies from a historical point of view. Braveheart is quite simply offensive in this regard!
"i cannot spare a company at this time. i'll give you an army group."
"But sir, an army group is larg..."
"enough, field marshall Axahad. my decision is made. if you succeed today, yo can expect a promotion to lance corporal."
"... yes, king private Vellian. it will be done, my lord."
"This is but six men with rifles! I wanted over sixty men, and tank support and was told I would receive an army group!"
"FIELD MARSHAL! Stop Your whining! The grand admiral is waiting for You with His armada."
"Which I expect is just a row-boat."
"Don't be ridiculous I cannot afford to give You a row-boat."
Field Marshal Axahad makes His way toward the armada and the Grand admiral at the shores of the sea, which is actually just a row boat in a creek and a young fisher boy; and rows onwards to the fort which is actually in the other direction.
+Luke DS *US Army in a nutshell*
Nunya Bidness
No comment...
I cant spare a hundred men at this time. Take a million instead.....
Dammit Man, just do what the Scriptwriter says!!!
We'll take the armada over that hill, castle their flank, pilliage the pantry, then the Air Corp will come out of the tunnels, and bisect the thermo interaction of the Pentagon! After that, we Navy Base their Airfield, hopscotch across the Nile and we're in Berlin! Just like that, the Canadian's are defeated!!! And Pearl Harbor avenged! That'll teach them not to set up an oil derrick on our submarines!!!
Even more awkward is when you have the mortar set up, ask for a smoke (Grenade) and they give you a ciggi.
ok now im curious what should you ask for?
@@Debbiebabe69 You call smokes fags? lol
"pass me a fag"
"smoke a fag"
@@Debbiebabe69 When I was a kid and first started smoking, we actually did call them fag's, of course that was before the term caught on for homosexuals, back then we called them queers, but I can recall asking my buddy to bum me a fag. This was in North Dakota, and we are rather near Canada, in fact we share a border, so perhaps it sort of slipped across the border in slang terms.
I thought Band of Brothers did quite a good job of showing the individual 'pieces' that made up warfare, particularly in WW2.
Having seen it so many times, the sounds of '1st Platoon, 2nd Squad', or something to that effect, has been drummed into my memory.
+TheErebusGaming Yeah, Band of Brothers seemed to do pretty well with this sort of thing.
+TheErebusGaming I agree, and was just about to post this comment myself. At no point do you see them simply charge ahead without covering fire or attempting to flank. There is a scene where Winters forces them to get up and attack, but that is actually compared to the alternative of just lying in a ditch and getting flanked by the Germans, so it makes sense.
I am sure that some real experts could point out the flaws in BoB, but you can't blame them for not trying to do it mostly right. Only making few concessions for drama purposes, such as some characters walking around without a helmet at times.
What's also great about BoB is that the locations and how they assault them, if you pay attention, it actually makes sense spatially, and it has good continuity. As if the producers got advice on how to really attack an imaginary German strong point, and then proceeded to film the re-enactment of this attack. This is noticeable when they take out the guns on D-day and also when they attack Carentan.
That being said, BoB just about makes every movie about WWII unwatchable for me because it is that good.
+armoredp The attack on the gun battery on D-Day is actually based entirely on what actually happened, and is used to teach small unit tactics at West Point. It wouldn't surprise me if they have a full size mockup of it on the grounds at the academy so the students could play it out in real time.
I'm not criticizing, just wanted to point out something that might have been unknown to you.
+TheErebusGaming Indeed, much as Generation Kill correctly depicts modern US infantry organization and tactics.
+Nelumbo Nucifera and also the dumbass orders the platoon leaders have to do.
Nice vid and nice models mate, if you ever fancy a game, give me a shout.
As a heads up, soldiers very rarely refer to things by their full names, especially whilst under fire, we have a tendency to uses acronyms, abbreviations and nick names for everything!
+TheTerrainTutor "Bung me the lobber!"
Lindybeige
More along the lines of ... *%^£ that *%^£%* on the ridge!
+TheTerrainTutor bloody hell Mel your allover the place! :-)
David Martin always learning mate ;-)
Me too.
That is the first time a British person was able to explain why they pronounce Luietenant as Left-tenant, as opposed to the American Lue-tenant, which closer matches the spelling.
Thank you.
It's supposed to be spelt "leftenant" in English and "lieutenant" in French. However, the widely influential American culture has made the former spelling obsolete for most parts of the world.
"because he is left with the ??? of command" tendency? tenacity? what??
@@sillyshrapnel tenancy
If my understanding of French serves me well, liuetenant should translate literally as 'place-holder' or 'ground-keeper' or perhaps "substitute-ward"
Now find the r in colonel.
So it's the about the same size as a school class because it has the same practical limit?
Armadillito yeah except each person/section is at least five or seven feet apart. To avoid all getting taken out by grenades in one go.
+ThatTitanguy Sounds like a normal public school to me.
Yes, that is about the right size for an individual junior officer to control. 30 is about right for a junior officer or a school teacher: 100 - 150 (company) would be impossible, but eight (squad) would be inefficient. This platoon type structure, similar, as you say to a class size, is in the goldilocks zone : not too big or too small. It is pretty universally accepted as a military 'cell' type size.
Jasper Zanovich In America, maybe
Too be fair, While my response is a quite late, in Australia at least public and private school classes tend to max out at 25-30 at least in primary (elementary) and the first few years of high school school
As noted by Rich Evans of Red Letter Media:
"They're in tactical 'get mowed down' formation."
I see you’re a man of culture as well.
Ah yes, a cultured man, good day, sir.
I love how "visual" British people are with the way they act out what they're describing. I felt so immersed at 6:13 when you played the part of the Lieutenant giving directions to the smaller teams. I especially am relieved that for the most part, you're only directly speaking to the leaders of each team. Saves me a lot of time writing.
Please give Lindybeige his own TV show on the BBC
quintus or a BBC on TV
the BBC won't have him, he's too politically accurate for them. BBC = fake news
No! Thats exactly what they want, give him a brigade.
He's too good for. That rubbish channel
@@موسى_7 Whatever you say "Alazzawi."
Up to the 1960s British Platoon Commanders usually carried pistols, but not for the obvious reason. It wasn't a personal preference. The pistol is next to useless on the battlefield if you wanted to hurt the enemy, its only purpose was very close range defence. The only people close enough to an officer for the pistol to be of value were his own men.
This is why officers had pistols - you can't sleep with a rifle under your pillow, and a rifle is too big and cumbersome to dig in someones ribs when they're misbehaving. General De La Billeire wrote of pulling his pistol on a solider in Korea who was refusing to move forward, Wing Commnader Bob Stanford Tuck wrote of pulling his pistol on a pilot who had bottled it during the Battle of Britain claiming engine trouble. I don't think they were alone.
Regarding what a Platoon commander actually does - Orders arrive from on high to the battalion commander, he interprets these orders and issues a battle plan to achieve the stated objective. He briefs his Company commanders on his intentions who then re-interpet those orders and devise a plan to achieve their missions within bounds. The Company Commanders brief their platoon commanders on what they want to happen, and the Plt Cdrs re-interpret those orders to suit local conditions and limitations. They brief their section commanders on the fine details of how all the timing, planning, orders, intentions, missions, bounds, limitations, fire plan and resources will be used. The section commanders duly take notes, repeat what they've been ordered and then go back to their men, point out the way ahead and shout - its all F**ked up, just follow me!
The Hollywood device of wild charges and two second order groups is the only way one can illustrate the confusion of battle without frustrating the audience. Ive watched dozens of military made videos about issuing orders and the combat estimate process - almost unwatchable - only the threat of discipline kept our eyes open.
So I find myself disagreeing with your thesis, the platoon commander is in fact an apprentice position, and far from being a natural sized unit for the WWII or modern era, the platoon is one of two manoeuvre units that actually gets in the way - the other being the Battalion. Im limiting myself to the WWII experience as you have here, in modern COIN warfare the natural units are the section and the cabinet office with a hundred ranks and lawyers looking over the poor corporals shoulder.
By the NW Europe campaign in WWII the Brigade, the Company and the Section were the important units, as they enabled the closer integration of combined arms which the battalion and platoon had hindered in the Desert. The 36 man Platoon (and I never served in one with more than 24) isn't the natural sized unit for all-arms manoeuvre warfare, its too small to effect a real change on the battlefield and too big to be swift and disposable. The unnecessary duplication of O-groups at Batt and Plt level were one reason the British army got a reputation for ponderous set pieces in WWII. The Germans and Americans favoured company and regimental battlegroups, with Platoons and Battalions being more administrative in function, all being well integrated all-arms affairs by the the end of the war.
The Company is the smallest level you can resource and co-ordinate a decent sized fire support team, and manage reserves worth a damn. The Company Commander has survived his apprenticeship, served among the higher ranks and HQs, learnt about mutual fire support, artillery and use of tanks and returned to the front line a well rounded commander. He was normally the highest ranking officer who could actually see all his men in action and communicate swiftly - by bugles, radio or runners. Shouting was usually only an option for section commanders when the fighting got hard.
Most British infantry companies armed with WWII weapons moved forward in the one-up formation, that is one platoon leading then Coy HQ and two platoons in reserve, carrying forward the spare ammo. The reserves are there to exploit any weakness found by the lead Plt, and to respond to any counter punch. Anyone who fought the Germans for a day, knew to keep their main effort in reserve to meet the expected counterattack that came as surely as night follows day. Most lead platoons moved one up as well - one section forward and two back. So the focus of an advance was rarely more than a section wide, a very small front, easily controlled by the Company Commander, who then had the immediate resources and power to exploit and resist.
I was researching the battle diaries of my own Regiment (Gren Gds) from Normandy to Denmark 44-45, again and again you saw platoons split up to provide durable flexibility - Bren teams stripped from the platoons to form a more lethal machine gun force to cover an approach, beat a zone or open up a position; Piat teams stripped from platoons to form anti-tank screens on likely tank routes; rifle teams reallocated to ammunition haulage or spotting.
There was an utter reliance on the link between Coy HQ and the battalions 3inch mortars for immediate support, the thump guns were really for smoke only. There never seemed to be enough 3inch mortars which was the company commanders preferred fire option, his Coy HQ being the smallest unit that could control artillery or aircraft while remaining in sight of the targets.
The platoons manpower and resources ebbed and flowed, while the Coy remained largely stable. It was a waste of resources to have a full, parade ready platoon facing an uphill, wooded area with a redundant PIAT, while another platoon faced a wide road junction and open fields with just the one. Patrols were often assembled from across the platoons, so casualties wouldn't reduce the fighting power of one element.
The rule book still showed Platoon tactics with fixed orbats as the building block of the infantry when I was ingesting Pam45 back in the eighties. But when it came to the range of missions the platoon was given - fighting patrols, close target patrols, vital point protection, clearance operations, urban assault and defence the platoon commanders soon found themselves splitting up their commands and grafting extra teams to it, to achieve results. Only in line defence and advance over open ground did the platoon function as a fully formed unit. The Battalion remains a bottleneck to the effective battle management of combined arms.
So I think the Platoon takes on too much significance simply because young officers needed somewhere to learn their craft, while the battalion retained its importance because it was considered the pinnacle of a career to command one somewhere off in the Empire, where they were little more than Gendarmes. By the end of WWII we had a more flexible approach but seem to have lost it soon after - we unlearn so very quickly and learn so very hard.
One of the more informed and erudite comments on TH-cam.
yeah in afghan and iraq we operated in multiples and from a company location with its own embedded engineer, medics and obserevers/tacp's and more the only time we heard from battalion was when the raz man turned up for a day.
Any officer came around threatening us with his pistol would've gotten fragged pretty quick.
Thanks for this. I shall now feel better about following my instincts regarding sharing of assets between platoons in my Combat Mission campaigns.
very interesting insight, Sir.. is it the cause of why Germans have NCO as Platoon Commander? Because it is not a significant of a responsibility for a leftenant/lieutenant? Or is there other explanation?
"Hand me the 51!"
Or
"Hand me the mortar!"
There
Then they proceed to give you the 81mm one.
"Boom tube NOW!"
how's that?
@@kovi567 I think the 81mm is company level? A different team in a different location.
Who the hell uses 51mm? It is tiny! The grenade launched from under the barrel has 40mm. It's 90, 92, 100 or 120mm. And Platoon owns this. On the company level, you already have IFVs with 120mm automatic mortars on them! The smallest you can get is the Carl Gustaw which is on the platoon level, but it's not a mortar, it's a rifle!
@@HanSolo__ Lloyd was discussing the WW2-era British army, which did use 51mm. The 40mm grenade was not yet invented then. As for the other sizes, 120mm is very common, and Imperial Japan used the Types 94 and 97 in 90mm, but I cannot find any sources for 92mm or 100mm mortars. Can you elaborate?
Lindy please crowdfund a realistic war movie.
+Genghis Khan
Things must be pretty serious if Genghis Khan gets involved.
Bigfoot guys guys! BIGFOOT!!!!!
*****
Shhhhh! I'm hiding...
+Genghis Khan it would be amazingly boring to see a realistic depiction of modern war.
Correct. Reality often doesn't look or sound appealing, cinemagraphically speaking.
4:06 it doesn't matter what the size of the mortar shell is called because no mortar team is gong to be lugging an assortment of different sized mortars and need to distinguish between different ones. In the din of battle, it's just going to be "hand me a shell".
xd
wanna fucking bet?
my grandfather was a scout for the 151mm mortars in ww2.
Like, do you even lift bro? It's not even five tons mate.
The two options are that either A: I'm joking, or B: I think you're a wuss for not being able to carry 9300 pounds worth of 155mm artillery. Which, you'll note, is the listed weight of the M777 towed artillery, and less than five tons. Do you even google search bro?
I'm not so cruel as to make you throw a 13 ton artillery piece on your back and hump it through the wilderness. That's just unreasonable. That's why I'm using the M777. At under 5 tons, it's much more reasonable. Just don't skip leg day.
When I was in the U. S. Army I once had the opportunity, when a unit of the British Army, The Life Guards" sent a detachment to train with "my" division, the so called "Big Red One", to observe how British officers commanded a small unit. By no means an expert on American command style, since I was in M. I. and not a line unit, I was nevertheless severely and drastically impressed by the quality of leadership the British officers provided. Their average level seemed to me to be professionally beyond the average of American officers of the time. Admittedly the Life Guards were and are an elite unit, so that perhaps skewed the results, but I was still most impressed. They were snappy dressers too, and I suppose that c counts for something. Carry on!
A British officer friend of mine said he had observed that American officer seemed to shout at their men, while in the British army that was the role of NCOs.
band of brothers does a reasonable job at portraying the functions of a platoon and company, detailing the campaign of the US army's 101 air-born throughout ww2.
+Sean Rea Yea BoB is a good example of the chaos and order of a platoon.
was gonna say the same thing
I agree. I think Band of Brothers does this very well.
+Sean Rea don't forget the Pacific, both series were well done
+Sean Rea Also, for modern armies, Generation Kill. These three series (along with Pacific) Accurately depict how armies work.
The TV show Band of Brothers sort of demonstrates American small units tactics well to some degree if you want a film that actually implements what you said in the video.
David Huang I agree with this. BoB shows the relationship between officers and the men they command really well.
The film April 9th portrays genuine tactics used on such a scale very well, also.
I know its not WW2 but I think We Were Soldiers does a really nice job too
Band of Brothers was amazing, just had to think about winters screaming orders all the time; IMO that series made stuff like saving private ryan look like flashy, outdated propaganda.
Assault of Brecourt Manor was the best representation of a smaller unit attacking an entrenched larger unit
The cinematic series Band of Brothers did a far better job at detailing squad tactics and how soldiers are actually commanded then most ww2 movies I've seen... hell better than most movies in general.
I'll second Band of Brothers as doing a good job at this. Although I did have trouble at first keeping track of such a large cast and remembering who was who. In a similar vein, from what I remember Saving Private Ryan did an okay job of it too at certain moments (it's been ages since I saw it so I may be misremembering). I haven't seen a lot of other war movies, but Battleground (1949) also stands out in my mind as showing squads as semi-independent entities within the unit. Racking my brain I seem to remember another WWII movie from the 60s or 70s that also did the same, but I can't recall the title.
Yes, I found that BOB did a much better job than Forgetting Sara Marshall did at depicting squad tactics, but I think Toy Story 2 was supreme in this regard.
@@siukong as to the huge cast, the fact that RANK was so often used reinforced the idea that your position could define who you were to the group. You knew who the private was, even if you couldn't remember his name. As the series went on, you could better attach the name and personality to the rank/character... you had to get to know them almost as they got to know each other.
Sean Connery as King Arthur? That sounds completely ridiculous. I must watch this movie at once
+Magmafrost13 Sean Connery was great. Richard Gere is the one who was ridiculous.
+Magmafrost13 It is a pretty silly movie, though I did enjoy it at the time..
+Magmafrost13 The Shword in the Shtone.
+TheFilthyCasual Camelot is a silly place after all.
+K. Panos
It's only a model!
I don't know if you've watched the HBO mini series band of Brothers, but if you haven't it's worth your attention. I think that show accurately depicts the command structure and tactics of WWII.
Band of Brothers was excellent in this regard, especially the storming of the howitzer battery on D-Day, the Crossroads in Holland after Market Garden and and the one where they attack the village in the Ardennes where Spears turns into Chuck Norris!
I preferred HBO's The Pacific tbh
sammy keller When you say you prefer the Pacific do you mean as a show in general or as a realistic representation of small unit infantry tactics on film? Both series were good but BoB was really good at showing the command structure from Regiment through to Companies and infantry squads. That was the point sir1thomas1 was making, not necessarily which series was better.
Hmm i guess i meant that i thought TP was better than BoB in general. You're right, BoB did a great job at showing the organisational structure of infantry units.
another great example of war series that depict command structures and different units is HBO's Generation Kill. Depicting on real events, written down by a reporter, it just conveys so well how chaotic even leading a platoon can be. Heck, the main squad of the game is often really confused despite the good leadership of the Iceman.
Aand then there are the company officers and other baffoons xD It would be funny if there wasn't just too much misery in the war to begin with.
"How do we take down this platoon"
"That's easy, we kill the batman"
This
There would be no need to specify the size of mortar launcher if you only had one size with you... So 51mm works just fine.
+HisRoyalCarlness Or just "mortar".
+HisRoyalCarlness No, no, no. Not good enough. In the case you got two mortars in the platoon you need to use the serial number and not the size.
+HisRoyalCarlness I think he was talking about the syllable, 51 mm takes longer to say then 2 inch.
+Totally Legit Gaming [TLEG] That's what I meant... I said that there would be no need to specify the size in combat, so designating it in mm instead of inch doesn't cause a problem. Might not have been clear enough, since multiple people have misunderstood.
Typical anglosaxon rant against the metric system.
Band of Brothers shows at least some of this. More than any movie I've aver seen, at least. And your helmet is amazing, by the way.
All of HBOs war series are good in this regard. Pacific, and Generation Kill come to mind.
this
+Duhya Generation Kill was the most realistic depiction of modern warfare I've seen, from the perspective of grunts.
+Thiago Monteiro Saving Private Ryan also is a good example for it
+Thiago Monteiro was totally going to say this too! BoB was much better for showing infantry tactics than other shows or films. Taking the 88s is one of the greatest!
"You don't just shout forwards."
We learned that in WWI.
If only the imperial guard was told that.
Might I suggest a movie called "We Were Soldiers". This movie gets most of the squad, platoon, and company organization correct from the American perspective, right until they charge up the hill and take out the enemy H.Q..
The book is far better.
Great explanation, thank you. The movie Full Metal Jacket showed the way a squad (section) worked together in the field, several riflemen working with a machine gunner and a squad leader in charge of them all.
1:16 It's also the same number of students a single teacher can reasonably teach
There are a number of good games out there from the perspective of a squad leader, doing tactics and stuff in WW2.
+asher taz Are you sure you don't mean a platoon leader?
V. V. Malazan , the "Brothers in Arms" series comes to mind.
Also, Valkyria Chronicles is close in the same vein, although it's more fantastical and Jrpg-like.
But for platoons and small scale military tactics in WW2 i'd suggest the Company of Heroes series.
Also, on the multiplayer side, You can try the Squad game ( which is in early access) or project reality.
Hell, even battlefield series takes the concept of diverse squad components and teamwork and makes it work.
+asher taz
Another good one for multiplayer is Red Orchestra 2. One commander on each side leads a team of 32 soldiers, divided up into four squads being lead by their squad-leaders. The community is great, too. People actually know what they're doing for most of the time. I can definitely recommend this game.
I used to play Brothers in Arms: Road to Hill 30 a lot when it came out. Great game!
SpoonWraith Yeah, red orchestra is great, But a little too arcade for me.
The maps are quite small, compared to other military simulation and shooters and, while tense, the game does lose some serious tactics because of that.
That's one thing I yearn for on ps4 or next gen consoles in genearl there are no decent ww2 games the markets been flooded with shitty Sci fi shooters which developer's like because they can sell all there crappy dlc and add ons to kids half of which shouldn't even be playing the dam games in the first place.
Had to laugh at the 51mm mortar part.
In Canada we purportedly use the metric system, but when I'm doing sewer sizing calcs and I want to figure out the capacity of a 300mm sewer, I have to use a diameter of 304.8mm. The reason is that nobody makes 300 mm diameter sewer. They do make 12 inch sewer though, we just call that 300mm sewer.
+Stannis Baratheon I'm not sure why, but I laughed too long at this one.
Like 7.62mm ammunition can be .308" or .310". .30 cal can be even worse tho (anything from .300" to .312" can be deemed so) so it's not only metric's fault.
Tomas Živatkauskas Agreed that we need to go the whole way. It gets especially confusing for me because some jurisdictions require that you do calculations with the actual pipe diameters, while some require that you use the nominal diameters.
Ehhhh...in my opinion Imperial has some pretty big advantages in certain contexts. I enjoy that feet/inches are base 12, which is super useful for common fractions and probably why it's still popular to use inches for building materials. Metric is 100% better for math, but there are some day-to-day applications where imperial can be pretty good.
+Tomas Živatkauskas If it is an old sewer, it was likely made before the Metric system was adopted by Canada. They probably kept them standard at 12 inches to fit with the preexisting system. Life didn't start when the metric system was invented. Like many things, it was probably easier to just leave it as it was and use a messy metric measurement instead of ripping up all of their sewers just so it can have a clean metric measurement. It's not an "obsession with the imperial system" but more a reason of practicality.
A common misconception of Europe is that Americans still just use the Imperial system and ignore SI. They actually use both, and both are taught in schools: Metric or SI for Science, Math and Physics, and Imperial for practical pursuits like Engineering.
Iconoclasm_ It's actually kind of funny, because it's also a bit of a misconception that Canadians always use metric, when we really still use Imperial for a lot of things. Off the top of my head...
1. height/weight in lbs/feet
2. interior temperatures and pool/hot tub temperatures almost always in Fahrenheit even though we use Celsius for outdoor temperatures almost exclusively.
3. Lots of bar/alcohol related things (pints, lbs of wings, spirits bottles named by how many ounces they have i.e. "two-four" for 750ml bottle)
4. Oven temperatures in Fahrenheit
5. Building materials (example above, plus also use inches for lumber dimensions.
6. Interior floor space in square feet
7. You buy grams of weed, but you also buy ounces.
Bit of a long list...but kinda fun to think about.
Interesting how similar the military structures of the world are. My experience with the old SADF in the Angolan bush war in the 1980's was that you never really end up with 36 men in a platoon, which is prescribed in basic training. Theoretically our infantry platoons each consisted of a 6 man command team comprising of the platoon commander (1 pip Lieutenant), 2IC (Sergeant), radio operator, RPG7 operator, medic and an interpreter (to converse with local population)
There were 3 sections, each comprising of 10 men made up of 1 section leader(Corporal), 6 riflemen (5.56 mm assault rifles with 50 round magazines), 1 section 2IC (Lance Corporal 2 x 200 round belts) commanding the machine gun section comprising of a Mag 1 with a Belgian FN 7.62 mm ( 4 x 200 round belts) and a Mag 2 (6 x 200 round belts & spare barrel) Both the section 2IC and the Mag 2 carried standard rifleman armament in addition.
The 3 section leaders were equipped with the old Blooper grenade launchers with 24 grenades apiece and also carried a further 2 x 200 round belts for the machine guns. Each rifleman carried 2 claymore mines, 2 medical drips normally sucrose and saline, 2 smoke grenades and 2 white phosphorous grenades beside their personal equipment, water and ammunition. The communications were excellent with advanced radio comms at all levels of command, and the training was superb particularly in terms of fire-and-movement, which we could do both in advance, in retreat and sideways while planting claymores and luring pursuers into an ambush, followed by a counter-attack. The platoon could apply continual heavy fire on the opposition at all stages of the engagement, which combined with rapid and aggressive movement were a lethal combination.
The problem encountered however was that even if you started basic training with 60 or more men in the platoon, the drop-out rate was so high due to the rigorous training, that you were lucky to end up with 20 trained troops at the end of 6 months basic and COIN Ops training. My platoon consisted of 14 effective troops, but only because we refused to drop to 13, and carried the 14th guy around with us until his broken leg had healed. We had to bulk-up by drafting in guys on their second tour to bring us up to an effective platoon strength of 22.
The level of training was very necessary, as Africa is not for sissies. There is no water during the dry season, and you have to be able to carry an additional minimum of 10 liters of water per man on patrol, sometimes more depending on how many days you plan to be in the bush. Water discipline is key to survival, because when the water is gone, and you have drunk the sucrose drips, you are in big trouble. If you are not in communication with support troops when the water runs out and you are too far from base, you will probably die of thirst. Communications are rubbish in the deep bush, because you are basically walking around in someone else's country looking for trouble without support, and you can only rely on yourselves to pull through whatever situation arises.
The platoon commander has to exercise complete control, particularly when you are following spoor, survived a few ambush attempts and the blood is up. In practice and under African conditions, even 22 men are too much to patrol effectively with, and operating in smaller section strength units proved to be far more effective. More than 20 people moving around in the bush just make too much noise and leave too many tracks.
The "Band of Brothers" series (2001) seems pretty realistic in term of tactics. Especially the first episodes.
Thanks for the explanations btw :)
+Lindybeige I thought Band of Brothers did an excellent job of representing small unit tactics, especially in the crossroads episode. The various teams (MG, Mortar, Rifle) being set specific tasks and all working towards an overall plan. The D-Day episode where they storm the German howitzer battery was also a great breakdown.
I totally agree that the majority of war films fall down badly in this regard. I loved When Trumpets Fade for the Manning character but tactically it was a real mess. You could say that was a representation of the lack of leadership in the decimated US ranks but I think it was more down to laziness on the directors part.
Keep up the good work mate!
I will always remember the training "movies" we got in the 70's during my basic training. Section and Platoon attacks, ambush drills, etc. Pretty will done, with some interesting "special effects" - like what would happen if you jumped out of truck with your Stirling SMG cocked! Would love to see them all again actually - but you are quite right - it would be great to see a mainstream movie that actually showed the reality of how infantry fighting actually is conducted.
Now you've mentioned officers issuing orders by whistle, all I can think of is soldiers going into battlefield on bicycles armed with truncheons.
+Lazyguy22 Interesting enough, there were actually bicycle troupes. The concept did not go all that far.
+Jesse Sisolack Bicycle infantry were actually extensively used by the Finnish military in the continuation war. Their tactics relied heavily on quick light infantry but they obviously couldn't use their skis when winter passed so they used bicycles as substitutes.
That's how the Imperial Japanese invaded my country Singapore! They circumvented Singapore's Naval fortifications by invading inland from Malaya. Through use of bicycles they rapidly mobilized their troops and took the British completely by surprise!
usaid alfatih But the question is, when they went to accept the city's surrender did they say "evening, all"?
+CrateofStolenDirt I didn't mean to say they actually charged into battle whilst mounted on their bicycles. That would obviously make no sense.
Two movies that I can think of that did "small unit tactics' realistically was "Heat" with Robert DeNiro and Al Pachino. The exfiltration of the bank was a fairly good illustration of the principle of "Bounding overwatch". The other movie was "Blackhawk Down", though like the Real Life Situation, Command structure kind of broke down in the chaos. I had Co-workers who hadserved in Mogadishu, and said that the movie was mostly accurate.
+Scott Ruggels Also, to add, They covered some of it in the "Band of Brothers" Mini-series on HBO< but it was more character study, than commane decisions.
"Heat" was a really good movie, but can you explain bounding overwatch to me?
Peter K. Bounding overwatch is a simple concept, where you split your unit into two elements. The first element moves to a position, while the second element watches over the first, weapons ready, covering the first element, until they reach cover. Once the First element reaches cover, it will set up, and watch over the second element as it moves from it's cover to the next position of cover. Leapfrogging in the general direction of the advance, this keeps the units from being unsupported in their advance.
hey lindybeige. can you make a video on the structure of militaries? like a pyramid of what is inside a regiment than inside a battalion then inside a brigade then inside a squad then inside a team or something and how many men are in each? or at least send me a link explaining it
fatbap just what I was looking for thank you so much
OOps! That page doesn't seem to exist.
@@thedyslexicorangutan8049 What video was recommended to you?
No accordions?? What about morale??
+traderjoes 15% reload speed boost.
+traderjoes For that you have Bagpipes!
And no one shoots at the Pipers, they know they are all crazy!
:-)
The snipers kill them specifically in order to save the morale o their own troops.
Not everyone is partial to accordians.
+traderjoes
Every platoon needs a Bard, right?
+traderjoes
As partisans discovered, accordians are great for morale, especially when they are playing far away from you and the enemy is throwing all of their firepower at them to silence them. That's why it is importan to have spare accordians (and player) at hand.
What's your opinion on Saving Private Ryan? Would you care to do a video on it's accuracy, either praising or shaming it? :)
Considering that the Germans in this film are portrayed as killing-machines without brains, similiar to orcs in any fantasy novel, I would say that it sucks pretty bad. Your average jewish WW2 production.
+Ethan Porter I actually wondered this as well. The first moments of the movie is pretty pants, but once you watch the group it's not terribad. (as far as military tactics go).
+Ragnar Lothbrok i'd disagree, the whole plot line about the [spoilers for the uncultured] german that the translator saves loving USA is a bit less "German killing machine" than most other films. Hell, everyone in the movie looks pretty scared throughout, no matter nationality
+Ethan Porter I second that, he needs to do more movies
+Ragnar Lothbrok Oy Vey! ;)
Your not going to believe this but when I was studying how to be a platoon commander the training major pulled out those exact same figurines Lindybeige is using. I hope you do make that TV series! It would become required viewing at Sandhurst
As an American, I never knew that lieutenant was actually left-tenant, or the reasoning behind the name. Very interesting.
+Nicholas Musser It isn't. The word "lieutenant" comes from French: "lieu" meaning place and "tenant" meaning "holding." The word thus means something like, "holding a position" since as he was left with command whenever his superior officer was absent.
+TheThoughtAssassin So instead of "lieutenant", the English rank ought to be "place-holder", then. Hmmmm... that needs to be used for at least a couple hundred years before it becomes as nice-sounding.
+Gilmaris For the British, who suffer heavy French influence, they would have used the French term before making a derivative of it to distinguish themselves from the guys they're fighting.
+Nicholas Musser Although Lloyd does actually suggest this in his video, it isn't true - there was never an English word leftenant that was derived from the words left and tenant.
The most likely explanation for the English pronunciation of the French word lieutenant is that both derive from a much earlier Old French word with the same meaning (i.e. place or position) which was sometimes spelt luef. However, no-one really knows for sure.
Joshua Rosen
Well, the French influence started getting heavy after the Norman conquest, so unless the 2 words have a common root from before then, it seems more likely to be an English bastardization of a French term
If snipers on both sides discouraged carrying accordians, then why the bugger didn't any of them discourage carrying bagpipes into the fray??????
Because the Scottish are men.
*Germans on D-Day* "Ist that a Longbow and sword that Britischer ist carrying?" *German officer shot with said Longbow, Bagpipes start playing* "Acht, das is Schottische!"
AlistairAI I assume you are referring to the exploits of "Mad Jack" Churchill, the only one to have a confirmed kill by longbow in WW2. Though that happened in France, it was in 1940, before the British Expeditionary Force evacuated. Jack Churchill did not participate during the D-Day landings. At the time he was imprisoned at Sachsenhausen, after he was captured fighting with the partisans in Yugoslavia. The picture of him wading ashore with broadsword drawn is taken at an exercise in Scotland, though all accounts of the raids and landings he participated in agree on him storming ashore blade drawn. But he wasn't scottish. His family came from Surrey, though he lived parts of his early days in the East. But the fact that he played the bagpipe on missions led people to believe he was scottish.
Havar Eriksen I somehow doubt the other commentor knew that there were even longbows in ww2.
+AlistairAI This has to be one of the worst german impressions.
In contact with the enemy, a 9 man squad is about the limit of one man's attention. This is why squad leaders and team leaders (NCO's all) are so important to the Army.
As for good television advisors, watch Band of Brothers. The assault by Winters on the artillery pieces is still taught and referenced by infantry schools around the world, and that is one thing they definitely got right in the show.
Well it's still very much a movie I think a film that does an alright job at depicting how soldier live on the front is Cross of Iron. It shows the dynamic between a battle hardened NCO, and an inexperienced officer with dreams of glory. The film also shows the Germans as very human, something that gets a little overlooked in most WWII films. It's one of my favorite war films even if there are a few things that could be better about it.
my girlfriend calls me the 51mm
so really really really small (5.1 cm)?
Marcos Hernandez I'm so sorry
DeathTDOW that’s the fucking joke
Death TDOW
it could be halfways normal were he talking about diameter, maybe on the larger end of sizes there or it could be embarassingly short were the length meant... as diameter seldom is used in favor of girth or circumference it looks more like the snidey bit... but you never know online.
Diameter is definitely not a normal way to refer to penis size, since penises aren't circular in cross section, and that's the only measurement where it would be more than average, since the average penis diameter is more around 1.5 inches.
My wife , my 3 sons and 3 daughters always have family dinner listening to and watching to “ Lindybeige “. Some times dinner will take 3 videos . We have been doing it for some time now and it does inspire good dialogue at dinner time and I recommend it as it keeps the family together !
THANK YOU
you clearified the leftenant/lieutenant
dilemma for me!
Indeed. That was good.
So what did you think about Band of Brothers?
ha i totally just asked this question before i scrolled through the comments. years late per usual of course lol
I came to ask the same
Mr Duke Silver that’s a company, not a platoon
They were a squad, part of a company
stunx dio saving private Ryan is about a squad, band of brothers is about a company, easy company to be specific
For an American Coversersion for a US Infantry Division it's this:
Platoon Headquarters:
Platoon leader - 1st or 2nd lieutenant
Platoon Sergeant - Sergeant 1st Class
Platoon guide - Staff Sergeant
×2 Runners - PFC or Private
×3 Squads:
Squad Leader - Staff Sergeant
Squad Assistant Leader - Sergeant
×2 Scouts - PFC or Private
BAR Light Machine Gunner - PFC or Private
Assistant BAR Gunner - PFC or Private
Ammo Barrier - PFC or Private
×6 Riflemen - PFC or Private
Notes: Everyone would carry the M1 Garand (Simply called M1 or Ga-rand) except for the Platoon Leader, carrying an M1 Carbine, the BAR Gunner with of course the BAR (always pronounced B A R) and sometimes the the squad leader woyld carry an M1A1 Thompson sub machine gun. The assistant would carry an M1903A3 in the early war because you could fit a grenade launcher, but was replaced when they created one for an M1. There could of been a Sniper with the M1903A4, but was usually in company size. There was no sniper schools. Medics were sometimes in Platoons too, but weren't that advanced. In Europe They were not armed, and had clear insignia. (Protected by the Geneva convention) In the Pacific, Japanese Snipers would actually go for Medics so they would wear normal helmets, and sometimes have an M1 Carbine or an M1911A1. They could be fired on if They fired first.
Credits go to G.I. History Handbook, check him out.
Edit: sorry for my poor grammar.
Edit 2: in the Squad, the Squad Leader and the Scouts would make team Able, the BAR team would be called Baker, and the Assitant and the Riflemen would be Charlie.
Platoons in the US Army and Marines are over 40 men and with attached specialist units can get up around 55 men.
Little known fact: The "Bren Gun" was actually short for the "Brenda Gun" and referred to a politician's wife, who cuckolded him and other cabinet ministers using her sharp tongue and well aimed, accurate, cutting barbs.
She too, was also fed by light magazines in the form of imported Time and Life magazines, that served to fuel her vitriolic patter, at a rate of between 480 and 540 words a minute.
Now, the initial thought was to take Brenda out into the battlefield and just throw her at the enemy (as per the politician's wishes), and circle around the enemy, taking advantage of their catatonic state, in order to more effectively take them out. However, since Brenda was popular with the other lady wives of the house of commons, it was decided to just rename the popular Trench Wrench" gun after her instead.
The soldiers insisted on shortening the name to "Bren" though, an insistence born out of a vague superstition, that to name her in full, was to invite ill fortune and marital revolt upon the soldier's household, upon glorious return.
Quite another unknown fact, was that the 2 inch mortar was renamed the 51mm mortar, in order to stop the other free nations bullying Great Britain about its "Weapon Size". 51mm just sounds more impressive all round apparently........
None of that is actually true.
+Beauweir Cuckolded? I think you mean scolded...
+Beauweir Actually, the name for the BRENgun came from the first two characters of the places of its origin. The original design was Czechoslovakian and hailed from the town of BRno (hence the BR) and the British manufactured the weapon at the Royal ENfield facilities (hence the EN). Putting the two together, came up with the very convenient and effective mono-syllable name (to my knowledge, no-one in the 'field' and within his right senses would call it a Brengun. It would be called the 'Bren'.).
Yes. I was going for a homour factor there. A quick internet search gave me the real details.
I listen to a lot of Radio 4 comedy by way of explanation... Think "The Unbelievable Truth" with David Mitchell or something.
Clearly you didn't believe me. Well done, you get 1 point.
FAKE NEWS
Lol, read the first paragraph and went on a wikipedia binge trying to confirm what you said was true. 15 mins later realised you were talking nonsense, finished reading what you wrote now I feel like an idiot :)
Interesting! I have always wondered about a platoon's size and function, you explained very clearly and in a way that was very easy to understand. Keep up the good work!
"you don't just tell everyone attack and they run straight at the enemy"
>Be russia
>Implying
>western front of ww1
Nice Video. You should do one on the Romain legions pre and post Marian reforms as well.
One essential part of the modern and World War 2 platoons was the medic. One medic per platoon, usually attached to weapons squad, or at the platoon sergeants hip.
Brothers in arms is a good game for the average ADD person to understand the very basics of modern infantry as well as some other grand strategy games that paint the bigger picture.
+Stannis Baratheon Simplicity in qualitative simulations ( strategy games for example ) leads to more accurate results, but of course playing rock-paper-scissors isn't as fun as painting little men then rolling dice and measuring scale distances. You also learn more about how strategy works and how it could be improved for the conditions of the simulation.
I understand what you mean tho, I'm never satisfied with how games portray reality, limits of an incomplete system.
Stannis Baratheon Well yeah. Communicating with actual people in the real world and communicating with an artificial set of boundaries on a computer are completely different. The best way to learn these things is to join the military or pay for training privately. But that's a bit silly to expect people to go out and do that just for the sake of learning it.
+dreyrugr heroes and generals is meant to be good but its pretty childish
Will M Never played it.
ok
"Hand me the 50.8 mm mortar"
Or just
Nigel, gimme da bloody mortar!
Gimme the 50 mil, bruh
"Shell!"
"Give me the fockin' morta shell you tossa!"
Super interesting videos.
I'm not usually into history but I'm hooked...!
7:14 "You don't in a modern army, just say, 'OK everyone, forwards' because if the enemy has machine guns they'll just mow you down." A million dead Soviet soldiers: "Yes you do. You do say that."
Forgive me, but I have a lot of criticism of this presentation. 30 men, max in a platoon? Goodness, no, it's 37, see following.
* Sergeant major in a platoon? Certainly not, he's the senior NCO in the COMPANY.
* British sections in WWII were 10 men from 1941 onward, eight, I believe, before that (not 100% sure).
* The platoon had three sections, plus a platoon HQ with the platoon leader (2Lt, Lt, or a senior sergeant, this all before any losses from combat) and 3 men (privates with possibly a corporal or at least an experienced private as new platoon leaders, especially 2Lt were usually inexperienced at first) plus a 2" mortar team of 3, so 37 men.
* The sections were commanded by sergeants and corporals, the most senior sergeant being the platoon sergeant, but still a section leader, not in platoon HQ.
* PIATs were a company level asset which may be attached to platoons.
* The platoon commander directs sections around, NOT teams. There were SOPs for how sections acted and deployed on advance to contact, deliberate or hasty attack, and on defence.
* It was the section leaders who broke their sections into a 2 man Bren group and rifle group if necessary and if the men had enough training to operate that way.
* An "O Group" is most definitely not a term for a platoon HQ. O group, i.e. the orders group meaning the group of men who usually come together for orders. At the platoon level, an O group is usually the section leaders while the section 2iCs have the men doing concurrent activity as part of battle preparation, be it cutting camo for their helmets, distribution and topping up of ammo, digging trenches, forced rest, and so on.
Sorry to be so critical. The figures are smashingly lovely.
All the best.
My experience in the American army; a company is headed by a Captain and First Sergeant (E-8) and is made of 4 platoons led by an Lt. (usually second Lt., an O1 but sometimes a First Lieutenant, O2) with a SFC (Sergeant First Class, E-7). Each platoon has 4 squads, each led by a Staff Sergeant (E-6). Each squad is made of 2 teams of around 4-5 soldiers led by a Sergeant (E-5). Each squad, or every other squad, had a crew served weapon (light or medium machine gun), a grenadier with the M-203 grenade launcher, and a CLS (Combat Life Saver, like an intermediate medic). The rest were riflemen. If you’re counting, that’s around 24 men in a platoon, 96 in a company. Around 4 companies make a battalion, 2 to 3 battalions make a brigade, etc.
It makes sense especially since these are not just numbers but people, and as a leader in a critical situation, it is imperative that you know everything about the person next to you who may be called upon to save your life. Their skills and weaknesses, even their home life...
In the American army in 1970 a platoon consisted of around 32-34 men. A platoon leader (officer) a platoon Sargent (Staff Sargent) a weapons squad (2) a radio man (1) a medic (1) and 4 rifle squads of 6 to 8 riflemen which includes the squad lead (a Sargent)........At least that was my platoon.
Have you served in the British military yourself?
Hon Sze Lo Sandhurst is an unknown term for a non-brit like me, thanks for your comment anyway xD
+Wessel Stienstra It's a military academy.
+Wessel Stienstra If you are from the US, it would be like us saying Westpoint.
Jesse Sisolack not from the US either, but I know what a military academy is. What makes you think that he did that tho? He never stated it anywhere
+Wessel Stienstra because you said "Sandhurst is an unknown term for a non-brit like me" I can no longer see his reply though.
Great video! In the United States Marine Corps, there's 43-50 in a rifle platoon (3 of these are the foundation of the USMC company) (43 plus anyone else attached for that specific patrol). This is because they build around a 4 man fireteam (team leader, automatic rifleman carrying a machine gun or the new m27, assistant gunner and another rifleman) and the "rule of three" ...3 fireteams plus a squad leader in each squad, so 13 total. 3 squads in a platoon, so 39, then the platoon commander and sergeant, and two Navy Corpsmen
a video on defining unit sizes would be cool e.g. whats a squad, section, batallion, company, fireteam, unit? etc
I never knew Sgt Maj in the British Army would be at platoon level, lower than the 1st Sgt.... in the US marines, Sgt Maj is the highest ranking enlisted personnel in the Corp.
a regt sgt major is the highest NCO
He corrected himself. The Sgt is in 2nd in command of a platoon.
Sgt Major is a much higher rank.
Lieu tenant - Keeper of the (that) place. A place keeper. The man in charge. Great video.
"He is the *tenant* in *lieu* of the captain."
That's the best, simplest, quickest excuse I've ever heard for why Lieutenant is such a nonsensical word. 11/10.
The platoon of WW II was about 48 men or less. In WW I, it was closer to 80.
It shocks me how little we know in the U.K. about our armed forces. I really knew nothing about the detail of a platoon described in this piece. It struck me when watching TH-cam footage of US military returning home to their families (in uniform) how we don’t have an equivalent and how you never see U.K. military in uniform in this country.
I think "Hand me the mortar" would be easier than remembering the dimensions of it
I was about to be triggered about the thumbnail of a squad...
As a former platoon leader I was happily surprised!
HBOs Band of Brothers portrayed soldiers and militaristic set pieces in a fairly realistic light. When compared to most. Amazing show, highly suggest giving it a watch.
Was the platoon in Platoon a platoon?
+Tiberian Fiend That is a good question. Having served in the infantry in Viet Nam, I can tell you that an infantry platoon was mostly a platoon in the regs. A US infantry platoon has 4 squads, 3 rifle squads and a weapons squad. All rifle squads were suppose to have 2 sections, with a leader (the squad leader or assistant squad leader) and 4 riflemen. The weapons squad had squad leader and two machinegun crews (gunner, assistant gunner, and ammo bearer, along with two riflemen).In addition, there was a platoon leader (Lt.), a platoon sergeant, and a radio man. That would make 44 men to a platoon. (A 3-man command element, 30 men in 3 rifle squads, and 11 men in the weapons squad. During my year in the infantry in Viet Nam, we never had a full roster. At one time, I was the squad leader of the weapons squad, and the gunner of one machinegun crew. That was it. Three men out of 11. I think we had only 2 rifle squads at that time. And, both of them had only 1 rifle section each, give or take. Seems to me that was the period we were losing lieutenants right and left, so the platoon sergeant was functioning as the platoon leader.Were we a platoon? According to regulations, no! But, we functioned as platoon. So, you see your question is a bit tricky.Just so you know, a rifle company has 3 rifle platoons, and a mortar platoon. The mortar platoon has 3 squads that serve 3 81mm mortars, and an Fire Control Directory that makes up the 4th squad, if memory serves. We rifle people tried not to associate too closely with the mortar people-too many details over there we didn't want a part of.
Jaye Jay Curry Cool. How many soldiers were in the Platoon platoon? I don't remember. Wasn't it about 20?
The thing about Hollywood, things are very fluid. It has been a long time since I saw the movie. But, yeah, it could have been about 20, give or take. Keep in mind that the size of a unit in Hollywood depends mostly on what the budget for extras, which may vary from day-to-day during shooting. It really isn't possible to get any real head count in a film like Platoon. It is far easier when you have a small isolated unit, like in Saving Private Ryan.
As Jaye mentioned its hard to quantify sometimes as its rare any Platoon or unit is at it's full or official strength, for example ww2 platoons could often have as few as 20 men or less in them.
I think it was a company actually.
“A platoon is usually about 30 soldiers... that’s about the amount that an officer can control”
Me: *looks at imperial guard infantry platoon, with up to 113 men plus eventual vehicle crew men*
We don't have that many men yet nor do we face the threats that warrant that many.
@@marrqi7wini54
Nonsense Imperial Citizen. An unfocused mind is a weak one.
@@justiceforjoggers2897
In the 41st Millennium there is only war. However this is the second millennium, did the warp take you back that far?
In theory, the maximum size of an effective fighting force is 150, which is known as Dunbar’s Number. Prof Robin Dunbar is to be found on Wikipedia and 150 is also the most friends we can have.
Practicing on my accordion while a random selection of Lindybeige videos idly plays.
...I suddenly look up and I read the final caption.
Looks as though I came upon this a bit after the fact, but I'd like to say this was an incredibly well-done quick-fire explanation of platoon org. Like you, I am frustrated in the mis-representation of military units, so much so that I endeavored to inject a reflective level of realism in my novel "Killing is a Sin" (cough, cough) to not only tell a compelling story, but put history into context.
Even though I am an Army veteran and a military historian, I can sometimes forget which unit goes where in the order, so I came up with this mnemonic device- feel free to use it in future- "Such Pleasant Company Being Right Beside Dedicated Comrades Always" for "Section, Platoon, Company, Battalion, Regiment, Brigade Division, Corps, Army."
You're right by saying sergeant major. The British army had a 'Platoon Sergeant Major' At one point.
In the British Army (and other Commonwealth armies on the British model), "Sergeant Major" is an appointment / position, not a formal rank unlike in the U.S. Army.
The Sergeant Major in the British model is the senior NCO of a particular unit, which is why you could have a platoon Sergeant Major or a company Sergeant Major or a regimental Sergeant Major.
@@OptimusWombat That's not quite how it works. A Sergeant Major is not a NCO. They are Warrant Officers (WOs). They are ex-SNCOs who have been selected for promotion and have received the Queen's Warrant. We don't have Platoon Sergeant Majors, we have Platoon Sergeants. The lowest Sergeant Major rank is a WO2 and would be a Company/Squadron Sergeant Major. A Regimental Sergeant Major is a WO1.
@@PaddyInf en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Company_sergeant_major
@@OptimusWombat As an ex-CSgt who was selected for WO2 before commissioning, I stand by my statement. Any WO I have ever encountered is quick to correct you if referred to as a NCO. The Wiki page does not state they are a NCO, it states they are a non commissioned rank. There is a subtle difference. A private for example is a non commissioned rank but not a NCO.
@@PaddyInf that still doesn't contradict what I said about "Sergeant Major" not being a rank, but rather is an appointment. Also, the concept of a warrant officer" in the British or Commonwealth style is very different from that of a warrant officer in the U.S. military, which is the main point I was trying to make.
My great uncle was a dispatch rider in Sicily during WW2. He was lent to the Americans for 2 weeks by his C.O which I believe was unheard of. He's still alive fortunately and showed me a photo of him wearing the A5 badge.
Weird
In the US army sgt major is the highest enlisted rank for battalion level element and higher
For platoon its generally Sergeant first class or rarely staff sergeant
Each squad also has a m60 , saw , m203 grenade launcher and a couple m16 gunners plus what squad leader carries .or did so in the 90s . 25th light inf div.
Even when men were marching shoulder to shoulder, thirty to seventy is about the number one commander can reasonably deal with. The Greeks used sixty, the Romans used fifty, etc. A large enough group that they can build a cohesive sub-culture among themselves: but small enough that you can know each person individually.
but modern warfare, especially urban, trickies things up a bit
In modern armies platoon is divided into subgroups(I believe they are called squads) and those are even divided further into another type of subgroups. Each subgroup has a commander. So chain of command continues. Commander only gives orders to the their sub commanders. No need for them to micromanage a platoon.
Though you are right about a platoon commander needing to personally know each member of his platoon.
What, an officer knowing each of us personally? You must be joking! That's what the name tags were for. It was bad enough if you had a sergeant needing to know who you were, but the young lieutenants couldn't be bothered. They were too busy being harassed by their Sergeant-Major!
In "Regeneration", also called "Behind The Lines" (1997), set in a hospital/recovery centre for shell-shocked officers in WW1, there is a board to determine whether they can be discharged back to active service, and one character is asked to name the members of his platoon. He does not have to give the full list, however.
EXCELLENT! We use your films to assist in film making, although most of us are veterans. KEEP IT UP OLD LOVE, CARRY ON!
Well done. Hollywood has always taken liberties with accuracy with somee exceptions. You are right on target. Thanks.
In the US Army, a Sergeant Major would not be in a platoon, nor even a company. A Sergeant Major would be the top NCO of a battalion. The top NCO of a company would be First Sergeant, aka Top. The top NCO of a platoon would usually be a Staff Sergeant, aka Platoon Daddy. Then you'd normally have a Sergeant in charge of a squad, and a Corporal in charge of a team.
+dLimboStick Almost correct, but the top NCO of a platoon is usually a Sergeant first class. Staff Sergeant's are more often in charge of the squads, and a Sergeant is in charge of a team. Corporal in the modern army is almost non existent these days except in certain mos's. They usually just make the E-4 a specialist instead of a Corporal.
SGTs are usually TLs. SSG are normally SLs and SFCs are usually the PSG
I have heard that the US Army is far more liberal with its distribution of NCOs than the British Army - or at least in terms of ranks. It's pretty common in the British army for a section (squad in America) to be led by a Corporal.
British army platoon has 3 sections with 1xCpl 1xLCpl and 6xPte each. Platoon HQ has 1xLt as commander, 1xSgt as Pl 2IC and 2xPte (radio op and mortar). Our NATO rates are slightly different for our ranks compared to the US ones.
dLimboStick By team, don't you mean " *fireteam* "?
Very interesting and informative. Every now and then comes along a movie or book which describes in concise and clear detail how a particular group of people actually works. A great deal of the joy in the Patrick O'Brian sea novels is when Captain Aubry quickly describes some common, often coordinated, ship function to Maturin. What writers, filmmakers, etc... occasionally realize is that simply showing what something is actually like can be immensely enjoyable and fascinating. In police/detective stories the French called it a policier, probably the Brits called it a 'procedural'. It's why people loved Law & Order, it's what we love about doctor shows. Just about everyone who was around in the late 1960s remembers the CBS TV News documentary "The World of Charlie Company" because it simply showed what soldiers in Vietnam were actually doing, including being very pissed off.
I wish I had more examples. I do remember, very well, the book Curahee! about Don Burgett's Airborne training through the Battle of Normandy.
This is an excellent video, however, I do have to take exception with the idea that the PIAT was a good weapon. It was a spring loaded hunk of garbage. It kicked like a mule and the range was at best 40-50 meters. It was awful and after watching a British soldier trying to do the first prime I wanted to give him a VC just for having to use it. Sorry but I have to call you on that one.
What do you mean? IT was a British weapon and that means it was superior to all other AT. Not at all hopelessly outdated like a bre....
I believe it was a common bit of British humour (services , of course) , to mention that a soldier was awarded the VC for taking out an enemy tank with a PIAT.
Actually, the Bren was an alright weapon, it had an extremely good rate of fire (If I am getting my facts straight here, may be getting weapons mixed up) with most other machine guns of the time, a man could run across the firing zone and run BETWEEN the shots, all it took was a bit of luck. But the Bren fired extremely quickly, and thus meant it could hit a man running.
The Bren was a great weapon, my issue is with the PIAT which was a piece of shit.
+Cameron McAllister The Bren was more an assault rifle than a machinegun. As far as LMGs go, it was fairly standard.
You left your weed out on the table dude. looks dank though
I love the little chuckle when he says "Richard Gere as Sir Lancelot."
Missing are: BANG! BANG! - BOOM! BOOM! BOOM! MOVE YOUR ARSE, BRING UP THE AMMUNITION.......AAAAH, THEY GOT ME..UGH! Its called playing with army men...LOL.
btw, that's all very nice BUUT, the US army would just call in a huge mortar/ artillery barrage
The US should be envied, not criticised, for heavy use of artillery. Any commander declining the opportunity to use offensive support when he has it is an idiot.
As a forward observer, nothing pissed me off more than getting attached to a platoon with an arrogant commander who, not understanding the value of artillery and mortars, would completely pay off the opportunity to include a fire plan in his platoon attack.
I think that envy is behind the criticism. They hate us because they ain't us. In his own words, Rommel reports he was taught a lesson by our artillery at Kasserine pass. If we were the British, we would have been pushed back many miles just like what happened earlier in the war. No one talks about that. Our artillery stopped him cold.
It also kinda bothers me when people assume that using artillery is about dumping lots of ordnance in a grid square, the Americans simply advantaged by having more bombs than everyone else. In reality, it's a hugely complex process that requires skilled observers, well-drilled gunners, and frustrating coordination (ie, especially when you need anything greater than a battery of guns).
The Americans came up with many artillery innovations in WW2 that made them outclass everyone else in this regard:
- Every American infantry platoon had a radio, and most junior officers and NCOs received some training in how to call in and adjust fire - unthinkable concepts for everyone else at the time
- An American battery could get rounds in the air faster after receiving a call for fire than any other military at the time. The Americans had pre-planned the firing data for all of their weapon systems, regardless of environmental conditions, and sought accurate maps of Western Europe before the war even started. Only the French had attempted something similar, and nothing to that scale
- The Americans developed the VT round, which forced everyone else to rethink their tactics due to its ability to easily tear apart troops in the open
Even if a theoretical German infantry unit had guns in direct support with virtually unlimited bombs to play with, they simply didn't have the capability to have those guns neutralise an unexpected target in time, or to prepare accurate defensive fires without early warning and adjustment of fire well in advance. This kind of led to a perception among the common soldier that American troops were quick to hide behind cover and a limitless supply of ammunition, but it belied the huge mastery of artillery they developed. To this day, a lot of our doctrine and technology for offensive support is from the Yanks.
@@rethguals Wow, your information blows what I know out of the water. This is what I know, in ww2 (and from everything you have written, you probably know it too), Americans sent their best officers in to the artillery to develop these techniques you wrote about above. Any "Rommel" we had would have been promptly sent into the artillery units, so our best generals/ officers are "hidden" there. In addition, our generals received an incredibly thorough training in logistics, far beyond that of other nations. For instance, we were taught to never take a logistical risk. Of course it helped that we had mountains of supplies...
A platoon officer is at his most lethal when he has a map and thinks he knows how to use it
A British platoon is way different to the Australian Army platoon. I served from 1989 to 2012, and spent from 1990 to 2001 in rifles companies. My roll in the platoon was at first a rifleman, then forward scout then gunner. In the scheme of it, the platoon went like this. Platoon HQ consisted of the platoon commander (Lt), platoon Sergeant and of course the platoon signaller (Private). Three sections consisting of the section commander (Cpl), Scout group (Privates), Gun Group who was commanded by the (Lcpl), and assault group. There were effectively 6 LMG in the platoon. That being 1 in the gun groups and 1 in the assault groups. Note, that the scouts would also join the assault group along with the section commander. That’s a lot of fire power just for 1 platoon, and the Australian Infantry Battalion would have 12 rifle platoons. Hope this makes sense, and please let me know if you want me to clarify anything. Cheers
Are you sure he's not the tenant of the loo?
(Insert joke about military rations here.)
Lindy even says himself that the lieutenant is "in *lieu* of the captain". Seems to me like the american version makes perfect sense in English, then!
Even more sense really
I had a platoon leader or two who would not qualify for even THAT job. One Lt. was so bad at keeping track of stuff that I held onto his copy of the comm code book (forget the real name), his pens, and sometimes found his helmet for him.
The Cook's Revenge!!!
or
Death from Within!!!!!!
Band of brothers seemed more accurate than most hollywood
Yes, +Lindbeige, what do you think of Band of Brothers in this regard?
+tagi3d yes it is a good series. the pacific is also good.
+tagi3d I was going to mention the taking of the gun emplacement at Brecourt Manor as an example of 'good war film action'
+tagi3d
Yeah, was going to mention this one. Another one would be "Generation Kill".
Great series but way too short!
+Les Hammond They actually showed that piece when I was a recruit - to show how a proper attack is carried out
for German speakers, watch the shortfilm production "verstaubt sind die Gesichter".. nicely done and very realistic films, about what is actually going on in a battle (including the long hours of actually simply waiting for something to happen, and then being shocked and confused when something is after all "happening")
I want to hear your thoughts on Zulu (1965ish)
Band of Brothers did a decent job portraying small unit tactics. Not perfect, but pretty good.
I remember seeing a low-budget alien movie (randomly, while flipping channels) where the one surviving marine after they crashed had two rifles and I think six mags to protect the dozen or so scientists. He picked the most able of them to carry the second gun and told him to only shoot if he was sure he could hit.
Alongside the atrocious cgi and an interesting story this was by far the most competent and believable combat I've seen in any movie.
I'd watch that.