Organization of the WWII U.S. Army Infantry Rifle Squad
This video breaks down the infantry's "smallest tactical unit," introducing its basic composition and weapons, plus an examination of squad teams and the Buddy System. It all starts here.
Timestamps
00:00 Introduction
00:28 Squad Organization, Ranks, and Weapons
7:02 Additional BARs and SMGs
9:50 Squad Teams
17:38 The Buddy System
Notes:
1. After further research I was able to pinpoint the implementation of the Able/Baker/Charley squad organization to 29 January 1945. That would be the earliest possible date a G.I. would have trained with those team designations, assuming the training circular went into immediate effect. (Remember, due to a quirk in American periodical publishing that cover-dates magazines one month in advance, the March 1945 issue of The Infantry Journal was actually in readers hands in February of 1945 at about the same time this change to the drill regulations was adopted.)
2. Many of the quotations used in this video were originally compiled during the pursuit of private study and well before I had ever entertained the thought of starting a KZhead channel. As such, I was lax with the citations; they are not up to the standard of my subsequent videos. The final quote in this video was only vaguely credited in my notes to the "Infantry Journal, 1947." Recently, while researching another topic, a fortuitous page-turn led me to the original quote. The updated citation follows.
Edwin R. Shackleton, Jr. (A/71). "Rifle Squad," The Infantry Journal, Vol. 60, No. 4, April 1947, p. 76.
Interesting to note that the Marine Corps rifle squad TO&E went through 3 or 4 changes over the same time frame: It started the war with 1 BAR per squad this evolved to 3 per squad.
While you refer to yourself as 'just a guy on the internet', you are, in my opinion, someone who is very well versed in the subject and delivers that information in a concise and trenchant manner; something not found very often in that pool of 'guys on the internet'. I offer congratulations on a job well done and will subscribe with the hope of seeing much more like this.
May I also add that you're someone who *cares* to do well. You did excellent research, and I too look forward to watching more of your videos in the future.
Thank you very much, Dusty. I really do appreciate it. But I AM just some guy on the internet, and I may read something tomorrow that completely changes my understanding of things, so I always encourage people to do their own research if they're so inclined. I hope my videos at least serve as a solid starting point.
Jeff, Thank you. I know my videos can be rather quote-heavy, but I hate learning something interesting only to see it isn't backed-up by any sources, or seeing that a cited source has been out of print since the war. I'd rather give my viewers the goods verbatim than have them think I'm just making stuff up.
That’s because he seems to love reading manuals. Something I do too but on the contrary I’m a slow reader. I think that he KNOWS there are many many manuals and accounts out there. And that it IS possible that he’d have to nuance things and so forth based on future insights. But hey, overall he laid out an amazing bit of info. And the core of the info will never change because he takes it straight out of official contemporary manuals.
I tend to trust people who say they're just some guy from the Internet. More than the astronaut racecar driver brain surgeon anyways
This video is informative with no bullshit. Just what I like, you've earned a sub.
Thanks. I try to give people their money's worth.
Very good indeed! When I went through Airborne School in 1986 after Basic and Infantry School at Ft.Benning Georgia. A WWII veteran who was a Paratrooper in the 82nd Airborne during Normandy, Holland, and the Battle of the Bulge was a tour guide at the US Army National Infantry Museum. He said that Airborne units had a very strong leeway of weapons. All Paratroopers had qualified with all weapons within an infantry squad and platoon. Majority of all Paratroopers were also familiarized with mortars also because even before the Sicily Invasion of 1943 the Airborne Divisions were trained to the highest quality of training before combat. During the fight for Sicily Airborne units within the squads had M1A1 carbines, Thompsons, M1s, and M1903s for grenadiers. The machine guns like the 1919s were in weapons squads that had 2 machine guns and 2 Bazooka teams within the platoon. It was 2 to 3 rifle squads and 1 weapons squad. The company had a mortar squad which is in the HQ platoon with the company commander, XO, and First Sergeant. During combat in Sicily the 82nd Airborne found out that Paratroopers could take and would take additional weapons like pistols, BARs and grab Thompsons of casualties from their own or other units to gain additional firepower. So by 1944 before the Normandy Invasion the 82nd and the 101st had armed their Paratroopers to what ever weapon they felt like taking into combat minus BARs to include 1911A1 pistols were issued to troopers if they were lucky enough to get issued one was up for grabs. Firepower was the lesson of Sicily. So by the time Normandy had commenced both divisions armed their troopers with their weapons of choice to include side arms, machetes, and daggers. Paratroopers in the European Theatre and Pacific were better armed than the Ranger Battalions who had a slightly modified TOE to regular infantry. The idea of Paratroopers being armed to what they liked was so they can reek havoc into the enemy because they jumped behind enemy lines and used the weapons that they loved to kill the enemy with. In fact Airborne units were very unorthodox in their tactics that their orders were to kill the enemy in their way and take objectives at all cost for follow on forces that relieved them. That is why WWII Airborne units were elite because of their fighting ability in combat. Since the end of WWII the 82nd Airborne now as the only Airborne division to include 2 Airborne Brigade Combat Teams have followed a rigid TOE since Korea that all troopers are armed as a regular Light Infantry and Ranger Battalion squad. Streamlined to Army standards and no more weapons of choice but assigned weapons for every member within the squad. The platoon has 3 rifle squads with 9 to 10 men. The Squad leader is an E-6 or promotable E-5. Two fire teams Alpha and Bravo. Each commanded by an E-5 or E-4 Specialist/Hard Stripe Corporal promotable. Each fire team has a grenadier armed with an M4 with M203, M249 SAW, and 3 M4 carbines. The Team Leader can either be armed with an M4 carbine or carry the M4 with M203. This was Regular Army wide even during the Iraq and Afghanistan era from 2003 till present. For me when I went for my combat tour in Iraq from 2006-08 I was in a National Guard infantry company. I was fortunate to be armed with an M4 and an M9 pistol because my commander deemed it so. So every officer, NCO, and soldier was armed with a pistol if they qualified with it. When we arrived in Iraq Regular Army units in our FOB were jealous that we were armed with M9 pistols. Very good video my friend and interesting indeed.
Oh, thank you very much. It makes me think I'm doing something right. I don't know if it's from movies, or video games, or what, but it seems a lot of people are under the impression pistols are far more commonly issued than they really are. I recently read an old article that mentioned the unofficial propagation of pistols. (The Infantry Journal, maybe? I swear, I spend half my time just trying to remember where I read something.) Anyway, the author mentioned most of the guys in his unit had pistols, but they had almost all been weapons "liberated" from the enemy. It seemed to him everyone had a Walther, or Luger, or something, tucked somewhere.
G.I. History Handbook .. I worked at 2nd ID ..702 maintenance in small arms ( 1968 ) ..The CID boys had their 38 snub nose.. MPs with 45s.. of course we all had M14 in various configurations..Since we supported the whole 2nd ID pistols except for the M48 tank crew were not very common...
Excellent job. No Army can win the war without well-trained squads. Two BARs give better fire power. Today the LMG makes it even better, especially with the 40mm Grenade Launcher. The "two brothers" concept is still valid, just like in Band of Brothers. I liked the video a lot!
Thanks a lot. Yeah, the idea of two BARs per squad had been floated for decades, but even after practical experience with such a set up, the powers that be refused to make it official after WWII. They feared it would hinder the squads mobility, something they were obsessed with. It wasn't until the mid 1950's that they finally fully relented to what had already been happening in the field anyway. They never considered a belt-fed because it couldn't be used effectively in the assault as an automatic rifle which could keep up with the riflemen. (Not until the adoption of the M249.) Perversely, Rangers and Paratroopers, the lightest and most mobile forces, used LMGs (M1919s) in their squads during WWII because they lacked the heavier supporting weapons of the regular infantry.
Yep, they had to relearn that in Korea and then again in Vietnam. The USMC recently tried the idea out of replacing the SAW with the M27 IAR to encourage mobility in the attack. But from what I understand now, they are just gong to army all the Infantry with the M27 and keep the saw because it still provides more suppression.
I am learning lots from your videos. Please keep making them. I especially appreciate your frequent references to US Army publications, memoirs and histories. A bibliography of those sources added to your brief description of each video would be welcome.
I was in the USMC from '62 until '66. During my time in the infantry, The squad began as a 13-man unit: 3 fire-teams and a squad leader. By it time I became a squad leader a M-79 grenadier was added to the squad. He served directly under the squad leader. Each fire-team had one M-14 with a fire selector switch (we called him the "AR man"), and 3 riflemen. The squads were not always T.O., often short a couple of men, sometimes an entire fire team.
Thanks for the vid! :D I like how quickly you talk! Most creators talk very slowly and I need to speed the videos up. You delivered the info quickly but also clearly!
You have a real knack for video development. I sincerely hope you keep it up. Great work!
Thank you very much. I really do appreciate it. I'm knee-deep in production of the next video right now. (Tactics videos always take longer than planned...)
Real good video, please continue what you do, it's easy to understand and seems good researched. If I may wish for something, it would be the same video with the airborne's (if there is a difference) and the overall bigger picture. How are morters and mg's integrated and Co. Much love
Thanks for the feedback. It's gratifying to know the effort is appreciated. I plan to eventually cover the organization of specialized units, but for now the focus is on regular infantry. After a few more squad-focused videos I'll zoom-out and take a look at the platoon, and then the company. Though there were several differences in airborne units, most of these were found above squad-level apart from one significant change. While glider infantry squads looked the same as their "leg" infantry counterparts, paratroopers were not (initially) issued BARs and instead had an LMG (M1919A4/A6) in every squad.
Any chance of moving on to US Marine Corps WW2 squad organization.
Sure. It's not in the queue right now, but it's definitely a topic that's in my wheelhouse. I can certainly see it happening eventually, but there are other videos I wanted to get to first.
Can't wait to see those platoon and company videos man! Keep it up!
medics are a company level asset. normally you have one per platoon.
You Should do another one of these but for the US infantry in ww1
The TO&E in WWI was completely different. There was more emphasis on hand bombers, rifle grenadiers, and auto rifles. In addition, there was a whole lot more pistols issued out to individuals. There were no "field manuals" titled "FM-whatever" in WWI, but just drill manuals such as the 1917 Infantryman's Manual. Plus, as the war progressed, adoption of French and British tactics for attacking and clearing out fortified trenches began to be adopted and evolved. There was still the "buddy system" in use, but most squad level tactics didn't start to be developed until near the end of the war, utilizing the French "demi-platoon" approach.
I can do that for you already: rifle, rifle, rifle, rifle, rifle, rifle, rifle, rifle, rifle, rifle
Battle order made a video about it.
@@Ddog-wg2ri actually very different. I would watch battle order’s vid about ww1 us organization.
Very good job! As mentioned by other comments, you have done an excellent job with your video- very much superior to other presenters on KZhead. I've had a long time interest in military matters since my childhood back in the 50s and what you present is not new information but information more concise and explanatory. I'll be look for more videos you have made. Thank you and best wishes.
Thank you very much for the kind words. I know I keep replying that "I appreciate it," but I really do.
Thank you for making and posting these informative videos. This information will be put to good use playing Combat Mission games. Please keep up the excellent work and thanks again. Subscribed and look forward to more.
Thank you for watching and taking the time to comment. It's very much appreciated. While it's slow going, I can assure you I've begun work on the next video in this series.
This is very educational, interesting and handy to know. Thank you for sharing
Thank you very much for watching, and letting me know. I appreciate it.
I wished Dad was still with us, so I could ask him about his infantry squad on the Return to the Philippians
Just discovered your vids, love them! Keep up the good work.
Thanks a lot. (That's in a genuine non-sarcastic way! Text can make that distinction difficult to convey sometimes…)
Interesting video. Things changed by the time Vietnam came around, at least in the Marine Corps. A full "T.O." rifle squad in the Corps of the 1960's consisted of 14 men. The squadleader billet was ranked as a Sergeant, with a grenadier armed with the M79 grenade launcher serving as assistant squadleader (a corporal). The remaining men were divided into three four-man fireteams. Each team had a team leader (corporal or lance corporal), an automatic rifleman (lance corporal or PFC), his assistant ARman (a PFC or PVT), and the third member who would act as backup in case of loss due to casualties (a PFC or PVT). I was an AR man in Vietnam, carrying an M-14E2, select fire automatic rifle with an M2 bipod, and extra 20 round magazines beyond the normal ammo load for regular riflemen. Of course, in reality things never worked out as per the Table of Organization (T.O.), since we were almost always operating at half strength in the field. We normally had corporals as squadleaders, with descending ranks per job position. I ended up as a lance corporal squadleader because we just didn't have the available NCO's to fill the billets at the time.
Thanks. The Marine Corps settled on its familiar 13-man rifle squad structure in 1944. Before that, the squad was 12-strong like the US Army, but with two BARs as standard. By, say, Iwo Jima, a USMC rifle squad consisted of a squad leader and three four-man fire teams, like it still does today. (With the same rank structure as you were familiar with.) The automatic rifleman was armed with a BAR, naturally. The Squad Leader carried an M1 carbine, at least he was allotted one in the table at this time. BTW, what's your opinion on the M14E2/M14A1? I'm careful, of course, not to extrapolate any singular experience, but I'm always interested to hear from the guys who actually used them for extended periods of time in their intended role. (As opposed to typical "gun guy" lore, derived from firing one once at the range and then writing a book about it.)
I loved the M-14 rifle because of it's reliability and hitting power in combat. I was honored to be chosen to carry the fully automatic select fire version, which made me one of the primary sources of firepower at the squad level. I trusted my life, and that of my fellow Marines, to that fine battle rifle. I became an expert of the "two or three round burst" trigger control method. All that was necessary to sweep an area was to flip the rifle horizontally on it's right side, with the left bipod extended for handheld elevation control, then let the cyclic action move the muzzle across the target. To my chagrin, the second time I went to Nam, they took away our M-14's (had the semi-auto selector LOCK only that time) and gave us the M-16's. With four hours of familiarization with the new weapons, we were put out into the field. The new firearms were a haphazard platform for us. Many of them, mine included, had loading problems because of the direct gas impingement system, which dumped gas, and some unburned powder increments, into the rifle's chamber area, falling into the magazines and helping foul the follower springs. I hated the M-16, and will not own an "AR Platform" long gun to this very day. I do have an M1A (M-14 civilian version without capacity to be converted to full automatic).
Thanks for the timely and interesting response. Sometimes I read articles that make it sound like the adoption of the M14E2 was one of the worst tragedies to befall mankind. You'll see similar things written today about the BAR. (It wasn't universally loved, but many(most?) guys whose lives depended on it didn't seem to have a problem with the BAR other than the weight. It was universally considered a load to carry, but it generally went "bang" when it was supposed to.)
I had the opportunity to fire the B.A.R. for familiarization during advanced infantry training (after boot camp but before unit assignment). It was a very heavy piece, coming in at around 20 lbs., but rock steady with shot placement due to the extra weight. The B.A.R. also didn't have a tendency to climb toward the sky if fired continuously, as the M-14 E2 did if you dumped the entire magazine. Both weapons were battleworthy.
@@partriarch in all fairness the penny pinchers probably gave you out of spec ammo for your M-16, ordnance REALLY hated the M-16.
Your work is incredible! thank you!
Thank you! It's gratifying to hear the work is appreciated. (It means more videos in the future.)
A good informative video,thanks for taking the time in doing such a good professional job :)
I appreciate that a lot.
Very nice video. Explains what I have been researching. I love the graphics and order of things stated.
Thanks a lot. I try to make the types of videos I wanted to see (had KZhead existed) back when I was getting into this stuff. Some of the information out there can seem conflicting at first.
Great channel! No fluff just excellent information!
THANK YOU for the emphasis on pronunciations. I remember these notions being hammered into me when I was a heavier reader of actual books.
I found your platoon video and came back to see this first. Military organization is a fascinating subject and I'm going to watch all your videos now because of it. Maybe even subscribe. Nah, not maybe. I will. Hope you're well and thank you for your hard work.
Very well done. Looking forward to your other videos.
Thank you very much. I'll have another up as soon as it's completed. (It keeps growing...)
The last example from the Infantry Journal (1947) foreshadowed the future squad/fire team concept, and had been used to some degree early in the war by Marine Raiders.
seriously impressed with the details and knowledge.you have me as a serious subscriber.love detail military history.former army 11 bravo 87-93 .thanks
Call yourself "just some guy on the internet," but you are more well versed in this subject than any other documentarian I've heard. Quality material. Subscribed.
Thank you. Not sure I'm worthy of the praise, but it would be foolish to reject such kind words. I appreciate it.
Are you familiar with Britishmuzzleloaders channel? Not US history, but the videos are the last work in detail. The U.S. needs a historian like BML.
Very informative. Many thanks and keep it up!
Many thanks for watching!
Brilliant, no bs.
Thank you. It's good to hear. (And that's no bs.)
great video, just what i needed. Well done
Thank you very much.
This is some really good shit. Please make more videos like this. I just came across your channel today and am very, very happy.
Thank you very much. I'm happy you're happy. I can't tell you when my next video will be up because I cobble these together in my spare time, and so far I've blown every deadline I've set for myself... But there are more videos in the works.
Thank you man!! I appreciate it!
Keep up the good work!
Would you consider making a video covering the changes made to the squad in the post war years and Korean war?
You bet. I mentioned in a response on my other video that I foresee a squad evolution video at some point which covers the major changes over the past century, from WWI to the present. Eventually…
That would be awesome. As an Infantryman in today's Army I'd like to see where we started to employ the 4 man fireteam, and 2 fireteam squads. I'm hooked on your videos.
That seems like a great idea.
VERY informative! I tended to think of the WWII Army squad as a group of men, roles assigned on an as-needed basis. Being USMC-oriented, I'm really looking forward to your video on the Marine Corps WWII rifle squad!
Thank you very much!
Love from Down Under, keep up the good work mate!
Love from...Up Over(?).
Love is love
Wow. This is a really good guide. Thank you for making and sharing it. Really helping me make sense of the books I've started reading.
Excellent. I'm so glad you said that. My intention in creating this channel was to provide a primer that could enhance viewers appreciation of other material. Books and documentaries will often use terms of art without getting bogged down in their details or historical context. I'd hoped these videos would be of interest to people reading a memoir and wondering what the heck a platoon guide did, or what an echelon formation looked like, or even just how many men were supposed to be in a WWII-era rifle squad or platoon.
I love these videos. I was wondering if you'd consider making videos like this one the US forces in Vietnam, or preferably post vietnam in the 80s and 90s.
Thank you for your video description. Now I understand the rifle squad, as it applies to my Dad's role as the BAR in WWII ETO. His buddy told me Dad got his "buck" Sgt promotion in the field from being a Corporal. My dad was inducted at Ft McClellan in '42 for basic, sent for technical training as a teletype operator to Jefferson Barracks, MO, then Infantry School at Ft. Benning, then to Bolling Field, and then N. Ireland. He was a clerk in the HQ VIII AF Composite Command. Then, he transferred to England not far from Windsor. How did he move from being a clerk to a BAR, attached to the 101st Airborne as a para/glider trooper, serving at Normandy, Market Garden, Bastogne, Rhine? (Prior to going overseas, he assured my uncle in a letter from Bolling Field that he would be safe and out of harms way!)
It's impossible to know the exact circumstances of his transfer, but it wasn't too unusual. Rifle units had far and away the most casualties and needed the most replacements...Replacements the Army had serious trouble finding when they needed them most. This became a crisis when, under pressure from Congress (under pressure from the public), the War Department decided in February 1944 not to send 18-year-olds with fewer than six months training overseas. In June 1944 they went so far as to ban ALL 18-year-olds from going overseas as infantry replacements. This settled the American public, but threw the entire replacement system into chaos. By 1944, most soldiers shipped overseas were infantry replacements, and half of all inductees into the Army Ground Forces were 18-years-old. The Army was forced sit on this huge manpower pool and find infantry replacements elsewhere. This involved stripping units of men who were were at least 19 and in the Army for more than six months. Many of these men came from not-yet-deployed infantry divisions, but not all. Some, for example, could have been clerks in the USAAF who got to keep their corporal stripes but were shunted into a rifle unit after infantry retraining. Army Service Forces, Air Forces, and even Ground Forces units (such as Anti-Aircraft Artillery), stationed both within the US and overseas, had to give up men for infantry conversion. The 18-year-old ban was rescinded in August 1944, but the damage was long-lasting. (The AGF had temporarily stopped sending 18-year-old inductees to infantry replacement training centers.)
Excellent stuff!
This video was very helpful.
I wish I had the knowledge & skills to do these videos for British & Commonwealth forces. Fantastic work.
Thank you. I too wish I have that knowledge and skill!
Definitely agree you should a similar roll-out on the WW1 era of this information, but I would also say to keep going forward by major campaign. Another recommendation would be to also cover all of the earlier major conflicts (i.e. French and Indian Wars, American Revolution, 1812, CW, etc.).
Very good I learned a couple of new things. Looking forward to learning more. Just one thing, around the D-Day the assistant BAR position was officially eliminated and the BAR belt no longer issued.
jdg, thanks for watching. I'm currently working on a companion video about the rifle platoon (I thought it would be done by now...) which I hope you'll enjoy as well. About the assistant AR: While Change No. 1 (30 June 1944) to the 26 February 1944 T/O&E 7-17 eliminated the M1937 BAR magazine belt for the assistant it did not actually eliminate the position. The assistant automatic rifleman is still included in both Change No. 2 (30 January 1945) and the 1 June 1945 T/O&E 7-17. As mentioned in the video, the assistant automatic rifleman (No. 5 at the time) was a part of the 1945 Able/Baker/Charley squads, and was still a part of Baker when it made its debut in the 1 February 1946 edition of FM 22-5. When the squad was reduced to nine men in the 9 December 1947 T/O&E 7-17N, the scouts and ammo bearer were eliminated but the assistant automatic rifleman remained. The 3 October 1949 edition of FM 7-10 (Including Change No. 1 from 16 October 1950) states: "The rifle squad consists of the squad leader, No. 1; five riflemen, Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6; and automatic rifleman, No. 7; an assistant automatic rifleman, No. 8; and an assistant squad leader, No. 9. The automatic rifleman and his assistant, No. 7 and No. 8, are referred to as the AR team." The assistant was also there, at least officially, through Korea. In that era's T/O&E 7-17N, including all changes from 15 November 1950 through 13 April 1953, the rifle squad includes an assistant automatic rifleman. There were even two assistant automatic riflemen in T/O 7-17 ROCID (20 December 1956) which formally introduced the symmetrical "Alfa/Bravo" style fire teams.
The reference to FM-25, regarding the 3 team squads vs 2 team; Army regulations allow for unit commanders to ADD TO but never take away from regulations and units are encouraged to develop SOP's as their mission dictates. To my knowledge this goes back to the end of World War One, possibly even further depending on the regulation(s) in question. More often than not you see accounts of "OP's being pushed out" or "Scout teams being deployed forward" instead of "Charley team was pushed ahead" until, as you said, it became standard later in the war.
Excellent video - Well Done! (and I was an infantryman myself about 40 years ago).
Hey, thanks a lot. I appreciate it.
Superbly done. Good point about the pronunciation of "Garland."
Thank you very much. It's been a while since I watched the video (when I'm done I'm DONE), but I don't recall talking about decorating. :D
Please upload more I love your video!!!
Thanks! I'm working on it...
thats pretty good...........wish you put out more videos..........covering more timelines and even other nations...........even modern............gods bless
A thoroughly interesting video, keep it up! I do have one question, how does the organisation and equipment of airborne squads differ from this, and will you ever touch upon this in a future video? Cheers.
Thank you. By "airborne" I assume you're asking about paratroopers. (Glider infantry was the same as regular infantry at the squad level.) Parachute infantry rifle squads were also a dozen men at full strength, but the squad's base of fire was provided by an M1919A4/A6. So instead of an automatic rifleman and assistant automatic rifleman, a squad of paratroopers had a machine gunner and assistant machine gunner. I definitely want to make a video covering this.
Have you made a video on the Marine Infantry Rifle squad or any sort of equivalent?
Not yet. I've committed to it, but I don't know when exactly it will happen.
Lovely. Thanks. More please.
Thanks. There will be more.
Any squad grenade launcher is, by definition, a direct fire weapon. An indirect fire weapon is any weapon where a spotter is forward of the team loading; adjusting the mortar, howitzer, naval gun, etc base on what a spotter with eyes on the target tells the team he sees the rounds land near the target and the fire control officer tells the team to adjust by knowing his position, the observers position and the targets position on the ground and that is figured by the OT Factor. The team or guy pulling the trigger on the weapon cannot see the target ...hence the indirect fire monicre. A squad level and company 60mm mortar teams are direct fire weapons, though the 60mm mortar can be an indirect fire system. The squad level grenade launcher can be used to strike against enemy in low lying areas, behind cover or areas where lobbing a grenade might be needed as directly firing a bullet will not work. It's still a direct fire weapon
awesome vid and yes the Battle Buddy system was in effect back then just like it is today
Thanks for the feedback.
good video, keep up the good work
Thank you.
Fantastic job putting all this information together. I know I'm a bit late but i wondering how the american squad fare in 1 x 1 situations against german squads that had the more powerful mg42 as their automatic weapon, although don't had the garands for semi auto firepower?
Good presentation.
My relatives who fought in WWII loved the B.A.R., while the Korean War vets hated it with an undying passion. My cousin, Jack, carried one at Chosin Reservoir and had his assistant carry one as well due to its unreliability in cold weather. Full disclosure, a majority of these men were Marines in the Pacific and Korea, the Army vets were in the E.T.O. All of them said that the T.O.& E. was a guideline, not gospel. Many handguns were carried that came from barter, personal property or otherwise "liberated." They all said they were most valuable at night in dug in positions. Jack asserted that he killed three for sure with his .38 Spl. revolver who had infiltrated the line at night. He believes there were three more, but bodies were never found. He slept with that revolver until he died a few years ago. Dad and I were the only ones he ever talked about combat with, for some reason, and he really opened up. Most agreed that the Army was more by the book and structured, especially if the officer was an Academy grad. The Marines were more concerned with results than method and afforded much more room for improvisation as needs required. Everybody loved the M1 rifle, but the M1 carbine was a source of debate for years. The bottom line is that one should never use the words "never, always, every, none" or like absolute terms when discussing tactics, organization or weapons in combat. In war the first casualty is the truth, the second is "the book."
Hah, that definitely sounds like "Marines make do".
Damn right. I hate flag officers and the constant fellatio society gives them. I used to be into military history until I realized that it was mostly flag officer-worshipping crap, as though they determine the outcome of battles/wars to the exclusion of absolutely everything else. Good weapons, good equipment, good tactics, the leadership/aptitude of junior officers, and frequent training in/with them wins wars, not some general pushing division markers around a map from his chatau command post. "Operational" success is nothing more than the aggregate success of "small", "insignificant" units.
Uhhh youre wrong generals do win wars the character of a general is the character of the division/corps/army
@@reidparker1848 my country had most generals who were commondos and already has 3 to four kill count.
@@gotanon8958 Imagine being that wrong. They are politicians. Figureheads. People need a singular figure to credit, because they can't stand complex interpretations.
Thank you for the video. You have my sub.
When I first watched this almost 4 years ago, I thought it would be just another video I watched while eating lunch. No doubt about it, this got me hooked on to military TOEs, its just so damn interesting!
Kudos for calling shenanigans on the fancy new pronunciation of Garand. I did have an Uncle Frank who was a rifleman.
I'd bet your Uncle Frank called it a "guh-RAND" and not a "GAIR-und." Speaking about the weapon in a historical context it seems odd to use an anachronistic pronunciation. I understand the desire to properly credit the rifle's inventor, but the die was cast a long time ago. It probably SHOULD have been pronounced like that, but it simply was NOT (at least not by anyone who held one in service of the US military).
Very good video.
Great vid mate. As a current infanteer section commander in the Australian Army. I found this to be interesting and educational.
Thanks a lot. I appreciate the feedback. It’s slow going, but I’m working on a squad tactics video now that I hope you’ll also find interesting.
G.I. History Handbook are you in the military?
No, I have never served in the military. I’m just some guy on the internet with an interest in history and a bunch of old books. My videos are purely a historical study.
G.I. History Handbook ok cool. Keep up the good work
"infanteer"..!! "A baby crying" as my platoon Sgt used to say! (ex Oz army)
This video is absolutely amazing, extremely detailed and informative, thank you for spending the time man. I learned a lot here and I appreciate you sharing the knowledge.
Thank you so much. Hearing that makes it worth the effort.
great video
Outstanding job, this is top notch content! Would you consider covering German unit structure and strategy? You've got yourself a new subscriber.
Thank you! I appreciate every subscription. German stuff is out of my comfort zone, but "never say never."
This really cool! Thanks
Thanks for watching!
Where did you go mate??? Anyway, could you do a bit on the Australian Infantry section in WW2?
So I read somewhere that it was common to issue 2 of the grenade launchers to the rifleman and the third to one of the BAR team this could be some this is how we in our squad, platron or company ect ect but in some ways it makes since it would over head firepower to the BAR team who was usually covering the movement of the rifleman and they could react to needed grenade fire quicker than the rifleman in an assault
Massive respect.
Awesome video!
Thanks!
The first rifle I was trained on in high school ROTC was the M1. Although Garand is not part of the official nomenclature, everyone called it by the inventor's name, and we pronounced his name the same way you did, as did our instructors, who were all WWII and Korean war vets. The same pronunciation applied to every other WWII and Korean War vet I ever knew. I never heard it pronounced the "correct" way until a couple of years ago when a popular KZheadr noted how the inventor pronounced his own name. The M1 carbine is another firearm with two pronunciations. WWII training film narrators may have said "car-buyn", but they also said "Los Angle--es" instead of "Los An-gel-eez". I've heard a few noncombat veterans say "car-byn", but every every combat vet I ever knew said "car-bean". So stick to your guns (pun intended).
A bit of a nitpick: "Infantry Rifle" is redundant. A rifle squad *is* an infantry squad, and vice versa. "Rifle," in this case, is a metonym for the infantry, as the primary weapon of the infantry was the rifle (as indicated by the branch insignia, a pair of crossed muskets).
It may seem like something from the Department of Redundancy Department, but T/O&E 7-17 specifically lays out the organization for an "Infantry Rife Company." The "infantry" here serves to designate it as a standard infantry unit. I use the full name in these videos because future videos will feature units like the "Parachute Infantry Rifle Platoon." As late as March 2007, FM 7-8 (3-21.8) was titled "Infantry Rifle Platoon and Squad." While the "rifle" has since been dropped from the title of later ATPs, the latest version in my possession (the April 2016 edition with Change No. 1 from August 2016) still describes "Infantry Rifle" units within the text. For example, it details the organization of the "Stryker Infantry Rifle Squad."
Interesting. Leave it to the military to be redundant.
A Ranger assault section was a bit different. Assault Squad: Sergeant, M1 Rifle, Squad Leader. Private First Class, M1 Rifle, Rifleman.(X4) Light Machine Gun Squad: Staff Sergeant, M1 Rifle, Squad Leader. Private first class, M1 Rifle, Ammunition Carrier.(X2) Private First Class, M1911, MG Gunner. (I assume the "Gun, machine, cal. .30, light, flexible" allocated to this squad belonged to this guy) Private First Class, M1911, MG Gunner Assistant. There was also a dude with a M1 Rifle that commanded the the section, he was a Staff Sergeant.
I'm just going to save this comment to my computer.
very good research ....i clearly remember speaking with a 94th div vet who stated they always tried to obtain more BARs stating "combat loss" ....and had 2 or even 3 in a squad at times.
In addition to obtaining replacements for "write-offs," they could also absorb other unit's genuine combat losses. You'll come across instances of guys finding abandoned BARs and just holding on to them. The real trick is requisitioning all the extra magazines.
Not sure if it's been suggested but a video on employment of company/battalion weapons (60 and 81mm mortars, bazookas, 1919s, and etc) would be cool.
Great vid & info
Thanks.
I would like to address the reasoning behind m1903 Springfield preference in the rifle grenade role as to the M1 Garand. The reasoning as to why the 1903 was preferred is due to the fact that a blank cartridge can be loaded into the 1903 as needed and all that was left to do was to attach your rifle grenade. where as having the M1 you would either need a pre-loaded clip with a blank in it to continue firing after firing your rifle grenade which wasn't always convenient, or to unload said clip load a blank and then load your grenade to fire.
I guess you could top-off the weapon with a grenade launching cartridge with the en bloc still inside (partially ejected)… That’s doable, if not graceful. BUT, proper procedure according to FM 23-30 was to clear and lock the rifle before inserting a launcher cartridge into the chamber. The most common complaint is that use of the M7 blocked-off the gas system, which meant retracting the operating rod to manually cycle the rifle. (A problem fixed with the M7A1.) But I always figured an eight round straight-pull bolt action was no worse than a five round conventional bolt action.
A semi auto is recoil dependent to cycle the bolt. A 1903 is not the cycling is done by hand. Just my guess I suspect the M 1 wouldn't cycle correctly.
Does a similar video exist for WWII Field Artillery Battalion? (my father, Battery "A", 32nd Field Artillery Battalion, 18th RCT, 1st ID... Sicily, Normandy...to the end)
8:40 This is what I would call an ideal load out for a squad of the time that could be within reason of a platoon's typical armament. Even better would be if one of the rifleman in the squad is equipped with the platoon's only m1903a4
I would like to to see you do one about armored units.
Honestly your video is more well researched than many a modern book. Printing books has become so easy and cheap post war that any man with some bit of wealth can have his book printed. It disturbs me most when videos or other books then refer to these books rather than to primary sources like you have.
It's my main issue with Wikipedia: the woozle effect. Information on that site doesn't need to be correct, it only needs to have been printed. Before long, everyone begins confidently quoting a circularly sourced "woozle."
You say there were no Corporals in a rifle squad, so how did promotion work? Were PFCs Promoted directly to Sargeant? I also have a completely unrelated question, were Marine rifle squads organized in the same ways as Army rifle squads? Anyway great videos I can't wait for more.
George A.,T/O&E 7-17 (26 February 1944) only allotted one spot for a corporal in the entire infantry rifle company: the company clerk. Old Uncle Frank's outfit may have been different, but as far as the US Army was concerned, there was officially no room for any corporals in a standard rifle platoon by D-Day. For a rifle squad, promotion meant surviving. It was common for privates first class who stayed on their feet to become an acting sergeant when an assistant squad leader position needed to be filled. If they survived long enough, they’d eventually get the full promotion, but by then they may have already been an acting squad leader...or the platoon sergeant...depending on how many casualties the unit had sustained. During WWII, a rifleman with his head on straight could climb the enlisted ladder rapidly. An acting assistant squad leader who took over a squad could see his actual rank in the company morning report go from private first class to staff sergeant in one day. Your other question has been addressed a few times in other replies on this video, but in short, the USMC added a second BAR to each rifle squad in 1943, and then a third in 1944 when they adopted a 13-man squad which was organized into a leader and three 4-man fire teams (each with a BAR). The Marines retained the early war rank structure; squad leaders remained sergeants and assistant squad leaders (later fire team leaders) were corporals.
Wow thanks for the response. I may be getting a little greedy, but I have another question. Your comment about Uncle Frank reminded me of my Uncle Jim who fought in Europe as an engineer. It was his job to destroy obstacles and mines. I was wondering if he would have been attached to an infantry outfit, or if Engineers were organized into their own units. I swear this will be my last question.
George A., Every infantry division had an engineer combat battalion. These engineers were organic to the division, and were the infantry's own construction/demolition crews. A platoon of engineers could be sent out to repair/destroy a bridge or lay/clear mines, but in certain limited circumstances they could be attached directly to a rifle unit to breach obstacles (like blowing holes in hedgerows) during an attack. But there were other types of "general" engineering units such as an armored division's armored engineer battalion, and non-divisional units like engineer construction battalions. There were aviation engineers who built runways and the amphibious engineer special brigades that spearheaded seaborne invasions. Various "special" engineer battalions specialized in several fields, from camouflage to boat maintenance. The US Army had everything from airborne engineer combat battalions to engineer topographic and forestry battalions. Engineers had myriad tasks to accomplish, from neutralizing tank traps and building heavy pontoon bridges, to keeping the water clean and railroads running.
Alright thank you for the answers.
George A. Rank is also a pay grade, Higher pay than PFC due to time in grade made you a Corporal.
My grandpa was a replacement squad leader in the 475th Infantry Regiment, Mars Task Force (formerly Merrill's Marauders). Funny thing is, he started off as a Pvt., was promoted to Cpl., and by the end of the campaign was a T/3 squad leader. I've heard that in a pinch, T/3 would be the fill-in rank for "battlefield-promoted" squad leaders. I don't know how true that is though.
Was he in Burma with the Nationalist Chinese Forces ?
Super ! Subbed your channel.
Thanks! I appreciate it.
5:07 No mention of the Marines outfitted with 03's early in the Pacific War?
My great grandfather was apart of E company, 116th infantry regiment. I am trying to find some more information on him. I know he was in this battle and operation queen. He was wounded the 23 Nov 1944 during OQ.
Question for you: about the m1 carbines what can you say? and in this scheme you talk about where we put, for example, a radio operator?
I touched upon carbines and radios (SCR-536) in my video on rifle platoon organization. The larger SCR-300 doesn’t show up until we discuss the rifle company. Radios were organizational equipment, issued to a unit rather than an individual. Though one man became the radioman, there actually wasn't a dedicated "radiotelephone operator" in the T/O&E; carrying the SCR-300 would become the job of whomever the company commander or communication sergeant tasked with the duty, usually someone like the company bugler or a messenger from the company message center. These men carried M1 carbines per the T/O&E. (The communication sergeant was issued an M1 rifle with an M7 grenade launcher, presumably for launching signal flares.)
Good video, I think the prewar TO&E and the tactics may make some of the 43-44 stuff clear. The BARs were in their own squad as a weapons squad, later they were put in the rifle squad. The Scouts (Senior Scout and scout) were the squad "point section" under control of the squad leader. When contact was made, the squad leader could then bring up the Auto Rifle team (BAR) to provide heavy fire on the target. From right I have seen in vet's recollections, their was no special training for Scouts or BARs even though the official training plans talk about special training. M1903 vs M1 grenade launcher: the 03 would have been easier to load launcher blanks into a 03 then a M1. The first launcher for the M1 to my understanding restricted the garand to working the bolt when shooting ball. The later issued launcher fixed that problem. The 1/2 squads were used as screens under control of the platoon leader, or he could take all the scouts (6) as screens. I think the problem understanding the pre fire team Army, is people want to force the tactics of the fire teams on to these earlier formations.
Thanks. I felt discussion of things like the old “automatic rifle squad” or march security (the point of an advance guard) were topics that belonged in the context of other videos pertaining to higher echelons, rather than in any of the squad videos where I wanted to keep the focus tight. I’m trying to take it one step at a time without overloading viewers who may not know a German from a Sherman.
Really cool project. +1 Sub
Thanks. I appreciated it.
That company organizational video has been a long time coming.
So a BAR man or number 4 got an assistant with a Garand and a man to lug extra mags also with a Garand? Never knew that I thought only the machine gun teams had the extra help. EXCELLENT FILM.
Thanks. Yes, at least in a full-strength squad, a three-man BAR team was standard. As casualties mounted, the ammo bearer position was one of the first to be vacated, but the automatic rifleman usually had at least an assistant to keep those magazines coming. The assistant BAR man and the ammo bearer were actually issued an M1923 cartridge belt in addition to the M1937 BAR magazine belt. The idea was they would wear the cartridge belt in garrison and the BAR belt in the field, but I've seen a few photos of some guys wearing both at the same time! The extra magazine belts were deleted from the T/O&E starting on 30 June 1944 and replaced by extra ammo bags. (M1 Ammo bags were cheaper to produce and had many more uses, but they where hardly the ideal way to distribute the weight of all those extra mags.)
On point!!!
Thanks!
Really good, you've earned a subscribe. Where did you get the pictures from? Did you do them yourself?
Thanks. I create all of the images in these videos apart from the photographs (which are mainly from the US Army Signal Corps) and the period ink drawings (which are pulled from various training publications). All of the color illustrations are mine.
G.I. History Handbook Great keep up the good work!
interestingly enough, despite being universally issued to the army, the Marine Corps had quite a few difficulties acquiring the garand during the pacific theater and had to make do with the Springfield or even borrowed rifles from their allies or captured weapons from the enemy. I think the issues cleared up once U.S naval logistics became more secure, but its still interesting that that happened.
Thank you ! Interesting
Thank you for watching.
The Buddy system was picked up by the Rangers from training in the UK from the British Commandos. Any Brit serviceman will be familiar with it. It is especially helpful when you carry a lot of kit and need it checked. Also weapon drills. Great films these.
We call them Oppos.
I'm late to this party. Do you ever cover the weapons platoon? My dad was a weapons platoon Sargent in the Pacific. And he carried an M-1 Carbine. I would love to see the breakdown of a "normal" US Army infantry company in WW2 vs an airborne company.
Considering my rate of upload you're still early. (With all the things I have planned the party has barely begun.) The weapons platoon will not be covered in my the next video, but it will certainly be the subject of the next “organization” video. Airborne…eventually…
You did not mention the Carbing rifle... From what I seen in shows it was mostly for LT and drivers, or was that Hollywood getting it wrong?
@jonathanbair523 The carbine is mentioned in the platoon organization video. There was only one M1 Carbine in the platoon's T/O&E and it was allotted to the platoon leader. There were many more carbines in the company as a whole, and they could find their way into the rifle squads, but "by the book" the Lt was the only man in a rifle platoon officially armed with one.
Excellent video. How many squads to a platoon? Is this the same for marines?
Thank you kindly. The WWII US Army rifle platoon had three rifle squads, plus a small platoon headquarters element. Shortly after WWII, a weapons squad was added (giving the platoon its own organic AT rocket and machine gun support) and this continues to be the basic structure of the US Army infantry platoon. (The composition of the constituent squads has gone through several revisions over the years, but has been remarkably stable for the past several decades. The current infantry squad consists of nine soldiers divided into a leader and two fire teams.) The USMC rifle platoon was, and still is, also composed of three rifle squads and a platoon headquarters. Marine rifle squad organization (thirteen marines divided into a leader and three fire teams) has not changed since 1944.
Outside of the rifle infantry it varies from unit to unit depending on what MOS specialties are typical within that platoon. It can also depend on how large the platoon is. Without going into numbers let’s call them small medium large and extra large. We will start with large and extra polite from there Large platoon: 4 squads with squads 2-4 able to sub dived into two equal teams or maybe three teams of different sizes. 1st squad would be be the headquarters squads with the platoon leaders ship plus and highly specialized individuals. Those specialized individuals would either take commands directly from the platoon leader or have there own leader or be divided up equally between squads 2-4 And extra large platoon would still have four platoons but each platoon would have a couple of people who are either highly specialized who could be detached and formed into their own group for tasks. Or each platoon might have a couple of very green inexperienced members who are not yet up to speed and need to be taken away and assigned tasks of lower skill and responsibility until they have acclimated somewhat. A medium platoon would have three squads that can each be divided up into two equal groups. This platoon is essentially a large platoon without the headquarters and special skills group. Third squad would be lead by the least experienced NCO and would regularly be broken in half and assigned to first and second squads which would be under the leadership of the platoon leader and most experienced NCO The Small platoon with the third squad being smaller than the other two. Thirds squad can be 1 a specialized squad capable of working directly for the squad leader 2 simply a half platoon that allows the platoon to be broken into 5 half squads with this last squad working directly with the platoon leader 3 simply being the least experienced soldiers get broken up and absorbed into the other two squads and only are together for Lowe priority tasks