US platoon Korean War question

[Inkpaduta]

I am reading a book on the Korean War. The author explains that an American platoon was three squads each made up of three fire teams. He states there are four men to a fire team. So using this I figure you had some 40 men to a platoon. Yet, later, when he is describing a battle he states how this one company had 63, 59, 61 men in the three platoons AND that they were under strength. So I am very confused. Three fire teams are 12 men which makes a squad. Three squads (36 men) make a platoon according to what the author wrote. So how does he end up with the larger numbers and then saying they actually were bigger than that? Help please.

[AzSteven]

One of the things that makes it more confusing is the 'official' TOE was maybe more a goal than a standard.  In many cases a company might split off its weapon's platoon to its rifle platoons to give them a bit more firepower.  If a platoon was holding a firebase or defensive complex they might get extra machinegun teams from company or other platoons, or even an extra squad.  If the unit was suffering casualties from previous operations, it might find itself being combined with other understrength platoons, creating a seemingly-overstrength platoon but the company might only have two or three of them instead of the normal four.

[vtsaogames]

Also, a platoon often had ROK (South Korean) soldiers attached. A unit could also be overstrength with US troops. And US units might well have scrounged or liberated extra weapons over TO&E. Of course, after a while on the line a unit might well be very understrength too.

In my father-in-law's case, his recoiless rifle platoon had 4 guns, but the hill they deployed to had 2 guns that stayed on the hill, so while there he had 6 guns.

Reading SLA Marshall's The River and the Gauntlet, company strength varied from 60 to 200 within the 2nd Division at the start of that 1950 battle.

[carlos marighela]

Hmm. The author is possibly misinformed. The USMC maintained large, three team squads in this period (in fact to this very day) but the US Army, at least officially, did not.

The US Army conducted a review of the squad and and platoon organisation in 1946. The 1946 Infantry Conference concluded that the WW2 era 12 man squad was too unwieldy, it’s size beyond the effective span of control of the squad leader and that the three fire teams rarely functioned as such in practice. The conference recommended that the squad be reduced to 9 men, including the squad leader, with the fire teams being dispensed with.
This organisation was officially adopted in 1947 and was in effect by the outbreak of the Korean War.

You can find a graphic representation of that organisation here:

https://www.battleorder.org/usa-squad-graphics

In 1953 almost at the close of the conflict and based on combat experience a second BAR per squad was authorised. This allowed the creation of two four man fireteams each based around a BAR. Whether that organisation was actually adopted before the end of the war or whether it formalised actual practice is unclear.

Of course the paper organisation is as often as not an aspirational one as casualties both battle and non-battle, leave, postings etc impact on numbers of boots on the ground. That said where possible armies tend to attempt to follow the paper structure as far as practical. Sometimes this means smaller squads, sometimes it means smaller numbers of platoons or squads to ensure the individual squads are as well manned as possible.

[John Boadle]

FWIW The official platoon TOE would be a bit bigger than it maybe seems. If each squad was three teams of four, it would also have a squad leader, so we're up to 39 for the three squads. Then there'd be a platoon HQ of maybe 5-6 guys, so a total of about 44 men for the platoon. If an average of 61 men is said to be "understrength" however, then one of two things is happening. Firstly the strength that they're "under" is being assumed to be a significantly reinforced one, The extra could come from some combination of heavy weapons teams, indirect-fire observers, medics and attached ROK men, perhaps even a platoon of the latter attached to each US platoon.

The other thought that occurs to me is that these are *company* strengths. 61 men is a very feasible combat strength for an infantry company that's taken casualties. This was often seen in WWII. I've seen documents showing both Soviet and German infantry companies on a quiet sector in 1944 with about 14 men left, even if they still manned an MMG and several LMG's!

[carlos marighela]

Except that wasn’t the Korean War era organisation. 

[sultanbev]

I recently acquired a pdf with all the US army and USMC infantry TOEs 1860-1990 but at 4MB it is too big to attach here. And I don't have time to take photos and upload them.

The author  of your book is describing USMC, not US army - also the TOEs changed during the Korean War (probably only slightly) so it is sloppy writing I'm afraid.

Anyway, a November 1950 US army platoon had:
PHQ: 5 men, 4 rifles, 1 M7 rifle-grenade launcher, 1 carbine
3x 9-man squads@ 1 BAR, 1x M1C sniper rifle, 7x M1 Garand, 4x M7 rifle-grenade launchers, 1 pistol
1x 9-man weapons squad: 1x .30" M1919A6 LMG, 1x 2.36" M9 or 3.5" M20 bazooka, 3x M1 Garand, 1x M7 rifle-grenade launcher, 2 carbines, 4 pistols.
----------------------
A USMC platoon had (K-series TOE, 1949-1951)
PHQ: 6 men, 4 rifles, 2 carbines
3x 13-man rifle squads@ 3 BAR, 9 rifles, 1 carbine

Not with the USMC, heavy weapons are held at company level, so a completely different way of organising things.

[Inkpaduta]

Thanks everyone. It was a Marine company the author was discussing.
I strengths I listed were for the platoons of the company. Clearly he is
either misinformed or is included other men for each company. I know there
are no ROK or other additional units added to the company. The book is
Last Stand of Fox Company. Read it awhile back and I am enjoying reading it
again. Thinking of doing it in 10mm.