I wouldn't agree with that. The "fire team" approach waters down the ability of the section to lay down serious suppression. What's worse, we equip the fireteam with a Light Machine Gun, and then employ it as an automatic rifle, making it one of the least effective tools in the section. Soldiers are the least effective when trying to bound and engage the enemy at the same time due to the cumulative effects of trying to conduct a physically demanding activity (bounding) while also firing a weapon while also dealing with the physiological effects of incoming enemy fire.
While I agree in the sense of a frontal, section flanking are still doctrinal; just not focused on or really taught unfortunately. Unless you’re a Vandoo that is. The assault groups simply split but I probably don’t need to tell you that.
The "fire team" concept is built off this silly belief that conducting alternating bounds across wide open fields to take out a lone two person trench is a viable tactical approach for sections (a scar from 1940s battle drill). Experience in battle shows that even the smallest tactical elements need to establish a sturdy base of fire, capable of suppression, so that a small element can move quickly to assault.
Do you mean in the Canadian context? USMC was using fire teams in Nicaragua and they were formally integrated before WW2.
I agree that the “bowling lane” approach to section ranges / training stifles the development of section commanders and NCOs in general. As above though the section flanking is “in the books,” but apparently only the French read it.
I’d be curious where you sit on how a section ought to be organized ?