PDA

View Full Version : Consolidating Corps Level Support



gute
08-10-2010, 05:03 PM
Is there anything to be gained, other then fewer HHCs, by consolidating combat support units such as military police, engineer, signal and chemical brigades at the corps level to make one large brigade? Same with combat service support brigades.

Would combining fires brigades with ADA brigades do anything other then reduce the number of brigade HHCs?

TAH
08-11-2010, 02:26 PM
As of my latest read, there are two types of non-BCTs brigade level units in the US Army: Modular Multi-function Support Brigades and Functional Brigades.

There are 100 Modular Brigades across the three components Active, National Guard and Army Reserve. The types are: Fires, Combat Aviation (with four sub-types), Maneuver Enhancement (MPs, ENG, NBC), Sustainment (CSS minus Medical), and Battlefield Survelliance (MI with a sprinkling of Cavalry).

There 127 Functional Briages of 11 types: EOD, MP, CID, ADA, NBC, ENG, MI, POL, SIG, MED, and Theater Aviation.

Seems that as a general rule of thumb, modular divisions are built using BCTs and modular briagdes and Corps/theater troops are from the functional briagde pool. Not to say you will not see a functional brigade assigned to a division. But only very seldom will a modular brigade be under Corps control.

Lots of powering down to enable divisions to fight the fight. Corps seem to be the focus of Joint and Combined operations vice conducting their own operations.

Pretty much gone are the Corps Deep Attacks with helos and MLRS. Now, Corps gives the mission/task to the appropriate division to plan and execute.

What went out with transformation/modualization was:

The Division "Base" (MI Bn, Engineer Bn, Signal Bn, ADA Bn, Cav Sqdrn, Band, MP Co), DISCOMs and COSCOMs, DIVARTYs and Corps Artillery, Division Cavalry and ACRs,

At the action/execute level, these have been replaced by Sustainment Brigades, Fires Brigades and to a much lesser extent Battlefield Survelliance Brigades. Planning responsibilities are bit murkier.

Fuchs
08-11-2010, 09:04 PM
It makes no sense to press CSS into brigades. Regiments and battalions are the proper size, and there's little to be gained by mixing them.

It makes sense to mix dissimilar components into a whole if these components reinforce each other, such as combat arms in a combined arms system.

CSS on theother hand should not be pressed into brigades, but we should strive for optimum size units - battalions and regiments.

The intermediate command level between them and Corps Cmdr himself should be a CSS Cmdr (one star) at corps HQ.



The other question - should CSS be located at Corps or at Div or Bde - is more difficult to answer. It depends a lot on the operational concept. I would keep most CSS at a secured, "rear" Corps area.

Ken White
08-11-2010, 10:58 PM
The term that some years ago applied to a few CSS separate Companies and a Battalion or two was 'Group.' It was analogous to a Regiment but was generally a purpose or task specific aggregation -- or Grouping -- of units for specific functions. It usually did not have a large staff or headquarters as it responded to a General Officer Command -- which was also responsible for providing some support (and protection in the form of tactical firepower) to the Group supporting it... :rolleyes:

A Group was a Colonel command whereas a Brigade was commanded by a Brigadier General. Here are the old definitions from the DoD Dictionary:

Group.(DOD) 1. A flexible administrative and tactical unit composed of either two or more battalions or two or more squadrons. The term also applies to combat support and combat service support units.

Brigade. (DOD) A unit usually smaller than a division to which are attached groups and/or battalions and smaller units tailored to meet anticipated requirements. Also called BDE.

That Brigade definition reflects the 1964-2002 version, prior to that, a Brigade also contained a reasonably sized staff and headquarters, was essentially self-supporting, was combat or combat support only and was for the combat brigades, generally multi-arm or branch,

The term Group fell into disfavor for after the 1964 reorganization of the US Army Division wherein Brigades were introduced as Colonel commands when organic to a Division. That reorganization changed the name of the organic, fighting Colonel Commands from Battle Groups (which the Armor and Infantry Colonels hated for many reasons, not least the name, Group, as that was previously applied only to lesser beings in the CSS fields). To make sure everyone was confused, the Army retained other Brigades (Separate), in combat commanded by a Brigadier General and in peacetime, sometimes a BG, occasionally a Colonel...

After that 1964 change, the CSS Colonels objected to being called Group Commanders while their Armor and Infantry peers were called Brigade Commanders. So Group as a term was left behind. .. :(

In the US, in peacetime, military effectiveness is trumped by political correctness... :eek:

Most of those CS and CSS elements of today are in fact Groups but will be called Brigades. Just so everyone's happy... :D

Pete
08-11-2010, 11:05 PM
When I was in V Corps Artillery in 1980 the 42nd Field Artillery Group I was assigned to was redesignated as a brigade. The main change was the addition or more commo assets so it would serve as an alternate Tactical Operations Center for the 3rd Armored Division.

82redleg
08-11-2010, 11:16 PM
Would combining fires brigades with ADA brigades do anything other then reduce the number of brigade HHCs?

Yes, the supported corps or division staff would have to plan & synchronize the operations of one or the other type battalions. Span of control, 3-5 subordinate units. If the Division is trying to plan and C2 3-5 BCTs, plus 3-5 FA BNs, plus 3-5 ADA BNs, plus whatever else, something would lose out- probably the detail required by a BN and/or the synchronization of ensuring the BNs are working together.

gute
08-14-2010, 04:05 PM
Yes, the supported corps or division staff would have to plan & synchronize the operations of one or the other type battalions. Span of control, 3-5 subordinate units. If the Division is trying to plan and C2 3-5 BCTs, plus 3-5 FA BNs, plus 3-5 ADA BNs, plus whatever else, something would lose out- probably the detail required by a BN and/or the synchronization of ensuring the BNs are working together.

Got it.

I might be missing the point of modularity. My reasoning behind combining the MP, EN, CHEM, and SIG brigades into one large brigade commanded by a BG is to reduce the number HHCs, thus reducing personnel. Or, designing this as a large Combat Support Brigade that may be broken down into several Maneuver Enhancement Units of Action with attached Stryker units.

Same with Combat Service Support.

Combining 212FA and 11ADA would consist of eight battalions under one HHC instead of two. If this combined brigade had been deployed to Iraq in 2003 for the invasion, would this combined brigade have run into serious span of control and C2 issues? Also, are the functions of these two separate so different it would make no sense to combine em?

Fuchs
08-14-2010, 05:01 PM
Yes, the supported corps or division staff would have to plan & synchronize the operations of one or the other type battalions. Span of control, 3-5 subordinate units. If the Division is trying to plan and C2 3-5 BCTs, plus 3-5 FA BNs, plus 3-5 ADA BNs, plus whatever else, something would lose out- probably the detail required by a BN and/or the synchronization of ensuring the BNs are working together.

Wait a moment.

The amount of planning is not reduced. It's rather getting dispersed from Div HQ to Div and Bde or whatever HQs.


Let's also keep in mind that TO&Es on paper are one thing, the chaos of war an entirely different thing.
Bdes would detach battalions in wartime when Corps HQ is tailoring the forces for their tasks.

Pete
08-14-2010, 08:40 PM
Just a minor point -- Redlegs have HHBs, not HHCs.

82redleg
08-14-2010, 08:57 PM
...Or, designing this as a large Combat Support Brigade that may be broken down into several Maneuver Enhancement Units of Action with attached Stryker units.
...
Combining 212FA and 11ADA would consist of eight battalions under one HHC instead of two. If this combined brigade had been deployed to Iraq in 2003 for the invasion, would this combined brigade have run into serious span of control and C2 issues? Also, are the functions of these two separate so different it would make no sense to combine em?

First, the Maneuver Enhancement BDEs already C2 a mix of maneuver/combat arms, engineer, MP and chemical- the mix is tailored based on the mission. It can own an AO, or it can serve in an area support role.

Sustainment BDEs work generally the same way- they are mix and matched with CSSB HQs and whatever functional companies are required by the mission.

In my opinion, for a single BDE HHC to C2 to functions of 212 FA and 11 ADA, with 8 BNs in 2003, you would have to make the single HHC significantly larger simply to execute the different functions required. An FA FDC doesn't contain the personnel or equipment to C2 ADA, or vice versa. You could get some savings in the personnel and logistics arenas, but even there you would have to increase, simply to accomadate the increased workload by increased numbers serviced.

gute
08-15-2010, 01:39 AM
First, the Maneuver Enhancement BDEs already C2 a mix of maneuver/combat arms, engineer, MP and chemical- the mix is tailored based on the mission. It can own an AO, or it can serve in an area support role.

Sustainment BDEs work generally the same way- they are mix and matched with CSSB HQs and whatever functional companies are required by the mission.

In my opinion, for a single BDE HHC to C2 to functions of 212 FA and 11 ADA, with 8 BNs in 2003, you would have to make the single HHC significantly larger simply to execute the different functions required. An FA FDC doesn't contain the personnel or equipment to C2 ADA, or vice versa. You could get some savings in the personnel and logistics arenas, but even there you would have to increase, simply to accomadate the increased workload by increased numbers serviced.

So in the end to have effective control of a combined FA and ADA brigade one would have to increase personnel in the HHB, thus no real manpower savings.

Scrap that idea. that's why go to the experts.

Pete
08-15-2010, 02:17 AM
The FA and ADA split off from each other in the 1950s or 1960s because of different missions and weapons systems. If I recall correctly the Traversing and Elevating Mechanism for the old M2 Browning .50-caliber Machine Gun, originally intended to be mainly an air defense weapon, is graduated in mils, not degrees (6400 mils = 360 degrees), which shows the old Field Artillery connection between the two branches.

Ken White
08-15-2010, 03:50 AM
and the M60, M240 are also graduated in mils. The mil is used for all fire control, Arty and otherwise to include the Infantry (and the M4/M16 series) because:
"One mil subtends one metre at a distance of one thousand metres". More formally it means that object of size s that subtends an angle Θ angular mils is at a distance d = 1000s/Θ. Alternatively, if the distance is known, we can determine the size of an object by s = Θd/1000.

The practical form of this that is easy to remember is: 1 mil at 1 km = 1 metre (2π/6.4 ≈ 0.98 m in NATO countries where mil is defined to be 1/6400 of a circle) or 1 mil at 100 yds = approximately 3.6 inches. Another example: 100 mils at 2 km = 200 metres." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_milIt's one inch at a thousand inches, one foot at a thousand feet, one yard at a thousand yards. Better for all purposes than rather sloppy degrees. It's handy... ;)

Pete
08-15-2010, 04:22 AM
Yup, I learned a few things about mils at Fort Sill. I could never remember how to set up them danged T&E Mechanisms, though. That's one of them thar training tasks that needs to be hands-on, not "everyone stand around the table and listen up."

Infanteer
08-15-2010, 08:07 PM
and the M60, M240 are also graduated in mils. The mil is used for all fire control, Arty and otherwise to include the Infantry (and the M4/M16 series) because:It's one inch at a thousand inches, one foot at a thousand feet, one yard at a thousand yards. Better for all purposes than rather sloppy degrees. It's handy... ;)

The beauty of the metric system - when are you guys going to get with the times and pick up a 6400 mil compass? :)

Pete
08-15-2010, 08:28 PM
We've had them for years, even before NATO standardized on meters instead of yards.

Ken White
08-15-2010, 09:13 PM
The beauty of the metric system - when are you guys going to get with the times and pick up a 6400 mil compass? :)mil scales. Degrees are really used mostly by the Infantry School for navigation purposes? Why? Because that's what they've always used... :rolleyes:

Only exception are some commercial theodolites, transits and such the Engineers use -- and some survival and wrist compasses, those due to the fact that Ranger School has their Nav courses laid out in degrees and the calculations to change them may be too daunting... :D

Tankers use mils for fire control so for the seven years I instructed at the Armor School, I pushed and the school used mils for navigation training. Tried to get Benning to do the same thing instead of teaching two differing systems of angular measurement -- they did teach both. Failed miserably. The reason they need to retain degrees? "We need 1:25,000 scale maps due to the short range of our weapons." Said with a straight face, I kid you not (I'm still trying to sort that connection... :eek:). That from a LTC -- who I imagine had a great second career as a used car salesman...

Kiwigrunt
08-15-2010, 10:30 PM
It's one inch at a thousand inches, one foot at a thousand feet, one yard at a thousand yards. Better for all purposes than rather sloppy degrees. It's handy... ;)

And one cm in 1000 cm, one dm in 1000 dm etc. (just another stab at US reluctence in dropping that silly imperial system);)

Seriously now, as your link indicates, it is a rounding off. If pie is pie and a metre is a metre, than 2 pie radians equals 6283 mil. So stepping out 1000 and one sideways will not give you a full circle if you do it 6400 times.
Accurate enough for army but I assume that surveyors, navy and air force avoid it perhaps for that reason.

Pete
08-15-2010, 10:41 PM
We want to use an even number, divisible by two. The 6400 number may also have an origin in the days when we used yards instead of meters. It must have been a lot of work in the '50s to change artillery firing tables to meters from yards.

TAH
08-16-2010, 02:07 PM
Gute:

I guess your concept of Combat Support & Combat Service Support Bdes made up of modular CS/CSS Battalions organized into CS/CSS Groups is "A way". Just not "The Way" the Army has decided to go.

Don't know about the CS folks, but on the CSS side what is supposed to happen is all of the Sustainment Brigades in a theater are supposed to be assigned/attached to either a Theater Sustainment Command (TSC), a two-star command or Expedionary Sustainment Command (ESC), a one-star command. Normally one or the other would get forward deployed to support a given theater of operations. In a larger or complex theater, you might find both.

Doctrinally, the Sustainment Brigdes are supposed to provide support to units on an "Area Basis". I know this as I have been both the G3 and Deputy Commander of an ESC.

Not the way it's working in theater today BTW. The Modular Divisions normally get Tactical or Operational Control (TACON/OPCON) of a Sustainment Brigade and the TSC/ESCs run Log Bases.

As a non-CSS type, it still seems to be a "work in progress" to me.

My thoughts are that each Modular Division should get a Sustainment Brigade either, organic, assigned or attached. A division will never go anywhere and not require sustainment. So, while the number and types of BCTs/Bdes will vary from mission to mission, the need to keep them operating will be constant. The task organization of this Sustainment Brigade can/should be tailored for each operational mission/deployment. The number and types of functional companies and number and types of battalions (multi-function or single function) can/should change based off the troop lists and anticipated mission profile.

gute
08-19-2010, 02:49 PM
Gute:

I guess your concept of Combat Support & Combat Service Support Bdes made up of modular CS/CSS Battalions organized into CS/CSS Groups is "A way". Just not "The Way" the Army has decided to go.

Don't know about the CS folks, but on the CSS side what is supposed to happen is all of the Sustainment Brigades in a theater are supposed to be assigned/attached to either a Theater Sustainment Command (TSC), a two-star command or Expedionary Sustainment Command (ESC), a one-star command. Normally one or the other would get forward deployed to support a given theater of operations. In a larger or complex theater, you might find both.

Doctrinally, the Sustainment Brigdes are supposed to provide support to units on an "Area Basis". I know this as I have been both the G3 and Deputy Commander of an ESC.

Not the way it's working in theater today BTW. The Modular Divisions normally get Tactical or Operational Control (TACON/OPCON) of a Sustainment Brigade and the TSC/ESCs run Log Bases.

As a non-CSS type, it still seems to be a "work in progress" to me.

My thoughts are that each Modular Division should get a Sustainment Brigade either, organic, assigned or attached. A division will never go anywhere and not require sustainment. So, while the number and types of BCTs/Bdes will vary from mission to mission, the need to keep them operating will be constant. The task organization of this Sustainment Brigade can/should be tailored for each operational mission/deployment. The number and types of functional companies and number and types of battalions (multi-function or single function) can/should change based off the troop lists and anticipated mission profile.

The following link has greatly influenced my ideas on modularity and would be quite interested in what you think - off line is fine since this has been been brought up before in other posts. Thank you.

http://usacac.army.mil/CAC/milreview/download/English/JulAug05/melton.pdf