Consolidating Corps Level Support
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?
Modular and Functional Brigades
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At the action/execute level, these have been replaced by Sustainment Brigades, Fires Brigades and to a much lesser extent Battlefield Survelliance Brigades.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.
Don't let the terminology fool you...
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
Headquarters and Headquarters Battery
Just a minor point -- Redlegs have HHBs, not HHCs.
The T&E Mech for the Caliber .30 MGs, light and heavy
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:
Quote:
"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_mil
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 issue compasses virtually since WW II have had
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Infanteer
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...