Maybe it's impractical but I wanted to know what people thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fuchs
The corps is the largest army structure that's affordable for most European countries unless the horizon darkens. It's going to stay in one form or another.
That sounds sensible from a European standpoint.
Quote:
This means that with all those compatibility efforts at NATO level it would make little sense to delete U.S. corps because this would mean one unnecessary level of command in multinational campaigning.
I asked if eliminating the corps would be practical because the U.S. does business through it's regional Unified Commands. If the four-star commander (are they still called CinCs or "sinks"?) already has a couple of three-stars working for him does he still need corps commanders between him and the divisions? Don't know, maybe he does.
But the discussion is usually about flattening the command structure by eliminating the division. I never see any talk of eliminating the corps and keeping the division so I thought I'd ask.
Sustainment = CSS = Logistics not Command & Control
Quote:
Originally Posted by
gute
Had a thought the other day of why not making the Division HQs/Base its' own brigade type. C2/staff/HQs Bn + Signal Bn + Troops Bn (MPs, NBC, local security force units, other odds & sods), + CAV Sqdrn/Recon Bn.
This is different then the sustainment brigade?
According to Wikipedia:
Quote:
the sustainment brigade for the 1st Infantry Division consists of a STB, a CSSB, 1DHHB, and 84th ORD BN.
A sustainment Bde will normally consist of a Hqs a supporting signal unit and a number of single function (trans, QM, maintenance etc) and multi-function CSS battalion. There role/mission is to sustain the force.
My proposed DIV HQs Bde would focus on C2 and include those units (staffs, admin signal, force protection, intel and recon&security) a division would normally need to operate.
TAH
makes all the piece parts Bdes
Quote:
Originally Posted by
82redleg
The 3 GOs and 3 COLs are probably the least of the BN CDRs worries (I assume that's what you meant by "his" staff)- and that issue is already there.
The problem with adding HQs and staffs for "small" BCTs is that we create a lot of FGs and SNCOs that don't provide much to the fight. What is this HQ & C2 BDE doing? All of its elements are TACON of some element of the DIV G staff (with the exception of the sustainment elements and the security company). All he has left is ADCON, and does it really take a BDE to ADCON 2000 +/-? Or to C2 the employment of an IN/MP CO conducting fixed site security?
My thought was that making the DIV HQs a "Bde Type" makes all of the units in the division a Bde.
The DIV HQs Bde could/would/might have as base:
1. A HQs Bn of the Division Staff
2. A Signal Co to support the HQs Bn
3. A robust DIV CAV Sqdrn
4. A Security/Field Jager Bn for site security and rear area protection & response force/rear area patrolling
5. Bde HHC
To address the UAS question in your other post.
You pretty much got it right, it/they would fly under the direction of the Recon Sqdrn to support the BFSB/DIV requirements. The problem it that teh A/C are Shadows. Only 4 A/C means no to limited 24/7 coverage and only out to 60-75 Kms from launch site. Too few A/C with "legs" that are too short.
Operation Yes, Logisctics....
Quote:
Originally Posted by
82redleg
Understand all on the UAVs.
I'm not sure that the operations of a DIV CAV SQDN (which is going to end up TACON to the DIV, as the old DIV CAV generally were) and the Security BN justify a BDE HQ.
The SIG CO is already in the HQs BN.
You end up with (at best) a BDE HQ and BN HQ for a couple of companies, most of whom are doing fixed site security (low overhead) and (when employed as a response force) becoming TACON to someone else (whoever is in contact with whatever they are responding to).
I believe you are better off with a robust BN (put the SECFOR in the HHB), and another robust BN (the DIV CAV) that interfaces directly with the DIV. I think a BN should be able to handle 3 ground troops, a LRSC and an air troop )or two)(preferably with lift, so it can insert the LRS, too).
Could each of the Bns operate seperate from a Bde, sure. My thought is to standarize thsi new modular brigade type (DIV HQs) to simplify the CSS aspect. Which means I now need to add a DIV HQs CSS Bn capable of supporting: a HQs Bn (with organic Signal Co), a DIV CAV Sqdn, & a SECFOR Bn.
Another way to view this issue is as a transformed/modularized Division Base.