I agree, the Corps is out in front on this issue - and
also on the full spectrum capability problem...
The ability to tailor forces is critical and the Army needs to be able to do that; I'd like to see the plug 'n play aspect moved down to BCTs, shuffle Bns around.
The Division needs to go IMO because it's a legacy item and thus an inadvertant, unconscious flexibility inhibitor. We just need to fix the log issues. The US Army has really fought by Division in only two cases; North Africa in WW II and the 1991 gulf War -- that due to the Desert where one could maneuver a Division; all the rest of WW II and all subsequent wars have been RCT or Bde battles due to terrain compartmentalization and other factors. The BCTs need a third (or even a fourth :D) maneuver Bn and the RSTA Sqn needs a lot more thought but it's definitely the way to go. They also need to be called Bdes -- because a BCT was a Battalion Combat Team a long time before some smart guy reinvented the wheel. ;)
The objection to a third or fourth maneuver Bn will be centered around "imbalancing" the personnel system and keeping certain rank spaces (by branch :mad: ). Gar-bahge; change the system to support the military requirement instead of trying -- foolishly -- to design a TOE to support the personnel system. Bass ackwards...
I have a sneaking suspicion that your comment
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ron Humphrey
That was originally the idea but aside from other things the personnel issues both in higher ranking positions and the requirements for what actually needs to be expanded at BN and below would probably have to be agreed on and implemented before it went much of anywhere.
exemplifies what's wrong with the system today... :(
Why "agreed?" I know that's the way we work today, committees and consensus -- and look where that's gotten us.
IMO, agreement should not be required; an assessment of the combat -- not peace time, combat -- requirements should be made and a decision announced and implemented. We have ceded too much day to day running of the Army to Congress, DoD, POMs, PBACs, branch parochialism, GO steering committees and to Councils of Colonels. Not one of those things is in sight when combat occurs... :mad:
Peacetime, ideally, should be the norm for Armies -- but they absolutely should not organize and operate as peacetime entities. You do indeed go to war with the Army you've got -- and if it is totally peacetime oriented, you are going to have problems.
We kill people unnecessarily due to that crass stupidity.
Be reduced in number to a sensible figure?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
VMI_Marine
But then what would all of the MGs do? :D
We have the same number of flag officers we had in 1946 for a 12 plus million person force. That high and excess number is retained -- wrongly IMO -- to provide flags in event of a required mobiliztion. I agree with the need, disagree with the method.
Secondly, that number helps the up or out and DOPMA regimens to work. Both of those have their flaws.
Still, unlikely to change, I know. They ought to be able to find something for them to do; we've invented several jobs for three and four stars; how hard can it be to develop other jobs? :D
Quote:
You are obviously lacking in institutional pride. The US military can put the cart before the horse better than anyone else in the world.
Roger that -- but one of our many strengths. ;)
Quote:
I think a lot of the resistance stems from the loss of control. BCT and even battalion commanders sometimes have a difficult time accepting that the decentralized nature of the current fight removes them from the "warfighting", so to speak. Modularity contributes to that.
Absolutely, though I'm not as sure it's so much being removed as it is a fear of loss of control. That and a lack of trust of subordinates which IMO is partly control-freakitis and partly a bona fide lack of trust due to tacit knowledge or at least a gnawing fear that we do not train people as well as we should. Some favorable exceptions, I know -- and more every day; which is one of several good things that's come out of all this
On the training issue, the Corps does a better job with the Basic School but the Army initial entry training, while better than its ever been, is still inadequate due to false time and money pressures. LTs need about a year, peons about six months...