Re-structuring the BCT

[reed11b]

Ken or some others can speak better than I can about the # of LRS elements that can be effectively sustained in a given force structure- not every 11B is cut out to be a LRS guy, and I'd imagine that the LRS NCOs are even fewer. As a fire supporter, I'd like to see an FO on each team, if for nothing else than the ability to accurately call for precision fires, but I'm not sure that we can provide that many quality 13Fs.

On 13F JSO, I agree, also a medic would be really helpful, and maybe a 25 series guy since HF and SATCOM radio's are little complicated for us grunt types. Wait, that kinda looks like the CA equivelent if a 1/2 ODA. SOCOM would smack us into the dark ages. Many LRS limitations are in fact based on the conflict between SOCOM and DOA. I love the LRS job, but I'm about ready to give up on it, and give the LRS mission to SF and be done w/ it.
Reed
P.S. notice how Div recon went bye bye in the USMC?

[Fuchs]

Such cryptic number-number-letter conversations among Americans always look really pointless to me.
An army should develop its structure, its organization, manpower requirements and then simply train and cross-train the manpower.
That's such a self-evident and general thing that I cannot understand why the technicalities of qualifications attract so much interest.

A small team such as a LRS team cannot make do with specialists only. Everyone needs at the very least to learn the same skills the unofficial way (from the specialist, not at a school).

[JMA]

Such cryptic number-number-letter conversations among Americans always look really pointless to me.
An army should develop its structure, its organization, manpower requirements and then simply train and cross-train the manpower.
That's such a self-evident and general thing that I cannot understand why the technicalities of qualifications attract so much interest.

A small team such as a LRS team cannot make do with specialists only. Everyone needs at the very least to learn the same skills the unofficial way (from the specialist, not at a school).

I tend to agree that there is too much specialization. Much of what appears to need specialization these days, radio op/signaler, weapons (any), even medical to an extent should be common to all. I would like to think that in an army where operational deployments are seldom more than a quarter of their time there is plenty of time to cross-train.

[82redleg]

I tend to agree that there is too much specialization. Much of what appears to need specialization these days, radio op/signaler, weapons (any), even medical to an extent should be common to all. I would like to think that in an army where operational deployments are seldom more than a quarter of their time there is plenty of time to cross-train.

Which army are you talking about?


To Fuchs, the discussion of how to train and organize units IS the discussion of structure and organization. I have never heard of any modern military that doesn't train infantry, artillery observers/joint fires controllers, medics and signallers separately, although I am open to being corrected.

Even US SF, probably the ultimate in cross training, have all but one of those skills as a primary skill (they also have engineer and intel analysis as primary skills).

On a small team (like a LRS team), I would think that having specialist in each requisite skill would ADD to the ability to cross train the team, instead of hindering it. Having 2 NCO observers in the LRS platoon (what we have now) probably contributes to the cross training, but not nearly what having an observer on each team would. Especially with the training/certification requirements to control precision strike munitions, which I would think would be an extremely desirable capability in a LRS team, having a specialist makes sense to me. I also, from the very beginning, freely admitted my professional bias as an artilleryman.