Page 6 of 12 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 120 of 227

Thread: Re-structuring the BCT

  1. #101
    Council Member Pete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    North Mountain, West Virginia
    Posts
    990

    Default

    A lot could be said about the Unit Status Report on DA Form 2175-R, as well as its effect on the integrety of officers. However, the reporting of readiness began with good intentions -- the impetus for the old Technical Manual 38-750, The Army Maintenance Management System, is said to have been the result of a cavalry squadron that was unable to move out of its motor pool at Fort Meade during the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962.
    Last edited by Pete; 10-04-2010 at 03:38 AM. Reason: Add the phrase "at Fort Meade."

  2. #102
    Council Member Pete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    North Mountain, West Virginia
    Posts
    990

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken White View Post
    What are all the METT-TC factors?
    There goes another Infantry guy carrying on about METT-TC, the way they always do. Look, when the Infantry has a problem they should ask for an artillery preparation, we'll fire it in HE and VT, maybe even with some ICM.

    Then, after that, all the Infantry has to do is advance to the objective, in platoon columns of fours singing Jody Cadences. The company commander and first sergeant should be out front with the guidon.

    When the Infantry reaches the objective and counts the bodies, all they have to do is report back on how the artillery won the war.

  3. #103
    Council Member Fuchs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,189

    Default

    Irony or serious?

  4. #104
    Council Member 82redleg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USAWC, Carlisle Bks
    Posts
    224

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rifleman View Post
    Have many of the light/airborne/air assault BCTs deployed to Afghanistan been reinforced with a third battalion or have most deployed as is?
    For a time (04?-05-06), there was a separate USMC Infantry BN (not part of a MAGTF) in A-stan. The last USMC BN finished its rotation working for the first BCT (I was in the last BDE TF, replaced by the first modular BCT in 2006).

    I know that the ARNG BN tasked as PRT security has been employed as a battle-space owning maneuver element (with its HQ, residual combat power after parceling out its platoons to PRTs, and separate MPs, EN, ADA, etc).

    The BCT that deployed as combat advisors had at least one BN detached as a battle-space owning maneuver element.

    I don't know of any modular BCTs that have deployed with a third infantry battalion, although some have picked up a third battalion based on task orgs in theater. The sources I know of are noted above.

  5. #105
    Council Member TAH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    115

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gute View Post
    Can the CABs provide the armored reconnaissance mission required by the BCT commander? If so does it make sense to replace the ARS with a third CAB or reinforce the ARS with armor and additional scouts?
    In a sense I stated the latter position in my re-arranged HBCT. Re-org the HBCT recon/scout platoons to put all in the ARS. Organize them in platoons of 6. Assign HMMWV scout platoons (6 vehicles for doctrinal stanardization) to each CAB. Limit the roles/missions of the CAB scouts. If they need more combat power, they can either assign one of their own combat platoons or request a CFV platoon thru Bde from the ARS.

    Too much time, effort and resources has been spent under the umbrella of recon = unit. Recon is a MISSION, NOT a Unit! Any/all maneuver combat units (including most types of combat support units) should be able to conduct platoon/company level recon (Route, Area, Zone).

  6. #106
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    589

    Default The Soviet Combined Arms Battalion...blast from the past

    I thought this might provie interesting. In the late 80s, beofre the SU collpased, they were ehading toward brigade based formations. Their first task was the Sov style CAB (see attached jpeg). Time, resources and the collapse of the USSR prevented this. It's still a desire, however, with the Russian Army.

    From Soviet Non-Linear Combat: The Challenge of the 90s (sorry, I don't have a more accessable link).

  7. #107
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    589

    Default Who's the idiot who forgot to attach the jpeg....?

    Outline of planned, but never completed, Soviet combined arms battalion (c.1989) courtesy of SASO (now FMSO) and Lester Grau...

  8. #108
    Council Member TAH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    115

    Default Very Stryker Like

    With some re-organization this is very like a Stryker Infantry Like in the aggregate.

    SBCT In Bn
    42 ICVs
    4 RVs
    4 120mm SP Stryker Mortar carriers in a Hvy Mortar PLT
    6 more mortars (2 with each company)
    9 MGS
    No ADA/MANPADs/SAMs
    3 Stryker ATGMs (Attached from Bde)

    40-45 BMP/BTRs
    3 recon vehicles
    4 2S9 120mm SP Mortars
    10 tanks
    3 MANPADs
    AT PLT

  9. #109
    Council Member Pete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    North Mountain, West Virginia
    Posts
    990

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fuchs View Post
    Irony or serious?
    I was being ironic, and also jerking a certain person's chain, one who has forgotten more about the Army than I'll ever know.

  10. #110
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    589

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TAH View Post
    With some re-organization this is very like a Stryker Infantry Like in the aggregate.

    SBCT In Bn
    42 ICVs
    4 RVs
    4 120mm SP Stryker Mortar carriers in a Hvy Mortar PLT
    6 more mortars (2 with each company)
    9 MGS
    No ADA/MANPADs/SAMs
    3 Stryker ATGMs (Attached from Bde)

    40-45 BMP/BTRs
    3 recon vehicles
    4 2S9 120mm SP Mortars
    10 tanks
    3 MANPADs
    AT PLT
    Indeed, but I'd have to say that the Sov model envisaged artillery support to be a little more "robust" than the US model. Apart from the structure of the CAB I'd have t say that's my second gripe with the stryker and HBCTs. Note that the Bn has as many arty tubes as your Bdes do. In the soviet concept the bde would have had three to four manourvere Bn, an engineer Bn and a compiosite artillery battalion with 2-3 bty (8 SPH each) and 1-2 MRL bty (each 6-8 MRL depending upon calibre, larger caliber equals small No.).

  11. #111
    Council Member TAH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    115

    Default Sov versus US Arty

    Ah, but we became enamoured with "High-tech" (also read very expensive) artillery/rocket systems.

    Even though it has been highly praised for its use in Iraq, I read somwhere recently that the US Army is considering cutting back/eliminating Excaliber (GPS guide 155mm) and GMLRS based on costs. Standard 155mm HE was around $500 per round. Excailiber was over $10,000 per round.

    Oh well....

  12. #112
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    223

    Default Reinventing the wheel

    Quote Originally Posted by TAH View Post
    Too much time, effort and resources has been spent under the umbrella of recon = unit. Recon is a MISSION, NOT a Unit! Any/all maneuver combat units (including most types of combat support units) should be able to conduct platoon/company level recon (Route, Area, Zone).
    The real question is whether the BCT needs a 'cavalry' capability vice a 'recon' capability. That is, the ability to perform the other missions associated with cavalry (guard/screen/delay, etc). Traditionally the answer has been no, with cavalry capabilities located at the division level, but with the impending death of the division, one wonders just where we will put our cavalry and what level of command will have control over it.

    And, yes, theoretically, any maneuver element can also perform 'cavalry' missions...but theoretically any unit can serve as infantry. My professional experience indicates that having a unit dedicated to reconnaissance results in better reconnaissance at every level. The only valid debate is how heavy and lethal your cavalry should be, and that has gone unreolved since the days of Stuarts and Greyhounds.

    Time spent discussing reconnaissance is never wasted.

  13. #113
    Council Member TAH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    115

    Default Cavalry Squadron versus Reconnaissance Battalion

    BLUF
    In addition to conducting the full range of Combat (attack, defend, delay) and Security (Screen, guard cover) missions, Cavalry units are capable of conducting effective all three reconnaissance missions (Route, aone, area).

    Our current Recon Sqdrons are only effective in conducting surveillance (watching and listening) and very limited "active recon" (most often limited to screening) against weak or passive opponents. With augmentation is the phase that is often thrown about to allow/enable the ARS to do other things/tasks/missions. Read, Rob Peter to pay Paul.

    What makes the current set of Recon Squadrons so bad is their lack of organic capablity to develope the situation while in contact (read fight for information). Against a determined opponent, they will bump up against the front edge of his security force/zone and call for the commitment of the Main Body. Fine if that call does not come too early.

    This is situation is made worse because both the division and corps are "out of the Cav business". No division or corps level units (other then a BCT) to fight for information and develop the situation prior to commiting the main body. No unit (other then a BCT) available for economy-of-force or deception missions. Taking any unit away from a BCT to preform these tasks/missions "breaks" that BCT.

    BCTs need Fully Mission cabable Cavalry Squadrons to enable them to develop situations while the rest of the BCT is out of contact and commit the BCT at the time/place of the CDR's choosing vice the enemy's.

  14. #114
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default I take that a step further

    Quote Originally Posted by TAH View Post
    BCTs need Fully Mission cabable Cavalry Squadrons to enable them to develop situations while the rest of the BCT is out of contact and commit the BCT at the time/place of the CDR's choosing vice the enemy's.
    Armored (Heavy), Infantry (Light) and Airborne Infantry (Light) Bdes need a Cav Sqn plus a third maneuver Bn. What's also needed are true Armored Cavalry Regiments (NOT Stryker units).

    If we're going to have a total of an arbitrary (on affordability grounds) 60 Bdes, AC/RC, the IMO we should aim for:

    10/20 Armored or Heavy
    10/5 Infantry or Light
    5/5 ACR
    5/0 Abn Inf (aka Light)

    The design of the Bns that comprise those Brigades is largely totally immaterial as long as they are anywhere near current or historic US norms and allow Commanders to rapidly tailor AND constantly adjust their force for METT-TC parameters *. Forcing them to do so would be even better until we improve our training...

    If we temporarily have more Bdes, plus up the Infantry and ACRs only on a 1/1 ratio. For the Stryker fans, three to five of the Armored or Heavy Bdes could be Strykerized if one insists. While the stryker has merit, it is not adequately survivable of maneuverable for MCO. The 'medium ' role should be filled by the TRACK vehicle mounted ACRs, one of the best economy of force designs yet to appear. I'd personally go for more ACRs but the Inf / Armor communities would then squabble.

    The Cav Sqn and ACR -- particularly the 1945-70 variants were the only organizations that offered true combined arms training to all members and young Cav LTs were versatile and flexible Dudes who could and would delegate...

    For those who say Airborne units are unnecessary and obsolete, I totally agree BUT we have not developed, deliberately or inadvertently, the capability of otherwise moving and inserting a Bn or larger sized force 10,000 or so miles and getting it on the ground, a useful strategic capability. Until we do, that capability is better maintained than discarded. I'm aware of the traffic bump jokes. I'm equally aware of the damage LGOP (LINK) can wreak on Armor. The last three lines of the Rules are particularly to be noted. With perhaps emphasis on lines 5 and 8...

    I'm also aware of the capabilities and limitation of Armor units in the Guard. METT-TC...

    * As the Actress said to the Bishop, it's not really what you have, it's how you use it...

  15. #115
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    589

    Default

    I've been wondering about this for a while and thought I'd keep it to myself (you know, so as not to appear too idiotic). Anyway, I thought I'd ask the wsie...why no more motorcycles in the recon sqns? IIRC the M3 was supposed to be able to carry a motorcycle.

  16. #116
    Council Member reed11b's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Olympia WA
    Posts
    531

    Default

    What I fail to understand, is how the request for re-enforced or strengthened brigades led us to an Army of understrength brigades. This almost insured the need for a Div type level of command. Oh, that's why.
    Also KW, I agree with your number for brigades, but I would switch your RC light and armored numbers. Maintaining armored vehicles is nearly as expensive in RC units as it is in AC units. Infantry however.....
    Reed
    Quote Originally Posted by sapperfitz82 View Post
    This truly is the bike helmet generation.

  17. #117
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default A twofer...

    Tukhachevskii:
    Anyway, I thought I'd ask the wsie...why no more motorcycles in the recon sqns? IIRC the M3 was supposed to be able to carry a motorcycle.
    Accident rate, training time and a not fully capable heavy fuel engine plus METT-TC -- no real need at this time.

    Reed11B:
    ...Maintaining armored vehicles is nearly as expensive in RC units as it is in AC units. Infantry however.....
    Maybe even more expensive in some respects but the real issue is current needs versus a true Strategic Reserve for future problems that may need more than walking Infantry -- who can really better cope with today's problems (and who can use non-standard vehicles without degrading critical armor vehicle handling skills)...

    Plus it'll deter call ups for dumb wars (I'd really opt for just five AC Heavies + 25 RC and 15 AC Inf + 0 RC but that'd never fly politically...).

    Plus you can put all that Armor out west where it can use big ranges and not have so many maneuver constraints. Eastern armor units have to severely degrade training due to range and maneuver enviro concerns.

    Plus it gives the affected States more vehicles (wheeled, GP) for State missions.

    Plus, as I love to tell the Armor folks, it's harder to train good infantrymen than it is to train good Armor crewmen.

  18. #118
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Near the Spiral, New Zealand.
    Posts
    134

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken White View Post
    Tukhachevskii:Accident rate, training time and a not fully capable heavy fuel engine plus METT-TC -- no real need at this time.
    Accident rates and training item go together but the training time and time to maintain m/c skillsets is not onerous and probably less so if the capability fills a useful niche.

    I think that the engine/fuel issue has been resolved although the weight is an issue for what might be more of a recon than a mobility platform...off-topic but i'd be keen to hear from anyone who had experience mounting m/c on vehicles for us when required as opposed to the outrider approach...
    Last edited by SJPONeill; 10-06-2010 at 10:14 PM. Reason: add quote marks

  19. #119
    Council Member Fuchs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,189

    Default

    Almost all modern motorcycle designs are fair-weather designs, unable to stand long use (such as decades, as usual in the military) and ill-prepared for very cold or wet weather. Many fuel systems and batteries also cause troubles when the motorcycle isn't upright, but on the side.

  20. #120
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Near the Spiral, New Zealand.
    Posts
    134

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fuchs View Post
    Almost all modern motorcycle designs are fair-weather designs, unable to stand long use (such as decades, as usual in the military) and ill-prepared for very cold or wet weather. Many fuel systems and batteries also cause troubles when the motorcycle isn't upright, but on the side.
    Modern i.e. COTS motorcycles have been used in militaries for at least the last 30 years with considerable success and relatively few problems. My question relates not to whether motorcycles can be used for military purposes (they can) but specifically to their employment as a capability that is carried until needed as opposed to their use as a platform that is ridden all the time...

Similar Threads

  1. Wargaming Small Wars (merged thread)
    By Steve Blair in forum Training & Education
    Replies: 317
    Last Post: 02-21-2019, 12:14 PM
  2. mTBI, PTSD and Stress (Catch All)
    By GorTex6 in forum Trigger Puller
    Replies: 177
    Last Post: 04-20-2016, 07:00 PM
  3. The BCT CDR's Role Security Force Assistance
    By Rob Thornton in forum Equipment & Capabilities
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 04-08-2008, 12:09 AM
  4. The Army's TMAAG
    By SWJED in forum FID & Working With Indigenous Forces
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 03-27-2008, 01:29 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •