It has to do with the absence of robust front-lines in modern warfare.
This absence is less related to a supposed rise of 'irregular' warfare than to decreased force densities (my opinion, obviously).
The fights of today are similar to encounters with hostile stragglers in WW2 or with red infiltrating infantry in Korea (IMO).
Years ago I reasoned that armoured trucks make only sense for mechanised brigades and convoys which attempt to supply them - the trend towards armouring everything will likely end in a few years when large quantities of vehicles need to be replaced.
The gist of this thread seems to be:
There were always times when two manuever elements were enough. There were always times when four were needed. Three manuever elements seems to be the common sense starting point to task organize up or down from.
Lot's differences about details but the general consensus seems to be three manuever battalions, cavalry squadron, artillery battalion, and support battalion.
Arguments about wheeled vehicles and IFVs aside, is this the starting point for a brigade whether heavy, medium or light?
"Pick up a rifle and you change instantly from a subject to a citizen." - Jeff Cooper
Devilishly simple solution...
Probably because today (or at least recently) we tend to drive up and down the same roads day in, day out. Took these clowns awhile to take advantage of the situation but now it is a headache. It is natural to want to protect your soldiers from such a treat (in the case of Afghanistan also on foot). Rhodesia and South Africa achieved much in Taming the Landmine but note that the project process time followed by the procurement process time make it all but impossible for the western armies to keep up with the innovations being used against them. There should be a fabrication works right there in Afghanistan turning out and modifying vehicles on the fly. As the threat changes so you recall the vehicles on rotation to carryout the necessary mod.Originally Posted by Pete
Its not about beating the enemy... its about beating the bureaucracy.
On yes and when the war is over... leave the vehicle there.
As good as place as any to start
Pretty much what the current SBCT in the macro.
Have to be careful about straight unit/echelon comparisons.
Back in the 80s a US Tank Company had 17 tanks, three companies and 54 in the Bn.
Under Div-86, company size dropped to 14, added a fourth company and total tanks in the Bn rose to 58.
The Army-of-Excellence(AoE) dropped the fourth company and the Bn went to 44 or 45.
The total tanks in a Hvy CAB is back to 58 spread across the two Bn (No more Tank Bns in the US Army of today).
Three maneuver Bns of three companies of three platoons + CAV sqdrn of 3 or 4 Troops of 3 or 4 platoons works for me. In a perfect non-Bill Payer world (nod to Ken).
Really believe that fewer, bigger BCTs is the real answer.
That's why I like 4BNs x 4 COs (plus appropriately sized recon, FA and support).
The BDE staff can control this- the BDE CDR should be able to command this. If he can't (we only need to select 15-20 each year), we need to re-look our entire officer development program (Ken and others would probably say that we do).
I think that gives much greater flexibility in conventional operations, and more boots on the ground in SASO (or whatever other buzzword you want to use). It also allows various combinations of IN and AR (3-1, 2-2, 1-3), both as task organization options and as a standing base (the SBCT IN BN is essentially 3 x 3 IN-1 AR COs, although the internal organizations of those platoons is somewhat problematic).
And the Math begins :)
Assuming 3 platoons per company 4 x 4 x 3 = 48 platoons
Existing HBCT = 12(13 including scout) + 12/13 + 6 = 30/32 about a 50-60% increase
Existing IBCT = 13 (14 including scout) + 13/14 + 8 = 34/36 about 35% increase
Existing SBCT = 12(13 including scout) +12/13 +12/13 + 9 = 45/48 nearly there
using SBCT as a Template
With the SBCT being at or near the 48 platoon level, what might improved HBCTs and IBCTs look like?
HBCT
Two Combined Arms Bn-Mech (CAB-M)
3 Mech Hvy Tms of 2 Mech Inf Plts + 1 Tank PLt + 120mm SP Mortar section
1 Tank Hvy Tm of 2 Tank Plts + 1 Mech Inf Plt + 120mm SP Mortar section
Total per CAB-M of 7 Mech Inf Pts + 5 Tank Plts + 8 2-gun 120mm Mortar sections
One CAB-Armor of
3 Tank Hvy Tms (same as above)
1 Mech Hvy Tm (same as above)
Total in CAB-A of 7 Tank Pts + 5 Mech Inf Plts + 8 2-gun 120mm Mortar sections
HBCT CAV Sdrn (All scout Platoons of the BCT)
2 Hvy/Tracked CAV/Recon Troop of two 6-vehicle (CFV/BFV) scout Plts + 1 CAV Tank Plt of 6 tanks + 120mm SP Mortar section.
1 Lt/Wheeled Recon/CAV Troop of 3 6-scout/armored car Plts + 120mm Towed mortar section
1 Dragoon Troop of 3 Mech INF Plts + 120mm SP mortar section
HBCT Totals
Mech Inf Plts = 22, increase of 10 (420 PAX added)
Tank Plts = 19, increase of 7 (112 PAX added)
Scout Plts = 7, decrease of 1 (72 PAX subtracted)
120mm Mortar sections = 24 2-gun sections 34 mortars added (136 PAX)
Net increase of 596 PAX added.
IBCT
three Infantry Bns
3 Infantry Co of 3 infantry Plts + 120mm T mortar section
1 Mounted Weapons Co of 4 Mounted Weapons PLts
IBCT CAV Sqdrn
3 Lt/Wheeled Recon/CAV Troop of 3 6-scout/armored car Plts + 120mm Towed mortar section
1 Dismounted Recon Co of three dismounted recon Plts.
IBCT Totals
Inf Plts = 27, increase of 9 (378 PAX added)
Weapons Plts = 12, increase of 4 (76 PAX added)
Scout Plts = 12, increase of 2 (48 PAX added)
120mm Mortar sections = 24 2-gun sections 0 mortars added
Net increase of 502 PAX added.
Why the compicated set-up? Why not pure Bns and task org as and when needed? I don't see an organic arty/fires Bn. Would that be attached from a (proper) arty Bde? Although I have to say, I do like the profusion of 120mm SPMs...now imagine the SPM were twin barrelled...drool. Could easily free up the Arty Bde (with 3-5 155mm Bns and a couple of MLRS Bn, locating and ISTAR Bn, etc.) to concentrate on the deep fight- and cover the non-contigous gaps between depoloyed formations -while the mortars are more than enough for the close punch-up.
Getting to Know Folks
Left off the non-manuever parts. Four Manuever Bns would require at least a big cannon Bn (maybe a cannon/rocket Bn? 3 by 1).
Would also need, more engineers, big Sustainment/Support Bn
An argument can be made that if combined arms is good at the higher levels, its good at lower levels too.
It enables getting to know each other, the strenghts, weakness and personalities etc.
Could go back and make one of the companies in each CAB "pure". The thing is a bit like the old-school Bundeswehr Bdes in some respects.
While I don't usually disagree with more infantry, I don't see the need for two different organizations. I would add a two more CABs to the HBCT, making a total of 24 mech platoons and 24 armor platoons, 6 of each in each of 4 BNs. I think that your 1 CAB-A has only 4 x 2-gun 120mm mortar sections. We got rid of mortars in the mech/armor companies with the introduction of Bradley in the 80s. As a redleg, I'm all about indirect, but I don't like the current 2-gun mortar sections that lack a real FDC capability, especially in 120s, since it limits their effective range to LOS. Particularly in the CAB, I'd prefer to see a USMC style mortar platoon, with a PLT HQ, 2 x section FDCs, and 2 4-gun sections. With a little risk acceptance, the 3 HQs and split 4 ways and provide FDC capability to 4 x 2-gun sections, but generally plan to operate as 2 x 4-guns.
Why differentiate between light heavy troops? Either they are going to do only recon (in which case they need a Wiesel, or something similar), or they are going to do CAV (more likely, in which case the CFV has been an acceptable compromise). I also don't like the differing tank platoon organization- in my mind, they should all be the same. 4 tanks seems to be an agreeable compromise. I think that the ACR CAV troop, with 2 scout PLTs and 2 tank platoons, was a decent organization- adding a third scout PLT would enhance capabilities at fairly low overhead costs, although your Dragoon troop is similar strength, but adds a CO HQ overhead. Maybe putting the three mech platoons into three armored cav troops is a better compromise, so, in the Armored Cav SQDN, we have 3 Armored Cav Troops, each with 2 x scout (6 x CFV), 1 x tank (4 x M1) and 1 mech (4 x M2, 3 x squads).HBCT CAV Sdrn (All scout Platoons of the BCT)
2 Hvy/Tracked CAV/Recon Troop of two 6-vehicle (CFV/BFV) scout Plts + 1 CAV Tank Plt of 6 tanks + 120mm SP Mortar section.
1 Lt/Wheeled Recon/CAV Troop of 3 6-scout/armored car Plts + 120mm Towed mortar section
1 Dragoon Troop of 3 Mech INF Plts + 120mm SP mortar section
You left off all the HQ overhead in figuring your numbers. One of my biggest issues with the current BCT designs is the proliferation of HQs and staffs for minimal combat power. My 4 BNs x 4 COs + CS would result:HBCT Totals
Mech Inf Plts = 22, increase of 10 (420 PAX added)
Tank Plts = 19, increase of 7 (112 PAX added)
Scout Plts = 7, decrease of 1 (72 PAX subtracted)
120mm Mortar sections = 24 2-gun sections 34 mortars added (136 PAX)
Net increase of 596 PAX added.
Mech IN platoons= 27/28 (increase of 15/16) (x/y, x is 3 troop squadron, y is 4 troop squadron)
Tank platoons= 27/28 (increase of 15/16)
Scout platoons = 10/12 (increase of 2/4)
2 gun 120mm Mortar sections = 35/36 (increase of 28/29).
The headquarters and staff cost for this increase is 2 BN HQs (the BCT and CAV SQDN remain the same)
120mm is overkill in light infantry. The BN mortar platoon already has arms room 81s or 120s- increasing that platoon to 8 tubes and 2 section FDCs is sufficient (IMO)- the CO 60mm section needs an additional squad leader and 4 additional ammo bears (11 men total for 2 tubes).IBCT
three Infantry Bns
3 Infantry Co of 3 infantry Plts + 120mm T mortar section
1 Mounted Weapons Co of 4 Mounted Weapons PLts
Again, you neglected to account for the HQs and staffs involved in your increases, just the platoons. Your two additional scout platoons are different- the dismounted platoon in the recon squadron is 28 pax (3 x 8 + 4), the infantry battalion scout platoon is 22 pax (3 x 6 + 4). I think we can go to 6-man squads for all the dismounted scouts, and put 4 platoons in the dismounted company. We should add another mounted troop, too, so the SQDN is 3 x 3 + 1 x 4IBCT CAV Sqdrn
3 Lt/Wheeled Recon/CAV Troop of 3 6-scout/armored car Plts + 120mm Towed mortar section
1 Dismounted Recon Co of three dismounted recon Plts.
IBCT Totals
Inf Plts = 27, increase of 9 (378 PAX added)
Weapons Plts = 12, increase of 4 (76 PAX added)
Scout Plts = 12, increase of 2 (48 PAX added)
120mm Mortar sections = 24 2-gun sections 0 mortars added
Net increase of 502 PAX added.
With these additional maneuver elements, the CS elements (FA, EN, HCTs, etc) and CSS (trans, especially) will have to be increased, too. The current IBCT has the capability to haul 4 of 6 rifle companies with organic assets (more if you take risk with supplies like artillery ammo), assuming no change in the BSB (other than the FSC with additional battalions) means a 4 x BN IBCT would only be able to haul 6 out of 12 (50% instead of 66%). This may be acceptable, but its something we need to discuss.
Again, going to 4 BN x 4 COs plus CS results in
Rifle platoons = 36 (increase of 18)
AT/WPNS platoons = 16 (increase of 8)
dismount Scout platoons = 8 (increase of 4)
mounted scout platoons = 9 (increase of 3)
120mm mortar sections = 35 (increase of 29)
with the same increase of 2 BN HQs.
Last edited by 82redleg; 10-13-2010 at 02:32 PM. Reason: to correct poor math in public
lazy math day
82redleg.
Got me
1. It looks like you are proposing a 4+1 configuration of 4 maneuver Bns + 1recon/CAV Bn/Sqdrn.
2. Prefer 3-gun versus 2-gun mortar sections. All could/maybe should be consolidated into a single Battery (like the USMC) with a couple of FDCs to enable split operations. Think the standard should be foe them to get task org'ed out. Back in the day, I was cross-attached to a mech Inf co with its own 81mms. The Company Cdr got VERY responsive fires when/where he needed them. Current Bn hvy mortar platoons can be overlooked in the "Big" Bn fight.
3. Nothing wrong with a 2 X 2 CAV troop. Was trying to get the biggest bang for the smallest buck (Ken, Like the option of 2 scout, 1 tank and 1 mech inf with organic mortars.
4. Have an asymeteric CAV Sqdrn because sometimes all you need is to sneak-n-peek (light/wheeled) and sometimes you really need to fight for information (CFVs). Also, I consolidated all the scouts under the CAV to enable flexiblity in cross-attachment. CAV could give away one or more platoons to the maneuver bns, or troop(-) or a whole troops an get more tanks and mech inf.
5. Had comdined arms companies to foster better working relationships. Get to know the other guy, his capabilities, his limitations and his personalities. Could go make a change to put one "pure" company of mech or tanks in each Bn type.
Yes, 4 maneuver + CAV/recon + artillery + support.82redleg.
Got me
1. It looks like you are proposing a 4+1 configuration of 4 maneuver Bns + 1recon/CAV Bn/Sqdrn.
2. Prefer 3-gun versus 2-gun mortar sections. All could/maybe should be consolidated into a single Battery (like the USMC) with a couple of FDCs to enable split operations. Think the standard should be foe them to get task org'ed out. Back in the day, I was cross-attached to a mech Inf co with its own 81mms. The Company Cdr got VERY responsive fires when/where he needed them. Current Bn hvy mortar platoons can be overlooked in the "Big" Bn fight.
3. Nothing wrong with a 2 X 2 CAV troop. Was trying to get the biggest bang for the smallest buck (Ken
4. Have an asymeteric CAV Sqdrn because sometimes all you need is to sneak-n-peek (light/wheeled) and sometimes you really need to fight for information (CFVs). Also, I consolidated all the scouts under the CAV to enable flexiblity in cross-attachment. CAV could give away one or more platoons to the maneuver bns, or troop(-) or a whole troops an get more tanks and mech inf.
5. Had comdined arms companies to foster better working relationships. Get to know the other guy, his capabilities, his limitations and his personalities. Could go make a change to put one "pure" company of mech or tanks in each Bn type.
To me, more tubes are always better. With the proliferation of AC2 requirements, I think that a BN is better able to control mortar fires, especially 120mms, with their extended range (and thus increased max ord and coordination requirements). You can shoot a 60mm like a big M203, visually clearing the airspace you are going to occupy (temporarily). This is much harder to do with a 120mm.
I thought they wanted more dismounts in the 2 x 2 CAV troops (the mech helps this somewhat, I think).
I'll buy your recon vs fight for info organization. Task org works, if you have enough combat power to task org without emasculating the subordinate (like you do to a current BCT if you take a BN out, as DIV Reserve, covering force, etc)
I like pure companies for training reasons- the company is the level of training management, and complicating that makes training weaker, IMHO. I was asking about why not just keeping balanced BNs, instead of going 3/1 and 1/3.
Last edited by 82redleg; 10-14-2010 at 09:47 PM.
Avoid the stove-pipe
The issue/problem I have with pure companies is that while making it simple for the unit to train and administer itself, it loses the opportunity to learn about the other guy on a regular and re-curring basis. A common thread about tank-infantry teamwork (or lack thereof) was the way the seperate tank Bns got shuttled around. The result was poor understanding on both sides of the capabilities, limitations and just as important individual personalities.
A revised HCT could/might be:
2 CAB-M of
2 Mech Hvy Tms
1 Mech Pure Co
1 Tank Hvy Tm
8 Mech Inf Plts + 4 tank Plts
1 CAB-A of
2 Tank Hvy Tms
1 Tank Pure Co
1 Mech Hvy Tm
8 Tank Plts + 4 Mech Inf Plts
CAV Sqdrn
2 Hvy/Tracked/Armored Troops (2 CFV mounted scout plts + 1 tank Plt + 1 Mech Inf Plt)
2 Light/Wheeled Troops (3 Scout/armored car mounted recon Plts + Stryker Inf Plt)
10 scout/recon Plts (4 Hvy + 6 Light) 2 Tank Plts + 2 Mech Inf Plts + 2 Stryker Inf Plts
HBCT total
16 Mech/Stryker Inf Plts + 14 Tank Plts + 10 Scout/recon Plts.
increase of 2 Mech Inf, 2 Stryker Inf, 2 tank Plts & 2 scout/recon Plts from HBCT baseline.
Adding an additional maneuver Bn (CAB-M) could/would result in HBCT total of:
24 Mech/Stryker Inf Plts + 22 Tank Plts + 10 Scout/Recon Plts
Increase of 10 Mech Inf, 2 Stryker Inf, 6 Tank & 2 scout/recon Plts from baseline.
Understand on the tank-infantry teamwork, but I think that mixed BNs are enough. COs train PLTs, which are generally NOT mixed, BNs train companies. With mech and tank COs organic to a BN, there shouldn't be any issues with shuttling BNs around.
I like common building blocks. Your 2 different CABs contain 4 different types of companies, to get a total of (assuming 3 CAB-M and 1 CAB-A) of 28 mech and 20 tank PLTs. My 4 balanced CABs (1 BN organization) contain 2 types of company organization, with a total of 24 platoons of each (could be 32, if you go to 4 PLT / CO).
Is the differing organizations simply to get more infantry?
My answer to achieve that is a heavy SBCT, using the SBCT organization, while substituting tank for MGS (why are these two organizations different again?), IFV for ICV and CFV for RV. This organization (with 4 BNs of 4 COs) would provide 16 tank PLTs and 48 mech PLTs, while retaining identical organizations, which would simplify training and RIPs.
From all that I have read on this thread I am coming to the conclusion that right size for the HBCT is to combine two HBCTs into one - three CAB maneuver battalions, each with a scout platoon with six M3. Infantry and armor support for the scout platoon comes from the battalion. The fourth CAB supplies the ARS which has three troops with 13xM3 and 9xM1 each. A fourth troop has a mech infantry company with a tank platoon. The remaining mech company falls under the STB as is used for security or whatever the BCT commander orders.
Of course, all these detailed numbers mean nothing after first contact. As others have said, TO&E are largely administrative. The crucial aspect here, that has been hit upon, is at what level your combined arms are "ad hoc" and at what level they are permanent.
Seems OK to me
By combing two BCTs you would get fewer bigger units and get a personnel savings from the reduced number of HQs (BCT HHC(185 PAX), FA Bn HHB (86 PAX), STB HHC (165 PAX), & CSS Bn HHC (85 PAX)). By using a CAB HQ as the ARS HQ you save 290 PAX.
Two "standard" HBCT = 3711 X 2 = 7422
7422 -185 (extra BCT HHC) - 86 (extra FA HHB) - 165 (extra STB HHC) - 85 (extra CSS HHC) - 290 (ARS HHTs) = 6610
Hitting the Nail
One of my pints has been that a "permanent" combined arms unit should perform better one that is Ad Hoc.
If you assess that most of the time a company will fight pure, then organize your compnaies that way. If you assess that most of the time Tank/Mech tms will be needed most often, then task org that way. I think it will be the latter.
No debate that pure is easier for the Company Cdr to train. But if its not how he will normally fight you end up training for a set of circumstances different in training. A VERY bad thing. Train hard or harder to make combat easy
I guess an important question to address is "is it easier to "brigade" units up (ie: combined TOW platoons into a TOW company) or "ad hoc" units down (ie: combine a TOW platoon with an infantry company as needed".
Pure companies are like building blocks, and the mixing-and-matching is highly dependant on the task. What's the point in having a permanent mixed company if you are stripping tanks away the next day because those Riflemen are needed somewhere else?
Up here, we are "branch pure" up to battalion level, although we have the "optimized battle group" experiment seeing a battalion organized as a battle group from the get go. I'm still not too sure if permanent pushing of assets down to low levels is a huge advantage if there already exists a philosophy of combined arms training that persists within the organization.
Most training should be at the small unit level. Obviously, when training company level operations, the CO should be combined arms, but the combination depends on the mission. When conducting platoon or lower level training (which is what should be happening, most of the time), pure is better. The company doesn't have a staff, your expertise is resident in the CO and 1SG, making it very difficult to manage other branch training (this is why we consolidate "low density" training at BN level).If you assess that most of the time a company will fight pure, then organize your compnaies that way. If you assess that most of the time Tank/Mech tms will be needed most often, then task org that way. I think it will be the latter.
No debate that pure is easier for the Company Cdr to train. But if its not how he will normally fight you end up training for a set of circumstances different in training. A VERY bad thing. Train hard or harder to make combat easy
It also increases flexibility- if your CAB-A CDR wants a mech heavy company, he has only one way to get it (using his mech heavy CO) without moving more than 2 platoons. A balanced BN CDR has at least 8 ways (3/1 or 2/1 based on each of his mech COs with a platoon from each tank CO) that involve only 1 or 2 platoons working for a different company.
I think pure companies in combined arms battalions are the way to go, and we can agree to disagree.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks