Oh well, I might be one of the only people here who knows what Pentomic force structure and Battle Groups were. I read that it had something to do with dispersing units on a nuclear battlefield in Germany.
Oh well, I might be one of the only people here who knows what Pentomic force structure and Battle Groups were. I read that it had something to do with dispersing units on a nuclear battlefield in Germany.
Pentomic infantry divisvion consisted of five subunits commanded by colonels. The initial intent of the modularity mafia was to create five BCTs from division assets only. Hmmm - coincidence?
From what I read, Pentomic divisions did not include armor divisions which remained combat commands.
Perhaps the BCT is not the best solution, but it has certainly been a step in the right direction. To revert back to a Division/Corps centric Army would be a complete devolution of combat effectiveness.
The Army's inability to delegate roles and responsibilities to lower echelons has contradicted and doomed the success of the BCT. I think that many have never wanted the BCT to succeed.
I think that Ken has hit the nail on the head. Today's Army does not perform well in a decentralized state. This, in my opinion, lends evidence to a larger problem... The Army's quality vs. quantity problem.
Lets be real and frank, the average (pick your rank) fails to embody the level of responsibility, proficiency, and professionalism necessary for the success of the BCT. Furthermore, the truly exemplary junior officers/NCOs have been virtually neutered of their authority/responsibilities. This has a detrimental effect on the entire Brigade.
What we need is the SOF mentality pushed out into the broader Army. Field grades should not be afraid to fire people, junior officers and NCOs must have the opportunity to succeed and/or fail. Eventually these mentalities will rub off onto the lower enlisted who will forgo their Halo tournament (video games) to concern themselves with putting rounds down range.
What is the pivotal command level in a tactical fight? Is it brigade, battalion or something else?
I thought elminating the division sounded like a good idea because it seems like Armies usually do business at the tactical level through brigades. Ken White pointed out that it was that way even in WWII, with the fighting really happening at RCT level.
If it's still that way, should brigades be fixed TOEs or flexible combat commands? If the answer is flexible combat commands, then it seems like the division might be necessary to assign various battalions or squadrons to brigade commanders depending on mission requirements.
If mixing and matching battalions based on METT-TC is necessary, who's doling out the battalions if there's no division?
Last edited by Rifleman; 10-17-2010 at 01:16 PM.
"Pick up a rifle and you change instantly from a subject to a citizen." - Jeff Cooper
Bookmarks