Returning to a Division Centric Army

[TAH]

Now that's an idea pregnant with possibilites. I can certainly see the advantages of "herding" together all the beaurocratic types to let the fighters get on with it However, I'd be concerned that decision-making in that kind of organisation will be slowed right down what with all the specialists bickering over CoA development not to mention the amount of information that will be sucked/gathering/hoovered in to it for no real appreciable benefit or use. It would be an anally-retentive CO's dream; just think of all that micro-management that would become possible (perhaps that's the real RMA) never mind that the Div HQ BDE has just been overun. Personnally I think a specialist Divisional HQ or the kind you propose would be more efficient if kept to a Bn size, anything bigger and you'll need another layer of command just to sort out the resultant com/intel/planning/MPDP-jam.

under this concept/proposal the actual Division HQs is really only a Bn. Supported by the Signal Bn, protected by a security force and fed information by its own Recon Bn / CAV Sdrn.

[82redleg]

under this concept/proposal the actual Division HQs is really only a Bn. Supported by the Signal Bn, protected by a security force and fed information by its own Recon Bn / CAV Sdrn.

The DIV only needs a SIG CO.

How about a drastically enlarged Headquarters and Headquarters BN. With a combat arms commander and staff, so it becomes more than a force provider/admin HQs. It still has admin responsibilities (for its subordinates AND for the DIV HQs staff), but now tactically employs a security force company (infantry or MP, maybe a mixture of both), a mounted recon troop (4 PLTs x 6 trucks per), a LRS-C (no change necessary). By combining the BFSB HQ, the BFSB Recon SQDN HQ and the DIV HHB, we've gotten all the employed elements (except the BFSB MI stuff). In order to plan for all this, the current combined S2/3 section probably needs to be enlarged, with a focus on security and recon planning (depending on how directly the LRS-C and recon troop interfact with the G3 & G2)- it can't be LESS efficient going DIV-BN-CO than the current DIV-BFSB-SQDN-CO for these elements.

The admin/log aspects of this BN are large and diverse, and it might make sense to split its HHC into a CSS company and a HQ/admin company. Its staff sections would have large and diverse responsibilities, but not, I think, any more difficult than a maneuver battalions. The LRS-C and recon troop could still plan their missions directly with the G2/G3. It would probably require a support operations/CSS plug of some sort, and maybe some additional clerks in the S1 shop (the BN already has a CW4 HR tech, compared to the CW2 authorized in a BCT).

Anyone see any other issues with this enhanced HHB?

[TAH]

The DIV only needs a SIG CO.

How about a drastically enlarged Headquarters and Headquarters BN. With a combat arms commander and staff, so it becomes more than a force provider/admin HQs. It still has admin responsibilities (for its subordinates AND for the DIV HQs staff), but now tactically employs a security force company (infantry or MP, maybe a mixture of both), a mounted recon troop (4 PLTs x 6 trucks per), a LRS-C (no change necessary). By combining the BFSB HQ, the BFSB Recon SQDN HQ and the DIV HHB, we've gotten all the employed elements (except the BFSB MI stuff). In order to plan for all this, the current combined S2/3 section probably needs to be enlarged, with a focus on security and recon planning (depending on how directly the LRS-C and recon troop interfact with the G3 & G2)- it can't be LESS efficient going DIV-BN-CO than the current DIV-BFSB-SQDN-CO for these elements.

The admin/log aspects of this BN are large and diverse, and it might make sense to split its HHC into a CSS company and a HQ/admin company. Its staff sections would have large and diverse responsibilities, but not, I think, any more difficult than a maneuver battalions. The LRS-C and recon troop could still plan their missions directly with the G2/G3. It would probably require a support operations/CSS plug of some sort, and maybe some additional clerks in the S1 shop (the BN already has a CW4 HR tech, compared to the CW2 authorized in a BCT).

Anyone see any other issues with this enhanced HHB?

1. Really, really hate the current BFSB. It's an MI Bn with stuff added and not very much of that. It does NOT possess the capabilities a Division or Corps of JTF commander will require from it.

2. With the elimination of the final heavy ACR, neither the corps of division commanders/echelons have a unit specifically organized, manned, equipped and trained to gather/fight for information for them. They do already have access to lots of various types of sensors that can monitor the situation and conduct passive/stand-off surveillance. All good stuff. All vulneable to spoofing/deception. The current choice/option is for the corps/division to task this mission/function to a BCT or a group of BCTs or an Ad Hoc Task Force.

3. Long-range recon units have a place. They also have significant limitations on timely employment. INTs (SIGINT, COMINT, ELINT, etc) have a place. And they are all capable of being spoofed and assume some action on the part of the enemy. HUMINT is good, once you have someone to talk to.

4. An Bn versus a Bde is probably a viable option but lascks the "horsepower" of an COL/O6 commander trying to get "his" staff folks to do what he needs them to do.

5. A problem of combining the Division Hqs with the BFSBs is that there are not the same number. 18 division Hqs only 10 or 11 BFSBs.

6. A "big" HQs Bn (800-1000 PAX) plus a "big" CAV Sqdrn/Recon Bn (800-1000 PAX) probably only add up to a "small" Bde (1700-2000 PAX).

[82redleg]

4. An Bn versus a Bde is probably a viable option but lascks the "horsepower" of an COL/O6 commander trying to get "his" staff folks to do what he needs them to do.

6. A "big" HQs Bn (800-1000 PAX) plus a "big" CAV Sqdrn/Recon Bn (800-1000 PAX) probably only add up to a "small" Bde (1700-2000 PAX).

The 3 GOs and 3 COLs are probably the least of the BN CDRs worries (I assume that's what you meant by "his" staff)- and that issue is already there.

The problem with adding HQs and staffs for "small" BCTs is that we create a lot of FGs and SNCOs that don't provide much to the fight. What is this HQ & C2 BDE doing? All of its elements are TACON of some element of the DIV G staff (with the exception of the sustainment elements and the security company). All he has left is ADCON, and does it really take a BDE to ADCON 2000 +/-? Or to C2 the employment of an IN/MP CO conducting fixed site security?

[82redleg]

Current DIV HHB is 739.

Current BFSB is 1307.

Actually employable elements of the BFSB are:
TUAS PLT x 27 pax (I'm not sure the purpose of this unit? maybe in support of the LRS/CAV)
4 x Scout PLT x 18 pax each (TACON to the DIV G3/G2)
15 x LRS TMs x 6 pax each (TACON to the DIV G3/G2)
18 x HCTs x 4 pax each (TACON/DS to subordinate elements of the DIV- put them there organically. 18 x 5 = 90 HCTs, enough for 2 additional HCTs in each BCT)
3 x CI Tms x 4 pax (TACON/DS to DIV G2- put them there organically)
2 x SIGINT PLTs x 45 pax (probably broken into their component teams) (again, split the assets up into the DIV/subordinates that can employ them)

So, in the BFSB, 363 pax are actually employed in intelligence collection. 25% is not a good ratio. I contend we'd be better off putting the additional assets in the DIV G2 or in subordinates, limiting the coordination necessary to employing these assets, and the overhead that is busy "coordinating" their employment.

[TAH]

The 3 GOs and 3 COLs are probably the least of the BN CDRs worries (I assume that's what you meant by "his" staff)- and that issue is already there.

The problem with adding HQs and staffs for "small" BCTs is that we create a lot of FGs and SNCOs that don't provide much to the fight. What is this HQ & C2 BDE doing? All of its elements are TACON of some element of the DIV G staff (with the exception of the sustainment elements and the security company). All he has left is ADCON, and does it really take a BDE to ADCON 2000 +/-? Or to C2 the employment of an IN/MP CO conducting fixed site security?

My thought was that making the DIV HQs a "Bde Type" makes all of the units in the division a Bde.

The DIV HQs Bde could/would/might have as base:
1. A HQs Bn of the Division Staff
2. A Signal Co to support the HQs Bn
3. A robust DIV CAV Sqdrn
4. A Security/Field Jager Bn for site security and rear area protection & response force/rear area patrolling
5. Bde HHC

To address the UAS question in your other post.

You pretty much got it right, it/they would fly under the direction of the Recon Sqdrn to support the BFSB/DIV requirements. The problem it that teh A/C are Shadows. Only 4 A/C means no to limited 24/7 coverage and only out to 60-75 Kms from launch site. Too few A/C with "legs" that are too short.

[82redleg]

My thought was that making the DIV HQs a "Bde Type" makes all of the units in the division a Bde.

The DIV HQs Bde could/would/might have as base:
1. A HQs Bn of the Division Staff
2. A Signal Co to support the HQs Bn
3. A robust DIV CAV Sqdrn
4. A Security/Field Jager Bn for site security and rear area protection & response force/rear area patrolling
5. Bde HHC

Understand all on the UAVs.

I'm not sure that the operations of a DIV CAV SQDN (which is going to end up TACON to the DIV, as the old DIV CAV generally were) and the Security BN justify a BDE HQ.

The SIG CO is already in the HQs BN.

You end up with (at best) a BDE HQ and BN HQ for a couple of companies, most of whom are doing fixed site security (low overhead) and (when employed as a response force) becoming TACON to someone else (whoever is in contact with whatever they are responding to).

I believe you are better off with a robust BN (put the SECFOR in the HHB), and another robust BN (the DIV CAV) that interfaces directly with the DIV. I think a BN should be able to handle 3 ground troops, a LRSC and an air troop )or two)(preferably with lift, so it can insert the LRS, too).

[TAH]

Understand all on the UAVs.

I'm not sure that the operations of a DIV CAV SQDN (which is going to end up TACON to the DIV, as the old DIV CAV generally were) and the Security BN justify a BDE HQ.

The SIG CO is already in the HQs BN.

You end up with (at best) a BDE HQ and BN HQ for a couple of companies, most of whom are doing fixed site security (low overhead) and (when employed as a response force) becoming TACON to someone else (whoever is in contact with whatever they are responding to).

I believe you are better off with a robust BN (put the SECFOR in the HHB), and another robust BN (the DIV CAV) that interfaces directly with the DIV. I think a BN should be able to handle 3 ground troops, a LRSC and an air troop )or two)(preferably with lift, so it can insert the LRS, too).

Could each of the Bns operate seperate from a Bde, sure. My thought is to standarize thsi new modular brigade type (DIV HQs) to simplify the CSS aspect. Which means I now need to add a DIV HQs CSS Bn capable of supporting: a HQs Bn (with organic Signal Co), a DIV CAV Sqdn, & a SECFOR Bn.

Another way to view this issue is as a transformed/modularized Division Base.