Returning to a Division Centric Army

[SJPONeill]

I like the theme he's taking with PGM: one of the ongoing legacies of DESERT STORM is this myth of clean precise war that was fostered through the 90s in Serbia and Kosovo, and into OIF. PGMs are all very nice when you have the luxury of relatively undefended precise targets but less so perhaps against an adversary that is dispersed, concealed and able to retaliate and/or defend itself.

The articles pretty vague on how the modular force is “not as efficient as a division” and more so on the nature of the “adjustments” to it that he may be considering. My first thought is that the modular brigade structure seems to have been working fairly well to support the long campaigns of the last decade...

[Tukhachevskii]

This sounds a lot less like anything to do with the structure of the army. It sounds a lot more like the Army, or at least certain members of it, want to get a handle on the enormous war profittering (for instance, of contractors & industry- hence the JRAP, MTLV, Hummer issue) in evidence since OIF I (anyone remember Halliburton? Civil contractors? etc.). The issue of PGms sounds a lot like an argument over "value for money" than it does "measures of performance/effectiveness". But that's just IMO from this side of the "pond". Perhaps there are domestic issues, tacitly presupposed by the article, which I am unaware of.

For my money the brigade based army is a sound idea in principle (in fact the Soviet army before it disolved had already come to that conclusion too). The only problem I have with the BCTs is the lack of true manouvre capability. They need at least three manouvre battalions and a cav/recon bn and one (as a minimum) proper arty bn (with 24 not 16 tubes). By the way, while I'm on my hobby horse get rid of the combined arms bn in the HBCT and return to flexible, task organsied (I know, this is still practiced) pure bns (two of each). A HBCT has four armour companies (two per Bn) that's one battalion's worth of armour for what kind of an overhead? Dammit, I need a fag (that's a cigarette to you), I'm really grumpy this morning.

[gute]

By using the word efficient and not effective one must assume costs. The following link is from an article by Lt. Colonel Melton which has been before, but is now about five years old, but I think it still applies and might very well be the adjustments the general is talking about:

http://usacac.army.mil/CAC/milreview...g05/melton.pdf

Here is another article I came across:

http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc...c=GetTRDoc.pdf

For those who don't have time to read and are unfamilar with Lt. Colonel Melton, he argued in his article that the small BCTs had caused the Army to have to create additional types of BCTs, which increased overhead. He recommened combining BCTs, attaching FA battalions to BCTs even if the FA battalion is not firing in support of the BCT, establishing an engineer hqs in the BCT, combining sustainment and maneuver brigades (which may have already been done - combat support brigades), BGs command BCTs.

[Hacksaw]

You know...
I used to be a tad cynical towards the DA Civilian/Contractor (present complany excluded of course) who would tell me oh that concept (pick your topic from organization design to personnel policy to operational approach) is in vogue again... and then they would dig deep in their historical files to show you the other three times the pendulum had swung back and forth...

I need a Bud

[Pete]

... oh that concept (pick your topic from organization design to personnel policy to operational approach) is in vogue again...

If we were to revert back to muzzle-loading rifle-muskets it would support the kinder, gentler, population-centric COIN approach, as opposed to the firepower-intensive Fulda Gap model. We could save on ammo costs as well.

[SJPONeill]

If we were to revert back to muzzle-loading rifle-muskets it would support the kinder, gentler, population-centric COIN approach, as opposed to the firepower-intensive Fulda Gap model. We could save on ammo costs as well.

Would never fly...the lead ammo is too environmentally-unacceptable...

[Kiwigrunt]

Would never fly...the lead ammo is too environmentally-unacceptable...

But if we increase the calibre somewhat we could use Kiwifruit. Howz dat for a clean-green-machine.

[Van]

If we were to revert back to muzzle-loading rifle-muskets it would support the kinder, gentler, population-centric COIN approach, as opposed to the firepower-intensive Fulda Gap model. We could save on ammo costs as well.

Muzzle loaders? That's too effete.
Sabers. 1850 Staff and Field Officer Sabers.
Eliminates ammunition costs, allows for exception precision in targeting, virtually eliminates the possibility of collateral damage, useful in offence or defence, quiet, promotes morale and esprit de corps.

@Hacksaw - if you're in Honolulu, first round is on me.

Re: the PGM/conventional munitions debate - This is one where the pendulum has only gone one way so far. GEN Chiarelli is the first senior leader I've heard questioning the value or efficiency of PGM. I am curious to see if there is serious, quantifiable research done on this or some instantaneous and unreasoning ad hom attack on whoever questions the superiority of gadgets.

[Ron Humphrey]

Something along the lines of determining exactly how and if PGM and associated delivery mechanisms may or may not change the calculus when one talks about field artillery?

Just a guess, very interesting article though

[Pete]

Sabers. 1850 Staff and Field Officer Sabers.

I own a Model 1840 Light Artillery Saber that shows signs of field use and also has the original leather straps still attached to the rings on the scabbard. It's marked 1860. I also have a Model 1840 NCO's Sword and leather scabbard that's in almost new condition. It was made by Ames and is dated 1864.