Results 1 to 20 of 94

Thread: Returning to a Division Centric Army

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default It worked but didn't work out only because it was ahead of its time and

    the Colonels didn't like it. That and the fact that the intended equipment got stalled in the bureaucracy and only started appearing in units AFTER the decision was made to revert to the tired and true -- and easier to control if you're into centralizing things -- Brigade of ROAD. The Pentomic concept had a great many good things, but it was designed for those who are willing to delegate and trust subordinates. Not the Army way...

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

    Default

    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.

  3. #3
    Council Member 82redleg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USAWC, Carlisle Bks
    Posts
    224

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken White View Post
    the Colonels didn't like it. That and the fact that the intended equipment got stalled in the bureaucracy and only started appearing in units AFTER the decision was made to revert to the tired and true -- and easier to control if you're into centralizing things -- Brigade of ROAD. The Pentomic concept had a great many good things, but it was designed for those who are willing to delegate and trust subordinates. Not the Army way...
    Quote Originally Posted by Pete View Post
    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.
    Pete, I think Ken actually served in the Pentomic Army. I know what it was, but only through reading about it.

  4. #4
    Council Member gute's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    322

    Default

    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.

  5. #5
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    1

    Default What happened to Sink or Swim?

    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken White View Post
    the Colonels didn't like it. That and the fact that the intended equipment got stalled in the bureaucracy and only started appearing in units AFTER the decision was made to revert to the tired and true -- and easier to control if you're into centralizing things -- Brigade of ROAD. The Pentomic concept had a great many good things, but it was designed for those who are willing to delegate and trust subordinates. Not the Army way...
    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.

  6. #6
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    499

    Default

    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

Similar Threads

  1. Towards a U.S. Army Officer Corps Strategy for Success
    By Shek in forum Training & Education
    Replies: 50
    Last Post: 05-16-2010, 06:27 AM
  2. Army Training Network
    By SWJED in forum TRADOC Senior Leaders Conference
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 08-20-2009, 03:45 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
  •