What's the point of having a division structure at all? It was found to be wanting for motorised forces back in WW2. Makes no sense to fight as a division if you're motorised. Convoy length (duration of pass) alone should prove that.
The US Army has fought at Brigade level in every war except the North African desert in WW II, Desert Storm and aspects of the initial move into Iraq -- again in the desert; only terrain where a Division makes any sense at all...
However, keeping the Division around is the only way to justify a slew of Major Generals.
I doubt that handful of brigades can make a difference. There are hundreds of 1-4 star generals, but less than a dozen active force divisions.
Sure, every army is a bureaucracy first, and Niiskanen's bureaucrat model isn't far off. Nevertheless, 60+ year old lessons should have an impact on an organisation.
This is particularly frustrating to me because the Heer 2011 structure is almost as stupid (and in part more confusing) than the previous German army structure.
Nobody seems to take "battle" (as opposed to small unit skirmishes being called "battles") serious as an influence on army structure design any more these days.
Though a good part of the actual need for the Division is the CSS package and other support concerns, old habits die hard. That aspect of organizing and equipping hasn't been addressed, partly, I believe, to justify retaining the Division for those two button spaces...
The Army has too many General Officers and yet it wants more for several reasons, good and bad. It would be better off IMO with fewer but that would be bureaucratically harmful and the bureaucracy, rightly or wrongly, is here to stay.
All things considered, the competence of the Bde Cdr should be the issue, not his rank.
I've also heard calls for majors as Coy leaders. I don't get it - where are those future majors supposed to reach the experience majors have now if they didn't serve as Coy leaders during their time as Captain?
Calls for this or that rank make rational sense only in alliance politics; you might have a major who's qualified to lead a fighter wing as was normal during WW2, but once he goes to a NATO HQ he's going to be considered a mere major while the other guy from another country with rank Colonel and the same qualification will be considered to be his better until proven otherwise.
This is, I suspect, quite rampant in regard to stars-counting. Some alliance tickets have 2, 3 or 4 star requirements IIRC.
At least a part of the rank inflation among high ranks is attributable to the multinational cooperation in my opinion.
Down at the very lowest ranks it's more about recruitment and sticky pay rates that require a higher rank for compensation competitiveness with the civilian market.
Somewhere in between (approx ranks Captain to LtCol) the rank inflation appears to be driven by too much automatic promotion and too big staffs.
The actual formation command tickets are so few that I doubt they have any substantial impact on rank inflation. The associated staffs are a different story, of course. I do happen to remember that when Rommel was (intentionally) not available for orders by radio (being with his vanguard detachment far ahead) in 1940, his 2nd in command back at division HQ was a mere Major. Staffs appear to function without high ranks, too.
Which of these statements and command structures is better arranged to provide a path that requires relevant experience and confirmed ability before promotion into either a command or a staff stream ?
(Sub)Unit: OIC/CO, deputy/SNCO plus other
Platoon: LT, SGT
Company: MAJ, CAPT plus CSM and CQMSGT
Battalion: LTCOL, MAJ plus Adjudant (CAPT or MAJ), RSM, QM (CAPT) & IO (LT or CAPT)
Battalion group: COL, LTCOL plus etc
Brigade: BRIG, COL plus etc
(Sub)Unit: OIC/CO, XO plus/or SNCO
Platoon: LT, SGT
Company: CAPT, LT plus CSM and CQMSGT
Battalion: LTCOL, plus XO (MAJ or CAPT), RSM, QM (CAPT?) and IO (LT?)
Battalion group: as for battalion
Brigade: COL, LTCOL plus etc
Bookmarks