And how is the situation differen then the one in Europe with V Corps and 4 BCTs?
Me thinks its a response to some bad PR regarding/about Lewis Soldiers.
V Corps
And how is the situation differen then the one in Europe with V Corps and 4 BCTs?
Me thinks its a response to some bad PR regarding/about Lewis Soldiers.
I think you're correct.
I also think it is perhaps not the best solution...
If the kids are acting up, replacing Hall Monitors with School Resource Officers may give the appearance of an improvement but the real issue is inadequate performance by or power available to those Monitors. A better, long term and cheaper solution is to just make the Monitors do their job -- or, more accurately, allow them to do that...
That's amazing. Brigades commanded by colonels and they need a 2-star general between them and a three-star general at I Corps to "keep them in line" - WTF? Talk about stuck on stupid.Originally Posted by Ken White
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.
I agree with both of you.
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.
How do you feel about MacGregors proposal to have brigades commnded by a BG? Would this help them have greater independence and less need for the old division structure?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.
Reed
Might help with the independence aspect.
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.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks