Retooling the Artilleryman

[Rob Thornton]

I can see it working out well -

ex. BCT Alpha receives a mission that tells it to conduct FID in a COIN environment in country #1. During its MA it decides it needs X number of MiTTs, Y number of PTTs & SPTT, and Z number of PRTs (augmented with Inter-Agency folks and contractors). It develops at Task Org that puts one BN TF like organization for the MiTTs, one for the PTT & SPTTs, and one for the PRTs - this provides the C2 and support structure within each to plan, execute, coordinate resources for, and generally sustain all of those missions while securing its own LOCs. It might decide it needs to keep one or two company sized elements back for QRF like organizations, and one or two company sized elements back for FOB security of the BCT HQs and sustainment base (if not contracted or run by a higher HQs). This does not mean its OIF or OEF - it might be in support of AFRICOM or another Regional COCOM.

From the moment of alert and initial MA - the training base moves to support the resources required - from hardware to movement - from language and cultural training, from Inter-Agency augmentees to a CTC like path that provides a MRE tailored to that mission.

I believe we can do that!

Meanwhile...

HBCT Bravo get told to do TSC where it is told to go out and do a combination deterrence against a conventional threat to an ally while conducting TSC by helping them train their conventional mechanized forces to secure their sovereignty - they also task organize accordingly based off their MA and the training base gets in line to assist and resource.

and the list of possibilities goes on to include units training in CONUS and OCONUS against a suite of most likely enemy COAs, etc.

I think that is an executable balance given the possibilities that exist, and well within our ability to execute - I do think getting the extra BCTs online is critical to meet the demand and have enough capability training n the various categories to meet the demand and have depth - but those can only be built so fast.

Best, Rob

[Rob Thornton]

MPF = jack of many trades, master of some. Combat engineers are MPF--they really can fight as infantry when required

Wayne- good catch! Sappers are among the most versatile and creative soldiers I know.

Best, Rob

[Rob Thornton]

By that I mean instead of tasking other units to do this or creating a multi-purpose Artillery unit, why don't we just increase the size of MP units?

I think we're getting there with the ways we're restructure the ME (maneuver enhancement) BDEs and also the BTSB (Brigade Special Troops BN) - which some BCTs have made good use of - but they had to work it to fit their needs. I'd also say some of these capabilities might be built in the ARNG because we get the dual use out of it - Title 10 and Title 32. Not much $$$$ though for states in IBCTs and ME BDEs with lots of MPs - hard to get some of that Title 10 money. It also means that when policy decides to do something where we anticipate a big Stability type commitment where we'd like to have lots of MPs - it means activating the ARNG - because that's where the "bulk" would reside. But again - it does fit with their Title 32 - enabling civil support type responsibilities. However you do it - the AC and RC components are going to be (and should be) interdependent - we just need to decide both what makes sense and what is doable in the face of state politics.
Best, Rob

Best, Rob

[TheCurmudgeon]

I think we're getting there with the ways we're restructure the ME (maneuver enhancement) BDEs and also the BTSB (Brigade Special Troops BN) - which some BCTs have made good use of - but they had to work it to fit their needs.

A CSB(ME) is exactly that, a support unit for Maneuver elements. The BSB is very maintenance heavy. It is not intended for this type of mission even though it is modular in concept. Besides, it falls under the Maneuver Division. A RASR would be a Corps asset. Ideally, it would have its own DIV HQ that would have a CMOC with an extended interagency capability.