FOB Keating attack repulsed

[JMA]

I would like to comment upon this in more detail. I would preface this by saying I really don't have a solution to the Afghanistan situation but am able to ask some questions. If the questions make for discomfort please resist the temptation to shoot the messenger.

It's the folks in the rear, about 70% of the deployed force, not the 30% that is actually performing active service.

If I understand this you are saying that 70% of the force level supports the 30% who actually do the fighting? If this is correct it is outrageous.

Sorry, we used to do that. No more. The US culture of entitlement has grown so great that the rationale of Courts, Pundits and others is that "We provided him / her the means and opportunity to gain weight, therefor it is isn't his / her fault." Yes, there are gyms but the clod who adds pounds isn't usually a gym visiting type. Stupid, I know but that's us.

Gee, well you make your own bed you must lie in it. But there must be a way around this? What percent of support 'troops' are obese?

Er, no, generally they are not -- those that do often get 'counselled' for being excessively harsh, thus most now devote their efforts to unimportant things like uniforms and haircuts -- and boots, boots are big.

Are they happy with this role? I'm sure those who have some fight left in them would be valuable to the units doing the actual fighting?

For all but perhaps 20%, tactical competence and performance of their troops are not issues. We are obsessed with appearance, though.

That's a damn shame.

Well, 40 years ago what we considered rewards or luxury in any one of several Southeast Asian backwaters was nowhere near what is possible today -- nor was it demanded by troops then; it was just gratefully accepted. I suspect that is the case today, i.e. no demand, just grateful acceptance by most. There will be a few who grumble about harsh conditions and being deprived. Good riddance if they leave. Nobody needs them in any event...

I understand as it appears similar to my experience... but once again I say any fool can be uncomfortable.

[82redleg]

If I understand this you are saying that 70% of the force level supports the 30% who actually do the fighting? If this is correct it is outrageous.

Well, the US has somewhere between 70,000 and 100,000 troops in A-stan. We'll use 70,000, giving the ratio the benefit of the doubt.

According to http://www.understandingwar.org/file...OrbatMarch.pdf, this 70,000 yields 2 x SF BNs, 1 MSOB (all under the CJSOTF), 6 BCTs and 2 USMC RCTs (with 6 IN BNs). Assuming that everyone in a BCT is a shooter (they AREN"T), that's 6 x 3200 (19200) for the Army plus 6000 give or take for the USMC.

I can't speak for the tooth-to-tail of the USMC, but out of 3200 +/- in an Army BCT, about 1400 are in IN COs, CAV TRPs, FA BTRY and EN COs. That's a very imperfect # (it doesn't count the BN mortar and scout platoons, for instance). Those rough numbers also don't count helo crews or EN route clearance companies (for instance), but overall they give you a pretty good idea of the tooth-to-tail.

[JMA]

Well, the US has somewhere between 70,000 and 100,000 troops in A-stan. We'll use 70,000, giving the ratio the benefit of the doubt.

According to http://www.understandingwar.org/file...OrbatMarch.pdf, this 70,000 yields 2 x SF BNs, 1 MSOB (all under the CJSOTF), 6 BCTs and 2 USMC RCTs (with 6 IN BNs). Assuming that everyone in a BCT is a shooter (they AREN"T), that's 6 x 3200 (19200) for the Army plus 6000 give or take for the USMC.

I can't speak for the tooth-to-tail of the USMC, but out of 3200 +/- in an Army BCT, about 1400 are in IN COs, CAV TRPs, FA BTRY and EN COs. That's a very imperfect # (it doesn't count the BN mortar and scout platoons, for instance). Those rough numbers also don't count helo crews or EN route clearance companies (for instance), but overall they give you a pretty good idea of the tooth-to-tail.

It would be fascinating to find out what all these 'support' people do.

[JMA]

It would be fascinating to find out what all these 'support' people do.

"EN route clearance companies" are these engineers? What do they do?

[jmm99]

Are "EN route clearance companies" = e.g., our local 1431st Engineer Sapper Company, which was in Astan during 2009:

1421st /107th deployed to Afghanistan:

Wednesday, November 26, 2008
1421st /107th deployed to Afghanistan

More than 100 members of the Michigan National Guard’s 1431st Engineer Company–former members of the 107th- Company A, are preparing for deployment to Afghanistan.

They will meet at the Calumet Armory on Friday, Nov. 28 to prepare for a Nov. 30 departure to Camp Shelby in Hattiesburg, MS. The Baraga and Calumet armories were separated from the 107th Engineer Company and given their own identity, the 1431st Engineer Sapper Company.

They will train for approximately two months at Camp Shelby before they deploy to Afghanistan. Once in Afghanistan they will provide route and convoy clearance and security during their tour.

and U.P. troops coming home (Nov 2009) and 1431st Sapper Company Freedom Salute (Mar 2010).

Regards

Mike

PS: from Soldier, husband, dad return home:

By Brad Soroka
Tuesday, November 24, 2009 at 7:57 p.m.

CALUMET -- They're the 1431st Engineer Sapper Company; between them: 42 Purple Hearts, 26 Bronze Stars and one newborn baby.

So, more tooth than tail from the PHs.

[JMA]

Are "EN route clearance companies" = e.g., our local 1431st Engineer Sapper Company, which was in Astan during 2009:

1421st /107th deployed to Afghanistan:



and U.P. troops coming home (Nov 2009) and 1431st Sapper Company Freedom Salute (Mar 2010).

Regards

Mike

PS: from Soldier, husband, dad return home:



So, more tooth than tail from the PHs.

So I assume then that they clear roads (routes) of IEDs?

[Cavguy]

So I assume then that they clear roads (routes) of IEDs?

Yep. Do a great job of it too.

[JMA]

Are "EN route clearance companies" = e.g., our local 1431st Engineer Sapper Company, which was in Astan during 2009:

1421st /107th deployed to Afghanistan:



and U.P. troops coming home (Nov 2009) and 1431st Sapper Company Freedom Salute (Mar 2010).

Regards

Mike

PS: from Soldier, husband, dad return home:



So, more tooth than tail from the PHs.

I did miss this one Mike, is this your unit?

[jmm99]

the 1431 Sappers are the "Copper Country's Own" (that coy based at the Calumet Armory about 10 mi North of me). The heritage goes back to the Houghton County Volunteers who fought in the Civil War. My best friend, when he retired, was acting topkick for the H&HC of the parent Bn (based at Ishpeming about 75 mi South of here).

Regards

Mike

[Ken White]

It would be fascinating to find out what all these 'support' people do.

Aviation units maintain and fly aircraft; Engineers build stuff; Artillery shoots guns and rockets, Medical units keep the 'died of wounds' rate down in single figures, a worldwide wartime first; Supply and maintenance units do those things; Signal units provide comms; Military Police provide law enforcement, security and do convoy escort, Intelligence Brigades provide intel and operate some UAVs / drones (other are owned by combat units but the folks operating them are support types, not riflemen), SF do both combat and support stuff; Transportation types move stuff and people.

Combat units have mechanics and cooks who are support types. The significant US fixed wing and helicopter presence, with aircraft from all services requires a lot of maintainers, armers and fuelers to support 24 hour operations. Not to mention control tower operators...

Don't forget that the armed forces of the US are providing people to assist in rebuilding Afghan infrastructure (LINK) -- and these guys: LINK. All sorts of stuff going on there. Those US numbers also include the Air Force (fihters, transports and helicopters plus crews and support folks) and the Navy (yes, a lot Navy types there; all the Marine Medical Corpsmen and Doctors are Navy, as are the Chaplains).

P.S

In addition to the big military support package, there are a host of civilian contractors also supporting the effort.

Modern warfare is expensive and expansive...

[JMA]

Aviation units maintain and fly aircraft; Engineers build stuff; Artillery shoots guns and rockets, Medical units keep the 'died of wounds' rate down in single figures, a worldwide wartime first; Supply and maintenance units do those things; Signal units provide comms; Military Police provide law enforcement, security and do convoy escort, Intelligence Brigades provide intel and operate some UAVs / drones (other are owned by combat units but the folks operating them are support types, not riflemen), SF do both combat and support stuff; Transportation types move stuff and people.

Combat units have mechanics and cooks who are support types. The significant US fixed wing and helicopter presence, with aircraft from all services requires a lot of maintainers, armers and fuelers to support 24 hour operations. Not to mention control tower operators...

Don't forget that the armed forces of the US are providing people to assist in rebuilding Afghan infrastructure (LINK) -- and these guys: LINK. All sorts of stuff going on there. Those US numbers also include the Air Force (fihters, transports and helicopters plus crews and support folks) and the Navy (yes, a lot Navy types there; all the Marine Medical Corpsmen and Doctors are Navy, as are the Chaplains).

P.S

In addition to the big military support package, there are a host of civilian contractors also supporting the effort.

Modern warfare is expensive and expansive...

Hi Ken, thanks for the reply again.

This all started with your comment "It's the folks in the rear, about 70% of the deployed force, not the 30% that is actually performing active service."

I then (in error it seems) made the leap from converting "folks in the rear" to "support" staff.

Maybe too I was distracted by this quote from elsewhere from a certain Lt. Colonel Robert A. Lynn:

"The strength of one U.S. Army infantry brigade consists of two to four battalions with the strength typically ranging from between 1,500 to 3,500 personnel. It is usually commanded by a brigadier general or a colonel. A U.S. Army brigade with its assigned personnel and support units will vary with the mission and type of unit. A U.S. Marine expeditionary brigade consists of between 10,000 to 13,000 U.S. Marines. It is commanded by a brigadier general and consists of one infantry regiment and support units. Individual aviation squadrons are task organized to support the mission. In wars that the U.S. have been involved in since the end of World War II; the ratio of U.S. combat troops to combat service support and support have gone from 4 support soldiers to 1 infantryman to 7 support soldiers to 1 infantryman in Iraq and Afghanistan" http://tinyurl.com/yeabfz2

[Cavguy]

I can't speak for the tooth-to-tail of the USMC, but out of 3200 +/- in an Army BCT, about 1400 are in IN COs, CAV TRPs, FA BTRY and EN COs. That's a very imperfect # (it doesn't count the BN mortar and scout platoons, for instance). Those rough numbers also don't count helo crews or EN route clearance companies (for instance), but overall they give you a pretty good idea of the tooth-to-tail.

I always get annoyed when people compare the "tooth to tail" ratio of the USMC to the Army, and neglect that the USMC is incapable of above RCT level logistical support over time. The USMC logistics elements dont do theater sustainment. The Army performs that function for the USMC. That skews the overall ratio greatly. It's easy to dismiss "support troops", but without them combat units can't operate.

(Not targeting you 82redleg, just an FYI for the board)

[JMA]

Well, the US has somewhere between 70,000 and 100,000 troops in A-stan. We'll use 70,000, giving the ratio the benefit of the doubt.

According to http://www.understandingwar.org/file...OrbatMarch.pdf, this 70,000 yields 2 x SF BNs, 1 MSOB (all under the CJSOTF), 6 BCTs and 2 USMC RCTs (with 6 IN BNs). Assuming that everyone in a BCT is a shooter (they AREN"T), that's 6 x 3200 (19200) for the Army plus 6000 give or take for the USMC.

I can't speak for the tooth-to-tail of the USMC, but out of 3200 +/- in an Army BCT, about 1400 are in IN COs, CAV TRPs, FA BTRY and EN COs. That's a very imperfect # (it doesn't count the BN mortar and scout platoons, for instance). Those rough numbers also don't count helo crews or EN route clearance companies (for instance), but overall they give you a pretty good idea of the tooth-to-tail.

And the bottom line is?

Are those percentages accurate?

What I'm attempting to establish is whether the 70 : 30 ratio is correct or is a 7 : 1 ration more accurate.

[82redleg]

And the bottom line is?

Are those percentages accurate?

What I'm attempting to establish is whether the 70 : 30 ratio is correct or is a 7 : 1 ration more accurate.

The bottom line is that there are a lot of support types for not a lot of shooters. The definitions (as Fuchs pointed out) can be blurred, both by mission types, and by the COIN/SFC mission. Are the ETTs that combat advise ANA units daily tooth or tail? (I'd argue tooth, but by Fuchs definition, they are tail).

The percentages for uniformed pax are probably about 70:30, that leaves out the approximately equal number of contractors (counting them would result in a number closer to the 7:1).

[JMA]

The bottom line is that there are a lot of support types for not a lot of shooters. The definitions (as Fuchs pointed out) can be blurred, both by mission types, and by the COIN/SFC mission. Are the ETTs that combat advise ANA units daily tooth or tail? (I'd argue tooth, but by Fuchs definition, they are tail).

The percentages for uniformed pax are probably about 70:30, that leaves out the approximately equal number of contractors (counting them would result in a number closer to the 7:1).

OK so enter the civilian contractors. That's another story then.

The question this probably then, do the 7 actually assist each soldier to fight more effectively?

[jmm99]

in the tooth and tail area. A brave or foolish man (perhaps being Irish accounted for it) did a study of Tooth-to-Tail Ratio (T3R): John J. McGrath, The Other End of the Spear: The Tooth-to-Tail Ratio (T3R) in Modern Military Operations,The Long War Series, Occasional Paper 23, Combat Studies Institute Press Fort Leavenworth, Kansas (2007). The Occasional Papers are here; but the .pdf link to McGrath's paper ain't a-working.

Strarting with the AEF in WWI, he came up with a 105 page monograph. Now, tooth to tail stuff is not Industrial Management 101 and cannot be reduced to a motion and time study. For example, he placed all of the AEF's Corps of Engineers in the combat component because (p.56, note 2):

2. The AEF maintained a force of nondivisional Corps of Engineers units consisting of 241,613 troops, representing 12 percent of the total AEF force. Categorizing this force is problematic. I have chosen to place the whole engineer element in the combat category, but undoubtedly, at least some of this force belongs in the logistical category as the engineers also maintained the railroads. However, determining what portion of the 241,613 belonged in which category would require a level of research beyond the scope of this work. The placement of the 241,613 in the combat category is, therefore noted. Accordingly, up to 13 percent of the total of combat troops could possibly be placed in the logistical category instead. See “The Organization of the American Expeditionary Forces,” 8; COL Carl Schmidt, “The Operational Slice in Two World Wars,” Military Review 31 (October 1951), 56.

However, McGrath provides his methodology throughout, and comes up with a number of charts and graphs. A comparison in the combat category over the years is found on page 103 (Table B-2. Theater Comparisons by Category):

AEF 1918 - 53%
ETO 1945 - 39%
Korea/Japan 1953 - 33%
Vietnam 1968 - 35%
Germany 1974 - 27%
KTO 1991 - 30%
Iraq 2005 (military in country only) - 40%
Iraq 2005 (incl. Kuwait & contractors) - 25%

Note these are "T3R" for theatre deployed forces, not for the Army as a whole. The 30%-70% combat to non-combat (82redleg & Ken White) pretty much hit on the head the last 2 decades of deployments.

Here is his graph showing combat % of the Army as a whole:

Whole Army - Combat.jpg

So, here we see much lower "T3R" - as low as ~ 1:15. Perhaps that's where the 1:7 ratio derives ?

Regards

Mike

Working link to McGrath paper is here at CGSC.