I know the guy you describe. He's a hack.Originally Posted by Hacksaw
I know the guy you describe. He's a hack.
Anybody who would call Hawaii a hardship tour ...
Gentlemen:
Hacksaw:Nay, not so -- tons of good novel ideas here from a great many folks on a daily basis. There are also those who will acknowledge the status quo is not good but surprisingly, still defend it...(editorial note: we all know nothing is a novel idea unless it came from Ken White)
Take ad-hocery, that's the way the US of A always fights. Having served with a few ad-hoc aggregations and seen the good and bad, I have no particular problem with it. My contributions aren't novel, they are simply what I have seen work -- or not -- over many years. What never works is hidebound bureaucracy...
Pete:Like you, I served in regular infantry divisions -- including the 7th in Korea post war -- the old style Infantry Division TOE had a lot going for it and IMO it was a mistake to 'lighten' of 'heavy-ize' all of them.I was in the 7th Inf Div when it began converting from straight-leg to light in the early 1980s. Most of the World War II triangular infantry divisions in Europe had an attached battalion of armor. Perhaps armor or mech infantry battalions could be attached or made organic to light infantry brigades. Sort of a modular TOE, if you will.
Lot of experimenting will occur with TOEs in the near future, I suspect. The so-called modular concept we're now under is proving that some aspects work and others don't. I think the Division as an echelon should go away but their should be light, medium and heavy Bdes, I think -- each has a niche in which to operate.
I don't think that the division echelon can simply "go away"- the span of control from Corps to BDE in Iraq would be over 20 (even now), over 30 at the height of the surge.
I think that the BCTs should be truly independent (a simple first step would be calling them something unique, rather than # of whatever division), and capable of operating independently- a BG CDR, COL DCO, 4 maneuver battalions, 4 (or 5) troops in the RSTA, 4 (or 5) firing batteries in the FA, increased CS and CSS elements- the BN and especially the BCT HQ can handle it, we cut line units at the expense of HQs in 2004-2006. Functional and multifunctional BDEs aren't too bad, and can retain COL CDRs (they are smaller, and they shouldn't maneuver)- the equivalent "CMD" for maneuver COLs can be the DCO positions, just a MAJs don't command now.
BG Was de Czege agreed with you on the regular infantry organization- way back in JUL-AUG 1985 Infantry Journal (article called "3 Kinds of Infantry"). I could argue that, at the BN level, the ABN/AASLT infantry (and the current IBCT battalions) were/are a esxtremely lightened version of the regular IN, and that the SBCTs fit the bill rather nicely. M2 mech IN is clearly "armored" infantry (to use Was de Czege's term), while the former light infantry battalion's were pretty decent "light" infantry- the RGR RGT's organization works as well. The problem with the ABN/AASLT organization is that it only cross-pollinated with the light and RGR units, and not much at all with the mech units, thus becoming "light" by ethos in spite of a (extremely lightened) medium MTOE.
Bottom line, I agree on light, medium and heavy BCTs- we need to beef all the BCTs up in #s, and enable their C2 to operate a 2 maneuver BN (+ enabler slice) task force under the DCO if required for a mission. Divisions need to remain (maybe not as many, but some HQ between corps and BCT/BDE), and probably without DCGs (the BGs go the BCT command positions).
Armored Infantry
During World War II and for some years afterward we had armored infantry battalions in many of our armored divisions. Their main combat vehicle was the half-track. The term armored infantry isn't one that de Czege invented.
Correct- I merely meant that I was using the term in the way the Was de Czege defined it. The term was used before that.
And I believe armored infantry WERE the infantry in armored divisions- not in many of them.
Last edited by 82redleg; 12-16-2009 at 01:36 AM. Reason: edited to add another thought
Lighter Force Structure
Yup, you were right.
Review: Army should add Stryker units
By Matthew Cox - Staff writer
Army Times
Posted : Wednesday Jan 27, 2010 21:22:55 EST
The Army should trim several heavy brigade combat teams from its future fighting force to make room for more Stryker units, according to a Dec. 3 draft of the Department of Defense Quadrennial Defense Review.
“Our assessment of security trends points strongly to the conclusion that the future mix of missions facing U.S. forces will call for greater flexibility and agility,” the draft document states. “By FY13 the Army will convert a heavy brigade combat team to the Stryker configuration. As resources become available, [DoD] intends to convert several more BCTs” to the medium weight, rapidly deployable Stryker model. Currently, the Army has seven Stryker BCTs, six active and one National Guard. The service would add up to four more Stryker brigades in the future, according to the draft QDR report.
A congressional mandate requires the Defense Department to conduct a QDR every four years to evaluate its strategies and policies that directly affect how the services set force structure and procure weapon systems.
Surprisingly, the Pentagon document makes no mention of the Army’s primary modernization effort — the Ground Combat Vehicle, a new class of infantry fighting vehicle that will eventually replace the Bradley.
The December draft report also calls for the increase in “rotary wing assets.”
“Vertical lift has been indispensable to successful counterinsurgency and counterterrorist operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and elsewhere,” the draft report states. “As operations in the rugged terrain of Afghanistan grow in scope and intensity, more rotary wing lift capacity will be needed to ensure that coalition and Afghan forces can be re-supplied at remote outposts and effectively cover their areas of responsibility.”
The Army and other services “will take steps, including expanding pilot training, to make selected vertical lift assets more readily accessible to forces in forward theaters of operations,” the report states.
U.S. Special Operations command will field an “additional company of cargo helicopters."
This makes as much sense as saying, "because it rained today I am going to buy a puppy."“Our assessment of security trends points strongly to the conclusion that the future mix of missions facing U.S. forces will call for greater flexibility and agility,” the draft document states. “By FY13 the Army will convert a heavy brigade combat team to the Stryker configuration. As resources become available, [DoD] intends to convert several more BCTs” to the medium weight, rapidly deployable Stryker model. Currently, the Army has seven Stryker BCTs, six active and one National Guard. The service would add up to four more Stryker brigades in the future, according to the draft QDR report.
So more Strykers are the answer to the "Hezbollah-Hybrids" with IEDs, ATGMs, and RPG-7/29?
Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"
- The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
- If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition
I agree that the actual Stryker vehicle itself is open to improvement, but the organization (3 IN BNs of 3 COs, each with its own Assault Gun platoon, plus a RSTA squadron) is a HUGE improvement over the HBCT, with a much better balance of AR to IN for MOST operations. The battle command improvements are also HUGE.
I don't doubt that some thinking lead to some improvements. It would be odd if it didn't.
Beyond that I remain sceptical about almost every aspect of Stryker Brigades.
Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"
- The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
- If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition
Posting Permissions
"A Sherman can give you a very nice... edge."- Oddball, 
Bookmarks