Results 1 to 20 of 178

Thread: Mech Platoon: CAB or ACR

Threaded View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #11
    Council Member 82redleg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USAWC, Carlisle Bks
    Posts
    224

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fuchs View Post
    That's no argument, for you can simply adjust the HQ to an optimal size, no matter what's the Bde TO&E.


    The previous "less staffs" argument has its limits as well, for otherwise we could concentrate on one HQ for an entire army. Pointing out a factor that's pro larger Bdes alone doesn't make the case for a larger Bde, for there are many other reasons.
    Among these other reasons are the advantages of smaller, more agile Bdes.

    A large Bde can also be agile, of course - IF the really relevant level is the battalion level, IF battalion (battlegroups) are the real manoeuvring forces.
    The HQ argument loses relevance in this case because the Bde/Div HQs could be really tiny then.
    Except that to do the job of a BDE (or whatever level) HQs entails a certain amount of overhead- I've seen no convincing argument (I've requested Storr's book inter-library) for failing to maximize that capability. Without maximizing the capability, you end up with micromanagement.

    When drawing comparisons from WW2, you have to remember 3 things:
    1- (already mentioned) is the exponential increase in C2 capabilities since then
    2- the relatively unlimited nature of the force structure. In WW2, we had lots of separate BDEs, regiments, groups, battalions, etc, that could do all the little tasks that tend to come up. Now, we don't. So we take it out of hide, from subordinate units. The problem comes when we make these subordinates so small that detaching a subordinate effectively emasculates them. My BCT detached a IN BN shortly before our own deployment to Iraq- long story. A BCT of only one IN BN left us scrambling for combat power- we eventually made up for it, and ended up with 4 battalions attached in theater (total of 9 BNs in the BCT), but we were in-effective without the plus up, and effectively only a rump BCT.
    3- in WW2, we were an amateur army. Most of the BN CDRs and even many RGT commanders had very little time in service, and those that did have time in service had little experience with large units. Our BCT commanders today have much more and better preparation to command at that level than their WW2 counterparts, and the difference at BN level is even greater. Most WW2 company commanders were shake and bakes with only a couple of years service and almost no professional education. This lead to a need to micromanage, from DIV CG on down, which effectively decreased the size of units that can be controlled.
    Last edited by 82redleg; 10-27-2010 at 11:28 PM.

Similar Threads

  1. Platoon Weapons
    By Norfolk in forum Trigger Puller
    Replies: 218
    Last Post: 09-19-2014, 08:10 AM
  2. Redundancy in small unit organization
    By Presley Cannady in forum Trigger Puller
    Replies: 48
    Last Post: 07-31-2014, 09:00 PM
  3. Size of the Platoon and Company
    By tankersteve in forum Trigger Puller
    Replies: 129
    Last Post: 07-31-2014, 01:20 PM
  4. Abandon squad/section levels of organization?
    By Rifleman in forum Trigger Puller
    Replies: 120
    Last Post: 06-29-2014, 04:19 PM
  5. Infantry Unit Tactics, Tasks, Weapons, and Organization
    By Norfolk in forum Trigger Puller
    Replies: 306
    Last Post: 12-04-2012, 05:25 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •