How different, if at all, would that look compared to current cav Bn's?Originally Posted by TAH
What happened to Sink or Swim?
Perhaps the BCT is not the best solution, but it has certainly been a step in the right direction. To revert back to a Division/Corps centric Army would be a complete devolution of combat effectiveness.
The Army's inability to delegate roles and responsibilities to lower echelons has contradicted and doomed the success of the BCT. I think that many have never wanted the BCT to succeed.
I think that Ken has hit the nail on the head. Today's Army does not perform well in a decentralized state. This, in my opinion, lends evidence to a larger problem... The Army's quality vs. quantity problem.the Colonels didn't like it. That and the fact that the intended equipment got stalled in the bureaucracy and only started appearing in units AFTER the decision was made to revert to the tired and true -- and easier to control if you're into centralizing things -- Brigade of ROAD. The Pentomic concept had a great many good things, but it was designed for those who are willing to delegate and trust subordinates. Not the Army way...
Lets be real and frank, the average (pick your rank) fails to embody the level of responsibility, proficiency, and professionalism necessary for the success of the BCT. Furthermore, the truly exemplary junior officers/NCOs have been virtually neutered of their authority/responsibilities. This has a detrimental effect on the entire Brigade.
What we need is the SOF mentality pushed out into the broader Army. Field grades should not be afraid to fire people, junior officers and NCOs must have the opportunity to succeed and/or fail. Eventually these mentalities will rub off onto the lower enlisted who will forgo their Halo tournament (video games) to concern themselves with putting rounds down range.
How different, if at all, would that look compared to current cav Bn's?
What is the pivotal command level in a tactical fight? Is it brigade, battalion or something else?
I thought elminating the division sounded like a good idea because it seems like Armies usually do business at the tactical level through brigades. Ken White pointed out that it was that way even in WWII, with the fighting really happening at RCT level.
If it's still that way, should brigades be fixed TOEs or flexible combat commands? If the answer is flexible combat commands, then it seems like the division might be necessary to assign various battalions or squadrons to brigade commanders depending on mission requirements.
If mixing and matching battalions based on METT-TC is necessary, who's doling out the battalions if there's no division?
Last edited by Rifleman; 10-17-2010 at 01:16 PM.
"Pick up a rifle and you change instantly from a subject to a citizen." - Jeff Cooper
And now for something completely different
It would not look anything like any of the existing BCT Recon/CAV Cdqrns.
Probably something like I have outlined over on the BCT thread:
2 hvy Cavalry Troops that have the capabiity of "fighting for information"
1 light recon troop most likely in scout/armored cars for the smaller/light footprint to be able to manuever thru terrain that the hvy toops are too big/heavy for and for missions that require more stealth/surveillance capability.
1 Mounted Infantry Co for staying power and to augment with more dismounted patrolling capability.
Each Co/troop has it own short-range (5-10 km) UAV, Sqdrn has longer range A/C to look deeper and stay longer.
6-8 heavy mortars for organic fire support.
Another option I have kicked around in my head is a 21st century up-date to the 1944 Panzer Aufklarungs Abtielung.
2 Recon companies (one tracked one wheeled)
2 mounted infantry compnaies (one in IFVs and one in APC)
Support/Heavy Company with mortar, AT, engineer/sapper Plts
Add UAVs as above.
So how many dismounts is that? IIRC ther were LRRP detachments assigned to Div HQ in the 1980s
Divisions had a LRS detachment from sometime early 80s until modularity (04-06), when they all went to Pathfinder COs in AVN BDEs or to the BFSBs.
A mech CO dismounts 3 x 27 (in rifle squads) + a few more HQ types (CO, 3 x PL, 5 x RTO), so ~90 for the mech CO.
A current mixed (M3/HMMWV) scout section with 10 pax can dismount 4 (3 from the M3, 1 from the HMMWV) while keeping the vehicles fully manned. From this, I deduce that an M3 can carry at least 3 dismounts.
A HMMWV can carry 2, but really should only carry one (keeping the other seat free for a terp/medic/casevac/etc). The old 2 LCR MTOE had no dismounts, simply the 3 vehicle crew per each HMMWV, the same as the current IBCT and BFSB mounted troop platoons.
A current Stryker recon platoon has 6 or 7 pax per Stryker RV, from which I deduce that the RV can carry at least 5 dismounts (leaving the 2 man crew in the Stryker).
Assuming that we go with 3 PLTs of 6 M3 in the Heavy Recon Troops, they should be putting out a 6 man recon team per section, for 18 dismounts per platoon, or 56 per troop. Unless we add additional pax, there is no leadership planned to dismount, at least the CO should have a jump gunner and a couple of RTOs to enable him to dismount, so ~59 per heavy troop.
Assuming (again), 3 PLTs of 6 Stryker RVs in the Light Recon Troops, they can be organized identically, or even put down a full 9-man squad per section. So, minimum of ~59 per troop, maximum of 30 per platoon (3 x 9 + PL/RTO/Medic) + COs crew ~94 per troop.
If we are operating unconstrained, I seem to recall (but can't reference right now) that the initial proposal for the ACR included a mech CO in addition to the tank CO, howitzer battery and 3 x Recon troops. That is a pretty big BN, but maybe doable. It would have 18 operational platoons, but a CAB had 16 (before the EN CO was removed) and the old DIV CAV had 16 (counting the air troops) and was split between ground and air. Since this SQDN will operate independently, organizing it to do so without task organization/augmentation would probably be beneficial.
Mounted supported by Dismounted
For the mounted scout/recon/cav, the larger the number of dismounts, the greater number of dismounted patrols & LP/OPs each unit can support.
A 36-man scout plt (could be CFV or Stryker) can dismount 18 (CFV) or 24 (Stryker) Soldiers. six or eight 3-man teams or three or four 4-man teams per platoon. These folks are recon/scouts with training, manning, and equipping focused on the recon aspects of the mission. Could a Scout platoon defend or clear a building, sure but I don't see that as their primary job.
The infantry company is there to address the recurring issue from recon/cav units that they insufficent dismounts for sustained combat operations. These are infantry Soldiers trained, manned and equipped for their set of combat operations. Could these guys man LP/OPs or conduct dismounted patrols, again sure, but need them focused on missions that will normally require more then 3-8 folks at a time.
The DIV CAV must be capable of BOTH recon (route, area, zone) AND security (screen & guard) operations. Mine will also be a viable canidate for economy-of-force missions, delays etc. None of the existing Recon Sqdron currently have ALL of these capabities without outside augmentation.
I found additional information on this topic and seems clear that modularity just costs too much. General Chiarelli has questioned why the Army needs so many vehicles, especially humvee trucks (158,000 by 2012) and puts the blame on the shift to the modular force.
http://www.fortgordonsignal.com/news...ll_Be_Ter.html
Would eliminating the Brigade Troops Battalion in the BCT and shifting its responsabilities to the Brigade support Battalion help with efficiency?
Would decreasing the number of Forward Support Companies in the BCT do like wise?
Is a FSC necessary for every maneuver battalion or is a 2 to 1 ration sufficient?
Chiarelli's a tanker whose only wars were fought in the Desert,
the only type of terrain on earth that is conducive to modern Div operations. We fought Divs in WW II in North Africa only, everywhere else, the Divs formed Regimental Combat Teams to fight. Korea and VN, RCT and Bde fights. Then came Desert Storm, he missed it but his buddies in the 1st Cav told him about the majesty of an Armored Division in full sweep and then he went to Iraq and heard and saw what the attack force had done.
That's point one. It ignores the issue of Divs in Viet Nam being useless and having little to do. If we go back in the Jungle somewhere -- or to Korea, we are not going to fight as Divs.
Point two is the Math. Disregarding Separate Bdes, We had ten Divs @ three Bdes each, total of 9 maneuver Bns each for 90 maneuver LTC cmds. We now have essentially four BCTs per Div Hq with two Bns plus a 'Cav Sqn' each for 80 Bns plus 40 'Cav Sqns' -- that's 120 maneuver LTC cmds.
Take out some 'Cav Sqns' for the reconstituted Divs and that equals 12 Divisions at nine maneuver Bns (12x9=108) plus a Div Cav Sqn (2x1=12. That 12 plus the 108 = 120). That's two more MG slots and four more BG slots at a cost of 8 COL spaces (10 deactivated BCTs less 2 new Div Chiefs of Staff).
Whether that will happen or not remains to be seen, the modular bit works and can be improved to work even better but I suspect that is not the issue. It's a change and we older folks don't like change. Any time budget cuts loom, the power structure seeks to minimize the 'damage' IAW their view on what's important. In my experience that has rarely coincided with what was best for the nation or even the Army. We don't do "It wasn't designed here" nor do we do "it wasn't designed by me."
Plus modularity leaves the Div Hq (and their GO slots) subject to Congressional questions of "what do they do..."
Another Way
A second order impact of the BSTB is as a Rear Area Operations C2 Hqs. With most of its units/assets task orged out it has little else to do. But this leaves it a a perfect position to take on this mission and not add work to someone else.
Also provides a Bn Hqs for attached Companies of MPs or Engineers can operate.
Fewer Support Companies is a very bad idea. Not sure there sufficent capability in the force that is there now.
A better choice might be to stand down one of the four BCTs, and use most of the personel to add a third Manuver bn per BCT. Would also need to plus up Arty (add a btry) engineers (small Bn or two big companies) and adjust the Support Bn overhead and add another FSC.
Minus 47,000 Active-duty Troops
Based on what I read today, the Army is being asked/tasked to cut 27,000 active-duty troops (plus 22,000 already programmed to go) by 2015.
Will be interesting to see where the cuts go.
If out of the TOE force, 47K is somewhere between 2 and four divisions.
In round figures, the combined HQs (BCT HHC+STB HHC+2 CAB HHC+BSB HHC+FA HHB) of an HBCT is 1100 troops, IBCT is 1000.
Only a total of 49 BCTs (18 HBCT, 23 IBCT & 6 SBCT) in the active force.
AVN Bdes have lots of troops but will be surprised if any of those go.
The rest of the Modular Bdes are generally a HQs + a SPT BN + a signal Co.
Lots of room to cut in the CBT SPT area (FA, MPs, ENG ect) but alot of that stuff (50% plus) is in the RC.
Waiting to see.
47k is less than what used to be a divisional slice in the 90's.
Gute,
According to the Department of Defense the US will seek to be the security partner of choice, pursuing new partnership with a growing number of nations. Seeking partnerships with is beneficial because we are adding legitimacy to US operations, shaping public perceptions and learning firsthand through cultural experts. The Army will achieve partnership at the tactical level by regionally aligning Brigades in support of national strategy. Furthermore, regionally aligned partnerships will build expertise in support of a Geographic Commander’s Area of Operation. Ultimately, the Brigade will have regional focus and responsibilities thereby allowing units to develop advisory capabilities, build relationships with allies and host nations. The Army will remain globally engaged and regionally responsive through a Multi-national environment.
r/
John
**The views expressed in this are those of MAJ Rizzuto, Command and General Staff College, and do not reflect the official policy of the Department of the Army, DoD or the US Government. **
Any more info?
A while back, the US Army talked about restructuring its BCTs by adding in a third maneuver battalion. Anyone have any idea when/how that adjustment might be taking place?
My latest has the Army reducing the numbers of Active-duty BCTs down to 28 (as opposed to the Grow-the-Army plan a few years back...), using some of the savings to add the maneuver units in IBCT and HBCT (now called ABCTs) and changing the Special Troops Bn to an organic Engineer Bn with a 2nd company of contruction engineers. They would also bring the SBCTs in lineby adding a STB/Eng Bn to their structure. There would also be additions/adjustmentds to the artillery and support battalions to account for the new battalion.
There had been some discussion of eliminating some or all of the following BCTs sub-units:
Combat Observation and Lasing Teams (COLTs)
BCT security section
BCT MP platoon
BCT NBC recin platoon.
Size of all thre BCT types would be around 4500.
Also, ran across this story about restructuring in the UK that might be of interest.
http://ukarmedforcescommentary.blogs...in-detail.html The UK changes are discussed on a separate thread: http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/...highlight=2020
Last edited by davidbfpo; 02-07-2013 at 09:58 PM. Reason: Add pointer to UK thread
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks