Originally Posted by
Griz882
All in all I think this a fascinating thread and it brings to mind an idea I once floated concerning the structure of the Army National Guard (of which I am a member).
. . .
...I propose that both items could be solved by restructuring the reserve forces (USAR/ARNG) as follows:
1. eliminate USAR, roll soldiers into ARNG
2. eliminate existing force structure of BCT's, MEB's, Sustainment BDE's and so forth
3. have each state establish a number of "Peace Enforcement Regiments" based on their available manpower with small states like New Hampshire providing something like three battalions to the structure and larger states providing multiple regiments.
The structure of each regiment/battalion would be MOS skill based, but the unit would not be branch based. Thus, a PEB would look something like this:
HHC - HQ Plt - Sig Plt - Lift Plt (helos) - Med Plt - Log Plt - Civil Affairs Plt
A Co - Infantry
B Co - MP
C Co - Engineer
D Co - Transport
. . .
I recognize that that many "branch disciples" would be aghast at the type of force mixing I am recommending here, but I believe it brings the strength of branch training and a unit mission-focused training cycle together in the positive way. On my last Iraq tour I can’t tell you how many ersatz units I encountered that were made up of armor, engineers, infantry, MPs, artillery, and ADA (just to name a few) – most of whom spoke a common language separated by branch dogma and doctrine.
I say leave artillery to their mission. Leave infantry and armor to theirs. The same goes for ADA and MP. In short, create a force you can use in multiple ways (and at necessary times) while maintaining army for the bigger fight.
Bookmarks