Re-structuring the BCT

[Tukhachevskii]

HBCT Recon Sqdrn should now be capable of acting as the 3rd maneuver element of the HBCT and still retain is primary role of recon.
TAH

So its really more of an ACAV Sqn (as per the ACAV regiments) than a recon outfit right? Can it manouvre and conduct recon or only accomplish one mission at a time; me thinks the latter. Although it could dominate a movement to contact pretty well while guiding in the other two true manouvre bns in for the kill-hunter-killer style. In non MW scenarios however, like, for instance in Iraq, you've already got rcon sqns being used in manoevre roles to make up for the short-fall but become so ensconsed in that mission that they often can't perform their primary one...i.e., recon. Still, I can see from the simple reorganisation you propose that one could get greater bang for ones buck without needing to drastically shake up the entire system. But you really need to address the above problem.

[TAH]

So its really more of an ACAV Sqn (as per the ACAV regiments) than a recon outfit right? Can it manouvre and conduct recon or only accomplish one mission at a time; me thinks the latter. recon.

Still, I can see from the simple reorganisation you propose that one could get greater bang for ones buck without needing to drastically shake up the entire system. But you really need to address the above problem.

Agree with the first half of the first statement. The intent was to re-create a more viable force using the same set of pieces. I disagree with the second part about not being able to conduct "Reconniassance"

When we say a unit is conducting reconnaissance, what do we mean? I mean the unit is out executing a tactical operation that seeks to confirm or deny assumptions made by staff/planners that will enable the commander to make effective tactical decisions.

Is that really an enemy force of dug-in infantry supported by tanks across that river or are they just high-res decoys? (composition/what they are) and dispostion/location-where they are). I also need a force that has the capability of acting as the advanced guard for the BCT to confirm/deny the enemy's INTENTIONS.

Lots of sensors of various types (SIGINT/ELINT/HUMINT/UAVs) are capable of determining the location and suspected composition of an enemy force. This can often be conducted passively from stand-off.

However, without the actions of the Adv Gd, we may never know if those bunkers are occupied, are those tanks real? is the enemy's plan to defend, delay, retire and attempt to break contact or surrender?

Discovery of the enemy's true intentions are as important (if not more important) then just figureing out who is where.

I believe that my suggested Recon/Cav Sqdrn can do both. Based on a read from the Intel guys, the BCT and recon commanders can determine/agree on a scheme of maneuver for the ARS (Armored Recon Sqdrn). Lead with Hvy Recon only, Light Recon only or combination of both.

With only two maneuver battalions, none of the BCTs can afford an entire battalion's worth of resources designed, equipped, manned and trained for two relatively simple tasks - conduct recon and conduct screen. Recon should be a tactical task or mission that any/all units are capable of executing within their own specific limitations.

Effective March of this year (2010) the doctrine changed and now "allows" ARS to be employed to conduct guard missions as well as attack & defend. However, the baseline organiozation has yet to be adapted to make that possible.

Thus my proposal.

PS. Secondary efforts were to address the tactical limitations of the two-platoons troops, the fact that the ARS brings nothing to the fight other then C2, and to begin simplify the organizations of BCT scout/recon platoons and troops.

Once the 3rd ACR transforms to and SBCT, there will be three seperate and distinct monuted recon platoons, the 3X5 CFV-HMWWV platoon found in HBCTs, a 6 HMMWV platoon found in IBCTs and a 4 Recon Carrier Variinat found in the SBCTs. There are also two seperate/distinct troop organizations, troops of two platoons in the HBCT and troops of three platoons in both the IBCT and SBCTs.

TAH

[Ken White]

I also need a force that has the capability of acting as the advanced guard for the BCT to confirm/deny the enemy's INTENTIONS...Discovery of the enemy's true intentions are as important (if not more important) then just figureing out who is where...I believe that my suggested Recon/Cav Sqdrn can do both.

Far more important -- and correspondingly far, far more difficult to ascertain. Exponentially so...

OTOH, your force can determine his capabilities which are the next best thing.

[William F. Owen]

Far more important -- and correspondingly far, far more difficult to ascertain. Exponentially so...

OTOH, your force can determine his capabilities which are the next best thing.

Ain't that the truth. In all my time in Recce I don't ever remember being tasked with discovering the enemy's intent. His location and activity yes.

[Fuchs]

intent:
* from fusing & interpreting recce reports
* from prisoners

[William F. Owen]

intent:
* from fusing & interpreting recce reports
* from prisoners

Thus I was ordered to:
Make reports on enemy activity and locations
Capture prisoners.

Discover the enemy's intent NEVER featured in a stated mission.

[TAH]

Thus I was ordered to:
Make reports on enemy activity and locations
Capture prisoners.

Discover the enemy's intent NEVER featured in a stated mission.

While "determine the enemy's intent" may have never been a stated mission, having and understanding of the full enemy situation: composition (what and possibly who-what unit or unit type) disposition (where-location(s)), capabiities (what he is able to do) AND intentions (he is likely planning on doing) is important for the commander to make correct decisions.

Somebody has to go up and punch the guy in the nose in order to determine actual intent. By restricting ourselves to passive surveillance, we open ourselves up to deception by the other side.

Could the HBCT use a CAB instead, sure, but with only two it limits the flexibility of the exiting HBCT.

A similar epiphany is occuring at the division, corps and JTF levels with the realization that the "old" dic cav and ACRs are gone and that the Battlefield Surveillance Bdes lack the resources to execute many their old tasks (conduct guard, conduct cover force, conduct economy-of-force, conduct reconnaissance-in-force etc). Div and above cdrs are now having to employ a BCT instead.

[TAH]

intent:
* from fusing & interpreting recce reports
* from prisoners

Agree with both up to a point...

Point 1, what if the reports we are intercepting are part of the enemy's deception plan?

Point 1.1 BCT has only a very limted capability in its MICO to accomplish directly got the BCT CDR. An attack by a "Re-org" ARS can achieve the results shortly after contact.

Point 2. See above about who has the capability to conduct (hint the Counter-Intel and/or the HUMINT folks in the MICO, assuming they have the correct language capability).

Point 2.1 While some EPWs will get nabbed "steathly" the majority will come following a successful attack. Consider the Brits in the Fauklands, the Italians in WW2, the Iraqis in the first Gulf War....

The ARS was designed based on the "Quaility of Firsts" (Now out of Voque). It was intended to be a Recon-pull Organization. May have worked great twenty years ago. Against any OPFOR that is well-trained, well-armed and primarilty dismounted the wheels begin to come off as it crosses the LD.

We tried the same "Recon by Steath" approach in WW2 with the mounted Cavalry/Recon units. Mounted fails against anything other then lmited resistence. Dismounted can, given time and suitable terrain work but the overall OPTEMPO must allow for it.

[Ken White]

intent:
* from fusing & interpreting recce reports
* from prisoners

but will it give you that enemy commanders intentions or merely his capabilities and some indications? I don't think either of those will put you inside the mind of an opposing commander. Not to mention a good deception plan can lead one astray. Badly...

This is partly semantic but it has very real and important point. You can learn things, assess what you've learned and usually determine possibilities and even occasionally, enough to ascertain probabilities -- however you must consider that the other guys is at least as smart and experienced as are you and is as capable of a startling and innovative effort. Not stating his 'intentions' is simply to avoid the mindset "that's what he's going to do..." That's a strong human predilection without reinforcing it by believing you might have learned his intentions.

It is simply avoiding target fixation. More particularly, potentially wrong target fixation...