Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 94

Thread: Returning to a Division Centric Army

  1. #61
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    499

    Default Maybe it's impractical but I wanted to know what people thought

    Quote Originally Posted by Fuchs View Post
    The corps is the largest army structure that's affordable for most European countries unless the horizon darkens. It's going to stay in one form or another.
    That sounds sensible from a European standpoint.

    This means that with all those compatibility efforts at NATO level it would make little sense to delete U.S. corps because this would mean one unnecessary level of command in multinational campaigning.
    I asked if eliminating the corps would be practical because the U.S. does business through it's regional Unified Commands. If the four-star commander (are they still called CinCs or "sinks"?) already has a couple of three-stars working for him does he still need corps commanders between him and the divisions? Don't know, maybe he does.

    But the discussion is usually about flattening the command structure by eliminating the division. I never see any talk of eliminating the corps and keeping the division so I thought I'd ask.
    Last edited by Rifleman; 10-12-2010 at 12:17 AM.
    "Pick up a rifle and you change instantly from a subject to a citizen." - Jeff Cooper

  2. #62
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    589

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fuchs View Post
    The old limit for practical corps size was 25,000 to 30,000 and was defined by march duration and pass time. Think of men marching in column. Width is 5 men on one road, average spacing is 1.5m. Total column length for 30,000 men:
    6000 * 1,5m = 9 km. Pass time at 4 km/h: 2.25 hours.

    Now keep in mind all those frictions and it becomes visible why larger formations were unwieldy.

    Another reason for corps size limitation was overview over a battlefield (few km width can be controlled by a single commander with telescope, flag signals and courier horsemen).

    None of this is relevant today.


    (Btw, a pre-radio army or corps commander had much more direct subordinates than three!).
    OK. Thanks for the lecture. But what does it have to do with my original post?

  3. #63
    Council Member Fuchs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,189

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tukhachevskii View Post
    Or I am wrong? t just sees we're going backwards only to relearn the same lesson.
    It is not the same lesson. The resemblance of outcome is coincidental.

  4. #64
    Council Member TAH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    115

    Default Two seperate efforts

    Quote Originally Posted by Tukhachevskii View Post
    TAH I think you're right, US dctrine nevr envsaged disolvng the Div level HQ just tas organsied permamnently to BDE groups.
    Agree.

    The Transformation/modularization of the US Army is a relatively recent effort that appears to be driven, at least to some extent, by the period of extended combat/conflict.

    "Flattening" of the C2 structure pre-dates transformation by about 5-10 years (late 90s, early 200xs).

    Had a thought the other day of why not making the Division HQs/Base its' own brigade type. C2/staff/HQs Bn + Signal Bn + Troops Bn (MPs, NBC, local security force units, other odds & sods), + CAV Sqdrn/Recon Bn.
    Last edited by davidbfpo; 10-12-2010 at 06:34 PM.

  5. #65
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    589

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TAH View Post
    Agree.

    The Transformation/modularization of the US Army is a relatively recent effort that appears to be driven, at least to some extent, by the period of extended combat/conflict.

    "Flattening" of the C2 structure pre-dates transformation by about 5-10 years (late 90s, early 200xs).

    Had a thought the other day of why not making the Division HQs/Base its' own brigade type. C2/staff/HQs Bn + Signal Bn + Troops Bn (MPs, NBC, local security force units, other odds & sods), + CAV Sqdrn/Recon Bn.
    Now that's an idea pregnant with possibilites. I can certainly see the advantages of "herding" together all the beaurocratic types to let the fighters get on with it However, I'd be concerned that decision-making in that kind of organisation will be slowed right down what with all the specialists bickering over CoA development not to mention the amount of information that will be sucked/gathering/hoovered in to it for no real appreciable benefit or use. It would be an anally-retentive CO's dream; just think of all that micro-management that would become possible (perhaps that's the real RMA) never mind that the Div HQ BDE has just been overun. Personnally I think a specialist Divisional HQ or the kind you propose would be more efficient if kept to a Bn size, anything bigger and you'll need another layer of command just to sort out the resultant com/intel/planning/MPDP-jam.

  6. #66
    Council Member TAH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    115

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tukhachevskii View Post
    Now that's an idea pregnant with possibilites. I can certainly see the advantages of "herding" together all the beaurocratic types to let the fighters get on with it However, I'd be concerned that decision-making in that kind of organisation will be slowed right down what with all the specialists bickering over CoA development not to mention the amount of information that will be sucked/gathering/hoovered in to it for no real appreciable benefit or use. It would be an anally-retentive CO's dream; just think of all that micro-management that would become possible (perhaps that's the real RMA) never mind that the Div HQ BDE has just been overun. Personnally I think a specialist Divisional HQ or the kind you propose would be more efficient if kept to a Bn size, anything bigger and you'll need another layer of command just to sort out the resultant com/intel/planning/MPDP-jam.
    under this concept/proposal the actual Division HQs is really only a Bn. Supported by the Signal Bn, protected by a security force and fed information by its own Recon Bn / CAV Sdrn.

  7. #67
    Council Member 82redleg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USAWC, Carlisle Bks
    Posts
    224

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TAH View Post
    under this concept/proposal the actual Division HQs is really only a Bn. Supported by the Signal Bn, protected by a security force and fed information by its own Recon Bn / CAV Sdrn.
    The DIV only needs a SIG CO.

    How about a drastically enlarged Headquarters and Headquarters BN. With a combat arms commander and staff, so it becomes more than a force provider/admin HQs. It still has admin responsibilities (for its subordinates AND for the DIV HQs staff), but now tactically employs a security force company (infantry or MP, maybe a mixture of both), a mounted recon troop (4 PLTs x 6 trucks per), a LRS-C (no change necessary). By combining the BFSB HQ, the BFSB Recon SQDN HQ and the DIV HHB, we've gotten all the employed elements (except the BFSB MI stuff). In order to plan for all this, the current combined S2/3 section probably needs to be enlarged, with a focus on security and recon planning (depending on how directly the LRS-C and recon troop interfact with the G3 & G2)- it can't be LESS efficient going DIV-BN-CO than the current DIV-BFSB-SQDN-CO for these elements.

    The admin/log aspects of this BN are large and diverse, and it might make sense to split its HHC into a CSS company and a HQ/admin company. Its staff sections would have large and diverse responsibilities, but not, I think, any more difficult than a maneuver battalions. The LRS-C and recon troop could still plan their missions directly with the G2/G3. It would probably require a support operations/CSS plug of some sort, and maybe some additional clerks in the S1 shop (the BN already has a CW4 HR tech, compared to the CW2 authorized in a BCT).

    Anyone see any other issues with this enhanced HHB?

  8. #68
    Council Member TAH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    115

    Default An Option

    Quote Originally Posted by 82redleg View Post
    The DIV only needs a SIG CO.

    How about a drastically enlarged Headquarters and Headquarters BN. With a combat arms commander and staff, so it becomes more than a force provider/admin HQs. It still has admin responsibilities (for its subordinates AND for the DIV HQs staff), but now tactically employs a security force company (infantry or MP, maybe a mixture of both), a mounted recon troop (4 PLTs x 6 trucks per), a LRS-C (no change necessary). By combining the BFSB HQ, the BFSB Recon SQDN HQ and the DIV HHB, we've gotten all the employed elements (except the BFSB MI stuff). In order to plan for all this, the current combined S2/3 section probably needs to be enlarged, with a focus on security and recon planning (depending on how directly the LRS-C and recon troop interfact with the G3 & G2)- it can't be LESS efficient going DIV-BN-CO than the current DIV-BFSB-SQDN-CO for these elements.

    The admin/log aspects of this BN are large and diverse, and it might make sense to split its HHC into a CSS company and a HQ/admin company. Its staff sections would have large and diverse responsibilities, but not, I think, any more difficult than a maneuver battalions. The LRS-C and recon troop could still plan their missions directly with the G2/G3. It would probably require a support operations/CSS plug of some sort, and maybe some additional clerks in the S1 shop (the BN already has a CW4 HR tech, compared to the CW2 authorized in a BCT).

    Anyone see any other issues with this enhanced HHB?
    1. Really, really hate the current BFSB. It's an MI Bn with stuff added and not very much of that. It does NOT possess the capabilities a Division or Corps of JTF commander will require from it.

    2. With the elimination of the final heavy ACR, neither the corps of division commanders/echelons have a unit specifically organized, manned, equipped and trained to gather/fight for information for them. They do already have access to lots of various types of sensors that can monitor the situation and conduct passive/stand-off surveillance. All good stuff. All vulneable to spoofing/deception. The current choice/option is for the corps/division to task this mission/function to a BCT or a group of BCTs or an Ad Hoc Task Force.

    3. Long-range recon units have a place. They also have significant limitations on timely employment. INTs (SIGINT, COMINT, ELINT, etc) have a place. And they are all capable of being spoofed and assume some action on the part of the enemy. HUMINT is good, once you have someone to talk to.

    4. An Bn versus a Bde is probably a viable option but lascks the "horsepower" of an COL/O6 commander trying to get "his" staff folks to do what he needs them to do.

    5. A problem of combining the Division Hqs with the BFSBs is that there are not the same number. 18 division Hqs only 10 or 11 BFSBs.

    6. A "big" HQs Bn (800-1000 PAX) plus a "big" CAV Sqdrn/Recon Bn (800-1000 PAX) probably only add up to a "small" Bde (1700-2000 PAX).

  9. #69
    Council Member gute's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    322

    Default

    Had a thought the other day of why not making the Division HQs/Base its' own brigade type. C2/staff/HQs Bn + Signal Bn + Troops Bn (MPs, NBC, local security force units, other odds & sods), + CAV Sqdrn/Recon Bn.[/QUOTE]

    This is different then the sustainment brigade?

    According to Wikipedia, the sustainment brigade for the 1st Infantry Division consists of a STB, a CSSB, 1DHHB, and 84th ORD BN.

  10. #70
    Council Member TAH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    115

    Default Sustainment = CSS = Logistics not Command & Control

    Quote Originally Posted by gute View Post
    Had a thought the other day of why not making the Division HQs/Base its' own brigade type. C2/staff/HQs Bn + Signal Bn + Troops Bn (MPs, NBC, local security force units, other odds & sods), + CAV Sqdrn/Recon Bn.
    This is different then the sustainment brigade?

    According to Wikipedia:
    the sustainment brigade for the 1st Infantry Division consists of a STB, a CSSB, 1DHHB, and 84th ORD BN.
    A sustainment Bde will normally consist of a Hqs a supporting signal unit and a number of single function (trans, QM, maintenance etc) and multi-function CSS battalion. There role/mission is to sustain the force.

    My proposed DIV HQs Bde would focus on C2 and include those units (staffs, admin signal, force protection, intel and recon&security) a division would normally need to operate.

    TAH
    Last edited by davidbfpo; 10-14-2010 at 09:44 PM. Reason: Insert quote mark start

  11. #71
    Council Member gute's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    322

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TAH View Post
    This is different then the sustainment brigade?

    According to Wikipedia, the sustainment brigade for the 1st Infantry Division consists of a STB, a CSSB, 1DHHB, and 84th ORD BN.
    A sustainment Bde will normally consist of a Hqs a supporting signal unit and a number of single function (trans, QM, mainteance etc) and multi-function CSS battalion. There role/mission is to sustain the force.

    My proposed DIV HQs Bde would focus on C2 and include those units (staffs, admin signal, force protection, intel and recon&security) a division would normally need to operate.

    Could you combine the two into a Combat Control and Support Brigade or is there no need to do such a thing?

    The cav squadron you propose is not the old division cav squadron, but the corps BfSB?

    Brigades directly subordinate to the Corps seems to be a no-go because of span of control. So, how does one flatten C2 between the BCTs and Corps?

    Others have written that corps and division are combined - is this an UEx? Basically, a smaller corps?

    In theory how is this suppose to look?
    Last edited by davidbfpo; 10-14-2010 at 09:45 PM. Reason: Remove quote closing mark, not sure what the quote was to be.

  12. #72
    Council Member Fuchs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,189

    Default

    A meaningful command level of ground forces should offer more than staff work and radio traffic.

    Most combat units are most of the time not really busy - but usually some combat unit somewhere is very busy, if not in a crisis or overburdened by responsibility.
    Does it make sense to allocate support equally among the combat units (or formations - it doesn't matter this time) in light of this? Certainly not. At least some support and some reserves are being pooled and under direct control of the superior commander.

    A commander with only staff and radio guys would have no direct control over anything but the combat unit missions. He could not create a quick Schwerpunkt with the direction of his support assets (electronic warfare, engineers, artillery, area AD, nbc troops, and much else).
    Meanwhile, his combat units would need to be designed for almost worst case scenarios because they couldn't expect non-organic support from a higher level.

    A level of command without substantial direct assets (other than combat units/formations) for use in their whole area of operations is therefore systematically inferior to the same level of command in a force which balances its support between decentralized and centralized control.
    A very lean divisional or corps level with staffs and signals units only is a suboptimal decentralization extremism version of force structure.

  13. #73
    Council Member TAH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    115

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gute View Post
    A sustainment Bde will normally consist of a Hqs a supporting signal unit and a number of single function (trans, QM, mainteance etc) and multi-function CSS battalion. There role/mission is to sustain the force.

    My proposed DIV HQs Bde would focus on C2 and include those units (staffs, admin signal, force protection, intel and recon&security) a division would normally need to operate.

    Could you combine the two into a Combat Control and Support Brigade or is there no need to do such a thing?

    The cav squadron you propose is not the old division cav squadron, but the corps BfSB?

    Brigades directly subordinate to the Corps seems to be a no-go because of span of control. So, how does one flatten C2 between the BCTs and Corps?

    Others have written that corps and division are combined - is this an UEx? Basically, a smaller corps?

    In theory how is this suppose to look?
    Could a C2 Bde and a Sus Bde be combined. Sure, but I would never recommend it. Missions, roles and functions are in no way close enough together.

    No, I AM proposing a "new: DIV CAV to replace the missing ones at the division and corps echelons. The BFSB was/is a terrible waste of resources that will never be able to do anything close to what a DIV/Corps CDR needs them to do in terms of fighting for information.
    Last edited by davidbfpo; 10-14-2010 at 09:45 PM. Reason: Remove quote closing mark, not sure what the quote was to be.

  14. #74
    Council Member 82redleg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USAWC, Carlisle Bks
    Posts
    224

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TAH View Post
    4. An Bn versus a Bde is probably a viable option but lascks the "horsepower" of an COL/O6 commander trying to get "his" staff folks to do what he needs them to do.

    6. A "big" HQs Bn (800-1000 PAX) plus a "big" CAV Sqdrn/Recon Bn (800-1000 PAX) probably only add up to a "small" Bde (1700-2000 PAX).
    The 3 GOs and 3 COLs are probably the least of the BN CDRs worries (I assume that's what you meant by "his" staff)- and that issue is already there.

    The problem with adding HQs and staffs for "small" BCTs is that we create a lot of FGs and SNCOs that don't provide much to the fight. What is this HQ & C2 BDE doing? All of its elements are TACON of some element of the DIV G staff (with the exception of the sustainment elements and the security company). All he has left is ADCON, and does it really take a BDE to ADCON 2000 +/-? Or to C2 the employment of an IN/MP CO conducting fixed site security?

  15. #75
    Council Member 82redleg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USAWC, Carlisle Bks
    Posts
    224

    Default

    Current DIV HHB is 739.

    Current BFSB is 1307.

    Actually employable elements of the BFSB are:
    TUAS PLT x 27 pax (I'm not sure the purpose of this unit? maybe in support of the LRS/CAV)
    4 x Scout PLT x 18 pax each (TACON to the DIV G3/G2)
    15 x LRS TMs x 6 pax each (TACON to the DIV G3/G2)
    18 x HCTs x 4 pax each (TACON/DS to subordinate elements of the DIV- put them there organically. 18 x 5 = 90 HCTs, enough for 2 additional HCTs in each BCT)
    3 x CI Tms x 4 pax (TACON/DS to DIV G2- put them there organically)
    2 x SIGINT PLTs x 45 pax (probably broken into their component teams) (again, split the assets up into the DIV/subordinates that can employ them)

    So, in the BFSB, 363 pax are actually employed in intelligence collection. 25% is not a good ratio. I contend we'd be better off putting the additional assets in the DIV G2 or in subordinates, limiting the coordination necessary to employing these assets, and the overhead that is busy "coordinating" their employment.

  16. #76
    Council Member TAH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    115

    Default makes all the piece parts Bdes

    Quote Originally Posted by 82redleg View Post
    The 3 GOs and 3 COLs are probably the least of the BN CDRs worries (I assume that's what you meant by "his" staff)- and that issue is already there.

    The problem with adding HQs and staffs for "small" BCTs is that we create a lot of FGs and SNCOs that don't provide much to the fight. What is this HQ & C2 BDE doing? All of its elements are TACON of some element of the DIV G staff (with the exception of the sustainment elements and the security company). All he has left is ADCON, and does it really take a BDE to ADCON 2000 +/-? Or to C2 the employment of an IN/MP CO conducting fixed site security?
    My thought was that making the DIV HQs a "Bde Type" makes all of the units in the division a Bde.

    The DIV HQs Bde could/would/might have as base:
    1. A HQs Bn of the Division Staff
    2. A Signal Co to support the HQs Bn
    3. A robust DIV CAV Sqdrn
    4. A Security/Field Jager Bn for site security and rear area protection & response force/rear area patrolling
    5. Bde HHC

    To address the UAS question in your other post.

    You pretty much got it right, it/they would fly under the direction of the Recon Sqdrn to support the BFSB/DIV requirements. The problem it that teh A/C are Shadows. Only 4 A/C means no to limited 24/7 coverage and only out to 60-75 Kms from launch site. Too few A/C with "legs" that are too short.

  17. #77
    Council Member 82redleg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USAWC, Carlisle Bks
    Posts
    224

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TAH View Post
    My thought was that making the DIV HQs a "Bde Type" makes all of the units in the division a Bde.

    The DIV HQs Bde could/would/might have as base:
    1. A HQs Bn of the Division Staff
    2. A Signal Co to support the HQs Bn
    3. A robust DIV CAV Sqdrn
    4. A Security/Field Jager Bn for site security and rear area protection & response force/rear area patrolling
    5. Bde HHC
    Understand all on the UAVs.

    I'm not sure that the operations of a DIV CAV SQDN (which is going to end up TACON to the DIV, as the old DIV CAV generally were) and the Security BN justify a BDE HQ.

    The SIG CO is already in the HQs BN.

    You end up with (at best) a BDE HQ and BN HQ for a couple of companies, most of whom are doing fixed site security (low overhead) and (when employed as a response force) becoming TACON to someone else (whoever is in contact with whatever they are responding to).

    I believe you are better off with a robust BN (put the SECFOR in the HHB), and another robust BN (the DIV CAV) that interfaces directly with the DIV. I think a BN should be able to handle 3 ground troops, a LRSC and an air troop )or two)(preferably with lift, so it can insert the LRS, too).

  18. #78
    Council Member TAH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    115

    Default Operation Yes, Logisctics....

    Quote Originally Posted by 82redleg View Post
    Understand all on the UAVs.

    I'm not sure that the operations of a DIV CAV SQDN (which is going to end up TACON to the DIV, as the old DIV CAV generally were) and the Security BN justify a BDE HQ.

    The SIG CO is already in the HQs BN.

    You end up with (at best) a BDE HQ and BN HQ for a couple of companies, most of whom are doing fixed site security (low overhead) and (when employed as a response force) becoming TACON to someone else (whoever is in contact with whatever they are responding to).

    I believe you are better off with a robust BN (put the SECFOR in the HHB), and another robust BN (the DIV CAV) that interfaces directly with the DIV. I think a BN should be able to handle 3 ground troops, a LRSC and an air troop )or two)(preferably with lift, so it can insert the LRS, too).
    Could each of the Bns operate seperate from a Bde, sure. My thought is to standarize thsi new modular brigade type (DIV HQs) to simplify the CSS aspect. Which means I now need to add a DIV HQs CSS Bn capable of supporting: a HQs Bn (with organic Signal Co), a DIV CAV Sqdn, & a SECFOR Bn.

    Another way to view this issue is as a transformed/modularized Division Base.

  19. #79
    Council Member Infanteer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    347

    Default

    Interestingly enough, there is a SAMS monograph on this:

    http://cgsc.contentdm.oclc.org/cgi-b...ename=2612.pdf

    Only had the oppurtunity to gloss through it, but it seems to point at keeping Divisions and eliminating Bdes?

  20. #80
    Council Member 82redleg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USAWC, Carlisle Bks
    Posts
    224

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Infanteer View Post
    Interestingly enough, there is a SAMS monograph on this:

    http://cgsc.contentdm.oclc.org/cgi-b...ename=2612.pdf

    Only had the oppurtunity to gloss through it, but it seems to point at keeping Divisions and eliminating Bdes?
    Sort of.

    At 5 BNs (3 x IN-although he calls them regiments- 1 x CSS and 1 x CS) and 4164 pax, his "small" division ("division-lite") is smaller than the "large" BCT I support. I guess its really just a matter of semantics.

    I'd argue that it is also a rump organization, with markedly fewer CS enablers than most other US Army divisions, making it optimized for COIN & LIC, but not for MCO. A "division" with only 1 firing battery of 8 howitzers, 1 recon troop, etc, is hardly a division.

    The author acknowledges that his organization is adapted for COIN, but his solution for expansion is that the DIV CG returns to 2*s, BCTs are added back into the structure (building a new staff echelon) and battalions return to fall under regiments (although his regiments are battalion sized). I think that this proposal eliminates a headquarters echelon now, but then proposed building 2 new ones for MTW. I'd prefer to retain the organization, and build more with mobilization. Then, we aren't all trying to work in unfamiliar organizations, we are just working at a higher echelon (of the same organization).

Similar Threads

  1. Towards a U.S. Army Officer Corps Strategy for Success
    By Shek in forum Training & Education
    Replies: 50
    Last Post: 05-16-2010, 06:27 AM
  2. Army Training Network
    By SWJED in forum TRADOC Senior Leaders Conference
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 08-20-2009, 03:45 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
  •