AC/RC Force Structure

[gute]

I typed a big long post about a recent article in Military Rview with the same above title, but it went poof in the cyber universe. What the author proposes is interesting and I recommend reading it: http://usacac.army.mil/CAC2/Military...831_art012.pdf

I have a question for the more knowledgeable posters at SWJ - could the HBCT (now ABCT) and IBCT brigades serve in both heavy and light assignments? I believe some HBCTs did shed the heavy equipment and serve as light forces in both Afghanistan and Iraq, but is it possible to train all armor, mechanized infantry and light infantry as just armor and infantry?

The HBCT combined arms battalion has 2xM1 and 2xM2. The IBCT maneuver battalion consists of 3xinfantry and 1xweapons. I propose changing the IBCT maneuver battalion design to 2 by 2. Armor companies when not assigned the heavy mission would serve as motorized weapons companies and the Bradley infantry would be light infantry. Should the Bradley crews be separate from the rifle platoon or utilize the weapons squad as crew members?

For example in the recent announcement from the Army the force structure will be cut by nine brigades - 4xHBCT, 1xSBCT and 4xIBCT. The 25ID will keep all four brigades. 4ID will have 2xHBCT and 1xIBCT. With my proposal, which I'm sure has been brought up before, all three brigades of the 4D would be capable of either the heavy or light mission. The Army would have combat arms troops trained primarily as M1 crew members, Bradleys and infantry. The 4D brigade assigned the light mission would still be able to train on heavy equipment at station to maintain a level of profficiency.

I would also propose keeping all the teeth in the AC and increasing the numbers of CS and sustainment in the RC. The RC combat brigades would consist of cadre forces that could be brought to full strength in a time of major war. Would this work or would it be detrimental to the RC?

[Tukhachevskii]

For example in the recent announcement from the Army the force structure will be cut by nine brigades - 4xHBCT, 1xSBCT and 4xIBCT.

They'd be better off taking the manoeuvre battalions from defunct or deactivated BCTs and attaching them to existing brigades to beef up their manoevre capability. Getting rid of those redundant staffs is a good idea. Getting rid of their manoeuvre formatins is not. It's silly.

[TAH]

Which is basically what is being done. The inactivation of BCTs is really a shell game. Each remaining BCT will get: a third maneuver Bn, a third Arty firing Btry, a second Eng Co and plus ups to CSS to acount for these additions. I/ABCTs get a forward support company for their re-org'ed Special Troops/Engineer Bns and SBCTs will get a Bn Hqs for that purpose.

From what I've seen, the biggest lose from the BCTs is/was the deletion of their MP platoons.

[gute]

Which is basically what is being done. The inactivation of BCTs is really a shell game. Each remaining BCT will get: a third maneuver Bn, a third Arty firing Btry, a second Eng Co and plus ups to CSS to acount for these additions. I/ABCTs get a forward support company for their re-org'ed Special Troops/Engineer Bns and SBCTs will get a Bn Hqs for that purpose.

From what I've seen, the biggest lose from the BCTs is/was the deletion of their MP platoons.

What is the reasoning for eleminating the MP platoon? Will MPs be attached as needed in the future?

[TAH]

What I've heard was that MPs are getting "pooled" at higher levels. BCTs will either get a Co (or in some extreme cases a Bn) or none.

[TAH]

Gute:

Bad idea trying to train tank and Bradley crewmen to rotate between ABCTs and IBCTs. Tasks are too differnent between an M1/M2 and a armored HMMWV.

IMHO, 2X2 Infantry Bn also not a good idea, not enough infantry.

Regarding RC cadre units for CS and CSS. A hat trick. When you need these units, you need them and don't want to wait while they get filled and trained up.

With another 100K of personnel cuts possible out of the Army, we have only seen the tip of this iceberg.

[gute]

Gute:

Bad idea trying to train tank and Bradley crewmen to rotate between ABCTs and IBCTs. Tasks are too differnent between an M1/M2 and a armored HMMWV.

IMHO, 2X2 Infantry Bn also not a good idea, not enough infantry.

Regarding RC cadre units for CS and CSS. A hat trick. When you need these units, you need them and don't want to wait while they get filled and trained up.

With another 100K of personnel cuts possible out of the Army, we have only seen the tip of this iceberg.

I will have to take your word for it since I don't have experience in that area, but I do wonder why a four man tank crew would have difficulty operating as a four man crew in a HMMWV. The driver drives, the TC becomes the VC, the gunner mans the .50 or MK19, or TOW and the loader assists the gunner, etc. But, again, that is why I asked to hear from those of you with the experience. Yes, definetely light on dismounts, especially for protracted combat. I don't think turning tank crew men into infantry is a smart idea.

So in your opinion should the Bradley platoon crews remain separate from the rifle platoon or could the weapons squad in the rifle platoon serve as the M2crew members?

The cadre units would be for the NG BCTs maneuver battalions and not the CS and sustainment units.

[TAH]

Easy for a tank crew to take over as a HMMWV crew. Much harder for them to go back to being a tank crew. Lots of "muscle memory" involved in getting a tank crew up to speed. Pretty sure its the same for a Bradley crew.

The idea of transfering between IBCT & SBCT is a better fit regarding vehicle crewman. Manning a Bradley on this assignment foloowed by being an MG or Javelin gunner on the next, not so much.

An issue with cadre units is that they end up being mostly chiefs and very few (if any indians). As nearly all of the combat arms units in the US Army are in the National Guard, you end up with where do the chiefs come from if there weren't any indians in the first place.

[gute]

Easy for a tank crew to take over as a HMMWV crew. Much harder for them to go back to being a tank crew. Lots of "muscle memory" involved in getting a tank crew up to speed. Pretty sure its the same for a Bradley crew.

The idea of transfering between IBCT & SBCT is a better fit regarding vehicle crewman. Manning a Bradley on this assignment foloowed by being an MG or Javelin gunner on the next, not so much.

An issue with cadre units is that they end up being mostly chiefs and very few (if any indians). As nearly all of the combat arms units in the US Army are in the National Guard, you end up with where do the chiefs come from if there weren't any indians in the first place.

Ahhh, kemosahbee.