Organizing for COIN at the Company and Platoon Level

[Sabre]

I was surprised by the recasting of the Engineer presence in the Heavy BCT's, from a company in each of the two maneuver battalions, to just one company for the entire BCT (with markedly fewer "blades" than what I was used to, in the AOE designs / L-series TOE's - and admittedly in the 3rd ACR, we had a larger than usual Engineer company organic to the regiment, and sometimes a Combat Engineer Battalion attached).

In a light BCT, I think that you could get away with just one engineer company for the BCT, but in the heavy world, I think that you need one per maneuver battalion.

Admittedly, the total number of engineers didn't change by much (and seems woefully inadequate), but it has few Brads and fewer "farm implements", and no AVLB's from what I saw. I would think that engineers would be just as useful in COIN as they would be in high-intensity combat - so I am surprised that Engineer branch seems to be, if anything, shrinking. (Not all engineers are EOD (12E, IIRC) but at least an engineer can build things, and carry a weapon on patrol, as opposed to the seemingly bloated MI corps that, from what I have heard, is producing little additional intel, even with all of the extra personnel that we throw into that branch.)

[Cavguy]

I was surprised by the recasting of the Engineer presence in the Heavy BCT's, from a company in each of the two maneuver battalions, to just one company for the entire BCT (with markedly fewer "blades" than what I was used to, in the AOE designs / L-series TOE's - and admittedly in the 3rd ACR, we had a larger than usual Engineer company organic to the regiment, and sometimes a Combat Engineer Battalion attached).

In a light BCT, I think that you could get away with just one engineer company for the BCT, but in the heavy world, I think that you need one per maneuver battalion.

Admittedly, the total number of engineers didn't change by much (and seems woefully inadequate), but it has few Brads and fewer "farm implements", and no AVLB's from what I saw. I would think that engineers would be just as useful in COIN as they would be in high-intensity combat - so I am surprised that Engineer branch seems to be, if anything, shrinking. (Not all engineers are EOD (12E, IIRC) but at least an engineer can build things, and carry a weapon on patrol, as opposed to the seemingly bloated MI corps that, from what I have heard, is producing little additional intel, even with all of the extra personnel that we throw into that branch.)

I guess the need for organic combat engineers is deemed directly proportional to the number of heavy breaches one plans to conduct.

As I understand, the idea is to task organize engineer assets to the BCT rather than maintaining a large organic breaching capability.

My combat eng platoon was extremely flexible in Iraq, great professionals.

[Sabre]

Well, I see your point, but to be fair, combat engineers are around for more than just conducting breaches - I recall that they got a good workout digging survivability positions, and between their Bradleys, bulldozer/"farm implement" type vehicles, and their secondary mission of "fight as infantry", I would think that engineers would be a very welcome addition to the severely limited combat power of the Heavy BCT (especially considering the anemic cav squadron that they have), even in the COIN environment. While horizontal and vertical construction may not be a combat engineer's forte, I would think that they would adapt to it more rapidly than any other MOS, and that is certainly useful in COIN. Compare this to the growing MOS of Military Intelligence, which while all agree that it would be nice to have good intelligence on the enemy, more personnel in MI does not equate to more intelligence...

So, we went from one engineer brigade to each heavy division - three battalions, plus one battalion per light/abn/air assault division - along with some extra battalions as corps assets, down to... I think only two mobility enhancement brigades, and a weak engineer company for each BCT...

(Someone with better knowledge of engineering can correct me, of course.)

[Cavguy]

Well, I see your point, but to be fair, combat engineers are around for more than just conducting breaches - I recall that they got a good workout digging survivability positions, and between their Bradleys, bulldozer/"farm implement" type vehicles, and their secondary mission of "fight as infantry", I would think that engineers would be a very welcome addition to the severely limited combat power of the Heavy BCT (especially considering the anemic cav squadron that they have), even in the COIN environment. While horizontal and vertical construction may not be a combat engineer's forte, I would think that they would adapt to it more rapidly than any other MOS, and that is certainly useful in COIN. Compare this to the growing MOS of Military Intelligence, which while all agree that it would be nice to have good intelligence on the enemy, more personnel in MI does not equate to more intelligence...

So, we went from one engineer brigade to each heavy division - three battalions, plus one battalion per light/abn/air assault division - along with some extra battalions as corps assets, down to... I think only two mobility enhancement brigades, and a weak engineer company for each BCT...

(Someone with better knowledge of engineering can correct me, of course.)

Sabre,

True dat.

Agree it may be a limitation if we have to perform the deliberate defense.

The big losers in modularity were the EN and FA community - both took huge hits.

That said, the FBCT (as opposed to HBCT) is plused up again on "boots on the ground' numbers, but the Cav (RSTA) squadron gets eviscerated to one ground troop plus aviation and UAV's. (heresay!)

The one good thing about the new proposed org is that it does have a much more robust infantry presence than the current BCT's, and back to three maneuver BN's as well.

Below is a slide I pulled from Knox's website. Full brief is here.

[Hacksaw]

Bliss took the worst hit...

Lost all Div AD Bns... that's right all... all those BSFVs, Avengers, HUMMV mounted manpads with their radios, 50cals, and night vision gone.

You can say what you like, but all that's left is Patriot and a Bn of Avenger pure.

So with all apologies to En and FA... at least you still exist at echelons below Corps.

[Cavguy]

Bliss took the worst hit...

Lost all Div AD Bns... that's right all... all those BSFVs, Avengers, HUMMV mounted manpads with their radios, 50cals, and night vision gone.

You can say what you like, but all that's left is Patriot and a Bn of Avenger pure.

So with all apologies to En and FA... at least you still exist at echelons below Corps.

Oh yeah ... ADA, they're still a branch?

At least they make good staffers.

[jkm_101_fso]

Oh yeah ... ADA, they're still a branch?

At least they make good staffers.

Ouch. Low Blow.

I believe ADA HQ is located at Sill now with FA, now part of the "Fires" community...

[Ken White]

At least they make good staffers.

Last job I had a LTC working for me who was that, a good Staff guy, however, he was ADA and an Aviator and thus was er, conflicted???

[Sabre]

Bliss took the worst hit...

Lost all Div AD Bns... that's right all... all those BSFVs, Avengers, HUMMV mounted manpads with their radios, 50cals, and night vision gone.

You can say what you like, but all that's left is Patriot and a Bn of Avenger pure.

I think that the deletion of ADA is also very, very short-sighted.
Sure, the US hasn't had to face a real air threat in... many decades, but ADA has, since WWII, provided excellent service protecting convoys, "rear" areas (meaning anything behind the front line trace) and generally serving as additional combat power in an Army that, paradoxically, seems to be throwing more and more personnel into HQ, staff, and intel functions. Those Linebackers had 25mm cannon, M240's, armor, and mobility that would have been valuable additions to the anemic HBCT - sure, the above sounds more like the mission of the MPs, but the M1117 is not as well armed or protected...

I think that the combat power ADA units provided was overlooked.

[William F. Owen]

The one good thing about the new proposed org is that it does have a much more robust infantry presence than the current BCT's, and back to three maneuver BN's as well.

Below is a slide I pulled from Knox's website. Full brief is here.

It may have more infantry, but there are some very flawed assumptions underpinning the idea.

I am sure it was done by good and patriotic men, but it seems to reflect a world and style of operations they would would like to believe in, rather than one, that empirical observation shows to us.

Here is one little gem of "illogic"

Operates for three days at high operational intensity and up to seven days in a medium to low operational environment before it must be resupplied

So "high intensity" is defined as something that is 3:7 versus medium of low. - and that is for ammunition rates, as batteries, water and rations, all have to resupplied regardless. I am assuming fuel/POL is also in there somewhere.

Someone may want to read Julian Thompson's assessment of logistics operations in the Falklands, before assuming those ratios

[Sabre]

It may have more infantry, but there are some very flawed assumptions underpinning the idea.

I can see quite a bit of farce in that document, and I am of the "high intesity" warfare mindset.

My favorite:
In the "backup" section, under RSTA squadron, the first mission includes the words "find/fix threat". A unit with handful of JLTV's, some Scout helos and UAV's can hardly "fix" any threat larger than a squad...

...and I can never figure out why people are so in love with "organizing by threes", you could save a surprisingly large number of headquarters staffers across the Army simply by adding one more subordinate unit at each level. From what I have seen, a good commander can handle four, five, six or more units just as well as three, and a bad one will screw it up, even if there are only two subordinate units. Heck, more subordinates almost forces a commander to, well, "command", instead of being the "platoon leader for each platoon". At anything at battalion level and above, I really don't want to hear about "span of control" - that is why BC's and up have a staff with a couple of other field-grade officers to ride herd on everything.

[William F. Owen]

...and I can never figure out why people are so in love with "organizing by threes", you could save a surprisingly large number of headquarters staffers across the Army simply by adding one more subordinate unit at each level. From what I have seen, a good commander can handle four, five, six or more units just as well as three, and a bad one will screw it up, even if there are only two subordinate units. .

This vexes me some as well. What I do know, with some certainty, is that spans of control shrink under stress. Spans of command are less prone to stress, so can be handed off, and then returned later, but I am not sure that that theory fits with how field formations actually work, at least in my limited experience. - which is why I am far more interested in basic principles of organisation, than I am in TOEs.