Post by quincannon on May 19, 2022 19:30:46 GMT
Seems to me the trend is to push capabilities downward. The BCT certainly does.
Don't look at an RA division as having only the two brigades. They would have a DIVARTY, and support infrastructure as well. Some may have aviation brigades or engineer brigades or Bugs Bunny brigades, while others may have these brigades in the Guard or even the Reserves. I suspect a division like the 11th may have a good portion of the units it associates with in the Guard and/or Reserve, while divisions like the 82nd may very well have more active and less RC associations. Look at the division like a corps, a corps you may build for a contingency, but still flexible enough in organization to reorient in full or in part to whatever comes up. Whatever comes up will be more frequent than the contingency you plan for years and decades for and may never quite materializes.
The difference between association and round out, is in elimination of the great failure of the round out concept. Previously in Round Out the entire division structure was cut into thirds. Two thirds go to the RA while one third goes to the guard. Take an old style cavalry squadron of engineer battalion. Round out would have the RA having an HHT or HHC and two troops/companies, with the Guard having the remaining cavalry troop and engineer company. Then the division deploys but the Round Out does not. I need not go further, do I? Some of that disappeared with the BCT, but not all. It is to be avoided like a cheap whorehouse.
Assimilate no. Associate yes. Associate means training opportunities, and cross polination with one "sort of" nearby RA division, but it does not preclude that Guard brigade associated with division X, not being deployed with Division Y, for either combat or a major exercise. An example might be a Texas NG brigade, being associated with the 1st CD. It does not really matter if the Texas brigade is heavy or light. The association with active and Guard is what matters. That same Texas brigade might very well join the 25th though for an exercise in Korea, or a combat operation in Poland with the 3rd ID. Cross polination between active and reserve brings the two together in an exercise in team building, and eliminates that us and them bull shit.
Guard artillery can shoot well, but they can't maneuver worth a bucket of spit. They having a firing point mentality to their training. They cannot survive on a modern battlefield with that outlook, They must shoot and maneuver equally well to survive. The training facilities we have preclude doing a lot of that. That must change. The Guards real strength is in enginner, combat, construction , and bridge. That is a real plus while in State service. That's why every state wants as many enginner units as possible. Same goes with aviation. No attack aviation in the Guard is a good thing. An Apache does not do well when the mission is transportation or rescue.
Don't look at an RA division as having only the two brigades. They would have a DIVARTY, and support infrastructure as well. Some may have aviation brigades or engineer brigades or Bugs Bunny brigades, while others may have these brigades in the Guard or even the Reserves. I suspect a division like the 11th may have a good portion of the units it associates with in the Guard and/or Reserve, while divisions like the 82nd may very well have more active and less RC associations. Look at the division like a corps, a corps you may build for a contingency, but still flexible enough in organization to reorient in full or in part to whatever comes up. Whatever comes up will be more frequent than the contingency you plan for years and decades for and may never quite materializes.
The difference between association and round out, is in elimination of the great failure of the round out concept. Previously in Round Out the entire division structure was cut into thirds. Two thirds go to the RA while one third goes to the guard. Take an old style cavalry squadron of engineer battalion. Round out would have the RA having an HHT or HHC and two troops/companies, with the Guard having the remaining cavalry troop and engineer company. Then the division deploys but the Round Out does not. I need not go further, do I? Some of that disappeared with the BCT, but not all. It is to be avoided like a cheap whorehouse.
Assimilate no. Associate yes. Associate means training opportunities, and cross polination with one "sort of" nearby RA division, but it does not preclude that Guard brigade associated with division X, not being deployed with Division Y, for either combat or a major exercise. An example might be a Texas NG brigade, being associated with the 1st CD. It does not really matter if the Texas brigade is heavy or light. The association with active and Guard is what matters. That same Texas brigade might very well join the 25th though for an exercise in Korea, or a combat operation in Poland with the 3rd ID. Cross polination between active and reserve brings the two together in an exercise in team building, and eliminates that us and them bull shit.
Guard artillery can shoot well, but they can't maneuver worth a bucket of spit. They having a firing point mentality to their training. They cannot survive on a modern battlefield with that outlook, They must shoot and maneuver equally well to survive. The training facilities we have preclude doing a lot of that. That must change. The Guards real strength is in enginner, combat, construction , and bridge. That is a real plus while in State service. That's why every state wants as many enginner units as possible. Same goes with aviation. No attack aviation in the Guard is a good thing. An Apache does not do well when the mission is transportation or rescue.