|
Post by quincannon on Jul 6, 2018 17:37:04 GMT
Yes I know, that they love their hats. I think they look rather stupid. I can see the appeal of a wide brimmed hat as part of the combat uniform. It is much more utilitarian than the soft, or so called patrol cap, but there are limits as to what I believe should be worn with a dress uniform.
Speaking of uniforms, yesterday Debbie e-mailed Joan a picture of my son in law wearing the current combat uniform with name tapes and all. The only way you could tell he was not a soldier was the DA CIVILIAN tape over his left pocket. It was one of those publicity shots with the US and US Army colors behind him
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Jul 8, 2018 18:51:00 GMT
Still waiting for one of my contacts to get back to me about the tank strength of TF Lovelady, but I found this before lunch today;
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jul 8, 2018 21:41:12 GMT
That probably tells you all you need to know, at least in terms of your original question, the ratio of tanks to Infantry. My guess is that two tank companies and an Armored Infantry company is what the Task Force was built around,
Most of the time before combined arms battalions entered the force structure the mix was two tank - one mech. or two mech - one tank. When the CA battalions came in, the mix was two and two. In the last couple of years our CA battalions have gone back to 2M and 1T or 1M and 2T the 2M battalions are designated Infantry, and the 2T battalions are designated Armor EXCEPT in the First Cavalry Division where both types are designated Cavalry
A lot of times you will see these task forces listed as a battalion plus whatever, and what they forget to do is say a battalion minus. That means to us here in the States that the task force is built around such and such a battalion headquarters and some, but not all of its normal subordinate companies. Those missing companies are usually attached out to some other task force.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jul 9, 2018 15:08:26 GMT
I realized last night that I did not fully explain to you the battalion minus business. What follows is a fictional task grouping based upon 1st Armored Division units, as an illustration of the battalion minus useage
CCA/1 AD HHC A/16th AEB (-) A/47th Armored Medical Battalion 27th AFAB
TASK FORCE JONES 13th Tank Battalion (-) A/6th AIB 1/A/16th AEB
TASK FORCE BROWN 6th Armored Infantry Battalion (-) C/13th Tank Battalion 2/A/16th AEB
TASK FORCE SMITH D/13th Tank Battalion A/81st Cavalry Recon Sqdn.
So this is the method that these task force organizations were noted on operations orders during WWII, and you can readily see where they used (-) rather than list all the companies in the task force. In the case of the fictional Task Force Jones or instance the task force control would be with HHC 13th Tank Battalion and include only two companies of that battalion along with the Infantry company cross attached from the 6th AIB, and the engineer platoon. Task Force Smith in the illustration includes two companies from different units. In cases such as these either a staff officer, usually the XO or S-3 of one of the battalions in the Combat Command would form a small headquarters, usually only five or six men, to control these two companies, OR the senior company commander would assume command of both companies.
You should also note that while these organizations were very flexible, once a unit was in combat most of the armored divisions would try to keep units that became used to working with one another, together as much as possible if the tactical situation allowed it to be. A couple of the divisions, most notable the 4th Armored Division mixed their units up. rotating them between combat commands, and formed most of their task groupings on a tank and an Infantry company working together so that the combat command could have at least three task forces, and perhaps as many as five.
We don't do it this way any more, and the need for task forces in armored units, has given way to the combined arms battalions. The techniques is still used in our Infantry units however.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Jul 9, 2018 18:54:43 GMT
Was the use of task forces mainly used during the Ardennes campaign? I recall yesterday typing US Army task forces ww2 and all that came up was units that served during the battle of the bulge. I was surprised at how well detailed this online book was, all of the chapters are live links, but I don't think you can down load it to your hard drive for future reference;
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jul 9, 2018 20:39:01 GMT
The use of task forces were standard doctrine from at least 1936 onward. The concept was developed an tested by the 7th Cavalry Brigade at Fort Knox.They continued to be used up until 2007-8 when we switched over completely to combined arms battalion in our heave forces.
The only real difference you see from their earliest use is that we changed the way they were designated in an operations order. We dropped the use of the name of the TF commander, and started to use the designation of the task force's controlling headquarters For instance TF 2-66 Armor or TF 1-7 Inf. That would mean in my illustration that the task force was built around 2nd Battalion, 66th Armor, or 1st Battalion, 7th Infantry
Depending upon what was required the task forces were
Tank heavy = 2 tank companies and 1 Infantry company
Infantry heavy = 2 Infantry companies and 1 tank company
Balanced = 2 tank companies and 2 Infantry companies or 1 tank company and 1 Infantry company
As before all these configurations were achieved by the cross attachment of Infantry and tank companies
|
|