|
Post by quincannon on Jun 17, 2021 19:12:39 GMT
No Ian, use the one I said in the previous post. That way we can cover all nations as we expand the discussion, not just the U S Army
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Jun 17, 2021 19:14:38 GMT
The back nine was the hardest Chuck, all done without food, apparently the quatermaster never got the "chit" to issue rations for these men, and on arrival they found the pantry empty, which was bad!
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Jun 17, 2021 19:16:03 GMT
So "Ground Forces Organization Past and Present"
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Jun 17, 2021 19:18:36 GMT
Okay, testing, testing one two three|
|
|
|
Post by admin3 on Jun 17, 2021 19:34:46 GMT
Eurika, every day is a learning day.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jun 17, 2021 20:22:32 GMT
Mike: Like politics military force structure is the art of the possible, within budget and manpower constraints.
I have no problem with a four company battalion, of combined arms, based on our previous discussions of combined arms companies. They would be a better organization than three companies. However, if we want to stay within strength caps, I think it would be better having three companies, with the option to go to four, when and if the strength cap moves upward. In the meantime stay with three, so we can field more battalions, or at least keep the number of battalions we have.
You cavalry friends are going to throw a hissy, if you downsize the brigade squadron to a troop. That means about 20 LTC's won't get a command slot, and you know what kind of brewhaha that will cause. Not that it is not a good idea, if that brigade troop is of the strong ass kicking, name taking variety, rather than the hide and seek abortions we have now. Cavalry that can't fight for information, and at the same time sneak and peek is not cavalry in my estimation. Maybe the answer is to include a cavalry troop in each combined arms maneuver battalion, like the Canadians did back in the 1980's.
The cavalry squadron at division level should be one strong bastard, and maybe it's time to think beyond the squadron and go for a cavalry group (not brigade)at division level, with two ground squadrons and an attack/reconnaissance aviation battalion. My personal belief is that attack,and attack reconnaissance aviation should be under cavalry, and put all the other Army aviation under the Transportation Corps, and get rid of the Aviation Branch. Worst thing the Us Army ever did was to create and Aviation Branch, unless you consider the abortion that is the Military Intelligence Branch. Then there is Air Defense Artillery. There should be an Artillery Branch, and careers managed by MOS within it. Oh crap there I go thinking like Puma Pimp again. Oh dear me, dear me.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jun 17, 2021 20:26:29 GMT
Quartermasters are like that Ian. They have no respect for soldiers that have a real job.
Speaking of jobs. Getting this thread sorted out was a good on you in spades.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Jun 18, 2021 5:40:56 GMT
Thanks Chuck, just went to moderate role and give it a go.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Jun 18, 2021 5:51:20 GMT
I know we are down sizing our tank arm, not fond of losing assets like AFVs, aircraft and ships, but I can see the idea behind it.
Can any of you see the need for large fleets of tanks? I know that the cold war made the west invest in tanks mainly because the Soviets had thousands of them, but apart from Europe, are they so important in other theatre's?
Do the Iranians have large tank force and are they up to scratch with ours? From what I can see, enemy tanks can now be destroyed in large numbers by helicopters and drones, not counting jet fighters. The regular soldier can also knock out a tank using TOW missiles and these AT weapons are everywhere.
Against insurgents, lighter, faster vehicles are the key, vehicles that can put down a good volume of fire and be rapid enough to keep pace against a foe who mainly fights on foot.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Jun 20, 2021 19:37:57 GMT
Looking at some data today and saw that a US Army Corps circa 1945, had a headquarters command of less then 200 all ranks, would you think it was too small to command two or more divisions plus Corps assets?
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jun 20, 2021 20:35:23 GMT
I would think that just about right Ian, maybe a little less, when you consider that a Corps headquarters and headquarters company is primarily a commander, and staff. Of course there are also personnel to support that commander and staff, like drivers, communications personnel, and mess.
Remember that operational functions are furnished by units assigned to the corps, but not part of the corps headquarters itself. For instance in World War II there was a signal battalion to tie in the communications of all of the various units attached to the corps. There would also be headquarters for the corps artillery, plus group headquarters companies for reconnaissance, anti-aircraft artillery, armor, and tank destroyers, and probably a few headquarters for the various logistical and administrative functions too.
A corps headquarters has two basic functions in combat, to fight the battle that is, while planning for the battle to come (if the higher headquarters has promulgated how they see things in advance).
Today, the corps headquarters is a gigantic monster that has probably outlived its usefulness in a sense. So much administration has been pushed downward to corps level, that it is a wonder they can build a building big enough to hold the commander and staff. We probably do not need a tactical headquarters larger than a division for modern warfare, if you consider that the U S Army has divided the world into regions, and those regional commands are charged with the interface between the political level of command and the operational level. That is probably all the linear connection we require, and if I am correct then, the corps headquarters is redundant.
You must remember how the medium I am using to communicate with you in the UK, has revolutionized military operations as well. Just down the road from me is a very nice, completely new, building that sits on the edge (inside the fence) of Petersen Air Force Base. It is the headquarters of Northern Command. From there they control the continental defense of the United States. The Army portion of Northern Command is in San Antonio at Fort Sam Houston, in a building that once held Geronimo as a prisoner. Actually the complete title is US Army Northcom/5th Army. In the same building is U S Army Southcom/6th Army. Together these two headquarters control all U S Army units in the Western Hemisphere, and the do it with computers and telecommunications.
Just ain't the same old world anymore, and we really don't need as much echeloned overhead to run the railroad on time as we used to.
In other news this Father's Day, my oldest granddaughter is somewhat smitten by some fellow there in the UK. He lives somewhere near Manchester, but I don't know exactly where. She is going to the UK in September, and he is coming to Virginia in December. God save the Queen.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 20, 2021 21:49:44 GMT
As of 2011, Division and Corps both were organized as Headquarters and Headquarters Battalion.
Division HQ and SPT CO OPS CO INTEL and SUST CO DIV SIGNAL CO OFF:188/WO:45/EM:450/TOT:723 Corps HQ and SPT CO OPS CO INTEL and SUST CO CORPS SIGNAL CO OFF:235/WO:51/EM:475/TOT:761
To be fair, when I was in the Divisin G-3, a lot of stuff came from subordinate units and operated with the MAIN. There was an USAF Element, the Artillery Element, Division Aviation Element, Engineer, MI Stuff, Air Defense (But I think they located with the ALO/DIV AVN), and probably some other stuff I don't remember. However, I don't think the TAC/MAIN/and REAR CPs totaled over 700 people. Hell, I don't think they were half that.
In contrast, an Armored BCT has OFF:37/WO:14/EM:75/TOT:126. I don't know that the Division/Corps elements needs to be 5 times or so bigger than the Brigade.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jun 21, 2021 2:21:40 GMT
Well to be completely accurate Mike some of that stuff now located in the Corps and Division headquarters battalions used to be in the corps and division signal and MI battalions. They just rearranged the deck chairs.
The WWII era corps headquarters that Ian asked about was supposed to only be a tactical headquarters. It was not supposed to own anything, and be able to control everything, attached, but not organic to it. As we entered WWII there was such a thing in the Army as a TYPE corps, where every corps would look the same. We soon found that to be an unusable, one size fits all set up that just did not work, so we made the corps a headquarters only that could be what the higher commander wanted it to be. In the infinite wisdom of the U S Army, we took something that worked in WWII, scrapped it, and went back to the type corps about 1950 and have stayed with it ever since.
I can understand the WHY of a type corps, as it makes force structure programming easy. If you have five corps for instance, you need five of these and five of those, and fifteen of these and ten of those, but it is still rock brained stupid.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2021 9:14:55 GMT
quincannon I quite agree Chuck. Still, the 1ID DMAIN did not have 700 people in it. My trusty ST 17-1-1 US Army Reference Data ca. 1981 shows the Division HHC with 188 officers and men: OFF: 64/WO:2/EM:188. I was in the G3 twice (1982-83, and 1990-91) for the 1 ID. I'm pretty sure that was much too small. The 1998 MTOE has 379 people in it which seems a little large. I think we were probably in the middle. We are seeing trigger pullers dwindle and the Combat Support and Service Support increase. I think the "type" corps is probably still 2 or 3 divisions plus some standard other stuff, but they are all said to be capable of commanding 1-5 divisions. But who really knows? We have four Army Corps today (I, III, V, and XVIII) but I Corps has 1 attached division (7th), III Corps 4 (1ID, 1AD, 1CD, 4ID), XVIII 4 (3, 10, 82, and 101), and V has none. And we have more "Armies" than Corps. Who ever heard of such garbage? And they all want the same units.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jun 21, 2021 15:33:43 GMT
Mike: The fundamental question is who are we likely to fight that will require an intermediate headquarters between the Army component of any of our regional commands? If the answer is - I cannot think of anyone, anywhere - then we just do not need them. Taken together the four corps headquarters we now have contain enough spaces to form an additional brigade in the force structure. I would argue that we need that brigade a hell of a lot more than we need four Lieutenant Generals and a bevy of strap hanging horse holders.
Our day is over, in the sense that we no longer require an Army headquarters, two corps headquarters, five divisions, two ACR's, and assorted odds and sods to defend Europe. Do we still need to be prepared to fight there? We sure do, but in 2021 it just takes less structure, then it did when you were a pup, and I was an old dog, clinging to an old dog's bone and food dish. It is simply a matter of the increased battle space dominance of smaller units, and increased communications capabilities. The idea of an army corps was originated in the first place, to increase command and control, where battle space was measured fifty meters to your front, and the fastest means of communications was the horse and rider. That day passed in about 2000, give or take a decade, and it is time that we restructure along lines that we actually need, rather than the ones we remember from our salad days.
|
|