|
Post by quincannon on Jun 26, 2021 14:50:18 GMT
Well Lo and Behold. The rock was dumped in front of my humble abode last evening, and the workmen are on the job early this morning to transform my desert that was supposed to be a lawn to a gravel pit that was supposed to be a lawn.
I don't think I ever said that more than one Stryker could be carried in a C17 Mike, only that we had a new facility for loading aircraft for overseas deployment. The US having interior lines could only mean one thing. The Us would be fighting our enemies on Rehoboth Beach, Miami, and San Luis Obispo. That does not sound like a state of affairs that would be welcome. We have to accept the world strategic situation for what it is, not necessarily what we want it to be. That is why diplomacy is every bit as important to our security as bomb or bullet.
Yes Ian, I am a great fan of light Infantry, but liking does not mean that I do not know and fully understand its limitations, and they are many.
The Bolger book was on my doorstep before dawn yesterday, from Amazon. Half way into it, and I think you would really like it. Bolger is no Hemingway, but he tells a good story, and writes it so the average reader can understand, as well as the military professional. He has no use for Bradley and Hodges, and is not bashful about saying so.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 26, 2021 15:05:44 GMT
Chuck, By talking about how many things could fit into a C-17, I was trying to reinforce your point about locations nearer to seaports. It makes sense to place those forces likely to be used first nearer the ports to speed our reaction time. I also understand we are blessed without having to fight on interior lines, with the possible exception of (currently) low-level threats along the Southern border. My point is we do not have the logistical train to support a fight at long distance, especially in a contested realm, unlike the highly favorable circumstances we have been blessed with since WWII where there was no sea opposition to our moves. Bulger's book was first rate. I confess for many books I now by them on Kindle. 1. they are cheaper. 2. Immediate gratification after purchase. 3. I can size the text to match the state of my eyeballs in reading. Sometimes bigger, sometimes smaller. 4. Saves space. I tend to buy physical books for use in particular projects or due to long term interest. Some I buy twice (both Kindle and Physical) to allow me more flexibility in reading and taking them with me on trips. In the 1493, the author also talks about the destructive erosional affects of terracing, but it also mentions lack of incentive for erosion control due to short term interest for farming, then moving on when the terrace collapses. Perhaps you should plant some trees or shrubs on it to help out the grass. Bathroom remodeling proceeding slowly, but fitfully. Next week it should be done.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jun 26, 2021 15:16:51 GMT
Yes, I understood that, but as I do with many things, I put stuff on paper in blue and white so that the other folks that read us know that both of us are on common ground and understanding.
My daughter, granddaughter, and brand new great grandson are planning to visit in September, and the Madam has so many - we have to get this done before - that it boggles the mind, makes my back hurt more than it usually does, and causes me to wonder why she wants to spend money like we have some. Oh well, she is the only madam I have, and like Rumpole's wife is the - "She who must be obeyed".
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 26, 2021 15:21:46 GMT
Ah yes. I understand (again).
Wife. Yes. Understand that as well. My problem is her rule is "One goes out, six come in" whereas my rule is "One comes in, six go out". I am constantly culling my stuff, sometimes to my regret.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jun 26, 2021 15:50:42 GMT
I was struck by the way Rose organized the 3rd AD for combat, with two strong combat commands, and a weaker CCR. I particularly liked how he did the internals of the two strong combat commands with a weaker task force that complimented the stronger task force. That of course could only have been done with the 2nd and 3rd AD's and early on by the 1st AD, until they reorganized as a "light" armored division. How he used the armored reconnaissance battalion is a method I favor as well, using them as a unit under Rose's control, and not farming out a company to each of the combat commands, and keeping only one for division work.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 26, 2021 16:24:17 GMT
Exactly! That is why I want the division cavalry squadron back or a reconnaissance force for the next higher command. The Brigade needs its own recon force but it either needs to be a really big platoon or a troop. Battalions need platoons, but bigger than a line platoon. All recon platoon should look the same for OPSEC.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jun 26, 2021 17:02:01 GMT
I quite agree, that all recon platoons should look the same, but at the same time tailored for the forces they support, heavy for heavy, motorized for motorized, light for light.
You are not going to get a dedicated reconnaissance unit at division UNTIL. these shit for brains force designers understand that regardless of what they may think about brigade combat teams, divisions that control battles (and brigades) must have the ability to both see and fight for the information they require, or they cannot control anything above latrine cleaning. They are depending too much on perfect situational awareness, provided by electronic means, and there is no electronic means that is an adequate substitute for sticking your nose in someplace and getting shot at.
I understand why the Army went to the BCT, but no matter how good a BCT is, it is still not better than a division, that is built together, trains together, and fights together.
You're not going to get a troop at brigade level either, if you have a squadron at division level. The obvious answer is do the same thing that the WWII force designers did, build a divisional squadron that can act as a complete unit, but at the same time have the capability, if necessary, to farm out a troop to a brigade, when, and if needed. I see no reason for a three brigade division to require a troop at brigade level, if the division is operating together. On the other hand if one of those brigades is diverted to a separate mission outside the umbrella of the division, by all means give them a troop.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Jun 26, 2021 17:32:11 GMT
The British decided mid-WW2, to take all the armoured cars out of the divisions and group them at corps level. The recon units in armoured divisions were then equipped with Cromwell's and Stuarts tanks.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 27, 2021 2:49:56 GMT
quincannon Well, to restate my position, I think every echelon of command from battalion up should have its own reconnaissance element. I could live with the Battalion = Platoon, Brigade = Platoon or Troop (but maybe a smaller version, say two platoons vs three), division - Squadron, and Corps or Army or Army Group (depending on whatever becomes the break point between skipped echelon) an ACR. I think all cavalry units should look the same regardless if they are light, motorized, or mechanized. You want the cavalry to have mobility equal to or greater than the protected force, so it might be that they all should be tracked (but not so heavy as M1/M3 units) or Motorized (technology may be beginning to catch up with mobility of wheeled vs tracked vehicles). Another thought I have, not that any one really cares, is the ACR should perhaps have more mortars in the squadrons, but have an MLRS Battery (truck or tracked) at Regiment instead of three howitzer batteries.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 27, 2021 3:08:43 GMT
The Bolger book was on my doorstep before dawn yesterday, from Amazon. Half way into it, and I think you would really like it. Bolger is no Hemingway, but he tells a good story, and writes it so the average reader can understand, as well as the military professional. He has no use for Bradley and Hodges, and is not bashful about saying so. Just today I received, after a long pre-publication wait, The Boy Generals: George Custer, Wesley Merritt and the Cavalry of the Army of the Potomac. It looks very interesting and is the first in a trilogy about the duo. It looks like the theme will be the Hussar (Custer) vs the Dragoon (Merritt) and how their relationship soured over the years from distaste to revulsion.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jun 27, 2021 15:10:43 GMT
Mike: The late Brigadier Richard Simpkin gave us the solution for reconnaissance elements greater than the mobility of the force they supported in what I consider his landmark article in ARMOR fifty years ago. He said those elements would have to fly. I believe him. However flying does not cut the mustard for the totality of reconnaissance work, as we both well know. A recon force must be able to stick their nose in and risk getting it shot off to truly perform the complete reconnaissance function. I have his article in the basement, and if memory serves it was called the Air/mechanized Division. Came out about the same time as the TRICAP experiments at Fort Hood. that is some time around when you were in first grade (whippersnapper) so you may have missed it.
I see no reason why we cannot have wheeled reconnaissance for light and motorized formations. It is not the wheeled or tracked discussion we should be having, but rather a discussion on designing a wheeled vehicle that can survive and perform on the battlefield. with light(er) armor, and enough gun power to get themselves out of trouble if need be. We have never done that - NEVER, and its high time we get our heads out of our ass and do so. We need a tracked recon vehicle that can do the same thing too.
When I say you can't have this or that, I do not mean what you might wish should not be what you wish. I wish the same things, but I also understand Army strength caps in a "peacetime" environment, and know that the only things you can have are what Congress is willing to pay for, and presently they are not prepared to go above 480K and piss and moan about that.
What we need in my less than humble opinion is no echelon between Army/Area Command, and Division. With that we need what would amount to a reconnaissance brigade (not a regiment) in each division. We need MLRS and a few other things as well, but let's keep this discussion focused on one topic. A recon brigade of four battalion sized elements (three ground squadrons and an attack/reconnaissance aviation battalion) would transform the division into a warehouse of capabilities, provided the rest of the division was constructed so it could be formed into modular packages if needed. If the division fights together then the recon brigade fights together. If the division deploys where separate brigades would better facilitate the battle, the the recon brigade could be tasked organized into recon packages to support each of the brigades. My preferred method would be fighting together, but if wishes were horses would would all be out for a pony ride. The thing I really like about the recon brigade is that it gives the division commander a very powerful fourth combat brigade, as well as the ability to achieve - almost semi perfect - situational awareness. You never get all the way there, no matter what the egg heads have to say.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 27, 2021 15:12:08 GMT
I agree. Small drones are probably more survivable than helicopters, but come with a host of other problems. It's weighty.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jun 27, 2021 15:36:49 GMT
Drones are a supplement, not a solution. The Mark I eyeball is the worlds best reconnaissance asset. That was true in Custer's day and doubly true today. Drones are too easy to deceive. We need a helicopter that is cheap, easy to fly, and that you are not afraid to lose (unlike the Apache) for recon work.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Jun 27, 2021 18:36:16 GMT
I believe that there is a role for drones and a role for helicopters, the same could be said for wheeled and tracked recce vehicles. All are useful in the right circumstances.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jun 27, 2021 18:58:02 GMT
You are correct Ian. The problem is that the dummies that run the show are always looking for a one tool solution. It's like you going to work in the morning with only a hammer in your tool box. The cost of the hammer is not that much when you compare it to what a complete set of tools cost, but then again the hammer can only do so much. You cannot screw anything together, or saw a piece of lumber with a hammer. Save a lot of money though. Penny wise and pound foolish never got the job done.
|
|