|
Post by yanmacca on Jul 6, 2021 18:37:46 GMT
I am not advocating the idea of reducing the number of tanks in your or our armed forces, that goes for fighter jets too, we need them. I was saying that a tank battalion should have X number of main battle tanks and that each tank battalion should trained be merged with a mechanized infantry battalion. Both Infantry and Armour have a role to play but in certain circumstances they can’t operate without each other.
Now if you have fourteen M1A2 Tanks per company, and it is merged with a Infantry company, that would give you four tanks per Infantry platoon (two HQ Tanks with Inf Coy HQ). Now that is a nice balance. link
Of course you may get situations like this, with no Infantry in sight (some people have just too much time on their hands) link
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jul 6, 2021 20:04:57 GMT
Ian: That one to one ratio is one of those great ideas that look fantastic on paper, but just does not work in reality. We tried it in World War II with our "light" armored divisions, and the standard complaint was there was not nearly enough Infantry. Of course, had we been in the desert instead of the European mainland, we would have probably concluded that a two to one ratio of tanks were too many (which we did) and that the one to one ratio of tanks to Infantry of the "light" armored division was just a bit (not much) short on tanks.
Balance therefore depends upon the situation. There is no one formula. You either need more of this or more of that. THAT IS THE MAIN REASON that force designers need to listen to the people in the field who actually use these organizations, that people far removed from the shooting and maneuvering dream up.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 6, 2021 20:19:20 GMT
In the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s we were hard over to Armor Heavy because that was, based on 1967 and 1973 Arab-Israeli Wars, the only way we thought we could defeat/destroy the Soviet hordes. It might have been right. But in other circumstances, I probably have to admit 2M1T or even 3M1T is the way for a combined arms battalion to go. Perhaps there should be a 2M2T as a 10th battalion, or maybe even 1M3T (But that seems a little too tank heavy, even for me.) The Division should also have a cavalry squadron with 3C1T just like an old ACR did, although at the end of their time they were 3 Ground Troops/ 3 Air Troops which may have much to recommend it. I'd still give it a tank company though. Cavalrymen can handle the 7 unit span of control.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jul 6, 2021 20:48:56 GMT
The solution is frigging simple. You build the unit to fit the area that it is most likely to deploy to. You dismiss this assinine idea that one size fits all. 2X1, 1X2, 2X2, 3X1, 1X3, are all good solutions,just not good everywhere.
Our big problem is that those donkey dicks that design units want there to be one size fits all when it comes to brigades, BECAUSE, we are now deploying a heavy brigade to Europe and a heavy brigade to Korea, and they have to fall in on an equipment set. They don't take their tanks and IFV's with them Ian, and all this one size fits all theory makes the Quartermasters happy, but does not do jack shit if we have to fight tonight.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Jul 7, 2021 10:14:23 GMT
How does they train for this swift change in numbers, if one week you have a infantry company supported by a tank company, then a month later the same elements are grouped with engineers another two infantry companies a cavalry units and SP-artillery battery.
Now we have six commanders, some if which don't know each other going out on a mission.
Bottom line for us swinging dicks to get our head round, can this swap and change thing to work, can the changing be done on the battlefield or at hone with time to gel?
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jul 7, 2021 11:29:26 GMT
Ian:
How do you train? You train as you intend to fight. To do that you build flexibility into the structure that support combat operations. Cross attaching of different, and diverse elements of the force become so routine that you can do it in your sleep.
Our armor doctrine tells us that we must build company teams of tank and mechanized Infantry platoons to address the mission we are given. For instance, if we are operating in Europe, where there are small villages that grow up around nearly every major road intersection, your best bet in task organization is probably a company team with two mechanized Infantry platoons, and a tank platoon. Conversely, if you are operating on the North German Plain, you might want to form that company team with two tank platoons, and one of mechanized Infantry. We call this procedure at the battalion level a task force, which has now evolved into a combined arms battalion, containing both tank and mechanized companies. In the UK this organization is termed a battle group. For instance in Desert Storm the Scots Dragoon Guards Battle Group contained two squadrons of the Grays and a mechanized company attached from another regiment (I forget which off hand).
All of these units are from the same brigade, and while a brigade may look large, it is in reality a very small place where everyone knows everyone.
In combat it is not a month later. Many times these modification take place on a daily basis depending upon the mission and/or change of mission. Sometimes these task organizations change two or three times a day, in an intense situation.
FLEXIBILITY is the key word.
SUPPORT is a word you should dismiss, at least in the way I think you mean it. TEAM is a word you should adopt and absorb. Tanks and Infantry are a maneuver team, they work together, not in support of one another in the traditional meaning of the word support (meaning lending a hand). It's like a hammer in one hand and a screw driver in the other, both do different parts to accomplish the same job.
Rarely does artillery become part of a task force, but it is always there to support the task forces maneuver with fires. Artillery is generally kept under centralized control so the same battalion can support by fire several companies or battalions, depending upon who needs it. Artillery battalions are normally apportioned with one for every brigade sized unit. Artillery is NEVER in reserve.
Cavalry belongs to either the brigade or division commander. It is not very often that you see cavalry elements becoming part of a battalion task force. Maneuver battalions have scout platoons for any cavalry type mission that comes their way. Does it happen? Yes, but not on any regular basis,
Engineers generally work for the brigade or division commander too, but unlike the cavalry, more often than not you will find that brigade or division commander attaching some type of engineer unit, be it a platoon or a company, to a battalion task force depending upon what that task force's mission is. When I was in an Infantry battalion, we nearly always had a platoon from the brigade engineer company attached to the battalion, and sometimes a squad from that engineer platoon would be attached to my company.
It's like your tool box Ian. It contains a whole bunch of tools all designed to perform different jobs. When you go out to fix the shed in your back yard, you choose from that tool box the tools you think you will need. Task organization of maneuver units is the same thing, choosing the tools you think you will need.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 7, 2021 14:50:38 GMT
The early version of the CAB had an engineer company assigned to the battalion. The problem is the engineer companies are optimized for mobility and in the current BCT, the battalions do not have their own AVLBs. So for counter-mobility and survivability you need a battalion from the Corps Engineer Brigade. I fear this is a over compensation for the COIN fight of the least two decades.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jul 7, 2021 16:08:03 GMT
The Brigade Combat Team is an overcompensation for the COIN fight Mike.
We don't have an army that can fight. We have an army that can deploy on a rotational basis. The whole idea of the BCT was to enhance how we can deploy in a three year rotation cycle.
Many years ago while I was piddling around with the light division, I attended an event where the commander of the 1st Marine Division was the featured speaker. He referred to his division as a warehouse of capabilities. I have never forgotten that, a warehouse of capabilities, where he could build whatever force was required within his own substantial resources. Each of our divisions should be a warehouse of capabilities too. I mentioned that encounter with the Marines to General John Wickham in an e-mail exchange I had with him a number of years ago. We were talking BCT's and light divisions in the e-mails, and on hearing about the warehouse he said he wished he had thought of the LID problem in those terms.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 7, 2021 17:03:51 GMT
I tend to disagree, I think it makes units more deployable and combat effective but it overcompensated.
It makes sense to me to have an MI Company, Signal Company, Brigade Support Battalion (- the Forward Support Companies), and the artillery battalion habitually assigned. It needs an ADA Battery, and arguably a read Engineer Battalion with more balanced capabilities than are provided by the pathetic engineer companies in the current brigade. (I only say they need their own real battalion because a single battalion is not enough for a division and we decided at one point we needed an engineer brigade within the division. It does not need a cavalry squadron, it should either have a larger troop (say three cavalry platoons (6 BFV), 1 tank platoon (4 or 6 tanks), and a mortar platoon) or a large platoon (5 BFV, 4 tanks, and a mortar). Each battalion should have its own Forward Support Company, (that would include the mess section, medical platoon, support platoon, and maintenance platoon with its contact teams) or perhaps better yet put the maintenance section back into the company.
I have one friend who says the old pure battalions were better than the CAB because they could task organize. He just doesn't get it when I say the CAB does not prohibit task organization, but it is probably harder for some people to train. The current organization does not inhibit our traditional artillery's flexibility. The Division Commander needs his own Cavalry Squadron - 3 Cav troops and a tank company. Maybe an Air Defense Battalion with longer range missiles than Stingers but not grandiose like Patriot, something like ground launched AMRAAMS would be good. Maybe a battery would be sufficient. The current DIVARTY is useless though, because it doesn't have any of it's own tubes, not even an multiple rocket launcher battalion, with which the CG can weight the main effort. I think we should return to 10 battalions, 1 of which is on the CGs string as the minimum size reserve and/or can be used to weight the main effort.
We made the IBCT too light without any tanks and while we are putting a company in them (hopefully) there needs to be a battalion at division.
The SBCT was a mistake and we should never have gone there, its only grace is it can carry a 9 man squad, but it is a large, under-armed abortion and bigger than a BFV or an M1 in terms of cube. But then, we probably should never have made the BFV the beast we did. We need a good infantry carrier and a different reconnaissance vehicle.
If we really want to be expeditionary, we need our own fixed wing capability of some sort, some dedicated, specialized sea lift, and we should probably lighten up in terms of Armor. Perhaps we should consider if we even really need an Army structured the way ours is, since the likelihood of an enemy attacking North America via ground or amphibious attack is very small; Canada is no threat and Mexico is limited, except of course as a land path for mass migration. Perhaps a more capable Cavalry/Constabulary for the southern border is needed and we should expand our air defense and reestablish coastal defense units. Perhaps a 5 division corps, fully fleshed out with Aviation, Artillery, Service Support etc. in the Active Army, a similar Corps in the ARNG/Reserve and a mixed component corps with say 2 active and 3 ARNG divisions would provide the required force for any oversea contingency we might need that is sustainable and reinforceable.
I think the LID and the SBCT were attempts at becoming more USMC like, but because they are dependent on Air and Sealift and the nation does not have enough of either they were misstructured and misequipped. IT would be different if North America was organized like South America, then we would not to be so expeditionary and would need to be organized for defense from our neighbors.
I still struggle with the concept and don't really know how to proceed.
The only reason the MARDIV is a warehouse of capabilities is because it is designed to move on ships, has larger infantry squads, its own air wing, and relies on the Navy for medical,legal, and other capabilities and has enough political clout that it can get stuff from the USAF (which it doesn't need very often because it has its own air force) and the Army (from which it needs service support for long term missions and now tanks).
EDIT: We can still be very flexible. I watched an NTC rotation with 2 (ABCT)/1ID wit an attached Stryker Battalion. When I was the S-4, we received a Infantry Battalion from the 6ID (as I think it still was at the time, but it could have been from the 2 or 25 ID) and a BN TF from 40ID(M) along with an additional artillery battalion. So we still have the ability to mix and match various units to provide a force suited to the problem. I think we are too stove piped into our current branches. Infantry should be Light (Infantry, Airborne, Air Assault) Armor should basically be Dragoons with a mix of tanks and heavy infantry. Still need a reconnaissance force, IMO, but I know you disagree. Nothing would stop us from sending tanks to help the Infantry guys (heck we should have lighter tanks anyway) and we can always use more infantry on the Armor side.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jul 7, 2021 18:46:21 GMT
I agree in principle with just about everything you said Mike.
The first step is to take Armor, Cavalry, and Mechanized Infantry, and create a new ARMOR Branch, with one school house (we have done that at Harmony Church - Benning). Within the branch assignments would be managed by MOS. A person in the Infantry sub branch of Armor would stay heavy for his entire combat unit assigned career. He would not go back and forth between light and heavy. All heavy units would be designated Armor or Cavalry (a sop to tradition where appropriate). A typical battalion would be two and two, with a reconnaissance company (troop), and a combat support company built around fire supporters and enablers (like Engineers). The Canadians had a similar organization once, where their armored regiments contained a D Squadron as the brigade recon element. They did it more for man management and economy purposes, needing recon, but at the time not willing to field recon regiments.
So if you would build such an organization, you are not all that far off from what we have previously talked about with the resurrection of the battle group idea. I have not given up on that, although my fire for the idea, builds and wanes over time, depending upon what side of the bed I get up on any given day. I still think the Brigade is too big for the 21st Century, but anything that replaces it, must still be part of a division, where capabilities not found in the battle group, can reinforce or support the organic battle groups.
There should also be a standard light Infantry. Maybe some should still be airborne capable, but that too seems to be growing more impractical with each passing day. Light should be strategically fast out of the starting gate, like a good racehorse. In 21st Century warfare getting there may just be the bucket of cold water that dampens the fire. All that said though they still must be capable of sustained combat against a well armed and equipped foe, which means we are going to have to look at every system they posses from shoe leather to fire and forget munitions that can blow the shit out of anything the enemy is foolish enough to send against them.
Strykers are very useful vehicles, and should be kept in the inventory, but not as the basis for motorized (Stryker) brigades. They are a really great platform for a constabulary mission. They could marry up with light Infantry for several different types of missions, but not one that would involve direct contact with a sophisticated adversary. To that end possible a transportation battalion of Strykers each company of which would be capable of lifting a complete light Infantry battle group, much like Bolger describes with the Quartermaster truck companies lifting the non-armored Infantry attached to the 3rd AD from time to time.
Out in front of the National Archives, graven in stone is the phrase "What Is Past Is Prologue" We need to take a very hard look at the last hundred years of military operations, to give us a road map for the next hundred, not to fight the last war mind you, but to see what worked and what did not, what can be improved upon and what belongs in the trash can.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 7, 2021 19:56:31 GMT
Good stuff Chuck. Other than it's fun, I don't know why I think about stuff.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 7, 2021 20:58:51 GMT
I can't help it. Here's a cartoon inspired by your last. I think the battle group could control 10-12 companies; this lets it get attachments. I know we've been here before, but I am there again. Infantry Battle Group would be similar, but it would have a Stryker Transportation Company (enough to lift 2 companies simultaneously? Mortars, Engineers, etc in Strykers? CAV TROOP the same as the CBG) They would be called Dragoon Battle Groups, but they could be named Cavalry, Infantry, Armor or combine heritage and lineage based on regimental number, e.g. 11th ACR, 11th INF, and 11th Infantry as the 11th Cavalry or Dragoon Battlegroup CAV TROOP x 1 HQ 1 TK 2 ARSV CAV PLT 6 x ARSV TK PLT: 5 Tanks MORT SEC: 3 AMOS 2 barrel auto mortars DRAGOON COMPANY x 5 (maybe 6?) HQ 1TK 2 x INF CARRIER DRAGOON PLT: 6 x ARSV Tank PLT: 5 Tank MORT SEC: 3 AMOS 2 barrel auto mortars MORTAR BATTRY HQ 3 x ARSV 3 PLT x 6 AMOS MORTARS AMMO SECT (?) CBT SPT CO HQ SEC: 3 ARSV ENG PLT has 3 squads in infantry carriers, 3 AVLB, some digging stuff. ADA PLT, sort of a Bradley Stinger Fighting Vehicle with cannon and Stinger type but based on infantry carriers. 7 vehicles. DRONE PLT 6 x DRONE Launch Vehicles each with 6 expendable drones. Carries a warhead so it can kamikaze a target if needed. It could accept up to 4 or 5 more attachments (MP, NBC, CA, other crap depending on mission). FWD SPT CO. Pretty Traditional. TRANS PLT: 24 Stryker Cargo Vehicles MAINT PLT: some good maintenance stuff. 8 xStryker for Mechanics, 8 x Recovery Vehicles, Other crap a maintenance platoon needs. MED PLT: 16 Stryker Ambulances, 2 Stryker Treatment Vechicles I'm enamored with the idea of a Anti-Tank Vehicle based on an M113/Stryker/HEMMT Tanker with a VLS system two stage Hellfires with a range I calculate of 12 - 24 km. It would be great fun. Platoon of 4 or 6. I guess the mortar battery would have a platoon of 8 FISTVs based on ARSVs
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jul 7, 2021 21:17:43 GMT
The only thing I am enamored with Mike is Cote de Pablo. Everything else I have to think about for an hour or so.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 7, 2021 21:35:10 GMT
She's worth being enamored. In that vein, I'm enamored by the women who played Camille - the Coroner on Bones.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jul 8, 2021 1:33:42 GMT
Tamara Taylor.
|
|