|
Post by mhoyt on May 6, 2021 18:10:43 GMT
As much as I like discussing nearly all aspects of military history and mining them for use today, I feel compelled to try to return this to the original premise. The USMC is reorganizing in many ways, deleting a man from the infantry squad to free up people for cyber operations, doing away with armor, military police, and tube artillery to free up more slots, and buying more rocket artillery, as well as trying to increase the skills of infantrymen so they can fulfill any infantry task from rifleman, machine gunner, mortarman, and anti-armor specialist. The Army does this a little bit with a small arms room in some infantry platoon headquarters section with 'extra' weapons. The USMC/USN in an attempt to increase the offensive firepower of its amphibious fleet is taking to placing LARS and HMMVWs/LAV-25s on the flight deck to improve close in protection and offensive firepower of these under armed vessels. The Army is engaged in Long Range Precision Fires which, while angering the USAF, may be able to free it from a dependency on an organization which, while they provide excellent support, never seems to embrace close air support, its numbers of aircraft are dwindline, and manned aircraft may become unusable with the improvements of air defense artillery. It is also experimenting with placing several types of missiles in an a single launcher, such as anti-tank, air defense, Anti-ship, and long range strike in a chassis similar to an MLRS. We may not be thinking forward enoogh. First, we need to come to terms with we are always going to fight on external lines of communications, damn them. We cannot station the bulk of our armed forces in other countries, for a variety of reasons, once of which they will always be in the wrong place. we should consider placing them in other areas such as our territories and possessions, including Northerm Marianas, Midway, Wake, perhaps the US Virgin Islands, and Puerto Ricko. The smaller areas could have more specialised garrisons such as Long Range Strike, Air and Missile Defense and anti-ship Missle units, resurrecting the Coastal Artillery as it were. In any event, we need to consider: * Where do we want to go? * What do we want to do? (want to achieve) (how you do it, may change - what is the end game). All plans have branches and sequels based on the fact the enemy, weather, and time may change... heck the initial goal may change.* How will we get there? * How will we resupply? * How will we get out? Add * Who are we going with? (the US fights as a coalition, and has back to the time of the Revolutionary War (think France), the LBH (think Crows, Shoshones, Arikara).* How do we communicate? This is now pretty vital, the ability to move information is often difficult in the austere locations we go to. This is not only our classification domains, our networks, also our allies -- how we share information .... targeting data, to blue force tracking, to resupply tracks, to trying to make common maps.
20 years of war in Iraq and Afghanistan have shown just how difficult it is to sustain ourselves far across the world, with few or dubious allies, and without even a contested sea or air lines of communication. I found that sustainment was far easier than finding someone dedicated to spending more than 1 or 2 years on the fight, and having the concise strategy and approach and driving that home over years. Inconsistency and revolving leadership both militarily and political; and reeducating people is a disaster. The Taliban leadership only changed out due to casualties. An inconsistent approach, was brutal. I could expound on this.In order to respond rapidly we need lighter forces with heavy firepower and perhaps more moderate protection. In the late 50s and early 60s there were concept illustrations of massive suborbital transports capable of disgorging hundreds of infantry with rocket packs. While rocket packs still don't seem able to carry enough fuel to make them powerful enough to lift large loads and go long distances, there may be something here. Getting there firstest with the mostest - is a long held concept. The US Military has to have the flexibility to respond to short term, long term, conventional, unconventional war, non-combatant evacuations, peace keeping, peace enforcement, and humanitarian missions ... just going off the top of my head. What I found needed to be added to this, is the hardest thing that allows us to fight at least -- red force tracking. To fight, and have fuel, food, ammunition you are still hauling a lot of stuff, and helicopters (or Ospreys) are still pretty damn valuable. How far you flying in that Jet Pack?Perhaps a return to the battlegroup? By battlegroup I don't mean the Pentomic Battlegroup, but it may be a place to evolve from. Perhaps combining them both we should consider Robert Heinlein's Starship Troopers (although I personally prefer David Drake's Hammer's Slammers). Perhaps smaller vehicles with moderate armor, high mobility, lethal firepower (but not necessarilly large weapons), with powerful, economical power trains, and maybe smaller crews? Lacking Heinlein's Powered Armor and drop ships (although perhaps the recent Space-X success with their first successful Starship landing maybe worth considering) the immediate future appears to be small vehicles that can be transported in large numbers aboard cargo aircraft, internally or externally by rotorcraft, ability to be airdropped (although I think this is a problem for the same reason that manned aircraft are becomning unsurvivable). We may need to lose our casualty intolerence as well. My only comment here, is you are probably right that armor is getting a little outstripped with the need AT weapons going through the top now (although they have systems now that shoot those). However, whatever it is, they need to get rid of wheels, because tracks are far more mobile (an M113 APC can easily go places a Hummer never could). Good if it can stop .50 cal or 12.7mm and below. Tracks in general are heavy. On a tank each track block is 60bs, and there are 80+ track blocks on a side accounting 9,600 pounds or almost 5 tons). Of course much lighter on a M113. I loved the M113 - it was a shame when they phased them out.
The Battlegroup should be relatively small, say perhaps 12 companies of various types, with a maximum of around 100 men each This would include a combat units, some support units, and a forward support company. A lean staff, perhaps with no set subordinate unit structure (like the 19th century cavalry regiment) and supported with long range fires. There may still be a need for two types. One that is armor/mech based and another that is mounted, but mostly infantry. Probably a company would be 10 - 12 vehicles. They did Brigade Task Forces, and Task Organize with any Battalions, even my tank company had a infantry platoon usually attached. So I think it depends on who you want controlling the operational flow of the battle, and at what level. The lower you go, usually the less experience you have in officer leadership, especially in the US military. The British system, that places emphasis on having far more experienced officers in lower level units is superior in my opinion. You can end up with coalition partners in your company. I prefer larger companies like 14 vehicles (4x 3 platoons, 1xXO, 1xCO) with the leadership being more experienced like the British model. The staff in these units are not the problems, its the enormous staffs that are involved in anything that you can imaging that bother me.
Have you ever read Breaking the Phalanx?This may require a large change in our thinking. A small nimble force, suitable for small and large wars, versus a large force structured for a large war, but wedged into 'small' wars as required, without proper training. Robotic vehicles with AI are tempting, but how will they be repaired, unstuck, rearmed, and maintained? Robots on robots on robots? The limiting factor on warplanes is that a human has to be inside. When they remove that, the space the human takes, and the G-force he cannot will be removed as factors. That will be the case. There probably will be Robots, but computers do what they are taught to do, even if they improve with the use of algorithms (did I say I have a MS in Computer Science?). VR Mark
Perhaps something like the German Wiesal or an improved M114 or Armored Reconnaissance Scout Vehicle (ARSV) for starters. (I should have started here) Wiesal comes in two sizes one is an small scout vehicle and anti-tank vehicle, but the other is somwhat larger. The US Army has apparently bought several Wiesals for use as robotic surrougote vehicles. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiesel_AWC The Wiesel Armoured Weapons Carrier (AWC) is a German light air-transportable armoured fighting vehicle, more specifically a lightly armoured weapons carrier. It is quite similar to historical scouting tankettes in size, form and function, and is the only true modern tankette in use in Western Europe. The Bundeswehr eventually ordered 343 of the vehicles in 1985.[1] The Wiesel was introduced as a new weapon system for the Bundeswehr with deliveries beginning in the late 1980s. The vehicle was named Wiesel ("weasel") because of its small size and agility, which make it very difficult to detect on the battlefield. Production of the Wiesel 1 ended in 1993.[2] Of 343 Wiesel 1 vehicles, 210 were armed with Raytheon TOW wire-guided anti-tank guided missile system and 133 have the one-man KUKA turret E6-II-A1 armed with the dual-feed Rheinmetall Mk 20 RH-202 20 mm autocannon. Germany deployed both types to Somalia in 1993 as part of the United Nations forces intervention in the Somali Civil War (UNISOM II). The Wiesel 2 is an enlarged and extended version of the Wiesel 1 with five road wheels instead of four, and a more powerful engine. The Bundeswehr ordered 178 of the new vehicle in various types, including air defense, radar, and anti-aircraft missile launcher, 120 mm mortar carrier, command and fire control, and ambulance variants. The Wiesel 2 entered service in 2001. Mass: 2.75 t to 4.78 t Length: 3.55 metres (11 ft 8 in) Width: 1.82 metres (6 ft 0 in) Height: 1.82 metres (6 ft 0 in) Crew: Driver, gunner/commander or driver, gunner and commander depending on variant. Armor Protection: against small arms only Main armament: Varies (7.62 mg, 20mm cannon, TOW) Secondary armament: Varies Engine: Audi 2.1 L 5-cylinder in-line turbo-diesel 64 kilowatts (86 hp) Suspension: torsion bar Operational range: 200 kilometres (120 mi) Maximum speed: 70 kilometres per hour (43 mph)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 6, 2021 18:12:27 GMT
With regard to Infantry fighting vehicles: The Army in rejecting the German Puma shot itself in the foot. The primary reason as I understand it is that it would not carry nine dismounts. I have news for the Army. any IFV you develop that will carry nine dismounts will be too damned big, weigh too much, and will not be able to be transported by air in any significant numbers. An IFV, as the name betrays is a fighting vehicle, and having IFV's in my less than humble opinion is just stupid. We would be much better off with a armored personnel carrier, then you could have your nine. The Stryker Dragoon is the only APC in the current inventory that can carry nine, and also have a first rate Infantry fire support weapon mounted. Do we need an Infantry Fighting Vehicle, or do we need something that does what the Stryker Dragoon can do, carry nine and have a mounted weapon that can support those dismounts in a fire support role? You have probably gathered by now that I do not like the concept of the IFV. There is too much temptation in my opinion to use it as a tank, when that is not what it was designed to do. Mechanized Infantry should have the operative word being Infantry. The Infantry needs a carrier, nothing more, and preferably a carrier than can support by fire without getting itself involved in a tank battle. Maybe we also need to rethink our mobile doctrine and not form combined arms company teams, but rather keep our companies pure. My personal opinion, and it is only that is that we developed the Bradley in the first place, because we saw the Russians with a BMP, and convinced ourselves we needed one too. The problem with the IFV is that it takes a crew of three and the weapons system takes up a lot of internal room thereby limiting the number of dismounts the vehicle can carry. So my advice the the United States Army is learn to live with six dismounts, add one vehicle to the mechanized platoon, and buy the goddamned Puma, and get rid of the less than satisfactory Bradley pronto. I concur. I really like the Puma, but the Lynx, which is entered in the Bradley replacement mix, is also suitable, so long as you want an IFV. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynx_(Rheinmetall_armoured_fighting_vehicle)Vehicle | Puma (top)_ | Lynx (Bottom) | Mass | 31.4-43t | 34 - 50t | Length | 7.6m | 7.22 - 7.73m | Width | 3.9m | 3.6m | Height | 3.6m | 3.3 | Crew/DM | 3/6 | 3/6-8 | Armor | Modular Composite | Steel armour with various appliques | Main Armament | 30mm Autocannon | 30-35mm autocannon | Secondary Armament | 5.56mm/7.62mm mg | 7.62mm g | Optional Armament | Spike ATGM | Spike ATGM | Engine | 800 kilowatts (1,100 hp) | 750hp (563kW)/1,140hp (850kW) | Fuel Capacity | Row 11 column 2 | >700l | Operational Range | 460km | 500km | Speed | 70kph | 65-70kph |
Apparently both can be stretched or lose a road wheel. The Puma had a prototypes constructed with a Leo1A4 or Leo2 Turret. WRT to APC vs Stryker: I lobbied and pestered my congressman and Senators and other contacts I had to discard the Stryker in favor of improving the M113 with new armor, improved engine and transmission, a single person turret with a 20-25mm cannon as per the YPR-765, and sloped armor with the crew facing outward instead of inward, and a remote 7.62mm in the rear. It is air transportable and droppable, can be carried by a CH-47 and could have been improved with modest cost over time. It would have been outstanding paired with the M-8 "Buford". I would advocate combined arms companies with either 2 mech platoons and 1 tank platoon or perhaps 2/2. With a combined arms platoon you don't need to hang ATGMs on the APC/IFV. Our current ABCTs in my view are too armor heavy. Two battalions are 1Mech/2Tank companies and the one is 2M/1T. The Cavalry Squadron has a tank company as well. The BCT should probably have 6M/4T (1 per bn and 1 in the cav squadron).
|
|
|
Post by mhoyt on May 6, 2021 18:14:31 GMT
Mark: If that was Lee's reasoning for not giving Jackson's Corps to Stuart, it strikes me as much the same as putting Patton in the Quartermaster Corps because he ran a hell of a good warehouse, or keeping George Washington at Mount Vernon, because he produces a great crop of tobacco. Q: It iss only due to your love of the walking force over the love of the mounted force. Sometimes, you have to think well I have 10 guys that can do Infantry, and I have only 1 that can do Cavalry. VR Mark.
Equating the vast nobility of the mounted arm to that of warehouse management and tobacco farming - hurtful Q--- very very hurtful.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 6, 2021 18:21:03 GMT
mhoytMark, I agree with all the stuff you added to my concept. I am (was?) close friends with Doug MacGregor. We were in the 1st ID together, I as the 2BDE S-4 and he commanded 1-4CAV. I wargamed his Reconnaissance Strike Group for him against various opponents during its development and as he pitched it to Congress, the Army, and anyone else who would listen. It is partly why I have a soft spot for the Puma.
|
|
|
Post by mhoyt on May 6, 2021 18:23:26 GMT
With regard to Infantry fighting vehicles: The Army in rejecting the German Puma shot itself in the foot. The primary reason as I understand it is that it would not carry nine dismounts. I have news for the Army. any IFV you develop that will carry nine dismounts will be too damned big, weigh too much, and will not be able to be transported by air in any significant numbers. An IFV, as the name betrays is a fighting vehicle, and having IFV's in my less than humble opinion is just stupid. We would be much better off with a armored personnel carrier, then you could have your nine. The Stryker Dragoon is the only APC in the current inventory that can carry nine, and also have a first rate Infantry fire support weapon mounted. Do we need an Infantry Fighting Vehicle, or do we need something that does what the Stryker Dragoon can do, carry nine and have a mounted weapon that can support those dismounts in a fire support role? You have probably gathered by now that I do not like the concept of the IFV. There is too much temptation in my opinion to use it as a tank, when that is not what it was designed to do. Mechanized Infantry should have the operative word being Infantry. The Infantry needs a carrier, nothing more, and preferably a carrier than can support by fire without getting itself involved in a tank battle. Maybe we also need to rethink our mobile doctrine and not form combined arms company teams, but rather keep our companies pure. My personal opinion, and it is only that is that we developed the Bradley in the first place, because we saw the Russians with a BMP, and convinced ourselves we needed one too. The problem with the IFV is that it takes a crew of three and the weapons system takes up a lot of internal room thereby limiting the number of dismounts the vehicle can carry. So my advice the the United States Army is learn to live with six dismounts, add one vehicle to the mechanized platoon, and buy the goddamned Puma, and get rid of the less than satisfactory Bradley pronto. I concur. I really like the Puma, but the Lynx, which is entered in the Bradley replacement mix, is also suitable, so long as you want an IFV. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynx_(Rheinmetall_armoured_fighting_vehicle)Vehicle | Puma (top)_ | Lynx (Bottom) | Mass | 31.4-43t | 34 - 50t | Length | 7.6m | 7.22 - 7.73m | Width | 3.9m | 3.6m | Height | 3.6m | 3.3 | Crew/DM | 3/6 | 3/6-8 | Armor | Modular Composite | Steel armour with various appliques | Main Armament | 30mm Autocannon | 30-35mm autocannon | Secondary Armament | 5.56mm/7.62mm mg | 7.62mm g | Optional Armament | Spike ATGM | Spike ATGM | Engine | 800 kilowatts (1,100 hp) | 750hp (563kW)/1,140hp (850kW) | Fuel Capacity | Row 11 column 2 | >700l | Operational Range | 460km | 500km | Speed | 70kph | 65-70kph |
Apparently both can be stretched or lose a road wheel. The Puma had a prototypes constructed with a Leo1A4 or Leo2 Turret. View AttachmentView AttachmentWRT to APC vs Stryker: I lobbied and pestered my congressman and Senators and other contacts I had to discard the Stryker in favor of improving the M113 with new armor, improved engine and transmission, a single person turret with a 20-25mm cannon as per the YPR-765, and sloped armor with the crew facing outward instead of inward, and a remote 7.62mm in the rear. It is air transportable and droppable, can be carried by a CH-47 and could have been improved with modest cost over time. It would have been outstanding paired with the M-8 "Buford". I would advocate combined arms companies with either 2 mech platoons and 1 tank platoon or perhaps 2/2. With a combined arms platoon you don't need to hang ATGMs on the APC/IFV. Our current ABCTs in my view are too armor heavy. Two battalions are 1Mech/2Tank companies and the one is 2M/1T. The Cavalry Squadron has a tank company as well. The BCT should probably have 6M/4T (1 per bn and 1 in the cav squadron). I agree with all the points. The M113 was an excellent, durable vehicle, it didn't need to go 55 mph (that was idiotic). If you have tanks, the weapon on a tank is a far superior Tank Killer, the M113 should be mounting an Air Defense/Anti-Missile chain gun (think drones - because they are coming).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 6, 2021 18:49:04 GMT
Chuck: How about this as a rough concept. I think it needs an AT platoon since I deliberatley weight it with infantry, but we probably have the technology to have a combination platoon. Envision an M113 like vehicle with the back filled with vertical launch missile tubes and a 25 - 35mm cannon. It could carry AT, ATGM, Drones, and maybe some other crap. I see each vehicle having a captive drone or a telescoping mast with a sight and laser designator. I think you are right about APCs, but I think a YPR-765 type version of the M113 would be good. Vehicles should be airliftable and air droppable. Perhaps carried by a CH-47, V-22, or CH-53, or similar. Have to think about how many airframes it would take to transport. Should be able to fight without resupply for 5 - 7 days, but that can drive the size of the FSC up.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on May 6, 2021 19:12:50 GMT
Mark: Fitzhugh Lee. Wade Hampton, Thomas Rosser. The ANV cavalry was only division sized at the time Jackson was killed. Each of those I named could have filled Stuart's boots with ease.
Mike: Your notional battle group has too large a span of control in my opinion. I don't think a BG should be larger than a headquarters and six, the sixth being a combat support company, and all of the combat support requirements being filtered through that CS company commander. Rather than having that officer with essentially nothing to do other than run the BG alternate command post, after his platoons have been farmed out. Have the BG commander control those assets through the CS company commander. That is one of the reasons that I want majors as company commanders.
One big reason the Pentomic battle group failed was span of control. They already had seven companies, and it was typical to attach to the battle group a tank company and engineer company and an artillery battery (later a two battery battalion). That gave the BG commander ten entities to control, and the communications means we had then could not stand that number of nodes.
Both of you: Take an M113, put on one of those Dragoon unmanned turrets, name it the Robelhoytmobile, and we are off to the races. I really love the 113. We should have kept on building them still. The Bradley was a solution without a problem.
Last time I talked to MacGregor, he was convinced he had John McCain in his pocket with regard to the Puma. Then what does McCain do. Doug MacGregor's Combat Maneuver Group was nothing more than a National Guard model separate brigade, and don't let anyone tell you any differently. He tinkered with the internals, but he could have made the same bold statements he did in both of his books by just taking that brigade design off the shelf and using it. If neither of you are familiar with that design, say so, I will be glad to lay it out for you.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on May 6, 2021 19:55:37 GMT
Hey wait a minute, didn't the German army already have Puma and Lynx [Luchs] in WW2?
Both were going to be the basis of new recce battalion circa late 44 along with the rest of the Sd.Kfz 234 family. Trouble was they only made around a 100 of each.
The full total went like this;
Sd.Kfz 234/1 Total: 200 Sd.Kfz 234/2 Puma Total: 101 Sd.Kfz 234/3 Total: 88 Sd.Kfz 234/4 Total: 89 Panzer II Luchs [Lynx] Total: 100
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 6, 2021 19:56:18 GMT
Chuck: The Army had the 197th 194th Separate Armor Brigade, the 197th SIB, and three other SIBs as I recall in AK, IT, and the Canal Zone. But really the RSG is an ACR with an extra Squadron and a few other toys. But you are correct. McCain dying put paid to it, plus the Army really didn't like getting it shoved down his throat. And there was bad blood between Doug and past National Security Advisor who got promoted past his peter point. The Dragoon Turret. Ehhhhh. It makes the thing too high. But maybe it would work; perhaps if some sensors were stuck on it... I like the YPR-765 better. Below is a Pilipino version of the YPR. I like its turret better, not as boxy and lower. You like this layout better?
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on May 6, 2021 20:54:09 GMT
Do I like it better? Yes, as far as span of control goes, I do.
I would go with pure tank or mech companies, and I would refer you to Leo Barron's book "Patton at the Battle of the Bulge" to see how the 4th Armored Division operated with their tank and mech companies as the reason why. I won't go into detail, you just have to absorb the operational method in total, or I would have to write a book to explain it.
Scout's, no tanks, scouts, mounted on 12 scout vehicles, I want that scout platoon to be as large as a present scout troop in a heavy BCT, maybe larger. If they need tanks for a specific mission attach them. I envision one of these battle groups operating on its own in an expeditionary role, and they are going to need a robust scout element.
Get me a 120mm mortar with a range of 25-30 K and I would love that mortar platoon. I don't like artillery anyway. They treat any outsider like a whore at a debutante's ball. Believe me, I know. Two sections, four tubes each and that's a winner, each section having its own FDC.
We are making progress here Michael my boy. The future is only limited by our imagination..
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on May 6, 2021 21:17:39 GMT
Ian: The German Army recycles names. The had a Marder in WWII too,
|
|
|
Post by mhoyt on May 6, 2021 21:41:02 GMT
mhoyt Mark, I agree with all the stuff you added to my concept. I am (was?) close friends with Doug MacGregor. We were in the 1st ID together, I as the 2BDE S-4 and he commanded 1-4CAV. I wargamed his Reconnaissance Strike Group for him against various opponents during its development and as he pitched it to Congress, the Army, and anyone else who would listen. It is partly why I have a soft spot for the Puma. The first time I saw the Bradley, when the division was modernizing to the M-1, M2/M3 concept - I thought to myself, you just bought a noisy - 10 foot tall vehicle to be a scout vehicle..... no soft touch there The movie on the ass-clownery of the Bradley was spot on
|
|
|
Post by mhoyt on May 6, 2021 21:42:30 GMT
I just think armor needs to be tracked. The Eastern Front taught the Germans that. The first time they took the M1 Tanks off the tank pad, and replaced them with the LAV-25s at Fort Lewis, the LAV-25s crack the concrete pad.... true story. Ground pressure is vital
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on May 6, 2021 22:03:24 GMT
Mike the NG separate brigades were quite different from the RA separate brigades of that time period. Most of the RA brigades were theater defense brigades. The 194th Armored and 197th Infantry Brigades were basically school troops, and not standard at all.
The NG brigades were organized as follows
HHC, with an MP platoon and a six aircraft aviation section (4 OH6's and 2 UH1H's) plus a signal detachment (separate UIC) and an MI detachment (provided by the Army Reserve, as it was against the law for state organizations to have intelligence collection means). We used the aviation section as our own air cavalry troop for scouting, and occasionally the Huey's for airmobile insertion (but very limited).
Engineer Company - a very big company of about 250 personnel, that had a bridging section. It was commanded by a Major, and was very capable, probably more so than the brigade engineer battalions you find in today's BCT.
Cavalry Troop - One of the old fashioned kind with three platoons, each having eight scout vehicles, three tanks, a rifle squad with its own APC, and a 4.2 mortar with its own carrier.
Three maneuver battalions with three line companies and a combat support company. Depending upon what type of brigade it was it had two Tank, one mech, or two mech, one tank, or three Infantry. We even had one airborne brigade with three airborne Infantry battalions. The combat support company had scouts, 4.2 mortar, AD, and anti-armor platoons
Field Artillery - Three six gun batteries in the Infantry brigade or three eight gun batteries in the heavy brigade, along with a counter battery radar section, met section, and AD section in the headquarters battery and a Service battery.
Support Battalion had a headquarters detachment, with an admin company (A), a medical company (B), a Supply and transport company (C), and a maintenance company (D)
The staff at the brigade headquarters was much more robust than that found in a divisional brigade. The commander was a BG.
All in all it was a miniature division, and very powerful like an ACR. Each of the rifle companies in my brigade were just under 200 personnel in strength, and each of those companies had their own weapons platoons with both mortars and TOW's.
Great organization in my book. Best part about the Infantry version is that we could gather that brigade together from all parts of the state and move it one hundred fifty miles with our own organic transport on a Friday night, and be ready to train (or fight) early Saturday morning.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on May 6, 2021 22:07:57 GMT
Well Mark I agree with you all the heavies need to be tracked, but everything is not heavy nor should it be, so there is a place for a wheeled carrier, and associate vehicles.
The moral to you story is get the post engineer to reinforce the concrete pads. It's not the LAV's fault. It';s the fault of the ninny that designed the motor pool, for not anticipating future changes,
|
|