Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 6, 2021 22:33:13 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.. Mortar technology is reaching out. I really like the dual mortar AMOS. Two tubes, semi-automatic. What's not to like? I have read the book and undesrtand how the 4th AD founght in WWII and I understand how battalions continually standardize their exchange of companies and even the exchange of platoons with their mechanized counterpart. I think combined arms is the way to go. But what we want is the equivalent of three companies of infantry (3 or 4 platoons each) and two companies of tanks of two platoons each. I am a go for an 18 vehicle scout platoon/troop; however, not it needs to be a troop commanded by a Major. I think they need their own tank platoon (4 or 6, so two tanks can support a cav platoon). If 3 x 6 is two big, 3 x 4 is barely acceptable. 2 or 3 Mortars of their own. The operate way out front probably beyond mortar range supporting the rest of the BattleGroup. I was the division armor training officer in 1982-83, when the Armor school wanted to delete the tanks, If I remember correctly, I championed keeping tanks in the troop to the CG and we non-concurred, but no one paid any attention to us. It was a bill payer after all. Cav troops were 2 in the HQ and 3 x 6 BFC with 2 mortars. When we went to Desert Storm and quickly added a 3 or 4 tank platoon to each and they turned out to be critical in cutting the road to Safwan. Attachments:
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 6, 2021 22:40:39 GMT
The 1st ID (F) and 2 AD (F) were essentially separate brigades. At first 2 AD was 2M1T, but by Desert Storm it was 1M2T and the division was 3M6T. All the majors on the staff thought we needed another infantry battalion and we wanted to swipe it from the 1 ID (F) which was doing stevedore duty.
HHC w/AVN SEC 1 TK 4 TK CO, MRT PLT, SCT PLT 2 MECH 4 Rifle CO, 1 AT CO, MRT and SCT PLT 1 FA BN 3 x 8 1 SPT BN 1 CAV TRP 1 ADA BAT 1 ENG CO
So, not a lot different. But I think some separates had 4 or 5 battalions!?
197th deployed to Desert storm as 3/24 MECH and it was the weak sister in the task org being organized with M113 and I think M60A3, but they could have had M1s.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on May 6, 2021 23:22:33 GMT
I like that Reconnaissance Company in the latest iteration Mike. Might even be willing to drop a CA company in favor of it, but there is another alternative.
Back in the days we most discuss on this forum there were no cavalry companies for reconnaissance, and others organized differently for the main battle. They were just all the same, so maybe we ought to concentrate our thought process, and decide on what a combined arms company would look like if it could take on both the maneuver company, and reconnaissance company role. After all a mission is a mission and we ought to be able to fight a chew gum too. As far as I can see it is just a matter of a few equipment upgrades and training. The vehicles for both should be the same if they are the right vehicles.
I think realistically though that the vehicles in the inventory now are the ones we ought to center our planing around, and not any wish we had's.
Maybe we ought to consider a weapons platoon at the maneuver company level too. That way you could have a full up Engineer company in the battle group and stash the air defenders in the headquarters company.
I like Majors as company commanders because I think we also need an experienced captain at company level to act as battle captains. Company command is getting all too complicated for just one guy.
How about two mech (six Brads each) and two tank (5 M-1's) platoons, a weapons platoon with four 120mm's with two tanks and two Brads in the company headquarters. That organization could be scrambled easily, or left as is for any recon mission, and would be one tough son of a bitch in a stad up fight.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 7, 2021 1:49:15 GMT
I think your proposal would have had merit as we formed the ABCT, but I thought here we were trying for an agile, transportable, lethal unit in 2, maybe 3 flavors, of battle groups that are pushing some technology out. A Heavy Battle Group, a Light Battle Group, and maybe a reconnaissance Battlegroup, if we think these things are going to fight as part of a larger unit at some level perhaps above brigade but maybe below division. What you propose seems like a heavied up Regimental Cavalry Squadron. And you wanted to get away from IFVs, which is why I want combined arms companies with a 2:1 or 3:1 ratio of infantry platoons to tanks. But perhaps you are right and we should be smart enough now so that we don't need a specialist reconnaissance troop and all units should be able to conduct a reconnaissance or security mission. And, if you need a company size reconnaissance unit, you just put it together, because nothing says you can't task organize a combined arms organization to support different missions. I think we can count on an M8 or similar light tank to be available and a Lynx or Ajax like vehicle. What we don't have is an ARSV. (I don't know if we need one. The question is do you want to fight or scout or fight for information). So, first picture is the 2008 Regimental Cavalry Troop. Second Picture is our BattleGroup Combined Arms Company. Changes: Tank and two BFVs in the HQ. CO in the Tank. CPT in one BFV. 1LT or 1SG in the 2nd BFV. (Maybe a BFIST too.) A 5 Vehicle Scout Platoon represented by the M1117, but it would be some sort of tracked vehicle. 30mm cannon, two external ATGMs on the turrets. You have to go into defilade to reload cause you have to get out. Only 2 other missiles. Two six BFV Platoons with 5 or 6 dismounts in the #2,3,5, and 6 vehicles. In the #1/4 vehicles the PL/PSG, RTO, 1ATGM Gunner, 1 Sniper, FO, and Medic/MMG or some fancy new infantry thing. Two five- Tank Tank Platoons. Third Picture. Let's get a little crazy. 4-5 BFV and two tanks in the Heavy Mech Platoon. We have four of these in the company. SO three questions: Fight or Scout? Do we: (1) Find the enemy then call for fire, or, (2) First punch a hole with the tanks, then see what develops. For the Infantry BattleGroup, I don't see it being 'Light'. But maybe we use that militerized pick up truck holding 10 guys: 1 drive and a nine man squad? I have to think about this more.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 7, 2021 1:50:58 GMT
Combined Arms Platoon. 4 Platoons replace the 2 tank and 2 mech platoons in the Enhanced Company above. Who knows, maybe it gets the mortar too? I want to emphasize, we need to replace the vehicles we have. These would work to begin the concept, but I think we have to go lighter so with a YPR-765 type APC, an M8 and accept increased vulnerability in favor of agility, transportability, sustainability, but make it lethal - hence more vehicles than we would use in our standard companies. I am not sure about a recce platoon at this level. It seems to violate your suggestion of one company combining the best of cavlary, infantry, and armor. Perhaps we junk the BFV turret, add a position behind the driver, and put the Dragoon Turret on a BFV to get more space? Maybe we take an M88 Hull and do something with it? New engine. Make it lower. Maybe it is the AD/AT Vehicle?
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on May 7, 2021 4:52:38 GMT
Mike: Were I told, as an Infantry guy, to organize a battle group today, what I would do is take the ROCID (Pentomic) battle group TO&E and activate that organization based upon the 1960 TO&E. I would then do my research on what people of that day liked and did not like about the structure, and make modifications accordingly. I would then put it in the field for a year and test it to its limits. Then I would make the changes that were identified in testing.
As far as a heavy battle group goes, there are so many combinations, that I do not think it wise to organize one, until testing with the Infantry battle group is complete. That testing will provide a road map for what needs to be done with the heavy brother.
Who knows, testing like that described may reveal that the organization is just plain no good, and we should continue to look at the brigade as the basic short term self sustaining combat organization.
What I do know from my own research the airborne guys of the 11th, 82nd, and 101st ABD's loved the battle group for expeditionary purposes, and that is why I brought it up back when we first met.
If it turns out that the brigade is the answer we should get rid of divisions and corps, and organize completely around the brigade. There will still be need for a command and control node above the brigade, but it should be of universal design, with a new name, devoted to tactical command and coordination of attached brigades. I know that sounds like the division headquarters battalions of today, but I just want to get away from that home town division association. If we want to keep division lineages alive do what the Guard has done and down echelon the lineage to where the 45th Infantry Division is the 45th Infantry Brigade, same patch, same everything but size.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on May 7, 2021 5:32:06 GMT
How are the engineers formed these days, are they grouped in different units for different roles?
Do you still have armoured engineers and combat engineers?
Do the engineer battalions have a bridging section, a building section and combat sections?
Ours got changed about a bit after the last war it is now a corps and now come under the title "REME" royal electrical and mechanical engineers, but I don't think that they have a combat section.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on May 7, 2021 5:42:52 GMT
It depends Ian. We dropped the descriptive title, Combat, Construction, Armored, and so forth after Korea.
The largest number of engineer units we have now are those battalions found in the various types of brigade combat teams. They are called Brigade Engineer Battalions, but in reality they have a headquarters company, two rather small engineer companies, along with a signal company, and a military intelligence company. They are in my opinion a lousy organization. The initial BCT design had an engineer company with each maneuver battalion, and no engineer battalion at all. That did not work out so well in that the brigade commander was always tasking the maneuver battalion's engineer companies for something he wanted done, and it did not matter to him a whole lot that the maneuver battalion commander might need them for his own mission. "No man can serve two masters". Learn all kinds of lessons fro m the Good Book don't you
Most of the rest of our engineers are organized on the flexible battalion basis, meaning you might find several different types of engineer companies assigned to the one battalion. In that instance all the companies are numbered, not lettered.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 7, 2021 11:56:52 GMT
Chuck, I see a lot of merit to the revised approach. First, lets look at where we have been and where we are. I know you know this stuff, but maybe the others don't so bear with me. Here is a 1952 Divisional Infantry Regiment compared with a 1962 Pentomic Battle Group. It is obvious the Battle Group lacks the combat power of the Infantry Regiment but it appears to be a more streamlined organization. The thing here is we want to structure the battlegroup so it has nearly the combat power of a Regimental Combat Team with fewer people and units. Here is the organization of a 'separate" Infantry BN TF as compared to an Infantry Brigade Combat Team. As expected, it has only about 1/3 of the IBCTS combat power. As of 2016 there was no tank company in the IBCT, but that should change relatively 'soon'. Note there is no Anti-tank company either, but it does have a weapons company with a TOW PLT and a Grenade Launcher Platoon.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 7, 2021 12:00:51 GMT
And, a Notional Infantry Battle Group, perhaps a little larger than Chuck would like, but I think needed to provide firepower equal to 1.5 - 2 standard 3 CO BNs. (Note: Used to be 4, but cost savings mandates reduction to 3.) To increase mobility, everyone gets the GM INF SQD VEH (which I don't like, but it is not intended to be a combat vehicle). I show some past, existing, & near future combat vehicles which could be added as well as a civilian 8 wheel amphibious ATV that comes with a removable track option and roll cage. (I want one. base cost is a mere 20000 or so.)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 9, 2021 13:54:29 GMT
Mike: Were I told, as an Infantry guy, to organize a battle group today, what I would do is take the ROCID (Pentomic) battle group TO&E and activate that organization based upon the 1960 TO&E. I would then do my research on what people of that day liked and did not like about the structure, and make modifications accordingly. I would then put it in the field for a year and test it to its limits. Then I would make the changes that were identified in testing. As far as a heavy battle group goes, there are so many combinations, that I do not think it wise to organize one, until testing with the Infantry battle group is complete. That testing will provide a road map for what needs to be done with the heavy brother. Who knows, testing like that described may reveal that the organization is just plain no good, and we should continue to look at the brigade as the basic short term self sustaining combat organization. What I do know from my own research the airborne guys of the 11th, 82nd, and 101st ABD's loved the battle group for expeditionary purposes, and that is why I brought it up back when we first met. If it turns out that the brigade is the answer we should get rid of divisions and corps, and organize completely around the brigade. There will still be need for a command and control node above the brigade, but it should be of universal design, with a new name, devoted to tactical command and coordination of attached brigades. I know that sounds like the division headquarters battalions of today, but I just want to get away from that home town division association. If we want to keep division lineages alive do what the Guard has done and down echelon the lineage to where the 45th Infantry Division is the 45th Infantry Brigade, same patch, same everything but size. Chuck, Because I constantly go off on excursions like this, I would be interested in your evaluation of the strengths and weaknesses of a Pentomic Battle Group as compared to a Infantry Regiment in a division parent. While it has more combat power than an Infantry Battalion. It's big weakness to me remains lack of overall mobility, if it has a scout platoon it should be more mobile and (perhaps) have combat power = platoon > scouts < company, lack of anti-tank weapons (an AT Company or light tank company (an M24 or M41 at the time). I think the mortar battery is fine as 120mm mortar >= 155mm howitzer and today we can get more range. The mortar platoon/battery should be able to range the battle groups AO. Today with Javelin perhaps we could do without a tank company and maybe pair it with the 106mm RR as for bunker busting and anything but main battle tanks, it could probably handle everything fine. (sort of like that German Weisal.) Give it that glorified pick up truck for the infantry company to be self mobile. I'm very interested in your thoughts. Doug made a BG designed for Europe and slugging it out with the Russians or Germans. I still think we need something with combat power approaching an ACR, but as small as we can make it so we better operate on external lines. I don't think this does away with the need for heavy units like an ACR or BCT. I think the current IBCT, even in its airborne configuration, is too cumbersome. We went overboard on modularity. If helicopters are survivable on the modern battlefield (I don't really know that they are), perhaps the battle group also needs its only General Purpose Aviation Company and a couple gunships for escorts? Mike
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on May 9, 2021 17:15:00 GMT
Mike: The biggest problem with the battle group in the era 1956 to 1963 was that no one liked it except Ridgeway, Taylor (especially Taylor) and Gavin, the Airborne Mafia.
Span of control. With all of the attachments envisioned, an artillery battery (later a battalion after 1960), a tank company, and an engineer company, the span of control was too great for the communications means of that time. It would be a strain even today.
Company commander's were Captains, and that restricted the pathway of promotion to Major and beyond.
The equipment that was to be fielded with the battle group to enhance the combat power of the smaller organization was either not available yet, or not available in the numbers required.
There was only provision for one brigade headquarters in the ROCID (Pentomic) division, and that brigade headquarters was carved out of the division HHC, using the assistant division commander, with a rump staff drawn out of hide, for a brigade headquarters.
Mobility was not really an issue. The division Transportation battalion had two companies of personnel carriers, and each of those companies was able to lift the five rifle companies of the battle group, so with those two battle groups made mobile, along with the five company tank battalion, nearly ninety tanks, you had a pretty fair sized mobile force, about the same size and combat power as two WWII armored division combat commands. The 3rd Infantry Division, then in Europe was fully mechanized still under the battle group configuration in about 1961 or 62. In that division all five battle groups were mechanized, and the transportation battalion inactivated. They may have had an addition tank battalion attached then too, but I am not sure. Ironically the iconic M113 was developed for use in the Pentomic transportation battalion. I remember as a kid building an M113 with transportation battalion bumper markings. How's that for memory?
If you want something to slug it out with the Ruskies in the Fulda Gap, the battle group of 1956-63 as designed is not the best choice of type unit. We are not going to fight in the Fulda and Hof Gaps anymore Mike. Everyone knows that except our generals.
If you want something that can get to where you need them quick, then look to the battle group. If you want a unit for forward presence, such as in Italy (173rd Abn Bde) the the battle group is an excellent choice. If you want something to defend Alaska, then the battle group should be your first choice. If you want to defend against an incursion by Chubby Cheeks in Korea, then the battle group was expressly designed , no kidding, for such a mission. If you want something to punish a bad actor and then get the hell out, then the battle group is what you are looking for. So the choice between battle. group and brigade comes down to a clear lay down of what your national strategy going forward is.
There is nothing that an old fashioned (pre 1990) armored cavalry regiment can do, that a specially designed, but much smaller, battle group cannot do better, and faster, We do not need to guard the inter-German border any more, and you can argue the features and benefits of the ACR all you want but it does not change the fact that the five ACR's we had back in the day were expressly designed for that purpose, and a direct outgrowth of the United States Constabulary.
By the way the recon platoon in the battle group was identical to that found in an armored cavalry regiment of the time.
Disabuse yourself of this notion that Infantry is not mobile. It can make three miles an hour, every day and twice on Sunday. Put Infantry on a truck and they can go anywhere a truck can go. Put them in a helicopter and they can go anywhere a helicopter can fly. Not every unit needs to have motorized transportation all the time. Study the operations of the 10th Mountain Division in the Po Valley, then compare their rates of advance with the 1st Armored Division in the same campaign. You will be surprised I think. This old notion promulgated by MacGregor and his fellow travelers that straight leg Infantry is not survivable on the modern battlefield is just bunk. They were saying the same thing, back when the machine gun first came on the scene.
Like you, I am sure, when I first read Phalanx I was impressed, thinking what MacGregor was saying was revolutionary, After reading it about the third time I realized that all he did was change the names, and little else. Even the 2 X 2 combined arms battalion was stolen property from a Marine named Mace who published an article in Armor in the mid-1970's proposing the same thing, the exact same thing. I still have the article in my files. Armies are never revolutionary, they are always evolutionary.
The thing is that with the battle group you can have it be anything you want or need it to be. As long as the headquarters, field artillery, and engineers are present in the structure, you can have the five companies in the middle be anything you want. You could have a 5 and 0, a 3 and 2, a 2 and 3, a 4 and 1, or if you need it to be an Inter-German border guard it could be a 3, 1 and 1, or a 4 and 1. The internal configuration is left only to imagination and need. There is a unit at Fort Benning right now that is pretty near what I think one of those iterations of a battle group should be 1-28 Infantry, Infantry, recon, engineers and artillery. The key ingredient, I think, is to have each of those five companies in the middle be as strong as a baby Ox, and not those pitiful 115 man companies we see today.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on May 9, 2021 19:50:47 GMT
I can't see large bodies of Infantry walking over long distances, not in todays military. I know the Marines and Para's walked [yomp] during the Falklands war, but I can't see an Infantry battalion walking ten miles through Iraq or Afghanistan, carrying all their gear. The Taliban would have a field day with IEDs and snipers. Remember the start of the movie "pork chop hill", what did Lt. Clemons do once he had recieved his orders, he mounted his company into trucks, if my memory serves me right, Clemons company was a Infantry unit.
I bet if Clemons was ordered to do the same today, a couple of Chinooks would be waiting, or at least a line of trucks.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 9, 2021 20:09:00 GMT
Regarding 1-28, I think that is the BN TF I put earlier in the thread. I'm gonna skip the INF vs AR vs CAV for the moment. Here is a more fleshed out INF Battle Group. 6 INF Companies 1 WPN CO 1 ENG CO 1 MORT BAT As you can see, 4 INF PLTS, each with HQ, 3 SQDS, and 1 WPN SQUAD WPN PLT would be a smaller version of the WPN CO with 3 CV-90, 3 CV-AT, and 2 CV MORT I think it fits your span of control thoughts, pluses up the infantry strength, plus gives it some good supporting fires.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on May 9, 2021 21:52:00 GMT
Reduce the number of Maneuver companies to five, put the mortars (120mm) in the companies, drop the weapons company, add an artillery battery, and keep the engineer company.
Make the rifle platoons larger, but only three per company (they tried four in the original BG design and it did not work) and make the weapons platoon of some kind of universal design, (mortars and AT weapons but different according to what type BG it is).
The original BG design had four rifle companies of four rifle platoons each, along with a weapons platoon. There was no combat support company, rather it was an eight tube mortar battery. They dropped that design in 59, reduced the number of rifle platoons per company to three, added a fifth rifle company, and took all of the supporting weapons and platoons out of the HH&S company, added them to the mortar battery (tubes reduced to six) and called it a CS company.
Ian: If Infantry had been concerned about the things you mentioned Hannibal would have never crossed the Alps, Caesar would have never conquered Gaul, Spain would be a French colony, and Dave would be spending Confederate money. Nothing changes Ian, only the weapons are different. If Infantry cannot walk, it is not Infantry. No matter, the only thing that can take and hold ground is men on foot rooting out the other fellows. If you remember what Clemon's XO said to him in the movie, mentioning push button warfare and continuing by saying "we are the push buttons". There are ways to do it Ian, and you can't EVER let the other guy call the tune. The trick is to have them dance to the tune you call, then add insult to injury by making them pay the fiddler.
|
|