tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post3940034901756949783..comments2023-10-30T06:31:05.501-07:00Comments on MilPub: Radio Listening SilenceFDChiefhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10607785969510234092noreply@blogger.comBlogger57125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-41675207062097203392011-07-10T05:10:11.348-07:002011-07-10T05:10:11.348-07:00seyddlitz,
i agree.
jimseyddlitz,<br />i agree.<br />jimjim at rangerhttp://rangeragainstwar.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-31193310004631547762011-07-09T14:16:50.048-07:002011-07-09T14:16:50.048-07:00Just a thought . . . why not let mike come up with...Just a thought . . . why not let mike come up with his own thread should he think he has a nice topic . . . we did the same thing with bg (publius sponsored him I think) and it was a success, remember? <br /><br />No pressure. I for one would like to read whatever mike would like to post. <br /><br />Now back to the union fray . . .seydlitz89https://www.blogger.com/profile/15431952900333460640noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-43728328711676553022011-07-08T05:05:47.152-07:002011-07-08T05:05:47.152-07:00To all,
I withdraw my motion that mike be a bar ke...To all,<br />I withdraw my motion that mike be a bar keep.<br />sorry mike if i put you in line of fire.<br />jimjim at rangerhttp://rangeragainstwar.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-44950562768104852912011-07-08T04:02:34.025-07:002011-07-08T04:02:34.025-07:00bg-
One of my best Public Policy profs in grad sch...bg-<br />One of my best Public Policy profs in grad school hit the resource allocation dilema right on the head - no one likes to see any agency have what might appear to have more resources than is immediately necessary. He would describe the above as - Better each Bde has too little than the Division have what appears as too much, even if the net sum is the same. That's one reason why I tend toward letting the Div task organize subordinate units as best meets the individual unit mission that try to "pre-task organize" through hard wired MTOEs. Yes, if the Div has 4 organic Combat Arms brigades, and can only field three independently in sub-division opns, it leaves the fourth un-employed, but the three that are employed could have a better shot at mission accomplishment. When fighting as a Division, support can be doled out based on actual demand in each Bde's fighting sector, should all four Bdes be concurrently in the fight. Just my preference as a potential Div Cdr.Aviator47https://www.blogger.com/profile/05585964386930142907noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-38877585216343703662011-07-08T02:33:25.724-07:002011-07-08T02:33:25.724-07:00Al,
You are right, and I think that is why you di...Al,<br /><br />You are right, and I think that is why you didn't see aviation assets made organic to the new BCTs (I was in the 101st at the time it happened, I helped stand up the brand new 4th BCT). As you identify, a challenge of trying to create the "one size fits all" BCT is getting it right. with some low density skills (like MI or MP), everyone gets a little bit, but not enough. What can one platoon of MPs do in a BCT battlespace that can be as big as Eastern Baghdad or an Afghan province? <br /><br />As an intel guy, what I found really annoying about the structure was that since there was no Division level MI battalion, Division had zero collection capability (maybe a platoon of UAVs, maybe). So the Division Cdr, if he wanted his PIRs answered, he would task the BCTs because he had no assets of his own. And since there was no AORs not covered by a BCT (no forward screen beyond the FLOT or something like that), it really made the Division seem irrelevant and just a little meddling.bgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-29522915135573923212011-07-07T13:39:30.734-07:002011-07-07T13:39:30.734-07:00Aviator,
What we need is soccer mom's planning...Aviator,<br />What we need is soccer mom's planning the aviation assets. End of problem.<br />jimrangeragainstwarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02126542922536584950noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-6463019088935736942011-07-07T13:15:53.982-07:002011-07-07T13:15:53.982-07:00bg-
I remember discussing moving the DISCOM asset...bg-<br /><br />I remember discussing moving the DISCOM assets to the BCT's in 1990 at the annual AVN BDE Cdr's conference. It received a luke warm reception, as it was just another MTOE hard wiring, rather than adopting a "task organizing" approach using the division assets to tailor to the mission. The rationale back then was "flexibility increased warfighting ability at the BDE level". Many of us who had served in Viet Nam pointed out that organic support assets tended to see a greater level of mis-utilization than non-organic support assets. For example, Chinook availability in the Air Assault Divisions, with 48 organic Chinooks, tended to be generally lower than in three (16 per) non-organic Chinook companies supporting other divisions. The Cav, for example, launched everything they had at 7:00 AM for routine resupply, while other divisions had to spread their routine resupply throughout the morning. Putting the entire fleet in the air when not combat essential can cause havoc with maintenance scheduling. Two typical non-divisional Chinook companies carried as many tons per month as the 1st Cav's three. And so on.<br /><br />Thus, one would have to build a very strong case to me for creating three fixed, "One Size Fits All" BCTs in a division. One size doesn't fit all, and under utilized assets in 1st BCT are a loss to 2nd and 3rd BCTs. It may work in the current opns in Iraq and Afghanistan, but will it leave us, in the future, "Fight today's war using the last war's ideas"?Aviator47https://www.blogger.com/profile/05585964386930142907noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-72814640901099087932011-07-07T07:16:28.498-07:002011-07-07T07:16:28.498-07:00bg,
thnkz,
jimbg,<br />thnkz,<br />jimrangeragainstwarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02126542922536584950noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-19360600745853125982011-07-07T02:28:46.125-07:002011-07-07T02:28:46.125-07:00jim,
Currently, a light infantry BCT consists of ...jim,<br /><br />Currently, a light infantry BCT consists of 2 Inf Bns, one RSTA Sqdn (cav recon, survaill, targeting, acquisition), a Special Troops Bn (MI company, Coms, MPs, Medics, Company of ENG), Support Bn (Loggies, SPO, trucks, etc). Within each Inf/Cav Bn, there is a company of forward support which is the old support platoon on steroids. Tact UAVs is included in the BCT. If it is mech or stryker, add the vehicles. You have 2 x O6's and a robust Bde staff with all BOSS's included (although they aren't called BOSS's anymore, don't know the new term, been out of the real army for a while).<br /><br />What is different today, is that BCT's are task org'd as seen above on their TDA (or MTOE). They aren't sliced together before an Op to make a Task Force, they are already organized this way organically. There is no longer a DISCOM or any significant Division level assets, Divisions are mostly just HQ staff with no assets that they can use to way a main effort. In fact, Division HQ rarely deploy with their own organic BCTs, we deploy by BCTs.<br /><br />probably more than you were asking for.<br /><br />bbgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-24066844990105176762011-07-07T02:17:17.685-07:002011-07-07T02:17:17.685-07:00jim,
yes, there are still only 3 Rgr Bns (not inc...jim,<br /><br />yes, there are still only 3 Rgr Bns (not including RTB). But not sure if you knew, all Groups added a 4th Bn.<br /><br />bbgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-19375504369112097822011-07-06T08:48:10.427-07:002011-07-06T08:48:10.427-07:00mike,
Negative- i learned that technique from lis...mike, <br />Negative- i learned that technique from lisa.<br />My admiration is/was heart felt, and your knowledge and comments would serve to make this site better.<br />I would not ask if i didn't respect your abilities, but i do admit that i couldn't do this if i were a working man.<br />I will with draw the motion if you desire. No harm no fowl.<br />jim<br />jimrangeragainstwarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02126542922536584950noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-70292575370796162732011-07-05T21:16:24.185-07:002011-07-05T21:16:24.185-07:00jim - wtf are you getting me into. Is that how th...jim - wtf are you getting me into. Is that how the Rangers get recruits, by publicly offering to let them volunteer, and then capping it by shouting: <i>"If he's the man that i think he is then he'll shoulder the task."</i><br /><br />Chief - If you are interested in a part-timer, I wouldn't mind occasionally posting controversial subjects guaranteed to rankle your regulars. But with my bride's ill health, I probably would not be good for more than a post every two to three months or so.mikenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-13076536785036083532011-07-05T14:36:38.124-07:002011-07-05T14:36:38.124-07:00mike: Drop down to the company push - jlawes@comc...mike: Drop down to the company push - jlawes@comcast.net - and give me a shout. I want to discuss bringing you on here as a regular, if you're interested.FDChiefhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10607785969510234092noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-6527589005996788072011-07-05T14:19:45.469-07:002011-07-05T14:19:45.469-07:00Basil: Not a bad idea, the notion of a "corkb...Basil: Not a bad idea, the notion of a "corkboard" at the top of the page every month. But I'd like to see a wider range of views here, too, rather than jim, seydlitz and myself always being the ones to be jabbering. But if we had some way for commentors and posters who might want to discuss something but haven't the time or the energy or (as might be in your case, say, Andy) can't go public with opinions that might compromise the terms of their employment/service...that seems like a good idea.FDChiefhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10607785969510234092noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-68717454257305096132011-07-05T13:42:18.685-07:002011-07-05T13:42:18.685-07:00Al,
Yep.
thnx.
jimAl,<br />Yep.<br />thnx.<br />jimrangeragainstwarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02126542922536584950noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-13960135691076045932011-07-05T11:29:33.012-07:002011-07-05T11:29:33.012-07:00Jim-
Sorry, I didn't mean you were niggling, ...Jim-<br /><br />Sorry, I didn't mean you were niggling, what I meant was that rock solid TO&Es for task organized BN and Bde (REGT) formations don't necessarily exist. <br /><br />You have the basic core fighting unit, the Combat Arms BN/Bde (Regt), and add supporting elements from Div custom tailored for the mission and situation. Thus, while there might have been a "Type" organization for a BLT or RLT back in my days in the Corps, the actual composition was more typically different based upon the actual mission and situation. If, let's say, there are significant fuel facilities in the objective area, then initial fuel CS/CSS support may be light until it it certain whether or not indigenous fuel will suffice. Similarly, Combat Engineer support would be tailored based on METT, not a fixed TO&E. <br /><br />That kind of flexibility is lacking in the stereotypical Sep Bde. Thus, the Div becomes the task organizer not just a C&C or maneuver HQ, and expeditionary elements are fine tuned by Div for the actual task at hand. That includes not just CS/CSS task organizing, but combat arms organizing (+ or - a company/bn, etc).<br /><br />Just as a Corps or Theater Army has no fixed structure, a Div can field one or more separate sub-divisional fighting formations in an infinite variety of structures.<br /><br />Make sense?Aviator47https://www.blogger.com/profile/05585964386930142907noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-84291216865045887642011-07-05T10:09:06.391-07:002011-07-05T10:09:06.391-07:00Al: At the time the light divisions were proposed,...Al: At the time the light divisions were proposed, my understanding is that the idea was that one (10th) would be a specialized "rough terrain" (i.e. true mountain) division, while the other (9th) would be a high-speed motorized (i.e. "desert") outfit, so the Army would have had a total of 4, with the airborne and air-assault divisions. <br /><br />In practice it never worked out that way.<br /><br />But IMO there just isn't a real need for the CS/CSS elements in the airborne division to be jump-qualified and configured for airdrop. IF we're still in a position to have to heavy drop the Third Shop, the heavy signal, and the S&S battalions we're in a world of hurt, anyway. Same-same with the Corps and EAC elements.<br /><br />My personal take - and it's JUST my personal take - is that the real issue is that nobody wants to go back to being a leg. It's not really an operational or tactical decision, it's just an emotional one. And I wonder if the Army doesn't even want to discuss it because there's no real good military reason for keeping all those guys on jump status?<br /><br />It's kind of like the whole "how many carriers do we really need" question. I'm not sure the Navy really wants to have this one thrashed out, because I'll bet we don't need all those big expensive decks if we weren't bent on poking our bows into every hole-and-corner littoral all over the world...<br /><br />Sven made the point up-thread: <i>"Airfield grab is only for aggressors or for unexpected meddling in a foreign conflict"</i> If we were to take a hard look at our military/foreign policy we'd probably see all sorts of opportunities for revamping the force structure. But under the current Washington Rules...no.FDChiefhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10607785969510234092noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-16576696320827449702011-07-05T08:14:21.455-07:002011-07-05T08:14:21.455-07:00Al,
I'm not niggling and am searching .
I try ...Al,<br />I'm not niggling and am searching .<br />I try to look at to&es which we both can translate as to div slice etc.. etc.. but these are real hard to find. Also i find little on Corps and EAC assets in the pwot, which borders on OPSEC, i reckon. At least i haven't found any of use, and honestly i don't know what now constitutes a BRIGADE COMBAT TEAM.I'm firm in understanding a SIB.<br />Also to&es don't always indicate if the unit is deployed as sshown on paper.<br />Naval gunfire is a wunnerful asset, but so too are hospitals afloat and associated assets.<br />jimjim at rangerhttp://rangeragainstwar.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-52729294164737550182011-07-05T03:29:10.636-07:002011-07-05T03:29:10.636-07:00The next best news on Greece after Aviator! :D
h...The next best news on Greece after Aviator! :D<br /><br />http://www.thedailyshow.com/videos/tag/Greece<br /><br />Also, saw a bit on Google that reports The Daily Show has passed Jay Leno's Tonight Show in number of viewers.<br /><br />There is hope for America.<br /><br />bbAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-40487592209527688652011-07-05T02:13:55.327-07:002011-07-05T02:13:55.327-07:00jim-
I am willing to bet that basic force structu...jim-<br /><br />I am willing to bet that basic force structure principles have hardly changed since 1995, when I was last involved, as they did not really change during the 35 years I served. I'm talking about "principles", not niggling details. <br /><br />"Contractors" can fill some voids, but I would be hard pressed to consider them suitable for expeditionary operations. They are much more suitable for follow on sustainment operations. Would you want to jump in or make an amphib assault with the "low bidder" providing your immediate CS/CSS? "The Private Sector" is not the answer to all the world's problems.<br /><br />Back in the early 60's, we counted on Naval gunfire and Marine/Navy Air just as today. There is much more to sustainment than firepower.<br /><br />In the long run, an expeditionary division provides a hell of a lot more flexibility and capability than three separate brigades and uses significantly fewer people. Having only one or two expeditionary brigades is a true "all the eggs in one basket" risk. And, nothing precludes the brigades of the 82nd from "leg" operations, but the 10th Mountain cannot offer so much as one airborne platoon.<br /><br />There are, in a way, quantum units in force structure and planning. One of McNamara and Rummy's biggest blindnesses was thanking force structure solely in terms of "bodies". We don't just put 12,000 people ashore, we put a division, which just happens to require 12,000 people.<br /><br />As much as I hate to use the term, there is a "Big Picture" of sorts on force structure and force planning. Not saying we always get it right, but there are broad principles to follow to get it right.Aviator47https://www.blogger.com/profile/05585964386930142907noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-13024891457505765272011-07-05T01:06:06.547-07:002011-07-05T01:06:06.547-07:00Chief:
but there have got to be a couple of poten...Chief:<br /><br /><b>but there have got to be a couple of potential posts out there waiting to be written.<br />Odds and sods?</b><br /><br />I don't know if you can do it, but maybe having a monthly "sticky" post, one that will always be at the top of the page, for general ideas & comments, ad-libs, BS, "odds & sods" would help infuse some energy into our joint.<br /><br />bbAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-16012952465176834482011-07-04T23:48:43.143-07:002011-07-04T23:48:43.143-07:00RE: Crete, Sven, the fiasco wasn't in the oper...RE: Crete, Sven, the fiasco wasn't in the operational planning or the actual conduct of operations while on the ground, but in the Fallschirmjager TO&E. The notion of dropping troopers armed with nothing but a sidearm was not well thought out, and whilst the small operations in the Low Countries worked well enough Crete exposed the problem inherent in requiring your troops to recover their rifles and heavy weapons under fire. The center-of-the-back attachment point for the shroud lines didn't help, either, in preventing scattering on the DZ. Once on the ground the Brits managed to wrest defeat from the jaws of victory in their usual fashion. No knock on the airborne troops; they did better than they should have, given their technical issues.<br /><br />I think the subsequent panic on the part of OKW was due more to their failure to really analyze the cause of the losses and correct the equipment and delivery systems.<br /><br />As far as the entire tactical reason for airborne troops being airhead seizure, 1) yes, that was possibly the most common mission we trained on in my time in the 82nd, and 2) I tend to agree with Sven that against a peer foe a division wouldn't be enough while against the usual Third World congeries we have decided to spend our tax dollars chasing a division is WAY too much.<br /><br />The problem with an airborne division (at least a U.S. division) is that once on the ground it becomes a light division and not a very large or well-armed one, at that. I would make more sense to me to keep a brigade or so in a full airborne status and make the rest a light mech airlanding unit. That sort of unit could drop in and hold the airfield and immediate vicinity long enough to get the light armor on the ground to move out and secure the outlying areas and suppress any enemy FA or ADA.<br /><br />As it is, a lot of the XVIII Corps units tasked with supporting the 82nd have to maintain capacities they wouldn't need if they know they could walk down the ramp rather than jump. Same=same with 82nd DISCOM. Why do you need an entire jump-qualified medical battalion if you don't need a fill airborne-qualified division?<br /><br />Like I said - not going to happen. But it's just telling that no one has even thrown this out, or something like it, since the end of the Cold War. Unlike Sven, I get the feeling that few of our decision-makers are trying to think about the NEXT war, rather than fashion an army for fighting the current one or, worse, the LAST one...FDChiefhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10607785969510234092noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-88389549973348483092011-07-04T17:33:22.139-07:002011-07-04T17:33:22.139-07:00Jim, radio-based navigation aids had up to 100 yds...Jim, radio-based navigation aids had up to 100 yds accuracy in WW2 (Oboe, GEE-H, Egon; the early Knickebein wasn't much worse) even in total darkness. Judging by the state of the art, there was no justification for anyone being dropped more than half a mile away from his designated LZ during WW2.<br /><br />Clausewitzian friction and the enemy > technical specifications.S Ohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03359796414832859686noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-7315778402003037462011-07-04T16:30:39.153-07:002011-07-04T16:30:39.153-07:00Al,
What are the time frames of your observations?...Al,<br />What are the time frames of your observations?<br />Do you still think they are relevant, if they were a while ago?<br />How does contracting fit into your cmts?<br />If the Marines are used in their naval infy mode and have naval gunfire/support , do your cmts still apply?<br />Sven,<br />I'd like to believe that electronics/gps etc..would make assy on the DZ or on the objective a lot more sophisticated. Same cmt on pilots releasing the troops, since the pilot would be more accurate in hitting the release point.<br />With our suppressive firepower why not air asslt to an objective, isn't that what the helo is all about? Isn't this what air superiority is about?<br />Either AIRMOBILE OR AIRBORNE would be equally risky with a frisky enemy.<br />Also, i'm just a little confused- don't we have 3 Ranger Bn's?<br />jimjim at rangerhttp://rangeragainstwar.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-55019839528475141692011-07-04T16:15:21.519-07:002011-07-04T16:15:21.519-07:00Airborne units can expect near-chaos, being totall...Airborne units can expect near-chaos, being totally split up if not scattered upon landing. You know, planes turn around or get in trouble, for example. Friction everywhere.<br /><br />"Airborne" should therefore be synonymous for "masters of lightning-quick improvisation and reorganisation".<br /><br />This could actually be more useful than the jump qualification itself.<br /><br />Thinking in "how much CS and CSS do we need to attach?" categories are imo totally misleading.<br /><br /><br />My take on the issue from a continental European position is that medium and large armies should have three kinds of infantry:<br /><br />* reserve infantry (for quantity, but not as cannon fodder)<br />* armoured infantry (infantry component in heavy brigades; many of them in cheap APCs)<br />* expert infantry<br /><br />The 'expert infantry' would be meant for the jobs that require training of rather narrow applicability, such as jump training or high mountain combat or amphibious ops (including deliberate river crossings).<br /><br />Germany has mountain infantry, airborne infantry, Panzergrenadiere (mech inf) and a single regiment of light infantry (in the Franco-German brigade). We had many brigades of infantry in the 80's, but the post-Cold War budget crunch didn't favour manpower-intensive formations.<br />We found the infantry numbers to be lacking, and there were calls and plans for additional light infantry battalions, but I doubt that these battalions will be set up.S Ohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03359796414832859686noreply@blogger.com