Sardaukar Posted July 21, 2007 Posted July 21, 2007 (edited) The Russian problem is airlift. Having what amounts to Airborne Mechanized Divisions isn't going to be really valuable without the airlift to get them there. They certainly felt it was worth having such units, airlift available or not...and if I was POTUS, I'd feel same too. Option One: You drop with Airborne Light Infantry force now.Option Two: You drop Mechanized Airborne unit now. And difference with Western approach is that vehicles really were air-droppable. So, Not Invented Here aside, I'd think organization like that would be extremely valuable. Which one of the Humvees etc. in 82nd and 101st are air-droppable..and how "air-mobile" are even the sub-units of those units ? Edited July 21, 2007 by Sardaukar
KingSargent Posted July 21, 2007 Posted July 21, 2007 They certainly felt it was worth having such units, airlift available or not...and if I was POTUS, I'd feel same too. Option One: You drop with Airborne Light Infantry force now.Option Two: You drop Mechanized Airborne unit now. And difference with Western approach is that vehicles really were air-droppable. So, Not Invented Here aside, I'd think organization like that would be extremely valuable. Which one of the Humvees etc. in 82nd and 101st are air-droppable..and how "air-mobile" are even the sub-units of those units ?They're not. But the US can lift the AILF and fly in heavy forces. Can the Russians lift MAUs? Can the Russians lift MAUs without being slaughtered by USAF? Can the Russians logistically support MAUs? I'm not arguing Not Invented Here. I wish we had MAUs. I think they would do us more good than the Russian units are doing them. The US has (could have) the capability to support such a force. Aside from the Russians having equipment built (and who knows how much is operational) does ANYBODY have the capability to do more than insert a company of MAUs or so into an undefended target?
CavScout2 Posted July 21, 2007 Posted July 21, 2007 Do you mean the combat arms or the folks that support the combat arms by working on vehicles, driving supply trucks and otherwise maintaining everything that the teeth use to fight? Why not ditch the armor and just go with all infantry if you want no pogues...?DISCOM, DIVARTY and the ENG Bde's in a Div are useless today.Signal and Personnel Service Bn's eat up space. Each Bn or sqdrn in today's BCTs have all there CS CSS organic. Bde ownership is much better and more useful. The Div level HQ is needed-the useless bulk of large organizations at the 15-20K make no tactical sense today. FSCs work at BN/SQDRN level. ENG SIG MI and MPs work at BSTB org. We trained with and were successful with our THT in an IBCT for OEFVII as opposed to a Div assest THT psuedo assigned/attached during OIF I. The fight today and the future is Bde and below. Div does paperwork, PR and Dog & Pony shows. Seriously all the do is the higher headquaters staff functions. DTAC useless DIVARTY useless(FOBs have Sections, PLT or Batteries for fire support and a shoting war the Bde fire piece is more effective with todays technologies that fires past) ENG Bde sooooo old school. Engineer CO in the Bde for the Bde do better seen it first hand. I would rather have the 173rd ABCT and say 17th ABCT (17th Airborne Div patch and lieniage) instead of a hodge podge like what got crammed together for Panama. Everything need for a full spectrum fight from tw Bde as opposed to a piece meal this mission only set that we did in years past.Div were good for the cold war. Today just as useful as a battleship. No 1st rate sea power has BB's. Killing flies with sledgehammers. Div need to go too.
A2Keltainen Posted July 21, 2007 Posted July 21, 2007 The Russian problem is airlift. Having what amounts to Airborne Mechanized Divisions isn't going to be really valuable without the airlift to get them there. The Russian air force has about 200 Il-76 and over a dozen An-124. That's not so bad. If they have the necessary aerial refueling assets to support them depends on the staging and drop areas. And let's not forget that even if you have airborne divisions, you can drop smaller units than full divisions. For example, I can see many scenarios where a single reinforced VDV regiment would be a useful force.
KingSargent Posted July 21, 2007 Posted July 21, 2007 The Russian air force has about 200 Il-76 and over a dozen An-124. That's not so bad. If they have the necessary aerial refueling assets to support them depends on the staging and drop areas. And let's not forget that even if you have airborne divisions, you can drop smaller units than full divisions. For example, I can see many scenarios where a single reinforced VDV regiment would be a useful force.Yeah, and the last time I was in St. Petersburg there were rows and rows of transport/airliner type aircraft sitting on the apron missing at least engines. From the looks, most of them were pretty gutted as well as missing engines - ALL of the engines. So my question is not how many transports Jane's/Brassey's/whoever says they have, my question is how many of them can fly?
Guest bojan Posted July 21, 2007 Posted July 21, 2007 ...The fact that the Jugo. partisans had enemies within ther own lines (Chetniks) just underline what they eventually acoplished... Well for a 1941. and early 1942. (even later in some parts of countryy) they cooperated. Reluctantly but they did. My grandfather when he run away from Ustase initialy wanted to join chetniks, but he run on the partisans first... I read somewhere Jugoslav partisans even participated in the storming of Wienna and Berlin. Is that true, or just gossip? Well, there was a case of the captured partisan who escaped C-camp and joined Soviets, only to be killed in Berlin battle... Other then that - no.
BillB Posted July 21, 2007 Posted July 21, 2007 Kolwezi, 1978, was a textbook example of how useful paratroopers still are. I beleive about half parachutred in. A modern example would have been a divisional size drop on Rwanda when the crisis there was getting beyond tolerable. I understand Soviet paratroopers spearheaded the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan dropping on or near Kabul. Paratroopers at Brigade and Divisional level, even if there is not enough lift for a single drop is an existential worry for many a capital. I am sure there have been days when Georgian leaders have really worried about a Russian parachute drop on their capital. The big problem is of course that paras are virtually static when they arrive, are lightly armed with microscopic amounts of ammunition and so need reinforcement very quickly (rescued?); if this does not happen for whatever reason you have a disaster (Arnhem!). Yes, I think Paras are still very useful, just forget about D Day. It was a bit of a one-off anyway.Can't really argue with most of that, apartf from two points: - Ref the first bolded bit, a bit of an oversimplification I think, that misses the specific factors and success of the medium elsewhere at the same tine. - Ref the second bolded bit, yes, let's forget the arguably sole instance of Western airborne forces being deployed highly successfully in precisely the manner and purpose for which they were formed. And I'd also say that the Rhine Crossing the following year suggests it was not a "one off" either. BillB
Archie Pellagio Posted July 22, 2007 Posted July 22, 2007 The ruski's didn't parachute into afghanistan. Spetznaz captured the airport then moved on the presidential palace and other govt. buildings, then paras were flown in and walked off of their planes (or drove in BTR's from Tajikistan)
Guest aevans Posted July 22, 2007 Posted July 22, 2007 DISCOM, DIVARTY and the ENG Bde's in a Div are useless today.Signal and Personnel Service Bn's eat up space. Each Bn or sqdrn in today's BCTs have all there CS CSS organic. Bde ownership is much better and more useful. The Div level HQ is needed-the useless bulk of large organizations at the 15-20K make no tactical sense today. FSCs work at BN/SQDRN level. ENG SIG MI and MPs work at BSTB org. We trained with and were successful with our THT in an IBCT for OEFVII as opposed to a Div assest THT psuedo assigned/attached during OIF I. The fight today and the future is Bde and below. Div does paperwork, PR and Dog & Pony shows. Seriously all the do is the higher headquaters staff functions. DTAC useless DIVARTY useless(FOBs have Sections, PLT or Batteries for fire support and a shoting war the Bde fire piece is more effective with todays technologies that fires past) ENG Bde sooooo old school. Engineer CO in the Bde for the Bde do better seen it first hand. I would rather have the 173rd ABCT and say 17th ABCT (17th Airborne Div patch and lieniage) instead of a hodge podge like what got crammed together for Panama. Everything need for a full spectrum fight from tw Bde as opposed to a piece meal this mission only set that we did in years past. I just love the way some people think jargon density equates to credibility. Div were good for the cold war. Today just as useful as a battleship. No 1st rate sea power has BB's. Killing flies with sledgehammers. Div need to go too. Tell us, what do you actually know about span of command, the historical development of division and corps structure, the operational responsibilities of the division and corps, and the decision-response cycle in corps operations (and it's history)?
Tinopener Posted July 22, 2007 Author Posted July 22, 2007 I'm not arguing Not Invented Here. I wish we had MAUs. I think they would do us more good than the Russian units are doing them. Somewhere in a dark and lonely room, lit only by the glow of a computor monitor, Sparky is getting a hard on.
Sardaukar Posted July 22, 2007 Posted July 22, 2007 Somewhere in a dark and lonely room, lit only by the glow of a computor monitor, Sparky is getting a hard on. :lol: I hope he'd be testing how to air-drop his "Gavin"..preferably sitting in it....
CV9030FIN Posted July 22, 2007 Posted July 22, 2007 Everything need for a full spectrum fight from tw Bde as opposed to a piece meal this mission only set that we did in years past.Div were good for the cold war. Today just as useful as a battleship. No 1st rate sea power has BB's. Killing flies with sledgehammers. Div need to go too. +1 Many of the smaller coutries have already ditched Div's and Corps are commanding and supporting straigthly Bde's that are constructed from the beginning to be multi-branch units being able to perform independent missions with out needing Div level support any more. In old Div's AO you will still need 3 to 4 Bde's but you don't need anymore Div level command and suport elements.
Rubberneck Posted July 22, 2007 Posted July 22, 2007 I don't understand where you are coming from. You said it yourself - "many of the smaller countries have ditched Divs and Corps." There simply isn't a need for these levels because the countries are smaller. Well, the US Army has 500,000 people in its active component alone, tack on 350,000 for the Guard and another 220,000 for the Army Reserve. Then add the 180,000 from the Marines on top of that. And there are 150-160,000 US troops in Iraq alone. That span of control requires all of a single Corps HQ. One. Afghanistan is much smaller - only around 20K, and they have a DIV HQ running the show there. The AO's there are huge, especially if you are an infantry or cavalry company/troop commander. AO's are much larger now than they were in the past, and even with improved command and control systems (the wise guys would say command OR control) there is still a need for these HQ's. Cavscout seems to have fallen into the old saw that I've seen in every military organization I've been since I was a brand new butter bar. It's always easier to complain about higher command levels because it does not seem like they are doing anything. In a few cases, that's true. But there is a reason why the Army is organized like it is. Each level does have its merits. The Army level was effectively eliminated from battlefield organization because the Army had become too small for it to be of any use. Now the Armies are either parts of Combatant Command Staffs (ARCENT/3rd Army, ARSOUTH/6th Army, etc...) or they are now seperate commands such as 1st Army (Training Support to the RC for the most part). +1 Many of the smaller coutries have already ditched Div's and Corps are commanding and supporting straigthly Bde's that are constructed from the beginning to be multi-branch units being able to perform independent missions with out needing Div level support any more. In old Div's AO you will still need 3 to 4 Bde's but you don't need anymore Div level command and suport elements.
Hans Engstrom Posted July 22, 2007 Posted July 22, 2007 IIRC the Finnish Army has ca 350 000 men (on mobilization). It doesn't utilize any structure above Brigade level except for the national command as far as I can tell.
CV9030FIN Posted July 23, 2007 Posted July 23, 2007 I don't understand where you are coming from. You said it yourself - "many of the smaller countries have ditched Divs and Corps." There simply isn't a need for these levels because the countries are smaller. I was giving a point about how some armies do things. I don't know very well US command structure so I won't be able comment on that I just mention that other option. Besides you got me wrong: I ment "Many of the smaller coutries have already ditched Div's. And Corps are commanding and supporting straigthly..." IIRC the Finnish Army has ca 350 000 men (on mobilization). It doesn't utilize any structure above Brigade level except for the national command as far as I can tell. Sorry but you are quite wrong. I am not able to give up to date info due OPSEC but in late 1980's FDF had 550 000 men war time forces with quite light command structure like this:- Joint Defence Forces HQ commanding (national command);- 3 Corps level Army commands, 2 Naval Commands* and 1 Air Force Command* commanding;- About 3 to 7 Bde's and about 2 to 5 Local (Bde level) Commands each *2 Naval commands were similar Corps level commands than others, but tasked with coastal defence mission with area resposibility and had also navy parts under its command. Air Force Command had no area resposibility and had 3 sub-commands responsible airdefence in each corps area.
CavScout2 Posted July 23, 2007 Posted July 23, 2007 I just love the way some people think jargon density equates to credibility.Tell us, what do you actually know about span of command, the historical development of division and corps structure, the operational responsibilities of the division and corps, and the decision-response cycle in corps operations (and it's history)? I worked in both a Bde S3 and Div G3 shop. Saw the horror first hand.I work Sqdrn Ops in an IBCT.The HQ is needed, its parent relationship isn't. Field Grade and G.O feel good "I have a purpose" B.S.Give 'em a laptop, phone desk and chair and let them be the GIF they are-out of the way of trigger pullers. Rubberneck,Afghanistan is A div HQ is correct, UEx type one each. The current HQ has 3 organic bdes and 3 from diffent units, posts and MACOMs. The HQ has neither a DIVMAIN, DTAC or DSE. It has two identical 400+ man elements that do the functions of the old DMAIN and DTAC. A Sustainment Bde replaces the DSE. So while it does have some of it's "organic" units half of its command is from other areas. The rest of its Div is in another AO. Individual Bdes with a generic HQ do better.
Guest aevans Posted July 23, 2007 Posted July 23, 2007 I worked in both a Bde S3 and Div G3 shop. Saw the horror first hand.I work Sqdrn Ops in an IBCT.The HQ is needed, its parent relationship isn't. Field Grade and G.O feel good "I have a purpose" B.S.Give 'em a laptop, phone desk and chair and let them be the GIF they are-out of the way of trigger pullers. You didn't answer the question, but I'll give you a hint -- how many axes of advance were there in the initial operations in OIF? What level of organization was assigned command of each axis? What were the subordinate maneuver commands, what were their individual operational tasks, and what would the span of command have been along each axis had those subordinate maneuver commands been removed? IOW, don't confuse today's relatively static, small scale operations with what might be necessary in the future, for which we need to maintain a level of competence, even at a considerable cost in immediate efficiency. Rubberneck,Afghanistan is A div HQ is correct, UEx type one each. The current HQ has 3 organic bdes and 3 from diffent units, posts and MACOMs. The HQ has neither a DIVMAIN, DTAC or DSE. It has two identical 400+ man elements that do the functions of the old DMAIN and DTAC. A Sustainment Bde replaces the DSE. So while it does have some of it's "organic" units half of its command is from other areas. The rest of its Div is in another AO. Individual Bdes with a generic HQ do better. In a narrow class of operations...maybe. But the future isn't likely to be characterized by sitting still and patrolling.
CavScout2 Posted July 24, 2007 Posted July 24, 2007 (edited) Col. Piscal's brief at Benning Jun 05, and follow up brief Jul 06 along with Army comprehensive guide to modularity (Oct 04) explain the relationship between modular brigades and UEx and UEy. Modular Force Initiative release 30 Sep 05 explain the manning and control of each headquarters.These Hq do not have ownership over the Bdes they are located with or share a patch with CONUS or OCONUS. They are to peform actions admin actions in garrison, but other than that they cease to influence those Bde's locally. All tasks come from Theatre Commands or the UEx/UEy the Bde is to fight under. FM 3-90.6 BCT eplains the tasks the BCT picks up from the former Div Hq and FKSM 71-8 MTOE supports these tasks with the extra equipment and manning.The Division as organized and fought during WWII to Desert Storm is not suited for 21st Century warfare.An Airborne Div with 20K troops is ridicules.Avn Bde's, Fires Bde and sustainment Bde's do not need to jump. The BCTs are the ones jumping and fighting. Utilizing the Modular Bde, place 7-8 BCT's on jump status and 1 UEx and your good to go. The FSC of each Bn/Sqdn can support the Bde's fight for 45-90 days. Edited July 24, 2007 by CavScout2
Guest aevans Posted July 24, 2007 Posted July 24, 2007 Col. Piscal's brief at Benning Jun 05, and follow up brief Jul 06 along with Army comprehensive guide to modularity (Oct 04) explain the relationship between modular brigades and UEx(now called Div Hq) and UEy(now called Corp Hq). These Hq do not have ownership over the Bdes they are located with or share a patch with CONUS or OCONUS. They are to peform actions admin actions in garrison, but other than that they cease to influence those Bde's locally. All tasks come from Theatre Commands or the UEx/UEy the Bde is to fight under.The Division as organized and fought during WWII to Desert Storm is not suited for 21st Century warfare. Horsesh!t. This is all just a reprise of the Pentomic Division fiasco.
Guest JamesG123 Posted September 25, 2007 Posted September 25, 2007 Remember Cavscout that we (the US Army) have to retain the ability to fight big, stand up, high intensity wars.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now