Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

How is the increase in US Army and USMC being done:

 

what additional units are being ceated - battalions etc (my database is getting hungry again)

are new units being created or old ones recreated

are all arms increasing or just Infantry Artillery Armor

 

also what is happening the ADA

  • Replies 60
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted

For the most part, the new brigades are just being named as they were before - 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th Brigade of X division. Kind of lame, in my opinion. I'd still like to see the brigades adopt old divisional names and patches (so the four brigades in the 1st Armored Division would be renamed to 1st Armored Brigade, 2nd Armored Brigade, 10th Armored Brigade, 5th Infantry Brigade, or whatever, and get their lineage from the old divisions).

 

There have been a lot of new cavalry squadrons, many of which I've never heard of before. IIRC, some of them trace their lineage back through old tank destroyer battalions. Otherwise, within the new brigades I think the battalions just adopt their naming conventions from regiments that were historically associated with the division. I haven't heard of any new infantry or armor battalions/regiments being established for this expansion.

Posted

So what does the future for Div's in the US army hold?

Is the army as a whole moving away from divisions and moving to Brigade level?

Will the importance of div HQ's receede dramatically?

Would there be nothing odd with a Bdg from the 101st, a bdg from 4ID and bdg from operating together? (just an eg, try go with the general gist of it)

Posted

USMC is standing up lots of the high use, low density MOS's in reserve detachments; recon, LAV's and intel for example. 9th Marines is back again. MARSOC is turning into 4000+ bodies as well. S/F....Ken M

Posted

The decision was made to make more BCT's instead of adding the third infantry battalion back into the BCT - I think this was a mistake, but worse decisions have been made. I would have liked to have seen the infantry and heavy BCT's match the SBCT with 3 IN BN's/CAB's and a RSTA/ARS. Also some other stuff has been added but the bulk is in additional BTC's.

 

Whether the Army can fill these additional spaces is the billion dollar question - literally.

  • 2 weeks later...
Posted

I was slapped down for saying this years ago, but I'll say it again. The NG needs to have the bulk of our heavy assets (esp. Abrams and Bradleys). Those guys will train and pull maintenance and cheerfully deploy every ten years when we really need them, but retention is a problem if we use them too much. Active duty brigades should mostly be light and medium forces for rapid and long-term deployment, with just enough heavy forces to satisfy our long-term commitments

Posted
with just enough heavy forces to satisfy our long-term commitments

how much Armour/Mech brigades would you keep active then and what would you give the medium forces? Stryker is more heavy light or light medium than real medium IMO

Posted
I was slapped down for saying this years ago, but I'll say it again. The NG needs to have the bulk of our heavy assets (esp. Abrams and Bradleys). Those guys will train and pull maintenance and cheerfully deploy every ten years when we really need them, but retention is a problem if we use them too much. Active duty brigades should mostly be light and medium forces for rapid and long-term deployment, with just enough heavy forces to satisfy our long-term commitments

 

 

Have 1 immediately available heavy unit - the rest can follow,

what needs and can be deployed NOW - has to be available NOW

Posted (edited)

Pretty much what I was thinking. Out of CONUS 2nd Armored stays heavy, almost everyone else goes Stryker. I agree the Stryker Brigades are too light, but its the best model we have. 3rd ACR has worked so well I might break out another ACR (maybe the 7th or 9th, purely as sentiment)

Edited by Lyle, Bob
Posted

So only one heavy brigade in the entire active Army? Using current brigade structure, that only gives the entire army four tank companies ready to go at any time. That's nothing. The Marines alone have two tank battalions with twice the number of tanks.

 

I'd feel more comfortable with three heavy brigades on call, and using a Marine-style readiness system (one brigade on alert, one in training, one in recovery), the other brigades can all be mixed light/Stryker.

Posted

In a rational world, we would decide what we needed, and then fund 3 times that, to allow one deployed, one training up and one recovering. 4 would be better to allow for a surge.

 

I would posit that 2 immediate ready HBCTs would be formidably effective against most concievable opponents. To resource this, 6 would be necessary, 8 would be better. An ACR, without the aviation squadron, with the addition of a mechanized IN battalion in its place, and with the addition of a mechanized IN CO in each squadron, would be a better model. Yes, significantly larger than current BCTs, but largely effective.

 

I think that Strykers, and the SBCT organization, have proven their effectiveness. Yes, there could be modifications (an STB, and FSCs like the other BCTs, I think that the MGS PLT and AT CO organizations are open to debate), but overall it is a good organization. I would also argue for the addition of a 25mm version would be effective, especially in the RSTA organization, but possible other places as well. This medium unit should be the baseline for most forces. I could be persuaded that another version of this organization (possible AGS and M113 as a heavy SBCT, possible something lighter as a light SBCT- I don't know enough about what is available out there) is a nice to have addition, but not required.

 

The light infantry organization (IBCT) should be reserved for special purpose forces- particularly for airborne forced entry. A fairly minimal number of these should be maintained, to allow them to conduct the forced entry, and then be relieved by follow-on forces. Based on what is stated above, ideal is 4 to maintain 1 constantly ready. 8 would allow for dual crisis response, or double the immediate response if the second ready force can deploy faster than the SBCT.

Posted

I think the reason light brigade (and light divisions) were/are kept was economics, right? It's a lot cheaper to operate and move a light unit than it is a medium or heavy unit. Swapping out all those active duty light brigades, save for the Rangers and 5-6 airborne brigades would either be an expensive proposition or require severely reducing the number of brigades we have to stay at current funding levels.

Posted

The main reason for light units is not to save money, but to make the best use of limited transport. Right now, light forces are the 75th Rangers, 82nd Airborne, 101st Airmobile, and parts of the 10th Mountain Divisions so only modest cuts have been suggested by anyone.

 

Converting HBCT to SBCT will require new equipment, although operating costs should be down.

Posted
The main reason for light units is not to save money, but to make the best use of limited transport. Right now, light forces are the 75th Rangers, 82nd Airborne, 101st Airmobile, and parts of the 10th Mountain Divisions so only modest cuts have been suggested by anyone.

 

Converting HBCT to SBCT will require new equipment, although operating costs should be down.

 

List of light BCTs off the top of my head:

 

82nd Airborne (4 BCTs)

101st Air Assault (4 BCTs)

SEATF - 173rd Airborne Bde (1 BCT)

4th Bde/25th ID (1 BCT) (Airborne)

4th Bde/1st ID (1 BCT)

10th Mountain (4 BCT)

2nd Bde/2nd ID (1 BCT)

Ranger Regiment (~1 BCT, but they still operate as independent BNs IIRC)

 

Of those, 10 would have to be reflagged as Stryker brigades - assuming you keep the airborne units light - not a cheap proposition, nevermind converting all the HBCTs too.

Posted
So only one heavy brigade in the entire active Army? Using current brigade structure, that only gives the entire army four tank companies ready to go at any time. That's nothing. The Marines alone have two tank battalions with twice the number of tanks.

 

I'd feel more comfortable with three heavy brigades on call, and using a Marine-style readiness system (one brigade on alert, one in training, one in recovery), the other brigades can all be mixed light/Stryker.

 

 

How long would it take to mobilise a regular HBCT and move it and its equipment to say IRAN ?

 

How long would it take to get a Guard unit up to the same skill level as a regular HBCT?

Posted
How long would it take to mobilise a regular HBCT and move it and its equipment to say IRAN ?

 

How long would it take to get a Guard unit up to the same skill level as a regular HBCT?

 

IIRC it's something like a month of prep from the warning order, then another month or so to embark, transit, and disembark. Assuming, of course, that you're sending the brigade with all of it's equipment. If it's flying into a pre-positioned stock site (like Kuwait, Qatar) you could theoretically have your first elements on the ground in 24 hours. I was never a mobilization officer, though, so my numbers are educated guesses at best.

 

I did mobilize with the Guard before 9/11 (things may have changed since then). From the day we got our order, we had about 5 months of double pre-deployment drill weekends (admin functions, medical/financial/legalisms, etc twice a month) then two months of training for the mission and about a week for the movement (via USAF C-141s). This was a light infantry company training for a security mission in Kuwait. I haven't served in a heavy unit, but I imagine their training requirements, especially for a combat mission, would be significantly different - probably a lot more time intensive.

 

Hence why it would behoove us to have at least three heavy BCTs on the active army rolls. That's only three HBCTs out of 70+ brigades. The Guard brigades could be the follow-on force, giving them time to mobilize, train and deploy.

Posted
List of light BCTs off the top of my head:

 

82nd Airborne (4 BCTs)

101st Air Assault (4 BCTs)

SEATF - 173rd Airborne Bde (1 BCT)

4th Bde/25th ID (1 BCT) (Airborne)

4th Bde/1st ID (1 BCT)

10th Mountain (4 BCT)

2nd Bde/2nd ID (1 BCT)

Ranger Regiment (~1 BCT, but they still operate as independent BNs IIRC)

 

Of those, 10 would have to be reflagged as Stryker brigades - assuming you keep the airborne units light - not a cheap proposition, nevermind converting all the HBCTs too.

 

You missed 3/1ID and 3/25ID, for a total of 17 IBCTs (6 SBCT and 20 HBCT round out the current 43 BCTs). I don't know what will happen if/when we expand to 48, which is rumored to be approved. I haven't seen anything that depicted how they will be organized, or where they will be stationed, if and when they are activated.

Posted
You missed 3/1ID and 3/25ID, for a total of 17 IBCTs (6 SBCT and 20 HBCT round out the current 43 BCTs). I don't know what will happen if/when we expand to 48, which is rumored to be approved. I haven't seen anything that depicted how they will be organized, or where they will be stationed, if and when they are activated.

 

My bad - I thought 3/1 was mech and 3/25 was Stryker now. 1st ID has 2 heavy and 2 light BCTs? Hm...

Posted

Wasn't one of the lessons learned from OIF that we had too few rifle squads (and, commensurately, platoons and companies) to control large areas, once the offensive phase halted (and MSRs, during the offensive)?

 

More Light IBCTS would seem to be (if the Army is expanding) an economically and strategically sensible option.

 

 

 

Falken

Posted
The decision was made to make more BCT's instead of adding the third infantry battalion back into the BCT - I think this was a mistake, but worse decisions have been made. I would have liked to have seen the infantry and heavy BCT's match the SBCT with 3 IN BN's/CAB's and a RSTA/ARS. Also some other stuff has been added but the bulk is in additional BTC's.

 

Whether the Army can fill these additional spaces is the billion dollar question - literally.

When was this announced?

2009 is when the Army is looking to fill a 3rd Man element per HBCT/IBCT.

Posted
Wasn't one of the lessons learned from OIF that we had too few rifle squads (and, commensurately, platoons and companies) to control large areas, once the offensive phase halted (and MSRs, during the offensive)?

 

More Light IBCTS would seem to be (if the Army is expanding) an economically and strategically sensible option.

Falken

 

Because they have that third infantry battalion, SBCTs field more infantrymen than IBCTs do. Besides that, with IBCTs, you've still got to buy/supply them with light vehicles - probably still humvees for the foreseeable future - whereas you don't with the SBCTs. You'd get more firepower and mobility and a lot more dismounts with the SBCT, but I don't know if the long term costs would be a lot more (keeping x humvees running vs. y Strykers)

 

I'd be interested to know how much a unit-issued production MRAV or humvee is compared to a Stryker ICV. It might be more economically justifiable to go with Strykers.

Posted

What theater of operations has a threat that will be resolved by rapid commitment of one(1) Heavy Bde that would not be resolved by commitment of multiple lighter Bdes, combined with commitment of other services? Why go early with insufficient force (ie Dieppe) when waiting 3-6 monthes means you're going to have, at least, 4-6 heavy Bdes fully trained and ready for commitment to theater?

 

Which would you rather have? Your 4-6 HBCTs on active duty, and nothing else but SBCT's and IBCT's? Or 9-12 HBCT's in the NG/Reserve, 2 HBCT's on active duty, as well as the SBCT's, IBCT's and other units on AD. USMC #'s generally show that reserve units are less than 1/3rd the cost of AD units WRT ongoing costs outside equipment issues. Now granted, this will require diligence and commitment to training and organization from your reserve forces, which seems to be an issue in some units, but there is no other viable way to maintain the manpower #'s everyone wants as well as the heavy hardware and fancy toys. S/F....Ken M

Posted
I was slapped down for saying this years ago, but I'll say it again. The NG needs to have the bulk of our heavy assets (esp. Abrams and Bradleys). Those guys will train and pull maintenance and cheerfully deploy every ten years when we really need them, but retention is a problem if we use them too much. Active duty brigades should mostly be light and medium forces for rapid and long-term deployment, with just enough heavy forces to satisfy our long-term commitments

 

So you are proposing a transition to a mostly reserve based force, which is just supplemented by smaller scale active duty rapid deployment forces? I could see how that could work. I've never been a proponent of large standing armies, seeing that well-managed reserve forces can do just as well or even better than fully professional ones, but are far more economical during peace-time. An expanded NG system might be the perfect compromise between traditional conscription-reserve (as used in Finland or Israel) and a fully professional force (as is the US Army).

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...