US Military Expansion

[WRW]

100% agree with you

[Hellfish6]

I think that the Maneuver Enhancement BDEs are supposed to have a combat arms battalion in them.

 

I like the idea of a Constabulary Brigade:

HHC- heavy on EN and CA planners

 

STB- HHC, HHC BDE, MI CO, SIG CO, Security CO organized to secure a couple of fixed sites (BDE main camp and 2-3 satellites)

 

CA BN- HHC and 4 or 5 companies, with the ability inside its companies to secure their own movements and operations in at least semi-permissive environments; needs to have functional cells (either within each company, or each company specializes)

 

EN BN- verticle and horizontal construction- I don't know enough about EN organization to specify internal organization, but needs to be able to (a)build roads, ( build buildings, © plan construction and (d) supervise execution by locals

 

MP BN- HHC and 4 or 5 companies; needs to be able to (a) conduct area security, ( conduct law enforcement and detaineed training, © conduct detainee operations

 

SPT BN- standard HHC, supply/trans CO, maint CO and medical CO; medical company needs to be more robust than normal for a BCT IOT support multiple facilities and conduct training

 

Combat Arms BN (yeah, i know, we'll have to find a new acronym, since CAB is already Combined Arms BN in the HBCT- maybe we can call it a security battalion)- I don't want to create a new organization, but nothing really fits. A Stryker battalion with an appropriate FSC, or an infantry battalion, with a CBT EN co assigned, like in the HBCT CAB might work, but short on ability to develop situational awareness. A Stryker RSTA with FSC and EN would be better, but short on sustained combat power (no infantry). Creating an organization from current companies, I would like HHC, 2 x RECON TRPs (Stryker or light), 2 x IN CO (Stryker or light), surveillance CO (Stryker, or similiar organization based on HMMWV), EN CO (with EOD embedded), FSC to support

 

What do you think?

 

Not bad at all, but kinda chunky for a brigade.

 

What if instead of separate battalions, you made three combined battalions - each with a CA company, MP company, EN company and a slice of the SPT bn as required? This will let the battalion control a sector and have nearly everything it needs to run that sector organic to it. If you've got MPs, would you really need infantry or cav types? If your mission is purely security and stability, I wouldn't think so, though such assets could easily be attached as required. I'm assuming you'd want the infantry and cav around to hunt down the local guerrillas and rebels?

[BP]

The (big) US Army is not a very efficient expeditionary force, witness the massive footprint they have brought us in Iraq, Bosnia, A-stan and just about anywhere else they setup. This isn't good or bad, it's just their ethos, they build infrastructure like they're going to be PCS'd there forever. MPS and other forward deployment of heavy gear to zones of contention is a wise thing, further reducing the need for airlift and other shipping methods. The USN and USMC(as well as SOCOM) have a long tradition of expeditionary warfare and living "lean" and will be much more cost effective then using the big Army square peg in the round hole. S/F.....Ken M

 

Yes, but the Army is mandated by Title 10 to actually provide the resources for all ground components in theater.

[WRW]

Not bad at all, but kinda chunky for a brigade.

 

What if instead of separate battalions, you made three combined battalions - each with a CA company, MP company, EN company and a slice of the SPT bn as required? This will let the battalion control a sector and have nearly everything it needs to run that sector organic to it. If you've got MPs, would you really need infantry or cav types? If your mission is purely security and stability, I wouldn't think so, though such assets could easily be attached as required. I'm assuming you'd want the infantry and cav around to hunt down the local guerrillas and rebels?

 

 

In my opinion you cannot have pre packaged brigade sized constabulary units - you have big urban low activity ares, small urban high activity areas etc - low intensity high intensity - some places you need CA others you need tanks

[Hellfish6]

In my opinion you cannot have pre packaged brigade sized constabulary units - you have big urban low activity ares, small urban high activity areas etc - low intensity high intensity - some places you need CA others you need tanks

 

To an extent you're absolutely right - the question is can you cobble together a constabulary unit from all sorts of units that have little to no experience together and have them be a cohesive, effective unit? Keep in mind that US units typically only spend a year in a combat zone at a time. I'd argue that a standing constabulary brigade would work - a brigade might control a single neighborhood (like Sadr City) in Baghdad while another brigade might control an entire province all by itself.

Edited December 31, 2007 by Hellfish6

[EchoFiveMike]

Yes, but the Army is mandated by Title 10 to actually provide the resources for all ground components in theater.

 

Maybe it's time to look at the laws WRT the current real world situation. After all, the last major legal change was the late 70's, was it not? And we're still largely operating under the Act of 1946 IIRC, have things not changed significantly since then? S/F....Ken M

[Guest JamesG123]

That is a really big, really messy can of worms. Lots of political issues, both military and Congressional that no one will want to touch, especially in an election year.

 

IMO and as an observation, the SF community is just as prone to "infrastructure bloat" as the "Big Army", in some ways more because they are *special* and can basically ask for (and get) just about anything that they wish for. Its just the sheer scale of the regular army that makes it so mind boggling. But at least they get a bulk discount/efficiency of scale right? lol!

 

What is causing the ridiculous excessiveness in OIF is the dependence on civilian contractors, the multi nationality of the enterprise, and that everything, from military operations, reconstruction projects, and foreign aid is all co-located and intermingled into one gigantic goat-rope.

[FALightFighter]

Not bad at all, but kinda chunky for a brigade.

 

What if instead of separate battalions, you made three combined battalions - each with a CA company, MP company, EN company and a slice of the SPT bn as required? This will let the battalion control a sector and have nearly everything it needs to run that sector organic to it. If you've got MPs, would you really need infantry or cav types? If your mission is purely security and stability, I wouldn't think so, though such assets could easily be attached as required. I'm assuming you'd want the infantry and cav around to hunt down the local guerrillas and rebels?

 

Well, current BCTs have 6 battalions, this one has 32 companies, compared to 30 in an IBCT, 31 in an HBCT and 29 (I think) for SBCT.

 

I could probably be convinced to 3 combined bns vs 3 functional battalions. My thought process is that pure units will be better trained, since they have fairly specialized and fairly independent functions, and task organization would let you put those specialties where they needed to be, and the specialty BN HQs would be the focus for BDE actions in their AO.

 

Maybe battalion level makes more sense, but I figure that if the situation calls for the employment of an entire Constabulary BDE, the overhead in specialty BN HQs and the BDE make sense, and if it doesn't, then a task organized BN can deploy in support of a BCT.

[Rubberneck]

99% of ARNG funding is from federal sources, and they will be getting more equipment in the next five years than in the prior five decades combined.

 

 

The big problem for that idea is what happens to the guard TOE's when there isn't a high-op-tempo war going on?

 

How long did it take to equip guard units effectively in iraq?

 

When the war is over in Iraq and funding goes down again, you'll see the NG units with the same M4's and humvees when the rest of the mil. is using some sort of blue death ray and in flying tanks. (exaggeration I know but you know my point - how many guard units were using M60's, no M249's, no body armour, no NVG's etc in 04/05?)

 

Also, not sure here but isn't NG dependent primarily on state funding and that gets supplimented by funds from the pentagon?

[WRW]

Greetings from a freezing east Turkey

 

Are the engineer coys staying in the combined arms btns or are they seperating again?

[EchoFiveMike]

That is a really big, really messy can of worms. Lots of political issues, both military and Congressional that no one will want to touch, especially in an election year.

 

IMO and as an observation, the SF community is just as prone to "infrastructure bloat" as the "Big Army", in some ways more because they are *special* and can basically ask for (and get) just about anything that they wish for. Its just the sheer scale of the regular army that makes it so mind boggling. But at least they get a bulk discount/efficiency of scale right? lol!

 

What is causing the ridiculous excessiveness in OIF is the dependence on civilian contractors, the multi nationality of the enterprise, and that everything, from military operations, reconstruction projects, and foreign aid is all co-located and intermingled into one gigantic goat-rope.

 

On a per-capita basis, SF undoubtedly costs more than conventional forces, but they uniformly operate at much lower manning levels, and there is the cost savings. Also, they do not bring the hugely wasteful infrastructure that Big Army and huge joint commands do. IE Anaconda, BIAP, Eagle base in Bosnia, Bagram in A-stan, etc etc. It's when you start getting hordes of GO's involved that you start to get the huge sprawl, due to their ego based staff infrastructure if nothing else. As far as SF and gear, gear IS cheap, you buy it and you're done with spending money on it. People cost real money and it's an ongoing expense. Not that people are not a good return on investment, but you have to be very mindful of your return on expenditure here when you bring all the cats and dogs into theater. A huge amount of this staff shit can be done from out of theater, and by doing it in country, you expend your infrastructure needs, and it turns into a self licking icecream cone. S/F.....Ken M