Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

US Army Modernization

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    AR have you listened to this channel on Youtube?



    The entire list:
    https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCHZ...IG-wnAQ/videos
    Last edited by tbm3fan; 19 Jul 23,, 07:38.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by tbm3fan View Post
      AR have you listened to this channel on Youtube?



      The entire list:
      https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCHZ...IG-wnAQ/videos
      No!

      Thanks, I just subscribed.
      “Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.”
      Mark Twain

      Comment


      • #18
        One of the issues with the dissolution of the US Seventh Army in Europe with the fall of the The Wall is a lot of the corps and Army level support units were disbanded by all NATO nations. In the early 1980s when I was stationed there we had bridging units out the wazoo. Each division had its own bridge company. Corps had more bridging assets as did Army. Heck, there were even bridge units operated by Labor Service units.

        One of the ways the US was able to race across NW Europe in WW 2 was pushing bridge assets forward. Each armor division typically had a Treadway Bridge battalion attached. Infantry divisions a company (+).

        I am glad the Army is starting to recognize it has a serious capabilities gap and are addressing the issue.

        https://www.defensenews.com/land/202...iver-crossing/

        Bridging the gap: Army validates division-led river crossing

        By Jen Judson
        Friday, Dec 15
        A Bradley Fighting Vehicle drives onto an Improved Ribbon Bay Bridge in preparation to cross Belton Lake during Remagen Ready 24-1, on Fort Cavazos, Texas, Nov. 3, 2023. Remagen Ready 24-1 is an 11-day training exercise focused on Large Scale Combat Operations (LSCO) with the division as unit of action. LSCO requires team cohesion to properly execute multi-domain operations across warfighting functions. (Spc. Jacob Nunnenkamp/U.S. Army)WASHINGTON — The U.S. Army successfully validated a force structure change meant to help it make better wet gap crossings during large scale combat operations, according to service leaders.

        Defense experts have long considered U.S. bridging capability inadequate, particularly in the European theater.

        Building bridges over rivers or other bodies of water to advance forward in an operation sounds simple, but involves complex coordination to ensure the enemy is suppressed long enough to move thousands of soldiers and equipment across and that the bridges can support even the heaviest combat vehicles and tanks.

        And strong wet gap crossing capabilities are expected to be needed in the Indo-Pacific region, according to both Army officials and defense experts.

        “The U.S. clearly does not have enough river crossing capability, and river crossing is an important part of what’s happening in Ukraine,” retired Army Lt. Gen. Ben Hodges, who previously led U.S. Army Europe, told Defense News in an interview earlier this year. Beyond Ukraine, bridging is “a capability that we need to have in a lot of places in the world.”

        Typically, engineer brigades, which provide bridging capability, are a corps-level asset, but during a large-scale combat exercise — Remagen Ready — at Fort Cavazos, Texas, earlier this fall, the 36th Engineer Brigade was taken out of the III Armored Corps and brought into the 1st Cavalry Division, Maj. Gen. Kevin Admiral, 1st Cavalry Division commander, told Defense News in a Dec. 12 interview.

        Corps are made up of two divisions and roughly 20,000 to 45,000 troops total, while divisions are made up of three brigades and 10,000 to 15,000 soldiers.

        Wet gap crossings “is one of the most difficult things to do,” said Col. Aaron Cox, the 36th Engineer Brigade commander.

        “We play one role, which is the actual building of rafts and full enclosure bridges. Those tactical challenges aren’t too difficult, but it is making sure that the fires threat is reduced, that there’s no enemy on the far side objectives, that we have obscuration, that the enemy’s logistics nodes on the far side have been suppressed,” he added. “That’s where the challenge comes from, and it’s converging all of those capabilities into one location in time so that we can successfully get across.”

        Engineer units in divisions are “not purpose-built for large-scale combat operations,” Admiral noted. Those units are usually organized in battalions under brigade combat teams, which are not adequate to support large-scale combat maneuver. To conduct a wet gap crossing at the division level in large-scale combat, “I would need external resources that I don’t really have,” he said.

        By putting the 36th Engineer Brigade into the 1st Cavalry Division for the exercise, it gave the division the assets and manpower it needed to execute the wet gap mission. Because the brigade was under the control of the division commander, it was easier to coordinate the complex movements needed to set the conditions for a safe crossing and then execute the crossing of about20,000 soldiers and their armored equipment.

        The 1st Cavalry coordinated the two-day live wet gap crossing during the exercise with two physical bridges using what’s known as the Improved Ribbon Bridge, made up of panels that can be put on the back of a truck for transport and then combined to make larger rafts. Seven panels connected together can support an M1 Abrams tank.

        The exercise validated the need to put engineer brigades underneath division command, Admiral said, part of a larger plan to redesign force structure as the Army modernizes and shifts from years of using the brigade combat team as the tactical unit where maneuver operations are planned and executed. Now, the service plans to give the division that responsibility.

        During the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, BCTs operated relatively independently, but large-scale operations across land, air, sea, space and cyber against adversaries like Russia and China would require division-level operations.

        The exercise “gave us a good chance to do an initial validation of the Army 2030 Armored Strike Division,” Admiral said. “This is the right direction for the armored divisions.”

        Army Futures Command continues to work on what a modernized force’s structure will look like in 2030 and beyond, incorporating lessons from exercises like Remagen Ready.

        The Army’s plan to grow its engineer companies, according to the service’s acquisition chief, Doug Bush, is “on track. It’s just finding the money,” he said in an interview this fall. “It’s a big priority, especially as they learned a lot from trying to move around Europe.”
        “Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.”
        Mark Twain

        Comment


        • #19
          So how far away do fires need to be suppressed in order to get a crossing up, to be useful, in today's world of missiles?

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by tbm3fan View Post
            So how far away do fires need to be suppressed in order to get a crossing up, to be useful, in today's world of missiles?
            The planet Mars.
            Chimo

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
              The planet Mars.
              That close?

              Click image for larger version

Name:	Looney_Tunes_'Martian.jpg
Views:	93
Size:	20.5 KB
ID:	1604532

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by tbm3fan View Post
                So how far away do fires need to be suppressed in order to get a crossing up, to be useful, in today's world of missiles?
                Part of the clearing of an obstacle is SOSR...Suppress, Obscure, Secure & Reduce.

                Part of the Suppress phase would be suppressive fires by MLRS batteries, both division and corps as well as any tube artillery which comes to bear. Also USAF/USN/USMC air will be involved. A division level river crossing is definitely a corps main effort these days.

                And, of course, large numbers of ADA assets would be committed to guard the bridge.
                “Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.”
                Mark Twain

                Comment


                • #23
                  "...large numbers of ADA assets would be committed to guard the bridge."

                  Enemy UAVs/drones really complicate an already very difficult operation. This is also going to spill into force structure design within ADA, reconnaissance, electronic warfare formations alongside the full range of fire support assets. Bridges need to stay up far beyond the crossing of an actual division. That division and every/anything else across that obstacle needs sustained resupply.

                  "This aggression will not stand, man!" Jeff Lebowski
                  "The only true currency in this bankrupt world is what you share with someone else when you're uncool." Lester Bangs

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by S2 View Post
                    "...large numbers of ADA assets would be committed to guard the bridge."

                    Enemy UAVs/drones really complicate an already very difficult operation. This is also going to spill into force structure design within ADA, reconnaissance, electronic warfare formations alongside the full range of fire support assets. Bridges need to stay up far beyond the crossing of an actual division. That division and every/anything else across that obstacle needs sustained resupply.
                    You nailed it Deuce. Already reading a lot of rethinking within ADA at Sill. Also lessons learned for Ukraine and the Red Sea are being plowed into these ideas run by Army Futures Command. And sustainment of the assault is vital for success.
                    “Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.”
                    Mark Twain

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      OK, AR, big article today about the Army eliminating posts (many already empty) and trying to shape their manpower needs for the future.

                      Your wisdom?

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by tbm3fan View Post
                        OK, AR, big article today about the Army eliminating posts (many already empty) and trying to shape their manpower needs for the future.

                        Your wisdom?
                        This has been coming for some time. We have too many organizations which have nondeployable Soldiers whose jobs could be civilianized.

                        Some slots are going away for units which were built up for OIF/OAF and are no longer needed.

                        And TBH we have too much real estate we don't need. Why do we still need Fort Hamilton which lies under the Verrazano Narrows Bridge? It is a remnant when the Army ran a port in Bayonne...now a cruise terminal. Those kind of posts are kept open for one reason only...the local Congressman.
                        “Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.”
                        Mark Twain

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          I think this is a great thing. Knowing the actual combat range of many of our weapons is further than we see in the manual there is no reason not to push the envelope.

                          And even though it has been 35 years I know the Red Cloud Range Complex at Fort Stewart is highly capable of expanding scenarios.

                          ANd if things haven't changed there may be a need to push treelines back another 2000-3000 meters!


                          https://taskandpurpose.com/news/the-...ain-and-shoot/

                          The Army is standardizing how armor crews train and shoot


                          Armor brigades with the 3rd Infantry Division at Fort Stewart, Georgia are training with a new set of qualification standards, or gunnery tables.

                          BY PATTY NIEBERG | PUBLISHED MAR 1, 2024 5:05 PM EST
                          The Army is standardizing the way infantry platoons keep up with their combat vehicle skills with an initiative by the 3rd Infantry Division at Fort Stewart, Georgia. (U.S. Army photo by Pfc. Benjamin Hale).

                          The Army is standardizing the way crews of Abrams tanks and Bradley fighting vehicles keep up with their combat skills.

                          Brigades with the 3rd Infantry Division at Fort Stewart, Georgia have taken the last month to train under a new set of qualification standards, or gunnery tables, against targets set at longer distances for their M1 Abrams tanks and Bradley Fighting Vehicles.

                          “What we are trying to do is train our crews to be more adaptable and be more lethal as our adversaries change,” said 1st Armored Brigade Combat Team Command Sgt. Maj. Ryan Roush. “Everyone will go through the exact same validation process. Once these tables are implemented Army-wide, we could receive a new soldier from any unit in the Army and know that the training standard that the soldier has used, are the exact same across the entire Army that we have and then base our performance and expectations off of that.”

                          Tank crews have to validate their skills twice a year on a unit’s gunnery tables. Under the current integrated weapons strategy there are six gunnery tables that crews must be certified in: Table I gunnery skills test; Table II simulations; Table III proficiency to train with live rounds; Table IV basic skills of the platform; Table V practice and Table VI qualification for crew to participate in live-fire exercises.

                          Master gunners could previously use their own discretion to create tables with time and distance categories for targets. But with this initiative, there would be set standards that soldiers and crews have to complete, said Sgt. Daniel Blandon, 1st Armored Brigade Combat Team Abrams Master Gunner.

                          Large scale combat operations


                          Over the last two decades, training for Iraq and Afghanistan was focused on counterinsurgency operations “for a whole career of a soldier,” said Steve Krivitsky, chief of the weapons and gunnery branch at the Directorate of Training, Tactics and Doctrine for the Maneuver Center of Excellence. “There was a series of soldiers that never experienced the long range and then the large-scale, combat-operations-type training.”

                          Tank crews often were tested only on skills and targets their commanders deemed essential for Iraq and Afghanistan deployments, or that could be shot within the confines of the ranges of their own base.

                          “When you look at Fort Stewart and Fort Stewart’s ranges, they made a scenario that was tailored to their facilities and their training needs of their unit based on their past performance,” Krivitsky said. “What they chose to shoot would not be exactly the same as what something at Fort Carson might shoot.”

                          Soldiers at Fort Stewart, Krivitsky said, are “pushing the limits of the training ammunition and the system itself to hit targets up to 2,200 to 2,400 meters.”

                          The current qualification for the farthest main gun engagement is a single target at 1,800 meters. The requirements under the new tables would increase main gun engagements to seven targets between 1,800 and 2,400 meters.

                          The new tables also focus on multiple stationary and moving main gun engagements. Now, Tables V and VI will include an offense and defense four-target engagement. With the current gunnery qualifications – for all of the different types of engagements – the average is 31 seconds to defeat a single target, Kravitsky said. But the new standard would involve four targets in a shortened time frame.

                          “On a four target engagement, they don’t have two minutes, they have 75 seconds. And so that 31 seconds might overlap with another target’s 31 seconds because it’s exposed,” he said. “That speed in combat, the speed at which you deliver accurate fires first, your reward is you win. So our goal is to hit first, hit fast and move on to the next one.”

                          Officials are finding new ways to use the latest sensors and optics on Bradleys and Abrams. On the M1, for example, the vehicle commander has a Common Remotely Operated Weapon Station, or CROWS system for on-the-move target acquisition and first-burst target engagement.

                          The new standards for Table IV force the tank’s gunner to run through five defensive machine gun skills rather than use the main gun, while the vehicle commander has five tests on the CROWS system.

                          “When the gunner is executing the machine gun engagements, the vehicle commander is using the commander’s independent thermal viewer to identify supplemental targets,” Krivistky said. “It speeds the process of target acquisition and target hand-off to rapidly defeat multiple targets in sequence.”

                          The Maneuver Center of Excellence looked at all of the different possible target engagements that a tank crew might see and found 3,264 different variables. With the gunnery tables, officials need to decide which types of engagements are the best use of time and show a crew’s gunnery skills.

                          “We only have 30 engagements for live fire so we have to be really selective of which engagements have the biggest payoff to the crew’s experience because the other 3,234 would have to be done in simulations,” Krivistky said.

                          Once they collect all of the data from 3ID’s training, they will hand it off to the Maneuver Center of Excellence for analysis. Officials from the center will take their findings to the Armor School’s Commandant and if he approves the manual, they’ll go through the publication process which can take three to six months.

                          When a new book is published and there’s a “significant change in how we do things,” there will be an implementation period across the Army which takes about a year, Krivitsky said. The 3ID initiative “accelerates the completion of this training strategy and publication by at least nine months which in the Army system, that’s fast.”
                          “Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.”
                          Mark Twain

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            'The Army is standardizing how armor crews train and shoot'. Ask a Marine? They'd add the word 'badly' to the end of that sentence.
                            If you are emotionally invested in 'believing' something is true you have lost the ability to tell if it is true.

                            Comment


                            • #29


                              Not the best of headlines.

                              More properly we are testing out an upgrade to our gunnery standards and methods. Once validated it will go Army wide,

                              It was done at Fort Stewart & 3 ID since it is the closest installation with armored brigade combat team to Fort Moore, the home of the Armor & Infantry Schools.
                              “Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.”
                              Mark Twain

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Been doing a deep dive over the last two days on what the new Army force structure will be. One of the forcing functions has been the shortfalls in enlistments. But more importantly the Army has been looking at what is needed on the modern battlefield from a wide range of lessons learned...simulations, war games, Armenia-Azeri War, UKR-RUS War and a doctrinal shift brought on by LSCO. I really like what I am seeing. I believe this is the most consequential change since we went to AirLand Battle force structure 40 years ago. A real investment in improving and expanding anti air/drone/missile defenses, cyber and long range precision fires. Interestingly also an increase in watercraft capability as we look to the Pacific.

                                Bottomline...I like it. I like it a lot.
                                “Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.”
                                Mark Twain

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X