Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

New US Army Force Structuring & Training

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

  • New US Army Force Structuring & Training

    An interview with MG Patrick Donohoe, CDR the Maneuver Center of Excellence at FT Benning, oversees the Infantry & Armor Schools.

    New training and design techniques are a foot at Mother Benning.


    https://www.defensenews.com/news/202...neuver-center/

    New formations, scenarios take shape at the Army’s maneuver center

    By Todd South
    Oct 12, 09:54 AM


    “We’ve changed all of our training scenarios from the Middle East to Europe or the Pacific Rim to focus on the threats and adversaries,” said Maj. Gen. Patrick J. Donahoe, who heads the MCOE.

    Donahoe spoke with Army Times ahead of the Association of the U.S. Army’s annual meeting. He gave an overview of the work done over the past year at MCOE and how it affects the ground combat element and the rest of the Army.

    In the captains career course, they’ve moved away from cordon and search scenarios. And they’ve added into each classroom access to command post computing environments, as well as updated battle command systems.

    “Now that the students can access that inside our classrooms, we’re off map sheets and off plexiglass and now planning and operating on Army battle command systems before they go to the force,” Donahoe said.

    On top of training, MCOE also develops new units and puts concepts to the test to see if they work.

    “Currently, the heavy divisional cavalry squadron, its force design, is going through a number of turns at the Maneuver Battle Lab,” Donahoe said. “We’re developing the light brigade and motorized brigade, taking a series of turns with those on European and Asian terrain.”

    An armored assault company is also being designed. If approved by Army leadership, it would include two Bradley Fighting Vehicle platoons led by an armor lieutenant and all of those crewman would have the 19C MOS – a purpose built Bradley crewman.

    Inside that assault company there are also two infantry platoons led by an infantry lieutenant and sergeant. The students leaving Fort Benning will be Bradley drivers from day one.

    The MCOE has also become the centerpiece of where soldiers are working with
    tactical robots, from ground robotic wingmen to pocket-sized drones.

    They’ve done work with those organizations on how to employ robotics systems in an infantry platoon or combined arms company.

    “You never know how things are going to be employed by soldiers in a sterile laboratory,” Donahoe said. “You have to do it in the dirt outside the lab, inside the squad and platoon.”
    “Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.”
    Mark Twain

  • #2
    A.R., I'm confused (certainly nothing new)

    "...An armored assault company is also being designed. If approved by Army leadership, it would include two Bradley Fighting Vehicle platoons led by an armor lieutenant and all of those crewman would have the 19C MOS – a purpose built Bradley crewman.

    Inside that assault company there are also two infantry platoons led by an infantry lieutenant and sergeant..."


    Does this seem correct? Two vehicle platoons and, apparently, two dismounted infantry platoons?

    Just imagine if the infantry mounted up. Wouldn't we have two mechanized infantry platoons? You know...just like ummm FOREVER? Commanded by two lieutenants?

    Is this some other way of saying the same thing? Further, the article, didn't indicate the Armored Assault Company armor nor close fire support component (ATGW & 120mm mortar sections?). Any Pioneer/engineer component? Do you have any insight regarding these additional company elements? Where would something like this sit? Separate company at the brigade level? Sub-element to a divisional armored assault battalion? Thanks.
    "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


    • #3
      Originally posted by S2 View Post
      A.R., I'm confused (certainly nothing new)

      "...An armored assault company is also being designed. If approved by Army leadership, it would include two Bradley Fighting Vehicle platoons led by an armor lieutenant and all of those crewman would have the 19C MOS – a purpose built Bradley crewman.

      Inside that assault company there are also two infantry platoons led by an infantry lieutenant and sergeant..."


      Does this seem correct? Two vehicle platoons and, apparently, two dismounted infantry platoons?

      Just imagine if the infantry mounted up. Wouldn't we have two mechanized infantry platoons? You know...just like ummm FOREVER? Commanded by two lieutenants?

      Is this some other way of saying the same thing? Further, the article, didn't indicate the Armored Assault Company armor nor close fire support component (ATGW & 120mm mortar sections?). Any Pioneer/engineer component? Do you have any insight regarding these additional company elements? Where would something like this sit? Separate company at the brigade level? Sub-element to a divisional armored assault battalion? Thanks.
      Dude, the 2 rifle Platoons are likely to be in the M113 replacement vehicle. Very capable platform.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armore...urpose_Vehicle

      Or, when they say the crews of the BFVs they could be talking about driver, gunner & BC only. Then the Rifle platoon are the dismounts. I asked for clarification from some folks. A little more in this interview.

      https://www.armytimes.com/news/your-...-its-aperture/

      There is the Mounted Combat Conference next month at Benning so I am hoping more comes out from it. If so, I will post here.

      As for engineers...a brigade combat team today has the Brigade Engineer Battalion with an HHC, 2 Engineer companies, the MI company & the signal company. There division ENG/MI/SIG battalions are all gone and assets pushed as organic to the BCTs. Same with artillery. The DIVARTY HQ has returned but its purpose is mostly joint fire planning and training oversight. If a corps commander decides to send a corps fires brigade battalion forward the DIVARTY would become the C2 HQs also.

      Hope this helps.

      And my insight comes from knowing all the bubbas and bubbettes who are writing and designing sustainment doctrine and structure to support these newish organizations. You can get a pretty good idea when talking to these folks.
      “Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.”
      Mark Twain

      Comment


      • #4
        Buck,

        Thanks. It remains a bit confusing. Is Armored Assault Company the new name for a mechanized infantry company? Didn't you once command a mech infantry company with fourteen M-2s? Seems about the same minus a captain, 1LT X.O. and a third 2LT platoon leader.

        The divisional cav squadron reads entirely ad hoc. Once upon a time you'd find 41 MBTs (9x3+14) in such a unit. I might be conflating with a ACR cav squadron but I don't think expecting to assemble three brigade cav troops for, voila!, a divisional cav squadron is going to prove out (unless I'm perhaps not understanding properly...again). You know better than I that the demands of a divisional covering force battle requires a well-honed squadron battle staff. Passage of lines (forward and back), alone, can be nightmarish absent good C&C.

        As this develops, any insight will be welcomed. We might need that doctrinal adjustment before we'd like.
        "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


        • #5
          Steve, the way I read the Armored Assault Company it was 4 platoons...2 Bradley w/Armor and 2 dismount platoons. It appears we are considering the Australian model, where the vehicles and crews belong to one unit and the guys in the back belong to another. When I commanded a Rifle Company we had 13 M2s (XO kept the M113...that changed because of Desert Storm), 3 platoons with 4 Bradleys each. Total dismounts was 18. PL & PSG each were TCs of their Bradley and other 2 had a dedicated TCs. When the dismount came 6 guys from each squad came out the back...18 total guys on the ground + PL & RTO. PSG stayed with the vehicles. This new structure would put 31 guys on the ground; 3 squads of 9 ea, PL, PSG & 2 RTOs. It puts more Infantry on the ground.

          As currently configured a Heavy Combined Arms Battalion is HHC w/ staff & 2 Mech Teams & 2 Armor Teams...in other words, they come pre-task organized by MTOE. Also attached is a Forward Support Company from the Brigade Support Battalion...essentially all the battalion organic logistics pieces in the old HHC as well as a SPT OPS section which works with the S1 & S4. HHC now is staff, SCT PLT & Mortar PLT. An Armored Brigade Combat Team is 2 Combined Arms Battalions, a Brigade Recon Troop, a Mech FA Battalion, a Brigade Engineer Battalion & Brigade Support Battalion. The BSB has 1 FSC for each of these battalions as well as a Supply Company, Maintenance Company and a Medical Company.

          The division cav squadron went away with the new BCTs...their troops given to each BCT and HQ elements rolled in DIV HQ. The DIV HQ was beefed up so it could have 3 Command Posts...what we remember as a Main & 2 DIVTACs. Not sure what this new SQDN will look like. If I hear anything I'll post it here.

          Wikipedia does a really good job breaking down the 3 BCTs...Infantry (ABN/AASLT/LT), Stryker & Armored.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brigade_combat_team
          “Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.”
          Mark Twain

          Comment


          • #6
            AAC w/ 9 guys x six squads or (your old company) 6 guys x nine squads yields the same. Then the vehicles 12 vs. 13. Assume all platoons led by a 2LT the AAC would have four lieutenants plus an armor Lt. and a company company command element included? Seems the essential difference might be any assigned armor. You, of course, routinely task-organized as a team. This configuration doesn't seem to make flexible, tailored company teams as easily if, for instance, possessing armor. Maybe it increases the options as, I suppose, you could cross-attach Bradley platoons and, equally, dismount platoons.

            The armor would seem a big change. I was surprised that an Armored Brigade Combat Team (why TEAM? It's already a brigade by name-meaning the only thing MTOE is the Brigade HHC. Task organization is implicit to "brigade" lest it possess an MTOE structure akin to a regiment) possesses an entire Combat Engineer battalion. That's also very cool. Thanks for your help.
            "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


            • #7
              Originally posted by S2 View Post
              AAC w/ 9 guys x six squads or (your old company) 6 guys x nine squads yields the same. Then the vehicles 12 vs. 13. Assume all platoons led by a 2LT the AAC would have four lieutenants plus an armor Lt. and a company company command element included? Seems the essential difference might be any assigned armor. You, of course, routinely task-organized as a team. This configuration doesn't seem to make flexible, tailored company teams as easily if, for instance, possessing armor. Maybe it increases the options as, I suppose, you could cross-attach Bradley platoons and, equally, dismount platoons.

              The armor would seem a big change. I was surprised that an Armored Brigade Combat Team (why TEAM? It's already a brigade by name-meaning the only thing MTOE is the Brigade HHC. Task organization is implicit to "brigade" lest it possess an MTOE structure akin to a regiment) possesses an entire Combat Engineer battalion. That's also very cool. Thanks for your help.
              Steve, not fully cognizant of the the battalion task force in the new doctrine. I am searching but haven't found anything yet. As for why BCTs? Well the difference from our days all the units under Brigade Combat Team are organic to the brigade...they are no longer attached. They are all permanent. If you look at the MTOE tables they are all there. And I think the Combat Team is a heritage throwback to the Regimental Combat Teams of WW 2. There you may recall a tank company from an independent tank battalion attached to the division, one division FA battalion, a division engineer company and a corps level automatic weapons antiaircraft artillery battery were chopped to an Infantry Regiment to make combined arms more effective. However the logistics stayed with the parent units.

              As I find out more I will post more.
              “Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.”
              Mark Twain

              Comment


              • #8
                Supposedly my google-fu is strong so I'll try to pick up my game and get doctrinal savvy again. Thanks for the intro. I'm just grateful that there's still a few grunts, tankers and gunners included with all those techie sub-units.
                "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


                • #9
                  Originally posted by S2 View Post
                  Supposedly my google-fu is strong so I'll try to pick up my game and get doctrinal savvy again. Thanks for the intro. I'm just grateful that there's still a few grunts, tankers and gunners included with all those techie sub-units.
                  There is talk of returning to a division based structure but keeping BCTs intact. That would mean pushing forward what we remember as SIG BN, MI BN, PER SVCs BN. It would also add a Cav/Recce Squadron back to the division (leaving the ones in the BCTs intact as well). The Sustainment Brigade is still there...they are a blend of the old MSB, DMMC & COSCOM CSG.

                  With the capabilities of weapons today the current ABCT is as lethal as a DIV 86 Armor Battalion. EVERYTHING is precision fires. JTACs down at company level.
                  “Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.”
                  Mark Twain

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    A comprehensive but straightforward summary of the Army's planned return to division-centric structures.
                     
                    "Draft beer, not people."

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X