Tweet
Originally posted by Albany Rifles
View Post
-
But not as preggers as octo-mom -
I can close my eyes and see the diagram!Originally posted by S2 View Post
In Infantry Officers Advanced Course in the 1980s we had to memorize the doctinal template of the Reinforced MRB and MRR in the attack. And then on our exam you had to draw the template to infinite detail..It was a 4 hour exam. I got a 94 on it.....one of 17 guys out of 203 to pass on the first attempt (funny, the Egyptian Army guys all passed too!
) My success is tied to Diet Coke, Jack Daniels and accupuncture!
“Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.”
Mark TwainComment
-
True that!Originally posted by zraver View Post“Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.”
Mark TwainComment
-
*** Hands shaking at the unwelcomed memory *** Must forget .... must forget .... must forget.Originally posted by Albany Rifles View PostI can close my eyes and see the diagram!
In Infantry Officers Advanced Course in the 1980s we had to memorize the doctinal template of the Reinforced MRB and MRR in the attack. And then on our exam you had to draw the template to infinite detail..It was a 4 hour exam. I got a 94 on it.....one of 17 guys out of 203 to pass on the first attempt (funny, the Egyptian Army guys all passed too!) My success is tied to Diet Coke, Jack Daniels and accupuncture!Comment
-
Zraver Reply
"That is a late cold war re-organization with a shift back towards a conventional fight."
STFU.
I'll refer you to Table 1 (Indirect Fire Weapons At Divisional And Regimental Levels In Soviet MRDs and TDs, 1975 and 1980) Page 178 of this CIA document. That will be page 13 of the PDF-
http://www.foia.cia.gov/docs/DOC_000...0000969829.pdf
The organic regimental artillery battalion reaches beyond my entry onto active duty in 1979. Soviet doctrine would exploit the headquarters of the regimental artillery battalion to form a RAG (Regimental Artillery Group) by piling divisional (and higher) indirect fire assets at the point of attack. That's 54 122mm Howitzers. You can be assured they were there before you were old enough to read.Last edited by S2; 27 Jun 12,, 14:58."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 BangsComment
-
Got it. Thanks.Originally posted by Albany Rifles View Post
How about the problem encountered with the Pentomic formation? That being the limitation of span of control. Does the current BCT format have this problem? I see a current army division has up to 6 brigades, each brigade with up to 6 battalions of sub units. Is this format still more coherent than the pentomic format?"Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.Comment
-
It is much better now. Remember in the Battle groud there was a single Commander and staff for that span of control. In a BCT you have each of the battalions with a staff. And in the case of the Brigade Support Battalion they answer more to the Deputy BCT Commander....and the BSB has a staff which handles operations, support mission requirements and internal operations. They are much better equipped...and there are much better communications available in 2012 than 1958.Originally posted by gunnut View Post“Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.”
Mark TwainComment
-
That coincides with the Soviets reaching reaching nuclear parity and feeling confident that a conventional war that did not lead to nuclear war was once again possible under the umbrella of Mad. If Carter had won a second term, they might even have been right. The US Army had missed a modernization cycle, congress was looking to scale back defense spending, Like the US, Europe was in Chaos.. But RR won the election and didn't just expand the size of the US military but began to radically transform the army and navy.Originally posted by S2 View Post"That is a late cold war re-organization with a shift back towards a conventional fight."
STFU. I'll refer you to Table 1 (Indirect Fire Weapons At Divisional And Regimental Levels In Soviet MRDs and TDs, 1975 and 1980) Page 178 of this CIA document. That will be page 13 of the PDF-
http://www.foia.cia.gov/docs/DOC_000...0000969829.pdf
The organic regimental artillery battalion reaches beyond my entry onto active duty in 1979. Soviet doctrine would exploit the headquarters of the regimental artillery battalion to form a RAG (Regimental Artillery Group) by piling divisional (and higher) indirect fire assets at the point of attack. That's 54 122mm Howitzers. You can be assured they were there before you were old enough to read.Comment
-
but that's still 72 2S1 + 36 2S3 in a soviet tank division compared with 72 M-109 in a american armored division , no ?Originally posted by Albany Rifles View PostJ'ai en marre.Comment
-
"That coincides with the Soviets reaching reaching nuclear parity and feeling confident that a conventional war that did not lead to nuclear war was once again possible under the umbrella of Mad. If Carter had won a second term, they might even have been right. The US Army had missed a modernization cycle, congress was looking to scale back defense spending, Like the US, Europe was in Chaos.. But RR won the election and didn't just expand the size of the US military but began to radically transform the army and navy."
Please define for me at what point, EXACTLY, the Soviet TO&E/ORBAT did not include an organic 122mm How battalion in the MRR? They'd even been added to the TR between 1975-1980. I've given you links to U.S. Military/Intel sources drawing upon data from 1975, 1980 and 1991 showing otherwise.
WRT to the rest of the above comment, it's bullshit. Every U.S. weapon system that mattered in the mid-eighties was in our pipeline before Reagan took office in January 1980. I know. I lived it. TACFIRE, Q-36/37 FIREFINDER, PADS, long tube M109/M110 cannons just in the artillery and just off the top of my head. Apache, M-1s, M2/M3 Bradleys, MLRS- you name it. Already in the pipeline. My two largest pay raises (7.7% and 14.2%) came with Carter. Now...I'm no fan of Jim Carter but to suggest we'd stayed on our azz had he retained office is nonsense. Both sides of the aisle in Congress and even ol' Jimmy realized the imbalance of conventional forces between 1971-1977 needed redressing.
And it was already happening.
Contrarian is one thing. Obtuse? That's an altogether far worse condition.Last edited by S2; 28 Jun 12,, 02:06."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 BangsComment
-
1. I am not arguing the numbers, just answering your question about the organic FA battalion in an armored brigade.Originally posted by 1979 View Post
2. There was also an M110 battery or M270 battery in the DIVARTY.“Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.”
Mark TwainComment
-
"There was also an M110 battery or M270 battery in the DIVARTY."
At one point it was actually a composite General Support battalion with two eight gun 8" batteries and a (I believe) nine launcher MLRS battery."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 BangsComment
-
German divisions at the time generally had 72 155mm tubes plus 18 203mm tubes plus two 8-launcher LARS batteries with placeholders for two additional 8-launcher MLRS batteries to be added after 1990. Plus 12 drones for battlefield observation.
Regardless of division type, except 1st Mountain Div - which had more 8-inchers.
German Corps Arty turned anemic in the 80s though, losing its 36 additional 155mm tubes since the old US hardware was scrapped and only retaining 6 Lance SRBM and 16 drones (though planned to be replaced by an Assault-Breaker-style SRBM battalion with around 50 missiles in the early 90s, at least until that project was dropped).
If you want slim divisions - look at the French model. They had divisions of iirc around 8,000 men. But a ton of them to make up for it.Comment
-
True that....I forgot!Originally posted by S2 View Post“Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.”
Mark TwainComment
-
Niether the 1961 or 1964 TOE plans show a regimental artillery battalion with 18 guns. The 61 layout has a 6 gun battery plus a 6 tube 120mm mortar battery and battalion level 82mm mortars. The 64 layout drops the artillery tubes completely and increases the number of 120mm mortar tubes. The 64 pattern likely reflects the expected growth of the Soviet armed forces which would add 60 divisions from 64 to 1980.Originally posted by S2 View Post
As for Carter, he killed the B-1a, and generally only spent development funds except on the air force, it took RR to authorize production and get the kit to the troops.
The AH-64, the army did not even get the prototypes to test until 1981- it was Reagan's call to move forward. To claim otherwise is silly, that would be like saying the RH-66 or the Sgt York were in the pipeline.... Our system relies on extended development, but its the president in office when its time to cut the check for production that has to decide yay or nay with his veto stamp.
M1 Abrams- initially armed with a 105mm gun thanks to cost cutting decisions and contracts signed under Carter.
M270 MLRS- 1983 well after Carter, though he played a role in the development process the decision to authorize it and fund it for deployment in RR's.
Massive increases in Nimitiz class and Los Angeles class sub production, authorized more Ohios, recommissioned the Iowas, 600 ship plan...Last edited by TopHatter; 02 Sep 12,, 00:06.Comment
Comment