RPG Forums

Go Back   RPG Forums > Role Playing Game Section > Archive

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 01-22-2010, 12:14 AM
kato13's Avatar
kato13 kato13 is online now
Administrator
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Chicago, Il USA
Posts: 3,329
Send a message via ICQ to kato13
Default Current US order of battle

shrike6 07-06-2006, 08:33 PM This shows units and homebases and not their deployment location


Current US Army Order of Battle


1st Armored Division - Wiesbaden, FRG

1st Brigade - Friedburg, FRG

2nd Brigade - Baumholder, FRG

3rd Brigade - Fort Riley, KS

Aviation Brigade - Fort Riley, KS


1st Cavalry Division - Fort Hood, TX

1st Brigade - Fort Hood, TX

2nd Brigade - Fort Hood, TX

3rd Brigade - Fort Hood, TX

4th Brigade - Fort Bliss, TX

1st Air Cavalry Brigade - Fort Hood, TX


1st Infantry Division - inactivated, reactivation 8/06

1st Brigade - Fort Riley, KS

2nd Brigade - Schweinfurt, FRG

3rd Brigade - inactivated

4th Brigade - Fort Riley, KS

Aviation Brigade - Katterbach, FRG


2nd Infantry Division - ROK

1st Brigade - ROK

2nd Brigade - Fort Carson, CO

3rd Brigade (SBCT 1) - Fort Lewis, WA

4th Brigade (SBCT 4) - Fort Lewis, WA

Aviation Brigade - Korea


3rd Infantry Division - Fort Stewart, GA

1st Brigade - Fort Stewart, GA

2nd Brigade - Fort Stewart, GA

3rd Brigade - Fort Benning, GA

4th Brigade - Fort Stewart, GA

Aviation Brigade - Fort Stewart, GA


4th Infantry Division - Fort Hood, TX

1st Brigade - Fort Hood, TX

2nd Brigade - Fort Hood, TX

3rd Brigade - Fort Carson, CO

4th Brigade - Fort Hood, TX

Aviation Brigade - Fort Hood, TX


10th Mountain Division - Fort Drum, NY

1st Brigade - Fort Drum, NY

2nd Brigade - Fort Drum, NY

3rd Brigade - Fort Drum, NY

4th Brigade - Fort Polk, LA

Aviation Brigade - Fort Drum, NY


25th Infantry Division - Schofield Barracks, HI

1st Brigade - inactivated 6/1/06, reactivation 9?/06

2nd Brigade (SBCT 5) - Schofield Barracks, HI

3rd Brigade - Schofield Barracks, HI

4th Brigade - Fort Richardson, AK

Aviation Brigade - Schofield Barracks HI and Fort Wainwright, AK


82nd Airborne Division - Fort Bragg, NC

1st Brigade/504th PIR - Fort Bragg, NC

2nd Brigade/ 325th PIR - Fort Bragg, NC

3rd Brigade/ 505th PIR - Fort Bragg, NC

4th Brigade/ 508th PIR - Fort Bragg, NC

Aviation Brigade - Fort Bragg, NC


101st Airborne Division - Fort Campbell, KY

1st Brigade/ 327th PIR - Fort Campbell, KY

2nd Brigade/ 502nd PIR - Fort Campbell, KY

3rd Brigade/ 187th PIR - Fort Campbell, KY

4th Brigade/ 506th PIR - Fort Campbell, KY

101st Aviation Brigade - Fort Campbell, KY

159th Aviation Brigade - Fort Campbell, KY


2nd Cavalry Regiment (SBCT 2) - Vilseck, FRG


3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment - Fort Carson, CO


172nd Infantry Brigade (SBCT 3) - Fort Wainwright, AK


173rd Airborne Brigade - Vincenza, IT

********************

DeaconR 07-07-2006, 07:51 AM Cool. Maybe you could also post about the reserve and training divisions?

********************

jasonlips 07-07-2006, 08:53 AM Cool, thanx for the info. 10 Divisions and 4 Brigades/Regiments. What about the Marines? Does the U.S. need a larger military (more grunts)? If things really heat up on the ground Re; Iran, North Korea, what divisions might be reformed? How much would it cost? Call Warren Buffet and tell him we need a loan.

********************

Law0369 07-07-2006, 11:04 AM USMC ORDER OF BATTLE


1st mar div

1st lar bn

3rd aav bn

1st tank bn

1st combat eng bn

1st recon bn

3rd lar bn

hq bn


1st marines

1/1, 2/1, 3/1, 1/4


5th marines

1/5, 2/5, 3/5, 2/4


7th marines

1/7, 2/7, 3/7, 3/4


11th marines (arty)

1/11, 2/11, 3/11, 5/11


2nd marine division

2nd lar bn

2nd combat eng bn

2nd recon bn

2nd tank bn

2nd aav bn

hq bn


2nd marines

1/2, 2/2, 3/2


6th marines

1/6, 2/6, 3/6


8th marines

1/8, 2/8, 3/8


10th marines (arty)

1/10, 2/10, 3/10, 5/10


3rd marine division

combat assault bn

hq bn


3rd marines

1/3, 2/3, 3/3


4th marines

no perminate assigned bn


12th marines

1/12, 3/12


4th marine division (reserve )

hq bn

4th tank bn

8th tank bn

4th lar bn

4th combat eng bn

4th aav bn

4th recon bn

tow company


23rd marines

1/23, 2/23, 3/23


24th marines

1/24, 2/24, 3/24


25th marines

1/25, 2/25, 3/25


14th marines (arty)

1/14, 2/14, 3/14, 4/14, 5/14




this is just division units no support or air units

********************

weswood 07-07-2006, 09:53 PM 1/23 Marines HQ & Alpha Co are based in Houston. Can't remember where the rest of the Battallion is. I know some of the reserve Air Wing was in New Orleans in 90-92, don't know what thier status is now.

********************

pmulcahy 07-07-2006, 11:37 PM 1/23 Marines HQ & Alpha Co are based in Houston. Can't remember where the rest of the Battallion is. I know some of the reserve Air Wing was in New Orleans in 90-92, don't know what thier status is now.


One of those battalions are here in San Antonio (I don't know which one, unfortunately, though I guess I can look in my phone book, if I can remember where I put it...). There's also a small Recon unit (about a platoon, IIRC); they've taken part in every year's Riverwalk Parade until recently (they're a bit busy right now).

********************

Webstral 07-09-2006, 02:32 AM I doubt there will be a ground war with Iran. Not even the likes of Bush can ignore the fact that the Army is operating at 110%. The DoD geniuses who decided 150k would be enough to invade Iraq have lost their credibility (I pray). Even with their numbers, it would take 250k to take Iran. There is no such force left in the Army without mobilizing everyone who has already done their tour in Iraq/Afghanistan or starting a draft. The latter is simply not possible, and the former is unlikely with elections for the entire House of Reps and a third of the Senate in November. Of course, you never can say never.


Webstral

********************

pmulcahy 07-09-2006, 09:58 AM We're not going to have a ground war in Iran -- we aren't even going to go the air strike route in North Korea. We simply don't have the assets anymore; most of our military is tied up in Iraq or support of "Iraqi Freedom." Even Afghanistan has been heavily stripped of US troops for use in Iraq. And our guys aren't just tired, they're dog-tired, physically, mentally, and emotionally. Back home, their families are having a hell of a time, and many of them are disintegrating under the pressure. And I'm sure the world's troublemaker regimes know it, and that they can pretty much get away with anything they want.


As for a draft, thank god Bush can't directly authorize one himself. (Though with his flagrant disregard for the Constitution and laws in general, who knows what he might do...) The Congress will never authorize a draft -- it's political suicide -- if they authorize one, they might as well all resign and have their states call special elections for all their seats. And imagine the draft riots! It will be like Vietnam all over again.

********************

Law0369 07-09-2006, 06:20 PM dont want to talk politics here but trust me the us army and marines are more than ready to take on iran and korea now and destroy them very easly. holding the ground is a differnt matter at hand. we did take iraq with 150k but now to supress the country and its insurgents and foriegn born fighters is another matter. to my best guess it will be 2 to 3 more years unitl the iraq army can hold there own and another 3 to 4 to get on there own with support and all of its factors. this is coming from my point of view as active duty with a tour in both afghanistan and iraq.

********************

DeaconR 07-09-2006, 09:40 PM Law, not talking politics but just talking capabilities, how do you figure? Where are the numbers? I'm wondering about this because our Prime Minister is trying to gain support for at the very least maintaining current Canadian forces in Afghanistan, and the question from the Opposition has been: how effective will this be and how long will it take?


I think the Opposition are being weasely about it, not to talk too much politics but reneging on obligations to allies doesn't leave a pleasant taste in my mouth--especially since it was they who originally sent our troops there.



But seriously, I'm not so much disagreeing with you as interested in your point of view.

********************

Webstral 07-09-2006, 10:31 PM For anyone who thinks an offensive into Iran or N Korea would in any way shape or form resemble the invasion of Iraq, I have two images: the Zagros Mountains, and the N Korean countryside. Armor can't simply punch through these areas. Firepower helps, but as the Korean and Vietnam Wars demonstrated there are ways for the enemy to neutralize our firepower advantage. Only light infantry can open the Zagros passes and the road to Pyongyang. I'll tell you this much: I'm not ready to be among the light infantry who would give their lives demonstrating that the Army needs to retrain its light infantry. I will tell you as an OIF III veteran that we are not ready to win a ground war in Iran in any way that is recognizable as victory. However, we can reduce much of the country to rubble, if that is what one calls victory.


Afghanistan and Iraq could not win a conventional war against us. Whether or not we will win the ongoing insurrection in these places is very much an open question.



Webstral

********************

Law0369 07-10-2006, 06:47 AM the marine corps can field 11 regimental combat teams only 2 are in iraq right now that leaves 9 we used 3 for the ground war in iraq for the invasion.


the army has 44 combat brigades only 5 are used in iraq now. that leaves 39 active brigades .


the national guard has 16 seperate brigades and 8 divisions on 4 brigades each coming to a total of 48 natioal guard combat brigades only 2 are used in iraq right now that leaves 46.


unit totals used left

usmc 11 2 9

army 44 5 39

natinal guard 48 2 46

total str 103 9 94



hope this is enough also we must remember the 2 to 3 months the great us navy and air force will have to reduce these countrys to rubble . i was in afghanistan and i walked from rhino to khandahar 170 miles never fired a shot air power did it all khandahar surendered to us with out a shot . remember folks all iam saying is that we could take them not maybe hold them that would be a differnt thread.

********************

thefusilier 07-10-2006, 08:53 AM Take them probably yes, but the casualities would be very high. Nothing like Iraq or Afghanistan.


Afghanis could'nt really do much about us airpower but the Iranians and North Koreans can. They also haven't been subject to years of embargoes and sanctions like Iraq. Their militaries aren't demorilized either like Iraq's troops were. The terrain would limit US armor superiority and greatly aid the defenders. Both have many huge hidden underground facilities for their military and industry. North Korea has over 1 million active personel, their very well trained special forces number 80,000 alone. And then there is chemical and bio weapons available too (unlike Iraq)..

********************

Law0369 07-10-2006, 01:02 PM there air defense is old and out dated ... when over 2000 tlams strike you before one sorte is flown it hurts bad same thing happened to both of the other countrys before war.both countrys would fall easy but holding them is another thing i think korea would be a differnt case if the south moved in quick to take over and played a large supporting role.

********************

Webstral 07-10-2006, 01:28 PM If "take 'em" means something like the way we "took" Hue following the Tet Offensive, then Law is right. There is no above-ground structure anywhere in the world we cannot level. There is no civilian populace we cannot render homeless. There is no industrial economy we cannot ruin with high explosives; no sewage treatment system safe from our bombardment; few governments we cannot force to seek refuge. If that is taking them, then we can take Iran.


What's the point of this? As a threat, the capability has some merit. As a practical option, creating rubble has little virtue. This isn't WW2 anymore. Blasting a country to ruin because we have issue with its leaders just doesn't go. And what happens after we have reduced a country to junk? I don't believe we can usefully talk about knocking over Iran (even if we agree that the US really does have the moxie to defeat the Iranian Army in the field and drive the government from Tehran) without addressing what will happen after the President announces that major combat operations are over. OIF and OEF have demonstrated that there is no such thing as separate invasion and occupation victories. For better or worse, these things are joined at the hip. Therefore, the numbers game must support a successful occupation of Iran or N Korea for the numbers to be worth anything.


Furthermore, counting brigade/regimental combat teams as a primary or sole means of measuring combat power is the kind of thing the self-appointed geniuses at the DoD like to do. Law, I know that you know better than that and simply left out the other parts of the equation for the sake of brevity. But we should look at the other aspects now that Pandora's Box has been opened.


Years ago, I heard the Navy taking about wanting to maintain twelve carriers so they could keep four at sea at all times. I was flabbergasted. Why couldn't they just keep four carriers at sea? Of course, as adults we understand that seamen enjoy seeing their families. We understand that few will reenlist to spend their entire lives at sea. In any event, crews need rest and refit, training, and so forth. And the ships need to be maintained.


The same is true of Army and Marine units. The Marines are managing their manpower in Iraq more intelligently than the Army is. The Marines have a seven-month tour, whereas the Army is still doing the one-year tour. Psychologically, seven months is a heck of a lot shorter than a year. Granted, a Marine is definitely going back for a second tour--possibly a third. But then active duty soldiers are all going back for second tours, too.


What's my point? Rest, refit, and reorganization. A BCT that has just come from Iraq is not ready to go wage conventional war in Iran. Why? It's all about the skill sets.


Iraq is a police action, plain and simple. Police actions are fought completely differently than HIC (High Intensity Conflict). I will use the active duty unit to which my National Guard unit was attached as an example. My company was attached to 4-64 AR, which was part of 4 BCT, 3rd ID.


3rd ID is trained, organized, and equipped to kill people and break things. The soldiers on the sharp end of the stick join to do these things. Tankers want to fight other vehicles; infantry want to shoot folk; artillerymen want to put rounds downrange and see the splash. They are trained to do these things, and temperamentally they are inclined towards these pursuits. In a sense, this works to the Army's advantage down the road, but not in Iraq. For in Iraq, there are no vehicles to destroy. There is fighting, to be sure. However, it's quite unlike what most soldiers trained to do. While in western Iraq there is some fighting that resembles conventional war, everywhere else it's a contest with people in the shadows. Even when there is someone to shoot at, the responses we have been trained to execute aren't permitted.


My company is part of 1-184 IN, a California National Guard battalion. 1-184 IN was trained with 29 BCT, but once in-theater we were separated from the 29th and assigned directly to 4 BCT, 3rd ID. My company was further separated from 1-184, but the rest of the battalion remained intact and operated out of FOB Falcon just south of Baghdad. My brethren of 1-184 patrolled in the agricultural country south of the city. Indirect fires were not permitted under any circumstances. Thus, when the Hummers of D/1-184 came under fire from irrigation ditches, the motorized infantry could not call for indirect fires against an enemy who were using the banks of the irrigation channels for cover. .50 caliber doesn't have the moxie to get through more than a few inches of packed earth. Unless my buddies in Delta got a head shot, they couldn't knock out the target. How often do you guys suppose that happened? So our patrols had no choice but the keep on rolling through the kill zone. It defies reason, but that's what Iraq has come to.


Anyway, by the time a regular combat outfit rotates back to the US after a year in Iraq, their combat readiness is in the toilet. We don't go to ranges there. We don't hone our skills. We don't get ready for war. We man checkpoints. We send out vehicle-mounted patrols that are about as useful as police patrol cars driving through Watts. There isn't time for training because soldiers are patrolling, manning checkpoints, running convoys, or doing their command post jobs twelve hours a day, seven days a week. Throw in maintenance of equipment and personal hygiene, and there's really very little left. Nothing left, in fact.


So a unit that has pulled duty in Iraq arrives in the US and is in no condition to go to war.


But why can't they just train up and be ready in two months? Well, anyone who has been in the Army (any Army) knows that everything the Army does is painful and laborious. We attended numerous briefings dealing with how things were going to go for 4 BCT after redeployment to CONUS. (And don't think this didn't remind us what red-headed stepchildren we were.) Upon returning, there would be copious unpacking, sorting, repairing, record-keeping, promotions, medal-awarding, and the whole rigamarole of simply getting the brigade to the point where real recovery could begin. Some things could be rushed, but others can't. Shipping containers have to come back from Iraq. This is not an overnight process. And in many cases, critical items necessary for deployment simply would not be available to 4 BCT for several months.


And then there's the fact that 1 BCT, 3rd ID was going to Afghanistan seven months after arriving at Ft Stewart. In fact, I'll wager they are either there or on their way. 4 BCT was going to be gutted of troops and equipment to make good on shortages in 1 BCT. 1 BCT wasn't going to be up-to-strength in equipment because much of its gear was being left for 4th ID, who was replacing them. 1 BCT's home depot had been raided for other purposes, so 3rd ID was cannibalizing its own units to get a brigade back out the door in seven months.


4 BCT, by the way, isn't scheduled to go out the door again until mid-2007. That's the fastest projected turnaround for this brigade, due to the fact that personnel and equipment are prioritized for other units.


Here's my point: numbers don't tell the whole story. The Army is in deplorable condition because so many units are understrength, under-equipped, and under-trained for the kind of fighting Iran or N Korea would entail. Iraq is sucking the institution dry. Vital training doesn't take place in CONUS because the money has to support OIF and OEF. Vital equipment goes short because the gear and/or the money is needed to support operations overseas. And so on.


Moreover, combat formations are not self-sustaining. Every BCT/RCT requires support by non-combat brigades. Many of these brigades are Army Reserve. The Army Reserve has been heavily taxed at this point. Supporting 50,000 rifles in Iran may not be possible without violating the 2-in-5 clause that applies to reservists after 9-11.


Also, not every combat formation not currently in Iraq is going to be available for duty in Iran. There are units in Afghanistan, Bosnia, and a dozen other places. We're not going to pull them out to invade Iran. Units refitting from overseas duty aren't going to be available, either. I'm here to tell you that 29 BCT is not available for overseas duty. Neither are the California National Guard brigades. All these BCTs have been tapped for duty in all the places I mentioned. Most states have been exposed as charlatans--carrying many more soldiers on their National Guard books than actually are available. 29 BCT had to be brought up to strength with additional troops from Alaska, Minnesota, Nevada, and other states. Unless Congress changes the rules that govern the use of reservists, all of these people are non-deployable for the next three years. And the units they came from almost certainly were understrength to begin with. Oh--and then there are the people getting out. A third of my company ETS'd while overseas and did not re-enlist. The active Army has the same problem. The same numbers aren't coming in.


Let us not forget that we must maintain a strategic reserve, too. Even if we were to consolidate the entire non-deployed force into combat-ready brigades, a healthy percentage of them would have to be kept in CONUS in the event of a disaster somewhere else in the world.


By themselves, the numbers of brigades in the Army tell us nothing useful. On paper, the Army has a good deal more available strength than it does in reality. A good deal more. The Army isn't ready to win a war in Iran or N Korea in any way that represents a real victory.



Webstral

********************

chico20854 07-10-2006, 06:45 PM Well said, Webstral.


It's the difference between paper and people. The Army is overstretched, tired and in generally rough condition. Full of good, proud soldiers, but ones that have had an awful lot asked of them, and a disproportionate burden compared to the rest of the country. Yet it is politically difficult to admit that they need help, and no easy answers!

********************
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
oob, united states


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:23 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.