Quote:
Originally Posted by dragoon500ly
Think about the guys who served in WWII, get recalled to fight in Korea and then have a couple of tours in Vietnam....
|
Yeah I know there several troops who fought in Korea and then did tours in Vietnam. The main difference was that they weren't far remove from what they had done WWII when they fought in Korea. Of course, the fighting was slightly different depending on if they had served in the Pacific, France, or Italy during WWII.
Then to go into Vietnam which was totally a different animal all together.
The sad thing is many of the lesson that were learned in Korea and Vietnam have been relearned many more times. So much so that the lessons that we had retained from Europe and North Africa in WWII are fading away fast.
Looking over the information that at some sites. Looks to me that the Army is not transforming from Mechanized/Armor heavy that they were before 2003 starting after 1991 in which their was movement to create light and medium forces to balance out things out which by 1991 seemed to be on the way out.
Now there seems to be more units that are would have been considered light and medium type combat than less and less of the heavy units.
I looked at this with mix feelings. Granted the last several year many of the old heavy units and others have gone into theater with-out the equipment that they had trained with for years. It is one of those things when you look as recently as 2008 I think it was when the Russia Army invade Georgia, a nation that had been seeking entry into NATO at the time. There were several lesson that one would of thought, that would still validate having a good share units still organized as heavy units.
The one thing is if we do let things go because the we believe that the use of the heavy units isn't going to happen. The idea that any Divisional command should be able to support any mix of troops that the Army decides to throw together for this mission or that mission. Or the next time the US has to send military forces over somewhere where we will have six months or longer build up period and have the leisure to rotate troops as we see fit.
Then it is sorely misguided. Granted rotating troops from front-line position to rest/refit position is all too important, but if anything what modern operation going back to WWII at time has shown there is no Front line. It is wide and flexible area that can change at time within hours, if not faster.
Yes it would be sad if the 3rd ACR was order to convert to any of the new model of Brigade Combat Teams. It still has a unique and very important role that it can fill. What is left of the few ACRs in the Nation Guard all have seemed to have been converted to other function much like the 2nd and 11th ACR in the Regular Army have been.
In some sense the Infantry/Airborne/Air Assault Brigade Combat Teams are much like the former Light Infantry/Airborne/Air Assault Brigades of the pre-modular Army with the modification that they now have Special Troop Battalion made up of what used to be Divisional Support units and Forward Support Battalion with an reduce Artillery Battalion as part of the Brigade organization. With the reduction of one Infantry Battalion out and replaced by a Cavalry Squadron that they still trying to figure out what it should be. One of the sad thing is 10 years ago some of these Infantry Brigades were Mechanized or Armor Brigade under the old system.
The Heavy Brigade Combat Teams well there has been lot of debate and harsh tones over how these units lost 1 Battalion either Mechanized or Armor depending on what the Brigade was task original. Now for say the US Army of 1980s or early 1990s that would be true, but 2003 they had 3 line companies. What was lost in the transition was 1 Battalion and 1 Artillery Battery. What the Brigades gains was that Armor Brigades receive one Mechanized Company and the old Mechanized Brigades got one Armor Company. Along with having the Artillery, and Support Battalion assigned to support the Brigade full time. They also received Engineer Battalion that on paper was parsed out, Special Troop Battalion from divisional assets, and again Cavalry Squadron.
With the new Stryker Brigades they keep the same 3 Infantry Battalions, the Cavalry Squadrons which the RSTA missions started out as. They still have full Artillery Battalions. What they gained on paper wasn't really a gained since many of these Brigades were originally 'Separated Brigades' or 'Enhance Brigades' depending on how you want to word was Special Troop Battalion which were largely operated independently prior or as part of the Support Battalion already assigned to the Brigade. Yes, these Brigade seemed to take what had worked with ACRs and mold it to the Infantry unit that could be sent anywhere in number of days with number of aircraft were ready to use.
Yet they still didn't go to the ACR extreme where the each Infantry Battalion was compose of Engineer Company, Artillery Battery, and Support sub units like the Armor Cavalry Squadrons were broken down to. This is one of the points missed with all three organization of the new Brigade Combat Teams. In some ways the Heavy Brigades are much better organized, but their is room for more improvement.
Then their are still units like the 1st Mechanized Division, 3rd Mechanized Division, and even the 10th Mountain Division where they have one or more of their component units based else where from the Division while the Divisional Command still has nominal control. Then their is the 2nd Infantry and 25th Infantry Divisions where Divisional HQ doesn't necessarily have operation control of the Brigades. Even though in theory they will be used with those Divisions. I am sure there are other units that have Brigades scattered. Such as the 1st Armored and 4th Mechanized that may have units still at Fort Hood. Then again Fort Hood at one time was home to III Corps and 2 Division that had Division HQ, Divisional Support, Aviation and two of the three Combat Brigades there at one time a past that GDW worked with.
Honestly, I remember when I was in, there wasn't much believe that we would have time build up our forces in either Germany or Korea if the balloon went up. The only ones who seemed to believe who were the ones who promoted the idea of have round-out Brigades and other sub-units to make the Army appear larger than it really was. It was game played by both side during the cold war. The 6th Polish Airborne/Air Assault Division for example for most of it life under the Warsaw Pact never amounted to much more than reinforce Brigade. Or the fact that depending on the material you read, one could be led to believe that French and English Divisions weren't much better. In fact, the standard Soviet MRD and TD had about two-thirds of the strength of US or German Division.
Even the Germans it seem never pleased with their Divisional organization. I have read at one time standard Panzer/Panzergrenadier Brigade had up to 5 line Battalions. Or the fact that their Airborne Division was largely administrative organization when it exist since it three Brigades were already tasked to one of the III Corps. Or that their Mountain Division consisted of only one Light Brigade with special Panzer Brigade and Panzergrenadier Brigade.
In fact, largely since WWII many of the Divisions on either side was just a number games. The Soviets and Pact forces had a larger number of Divisions, but the question was always how much of fight some of the Pact forces would put up. While on NATO side it was always a question of where would they be able to stop the incoming Soviet/Pact horde before the front line troop could get reinforce. The second most important question is how far into Germany the French would allow the Soviets/Poles push before they popped nukes. Which was followed by a third question how far the US/UK were willing to allow the Soviet/Poles go before they started popping nuke and then where.
It seems that Soviets believed that the US may used the Vistula River as an line to drop nukes in order to slow Soviet reinforcement, or that how they war-gamed it with the Polish. You know you can't nuke an allies territory right. Ironically one has to wonder if the somehow the US Seventh Army and other units of the CentAG were able to stop the Soviet/Germans/Czech forces in Southern West Germany, and were able to go on the offensive cutting off forces in Northern German and forced them into retreat, which if turned into offensive deep into Poland. Would it be the Soviets using the Vistula River as last ditch stopping line to keep NATO out of Soviet territory?
I don't know...just some thoughts and ramblings.