Quote:
Originally Posted by Adm.Lee
One wonders if some armies might skip one or more command levels. Say, try to keep companies and platoons up to normal levels, but have many fewer companies by assigning companies directly to brigades/regiments rather than battalions, or skipping brigades and having divisions commanding fewer battalions (no brigades/regiments).
|
It seems like consolidation would work best if everybody “played down”. I’d assume the focus would be on rebuilding as many complete to MTOE teams/squads/sections/platoons as possible and integrating them into troops/companies/batteries as feasible (companies train and enable squads, battalions train and enable platoons, brigades train and enable companies) with sustainment of 3-5 “brigade sized” element “corps” probably being the limit of a major logistics effort by 2000 (so a corps really has about a pre-war division or less of combat power). For example, a tank “company” may have four tanks operating tactically using platoon doctrine.
So, a US Army heavy division may look a lot like an OTL modular era brigade combat team with three combined arms battalion sized “brigades”; a DIVARTY “battalion” comprised of the remnants of the TA battery in its HHB, a battery with the surviving MLRS/M110/Lance assets, and a special weapons company; an “aviation” battalion with a div cav troop, a company with the the GSAB remnants, and a company with the the surviving RW attack assets; a “mighty five” composite battalion of MI, Signal, Engineer, ADA, and special troops (band, div HHC, MPs, chem) not attached to the “brigades”, and a support battalion with the remnants of the Discom, avim, MSB, and Med Bn in addition to whatever local support base the unit has built in its cantonment.
Maneuver “brigades” would have three “battalions” which are really company equivalent units, an artillery “battalion” (battery equivalent), an FSB (company equivalent), a special troops BN (Combat support co- ENG, ADA, MI, SIG, Mp, chem), and an HHC including a reconnaissance/cavalry element. A “battalion” may be further subdivided into “companies” of like major end items (a four M60A4 “company” or a three M109 “battery”). Efforts would be made to keep equipment homogenous by “battalion” or ideally “brigade”.
For example, a brigade may look like this:
HHC (1x M113 TAC, 2x M577 TOC, 1x expandovan ALOC)
(3x BRDM RCN TRP)
TANK BN (1 HQ M1A1, 2x 4 M1A1 COs)
MECH BN (1 HQ M2, 1x 4 M2 CO)
MECH BN (1 HQ M113, 1x 4 M113 CO, 1x 4 OT64 CO, 1x 2 M901 CO)
ARTY BN (1x BTR-60 FDC, 3x M109 BTTY, 4x M1064 BTTY)
STB (1x HQ M1025, 1 x stinger team, 1 x PPS-5 GSR, 1x ENG M113, 2x M1025 retrans)
FSB (2x HQ M1025, 3x HEMTT fueler, 1 x HEMTT wrecker, 2x PLS, 1 x 5 ton tool truck, 2 x FLA)
Scaling down has a couple of benefits. First, you can cross level equipment and personnel for best effect- a full strength platoon is better than a shot out company. Second, junior officers and NCOs moving up into “senior” leadership positions will be more familiar with the tactics and employment of smaller units (company maneuver isn’t generally taught at OBC, and not everyone gets to learn by doing as a LT, but every army and marine officer learns the rudiments of fighting a platoon). Finally, you can preserve the intangible links to unit heritage and identification- even though there are only four IPM1s left, this is still the 1-37 AR “Bandits”.
FWIW I always struggled with the composition of 5ID in “Death of a Division”. The battalions and brigades threw me, especially when I tried to reconcile it with the US Army guidebook vehicle densities. I finally ended up summing the number of tanks and dividing it by the MTOE number to get an “equipment factor” I applied to all the “combat systems” in the division (fighting vehicles, scout and attack avn, arty, major weapons systems). I did the same with the personnel, to give me a “personnel factor” that I applied to manpower and non-combat systems (soft skins, UHs, key support equipment). Putting this together I arrived at some basic end numbers, that I then consolidated to the nearest complete team/squad/section platoon. And thence into the rest of the division. Where I had discrepancies (not enough vehicle lift, too many vehicles) I assumed use of captured or commandeered items, use of techniques like the shuttle march, non-standard arrangements like cycles or horses, or contract personnel.
I ended up not going above the “division” level, but I did apply the system to an ACR as well. I think I ended up with two horse mounted “squadrons”, a troop sized squadron, a flight platoon sized RAS, and shrunken RSS, and separates at about squad or team level.
At any rate, I hope this helps the discussion.