American force organisation

[95th Rifleman]

I can find allot of information on American paper organisations, divisons, battalions etc, but can't find any info on what they actualy put into the field.

The British army takes the component units of a brigade and forms battlegroups, they then take these battlegroups and form smaller company level, combined arms combat teams. I have information on the british versions.

What I need is some examples of how the US army (and marines) actualy put forces into the field. What is a typical company and/or battalion sized US version of the British battlegroup/combat team?

[dragoon500ly]

The US Army uses the task force/team organization when it fights.

For example; the 2nd Brigade, 1st Armored Division in the 1980s fielded four combat battalions: 2-6 INF, 3-34 ARM, 4-34 ARM and 2-81 ARM, supported by 3-1 FA.

All of the combat battalions have roughly the same Headquarters Company layout (HQ, Scouts, Mortars, etc) the difference would be in the task organization of the line companies.

2-6 INF, with A, B, C and D companies, would release two of its rifle companies. One would be attached to, say, 4-34 ARM and 2-81 ARM, both of whom would release a single tank company to 2-6 INF.

You would then have:

Task Force 2-6 INF with its on A & B Companies, C Co, 4-34 ARM and D Co, 2-81 ARM. This would be referred to as a balanced task force.

4-34 ARM would have its own A, B & D Companies and C Co, 2-6 INF and would form a armor-heavy task force.

2-81 ARM would have its A, B & C companies and D-2-6 INF. Ditto as an armor-heavy task force.

So 2nd Brigade would have 3-34 ARM (often referred to as pure, cherry or virgin), Task Force 2-6 INF, Task Force 4-34 ARM and Task Force 2-81 ARM.

Taking TF 2-81 ARM as an example, the battalion commander would split a rifle platoon from D-2-6 INF and attach it to, say C Co, who would release a tank platoon to D Co.

TF 2-81 ARM would then field A & B Companies, and Team Charlie (tank heavy) and Team Delta (infantry heavy). They would not necessarily keep the company letter...anybody remember Team Yankee?

So how are the redlegs effected? 3-1 FA would remain intact, simply tasking a battery to support one of the battalions. Depending on the operation, one of the line battalions may have priority of fire, in which case they would have full claim to the entire artillery battalion, with each battalion supporting itself with its own mortars until their attached battery was released back to them.

The whole concept of Task Force and Teams, in the US Army is very flexible. It is not unusual to form two task forces today, and 24-hours later, break them up or even detach the company to another battalion. It also does not follow the rather tidy example I showed above. I have seen infantry battalions lose three of their rifle companies to tank battalions, picking up more tank companies and even examples of releasing C & D companies and picking up A & B companies from the tanks.

Now, in the 1980s, the Infantry Battalions still used E Company as a holding for the battalion antitank systems. Normal operations would have E Company splitting up, attaching its line platoons to the various line companies. If that company was detached to another battalion, normally, its E Company attachment would follow along. But it was not unusual to see that attachment returned to E Company prior to the cross attachment.

Confused?

Yes it is a flexible, chaotic system in writing, but the training was constant with almost every field exercise involving cross-attachment. In the field, battalions could reform with minimal wastage of time. In Desert Storm, the task forces would hit one Iraqi unit, reform in between combat and hit a second Iraqi unit with a different organization. It could be tailored almost at will for specific tasks (breaking the initial front lines) and then reconfigure for pursuit operations.

So it works.

Hope this helps!

As far as the USMC organizations, it was always an article of faith in the Army, that Marine cross-attachment took the form of two platoons of Marines, holding hands and skipping towards the nearest enemy machine gun!!!

With a salute and a wink towards the Marine members of the forum!!!!!

[95th Rifleman]

Much obliged Dragonfly!

It seems very similar to the British system actualy. I assume other brigade assets (ADA, Recce and engineer) would be assighned on a case by case basis, determined by the brigade commander?

[dragoon500ly]

ADA organization is a bit different, the battalions have their own Stinger platoon so attachments from the ADA Battalion is more of a Brigade-level sort of thing. The only time that I have ever heard of or witnessed an ADA attachment to a line battalion was when the battalion was conducting a solo operation such as rear guard or advanced guard, even then, it was normally no more than a gun section of two Vulcan tracks, the Chaparrals almost always cover the rear areas.

Engineers tasked on an as needed basis, usually on a platoon tasked to a company sort of thing...although...for Desert Storm, the attachment was a full engineer company to a battalion.

The battalions also field their own Scout platoons, so the Divisional Cavalry Squadron is seldom broken down and attached.

During the 1980s, a lot of experiments were run with the Cav's troops being reinforced by an attached tank platoon. Because the Cav was not used to cross-attachment (and even more important, the line dawgs were not used to the recon role), this led to the HMMWV/TOW augementation and later the permanent attachment of a tank platoon to each of the two ground troops.

Another set of units that do not cross-attach are the Combat Aviation Battalions, they are more like the artillery, with a company of attack helicopters tasked to support a specific battalion.

Generally, the further back the unit, the less likely it will cross-attach.

I was looking through some old manuals I have, and for the 1980s timeframe, the Marines would attach support units to the regiment/battalion with the local commander attaching the support to specific units. The overall impression I get is that the Marines do not cross-attach to the degree that the Army does.

[Adm.Lee]

Originally Posted by dragoon500ly

I was looking through some old manuals I have, and for the 1980s timeframe, the Marines would attach support units to the regiment/battalion with the local commander attaching the support to specific units. The overall impression I get is that the Marines do not cross-attach to the degree that the Army does.

Mostly because there are far fewer tanks in the Marines, to cross-attach like that. They do a lot of attaching when they form their MEUs, but assets like armor and engineers and the like are not cross-attached as often.

[dragoon500ly]

Originally Posted by Adm.Lee

Mostly because there are far fewer tanks in the Marines, to cross-attach like that. They do a lot of attaching when they form their MEUs, but assets like armor and engineers and the like are not cross-attached as often.

Well, the Marines are always considered rapid-response, light infantry. Don't get me wrong, they are excellent in thier own niche, but where they fail is when they are committed against heavy armor. For the most part, they just don't have the heavy antitank/armor needed to face off a Soviet MRD/TD. As for mobility, its helos, landing ships or combat boots; a marine division only has enough LVTP/LAVs to move three battalions at once.

It was always the "official" war plan that the 2nd Marine Division would be split into three MEBs. One to reinforce Norway, one to reinforce Denmark and the third for use in the Med or to reinforce Norway/Denmark. These so-called "side-show theaters" would allow the Marines to be used to their fullest. Committing the Marines into the Central Front, would just allow them to suffer unnecessary losses.