|
Korea
May 14, 2015 9:39:41 GMT -6
Post by quincannon on May 14, 2015 9:39:41 GMT -6
Placing them under a general Ian is where common doctrine come in. An no we have not been doing this since 1941. 1941 and beyond was tinkering around the edges. This system is transformative, and if that bastard Napoleon would get out of the way of transformation we might get something done. The Army you know and study is an outgrowth of Napoleon, two hundred odd years past his prime.
You look closely at today's British Army and they are following, and in some instances leading the same organizational trends as the U S Army. You folks sent separate brigades to the Falklands in 1982, not a division, and then placed a division like headquarters above it to control the activities of those brigades. In fact brigades were your basic structure in WWII, not the division.
|
|
|
Korea
May 14, 2015 9:56:43 GMT -6
Post by Yan Taylor on May 14, 2015 9:56:43 GMT -6
Chuck I must have panzer division syndrome, I thought that the German structure was the best out there (well the way Rommel had his, involving no horses).
The British system of combining Battalions into Brigades was the norm in WW2, and the US used Regiments made up of Battalions.
Ian.
|
|
|
Korea
May 14, 2015 10:01:19 GMT -6
Post by quincannon on May 14, 2015 10:01:19 GMT -6
One thing that may assist you Ian is the knowledge that from 1917 until early this century in the U S Army the division was considered the lowest level in which the combat arms, combat support, and combat service support could be packaged into a combat entity,
From about 2005 onward that combination of the arms and services was reduced to the brigade level and brigades became fixed in structure, much like the divisions had been previously. In any brigade in the U S Army today you will find they have pretty much all they need to conduct combat operations, as the divisions did previously.
Will told you that we have not yet worked through all the issues with this new structure, and there are those afoot who would love to see us go backwards. Going backwards is never a solution to any problem. The most probable solution to the in fighting and issues of today, is an internal organization of the brigades themselves which is a healthy thing, and a retailoring of outside brigade support assets, giving some and taking away other. Force structuring is a constant work in progress, never complete, only transitioning, and that too is healthy.
|
|
|
Korea
May 14, 2015 10:09:24 GMT -6
Post by quincannon on May 14, 2015 10:09:24 GMT -6
The British system in WWII was assigning brigades to division, and changing those brigades as necessary. It was the precursor of today.
Where the Brits and everyone else missed the boat is to them the Infantry Brigade meant three battalions of Infantry and they did not include the enablers and fire supporters, but you were not at all bashful about switching a brigade from one division to another. The fault was this switch was based upon need not situation.
You guys started to get the idea with the Brigade Group.
Rommel's 15th and 21st Panzer Divisions sucked from an organizational standpoint. Far too light considering what a division was capable of controlling. Look at the O/B and count the battalions. The count never lies.
|
|
|
Korea
May 14, 2015 11:03:51 GMT -6
Post by quincannon on May 14, 2015 11:03:51 GMT -6
Esprit de Corps Ian is built from the ground up. It has nothing to do with colored pins, embroidered patches, Colors or streamers associated with achievements long past. I has to do with competence built upon confidence in achieving individual and collective skills that enable you to take on and kick the ass of all comers, anywhere, anytime. That is Esprit de Corps Ian, and more relevant than every rendition of Garry Owen ever played.
|
|
|
Korea
May 14, 2015 11:54:04 GMT -6
Post by chris on May 14, 2015 11:54:04 GMT -6
I was wondering about tank use and diesel v gasoline - were most tanks gasoline powered in WW2? When did diesel enter the scene? There's huge torgue from those diesel engines. Sorry if this was addressed - missed it. Best, c.
|
|
|
Korea
May 14, 2015 12:14:17 GMT -6
Post by Yan Taylor on May 14, 2015 12:14:17 GMT -6
Chris, on the new site I have given the type of fuel used in every main model of vehicle used in over twenty countries from 1920 to 1950, most nations did use petrol, but there were exceptions.
Ian.
|
|
|
Korea
May 14, 2015 12:33:38 GMT -6
Post by Yan Taylor on May 14, 2015 12:33:38 GMT -6
Chuck you are correct both the 15th and 21st were weak compared to US and UK standards, the main thing going for them is the fact they had no horses and all the artillery was motorized. but I like the balance of structure, you could easily make two battle groups out of that division below and each would be similar to a miniature BCT, with armour, motorized or armoured infantry, recce, engineer anti-tank and flak; But as you said they were weak with only two battalions to each regiment (armour and infantry). (the images does work by the way) Ian.
|
|
|
Korea
May 14, 2015 13:31:59 GMT -6
Post by quincannon on May 14, 2015 13:31:59 GMT -6
They were the result of Hitler wanting more Panzer Divisions, with a production capacity that forced the Germans to rely on horses, instead of army wide motorization and mechanization. The result was a trend toward divisions (across the board) whose ability for command and control was greater than the assets they commanded and controlled. More is never better. Only better is better.
The 15th and 21st were large brigades with an oversized amount of artillery. That's all.
|
|
|
Korea
May 14, 2015 15:16:28 GMT -6
Post by chris on May 14, 2015 15:16:28 GMT -6
Thanks Ian, I was wondering about logistics and using both gasoline (petrol) and diesel fuel. Best, c.
|
|
|
Korea
May 14, 2015 21:32:18 GMT -6
Post by mac on May 14, 2015 21:32:18 GMT -6
Interesting! I come to this as a virtual know nothing but..... I guess the restructuring is to address the fact that war has changed and that smaller more independent forces are now needed as wars are coming in small packages in diverese locations. I assume this reorganisation is facilitated by the advance of technology where smaller units now have much greater firepower. Cheers
|
|
|
Korea
May 14, 2015 22:05:30 GMT -6
Post by quincannon on May 14, 2015 22:05:30 GMT -6
The answer to your question would require another Gone With The Wing sized magnum opus Mac, at least a complete answer.
Let me try and answer it this way. Above I posted about what I think the fires battalion of a brigade should look like in my opinion - 12 guns in three batteries. No one picked up on it. I expected Ian to say something on the order of don't artillery batteries normally have six guns and a battalion 18. The answer is in the U S Army that WWII batteries for the most part were 4 guns, found insufficient by war service and upped to six since and on occasion to eight. The advent of precision munitions though has afford us the opportunity to decrease that number back to four and provide the same level of supporting fires, not through any increased weight of metal, but by hitting what we aim at with fewer rounds rather than having to saturate a target to insure destruction. That is just one item, but illustrative of technological improvement and even revolution across the spectrum.
The object to dominate battle space. Increased ranges, more acute sensors, unmanned systems, and a host of other things mean smaller units can dominate the same areas and larger that their elder and larger brothers did twenty, thirty, or forty years ago.
This is one reason I think Korea so important. It started a break away from wars of the past, and opened the door to wars of the future, and we started an adaptation process in 1950 that continues today. Montrose if asked will tell you that modern Special Forces began "in the Army" (in the Army being emphasized) with Aaron Bank and 10th Group. He would be half right in that 10th Group was the first unit established by table of organization for special operations, but it was Korea with UNPIK that the U S Army (as the Army not OSS) got into the business, because some visionary people understood that war, and the reasons for war were changing, and the method must also change. That too is but one example of a revolution that has taken place over these last 65 years
|
|
|
Post by Yan Taylor on May 15, 2015 5:29:53 GMT -6
Chuck, I have never heard of an eight or twelve gun battery being employed by the US army (12 x 105s per battery that is 108 per battalion), I thought you went from four (WW2) to six (Korea) and back to four again (present). They tried to up-grade from four to six in 1950 but they didn’t have the howitzers available let alone the ammo, as they had to supply the South Korean army too (which also used the 105mm howitzer). Apparently the SK were desperate for more 105 ammo.
I think the US army now uses the M119 105mm howitzer, which is a British design. Your main battle tanks are plated with Chobham armour, which again is a British invention (shush!! And still top secret). Sorry about this but I feel like flying the colours today.
Ian.
|
|
|
Korea
May 15, 2015 7:35:29 GMT -6
Post by quincannon on May 15, 2015 7:35:29 GMT -6
No, we went from four to six then eight in some instances, and we have stayed there. The point is with precision there is no need to stay they and it affords us the opportunity to reduce to an organization of four guns per battery, 12 per battalion.
That brigade I laid out above is my design, what I would do, read it more carefully, not what the U S Army has done, is doing, or is likely to do until it is forced upon them.
Ian: The standard artillery battalion in the U S Army is a headquarters and three firing batteries. Each of these batteries contain six pieces. I have no idea where you get the 108 figure from.
For a period in the 1980's and 1990's the standard self propelled battalions organic to our heavy divisions contained 24 guns organized into three batteries of eight pieces. The battalions that supported light organizations remained at 18 (3X6)
The separate MLRS batteries contained nine launchers.
When we went to the Brigade Combat Teams in 2005 and beyond there were only two maneuver battalions in the BCT, so we reduced the fires battalion of the BCT to two eight gun batteries (2X8). There were exceptions, the Stryker BCT being the most prominent, and they retained a 3X6 organization, simply because the Stryker BCT was designed and fielded before the other BCTs could be designed.
With the ongoing reorganization of the BCTs a third maneuver battalion was added to the structure and the fires battalion of the BCT returned to a 3X6 structure, one battalion of three batteries, each having six guns.
You must completely divorce yourself from British terminology in dealing with the United States Army. Anything that the Brits and the U S Army share in terminology is purely by accident I assure you. A failure to do what I suggests means that you will never understand how we organize and structure ourselves. The reverse is also true. It took me years to understand the systems, terminology and structure of the Brits the Canadians and Australians. Of those the Australians are the easiest in that they are far more practical in their approach and are not ironbound by century upon century of tradition.
It took me months to understand Lord Strathcona's Horse (Royal Canadians) was the 2nd Armored Regiment, which in fact was the size of an American tank battalion and those squadrons that belonged to that regiment were really companies.
I am not even going to get into the 16/5 Lancers and why the 16 comes before the 5. I do know the reason, but I ain't tellin.
|
|
|
Korea
May 15, 2015 9:07:06 GMT -6
Post by Yan Taylor on May 15, 2015 9:07:06 GMT -6
Taking what Chris eluded to e.g. petrol or supplies, the Russians thought that making the calibre of their weapons slightly different then their western neighbours would aid them if they were to be invaded. The thought process behind this was that as their enemy advanced he would not be able to utilise any captured ammunition, so they didn’t use the standard calibres then used in the west.
Western rifle ammo: 7.92mm Russian rifle ammo: 7.62mm Western mortars: 81mm Russian mortars 82mm Western field artillery: 75mm, 105mm & 150mm Russian field artillery: 76.2mm, 122mm & 152mm
This back fired somewhat when the Germans invaded in 1941, as they captured large amounts of Russian weapons, so when they overran any supply dumps they just used any ammunition to keep any captured weapons in action against their former users.
Ian.
|
|