Modern tank brigade TOE wanted

[nashorn88]

I was thinking about organizing my imagi-nation using brigades. Should I use US,Germany or Russia TOE or make up my own? What more would you add in the unit? Extra tanks more art support?

[panzergator]

Today's US brigades could offer the variety you want. Three direct fire combat battalions, either two armor and one mech or two mech and one armor, plus a cavalry squadron, artillery battalion, engineers and support. Someone here can likely tell you exactly what units are included, or you can search for ABCT organization. I'm not familiar with how the battalions are composed, although they are combined arms battalions. Combined arms battalions have two armir and one mech or two mech and one armor companies. I prefer the 1980s pure, four armor- or four- mech-company battalions which then cross attach according to mission. In the 70s, under H series, US had separate armored, separate mech, and separate infabtry brigades wich could control up to 5 direct fire battalions and had cavalry, artillery, and support elements.

When last I read of Russian equivalents of our ABCT (Armored Brigade Conat Team), they were built around a motorized infantry regiment, which included a tank battalion, a BMP battalion, and two BTR battalions, supported by an artillery battalion, air defense, etc. I don't have a list of the rest of the supporting units.

I focus on stuff up to about 1986, so someone else (Mike Robrel) will have to provide more detail.

[STS]

Current German brigade TOE seems to be a bit all over the place, and every single brigade seems to differ a bit, with almost no difference in between Panzer and Panzergrenadierbrigades, without any artillery (moved to divisional level) or anti-aircraft assets (non-existent, budget cuts took care of Roland & Gepard).

It's usually 1-2 Panzerbattalions, 1 Panzerpionierbattalion, 1 Aufklärungsbattalion (Recon), 2 Panzergrenadierbattalions/Jägerbattalions. The latter is especially baffling, since someone who did the reorganization, somehow thought that a Jägerbattalion, (light infantry, basically a few dudes mounted in wheeled Boxers or Fuchs armed with a Milan missile), could follow regular Panzer- or Panzergrenadiers into rough terrain at speed and hold their own against enemy armour alongside them.

As far as I'm concerned, if I were to take a German army TOE, I'd orient myself somewhere around Heeresstruktur 4 (mid 80's). Proper amount of armour and mech battalions as well as integrated armoured artillery, rocket launchers and tracked anti-aircraft artillery. Also there is a decent amount of scource material available. What's perhaps a bit unique to German TOE are their mixed tank/mech battalions where they trade the third company in a mech battalion with that of a tank battalion.

https://forum.steelbeasts.org/forum/boa ... truktur-4/

[panzergator]

Since we have them, much to my chagrin, there are times when I think each combined arms battalion should add a fourth infantry company mounted in Strykers. Historically, even in the WWII light armored divisions (3 tank battalions, 3 armored infantry battalions,3 artillery battalions), infantry units were always significantly shorthanded.

So if I were to augment units in an armored or mechanized brigade, one addition I would consider is either a three-company Stryker battalion or a Stryker company to each battalion. The Stryker battalion would likely be the better choice for purposes of training and logistcs (Mike Robel would disagree) and would mean additional overhead in headquarters and support elements, but it woul offer the additional possibility of follow-in-support and mopping up missions. The Strkers may not be able to follow cross-country as readily, but conversely would offer speed in rapid response to opportunity or reinforcement demands.

Todays US brigades have a full cavalry squadron, which, I THINK includes 2 ground troops and 2 aviation troops. I would add a third ground troop. I'm not a big fan of using HUMVEEs for reconnaissance, so they would have M3s. But again, my thinking is at least 40 years old. Robel will have toughts here.

I will text Mike to chime in with his thoughts.

[Brigade Commander]

If you enter a search for us army TO&E's look for a link to the one @fas.org. it is easier than going to fas.org and then finding them. They have the L-series or AoE - Army of Excellence. Where they were right before all BCT organization. I have the TO&E's for the BCT's as well and will post the link when I get home from work. Way too new for me. I take up right where panzergator leaves off. GW-I was the high water mark really for the J-series. Shortly thereafter was the beginning of the transition to the L-series. I have never found any reference to a K-series. Maybe another letter of the alphabet the military got mad at.

[redleg]

WHAT??? Did I read that correctly? How many Stryker battalions are you building or your personal collection PG? I always knew you were a big fan of them!

[redleg]

Hey Nash, maybe you should develop your own brigade org using all of the good parts from the US, Germany, Russia, and others. Are you committed to any particular vehicles? Maybe the type of equipment, and intended purpose of the brigade, will lend itself to a particular kind of organization. Like if you want a flexible jack of all trades unit maybe have the mixed battalions and a variety of platforms. Or if you want a hard-hitting kick 'em in the nuts brigade you go with several pure tank battalions and a mech battalion to parse out as needed.

Another thought is maybe you do a small core brigade (tank battalion, mech battalion, HQ, and recon troop) and then have a robust liaison element and you can plug additional battalions in as needed. Deploying by air? Attach Strykers, motorized infantry, and towed howitzers. Going up against an armored force? Attach more tanks, SP artillery, MLRS. Going up against Chris and the CoC? Attach some nukes.

This doesn't even start to address aviation stuff.

[Roger H]

The current standard TOE for the ABCT has three combined arms maneuver battalions ,each with a Bn HHC and three line companies . Since the ABCT is armor -centric, two of the CA Bns are designated as “armor “ and have two armor companies and a Mech company . The third CA BN has two Mech companies and an armor company . The Cav squadron (also known as the RSTA) has three Cav troops (but organized like the Mech companies) and a tank company . There are no longer any M-3 Bradley scouts in the inventory . They were all converted to the Bradley IFV across the board and are full squad carriers, instead of the old two man scout teams and extra TOWs .
So it’s a good bit different organization from the old “Units of Action” brigades the Army came up with back about 15 years ago . It’s heavier and has more firepower to reflect the near peer advisories like Russia now versus the Iraqi insurgents then . Add on a full combat engineer battalion with attached special troops (like signal, MI, UAV recon, NBC etc) and a field artillery battalion of 18 M-109A7 guns and this BCT is much more lethal than those previous.

[mike robel]

You can download a copy of https://www.radionerds.com/images/d/d6/ ... ep2013.pdf at the link. This is one from 2013, the most recent I have is 2016. I have been unable to get more recent copies for quite a while.

This version has 3 identical Combined Arms Battalions, each with 2 Bradley and 2 Tank Companies.

The difference between this organization and the 2016 organization is the Combined Arms Battalions have been reduced to 3 companies. One is Mech heavy with 2 infantry and 1 Tank and the other two are 1 Infantry and 2 tank. This, in my view is too armor heavy and all three should probably be 2 Mech and 1 tank, but the tank company should have four platoons.

Also in the 2016 version the cavalry squadron picked up a tank company in addition to its 3 cavalry troops. Sadly, its troop in 2016,only has 2 6-vehicle scout platoons. Were I a troop commander, I'd ask my CO for position to change them to 3 platoons of 4 vehicles each, but it really needs 3 platoons of 6.

As an alternative, I would get rid of the tank company, give its tanks to the Cavalry troops AND give the cavalry platoons 3 6-vehicle platoons + 3 mortars (1 more than now.

I would also return to the 5-tank tank platoon to increase the fire power of the company and make Bradley Platoon with 5 or 6 vehicles each. They can't carry their full load of people plus attachments in their current form, although they are probably never at full strength..

In the 2016 version for the Stryker, the companies had the Armored Gun Systems, 3 each, sent to the Anti-tank Company which would then consist of the HQ, 3 AT Platoons and 3 MGS platoons. The Army is in the process of taking the MGS out of service, hopefully to be replaced with the new light tank, whatever it will be.

The IBCT in the future will have a light tank company added, hopefully the M8. But note, the Army doesn't call it a light tank. The IBCTs reconnaissance squadron has 2 troops of HMMWs and1 dismounted troop as seen at the link.

I hate Stryker's, but having said that, I think the Active Army should change every single active duty IBCT to a SBCT, if necessary reducing the total number of SBCTs+IBCTs to whatever the budget can support. My rationale is you can always tell the Stryker Brigade to leave its carriers behind, but if you told an IBCT to take their carriers you would get funny looks. "What is a carrier." To start with, I'd do away the the 82nd and 101st in their current forms. I don't think Airborne or Helicopter assault is viable anymore on the modern battlefield.

Other things I would think about since it is only microarmor is have a heavy mech company of a CO HQ with 2 BFV and 3 platoons with 4 BFV and 3 Tanks.

NO BCT has any aviation in it except for some drones assigned to the MI Company.

P.S. I disagree PG's suggestion to add Stryker's to a CAB, but I think adding a battalion would go far to address the lack of Infantry. To pay for that, I would return the CAB to its balanced task organization (2 Mech + 2 Tank) and reduce the cavalry squadron to a troop. Each Troop would have either 3 Scout Platoons (6 BFV) and a Tank Platoon (5 M1) and a mortar section of 3 guns.

Another alternative for IBCTs would be to assign a Stryker Battalion instead of one of the Infantry Battalions or have a Armored Transportation Battalion with enough Stryker's to move an Infantry Battalion.

Also the M113 would be replaced by the AMPV otherwise known as the turretless Bradley which in its current release could replace all the M113 APC in the Brigade and the M113 Ambulances. Mortar tracks would have to wait.

[Roger H]

Oh!!!! I forgot to mention , the Cav squadron in the ABCT did away with the old Humvee scout sections in their line troops . The HHCs in the three CA bns still each have scout platoons that would have the Humvee scouts ( but those will all eventually be JLTV as the Humvees retire )
All those band-aid, CP TOC, mortar, forward maintenance (the Top’s track) M-113 tracks will go away as well and be replaced with the new Bradley chassis vehicles to assume those roles .

[Roger H]

Mike,
Benning is still trying to tweak and adjust and therefore no current FKSM to view .
I agree whole heartedly that they might as well upgrade the IBCTs to Strykers . I totally disagree with you regarding the 82nd and 101st . Doing away with airborne and air assault is as foolish as the Marines doing away with tanks and tube artillery .
I’m rather glad someone decided to add another battalion of Chinooks to the 101st. Nice to have a real air assault division once again .

[mike robel]

@Roger

The newest I have is 2016. I find it hard to believe in 5 years they cannot produce a MCOE Supplemental text. Maybe they just did it to cut costs, which I can believe and understand.

As to ABN and Air Assault, I understand your point of view. I just don't think they are survivable in a high intensity fight against a sophisticated air defense system. Look at the Helicopter Raid by the 11th Aviation Regiment. A better preparation may have helped, but I don't know if it was thought it was not needed or if it was not allowed. The battalion, while it wasn't destroyed, failed to accomplish its mission in a relatively unsophisticated air defense environment. In an anti-tank role, they might have done better. I know officers who believe they should not be used across the FLOT. They probably did some things wrong that contributed to the result.

[panzergator]

It's an imagi-nation, so you needn't conform to an established format. There are plenty of different patterns to emulate. What's more, these organizations are always evolving. It's an opportunity to figure out what you want to make it. I have a division, two separate armored brigades, an armor group, and some independent companies. TOEs in my collection are E, G, H, and J. I also have ad hoc British, German, and French units, of which the Brits are the most complete and conforming to reality.

[Roger H]

Mike,
You and agree on one thing……..the Karbala thing was a Charlie Foxtrot . Probably a bigger Charlie Foxtrot than Task Force Hawk . The Army got carried away with the conceived notion that the Apache was invulnerable. It’s sucess in ODS was based on the fact that the battlefield was shaped and massaged prior with three weeks of Air Force domination and interdiction . Karbala Gap didnt get the treatment Phase Line Smash got with the daily B-52 strikes and continuous A-10 coverage . 3rd ID rolled up there from the berm in about 5 days and the 11th went into a hornets nest with bad intel and no prior prep . We didn’t lose any Apaches to ground fire in all of ODS . That was a thick zone with lots of divisional AA with 23mm, 37mm, 57mm, SA7s,8s, 9s, 13s.etc .
We stretched the capabilities of the Apache too far at Karbala , just as we stretched the capabilities of the Army too far for Iraqi Freedom in 2003/04.
Airborne and Air Assault still has relevancy . They aren’t Coast Artillery or Horse Cavalry .

[7.62]

I'm with Panzer on this one.
Decide on what you want your force to do, then build it up as you see fit to do just that.
Back against the wall dug in defensive against anyone will be very different from a Globally mobile fast mover!

Best to work out what you want and need first, then buy twice as much lol.