Modern tank brigade TOE wanted

[panzergator]

One important question is "Is this a collection or a wargame force?" If it is a collection, what do you want it to represent?

I don't wargame, so I have a collection. It is primarily US, from 1956 to 1986. It represents mostly the tracked combat vehicles, with a few wheels thrown in and one mech and one armor battalion each with all tracks and wheels. Some things about it are artificial. The division runs G, H, and interim J series battalions and the major combat vehicles include M60s, M60A1s, M60A2s, M60A3s, M113A1, M113A2, M109, M109A2, M110A2, MLRS, and Sheridans. The separate armor brigade is J series, with the cavalry squadron modified to three troops and a tank company. The ACR squadron is H series USAREUR mod with the six Sheridan platoons. The Armor group is a place to put spare units, M60A3 (AOA) bn, extra M60A2 bn, M48A5 bn, and the 5-company Sheridan battalion that may, eventually, become an standard ACR. I am building a mech heavy E series brigade of M48A1s and M59s. With the advent of 3D printing, I have started a 2 bn M803 brigade which will also include two bns of MBT 70s and 4 bns of XM 723s, producing another division. HOW DID THAT HAPPEN? Now, what do I do with 4 companies of LAV25s? And m provisional motorized infantry bn mounted in V150s left over from the experiments at Ft. Lewis? I like battalion-sized units, but have some companies that won't ever be in complete bns because I want to spend money on something else (food, electricity, meds, you know, secondary stuff.). Oh, I have that Soviet division, but I stopped buying stuff for it YEARS aga.

As you can see, the damned stuff just GROWS! It seems to self-multiply (it sure would be cheaper if it did) and a few interesting vehicles BREED REQUIREMENTS for many more. When I started in 1978, I wanted a US M60A2 company and a Soviet tank battalion. Then I wanted a battalion to fight a regiment. Then a brigade to fight a division... And so it has gone. You have an odd company and think "I could make that a battalion...". And suddenly you realize you don't have the infantry or the artillery or engineers or ADA you need. You become conscious of the new stuff, the need to upgrade, etc, etc. I decided early I wouldn't get the wheels or aviation, although lately, I'm considering some AH64s, and Ospreys. I will print a AH56 battalion or two and maybe a few A10s.

If you ever saw the movie "Evolution," it goes like that. Your collection takes on a life of its own. You have 45 M60A3s and you realize that with two more packs, YOU COULD HAVE A BATTALION! But don't forget, that battalion needs a command group, scoyts, mortars, medics, and maintenance.... And maybe jeeps and trucks and GOERS or HEMTTs. And if you get two more battalions, you'll have a DIVISION! But now you need engineers, ADA, DIVARTY. OMG! You are OCD! And you need to clear out that extra room or park a car outside to make room. And your wife has scheduled a meeting to discuss your annual defense review in terms of the budget.

Think about what you are getting into here.

[Brigade Commander]

One of the "what ifs" I have thought about for some time is modifying the ACR organization by replacing the scouts with mechanized infantry. Call them Teams instead of Troops or Companies as Teams are already understood. Each Team now has two mech and two tank platoons. Each Task Force has three Teams, one tank company and one battery. Three Task Forces, one Aviation Squadron and a Support Squadron makes a serious force. The Support Squadron, or whatever term obtains, would also contain the Engineers, MP's, Signals, etc.

So, what you ask is the difference with Teams and Task Forces from before? This is now the "standard" organization and everyone works, trains and lives within it. You have equal parts Mech and Tanks with Artillery right behind. Before was ad hoc and you may train with a unit once and never again. May see Artillery. Maybe not. I would think you would get more coherency this way.

I can hear the palm slap to the forehead from some. But having Mech instead of Scouts makes the units more robust. And yes, changes the mission(s). It does move things back closer to 11 ACR in Vietnam. And they showed how Infantry and Tanks could do things when closely organized. And when they had control of their own armor!

[panzergator]

ARGGGHHHHHH! That's not me slapping my forehead. It's me pounding my head against the wall hollering "Give me back my ACRs" and looking for a stick to beat the living daylights out of Brigade Commander!

So you want to deprive the Army of a fast-moving, powerful, flexible, multi-role organization by adding infantry to it. THAT'S ALREADY BEEN DONE! It's called an ABCT - Armored Brigade Combat Team. The ABCT is a combined arms organization with armor, infantry, artillery, engineers, and a whole lot of other support all nicely packaged and tied up with a ribbon. The ABCT's mission is to stand and fight in the main battle. That is NOT a cavalry mission save in extremis.

There are NO MORE armored cavalry regiments in the United States Army, despite that abomination of a military intelligence brigade they CALL the 2nd ACR in Germany. The battalions in an ABCT are already combined arms battalions, containing a mix of armor and mech infantry companies.

Did you know that both regimental and divisional armored cavalry platoons once contained an infantry squad, as well as scouts, armor section, and a mortar?

If you take the scouts out of cavalry unit, WHAT IN THE HELL ARE THEY GOING TO SCOUT WITH? SCOUTING IS AN INTEGRAL PART OF A CAVALRY UNIT'S MISSION MAKEUP!

Doing what you suggest simply changes the ACR into an ABCT! ABCTs create teams and task forces within the brigade organization.

First, PLEASE look up the missions assigned to ACRs, divisional cavalry, armor battalions, and infantry battalions (and combined arms battalions ) and determine what they do.

Determine WHY an armored cavalry squadron has its own arty battery but the ABCT or division has arty battalions. Take a look at how these organizations are intended to operate. There is a REASON it's done this way. Each offers its own kind of flexibility. Our current artillery organization is EXTREMELY RESPONSIVE to the dynamic requirements of the battlefield and it was a real hallmark of the function in WWII. Breaking up the battalions into individual batteries removes a LOT of the ability of the King of the Battlefield to put the balls exactly where the Queen of Battle needs 'em.

This is the kind of thing you hear and what happens when you move the Armor School to Fort Benning and cede control of doctrine to the two-and-a-half-mile-an-hour guys. It's why our tanks in 1939 had a 37mm main gun and machineguns sticking out of every corner. They couldn't carry enough ammunition to service all of 'em.

What we SHOULD do is bring back REAL ACRs and, if the mission requires it, give them a mech battalion to operate with. Otherwise, LEAVE IT ALONE TO DO ITS JOB!

Read about the Battle of 73 Easting in First Gulf. One armored cavalry troop, moving FAST, maneuvering and surprising, destroyed a tank battalion, WITHOUT ONE SINGLE INFANTRYMAN dismounting. That is not to say infantry are not important, because all you have to do is read about the RPG teams in the Yom Kippur War to understand they ARE. But you needn't load up cavalry with a 90lb pack to make it effective. Should infantry be added to cavalry? Yes, in certain cases. The 14th Cavalry group could have used a battalion or two of infantry at the beginning of the Battle of the Bulge. It also could have used a better commander, but that's beside the point.

Mike Robel could probably state the case more exactly. Before you go messing with the ACR, read up on the missions of each unit and determine WHY they are constituted as they are, because each has a role to play.

ACRs are NOT ABCTs. They are NOT INTENDED to be. LEAVE THEM ALONE! But reconstitute at least THREE ACRs - two light, one heavy, the light ones with a light scout vehicle and AGS, the heavy ones with Bradleys, M1s. Send infantry with them as appropriate, leg, Stryker, or Bradley mounted. If they are light, they are deployable and may reinforce the 82nd, the Marines (who now have NO TANKS and MIGHT NEED THEM, or some other element we have rashly sent somewhere to provide politicians instant gratification. An infusion of Cavalry would give them a fighting chance. A Corps will NEED an ACR. It has plenty for them to do, as corps did in 1st Gulf. If one had been included with the 2003 exercise, our TWO-HUNDRED-MILE-LONG main supply route could have been secured.

Yes, 11th ACR had infantry squads in troops and sometimes reinforced, or was reinforced by, infantry units very effectively. That is a tribute to the abilities of both cavalry and infantry units. But it does not illustrate nor account for the times or the missions of the 11th that did NOT involve infantry. ALL units must adjust to the conditions of the battlefield as they exist, not as they would wish them. It does NOT mean that we should reorganize to account for a specific condition, thus removing the advantages that an individual unit brings to the effort. We NEED cavalry for VERY SPECIFIC missions and such a unit cannot be created on the fly nearly as easily as we can create a combat team or a task force. To do as you suggest removes a critical capability from our toolbox.

Well, that's the end of my rant. JUST DON'T DO THAT!

[Brigade Commander]

First of all I am VERY well aware of the fact that there is no REAL Cavalry left. Capital C. I decry the loss of the 11th ACR.I know the rest went too but I have a former High School class mate whose father and then he served for a time there. Plus they were a stand-up unit through Vietnam. Sometimes when every one around them was not.

Second of all I already noted the mission would not be a cavalry one. Lower case C.

I am already late for work so will rant back later. And I want every Corp to have a REAL ACR. With M-1's / M-3's. For the lighter Corps it may be the only Armor they have and might save them from even more needless casualties.

I am already ranting longer than I have time to this morning. I will rant back to each of your points later.

[panzergator]

What you were really advocating is a reorganization of combat battalions and brigades based on the regimental cavalry model. So you weren't really reorganizing cavalry. Of course, once you start collecting, there is nothing that says you must conform to the real TOE. You can construct units however you like.

Mike Robel and I often discuss cavalry organization, mission, vehicles. He served in the 11th, my platoon reinforced the 11th on the border, and my best friend served in the 11th, as well. And I worked for a former 11th ACR commander. My REAL affection likely stems from the fact that my grandfather was a cavalry officer back when te actually rode horses.

Mike and I also continuously argue about permanently-organized combined arms, he arguing for while I argue against. In my campaign against progress, I would go back to 5-tank platoons with the J series 4 companies, pure.


v3v3

[Brigade Commander]

What you were really advocating is a reorganization of combat battalions and brigades based on the regimental cavalry model. So you weren't really reorganizing cavalry. Of course, once you start collecting, there is nothing that says you must conform to the real TOE. You can construct units however you like. **Absolutely correct. The Cavalry proves that what I took away from all my reading about combat during WW-II, Korea and Vietnam was, absent other factors, Combined Arms has become the minimum requirement for success on the battlefield. And also a significant factor in reducing casualties. And civilian though I am it seems to me to have placed it at the best possible level.**

Mike Robel and I often discuss cavalry organization, mission, vehicles. He served in the 11th, my platoon reinforced the 11th on the border, and my best friend served in the 11th, as well. And I worked for a former 11th ACR commander. My REAL affection likely stems from the fact that my grandfather was a cavalry officer back when te actually rode horses. **He must have had some great stories both about what it was like mounted and what it was like going through a tremendous transition. It cannot have been easy.**

Mike and I also continuously argue about permanently-organized combined arms, he arguing for while I argue against. In my campaign against progress, I would go back to 5-tank platoons with the J series 4 companies, pure. **I believe by making the organization permanent you give your troops something solid to fall back on when it hits the fan. They work in it every day and that gives them a solid foundation and the coherency to get through the initial shock. I have known people that have served who complained that you practiced something once knowing you may never train with that unit again. And maybe a year or more before you trained with that type of unit again. No foundation or coherency. Which I get is not only how you are organized but how the organization is keeping up with training. Ask anyone aboard ship in the USN during the Solomon Islands campaign. Training only in fair weather in the daylight is deadly to you when you go to war with someone who trains harder the worse the conditions.

I know you have told me that before but sometime I need you to explain how the benefits, an extra tank, balance against a lone tank. Leaves the platoon leader out there twisting in the wind and rather obvious. Yes?**

I could keep going but I am closing in on a whole page on the forum. Someone, or several someone's, will be annoyed with me shortly.

v3v3

[panzergator]

In a 5-tank platoon, the platoon leader and two tanks make up the heavy section, the platoon sergeant and another tank make up the light section. The platoon leader may move with either section p, depending on the situation, when the platoon moves by bounds. So no, the platoon leader is not a lone tank twisting in the wind. The fifth tank allows the platoon leader the flexibility to move with either section, so he, should he choose, may always move with the leading section. While he can do that in a four-tank platoon, there is only one tank left to cover his move. Another tank means better coverage and more ammunition to redistribute on the objective, more men to distribute tasks to, like watch and dismounted patrols, split sleep shifts with, etc.

Combat loss and turnover will quickly dilute common training experience you favor. Then units will still have to learn how to operate with unknown people, but will also have to learn what needs to be coordinated prior to the operation. Better to have practice operating with units you are unfamiliar with, because it will happen often. Train for the most difficult, not to make it easy. In combat, forming teams and task forces will be extremely situationally dependent, particularly after the first pulse. Units will be reconstituted, re-formed, and all tat unity you became used to will be gone. NOW, you must fight alobgside people you do not know, for leaders you might never have seen, etc. AND you must learn new coordination skills. THAT is how you will REALLY fight. Army units are NOT like naval ships.

[redleg]

A very interesting discussion, gentlemen. If I might, I would like to add another thing to consider, though I don’t think it really lends any support to either the pure or permanent combined arms unit debate.

When you permanently mix branches in a unit you reduce the pool of specialty personnel that you have to work with. I’ve never been in a combined arms battalion, so I’m not sure how interchangeable the infantry & armor guys are for staff jobs, but artillery and engineers and air defense guys are special staff group guys with a narrower focus.

Being an artilleryman, I’m thinking primarily about fire support. In the old school ACR, each howitzer battery had 2 captains. One was the battery commander and the other was the squadron fire support officer. If one of those guys was removed from action, you didn’t really have any easy way to replace him from within the regiment.

On the other hand, attaching fire support from a DS artillery battalion gives you a big pool of personnel to work with. In my day our DS battalions supported 3 maneuver battalions, so we had 3 battalions FSEs, 9 company FIST teams, and a brigade FSE, plus a battalion staff. If a battalion FSO is killed (or if he just sucks and needs to be replaced) you can pull a captain from the battalion staff. Or even a high-speed lieutenant or senior NCO because you have that pool of personnel to draw from. You can even pull an entire FIST team or two from a maneuver battalion that is in reserve and push it forward to support an engaged unit, or even serve as an independent COLT/Striker team.

[panzergator]

Te howitzer battery of an ACR and an artillery battalion of DIVARTY function similarly, but support differently.

[nashorn88]

Wow! I must say I am amazed with the knowledge that you guys all have.
I found this on the web. The AFV I can field but I wouldn't have the 870 assorted support vehicles or necessarily want to represent them in the unit.
Maybe using a ratio of 1-5or 10 so only 87 would be needed instead of the 870.
What do you guys Think?
Heavy BCT thus lines:

- 56 M1 Abrams MBTs
- 85 Bradley IFVs
- 14 120 mm Mortar Carriers
- 40 “Heavy Humvee”
- 16 Paladin howitzers (155 mm)
- 2 Sniper sections (10 men each, 3 sniper teams of 3 men – Sniper, Spotter, Security - )
- Some 870 vehicles of all classes in addition to around 180 armored vehicles from MBTs to M1114 Heavy Humvees

[redleg]

Te howitzer battery of an ACR and an artillery battalion of DIVARTY function similarly, but support differently.

I agree. I was in a DS battalion on the same post as 3rd ACR at one point and I was always so jealous of the ACR batteries because they could clear fires so fast! Super responsive! On the other hand, we could mass all 18 guns pretty easily and we could push support (ammo, parts, equipment, people) to wherever we needed it.

[redleg]

I'm with you, Nash! All those support vehicles add up fast! And there's all the specialty vehicles for support too!

I'm just doing one unit at full 1:1 for all vehicles, and the rest I'm just skipping most of the support vehicles. I'm doing the killing stuff in the line companies (just tanks or APCs) and then HHC gets a scout platoon, a heavy mortar platoon (just the mortar carriers and FDC) and then 3 M577s for the TOC.

Your numbers look about right though I think. Are the Bradleys in that figure for IFVs and CFVs both? I have to admit, I don't even know if they still have CFVs in the new BCTs anymore!

[panzergator]

Check the number of the Paladins. Your number says 2 batteries of 8 pieces and I think they went back to 3 batteries of 6. I preferred the J series' 3 batteries, 8 pieces and have had trouble keeping up with changes after that.

[Brigade Commander]

I'm with you, Nash! All those support vehicles add up fast! And there's all the specialty vehicles for support too!

I'm just doing one unit at full 1:1 for all vehicles, and the rest I'm just skipping most of the support vehicles. I'm doing the killing stuff in the line companies (just tanks or APCs) and then HHC gets a scout platoon, a heavy mortar platoon (just the mortar carriers and FDC) and then 3 M577s for the TOC.

Your numbers look about right though I think. Are the Bradleys in that figure for IFVs and CFVs both? I have to admit, I don't even know if they still have CFVs in the new BCTs anymore!

There are no M-3's anymore. Firing ports removed and all other features that were different from the M-2's are changed to the M-2 standard. I did not pay close enough attention to learn if they were all converted / upgraded to -A3 standard or not. I was just disgusted with the whole thing. I assume they would come out as -A3's though. Just another assault on Cavalry. Our own country did what no enemy could. Destroy our Cavalry. No chance of my beloved 11th ACR returning now. The A in ACR does not exist in the inventory anymore.

[nash88]

Anyone know if FOW TOE is 1to1?