Brigade Combat Teams, etc

panzergator · Post by **panzergator** » Fri Dec 04, 2015 12:23 am

Paul, I thought we should continue our conversation on organizations outside the redleg thread, which was supposed to be about M577 tent extensions, but which we kind of hi-jacked, not to mention continued in another thread.

My current understanding (gleaned from the internet) is that brigade combat teams consist of two direct fire battalions (combined arms tanks and mech, STRYKER, or infantry) a howitzer battalion of 2 batteries, and a variety of combat and service support that we used to call the "slice," meaning its share of the division support elements. This includes ADA, Engineers, Signal, Chemical, Civil, etc. I think we have 28 brigade combat teams of all types. The Russians have at least 38 brigade combat teams. They build theirs around a motorized rifle regiment. They have abandoned the 41-tank battalion organization that used to apply to MRR's tank organization and all tank battalions are standardized at 31, although they may have independent tank and mounted infantry battalions of varied sizes. The latter may be attached to the basic MRR in accordance with its mission. The articles I read said they were interested in our BCT packages and decided it was the way to go, so we both moved away from the division as a basic unit. This info is all from the internet and if you search on "brigade combat team" you should get the same articles I did. The ones that seem to be translations of Russian articles are really interesting.

I would like to have sample US Army combat units from the beginning to end of the Cold War and on to current organizations, kind of an evolutionary history, painted as they were when active. I'm hoping that we will eventually have the M48A1, M75, M59, M55, etc from GHQ as well. Once that's done, I'll work on the WWII armored divisions and how their units evolved. I am most familiar with the H-series TOE of the '70s and J-series of the '80s, since I was then on active duty. What's more, I like the more robust organizations of that era. Meanwhile, kids in college, limited time and money, just like the real thing out there.

panzergator · Post by **panzergator** » Fri Dec 04, 2015 1:51 am

I believe in one thread, you were talking about scenarios that didn't emphasize Soviet/Russian artillery enough. Don't know about the scenarios, but I know that artillery is very popular with the Russians, and recall that we could expect a LOT of it in the Fulda Gap. The Russians put together a lot of arty for any assault prep during WWII and I'm certain they have built on that success.

If you are playing the Cold War gone hot scenario, I always figured it would feel a lot like the Battle of the Bulge for the US side. Russians could be expected to try to achieve up to a 6 to 1 ratio, which meant, in personal terms, my 5-tank M60A2 platoon had to take out 30 Russian tanks in order to do my minimum job, without loss. haha...

I also saw a comment about engagement ranges in Germany. If memory serves, the intervisibility (distance between significant terrain features for your shot) in the US areas of responsibility was around 1500 meters, which was what Soviet tank sights were calibrated to. At my age, this stuff has all the reliability of something written on the latrine wall, but I'm trying... If all you have is 1500 meters, you better shoot fast and well... and slap that bayonet on the end of your gun tube.

redleg · Post by **redleg** » Fri Dec 04, 2015 7:59 am

There is a TO&E yahoo group that is pretty active and there are a lot of TO&Es from all periods of history. Dig through the files section if you get a chance and you might find some useful info. I have some manuals ad powerpoints for US TO&Es from when I was in the Army, but that was late 90s up through the 2000s so it's probably the same stuff you already have. I do have my FAOBC and FAOAC disks with all of the presentations on them though - I'll dig trough and see if they have anything of use n the FSCAOD section.

panzergator · Post by **panzergator** » Fri Dec 04, 2015 11:16 am

Thanks, Redleg. I think I just tried to join it this evening, although I haven't apparently been accepted yet.

I've been thinking though, tonight (always a mistake). At my age, I may have arrived at the point that I am unwilling to proceed into the future with TOEs. The old ways tug at me and I want to return to the 5-tank platoon. I like the Div-86/J-series four-company PURE tank battalion and mech battalion. I DON'T like the Armor School being at Ft Benning, Move it to Fort Riley or Fort Hood. I don't like "combined arms battalions," and I most DEFINITELY don't like STRYKERS. That is not to say I think we ought to fight "pure." I understand the reasoning for all of it, but I disagree with it. I LIKED going from 6- to 8-gun batteries. It made sense to me to get more arty on my side. I like six-tube mortar platoons, but I want the 81s back in the mech companies, too. And I'm not sure it is a good idea for our Army to be immediately deployable as it gives rise to a lack of forethought and consideration before sending our kids overseas to some Godforsaken place to solve a problem with troops that might be better served with a longer-term indirect approach. I like having a muscular Army. !6 divisions isn't too many. We need more Marines. We OUGHT to have three or four armored cavalry regiments instead of those wimpy things we have now. Give'em a mech battalion and deploy the regiments to back up Marines. We need a 600-ship Navy. We need a new, agile fighter for both Navy and Air Force and they needn't be the same one. And we need an A-10 replacement that does the same job the same way. We need more dismounts per infantry carrier than the Bradley provides and we need a good, TRACKED scout vehicle. Wheels are for TRUCKS and TRACKS ARE FOR COMBAT! What in the WORLD made people think that because they changed their government and started calling themselves Russians again that their national interests and their imperatives changed? Or that the Chinese changed just because their economy got better? And while I'm on the subject, WHERE IS THE M-1's SUCCESSOR?

So I may stick with H- or J-series TOEs. The Armed Forces are to defend the country and WIN THE WAR! And if we can choose only one ally to stand with us, CHOOSE THE BRITS!

Sorry. I lost my composure. Thus endeth my rant.

paul · Post by **paul** » Fri Dec 04, 2015 8:57 pm

I build my divisions based on the late 1980's. Trying to keep up with all the changes will make you go crazy. Modern equipment is substituted for some of the later stuff. For example, I have one German battalion of Pumas but the rest is Marders. I figure having the one battalion should be enough.

Panzergator I will also send some of the older 1980 TO&E as well.

paul · Post by **paul** » Fri Dec 04, 2015 9:08 pm

I'm pretty close to being done with the NATO side of the house other than some additional aircraft. My attention will be focused on the USSR for a while. I plan to finish the one division and then work on some additional regiments with different models. For example a T-62 regiment that can be one of the satellite states or an earlier Russian regiment. The one downside is the large numbers of artillery. May have to limit my purchases in that area.

Most of the scenarios we game do not give the Soviets the artillery they should have. A Soviet division will have enough artillery (towed, self-propelled or rockets) to blast a large area. Based on this, unless it is a meeting engagement, the Soviets should be opening up with a large artillery barrage for up to 30 minutes. Now the game master can simulate this by removing parts of formations. Soviets should never be attacking a full company or above.

panzergator · Post by **panzergator** » Fri Dec 04, 2015 11:15 pm

It increasingly looks like I will do the same. I like my current 3rd BDE, 3AD, configured as I knew it in the late 70s in H-series, with 1-32AR (M60A2), 3-32AR (M60A1(RISE), 1-36 IN(M), and 2-27 FA(SP), although I will eventually have an additional tank bn to account for the two camouflage schemes (I guess it will be a roundout for REFORGER). After that, it is J-series. I never understood the decision to use Humvees as scouts, so I will stay with M3s or maybe substitute LAVs, Scorpions, or M706s. As I said elsewhere, I don't agree with wheeled combat vehicles. My mech has gotten behind my tanks, so I really should plan for 2 interim mech battalions for 2nd BDE along with the 1 bn of M60A3s. I may eventually get a STRYKER bn, but it is not a priority, and they may be out of service before I get to it. Since I don't wargame, I can leave the aircraft out, which I choose to do in favor of more ground. I need GHQ to package M88s together in greater quantity.

My OPFOR has been ignored for a long time. Vehicles up to T-72 and maybe a company of BMP3s. I tried to keep up with the cannons for the MRRs, which has the 41 tank battalion. Have the BMP1 MRR to go with a mix of BTRs for the other two, along with a T-55 independent tank battalion of 5 companies. Also have the ADA. It's been so long since I've had them out I'm not sure what I have anymore, but mostly T-62s for the tank regiment. The T-72s are with the MRRs. I will re-evaluate my priorities once I get it all out and on a sheet of plywood. Purchase in larger numbers is the only answer, I guess, but I'm going to wait on that Armata.

Artillery has been a strength of the Russians for quite some time and they have been known to line their guns up hub to hub to get the desired effect, so any game has to take it into account. If you need help with the Soviet arty establishment at levels from regiment to theater, let me know.

Thanks again for the info.

I really need to sit down and map out my acquisition goals and priorities and make a plan. There are a lot of interesting possibilities.

Waddell · Post by **Waddell** » Fri Dec 04, 2015 11:33 pm

One note in all of this. The Army has added a 3rd maneuver battalion to all brigades now. They demobilized 5 brigades in the last year and a bunch before that. They moved the troops and gear to existing brigades to bring them up to a more full formation.

Cav Dog · Post by **Cav Dog** » Fri Dec 04, 2015 11:54 pm

I was with 2AD (FWD) from 86-90. This is from wiki but looks pretty accurate:

The brigade's subordinate combat units initially consisted of the 3rd Battalion of the 41st Infantry Regiment, 2nd Battalion of the 50th Infantry Regiment, 2nd Battalion, 66th Armored Regiment (Iron Knights), 1st Battalion, 14th Field Artillery Regiment, and C Troop, 2nd Squadron, 1st Cavalry Regiment. In October 1983, as part of the army's regimental alignment program, 2â€“50 Infantry was redesignated as 4â€“41 Infantry and 1â€“14 Field Artillery as 4-3 Field Artillery.[8] Other brigade subordinate units eventually included the 498th Support Battalion, D Company, 17th Engineer Battalion, and the 588th Military Intelligence Company. The brigade also had a military police platoon and an aviation detachment. In 1986, under the army's COHORT unit manning and retention plan, 3â€“41st Infantry returned to Fort Hood and was replaced by 1â€“41st Infantry. In 1988, 4â€“41st Infantry returned to Fort Hood, Texas and was replaced by 3â€“66th Armor (Burt's Knights, named for Captain James M. Burt who was awarded the Medal of Honor as a company commander in the 66th Armored Regiment in the Battle of Aachen during World War II). Now an armor-heavy brigade, 2nd Armored Division (Forward) fielded 116 M-1A1 Abrams tanks and nearly 70 M2/3 Bradley Fighting Vehicles.[9]

The brigade initially deployed to Germany with the M60 Patton tank and the M113 armored personnel carrier. 4â€“3rd Field Artillery had the M109 155 mm self-propelled howitzer. In 1984, 2â€“66th AR transitioned to the M1 Abrams main battle tank. In 1985, 3â€“41st IN and 4â€“41st IN transitioned to the M2 Bradley Fighting Vehicle; also, C/2-1 Cavalry was replaced by an air cavalry troop, D/2-1 Cavalry, armed with AH-1S Cobra attack helicopters.

panzergator · Post by **panzergator** » Sat Dec 05, 2015 4:28 am

Waddell, thanks for that info. That's interesting. With so few "divisions" these days, everybody needs to be up to strength. When I was in 5th Mech at Fort Polk, we had two brigades, with a roundout brigade. Same was true with 1st ID at Ft. Riley and in Wurzburg. I also remember the 2nd Armored, 1st ID, and 4th ID posted a brigade each in Germany in the 70s, called Brigade 75 and Brigade 76.

Any information on what division hq are still active?

panzergator · Post by **panzergator** » Sat Dec 05, 2015 4:35 am

Cav Dog,

The brigades that came over in the '70s brought old ROTC buddies of mine with them. I think Brigade 75 brought units from 2AD to be stationed at Graf and Brigade 76 brought 4ID units to Wiesbaden. It was very nice of the Army to bring me more friends from school. I remember a new barracks was built in northern Germany for 2AD (FWD), but they started off in those barracks units used at Graf while in gunnery. Miserable place at the time, but if you could get off post, the countryside was beautiful, the food was outstanding, and the beer was EXCELLENT1. Yellow-label Lowenbrau in flippies...! Those were the DAYS!

Noble713 · Post by **Noble713** » Sat Dec 05, 2015 7:33 pm

The Army just released a new BCT organization pub. I haven't really looked through it yet: FM 3-96 PDF link.

panzergator I think we agree on most of the military's organizational issues/future direction.

Re: Deployable Army = careless employment by politicians.
Yes. I think MOST problems in the world can be solved by a combination of SOCOM ninjas including Rangers, a Marine battalion, and maybe some paratroopers (up to a brigade is supposed to be on 24-hour standby for airdrop), which are all rapidly deployable and supportable with naval assets. Any sort of crisis larger than that should involve prepping the battlespace with aviation assets for 2-3 months, while the Army's heavy armored divisions are mobilized for a proper mechanized offensive, Congressional war approval is made, etc...

Re:I like having a muscular Army. !6 divisions isn't too many. We need more Marines.
Six of the old 3-brigade divisions ~18 brigades. I like 3-brigade organizations for deployment/rotation reasons (1 in pre-deployment training, 1 deployed, 1 in post-deployment recovery). So 3 brigades of airborne (82nd) ...3 brigades of air assault (101st), and 18 mechanized brigades (6 deployed ~= 2 divisions, combined with 1 Marine division makes for a good Corps-sized force, which is enough to invade almost any medium-sized country). Ditch the light infantry (10th Mountain, which isn't even "Mountain" trained) and move the Strykers to the National Guard. Maybe keep 3 brigades of Strykers Active Duty but I think they are best for COIN/peacekeeping/pacification work, which I'd like to see the Army move away from in general....

I'd like to see 6 MEUs active instead of the 3 we are fielding now. We have the infantry bodies necessary but need to flesh out the support assets, especially the sealift (see below).

We OUGHT to have three or four armored cavalry regiments instead of those wimpy things we have now. Give'em a mech battalion and deploy the regiments to back up Marines.

I was Army enlisted before becoming a Marine officer (yeah, backwards branch transition there), so I likewise want to see both branches succeed. I think the ACRs were the closest thing to an Army version of a Marine MAGTF (when you consider the AH-64 support). Flexible, maneuverable, with a very close integration of fire support assets, and trained to a high standard. They really should have been a model for the Army BCTs as a whole. Instead the Army has done its best to axe them. That said, they might be a bit too heavy and logistics-intensive to easily deploy in support of Marines, compared to say, a bigger Marine force like a MEB.

We need a 600-ship Navy.

Not sure exactly how many ships are needed, but we should have 12 carrier groups plus additional Amphibious Ready Groups/Strike Groups/Expeditionary Groups to operate the 6 MEUs I mentioned above. I would probably eliminate the Tico CGs by rolling their air-defense capabilities into the next flight of Burke DDGs. The Burke's are a great design, and as long as we keep modernizing their electronics and radar systems the platform should continue to serve admirably as all-purpose surface warfare ships. Eliminate the LCS by just buying a proper frigate: the Israeli Sa'ar 5-class is manufactured in the US! Buy them! Problem solved.

We need a new, agile fighter for both Navy and Air Force and they needn't be the same one. And we need an A-10 replacement that does the same job the same way.

I think the Navy/Air Force fielding the same air superiority/multi-role fighter is an achievable goal. The problem is the Marines want a dedicated VTOL CAS bird, and the Army wants a durable CAS platform, and these are both at odds with the zoom&boom needs of air superiority. The F-35's performance is handicapped largely because of the USMC's requirements shoehorned into the platform. As for the A-10.....CAS is increasingly moving away from gun runs/strafing type missions and is predominantly the deliverance of precision guided munitions: a job for which the A-10 is just not optimized for. In a permissive air-defense environment such as Afghanistan, the AC-130, MQ-9 Reaper, and B-52 are all more cost effective and have longer loiter times. In a high-intensity fight (such as vs Russia/China), the A-10's survivability will be terrible vs threats such as S-400s, Pantsir-S1, etc.. Even in the 1980's they were expected to take massive casualties from Soviet IADS.

We need more dismounts per infantry carrier than the Bradley provides

Agreed. Army squads are too small anyway. 9 men? As soon as you take 2-3 casualties your fire teams quickly lose the ability for fire&maneuver at the squad level, or lose the ability to assault an objective held by more than 2 men.

Wheels are for TRUCKS and TRACKS ARE FOR COMBAT!

Here I'll disagree. Wheeled vehicles provide a number of advantages when employed properly. Firstly....the world is increasingly urbanized. Road networks are more robust than they were in WW2. So both high-intensity conflicts as well as counter-insurgencies will be fought in populated areas with decent roads. Wheeled IFVs/APCs allow for long-range road marches (fuel efficient AND less maintenance-intensive than tracks), which gives you good operational maneuverability.

Secondly, they tend to sit farther up from the ground than tracked vehicles, and given the proliferation of IEDs in the 21st century this means improved survivability as well.

And while I'm on the subject, WHERE IS THE M-1's SUCCESSOR?

The US is predominantly an air/sea power that conducts expeditionary operations. And those expeditionary ops are always backed up with overwhelming air superiority. We don't really need a peerless cutting-edge MBT, we just need one that is "good enough". I think we could benefit from an extensive modernization program (ditch the gas turbine in favor of the Leopard 2A6's diesel engine, add an active protection system) but a clean slate successor isn't needed IMO. If we look at the latest offerings from the East, the Russian T-14 and the Chinese ZTZ-99A2....the M1A2SEP is still very competitive, and definitely combat proven.

I believe in one thread, you were talking about scenarios that didn't emphasize Soviet/Russian artillery enough. Don't know about the scenarios, but I know that artillery is very popular with the Russians, and recall that we could expect a LOT of it in the Fulda Gap. The Russians put together a lot of arty for any assault prep during WWII and I'm certain they have built on that success.

The new Russian independent brigade organization is really interesting. I was surprised to learn they are fielding a whole REGIMENT of artillery (1 battalion 122mm SPGs, 1 battalion 152mm SPGs, 1 battalion MRLs). It makes a certain amount of sense, given their history and technology. They haven't been very big on precision munitions (partly due to inferior computer tech IMO), they don't have the same close integration of aviation assets with their ground commanders, and, honestly, artillery is a pretty cost-effective way to directly destroy assets at the FEBA.

paul · Post by **paul** » Sat Dec 05, 2015 8:06 pm

Hey Noble,

Semper Fi

I went the other way Marines to the Army. Thank you for your service.

I agree we need more mobile response groups that have the firepower to do the job. The Marines MEU has great firepower but lacks the number. Beefing them up would do the job I think.

The current Army Cav units relying on Strykers is too weak. The MGS Strykers will not be able to hold the line and are too few in numbers. I also agree that 9 men squads are too small 12-13 man groups is better. This way you can have a couple of machine gun teams and several fire teams in each group.

Our current Navy is a shadow of its self. I think everyone believes more firepower is going to make up for the difference. This is not going to happen and as ships are damaged or lost we are going to find we cannot accomplish the mission anymore. I suspect some of it is the direction that civilian leadership wants to take. We saw Carter really disable our military and it took 8 years, and a lot of cash, to bring it back up. The same should be expected now.

Noble713 · Post by **Noble713** » Mon Dec 07, 2015 11:16 pm

paul wrote: Our current Navy is a shadow of its self. I think everyone believes more firepower is going to make up for the difference. This is not going to happen and as ships are damaged or lost we are going to find we cannot accomplish the mission anymore.

Exactly. But perhaps the USN has been peerless for so long that people have forgotten ships get shot at? They are so busy trying to cut "operational costs" via manpower reductions. Sounds great....until you find yourself with not enough bodies to do damage control, or continue to fight/function after taking a handful of casualties amongst essential personnel.

Waddell · Post by **Waddell** » Mon Dec 07, 2015 11:38 pm

panzergator,

The currently active divisions (so far as I can tell) are:

1st Armored Division - 1xSBCT, 2xABCT, 1xDivArty, 1xCAB
1st Cavalry Division - 3xABCT, 1xDivArty, 1xCAB
1st Infantry Division - 2xABCT, 1xDivArty, 1xCAB
2nd Infantry Division - 2xSBCT, 1xDivArty, 1xCAB, 1xROK Brigade
3rd Infantry Division - 2xABCT, 1xIBCT, 1xDivArty, 1xCAB
4th Infantry Division - 1xSBCT, 1xIBCT, 1xABCT, 1xDivArty, 1xCAB
10th Mountain Division - 3xIBCT, 1xDivArty, 1xCAB
25th Infantry Division - 2xIBCT, 2xSBCT, 1xDivArty, 1xCAB
82nd Airborne Division - 3xIBCT (Airborne), 1xDivArty, 1xCAB
101st Airborne Division - 3xIBCT (Air Assault), 1xDivArty, 1xCAB
173rd Airborne Brigade
2nd Cavalry Regiment - 1xSBCT
3rd Cavalry Regiment - 1xSBCT
11th Armored Cavalry Regiment - Fort Irwin Opposing Force Training Brigade
Special Forces - 5xSpecial Forces Groups + 2xSpecial Forces Groups(National Guard)
75th Ranger Regiment
1st Special Forces Operational Detachment-Delta (or whatever they're called these days)

This is the list from Wikipedia. There is a huge amount of information out there if you need additional data.