- Reaction score
- 1,309
- Points
- 1,040
Got this idea from another thread. Anyway, here goes.
Under the new "force employment/force generation" thingy, units that are "generating" will train to a maximum level of Combined Arms Team (I believe). Only when in "Force employment mode" will they go to "Task Force" level. So, at "unit" level, the infantry battalion, comprised of three rifle coys, a sniper platoon and a recce platoon, will train mostly at coy level. No battalion level FTXs. So what? Well, I am one who would believe that an infantry battalion similar in organisation to the "cold war" version would be better for a variety of reasons.
So, four rifle companies, a recce platoon, a sniper platoon, a mortar platoon, a pioneer platoon and an anti armour platoon (along with sigs platoon, BHQ and Combat Service Support company, of course) to make the infantry battalion the building block upon which to "task tailor" forces. Why in such a format? Well, the unit could then train on a continuous basis as it would deploy. And if that infantry battalion were to get a task requiring a less-than-battalion level of force, the battalion commander could then "task tailor" according to need.
For example, look at the mission to Ethiopia/Eritrea. A company was deployed along with Recce Platoon and elements of CSS coy and BHQ. If called upon to deploy NOW (as the case with CANBATT 2 in 1992) the battalion could deploy and survive on its own for a limited time without external support. I understand the rationale for the current force employment philosophy and I also realise that I'm talking about ideal situations with unlimited budgets, but this is just a forum for discussion.
First question I can see raised: why four rifle companies? Well, four (vice three) provides the ability for depth and reserve (never to be confused with one another). By depth I don't mean "two up, one back" a la fighting for the Fulda Gap, but more in terms of the COE (Contemporary Operational Environment).
About mortars: the 81 is a groovy piece of kit, especially when mounted on the Bison. You can be in and out in a matter of minutes with pretty good fire which is also EXCELLENT for complex terrain. A mortar can hit areas that even artillery can't. For anyone who's been to Julien, think of the mountain range to the south of the camp (immediately behind the Queen's Palace). Suppose Tommy Taliban were launching rockets from there and suppose that the mortars were in action. They would have no trouble hitting that spot. LG1? Difficult to impossible. Also, with the latest ammo, the range of 5.6 km makes it the longest range weapon in the infantry battalion. Go to 120mm? Perhaps, but the 81 does have a higher rate of fire and is quite man-portable (ammo is greatest limitation)
The other platoons have also proved their worth time and time again. Now, they do not eliminate the need for the other Combat Arms of course, and the more the merrier. My main point is this: we had a flexibile and extremely capable force in the past that would be quite suitable in the Full Spectrum of Operations (FSO). So, would a reversion to an organisation similar to the one of old make sense? Points and thoughts would be greatly appreciated.
Under the new "force employment/force generation" thingy, units that are "generating" will train to a maximum level of Combined Arms Team (I believe). Only when in "Force employment mode" will they go to "Task Force" level. So, at "unit" level, the infantry battalion, comprised of three rifle coys, a sniper platoon and a recce platoon, will train mostly at coy level. No battalion level FTXs. So what? Well, I am one who would believe that an infantry battalion similar in organisation to the "cold war" version would be better for a variety of reasons.
So, four rifle companies, a recce platoon, a sniper platoon, a mortar platoon, a pioneer platoon and an anti armour platoon (along with sigs platoon, BHQ and Combat Service Support company, of course) to make the infantry battalion the building block upon which to "task tailor" forces. Why in such a format? Well, the unit could then train on a continuous basis as it would deploy. And if that infantry battalion were to get a task requiring a less-than-battalion level of force, the battalion commander could then "task tailor" according to need.
For example, look at the mission to Ethiopia/Eritrea. A company was deployed along with Recce Platoon and elements of CSS coy and BHQ. If called upon to deploy NOW (as the case with CANBATT 2 in 1992) the battalion could deploy and survive on its own for a limited time without external support. I understand the rationale for the current force employment philosophy and I also realise that I'm talking about ideal situations with unlimited budgets, but this is just a forum for discussion.
First question I can see raised: why four rifle companies? Well, four (vice three) provides the ability for depth and reserve (never to be confused with one another). By depth I don't mean "two up, one back" a la fighting for the Fulda Gap, but more in terms of the COE (Contemporary Operational Environment).
About mortars: the 81 is a groovy piece of kit, especially when mounted on the Bison. You can be in and out in a matter of minutes with pretty good fire which is also EXCELLENT for complex terrain. A mortar can hit areas that even artillery can't. For anyone who's been to Julien, think of the mountain range to the south of the camp (immediately behind the Queen's Palace). Suppose Tommy Taliban were launching rockets from there and suppose that the mortars were in action. They would have no trouble hitting that spot. LG1? Difficult to impossible. Also, with the latest ammo, the range of 5.6 km makes it the longest range weapon in the infantry battalion. Go to 120mm? Perhaps, but the 81 does have a higher rate of fire and is quite man-portable (ammo is greatest limitation)
The other platoons have also proved their worth time and time again. Now, they do not eliminate the need for the other Combat Arms of course, and the more the merrier. My main point is this: we had a flexibile and extremely capable force in the past that would be quite suitable in the Full Spectrum of Operations (FSO). So, would a reversion to an organisation similar to the one of old make sense? Points and thoughts would be greatly appreciated.