Expanding the Army
- Thread starter tomahawk6
- Start date
B
Big Bad John
Guest
I sort of wondered that myself. I envy the fact that people will even talk of expansion. In the UK all they can talk about is cutting strengths.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
hear in canada we're getting 1500 new soldiers 
not even shure how many go where lol ;D
not even shure how many go where lol ;D
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 260
More troops is a good thing but think of this: New troops mean more vehicles, more troops mean more equipment, more troops, vehicles and equipment mean more Infrastructure!!!!!! It's fine and dandy to start recruiting but lets wait until we have the places for them to sleep on the bases.
- Reaction score
- 9,171
- Points
- 1,260
tomahawk6 said:
...and how many divisions has the US Army gotten rid of since 1992?
2nd Armoured Division
3rd Armoured Division
5th Infantry Division
6th Infantry Division
7th Infantry Division
8th Infantry Division
9th Infantry Division
24th Infantry Division
Looks like those 8 divisions could sure have been used now. I guess that is a big "oops"....
J
jmackenzie_15
Guest
Infanteer said:
wow
thats more than we have to begin with :-\
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Don't mean to pick fly sh*t out of pepper, but second armoured was redesignated fourth mech at that time. An all volunteer army is very expensive.
http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbook/online/articles/view/FF/qbf25.html
The Brits have also amalgamated separate Regiments (ten of them) that were over three hundred years old. In one move they reduced their army 20%.
We all know we need more troops, but just saying it (a la Paul Martin's "The Five Thousand", coming soon to a theatre near you) won't ever appear. As always the caveat 'just my two cents'.
http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbook/online/articles/view/FF/qbf25.html
The Brits have also amalgamated separate Regiments (ten of them) that were over three hundred years old. In one move they reduced their army 20%.
We all know we need more troops, but just saying it (a la Paul Martin's "The Five Thousand", coming soon to a theatre near you) won't ever appear. As always the caveat 'just my two cents'.
- Reaction score
- 63
- Points
- 530
The divisions were cut from 18 to 10 as a peace dividend. Other countries did the same during this period and are further reducing the size of their forces. The 7ID and 24ID are now paper divisions. They are commanded by an RA MG but has a mixed reserve/regular staff
and are charged with the training/support of 3 NG brigades each.
and are charged with the training/support of 3 NG brigades each.
- Reaction score
- 9,171
- Points
- 1,260
Worn Out Grunt said:
Yes you're right. Same with 24th Infantry (redesignated 3rd Infantry) and 3rd Infantry (redesignated 1st Infantry). This was merely shuffling around divisional affiliations to existing formations.
The fact remains that the US Army went from 18 Active and 8 Reserve Divisions to 10 Active and 8 Reserve Divisions.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/army/division.htm
You're right though, a heavy force structure like this is extremely pricey. I like Col Douglas MacGregor's proposal in his book Breaking the Phalanx in which he provides a plan to get more "bang-for-the-buck" by dropping the US from a Division-centered Army to a Brigade-centered one.
(Tomahawk beat me to it....)
- Reaction score
- 63
- Points
- 530
MacGregor has some good ideas but the current move away from divisions isnt one of them. This is an attempt to mimic the structure of the USMC and the false claim that the new brigade will be more "deployable". The fact is the Army must rely on the USN and USAF to get to the theater. Until we invest in WIG technology like Boeing's Pelican we will have to rely on sealift to move US ground forces.
I dont like seeing brigades drop from 3 manuever battalions to 2. I dont like the fact that we now have fewer infantry squads per brigade than we did in 96 [this is where I agree with MacGregor]. The Army Chief of Staff Gen Schoomaker hasessentially resurrected the pentomic organization that we had in the late 50's and early 60's. Later the weaknesses in the organization caused another unit design. Right now we have an Army HQ and a Corps HQ both commanded by a LTG. With modern communications we should be able to cut out either the Corps hq or the Army hq and its support units. If it were my choice the Corps Hq would go.
I dont like seeing brigades drop from 3 manuever battalions to 2. I dont like the fact that we now have fewer infantry squads per brigade than we did in 96 [this is where I agree with MacGregor]. The Army Chief of Staff Gen Schoomaker hasessentially resurrected the pentomic organization that we had in the late 50's and early 60's. Later the weaknesses in the organization caused another unit design. Right now we have an Army HQ and a Corps HQ both commanded by a LTG. With modern communications we should be able to cut out either the Corps hq or the Army hq and its support units. If it were my choice the Corps Hq would go.
- Reaction score
- 9,171
- Points
- 1,260
tomahawk6 said:
Are you sure? We've discussed this at length in the "Downward Diffusion of Combined Arms" thread. I found MacGregor's proposal pretty convincing, especially when you consider that the British have already done it as well (and us as well with the Brigade Group concept).
You've stated that you wish to get rid of a level of command; you say Corps while MacGregor aimed at the Division, preferring a network of Brigades to be managed by a Corps staff. Do you find flaws in this approach? The combined-arms team at the Regimental/Brigade level seemed to work suitably in Iraq, did it not? Why not formalize what is done in an ad hoc fashion?
- Reaction score
- 63
- Points
- 530
The UK moving to a seperate brigade structure as has the Land Forces is logical with a smaller number of forces to manage.
But for the US Army the division hq is ideal as a Task Force/JTF hq. The division has always been designed to operate independently while the brigade hasnt. Even in the case of seperate brigades that were deployed they require the more robust support organization found at the division or corps level. The combined arms structure that has served us well since DS is just fine. The brigade is just too small an organization to sustain itself . The brigades being formed will still answer to a TF hq [read division hq]. If deployed to Iraq they will be sustained by the divisional base. In this reorganization we are actually seeing an increase in support troops than we already had.
One would hope for a lower tooth to tail ratio than we have.
But for the US Army the division hq is ideal as a Task Force/JTF hq. The division has always been designed to operate independently while the brigade hasnt. Even in the case of seperate brigades that were deployed they require the more robust support organization found at the division or corps level. The combined arms structure that has served us well since DS is just fine. The brigade is just too small an organization to sustain itself . The brigades being formed will still answer to a TF hq [read division hq]. If deployed to Iraq they will be sustained by the divisional base. In this reorganization we are actually seeing an increase in support troops than we already had.
One would hope for a lower tooth to tail ratio than we have.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Infanteer - I would like to have been a fly on the wall when the US, UK and Russia all reduced their conventional but regular armies.... all reduced by 20 - 40 % Again, voluteer armies are expenive but motivated. Out of 250,000 troops in Europe in W2, fewer than 5,000 were Zombies.
Mountie
Full Member
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 230
I see the logic in reducing to a brigade-based structure. I foresee a mini-corps type organization with 3-6 combat brigades under a corps headquarters with a logistics brigade, an artillery brigade, an aviation brigade and small brigades of engineers, signals, intelligence, MPs, etc.
But why doesn't the US Army rename their new brigade combat teams after their famous divisions? All the new brigades could be renamed after their former divisions, wear the division patch and take on the division history, ie. 1st Infantry Brigade "The Big Red One". This could allow the US Army to bring back the history of all the famous division's rather than just the 10 Regular and 8 National Guard that exist today. The British did this years ago. The 7th Armoured Division "Desert Rats" became the 7th Armoured Brigade tpday, etc.
I'm also curious why the new brigades only have two combat battalions and a cavalry squadron. Why not stick with three? With only two the brigade will have no reserve to conduct exploiting or flanking missions unless it fights in a one up one back formation. What's the point in a brigade that can only committ one battalion at a time? Why not organize all the brigades like the Stryker BCT with three combat battalions and a cavalry squadron?
But why doesn't the US Army rename their new brigade combat teams after their famous divisions? All the new brigades could be renamed after their former divisions, wear the division patch and take on the division history, ie. 1st Infantry Brigade "The Big Red One". This could allow the US Army to bring back the history of all the famous division's rather than just the 10 Regular and 8 National Guard that exist today. The British did this years ago. The 7th Armoured Division "Desert Rats" became the 7th Armoured Brigade tpday, etc.
I'm also curious why the new brigades only have two combat battalions and a cavalry squadron. Why not stick with three? With only two the brigade will have no reserve to conduct exploiting or flanking missions unless it fights in a one up one back formation. What's the point in a brigade that can only committ one battalion at a time? Why not organize all the brigades like the Stryker BCT with three combat battalions and a cavalry squadron?
Similar threads
