Informing the Army’s Future Structure

[rmc_wannabe]

And yet how many MDs do you see yomping with full op kit plus med bags? Talking about the real pointy end, me... never!

All tongue in cheek, good man. I worked for a time as a meat puppet for the medical school while on PAT and have the highest respect for both MOs and Medics.
Dentists on the other hand....

 

[ueo]

When did the FSH’s get obliterated to make the Health Service branch fiasco?

Sorry FSH?

 

[KevinB]

Sorry FSH?

Field Surgical Hospitals.
Back when Field Ambulance units also belonged to the Army

 

[ueo]

Field Surgical Hospitals.

All mil hospitals as well!

 

[markppcli]

Field Surgical Hospitals.
Back when Field Ambulance units also belonged to the Army

He have 1 Can Fd Hospital, they took care of me when my LaV batteries exploded way back in 2012.

 

[Rifleman62]

The Graveyard of Command Posts​

What Chornobaivka Should Teach Us about Command and Control in Large-Scale Combat Operations

 

[Kirkhill]

The Graveyard of Command Posts​

What Chornobaivka Should Teach Us about Command and Control in Large-Scale Combat Operations

Better plan. Stop playing Football and start playing Rugby.

Train your soldiers to operate in the absence of off-field C2. Leave more decisions with the troops on the ground.

 

[KevinB]

Better plan. Stop playing Football and start playing Rugby.

Train your soldiers to operate in the absence of off-field C2. Leave more decisions with the troops on the ground.

Larger Data sets and the need to process that requires people in the loop.

Can you do it more efficiently and effectively- I’m sure you can.
But it takes staff to be able to take all of those data points into an actionable plan across the AOR.



The sky must be falling, I’m defending HQ functions…

 

[Eaglelord17]

Larger Data sets and the need to process that requires people in the loop.

Can you do it more efficiently and effectively- I’m sure you can.
But it takes staff to be able to take all of those data points into an actionable plan across the AOR.



The sky must be falling, I’m defending HQ functions…

Either die the hero or live long enough to see yourself become the villain…

 

[daftandbarmy]

Larger Data sets and the need to process that requires people in the loop.

Can you do it more efficiently and effectively- I’m sure you can.
But it takes staff to be able to take all of those data points into an actionable plan across the AOR.



The sky must be falling, I’m defending HQ functions…

Memories of soldiers who thought thet they had a really, really good handle on RCIED detection drills in a certain situation, but didn't.

Luckily, I could see them on camera and was able to send 'Stooooooop!' over the net

 

[rmc_wannabe]

Better plan. Stop playing Football and start playing Rugby.

Train your soldiers to operate in the absence of off-field C2. Leave more decisions with the troops on the ground.

Except when you need stuff...

Mission Command works great until you start getting into Combined Arms planning, Combat Support, CSS, Data Gathering/Distribution, and any other number of things that need people to talk to one another in near real time across the battle space.

Do we need to do it better? Hell yes. Smaller, faster, scalable, and embracing area mesh infrastructure vice node to node.

The sprawling Bde/JTF JOCs of the bygone Afghan days are an EW/Arty wet dream.

 

[Kirkhill]

Anybody remember the game "Harpoon"? Naval War Game in the North Atlantic defending Norway and Iceland an the GIUK Gap. I found that the way to beat that game was not to plan Big Wing movements and Squadron Attacks, The way to survive in that case was to keep 20 to 25% of my Air Force in the air constantly and widely distributed. Each aircraft had enough missiles on board that 4 aircraft could bring down a lot of Tu22s and Tu95s. And if they didn't have enough then there were two more flights on the flanks to be vectored and many more on the ground ready to launch.

Yeah. I know it was a game. But lots of little bits means that you can afford to lose a few and still have lots of reserves.

Which sounds an awful lot like Ukraine's game plan. Lots and lots of jabs. The haymaker is promised but has yet to be seen.

 

[KevinB]

Anybody remember the game "Harpoon"? Naval War Game in the North Atlantic defending Norway and Iceland an the GIUK Gap. I found that the way to beat that game was not to plan Big Wing movements and Squadron Attacks, The way to survive in that case was to keep 20 to 25% of my Air Force in the air constantly and widely distributed. Each aircraft had enough missiles on board that 4 aircraft could bring down a lot of Tu22s and Tu95s. And if they didn't have enough then there were two more flights on the flanks to be vectored and many more on the ground ready to launch.

Yeah. I know it was a game. But lots of little bits means that you can afford to lose a few and still have lots of reserves.

Which sounds an awful lot like Ukraine's game plan. Lots and lots of jabs. The haymaker is promised but has yet to be seen.

But who is controlling all those moving pieces

Span of control issues means you can’t focus on everything in real time - so the more moving pieces need more controllers.
Now those moving pieces now can also send back real time data that needs to be collected, collated, analyzed and disseminated.


Recently I got to see a test of a new piece of gear. When interfaced with other data - I could see where individual soldiers where facing - what they were targeting, how many rounds each was expending (and what they hit individually) and a bunch of other data.
Now not only does that now log rounds fired for maintenance, but also resupply - and how individuals performed in terms of accuracy and how the team leaders did to manage the situation, but also what enemies where deployed against them and how many where hit, killed versus injured and equipment losses to both sides.

Data gathered in that event appeals for multiple purposes, and several different segments. Now if you expand that to your entire force - you have everyone from the G1 to G8 interested in portions of that data.
Some need it sooner than others, and some don’t need the individual results, just aggregates of larger units, but some segments may be very time sensitive— so how does one get all that data sent and sorted as needed with a lot of backend support. Plus I’ve only touched on a very small segment of the data that can be recorded and transmitted from a single Squad/Section.


I’m the guy who used to cringe when the digital battlefield net warrior briefings occurred. Now I paying rapt attention as the fastest information is collected, analyzed and pursued the faster you have a lead on the enemy due to “Decision Dominance” - I hate that term, but the ability to know more faster and be able to act and react faster and more accurately is key.

 

[Kirkhill]

But who is controlling all those moving pieces

Span of control issues means you can’t focus on everything in real time - so the more moving pieces need more controllers.
Now those moving pieces now can also send back real time data that needs to be collected, collated, analyzed and disseminated.


Recently I got to see a test of a new piece of gear. When interfaced with other data - I could see where individual soldiers where facing - what they were targeting, how many rounds each was expending (and what they hit individually) and a bunch of other data.
Now not only does that now log rounds fired for maintenance, but also resupply - and how individuals performed in terms of accuracy and how the team leaders did to manage the situation, but also what enemies where deployed against them and how many where hit, killed versus injured and equipment losses to both sides.

Data gathered in that event appeals for multiple purposes, and several different segments. Now if you expand that to your entire force - you have everyone from the G1 to G8 interested in portions of that data.
Some need it sooner than others, and some don’t need the individual results, just aggregates of larger units, but some segments may be very time sensitive— so how does one get all that data sent and sorted as needed with a lot of backend support. Plus I’ve only touched on a very small segment of the data that can be recorded and transmitted from a single Squad/Section.


I’m the guy who used to cringe when the digital battlefield net warrior briefings occurred. Now I paying rapt attention as the fastest information is collected, analyzed and pursued the faster you have a lead on the enemy due to “Decision Dominance” - I hate that term, but the ability to know more faster and be able to act and react faster and more accurately is key.

I am a great believer in instrumentation. It provides no end of insight ..... after the fact when there is time to digest the information. A great tool for the Manager to review after the game is over. During the course of the action no one person can absorb all the data and a group of people will spend more time arguing about the right course than coming to conclusions and developing a useful Course of Action.

Very early in my life I remember a very switched on, high tech manager who adopted the absolute latest in modern supervisory technology at the time: Closed Circuit TV. Sitting in his office he saw all of his operators and all of their mistakes. He spent the next, according to him, three or four days jumping up every time a bottle was broken..... Until he realized he wasn't contributing anything useful and unplugged the live feed. The CCTV became a record of activities and could be reviewed weekly for patterns that could be identified and corrected.

He let his operators operate and made sure they had what they needed to get their jobs done and supplied instruction, quietly, to improve their performance.

Which brings me back to the Rugby. The Manager has the team for a week. One day a week, for 90 minutes, the Manager loses control and has to rely on the players on the field. Their performance is a direct result of the Manager's preparation and training. Not his play on the field.

 

[markppcli]

I am a great believer in instrumentation. It provides no end of insight ..... after the fact when there is time to digest the information. A great tool for the Manager to review after the game is over. During the course of the action no one person can absorb all the data and a group of people will spend more time arguing about the right course than coming to conclusions and developing a useful Course of Action.

I think you grossly understand what and how Bg command cells are doing. I assume you haven’t seen an FSCC operate and coordinate fires.

Very early in my life I remember a very switched on, high tech manager who adopted the absolute latest in modern supervisory technology at the time: Closed Circuit TV. Sitting in his office he saw all of his operators and all of their mistakes. He spent the next, according to him, three or four days jumping up every time a bottle was broken..... Until he realized he wasn't contributing anything useful and unplugged the live feed. The CCTV became a record of activities and could be reviewed weekly for patterns that could be identified and corrected.

He let his operators operate and made sure they had what they needed to get their jobs done and supplied instruction, quietly, to improve their performance.

Which brings me back to the Rugby. The Manager has the team for a week. One day a week, for 90 minutes, the Manager loses control and has to rely on the players on the field. Their performance is a direct result of the Manager's preparation and training. Not his play on the field.

80 minutes, and your game is being called by the 9 and 10, assisted by a spine with the 2,8 and 15 normally. But hey who’s counting details.

 

[KevinB]

I am a great believer in instrumentation. It provides no end of insight ..... after the fact when there is time to digest the information.

Which could be all of your forces a smoking ruin.

A great tool for the Manager to review after the game is over.

See my above.

During the course of the action no one person can absorb all the data and a group of people will spend more time arguing about the right course than coming to conclusions and developing a useful Course of Action.

Getting information prior to direct contact can often let you either shape the engagement to your choosing or delay the engagement of circumstances aren’t favorable.

I’m not talking about micromanagement of #1 rifleman, or even a section or platoon. I’m talking about primarily Bde and Higher and how they can be ahead of the game.
It’s great if a Section can avoid ‘out running their headlights’ but it’s catastrophic if a Division does.

Very early in my life I remember a very switched on, high tech manager who adopted the absolute latest in modern supervisory technology at the time: Closed Circuit TV. Sitting in his office he saw all of his operators and all of their mistakes. He spent the next, according to him, three or four days jumping up every time a bottle was broken..... Until he realized he wasn't contributing anything useful and unplugged the live feed. The CCTV became a record of activities and could be reviewed weekly for patterns that could be identified and corrected.

He let his operators operate and made sure they had what they needed to get their jobs done and supplied instruction, quietly, to improve their performance.

I think you are missing some significant pieces of why things occur on the battlefield.

Which brings me back to the Rugby. The Manager has the team for a week. One day a week, for 90 minutes, the Manager loses control and has to rely on the players on the field. Their performance is a direct result of the Manager's preparation and training. Not his play on the field.

Let’s say the Brigade Commander is your manager, if he’s not on the field does the G1-6 just pack up and let the Bn Commanders do their own thing? Or are there larger Ops planning and enablers to bring to the table?

In short I’m not tracking your analogy at all.

 

[Kirkhill]

I think you grossly understand what and how Bg command cells are doing. I assume you haven’t seen an FSCC operate and coordinate fires.

80 minutes, and your game is being called by the 9 and 10, assisted by a spine with the 2,8 and 15 normally. But hey who’s counting details.

When I played there was a 25 yard line on the field. And the time of play was whatever the Referee said it was. And yes there was organization on the field of play. And yes the Manager did instruct in that organization and how best to use it during play.

Just to be sure we are on the same wave-length, I understand No.8. That was my usual position. But for clarity, I believe you refer to the Scrum-Half and Fly-Half, the Hooker and the Full-Back. And even in the neolithic they had jobs they trained for and performed on the field.

Which could be all of your forces a smoking ruin.


See my above.

Getting information prior to direct contact can often let you either shape the engagement to your choosing or delay the engagement of circumstances aren’t favorable.

I’m not talking about micromanagement of #1 rifleman, or even a section or platoon. I’m talking about primarily Bde and Higher and how they can be ahead of the game.
It’s great if a Section can avoid ‘out running their headlights’ but it’s catastrophic if a Division does.



I think you are missing some significant pieces of why things occur on the battlefield.


Let’s say the Brigade Commander is your manager, if he’s not on the field does the G1-6 just pack up and let the Bn Commanders do their own thing? Or are there larger Ops planning and enablers to bring to the table?

In short I’m not tracking your analogy at all.

But who is controlling all those moving pieces

Span of control issues means you can’t focus on everything in real time - so the more moving pieces need more controllers.
Now those moving pieces now can also send back real time data that needs to be collected, collated, analyzed and disseminated.


Recently I got to see a test of a new piece of gear. When interfaced with other data - I could see where individual soldiers where facing - what they were targeting, how many rounds each was expending (and what they hit individually) and a bunch of other data.
Now not only does that now log rounds fired for maintenance, but also resupply - and how individuals performed in terms of accuracy and how the team leaders did to manage the situation, but also what enemies where deployed against them and how many where hit, killed versus injured and equipment losses to both sides.

Data gathered in that event appeals for multiple purposes, and several different segments. Now if you expand that to your entire force - you have everyone from the G1 to G8 interested in portions of that data.
Some need it sooner than others, and some don’t need the individual results, just aggregates of larger units, but some segments may be very time sensitive— so how does one get all that data sent and sorted as needed with a lot of backend support. Plus I’ve only touched on a very small segment of the data that can be recorded and transmitted from a single Squad/Section.


I’m the guy who used to cringe when the digital battlefield net warrior briefings occurred. Now I paying rapt attention as the fastest information is collected, analyzed and pursued the faster you have a lead on the enemy due to “Decision Dominance” - I hate that term, but the ability to know more faster and be able to act and react faster and more accurately is key.

I think we come adrift on the highlighted point.

I don't believe that more controllers at Division results in better play in the field. I don't accept that coaches in the stands talking to the quarterback is a viable course of action in any scenario other than the artificially regulated domain of American Football.

I do believe that information ahead of the game is absolutely critical for the players on the field. I also believe that the ability of the players on the field to see the ENTIRE field and be able to READ the field is also absolutely critical. That is why I am a big fan of the addition of the dedicated drone operator / assistant leader to the USMC Squad, which now seems to be moving towards the size of a Union team instead of the League team size it has been using for decades. It is also great that the Scrum-Half can "phone a friend" to reach the back field when his team can't.

I don't believe that more information off the field is useful. I think the idea of an information filter on the field is a brilliant innovation. Somebody that can devote themselves full time to maintaining Situational Awareness and deciding what is useful to his team and what is not and trusts his team to keep his hide intact while he is doing it sounds like a great idea to me. A great job for the Fly-Half while the Scrum-Half commands and controls the team in the field.

I do believe that more people in HQ seeing more data will actually lengthen the OODA loops as board meeting break out. That will cause the Scrum-Half to tune out the voices in his ear because events on the field are moving faster than the discussions at HQ. And the Fly-Half will be focusing on what he can see through his drone.

I do believe that the best use of the Company, Battalion, Brigade, Division, Corps and Army is to be at the end of the phone and ready to act in support when the Scrum-Half calls for it.

I also believe that Higher needs to treat that Team in the Field as an AI Loitering Attack Munition. Recoverable but Attritable. Very valuable in its own right but its loss will not cost the loss of the Season. There should be plenty more where that one came from. And they should be despatched to the field to compensate for failure and to advance the course of the campaign.

So. If Management sees that a particular team is losing a particular away game on a particular Saturday then the correct course of action is to decide whether to replay that match with a new team or take the loss and work with the successes enjoyed by the other teams in play.

Those Teams/Squads/Sections/Platoons/Troops..... whatever .... In My Opinion are analogous to those flights of fighters in Harpoon with few committed, fewer still engaged and many more in reserve. But each acting autonomously while engaged.

The moving pieces don't need more controllers. They already have one. The Scrum-Half.

PS. Does the Fly-Half still cover the "Blind Side"?

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

When I played there was a 25 yard line on the field. And the time of play was whatever the Referee said it was. And yes there was organization on the field of play. And yes the Manager did instruct in that organization and how best to use it during play.

Just to be sure we are on the same wave-length, I understand No.8. That was my usual position. But for clarity, I believe you refer to the Scrum-Half and Fly-Half, the Hooker and the Full-Back. And even in the neolithic they had jobs they trained for and performed on the field.




I think we come adrift on the highlighted point.

I don't believe that more controllers at Division results in better play in the field. I don't accept that coaches in the stands talking to the quarterback is a viable course of action in any scenario other than the artificially regulated domain of American Football.

I do believe that information ahead of the game is absolutely critical for the players on the field. I also believe that the ability of the players on the field to see the ENTIRE field and be able to READ the field is also absolutely critical. That is why I am a big fan of the addition of the dedicated drone operator / assistant leader to the USMC Squad, which now seems to be moving towards the size of a Union team instead of the League team size it has been using for decades. It is also great that the Scrum-Half can "phone a friend" to reach the back field when his team can't.

I don't believe that more information off the field is useful. I think the idea of an information filter on the field is a brilliant innovation. Somebody that can devote themselves full time to maintaining Situational Awareness and deciding what is useful to his team and what is not and trusts his team to keep his hide intact while he is doing it sounds like a great idea to me. A great job for the Fly-Half while the Scrum-Half commands and controls the team in the field.

I do believe that more people in HQ seeing more data will actually lengthen the OODA loops as board meeting break out. That will cause the Scrum-Half to tune out the voices in his ear because events on the field are moving faster than the discussions at HQ. And the Fly-Half will be focusing on what he can see through his drone.

I do believe that the best use of the Company, Battalion, Brigade, Division, Corps and Army is to be at the end of the phone and ready to act in support when the Scrum-Half calls for it.

I also believe that Higher needs to treat that Team in the Field as an AI Loitering Attack Munition. Recoverable but Attritable. Very valuable in its own right but its loss will not cost the loss of the Season. There should be plenty more where that one came from. And they should be despatched to the field to compensate for failure and to advance the course of the campaign.

So. If Management sees that a particular team is losing a particular away game on a particular Saturday then the correct course of action is to decide whether to replay that match with a new team or take the loss and work with the successes enjoyed by the other teams in play.

Those Teams/Squads/Sections/Platoons/Troops..... whatever .... In My Opinion are analogous to those flights of fighters in Harpoon with few committed, fewer still engaged and many more in reserve. But each acting autonomously while engaged.

The moving pieces don't need more controllers. They already have one. The Scrum-Half.

PS. Does the Fly-Half still cover the "Blind Side"?

That is a master-class in metaphor-mixing. You even worked in Who Wants to be a Millionaire. What are you actually trying to advise the army to do in some practical sense?

You played some rugby and a naval wargame. Have you worked in CP at unit or formation level in the field or on operations? Planned operations?

We have different command approaches for different situations, some using directive control while others allow for much more initiative. A unit is not an AI loitering munition. Its a group of people with everything that goes with that (including things like fear, fatigue and uncertainty). As such they behave differently than a loitering munition driven by AI. Because they have actual human intelligence and emotion with the added bonus of a collective setting.

Some sports terms and military terms can be used interchangeably (contain, block etc). I found that sports analogies could sometimes be helpful to illustrate a point in a staff college syndicate and lighten things up, but it could be taken too far. And I think that is what you are doing.

 

[Kirkhill]

That is a master-class in metaphor-mixing. You even worked in Who Wants to be a Millionaire. What are you actually trying to advise the army to do in some practical sense?

You played some rugby and a naval wargame. Have you worked in CP at unit or formation level in the field or on operations? Planned operations?

We have different command approaches for different situations, some using directive control while others allow for much more initiative. A unit is not an AI loitering munition. Its a group of people with everything that goes with that (including things like fear, fatigue and uncertainty). As such they behave differently than a loitering munition driven by AI. Because they have actual human intelligence and emotion with the added bonus of a collective setting.

Some sports terms and military terms can be used interchangeably (contain, block etc). I found that sports analogies could sometimes be helpful to illustrate a point in a staff college syndicate and lighten things up, but it could be taken too far. And I think that is what you are doing.

Short point? Mixing another metaphor?

Too many cooks spoil the broth!

In every kitchen.

 

[KevinB]

When I played there was a 25 yard line on the field. And the time of play was whatever the Referee said it was. And yes there was organization on the field of play. And yes the Manager did instruct in that organization and how best to use it during play.

Just to be sure we are on the same wave-length, I understand No.8. That was my usual position. But for clarity, I believe you refer to the Scrum-Half and Fly-Half, the Hooker and the Full-Back. And even in the neolithic they had jobs they trained for and performed on the field.




I think we come adrift on the highlighted point.

I don't believe that more controllers at Division results in better play in the field. I don't accept that coaches in the stands talking to the quarterback is a viable course of action in any scenario other than the artificially regulated domain of American Football.

Keep in mind the Division is a MANEUVER formation, Corps, Army and Theatre are not considered such, I think failure to either understand or respect that is coloring your view.

I’d like you think think about Corps and Army formations moving Divisions - and then consider what the sense-see-act requirements at that level require. Then re-read what you wrote with a view higher than the rifle squad/section.

I do believe that information ahead of the game is absolutely critical for the players on the field. I also believe that the ability of the players on the field to see the ENTIRE field and be able to READ the field is also absolutely critical. That is why I am a big fan of the addition of the dedicated drone operator / assistant leader to the USMC Squad, which now seems to be moving towards the size of a Union team instead of the League team size it has been using for decades. It is also great that the Scrum-Half can "phone a friend" to reach the back field when his team can't.

Again if your the Div, phone a friend can mean Corps and higher assets

I don't believe that more information off the field is useful. I think the idea of an information filter on the field is a brilliant innovation. Somebody that can devote themselves full time to maintaining Situational Awareness and deciding what is useful to his team and what is not and trusts his team to keep his hide intact while he is doing it sounds like a great idea to me. A great job for the Fly-Half while the Scrum-Half commands and controls the team in the field.

What you don’t consider the field, a higher formation does. Squads/Sections generally don’t act in a vacuum.

I do believe that more people in HQ seeing more data will actually lengthen the OODA loops as board meeting break out. That will cause the Scrum-Half to tune out the voices in his ear because events on the field are moving faster than the discussions at HQ. And the Fly-Half will be focusing on what he can see through his drone.

The Squad only has their own integral assets they can bring to bear (same with Platoon, Coy, Bn, Bed etc) , anything above that requires coordination, and understanding that other formations may be competing for support. This is a reason why there are planned operations and contingencies. That is a function in higher level HQ’s. The Squad/Section operates in a microcosm of the larger battlefield.

I do believe that the best use of the Company, Battalion, Brigade, Division, Corps and Army is to be at the end of the phone and ready to act in support when the Scrum-Half calls for it.

You are being unrealistic in that respect.
There is a reason why there are FDCC’s, Fireplans, etc. Keep in mind Direct Support assets exist at all levels.
The direct sphere if influence at the Squad/Section level is ~500m for a dismounted one, and ~2,500 for a Mech supported one (cannon, and potentially longer for ATGM equipped carriers) the range band extends as formations get larger.

While a UAS at the Section level helps the Section and Platoon, data from a Platoon UAS can be securely transferred higher.

I also believe that Higher needs to treat that Team in the Field as an AI Loitering Attack Munition. Recoverable but Attritable. Very valuable in its own right but its loss will not cost the loss of the Season. There should be plenty more where that one came from. And they should be despatched to the field to compensate for failure and to advance the course of the campaign.

So. If Management sees that a particular team is losing a particular away game on a particular Saturday then the correct course of action is to decide whether to replay that match with a new team or take the loss and work with the successes enjoyed by the other teams in play.

Those Teams/Squads/Sections/Platoons/Troops..... whatever .... In My Opinion are analogous to those flights of fighters in Harpoon with few committed, fewer still engaged and many more in reserve. But each acting autonomously while engaged.

The moving pieces don't need more controllers. They already have one. The Scrum-Half.

PS. Does the Fly-Half still cover the "Blind Side"?

Again rethink moving pieces and think of the Div as the moving piece. I think you may start to notice that there needs to be some additional pieces to sift data from the nodes to make use of it.