Stryker Brigades ‘Self-Reliance’ Worries TRADOC

[tomahawk6]

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/issues/2006/may/StrykerBrigade.htm

Typical of TRADOC to slam innovation that they don't create.

 

[Chimo]

"Wallace acknowledged that the Stryker brigades are not alone in their distrust of the institutional Army. “The operational Army tends not to reach out to TRADOC for help. "

TRADOC is having two main issues in my opinion. First one is trying to keep up with the advances and lessons learned on the modern battlefield and translating them into some form of consistent doctrine. The second and it is inherent in the institutional army is slaying the dinosaurs and trying to move ahead. Perhaps Gen Wallace should be looking at how the Stryker Brigades are doing their distributions of lessons learned and asking why TRADOC can't adopt a similar system. The operational army will not reach out to a system that can ony offer it poor solutions.

 

[ArmyRick]

I like this bit of news..

Alot of people are afraid of change and new things. With the stryker vehicles and the new brigade combat teams, I'll bet their have been some old war dogs fighting that concept from the begining. Too bad.

Change and adapt or rot and die.

 

[Marauder]

This Wallace guy sounds like another windbag GO worried about someone taking a piece of his pie away from him. This guy is pissed because manuevre units are getting timely, relevant, and possibly life saving intel, TTPs, and lessons learned? And even more pissed that that info hasn't been cleared through his empire?? To hell with him. Empire building generals that worry more about the next star than the threat on the ground can get deployed troops killed just as easily as the OPFOR.

 

[ArmyRick]

The way I see it (From personal expirience) the Company/Squadron commander is the one who needs the most relevant information during the battle. It has been that way for quite awhile.

I see battalion comanders and brigade commanders as more as battle "managers" for lack of a better word. It is the PL COMD and the COY COMD who driectly command the fight.

Oh yeah, I am an infantry NCO, so bring it on if you disagree.

 

[Centurian1985]

Two words - 'sour grapes'

Glad to see some units finally using their heads!  It used to really peeve me off that people didnt understand this concept!!  :brickwall:

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

The article isn't really about Strykers, its about the lessons learned process.  To be fair to the TRADOC folks, their concern seems to be that the information will just filter around in the home station of the deployed unit.  It is good to have those linkages, but for lessons learned in theatre to become institutionalized they need to have an army-wide distribution.  Before dissemination there needs to be some analysis.

I am living this right now in theatre.  I collect lessons and transmit them to the Army, who in turn analyse and then enact into policy (or not).  It gets to CMTC as well and to the unit getting ready to deploy.

It takes a little longer to have it go through the Army, but by doing so the "quality" of the product is more assured and we also make sure that every unit in the Army can benefit.

Cheers,

2B

 

[tomahawk6]

Actually the article is about the lesson's learned process that features the Stryker brigades at Ft Lewis, established by the I Corps CG. What the Stryker brigades are doing is getting AAR's directly from brigades in theater which then are distributed to the other Stryker brigades. I think this process is practical and gets important information from the field directly to sister units. I think this model could be expanded to the two training centers JRTC,NTC, III Corps and 18Abn Corps. Units of each Corps in theater would send AAR's and other important information to the Corps G3 to be passed on to subordinate briagdes/divisions who are not in theater. This would essentially decentralize the lesson's learned process. The field can still send lesson's learned to CALL at Leavenworth for more in depth study and archiving.