WT Forums

within the active component, and since adding active soldiers is too pricey to likely happen, dropping a heavy division and replacing it with a light infantry division may be the way to go.

Right now the Army has 6 Heavy Divisions and 4 Light Infantry Divisions.

One of the divisions of V Corps, the 1st Armored or 1st ID, over in Europe would be the most likely candidate to become light in my plan.

We're finding that light infantry is what is need in the post Cold War world. The conventional threat and the conventional battles with tanks and military formations isn't predominant.

For those rare cases involving tanks and military formations we'd still have the remaining 5 heavy divisions (with some 1,000 armored vehicles) plus the Guard to fight on the traditional battlefield in my plan. People may point to North Korea and the possibility of war over there but the truth is we'd be assisting the ROK, not fighting for them, in the event of a conflict. The ROK has their own, well-trained, well-equipped Army of 500,000+, so no, we wouldn't need 10 Heavy Divisions to fight for the ROK because we wouldn't be fighting for them. We'd need several to assist the ROK. Our unique help to the ROK would involve resources, strategy, the US Navy, Special Forces, Air Power in general, and US Air Force in truth.

You may point to the 3rd ID in Iraq and they were one of the leads in attack. But once the war ended tanks were of some selective use, but infantry was the main desired asset.

Those situations aren't typical. For the most part nowadays the predominant action is peacekeeping, and assymetic and irregular warfare. This requires infrantyman who are mobile and agile. The Mech Divisions have some of this but many of the personnel are tied up as tank and vehicle crewman and they lack infantry skills to be used in different ways. In Armored Divisions, like the 1st Cav and 1st Armored, there are even less infantry.

We need more infantryman. And the solution is to add another light division to the Army and, unless DOD is ready to spend billions on expanding the Army, remove a heavy division. An added benefit is that light infantry costs less so it'll only save money long-term.

Look at how useful the 82nd Airborne, 101st Air Assault, and 10th Mountain have been in this war on terrorism. They are quick, agile infantryman. These are the types of outfits that will be at the vanguard of the war on terror on the ground, along with Special Forces.


Edited by - ViperTTB on Sep 21 2003 12:21 PM

Dear WT Forum,

I am not a soldier but a crew chief so I will ask the dumb question. Are 'light infantry' a breed of faster, more highly trained footsoldiers as opposed to regular infantry ? I dont mean are they SpecOps as such but are they, well..........SpecOps guys?

Lovingly signed,
Inquisitive in Massachusetts

By this time tomorrow I shall have gained either a pearage or Westminster Abbey........Nelson

_________________
YGBSM !

I'm not sure I understand. There are just <i>more</i> infantry in the Light Divisions.

Edited by - ViperTTB on Sep 21 2003 4:11 PM

As posted in other threads the tank crews are out of there expertise right now. We definitely have taking ground down to a science. Additional light infantry units sounds like a fair trade, but take the money saved from having less heavy equipment and invest it into training for all light infantry for the tasks they are ill equipped to deal with in Iraq now.

Get a bigger hammer

So a light infanry division is just a heavy division minus the heavy equipment?

By this time tomorrow I shall have gained either a pearage or Westminster Abbey........Nelson

_________________
YGBSM !

Light Divisions just have infantry, mainly using small arms, with air support overhead. They can respond rapidly to situations and they are very flexible, with a smaller logistics tail.

The Army has 4 of these divisions. There's the 82nd Airborne. Everyone in that division can parachute from a plane and deploy that way. If there is a breaking crisis in the world, the 82nd is the division always kept ready to deploy within just a few days (However, their deployment to Iraq and Afghanistan has disrupted that). There's the 101st Air Assault, armed through the teeth with hundreds of Blackhawk, Chinook, and Apache helicopters, for an assault using helicopters. Up in New York there's the 10th Mountain, and they are just regular infantry. (They also only have 2 Brigades, not 3 like most Divisions). And in Hawaii and Washington State is the 25th ID, again, regular infantry.

Those are the Light Divisions. The other generic type of Division is the Heavy Division. Heavy Divisions have over 500 armored vehicles. They have to be crewed by soldiers, so the deployable infantry strength in a Heavy Division is less than in a Light Division. And their vehicles result in a larger logistics tail because they require fuel, spare parts, maintenance, recovery etc, and slower deployment time (weeks to deploy).

Within the generic Heavy Division label, there are two types: Armored and Mechanized. Armored Heavy Divisions have the most armored capability, great for conventional battlefield combat, while the Mechanized Division has less armored vehicles but more deployable infantry. The Mechanized Division is more balanced and between Mech and Armored, Mech is better suited for peacekeeping and low-intensity situations.

The Army has 6 Heavy Divisions. 2 are Armored. They are the 1st Armored based in Germany and the 1st Cav based in the U.S.

There are 3 pure Mech Divisions. The 3rd ID and 4th ID based in the US. The 1st ID based in Germany.

There's also the 2nd ID, based in the US and South Korea. The 2nd ID is a mixed division. It has 1 Armored Brigade, 1 Mech Brigade, and 1 Light Infantry Brigade. Since it has 2 heavy brigades, it is counted as a Heavy Division.

If you're wondering how things are organized here it is:

III Counterattack Corps (Based: US)
1st Cavalry Division
4th Infantry Division
3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment

XVIII Airborne Corps (US)
3rd Infantry Division
10th Mountain Division
82nd Airborne Division
101st Air Assault Division
2nd Armored Cavalry Regiment

7th Army - Europe
V Corps (Germany)
*1st Armored Division
*1st Infantry Division
173rd Airborne Brigade (Italy)

8th Army - South Korea
*2nd Infantry Division (2 Brigades)

Pacific Command
25th Infantry Division (2 Brigades in Hawaii, one in US)

I Corps
*3rd Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division (Light)
*1st Brigade, 25th Infantry Division (US-based Brigade)

**

As you can see there are some other combat units besides the Divisions. There's the 173rd Airborne Brigade, seperate from any division. It is in Italy, part of Europe's 7th Army. There's also the 3rd Armored Cav Regiment, for armored scouting and armored combat power. There's the 2nd Armored Cav Regiment (Light), which scouts using HMMV's or perhaps the new Stryker one day. And up in Alaska is the 172nd Infanty Brigade, part of Pacific Command.

Basically, III Corps is the US-based unit with the combat power in terms of tanks.

XVIII Corps is the US-based unit with the two Airborne Light Divisions, one Light Infantry Division, and one Mechanized Division. With all that Light Infantry, it is designed to quickly respond to global events. It can deploy within days, and it does have some armor thanks to the 3td ID.

7th Army and V Corps is in Europe, with one Mech Heavy Division and one Armored Heavy Division, plus one Airborne Brigade.

Pacific Command has the 25th ID (Light Infantry Division) and 172nd Infantry Brigade (Light), plus the one US-based Light Infantry Brigade of the 2nd ID.

And the other two brigades of the 2nd, the ones with armor, are in the 8th Army over in Korea.


Edited by - ViperTTB on Sep 21 2003 7:43 PM

To be honest the breakdown of armies has always confused the living daylights out of me. So I guess I know have something to go chew on for a while. Mucho grassy ass <img src=icon_smile_big.gif border=0 align=middle>

By this time tomorrow I shall have gained either a pearage or Westminster Abbey........Nelson

_________________
YGBSM !

THE BIGGEST PROBLEM IS NOT ENOUGH PEOPLE PERIOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

WHILE WE'RE BLOWNING 30+ BILLION FOR THE ROCKS,WHO DONT REALLY GIVE A ---- !
MIGHT AS WELL OPEN THE CHECKBOOK FOR MORE MILITARY NUMBERS.
AROUND HERE,I HEAR KIDS WANTING TO JOIN BUT CANT GO IN FOR A YEAR BECAUSE OF NUMBERS .
IF YOU WANT TO JOIN,GO AHEAD!
THE "PEACE DIVIDEN" BY BIG FAT A-- !!IT WASNT A BARGIAN

GET THE SERVICES UP TO SPEED,SIZE ETC... LET THE TIRED COME HOME,THE RETIRES RETIRE,THE GUARD AND RESERVES COME HOME.
THE EARLY 90'S WAS A MISTAKE BY THE SAME ONES WHO ARE DOING IT NOW.

JUST MY CREWDAWG THOUGHT

PRESS TO TEST

_________________
\"Live Free Or Die\"

I agree, the whole downsize and equipment retirement mess of the Slick Willy era did nothing more than create more tie ups of our forces.

Personally i felt there was a time when eventually terrorism would victimise us in our country before sept 11th.

I look at it this way. When the Soviet bear was at his best, he kept his radicles in line. The whole massed force structure of the east vs Nato and APAC forces kept us deployed in large enough numbers that logistics and responce to a threat was not a factor.

Now in the millenium downsized age we have force that are stretched thin. With a struggling supply chain, no follow on manufacturers for equipment in use today. and a bunch of pentagon dollar whorer's that havnt seen an operational unit for 15 years.. In the mean time the 60-70's Defense budget that was at the center and height of the Coldwar is helping us is fighting our enemies today.

I'm glad the soviet bear is gone and democracy is expanding the globe, but it is also expanding the open engagement policies of these secular gorrila groups that have their own ideas of nationalism at the price of innocence.

so today we have a stretched thin military, a Pussy pacifest UN, an instant gratification society and a world that is haveing revolutions and revolts at the price of peace.

Personally other than the Nuclear threat. the world in some places are more dangerous today than they were when i was being burped on my pop's lap. And we dont have the resources to keep up with the threat...

Sgt Goose:

I'm all for expanding the U.S. Army. Problem is I doubt it'll happen because for reasons of cost and time.

Mudd: Bush Senior, not Clinton, made the plan to downsize from 18 Divisions to 12 Divisions, and downsize the Air Force. Clinton further downsized to 10 divisions but it is not like he alone shrunk the Army in half.

Edited by - ViperTTB on Sep 21 2003 8:16 PM

Theres a big differnce between the plan and the Execution.

I spent the Mid Eighties through the nineties Fighting in the Reagen, bush, and Clinton Era. Clinton made his own adjustments to that Mess and Alowed the NATO and UN to become the Failure it is today.

Bush's goal was Cost Savings, Clintons was pacification and denial for responsebility to the defense of this nation and the Stability of the Globe.

The Whole statement is the same as a judge passing judgement, then sending the lowest bid public defender to manage the Decision and uphold the rule of law.

Its one thing to give a soldier the pink slip and send him home to fine a new purpose in life. Its another to take away the Training, Aquisition, Follow on budgetary dollars required to keep the current systems up to date and functional for the guy still in service.

60% of the systems that were slated for upgrades and aquisitions were Cut and or ended funding all together. Many of which were programs started by the reagen and then bush Administration.

Bushes goal was not to handicap these defense investments but to downsize the force structure and to provide them with Better training and Equipment. Clinton just wanted the Facilitation of his own pacifist agenda to appease those member states that have never contributed to the liberty and justice of the human race.

There were a ton of systems and policies During the balkans, Somalia, Kosovo and deny Flight operations i participated in during the clinton era that handicapped much of our abilities today.

now GW is the one to shoulder the burden of a weaker military and a more dynamic and hostile world. He is now Getting those systems his father and Reagen Bought back on track. Some of the policies however, leave me some concern in the defense strategies.

You can put blame were you want. but its the Actions of those that administer these decisions that I lay the blame on.

I agree about Clinton neglecting the military. He used the Army so willy nilly with the peacekeeping missions. The entire military in general really; bomb and launch TLAM's for two days then do nothing, bomb a month later, do nothing. The Air Force was ticked with him over the Balkans as well if I remember right.

He wasn't a good CINC. My point was that the force structure was coming down already before he entered. Even if the training, equipping, and usage was better we'd still have a force structure of around 10 divisions, they'd just be 10 better off divisions.

"I am not a soldier but a crew chief so I will ask the dumb question. Are 'light infantry' a breed of faster, more highly trained footsoldiers as opposed to regular infantry ? I dont mean are they SpecOps as such but are they, well..........SpecOps guys? "

Light Divisions just operate on a different TO&E structure than mech.

Light soldiers tend to be in better shape, but they are no better trained than the typical mech grunt will be.

I think the conversion to more light units would be a huge mistake, just as i think the stryker conversions are a huge mistake.

Light infantry = light firepower.

"If we are not victorious, let no man return alive."

Gen George S. Patton

BTW, the 101st is NOT a light division, it is Air Assault. It's TO&E structure is nothing like a light division, and it's logistics tail and transport requirements rival that of an armored division.

Really, the 82d isn't light either.

There is also another class of infantry called Motorized. The 10th mountain is really a motorized Division, not light.

The 25th is the only true 'light' division in the active US Army.

We don't have enough heavy divisions now. Getting rid of another one would be stupid. If you want more grunts, convert the Armored divisions to mechanized.

"If we are not victorious, let no man return alive."

Gen George S. Patton



Edited by - m21 sniper on Sep 21 2003 11:22 PM

BTW, the best light infantry unit in the army is the 75th Ranger regiment.

Expanding that to a division wouldn't be a bad idea at all.

"If we are not victorious, let no man return alive."

Gen George S. Patton

Special Ops are better. Rumsfeld is a huge fan and I think he boosted their budget and is trying to slowly expand them (I think he's doing something with the SEALS).

However, standards would probably go down if they expanded the Rangers Regiment three fold to a division size unit from a brigade size unit. That is a huge jump.



Edited by - ViperTTB on Sep 22 2003 07:13 AM

M21

Maybe I should've used unarmored, not Light. You're right about the 101st because they have all those choppers and air assault stuff. But the 10th or 82nd are designed to be able to deploy in days.

And with the 101st, once its equipment and choppers were in Iraq its effectiveness in Iraq showed because it could move so responsively and quickly, and be so versatile.

Tanks and Bradleys aren't going to the foundation of many of the 21st century battles, only a component.

Edited by - ViperTTB on Sep 22 2003 07:20 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
Tanks and Bradleys aren't going to the foundation of many of the 21st century battles, only a component.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote> If thats the case then the casualty counts(our own) will go up... bigtime.

Overkill??? I'd kill a fly with a howitzer if I had one.

_________________
\"One of you is gonna fall and die, and I'm not cleaning it up\"

Stinger:

In Post-war Iraq and Afghanistan how big a role do the Abrams and Bradleys have?



Edited by - ViperTTB on Sep 22 2003 08:46 AM

You don't need a rapid reaction type force "post war" so whats your point? Also the major problem with us having a larger military now, is recruiting and retention. From what I'm given to understand the recruiters are still having some trouble filling their quotas, and they aren't exactly turning people away.

Overkill??? I'd kill a fly with a howitzer if I had one.

_________________
\"One of you is gonna fall and die, and I'm not cleaning it up\"

The point is the tank and vehicles crews either have nothing to do, or in the case of Iraq, they are being used beyond their training as infantryman

Viper, did you even read the AAR i posted??? It don't seem like it.

You made my point for me when you said, "And with the 101st, once its equipment and choppers were in Iraq its effectiveness in Iraq showed because it could move so responsively and quickly, and be so versatile."

No kidding. That's the beauty of heavy units. The 101st is a heavy unit by every definition of the word. You get what you pay for(in heavy lift assets), and when you 'pay' for the 101st, the 1st Cavalry, 4th ID, or whatever, you get maximum bang for your buck.

Light infantry is for cities and broken/forrested terrain. It's next to useless against armor in open terrain. Next to useless is a nice way of saying they'd get slaughtered.

BTW, 1 Bde of the 101st can be moved into theater in days- not the whole division.

"Special Ops are better. Rumsfeld is a huge fan and I think he boosted their budget and is trying to slowly expand them (I think he's doing something with the SEALS)."

Oh, that's interesting.

Explain this quote from the CO of TF C 3/15, the lead element of the drive on Baghdad...

<b>"Issue: Special operations forces brought absolutely nothing to the fight during the conduct of combat operations but wanted support during SASO operations.

Discussion: Throughout this operation, special operations forces brought no information, which was of any value to the unit. In fact, never at one time did this unit have any special operations forces forward in zone or along an axis of attack providing critical information or intelligence. In fact, the situation was just the opposite. The special operations forces, hid or moved behind the protection of armored forces throughout the operation. This became especially evident during the transition from hostilities to SASO as this unit was tasked at least daily to provide either a QRF or transport to special operations forces into areas of the city to meet contacts or conduct "snatches".

Recommendation: Conventional ground commanders, the backbone of the army, cannot expect to receive any timely information from special operations forces during combat operations such as those experienced by this unit during "OIF". Additionally, the United States Army should review its current doctrine or lack of doctrine reference the integration of SOF and armor and mechanized infantry forces."</b>

Yeah, we need more of those guys.....

Rangers are not special forces, they are light infantry extraordinaire. More could be trained up to expand to a division, it would just take time and money.

"If we are not victorious, let no man return alive."

Gen George S. Patton

Yes it takes time to deploy the 101st but compared to the 1st Cav for example, the 101st would be more useful in Iraq. And again the 101st is much slower to deploy than the other two unarmored divisions in XVIII Corps, which can deploy in days.

I know Light Infantry isn't useful against tanks and armor and on traditional battlefields. It shouldn't be used that way. The Army would still have 1000+ armored vehicles even if they dropped a Mech or Armored Division to use in those types of situationjs. My point is we're seeing less of those traditional war situations in the 21st century. Units like the 82nd or 10th were the units used in Afghanistan.

As far as the Rangers, in the Rangers post I used the word Special Ops, and the 75th Ranger Regiment is under Army Special Ops Command. And the "better" I was referring to was clearly the training and ability of the Rangers Light Infantry compared to conventional infantry.

As to their use, the Rangers, SEALS, Special Forces/Green Berets etc were/are used extensively in Afghanistan. They did help in Iraq, before and after major combat operations. I can't wait for a book to be written on it because I suspect they did some incredible things. One account from one guy concerning their help to one unit is a totally partial analysis and can't provide a true, overall accurate picture. Special ops were hunting for weapons sites, establishing a communications network and seeking potential defectors from Iraqi military units (Many Iraqi Military indeed were bribed and surrendered, potentially saving US lives). Green Berets led Kurdish fighters against the Iraqi fighters in the north. There was a story of one 12-man ODA plus some pesh merga taking on an Iraqi armored division. They destroyed some tanks and accomplished their mission of keeping them in place, away from the south.

Special Forces were in the West Iraq also. Task Force 20, with Delta Force, searched throughout Iraq post-war as well.

As to my contention that Rumsfeld is a big fan of Special Ops, it is a fact. He's been public about it. And the SEALS are being expanded. Right now they just restructured to create two new SEAL Teams without adding Seals. But I read somewhere they are opening up 200+ slots to expand the SEALS over the next few years.


Edited by - ViperTTB on Sep 22 2003 11:28 AM

SPECIAL OP'S IS WHAT IT MEANS "SPECIAL",THEY DONT WIN WARS!

EVERYONE READS A TOM CLANCY AND THINKS "WOW"! WE'LL JUST HAVE THESE SPO'S AND WIN EVERYTIME!

IT COMES DOWN TO THE GROUNDPOUNDERS AND GRUNTS WITH THE SUPPORT!
LETS SEE NOW EVEN IN IRAQ I RATHER HAVE A SQUAD OF TANKS AROUND TO BAIL MY ASS OUT THEN A COUPLE OF HUMMERS

REMEMBER SOMLIA? IF WE HAD A ARMOUR UNIT THERE THOSE GUYS WOULDNT OF HAD TO GO BORROWING FROM SOME "HALF ASS MILITARY WANT-A-BE'S"TO GET THOSE GUYS OUT.PLUS THAT POLITICAL BS!!!

GIVE THEM ALL THE OVER KILL THEY NEED,TANKS,BRADLEY'S ETC.... PLUS CAS,A-10'S .


PRESS TO TEST

_________________
\"Live Free Or Die\"