Edit: Unfortunately, it seems they're changing the name from Penetration to Heavy Reinforced😥 : www.army.mil/article/259612/confronting_the_changing_sustainment_battlefield_calculus This may have been flagged as pornographic content on Patreon
As an Army engineer who just left a multi-role bridge company, it’s interesting seeing them planning on having each of this type of Division have 5, which is how many there currently are in active duty, with the personnel shortages already faced. 7 combat engineer companies sounds pretty damn nice though.
Desert Storm we had 4 combat engineer companies with 3 line plts and one MCM platoon with a 5th E company being bridge for the Div engineer Bn. By 92 we were changing to converting the Div Engineer position to a Bde command with 3 battalions with 3 line companies, but with two-line platoons and one MCM platoon (ACE, AVLB, CEV and other diggers and mine systems and hauling capacity) Then we started changing again in the early 2000's with more and different equipment. But with the new computer system a platoon went to 2 squads from 3. (the LT and Platoon SGT got their own APCs to run around in and took the hummer from the PLT sgt. One thing to note, Eng Bn's are all designed to buff up with bridge and horizontal and vertical companies. The corp engineers more so and they keep the old tool trailers unlike the old DS division line platoons. Corp combat engineers also keep some dump trucks for a bit. Then I left the Engineers for never never land, and later working for the government. All fun and games until someone comes into the office with a vest. So in 1991 there were 27 squads of 12b's in a div, 1992 there were 54 and in 2002, 36.
Really liked the video and found it informative. Being a veteran (M1 Armor Crewman) in both the Spearhead Division (3rd AD) in West Germany and the Red Devils (5th ID) out of Ft. Polk from the mid to late 80's . I hated the idea of BCT's due to the lack of Divisional Logistical Support and the area they were required to cover. The largest problem I saw then was culture. When in the FRG, the units were concentrating more on training and whether a soldier could perform his job and the job of the man 2 levels above his position. At Ft. Polk, and at the US bases I was stationed at, the concern was more about "looking good" and padding statistics.
It’s interesting that MLRS/HIMARS is a Corps Artillery asset in the new Division-centric organization. I suspect these assets will habitually support a specific division like they did in the Cold War, but it’s a change. Overall, I’m glad the Army is getting back to large scale combat organization
I wonder if that's due to the increased mobility of HIMARS giving commanders more options. Divisions might not need a permanent contingent of rocket artillery if they can now rely on a quicker deployment and response from the Corps artillery. Agree with you though they could be likely to spend most of their time supporting a single division.
@@BlindMonk93 my guess is MLRS/HIMARS accurate, long range fires is ideal for “strategic” targets back from the forward edge of the battlefield. Air defense assets, command and control, logistics hubs, transportation nodes, etc., rather than targets direct support howitzers could range.
@@doughudgens9275 That's what MLRS in the modem works is for. The US doesn't really really on unguided MLRS anymore... Why bother, with Guns and Bombs? It can still be used on the front line though. With enough supply (like the US during a war) there's no reason to not put 6 GMLRS right up the ass of every T-72 or T-72 Winney The Pooh edition that partakes in an assault, and the accuracy means you could hit one part of your own trenches that have fallen without hitting your own troops prepping the counter. With good timing, that's a diverse goddamn system!
You know listening to this makes me understand the Reformers(Fighter Mafia). War is so complex and hard to understand for the layman that it is better to just ignore it and go back to a simpler way of thinking. To be clear I don't agree with it I just understand
Yes they like wargaming solutions as an easy fix but fail to take account of lessons learned, technical limitations and especially soft stats which are hard to wargame but are all vital. Their dislike for tech is their biggest pitfall. Of course they are sometimes right like a broken clock and Ukraine is using several units which are reminiscent of Reformer thinking.
I think reformers were nostalgic of the WW2 style of mechanised warfare. A bit like how most ww1 generals were nostalgic for Napoleonic warfare they believed more honorable.
The entire division is built around the large combat engineer compliment. 1. Alot of armour, mobile, heavy, armour. 2. Alot of Engineers to get the armour where ever the PenDivCmdr wants them to go. 3 Alot of good long range fire support to nose down annyone trying to stop you. And if it fails. Well, only the US can make the skies scream the star spangled banner in ordenance.
@@WWFanatic0 Oh the U.S would not even go to war without utter air dominance. Still, in Iraq the battle of 73-Easting was also a full armor on armor clash when the U.S and coalition forces had total air supremacy and Mcmaster who led Eagle troop still found plenty of targets for his M1's and Bradley's to engage.
@@thijshagenbeek6554 Oh for sure, my point is more that the USAF (and USN and USMC aviation) would certainly act as major condition setters. ODS saw a lot of armor action for sure, but it was of a fairly disorganized and demoralized enemy that had lost a fair amount of equipment pre ground invasion...aka the *perfect* target for US armored forces to cut through like a hot knife through butter.
This is exactly why we'd have a hard time facing Russia, especially in Ukraine. This whole plan falls apart when your air dominance is interrupted by advanced anti-air systems.
@@Amerigmatic-ud7ty The whole thing is that the U.S has two things no other country in the world has. The numbers and the technology in the airforce to penetrate enemy airdefences at scale and demolish them from the air. Its also the only country that has succesful experience with this sort of combat. Desert Storm was a clear cut example of just how effective U.S airpower is and that was before the U.S took delivery of the F22 the F35 and the B2. Now the B2 raider is announced, the 6th gen fighter is in development and the F35 is being introduced at bulk and the F22 is getting a very significant service upgrade. All of this put together is the same result. If uncle sam points a finger on the map or a certain amount of gridspaces and wants it airspace to belong to the US, the airforce has the means to make it so, and keep it that way.
You should do one with light division as well. Also it would be interesting to see which wheeled SPG would US Army choose given the recent artillery shoot off competition.
It's going to be a challenge for the United States Army to balance between reverting back to Divisions for high-intensity conflicts and retaining Brigades for low-intensity conflicts.
they can still use division for COIN and other stability operations, just with less efficient force rotation and more administrative hassles to task-organize CS/CSS harder, but doable
@@geist453 you raise an interesting point. It would be worth considering to bring the Marine Corps back to its roots as the US’s primary low intensity conflict and COIN force while the army is reoriented back towards large scale conventional warfare.
@@andrewlechner6343 The way things are looking geopolitically, we can’t really afford a dedicated COIN force and won’t have a need for one. The Iraqi army and the Taliban need to worry about COIN, not the US.
Nice to see the classic division structure returning. Always weird to me how parts of a division could be deployed and other parts at home. Weird. And battalions and brigades and what not just aren't enough meat to stand up in a true industrial, front line war.
Historically, the idea of portion of larger units being deployed while others stayed back at home was typical. Look at how brigading used to work in the british army in the late 18th and 19th centuries.
they will be tasked-organized under OPCON of other divisions or corps anyway, it's not always feasible to deploy the whole division at the same time that's why forward-basing elements of divisions was a thing back in the cold war, even with extensive pre-positioning stock in place and regular REFORGER
Well it does make sense if you've got 2/3 of 1st Division in country and you suddenly need another 1/3 of a Division but the 1/3 of 1st Division that's back home is in the middle of training but 1/3 of 2nd Division is ready to go, it'd make sense to just send the 1/3 of 2nd Division that's ready instead of waiting for the remainder of 1st Division to finish training or cut that training short.
(Having fought my inner 19 delta, and won:) Logistics and attrition will always demand the "Bigger Battalion" if you want God's favor. However, any conflict with either Russia or China will have an extra long lead time for resupply, even with prestocking equipment and supplies. Drawing either nations' forces out of their supply comfort zones, and then destroying them in detail makes more sense. That being said, achieving penetration through the enemy's lines and wrecking their rears has always been the focus of most military commanders (and with that statement you all know the 19 Delta won out).
A few years ago I spoke to the 34th Infantry Division Artillery crews that tested and evaluated the Hawkeye 105mm howitzers here at Camp Grayling MI were I live by and came up to evaluate Infantry Battalion's of the 38th Infantry while assigned to 1st Cavalry Division. The FA soldiers were full of praise for the Hawkeye 105mm howitzer. Wheeled FA... The Hawkeye 105mm and Casear 155mm get my vote.
This is a great concept. However requires a lot of change. Means a lot of money and a lot more recruiting and retention. Three things we are currently struggling with.
More like large scale, near-peer armies with logistics and artillery fough over actual frontlines, insted of counter insurgency/territory policing with sporadic/pop-up pockets of partizan/light infantry resistence. This is warfighting, that was police work.
@@marrs1013that 'warfighting' you refer to is how Cold War I was structured. Cold War I had guerilla insurgencies much like they do now in Cold War II, and that policing phase was an inter-Cold War affair. Cold War I had parts like REFORGER in the 80's and the Warsaw Pact's doctrine equivalent since the 60's-70's. REFORGER's changes had things like near-peer doctrines. Divisions, an emphasis on near-peer combat as seen in Gulf War I and the Panama Invasion of 1989. That's what the comment above means when the Cold War's back. Cold War II has begun and the U.S. Military is adapting to it.
Return to tradition. This is vey much WW2 style, suited for large scale maneuver warfare. And inspired by Deep Operations thinking. Reminds me of the Motor Rifle vs Tank division concept of the Soviets, where the Motor Rifles are for frontline fighting and the Tanks for the operational depth.
Soviets also had the Artillery Division, in order to implement maneuver by fire. Haven't studied the modern Russian Army orbat yet, so I don't know if the Russians still have Artillery Divisions. But the Indian Army does have Artillery Divisions. One each per Strike Corps, for a total of four across the Army. Infact, what he is talking about regarding Heavy and Penetration Divisions in US Army, the Indian Army does the same at Corps level, with ten Pivot Corps (for creating gaps in enemy line) and four Strike Corps (for penetration).
I think the thing that will be interesting out of all of this is the way that these organizations will be used differently than their intended role. Imagine if you are an enemy commander. If you know where the penetration division is, then you will be able to determine the primary attack point.
Battle Order didn't really spend much time on it, but the thinking seems to be that this is where the reinforced and redesigned Corps come into play. The Corps will use joint force and strategic assets (e.g. long range bombers, naval launched cruise missiles, and massive amounts of electronic warfare assets) to completely wreck enemy command and control and lines of communication in the deep area before a breakthrough penetration occurs, effectively obscuring the location of the main effort, and making it extremely difficult to react to once the attack commences.
@@jimsackmanbusinesscoaching1344 Again, it falls upon echelons above divisions to suitably set conditions for a penetration division. This video from Army University Press does a decent job detailing how these higher echelons are being thought about currently ua-cam.com/video/DseIm4YUW6U/v-deo.html The other factor here is that if an enemy concentrates all their forces in one location to counter a penetration division then they leave themselves open to being out-maneuvered and flanked or surrounded by other divisions. In the first Gulf War, coalition forces deployed a large amphibious force, and even conducted amphibious landing rehearsals near Iraq to lead the Iraqi leadership to believe that the main thrust of the attack would be an amphibious assault on the beaches of Kuwait, when instead the actual attack was Schwarzkopf's left hook through Saudi Arabia. Future commander's may employ a Penetration Division in a similar method to distract an enemy and draw resources away from the actual main effort.
Yeh it’s so dumb calling your penetration division a penetration division 😂 The forces should be composed on generic battalion tactical groups and independent regiments which can be quickly concentrated anywhere and attack in force - that way the enemy won’t know where the attack is coming from just by finding out from a social media post where Private Shithead (member of Delta company, in one of the battalions attacked to the penetration division) is 🙈
Good video. So weird to see things go back to how their were before OIF. When you showed the makeup of 1BCT 1st Cav that totally put it into perspective. I was under 2 BCT, and 2-82FA was our higher BN. The Special Troops Battalion didn't exist which is why my unit, 1st Cav Div Band was directly under 2-82 for deployment, but then was transferred to 312th MI for the duration of OIF2.
The theoretical interaction between the two new divisions reminds me of the long debates during the interwar mechanization, with different tanks for different stages, the use or not of horsed cavalry and so on. It's curious to see concepts of defense, breach and breakthrough back in such a large scale. It's also interesting to note the amount of attention given to rear security.
I was around during the "Breaking the Phalanx" era when MacGregor argued for a Bridage-based system with Joint Tactical Operational Commands at what would be the Division and Corps levels. This allowing for a mix-and-max force tailored to the Operational environment. Apparently the pendulum is swinging back. The Penetration Division looks like a scaled-up Armored Cavalry Regiment with an offensive focus rather than defensive. They were used defensively in cold war Europe but Desert Storm demonstrated that even the ACR could overmatch opponents and wreak havoc when the conditions (desert) were favorable.
MacGregor, politics aside, was and still is right on the money with Breaking the Phalanx and Transformation Under Fire. And they weren't brigades, they were battle groups of about 5500-6500 soldiers that were organized like small divisions with less artillery,, but more armor and firepower (because he was a Cav squadron leader). The Army made the mistake of re-inventing ROAD divisions in the mid-90s, completely disregarding MacGregor, then over-corrected with Shinseki's Interim and Objective Force with puny Units of Action.
@@Principator I cracked open my copy and they are indeed called Groups with the Heavy Combat group consisting of a recon squadron, 3 maneuver bn, FA bn, and support elements for a total of 4600 men. The Heavy-Recon-Strike Group looks a lot like the old ACR with 5000 troops.
@@Principator Like Canada's 1980s standing battle group in southern Germany. It wasn't quite a division in peacetime, but it was beefy with enough equipment to make two divisions with more soldiers being flown in on airliners to the POMCUS sites in Germany. An SSI game called Red Lighting depicted every weapon system and tank as of Jan 31st 1983. Great game. German 10th Panzer and 1st CDN Corp jammed the road to Munich every time with a little help from my air campaign and my Kelhuber Line (derived from Kamhuber system). Shot down 8000 Soviet aircraft to 2000 lost in the first 12 hours of WW3. Once night came I owned it with F-117, Ardvarcks, B1, B-52, Tornados, CF-18s, and F-4s. Smashed the Russian fuel depots in East Germany, Czechoslovakia and Poland.
@@Principator as an artillerist 2009-2020 I would argue that MacGregor missed the mark by a mile and did terrible damage to artillery for two decades. Non-BCT units are an afterthought and when you get assigned to one your mentors will tell you things like "don't worry, you can recover from this."
Man it's so good to see the 34th ID patch on a video. Unit is so storied and has some insane history but you never hear about it because NaTiOnAl GuArD.
@@ironstarofmordian7098 To be fair I've yet to see a guard unit treat their people like absolute dogshit like the 82nd and 10th Mountain have fallen into. No other units get that kind of negative publicity from say Angry Cops
@@primarchvulkan5097 to be fair to 10th Mountain, that was 3rd Brigade on Fort Polk. I have never heared of a guard unit that treated soldiers like 3CR does. Overall, I would recommend at least one term of active service and then go to the guard.
love seeing this video. a couple of my buddies, myself included, but im not part of the 1st cav penetration division. A couple of my buddies got moved right after returning from poland a month or so ago. now theyre training up and preparing to deploy again within the next year under this new model. thankful i wasnt picked.
This video was extremely useful transfer of knowledge and I'm so appreciative of Battle Order for putting this together for us to best understand the reorganizational efforts of the USARMY
Russian military : ''we gona drown you with heavy artillery shelling in a prolonged slugging match''. American penetration division : ''No, I don't think you will''.
6:50 There's an greater chance that the Robotic Combat Vehicles that might enter the service with the US Army will be the Titan (or THeMIS on the international market) and the Type-x by Milrem Robotics, trough their US branch. The Titan is currently being tested by the US Army, and it gives more flexibility and functionality than the Jigsaw, but I think that the Type-x might be more favored over both of those.
We should remind ourselves of what the Division was originally created for. It's the smallest unit in the Army that combines all branches. Infantry, Armour, artillery, engineers, aviation (defence). etc. I think the division is a neat idea, one that actually goes back to Napoleonic Wars time. Corps are just two or more divisions acting together under a single overall command (Lt General).
Hey Battle Order, do you think the US Army's (and an extension DoD's) recruitment and retention problem will cause a really big problem with them trying to reorganize into this Divisional system?
Not him. But the army is going to be fighting the navy for funding so much in the future that this may be a welcome downsizing in manpower. After Russian performance in Ukraine, they are going to have a hard time convincing legislators that a large, forward deployed land force in Europe is vital. And while I think China will be equally hapless in a near future war, the world economy is far more dependent on them not doing anything stupid than we were with Russia. So deterrence through navel strength is rightfully a higher priority.
Not BatO, but not really. They’re mitigating that issue by using existing units to reorganise instead of standing up new formations all together, but in the long run it will be an issue as lower enlisted leave.
In the case of a war, the US can just mobilize masses of soldiers like russia did in their war against Ukraine. Since the US would be fighting for a righteous cause (freedom of the people in europe/indo pacific, stop crazy warmongering dictators), they wont have as many problems during mobilization.
@@abraham2172 Very uneducated take. Russia's targeted media is depicting Ukraine and NATO as warmongering dictatorships, and they're still having trouble with recruitment. And just because a war is morally justifiable doesnt mean people living in the US would be simply open to what is basically conscription.
General, the Air Foce says they can launch a mission in 4 hours, the Maines say the can land troops in 2 days and the Navy says they can have ships to bombard the objective on station in a week... Armor Company Commander: Sir, I got this...
Any word on whether the “anti-ordnance” units of the air defense sections will still operate Centurion C-RAM’s? Also, asides from Grey Eagle’s, will the CAB’s operate any other drones? And how will the new MPFS fit into all of this? Also, I don’t understand why the heavy units won’t receive air defense units. Just don’t make sense to me
I don't know about C-RAMs (IFPC Inc 1) already in service but the missile-based IFPC Inc 2 is what is replacing its capability. I am not sure of any internal changes to the Aviation Brigade's battalions. If you mean the MPF light tanks, they'll be in divisional tank battalions in light/airborne/air assault divisions supporting IBCTs (which will become light or motorized BCTs). In separate light brigades like the 173rd it'll become a company that is under the brigade's Cavalry Squadron for maintenance and gunnery purposes but tactically under the brigade commander's direction. Our video on that platform is linked at the end of this one.
@@lightspeedvictory It's due to USAF having prevented air attacks on Army units since the Korean war. 70 years is a long time. Everyone agrees that the Army should have a SLAMRAAM based system like NASAMS, but these are not cheap and the money never quite happens.
I feel like a division could straight up dissappear inside a city. Like, if that Denver operation took place in Detroit, the division inside the city would end up missing, presumed eaten by locals.
Is it just me, or is the idea of heavy divisions to enable a breakthrough, and penetration divisions to exploit it very similar to the ww2 era British doctrine of infantry and cruiser tanks?
Yes, but now it is more applicable with current technology and firepower. The old doctrine could easily be thwarted by defense in depth or mobile defense, but with current weapon systems and flexibility in small unit tactics and absolute domination of Air Power(that can finally win wars)..... Well we only need to look at what happened to the Iraqi Army as an example although an inadequate opponent, its inadequacy was only brought to the spot light through modern warfare employed by the US army...
@@proudfirebrand3946 I think when Mark B says ‘stalemate’ he’s referring to the Iran Iraq war, not the second gulf war. The Iran Iraq war was very much a stalemate for the most part, and an exceptionally bloody one. Also, has a comment been deleted? I feel like I’m missing something here.
Great video. Now if these plans can be enacted by Big Army. A lot of parts in so many different places that need to come together. Will time and space work to get this together?
Very interesting how this new generation of Army leaders are bringing back the Division as the basic larger more powerful and sustainable maneuver unit as well as reviving the Corp as the organizing supporting higher level C&C to organize and sustain multidivisional operations. But they are doing so with commendable innovations - conceptual, organizational and in use of technology. It appears that speed, power, in depth multimodal interdiction, and use of skill, craftiness, and practicality are given the highest priorities. And all this brings back to focus the Division/Corp/Army structure used in fighting WW2 as well as many of the issues and problems encountered then making it relevant to read about and study once again.
This is why actual combat experience is so important. China can only draw on the experiences of others and formulate theories. Even if we were evenly matched with equipment they would most likely get completely decimated.
Not exactly. In 1991, US forces barely had any combat experience in utilizing their new capabilities at a massive scale while Iraqi forces had 8 years of intense combat experience with Iran along with decades of experience with logistics. However the US steamrolled the Iraqis to death due to technological supremacy, superior training. AND military culture (delegation of tasks, lack of micromanagement and etc). If the US lacked the last two, it is possible that the war wouldn't be as quick as we know it. So while combat experience can play an important role in shaping a military’s doctrine, it isn't the most important aspect.
I am not so sure. While they have plenty of shortcomings, just by learning from the actions of others they can get pretty far. They have already transformed to more closely emulate the US structure of a couple of decades ago and have equipment that is also approximately equivalent of a couple decades ago. With the huge size of their forces and starting with old Soviet style structure that is no small feat. They have been continuing to accelerate modernization and increasing military spending to a concerning degree. They also have expanded training courses to better prepare their leadership and specialized forces. If much of that training is a copy paste of US training, then they could have the equivalent of a lot of green officers in the US.
@@J_X999 hopefully we are never that stupid, at the very least we could launch from Vietnam now that they've mostly pivoted from Russia to signifigantly more US influence (and they've always disliked/hated China)
@@Stealingiscaring Yoe seem to forget that Iraq was battle weary after 8yrs of war against Iran. The Iraqi military was gutted, Saddam owed billions in war loans. Iraqi morale was low and the best weapon systems Saddam had were reduced to stuff all. The units that the coalition used against Saddam were superior to the Iraqi ones but Saddam thought that putting about 300,000 conscripts in the front lines would be adequate to stop the retaking of Kuwait. Yes, the coalition had superior weapon systems but also highly trained personnel to use the weapons. You are also trying to compare Western military theory where even at the lowest level initiative is encouraged. In opposition, the Iraqi's worked on a more Soviet type of command structure where initiative at the lowest levels were never taught. Every order had to come from the top down when the units on the ground required guidance or orders. Your analogy doesn't work out in the wash. Why do think Saddam retreated the Republican Guard Divisions when they were under high risk of being engaged ?
@@crusher8017 Which only furthers my point. Combat experience is only a small piece of the puzzle to having an excellent and competent force. Technological supremacy and competent military training and culture (like allowing commanders to take the initiative and have creativity or constantly maintaining ones equipment) are the major players in building up a competent and cohesive military.
It'll be interesting to see how this translates down to the smaller units during the reorganization. For example, I was a scout in an armored cavalry troop/sqdrn in the 34th ID. When we transitioned to the BCT model during GWOT, our unit was restructured into a light cavalry (RSTA) unit. We traded our Abrams and tracks for Humvees, and all the 19 Kilos had to reclass to 19 Delta, or transfer to an armored unit in Minnesota if they wanted to continue to be a tanker. Being a "penetration division", you'd think you'd want your cavalry units to pack more of a punch (Abrams/Bradleys) than a light vehicle can provide. It would be ironic as hell if they transition back to an armor platform. So many people were extremely pissed when it happened the first time. Many tankers just ended their careers, rather than reclass to scouts.
So what about other support units like ammo and shower/laundry units? You covered fuel, which is a first for quartermaster units. And us there or are they going to have heavy transport units? Are they going to bring back MASH units or keep with CASH medical units? Sorry so much to ask. And there isn't a division level signal or MI units?
divisional signal & MI units are located in the HHB (with some MI capabilities embedded in the Cavalry Squadron as principal ISTAR unit) while more sophisticated systems are gonna be concentrated in the Multi-Domain JTF ammo is supposed to be supplied to the units from BSB supply platoon's Modular Ammunition Transfer Point Section via FSC distribution platoon, and to fill their stock back up, BSB SPO will make a request through sustainment brigade SPO, who would then arrange for DSSB/CSSB to provide them with more ammo shower and laundry services are the responsibilities of Water Supply Platoon in the DSSB's Composite Supply Company
To quote Game of Thrones: what is dead may never die. Rumsfeld, in 2002, did away with the division because he wanted to deploy faster. This comes from being a Naval officer who took his stuff with him on the boat or aircraft. Marines are similar. Army folks (which I spent 30 years in as a combat engineer officer) generate enormous amount of combat power but it takes time to deploy the beast and a lot of supplies to keep the beast fed. Your operational graphics, though great, show that a penetration attack will fail due to the lack of depth. To make a penetration attack one has to think of Operation COBRA in WWII or DESERT STORM, where objectives were attained by passing units thru each other. In your design (yes I know you were making a point between penetration and an envelopment) without a second division or divisions passing thru the gap in enemy defenses then this type of manuever will fail. So does the Army plan to generate depth by drones or fires or by trying to feed units thru the gap? Because as you pointed out, a division having broken thru will find itself in an island if not reinforced. But this is good stuff.
That'll probably be where the infantry divisions equiped with strykers or light infantry divions come in to play. 2 ID is primed to serve in such a function. But asside from 11CR, and im not sure if they have Bradley ICVs or Scouts and Abrams tanks, its the heaviest unit in I corps.
@@ironstarofmordian7098 my bet is in motorized infantry. Light infantry. Be they airborne, air assault or light get driven to the battlefield and then walk. What killed both the Germans and Russians in WWII was that their infantry walked and could not keep up with the armored units.
I figure it would be a suppression of enemy forces via fires and airpower that would bridge the gap. That said, I agree with you about penetration force could be rapidly enveloped if not supported correctly. Obviously at the Corp level, the battle plan will have to change as the enemy reacts to the pentrating force. If the emeny shifts forces from the front, does the Heavy force push? If a reserve force is brought up, do you use airborne forces to attempt a large encirclement? How do you integrate non US forces into such a plan? All questions that will probably be studied over by a small BN worth of O-4/5/6's.
@@buenoactual5696 all good points. If one thinks of COBRA and DESERT STORM as success then one must look also look at failures as well. Kursk in 1943 is an example of failure. One can argue that the invasion of Sicily forced the Germans to stop Kursk. That may be true but I think that the Germans had no depth to push into the gap created by 4th Panzer army. Even though 2d SS Pz Corps had culminated at Prokorhovka, Mainstein and Hoth did not have another set of divisions to pass thru 2d SS Pz Corps to continue the attack to Kursk. This may have caused CITADEL to fail more than Sicily.
6:50 The website says that the Brigade Engineer Battalions will be transferred to the division, but the video says the pen divisions will have the four divisional battalions as well as the three Brigade Engineer Battalions. I am also wondering what the Heavy Division’s engineering structure will look like.
4 words: United States Air Force. It seems like the army's thinking for a long time has been that logistics/budget are better suited to other purposes since the USAF can be expected to provide air superiority.
When the US military does something wrong Service members: "Are they fucking kidding? Do they realize what this will do?" When the US military does something right Service members: "Finally they do this shit. We've been saying to do this for years"
Very interesting. I deem positive the return of the emphasis on the divisional level of the organization. It is an indication of clear thinking that which level becomes predominant is derived from the type of wars that the Army is preparing for, and that a larger and more complex and intense scale of operations requires an effective intermediate level organization. E.g., the recognition that the experience with an intervention in some hypothetical middle-east region bordering the Mediterranean during limited/proxy wars does NOT imply that one should reorganize its whole army on BATTALION tactical groups intending to then use them in some hypothetical eastern European region bordering the Black sea for rather more conventional, and, incidentally, not so special, operations.
Oh, I recall those UGVs. They were used in Frontline: Fuels of War and Tom Clancy: EndWar. The UGVs used by the Western forces in Frontline were small Tank-like vehicles with either 20mm Vulcans or Multipurpose Missile Cells, the game featured a single Missile for both Anti-Armor and Anti-Air and was actually worked into the lore that explained that the US Military had figured the trick out with its European Allies. The Russians and Chinese then literally stole the technology through whatever means they could to replicate it themselves. Anyways, the Western UGVs were very handy for Infantry pushes. For example, the opening video shows a team trying to enter a complex, only to come under fire from a fortified structure. A UGV is sent forward with Infantry moving behind it. The operator is nearby, but in cover as the Riflemen advance under the cover. The UGV is taken out and a couple of Riflemen are hammered by the explosion, forcing them all to retreat, but as the Anti-Armor guy on the other side is trying to get a fresh missile, he looks up to see a small Tactical UAV, the size of a small RC Helicopter and controlled by the same operator as the UGV, eying him and his squad through a blown-out wall. A moment later, a pair of Tanks are able to accurately fire and neutralize the position. In EndWar, there were also such UGVs. But on a larger scale. They were still limited and pretty much could be posted as sentries or assigned to guard specific points. Such as Command Points and Command Vehicles. Very useful if you could figure the trick out to use them right.
I'm unfamiliar with the symbology used at 3:40 for the MDTF. What do the two vertical crosses above the unit designate? Often that place is used to designate the size/organizational level of the unit. Is it a division sized unit which is not a division?
The Army uses the symbol for a command that supports a theater or corps command (++), sort of like how it does for Theater Sustainment Commands which control all logistics in a theater. It’s more or less a task organized brigade sized fires and surveillance unit but i guess it has more of that coordinator function for the theater army
Edit: Unfortunately, it seems they're changing the name from Penetration to Heavy Reinforced😥 : www.army.mil/article/259612/confronting_the_changing_sustainment_battlefield_calculus
This may have been flagged as pornographic content on Patreon
That's funny and yet sad....and yet I'm also not surprised.
yo Battle order id like to see a Episode on the Estonian Defence Force its equipment vehicles and organization
Then why don't you just change the title?
@@prezmrmthegreatiinnovative3235 that sounds random as hell but you piqued my interest. I would watch that.
@@jonathanperry8331 thx
I like the use of a real world map (Denver area) to give an idea of how much territory a Division or Corp take up.
Agreed
Especially as a Denver native. That is a huge area, especially the corps level
The Denver metro seems to be well defended against the Kansas-backed eastern plains separatists
“Fucking Cornchuckers keep trying to raid our shit” -Gen Marcus Bradly, DenCom (Denver Command)
The Front Range will rise again!
As an Army engineer who just left a multi-role bridge company, it’s interesting seeing them planning on having each of this type of Division have 5, which is how many there currently are in active duty, with the personnel shortages already faced. 7 combat engineer companies sounds pretty damn nice though.
Your right were barley getting our numbers in the Charlie world we are definitely lacking in troops.
Desert Storm we had 4 combat engineer companies with 3 line plts and one MCM platoon with a 5th E company being bridge for the Div engineer Bn. By 92 we were changing to converting the Div Engineer position to a Bde command with 3 battalions with 3 line companies, but with two-line platoons and one MCM platoon (ACE, AVLB, CEV and other diggers and mine systems and hauling capacity) Then we started changing again in the early 2000's with more and different equipment. But with the new computer system a platoon went to 2 squads from 3. (the LT and Platoon SGT got their own APCs to run around in and took the hummer from the PLT sgt. One thing to note, Eng Bn's are all designed to buff up with bridge and horizontal and vertical companies. The corp engineers more so and they keep the old tool trailers unlike the old DS division line platoons. Corp combat engineers also keep some dump trucks for a bit. Then I left the Engineers for never never land, and later working for the government. All fun and games until someone comes into the office with a vest. So in 1991 there were 27 squads of 12b's in a div, 1992 there were 54 and in 2002, 36.
Looking forward to your breakdown of the Light, Airborne and Air Assault Divisions.
Just came back to watch this and I'm honestly impressed by how well organized the US army is
Fantastic video as always sir....you are one of the best.
Really liked the video and found it informative. Being a veteran (M1 Armor Crewman) in both the Spearhead Division (3rd AD) in West Germany and the Red Devils (5th ID) out of Ft. Polk from the mid to late 80's . I hated the idea of BCT's due to the lack of Divisional Logistical Support and the area they were required to cover.
The largest problem I saw then was culture. When in the FRG, the units were concentrating more on training and whether a soldier could perform his job and the job of the man 2 levels above his position. At Ft. Polk, and at the US bases I was stationed at, the concern was more about "looking good" and padding statistics.
GREAT! I really hope that you're also gonna do videos like this for the rest of the division type, light, heavy, airborne and airmobile.
It’s interesting that MLRS/HIMARS is a Corps Artillery asset in the new Division-centric organization. I suspect these assets will habitually support a specific division like they did in the Cold War, but it’s a change.
Overall, I’m glad the Army is getting back to large scale combat organization
I wonder if that's due to the increased mobility of HIMARS giving commanders more options.
Divisions might not need a permanent contingent of rocket artillery if they can now rely on a quicker deployment and response from the Corps artillery.
Agree with you though they could be likely to spend most of their time supporting a single division.
@@BlindMonk93 my guess is MLRS/HIMARS accurate, long range fires is ideal for “strategic” targets back from the forward edge of the battlefield. Air defense assets, command and control, logistics hubs, transportation nodes, etc., rather than targets direct support howitzers could range.
@@doughudgens9275 That's what MLRS in the modem works is for. The US doesn't really really on unguided MLRS anymore... Why bother, with Guns and Bombs? It can still be used on the front line though. With enough supply (like the US during a war) there's no reason to not put 6 GMLRS right up the ass of every T-72 or T-72 Winney The Pooh edition that partakes in an assault, and the accuracy means you could hit one part of your own trenches that have fallen without hitting your own troops prepping the counter.
With good timing, that's a diverse goddamn system!
@@RobinTheBotT-72 winnie?
You mean ZTZ-96s/99s
You know listening to this makes me understand the Reformers(Fighter Mafia). War is so complex and hard to understand for the layman that it is better to just ignore it and go back to a simpler way of thinking. To be clear I don't agree with it I just understand
Yes they like wargaming solutions as an easy fix but fail to take account of lessons learned, technical limitations and especially soft stats which are hard to wargame but are all vital. Their dislike for tech is their biggest pitfall. Of course they are sometimes right like a broken clock and Ukraine is using several units which are reminiscent of Reformer thinking.
I think reformers were nostalgic of the WW2 style of mechanised warfare. A bit like how most ww1 generals were nostalgic for Napoleonic warfare they believed more honorable.
@@FirstDagger Which units in ukraine are of reformer thinking.
@@realityapostasy2158 but in reality there is nothing honorable about artillery and droning your adversary to death
they were basically frustrated morons. Too stupid to learn.
The entire division is built around the large combat engineer compliment.
1. Alot of armour, mobile, heavy, armour.
2. Alot of Engineers to get the armour where ever the PenDivCmdr wants them to go.
3 Alot of good long range fire support to nose down annyone trying to stop you.
And if it fails. Well, only the US can make the skies scream the star spangled banner in ordenance.
Implying the US won't be utterly shellacking the enemy from the skies before the first Bradly can acquire a target.
@@WWFanatic0 Oh the U.S would not even go to war without utter air dominance. Still, in Iraq the battle of 73-Easting was also a full armor on armor clash when the U.S and coalition forces had total air supremacy and Mcmaster who led Eagle troop still found plenty of targets for his M1's and Bradley's to engage.
@@thijshagenbeek6554 Oh for sure, my point is more that the USAF (and USN and USMC aviation) would certainly act as major condition setters. ODS saw a lot of armor action for sure, but it was of a fairly disorganized and demoralized enemy that had lost a fair amount of equipment pre ground invasion...aka the *perfect* target for US armored forces to cut through like a hot knife through butter.
This is exactly why we'd have a hard time facing Russia, especially in Ukraine. This whole plan falls apart when your air dominance is interrupted by advanced anti-air systems.
@@Amerigmatic-ud7ty The whole thing is that the U.S has two things no other country in the world has. The numbers and the technology in the airforce to penetrate enemy airdefences at scale and demolish them from the air. Its also the only country that has succesful experience with this sort of combat. Desert Storm was a clear cut example of just how effective U.S airpower is and that was before the U.S took delivery of the F22 the F35 and the B2. Now the B2 raider is announced, the 6th gen fighter is in development and the F35 is being introduced at bulk and the F22 is getting a very significant service upgrade. All of this put together is the same result. If uncle sam points a finger on the map or a certain amount of gridspaces and wants it airspace to belong to the US, the airforce has the means to make it so, and keep it that way.
This is incredible detail. Does the military ever use your stuff for instructional purposes?
They have lol
@@BattleOrder are they a patreon, too?
@@MrCosinuus not usually, it’s cool tho
That’s how you know it’s truly high quality content
You need to have a military contract to create this quality of work.
Perfect timing hit the spot
You should do one with light division as well.
Also it would be interesting to see which wheeled SPG would US Army choose given the recent artillery shoot off competition.
Fascinating video! Well done!
It's going to be a challenge for the United States Army to balance between reverting back to Divisions for high-intensity conflicts and retaining Brigades for low-intensity conflicts.
they can still use division for COIN and other stability operations, just with less efficient force rotation and more administrative hassles to task-organize CS/CSS
harder, but doable
not really when you know the Marines got your back
@@geist453 you raise an interesting point. It would be worth considering to bring the Marine Corps back to its roots as the US’s primary low intensity conflict and COIN force while the army is reoriented back towards large scale conventional warfare.
@@jacobtebbe4435 No, the marines seem to be transitioning back to an amphibious force to counter China in the pacific
@@andrewlechner6343 The way things are looking geopolitically, we can’t really afford a dedicated COIN force and won’t have a need for one.
The Iraqi army and the Taliban need to worry about COIN, not the US.
Nice to see the classic division structure returning. Always weird to me how parts of a division could be deployed and other parts at home. Weird. And battalions and brigades and what not just aren't enough meat to stand up in a true industrial, front line war.
Historically, the idea of portion of larger units being deployed while others stayed back at home was typical. Look at how brigading used to work in the british army in the late 18th and 19th centuries.
they will be tasked-organized under OPCON of other divisions or corps anyway, it's not always feasible to deploy the whole division at the same time
that's why forward-basing elements of divisions was a thing back in the cold war, even with extensive pre-positioning stock in place and regular REFORGER
Well it does make sense if you've got 2/3 of 1st Division in country and you suddenly need another 1/3 of a Division but the 1/3 of 1st Division that's back home is in the middle of training but 1/3 of 2nd Division is ready to go, it'd make sense to just send the 1/3 of 2nd Division that's ready instead of waiting for the remainder of 1st Division to finish training or cut that training short.
Roman Legions also often were portioned. For example a cohort from Gaelic stationed legion cold be sent to reinforce a legion in North Africa.
AMEN!
(Having fought my inner 19 delta, and won:) Logistics and attrition will always demand the "Bigger Battalion" if you want God's favor. However, any conflict with either Russia or China will have an extra long lead time for resupply, even with prestocking equipment and supplies. Drawing either nations' forces out of their supply comfort zones, and then destroying them in detail makes more sense. That being said, achieving penetration through the enemy's lines and wrecking their rears has always been the focus of most military commanders (and with that statement you all know the 19 Delta won out).
Scouts Out!
What is 19 Delta?
You ain't Cav, You ain't Shit
@@jevinliu4658 lame is what it is. A 19 Delta is a Cav Scout. A weirdo who wear's a stetzin and spurs.
11B till death. Follow Me.
@@jevinliu4658 Cavalry Scout
Wow, that is one of the most professional and accurate. The attention to detail such as call Transport Company a “Truck Company”. Bravo 🇨🇦Veteran
I suppose the answer to the question "how heavy does the army's shiny new division need to be" is "YES"
I love the "conflict: desert storm" theme you have playing in the background.
Battle Order just dropping straight fire right on target.
I love how Denver is always the battle map location 💀😭 not sure whether I should be happy or worried
There's something a little unsettling about seeing where you live used as an example of a battlefield 😳 puts things in perspective!
A few years ago I spoke to the 34th Infantry Division Artillery crews that tested and evaluated the Hawkeye 105mm howitzers here at Camp Grayling MI were I live by and came up to evaluate Infantry Battalion's of the 38th Infantry while assigned to 1st Cavalry Division. The FA soldiers were full of praise for the Hawkeye 105mm howitzer. Wheeled FA... The Hawkeye 105mm and Casear 155mm get my vote.
This is a great concept. However requires a lot of change. Means a lot of money and a lot more recruiting and retention. Three things we are currently struggling with.
The Cold War is back in fashion.
More like large scale, near-peer armies with logistics and artillery fough over actual frontlines, insted of counter insurgency/territory policing with sporadic/pop-up pockets of partizan/light infantry resistence.
This is warfighting, that was police work.
@@marrs1013that 'warfighting' you refer to is how Cold War I was structured.
Cold War I had guerilla insurgencies much like they do now in Cold War II, and that policing phase was an inter-Cold War affair. Cold War I had parts like REFORGER in the 80's and the Warsaw Pact's doctrine equivalent since the 60's-70's.
REFORGER's changes had things like near-peer doctrines. Divisions, an emphasis on near-peer combat as seen in Gulf War I and the Panama Invasion of 1989.
That's what the comment above means when the Cold War's back. Cold War II has begun and the U.S. Military is adapting to it.
Return to tradition. This is vey much WW2 style, suited for large scale maneuver warfare. And inspired by Deep Operations thinking. Reminds me of the Motor Rifle vs Tank division concept of the Soviets, where the Motor Rifles are for frontline fighting and the Tanks for the operational depth.
Soviets also had the Artillery Division, in order to implement maneuver by fire. Haven't studied the modern Russian Army orbat yet, so I don't know if the Russians still have Artillery Divisions. But the Indian Army does have Artillery Divisions. One each per Strike Corps, for a total of four across the Army. Infact, what he is talking about regarding Heavy and Penetration Divisions in US Army, the Indian Army does the same at Corps level, with ten Pivot Corps (for creating gaps in enemy line) and four Strike Corps (for penetration).
I think the thing that will be interesting out of all of this is the way that these organizations will be used differently than their intended role. Imagine if you are an enemy commander. If you know where the penetration division is, then you will be able to determine the primary attack point.
Battle Order didn't really spend much time on it, but the thinking seems to be that this is where the reinforced and redesigned Corps come into play. The Corps will use joint force and strategic assets (e.g. long range bombers, naval launched cruise missiles, and massive amounts of electronic warfare assets) to completely wreck enemy command and control and lines of communication in the deep area before a breakthrough penetration occurs, effectively obscuring the location of the main effort, and making it extremely difficult to react to once the attack commences.
@@centurion1945 Of course all of that assumes that this wreckage happens before the penetration division is near the front and detectable.
@@jimsackmanbusinesscoaching1344 Again, it falls upon echelons above divisions to suitably set conditions for a penetration division. This video from Army University Press does a decent job detailing how these higher echelons are being thought about currently ua-cam.com/video/DseIm4YUW6U/v-deo.html
The other factor here is that if an enemy concentrates all their forces in one location to counter a penetration division then they leave themselves open to being out-maneuvered and flanked or surrounded by other divisions. In the first Gulf War, coalition forces deployed a large amphibious force, and even conducted amphibious landing rehearsals near Iraq to lead the Iraqi leadership to believe that the main thrust of the attack would be an amphibious assault on the beaches of Kuwait, when instead the actual attack was Schwarzkopf's left hook through Saudi Arabia. Future commander's may employ a Penetration Division in a similar method to distract an enemy and draw resources away from the actual main effort.
Yeh it’s so dumb calling your penetration division a penetration division 😂
The forces should be composed on generic battalion tactical groups and independent regiments which can be quickly concentrated anywhere and attack in force - that way the enemy won’t know where the attack is coming from just by finding out from a social media post where Private Shithead (member of Delta company, in one of the battalions attacked to the penetration division) is 🙈
@@Witnessmoo Or potentially have more heavy divisions where you allocate the resources to create a penetration division from Corps before the attack.
Good video. So weird to see things go back to how their were before OIF. When you showed the makeup of 1BCT 1st Cav that totally put it into perspective. I was under 2 BCT, and 2-82FA was our higher BN. The Special Troops Battalion didn't exist which is why my unit, 1st Cav Div Band was directly under 2-82 for deployment, but then was transferred to 312th MI for the duration of OIF2.
The theoretical interaction between the two new divisions reminds me of the long debates during the interwar mechanization, with different tanks for different stages, the use or not of horsed cavalry and so on. It's curious to see concepts of defense, breach and breakthrough back in such a large scale. It's also interesting to note the amount of attention given to rear security.
I was around during the "Breaking the Phalanx" era when MacGregor argued for a Bridage-based system with Joint Tactical Operational Commands at what would be the Division and Corps levels. This allowing for a mix-and-max force tailored to the Operational environment. Apparently the pendulum is swinging back. The Penetration Division looks like a scaled-up Armored Cavalry Regiment with an offensive focus rather than defensive. They were used defensively in cold war Europe but Desert Storm demonstrated that even the ACR could overmatch opponents and wreak havoc when the conditions (desert) were favorable.
MacGregor, politics aside, was and still is right on the money with Breaking the Phalanx and Transformation Under Fire. And they weren't brigades, they were battle groups of about 5500-6500 soldiers that were organized like small divisions with less artillery,, but more armor and firepower (because he was a Cav squadron leader).
The Army made the mistake of re-inventing ROAD divisions in the mid-90s, completely disregarding MacGregor, then over-corrected with Shinseki's Interim and Objective Force with puny Units of Action.
Shinseki. There’s a name I could have never heard again and been happy.
@@Principator I cracked open my copy and they are indeed called Groups with the Heavy Combat group consisting of a recon squadron, 3 maneuver bn, FA bn, and support elements for a total of 4600 men.
The Heavy-Recon-Strike Group looks a lot like the old ACR with 5000 troops.
@@Principator Like Canada's 1980s standing battle group in southern Germany. It wasn't quite a division in peacetime, but it was beefy with enough equipment to make two divisions with more soldiers being flown in on airliners to the POMCUS sites in Germany. An SSI game called Red Lighting depicted every weapon system and tank as of Jan 31st 1983. Great game. German 10th Panzer and 1st CDN Corp jammed the road to Munich every time with a little help from my air campaign and my Kelhuber Line (derived from Kamhuber system). Shot down 8000 Soviet aircraft to 2000 lost in the first 12 hours of WW3. Once night came I owned it with F-117, Ardvarcks, B1, B-52, Tornados, CF-18s, and F-4s. Smashed the Russian fuel depots in East Germany, Czechoslovakia and Poland.
@@Principator as an artillerist 2009-2020 I would argue that MacGregor missed the mark by a mile and did terrible damage to artillery for two decades. Non-BCT units are an afterthought and when you get assigned to one your mentors will tell you things like "don't worry, you can recover from this."
Great breakdown. It looks like someone remembered “train like you fight.”
This is gold, I know more about military since this Chanel that many cadets I know around...
Outstanding video. I love your content and your channel logo is sick as hell!
Man it's so good to see the 34th ID patch on a video. Unit is so storied and has some insane history but you never hear about it because NaTiOnAl GuArD.
Active Duty gives the guard shit because some guard units are trash. Trash units color the whole force. Is it fair? No. But it's the way it is.
@@ironstarofmordian7098 oh is that it? I thought they were just jealous that Nasty Girls get to hangout at Fort Couch.
@@ironstarofmordian7098 To be fair I've yet to see a guard unit treat their people like absolute dogshit like the 82nd and 10th Mountain have fallen into. No other units get that kind of negative publicity from say Angry Cops
@@primarchvulkan5097 to be fair to 10th Mountain, that was 3rd Brigade on Fort Polk. I have never heared of a guard unit that treated soldiers like 3CR does. Overall, I would recommend at least one term of active service and then go to the guard.
When it comes to conflicts, the logistics role is interesting to me.
And important to victory
Cielia?
YOU MENTIONED MDTF FINALLY!!! I’m so happy
Ikr, seems like just now they’re getting some spotlight, relatively unknown up till now.
The M-SHORAD is extremely interesting, I am definitely liking it.
We’re planning on deploying fricking laser cannons before we find a replacement for the Stinger.
man keep this up!!! this content is amazing!!!!!
I was telling everyone for the last ten years that divisions will return. Twelve year old me would be happy knowing he was right.
love seeing this video. a couple of my buddies, myself included, but im not part of the 1st cav penetration division. A couple of my buddies got moved right after returning from poland a month or so ago. now theyre training up and preparing to deploy again within the next year under this new model. thankful i wasnt picked.
Tank: Heavy Divison
DPS: Penetration Division
Healer/Support: Infantry Divisions / HQ / Support assets
Tank and spank or in this case spank with tank
Always enjoy your videos. Keep up the good work.
This channel is freaking awesome! Keep up the excellent work.
Could you do a video about south american military organization?
Wow this is incredibly well done
This video was extremely useful transfer of knowledge and I'm so appreciative of Battle Order for putting this together for us to best understand the reorganizational efforts of the USARMY
I’ve been waiting for you to do a video on this subject. You’re the best at breaking this stuff down. Excellent video, thank you!
The 12Y in me is happy the army is evolving once more to address future fights
This is just great, amazing. Well done Sir!
Itd be really great to see a similar breakdown of the airborne division
Russian military : ''we gona drown you with heavy artillery shelling in a prolonged slugging match''. American penetration division : ''No, I don't think you will''.
Haha Counter-Battery go beep
“Nooo you can’t negate my only advantage that’s unfair” -Vladimir Putin
“I like Ice Cream” -Joe Biden
6:50 There's an greater chance that the Robotic Combat Vehicles that might enter the service with the US Army will be the Titan (or THeMIS on the international market) and the Type-x by Milrem Robotics, trough their US branch. The Titan is currently being tested by the US Army, and it gives more flexibility and functionality than the Jigsaw, but I think that the Type-x might be more favored over both of those.
Will the command yo deploy them be... "Titans! GO!" 🙂?
Autobots, roll out.
Get to the choppin (er)
Execute order 66
One of your best, IMHO. Thanks!
Can you guys do the other division templates please. Loved this! Army finally doing something good for once.
We should remind ourselves of what the Division was originally created for. It's the smallest unit in the Army that combines all branches. Infantry, Armour, artillery, engineers, aviation (defence). etc. I think the division is a neat idea, one that actually goes back to Napoleonic Wars time. Corps are just two or more divisions acting together under a single overall command (Lt General).
But they are very different the original division we're about the size of modem brigades
Yay!!! My house is in the video! It's inside one of the pixels and smaller than the eye can see, but it's there.
Hey Battle Order, do you think the US Army's (and an extension DoD's) recruitment and retention problem will cause a really big problem with them trying to reorganize into this Divisional system?
Not him. But the army is going to be fighting the navy for funding so much in the future that this may be a welcome downsizing in manpower.
After Russian performance in Ukraine, they are going to have a hard time convincing legislators that a large, forward deployed land force in Europe is vital.
And while I think China will be equally hapless in a near future war, the world economy is far more dependent on them not doing anything stupid than we were with Russia.
So deterrence through navel strength is rightfully a higher priority.
Not BatO, but not really. They’re mitigating that issue by using existing units to reorganise instead of standing up new formations all together, but in the long run it will be an issue as lower enlisted leave.
@@infernosgaming8942 tacking onto that, “light divisions/IBCTs” are most likely going to draw the short straw when it comes to manning fulfillment.
In the case of a war, the US can just mobilize masses of soldiers like russia did in their war against Ukraine. Since the US would be fighting for a righteous cause (freedom of the people in europe/indo pacific, stop crazy warmongering dictators), they wont have as many problems during mobilization.
@@abraham2172 Very uneducated take. Russia's targeted media is depicting Ukraine and NATO as warmongering dictatorships, and they're still having trouble with recruitment. And just because a war is morally justifiable doesnt mean people living in the US would be simply open to what is basically conscription.
Absolutely fantastic. I will read more about it !
As someone in a stryker unit I’m horrified at the idea of having to do maintenance on a fucking laser
Thank the Almighty Infantryman in the Sky you're not in ADA then lol
Another amazing deep dive! Thank you!
General, the Air Foce says they can launch a mission in 4 hours, the Maines say the can land troops in 2 days and the Navy says they can have ships to bombard the objective on station in a week...
Armor Company Commander: Sir, I got this...
"F2 A"
Very Well Done!!!
Any word on whether the “anti-ordnance” units of the air defense sections will still operate Centurion C-RAM’s? Also, asides from Grey Eagle’s, will the CAB’s operate any other drones? And how will the new MPFS fit into all of this? Also, I don’t understand why the heavy units won’t receive air defense units. Just don’t make sense to me
I don't know about C-RAMs (IFPC Inc 1) already in service but the missile-based IFPC Inc 2 is what is replacing its capability. I am not sure of any internal changes to the Aviation Brigade's battalions.
If you mean the MPF light tanks, they'll be in divisional tank battalions in light/airborne/air assault divisions supporting IBCTs (which will become light or motorized BCTs). In separate light brigades like the 173rd it'll become a company that is under the brigade's Cavalry Squadron for maintenance and gunnery purposes but tactically under the brigade commander's direction. Our video on that platform is linked at the end of this one.
@@BattleOrder and the lack of air defense in the heavy units?
@@lightspeedvictory It's due to USAF having prevented air attacks on Army units since the Korean war. 70 years is a long time. Everyone agrees that the Army should have a SLAMRAAM based system like NASAMS, but these are not cheap and the money never quite happens.
@@k53847 you say that and yet the penetration units are getting air defenses. So if the penetration units get them, why not the heavies?
@@lightspeedvictory Who going to have everything thrown at them? The main effort. Limited money and men, do you remove a CA Bn for ADA?
Great Video!
I feel like a division could straight up dissappear inside a city. Like, if that Denver operation took place in Detroit, the division inside the city would end up missing, presumed eaten by locals.
Perfectly done, thank you guys..
Is it just me or does a penetration division sound like an operational maneuver group?
Great work 🥳 Thank youuu 💜
Is it just me, or is the idea of heavy divisions to enable a breakthrough, and penetration divisions to exploit it very similar to the ww2 era British doctrine of infantry and cruiser tanks?
Yes, but now it is more applicable with current technology and firepower. The old doctrine could easily be thwarted by defense in depth or mobile defense, but with current weapon systems and flexibility in small unit tactics and absolute domination of Air Power(that can finally win wars)..... Well we only need to look at what happened to the Iraqi Army as an example although an inadequate opponent, its inadequacy was only brought to the spot light through modern warfare employed by the US army...
Well I don’t know much about the Iraq war but I do know they fought the Persians and that was a stalemate.
Yep
@@proudfirebrand3946 I think when Mark B says ‘stalemate’ he’s referring to the Iran Iraq war, not the second gulf war. The Iran Iraq war was very much a stalemate for the most part, and an exceptionally bloody one. Also, has a comment been deleted? I feel like I’m missing something here.
@@alexb6318 I was just mistaken I confused Persia to Afghanistan for some reason..
My company watches your videos because of how educational and accurate they are. Won't be surprised if you get a contract with them.
May I ask which company?
Standard heavy division can be the role of 2nd Armored Division if it got reactivated somehow, just pondering.
What a great video!
Remember, young commanders: protect your forces against penetration in rear areas
once again excellent work !
Great video. Now if these plans can be enacted by Big Army. A lot of parts in so many different places that need to come together. Will time and space work to get this together?
Outstanding article.
I see the US Army is excited AF to no longer be playing cops and insurgents.
Since WW2 the US Army has always seen “WW2+” as their raison d’être, not the messy less conventional fights they are much more likely to actually do.
I'm glad we are finally having the difficult conversation that needs to be had:
How do we retake/liberate Denver?
Any chance of a video on the structure of the Canadian Army Reserve? Pros and cons? Areas of improvement etc?
Very interesting how this new generation of Army leaders are bringing back the Division as the basic larger more powerful and sustainable maneuver unit as well as reviving the Corp as the organizing supporting higher level C&C to organize and sustain multidivisional operations. But they are doing so with commendable innovations - conceptual, organizational and in use of technology. It appears that speed, power, in depth multimodal interdiction, and use of skill, craftiness, and practicality are given the highest priorities. And all this brings back to focus the Division/Corp/Army structure used in fighting WW2 as well as many of the issues and problems encountered then making it relevant to read about and study once again.
This is why actual combat experience is so important. China can only draw on the experiences of others and formulate theories. Even if we were evenly matched with equipment they would most likely get completely decimated.
Not exactly. In 1991, US forces barely had any combat experience in utilizing their new capabilities at a massive scale while Iraqi forces had 8 years of intense combat experience with Iran along with decades of experience with logistics. However the US steamrolled the Iraqis to death due to technological supremacy, superior training. AND military culture (delegation of tasks, lack of micromanagement and etc). If the US lacked the last two, it is possible that the war wouldn't be as quick as we know it. So while combat experience can play an important role in shaping a military’s doctrine, it isn't the most important aspect.
I am not so sure. While they have plenty of shortcomings, just by learning from the actions of others they can get pretty far. They have already transformed to more closely emulate the US structure of a couple of decades ago and have equipment that is also approximately equivalent of a couple decades ago. With the huge size of their forces and starting with old Soviet style structure that is no small feat. They have been continuing to accelerate modernization and increasing military spending to a concerning degree. They also have expanded training courses to better prepare their leadership and specialized forces. If much of that training is a copy paste of US training, then they could have the equivalent of a lot of green officers in the US.
@@J_X999 hopefully we are never that stupid, at the very least we could launch from Vietnam now that they've mostly pivoted from Russia to signifigantly more US influence (and they've always disliked/hated China)
@@Stealingiscaring Yoe seem to forget that Iraq was battle weary after 8yrs of war against Iran. The Iraqi military was gutted, Saddam owed billions in war loans. Iraqi morale was low and the best weapon systems Saddam had were reduced to stuff all. The units that the coalition used against Saddam were superior to the Iraqi ones but Saddam thought that putting about 300,000 conscripts in the front lines would be adequate to stop the retaking of Kuwait. Yes, the coalition had superior weapon systems but also highly trained personnel to use the weapons. You are also trying to compare Western military theory where even at the lowest level initiative is encouraged. In opposition, the Iraqi's worked on a more Soviet type of command structure where initiative at the lowest levels were never taught. Every order had to come from the top down when the units on the ground required guidance or orders. Your analogy doesn't work out in the wash. Why do think Saddam retreated the Republican Guard Divisions when they were under high risk of being engaged ?
@@crusher8017 Which only furthers my point. Combat experience is only a small piece of the puzzle to having an excellent and competent force. Technological supremacy and competent military training and culture (like allowing commanders to take the initiative and have creativity or constantly maintaining ones equipment) are the major players in building up a competent and cohesive military.
It'll be interesting to see how this translates down to the smaller units during the reorganization. For example, I was a scout in an armored cavalry troop/sqdrn in the 34th ID. When we transitioned to the BCT model during GWOT, our unit was restructured into a light cavalry (RSTA) unit. We traded our Abrams and tracks for Humvees, and all the 19 Kilos had to reclass to 19 Delta, or transfer to an armored unit in Minnesota if they wanted to continue to be a tanker. Being a "penetration division", you'd think you'd want your cavalry units to pack more of a punch (Abrams/Bradleys) than a light vehicle can provide. It would be ironic as hell if they transition back to an armor platform. So many people were extremely pissed when it happened the first time. Many tankers just ended their careers, rather than reclass to scouts.
You should make videos on the other four types also.
Wow great video 😊
So what about other support units like ammo and shower/laundry units? You covered fuel, which is a first for quartermaster units. And us there or are they going to have heavy transport units? Are they going to bring back MASH units or keep with CASH medical units? Sorry so much to ask. And there isn't a division level signal or MI units?
IIRC the army wants to keep SIGINT and EW at corps level.
divisional signal & MI units are located in the HHB (with some MI capabilities embedded in the Cavalry Squadron as principal ISTAR unit) while more sophisticated systems are gonna be concentrated in the Multi-Domain JTF
ammo is supposed to be supplied to the units from BSB supply platoon's Modular Ammunition Transfer Point Section via FSC distribution platoon, and to fill their stock back up, BSB SPO will make a request through sustainment brigade SPO, who would then arrange for DSSB/CSSB to provide them with more ammo
shower and laundry services are the responsibilities of Water Supply Platoon in the DSSB's Composite Supply Company
@@nikujaga_oishii So they will fall under the MSB or do will the have a DSC?
Thank you for featuring the 34th infantry division of the Minnesota National Guard!
To quote Game of Thrones: what is dead may never die.
Rumsfeld, in 2002, did away with the division because he wanted to deploy faster. This comes from being a Naval officer who took his stuff with him on the boat or aircraft. Marines are similar. Army folks (which I spent 30 years in as a combat engineer officer) generate enormous amount of combat power but it takes time to deploy the beast and a lot of supplies to keep the beast fed.
Your operational graphics, though great, show that a penetration attack will fail due to the lack of depth. To make a penetration attack one has to think of Operation COBRA in WWII or DESERT STORM, where objectives were attained by passing units thru each other. In your design (yes I know you were making a point between penetration and an envelopment) without a second division or divisions passing thru the gap in enemy defenses then this type of manuever will fail.
So does the Army plan to generate depth by drones or fires or by trying to feed units thru the gap? Because as you pointed out, a division having broken thru will find itself in an island if not reinforced.
But this is good stuff.
That'll probably be where the infantry divisions equiped with strykers or light infantry divions come in to play. 2 ID is primed to serve in such a function. But asside from 11CR, and im not sure if they have Bradley ICVs or Scouts and Abrams tanks, its the heaviest unit in I corps.
@@ironstarofmordian7098 my bet is in motorized infantry. Light infantry. Be they airborne, air assault or light get driven to the battlefield and then walk. What killed both the Germans and Russians in WWII was that their infantry walked and could not keep up with the armored units.
I figure it would be a suppression of enemy forces via fires and airpower that would bridge the gap. That said, I agree with you about penetration force could be rapidly enveloped if not supported correctly. Obviously at the Corp level, the battle plan will have to change as the enemy reacts to the pentrating force.
If the emeny shifts forces from the front, does the Heavy force push? If a reserve force is brought up, do you use airborne forces to attempt a large encirclement? How do you integrate non US forces into such a plan? All questions that will probably be studied over by a small BN worth of O-4/5/6's.
@@buenoactual5696 all good points. If one thinks of COBRA and DESERT STORM as success then one must look also look at failures as well. Kursk in 1943 is an example of failure. One can argue that the invasion of Sicily forced the Germans to stop Kursk. That may be true but I think that the Germans had no depth to push into the gap created by 4th Panzer army. Even though 2d SS Pz Corps had culminated at Prokorhovka, Mainstein and Hoth did not have another set of divisions to pass thru 2d SS Pz Corps to continue the attack to Kursk. This may have caused CITADEL to fail more than Sicily.
light divisions can serve as follow-on force
6:50 The website says that the Brigade Engineer Battalions will be transferred to the division, but the video says the pen divisions will have the four divisional battalions as well as the three Brigade Engineer Battalions. I am also wondering what the Heavy Division’s engineering structure will look like.
I agree that it is odd that a unit intended to draw the enemy’s attention doesn’t have beefed up SHORAD.
4 words: United States Air Force. It seems like the army's thinking for a long time has been that logistics/budget are better suited to other purposes since the USAF can be expected to provide air superiority.
Jesus dude this is great fucking info. Seriously thank you, I’m impressed by the depth and breadth of this presentation.
id like to see a episode on the ESTONIAN DEFENCE FORCES equipments vehicles organization etc
Yeah that would be great
Tho they don’t have much of anything
@@sharwama992 yes ik
Task & Purpose did a pretty good overview, although their videos don't go into as much detail into the structure as this channel.
GOOSE
re inventing the wheel. We had this in the 80' The pentation divisions are new Reminds me of the Soviet Operation Group.
Love your content bro. Can you do one on the light, air assault and airborne div. as well?
When the US military does something wrong
Service members: "Are they fucking kidding? Do they realize what this will do?"
When the US military does something right
Service members: "Finally they do this shit. We've been saying to do this for years"
Very interesting.
I deem positive the return of the emphasis on the divisional level of the organization.
It is an indication of clear thinking that which level becomes predominant is derived from the type of wars that the Army is preparing for, and that a larger and more complex and intense scale of operations requires an effective intermediate level organization.
E.g., the recognition that the experience with an intervention in some hypothetical middle-east region bordering the Mediterranean during limited/proxy wars does NOT imply that one should reorganize its whole army on BATTALION tactical groups intending to then use them in some hypothetical eastern European region bordering the Black sea for rather more conventional, and, incidentally, not so special, operations.
Let's hope the Army will have enough personnel to make these reorganization efforts work. A lot of people are getting out because it sucks.
Oh, I recall those UGVs. They were used in Frontline: Fuels of War and Tom Clancy: EndWar.
The UGVs used by the Western forces in Frontline were small Tank-like vehicles with either 20mm Vulcans or Multipurpose Missile Cells, the game featured a single Missile for both Anti-Armor and Anti-Air and was actually worked into the lore that explained that the US Military had figured the trick out with its European Allies. The Russians and Chinese then literally stole the technology through whatever means they could to replicate it themselves.
Anyways, the Western UGVs were very handy for Infantry pushes. For example, the opening video shows a team trying to enter a complex, only to come under fire from a fortified structure. A UGV is sent forward with Infantry moving behind it. The operator is nearby, but in cover as the Riflemen advance under the cover.
The UGV is taken out and a couple of Riflemen are hammered by the explosion, forcing them all to retreat, but as the Anti-Armor guy on the other side is trying to get a fresh missile, he looks up to see a small Tactical UAV, the size of a small RC Helicopter and controlled by the same operator as the UGV, eying him and his squad through a blown-out wall.
A moment later, a pair of Tanks are able to accurately fire and neutralize the position.
In EndWar, there were also such UGVs. But on a larger scale. They were still limited and pretty much could be posted as sentries or assigned to guard specific points. Such as Command Points and Command Vehicles. Very useful if you could figure the trick out to use them right.
I'm unfamiliar with the symbology used at 3:40 for the MDTF. What do the two vertical crosses above the unit designate? Often that place is used to designate the size/organizational level of the unit. Is it a division sized unit which is not a division?
The Army uses the symbol for a command that supports a theater or corps command (++), sort of like how it does for Theater Sustainment Commands which control all logistics in a theater. It’s more or less a task organized brigade sized fires and surveillance unit but i guess it has more of that coordinator function for the theater army
@@BattleOrder Great to know
Thanks!
Been waiting for this one