The Strategypage is a comprehensive summary of military news and affairs.
 News As History - December 4, 2008

Dunnigan's and Bay's Latest
Advertisement
New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
1.Squad Battles: Winter War
2.Silent War
3.Manoeuvre
4.Gallic Wars
5.Fast Action Battle: The Bulge

100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
 
 
 

Online Giving

Utah SEO Firm

Xango

Smiley Gifts for Babies
Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use
Leadership Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Question: Will Force transformation be beneficial for the US military?
GOP    9/30/2005 12:13:05 AM
I am certainly not an expert on Force Transformation or RMA, but will the US military be a more capable force in the future due to Force Transformation? In more capable, I mean having the ability dominate the battlespace like we do now, even if we have to fight a large-scale war.

Tell me if I understand it correctly; Force Transformation will make the US military more deployable (with brigades and light infantry), give us C4ISR, make us more integrated, and possibly make us better trained (?). In doing so, we will lose some heavy divisions, which will hurt our ability to wage a war against a larger country. Is this correct, and if not, how am I wrong?

I have come to this board because of people like Braddock and Old Grunt, who know alot more about these issues than I do
 
Quote    Reply
 Latest
 News 		  Most
 Read 		  Most
 Commented		  Hot
 Topics

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Sort in Reverse Order Posted
shek    RE:Question: Will Force transformation be beneficial for the US military?   9/30/2005 12:46:52 PM
GOP, Transformation will make the US Army more deployable due to making brigades the building blocks rather than divisions. During this transformation, the number of combat brigades will increase from 33 to 48. Battalions become bigger in the brigade units of action, but the brigades become smaller due to switching to two maneuver battalions with a RSTA battalion. The SBCT transformation creating 7 x SBCTs results in a loss of 3 heavy brigades (1 of them is ARNG), and a loss of 3 light brigades and a light cav brigade. The net result is that the Army has actually become "heavier." C4ISR creates an information advantage for lower echelon units (platoon level to brigade) where such equipment didn't previous exist (UAVs, FBCB2, BFT) or where the sensor capabilities existed, but with an older generation of equipment and without the means to disseminate this information near real time (LRAS3). With a component of transformation being jointness as well as creating organic combined arms units at a lower echelon, the training system will basically remain the same, but the effectiveness of it will increase since you will definitely have your combined arms assets integrated into all home station training (engineers, aviation) and it will be easier to get joint assets involved (CAS). The biggest issue that I have seen people have with the transformation is going from 3 maneuver battalions to 2 in the brigade units of action. The Army position is that the new generation of sensor suites, C4ISR, and PGMs will allow these 2 battalions to be more effective than 3 battalions in the old movement to contact motif. Time will tell who is right on this one, although having seen the effectiveness of FBCB2 and the initial fielding of UAVs down to the company level, I'm on the side of the Army.
 
Quote    Reply

culprit217    RE:Question: Will Force transformation be beneficial for the US military?   11/30/2005 1:36:40 PM
No. In a military action, your force must be equivalent to that of the enemy you plan to face. Smaller, more mobile, better armed, better technology is an excellent concept, so long as the opposition is not prepared to die for their casue and force you to use all those pretty gadgets with your minimized force. The one single disposable commodity most nations now have is human beings behind a gun or a bomb switch. It is not that a nation has more powerful weapons, better weapons, more weapons, better technology and intelligence resources. The most important factor in war is the will to use them to destroy the enemy. America may have all that any military man would want. But, now she has no will to kill those who are sworn to kill her. She should simply surrender, meekly and pray for mercy from a merciless enemy. Why put her brave warriors through the sham of sending them into harm's way when there is no national will to fight for the survival of their own country?
 
Quote    Reply

longrifle    RE:Question: Will Force transformation be beneficial for the US military?   12/1/2005 5:52:38 PM
>>No. In a military action, your force must be equivalent to that of the enemy you plan to face. Smaller, more mobile, better armed, better technology is an excellent concept, so long as the opposition is not prepared to die for their casue and force you to use all those pretty gadgets with your minimized force. The one single disposable commodity most nations now have is human beings behind a gun or a bomb switch.<< I don't agree totally, but I admit your argument has proven true in many cases. Sometimes quantity has a quality all of it's own.
 
Quote    Reply

xylene    RE:Question: Will Force transformation be beneficial for the US military?   2/16/2006 2:08:50 PM
You hit the heart of the issue, I don't think the US military has fought in a campaign of national survival in a long time. I would dare to say and expect most soldiers do not want to make the ultimate sacrifice when the stated goal of our current operations is not national survival but a host of other reasons. I think the US military has always been most effective when it uses heavy divisons. I think light divisions have their place, but it would have been interesting to see light forces instead of the IV Corps used in Desert Storm. I think heavy forces were key into taking Baghdad in this latest war. I remember everyone saying the role of heavy bombers were over with more nimble multi-role precision fighters. If memory serves me right the Taliban lines were holding until the B-52's were used. Our soldiers are great but they are fighting for different reasons than many of our enemies, regardless how warped our enemies ideals are. We should not fight them on their terms or go toe to toe, man for man, but use our greatest advantages in terms of armor, technology, and firepower.
 
Quote    Reply

StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2008StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy