Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Where are the Divsions? Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: The US force structure
MikeG    12/21/2003 8:00:35 AM
Seems that most modern Army are limiting themselves to a few high quality units and reducing the numbers of everything else. The assumption seems to be that they will limit themselves to a 30 day conflict with other hi-tech advisaries. No one want to blow up the industrial infrastructure they've created. However, the war with ben laden and others is an old fashioned labor intensive struggle supported by hi-tech... not driven by it (to the dismay of the contractors). Countries are finding out that war is a labor intensive act. The US says it doesn't need heavy divisions, then something will happen that will require them, like GW1-2.
 
Quote    Reply

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3   NEXT
Carl D.    RE:The US force structure-light security division   4/7/2004 9:36:53 PM
The use of light infantry for post WMD/Disaster recovery in the form as described by Keit as a light infantry/security division has some merit. By the nature of the mission envisioned for such an organization, besides the training for the infantry mission, the formation would need a higher level of NBC/HAZWOPER (Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response) training, EMS assets, engineers, urban search and rescue, military police, civil affairs, quartermaster and general combat support services. This combination of skill sets would also make such a unit very useful in constabulary/COIN operations. Attach an ACR, an independent aviation brigade, or some divisional artillery and armored transportation battalions with APC/IFVs and a tank battalion then with the theatre and mission appropriate support units, you have a very effective combat unit. As far as the restrictions to using federal troops in civilian situations, Posse Commitatus is satisfied if the force a) is state controlled National Guard, b) is Coast Guard controlled, c) is operating under a national state of emergency due to a declared state of insurrection or where the local authorities are determined to be unable to provide law and order. The current post-September 11th environments enhanced CONUS security focus imply that there is in fact a state of national emergency so use of federal military in a civilian post-WMD scenario I don?t think is really going to pose much of a problem with Posse Commitatus. The tasking for such a force almost demands that it be a reserve/national guard force. To have that many divisions sized formations CONUS based and primarily focused within CONUS as an active duty force, especially if there were a manpower issue as now exists with SWA and Afghanistan, there would be a hue and cry to deploy them, or parts of them right off. That being said, it must be understood that the size of the Army, and for that matter each of the other branches of the services, is based on authorizations and budgets reviewed and approved by Congress from input by the Executive Branch. Though I have seen some statements online that suggest that if the Army were to pull every person that is currently assigned to an administrative or logistics position stateside that could be done by either civil service or contractors and realigned the current commands to remove redundancy, they could free up another division of people. That is still a long way from 20 divisions worth of people. Since there is a probability that such a threat could involve more than one place, is 200,000 people a large enough force? A WMD/Disaster Recovery Force would need to be distributed nationally both by population density and degree of threat to a given metropolitan area, state or region. Between the need for such an asset to be rapidly deployable, the number of square miles to be covered and miles between possible areas of operation, is another rational to make this kind of unit from reserve or national guard units. Creating such a force in the traditional guise of the militia would allow for much more of rapid response to any emergencies without the overhead of larger bases as well as eliminating such bases as additional targets. So besides recruiting how else could such a force be developed? Consider, the 1792 and 1795 Militia Acts are still part of the Code of Federal Regulations. Under US law, the militia is defined as all able-bodied males between 18 and 45 years of age not currently in the active duty military, reserves or National Guard. This is the same system that the Finns, Israeli, Swedes and Swiss still use in one form or another. There is currently a bill in both the House and Senate Armed Services Committees sponsored by the Democrats on the committees called the Universal National Service Act of 2003. The bill provides for the universal conscription of all 18 year olds, both male and female, for two years of service in either the military, CONUS based security/safety or some yet to be defined alternative service. There would be no deferments and the bill also states that there would be no reserve requirement. This would mean, if implemented, that there would be an annual pool of about 4 million people with 8 to 10 million ?in service? at any given time. If this bill were amended to change the focus to more of a reserve force, I think that it might get some more traction. The latest changes that the Swiss have made to their force is to cut the obligation after training for an enlisted man to 260 days of duty or training from ages 20 to 30. After than any service would be based around civil defense duties. For a country of 7 million people, this allows for an on-call force of about 220,000 people, down from the 600,000 to 800,000 of the Cold War period where the age range was 20 to 45 in the armed forces and to 55 in the civil defense forces. There is also a portion of the annual intake of trainees
 
Quote    Reply

   RE:The US force structure-light security division   4/8/2004 12:41:55 PM
Hey Thanks Carl D., I would like to add that the Gen. Schoomaker change in brigade structure could reduce the number of LSD(LID) to ten with similar numbers of troops and a brigade per state, and I do not think getting 210,000 personel will require conscption of any kind. Sincerely, Keith
 
Quote    Reply

surprisemove    RE:Secret US armoured unit revealed   4/8/2004 10:11:08 PM
A Louisiana reporter revealed a secret US armoured unit now deployed to Iraq which suffered a casualty last week. link
 
Quote    Reply

Carl D.    RE:The US force structure-light security division   4/10/2004 3:09:05 AM
Keit, Your very likely correct in that recruiting 210,000 would not require conscritpion. I just thought that I'd bring up what's currently sitting on the shelf in the "Bill Mill". Considering the deployment rate of the active and reserve force now and what may be on the horizon, the old Cold War strength of 18 active divisions and whatever the number of ACRs from that time may well be the minimum needed. That would be about the additional 210,000 you suggest. For conscription to become politically acceptible today would require some real bad events stateside or elsewhere; nothing that anyone wants to see. The Swiss Armee XXI style system would at least minimize the impact on the public. Just my two cents. Carl D.
 
Quote    Reply

   RE:The US force structure-light security division   4/10/2004 8:01:45 PM
Hey Carl D., I think the US Army may need more divisions over the next ten years depending on the Iraq situation, but I believe that this force could come from the National Guard rather than the Regular force, but it requires the training of additional divisions and equiping them which would cost about $20 billion plus about 50 billion over ten years that it will take to put Iraq back togeather. Sincerely, Keith
 
Quote    Reply

blacksmith    RE:Secret US armoured unit revealed   5/12/2004 8:27:14 PM
>> A Louisiana reporter revealed a secret US armoured unit now deployed to Iraq which suffered a casualty last week. << What's the secret?
 
Quote    Reply

Carl D.    RE:The US force structure-light security division   5/18/2004 4:25:22 PM
Keit, For clarity, the Suise Armee XXI is essentually a milita/National Guard force. I should have expanded on that in my last post. Carl D.
 
Quote    Reply

   RE:The US force structure-light security division   5/18/2004 8:21:02 PM
Hey Carl D., I have been pushing the expansion of the USA militia system since the Bottom Up Review. I personnelly have posted that the Militia be mandatory in the USA on other sites, but alas it is not!!! Sincerely, Keith
 
Quote    Reply

   RE:The US force structure   6/12/2004 1:53:39 PM
Hey mike_golf, The problem is that the world believes that there will be few major wars (WWI the war to end all wars) I do not agree and apparently neither do you! Sincerely, Keith
 
Quote    Reply

blacksmith    RE:The US force structure   6/12/2004 8:59:00 PM
>>>>>However, the war with ben laden and others is an old fashioned labor intensive struggle supported by hi-tech... not driven by it (to the dismay of the contractors).<<<<< Contractors do not drive hi-tech. Generals and admirals do. Contractors can make money selling oats for horses and shoveling the s*** it turns into.
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3   NEXT



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2012StrategyWorld.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