Talk:Reorganization plan of United States Army

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

Theme referred from Peter Schoomaker, because it should have it's own lemma.(MARK S. 09:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC))[reply]


4ID CAB[edit]

According to the page the 4th ID will be losing its CAB to the 1AD. So they currently don't hae one? I thought they still had one down at Fort Hood Texas along with 1st BDE[1]. Does the transformation have both 1BDE and the CAB moving to Carson? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Twix2247 (talk • contribs) 19:37, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

V Corps?[edit]

Why is V Corps being eliminated?

And why is United States Army Europe and United States Army Korea in bold?

205.174.22.26 (talk) 04:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

V corps is reactivated --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 16:52, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

172nd Stryker BCT[edit]

Has anyone noticed that no reports seem to indicate the future whereabouts and/or designation of the 172nd Stryker Brigade Combat Team? Does anyone know whether the Army plans to phase this unit out?--SOCL 18:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- I'm not sure. I've heard nothing about them phasing it out. In fact, I think its a model for what they want the rest of the Army to look like. Definately confusing. --Hal06 22:55, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On a follow-up, I found out that 172nd Stryker will be reflagged as 1st Brigade, 25th Infantry Division upon return from deployment in Iraq, hence why it is no included anywhere.--SOCL 01:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since the announcement in early 2006, the plan went from 43 active brigades and 34 NG brigades to 42 active brigades and 28 NG brigades. Does anyone know which brigades were cut?

Many NG divisions were completely cut out and reflagged as training commands. For instance, 7th Infantry Division at Fort Carson has been reflagged Training Support Division West, presumably carrying no true brigade-type units in the same way most training support units usually do not.--SOCL 02:36, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Number of Tanks[edit]

In positioning-end state, it says

21 armored brigades (Total: 1,160 of both M1 Tanks and M2 Bradleys; 600 M3 Scout vehicles)

Does this mean 1160 M1s and M2s each or 1160 M1s and M2s combined ?Xerex 15:01, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


and those numbers dont even make sense. According to the article each brigade will have 56 M1's and 56 M2s and 30 M3's multiply be 21 and you get 1176 M1's 1176 M2s and 630 M3'sXerex 03:38, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the number of tanks either. I've added the numbers, and I get under 2,000 M1s... but the military has roughly 6,000 M1's... where are the remaining 4,000? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akiatu (talk • contribs) 05:57, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1st ID[edit]

As part of the army transofrming, 4 BDE of 1 ID will not be an armored BDE. It is a light infantry brigade as soon by the designation 4 IBCT, 1 ID. www.riley.army.mil

Hal06 (talk) 15:28, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gobbledygook[edit]

This entire article, but particularly the "Culture Training and Readiness" section is of the worst kind of New Army jargon. This is an encyclopedia for world-wide public use, not an article in a military journal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.238.92.21 (talk) 07:14, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. So much bullshit and so little information. 2A0D:6FC0:B76:5600:C4DB:18DC:F03C:5375 (talk) 12:39, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please see Reorganization plan of United States Army#Multi-domain operations (MDO) for a summary. Or MDO Challenge (15 May 2019) *Start here* for MDO 101 The main point is that even a commander will no longer be safe, in future war. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 13:14, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Square Divisions[edit]

The US Army entered World War I with very large divisions consisting of 2 Infantry Brigades of 2 Regiments each with a total of 8 Infantry Battalions per Division.

Shouldn't that read 16 Infantry Battalions per Division.? That is 4 battalions per regiment, 2 regiments per brigade and 2 brigades per division?--Caranorn (talk) 19:05, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Troop cuts, 25 Jun 2013[edit]

Since we know the BCTs to be cut, we could simply strike through the deactivated BCTs as they occur. At least at Fort Bliss, the Maneuver battalions from the 3-1AD BCT will be reallocated to the remaining BCTs. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 02:35, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Changes to BCTs[edit]

http://www.army.mil/article/106373/Brigade_combat_teams_cut_at_10_posts_will_help_other_BCTs_grow/

Phd8511 (talk) 12:46, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So, they are effectively going back to the previous structure with 3 manoeuvre battalions? Green Giant (talk) 12:38, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Network Integration Evaluations[edit]

The Network Integration Evaluations are producing equipment changes which are transforming Army tactics, beginning in 2011, and now going into production. It seems appropriate to introduce them, as they are reported, into this article. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 13:05, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Transformation of the United States Army. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:40, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Readiness Model; which one?[edit]

I have found another citation which calls out a similar-sounding model, a Sustainable Readiness Model, again by Robert Abrams, rather than Sustainment Readiness Model. Abrams gave as example a sustainment deficiency in the citation that is in the article, but which is it? Sustainable or Sustainment? --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 17:51, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

3rd ABCT, 3ID?[edit]

I found a citation showing the downsizing of 3rd BCT, 3ID to a maneuver battalion task force (TF 1-28), 28th Infantry Regiment. This seems to affect the count of ABCTs in the article. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 23:11, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2 ICBT, 3 Div to be Armored BCT Team[edit]

http://www.armyrecognition.com/december_2016_global_defense_security_news_industry/the_2nd_infantry_brigade_combat_team_of_us_army_to_become_armored_brigade_in_2017_10112163.html

ACSilver (talk) 06:14, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Done --see this change Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 12:30, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

3rd IBCT, 10 Mountain Division[edit]

The current citation of 3rd IBCT 10MD seems orphaned... I moved it (back) under 10 Div, but this was reversed - fair enough, and I don't want to get into a change/reverse battle. But its current placing suggests an independent BCT.

I accept that this BCT is now as associate unit of the National Guards's 36 Infantry Division, but is still flagged as 10th Mountain Division - as such, shouldn't it still be listed under 10 Div, with a comment to respect the association? Andrew D Banks (talk) 07:11, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not a 10th Mountain Division unit anymore. It wears now the patch of the 36th Infantry Division and has severed its connections with the 10th.[2], [3], therefore it will be wrong to list it under the 10th... it might be best to add a line with "36th Infantry Division, Texas National Guard" before the 3rd brigade to make it clear that the 3rd is a unique brigade, as it is the only one under a National Guard Division. noclador (talk) 10:07, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps III Corps or even FORSCOM is assigning the training for the 3/36th ID, as 36th ID headquarters is currently deployed. We need a citation; 3rd BCT is still Active Army. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 12:49, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, 3rd BCT is active army, wearing a National Guard patch - the only active brigade to do so. Its place in the 10th Mtn. Div. has been taken by the 86th Infantry (Mountain) Brigade Combat Team of the Vermont National Guard. If you look at the press releases of the 3rd BCT, it is just referred to as "3rd Brigade Combat Team" now - without a division [4]. What do you suggest we do? noclador (talk) 15:24, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think we could wait for more information. Col. Sullivan, commander of 3rd BCT said "we get to retain our lineage with 10th Mountain" (in a Mountain tab badge above the 36th ID arrowhead, and a Patriots tab badge below the 36th ID arrowhead), "but we get to add the proud lineage of 36th ID". We don't have the heraldry yet, or maybe Sullivan gets to define the heraldry.[1] A facebook page shows the Mountain Patriots tabs above and below the arrowhead.[2] --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 00:50, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Umm... the Facebook page quite clearly still shows 3rd Brigade Combat team, 10th Mountain Division - anyway, let's leave this until the formal position becomes clear? Andrew D Banks (talk) 08:43, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I see that 36th ID headquarters is doing a second rotation in Afghanistan,[3] and there are 4 National Guard BCTs in addition to 3rd BCT. What readiness model is going to apply to these BCTs in the future? What training are these BCTs going to get?
--Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 01:31, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wait on more information would be my vote. It is a really knotty one!! Buckshot06 (talk) 21:49, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We now have more data: it's 3rd IBCT / 10th Mountain that is getting deployed,[4] 3/10th MD is also an Associated unit of 36th ID (TX National Guard), probably because 3/10th is in Louisiana. The 36th ID commander wished the 3/10th a safe return. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 01:55, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Patriot commander speaks about soldier's new uniform patch
  2. ^ 3rd Brigade (10th Mountain Patriots) 36th Infantry Division
  3. ^ T-Patch Division promotes new brigadier general
  4. ^ https://www.army.mil/article/191124/department_of_the_army_announces_10th_mountain_division_deployment announced 20 July 2017

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Transformation of the United States Army. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:17, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

new edits[edit]

changed some section headings, etc, recently. --Sm8900 (talk) 02:04, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Planning process: its evolution[edit]

The current section on the Army's planning process needs to add in the evolution of the Joint Modernization Command, which was formerly the Brigade Modernization Command. Now that the BCTs and modular support brigades are in place, the new focus is to operate in a Joint manner with the other services, and with the State Department, etc. It seems appropriate to include the central role of TRADOC in this.

The international partners of the US are part of this process. Joint Modernization Command, necessarily, will have an evolving part to play in all this. We have the citations in the article already, but I am inclined to wait for 2018, when the 2018 Joint Warfighting Assessment, which is currently being planned for Europe, actually happens. It only seems prudent to wait to put in the text until the news occurs.

For example, the 2017 rotation of the US-based ABCT to European Command was planned for, years ago. But we added in the applicable text in 2017.

In the same way, the modular Headquarters have been planned for, for years. Is this approach all right with the other editors? --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 23:46, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

sounds fine so far. I appreciate your message here to open a discussion on this. thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 03:13, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

EUCOM / 10th AAMDC[edit]

Upon recording deployments, https://www.army.mil/article/190622/10th_aamdc_arrives_in_romania (TOBRUQ LEGACY 17 --TL17), I was surprised to note that a July 2017 exercise involving 10th AAMDC does not have a "home" under Divisions and Brigades. Simultaneously, SABER GUARDIAN 17 (SG17) is occurring as part of a 40,000 person / 23 country exercise for the Black Sea Region. What TL17/SG17 amounts to is a unified exercise involving EUCOM (European Command) and a few US BCTs, which manages to project an impressive amount of power.

The other deployments I recorded were more granular. They involve CENTCOM (Southwest Asia) and PACOM (Pacific), and the BCTs cycle through the National Training Center before deploying. But there is not a European equivalent of the National Training Center.

I think I see part of the mismatch: I am not really sure where "strategy / operations / tactics" exercises go into the article. 10th AAMDC operates at the theater level, and a BCT operates more locally. I admit that a mobile BCT can affect a larger area, which is the reason that the roving BCTs currently rotating through EUCOM are having such a large effect. The TL17 exercise involves setting up tactical operations centers and coordinating fires with multinational partners, while SG17 is practicing forcible entries and river crossings with multinational partners.

Do any editors have any ideas on how to approach an exercise of 10th AAMDC? --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 09:29, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I propose using the annual Posture Statements of the Combatant Commanders (EUCOM,[1] CENTCOM,[2] PACOM,[3] NORTHCOM/NORAD[4] ..[5]) to Congress as the entry point in the article. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 11:26, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just learned about the JMRC (Joint Multinational Readiness Center), located at Hohenfels AAF in Bavaria, Germany, [6] in Europe. It has more of a regional orientation than the National Training Center in the US.--Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 20:11, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ EUCOM 2017 Posture Statement 23 March 2017 to Senate Armed Services Committee accessdate=2017-08-09
  2. ^ CENTCOM posture statement 9 March 2017 accessdate=2017-08-09
  3. ^ PACOM 26 April 2017 statement to House Armed Services Committee accessdate=2017-08-09
  4. ^ NORTHCOM/NORAD, 6 April 2017 statement to Senate Armed Services Committee accessdate=2017-08-09
  5. ^ DoD 2017 Defense Posture Statement accessdate=2017-08-09
  6. ^ (8 July 2016) JMRC Welcomes New Commander

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Reorganization plan of United States Army. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:35, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Difficulties with mobile command post deployment[edit]

On 28 Sep 2017, at a Congressional hearing, the Army announced that after FY 2018, money allocated to 3 communications programs, one of them Win-T Increment 2 (the mobile communications upgrade from static communications nodes) will be shifted to a search for a more secure solution. This budget shift is $544 million. The equipment in the pipeline, for Stryker brigades, remains in place. Thus the $6 billion on Win-T increment 1, and a partial implementation for Increment 2, has revealed that there is a vulnerability in the communications chain, namely in the shift from commercial satellite coverage to WGS (the military equivalent) coverage. This vulnerability was demonstrated in the Russian electronic warfare moves in Ukraine.[1]

In other words, the Tactical command post changes have to be redone and hardened even further. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 07:50, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Lt. Gen. Bruce Crawford: Army to Stop WIN-T Increment 2 Procurement by End of FY 2018

AFC time budget constraint[edit]

See Talk:United States Army Futures Command#Citations for references on the time and budget constraints on AFC. John Hyten of USSTRATCOM notes a 5 year shortfall in the time available to provide materiel for the DoD.

--Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 05:12, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1 SBCT 1st Armoured to 1ABCT and 2 IBCT 4th Inf to 2 SBCT[edit]

https://www.stripes.com/news/army-to-transition-two-brigades-to-add-heavy-firepower-as-it-prepares-for-near-peer-conflict-1.548522

Sammartinlai (talk) 08:30, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Android Tactical Assault Kit (ATAK)[edit]

Here is another citation for Android Tactical Assault Kit (ATAK)[1]

References

  1. ^ PAUL MCLEARY (May 22, 2019) Close Air Support Timeline Cut; But JSOC Official Says Wait For Tech Was Too Long

--Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 00:10, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unit identifiers[edit]

Unambiguously identifying a unit can tricky; 1st ABCT could be for multiple units. Here is an example best practice: "APS-5 equipment augments the 3/4 Armor Brigade Combat Team for Operation Spartan Shield".[1] In this case '3/4' unambiguously identifies 3rd ABCT/4th Infantry Division (Active Army). 3rd brigade is receiving 300 pieces for the incoming 30th ABCT (a National Guard unit with an unambiguous unit ID) to ensure the newest materiel is correct, as a service to the 30th ABCT, which is currently undergoing training in preparation for Operation Spartan Shield. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 21:52, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As another example, 1st Battalion, 17th Infantry Regiment, 2nd Stryker Brigade Combat Team, 2nd Infantry Division can be designated as 1-17, 2/2 ID. Note the '1-17' to denote the 1st Battalion's regimental affiliation. But the '2/2' is the 1st Battalion's brigade commander's unit.

It can still be tricky; ordinarily a company-level unit is not independently deployed. But Battery E, 62nd Air Defense Artillery (THAAD) is an example unit to be deployed under a theater-level command. They were designated E-62 THAAD. Units with unique numbers such as 74th MRBC (74th Multi-Role Bridge Company, for river crossings) I agree is unambiguous. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 22:59, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Kevin Fleming, 401st Army Field Support Brigade (October 5, 2019) "APS-5 equipment augments the 3/4 Armor Brigade Combat Team for Operation Spartan Shield"

Officeholders hold continuity of the institution[edit]

The purpose of the numbering system of the officeholders in the Department of the Army, the Department of Defense, and the US Government is to show that the officeholders bear a responsibility to uphold the laws of the country, especially Title 10, and Title 32 of the US Code. Thus the respective secretaries embody continuity that far exceeds lifetimes of a single generation, as in the centuries-old institution of the US Army, indeed an institutional memory that stretches back to Roman times. -- Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 07:35, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We are writing a article to inform readers. Excessive text and repetition is to be avoided in an article that is already excessively wordy. In an article full of numbers already referring to an officeholder by number rather than a more recognisable name is making the reader's work more difficult.
Your're doing the reader a disservice if you think they don't think that officeholders are supposed to follow the law.
Each office holder is a political appointee with all that entails and often mark changes in policy with changes in officeholders and presidencies.
You're going to need a citation for the US Army having "[an] institutional memory that stretches back to Roman times" for something created in the late 18th century. GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:04, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Army, by tradition, is apolitical. General officers are selected for this type of behavior. The custom of obeying orders is an example of institutional memory. The Founders were exceptionally well-read and well-versed (in Roman history); following the law requires education which was not taught in many institutions, and serves to differentiate the Army from many other institutions, including standards for good behavior (or else one gets dismissed from the Army). Thus the example of George Washington served to teach officers for many generations. Ceremonial parades served to teach the troops as well as the bystanders, an Army tradition, which was taught at Valley Forge by von Steuben, giving continuity based on previous European tradition. Customs such as salutes and drills are part of this tradition, traceable to the Middle Ages, as well as teaching unit cohesion. -- Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 08:35, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The mere existence of this article is misleading[edit]

This article incorrectly conflates two opposite and opposing reorganization efforts, the effort to transform from a division-based to a brigade-based force in early GWOT, and the ongoing effort to transform from a brigade-based to a division-based force starting in the late 2010s. The article does not distinguish between the two, and there should be two separate articles. 2620:104:E001:9010:A76B:D2B2:4846:1EC8 (talk) 18:46, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I propose a split of the LSCO transformation effort to transformation of the United States Army which is currently a redirect to this article. That way the multi-domain operations (MDO) effort, the Force modernization effort for Army of 2030, and the Force design effort for 2040 could split off to the transformation article. -- Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 16:43, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Reorganization_plan_of_United_States_Army&oldid=1210015199"