PDA

View Full Version : Why a 4th BN ?


7624U
10-25-2009, 09:28
I always wondered why they dident just reactivate groups, But instead made a 4th BN in each group. Wouldent it have been easyer to just reactivate a group and fill it :confused: Would you not be accomplishing the same thing. More SF, More command positions, Easyer to equip a already established system, No need to restructure team numbers and add confusion, Place the reactivated group in a new location would mean less building and save money.
It would also bring back a piece of history and pride.
Any thoughts ?

Pete
10-25-2009, 09:38
A Star?

7624U
10-25-2009, 09:43
A Star?

Ive seen that posted internaly with us pete, But it hasent happened no Star at group.

Dozer523
10-25-2009, 10:35
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e6/Unified_Combatant_Commands_map.png I think it has to do with providing a dedicated Group to the Combatant Commands. Where teams actually go? DOTS.

(JIC, I defer to The Reaper)

The Reaper
10-25-2009, 10:53
Allegedly, it made more sense to meet the requirements to the regional combatant commands and was simpler than trying to add a Group that could easily be eliminated during cutbacks.

I actually had a former USASFC and SWCS CG tell me that he never thought we could fill the 4th battlions with SF, the extra positions were actually there to allow for SF to expand with non-18 CMF support personnel without having to ask DA for additional authorizations.

TR

GreenSalsa
10-27-2009, 04:08
As someone in one of the new 4th battalions...

it is exponentially harder to stand up a new GROUP as opposed to standing up a new BATTALION. Establishing the new BN makes it easier to "cross load" personnel from the existing three BNs without compromising AOR integrity that would almost certainly would have happened if a new group was established.

however if my line of logic were taken further...why didn't we establish a "Delta" company under each of the existing BNs in every group--it would have made it a lot easier to bring three companies "on line" vice standing up new commands and staff sections.

LongWire
10-27-2009, 04:29
however if my line of logic were taken further...why didn't we establish a "Delta" company under each of the existing BNs in every group--it would have made it a lot easier to bring three companies "on line" vice standing up new commands and staff sections.

I would agree, but I believe that on paper a Bn garners more $$. I also hold what some of TR said to be true as well. The force projections on restructuring of the groups at Group and Bn level to include GSB for the future, have a lot of play as well.

Richard
10-27-2009, 06:32
Prior to the 1971-72 major reorganization of its MTOE, Groups used to have 4 BNs (called ODCs or Companies then) - A, B, C, and D (with 3 or 4 ODBs per ODC)...and some even had an E Company. Just noodling - but maybe this idea also entailed some of the thinking that not only was it easier, but that it was less threatening and a bit more palatable to DA to accept a return to that concept for historical reasons rather than seeking to add more Groups.

I remember when we were barely at 3 AD Groups (5, 7, 10) w/3 BNs each and 5 ODAs per ODB and almost went to 2 Groups (5, 10).

The more things change, the more they seem to remain the same.

And so it goes...;)

Richard's jaded $.02 :munchin

SdAufKla
11-15-2009, 05:09
More tooth: less tail.

Adding another battalion adds three more line companies and 18 more ODAs without having to add all of the extra support and staff that, combat to support ratio-wise, would come with an entire group.

Also gives the current groups one more major maneuver unit to support the COCOMS they're already supporting. Relieves some presssure on the guys' OPTEMP while keeping the group / JSOTF level to COCOM relationships stable.

LongTabSigO
11-15-2009, 13:57
More tooth: less tail.

Adding another battalion adds three more line companies and 18 more ODAs without having to add all of the extra support and staff that, combat to support ratio-wise, would come with an entire group.

Also gives the current groups one more major maneuver unit to support the COCOMS they're already supporting. Relieves some presssure on the guys' OPTEMP while keeping the group / JSOTF level to COCOM relationships stable.

That makes a lot of sense. (Also the point raised about difficultly/expense of creating a new group and all the realignment that that would cause.)

I would like to know why a battalion (vice adding a 4th company for the existing 3 bns) was considered a better option?

It may well be that it was the best way to get more support slots from the Regular Army; these are the kind of discussions I'd love to have with those "in the know" over an adult beverage (and in conspiratorial tones).

Richard
11-15-2009, 14:55
I would like to know why a battalion (vice adding a 4th company for the existing 3 bns) was considered a better option?

A few more 0-5 command slots vice just adding more 0-4 slots?

Richard's $.02 :munchin

The Reaper
11-15-2009, 16:14
Better rotation pattern for SOTFs in theater.

TR

Mitch
11-15-2009, 17:02
Obviously, this administration does not appear to be concerned with cost, but just in case they are, the costs would just have to be exponentially higher. For example:

Cost of manning and maintaining current line Companies - we will call that X

Cost of rolling out more Delta companies - let’s say that is 2X per company.

Cost of more Battalions - probably 4X per company

Cost of a new Group - probably 16X per company.

Each level above just adding a company requires the overhead of a Headquarters element and all necessary support functions, etc.

ZonieDiver
11-15-2009, 17:11
Yeah, but it would do my heart good to see the 8th Group return!

Surgicalcric
11-15-2009, 21:04
Better rotation pattern for SOTFs in theater.

TR

This could also be achieved with better utilization of the "other" 2 Groups in the Regiment....

The Reaper
11-15-2009, 21:24
This could also be achieved with better utilization of the "other" 2 Groups in the Regiment....

I am not sufficiently familiar with the regs regarding mobilization frequency and duration and current theater apportionment of NG SF to respond to that.

We have a NG SOTF with us on all of the rotations I have seen this far.

The 4th battalions are still needed.

TR

LongTabSigO
11-16-2009, 07:10
Yeah, but it would do my heart good to see the 8th Group return!

Concur!

LongTabSigO
11-16-2009, 07:15
A few more 0-5 command slots vice just adding more 0-4 slots?

Richard's $.02 :munchin

Be fair, Richard. This also means more CSM/00Z slots (vice 18Z SGMs).

Richard
11-16-2009, 07:18
Be fair, Richard. This also means more CSM/00Z slots (vice 18Z SGMs).

That, too. ;)

Richard

uboat509
11-17-2009, 19:19
There are a few rumors out there that the real reason for these fourth battalions was that was an easier sell than a "Special Troops Battalion," which was the actual goal. It doesn't sound overly plausible to me but then I haven't heard anyone yet explain how we are going to fully man these new battalions and keep them manned.

SFC W

The Reaper
11-17-2009, 21:04
There are a few rumors out there that the real reason for these fourth battalions was that was an easier sell than a "Special Troops Battalion," which was the actual goal. It doesn't sound overly plausible to me but then I haven't heard anyone yet explain how we are going to fully man these new battalions and keep them manned.

SFC W

SFC W:

Easy.

Graduate 750 plus students per year, regardless of standards.

TR

Snaquebite
11-17-2009, 21:21
There are a few rumors out there that the real reason for these fourth battalions was that was an easier sell than a "Special Troops Battalion," which was the actual goal. It doesn't sound overly plausible to me but then I haven't heard anyone yet explain how we are going to fully man these new battalions and keep them manned.

SFC W

Go GREEN....

Recycle, Recycle, Recycle

Richard
11-17-2009, 21:25
Go GREEN...Recycle, Recycle, Recycle

Go Green...compost the MFers.

Richard's $.02 :munchin

longrange1947
11-17-2009, 21:39
There are a few rumors out there that the real reason for these fourth battalions was that was an easier sell than a "Special Troops Battalion," which was the actual goal. It doesn't sound overly plausible to me but then I haven't heard anyone yet explain how we are going to fully man these new battalions and keep them manned.

SFC W

DING DING DING! We have a winner!!!!!

However, do not give up just yet. :munchin

Mitch
11-17-2009, 22:54
...I haven't heard anyone yet explain how we are going to fully man these new battalions and keep them manned.

SFC W

Start making offers to 50+year old fomer SF dudes; offers that they can't refuse :)

Instant credibility and instant war stories in every team room.

SF_BHT
11-18-2009, 06:55
Start making offers to 50+year old fomer SF dudes; offers that they can't refuse :)

Instant credibility and instant war stories in every team room.


Hell I would come back if they paid me what i get now from DOJ.......

Hell I would be the bessssst paid TS in SF........and I would have some good war stories..... or at least make up some good ones for the kids......... Hell just use some of Old Bobby S....... stories......:rolleyes:

sitfly200
11-18-2009, 08:28
"Go GREEN....

Recycle, Recycle, Recycle "

As someone seeing this first hand right now it is horrible to witness. Those of us in the trenches i.e Cadre Team Sergeants, and Cadre O's watch all of our diligent work, counseling and recommendations get squashed by levels above. I wish I could show some of the MoR's.

DemoMan
11-18-2009, 15:23
SFC W:

Easy.

Graduate 750 plus students per year, regardless of standards.

TR

That made me vomit in my mouth...

The Reaper
11-18-2009, 16:36
That made me vomit in my mouth...

How many do you think they are going to allow to fail SUT or Land Nav AFTER they go through several months of language training? How many recycles will you give a guy in Sage before he just gets passed on?

I will defer to the team guys here and SWCS instructors to tell you what they really think. I am a bit removed from the problem.

I wonder what is in the minds of the SF leadership. Not sure if they think this is a good idea, or are afraid to resign in protest of it.

TR

Combat Diver
05-24-2010, 10:21
When we went to 8 classes a year at Robin sage, we tried getting someone dropped from the course, they just got recycled to the next class on another team. Unless he had a major safety valition where someone actually got hurt, they were going to gradulate.:mad: However most of my students that I had made the grade and given time on teams would be an asset down the road.

CD

Last hard class
05-24-2010, 10:48
How many do you think they are going to allow to fail SUT or Land Nav AFTER they go through several months of language training? How many recycles will you give a guy in Sage before he just gets passed on?

TR

I know things have changed since my time. But why do we send someone to language school before you know if they are going to complete the Q-course basics?

The Reaper
05-24-2010, 11:03
I know things have changed since my time. But why do we send someone to language school before you know if they are going to complete the Q-course basics?

Because some genius thought that a Q Course change would look good on his report card.

TR

LongTabSigO
05-25-2010, 00:59
When we went to 8 classes a year at Robin sage, we tried getting someone dropped from the course, they just got recycled to the next class on another team. Unless he had a major safety valition where someone actually got hurt, they were going to gradulate.:mad: However most of my students that I had made the grade and given time on teams would be an asset down the road.

CD

I've heard this subject discussed in various places for the last 25 or so years. Has there really been a time when EVERY SINGLE GRADUATE absolutely deserved to make it?

Not accusing...just asking...

greenberetTFS
05-25-2010, 06:57
SFC W:

Easy.

Graduate 750 plus students per year, regardless of standards.

TR


Say isn't so TR,that's unreal that its gone this far! :rolleyes::eek::p

Big Teddy :munchin

Aoresteen
05-25-2010, 07:06
BG Dick Potter was talking about a 4th BN back in '84 when he was the 10th GRP CDR.

He wantd them to be viewed as an independant brigade and the CDR would be an 07 slot.

In late 2007 the 45th Infantry Brigade (OK NG) showed up in Iraq - commanded by a BG. The other brigade CDRs were O6s - they were not pleased.

Since GO slots are regulated by Congress I doubt that this will happen any time soon. But I'm sure the SF higher-ups are planning for more 07 slots in the future. They are just laying the ground work.

Joker
06-11-2010, 22:10
All of SOF was increased in the 2006 QDR (Quadrennial Defense Review). This was done as we saw SOF being over extended in the Sand Box as well as the requirements growing in the other GCC’s AORs. It is thought that it will alleviate some of the rotational deployment stress on the units.

WarriorDiplomat
06-12-2010, 14:00
I always wondered why they dident just reactivate groups, But instead made a 4th BN in each group. Wouldent it have been easyer to just reactivate a group and fill it :confused: Would you not be accomplishing the same thing. More SF, More command positions, Easyer to equip a already established system, No need to restructure team numbers and add confusion, Place the reactivated group in a new location would mean less building and save money.
It would also bring back a piece of history and pride.
Any thoughts ?

Good question, here are some thoughts from an SF guy who just helped stand up a 4th Bn which should flag in August. Higher does not seem to be set in stone on the future of the Bn they are just tasked to produce it. There has been conjecture that the Bn will be simply a Special Troops type Bn with all the support packages placed into and that the line companies would become D Co. of the first three Bns. We have all asked the questions as to how they have done it why not a Delta Co?? or why not bring back one of the Groups 11/12th and the first real question was was since all the ODA's are still not fully manned why not fill them first and see what are needs are then?? The bottom line is it boils down to politics SF has evolved and morphed so many times in its history this isn't new. As of today the new Battalion will allow us to do more without the back to back deployments of tired SF guys and their families even if the manpower is the same or the quality bad the numbers on some power point says we have 4 functioning battalions.

WarriorDiplomat
06-12-2010, 14:08
Say isn't so TR,that's unreal that its gone this far! :rolleyes::eek::p

Big Teddy :munchin

Yeah brother it is true I just left SWTG in Aug09 we were running 4-90 man tracks 4x per year. We recommended reliefs and NTR higher pushed them through, the quality is dropped big time or it had at the time underground we got fat kids showing up to group, talk to any current or recent instructor. You got O's who rarely set foot on the ground reading a packet trying to meet their quotas

The Reaper
06-12-2010, 14:35
WD:

Do us a favor, review the board rules, and introduce yourself before posting further.

Appreciate it.

TR

18Z
06-21-2010, 12:57
I would have to say that I agree with Pete, I know we are talking about why a 4th Bn but lets look at the bigger picture here. Not only did we add a 4th Bn of SF guys but we have also added a GSB (Group Support Bn) so in actuality we added 2 Bns to each Group.....I think we are headed for a BG position for the Grp Cdr. After all he is a SOTF Cdr and everyone he interacts with has a Star.

just my opinion...

Mike

Dozer523
06-21-2010, 14:46
The fourth battalion sure messed up team numbers.

Basenshukai
06-22-2010, 01:57
I actually had a former USASFC and SWCS CG tell me that he never thought we could fill the 4th battlions with SF, the extra positions were actually there to allow for SF to expand with non-18 CMF support personnel without having to ask DA for additional authorizations.

TR

I was told the exact same thing by an SF senior officer currently in an active group.

Backwoods
06-22-2010, 18:39
The GRP CDR being an 07, as a inciting point, makes sense. I have been speculating the same thing over the last 3 years. I mean the Deputy CDR is the same rank as the CDR?? Tell me that doesn't smell of future planning.

Sorry gents...I am still stuck on the fact that SF leadership is pushing to make the regiment look more like the regular army. Soon you will have someone with the bright idea of standing up the 2nd SF Regiment or calling BNs Brigades and so on.

I normally defer to Green Salsa on this stuff because the man is a genius BUT in the L-O-N-G R-U-N that thing called future planning that all commanders think means next week this is going to bit us in the ASS. We should have reactivated a new groups and dug in. 6 AD groups would have no problem getting regional areas of expertise. The world is a bloody big place with LOTS of turds that need flushed.

Richard
06-22-2010, 18:43
I figured it was because the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd numerical designations were already taken and the number 4 was next in line...anything else makes less sense to me.

Richard's $.02 :munchin

Peregrino
06-22-2010, 19:21
There's a lot more to this than meets the eye. The best anyone can say is relax, stop speculating (especially since the available info is woefully incomplete), and go along for the ride. If everything comes to fruition, the SFG(A)s will be stronger/better than they are now, certainly better than if they had reactivated some of the old SFG(A) #s and kept the previous force structure.

The Reaper
06-22-2010, 21:45
There's a lot more to this than meets the eye. The best anyone can say is relax, stop speculating (especially since the available info is woefully incomplete), and go along for the ride. If everything comes to fruition, the SFG(A)s will be stronger/better than they are now, certainly better than if they had reactivated some of the old SFG(A) #s and kept the previous force structure.

I agree.

Much easier to cut a numbered Group with no dedicated AOR.

As it is now, the Theater commands and SOCs will fight hard in Congress if necessary to keep their SFGs from being RIF bait.

TR