Warfare skills eroding as Army fights insurgents

BMT (RIP) · 10-26-2006, 04:32

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nat...home-headlines

Will someone task an engineer unit to LEVEL the Fulda Gap!!

BMT

**Jack Moroney (RIP)** · 10-26-2006, 05:29

Ahhhh, the armor mafia is at it again. The inability to do campaign planning is a crock-you still have to work out campaign plans for CI/FID as part of the overall strategy in this conflict (which apparently seems to be a problem which means that planning weakness was never addressed to begin with). I particularly liked the bit about the degrading of the mech infantry skills. Now that they have the Bradley and have been using it as a fighting platfrom they evidently forgot that the Bradley is nothing more than an armored bus to get you into the fray and provide you some support when you get there. The grunt still has to dismount and take it to the other guy to get his job done. So for the life of me I cannot see Infantry skills eroding. You know with all the advances in simulations and the fact that many of these folks can now fight the battle by maneuvering their subordinate units using computer screens and satelitte imagery, the biggest threat seems to be the loss of mouse and coffee cup coordination now that they have to get down and dirty and deal with cultures and assymetric challenges. Apparently it must be the officer/leadership/management skills that need to be sharpened-my goodness think of the challenge of having to be able to switch back and forth between different mission profiles-give me a break

Jack Moroney-methinks the boys that roll around the battlefield wrapped up in 60 tons of homosexual steel doth protest too much

bubba · 10-26-2006, 05:35

Well, if they want to train to fight some conventional tank battle, I say let em. Then when they won't be causing head aches for the people who can, and want to get the job done in Iraq, and will eventually find themselves as irrelevent as ADA, and suffer the same fate. So hell, let them go home to NTC and train for a fight that will never come.

**Jack Moroney (RIP)** · 10-26-2006, 05:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by bubba

Well, if they want to train to fight some conventional tank battle, I say let em. .

I can understand the problem with tank gunnery, but they also need to take a lesson from this last incursion of Israel into Lebanon-the Merkava tank played a major role in that fight. So much so that before the war the tank line was going to be shut down, now it will not only not be shut down but is cranking out upgraded and new models. I am sure they have also realized that armor can play a big role in urban combat but it also is presented with a whole set of problems that were not part of their doctrine when they focused on grand maneuver across the plains of northern Europe. You have to understand the armor mindset-armor feels that they are the leading arm and everyone else exists to support it. That is until there is a threat like a wooded area, minefield, urban area, or ground troops with anti-tank weapons. Then they expect someone else to lead while they support.

x SF med · 10-26-2006, 06:20

It seems to me that all these Pentagon Generals want to ne either Rommel or Patton or ben Gurion. I agree with COL Jack, Armor is aschizophrenic and bipolar branch with delusions of grandeur - 52 ton rolling coffins with big guns strapped to them that whine Infantry slows them down getting to the battle field, and then cries that infantry moves too fast when there are obstacles to the tanks. I admire Armor, great short range Arty that can re-place themselves and shoot on the move - but they are only part of a Combined Arms Team, and without Infantry support and protection, well, you may as well paint them day-glo green and make them better targets.

Ghostrider · 11-06-2006, 05:02

Why can't we all just get along??

As NDD likes to point out I am a "Tank Boy". However, do not think that every Armor branch Soldier has delusions of grandeur about being Patton or Rommel. There is a valid part of the article expressing a legitimate concern for some of the skills that heavy forces have to practice to be proficient. Gunnery skills and tactical movements ARE different and perishable in Armor just as they are for lightfighters. Those skills become more perishable as senior NCOs retire because that experience is lost. If you look at, it is not that different than say, not shooting M4s or not training your CQB skills....if you don't do it, you get rusty. Which weapons systems you use is irrelevant, training is still critical.

Until recently, I was at NTC for 2 years as the OPFOR and have witnessed firsthand what happens when heavy forces are out of practice or have Soldiers inexperienced in mech warfare. And no it was not because we "cheated" or any of the other accusations leveled at us....(ask GEN Thurmond, COL Townsend, or some of their counterpart Division and Brigade commanders about 221 CAV). We did ok against technologically and numerically superior forces. Do not misinterpret this as chest thumping, the point is we had practice in our mech warfighting skills and the cumulative experience that our NCOs and Soldiers had, made up for the other deficiencies. I would be remiss if I did not mention that SQDN staff experience allowed for a much more streamlined decision making process and kept us inside the rotational unit's OODA loop (yes even tankers know that term

). That also takes training and experience....in reality, NTC is an exercise for BN and BDE Staffs. If they cannot or do not train every aspect of logistics, movement, force protection, force deployment, etc. the Soldier on the ground regardless of MOS is the one who pays the price. My Soldiers are now voluntarily doing an Infantry mission without complaint (well aside from normal joe bitching

). But when we are done here, we will need to refresh our tank skills. We would be negligent if we didn't.

Having said that, do I think there will be major tank on tank battles like Kursk anytime soon? IMHO, not likely or probable...but do we chance it and say "We should stop all heavy training."? I think that would be irresponsible. Do I think there are Armor Officers who want one? Probably...every branch has their career milestones/highlights that enhances promotions and careers. In Armor, it's battles like Kursk or Medina Ridge. There will always be individuals pushing their agenda regardless of branch. It's that type of careerism and branch elitism is what hurts the Army as a whole. As has been stated, the Army is supposed to be Combined Arms. Different branches take the lead based on the situation. Everyone else supports that branch in that fight. In fact, I've learned something from every branch that I have had the opportunity to interact with, Infantry, FA, Trans, Ordnance, etc....ultimately I hope that makes me a better Soldier, NCO, and Leader.

Of course, I never have a problem with competitive, friendly branch rivalry....especially directed at the FA guys.

NousDefionsDoc · 11-06-2006, 07:22

Tank Boy, we are talking about Generals, not tankers. We all know you have to keep your skills up.

Buffalobob · 11-06-2006, 09:15

It sounds to me that they think it is a lot more fun playing war games and then going home to momma at night than rolling around someplace where people don't like them and might be mean to them.

CPTAUSRET · 11-06-2006, 10:45

On a side note, prior to attending flight school I was infantry, not necessarily a "dirty leg" infantryman though.

When I received a direct commission in VN, I naturally presumed Infantry Branch, right?

Well, when the GO was advancing on me with Armor branch insignia in hand ready to pin on my lapels. I said "Excuse me, Sir, but that's Armor insignia." His response was something like, "You must not have read the fine print, Armor looks at Cobras as flying tanks, and they want you!"

I NEVER fit in well as an Armor O!

**Roguish Lawyer** · 11-06-2006, 10:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack Moroney

Ahhhh, the armor mafia is at it again. The inability to do campaign planning is a crock-you still have to work out campaign plans for CI/FID as part of the overall strategy in this conflict (which apparently seems to be a problem which means that planning weakness was never addressed to begin with). I particularly liked the bit about the degrading of the mech infantry skills. Now that they have the Bradley and have been using it as a fighting platfrom they evidently forgot that the Bradley is nothing more than an armored bus to get you into the fray and provide you some support when you get there. The grunt still has to dismount and take it to the other guy to get his job done. So for the life of me I cannot see Infantry skills eroding. You know with all the advances in simulations and the fact that many of these folks can now fight the battle by maneuvering their subordinate units using computer screens and satelitte imagery, the biggest threat seems to be the loss of mouse and coffee cup coordination now that they have to get down and dirty and deal with cultures and assymetric challenges. Apparently it must be the officer/leadership/management skills that need to be sharpened-my goodness think of the challenge of having to be able to switch back and forth between different mission profiles-give me a break

Jack Moroney-methinks the boys that roll around the battlefield wrapped up in 60 tons of homosexual steel doth protest too much

LOL -- The COL is on his game today!

x SF med · 11-06-2006, 13:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by CPTAUSRET

On a side note, prior to attending flight school I was infantry, not necessarily a "dirty leg" infantryman though.

When I received a direct commission in VN, I naturally presumed Infantry Branch, right?

Well, when the GO was advancing on me with Armor branch insignia in hand ready to pin on my lapels. I said "Excuse me, Sir, but that's Armor insignia." His response was something like, "You must not have read the fine print, Armor looks at Cobras as flying tanks, and they want you!"

I NEVER fit in well as an Armor O!

T-
You can't be Armor - your skin's not thin enough. You've got Infantry Blue in you.

Ghostrider · 11-06-2006, 14:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by NousDefionsDoc

Tank Boy, we are talking about Generals, not tankers. We all know you have to keep your skills up.

Generals? Oh those guys with the shiny stars? I won't comment on their thought processes.

**Jack Moroney (RIP)** · 11-06-2006, 14:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ghostrider

I won't comment on their thought processes.

Ahh, but you are looking at it the wrong way. If you can empathize with their processes (thought or otherwise) then you can understand which buttons to push to make things work to your and your troops' advantage. Remember generals are nothing more than 2LTs with a lot of time in service who advanced to where they are because of the efforts and successes of folks like yourself. Now if you can get some 2LT promoted to general, then surely you can figure out how they think and, more importantly, how to work with them, in spite of them, or without them.

Now I will admit that once some folks make general they often seem not to be the same person with whom you might have once worked. There are a lot of reasons for that-one big one being that generals are selected and promoted by generals which tends to make the club not only exclusive but sometimes incestuous. While we all think that leadership is leadership is leadership, there actually is a manual that discusses the differences for leadership for senior officers. Now I am not sure where that transistion happens where leadership takes on a new face and challenge, but I am sure that, just like blood wings, when you pin on those stars there must be something loaded into the hollowed out pins that fasten on the rank to the collar. The drug works best for those GOs that wear their rank on their pajamas so that they can absorb all this new knowledge whilst they sleep

Ghostrider · 11-06-2006, 23:49

Good point sir (and I do have a former PL that has the potential to be a successful field grade, and perhaps GO some day). The challenge today then, is getting through all the layers between the GO and the guy on the ground to benefit the Soldier. I do think there is also a difference between Command and Leadership that confuses some leaders (and not just at the GO level). That confusion adds to the challenge.

.

**Jack Moroney (RIP)** · 11-07-2006, 06:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ghostrider

I do think there is also a difference between Command and Leadership that confuses some leaders (and not just at the GO level). .

Absolutely. Command is a position, management a technique, but leadership is an art and a science. Officers are officers by the courtesy of Congress but true leaders, be they private thru GO, exist by virtue of personal traits, skill, and respect earned from those that would be led.