How much of an effect will the US's plan of attaching at least 1 company of MPF light tanks (14 tanks each) to every infantry brigade that would have previously only had humvees or MRAPs have?
How much of an effect will the US's plan of attaching at least 1 company of MPF light tanks (14 tanks each) to every infantry brigade that would ...
It's cool is what it is, however its missing a airborne-dropped light tank for the airborne units.
As a moderate and a fiscal conservative, I feel the U.S. should reclassify the Abrams-X as a "light tank" and commit to a gradual upgrade. And also hold trials for something with burlier stats to be the new United States MBT.
Anon, the entire point of a light tank is vs the Abrams is that it requires less logistical backing. The Abrams gets .6 miles per gallon, and will burn 60 gallons of fuel an hour when traveling cross country. That's a massive logistical load for an infantry brigade that previously only needed to worry about supply fuel to humvees or similar.
>Human Resources Company
>Payroll Battalion
>Accounts Company composed of Accounts Receivable and Accounts Payable Platoons
It's not like in the old days for sure.
God, I hate corporate culture and its influence in the world
It's a phase. A stultified paradigm a bunch of unironically soulless, greedy boomers kicked off. Millenials (me) and zoomers might be replete with dogshit and problems, but I think we're getting fed up with corporate bullshit, on either end of political spectrum.
I just can't imagine too many people who give a frick won't think it's a little out-of-place having an HR Company and Financial Management Platoon organic to every Army Light Division. Next thing you know Marines will stop sperging out about being Motivated and they'll start talking about synergy and stakeholders.
Why would it be out of place for a division sized entity, 10,000+ people, have ~100 people for financial management and human resources. It would be moronic if they didn't.
You know how I know you're a neverserved?
Because I never served. You know how I know you probably a frickup?
glugglguglggugglgugglgug
Not him, but he got your ass, SPC Johnson.
Imagine thinking its a bad thing to make sure people are paid and taken care of. Thats russian level thinking right there. HR and pay organizations have existed since at least WWII.
Say that again and I'll rat you out to your supervisor.
The roles are necessary in some capacity, but having an HR Company or a Financial Management Detachment is fricking some fricking cringe shit.
Its been that way for literally forever. Do you think if some Private in the 18th Regiment of Foot he had to walk his ass to another unit to get it sorted out? No, he went to the Regimental Paymaster who had clerks under him. The regiment would have had its own department in charge of manpower and recruitment. This stretches to Navies as well, a ship would've had its own purser.
My problem lies entirely with the naming conventions. Financial Management Detachment is some lame ass tryhard shit, just embrace the corporateness of it all and call it a department or something.
>b***h and moan about "corporatisation"
>wants to drop "Detachment" and make it "Department"
Good luck solving the homeless veteran problem with fewer accountants, dipshit.
Letting corporate culture seep in is a mistake. This is true of far more than just the army
I'm not the anon that was b***hing about corporate culture ruining everything, I'm just b***hing about them giving the clerical/support workers cool names to make them feel better about being pencil pushers.
Nobody in those detachments care about being called pencil pushers. They don’t feel the need to be called the 121st Finance Warriors Regiment and being assigned the heritage of a unit that fought at Hurtgen Forest. You’re the only person cares because you think a military unit needs to sound badass
t. neverserved
admin already hates their jobs don't shit on them cause for some stupid reason you think naming a division after what they do is cringe
I'm saying almost the exact opposite of what you think I'm saying. I think the current names are way too badass.
No one cares about being named "detachment" or "department", anon.
uhuh yeah
we don't need no steenkin logistics, just make them all infantrymen and send them to the front line
I care, the US Department of Defense should cater entirely and exclusively to my wishes.
I don't think your actions are inline with our values here at /k/, anon. I'm assigning you some trainings to reacquaint you with best practice for your position. Please reach out to Cassandra once you finish them. We'll talk again after that.
Naming still pertains to unit size.
>naming a unit as what they do is stupid
What else should you name a detachment in that manages the finances of a division?
The Echelon-above-Brigade Warfighter Support and Sustainment (Paymaster) Platoon.
department is more corporate than detachment, I've literally never heard an entity called a detachment outside of the military.
>i don’t like the name
Department doesn't mean the same thing in the military as it does in the corporate world, while detachment is exactly what you call an administrative or support unit that's smaller than a platoon.
>it's cringe to have 200 people in admin managing the accounts and payroll of a 25,000-man division
You are a fool.
see
see
The military is already having issues keeping up to date with pay, paperwork, and scandals and your dumbass would make that problem worse
The concept of "accounting" and "pay distribution" has existed for millenia, in a broad sense. Pre-WW, HR was called "Personnel"
What do they do in a conflict? Do they trade shitcoins? Are linkmarines hodling the line? Stacking sats and farming yields for the boys at the front? No wonder we have so many homeless veterans.
As an accountant, an actual honest to god Accounts Receivable platoon is fricking hilarious. I can't even imagine the level of autism that would ensue...
If anyone needs a platoon it's AR. I have seen an AR "rifle squad" already, 7 or 8 fellas sat in a row calling up customers all day e'er day with a "squad leader" in overall command. All it needs is for a really big and really centralised multinational to make a platoon-sized version.
>I can't imagine what the Accounts Receivable Heavy Weapons Squad would be like.
>Accounts Receivable Heavy Weapons Squad
>Its just 8 of the worst public firm burnouts with a kilo of Adderall
>tell them the enemy is net 60 and entering liquidation and all allowances need to be redone before unleashing them into the trench
They'd make incredible shock troops
>I can't imagine what the Accounts Receivable Heavy Weapons Squad would be like.
This is what they use for a call center.
"field feeding company" symbol is a pacman... lmao.
>Human Resources Company
>Payroll Battalion
>Accounts Company composed of Accounts Receivable and Accounts Payable Platoons
None of this stuff is new, its just the org chart has been changed. All they've done is move some of the administrative drones from the Headquarters and Headquarters Battalion to the Divisional Special Troops.
Former 42A here
I wanted to die every day.
>Field Feeding Company
>symbol is Pac-Man
dudes are out here getting paid to shitpost in TOEs
It's Patreoned.
It means they dont split up armored units and put 60 ton tanks on infantry duty
MPFs arent light tanks either
In US doctrine, light tanks are attached to armored units
The MPF is an assault gun, similar to how seperate tank battalions were used in WW2 or how M60 pattons were in the 80s
why are there a bunch of grunts in this tread seething over what POG divisions are called
I am a corporate office worker seething at seething at the horsehockey I loathe leaking into the wider world.
it sucks but an organization as large as the military needs those roles filled otherwise it'll end up like Russia's sad excuse for an army. It's preferable for those roles to be filled by people in the same Chain than outsourcing it to some contracting civies who live and breath corpo culture
a soviet tank company from WW2 had only 3 non-combat positions, a clerk and 2 mechanics
the idea being that a tank company can leave sustainment to battalion or division level sustainment
because its more efficient to pull an entire unit out of combat and send it to the rear and replace it with a fresh one and then so on than it is to slow down the advance by saddling admin and sustainment to each unit
by comparison a US army tank company had its own mess, admin, and maintenance platoon
with 2 clerks, 2 cooks, 2 cooks assistants, a supply SGTs, and a whole lot more
this means each unit is slower and needs more men for the same effect, but it can last a lot longer in the field and needs less babysitting by divisional commanders
and i would take being in the US army with its HR and financial divisions over the russian/Soviet army any day
So the Soviets were morons as usual.
it comes down to doctrine
western allies were playing HOI4, commanders are more managers and delegating actual combat maneuvers to their respective units
soviets were playing command and conquer, they wanted small, fast units with high response times so they could micromanage the battle
the leaner structure, smaller unit sizes, and greater emphasis on carrying out missions as fast as possible made for an army that was much easier to control at the operational and strategic levels
while the fatter, more self-sufficient, western allied units were slower to respond, slower to move, but could be counted on to take the initiative, could give and take far more damage, and could go without divisional support longer
Which is bullshit anyways because the supposedly fat western armies have performed vaslty more complex operations on timescales not even imagineable to Soviet style armies.
So the Americans pull out their equivalent of T62s and attach them to Infantry Brigades?
Hmm
>russhit still hasn't learned the lessons of optics and networking
Good.
>So the Americans pull out their equivalent of T62s and attach them to Infantry Brigades?
its a continuation of the cold war era infantry regiment tank battalion
in the 1950s, they were M4 sherman battalions attached directly to infantry regiments for the intent of providing organic armor support to light units
the MPF is nothing like a T-62s, since its a new design designed specifically for infantry support
its intended to have as much commonality with the M1A2 so that mech crews will have less difficulty training on it
the US is physically incapable of dragging out 2000 M60A3 pattons to embed in infantry divisions as all of them have been sold off to israel and turkey
nor would they want to, as the effort needed to bring a 40-year old tank into service is about as much as just making a new tank
Why don't you google what MPF is and get back to us?
Mobile protected Firepower
So basically whats Russia doing with the T62
Duh
Maybe the US even will use them for indirect fire huh
Oh yeah sure.
In the same way a Mosin Nagant is about the same thing as an AK-47.
After all they're both standard infantry rifles.
>
It's an extra battalion's worth of light tanks. That's a significant boost in firepower any way you slice it, and obviously opens up additional capabilities at the brigade level. I think it provides a needed capability organic to the light divisions such that they can compliment the heavier armored divisions.
They had them since WW2
They were originally called seperate tank battalions and were attached to infantry divisions as needed
After WW2, infantry regiments were assigned an organic tank battalion based on experiences with the STB
And this continued throughout the cold war, with M4s being replaced by M48s and M60s
It only stopped being a thing due to a move to small, stryker centric units, for the war on terror
Due to fighting bush wars on the other side of the world against insurgents
So after 80 years the US finally implemented Assault guns into infantry regiments to add mobile firepower
Genius
Its ok, the Russians had the same Idea and didnt have to blow billions into the MIC calm down
>So after 80 years the US finally implemented Assault guns into infantry regiments to add mobile firepower
see:
they have had infantry-level tanks for 80 years, with assault gun platoons organic to the tank battalion
the MPF is just a decision to make a specialized vehicle for it built to the needs of the infantry instead of just pressing an existing tank into the role
unlike the russians, they just dont have a thousand older tanks lying around to use for this purpose, so they built a new vehicle
but its more efficient as the new tank uses the 105mm round in wide service with lots of commonality with existing and legacy systems
and is built from the ground up to be familiar to anyone who crewed an M1A2, making it easier to operate and maintain
a T-62 still requires comprehensive upgrades to be useful on the modern battlefield, so it doesnt save nearly as much money as a new tank
and it has essentially nothing in common with T-72s and T-90s and has a unique 115mm gun that doesnt share ammo with any other vehicle
Holy shit you're ignorant.