New U.S. Divisional Structure

The 1st Cav division is scheduled to transition to the "penetration" division this year.
Some key changes for the division:
>ABCT returns to two mechanized companies, two armored companies
>shitload of scouts, should also consist of two Abrams platoons, two brad platoons
>ERCA and ground drones planned
>Organic SHORAD
Assuming that the listed changes do actually happen that puts this formation over 300 Abrams and almost 500 brads (including M2, M3 and M7 variants attached to the fires battalions and including vehicles assigned to HQs)

>https://twitter.com/ronkainen7k15/status/1474342237740085248?lang=en
he also links the original TRADOC video but it's just buzzwords and dogshit I wouldn't waste your time there
>https://www.battleorder.org/post/waypoint-divisions
Thoughts on the new formations? good, bad? I think the penetration div is the best out of the 5

  1. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Finally a good fucking thread. Holy fuck, holy shit, mother of god, jesus christ it has been a while.

    >IT EVEN HAS SOURCES WITH MORE INFORMATION
    I'M FUCKING CUMMING

    I'm curious about the Light Division personally. Like, it sounds like an IBCT, kinda, but interestingly it has the "MPF", which I haven't heard of previously but actually looks like something out of the cold war. Gives me really hard Stryker MGS or French "not a tank tank" vibes. It'll only weigh about 30 tons, which is honestly downright reasonable. It'll be used in a battalion attached to the division, which is also apparently new.

    I'm interested to see how that turns out. I'm assuming the "Field Artillery Battalion" mentioned in the chart (which I can't post for some reason) is towed artillery? I'm not 100% sure on NATO unit markings but it looks like it has a wheeled symbol but isn't a M109.

    M-SHORAD being placed even in light divisions is an interesting choice as well, obvious in hindsight but neat to see actually chosen. I was aware of the program, but does this mean that they'll be pumping enough of them out to export as well?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I think the artillery is self-propelled because they're labeled as 155SP.

      https://i.imgur.com/syV67ai.png

      The 1st Cav division is scheduled to transition to the "penetration" division this year.
      Some key changes for the division:
      >ABCT returns to two mechanized companies, two armored companies
      >shitload of scouts, should also consist of two Abrams platoons, two brad platoons
      >ERCA and ground drones planned
      >Organic SHORAD
      Assuming that the listed changes do actually happen that puts this formation over 300 Abrams and almost 500 brads (including M2, M3 and M7 variants attached to the fires battalions and including vehicles assigned to HQs)

      >https://twitter.com/ronkainen7k15/status/1474342237740085248?lang=en
      he also links the original TRADOC video but it's just buzzwords and dogshit I wouldn't waste your time there
      >https://www.battleorder.org/post/waypoint-divisions
      Thoughts on the new formations? good, bad? I think the penetration div is the best out of the 5

      Why so much less artillery than Russian divisions? I figure they have less AA because US counts on air superiority.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Why so much less artillery than Russian divisions?
        because american gear hits what it's aiming at

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Besides, Ukrainians are clearly going to be NATO's artillery.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Combat aviation is attached directly. Americans love air powered. Between the 30 or so apaches and the additional MLRS attached as needed it's not as big of a firepower difference as it seems

      • 3 weeks ago
        sage

        >this entire formation got wiped out
        jfc russia

        anyway the US tends to loan support elements around rather than keeping them under a specific division. This works out well for utilizing the large reserve units, i.e. if 1st cav deployed and needed more artillery, they could just attach a few companies of artillerymen from the Nebraska national guard or something

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        winged artillery

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        More artillery is going to be held at the corps level and parceled down to the subordinate divisions as needed or held for overall support to the wider scheme of maneuver.

        The whole Waypoint 2028 concept is about re-consolidating away from the totally independent BCT model and reforming the division as a unit of maneuver. Basically, with the GWOT over, the US military is turning back to LSCO and the Army doesn't think the brigades have enough juice to perform operations on their own.

        https://i.imgur.com/sujTR9m.jpg

        Finally a good fucking thread. Holy fuck, holy shit, mother of god, jesus christ it has been a while.

        >IT EVEN HAS SOURCES WITH MORE INFORMATION
        I'M FUCKING CUMMING

        I'm curious about the Light Division personally. Like, it sounds like an IBCT, kinda, but interestingly it has the "MPF", which I haven't heard of previously but actually looks like something out of the cold war. Gives me really hard Stryker MGS or French "not a tank tank" vibes. It'll only weigh about 30 tons, which is honestly downright reasonable. It'll be used in a battalion attached to the division, which is also apparently new.

        I'm interested to see how that turns out. I'm assuming the "Field Artillery Battalion" mentioned in the chart (which I can't post for some reason) is towed artillery? I'm not 100% sure on NATO unit markings but it looks like it has a wheeled symbol but isn't a M109.

        M-SHORAD being placed even in light divisions is an interesting choice as well, obvious in hindsight but neat to see actually chosen. I was aware of the program, but does this mean that they'll be pumping enough of them out to export as well?

        The oval means mechanized. Three battalions of M109 Paladins and one battalion of M1299 ECRA.

        >big stryker MGS vibes
        Yes, it's a direct replacement for that in the Stryker brigades and is being added to the infantry brigades to provide direct fire against emplacements. It's primary load out is HESH with a few HEAT and APFSDS in case it runs into something heavy.

        It weighs 42 tons btw.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >More artillery is going to be held at the corps level
          To add onto this: That "more artillery" is another entire artillery brigade. In the case of the 1st Cav, that would be the 75th FAB assigned to III Corps. Contains 4 battalions of M270 MLRS and a battalion of M142 HIMARS and then the associated supply units.

          • 3 weeks ago
            RC-135 Rivet Joint

            4 Battalions of MLRS?

            with PrSM?

            nobody would step to us... you literally could not have static ANY THING

            wow

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Duh
              This corps is intended to be literally the strongest land combat formation on the planet.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >Louis Wain
              I know this guy, he drew cute cat pictures until he developed mental illness, then he drew really intricate cat demons until he died.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Because americans rely on precision than numbers to hit their targets. Russian artillery are insanely inaccurate, so they need numbers to make up for it.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Why so much less artillery than Russian divisions?
        Some of the supporting arms (such as MLRS and CH-47s) are being moved to corps-level; in this case, it would be III Corps, which is in charge of both Penetration Divisions (1CAV and 1AD). Also, US artillery doctrine is very different from Russian artillery doctrine, which focuses much more on large pre-planned fires than on precise on-call fires.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          What does being a corps-level asset entail?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            TLDR allocated by the Corps Commander to the divisions in the Corps, and not kept by the Division Commander for himself
            this is important in the formulation of operations plans

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Why so much less artillery than Russian divisions?
        >you see John, from Omaha oblast, if you abandon infantry and trucks and mechanics you can have much more artillery tubes with the same amount of personnel, more artillery=more firepower, this why NATO fears Russian BTG. Smart.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >why less artillery?
        Because western artillery emphasizes precision over volume of fire. Also, if you look closely, it’s not really that much less artillery, it’s just organized differently.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Why so much less artillery than Russian divisions?
        It's possible more artillery will be on the Corps level and above, used or deployed into divisions by the Operational Fires Command that exists there. Modern C3 enables even those Corps or Army level fires to the used by frontline troops if needed.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >All these tards talking about muh precision
        The real answer is the US isn't an artillery army, they focus more on airpower both for breaking hard points(acting as sky artillery) and for interdicting and counting enemy artillery and ground forces. This is why the US airforce is easily several factors greater in size than the nearest peer.

        As for why this is the case, the US is effectively a continental island so it has to bring everything to the fight thousands to tens of thousands of miles away. This means big navy and airpower are best strat.

        Artillery is heavy needs to be in large numbers to be particularly useful as a backbone of your force. It is also difficult and unreasonable to keep and get to where you need it in large numbers unless you basically already live on or near your future battlefield.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >best out of the 5
      it's not really the "best", it's simply the heaviest with the most raw combat power

      >Thoughts on the new formations
      if you look at the CONOPS they make a lot of sense

      you're easily satisfied
      anyway we went through all this a while back
      >SOURCES
      meh
      youtuber bait
      >"MPF", which I haven't heard of previously
      where the fuck have you been lmao
      the contract has already been awarded, you're that late
      it's the tracked replacement for Stryker MGS, basically M8 AGS reborn

      https://i.imgur.com/RlohvJT.png

      I think the artillery is self-propelled because they're labeled as 155SP.

      [...]
      Why so much less artillery than Russian divisions? I figure they have less AA because US counts on air superiority.

      >Why so much less artillery
      they'll have at least a regiment of MLRS attached in direct support

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >where the fuck have you been lmao
        >the contract has already been awarded, you're that late
        >it's the tracked replacement for Stryker MGS, basically M8 AGS reborn
        OK that's fucking sick. I was sad about MGS being retired and was worried that there wasn't a replacement for it. Like you have TOWs which are great for vehicles, and tanks which work with everything, but the mid-ground of infantry support gun crossed with anti-vehicle went with the MGS.

        And the MGS just looked so fucking cool.

        As for why I didn't know, honestly I have this annoying habit of mentally tuning out whenever military procurement stuff comes up. Like I've seen stuff about M-SHORAD on my twitter feed but any time anyone starts quoting articles about it the language makes my mind go blank. Seeing it all in a fairly well written article with some division charts actually helps me think of it as real.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          alright if you're that far behind then you probably haven't heard of Stryker Guardian either. yep, lasers have entered the chat

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Oh I think I've heard about that one, they've already mounted it to a Stryker and deployed it? Fuck me.

            I'd heard about HELLADS and that Israeli project whatever it was called, but that's news to me. Cool. Cheap anti-UAV capability, finally.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              First platoon delivered last year
              solid state laser in the 50 kilowatt range
              >Cheap anti-UAV capability
              officially it is a "Multi-Mission" laser, said to have some C-RAM capability, but yes it's best used against drones currently
              they're working on ramping the power up; in 2 or 3 years lasers ought to be powerful enough to shoot down helicopters

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >First platoon delivered last year
                >solid state laser in the 50 kilowatt range
                anti-UAV capability
                >officially it is a "Multi-Mission" laser, said to have some C-RAM capability, but yes it's best used against drones currently
                >they're working on ramping the power up; in 2 or 3 years lasers ought to be powerful enough to shoot down helicopters

                Thats going to be a fucking game changer. What happens to US doctrine when CAS is no longer viable 85% of the time?

                >inb4 lol mirror armor
                >inb4 fog

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >What happens to US doctrine when CAS is no longer viable 85% of the time?
                HIMARS spam

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >HIMARS spam
                Right, but in 15-20 years what happens when HIMARS span is no longer reliable due to widespread laser deployment? A 150kw laser system with AI-assisted targeting software would be a tough nut to crack. Not 100% reliable all the time but damn near.

                What does a real life laser battlefield look like?
                >inb4 nothing because you're blind

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >A 150kw laser system with AI-assisted targeting software would be a tough nut to crack.
                Alright clancy nerd cool it with the bright star/tea clipper talk from cardinal of the kremlin, that shit aint real

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >that shit aint real yet
                Fixed that for you

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                so you're proving its a real thing by posting a CGI image

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Russia deploying lasers
                Russia probably wont even exist then

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Laser spam won't be a thing in 15-20 years. The only state that will actually deploy lasers in the next 30 is going to be the USA and whoever if they (which I actually doubt) will sell to.

                Laser technology is only a thing because the US spent like it's entire R&D budget for 10 years from 2000-2010. No one else is close to actually having production models out. I do not think we will sell it for at least the first 20 years we have it like the Apache and F-22.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                So if the US has a monopoly on laser systems, wouldn't that give us an even greater advantage than we already have over everyone? There's talks of 150-300 kw systems on destroyers and ground installations. There are systems being developed for attack helicopters and fighter jets. Shit's fucking wild.

                >pic related, US air cav, 2072, colorized

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >only country fielding lasers in next 30
                years will be US
                Unlikely, given that there are already usable alternatives, granted in the 20 kW range.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                overwhelm the system like MIRVs

              • 3 weeks ago
                OP

                https://i.imgur.com/rvqMspA.jpg

                >HIMARS spam
                Right, but in 15-20 years what happens when HIMARS span is no longer reliable due to widespread laser deployment? A 150kw laser system with AI-assisted targeting software would be a tough nut to crack. Not 100% reliable all the time but damn near.

                What does a real life laser battlefield look like?
                >inb4 nothing because you're blind

                overwhelm the system like MIRVs

                you should in no way assume that I know what time talking about here since this is just in the realm of theory but you could potentially see something similar to pic related scaled down. Essentially missiles acting like MIRV's kinda and carrying smaller drones or micro missiles (or whatever buzzword) to overwhelm laser based defense. There is obviously a trade off, reduction in lethality due to miniaturized payload in order to fit more, and increased cost and complexity.
                I would still think that HIMARs spam wouldn't lose effectiveness as badly just due to that fact that lasers have a very short range comparatively, and fielding the number of systems required to fully cover all your assets and troops along say a 1000km line would be prohibitively expensive depending on how much you want MLRS spam reduced in effectiveness. There was an interesting article I read a while back on Russian IAD performance so far and one of the issues covered was how big the frontline was and the lack of systems in place to adequately defend approaches, which inevitably leads to shit getting through. I'll post if I find it

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                a bomb casing loaded with 70mm rockets

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                overwhelm the system like MIRVs

                Those are interesting. I agree with long post anon, a system like that could work but would be expensive and complicated, with lower payload bomblets/drones.

                so you're proving its a real thing by posting a CGI image

                >Russia deploying lasers
                Russia probably wont even exist then

                Anons, I'm specifically talking about what the US laser capability may look like in abiut 25 years once this tech gets fielded, tested, and improved. Integrated laser point defence that removes drones, mortars, missiles, and aircraft from the equation 85% of the time would be a big deal, and thats a capability the military is actively pursuing.

                https://i.imgur.com/syV67ai.png

                The 1st Cav division is scheduled to transition to the "penetration" division this year.
                Some key changes for the division:
                >ABCT returns to two mechanized companies, two armored companies
                >shitload of scouts, should also consist of two Abrams platoons, two brad platoons
                >ERCA and ground drones planned
                >Organic SHORAD
                Assuming that the listed changes do actually happen that puts this formation over 300 Abrams and almost 500 brads (including M2, M3 and M7 variants attached to the fires battalions and including vehicles assigned to HQs)

                >https://twitter.com/ronkainen7k15/status/1474342237740085248?lang=en
                he also links the original TRADOC video but it's just buzzwords and dogshit I wouldn't waste your time there
                >https://www.battleorder.org/post/waypoint-divisions
                Thoughts on the new formations? good, bad? I think the penetration div is the best out of the 5

                Not trying to derail your thread OP

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >a system like that could work but would be expensive and complicated, with lower payload bomblets/drones
                says you

                so you're proving its a real thing by posting a CGI image

                >CGI image
                see

                https://i.imgur.com/MeElx2U.jpg

                Bruh we gonna see some Mexican kid cook a burrito with this thing on tik tok in 2 years

                , shit for brains

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                the one accused of being a cgi image was a cgi image though

                and let me remind EVERYONE that strykers are a shit and anything on a stryker platform is not to be trusted

                what does it mean for a unit to be 'organic'? It seems like every ABCT should have SHORAD attached to it instead of just the division

                no GMOs or chemical pesticides used in the unit
                a SHORAD battalion for a division is fine imo, splits up into different firing batteries for each ABCT and you'd probably have some overlap, but I suppose that depends on how heavy the incoming threat is. One firing platoon seems like enough per line company honestly.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >strykers are a shit
                you are an ignorant moron

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I'm army so yeah, little bit. I also know how many problems Strykers have

                the Mowag Piranha/LAV family and equivilent 8x8 all work for everyone else using them, if they're not working for the USA does that mean the problem is with it or with the user?

                I dont give a shit about other countries, every country that isn't America can suck my mediocre dick

                [...]
                [...]

                I am not claiming it's real yet, or denying I posted a CGI image. I'm wondering what the army structure will look like in the future when lasers (and other networked defence systems) are dispersed enough to make give the US air superiority down to the mortar/drone level.

                give ADA units lasers and they will still be gays, because ADA is where hope goes to die

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >give ADA units lasers and they will still be gays, because ADA is where hope goes to die
                I'm a neverserved so I dont know what you mean. Greentext?

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I would guess that ADA has a low priority and so the personnel that get assigned are less than stellar

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                air defense arillery (DA) units are trash because they rarely get to practice their trade, and have bottom of the barrel officers, and deeply shitty NCOs for the most part.

                Stryker problems overwhelmingly come from NCOs saying, "Nah- only Motorpool till lunch, then back to training. You're a ____, not an 88m." If I had a nickel for every time a saw a new driver per Stryker every couple of weeks to, "keep rotating to the newest guy." I'd be rich. Brainless leadership not realizing that if you're drivers are so new they can't identify problems or overlap duties and knowledge with mechanics then they'll never actually work. 6 weeks in garrison isn't enough time to feel when it starts driving wonky or sounds wrong.
                People somehow wonder why Strykers are known for being shit, but also great at rolling over. Two big problems with the same issue, like too much shit in the army: poor leadership.

                I wasnt even referring to rollovers actually, that is often a command issue rather than a vehicle or even driver issue

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >air defense arillery (DA) units are trash because they rarely get to practice their trade, and have bottom of the barrel officers, and deeply shitty NCOs
                >and this will always ever be the case always always
                infantry, from Latin īnfāns (“child”)

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Infantry also has a lot of problems, but I would still rather be infantry than ADA. I actually enjoyed my time with big red one and that unit isn't even one of the better infantry divisions imo. Hell, I would rather be in 3rd Bde, 4ID than in any ADA unit.

                >because they rarely get to practice their trade
                There's no way the US does not have a massive fleet of target drones, right?

                They don't need to. Most of our domain over the air comes from having the best air force in the world, and second best via the navy. Patriots do actually work (here's a video from one of the attacks at Al Dhafra almost a year ago). The unit that shot down the incoming ballistic missiles was dogshit, their replacement unit was much more competent. I spent some time picking one of their NCOs brains about it all; you can basically automate the system but there's some nuance to it. Competent ADA operators get burnt out and leave the army because the ADA commands are so toxic.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >They don't need to.
                No wonder people hate the work if they're not even allowed to maintain competence.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Some of them are really passionate about the job, it really just boils down to having the shittiest officers imaginable. They dont need actual target drones to shoot down, they practice in sims plenty

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >bitch moan gripe
                yes it's true US ADA is the worse than every other country in the world

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                What? We're not allowed to point out the organizational problems of an institution? Have to recognize problems in order to fix them. The missile systems themselves work quite well, and unlike Russian ADA, US ADA doesn't shoot down a shitload of it's own planes

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                You're just bitching and moaning pointlessly because American ADA is still far superior to most of the planet if not all, and as threats shape up they will be whipped into form; that's never really been a problem for the Army. Yes, your whining and griping is annoying, because it detracts from bigger problems.

                The biggest problem the US Army has is wastage. It can be lots more efficient, use less resources, and slim down its budget, or do more with what it has.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >and as threats shape up they will be whipped into form;
                Which is synonymous to it not being far superior right now. The core problem with American ADA is that it's been neglected and treated as unnecessary, Stingers even got taken out of units for a good while.
                It's only with the new systems that the US has actually gotten back on track, but those need combat proofing.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Which is synonymous to it not being far superior right now
                no, it's synonymous with it not conforming to a perfect ideal in your mind

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >You're just bitching and moaning pointlessly because American ADA is still far superior to most of the planet if not all
                Never said it wasn't
                >The biggest problem the US Army has is wastage. It can be lots more efficient, use less resources, and slim down its budget, or do more with what it has.
                Biggest problems the US army have are long term planning, unit culture, and housing

                yeah but a war with china would be fought by the navy and the Air Force, not army divisions.

                still need troops to take and hold ground

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >because they rarely get to practice their trade
                There's no way the US does not have a massive fleet of target drones, right?

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Stryker problems overwhelmingly come from NCOs saying, "Nah- only Motorpool till lunch, then back to training. You're a ____, not an 88m." If I had a nickel for every time a saw a new driver per Stryker every couple of weeks to, "keep rotating to the newest guy." I'd be rich. Brainless leadership not realizing that if you're drivers are so new they can't identify problems or overlap duties and knowledge with mechanics then they'll never actually work. 6 weeks in garrison isn't enough time to feel when it starts driving wonky or sounds wrong.
                People somehow wonder why Strykers are known for being shit, but also great at rolling over. Two big problems with the same issue, like too much shit in the army: poor leadership.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                have rollovers been a problem for other Piranhas/LAVs?

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                the Mowag Piranha/LAV family and equivilent 8x8 all work for everyone else using them, if they're not working for the USA does that mean the problem is with it or with the user?

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                the Stryker A1 is very far removed from the Piranha by now

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >a system like that could work but would be expensive and complicated, with lower payload bomblets/drones
                says you

                [...]
                >CGI image
                see [...], shit for brains

                so you're proving its a real thing by posting a CGI image

                I am not claiming it's real yet, or denying I posted a CGI image. I'm wondering what the army structure will look like in the future when lasers (and other networked defence systems) are dispersed enough to make give the US air superiority down to the mortar/drone level.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                ATACMS Block II with BAT makes it's debut 30 years laters.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                The US is trying very hard to stack the deck on DE systems. The goal is to be top of the heap and to make it very hard for anyone else to develop or manufacture (especially at scale) this kind of crap. It’s also definitely not the thing any old cunt could build
                Read directed energy futures 2060. It includes bonus chairforce fanfic about space war and hypersonic missiles assasinating the president

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >it's the tracked replacement for Stryker MGS, basically M8 AGS reborn
        Why do people keep repeating this?
        Stryker MGS was in the SBCT formations,
        MPF is for IBCT formations though held at a divisional level and parceled out as the need requires.
        Stryker MGS does not have a direct replacement though Stryker Dragoon and Stryker with J-CROWS are filling its roles.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          alright fine, that's a pedantry I can get behind

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      also, you may not have noticed that one of those artillery companies will field the M1299 self-propelled howitzer; it can fire rocket assisted shells up to 70km, base bleed shells up to 40km, and the shells have an optional GPS bolt on kit for added accuracy

  2. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Robot Combat Vehicle Company
    The future is now old man.

  3. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    i like it. seems efficient and effective.

  4. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Interesting. We are moving artillery back to the individual brigades. Engineers stay integrated too.

  5. 3 weeks ago
    RC-135 Rivet Joint

    Long gun

  6. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Needs more SHORAD tbh but it looks like a big ol swinging dick of a hammer about to fuck shit up

    • 3 weeks ago
      RC-135 Rivet Joint

      I've always felt that If a oh shit we need SHORAD situation happens it's gonna be "minimal viable product" launcher for AIM-120s/Aim-9s slapped on anything that can keep up with infantry.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        The counter to group 1-2 drones is shaping up to be a combo of EW/radars and radar guided CROWS on everything and lasers on dedicated vehicles.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          The big IFPC is also exactly what you said, ground launched Aim-9Xs from the Multi Mission Launcher

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >"US can't into AA, it relies too much on the Air Force!"
            >builds world's best IADS with frickin laser beams within a decade of the Pacific Pivot
            US OP, God nerf plz

  7. 3 weeks ago
    RC-135 Rivet Joint

    Bruh we gonna see some Mexican kid cook a burrito with this thing on tik tok in 2 years

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      https://i.imgur.com/CqzzG33.jpg

      alright if you're that far behind then you probably haven't heard of Stryker Guardian either. yep, lasers have entered the chat

      live combat Laser turret is a Disco ball

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      How strong is the laser on this thing anyway? I'm sure it can take out commercial drones and small mortar shells with ease, but about larger Iranian and Chinese drones?

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >larger Iranian and Chinese drones?
        MALE UAVs would be out of range for the time being, but in the next couple of years they're working on ramping up the effective range of laser ADA into the "tens of kilometres" range ie refer Layer 5 of

        https://i.imgur.com/WCjQnLP.jpg

        The big IFPC is also exactly what you said, ground launched Aim-9Xs from the Multi Mission Launcher

  8. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Does this mean the 1st ID will be tip of the spear for big Army operations?

  9. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Does anyone know what robot combat vehicles companies look like? Also interested in what our current anti drone capabilities look like.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      OP here. So those ones are pretty much an unknown as far as organization. We do know that they have been testing a light, medium and heavy version of these ground combat drones, I believe the medium was shelved and they were focusing on light and heavy only.
      >https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF11876
      this is a pretty good resource on what they want the drones to do specifically in regards to weight class/weaponry and armor. IMO it's weird they would prefer not to loose the RCV-H and want it as survivable as crewed systems, the whole point of drones is to literally be expendable to me but eh.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >IMO it's weird they would prefer not to loose the RCV-H and want it as survivable as crewed systems, the whole point of drones is to literally be expendable to me but eh.
        Honestly I think it's half that, half wanting what are effectively unmanned tanks. I could see them using the light RCVs as bait or probing forces, then rolling in with a few Abrams plus like half of their RCV-Hs. Less risk to soldiers, less manpower requirements, infinitely more firepower.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          entirely possible. I know they're still developing the concept for it, another thing too is that these companies are also expected to form a protective flank, imagine trying to flank an ABCT and running into combat drones that can eat your LRPs and still don't mean as much if they are eventually destroyed. Buys time for the ABCT to reorient and counter plus also inflicts higher losses and forces them enemy to expend greater resources on eliminating what is just "a drone". Interesting shit

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF11876

      Army's going to be competing and then awarding a contract for the production RCV-L this year.

      Project Origin has been working with surrogate RCV-Ls for the past few years in testing and force-on-force, working out the doctrine and requirements they want. Pic related is the RCV surrogate under Project Origin, which is similar to the size and capabilites of whatever the final RCV-L program will produce.

      https://www.dvidshub.net/news/407426/historic-first-robot-joins-jrtc-rotation
      https://www.army.mil/article/254558/army_special_operations_forces_use_project_origin_systems_in_latest_soldier_experiment

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Looks like in field testing it was received rather well by the utilizing forces. Curious as to how it will combat more difficult terrain environments. Also the ability to have a mobile platform to have a good anti armor and vehicle capabilities with a great optical package is pretty nice.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Arma 3 is looking more and more accurate every day.

  10. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Wait this has nothing to do with Ukraine...
    JANNIES HELP ME WE ARE BEING RAIDED BY EFFORT POSTERS

  11. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >ABCT returns to two mechanized companies, two armored companies
    >brigade consistin of just FOUR companies
    do americans really?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Three Combined arms battalions, retard
      That's twelve companies

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Lol I wrote that weird. Every brigade will have three combined arm battalions each with four companies. This was actually the pre-2016 "square" structure. Pic rel is the post 2016 "triangle" structure. I'm not exactly sure why they decided to do that but depending on what type of CAB it lost two mechanized companies, though cav scouts gained an armor company. Either way I think balanced CAB's are better

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >I'm not exactly sure why they decided to do that

        Rule of three. Currently, most don't control more than three people or manuever elements to streamline C&C. It facilities manuever warfare where one unit is base of fire (or fient at higher echelons) while the other closes. The third is held in reserve. When you have four or more, controls becomes more convoluted, and the doctrine leans towards mass concentration where you attack with two elements simultaneously and hold two in reserve to reinforce the attackers when they take significant casualties.

        >Three dudes in a fireteam
        >Three rifles squads in a platoon
        >Three rifle platoons in Company
        >Three rifle companies in a battalion
        >Three battalions in a brigade
        >Three manuever brigades in a Division
        >Three divisions in a Corps

        The current penetration division could easily be two divisions.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >3 maneuver brigades is enough to split into 2 separate divisions
          What? I know that's how some Europeans do things with their skeleton formations, but why would that even make sense here?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >hurr durr skeleton durr
            because controlling all those attachments and supporting arms isn't easy, moron

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Oh yea you're right. I thought the Cav Squadron was a Regiment or Brigade. Still we have a shit ton of support assets in the division.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >Still we have a shit ton of support assets in the division.
              and thus the "could easily be two divisions" remark

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I'm the guy who made the rule of three post. I was agreeing with the guy who disagreed with me first upon realizing that the Cav Sqdr is not a Brigade. I guess it could go either way. If you keep it as one division that CG will absolutely be overburdened with assets, but if you split it into two divisions then he won't have enough manuever elements unless strip some of the support assets.

                It's basically taking an entire Armored division then adding an entire division worth of support. I would like to see how long and how much money it takes for that entire division to mobilize.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >then adding an entire division worth of support
                The aviation and sustainment brigades were always a thing. The organic engineer brigade, which is unique to the penetration division, is needed for the division's mission of conducting a combined arms breach.

                The other one, the protection brigade, is being added to all of the divisions with Waypoint 2028. Basically, the Army thinks things are getting too deadly and countermeasures need to be pushed lower. The engineer battalion is added to build protective works in the rear area, the MPs to patrol and secure the rear, SHORAD so your units aren't getting raped by drones and helicopters, and CBRN because they have to be ready for Korea.

                While heavy, I don't think the structure is unmanageable. The protection brigades will probably be tasked by either the DCO or division staff. The commanding general will not be directly tasking these subordinate support brigades unless to make a point of special emphasis. They'll mostly be self-organizing affairs with implicit tasks in the same way the sustainment brigades are now.

                Also, you haven't even seen the beginnings of support. There's 8 brigades worth of enablers attached to III Corps and then there's the entirety of things like the Army's AMC or USTRANSCOM still out there.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >8 brigades worth of enablers attached to III Corps
                what're those? post em

                >Organic SHORAD
                what SHORAD does the US have? just dudes with Stingers?

                read the fucking thread, dipshit

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                he did post them retard

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >what're those? post em
                Open the picture in that post dummy lol

                >cavalry brigade (3rd CR)
                >field artillery brigade (MLRS and HIMARS)
                >engineer brigade
                >signals/communication brigade
                >military intelligence brigade
                >expeditionary sustainment brigade
                >medical brigade (4 field hospitals worth)
                >military police brigade

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                they'll farm out sub-units to the line brigades and taskforces

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          OP here again, that makes a lot of sense. Far as I know this 4 companies change only applies to the CABs so the other divisional formations battalions are probably still triangular. Suppose that they figure penetration divisions having the extra reserves and firepower on hand is worth the trade offs? Would make sense, I'd inherently expect this formation to do some serious fighting and potentially take more losses as a result.

  12. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    who are they conducting division sized engagements against?
    what happened to brigade and battlegroup deployments in low intensity deployments?
    its like they just look for justifications and excuses

    • 3 weeks ago
      RC-135 Rivet Joint

      we are not doing any low intensity stuff. another land war is coming I'd guess.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >we are not
        says who? the previous ones were all optional?

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          yes they were

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Spanking sandpeople because someone ordered planes to fly into skyscrapers was indeed optional and more of an optics thing. Something had to be done and sending the stormtroopers to Tatooine was not supposed to take 15 years, they just got stuck there.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I'm inclined to agree. I think that they started to draw up these plans when Russia invaded Ukraine, but before they realized Russia would shit the bed so badly. Russia's boldness opened the door and they are probably worried that war with China is on the table now. I don't really see us entering a war with anyone else honestly.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          yeah but a war with china would be fought by the navy and the Air Force, not army divisions.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Not very long ago it would have been said that a conventional war with Russia was unthinkable, yet here we are

            besides, a Corps-sized formation is also handy for fighting in the Middle East, Africa, or the Indian subcontinent

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >who are they conducting division sized engagements against?
      China and Russia primarily. North Korea and Iran secondarily. The city of the Hague thirdly.

      >what happened to brigade and battlegroup deployments in low intensity deployments?
      I don't know if you haven't seen a newspaper in a year, but those wars are over. For the remaining missions, you have the 5 (6 with an NG unit) Security Force Assistance Brigades which are designed to handle conventional FID missions. If more is needed, the maneuver brigades are still able to be split off and support those requirements.

      >its like they just look for justifications and excuses
      You don't need to look hard. The proliferation of ISR assets, the preeminence of fires, and the need to absorb losses is driving this. The USMC is also rebuilding themselves for the same reason with Force Design 2030. The USAF is building into the design with the B-21, F-35, and new UAV programs. Cyber Command and the USSF being stood up are both part of this as well. The US Navy, for it's part, is trying to dig it's way out of decades of retarded procurement while also integrating new weapons.

      You see all of this being very important in Ukraine right now as well. Conventional war is getting faster and without modernization the US military won't be prepared for it. Multi-Domain Operations is the largest military reform since AirLand Battle was introduced 50 years ago.

      TL;DR: The future is now. You can complain about the basic cost of the military, but the need to reform whatever we have is not really debatable.

  13. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    This is very interesting, and I'm excited to see how it will play out. Currently most US divisions have 3 line brigades, and it looks like 1st Cav is getting a 4th line brigade, seemingly before 1st Infantry gets a 3rd line brigade (it currently has 2).
    The move from DIVARTY is also a change I can get behind, as well as the addition of integral SHORAD. Will we start to see ADA units that aren't shitty as hell? Just kidding, we all know ADA will eternally be a hellhole.

  14. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    what does it mean for a unit to be 'organic'? It seems like every ABCT should have SHORAD attached to it instead of just the division

  15. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Organic SHORAD
    what SHORAD does the US have? just dudes with Stingers?

  16. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Pentomic divisional structure? I gotta go warn everyone about JFK.

  17. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Very interesting changes. Does it go along with a new basing concept or is that not known/classified at this time?

  18. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    incredible!

  19. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Why are we calling them brigades now like the brits? They look regimental in size.
    >brigades being commanded by colonels and not brigadier generals

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Brigades haven't been composed of multiple regiments for like over a century now. Instead, they more or less replaced the regiment as the formation between II and XX level.

      Why not just call them regiments, and be done with it? Well, the US cavalry branch does exactly that. For everybody else, the change took place because a line regiment was "pure", and a brigade generally had supporting units from different branches tacked on. For example, the brigades in OP's pic have a UGV company, an engineer BN, and a supply/repair BN attached to the line units. Thus, in the modern (US at least) nomenclature, it's more appropriate to call it a brigade, rather than a regiment.

      What confuses the situation is heritage and tradition; the US army, like most armies, likes to keep as many old unit names around as possible, for espirit de corps reasons. Most of those old unit names are from line regiments that existed decades before the modern brigade came into being. So, while the US doesn't use regiments (outside of cavalry) per se, each and every battalion has a "second name". So, for example, the 1st BN of the 1st BDE of the 1ID is also named "First Battalion, 16th Infantry Regiment (Iron Rangers)", despite there being no actual organized unit in the modern US Army named the "16th Infantry Regiment".

      You see something similar with the Brits, where many "regiments" with historical names are really just battalions, because that was the only way to keep all of the old unit names alive in a much smaller army. Or the Royal Marines merging with the Commando force after WWII.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Why are we calling them brigades now like the brits? They look regimental in size.

      Eh that's not really true. Back when we did use regiments they each had about ten companies organized into three battalions + HQ Company. In the US, we mostly use brigades now, but the few units that are still functional regiments are fucking huge. 2nd Cav Rgt, 3rd Cav Rgt, and 75th Ranger Rgt are all 5 or 6 battalions a piece which puts them firmly in Brigade territory.

      I've read that in the US a BG will occasionally command a Brigade, but I've never seen or heard of it.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      it perplexed me for a time but now I have it; because a "field brigade" for quite some time meant a combined-arms formation; while a regiment has never meant that; a regiment has always been composed of a single arm (infantry, cavalry, etc). thus it's more proper to call a formation comprising a few manoeuvre battalions plus supporting arms a "brigade"

      Brigades haven't been composed of multiple regiments for like over a century now. Instead, they more or less replaced the regiment as the formation between II and XX level.

      Why not just call them regiments, and be done with it? Well, the US cavalry branch does exactly that. For everybody else, the change took place because a line regiment was "pure", and a brigade generally had supporting units from different branches tacked on. For example, the brigades in OP's pic have a UGV company, an engineer BN, and a supply/repair BN attached to the line units. Thus, in the modern (US at least) nomenclature, it's more appropriate to call it a brigade, rather than a regiment.

      What confuses the situation is heritage and tradition; the US army, like most armies, likes to keep as many old unit names around as possible, for espirit de corps reasons. Most of those old unit names are from line regiments that existed decades before the modern brigade came into being. So, while the US doesn't use regiments (outside of cavalry) per se, each and every battalion has a "second name". So, for example, the 1st BN of the 1st BDE of the 1ID is also named "First Battalion, 16th Infantry Regiment (Iron Rangers)", despite there being no actual organized unit in the modern US Army named the "16th Infantry Regiment".

      You see something similar with the Brits, where many "regiments" with historical names are really just battalions, because that was the only way to keep all of the old unit names alive in a much smaller army. Or the Royal Marines merging with the Commando force after WWII.

      >You see something similar with the Brits, where many "regiments" with historical names are really just battalions
      A European regiment has always been an administrative formation, brigades (III) and battalions (II) the tactical units; it is the US which is unusual for once upon a time making regiments the tactical unit below a division (X)

      >that was the only way to keep all of the old unit names alive in a much smaller army
      heh, at this point the British Army could name every single one of its infantry companies after a regiment of some note

  20. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Is the armored cavalry tanks and bradleys too?

    • 3 weeks ago
      OP

      Supposedly yes, two platoons of Abrams and two Bradley. After the 2016 changes an ABCT had a cavalry squadron consisting of three troops and an attached tank company. Been awhile since I've read those manuals but if I'm not mistaken the cav troops in post 2016 ABCTs had 13 M3's each and the attached tank company was 14 M1s for around 42 brads and 14 abrams total including the brads assigned to HQ.

      This new structure would be 8 M3s and 8 M1s. If I make the assumption that every "armored cavalry troop" is the same structure then penetration divisions should be operating 48 brads and 48 abrams across the whole formation. Small increase is CFVs but massive increase in tanks.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *