Huge Changes to U.S. Army Infantry Brigades
Become a Patron to support us & get exclusive perks: / battleorder
Or Sign-Up as a KZhead Member: www.youtube.com/@BattleOrder/...
Check out our merch shop for new prints, apparel and other stuff!: battleorder.myshopify.com/
If you'd like to make a one-time donation to Battle Order: www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted...
Other Platforms
• Website: www.battleorder.org/
• 2nd Channel: / battleorder2
• Twitter: / battle_order
• Instagram: / battle.order
• Facebook: / battle.order
• Tiktok: / battle.order
Chapters:
0:00 - Context
0:35 - Cavalry Squadrons Inactivated
1:56 - Weapons Companies Reduced
6:27 - M10 Booker Allocation
7:17 - Robot Platoons
9:21 - 82nd Airborne Artillery & Logistics
10:23 - Engineer Battalions Inactivated
Sources:
1. web.archive.org/web/202403152...
2. • Col. Ryan Morgen | L&M...
3. White Paper "How the Army 2030 Divisions Fight" www.battleorder.org/post/wayp...
4. www.dvidshub.net/news/444580/...
5. FKSM 71-8 Armor/Cavalry Reference Data "Volume III: FXXI Armor Division"
6. Direct input from a member of 10th Mountain Division
7. ATP 3-21.20 "Infantry Battalion" (December 2017), Appendix D
8. MCoE Supplemental Manual 3-90 Force Structure Reference Data "Infantry Brigade Combat Team" (October 2016)
9. instagram.com/p/C3vh-20ut...
10. Sayen, John. (2001) “Battalion: An Organizational Study of the United States Infantry.” Working paper, Marine Corps Combat Development Command.
11. LTC Timothy Tray (2005) "The Army's Light Infantry Divisions: An Analysis of Advocacy and Opposition"
12. Pat Callahan. "NATO Order of Battle 1989"
13. The Lawton Constitution (1992) "2ND BATTALION, 180TH INFANTRY: The 529-person battalion will be deactivated Sept. 30."
14. FKSM 71-8 Armor/Cavalry Reference Data "Brigade Combat Teams" (November 2005)
15. Direct input from multiple infantrymen
16. Presentation on the MPF during the Maneuver Warfighter Conference 2022
17. Direct input from a 82nd Airborne field artillery officer
18. www.dvidshub.net/image/828647...
19. www.dvidshub.net/video/899789...
20. / pfbid0lsgikng9ztccq8ux...
21. www.fieldartillery.org/news/b...
22. Slide Deck: Talent Management Post-E30F, ENGINEER BRANCH
23. Direct input from 11th Airborne engineer officer
24. FM 3-34 "Engineer Operations" (December 2020)
25. • MG John Richardson | M...
Holy crap, just call it the "drone platoon". There needs to be an update to UCMJ for excessive use of buzzwords when naming things.
Just call it the Skynet Platoon.
Platoon, unmanned, reconnaissance, tracked. 🥴
They need buzzwordy names to get funding passed in Congress, and I wish that was a joke
They should pass an ABWP
@@Paveway-chan In that case, let's just call it the "Modular Unmanned Strategic and Tactical Battlefield Unit, Yankee" or the MUSTBUY. 😁😁
People can repeat "the Booker is an assault gun, not an anti tank platform" all they want, but those of us that have seen how the sausage is made know that commanders will throw them at enemy armor the first chance they get anyways.
You're right! It reminds me of "the M-113 is a battle taxi, not an assault vehicle"; having been in the infantry, that vehicle has always been used for direct fire support in infantry assault.
I agree with that notion. But I also believe the exact opposite will happen as well, as in commanders will absolutely refuse to use them at all.
Until they sustain heavy losses like what happened at the Second Battle of Fallujah. @@andrewwiggins9262
The 113 has been Used, badly as you note. Which one of the many reasons it should have been scrapped completely the day the Bradley came out. Or the day the Stryker came out.
Reminds me of the Stug commanders pleading that they were artillery when their infantry division major generals would demand their battalion counter-attack a Soviet Tank Corps
>robotic and autonomous >called RAS not RATS What a wasted opportunity. Can we petition the army to reconsider this naming proposal?
Robotic and autonomous terminators?
ARS, pronounced arse
Procures a new light mobile Airliftable Car Car is easily damaged Slap a metric ton of stuff on it Car no longer any of the above Procures a new light mobile Airliftable Car < you are here
It’s a never ending cycle of new cars
Cars 4 movie when
Can you put portholes on it? So people can shoot out of them?
WW1: First sight of tank WW2: first sight of a jet WW3: ROBOTS??
YEP! Sea, Land, Air
uh, are you a little behind on the Ukraine way? 😂
There were actually ground robots used in a few instances in ww2 iirc. They needed a teather and were remote controlled
@@david7384 Ukraine is FAR behind. US has used TV guided kamikaze drones in actual combat since WW2. Most of the drone tech Ukraine is using was used by the US in Vietnam, Desert Storm, OIF, OEF, etc.
And hopefully soon, the bible is fulfilled and i get to leave this sorry as. Excuse of a life/world
I’m currently an infantryman in a D co in the 82nd and this video is spot on with everything we’ve been hearing
Any news on what the antiarmor platoon will look like?
@@BattleOrderExactly what you said in video, they aren’t sure yet. It’s either gonna be similar to how it is already, or they might have some Javs, Carl Gs, ISVs and they might retain some ITASs (TOW). They are selecting the best from D co to go to that new AT platoon in HQ and everyone else is going to the line companies. I’ll try and remember to come back here once we get some more info.
@@Ace0486 Hope you are able to return with more info... Off topic: Will always have a special memory with the Weapons joes. I reported in to the Eighty Deuce 24 hours early because I was only a five-jump chump and righteous pay hurt. But Top and Battalion Senior NCOs took care of me. That very night I did my cherry blast with the Battalion Weapons Company. They with combat load, me Hollywood. It was fantastic! When I woke up the next morning, I felt truly Airborne for the first time.
Opsec, nerd
@@keithsimpson2150 you realize this crap is all public, right?
I have been in multiple meetings over this and your videos still explain this better than any army PowerPoint could.
Interesting. The infantry tank hunter sections remind me on the German Panzerfaust based infantry tactics in WW2. They were highly effective versus mechanized opponents.
And Ukraine tbh. Easier to hide a 2 man team than a HMMV
That’s exactly how I feel too, I 100% agree with the change to infantry with javelins and Gustavs over more bulky light armor. Example: Ukraine. Every single unit in Russia’s military is mechanized, including paratroopers, which becomes an obvious logistical nightmare.
Thats my thought. I think a meshing of the the tow-heavy and JAV-heavy ideas would be best. 2-4 TOWs for long range AT, 4-8 JAV launchers for closer-in Tank Hunting. These could be used in ambush positions, urban areas, or anywhere else you could not get a TOW-armed vehicle but can get a small 2-4 person team.
Jager teams are slo Making infantry into your main source of AT is a bad idea
@@off6848 yea because the added logistics of heavy vehicles makes way more sense right? Gas, ammo, operators, maintenance? Quick reaction infantry AT is fast and extremely effective. Source: Ukraine. Now imagine that with US training and funding.
Arma 3 getting closer
FRRRRR
How so?
Unmanned ground vehicles in active service, just like in Arma@@nobodyherepal3292
Except for Russia, where they're just... shit
@@RazorsharpLT The Russians in Arma is basically the same if not nearly the same anyway, just look at the contact dlc, they all got AK-12's used by some SF troops which now currently is still in use, and all the others shit nearly the same except their tanks and helicopters which IF they do manage to mass produce them then it'll be lore accurate. Plus CSAT is basically just China with a bunch of other puppet countries or some stan countries anyway
I feel like drones spotting for MK19s is a combo that troops should be practising more. Definitely a useful combo.
its what happening In Ukraine. and heavy machine guns for that matter.
Absolutely. Imagine mounting Mk19's/ Mk47's to HMMWV's, JLTV's, or even ULTV's and whatever the Army is using...damn near mobile light artillery.
@@cm-pr2ys The Marines still teach indirect fire with the heavy guns. I don't know why the army stopped. When I was an 0331 we learned how to adjust fire as a blind gunner. Now that I'm an 11B I noticed the army just doesn't do that.
Augmenting the TOW with a few Javelins as they are more portable would make more sense, replacing the M2 with new XM250 perhaps would make sense. Have less Mk19's for sure but augment them with some small drones for correcting fire in real time within the company. Without the Mk19 there is no way to engage without line of sight. Not sure about the Carl Gustav.
Ukraine had shown that ATGMs need to be used in complex to be effective. There the synergy was between NLAW(lightest and short ranged)/Javelin(mid range, still man portable)/Stuhna-P(massive 152mm duck off tube on a tripod for long range which doesn't require presence of operator near the launcher). Best combo available in the world right now is NLAW/Javelin/Spike. US doesn't operate 2 of those systems. Meaning that they don't have cheap short range system for when Javelin is an overkill and their long range relies on TOW-2+
As stated, there's still a need for a cheaper, short range missile. The Carl Gustaf can be used as fire support to deploy smoke, destroy light vehicles, and attack and damage emplacement such as those in buildings or making hole in the wall. Although, that's not necessarily the role of this unit. My understanding is that the army is looking to replace the TOW eventually with a next generation ATGM with F&F capabilities, longer range, and multiple attack modes. TOW 2B is a top attack variant, but is wire guidance with SACLOS. Would be nice if the humvee operator can just pop up on top of hill, fire, and then just fall back.
@@SparkHelium TOW 2 does have an RF version though, which should be roughly equivalent to beam-riding SACLOS ATGMs like Stugna (which is still very much effective) aside from the fine details
@@SparkHelium Anything F&F starts to get very expensive. I don't disagree though the TOW needs updating or replacing. Nothing wrong with Javelins but the range isn't the best but a TOW replacement with 10km range and better penetraiton would be ag ood idea. I'm not sure a F&F is necessary really considering most targets don't know they are being targetting until hit. A HEF warhead would also be a very good idea. Beam rider or something like that. I don't know why but you hardly ever seen Javelin attacks in Ukraine anymore.
M2 is not being replaced by M250. It will be replaced by MG338.
I was there, as a journalist, when the 4th IBCT at Fort Riley cased their colors. They gave me a unit coin a few months earlier when I got some good photos of them shooting javelins. Was cool.
Its good that we are applying more tech in ground combat but lets not forget how equipment always break down even with PMCS
I sure hope they hardened all these new electronic robotic equipment fully against EMP or targeted EW attacks.
@@NelsonwmjEMP hardening has been standardized since the 50s (although it doesn’t matter as much as you probably think).
As a guardsman, I really do appreciate our delta companies built in assets, the TOWs and fifties were amazing at JRTC.
@@RussianFans-vn6cjAllah was a kiddie fiddler .
If they would get rid of Genesis, the manpower problem would go away to a degree. It is literally harder to enlist than get accepted to college.
It *should* be harder to enlist than to get into college.
I think when Trump gets re elected, recruitment will turn around. How many of the vax objectors do you think will re-enlist? My guess is less than 30%.
the army isnt for profit. many colleges are
@@unseenentity7085 Then provide a rebuttal you quotidian reddit ass wordmonger.
@@unseenentity7085 Okay, then debate it poindexter. This isn't 1945, theres no point in keeping a massive standing army of healthy, able-bodied workers that could be educated and providing economic activity, especially considering how much warfare relies on educated tradespeople.
Big Army: M10 Booker is not a tank, it's not for anti-armor roles, stop calling it that Army Doctrine: *uses M10 for anti-armor as if it's a tank*
It's the old WW2 tank destroyer concept re-invented again.
@@glorgau Pretty much the opposite really. Tank destroyers were supposed to hunt tanks & be used as a 'fire brigade' to contain armoured breakthroughs. Today, this role is filled by Apaches. The M10 is to support advancing infantry. Light armour, intended to take out defensive strong-points with a heavy direct fire gun. There wasn't really anything that fit that mission profile in WWII. Light tanks of the era didn't have guns suitable for for infantry support. The Sherman might be the best fit, but being a medium tank it had more armour than a light tank or tank destroyer. Same goes for the M3 Lee/Grant.
I would be surprised if there are no AP rounds in Booker load out. If it can deal with armor threats effectively on some scale why not to do so?
@BBPotato222 they certainly will have some sabot loaded but I expect mostly HE/HEAT or some sort of 105mm MPAT in the future.
They'd be useful as a TD in a pinch, especially if they can get the jump on the enemy from a flank. 105 isn't a 120, but it's no slouch, either. Plus, they can punch their lights out sort of like those Bradleys did with HE.
Back to garrison army system, no need for Brigades having all of the extra bits to keep track of. We will centralize those assets back at Division. This is mostly a cost saving measure, I'm sure. Unfortunately, Brigades will not get to train as much with their old add-ons, so Commanders will not know how to use them in the field.
I find these videos really interesting. I wonder if one day you could do one about US field medical units and evacuation procedure. Not as glamourous as the infantry cavalry etc, but important nonetheless.
@@RussianFans-vn6cj Allah was a kiddie fiddler
@@RussianFans-vn6cj that's nice but a little off topic don't you think?
When you are in a crappy acronym naming competition and your opponent is US Army:
Former D Co PL - Infantry BNs definitely needed this change. - D CO’s almost never fought as a company, rifle companies have their own supply convoy that needed security. Meant D Co would get divvyed up to the section level or below, not even mentioning convoy security for the FSC or BN. - D Co was almost always used in a Support By Fire role for BN LFXs, but being on a mounted platform meant we couldn’t maneuver with the rifle companies. We’d be stuck to the roads most times when the BN is off in the woodline. -Many IBCTs still used Humvees for their D Co platform. Was pointless to train on when you’re getting equipment like the JLTV on deployment. Don’t know if an AT Platoon is the right way to go - .50 cal and TOW came in very handy. But step in the right direction
Can't help but feel like a Div Arty of only 54-72 pieces is horribly under-gunned from what we have seen in Ukraine I would think a division sized formation should have 144+ artillery pieces mixed between rocket and tube artillery. Say a battalion for the support of each brigade and a 5 battalion artillery brigade at division level that would contain a mix of Howitzers and MLRSs. Ideally call it 54-72 Howitzers for brigade level support with 36-48 Howitzers and 72-81 MLRSs for general division support. For a total of 162-201 artillery pieces per division. Call it 5 Howitzer and 3 MLRS Battalion under the DIV Arty.
But remember, the US will have major advantages compared to the war Ukraine is fighting. Most likely air superiority as well.
I'd prefer quick change barrels and automated magazine restockers to double the barrel numbers
@@BravoCheesecake Not against China though. It's doubtful that the US would gain meaningful air superiority over the Baltics (from West Germany) in the first few weeks, as well (ditto with NK from Japan).
@@benlewis4241 Yes against China. No country stands a chance against the USAF. The J-20 is an over hyped piece of garbage that only maintains a stealth profile +_15 degrees off its nose.
@benlewis4241 maybe when we come arround to finally retire the m109 in 2054
Great information! Keep up the great work!
Awesome as always!
With drive by wire and optional manning, could we see a future where Generals can just turn around vehicles which are going places they don't want to go?
New doctrine: Divisions good, brigades bad!
Yep. Centralize control to press a larger spearhead in tactical operations
That’s LSCO for ya, no more brigade-level deployments, we’ll be going out at the division or corps level
I think the old structure had IEW companies at the division level, so it sounds very convincing that they're going to be concentrated that way so that divs can resource their own IPB/EPB priorities more effectively But I wonder how they're looking at loitering munitions, which hasn't been mentioned at all. Their uses aren't like normal drones but more on the indirect precision fires side (basically NLOS missiles that fly slower but a lot longer), so would be interesting if it can go somewhere like the mortar sections.
OOF Less than ten years ago they moved the CBRN platoons from briade to BN, just cant get a break
Being in a Dco at least from what I’ve seen a JRTC, CTE and other training scenarios plus what a lot of people are saying about this it seems like we are removing are company level light armor and giving it to the division which is not well liked
You mentioned that several of the logistics train units didn’t have much in the way of organic convoy escort. This is still a primary function of MP’s. This should also be considered to add to the drone troop some form of airborne loitering ISR platform to assist.
Do logistics not provide their own security in the Army? I was Motor T in the Marines and we never had any external security. Even when transporting the infantry it was our own guys up on our own guns. Does the Army not provide guns for their support guys?
It seems to me that US army is going from brigades fighting as separste units to brigades which will fight as integral part of a division. The russians were forced to do the same in Ukraine.
What’s the difference?
@@nobodyherepal3292 A Brigade Combat Team is an independent force meant to operate alone anywhere in the world, largely thanks to its integrated (as the US military refers to it, organic) artillery and support units, like medical personnel and engineers. By comparison, a normal brigade is strictly combat units and relies entirely on division level artillery, medical assets and engineers detailed out on an as-needed basis. Essentially, the US Army is reverting to the Square Division setup of WW2, where instead of units that can operate independently, it will be divisions operating independently with subordinate units relying on the division assets for support and C3. The reason for it is because our primary "enemies," Russia and China (neither of whom could actually defeat us easily in direct combat without the use of nuclear weapons) are doing the same. China never stopped using the regimental system (or whatever variant them have of it) so they still use an approximation of the Square Division, while Russian has had to switch from Battalion Task Groups (essentially smaller or 'Light' combat teams) back to straight divisions due to the sheer number of casualties their BTGs have suffered from lack of coordination in the field during the on-going Russo-Ukrainian War. Its all a bunch of BS really. The Army has been constantly playing this game since the end of WW2. First it was the Pentomic Division, then it was divesting regiments for brigades instead, then it was various reforms in the 80s under USARS, then it was the Combat Teams. Now we've come full circle, and whats gonna happen? Nothing. China will back down at the critical moment, stop sabre rattling and go with diplomacy instead of fighting the US, Russia will probably be engulfed in another civil war in another year or so that Putin and his cronies will lose, and the US Army will probably never even have to lift a finger in either case. Then we'll start the cycle all over again.
@@nobodyherepal3292with the now becoming "legacy" Brigade Combat Team system brigades were expected to be capable of fighting alone and having the majority of their own support. In the old school army and the new system, Divisions centralize those assets to make them more coherent for larger scale battles.
I have no millitary experience, but from what I hear brigades are good for low intensity war and counterinsurgency. Mechanised war with modern surveillance and communications against large opponent needs bigger units - divisions, corps, even armies. Commanders need to control more units and they can't be too numerous. Corps commander will have difficults controling 8-12 brigades, but can manage well 2-4 divisions. Every division commander will control 2-4 brigades. In that situation it's not wise to dispurse too many of the support units like engeneeres, recon ets. They could be concentrated in division or corps level and given to lower level commanders for specific missions. @@nobodyherepal3292
The difference is different organic assets.
DIVCAV pilot was not approved to go forward for execution. So those I/SBCT cavalry squadrons are being deactivated without retaining a cavalry troop at the BCT level and there is no change to the ABCT structure ... at least until the next TAA / ARSTRUC cycle. M10 Booker units are battalions at division level now (task organized as necessary to support BCTs).
I suspected the DIVCAV thing. But not having a brigade troop seems pretty silly, leaving just the battalion scout platoons that some units don’t even have because of manpower issues
@@BattleOrder We're headed back to the pre-DIV XXI division design, with maneuver brigades just holding their maneuver battalions and everything else consolidated under capability-specific brigades or battalions at division level. If they remove ABCT cav squadrons I would predict retention of a brigade recon troop, but not for the IBCTs which really don't use mounted recon well. SBCTs are an odd delete ... but there you go.
@@BattleOrdera lot of unit got Thanos snapped 😭
Oh? Did they decide not to gut the ABCTs after all? Good, they shouldn't. If anything they need to keep the BCTs how they are (with the exception of the Strykers, get rid of those for the M113's upcoming replacement and make them Mechanized BCTs), they are more useful as semi-independent, self-supporting formations.
@@Stargazzer811 Not this round, anyway.
Can you explain the structure of a us infantry battalion on KZhead or your website
Not sure how I feel about stripping out the MICOs from the brigades. It would be that they’d be no organic intelligence assets for the brigade to use and train to their needs. At a division level, there are a lot more different actors fighting for their training time. Like most of the army, units are struggling for manning and analysts are very had to get more of due to high ASVAB scores, clearance requirements, technical training, and competing with much higher earning potential college degrees. But I’m not if consolidating the MI assets to the brigade is worth it at the cost of cutting down the brigade’s organic staff and assets. On the bright side, those poor soldiers won’t be trapped with the Rakkasans for 2-3 years Was also surprised there was no increase in the air defense capacity of the brigades. Yes, the US and most NATO members heavily emphasize their air forces gaining air superiority as a pre condition for ground operations, but Ukraine has shown how decentralized UASs threats have become. It’s a major force protection and counter intelligence threat that is able to sustain a high operational tempo. EW has its limited, as jammers becomes beacons for ARMs and must do survivability moves as a result, in addition to some Russian UASs coming with 10kms of fiber optic cable to ensure connectivity in the face of EW.
The problem with MICOs is the brigades often didn't train them to their needs or provide them worthwhile missions, so the skills of the MI Soldiers would atrophy and retention was horrible. Battalion commanders just didn't know what to do with them half of the time, and MICO commanders didn't always have the clout to get their guys the training they needed.
@@192mickey That’s a fair point, although I think that’s a issue present throughout forcescom where Intel series are ignored by commanders that don’t have the time or interest to learn how to effectively use them, and instead often use them as spare bodies for motor pool details or doing inventories. Enablers like Intel don’t have a tangible impact like how many tons of supplies delivered, how many medevacs conducted, or how many fire missions performed so on.
UASs become less of an issue when you can fairly reliably trust in your EW, which the US can far more than any combatant in Ukraine. Doesn’t cut off communications completely like it frequently does in Ukraine, and the ARM threat diminishes greatly when you can reliably assume that your Air Force can eliminate air threats quickly, which I think is a safe assumption against any enemy where we would expect large scale ground based warfare against (I.e. not China). Besides, I’d be willing to bet the lack of change right now is at least partly due to the breakneck pace some of these DEW programs are traveling at. Organic DEW weapons are basically the holy grail of anti-UAS work.
@@192mickey "You do signals intelligence? You do signals? So you're a radio operator?" End me, please.
2:31 me and the boys flying over a hill and rocketing a tank, jokes aside the change from a more insurgent combat focused humvee to a mobile anti tank unit is pretty smart
Just wondering how well these will do while fpv drones can strike. As we've seen as of recently over in Ukraine Gonna be interesting
For the math-inclined people out there, anyone have a rough idea what kind of manpower savings these changes will have?
None. They will probably never make it to operational stage. Most shit like this doesn't.
@@Stargazzer811 This isn’t theoretical. These changes have been pushed down to the BCTs for execution already. Our S1 has already transferred the D Co personnel to a different UIC and we’ve begun divesting equipment.
Well, getting rid of Delta Co is I'm guessing 100 troops each Bn, round number. Each IBCT had 3. That's a Bn of troops, minus the platoons left at the brigades, at a Division, if my math is right. Each Lt Div equivalent is losing 3 x ~400 pax CAV Sqdns. So, about 2000 troops/Lt Div (82d, 101st, 1/3 of that for BCTs. (3*3*100)+(3*400)-100 (rounding three PLTs). Hope I got that right. Basically, if my math is correct, this takes a bit under half of one BCT personnel out of a Lt Division
@@anthonykaiser974 Whoa! When spelled out like that, it really highlights the personnel reductions/savings the new organisational structure might have (at least, on paper since many real-world formations are already under-strength).
For the US Army's remaining TOW units, could there be a revival of the cancelled TOW Fire-and-Forget or TOW-FF which used an imaging infrared seeker similar to the Javelin's?
Sounds like the main reason to do this is cut cost in every way as those UGVs and javelins won't pay for them shelves and a few light tanks are about as good as many Humvees just less versatile and much less manpower intensive.
Remember when these were part of sci-fi movies? Skynet remembers
I'm part of Dco NG unit. Interesting to see what's gonna happen
I can see each Infantry plt fielding "spotting" drones and FPV drones. Maybe 2 soldiers in the Plt HQ do this duty. Probably provide each squad with a mirco UAS for scouting too.
Would love to see a small MLRS that launches 12-16 loitering munitions like Switchblade-600. See that tank platoon over there? It's gone now.
Moving from a mounted TOW to an unmounted ATGM is obviously in reaction to Ukraine. You cant have a Humvee loitering for AT support, it will be seen by a drone and hit with an FPV or Artillery. Where as unmounted ATGMs you can hide in bunkers and trenches. It makes the launcher itself far less vulnerable not to mention the people firing it. Deploying less launchers per unit means you lose less in attrition and massively extends the surplus. This stuff all makes perfect sense if you're been paying attention in Ukraine. A Humvee mounted Tow is nearly useless compared to a javelin because of the tactical limitations of a soft shelled vehicle.
I say none of this stuff REALLY matters anyways, cause as the US army tends to do, it rapidly adapts to any situation it finds itself in. Things break down on the individual levels, and suffice to say, the individual level is what the russians just arent too good at. But give american GIs their toys and a general objective...they're more than likely going to get it done one way or another
@@Salamandra40k "Here's the objective. Here's all the toys you can play with to accomplish your objective. Go." Every US soldier collectively busts a fat nut.
Ukraine is great to combat "fighting the war of yesterday" We can see today what war will look like for tomorrow. Im glad we are paying attention.
2-501 1stbct 82nd Dco is being deactivated, we are heavy weapons and run humvees with 50s and tows personally it looks like that along with this and the deactivation of cav scouts we are removing a huge part of are anti tank capabilities in light units
DRONES-> So, soldiers carry recon &/or light munitions drones, robotic land weapons carry "medium" drones (loitering scout/attack drones), Bookers carry light to medium drones. If DRONES aren't on 95% of our combat vehicles we are losing opportunities the enemy WILL have on thier vehicles.
Why tie the drone to the vehicle? Give that job to someone else entirely, a group of someone elses, and let the boys with the big gun focus on making use of it. And they can be well behind the action -which means they're not getting shot, improving their long-term surviveability. If you want, they can still sit inside a self-propelled armoured box, but make it an APC. Imagine: multiple operators, controlling multiple drones, giving multiple perspectives. And the operators can all openly talk to each other because they're sitting next to each other. If one drone goes down, another might have seen what got it. Combined arms consists of a bunch of specialized pieces doing their own part as part of a unified whole.
Drones CARRIED by vehicles have a drone "pilot" inside the vehicle watching the drone video scout for the vehicle and/or attack enemy positions and vehicles. That is why vehicles need their own drones. But you are correct in that there should be a dedicated drone/robot command to take a lot of the burden off vehicle crews.@@dgthe3
Yay a new upload!
None of my guard troop knew this until it this past drill lmao. Didn't get any info like this, all we heard is was can either get auto-rolled into being 11series or opt to reclass into a different field.
@@RussianFans-vn6cjrepent and believe in the Gospel
So if i understand this correctly. The primary advantage from a management perspective is that You'll end up with higher ranked subject matter experts which in theory help to better apply capabilities. But question what's the plan for expansion in case a war generates enough public interest to shift recruitment issues.
The more advanced the army gets the more I’m convinced that we need to bring back the SPC4-8 and Tech CPL-SFC ratings. Making traditional E ratings listed for command and leaving senior expert enlisted on their respective platforms while simultaneously not forcing competent soldiers into command roles.
@Battle Order 4th ID is getting rid of its brigade cavalry squadrons and engineers are leaving too. It’s army wide with ARSTRUC.
The mission of the light divisions is to light and bring assets quickly to a theater of operation. The most likely theater will be the Pacific and Small Island Campaign. The smaller the signature, the better for the whole division.
MI DIV IEW BN's are already a thing, so it's a wonder what will happen to the MICO. Especially since they were supposed to be fielding more EW assets like TLS-BCT. With all the new niche equipment and UGV/UAVs, I expect to see some more dedicated maintainers. Possibly a larger BSB, in spite of their efforts to cut numbers.
one interesting thing about drone platoon is that it open up some of the non-lethal/semi-lethal weapon option normally not usable for human troop. IE: for urban combat scenario, you could arm the drone with highly condense CO2. Then have the drone sneak into enemy entrench building air duct, silent release the CO2. Once the co2 level gets too high, people will just fall unconscious without even realizing they are under attack by chemical weapon. A silent take down by a colorless and odorless weapon. Then the building can be storm and capture all the enemy combatant without collateral damage. In the even the drone fail or got hacked, no harm done. Since the weapon is non-lethal to a degree, misfire and hacking attempt is less of an issue. In open terrain warfare, I feel camouflage tiny ground spy drone is going add far more value than weaponize drone. Both in term of cost and in the even of system failure. Decoy drone that boardcast fake engine sounds and have an outer inflatable casing of a real vehicle that attempt to bait enemy into fire would be really interesting. If you have a 20 decoy vehicle per one real vehicle. From afar it's going to be hard to know which one is the real one. Similar to how ww2 allies made fake inflatable airplane in airfield to trick enemy spy plane. And in the event of system failure, decoy drone and spy drone failure are going to have much less of an issue compare to a weapon drone malfunction.
Arming Robots 🤖…. What could go wrong 🤔
* Angry ZOE noise *
Damn. The CUI in this is wild
Your channel content is amazing and full of delicious information
First Contact Drone , whether by ground or air sounds like a soldier life saver which will endear them to every one .
With a platform like that, I'll improve it by adding "more dakka"
Patton would be so pissed
7:31 what is that vehicle? some weird bradley variant?
They're using it as a control station to control the unmanned ground vehicles. For armored formations they were thinking about having UGV sections where it's one control vehicle (Bradley, AMPV or something like that) controlling 2 UGVs
What the hall they still need to keep the army as is. An work with drones and AI
In order for those new units to be able survive any kind of serious armored threat, have the planners perhaps neglected to add at least a complete battallion of about 50 or more antitank/direct fire drones to each division? Only to compensate for the firepower haemorrhage they are causing. Without enough actual shooting power, the only drones you will need are going to be automated corpse collectors. These new light units are going to be dancing in the nude out there.
Very random and tangent comment but I noticed one of the robot vehicles has 4 large rubber tires AND a tread over it. I was wondering, why don't modern tanks do that? At least if the tread gets destroyed/damaged, it still has the wheels to move.
I don't miss Big Army!!! RLTW!! Carry On!!
Those ISV's look cool and all, but they will suck in bad weather with them open like that. They should have just bought a bunch of F-150s or something and ruggedized them for serious off roading and give the guys at least a roof and some doors so that they don't have to get rained on and feel that lovely cool winter breeze in their face when it is already -10 out.
Huge respect and thanks for the service to all current and former US servicemen and women, from your humble NATO ally - Bulgaria
It's almost like the DoD is ramping up to a structure better suited towards rapid production of disposable units and equipment for a large scale and rapid warfare engagement. Sounds weirdly like Southeast Asia...
Well today speed and survivability is everything. Drones and missiles rip you apart if you are slow and dumb ( look at Russias armor in Ukraine ) . Plus yes the new theater is looking like the pacific again it does not help to have giant rolling columns.
Crazy what recruiting shortfalls and DEI does to a fighting force
what does DEI have to do with the Army?
@looseygoosey1349 I don't know but I don't trust a bunch of asvab waiver maintainers to do a good job at maintaining all of the fragile, precise, and expensive equipment. They couldn't be bothered to screw bolts in all the way on an airplane, what do you think they're doing with even less over sight from even more incompetent leaders?
The tanks are starting to look the the HK tanks from terminator
What are they thinking 🤔 😮
They should mount robot arms on the ugvs so it can pull itself out of mud and right itself if tipped over in bad terrain.
Has this been field tested in radio active blast zone, they may not work under the blanket of nuclear dust clouds
it'll be mix of troops and robots but the robots will be your main Urban force so that way when you have breach an clear operations you no longer have to be that guy who's gotta be first or even second through the door which has the highest death rate especially when someone is just sitting and waiting. Will save some lives that's for sure. But yeah eventually probably in like maybe 100 years actual human soldiers probably won't be on the front lines anymore more support and logistics role for humans until we become obsolete for that as well then skynet will finally take over and humanity will be obsolete unless we turn into a Ghost in the shell type of society a blend of robotics and humans. The creator on Hulu did a really good job doing that concept
Liked and shared. Good stuff.
One video suggestion: from time to time high ranking Ukranian military officers talking that NATO military doctrine would not work in current war theater, so it would be great to see video about NATO military doctrine how it is evolved during the time and how it is looking today and compare it to current Russian military doctrine
I think the age of Brigade Combat Team is going to end, the future seems to turn back to the Division. But I wonder how US Army plan to transport such big amount organize to China? They need a lot of ship to transfer a division.
This is a step backwards in my opinion. The anti-armor platoon is solid but stripping away the independence from a brigade combat team will hurt. We need individual spearheads who work together.
Imo it's logic. USA looks at Russia in Ukraine and see that they need bigger forces on the front - bc China war doctrine is the same as russian.
Chinese will never need to fight a ground war
@@alexandrov1991 What? Russia downsized their force structures. They are utilizing more small unit tactics.
@@ironofithaka8357thus and the usmc move to reduce all of its equipment less aircraft, no tanks, no saw at squad level. Along with the adoption of the 277 fury.... It's a step backwards
@@alexandrov1991no sorry but absolutely no
Bookers should be used with infantry against hardened targets and bunkers, and they need to be kept at the infantry company level as much as possible. Why the hell would they put them in a scout unit at brigade level or higher? Putting them at HQ is a disaster. They will try to make them into a mainline armor unit, and the front-line needs the support (they aren't Abrams). Didn't we learn from Vietnam when commanders tried to up-armor M113s into jungle tanks? That was fail. I know this is just theorycraft, but it's painful to watch.
holy shit! we are going back to Vraks with this one. The change that most strikes me is the comeback of artillery divisions. Jesus Christ! Korean war type shit with today's technology sounds wild to me. And you would need hive city level defenses to absorb the massive volume of ordinance an entire division can put out. 70 guns, 2 rounds per min per gun, 3k~ shells per day per gun, 200,000 shells over a 24 hrs period... i cant think of a single location on earth that can withstand that level of 1) accuracy, 2) firepower, 3) disregard for local flora and fauna. That location would have to be either a) mountainous or b) relinquished. Damn! if this is the direction army is going, then arsenal ships are totally on the menu.
We have never had artillery divisions, not did he say that there were going to be artillery divisions. The Infantry division's artillery battalions are being centralized at division and the Corps has independent general support artillery battalions.
Now we just need to bring back blimps and make them into large scale robot bombers or in air missile frigates
**hides under cardboard box**
I love anything that brings us closer to making Terminator 2 a reality.
Strikers with NEMO 120mm gun mortars would be a better fire support option than Bookers and cost less.
Can we find these Org charts as graphics?
Sounds like Squad needs an update
Dude, a 100 dollar rpg warhead would vibe check one of these expensive ass robots. Maybe armed quad copters would do better. Maybe with like a 5.7 smg attached to it
I'd just stick with fpv drone barrages at $500 per drone and then follow up with infantry
@@scottanno8861 facts
I don’t want to fly into the effective range of a 5.7 as a quadcopter… feels too close to the enemy at that point.
@@a2e5 yeah ik it’s not ideal. I just said 5.7 because I know it has lower recoil than a 9mm while still being able to penetrate soft armor like modern helmets. I’ve seen some videos of quad copters that shoot 5.56 and the recoil just seems like too much.
Army options for addressing manning shortages: -actually care about your Soldiers and improve their quality of life -restructure the entire Army
Nice!
What happens when they just dig a wide trench and the autonomous vehicles can't advance. What is their counter to FPV drones?
Do the infantry companies themselves have anti armor capabilities or are these heavy weapon’s companies it?
Javelins and Carl Gustavs in rifle platoon weapons squads
Thank ya.
No FPV drone companies? Ngmi
Squad computers integrated with reconnaissance aircraft or large drones could do the job much better.
"Begun, the Droid Wars, have."
Unarmored ISVs in an age of FPV drones. Is crazy.
Here Comes Legion
Not true for DIVCAV formation in the IBCT/SBCT. They aren’t creating DIVCAV, and the Cav Squadrons are just going away. Source: me, current troop commander
Back in 2010 they started talking about how we didn't need a conventional army or conventional tactics anymore, that everything needed to be counter-insurgency. Never mind that our counter-insurgency wasn't even that good, it was always stupid to forego conventional warfare, especially considering that conflicts were bound to heat up with conventional powers.
I find the loss of a weapons company as a major disadvantage against nesr pear mech brigades.
Woods: but nobody asks "what if the other guy has the keys"?
The humvee would work except they are all being replaced also
I know the writing has been on the wall for years but seeing the obvious force on force reorganization makes me happy I got out lmao
The next step in the SkyNet evolution