3
3
0
So, while the Infantry and Armor branches continue their age old struggle for supremacy, and while they were distracted, the true winner is the Field Artillery. The DIVARTY is back!! The question is, do we need it back. This 1980-1990's construct is the helm of all Artillery under a division, responsible for the training and professional excellence of our King of Battle. Is it necessary though? Have we lost the ability to train these formations at the Brigade Combat Team level so they are effective on the battlefield? Is "branch-ism" on the rise in the Army?
Artillery
Branch
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 5
4
4
0
This is an old topic, but I'm going to join in anyway. I've been in since 1991 and I've been at every FA level from platoon to Corps Artillery. Yes, we need the DIVARTY back and it isn't just to train the FA BNs and FISTers. Since the DIVARTYs went away I've seen a degradation not just in basic FA skills, but in overall Fires Mission Command capabilities. Examples include FA BNs not being integrated into the combined arms plan unit after deployment or arrival at CTC, poor sensor to shooter links, no ammo management at BDE level and above causing a huge mismatch of lots, no calibration plan other than to just shoot whatever units feels like, and lopsided maintenance programs in theater. FA BNs need an advocate at the Division level to help them perform, as well as a guiding hand to keep them focused. Also, the COIN fight is going away. Even if we go back into Iraq to fight ISIS we won't be doing it the same way we fought from 2003-2010. Division needs a Fires centric HQ that can do things like provide the G2 and FSE/FSC with Artillery focused IPB, as well as other perspectives.
(4)
(0)
COL (Join to see)
I'd concur with you SFC (Join to see). As a Cavalry Commander in my last job, I saw a great Artillery Commander do his best to pull together a behemoth of a task in Combined Arms Maneuver at the Brigade level. He was without a DIVARTY almost his whole tour as a commander and I can see where it would have benefitted him and his BN. I'm not sure having a DIVARTY will help with integration into the BCT planning. I think the opposite may be true in the long run. I do think that an Artillery Colonel will be able to provide the expertise and leadership necessary to produce the kinds of Artillery units we need in the next fight though.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
It seems like the issue is one of perspective of brigade commanders. Most of the brigades in the army are traditional in the they have a battalion of infantry, battalion of armor, and a battalion artillery I believe. If the Army would look at all of their traditional brigades and see if the commanders were evenly distributed among the three branches, then the 05, 04, 03, and Senior enlisted from the other branches would learn perspective of that for which is not their specialty. Losing their commands in am untimely manner due to an ineffective use of the branches for which they are less familiar would clear up any misunderstanding about what is expected. By the time they reach 06 they need to be thinking they are no longer Branch designated. If an 05 from one branch could not operate at least at the 04 b staff level for the other two branches if he had to, then he is not ready to be promoted to 06 and a brigade command position.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
I beg your pardon, I'm responding to the visible part of paragraph one. May I re-phrase? 'Struggle for survival". Yes. Also, self sustaining Heavy Cavalry. All of those "1980's, 90's" pain in the neck countries have ours, and the Russian's Armor/Arty capabilities. Using "DIVISION" "ARMY GRP" instead of "BRIGADE" would help too. (semantics). Verbiage, and syntax are psy-weapons. Mr. Putin uses them well, we should too.
(1)
(0)
COL (Join to see)
Much like with MSG Cunningham's comment on the MI, the Cavalry is being looked at. There is a drive to bring back some kind of capability akin to the ACR, but the Army doesn't know what that looks like yet. We still have to be able to fight for information, and there are formations that aren't able to do that. With the reclamation of "Long-Knife" from the ACR's to build some of the CABs in the Army, the long, heavy arm of the Cavalry has been cut in half. McMaster and others are championing this fight and I am hopefull (as a Cavalry man) that we will see the return of this great organization in some form.
(1)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
Apologies Colonel. I wasn't able to read all of your question or finish my input. I'm set up outdoors. I had to cut, and run from an Oklahoma microburst however; it gave time for your response raising another follow up question w/ obvious graphics I hope you're able to see. Unlike so many of my peers, I kept up on Force Structure Changes. I do have a special interest in Cavalry, Armor, and Artillery which is exactly why I decided to engage within RallyPoint. This is my first, I would rather not appear inept, hostile, or condescending especially on this topic. The one Armor / Cavalry Officer I don't require a bio on is (name drop, sorry) General Bob Cone or "1980 2nd Lt. Cone" my first Platoon Leader, fresh out of the Point. I knew all three of these Officers personally. These Officers ARE FORSCOM; with their backgrounds, if they don't know on the Strategic Level the importance of conventional mobility in force? I'm glad I stayed healthy, and maybe a little wise. As of last October, my son is now on a 105 crew. My duty as "dad" to watch over him, and his peers now. Enjoyed it, some days I feel like an orphan of a magnificent, well groomed machine. Good day Sir.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google