Should PSYOP expand its TPT sizes? Increase from 3 to 5 or 6 in order to allow for more autonomous work?

2016-01-08T07:02:02-05:00

Response by SSG Michael Hartsfield made Jan 8 at 2016 7:13 AM

2016-01-08T07:13:58-05:00

In theory? Yes
However, some considerations that should be addressed are logistics (will you have to make the tactical units bigger, MTOE, etc) personnel (tactical PSYOP units can be hard to staff) appeal to supported units (it's easier for, let us say, an ODA to have a 2-3 man TPT with them instead of a 5-6 man team) and communication and accountability.

Response by SGM Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 8 at 2016 7:24 AM

2016-01-08T07:24:07-05:00

If you needed a 5-6 man team you would just use 2 teams. There is no reason to expand what already works. Every time I've operated on a TPT though it's been as an individual.

Response by MAJ Javier Rivera made Jan 8 at 2016 10:20 AM

2016-01-08T10:20:54-05:00

I don’t believe there is a need to increase the size of a Tactical PSYOP Team (TPT) on the unit’s MTOEs. PSYOP units by its nature are scalable/tailorable and their size can be adjusted according to the necessity. So the issue relies on the mission and who is been supported, therefore a through mission analysis is required.

Response by SPC Nathan Freeman made Jan 8 at 2016 10:22 AM

2016-01-08T10:22:08-05:00

A five man team could accomplish more F2F in a given period of time and would help get around pesky rules about minimum pacs on mission.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 8 at 2016 1:40 PM

2016-01-08T13:40:44-05:00

Yeah, you gonna need an armored van. LOL

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 8 at 2016 1:43 PM

2016-01-08T13:43:44-05:00

Task organization is mission-dictated. If they need a bigger team, the company will attach additional personnel.
Recently when I deployed to CJTF-HOA, my CA Teams were reorganized to have an E-6 Medic attached at the expense of my CMOC cell. It didn't end up being a good trade-off for the company, but the teams definitely were able to do more with the additional capability embedded.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 8 at 2016 1:48 PM

2016-01-08T13:48:48-05:00

I agree with SFC Bennett, rather than increase the size of the TPT just allocate additional Teams, each TPT member has a role (scribe, speaker, security etc.) additional personnel wouldn't really mean more people can do F2F because it's more than just talking involved.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 8 at 2016 11:01 PM

2016-01-08T23:01:32-05:00

At least work in teams. Never work alone, and ensure you are not putting yourself in harms way

Response by COL Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 9 at 2016 6:41 PM

2016-01-09T18:41:53-05:00

Is at the right size...but the force is only developed to think at the tactical/operational levels.

Response by SGT Clyde Rhoads made Jan 12 at 2016 7:38 AM

2016-01-12T07:38:25-05:00

There were times when we joined two teams together for a mission or set of missions. One TL would obviously be lead over all. For a perminant move, I don't see a need.

Also, when supporting a battalion, now they have to support 2x the personnel, oftentimes, they don't even want to feed it house the traditional three members, plus interpreter.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 12 at 2016 8:04 AM

2016-01-12T08:04:45-05:00

I have always argued to have PSYOP absorbed into the 11 series as a collateral duty. If the PSYOP can operated effectively as a reserve force with a three month pre-Mob, then it can be effectively utilized by combat are to support their IO. That, plus give some more OOMPH to the MOS as Civil Affairs does, and you now have an effective solution that over comes unit integration, the absorption of SOPs, and the knowledge gap between the PSYOP element and the Supported Unit.

Response by SFC Stephen Carden made Jan 12 at 2016 8:56 AM

2016-01-12T08:56:06-05:00

There is no need to increase the official (by MTOE) size of TPTs. There is actually a stronger argument for reducing the size of a TPT to two members. I speak from the position of a former TPT member, Team Leader, and Detachment NCOIC. At no time during my 4 years in 9th POB did we ever deploy as a detachment with three-man TPTs plus a terp. During my two tours with SOTF-W in Afghanistan, we were only allowed to send two pax out to the VSPs due to space issues. During disaster relief ops in Haiti, we were only allowed to send two-man teams out with 2/82. Rarely will tactical PSYOP ever operate autonomously. We will always have to have security, especially when operating on the ground in a F2F capacity. Therefore, we are dependent upon the supported unit. The supported unit always dictates how many of us can come to the party. It was always fine with me as a det NCOIC, because that meant I could cover more ground with the few guys I had. If the supported unit wants more PSYOP, then the RFF will reflect that, and we can flex to meet the need. Of course, I am only speaking for active duty, SOF utilization. I have no idea how you reservists do things out there with big Army. If by autonomous work, you mean that the supported unit doesn't understand what you do so you need at least two trucks to go outside the wire because they won't take you, then I suggest you do a better capes brief and develop a better relationship with your supported unit.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 12 at 2016 11:49 AM

2016-01-12T11:49:08-05:00

I have been in PSYOP for the past nine years and it seems to me that maybe having a fourth man could help a great deal. When I was deployed in Iraq our operating tempo was so high that we were going out on 2 or 3 patrols a day and then I was doing night leaflet drops almost every other day. I think adding another person would help significantly with day to day and logistic operations. I think what would help even more would be having more actual rank on the teams. I know what our doctrine states we are supposed to have but I can tell you no matter how convincing I was as a CPL and being a team leader whenever I had to talk to someone new from regular Army it was a huge pain in the ass explaining that I was their guy to assist them exploit situations and key leaders on the battle field. I would like to see actual SFCs as team leaders and an additional person added to the teams.... I'm sure everyone here has had different experiences, this is just based on my time in Iraq and the amount of work we did while we were there.

Response by CSM Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 12 at 2016 1:31 PM

2016-01-12T13:31:17-05:00

Changing the rules of allocation would probably address the problem-set you think this would solve, without making the teams too large to be self-sufficient with the vehicles and equipment currently on-hand.

My assumption is that you believe one 3-person TPT is insufficient to provide MISO support to a maneuver battalion. After all, the Team Chief - theoretically the highest-ranking PSYOP Specialist in the battalion - should be integrated into the battalion operations and targeting cycles, but should also be conducting MISO missions with the rest of his or her TPT. And oh yeah, most of those missions are conducted with subordinate companies that may or may not be co-located with the battalion headquarters. All in all, it can be a logistical nightmare especially if the TPT is needed to conduct MISO in support of more than one company at a time.

If the current rules of allocation are pushed one echelon lower, the TPT would go to the company instead of battalion. The Detachment would then be supporting the battalion, with an OIC and NCOIC, supported by their headquarters section, to ensure full MISO integration into battalion-level planning. The brigade/brigade combat team then gets the company-level support (to include the development and production capability) that they craved throughout OIF and OEF.

This would certainly raise some issues, not least of which would be the ability of a BCT headquarters to absorb the number of personnel required for company-level operations. It would also require the USAR PSYOP Battalions to deploy in support of a division or joint task force, which could raise all sorts of hackles.

In addition to putting TPTs at the company level - which I would consider enough of a success to recommend this idea - it puts the field-grade company commander on the brigade planning staff, rather than the company-grade detachment OIC. That, and the LTC at the division/JTF level, could go a long way to helping the MISO capability being taken more seriously by the rest of the staff.