Professional Soldiers ®

Professional Soldiers ® (http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/index.php)
-   Deactivated SF Units (http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=53)
-   -   Why a 4th BN ? (http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=25674)

7624U 10-25-2009 08:28

Why a 4th BN ?
 
I always wondered why they dident just reactivate groups, But instead made a 4th BN in each group. Wouldent it have been easyer to just reactivate a group and fill it :confused: Would you not be accomplishing the same thing. More SF, More command positions, Easyer to equip a already established system, No need to restructure team numbers and add confusion, Place the reactivated group in a new location would mean less building and save money.
It would also bring back a piece of history and pride.
Any thoughts ?

Pete 10-25-2009 08:38

A Star?
 
A Star?

7624U 10-25-2009 08:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pete (Post 290959)
A Star?

Ive seen that posted internaly with us pete, But it hasent happened no Star at group.

Dozer523 10-25-2009 09:35

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...mmands_map.png I think it has to do with providing a dedicated Group to the Combatant Commands. Where teams actually go? DOTS.

(JIC, I defer to The Reaper)

The Reaper 10-25-2009 09:53

Allegedly, it made more sense to meet the requirements to the regional combatant commands and was simpler than trying to add a Group that could easily be eliminated during cutbacks.

I actually had a former USASFC and SWCS CG tell me that he never thought we could fill the 4th battlions with SF, the extra positions were actually there to allow for SF to expand with non-18 CMF support personnel without having to ask DA for additional authorizations.

TR

GreenSalsa 10-27-2009 03:08

As someone in one of the new 4th battalions...

it is exponentially harder to stand up a new GROUP as opposed to standing up a new BATTALION. Establishing the new BN makes it easier to "cross load" personnel from the existing three BNs without compromising AOR integrity that would almost certainly would have happened if a new group was established.

however if my line of logic were taken further...why didn't we establish a "Delta" company under each of the existing BNs in every group--it would have made it a lot easier to bring three companies "on line" vice standing up new commands and staff sections.

LongWire 10-27-2009 03:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by GreenSalsa (Post 292178)
however if my line of logic were taken further...why didn't we establish a "Delta" company under each of the existing BNs in every group--it would have made it a lot easier to bring three companies "on line" vice standing up new commands and staff sections.

I would agree, but I believe that on paper a Bn garners more $$. I also hold what some of TR said to be true as well. The force projections on restructuring of the groups at Group and Bn level to include GSB for the future, have a lot of play as well.

Richard 10-27-2009 05:32

Prior to the 1971-72 major reorganization of its MTOE, Groups used to have 4 BNs (called ODCs or Companies then) - A, B, C, and D (with 3 or 4 ODBs per ODC)...and some even had an E Company. Just noodling - but maybe this idea also entailed some of the thinking that not only was it easier, but that it was less threatening and a bit more palatable to DA to accept a return to that concept for historical reasons rather than seeking to add more Groups.

I remember when we were barely at 3 AD Groups (5, 7, 10) w/3 BNs each and 5 ODAs per ODB and almost went to 2 Groups (5, 10).

The more things change, the more they seem to remain the same.

And so it goes...;)

Richard's jaded $.02 :munchin

SdAufKla 11-15-2009 05:09

More tooth: less tail.

Adding another battalion adds three more line companies and 18 more ODAs without having to add all of the extra support and staff that, combat to support ratio-wise, would come with an entire group.

Also gives the current groups one more major maneuver unit to support the COCOMS they're already supporting. Relieves some presssure on the guys' OPTEMP while keeping the group / JSOTF level to COCOM relationships stable.

LongTabSigO 11-15-2009 13:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by SdAufKla (Post 296536)
More tooth: less tail.

Adding another battalion adds three more line companies and 18 more ODAs without having to add all of the extra support and staff that, combat to support ratio-wise, would come with an entire group.

Also gives the current groups one more major maneuver unit to support the COCOMS they're already supporting. Relieves some presssure on the guys' OPTEMP while keeping the group / JSOTF level to COCOM relationships stable.

That makes a lot of sense. (Also the point raised about difficultly/expense of creating a new group and all the realignment that that would cause.)

I would like to know why a battalion (vice adding a 4th company for the existing 3 bns) was considered a better option?

It may well be that it was the best way to get more support slots from the Regular Army; these are the kind of discussions I'd love to have with those "in the know" over an adult beverage (and in conspiratorial tones).

Richard 11-15-2009 14:55

Quote:

I would like to know why a battalion (vice adding a 4th company for the existing 3 bns) was considered a better option?
A few more 0-5 command slots vice just adding more 0-4 slots?

Richard's $.02 :munchin

The Reaper 11-15-2009 16:14

Better rotation pattern for SOTFs in theater.

TR

Mitch 11-15-2009 17:02

Obviously, this administration does not appear to be concerned with cost, but just in case they are, the costs would just have to be exponentially higher. For example:

Cost of manning and maintaining current line Companies - we will call that X

Cost of rolling out more Delta companies - let’s say that is 2X per company.

Cost of more Battalions - probably 4X per company

Cost of a new Group - probably 16X per company.

Each level above just adding a company requires the overhead of a Headquarters element and all necessary support functions, etc.

ZonieDiver 11-15-2009 17:11

Yeah, but it would do my heart good to see the 8th Group return!

Surgicalcric 11-15-2009 21:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Reaper (Post 296610)
Better rotation pattern for SOTFs in theater.

TR

This could also be achieved with better utilization of the "other" 2 Groups in the Regiment....


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:54.


Copyright 2004-2019 by Professional Soldiers ®