Old 10-25-2009, 08:28   #1
7624U
Quiet Professional
 
7624U's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Jasper Tennessee
Posts: 927
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 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 ?
__________________
"Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done, and why. Then do it.”

"Robert A. Heinlein"
7624U is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-25-2009, 08:38   #2
Pete
Quiet Professional
 
Pete's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Fayetteville
Posts: 12,487
A Star?

A Star?
Pete is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-25-2009, 08:43   #3
7624U
Quiet Professional
 
7624U's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Jasper Tennessee
Posts: 927
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete View Post
A Star?
Ive seen that posted internaly with us pete, But it hasent happened no Star at group.
__________________
"Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done, and why. Then do it.”

"Robert A. Heinlein"
7624U is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-25-2009, 09:35   #4
Dozer523
BANNED USER
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 3,751
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)
Dozer523 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-25-2009, 09:53   #5
The Reaper
Quiet Professional
 
The Reaper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Free Pineland
Posts: 24,461
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
__________________
"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat." - President Theodore Roosevelt, 1910

De Oppresso Liber 01/20/2017
The Reaper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-27-2009, 03:08   #6
GreenSalsa
Quiet Professional
 
GreenSalsa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Fort Bragg, NC
Posts: 497
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.
__________________
"Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who didn't"
GreenSalsa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-27-2009, 03:29   #7
LongWire
Quiet Professional
 
LongWire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Where the Brave are............
Posts: 1,060
Quote:
Originally Posted by GreenSalsa View Post
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.
__________________
"Most of us here can attest that we never took the easy way. Easy just is............easy. Life is a work in progress, and most of the time its a struggle." ~ Me

"Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats." -Henry Louis Mencken (1880-1956)

"A Government that is losing to an insurgency is not being outfought, it is being out governed." Bernard B. Fall
LongWire is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-27-2009, 05:32   #8
Richard
Quiet Professional
 
Richard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: NorCal
Posts: 15,370
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
__________________
“Sometimes the Bible in the hand of one man is worse than a whisky bottle in the hand of (another)… There are just some kind of men who – who’re so busy worrying about the next world they’ve never learned to live in this one, and you can look down the street and see the results.” - To Kill A Mockingbird (Atticus Finch)

“Almost any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.” - Robert Heinlein
Richard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-15-2009, 05:09   #9
SdAufKla
Quiet Professional
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Piedmont, SC
Posts: 18
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.
__________________
Hope is not a course of action.
SdAufKla is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-15-2009, 13:57   #10
LongTabSigO
Auxiliary
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Yorktown, Virginia
Posts: 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by SdAufKla View Post
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).
LongTabSigO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-15-2009, 14:55   #11
Richard
Quiet Professional
 
Richard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: NorCal
Posts: 15,370
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
__________________
“Sometimes the Bible in the hand of one man is worse than a whisky bottle in the hand of (another)… There are just some kind of men who – who’re so busy worrying about the next world they’ve never learned to live in this one, and you can look down the street and see the results.” - To Kill A Mockingbird (Atticus Finch)

“Almost any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.” - Robert Heinlein
Richard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-15-2009, 16:14   #12
The Reaper
Quiet Professional
 
The Reaper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Free Pineland
Posts: 24,461
Better rotation pattern for SOTFs in theater.

TR
__________________
"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat." - President Theodore Roosevelt, 1910

De Oppresso Liber 01/20/2017
The Reaper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-15-2009, 17:02   #13
Mitch
Quiet Professional
 
Mitch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Texas, near Cow Town
Posts: 351
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.
__________________
Mitch
Mitch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-15-2009, 17:11   #14
ZonieDiver
Quiet Professional
 
ZonieDiver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Georgetown, SC
Posts: 4,204
Yeah, but it would do my heart good to see the 8th Group return!
__________________
"I took a different route from most and came into Special Forces..." - Col. Nick Rowe
ZonieDiver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-15-2009, 21:04   #15
Surgicalcric
Quiet Professional
 
Surgicalcric's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Wherever my ruck finds itself
Posts: 2,972
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Reaper View Post
Better rotation pattern for SOTFs in theater.

TR
This could also be achieved with better utilization of the "other" 2 Groups in the Regiment....
__________________
"It's better to die on your feet than live on your knees."

"Its not who I am underneath, but what I do that defines me" -Batman

"There are no obstacles, only opportunities for excellence."- NousDefionsDoc
Surgicalcric is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 15:27.



Copyright 2004-2019 by Professional Soldiers ®
Site Designed, Maintained, & Hosted by Hilliker Technologies