Tuesday, November 22, 2005

More about the FSC

Here's a draft excerpt from a paper I'm working on addressing FSC command relationships in the BCT. My thinking has changed over time on how all of this should work, but I firmly believe that direct support is out of the question in most cases, especially high intensity combat.

SUBJECT: Forward Support Company Command Relationships in the Brigade Combat Team

Purpose. To provide information about command relationships as they pertain to the forward support company (FSC) in the brigade combat team (BCT).

Background. The FSC was originally designed to be organic to a combat arms battalion (CAB). As such, each FSC in the BCT has capabilities specifically tailored for the battalion it was designed to support (maneuver, fires, cavalry, etc.) As an organic unit of a CAB, these FSCs would have been designated with a direct combat probability coding (DCPC) of P1, which meant that no females could be assigned to them.

Discussion.

AR 600-13 (27 MAR 92, Army Policy for the Assignment of Female Soldiers) is the policy source document that addresses women in the Army. Federal law and this policy prohibit situations where units with female soldiers are "routinely collocated" with combat arms units. According to Office of the Judge Advocate General (OTJAG), the SECDEF says that no change to our policy is required.

BSB positions have a DCPC of P2 (open to females). Therefore, the FSCs of the BSB cannot routinely collocate with the combat arms units they support. However, ample precedent exists to suggest that under certain circumstances the FSC might be OPCON or TACON to a CAB. The justification is that we cannot deny options to the BCT commander who needs to employ his forces according to the tactical situation.

FMI 4-90.1, Heavy Brigade Combat Team Logistics, describes the FSC as organic to the CAB. On page 1-9 it states that, “At the lowest levels, the FSC, as the logistics provider for the HBCT's battalions and squadron, will be assigned/organic to the combined arms and fires battalions and reconnaissance squadron.” FMI 3-90.6, Heavy Brigade Combat Team, has similar language. This wording in both FMIs was based on guidance to document the C2 relationship IAW the approved modular concept, which has since evolved. These manuals will be revised by March 2007.

The divisions have defined the relationship between the FSC, the BSB, and the CAB in local policies and SOPs. The 4th ID’s 3rd Brigade, e.g., has placed its FSCs under the direct command and control of each CAB commander. Additional examples are available from the field regarding these actions.

Conclusion. The nature of the modern battlefield and combat operations make it largely impractical to suggest the FSC maintain a continuous command relationship with its parent BSB for the execution of all tactical requirements. We want to allow maneuver commanders the ability to task organize their support at the tactical level to execute effective mission command. Our future doctrine must capture the realities of the contemporary operating environment and provide flexibility in command relationships and approved force structure.

Wednesday, November 16, 2005

Role of the BSTB HHC's Maintenance Section

Issue: In reference to the subject line, I have discovered a discrepancy regarding maintenance support and the BTB that I was hoping you could provide assistance with. IAW FMI 3-90.61, Brigade Troops Battalion Operations, Section 2-10:

MAINTENANCE SECTION
2-10. Maintenance for the HHC, HBCT and the BTB and all its assigned and attached units is accomplished by the BTB maintenance section. This section is organic to the BTB support platoon. The section provides wheeled, tracked, and power generator maintenance and manages equipment repair parts.

However, IAW FMI 4-90.1, Heavy Brigade Combat Team Logistics, Section 3-111:

FIELD MAINTENANCE COMPANY
3-111. The mission of the field maintenance company is to provide field level maintenance support for the HBCT. It provides recovery, automotive/armament, ground support and electronic maintenance and maintenance management to brigade base elements (HQ HBCT, BSB, and BTB). It also provides maintenance advice and support to the brigade and serves as the central entry and exit point into the brigade for low density equipment.

Question: Please provide clarification regarding this issue; does the Field Maintenance Company provide maintenance support to the BTB or does the BTB receive maintenance support solely from the Maintenance Section?

Answer:

  • The maintenance section of the BSTB HHC provides field level maintenance to the HHC, the NSC, the MICO, and the BDE HQ. Certain low-density items are maintained by the BSB FMC.
  • The maintenance section is not manned (see below) to provide support to attached units, who get their support from organic maintenance elements or the FMC.


    Maintenance Sect, BSTB HHC

    MOTOR SGT E6 63B3O
    WHEELED VEH MECH E5 63B2O
    EQUIP REC/PARTS SGT E5 92A2O
    PWR-GEN EQUIP REP E4 52D1O
    WHEELED VEH MECH E4 63B1O
    EQUIP REC/PARTS SP E4 92A1O
    WHEELED VEH MECH E3 63B1O
    BFVS MAINT E3 63M1O

Tuesday, November 15, 2005

Movement Control in the Division AO

In an effort to clarify how movement control (MC) will work in the modular division, I'm providing this excerpt from a recent trip report I wrote (with help from Bruce Koch, LTC(R), and Gary Beasley, CDD). What's important here is that the TRADOC community recognizes that the new, modular division needs to have a MCT (from the theater sustainment command (TSC)) present in its area of operations (AO) in order to perform MC functions.

"The MC issues lead off the discussions [at the Combined Arms Doctrine Directorate (CADD) on Fort Leavenworth] on 9 November. During this initial session, CADD admitted that their initial position concerning movements within the division AO was in error. The division cannot abrogate its responsibility for movements and MC within its area of operations. They also accepted the requirement for an MCT in support of the DTO. The remaining issues were to answer how MC elements would be employed within the division AO. The assembled group explored how these elements would be arrayed on the battlefield and what functions they would perform. The CASCOM team spent the remainder of the afternoon preparing a briefing that captured and presented scenarios demonstrating how divisional MC will work.

On 10 November, we presented the briefing to the CADD Director. Our restated line of reasoning met with his approval, and he instructed his staff to update draft division doctrine, FMI 3-91, and provide a revised decision paper for the CAC Commander’s signature outlining MC operations in the division AO. Key points reiterated during the briefing were:

- The division cannot abrogate to a subordinate headquarters its responsibilities with respect to MC in its area of operations.


- A modular MCT placed in support and under the supervision of the DTO fills an important capability gap in the division.

- The DTO/MCT must be placed with a C2 headquarters to gain and maintain situational awareness and information for the Common Operational Picture (COP). (e.g. TACs, BCTs, CSB(ME))

- There remains a requirement for frequent, direct coordination between the division G3 and the DTO. The DTO will be positioned at the C2 node that best allows him to complete his mission.