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.
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.
posted by L. E. Howard, Jr. at 2:47 PM
2 Comments:
Do you have any PowerPoints on the FSC, BSB, SUS BDE relationships?
Any help would be appreciated.
Post a Comment
<< Home