Jump to content


Photo

Coin Battalion & Brigade Organisation

COIN ToE

  • Please log in to reply
4 replies to this topic

#1 WRW

WRW

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,769 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UAE
  • Interests:OOB, Military Technology, Terrorism, Counter Insurgency, C4I

Posted 09 June 2018 - 1103 AM

Related to the Battalion Org in AFV section I am curious what members would suggest for future COIN and anti terror operations at home and abroad

 

Not only org but also such as should there be old fashioned fire bases and platoon/company bases to draw enemy

 

For homeland operations  the immediate above will hopefully not apply but given the way things are going ....

 

Should there be police/intelligence or military primacy


  • 0

#2 Burncycle360

Burncycle360

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,433 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 09 June 2018 - 1300 PM

There was also a "build your own brigade" thread, but IIRC most posted general-purpose brigades to be used for both conventional and COIN
http://www.tank-net....ic=15344&page=1

IMO if COIN centric the exact TO&E is not going to matter nearly as much as other considerations like the overall strategy, political will to fight, how far are you willing to go (extermination, colonization, occupation, etc), and much of it will be dependent on the specific situation.  Who are the people in question, what is their situation, how do they perceive you versus the "insurgents", is there a way to win and what parameters dictate that, and if there isn't a way without offending sensibilities, do you want to even bother playing the game?

I imagine much of it will end up looking kind of like what we see now though -- lots of light infantry (COIN is very manpower intensive), motorized MRAPS, with the usual emphasis on supporting arms, only moreso.  Additional ELINT, EW and UAS pushed down to patrol level.  If you didn't have an air force to rely on (or didn't want to) firebases with complete coverage of the AO using GMLRS or 155mm is doable even for countries the size of Afghanistan if that's what the overall commander decided to do.

We built 31,000+ B-17/B-24 in WWII, and we're trying to run our worldwide MALE class UAV support network with what... just a hair over 500 predators / reapers combined, including exported and training aircraft?  You gotta pump those numbers up, those are rookie numbers!
 


Edited by Burncycle360, 09 June 2018 - 1307 PM.

  • 0

#3 Chris Werb

Chris Werb

    In Zod We Trust

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,722 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Orkney, Scotland, UK
  • Interests:But it's got electrolytes! They're what plants crave!

Posted 09 June 2018 - 1927 PM

I imagine much of it will end up looking kind of like what we see now though -- lots of light infantry (COIN is very manpower intensive), motorized MRAPS, with the usual emphasis on supporting arms, only moreso.  Additional ELINT, EW and UAS pushed down to patrol level.  If you didn't have an air force to rely on (or didn't want to) firebases with complete coverage of the AO using GMLRS or 155mm is doable even for countries the size of Afghanistan if that's what the overall commander decided to do.
 

 

With the new 500km range rockets in the pipeline, HIMARS at just two locations could cover essentially the entire country, expecially if Pakistan allowed missile overflights. Times of flight would obviously be significant, however.


  • 0

#4 FALightFighter

FALightFighter

    Red-Legged Ilk

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,415 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:USA

Posted 10 June 2018 - 0945 AM

A couple of things that are useful in COIN that have no real place in conventional operations:

1- security detachments for commanders: every commander needs the ability to move around the battlefield, this likely means 3 or 4 vehicles with crews (so 12-15 personnel). In conventional operations, this requirement manifests very differently, and you send a complete sub-unit when the security situation requires.

2- human intelligence gathering capability. In COIN, when you are securing a relatively fixed area, HUMINT at a very low level is very important. In conventional operations, other than initial review of prisoners, you're not likely to have the time at the battalion/company level to build a network of informants.

3- platoon/company command post crews, particularly intelligence and signal support. In conventional operations, this is the platoon or company commander's vehicle crew, with maybe a communication specialist. In COIN, when you operate from a fixed site and do much deeper analysis of the human terrain of an area, you require the capability to do this analysis, and maintain significantly more communications equipment at lower levels.

4- requirement for indirect fires is significantly reduced. Insurgents lack the capability to mass large forces that justify the expenditure of large scale indirect fires- we never had a target in Afghanistan where I needed another battery, and generally 2 guns was sufficient. You can either break your firing units down to distribute the coverage, or re-role your artillerymen to provide maneuver/security forces. If you're designing only for COIN, you can just create those maneuver/security forces to start with.

5- the structure of engineering support is very different- COIN is much more focused on route clearance of fixed and routinely used routes, while conventional operations are much more focused on the creation (and breaching) of defensive obstacles.

 

I'm sure that there are move, but those are what comes to mind quickly. 


  • 0

#5 Paul G.

Paul G.

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 8,232 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 10 July 2018 - 0422 AM

A couple of things that are useful in COIN that have no real place in conventional operations:
1- security detachments for commanders: every commander needs the ability to move around the battlefield, this likely means 3 or 4 vehicles with crews (so 12-15 personnel). In conventional operations, this requirement manifests very differently, and you send a complete sub-unit when the security situation requires.
2- human intelligence gathering capability. In COIN, when you are securing a relatively fixed area, HUMINT at a very low level is very important. In conventional operations, other than initial review of prisoners, you're not likely to have the time at the battalion/company level to build a network of informants.
3- platoon/company command post crews, particularly intelligence and signal support. In conventional operations, this is the platoon or company commander's vehicle crew, with maybe a communication specialist. In COIN, when you operate from a fixed site and do much deeper analysis of the human terrain of an area, you require the capability to do this analysis, and maintain significantly more communications equipment at lower levels.
4- requirement for indirect fires is significantly reduced. Insurgents lack the capability to mass large forces that justify the expenditure of large scale indirect fires- we never had a target in Afghanistan where I needed another battery, and generally 2 guns was sufficient. You can either break your firing units down to distribute the coverage, or re-role your artillerymen to provide maneuver/security forces. If you're designing only for COIN, you can just create those maneuver/security forces to start with.
5- the structure of engineering support is very different- COIN is much more focused on route clearance of fixed and routinely used routes, while conventional operations are much more focused on the creation (and breaching) of defensive obstacles.
 
I'm sure that there are move, but those are what comes to mind quickly. 


Good analysis. I would include MP, EOD and finance/contracting functions to a BDE level TF tasked with COIN.
  • 0




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users