The Army University provides academic policy, governance, and innovation to enable the Army’s academic enterprise to train and educate agile and adaptive Soldiers, leaders, and the Army Civilian Corps to achieve cognitive overmatch to win in the complex operational environment.
And now we know looking at Ukraine that this formation will fall apart quite quickly. If the ISTAR isnt superior and able to counter anything the enemy throws at them they will not break through minefields and enemy positions without huge losses from artillery, drones and NLAWs.
This unit has engineer assets capable of blowing through minefields. That said, drones are turning into a real pain-in-the-ass problem that a lot of people are working to solve. We'll see how that pans out.
Tanks in Ukraine are simply being misused and wasted. Since the begining of modern tank warfare in WWII, the purpose of tanks has been one: To assist the infantry in attack and defense. Tanks are organized into tank battalions only to ease the burden of administration and maintenance. They never operate on their own. Tanks aren't invincible and can't operate on their own, and it's a lesson that must be relearned in every single war.
Did the armored forces fighting in Gulf Wars I and II use these formations? Or is this organization and structure the product of more recent reorganization?
The push across the desert in 91 was very much like this - Long sight lines and open, unobstructed terrain. If you have the time I recommend The Operations Room's Desert Storm series of videos here on RU-vid to give a frame of reference
Nice display of GHQ Micro-Armor. Correction on the scale - it's 1:285th scale (effectively 1mm per foot). What's not mentioned is the sheer amount of firepower (combat power) possessed by an actual ABCT and the amount of precision that can be achieved by those weapons. Logistically, keeping that force supplied is critical.
4000 people is about what you can fit in a moderately sized office building, I guess this is like a moderately sized business but spread out to avoid enemy fire.
As of 2019, when I was a company commader with 1st BDE 1st CAV, everything was at 70% strength (personnel and equipment) and was led by an Infantry officer
Why the Infantry officer remark? 1st Cav div is a combined arms division and led by infantry officers just like any division. They retained the “cavalry” name for historical reasons
@@G4x5da "Thank you sir for letting me play with your tanks..." was the quote the BDE CDR gave to the DIV CDR during his change of command. A change of command with an Armor Officer who appreciated and understood tank maintenance. CABs are bullshit and so are infantry officer that lead them.
Well it must have worked well in open deserts like Kuwait, Iraq, etc. You'd have space there, but I think you're right in most cases the terrain will never let you spread out like this and you must be fighting in columns up the main roads.
You don’t fight in a BDE on line like this massive movement. BNs will have movement corridors and each have a sub objective which achieves the overall mission. Within the BNs is the COs who are executing the BN mission. Fighting in a massive line like that isn’t possible or desirable.
that setup will work only in 20th century war versus guys in sandals in modern peer to peer conflict with minefields, drones and MLRS this approach is a death sentence
BCTs have organic assets that allow them to deploy in dependent of division support. Biggest warfighting function is fires. BCTs have an organic FA BN, unlike the pre-BCT structure where FA BNs were organic to DIVARTY.
Not really. Most of those vehicles are 100 meters apart, are armored, and have CBRN protection along with the ability to over-pressurize their cabins. Not to mention that in order to nuke this brigade, you'd have to suppress the air defense, much of which is capable of shooting down an ICBM, and/or fight through the US Air Force in order to launch a missile-borne nuke. In short, it's not that easy.
@@notcrazy6288 indeed, but this scenario was tested with under sea torpedo that can damage seriously if not destroying. But i agree it won't be that easy.
It's an easy shorthand when you're measuring in hundreds of meters because a football field is almost exactly 100 m long. You can just use it instead of saying 200, 300, or 400 m
@@death_parade Unironically, it's most likely better (at least you could argue) in the case of the U.S. military. For many, a "football field" probably carries more contextual understanding than "100 m" as they've likely seen one and know what it feels like to run across one, so in terms of spatial comprehension to brevity, the tradeoff is probably worth it. But I agree, very ironic.
It is artillery to support the brigades cavalry squadron. Unlikely to actually be allocated since all our cavalry troops have organic mortars in their formations. Plus guns went to Divarty recently so doubt they’d be forward supporting cavalry like that haha
@@emiel_nl The more forward your own artillery is, the further it can reach into enemy terretory. Imagine the forward scouts would recieve enemy artillery fire, but your own artillery is too far behind to offer effective counter artillery fire. And other then in the model, the scouts are probably several miles ahead off the main body. It's their job to scout ahead after all. Also, the scout bataillion has a tank company of it's own. So that artillery is still behind a first line of 36 Bradleys (3 troops with each two plattons of 6 Bradleys) and a second line of 14 Abrams tanks (one company)
Incredible Freedom Amazing Demonstration Mostly Understood but This Is Invaluable in Reminding Me of The Perspective and Showcasing Potential Lesser Patrol Tactics Thank You so Much for This Public Service The Comfort Of Man Know’s No Bounds
@@jb76489 Armoured doesn't mean they can't be defeated. Look at Russia armoured columns in the start of the invasion. Almost no infantry. Result was that they were easily defeated by ATGMs and other portable AT weapons.. genius.
Why is this available to the public on RU-vid where our enemies can study it and plan their own fires against our formation composition? Too busy trying to look cool to all the civvies that wont join up I guess.
The current US government and the leadership of the US military including the US Army is a disgrace. Retired 21 year 11Bravo. And you know exactly why loser.
Is this a serious AU infomercial or a spoof? The photos make no sense with the narration. The speaker sucks the life, joy, and excitement out of you in about 30 seconds. If this is the best AU can do or even finds acceptable to represent the Army, it's a very sad statement.
It bugs me that in movies they sometimes throw around "platoon", "company", "battalion" or even "brigade", sometimes even in the wrong order of size (a brigade smaller than a company for example) and then show a dozen or maybe a couple dozen guys. A platoon is roughly 20-40 people in most NATO countries. Companies are 100 to 200, approximately. That's already a lot of people.
Reality undermines it. You will mever have things laid out like that. You always split your forces between front line, reserves, a refit/rest units. You will also conform to your terrain and operational needs. There's no scenario where this formation will need to exist.
