Com-Central.net

Neil_Baumgardner

From Stars & Stripes. Love the quote at the end: “For soldiers who haven’t been on a tank in two to three years it (the hybrid threat exercise) is good because we get back to doing the job we enlisted in the Army for,” he said.

www.stripes.com/news/a...s-1.112354
Army training to focus more on 'hybrid threats'
By Seth Robson
Stars and Stripes
Published: July 26, 2010
Image_12043445.jpg
M1A1 Abrams tanks from 1-72nd Armor Regiment line up in preparation to assault a town during Warrior Focus, a training exercise at the Combined Arms Collective Training Facility at Rodriguez Live Fire Complex, South Korea. The Army has directed its commanders to start training its soldiers on hybrid threats, which means soldiers will now prepare not only for counterinsurgencies, but for conventional wars as well.
Christen Best/U.S. Army

GRAFENWÖHR, Germany — After nearly a decade of fighting insurgents, the Army is shifting its training to focus more on “hybrid threats” — in which an enemy uses a combination of conventional and unconventional warfare.

Since the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan began, Army units have been training for counterinsurgency operations, according to a Joint Multinational Training Command newsletter. But with the U.S. preparing to withdraw its combat troops from Iraq, Army leaders are directing their commanders to conduct “full-spectrum” field exercises, which would include tanks, artillery and the other conventional equipment that has not been used much in the current wars.

Col. Frank Zachar, commander of the Grafenwöhr-based 172nd Infantry Brigade, described a hybrid threat as an enemy with a greater capability than the insurgents U.S. forces have been battling in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Army Secretary Gen. George Casey said a good example of a hybrid threat is Hezbollah, the Lebanese militia whose aim is to eject Israeli forces from the occupied territories in Israel.

“It’s a mix of conventional, irregular, terrorist and criminal capabilities that are organized and employed asymmetrically. That’s what we’re going to see,” Casey said during a speech in May at the African Land Forces Summit.

Michael O’Hanlon, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution specializing in defense and foreign policy, said a hybrid conflict in a place such as Iran or North Korea might mix insurgency with conventional forces and even weapons of mass destruction.

And while the Army must continue to focus on training soldiers for deployments to Afghanistan, “our military overall does not have the luxury of ignoring other possible threats and concerns.”

“We haven’t really trained for this kind of conflict, ever,” O’Hanlon said.

Yet, one Defense Department official said, America’s dominance in conventional warfare is an incentive for its enemies to use nontraditional tactics to undermine U.S. strengths and exploit its weakness.

“Preparing for this operating environment will pull the Army, and the military writ large, in two very different directions,” said Michele Flournoy, undersecretary of defense for policy.

On the one hand, the United States must be ready for irregular warfare, in which combatants blend in with civilian populations and use roadside bombs, suicide bombs and similar tactics, she said at an Army Leader Forum at the Pentagon last year, according to a DOD release.

Meanwhile, she said, the U.S. must remain prepared to deal with high-end threats, too.

To illustrate this concept, Flournoy described a scenario in which rising regional powers and rogue states use highly sophisticated technologies to deny U.S. access to critical regions and to thwart its operations. These tactics range from anti-satellite capabilities, anti-air capabilities and anti-ship weapons to weapons of mass destruction and cyber attacks.

The 172nd Infantry Brigade has been ordered by the Army to devote some of its current dwell time between combat deployments to conduct these “hybrid threat” field exercises, Zachar said.

To that end, the Joint Multinational Training Command in Hohenfels is retraining its trainers, known as the opposing forces, to “replicate the entire span of threats required” for such an exercise, according to the newsletter.

The 172nd’s public affairs officer, Maj. Joseph Buccino, said a hybrid warfare exercise would likely involve enemies comprised of a simulated conventional force equipped with tanks and artillery as well as insurgents blending into a population of civilian role-players.

The soldiers in the 172nd are excited about the training, Zachar said.

“We’re looking forward to a threat that will span the entire spectrum of conflict,” he said of the exercise. “The exciting part of this is we are going to be able to operate as a heavy brigade using all our offensive and defensive capabilities.”

The 172nd has units that can fight as either light or heavy forces, he said.

The soldiers, who spent their last deployment training Iraqi security forces and patrolling in heavily armored Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles, are ready to climb back in their tanks and Humvees.

“Many of our soldiers who came into the Army to be a tanker or an artilleryman relish the opportunity to train and operate on these systems,” he said.

Sgt. Maurice Mack, 26, of Trenton, N.J., a tanker serving with 172’s Company C, 3rd Battalion, 66th Armor Regiment, said he spent two deployments to Iraq patrolling in a Humvee as a light infantryman but did intensive tank training while serving in South Korea from 2007 to 2008.

“For soldiers who haven’t been on a tank in two to three years it (the hybrid threat exercise) is good because we get back to doing the job we enlisted in the Army for,” he said.

toadmanstankpictures · ***Power User*** Offline Joined: Jan 24, 2006 Posts: 704

And I thought the article was going to be about combatting Toyota Prius VBIED's!

Joe_D

I have some very heated comments I could make on how we got to this point,

But without going into detail, all I can say is "It's about time"

Dontos

- Joe_D

I have some very heated comments I could make on how we got to this point,

But without going into detail, all I can say is "It's about time"

Amen Brother !!

A novel concept,.....Armor crewmen training on Tanks ?! Shocked

I'll bet someone got a 'bullit comment' on his OER for THAT ONE !!! ?? Rolling Eyes

Regards
Don

tanker2010

Like our old company motto said " Death before Dismount".

Doug_Kibbey

- tanker2010

Like our old company motto said " Death before Dismount".

An armored crewman who expressed that attitude in my outfit would have been considered worse than useless.

Joe_D

"Death before Dismount" was the Mantra of Tank Battalions for most of my career and at times I subscribed to it. Unfortunately it is what created those tankers that were not even trained/Qualified on M16's which led to the "TWAT" nickname.

Tanker Without A Tank = Useless.

Cold War and the Post '73 conflict caused a major rethinking of the amount of Armored forces needed, so in order to build them up rapidly we created "Armor Specialists". Troops with no basic Infantry/Rifleman Skills. I was one of those troops and if it wasn't for being assigned to a CAV unit after graduating, I would've kept that mentality(Never touched an M16 until then). During the 80's/90's, especially after "Desert Storm" , the prevalent thinking was Mechanized/Armored was the way to go. That's how the Infantry got stuck with 11M's, or as we called them (So did the 11B's) Baby/Wanna be tankers. Guys who because of the "M" ID forgot what it was to be a "Grunt". School House at Benning recognized this and eventually eliminated that MOS, Remember, 19E was 11E at one time, so unlike many on this forum, I supported the merging of the Armor School with Infantry at Benning, but 8 years ago I would've never said that. Nothing wrong with being "True" to your calling. I am a "Tanker" first, always have been, always will. But I recognized that having those basic infantry skills made me a much better tanker, especially after OIF (First hand experience/eye opener). Much like having mechanical skills beyond -10 level do. My troops/peers would give me strange looks when I would extol the benefits of knowing basic infantry skills as a PSG, but this was pre 9/11.

My biggest fear was the Armored forces would now forget how to tank, since the pendulum started swinging way to far the other way. I saw this first hand when talking with former troops of mine, many of whom haven't been on a tank for more than 2 years other than the check the block gunnery and FTX. Requirements to make promotion (Tank Commander Time/PSG time) were waived, since many would be unfairly bypassed through no fault of their own because of mission requirements. This in the past would keep you from getting promoted. Ask many former detailed recruiters (Worst job in the Army IMO). I can honestly say that as far as tanking skills go, I had much more experience with my first 2 years than many SSG's have today, just the way things are with the current world situation. Unfortunately there is a vacuum now in the NCO corp as far as intimate knowledge of their mount, with the guys who "Tanked for Sam" during the pre OIF days leaving and others being promoted up and out of the line units. Rare are the platoons that have troops who remember conducting 2-3 gunnery and 4-5 FTX's a fiscal year actually using tanks, let alone their own. In a perfect world, tankers would maintain their lethal proficiency with their mounts but able to function as Infantry squads effectively when called upon. Hopefully the powers that be can make this happen. This "Stars and Stripes" article is seems to be a step in the right direction.

Pulled my soap box out again, sorry guys

, now it's time to shove it back under the bed.

Doug_Kibbey

I do not, and never have, understood the mentality behind the phrase "Death Before Dismount". It implies that an armored crewman is unwilling or unable to be of meaningful service apart from his vehicle. When I was in AIT on M48's, we were trained on how to secure the M37 coax for ground use and fight on in case the vehicle needed to be abandoned.

In Vietnam, dismounted patrols and dismounted ambushes were a daily requirement and any crewman who had dared refuse such an assignment (I know not of one even having been ordered to go) would have been spoken of in most unflattering terms by his fellow troopers.

I would note that no one was considered above this duty, and that on Jan 10, 1972, G Troop suffered two KIA's on a dismounted patrol....Roger Kojetin (KIA on the spot) and William Marshall Clark, the Troop CO, who succumbed to his wounds from that engagement a few weeks later.

What Was The Most Dangerous Job In Vietnam?

Armor Crewman
(MOS 11E)
27% KIA
Source: Combat Area Casualty File 11/93 Nat'l Archives

Many of those performing dismounted operations did so even as assigned to an armored vehicle. And many an 11E found himself assigned as an 11D and in other than an armor unit (as I found out myself). On a personal level, I find the phrase offensive and unrepresentative of those with which I served in two units.

tanker2010

It was a friggen joke. Lighten up, Francis.

Doug_Kibbey

- tanker2010

It was a friggen joke. Lighten up, Francis.

I"m glad you find it funny.

Neil_Baumgardner

Guys, lets keep it civil please. Needless to say, different experiences from different eras.

Neil

Com-Central.net

Select Language

Login

`±`Recent Visitors

`±`User Info-big

Com-Central.net

Select Language

Login

±Recent Visitors

±User Info-big

`±`Recent Visitors

`±`User Info-big