Com-Central.net

Hi Folks!

I was driving home from work this morning when I noticed a convoy of AFVs pulling out of the 5th BCT, 1st AD's motor pool. I found a spot to get off Fred Wilson Blvd and pulled my old camera out of the glove box.

Checks this out folks!


and


I took nine pictures, but that is my old camera and I can not see anything through it. These two are about the best of the bunch. I talked with a SFC would was guarding a gate where the convoy was passing from Briggs Field back onto Ft. Bliss. He told me he had just came from the 11th ACR at the NTC and this group of vehicles are now part of the 5th BCT of the 1st AD.

On another item of news. the 4th BCT, Longknives, 1st Cav. Division has passed into the history books. The BCT stood up on May 6, 2006, did one tour in Iraq, and has stood down on March 4, 2008.

Personel and equipment then stood up as the 4th BCT of the 1st Armored Division. 1st AD now has two BCTs at Ft. Bliss.

Back when the new FCS test BCT started standing up, the first units carried the markings of the 1st BCT (which in Iraq) and the 1st Bn, 36th Infantry (also in Iraq). Those two units have disappeared from the local news here and have been replaced by the 5th BCT with the 1st and 2nd CABs. (Combined Arms Battalions).

I had noticed during three different displays of 1st AD vehicles that the brigade part of the bumper markings had been taped over. I am now guessing that tape is covering up the old 1st BCT and 1st/36th Inf/CAB markings.

Spot Reports!
Sgt, Scouts out!

Hi Roy...

Gee, just think. It's not altogether unlikely that those very vehicles appear in some photos I took "over here" and posted some time ago.

Small world....

The old 'shell' game..... A lot of that occurred in the early 90's with the 'Clinton cutbacks'.

moves, shifts, designations, redesignations, reflaggings,....

Trying to keep track of it was a bit of a nightmare.

Nice to hear that good ole Ft Bliss, is getting some of the benifets to all the troop shuffling.

(BTW: I have many good memories of the Tank trail between Biggs & The Airport,.....

Been to Hueco Tanks lately, .....Use to be one hell of a party place...
Don

"Shell Game"

Boy doesn't that say it all. Up to 2003 I had a pretty good handle on where tank and cavalry units were/existed. Once I got away from tanking (NOT MY CHOICE) it seemed I woke up one morning and realized I knew nothing about who was where and even the make up of these units. It took me by surprise when I encountered Tanks with Infantry Battalion markings, although it was a good surprise. I am a big supporter of these combined arms battalions and wished they had done this many years earlier. Now they need to roll the tankers and scouts back into the fold of 11 series MOS. Tankers for way too long have avoided and lacked some very critical combat skills that our Infantry have. Hell, as a 19E I never touched an M16 until I got to my first unit and did a Miessau gaurd rotation .

Change is good.

Joe D

- Joe_D

"Shell Game"

Boy doesn't that say it all. Up to 2003 I had a pretty good handle on where tank and cavalry units were/existed. Once I got away from tanking (NOT MY CHOICE) it seemed I woke up one morning and realized I knew nothing about who was where and even the make up of these units. It took me by surprise when I encountered Tanks with Infantry Battalion markings, although it was a good surprise. I am a big supporter of these combined arms battalions and wished they had done this many years earlier. Now they need to roll the tankers and scouts back into the fold of 11 series MOS. Tankers for way too long have avoided and lacked some very critical combat skills that our Infantry have. Hell, as a 19E I never touched an M16 until I got to my first unit and did a Miessau gaurd rotation .

Change is good.

Joe D

JOE...!!?? DUDE...!!! WTF!!!????

You are hereby requested to return your 'Order of St George' , Your MG certification , your ceremonial spurs , burn your 'Dahners' and your stetson ....

You seem to have crossed sides by believing the dribble that tankers were/are less capable soldiers than 'Gods gift to Warfare' the Infantry...

BULL M****R F*****G S**T

".....THE HORROR,....!!!"

'NUFF SAID'
Don

(JOE...!!?? DUDE...!!! WTF!!!???? Shocked

You are hereby requested to return your 'Order of St George' Shocked , Your MG certification Laughing , your ceremonial spurs Rolling Eyes , burn your 'Dahners' Shocked and your stetson Mr. Green ....

You seem to have crossed sides by believing the dribble that tankers were/are less capable soldiers than 'Gods gift to Warfare' the Infantry...

BULL M****R F*****G S**T

".....THE HORROR,....!!!")

Medic! We got a man down! Get him a beer!

Hi Doug! Hi Folks!

- Doug_Kibbey

Hi Roy...

Gee, just think. It's not altogether unlikely that those very vehicles appear in some photos I took "over here" and posted some time ago.

Small world....

Small world indeed! I was thinking the best I would ever do was see pictures of those OpFor VisMod M113s. To lay eyes on was a big surpise!

That made my day yesterday!
Sgt, Scouts Out!

Hi Dontos! Hi Folks!

- Dontos

The old 'shell' game.....

moves, shifts, designations, redesignations, reflaggings,....

Don

Back when that BCT stood up as a element of the 1st CD, the plan was to reflag them as a 1st AD unit later. Why do that? Why not just make them a BCT of the 1st AD for the start?

I have an idea that might possible be the reason for this shell game.

It's a funding shell game! 1st CD is high on the transformation list for funding. By standing up a 1st CD BCT, they received the newest equipment. Newly rebuild M2A3 Bradleys and newly rebuild M1A2 Seps with one cav troop receiving the remote weapons station upgrade. All those vehicles went to Iraq. I have yet to see vehicles return. So far only the troops have.

The last I have read is the 1st AD along with the 1st ID are not yet on the funding list for transformation.

I am watching for the vehicles to show up. I will be surpised if they are the original ones (a lot of units leave the best behind for the next unit to use) but if M1A2 Seps and M2A3s show up then the 1st AD will have it's first upgraded BCT. Either way, the 1st AD will have a BCT with the new TOE. Something they are not yet on the list to receive.


Sgt, Scouts Out!

The unit was stood up as part of 1CD because of the proximity of the division HQs and the support the new brigade receives from the division staff. Since the 1AD was in Germany and the 1CD at Hood, they could receive personnel and a cadre to assist in standing up the unit.

Ouch, Ouch, Ouch, Don, quit it, ouch, ouch, ouch.

I knew someone would get a little offended by my comments, Let me clarify..

I never implied the Tanker was less a soldier than the Grunt. I just dis- agreed with how we allowed a combat arms branch get too wrapped around specializing. All combat arms soldiers should be able to fall back on being an Infantryman. Tankers seemed to get away from this more than our other Combat arms brothers. I've always admired the Marines with their "All Marines are Riflemen first". Infantry is Infantry. The most basic and fundemental fighting. You are not going to make tankers (or any other branch) as effective as our 11B's when it comes to their trade because that's all they do. Tankers still have to master their beast, which is not the simplest thing. But they should also be able to form up with an Infantry squad and possess enough skill to function effectively. This current world we are in can't allow us to be one dimensional, especially if your in a Combat MOS. It took me about 15 years of being a tanker to realize this. The current war has definately re-enforced it. Now think of the uphill battle it will be to get service and support soldiers up to snuff .

Now to address the order from Dontos .

1. Order of Saint George, don't have one and don't want one. Was offered a few times but the biggest sticking point was I wasn't a subscriber to Armor Magazine (A Pre-requisite from what I'm told). Seen to many clowns who couldn't spell tank get them because they did nothing but complete Company Command .

2. Master Gunner Certification, OK, got that but again, the 1059/ Certification don't mean much. It's those NCOER's showing you actually done the Job successfully. Kinda like wearing a Ranger Tab and never being in a Ranger Battalion. Admirable to have completed the course but doing it is the difference. BTW, Ranger Tab you can wear, Master Gunner Badge is not recognized .

3. Spurs, got 'em, earned 'em. But it's not like an EIB or EFMB. Everywhere the standard is different. Since we don't have a Combat Tankers Badge and got the consolation prize, the Combat Action Badge, maybe we need an equivelant peace time badge, Expert Soldier Badge comes to mind. Maybe our Sergeants Majors can come up with the standard. BTW, whens the last time you've seen a "Tank Weapons" qualification bar for your Bolo badge awarded. That kinda went away .

4. Dahners??? You mean those extra tall boots with pointy toes so you can find the stirrup easier . Those, Sir are Cavalry boots. I am a Tanker, I wear the stubby round toe strap boots when tanking. Although they really suck to do any dis-mounted activity in them (Hence, Tanker Boots, never get off the tank). BTW, IAW AR 670-1, they are officially now called CVC boots and are issued/authorized to all soldiers who operate armored vehicles. Not just tankers. Seen a NBC LT wear them with NOMEX on her FOX NBC recon vehicle in Korea .

5. Stetson???? I know, it's a Cavalry thing, I always tend to equate them with Air CAV . What I remember when I was a young tanker was seeing the unit photo's on the hall ways where everyone in the Squadron wore black Berets. That to me at the time was a tanker, Later, after wearing one for two years in the Mojave, I realized they sucked when it came to the field, but it beat wearing a helmet .

I y'am what I y'am, a Tanker man. Just some of my belief's are not in line with the "Cold War Tanker" mentality.


Joe D

BTW Don, Yambo asked how you're doing the other day. He's in Fort Stewart running a live fire shoot house.

- Joe_D

Ouch, Ouch, Ouch, Don, quit it, ouch, ouch, ouch.

I knew someone would get a little offended by my comments, Let me clarify..

I never implied the Tanker was less a soldier than the Grunt. I just dis- agreed with how we allowed a combat arms branch get too wrapped around specializing. All combat arms soldiers should be able to fall back on being an Infantryman. Tankers seemed to get away from this more than our other Combat arms brothers. I've always admired the Marines with their "All Marines are Riflemen first". Infantry is Infantry. The most basic and fundemental fighting. You are not going to make tankers (or any other branch) as effective as our 11B's when it comes to their trade because that's all they do. Tankers still have to master their beast, which is not the simplest thing. But they should also be able to form up with an Infantry squad and possess enough skill to function effectively. This current world we are in can't allow us to be one dimensional, especially if your in a Combat MOS. It took me about 15 years of being a tanker to realize this. The current war has definately re-enforced it. Now think of the uphill battle it will be to get service and support soldiers up to snuff .

RESPONSE PART ONE:


Well okay, I WAS is a terrible mood the other day, and I vented on you, (a bit too much actually).

Your use of the Marine Corps is both good & bad. Although I will probably get 'flamed' for this of being critical of the Corps, but not having been IN the Corps, but its a view taken from research into Ontos History.

All Marines ARE indeed basically Infantry, as they are all required to complete 'BOOT CAMP' (Army 'BASIC TRAINING' morphed from BASIC COMBAT TRAINING, and has evolved back do to current situations.)

Marines leaving BOOT CAMP get there specialization training (if not being assigned as basic Infantryman) and this is where the polarization begins. The 'unofficial' state of mind that if your anything other than a grunt, you're 'sub-par' or 'not a good marine'. This, as I learned, was (or is) also true of the Officer Corps.

I was commissioned a Second Lieutenant in December and completed The Basic School (also at Quantico) the following June. Prior to graduation from TBS I was selected for an 0302, infantry officer, MOS and assigned to the 1st Marine Brigade in Hawaii.
Upon arriving at the old Honolulu airport after my flight from Travis Air Force base near San Francisco in early 1963, I was picked up by a 1st Lieutenant from the Brigade's Ontos company. He informed me that I had been assigned to B Anti Tank Company.
I do not recall having had any previous knowledge of the Ontos when I reported in to B ATs company commander. In fact I don't think it was never mentioned at Quantico. I had been selected for infantry and I expected to assigned to an infantry unit, so I was a initially a bit disappointed....

The only formal training I had was a correspondence course from the Marine Corps Institute. I still have the manual from that course and in the preface it states the following; "This manual was written for the Infantryman who has had no previous experience with tracked vehicles. It is realized that for an infantryman to become proficient in the operation and maintenance of the Ontos, the greater part of his training will have to come from actual duty with an antitank company; but by thorough study of the material contained herein, the Marine will be better able to perform his duties as an Ontos crew member. He will have gained a substantial foundation on which to build his operational and tactical knowledge of this, the most potent weapon of the antitank assaultman." The course was intended for prospective crew members not platoon commanders, but it gave me the basics about the weapon I would be commanding...."

"How was it viewed by the other officers outside of ATs? There was
little understanding of the capabilities of the Ontos among the infantry
units. It had not yet been proved in combat and they did not know how
to utilize it; even though they understood that it carried an incredible amount of firepower. To my knowledge there were absolutely no manuals or papers written regarding the tactical employment of the Ontos. It was assumed that in combat it would be used as intended as an anti-tank weapon."

"From the perspective of an officer intending to make a career as a
Marine Corps infantry officer, it would not have been considered a good
assignment; unless that is, it was fairly brief and followed on the heels
of having been in a rifle company for a more extended period of time."

Well okay long winded but felt someone might enjoy it.

Don