Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 65
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The major differences in IBCT is its organization and what it doesn't have rather than what it has which is new. Remember, the reorganization of the Army was intended to achieve two very distinct goals:

1. Specialize forces into Light, Medium, and Heavy with distinctly different doctrinal roles.

2. Standardization as much as possible without violating #1.

Now, one can argue how well that has worked for Iraq since even heavier units are acting like light infantry and light infantry is often acting like heavy. But IMHO that just indicates that for some ops more light infantry is needed than is reasonable to keep permanently on hand.

To put it into CM terms, the IBCT forces are most similar to Marines in terms of higher level organization, but at the lower level they're not all that different than SBCT and HBCT since that was a major intention of the overhaul. But unlike the Marines they lack integrated armor (Abrams, LAVs, AAVs) and larger squad size.

To give you a little preview, here is what an IBCT Rifle Company looks like in its task orientated form:

Rifle Company HQ

__ FIST

__ Sniper Team

__ Humvee (yes, ONE Humvee)

__ 1 x Assault Platoon (heavy weapons mounted on Humvees or dismounted)

__ 3 x Rifle Platoon (1 Javelin Team for each Platoon, otherwise same as SBCT)

__ 2 x 60mm Mortar

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So will the Javelin teams be forced to carry...

Ohmygod, that line got such a big laugh out of me I started to choke! After two years of constant complaints about needing to 'acquire' Javelins to see a preemptive complaint about not having to acquire was a bit of a surprise! :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This PPT slideshow from geocities:

http://www.geocities.com/ibctcliffnotes/sld001.htm

mentions the composition of an IBCT company in one of the slides, but indicates that the unit is supplemented with a platoon (3) of MGS. The PPT is dated early '08, so it is fairly recent info. Can anyone verify the 105 strykers in the official TO&E?

That slide set was what was used during the early briefs of the IBCT, now known as SBCT's. IBCT was the initial name given to Stryker development and if you note on the bottom of the slides, they re dated 2002, so not a current template, though very close to current SBCT MTOE. The date reads 8 JAN, 2002, not 2008 JAN 02.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ohmygod, that line got such a big laugh out of me I started to choke! After two years of constant complaints about needing to 'acquire' Javelins to see a preemptive complaint about not having to acquire was a bit of a surprise! :)

Really? I have never made such a complaint. In fact my only issue has been not being able to put the Javelins back if I don't need them or want them saved for anti-armor purposes. I find the behavior of soldiers carrying Javelins unpredictable and difficult to control. I either have to reduce the strength of my squad by 2 or accept that they will probably waste the Javelins on area targets and run into CQB situations carrying the launcher. I know others have made the same complaint. I would have no issue if I could place a "hold" on the Javelin and have the team act as rifleman unless I desire otherwise, but since that won't be implemented in CMSF, the only option is exercising some level of control by acquiring them during the mission.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, pretty confusing about the IBCT acronym. Initially the medium brigades were called "Interim Brigade Combat Teams" before they had really figured out how to name everything consistently. Stryker Brigades should have been called "Medium Brigade Combat Teams", but for some marketing type of reason they decided to name the Brigade after the vehicle and the vehicle after two distinguished soldiers. As far as I know that is the first time in US Army history that such a thing has been done. Naming vehicles after soldiers... happens all the time, obviously.

IIRC the vehicle itself was initially called IAV (Interim Armored Vehicle), or something like that, because they hadn't even selected a platform, not to mention a name for it.

AKD,

The Javelins are held by a dedicated Javelin Team, not assigned to a specific Squad. So they are no different than Marines or Brits in terms of ability to control. I think that mostly addresses your concerns. However, your larger point about not being able to unAcquire Javelins or be able to explicitly control when it is/isn't used are definitely things we will address sooner rather than later.

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey Steve

Explicit control of anti-armor weapons is, of course, an important topic. But what about TAC AI ability to acquire Javelins and such when being controlled by computer AI?

Is this also on the eventual to-do list?

Right now the only computer AI soldiers capable of utilizing those weapons are dedicated anti-tank teams that already have the launcher in their possession.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... However, your larger point about not being able to unAcquire Javelins or be able to explicitly control when it is/isn't used are definitely things we will address sooner rather than later.

Steve

Woot! Hmmm "sooner rather than later"? Obviously a BONE!!! Javelins will be UNacquired with the CMUK module/patch! Pass it on! ;)

Okay, seriously; glad to hear it's on a list to get done. (It's nice that this game is at the point that only the relatively niggling bits are left to touch up!)

Regards,

Ken

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regarding Javelin employment by IBCT teams: I don't know about you guys, but I would keep any Javelin team in an overwatch position 200 to 400 meters back from the fighting line and with a short-range cover arc in place to obviate unwanted Javelin-firing. But that's just me.

As far as I know that is the first time in US Army history that such a thing has been done. Naming vehicles after soldiers... happens all the time, obviously.

As opposed to naming vehicles after generals (Sherman, Patton, Bradley, Abrams, etc.)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regarding Javelin employment by IBCT teams: I don't know about you guys, but I would keep any Javelin team in an overwatch position 200 to 400 meters back from the fighting line and with a short-range cover arc in place to obviate unwanted Javelin-firing. But that's just me. quote]

This is similar to what I do as well. And you're right, there is nothing more annoying than a Jav Team firing at a BTR when there are tanks on the field!!:mad:

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...