Combat Studies Institute Press

US Army Combined Arms Center

Fort Leavenworth, Kansas

Training for Decisive Action

Stories of Mission Command

Collected Insights from Commanders and 

Leaders on their Experiences at the

National Training Center
Cover: Donovian Main Battle Tank at Sunset.

Courtesy Blackhorse PAO
Training for Decisive Action

Stories of Mission Command

Collected Insights from Commanders and Leaders on their 

Experiences at the

National Training Center

Operations Group, US Army National Training Center

Combat Studies Institute Press

US Army Combined Arms Center

Fort Leavenworth, Kansas
ii

Library of Congress 

Training for Decisive Action:

Stories of Mission Command

Collected Insights from Commanders and Leaders on their Experiences at the 

National Training Center

Operations Group, US Army National Training Center

Includes appendices and index

1. United States. Army 2. United States Army--Officers. 3. Military art and science. I. Title.

Combat Studies Institute Press

US Army Combined Arms Center

Fort Leavenworth, Kansas

2013954417

CGSC Copyright Registration #13-0202 C/E

Editing and layout by

Carl W. Fischer

2014

Combat Studies Institute Press publications cover a wide 

variety of military history topics. The views expressed in this 

CSI Press publication are those of the author(s) and not 

necessarily those of the Department of the Army or the 

Department of Defense. A full list of CSI Press publications 

available for downloading can be found at:

http://usacac.army.mil/CAC2/CSI/index.asp

The seal of the Combat Studies Institute authenticates this document as an 

official publication of the CSI. It is prohibited to use CSI’s official seal on 

any republication without the express written permission of the Director of 

CSI.
iii

Publisher’s Note

This anthology of senior participants’ observations of the Decisive Action Training 

Environment serves two functions. First, it is explicitly a teaching tool for the operating force to use in preparing commanders and units for an expeditionary future 

against a hybrid threat. Second, it is itself an artifact, reflecting the current understandings of Army doctrine by its practitioners during a time of turbulence in the 

force, uncertain resources, and a comprehensive re-engineering of that doctrine. 

For that reason, some usages may not perfectly accord with doctrinal definitions, 

and others are not found in doctrine at all. We have nevertheless chosen to retain 

them for the reader’s benefit as an indirect lesson on the complexity of the Army’s 

task going forward from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

v

Foreword

“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it” and “only 

the dead have seen the end of war” are famous quotes by George Santayana. These 

are the driving forces for military professionals to study the craft and learn from 

those leaders before them. As we emerge from a period of one specific type of 

conflict, we as a military must retain the lessons from the last 11 years of conflict 

and remember the capabilities we trained so intensely on that prepared us for the 

initial interventions into Iraq and Afghanistan.

To echo the recently published Army Regulation 350-50, the Combined 

Training Centers (CTCs) are the “engine of change” for collective training in the 

Army. At the National Training Center (NTC), we are committed to ensuring that 

the learning and experience gained from completed training rotations set new goals 

for sustainment and improvement in training and operations that apply across the 

force. The lessons learned over a decade of combat experience in Iraq, Afghanistan 

and elsewhere in support of the Global War on Terrorism remain relevant as our 

Nation’s Armed Forces seek to transition. But these lessons must be built upon 

those fundamental competencies of offensive and defensive operations that have 

atrophied over that same time. The newly implemented Decisive Action Training 

Environment presents that complex environment where the core competencies of 

combined arms maneuver and wide area security must constantly be balanced by 

agile commanders through the execution of mission command. The introduction 

of a realistically complex, wicked problem environment offers iterative training 

opportunities that bolster the need to constantly build upon the observations of 

completed rotations.

The National Training Center has executed five rotations in the past 18 months. 

The following compendium offers a collection of stories from leaders that have 

grown out of those rotations. It focuses on all levels, and is a complimentary 

volume to the 66 Stories of Battle Command written following the 4ID and 1st 

Cav rotations of the late 1990s. These stories are a compelling mix of universal 

challenges and the new complex threat. They will undoubtedly be a wellspring of 

learning over the next few years. In coordination with our partnered Brigades that 

executed these rotations, Operations Group and the NTC presents these anecdotes 

as we strive to meet our Chairmen’s vision of leading “the Army’s transition to 

unified land operations” and enabling dialogue and learning that will “identify 

innovative training methods to reduce overhead without sacrificing training 

quality, standards or outcomes.”

Colonel Paul Calvert

Commander, Operations Group

National Training Center

vii

Acknowledgements

The genesis of this project came from the original 66 Stories of Battle 

Command published by the School of Command Preparation at Fort Leavenworth. 

As a Squadron Commander, I was introduced to this product by my brother 

Squadron Commander, Lieutenant Colonel Brian Robertson, the commander of 

2/11 ACR. We each used this as a tool to break the mentality of being a road based 

organization and train our force on the use of terrain, movement and maneuver.

To General (Retired) William Wallace who contributed to the original 66 Stories 

and served as a mentor to Lieutenant Colonel Robertson and myself. Thanks for 

his continued contribution to the Nation and the Army particularly in the field of 

leader development. His contribution to this current effort recognizes the value of 

these stories as well as the importance of learning from the past.

The Bronco Brigade Training team use the original 66 Stories as part of our 

dialogue with units during their preparation for their rotations as a tool to understand 

the terrain and complexities of a decisive action fight. Following rotation 13-03, 

we decided to attempt to capture some of the nuances of this new complex threat 

and how units manage the simultaneity of combined arms maneuver (CAM) and 

wide area security (WAS). The Armored Brigade Combat Teams (ABCT) of 

today has vastly greater capability with the systems and enablers than the forces 

of the late 1990s and the Advance Warfighting Experiment (AWE). Integrating 

these capabilities to deal with the complex threat is daunting without a frame of 

reference. This product is meant to provide some context and dialogue from the 

leaders that wrestled with these challenges.

Special thanks to Lieutenant Colonel Robertson for bringing this product 

to the National Training Center. To the Blackhorse Regiment, 1st Squadron, 

2nd Squadron, and RSS and their leaders that trained an incredibly capable 

Contemporary Operating Force (COEFOR) and environment. To Operations Group 

that partnered with these Brigades to bring out the challenges, provide coaching 

and pushed to make them better every day. Thanks to the Bronco Team for the 

assistance in operationalizing this concept and assisting the units and leaders in 

telling their stories.

Most importantly, to the Commanders, leaders, staff and Soldiers of the 

3d Brigade, 3d Infantry Division; the 1st Brigade, 4th Infantry Division; the 

3d Brigade, 1st Cavalry Division; the 2d Brigade, 1st Infantry Division; the 2d 

Brigade, 4th Infantry Division; and the 11th Armored Cavalry Regiment. Thank 

you for sharing your trials, tribulations and successes with an audience hungry for 

knowledge.
viii

Finally, thanks to the editors and writers, Major David Violand, Major Andrew 

Futscher and Major Thomas Laybourn that brought this project to life.

Colonel Christopher M. Doneski

Senior Brigade Trainer, Operations Group

NTC Bronco 07
ix

Table of Contents

Publisher’s Note.................................................................................................... iii

Foreword................................................................................................................ v

Acknowledgements................................................................................................ vii

Table of Contents ................................................................................................... ix

Illustrations of the National Training Center:

West, East, and South Introduction....................................................................... xii

Introduction ......................................................................................................... xv

The Decisive Action Training Environment ....................................................... xvii

Story 1: Executing Mission Command in the Brigade Attack (Rotation 13-02)

............................................................................................................................1

Story 2: Synchronizing BCT Enablers to Shape the Subordinate Units’ Fights 

(Rotation 13-04) .................................................................................................. 7

Story 3: Want to Visualize, Describe and Direct? Get on the Ground and 

Conduct Leaders Reconnaissance with Your Commanders and Staff (Rotation 

13-03)...............................................................................................................11

Story 4: Utilizing Decision Support Tools to Enhance Mission Command 

(COEFOR Perspective)....................................................................................17

Story 5: Maintaining Flexibility in the Exercise of Mission Command (Rotation 

12-05)...............................................................................................................21

Story 6: Executing Mission Command: Lessons from the Donovian Perspective 

(COEFOR Perspective)....................................................................................23

Story 7: Exploiting Gaps in the Recon Fight: A Blackhorse Perspective 

(COEFOR Perspective)....................................................................................25

Story 8: Getting Enablers into the Fight (Rotation 13-02)..............................29

Story 9: Integrating Enablers into the Battalion Scheme of Maneuver (Rotation 

13-02)...............................................................................................................33

Story 10: Managing the Transition of Mission Command Nodes and Systems 

(Rotation 13-02)...............................................................................................37

Story 11: Enabling Mission Command on the Move through EPLRS-ES 

(Rotation 13-08)...............................................................................................43

Story 12: Defining the TAC: Maneuverability versus Capability (Rotation 13-

04).....................................................................................................................47

Story 13: Rehearsing for Success in the Defense (Rotation 13-03)................51

Intelligence

Story 14: Templating the Hybrid Threat (Rotation 12-05)..............................55

Story 15: Graphic Control Measures: Building a Narrative for Friendly and 

Enemy Operations (Rotation 13-08)...............................................................59

Story 16: Employing SIGINT Collection in Support of Operations (Rotation 

13-04)...............................................................................................................63
x

Movement and Maneuver

Story 17: Executing Combined Arms Live Fire Breaching Operations (Rotation 

12-05)................................................................................................................. 67

Story 18: An Opportunity Missed (Rotation 13-02)........................................69

Story 19: Setting Conditions: Uncoiling from the Tactical Assembly Area 

(Rotation 12-05)...............................................................................................73

Story 20: Uncoiling from Attack Positions to Cross the LD

(Rotation 13-02)...............................................................................................77

Story 21: Role of the Reconnaissance Squadron in the Attack (Rotation 12-

05).....................................................................................................................83

Story 22: Reinforcing the Cavalry Squadron for the Movement to Contact 

(Rotation 13-02)...............................................................................................85

Story 23: Reconnaissance Support in the Movement to Contact (Rotation 12-

05).....................................................................................................................91

Story 24: Kill Them Here and Keep Them East of the Passes (COEFOR 

Perspective)......................................................................................................95

Story 25: The Defense of Dezashah: Adaptation on the Battlefield (COEFOR 

Perspective)......................................................................................................97

Fires

Story 26: Mission Command and the Deep Fight (Rotation 13-08) .............101

Story 27: Re-Learning Fires: Fire Support in Decisive Action (Rotation 12-

05)...................................................................................................................105

Story 28: A Vote for Air Triggers in Planning the Deliberate Attack (Rotation 

13-02).............................................................................................................109

Story 29: Radar Deception (Rotation 13-02).................................................111

Sustainment

Story 30: Managing CASEVAC Operations in the Movement to Contact 

(Rotation 13-08).............................................................................................113

Story 31: Digitizing Sustainment Operations for Decisive Action (Rotation 13-

02)...................................................................................................................117

Story 32: Power and Air: Considerations for Operating in Extreme Heat 

(Rotation 13-08).............................................................................................121

Story 33: The Value of a Logistical Common Operating Picture (Rotation 13-

02)...................................................................................................................123

Protection

Story 34: Balancing CAM and WAS: An STB Story (Rotation 13-08)........ 127

Story 35: Discipline at the Heart of Combat Operations (Rotation 13-02) .. 131
xi

Appendix A: Brigade Tactical Group (BTG) Application...................................135

Appendix B: Bilasuvar Freedom Brigade (BFB) Threat Considerations ............141

Appendix C: List of Commonly Used Acronyms................................................. 147

List of Figures and Illustrations

Donovian Main Battle Tank at Sunset

Illustration of NTC: Western Half 

Illustration of NTC: Eastern Half 

Illustration of NTC: Southern Corridor 

Figure 1-1: 1/4 ABCT Critical Event 6 CONOP, Attack to the International 

Boundary 

Figure 3-1: 3/1 CAV ABCT Defense CONOP 

Figure 4-1: COEFOR Decision Points, Rotation 12-05 

Figure 7-1: Donovian Advance Through Bicycle Lake Pass, Rotation 13-04 

Figure 10-1: 1/4 ABCT Scheme of Mission Command 

Figure 10-2: 1/4 ABCT Mission Command System Transition 

Figure 15-1: 2-8 IN MTC Enemy MLCOA, Rotation 13-08 

Figure 18-1: 1-66 AR COA Sketch and Statement for MTC, Rotation 13-02 

Figure 20-1: 1/4 ABCT Concept Sketch for Crossing LD 

Figure 20-2: 1/4 ABCT Movement Table, TAA to LD for MTC 

Figure 22-1: 7-10 CAV Organization for MTC, Rotation 13-02 

Figure 22-2: 7-10 CAV CONOP for Recon/Counter-Recon ISO BCT MTC 

Figure 25-1: COEFOR Defense Scheme of Maneuver, Rotation 12-05 

Figure 26-1: 2/4 ABCT Deep Fires Targeting Meeting 

Figure 31-1: Digital Logistics Network Architecture 

Figure 31-2: Digital Logistics Network Architecture 

Figure 33-1: 1/4 ABCT’s Logistics Synchronization Matrix 

Figure 33-2: 1/4 ABCT’s STX/LFX Support Relationship Matrix 

Figure B-1: BFB Line and Block Organizational Chart B

Figure B-2: BTG High Payoff Target List 

Figure B-3: BFB Fighters Repositioning in Razish 

Figure B-4: BFB Fighters in Razish 
xii

Illustration of the National Training Center: Western Half
xiii

Illustration of NTC Eastern Half
xiv

Illustration of NTC Southern Corridor
xv

Introduction

Better than a decade ago the Army Research Institute in cooperation with the 

School for Command Preparation at Fort Leavenworth published a collection of 

stories entitled 66 Stories of Battle Command. The fact that there were 66 stories 

is not significant. There could have been more – many more. The fact that it was a 

collection of stories is significant not only in the experiences shared in the stories, 

but the willingness of Army leaders to share their experiences, good and bad with 

whoever chose to read them.

Stories are some of the purest forms of learning. If done correctly, they capture 

the imagination of the listener in ways that lead to development and growth. As 

General Fred Franks Jr., US Army Retired said in the introduction to the first edition 

of 66 Stories of Battle Command “The commander who shares his experiences, 

good and bad, encourages a climate of open exchange and honest appraisal. These 

stories are valuable. They stimulate, they enrich, they teach.” The same is no less 

true today, and we have a very rich decade of stories to tell that are centered on the 

mission of the United States Army ... to fight and win our Nation’s wars.

The Army’s doctrine has evolved over the past decade due in large part to 

experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan. Our terminology has evolved as well. What 

was Battle Command is now referred to as Mission Command with an entire 

doctrinal volume dedicated to its discussion and definition. Doctrine, however, is of 

little use unless it is put into practice. The stories in this volume are about Mission 

Command applied to specific circumstance. There is much to be learned in the 

process.

The stories in this particular volume are important not only in what they say, but 

also in what they suggest for the Army’s future. We have, once again, entered into a 

critical period of transition for the Army - A period where the Army must transition 

from an era of constant counter-insurgency operations and one of repetitive 

deployments to a period of preparation – preparation to answer our Nation’s call in 

the midst of an uncertain world.

Transition implies change. Change is difficult under the best of circumstances. 

As former Chief of Staff of the Army, General Gordon Sullivan was fond of saying 

“intellectual change must precede physical change.” These stories are about thinking 

through new and different problem sets and developing solutions to be discussed, 

investigated and perhaps tried out. This newly minted volume of stories prompts 

a dialogue in the midst of that uncertainty to help soldiers and leaders develop 

themselves and their units for whatever missions the Army’s future might hold.

As the Army tries to understand what to train for and how to train for it, the 

Army’s Combat Training Centers are once again the centerpiece of Army training 

and preparation. Accordingly, the Army’s Combat training Centers have – at the 
xvi

direction of the Chief of Staff of the Army – begun to conduct what have been 

designated “Decisive Action” rotations. These rotations are characterized by a 

complex, yet realistic environment that is designed to stress units and individuals. 

The stories in this volume are primarily taken from these Combat Training Center 

rotations.

Beyond being interesting experiences in their own right, these articles can 

form the basis for officer and non-commissioned officer professional development 

programs where mistakes are identified and solutions developed. I commend the 

contributors to this volume for their participation, their diligence in making the 

volume a reality, and their contribution to the study of the military art.

General William S. Wallace

US Army (Retired)
xvii

The Decisive Action Training Environment

In response to Army transitions in Iraq and Afghanistan the CTCs and 

TRADOC stakeholders collaborated on the development of a modified training 

model to prepare tactical organizations to execute a wide range of operations as part 

of Unified Land Operations. Training the Army’s core competencies of Combined 

Arms Maneuver (CAM) and Wide Area Security (WAS) requires a robust and 

flexible training model that represents real-world complexity and stimulates all the 

capabilities inherent in our Brigade Combat Teams (BCTs) and available enabling 

units.

The Decisive Action Training Environment is that model. It presents a 

complex training environment that provides a vehicle for building and training 

operationally adaptable units. The training scenario is adaptable but robust. The 

ground operations provide the opportunity for the Brigade to build competency 

with key Mission Essential Tasks while retaining many of effective practices and 

skills developed over the course of the last twelve years of combat. The model 

draws on aspects of the Contemporary Operational Environment (COE) while 

incorporating aspects of emerging threats and security challenges to maintain 

relevance. The dynamic threat environment is replicated by regular, irregular 

forces and criminal elements within the population. This threat to the Brigade’s 

mission is asymmetric, adaptable and employs a full spectrum of capabilities 

and approaches to defeat the BCT or undermine their mission. The DATE also 

includes JIIM partners and a multifaceted and complex Host Nation Security Force 

that presents the Brigade with simultaneous challenges and opportunities for the 

collaboration and integration that is critical to understanding and prevailing in a 

volatile environment.

At the National Training Center in Fort Irwin, California, BCTs find themselves 

immersed in the northern Atropian Province of Erdabil. This province is a multiethnic 

province and flashpoint between the nation states of Donovia and Atropia. In this 

rough, austere space, the US-allied Atropian government contends with armed 

separatists and insurgents, internally displaced people and opportunistic criminal 

organizations. At their northern border the Donovians menace- representing a 

nation state actor with robust conventional and unconventional capabilities and 

a willingness to engage in open warfare with the Atropians and Coalition Forces. 

Over the course of 14 days, the BCT works through training opportunities that 

range from platoon and company STX and LFX lanes to battalion and brigade 

offensive, defensive and stability operations against the Contemporary Operating 

Force (COEFOR). A constant during the force on force training is the continuous 

tension between the urgent demands of conducting Combined Arms Maneuver 

and Wide Area Security. There is no perfect solution set to the DATE rotation 

and success is determined by training outcomes realized and captured by the BCT 

during their time “in the box.”
xviii

The Decisive Action Training Environment presents Army forces and our 

Joint partners with a training model that helps leaders identify requirements and 

shape unit training to build formations capable of fighting and prevailing under a 

wide range of conditions. This capacity to stimulate and train Soldiers and units is 

essential to generating and maintaining a superior ground combat capability.

Lieutenant Colonel William Adler

Chief of Plans

National Training Center 
1

Story #1

Executing Mission Command in the Brigade Attack

Colonel Joel Tyler was the Commander of the 1st Armored Brigade Combat Team, 4th Infantry Division’s Decisive Action Training Environment rotation at the NTC. His unit was comprised of two combined arms battalions, an 

armored reconnaissance cavalry squadron, field artillery battalion, brigade 

support battalion, special troops battalion, and a multifunctional aviation task 

force. His missions included a movement to contact through Siberia and into 

the Central Corridor, a hasty defense vicinity centerline road, and a deliberate attack to the west of Brown and Debnam Passes towards Crash Hill.

So there we were: Training Day 14, with all its dynamics, and the BCT was 

tasked to attack westward through an enemy battalion (+) in the Central and Northern Corridors to restore the International Boundary, among other things. Ever 

since I heard General Wallace explain at an Armor Conference how he used maneuver to dislocate the enemy from sitting on all the good avenues of approach 

to Baghdad, I have thought we could do the same at NTC. My controlling idea 

for the design of the operation was “maneuver through dislocation,”but to do it 

we had to use the least likely (from the enemy perspective) axis and stay away 

from the more obvious ones. Brown and Debnam Passes always look feasible 

on the map, but favor the defenses to their west. The Northern Corridor was 

also part of our AO, but it culminates in Alpine Pass, not good for BCT maneuver. The trafficability of the Bruno is still a topic of hot debate, but also not 

a great option for a big force. I just didn’t think the enemy would have more 

than a company up there and wouldn’t reinforce it much, because of the terrain.

That left The Washboard as our best option but we would have to synchronize our warfighting functions for cumulative effect to get to the objective with 

sufficient combat power. The challenges to this synchronization came from 

tempo, seeing the enemy, and ultimately, concentration of maneuver elements.

Tempo is the obvious operational factor when choosing to run The Washboard. The terrain discourages most units from going this way because it imposes a pace on the attackers that allows defenders to quickly reorient from their 

prepared positions in the north, and it fragments orderly formations, requiring a 

looser mission command. Many units that try this southern axis go for the Colorado Wadi, a bad idea since mobile COEFOR AT systems scoop into it like bears 

fishing for salmon or sit on platforms to take you out on the approach; better to 

go south of the Colorado. I intended to use this perception of disadvantage as an 

opportunity. By going south, I figured the enemy would react by coming out of 

hide positions in the north and we could engage him with Joint fires. Reducing 

his combat power this way would allow decisive maneuver by getting combat 

power up to the assault position; we would then regroup and take the objective.
2

Figure 1-1. Attack to the International Boundary CONOP
3

I was aiming for the IV line southwest of Chinaman’s Hat, a perfect place 

to overwatch the border and use as an assault position for the objective.

Our plan for synchronization was supposed to be cascading, not really sequential or simultaneous. We determined to fix the enemy with a demonstration oriented on the more obvious corridors of Brown and Debnam after he 

saw our movement in the south. This would give the enemy a dilemma in having to deal with us in more than one direction. 1-66 AR, task- organized as 

a combined arms battalion, attacked before BMNT and did just that, superbly.

About 30 minutes later, 7-10 CAV (augmented with an armor-heavy team) 

conducted a moving flank guard to the north of our main effort (1-22 CAB) 

in the Washboard, and used every smoke pot in the AHA to screen its movement (getting rid of tactical smokers was not a good idea). [The] 7- 10 CAV 

had retained Hill 910 and Brigade Hill during the previous three days of “the 

fight between the fights”. Given the enemy’s repeated attempts to take them, 

I knew the bad guys realized their importance as key terrain for observation, 

ambushes, and AT platforms. I deliberately used the CAV as a security or maneuver element throughout the rotation; when it “fights big” it can do so much 

more than just as a reconnaissance formation. We needed the guard to get 

the main effort to that assault position in record time – and 1-22 IN did it in 

less than two hours! I found out after the fact that we had executed the COEFOR’s most dangerous COA for us, and created a window of opportunity.

We wanted to give the enemy another dilemma while 1-22 IN consolidated 

at the attack position by sending the attack aviation battalion – 6 Apaches and 8 

Kiowa Warriors – through the Northern Corridor and popping up over the North 

Wall. The weather had different ideas however, and precluded our aviation, 

our Shadow, and even our CAS sorties from executing this attack as planned. I 

thought the synchronization of our maneuver elements in the initial phases was 

good, given our rapid tempo, because I needed about 45 minutes to get 1-22 IN 

in good order at the assault position. The combination of weather and our consolidation would have consequences in the final push on to the objective. I also 

hadn’t accounted for the impact our maneuver tempo had on our ability to see, 

understand, and engage the enemy—the central element of the controlling idea.

We couldn’t see the enemy’s reaction to our maneuver. 4-42 FA’s artillery 

kept up well and greatly assisted 7-10 CAV in defeating the COEFOR’s anti-tank systems north of our movement. However, the rapid tempo didn’t allow our observers time to get in position to see over the hills to our north, even 

with a two-hour head start. We couldn’t get any birds up in the high winds 

and were blind except for JSTARS, not the best system to use to call for fires. 
4

With only two cannon and one MLRS batteries, we couldn’t just start throwing shells around. The southern envelopment allowed the main effort to get 

to the assault position pretty unscathed, if a little strung out, and I really had 

two enemy clusters: the COEFOR company(+) around the objective, which became the focus of the fires we could muster as we closed on the assault position; and approximately two companies behind the Passes, some of which were 

working westward along the North Wall. Sure could have used those Apaches.

Our maneuver option in the south was limited: we could have slowed the tempo and allowed observers to get in place, but I wanted to get to the good ground at 

the assault position quickly. If the enemy got into Three Sisters Cut or the Jose Rodriguez in strength, we couldn’t engage effectively with artillery anyway, and we 

would be flanked from the north. Instead of fires, we used our maneuver forces to 

give 1-22 time to regroup by keeping 1-66 in their very effective fixing position, 

and tried to probe north with 7-10 (about one troop’s worth after they gave the armor team back to 1-22). I think everyone was calling for fires on the few vehicles 

we could see, except our trained scouts and COLTs. Not good when the BCT 

commander is sending calls for fire over the command net; it might not be the 

best target, but it always gets priority of fires! We had gained a brief window with 

about three companies from 1-22 in various states of consolidation to assault the 

objective. While we had advantage of position and numbers, we just couldn’t see 

around the corner. I did not want to send our guys forward over the open ground. 

The COEFOR was able to build up more combat power in the area and I knew we 

hadn’t seriously reduced his numbers. This lack of massed Joint fires effects and an 

incomplete picture of the enemy’s set directly affected the final phase of the battle.

I kept 1-66 AR in place about an hour longer than I wanted. Its other significant task was to defeat a COEFOR company in the Northern Corridor. This 

fight in the north ended up taking about two hours, about what we expected. 

By the time 1-66 AR finished and was moving west, 1-22 IN had culminated 

with about two companies in a support-by-fire position overwatching the objective. It would have taken at least another hour to get 1-66 AR through the 

Alpine Pass and on to the objective; this was directly related to my earlier decision to hold up its progression going north, which in turn was done to compensate for our lack of a read on the enemy. This provided a great lesson on 

the linkage of information collection, maneuver, and fires warfighting functions; 

sustainment as well, because 1-66 AR had to refuel in the middle of its attack.

Another consideration in decisive action is apportionment of combat power 

throughout the operating environment, the terrain we had already fought over 

to get to the Passes, including the urban areas which were just now coming under host nation control. 1-66 AR’s successful demonstration left it with enough 

good combat power to defeat the enemy in the Northern Corridor, but after it left, 

there was probably at least an enemy platoon(+) in the immediate vicinity, which 
5

could have attacked east and linked up with irregular elements in Ujen or Razish.

We did have a mechanized company (-) around Ujen, supporting the STB’s stability operations in the rear, and put it on alert against this potential threat. I didn’t have to 

use it, but thinking about it really made clear the balance required by the hybrid threat.

I learned (or re-learned) a lot of lessons in this battle: the controlling idea is 

still a good conceptual tool to drive the design of operations; in operational design, 

warfighting functions must complement one another, a failure in one has to be 

made up for with others, like losing one of your senses; and finally, that synchronization should be cumulative, not necessarily sequential or simultaneous. I still 

think our maneuver was fundamentally sound; it’s hard to get an advantage on 

the COEFOR and going where he doesn’t want you to go is usually a good idea.

7

Story #2

Synchronizing BCT Enablers to Shape the Subordinate Units’ 

Fights

Colonel Jeffrey Broadwater was the Commander of 2d Brigade Combat Team, 

1st Infantry Division’s Decisive Action Training Environment rotation at the NTC. 

His unit consisted of two combined arms battalions, an armored cavalry squadron, 

fires battalion, special troops battalion, support battalion and an aviation task 

force. Among the missions the BCT was tasked with were conducting offensive and 

defensive operations against the Donovian Regular Forces, including a movement 

to contact, hasty defense and deliberate attack. 

I recognized that synchronizing COLTs, Prophets, PRD-13, JTACs, 

and other Brigade Combat Team (BCT) enablers to achieve my desired 

intent was going to be a challenge the first time we incorporated them into 

our operations. Our first learning point began when the enablers were 

task organized within the companies; the enabler task and purpose was 

not clearly understood down to the company level, and misunderstood 

capabilities and limitations caused confusion up and down the chain 

of command. As I spoke to my staff, the enablers were given a task and 

purpose to meet certain objectives within my visualization of the brigade 

fight. We directed where the COLTs were to be emplaced to achieve 

certain effects within the brigade’s focus of fires. This was the start of 

ensuring these key enablers were utilized properly. However, I never fully 

confirmed the company, battalion level commanders, and battalion staffs 

had a clear understanding of the assets that I attached to them in order 

to accomplish the my intent. The link-up of the assets with the units that 

will emplace and employ the asset seems like a simple task, but unless it is 

planned, rehearsed, and supervised it will create friction in the execution 

of the operation. 

Every unit must train to intercept enemy radio communications, see 

enemy movements, hear about enemy weaknesses, and conduct analysis 

to allow the commander to make decisions. I knew the battalions would be 

challenged with incorporating the various enablers that we fielded, because 

we had not had time to integrate certain enablers into training our training 

at lower levels up to this point. But the more difficult issue was tailoring 

mission orders and rehearsals so that my subordinate commanders 

understood how I wanted the enablers synchronized and employed across 

the battlefield. 

As an example, through terrain analysis, we had narrowed the possible 

enemy maneuver corridors down to three major routes. We planned to 
8

use our signals intelligence (SIGINT) collection assets to focus on enemy 

communications that would enable us to confirm the enemy’s exact axis of 

approach. I directed a Low Level Voice-Intercept (LLVI) team and Prophet 

Sensor to be located along the brigade’s screen line to report enemy 

communications that would provide the intelligence we needed to confirm 

certain enemy locations. While we talked these enablers in our combined 

arms rehearsal, and even executed an ISR rehearsal, the dissemination plan 

for moving the collected information back to our mission command nodes 

was not clearly understood at the lowest levels. The result was only ten 

percent of the SIGINT reports were received at the brigade main command 

post. 

The details, or in this case lack thereof, of how information moves from 

sensor to shooter became critical in the fast paced environment of offensive 

operations. Company and battalion level commanders and staffs did not 

understand the full range of capabilities of the assets that we had assigned 

to them, nor did they clearly understand my intent for those assets to act 

as brigade collectors. I should have articulated this better to make sure 

everyone at each level clearly understood the intent and our actions were 

better rehearsed before my units crossed the line of departure. During the 

mission, the unit receiving the Prophet sensor placed it in a valley for local 

security, inadvertently making it ineffective to intercept enemy signals that 

could answer brigade Priority Intelligence Requirements (PIR). 

It is very easy for staff members to move icons on a map or white board, 

but this swift, easy movement of a symbol equates into a very detailed 

and deliberate movement of men and equipment on the battlefield. Task 

organization can be assigned early during mission analysis or initial 

commander’s guidance to allow more time for subordinate rehearsals. 

Unfortunately, the responsibilities of the gaining unit are often overlooked, 

and time is wasted for proper link up with the company or platoon. The 

stop watch is always running and incorporating a new element into a 

unit takes time to ensure that the unit’s plan that incorporates the enabler 

is issued, understood, and rehearsed. Command relationships and the 

inherent responsibilities must be understood by the planners and by the 

unit receiving each enabler. If this link up is not understood and verified 

by all, the asset might not get into the fight at all. For example, COLTs with 

20-kilometer optics and a communications platform capable of bringing 

indirect fires and airpower used to detect and destroy the enemy on a 

brigade movement to contact might not be available to the squadron or 

brigade commander. This can cause the brigade commander to make a 

decision to reallocate fixed wing assets into an alternate target area of 
9

interest (TAI) based on the lack of sensors deep and timely observation of 

triggers. 

Enabler redundancy is preferred, but very difficult to achieve because 

of the scarcity of resources, especially when the lack of assets is due to 

a preventable misunderstanding of task organization. The losing and the 

gaining units must not only conduct a link-up, but also have a mutual 

understanding of what encompasses the asset. A M1200 Knight vehicle 

with three days of supply, one five gallon fuel can, and lack of friendly 

identifiers may not satisfy the gaining units standing operating procedures. 

The gaining and losing unit must conduct an inventory or pre-combat 

checks and inspections (PCCs/PCIs) on the transferred asset. Two pieces 

of paper* can prevent a 5,000-man brigade from accomplishing key tasks 

if the task organization is not understood by all leaders and staffs. If this 

does not occur, the brigade commander might discover after the fact that 

the COLT was pulling local security within a platoon instead of being the 

primary observer for the brigade’s number one priority fire support target. 

Rehearsals are the tool that units use to visualize and ensure subordinate 

commanders understand the plan and validate synchronization and the 

proper coordination between units. Commanders and leaders of the enablers 

are often present at the brigade rehearsal, but the company leadership that 

is responsible for emplacement of the asset is usually not in attendance. 

A way to ensure that the unit understands the brigade commander’s task 

and purpose is at the BCT Combined Arms Rehearsal (CAR) ensure the 

battalion commanders brief task and purpose of the enabler and location 

of employment. At the battalion level rehearsal, the company commander 

must brief the same information so it is clearly understood how the assets 

are to be employed within the BCT Commander’s intent. At the Fire 

Support and ISR rehearsals, the enabler must brief along with the battalion 

level war fighting function proponent to ensure common understanding. 

Rehearsals can also verify the communication PACE plan for the enabler to 

disseminate the information to all required outlets, including the brigade 

main command post. The result being the brigade COLTs would identify 

that they will have to relay call for fires and spot reports through the 

squadron/battalion TOC based on the observation post terrain identified 

during the BCT Fire Support rehearsal. 

Successful execution of enablers creates synergy and allows the brigade 

to execute all tasks the commander visualized. Successful brigade mission 

execution is determined by the company level leaders that are emplacing, 

securing, and using each enabler. Leaders must be informed when the 

attached assets are emplaced and performing their assigned tasks. The 
10

status of an enabler causes the Brigade Commander to make decisions, 

and therefore, he must stay informed of any change, to include when the 

asset is in place and if it can observe and execute what it is needed to do. 

Leadership must constantly verify the proper employment and use of the 

enabler during operations and then report changes. The brigade staff is 

the integral key in the dissemination of information within a headquarters 

and systems must be in place to capture status updates of assets across 

the BCT AO focusing on CCIR. The challenge is relaying information 

between the enabler and the staff member at the BCT TOC in order to 

keep the commander informed. The reporting trail starts with a radio or 

BFT message with the attachment and works its way through the platoon, 

company, battalion, and within the BCT TOC at times switching between 

lower and upper tier. This is never an easy feat when all reports are 

competing for time on the voice and digital networks. The BFT in the BCT 

TOC during the battle fought over extended ranges has the potential to end 

up with a line of staff members waiting to send and receive messages to the 

enabler that they are responsible for and the commander not receiving the 

information needed to make a decision. 

The efficient and competent execution of a brigade level plan that incorporates 

all combat multipliers on the battlefield will result in greater destruction of the 

enemy while preserving the brigade’s combat power. Rehearsals must be conducted 

at every level to ensure that the leaders and the enablers understand their task and 

purpose and that the enablers are properly integrated into the plan. Leaders at all 

levels must confirm the proper use of the enabler and report any changes to the 

commander so he can make informed decisions. This line of communication may 

seem easy, but during execution and within the various levels of emplacement, it 

is graduate level integration. It is required to accomplish all tasks directed by the 

commander to ensure success on the battlefield. All of the Commander’s intent 

must be synchronized throughout his staff and subordinate battalion and company 

formations to achieve the desired effects.

Endnote

 * Referring to the 5988E, Equipment Maintenance and Inspection Worksheet.
11

Story #3

Want to Visualize, Describe and Direct? Get on the Ground and 

Conduct Leaders Reconnaissance with Your Commanders and Staff

Colonel David Lesperance was the Commander of 3d Armored Brigade Combat 

Team, 1st Cavalry Division during the third Decisive Action Training Environment 

rotation at the NTC. His unit consisted of two Combined-Arms Battalions, an 

Armored Reconnaissance Squadron, a Fires Battalion, a composite Aviation Task 

Force, Special Troops Battalion and a Support Battalion. His unit was charged 

with conducting a defense ranging from Red Pass in the east to Bicycle Lake in 

the west against a Donovian attack. Following a successful defense, he executed 

a counterattack and a movement to contact to secure the population centers and 

deny additional Donovian incursions. 

The battlefield geometry of our assigned area was large for a brigade combat 

team conducting BCT defensive operations. Looking at the terrain, we faced the 

challenges of developing a cohesive defense 40 kilometers across its breadth, 

and 30 kilometers in depth, with Tiefort bisecting the terrain. This made mission 

command a challenge. We had to figure out how the enemy was going to take 

advantage of the terrain to mass fires with maneuver. Even more critically, we 

had to figure out how the COEFOR would attempt to influence the human terrain 

throughout the depth of our defense. Early on we recognized the importance of 

conducting terrain analysis including the physical and human aspects of terrain in 

the towns and villages in our security area. 

As we started to plan, we knew that we were going to need a solid 

reconnaissance and surveillance plan that identified where the enemy was 

going to attack. Security was going to be paramount. We executed key leader 

engagements in the towns of Guba and Nabran, as these two population centers sat 

astride key lines of communication that would offer critical advantage if we could 

count on the population’s support. During mission analysis, we emphasized the 

significance of these two population centers as key terrain- this conceptualization 

helped shape how we defended. In fact, protecting the population became a key 

task throughout our defense. We needed to ensure protection not only from the 

Donovian regular forces, but also from the irregular elements, sectarian groups 

and criminal gangs that existed. Before we started our defensive preparations, 

we emphasized with subordinate commanders the concept of a population-centric 

defense which impacted task organization. We knew that if we didn’t assign the 

proper headquarters and apportion adequate resources in the security area, we 

wouldn’t have a chance to get ahead of simultaneous and continuous operations. 

Our big epiphany as a brigade headquarters occurred as we started to work 

through COA refinement for the defense. I discovered that my plans team didn’t 
12

understand the terrain like I did and based upon that knowledge gap, the staff was 

having difficulty translating my intent into a coherent course of action. Since we 

were in the defense with Atropian elements securing the international boundary, 

I decided to allocate a day and execute a terrain walk with the staff to elevate 

everyone’s understanding of the ground. Our leader’s reconnaissance included 

Bike Lake Pass through Hidden Valley, John Wayne Pass to the Siberian Ridge, 

Columbia Wash, Red Pass to Red Lake Pass and finally Whale Gap. We covered 

the whole of our 40 kilometer frontage and spent a good eight hours discussing 

and appreciating the terrain and its impact on our course of action. My intent was 

to elevate the entire staff’s understanding and appreciation of the terrain we were 

defending before continuing planning. I had the S2 talk how the enemy could 

use the terrain and fight at each location and then I would describe my intent and 

guidance by warfighting function for the defense. Each staff officer was able to 

describe and discuss the unique contribution their particular warfighting function 

could contribute to the coming fight. The impact this event had on the staff’s 

ability to conceptualize my intent was profound. Consequently, we were able to 

produce an order that worked and enabled battalion commanders to successfully 

develop effective engagement areas. 

Our reconnaissance led me to task my reconnaissance squadron, 6-9 CAV, to 

block Bike Lake Pass and screen along the northwestern ridge of Hidden Valley 

to Sardatep*

 in the east to provide early warning and protection for the BCT main 

effort, 3-8 CAV in the east. To provide 6-9 CAV more combat power, we attached a 

tank platoon and directed a BCT engagement area based upon where I thought the 

Donovian BTG commander might make a run through Bicycle Lake Pass towards 

the very important population center of Guba. I also reinforced them with priority 

of counter-mobility assets and fires; we did not want the enemy to use this avenue 

of approach. We determined planning priority one for the brigade reserve to be the 

reinforcement of 6-9 CAV in the west. The use of the reconnaissance squadron in 

this role was required absent a third maneuver battalion in the BCT.

Division guidance allowed the BCT to defend anywhere south of the 

international border with no directed battle positions or engagement areas. Options 

included defending vicinity the Whale Gap, Siberia or the Siberian Ridge. During 

our leader’s reconnaissance, I knew we needed to identify the decisive point for the 

coming fight. We were shaping our understanding of where we could complement 

battalion direct fires with massed joint effects. Having already determined we 

could not mass effects in the west, our reconnaissance efforts focused in the 

vicinity of the Siberian Ridgeline. The S3, S2, the Fires Battalion Commander, 

ALO and I had about a 90-minute discussion on the terrain near Hill 815 and 781 

east, walking the ground and talking through all the different possibilities of how 

the enemy could achieve successful penetration of our defense. 
13

We determined that we would lose the fight if the Donovian commander was 

able to mass more than one MIBN at any one point and time against 3-8 CAV in 

the center. This in turn drove us to create a BCT engagement area on the crest of 

the IV-line south of Siberian ridge. This is the place we selected to destroy the 

lead MIBN of the attacking BTG—our BCT decisive point, and the ideal location 

to mass joint fires. Identifying the BCT decisive point early allowed us to mass 

indirect fire systems and observers along enemy avenues of approach prior to those 

threat formations entering our BCT engagement area.

We recognized that if we portrayed too much strength in the center of the 

BCT defense vicinity the Siberian Ridge, the threat commander would decide to 

attack east and penetrate 1-12 CAV defenses. We did not want the BCT fight to 

occur in the east because we believed the Donovian BTG commander would make 

a run through Red Lake Pass towards the town of Nabran and control this very 

important population center. Additionally, we needed the use of the Najalaban 

Military Complex for future operations as a support base and we needed flexibility 

to counterattack northwest to in support of 3-8 CAV if required. 

We needed to figure out how to influence the enemy to go where planned to 

destroy him instead of where he wanted to fight, so I directed 1-12 CAV to build a 

defense in depth stretching from Porta Potti Wadi southeast to Red Pass. I really 

wanted to sell this as a point of strength, so I prioritized my survivability assets 

in the east, recognizing that in Siberia, the ground would not support prepared 

positions and that 3-8 CAV could fight from the equivalent protection provided 

by the natural terrain. Additionally, walking the ground enabled us to identify 

counterattack options for 1-12 CAV to take advantage of opportunities and seize 

the initiative either into the flank of the attacking BTG or directly into Sardatep 

and Nus. We wanted to preserve flexibility and have options if conditions allowed. 

The end result of our terrain walk produced a fairly concrete concept of 

operations for the defense (see figure 3-1). Following the issue of the brigade 

operations order, I conducted another terrain reconnaissance, this time with key 

staff members and my battalion commanders. The dialogue between myself and 

battalion commanders enabled me to better define the brigade fight and what we 

identified as the battalion fight and adjust our plan on the ground. Those walks, 

especially with 3-8 CAV which was my main effort, enabled mission success. 

While I thought I knew what the battalion fight should look like in each area, I let 

my commanders describe the fight as they saw it. If I identified potential points of 

friction, I shaped their ability to see the tactical problem as I did through discussion 

of terrain and how the enemy would use the ground to his advantage. 

I cannot stress enough the value of these multiple terrain walks. Of the 40 

hours we had for defensive preparation, I spent no more than 90 minutes with each 
14

commander. I met the commanders on the ground, and didn’t waste time moving 

between areas, and included my reserve company commander in each discussion 

so that he could visualize the quickest means of reinforcing each battalion as the 

battle dictated. 

Figure 3-1. Defense Concept of the Operation.
15

When we moved to execution, the evidence of our unified understanding of 

intent and purpose was proven by our success in halting the BTG advance. We 

were very successful during the counter reconnaissance fight, and it wasn’t by 

chance; we knew the ground and we shaped the enemy avenues of approach and 

engagement areas accordingly. As a result, we were able to destroy BTG mounted 

reconnaissance forces at the time and place of our choosing. It was evident to 

me, that the Donovian commander didn’t have a good read on our defense. Our 

engagement area development and shaping operations set conditions to fight our 

defense as planned. 3-8 CAV was able to fight in the BCT planned engagement 

area with success. 

As with all operations, we experienced friction. We were able to get artillery 

into the fight; however, we struggled in massing AH-64 fires because we failed to 

adjust our plan when the fight didn’t occur in the expected time period we planned. 

A four hour shift in the enemy’s anticipated timeline significantly affected air-crew 

management. As a result, instead of being able to mass four to six aircraft, we 

were only able to mass two AH-64’s during the BTG main assault against 3-8 CAV. 

Executing Mission Command from planning through the wide area security 

fight, the defense and transition to BCT Movement to Contact as one continuous 

operation is the essence of Decisive Action. Establishing the technical systems 

to enable commanders to communicate was the single most challenging task 

we faced. Our terrain analysis, leaders reconnaissance, reduced force mounted 

rehearsals and detailed signals planning stretched the capability of our systems 

and people to the limit. Through patient use of FM line of sight systems and upper 

tactical internet capabilities we were able to communicate. 

During the fight, I commanded the BCT from my assigned M2A3 Bradley 

Fighting Vehicle equipped with two ASIP FM radios and FBCB2. I communicated 

with my commanders and TAC via FM and my main CP using FBCB2. We 

executed twice daily information updates with subordinate commanders over FM 

and conducted periodic CPOF updates from the TAC with commanders to elevate 

shared understanding. It was important each battalion commander understood the 

unique contribution his formation had in the coming fight. I respected subordinate 

commanders time and knew that time meant more to them than it did me. As a 

result, we were able to keep commanders with their formations in their assigned 

areas of operation.

In spite of the friction described above, we were able to successfully execute 

the defense as planned. We destroyed the lead MIBN and prevented the COEFOR 

from massing a second MIBN on 3-8 CAV by directing a counterattack with 1-12 

CAV from the east—a move that would enable us to more easily transition into our 

follow on mission set. In terms of recognizing transitions and planning for them 

early, we were able to enjoy good effects from our fire support plan. Our FSCMs 
16

were distributed down to the lowest levels. This allowed us to execute targets of 

opportunity, and more importantly, enabled company commanders to call for fires 

based upon recognition of opportunities with significant shaping effects on future 

operations. Ultimately, our ability to get out on the ground with planners and 

commanders was the difference in my ability to successfully visualize, describe 

and direct intent and planning guidance. Coupled with a holistic approach to how 

we executed CAM and WAS simultaneously, it would prove to be the key to the 

continuous operations we executed.

Endnote

* For Rotation 13-03 the town of Razish was renamed Sardatep and the town of Ujen was 

renamed Nus.
17

Story #4

Utilizing Decision Support Tools to Enhance Mission Command

Colonel Christopher Doneski was the Commander of the 1st Squadron, 

11th Armored Cavalry Regiment acting as COEFOR in support of the first-ever 

Decisive Action Training Environment rotation at the NTC. His unit was taskorganized to replicate three mechanized infantry battalions (MIBN) of the 111th 

Donovian Tactical Group, a brigade-sized element. Additionally, he was able to 

leverage forty to fifty irregular forces to augment his regular forces. His missions 

included a movement to contact from the Donovian border west to east through 

the central corridor, a hasty attack towards Razish, and a deliberate defense of the 

international border from Crash Hill east towards Brown Cut and Debnam Pass.

Most integral to this process was inculcating mission command throughout 

the organization and developing simple tools that enabled this process. Through 

preparation, planning and rehearsals I decided we would fight off common graphics 

and a systematically understood Decision Support template (DST). We needed to 

build experience and empower our subordinate organizations to understand the 

environment and seize the initiative. 

Prior to our invasion to liberate the Bilasuvar people in Erdabil Province, we 

were most concerned with 3/3 IDs Combined Arms Battalions (CAB) and their 

attack aviation. My desire was to shape the fight and move rapidly before they 

could reach the more favorable terrain of the central corridor. My initial decisions 

all based around where we anticipated the main battle would occur based on the 

success in the reconnaissance fight and progress of lead CAB. We had received 

limited reports from the Bilasuvar Freedom Brigade (BFB) reference 3/3 ID’s 

activity beyond the Tactical Assembly Area (TAA). Understanding the terrain, we 

attempted to disrupt their movement from the southern corridor through the Whale 

Gap where they would not be able to disperse. Based on the initial spot reports, 

the Brigade’s movement was very slow providing us the opportunity to seize the 

decisive terrain.

Upon receiving approval to commence our attack, we moved at maximum 

speed from the International Boundary IVO Nelson Lake east IOT clear the passes 

before their attack aviation could react and target our elements in march formation. 

As the lead Mechanized Infantry Battalion (MIBN) passed the Hill 876/Peanut 

gap, we transition to maneuver increasing the dispersion of the force and seizing 

Hill 780 IOT anchor our firing line against the Armed Reconnaissance Squadron 

(ARS) that had been augmented with a tank company. Gunslinger Troop began 

to engage lead elements of the ARS IVO Hill 760 at attrite with long range fires 

and indirect. Based on the read from my lead MIBN Commanders, we would 

be short of our initial DP 1C and move to a discussed branch of establishing the 
18

base of fire to enable Dealer Company to continue the attack along the northern 

avenue of approach. Critical to this decision was the dialogue between MIBN 

Commanders and our guerilla leader on the BTG command net. The commanders 

performed brilliantly discussing the arrayal of enemy forces and capabilities 

of their formations. As we conducted our periodic FM update, the S3 and I 

referenced the DSM as the baseline for our updated estimates. The BTG staff 

back at the main used the DSM to describe conditions, anticipate actions and make 

recommendations on timing of upcoming decisions. It proved to be an invaluable 

tool as we shared understanding enabling rapid recommendations and decision on 

the commitment of forces. 

Dealer Company with its attached AT platoon continued its attack to seize 

the Racetrack and continue east before the Brigade could deploy into the central 

corridor. Dealer was able to quickly set the MIBN main body and bound from 

one indivisibility (IV) line to another with the AT platoon providing over-watch 

along the north wall. The tremendous cross-talk and individual initiative resulted 

in devastating effect against the lead CAB. Even as FM nets became extended, 

a clear understanding of conditions and intent down to the vehicle level proved 

decisive. A simple, clear and rehearsed scheme of maneuver allowed us to mass 

fires on the lead CAB. Although we had talked about it, it is clear we failed to 

plan for success along each of the avenues of approach. The majority of our 

DPs dealt with responding to successes of the rotational unit. However, having 

common graphics throughout the formation allowed us to be more agile and seize 

opportunities as they arose. 

Despite having relatively inexperienced leaders and crews, the BTG was able 

to realize significant success by thoroughly briefing, rehearsing and refining our 

scheme of maneuver and actions during the rotation. The use of a DSM and DST 

to share my visualization and enabled shared understanding was integral in the 

execution of mission command for the BTG. The DSM focused all levels on the 

conditions we anticipated necessary for success and enable the BTG to operate on 

mission-type orders. This allowed our smaller force to fight more distributed and 

focus combat power at the decisive point by understanding and operating within 

my commander’s intent.
19

Figure 4-1. COEFOR Decision Points, Rotation 12-05.

21

Story #5

Maintaining Flexibility in Exercising Mission Command

Colonel Johnnie Johnson was the Commander of the 3d Armored Brigade 

Combat Team, 3d Infantry Division during the first-ever Decisive Action Training 

Environment rotation at the NTC. His unit consisted of two Combined-Arms 

Battalions, a Cavalry Squadron, a Special Troops Battalion, Support Battalion 

and an Aviation Battalion. His missions included a movement to contact through 

Siberia and into the Central Corridor, a hasty defense vicinity centerline road, and 

a deliberate attack through Brown and Debnam Pass towards Crash Hill.

In hindsight, I can break up my preparation and training to conduct effective 

Mission Command into three distinct periods: prior to arrival at the NTC, during 

RSOI, and then upon occupation of the tactical assembly area within the operations 

box. Each of these periods held unique challenges and opportunities for executing 

mission command that deserve mention. Pre-arrival, trying to train each of the 

staff sections to contribute to mission command at home station was a challenge. 

We conducted a brigade fire control exercise in February (one month prior to 

rotation), and that was the first time we were able to field all the brigade and 

subordinate battalion command nodes and validate our upper and lower tactical 

internet systems. Even then, we found ourselves unable to replicate the type of 

distance and terrain challenges that we would face upon arriving at the NTC. 

When we established at home station, our ABCS systems worked well, but 

when we applied that to the vast and difficult terrain at the NTC we immediately 

experienced friction based on that environment. I fought the fight out of my 

Bradley and found it woefully ill-equipped to act as a fully-functioning C2 mobile 

command vehicle. How do you execute mission command on the move when you 

lack a platform that allows you to see the brigade and effectively communicate 

with subordinate elements? Once I left the Main Command Post, it was high 

adventure trying to execute mission command. This friction applied to the other 

warfighting functions as well. It was difficult trying to figure out where I needed 

my Fires Battalion Commander to be in order to best leverage joint fires. What I 

discovered was the friction between a Commander’s desire to maneuver and the 

need to be “digitally” plugged in to effectively exercise mission command. 

In dealing with this friction, I had to get creative. To reduce friction for the 

enablers in the offense, I task organized most of them to the battalions. However, 

this does not completely eliminate the Brigade’s role of synchronizing the fight. 

Commanders must continually assess the tactical situation and exercise dynamic 

task organization if necessary. From a decision support tool perspective, my 

S3 designed a current operation synch matrix that I found highly effective for 

executing transitions—this was the primary mechanism that enabled the Brigade 
22

to transition back and forth between mission planning and execution. As far as 

mission command on the move, I had to execute the hard way, driving around 

to the various battalion command posts to ensure that my intent was clear and 

understood and to gain feedback on how subordinate Commanders saw their areas 

of operations. Nothing compared to being able to break contact from the Brigade 

Command Post and getting out on the ground with Commanders.

The take-away was clear: Being able to huddle face to face with subordinate 

Commanders on the battlefield remains the most effective method of seeing 

yourself, the enemy, and the terrain. Right before the deliberate attack, I held 

a Commander’s huddle and brought my Reconnaissance Squadron Commander 

back and met at my 1-15 IN Commander’s CP, along with my Fires Battalion 

Commander. This was a critical meeting where I was able to exercise mission 

command. I remember wanting to go north around Brown’s Cut, but the read 

that my Reconnaissance Squadron Commander was able to give me allowed 

me to change my intent and drive the Brigade attack through Debnam Pass. I 

probably would not have made such a bold decision without the clear picture that 

a face to face huddle provided. It also allowed me to issue additional guidance to 

Commander’s as we continue our effort to synchronize fires with maneuver.

In closing, it is definitely worth mentioning that Commander’s must be 

mindful that an important part of Mission Command is the requirement to paint a 

picture for the higher headquarters. Every battle has its own dynamics and friction 

which is why Commanders must visualize what is happening to his or her unit 

(internally and externally). I believe at different times during the fight (by phase 

or critical event), you inevitably had to ask yourself these important questions, 

“Am I adequately task-organized to fight this particular mission? Do I have enough 

combat power? Can I achieve my higher Commander’s intent with what I have?” 

If the answer to any one of these questions is no, then when do you provide the 

higher commander that insight and how do you handle the friction that ensues? 

Balancing what the boss wants me to do versus what I believed we were capable 

of doing; that is a constant dialogue that needs to happen at every level. At times 

I personally struggled with this aspect of mission command. 
23

Story #6

Executing Mission Command: Lessons from the Donovian Perspective

Colonel Christopher Doneski was the Commander of the 1st Squadron, 11th 

Armored Cavalry Regiment acting as COEFOR in support of the first-ever Decisive 

Action Training Environment rotation at the NTC. His unit was task-organized 

to replicate three mechanized infantry battalions (MIBN) of the 111th Donovian 

Brigade Tactical Group. Additionally, he was able to leverage forty to fifty 

irregular forces to augment his regular forces. His missions included a movement 

to contact from the Donovian border west to east through the central corridor, a 

hasty attack towards Razish, and a deliberate defense of the international border 

from Crash Hill east towards Brown’s Cut and Debnam Pass.

How did we execute mission command on the COEFOR side? At the Brigade/

BTG level, we understood that our ability to exercise Command and Control 

after we commenced hostilities would be a critical vulnerability. Our thorough 

understanding of US capabilities to identify, collect and target our mission 

command systems necessitated our implementation of an ideal mission command 

network. Therefore, we implemented the principals of simplicity and dispersion 

in relation to our people, processes and architecture to mitigate the potential threat 

to our mission and network. 

Prior to our fight, we invested a significant amount of time towards developing 

a shared understanding at echelon, with the development of common graphics and 

tactics, techniques and procedures for each of the MIBNs. These tools formed the 

foundation for our analysis by the BTG staff for the synchronization of our scheme 

of maneuver. Our early identification and reliance on simple tools that bridged 

warfighting functions facilitated rapid dissemination of orders on force arrayal and 

agility in directing modifications and FRAGOs—subordinate echelons understood 

the products and the intent behind those tools. They limited the need for detailed 

discussion on FM nets and reduced digital traffic necessary to modify operational 

graphics.

Our mission command nodes remained flexible as well. Our two persistent 

nodes were the BTG Main Command Post (Main) and our BTG Field Trains located 

in the Regimental Support Area. The BTG TOC operated in a field configuration 

prior to moving across the international border. This provided the BTG access 

to the lower and upper tactical internet through our Satellite Point of Presence, 

which in turn enabled detailed coordination to the DTG for guidance, coordination 

of enablers and synchronization. During the movement to contact mission, the 

BTG TOC remained stationary. We generated a mobile command group (MCG) 

with the S3, Command Sergeant Major and my vehicle. The S3 and CSM each 

followed behind the lead two MIBNs along the axis of advance. This afforded 
24

me an assessment from a trusted agent out of direct fire contact. I then followed 

roughly center of mass until the lead MIBN made contact with the enemy. 

Essential to our success and ability to move rapidly was our reconnaissance 

efforts with both the DTG Scouts and the BFB guerilla forces. These elements 

we able to answer many of our Priority Intelligence Requirements with regards 

to disposition and rate of movement of the enemy Combined Arms Battalions and 

Fire support assets. Communicating over FM and GSM provided me excellent 

situational awareness of enemy frontline traces and enabled our formations to 

remain travelling in march formation and rapidly seize the key terrain in the Central 

Corridor. FM communications with BFB leadership also served as a critical relay 

that bridged deficiencies in establishing Retrans and it facilitated cross-talk on the 

BTG Command net.

Enjoying the freedom of maneuver away from a fixed command post, I was 

able to link-up with the S3 and together we maneuvered to key terrain between 

Hill 800 and 876 improving our FM communications with our advancing MIBN 

along the northern axis of advance. Finally, we moved to the west side of Hill 780 

providing us visibility of the main battle area and enabled the final read for the 

commitment of the exploitation force to follow and assume the success along the 

northern axis of advance.

We were able to maintain FM communications throughout the breadth of 

the BTG’s area of operations with a Retrans in the vicinity of Brown Pass. Our 

JCR like system provided me great SA on the frontline progress of our elements. 

We also utilized it for direct communications between the MCG and the Main. 

Additionally, the Main’s ability to track the progress of our lead elements, populate 

spot reports on to the system and monitor our FM enabled them to provide periodic 

assessments and recommendations to the MCG and me on potential actions based 

on our Decision Support Matrix (DSM). My S3 continued to track the combat 

power for the lead two MIBN’s, the XO synchronized the Fires in support of the 

BTG fight and my CSM moved to put eyes on John Wayne Pass which we had 

identified as our vulnerable flank as an economy of force.

The success of our mission was largely due to the thorough understanding 

of the plan and the cross-talk between subordinate commanders and the MCG. 

MIBN commanders understood the scheme of maneuver, the criteria for the 

identified decisions and their tasks in relation to the enemy, in time and space. 

Simple, easily understood tools were the key to achieving this understanding, 

which then empowered them to execute restraint and audacity to shape the fight 

and accomplish the mission. The trust I had in the commanders understanding 

of the plan and their ability to report what they saw and develop the situation 

allowed the BTG to more rapidly maneuver to and seize the decisive terrain north 

of Siberia, forcing the RTU to fight piecemealed into the central corridor.
25

Story #7

Exploiting Gaps in the Reconnaissance Fight:

A Blackhorse Perspective

Lieutenant Colonel Jeff Bramlett was the Commander of the 2d Squadron, 

11th Armored Cavalry Regiment acting as COEFOR in support of 2d Brigade, 

1st Infantry Division’s Decisive Action Training Environment rotation at the NTC. 

His unit was task-organized to replicate three mechanized infantry battalions 

(MIBN) of the 111th Donovian Brigade Tactical Group, a brigade-sized element. 

Additionally, he was able to leverage 30 to 40 irregular forces to augment his 

regular forces. His missions included a movement to contact from the Donovian 

border west to east through the central corridor, a hasty attack towards Razish, 

and a deliberate defense of the international border from Crash Hill east towards 

Browns Cut and Debnam Pass.

All missions require the effective use of reconnaissance to enable good 

decision-making by commanders. This is arguably most critical in the Movement 

to Contact versus other forms of maneuver simply because of the speed with which 

decisions must be made. Decisions on avenues of approach, tempo, whether or not 

to push to the next piece of key terrain, and how to address tactical risk must all be 

made at speed commensurate with the rate of march of friendly and enemy forces. 

When commanders accept risk along certain avenues of approach to achieve mass 

in their reconnaissance, they can enable early decision-making by the enemy and 

can inadvertently force the premature commitment of assets on less than favorable 

terms.

As the Donovian Commander of the 111th BTG, I anticipated that the 

opposing BCT would struggle to find the right balance for the employment of 

its Armored Reconnaissance Squadron. This issue of balance—one the one hand 

achieving reconnaissance objectives along multiple avenues of approach while 

simultaneously retaining enough combat power along the most likely avenue to 

shape the early phases of the main body fight—was a friction point that I was also 

familiar with from the COEFOR perspective.

 Like most fights at NTC, the reconnaissance phase is absolutely critical to 

set conditions for success. This is especially true for the RTU which has several 

distinct advantages over the Donovian force. First off, there is a high degree of 

overmatch on the US side both in raw numbers and in system capabilities. During 

this particular reconnaissance phase, the RTU had a full reconnaissance squadron 

augmented by an M1A2 company. The addition of tanks to LRAS equipped gun 

trucks and M2A3s, all with GEN3 FLIR capability, gave RTU forces a significant 

leg up in observational and combat capabilities compared to COEFOR recon largely 

equipped with only NVGs and a single ITAS BRDM in our DTG reconnaissance 
26

formation. Secondly, the ARS enjoyed the advantage of being able to cross LD with 

the entire augmented Squadron at the same time as my DTG recon which consisted 

only of four dismounted LRS Teams and an Engineer Reconnaissance Patrol. A 

second element, the BTG Recon, consisted of four BMP3s and was able to LD 

two hours later with a significantly shallower LOA. The ARS took an extremely 

aggressive posture and was able to move to and seize decisive terrain within the first 

hour of the recon fight. This had the potential to be highly advantageous; however 

in their rush to move forward to gain control of key terrain along their main avenue 

of approach they appeared to have devoted no discernible reconnaissance effort to 

a second avenue of approach on their Southern flank.

I had weighted my exploitation force specifically so that I could take quick 

advantage of perceived gaps in their reconnaissance and before our main body 

crossed LD, I was able to executed DP1; whether or not to accelerate the movement 

of the exploitation force and conduct a deep envelopment of the BCT through 

the Southern Avenue of Approach. The key terrain in question was Bicycle Lake 

Pass, a narrow pass which, with a small economy of force, could have created a 

significant tactical problem for my unit. I had assessed use of this pass to be of high 

tactical risk, but with a correspondingly high reward if successful and so I devoted 

a full 1/3 of my DTG reconnaissance in order to maximize my read on that terrain 

prior to LD. My rationale was that I could either use it to envelope the BCT or that 

he would use it to envelope the BTG; in either case I knew it was critical to have 

good eyes on that terrain.

The RTU conversely chose to overweight their effort in the central corridor 

where the main battle was most likely to occur. They moved quickly and seized 

much of the key terrain with their reconnaissance, largely unopposed due to 

COEFOR adherence to a stealthy and deliberate reconnaissance tempo. Our main 

focus in the Central corridor became use of indirect fires against the ARS which 

became more feasible based on their aggressive tempo which necessitated a ROM 

prior to reaching their final recon objectives. 

At the same time, we realized there was little if any reconnaissance devoted to 

the southern avenue of approach specifically to control Bicycle Lake Pass during 

the recon fight and so it became very easy to identify this assailable flank. Based 

on the limited commitment of forces, I was able to seize key terrain in the South 

virtually unopposed very shortly after LD by immediately diverting one of my four 

MIBNs to the southern pass. This in turn caused the BCT commander to commit 

his reserve within one hour of his LD and against a less desirable planning priority 

than he originally intended. 
27

With a balanced approach of conducting thorough reconnaissance of all key 

mobility corridors followed by a subsequent “conditions driven” transition to 

seizing decisive terrain and conducting reconnaissance pull, the COEFOR would 

have had a very difficult fight. In hindsight, I believe a thorough analysis of 

COEFOR reconnaissance capabilities would have allowed the BCT commander 

to have spread his assets more evenly amongst all viable avenues of approach 

while still maintaining more than enough combat power to seize reconnaissance 

objectives. Furthermore this may have created better dispersion complicating 

COEFOR employment of indirect fires which is an area in which COEFOR enjoys 

overmatch. Most importantly, this balanced approach buys the commander time 

which allows a more deliberate decision-making process where critical capabilities 

are employed on his terms rather than the enemy’s.

29

Story #8

Getting Enablers into the Fight

Lieutenant Colonel Eric Larsen was the Commander of the 1st Brigade Special 

Troops Battalion (STB) during 1st Brigade, 4th Infantry Division’s Decisive Action 

Training Environment rotation at the NTC. His unit was tasked with conducting 

rear area security and focusing on stability operations and engaging the population 

during the brigade’s offensive and defensive operations against the Donovian 

Regular Forces. 

How to get enablers into the fight and integrate the capabilities and advantages 

they provide? We asked this question twenty years ago when our brigades had 

only a modest number of enablers. Today, it resonates even louder. The number 

of capabilities available to a brigade has grown in size and complexity under the 

modular construct. 

My battalion was organized with the normal set of organic enablers found 

in a heavy STB: Intelligence, Signal, and Engineer companies, along with a 

headquarters company that was comprised of Military Police (MP), medic, support, 

and chemical reconnaissance platoons. Additionally, we were tasked by brigade 

to receive and integrate all of the combat support attachments which included 3 x 

route clearance companies, 1 x MP company (at reduced manning to 4 squads), 1 x 

Air Defense Artillery (ADA) battery (Avengers), 1 x Explosive Ordnance Disposal 

(EOD) detachment, 1 x Psychological Operations (PSYOP) detachment, 1 x Civil 

Affairs (CA) company, and a reserve horizontal engineer company; all in, the 

battalion had grown to just shy of 1,200 personnel. My mission was to conduct 

rear area security and focus the battalion’s efforts on the Army core competency 

of wide area security. 

In order to counter the size and scope of our rear area mission, I directed the 

staff to task organize our myriad enablers into teams that were constructed based 

upon the mission they were to be assigned. These teams would become the primary 

units of action for me to execute my rear area mission, while also providing us the 

flexibility to attach them to maneuver units as they attacked forward and prepared 

to enter urban areas. Assigning a commander or leader to each of these teams 

would help ease mission command by creating fewer subordinate units and a more 

manageable span of control. And forming the enablers into teams improved our 

ability to provide protection to the many smaller, less protected units. Elements 

such as the CA and PSYOP Teams were paired with more secure elements such as 

the MPs or Route Clearance Patrols. This pairing, coupled with ensuring redundant 

communications capacity on the lower tactical internet, provided us the ability to 

move these elements around the battlefield without draining away combat power 

from the maneuver units. 
30

One of the first teams we deployed was to the internally displaced persons 

(IDP) camp at Farsab village. The location of this camp was problematic for the 

brigade as it sat just inside the Whale Gap, a natural choke point and the brigade’s 

line of departure. Team Farsab was directed to move to and control the Whale 

Gap in order to allow the brigade to move through the gap untrammeled by enemy 

or civilian actions. To accomplish this task, we built the team with 2 x MP Squads, 

a PSYOP Team, a Civil Affairs Team, and a HUMINT Collection Team (HCT). 

The MPs provided overall mission command and security for the team, manning 

a traffic control point and providing crowd control. The PSYOP Team, using its 

loudspeaker equipped HMWWV, provided information and instructions to IDPs, 

while the CA team immediately began working humanitarian assistance for the 

camp and the HCT began canvassing the IDP population for commander’s critical 

information. 

Once the majority of the brigade crossed the LD and the movement to contact 

was complete, we began re-setting for the attack into the town of Razish. 1-22 

Infantry was given the mission to attack into the city and required additional enablers 

to complete its mission. As 1-22 IN’s command post and trains moved though the 

Whale Gap, Team Farsab conducted a link up and was task organized under 1-22 

IN and renamed Team Razish. After 1-22 Infantry successfully gained control of 

Razish, the brigade commander directed a boundary shift plan which included a 

battle handover of the town from 1-22 IN to the STB, thereby freeing 1-22 Infantry 

to assist in the brigade’s defense against an impending Donovian attack. Team 

Razish reverted back to STB control at this time. We immediately began planning 

to push elements of the team forward to our Armored Reconnaissance Squadron 

(ARS) as Team Ujen, to deal with the problematic village of 2500 people that 

sat just west of their screen line. Eventually the ARS left Ujen in order to screen 

forward in preparation for the brigade’s counterattack to restore the international 

border. In doing so they passed responsibility of the town of Ujen and Team Ujen 

to 1-66 Armor. 1-66 Armor was later ordered to move to its attack position as part 

of the counterattack to restore the international border and transferred control of 

the town and Team Ujen back to the STB. 

The implementation of the team concept was not without friction. I believe 

that had we developed the idea sooner and incorporated it into our maneuver train 

up, we would have enjoyed greater success and an even more effective use of our 

enablers. But while the creation of the teams did not solve all of our problems, 

it did help us effectively deal with the systemic issue of getting our assets to the 

right place at the right time with the right capabilities. The teaming concept gave 

us the ability to “breadcrumb” enablers across the area of operations. By tying 

the teams to the towns rather than the units that leapfrogged through them, it 

provided the teams time to develop the situation while also providing continuity 
31

to the town populations as responsibility of the towns transitioned. This concept 

was one way our brigade tried to address the inherent tension by forcing units to 

resource and execute combined arms maneuver and wide area security operations 

simultaneously. While enablers will always come with some measure of friction, 

we found that creating geographic and functionally aligned teams provided a more 

efficient means of reducing that friction.

33

Story #9

Integrating Enablers into the Battalion Scheme of Maneuver

Lieutenant Colonel Steven Adams was the Commander of the 1st Battalion, 

22d Infantry Regiment, supporting the 1st Brigade, 4th Infantry Division’s 

Decisive Action Training Environment rotation at the NTC, and task organized as 

a combined arms battalion. Following a movement to contact to seize initiative 

from the 11th DTG, 1-22 IN was tasked to secure the Atropian Provincial Capital 

of Razish.

The key to a successful rotation at the National Training Center (NTC) requires 

not only sound planning and adequate preparation for the assigned tasks such as 

the Movement to Contact, Attack, and Defense; it requires detailed planning and 

preparation for the transitions between these tasks, often foreshadowing the degree 

of success you’ll enjoy during their execution. The time available to adequately 

plan, prepare, and execute an operation is one mission variable at the NTC that is 

always in short supply. And, as many leaders before me learned and undoubtedly 

those in the future will as well, everything takes longer than you think it is going 

to take. So, if an important mission on Day 1 is immediately followed by another 

critical mission on Day 2, how do you effectively transition the necessary resources, 

attachments, and enablers into the first fight and still set yourself up for success on 

the second? 

For 1-22 IN our Day 1 mission was the movement to contact, immediately 

followed by our Day 2 mission – secure Razish. While the staff and I planned 

for the Razish mission prior to executing the first mission, it still proved very 

challenging just getting all of our attachments under our control. That task took 

most of the night and into the next morning before everyone had assembled in the 

new TAA we established upon completion of the movement to contact. While 

these attachments undoubtedly had played a role during the brigade’s initial 

mission, the retrospective cost-benefit comparison of their value in terms of our 

inability to finalize planning and rehearsals for the Razish mission was seemingly 

out of balance. In hindsight, we likely would have been better served had the 

bulk of enablers been task organized with 1-22 IN from the beginning to set the 

conditions for the next mission. While the Razish mission was an overall success, 

I learned that the integration of attachments and enablers into the battalion scheme 

of maneuver must be planned for and rehearsed in detail prior to the execution of 

operations, especially in an urban environment.

During the planning process, I had developed a good understanding of the 

friendly and enemy situation and what the battalion needed to accomplish given 

the mission to secure Razish. The ethnic breakdown of the town was clearly 

spelled out. I knew which areas were generally pro-government and which were 
34

not. I also knew that the Lezgin populated neighborhood was an area that would 

defend against aggression, so we should be careful not to give them cause to take 

up arms against us. It would be prudent to keep them out of the fight, or even 

better, swayed to our side to help provide security.

In my commander’s intent I made it clear that we would treat all people with 

dignity and respect because we were there to secure the capital and protect the 

population in order to allow the legitimate government to re-establish control. We 

would take precaution to limit collateral damage to make it easier to maintain a 

positive relationship with the people once security was restored. I approached the 

Razish problem set as a deliberate offensive mission even though we knew very 

little about the specific enemy strength, their location within the town, and their 

intentions. Because so little of the details were known, we planned to use a cordon 

and knock method of gaining intelligence on the enemy until first contact was 

made. Two companies worth of dismounts, supported by a company of Bradley 

Fighting Vehicles in overwatch, would walk into town, secure a foothold, and start 

knocking on doors. 

The goal was to talk with the people, gain a first-hand assessment of the 

situation, and then secure the town. This plan was well understood by the organic 

members of the battalion that had the luxury of a one-thirds, two-thirds planning 

timeline. However, attachments and enablers were not afforded this same amount 

of time to plan and prepare. Their understanding of the situation, mission, and 

concept of the operation was much less than the rest of the battalion, leading to 

problems during the execution phase. Our attached Military Police Platoon drove 

into the Lezgin neighborhood causing the number of enemy fighters to double in 

a matter of minutes. This was not the fault of the Military Police Platoon rather 

it was the result of the battalion’s inadequate preparation of the MP Platoon to 

understand the situation and ensure they were ready to execute their directed task. 

The short time available to effectively plan and prepare could have been, at least in 

part, remedied by a strong rehearsal that would improve everyone’s understanding 

of the concept of operations, control measures, decision points, and command and 

support relationships. While rehearsals were conducted, we focused too much 

on organic assets, not on ensuring all attachments were equally as prepared and 

understood their respective tasks and purposes.

The Gridded Reference Graphic (GRG) labeling each of the buildings was an 

essential product for the Razish mission. In it, the battalion had a common reference 

to discuss specific locations within the town. Each of the Infantry Companies knew 

clearly which buildings on the GRG they were responsible for checking. While the 

GRG was pushed up to the BCT MAIN and adopted as the BCT standard, we found 

out the hard way that not everyone involved in the mission had a copy. When the 

first set of Close Combat Attack (CCA) aircraft arrived on station, we were unable 
35

to use the GRG because they did not have a copy – a situation we soon fixed by 

having them land near our Battalion MAIN and providing them a hard copy. Other 

enablers under our task organization, however, also did not have a copy of the 

GRG, hampering our ability to communicate effectively and efficiently.

Despite having a solid tactical SOP that spells out how to properly receive 

and integrate attachments, we failed to do so to standard. If we are to effectively 

integrate enablers into our formations and expect them to shape the operational 

environment as they are designed, it is imperative to understand what assets are 

available, what capabilities they bring to the fight, and how to best employ them. 

We must also deliberately plan for their use and allow them sufficient time to 

prepare for the mission just like our organic units. Timing is critical. Changing 

the task organization on the chart does not equate to when that unit will be able 

to physically get to where it needs to go. There comes a point in time and space 

when it is no longer beneficial for the enabler to be added to the task organization. 

While 1-22 IN’s mission to secure Razish was clearly successful, it demonstrated 

that making the most effective use of attachments and enablers requires a detailed 

plan, time to prepare, and effective rehearsals prior to the execution of operations.

37

Story #10

Managing the Transition of Mission Command Nodes and Systems

Major Pete Moon was the Brigade Executive Officer of the 1st Armored Brigade 

Combat Team, 4th Infantry Division’s Decisive Action Training Environment 

rotation at the NTC. His unit conducted offensive and defensive operations against 

both regular and irregular forces in a complex operating environment, beginning 

with a movement to contact from a TAA south of the Whale Gap and into the 

Central Corridor and culminating in a deliberate attack through the Brown and 

Debnam Passes and the Washboard towards Crash Hill. 

While every operation that our BCT executed during our rotation at the NTC 

was challenging, my hardest task as the brigade XO was making sure that our 

mission command nodes could communicate with each other while simultaneously 

controlling the placement of key systems at the proper location and time to ensure 

seamless mission command. To prepare for this complex task, we had spent a 

significant amount of effort during the train-up prior to arriving at NTC adjusting 

Figure 10-1. Scheme of Mission Command.
38

our mission command nodes—the MAIN, TAC, and Mobile Command Group 

(MCG)—in order to end up starting our rotation with the configuration below. 

Our starting configuration was effective when all systems were functional, when 

everyone was static, and when the RETRANS were at best spots on terrain. When 

everyone was on upper tactical internet (TI), we had a similar digital backbone to 

what we had experienced executing out of Forward Operating Bases (FOB) and 

Combat Outposts (COPs). Where things became difficult, was in transitioning 

from a static to mobile configuration as we learned during the movement to contact 

to counter the advance of the 111th Donovian BTG, our first BCT fight. 

Lacking sufficient beyond line of sight, on-the-move, voice communications 

platforms that we could mount on unit commander’s M1s or M2/M3s, we relied 

on our lower TI—FM and FBCB2—for mission command on the move. This 

meant that despite the technological advances of the last 15 years, we still had to 

rely on placement and security of RETRANS sites for voice and digital, at optimal 

locations, to be able to talk during the fight. During the movement to contact, we 

placed RETRANS sites in the wrong locations, with too little planning given to 

security and PACE, creating reliance on a plan that did not work. As a result, I 

could not talk to the S3 or my brigade commander for almost half of the fight, and 

he was unable to rely on the FM backbone to communicate effectively with his 

battalion commanders. 

When the MAIN could not talk to the TAC, MCG, or the battalions, it became 

a million dollar camping tent. We found we could pull in all the feeds from 

division and our brigade and above enablers, and do the analysis based upon the 

information coming in to develop recommendations. The pipes up were working. 

But our inability to communicate those recommendations to the commander 

prevented him from doing three basic things: 1-Make Decisions, 2-Set Priorities, 

and 3-Give Guidance. 

By training day fourteen, we had RETRANS and PACE figured out for the 

attack to the international boundary (IB) from east to the western end of the box 

along central corridor. We secured all RETRANS teams, placed one on Bruno 

Hill, and I was talking clearly from the MAIN at Snow Cone to the TAC and MCG 

vicinity the Washboard. When I could not talk via FM, I still had good FBCB2 

communications to send free-text messages. 

Our transition from MTC on day 1 to supporting 1-22 IN’s security operation 

in Razish on day 2 was also a challenge. Transitions by nature are difficult. On top 

of clearing everything in the TAA to include brigade and battalion command posts, 

the BSA, our Role II aid station, the Shadow TUAS platoon, and all the NMC 

combat vehicles that had been left behind, we still had to maintain a capability to 

continue planning for operations over 48 hours out while simultaneously preparing 
39

to support battalion combat operations within the next 12 hours. We had a lot to 

do in a short amount of time. Key staff and systems, to include TGS and Prophet 

could not be afforded to come out of the fight for 24 hours while the MAIN moved 

locations. They needed to be moved into a position to integrate into the plan, 

collect, and shape the next operation. And we knew that the COEFOR still had a 

vote, as did the ever-changing weather conditions, as to how easily we would be 

able to transition. 

To set the stage for our transition, the majority of the BCT was moving into 

a hasty defense, and 1-22 IN was posturing to secure Razish. The TAC, with the 

S3, was established, north of Siberian Ridge vicinity of Hill 760, and co-located 

with the MCG and Brigade Commander, while I was at the MAIN in the TAA. 

I discussed the MAIN jump and transition of mission command with the CDR, 

CSM, S3, Operations SGM, Battalion CDRs and XOs. Key points of friction and 

facts we had to contend with were: 

1-The MAIN was going to be out of the fight for up to 36 hours from battle 

hand off to TAC, break down, movement to Snow Cone, and come back up to Full 

Operating Capability (FOC).

2- The TAC staff was going to be on minimal sleep for 48-72 hours. It also 

had to control the security operation in Razish as well as the transition into hasty 

defense east of Barstow Road for 1-66 AR and 7-10 CAV. 

3- We had to get into Razish the day after MTC; the security situation was 

deteriorating by the minute, and it was the provincial seat of government.

4- The TAC and 1-22 Infantry needed key enablers for Razish: our information 

collection assets, Civil Affairs, Public Affairs (PAO), Inform and Influence 

Activities (IIA), and Brigade Support Element (BISE). 

5- We could not stop the plans process for 36 hours.

6- Role II had to be established at its new location before we went into Razish, 

as casualty projections for urban operations were high. 

7-The aviation battalion had to relocate everything to the new TAA, to include 

the FARP.

8-The Shadow platoon had to move to its new location and establish a suitable 

launch site and recovery runway.

9-The COEFOR would still have significant combat power west of Barstow 

Road following MTC to prepare for an attack to the east.

10-The TAC was on a high piece of terrain and vulnerable to enemy air threat.
40

We attempted to address every problem by organizing critical systems into a 

controlled order of march and carefully planning movement out of the TAA. The 

BSB commander jumped Role II early in the morning to the new BSA location. 

Next was the aviation battalion. The Operations SGM enabled the TAC by driving 

key staff (Plans, PAO, IIA, and a portion of the BISE) and additional tents to the 

TAC during his movement of the quartering party to Snow Cone. I moved ahead 

of the MAIN to the TAC and brought the remainder of the BISE, a terrain model 

kit, and an Avenger team. The endstate was a TAC (+) and the majority of the 

critical systems arrayed on the battlefield where we wanted. At a minimum, we 

had ensured that the TAC had a plans tent and primary staff for planning capability, 

1-22 IN received its key enabling staff and systems before they executed their 

Razish mission, and although they established too late to ultimately support the 

Razish mission, we had reestablished Role II. Mission command was still a 

challenge—we could not talk to every battalion command post, and the TAC was 

starting to get overwhelmed with information during 1-22 IN’s operation in Razish, 

with 1-66 AR experiencing significant contact east of Barstow Road. The below 

figure depicts the transition of mission command by systems and capabilities as 

they occurred.

While the solution wasn’t perfect, we took away some key lessons learned 

in planning mission command for the next transition which included a deliberate 

plan and rehearsal for delineation of responsibilities between the TAC and the 

MAIN, movement and integration of key enablers to battalions to facilitate TLPs 

and rehearsals, and refinement of the PACE plan that took into account the need for 

relocation of RETRANS sites. When the TAC had the fight, the MAIN maintained 

coverage across all war fighting functions as a contingency, in the event the TAC 

came into contact or lost communications. 

There were other significant lessons learned during the rotation that applied to 

managing the transition of mission command nodes. First was the need for training 

with a more robust communications architecture on the move at home station. This 

includes configuring BFT with FBCB2 through the tunnel during the train up. The 

tunnel is rarely available during the train up, and became a significant challenge 

between aviators (BFT-based) and the remainder of the BCT (FBCB2-based). 

Second was training and employment of signal company reconnaissance teams to 

conduct RETRANS site reconnaissance and emplacement. This was a tactical task 

that the RETRANS teams, along with the security element, need to practice to gain 

proficiency. Third and lastly, the command posts need to practice the transition of 

mission command between offensive, defensive and stability operations, as well 

as through phases of the operation. In addition to integrating multiple key enabler 

systems as battalions modify their structure, the BCT command posts must be 

able to act as the “swivel chair” between lower and upper TI to facilitate mission 

command at echelon, and empower commanders to make decisions.
41

Figure 10-2. Transition of Mission Command System.

43

Story #11

Mission Command on the Move: EPLRS-ES

Major Barbour was the Brigade Operations Officer and Major Coleman 

was the Brigade Signal Officer for the 2d Brigade Combat Team, 4th Infantry 

Division’s Decisive Action Training Environment rotation at the NTC in June 

2013. The brigade was comprised of two combined arms battalions, an armored 

reconnaissance squadron, a fires battalion, a special troop’s battalion, a support 

battalion, and an attached aviation task force. The brigades mission set included 

defending the area surrounding Dezashah and Crash Hill west of Brown and 

Debnam Pass complex, then conducting a counter attack to seize the central 

corridor and the towns of Ujen and Razish, and finally, a movement to contact 

south from the Siberian Ridge towards the Whale Gap.

We knew that going into NTC units had struggled with bridging the upper and 

lower Tactical Internet (TI) divide especially as they transitioned their command 

nodes or conducted offensive operations that required increased maneuver. To 

facilitate mission command on the move our brigade began testing the Enhanced 

Position Location and Reporting Systems with Enhanced Services (EPLRS-ES) 

to enable limited upper TI to select vehicles while on the move. The brigade 

S6 section worked closely with Raytheon engineers to design an operational test. 

This was accomplished in several phases. The first was a table top design using 

four radios: one for the EPLRS Network Manager (ENM), one for a transverse 

chat server, and two radios for SIPR client workstations. This demonstrated the 

proof of concept. We then moved to install the client radios into the brigade TAC 

M113s. Once this was tested successfully, we moved the transverse server radio 

to the Command Port Platform (CPP) truck that would be located at the brigade 

main to act as a gateway between the lower TI EPLRS radios and the upper TI. 

The brigade battle command control server stacks (BCCS) would be located at 

the brigade main and hosted on SIPR. The BCCS stack hosted all of the brigade’s 

services including transverse chat. The only difficulty here was converting the 

upper TI routing to the EPLRS routing commands. 

Once this was successful, we began a massive software upgrade for all the 

EPLRS radios in the brigade to ensure that there was a sufficient backbone of 

EPLRS radios to transmit the transverse data throughout the brigade’s EPLRS 

network. We settled on using all the server rolls using the RT-1720G model radio 

due to their assumed position on the battlefield and increased bandwidth from 

the 1720G versus an “E” or “F” model radio. We limited the data sent from the 

client stations to transverse only data so that we would not hinder the FBCB2 SA 

data and messaging that the rest of the brigade would be relying on. The critical 

task was to connect the brigade TAC personnel (brigade commander, brigade S2, 
44

and battle captain) to the intelligence collection systems (Prophets, UAS, and S2 

CUOPS) located at various nodes around the battlefield or at the brigade main. 

Using EPLRS-ES enabled all elements to be able to communicate in a 

collaborative environment on transverse chat regardless of their physical location 

on the battlefield. We found that there were three constraints. The system would 

be down when the brigade main was jumping as the transverse servers would be 

offline during that time. The EPLRS network is line of site based. Finally, the 

traffic must hit the brigade CPP gateway within 6 hops or else the message would 

time out and not be sent.

During the defense the brigade TAC was forward as well the prophets while the 

brigade S2, S2 CUOPS, and UAS platoon remained at the brigade main. During 

the counter-recon critical event, the brigade commander was able to dynamically 

re-task intelligence collection assets in a collaborative area in the transverse 

chat room. The subordinate battalion S2’s were able to monitor this as well 

by participating in the discussion. We were able to leverage the robust EPLRS 

network to maintain situational awareness of all friendly forces. Additionally, 

graphical control measures were disseminated from brigade to battalion and 

laterally between battalions. Once an enemy was sighted battalion S2s would 

confirm reports to prevent over reporting the Donovian strength before populating 

the FBCB2 COP.

During the counterattack, transverse provided the same capability between 

brigade level assets. When the battalion TOCs broke their upper TI, they lost 

the ability to participate in the transverse chat rooms. During RSOI and STX, 

battalion TACs were configured to use EPLRS-ES. However, this capability 

was not adequately explained and was therefore not widely used outside of the 

brigade TAC and intelligence collection resources. Since the 52ID standard chat 

was JABBER, located at the 52ID main, there was some confusion between staff 

elements and battalions on which chat server to use, JABBER versus transverse. 

This did cause some stove-piping of information. This forced more primitive 

methods of maintaining situational awareness. For example, the brigade S2-

CUOPS section acted as the swivel chair between the two servers to keep everyone 

informed. At the conclusion of the offense, the brigade main jumped causing a 16 

hour loss of transverse chat capability during the clearance of Ujen and Razish. 

During the movement to contact, we task organized the Prophets differently 

and separated the UAS pilots from the take off site, placing them instead at the 

brigade main. Transverse chat over EPLRS-ES facilitated the fusion of intelligence 

assets during the movement to contact. We were able to step back and use the 

systems to identify targets/obstacles. The EPLRS-ES system enabled us to be 

one step ahead of the enemy. During the movement to contact, 1-67 AR was able 
45

to beat the Donovians to Whale Gap. We were able to see that the Donovians 

were trying to counterattack through the Valley of Death as well as fire a linear 

smoke target towards the Whale Gap. The S2 was able to analyze this information 

in real time which enabled the brigade commander to reposition two platoons to 

reinforce the Whale Gap. As soon as the enemy attacked near the Whale Gap, 

the additional platoons were able to destroy 16 enemy vehicles that most likely 

would have broken through 1-67 AR’s defense if they had not been reinforced. 

This information was all real-time which enabled us to get ahead of the enemy’s 

decision cycle.

The full capabilities of EPLRS-ES need to be fully briefed to the battalion 

commanders and battalion S6s to encourage their buy-in for the system. This will 

help them understand the system’s ability to facilitate mission command on the 

move with little additional overhead from the battalion. All that is required is an 

additional SIPR laptop to use in a battalion TAC or battalion TOC when their CPN 

is down. EPLRS/FBCB2 used in conjunction with organic and EAB intelligence 

assets can provide near real-time situational awareness of enemy and friendly 

unit locations. This can help prevent fratricide and enable the commanders at all 

echelons to reposition forces to best deal with the enemy. The key to maximizing 

the system is to have trained operators that are familiar with the systems capabilities 

and can maximize their use. This enables functional upper TI without having to 

have a full upper TI connection. It is a real-time system that enables tactical leaders 

to talk to higher level command posts. One improvement would be to make it a 

standard chat system (all on transverse instead of split transverse and JABBER) 

while establishing a digital ROE for each room so that only specific information is 

posted in the chat room. Numerous users can monitor the room, but only specific 

users should post information which will keep the room streamlined. Enforcing 

one standard for chat rooms is a must. Using brigade servers provides reliability 

when the division link goes down and ensures that all users are familiar with the 

layout and room names. This also gives the brigade S6 direct control over creating 

and editing user accounts. All war-fighting functions can benefit from using 

transverse chat over EPLRS-ES. During the rotation, the BCT saw significant 

improvement in the intelligence war-fighting function’s ability to synchronize their 

efforts, which in turn enabled the brigade Commander to make critical and timely 

decisions on the battlefield.

47

Story #12

Defining the TAC: Maneuverability versus Capability

Major Christopher Danbeck was the Operations Officer for 2d Brigade, 1st 

Infantry Division’s Decisive Action Training Environment rotation at the NTC. 

His BCT consisted of two combined arms battalions, a cavalry squadron, a fires 

battalion, special troops battalion and support battalion, and an aviation task 

force. The brigade conducted offensive, defensive and stability operations in the 

complex hybrid-threat environment IOT defeat a Donovian military invasion and 

ultimately restore the international boundary between Atropia and Donovia.

If there is a lesson from our National Training Center rotation that I will 

never forget it is the critical importance of identifying the manning, placement, 

purpose and function of the Brigade’s mission command elements. This lesson 

is particularly important in discussing the role of the brigade tactical command 

post, or TAC. We entered the rotation with a high degree of confidence in the 

team we put together in the TAC. The base collective had worked together for a 

few months managing troop/company/battery STX as well as company live fires. 

These scripted training events, conducted in our backyard with a well known and 

understood communications footprint almost exclusively on the FM nets did very 

little to prepare us for the challenges of the NTC environment and even less for 

my ability to provide the Commander with accurate and timely information to 

facilitate his decision making from the TAC. In execution at NTC, we tested three 

different configurations, each offering costs and benefits that are worth discussing 

as future units seek to address this complex problem. 

The plan going into NTC was to jump the BCT MAIN a total of two times. Once, 

from the RUBA south to our initial assembly area in Atropia, and subsequently 

to Hill 720 from where we thought we could, with the proper employment of 

the TAC, provide the BCT Commander his requirements across the depth of the 

central corridor where we anticipated fighting. This is in fact what we were able to 

do with the MAIN, however, our TAC execution was at times lacking. 

The first fight was a movement to contact through the Whale Gap, around 

the Siberian Ridgeline and down the Central Corridor to repel the Donovian 

incursion into Atropia. The TOC held in place at our assembly area while the 

TAC was supposed to move forward to control the Whale Gap movement and 

set conditions at Hill 720 after the battle was complete to allow the BCT MAIN 

to jump into position. Friction was placed on the TAC crew almost immediately 

when the BCT Commander expressed his desire to bring forward the 5-ton plans 

van because of the amount of time we expected to be forward. This change was 

seen as an opportunity to use the plans van as a mobile TAC, something we had 

never attempted since we had no plans van at home station but, in my mind, was 
48

simply a change up from our SICP based configuration. Needless to say while 

the equipment was in place, re-configuring the systems, incorporating the new 

personnel and the failure of our CPN team to get a link established left the TAC 

floundering in the background attempting to get solid communications while the 

BCT CDR, FSCOORD and myself controlled the fight via FM and BFT. 

The TAC contributed nothing to the fight and at the final moment was destroyed 

by insurgent rocket fire. In retrospect, the close BCT fight was handled sufficiently 

by the BCT Command Group and we should have tasked one of the line battalions 

to escort the TAC forward into position to establish the proper communications 

architecture to support the follow on transition to the next phase of our operations 

and allow the jump of the BCT MAIN. 

The TAC was next deployed in support of the Commander’s desire to command 

forward during the brigade’s hasty defense. We looked at our previous experience 

and decided to take a package tailored to the mission and its intended duration. This 

aptly named “Mini-TAC” consisted of five vehicles and included the S3, FSCOORD, 

CPP, CPN and Bradley security track. With these few vehicles we established 

the following systems: FM, BFT, SIPR/NIPR E-mail, Jabber chat, Ventrillo and 

SVOIP. The FSCOORD provided an OSRVT and the BCT Commander provided 

a TACSAT as the CPP’s was inoperable. This group established the night prior 

to the defense in sufficient time to establish effective communications forward 

with the cavalry squadron and rearward to the BDE MAIN. Its footprint was 

approximately ten meters square. Utilizing the systems on hand the TAC crew 

was able to provide the BCT Commander with up to date information from the 

front lines, cross reference that information with the MAIN and their more robust 

crew and embedded kill team, and give him options for decision making that was 

highly effective in the positive outcome of the fight. A failure of the TAC that was 

identified during this iteration that couldn’t be previously was a lack of tracking 

charts. Because we had the same COP as the MAIN and a MAIN/TAC transition 

wasn’t anticipated it was not a critical issue but in terms of long term functionality 

of a TAC it was a major improvement to put in place. 

The final fight saw the third employment of the BCT TAC atop Brigade Hill. 

Confident in our systems and buoyed by our lessons learned from the execution 

of the “mini-TAC” concept during the defense we were in high spirits. They 

were quickly dashed as our tactical movement into position took far longer than 

anticipated due to an extended engagement with Murphy. In an attempt to execute 

a tactical establishment we set the TAC on the reverse slope of the crest of Brigade 

Hill in hopes that our communications from there would be ideal. This turned out 

to not be the case. While we had excellent upper TI communications, all but two 

of our subordinate units had torn down their upper TI systems and thus our ability 

to talk to two Battalions and the MAIN did little to provide the BDE Commander 
49

with increased situational awareness. Additionally, our FM communications were 

in the shade of the hill mass and even with an OE-254 antennae positioned 50 

meters off the crest of the hill, we lacked positive communications with all the 

line battalions. This positioning highlighted for us, once again, the need to set the 

TAC prior to a period of zero illumination and to ensure that a balance between 

security and the ability to talk has the proper balance and isn’t leaning too far in 

one direction, in this case, security.

51

Story #13

Rehearsing for Success in the Defense: Tailoring Rehearsals towards 

Critical Vulnerabilities

Major Steve Gventer was the Operations Officer for the 3d Brigade, 1st 

Cavalry Division during its Decisive Action Training Environment rotation at the 

NTC. The BCT consisted of two Combined-Arms Battalions, a Cavalry Squadron, 

a Fires Battalion, a Special Troops Battalion, Support Battalion and a composite 

Aviation Task Force. They were charged with conducting a defense ranging 

from Red Pass in the east to Bicycle Lake in the west against a Donovian attack. 

Following a successful defense, they executed a counterattack and a movement to 

contact to secure the population centers and deny additional Donovian incursions. 

In addition to our six organic battalions and the aviation task force supporting 

us, we were reinforced for our defensive operations with a rocket battalion (-), an 

engineer battalion, an Avenger battery and a Combat Service Support battalion. 

As a brigade, we had not previously trained with all of these additional units, and 

we recognized that successfully incorporating these elements into our operations 

would be a key challenge for mission command. This was especially evident once 

the staff took a look at the ground and saw with our own eyes the size of the area 

that we would need to exercise command and control. The brigade Commander 

placed emphasis from the outset of our defensive planning on two critical areas: 

simplicity and communication. He recognized that the only way to truly execute 

a successful defense would be if our commanders and mission command nodes 

could communicate to each other over our tactical internet systems. 

In terms of simplicity, the commander gave clear guidance in the form of 

intent. Going into mission analysis, the staff was able to understand how he 

visualized the battle, and developed products that translated that vision down to 

the battalions through WARNOs and FRAGOs. We kept our products small—low 

bandwidth—to facilitate sharing and we tried to utilize our lower TI systems, FM 

and FBCB2 to distribute products to as wide an audience as possible throughout the 

planning process. Additionally, the terrain walks we conducted with the staff and 

then with the battalion commanders enabled the commanders to verbally confirm 

synchronization of intent and how they would fight their particular portions of the 

battle within their battalion sectors. 

As we transitioned from planning into execution of the defense, we recognized 

that our rehearsals would be key. We chose to combine the brigade Fires and IC 

synchronization rehearsals on a terrain board in order to save time and confirm 

cross talk for our sensor to shooter linkages was robust. Our FSCOORD, FSO, 

S3 and S2 led this event, and were able to work through several issues in both the 

observation plan and the fire support plan. 
52

When discussing the brigade combined arms rehearsal, the brigade commander 

recognized that we had four separate and distinct compartments of terrain that would 

stretch us to the point of breaking—three engagement areas along the Donovian 

border and our security zone with the key population centers behind those areas. 

The commander, through discussions with the FSCOORD and staff, came to the 

realization that location wasn’t as important as his ability to communicate. This 

drove us to relook our plan for the CAR and determine that what we needed to 

execute a reduced force rehearsal that forced us to test our mission command 

systems.

It’s important to understand that we had previously decided to bulk up the 

capabilities of the TAC. The Commander’s intent was to finish with the publication 

of the initial order, and then not have to return to the MAIN. Instead, we ensured 

that we had mirrored all of the upper and lower T/I capabilities of the MAIN and 

enabled a robust intelligence, fires and signals capability that allowed for planning 

and coordination of the fight forward. This meant it was critical for our TAC to 

be able to communicate effectively, both to our subordinate battalion CPs and to 

the brigade MAIN and Division. The MAIN retained the primary responsibility 

of reporting to Division, but we planned redundancy as well. All of these factors 

lended necessity to ensuring our brigade rehearsal focused on the ability to 

communicate with each other over systems and not face to face. 

To validate the plan, we chose to execute the reduced force mounted rehearsal 

from our assigned areas of operation and only on FM and FBCB2 systems. We 

placed the XO and S2 in the MAIN, while I was in the TAC, and the brigade 

commander was forward on his Bradley. In execution, the brigade and battalion 

command sergeants major acted as the mounted opposing force and attempted to 

penetrate our defensive lines based upon the identified enemy courses of action. 

This allowed the brigade and battalion commanders to work through their decision 

points (i.e. moving forces, committing the reserve) and refine their understanding 

of the plan. We controlled the rehearsal by following the action, reaction and 

counteraction technique of the wargame but without reengineering the plan as we 

went along. The commander controlled the introduction of friction. 

The venue and format would prove powerful decisions for learning. Firstly, 

and on a good note, we were able to validate our fire support architecture. We did 

this by allowing the MAIN and TAC of the fires battalion to work through the 

decision support template and walk the dog on PIRS to DPs to triggers. Secondly, 

we quickly recognized that where the brigade Commander had chosen to fight 

wasn’t going to work. From the start of the rehearsal, he could only talk to the 

brigade TAC, 3-8 CAV, 6-9 CAV and the brigade reserve but we couldn’t get either 

the MAIN or 1-12 CAV up on FM. Thirdly, while commanders, sergeants majors 

and key staff primaries in mission command nodes were dialed into the rehearsal, 
53

we realized in hindsight that those staff entities who didn’t participate were left on 

the outside of the refined plan. In particular our sustainment sections and enablers 

would need to be brought up to speed in the aftermath.

Issues aside, the rehearsal was effective in allowing us to see ourselves. As 

a result of the rehearsal, we knew we had to adjust locations of our RETRANs in 

order to facilitate BCT mission command. Additionally, we had to get creative 

and figure out how we were going to bridge the FM gap with the brigade MAIN. 

It proved difficult to get the MAIN into the fight, given the distance and terrain 

between our location forward of the Furlong and their location southwest of OP1. 

Ultimately, we ended up working a soft CAU capability over IP to enable the 

MAIN to get up on FM and into the fight—though this issue wasn’t solved during 

our initial defensive battle. That said, it was much better to go into the defensive 

fight knowing our FM weaknesses than finding out at the eleventh hour with no 

time to react. 

The actual execution of the defensive fight proved successful. We attributed 

this success to two factors. First, Soldiers across the BCT had a clear understanding 

of the commander’s intent and the plan, and were able to play a direct role in its 

development through the iterative process described above. Second, the mounted 

reduced force rehearsal— utilizing an independent opposing force and featuring the 

introduction of friction by the BCT commander throughout—provided subordinate 

commanders with the ability to synchronize mission command at echelon.

55

Story #14

Templating the Hybrid Threat

Major David Johnston was the Intelligence Officer of the 3d Armored Brigade 

Combat Team, 3d Infantry Division during the first-ever Decisive Action Training 

Environment rotation at the NTC. Their missions included a movement to contact 

through Siberia and into the Central Corridor, a hasty defense vicinity centerline 

road, and a deliberate attack through Brown Pass and Debnam Pass towards 

Crash Hill.

During our rotation, we encountered a new threat doctrine that fused the 

counter-insurgency fight that the Army trained against for the past decade 

with a conventional armored threat that we hadn’t experienced in some 

time. This threat was coupled with a complex environment encompassing 

cities, open desert, and mountainous terrain. It quickly became apparent 

that our skill and methodology for accurately templating a near-peer 

conventional force had deteriorated. Identifying the key aspects of enemy 

maneuver such as enemy formations, speed of travel, distance between 

units, sustainability, and fire support had become a distant memory; at 

NTC we would have to learn and re-teach those skills on the fly. 

Gaining an accurate template of the enemy’s likely course of action 

required detailed analysis of how the enemy would use terrain, time, and 

irregular forces to shape his operations. We had several tools at our disposal 

to assist in that effort, including the Modified Combined Obstacle Overlay 

(MCOO) and the Threat Model, what we used to call a doctrinal template or 

DOCTEMP. We used our MCOO to identify avenues of approach, restricted 

terrain, choke points, key terrain, inter-visibility (IV) lines, obstacles, 

and hydrology which were critical variables to consider in attempting to 

template how the enemy would use the terrain. The DOCTEMP gave us 

a starting point for depicting how the enemy would fight according to 

their doctrine given perfect conditions with no restriction from terrain or 

weather. Even though we knew the enemy could task organize differently, 

it was critical to have a concept in mind that could offer a likely template for 

formations, distance between units (both by time and space), rate of march, 

location of support units (artillery, reconnaissance, supply) in relation to 

the maneuver elements. Additionally, we had to take into account the 

insurgent and criminal threat and template common communications 

capabilities and operating techniques for each group. With these two tools 

fleshed out during information preparation of the battlefield, we were able 

to develop an initial enemy course of action with respect to how the enemy 

would most likely operate in space and time. 
56

Our initial mission had us conducting a movement to contact from our 

tactical assembly area, up through Whale Gap and across Siberia into the 

central corridor. I created two enemy courses of action for this mission: 

a most likely and a most dangerous. I developed the first course of action 

using the doctrinal template described above, overlaying the enemy with 

the terrain. COA 1 identified likely locations of reconnaissance and by using 

time-phase lines, depicted the enemy’s movement through the Central 

Corridor. Given the anticipated rate of march of both our forces and the 

COEFOR, we projected that our two forces would meet just to the northeast of Razish, near hill 760. Our MCOO proved useful in developing this 

course of action since it showed the terrain favoring COEFOR elements 

moving west to east. 

My second COA depicted Donovian forces sacrificing security for 

speed. By rapidly moving forces using the high speed avenues of approach 

in column formations west of Razish, Donovian forces would arrive at the 

key terrain north of Siberia and Red Lake Pass prior to our ability to secure 

it. Based on COEFOR reconnaissance capabilities and their sympathetic 

insurgent groups located throughout the country, our assessment was that 

the enemy knew the proximate location of our deep threat systems and 

their maximum engagement range locations. I was concerned that if the 

enemy successfully occupied the high ground north of Siberia, they could 

mass fires on units exiting the restricted terrain to the south and disrupt the 

brigade. Our key to negating this, I thought, would be figuring out a way 

to reduce the impact of the Donovian irregular forces operating in Atropia. 

Our best means of achieving this was to co-opt the rival Lezgin forces into 

assisting our efforts and denigrating the Donovian irregular force efforts. 

Understanding and leveraging the human terrain was essential. 

In comparing the two COAs during mission analysis, I stressed that 

my second COA was more likely as the risk versus reward totaled out 

in the enemy’s favor. Most of the brigade staff disagreed based on how 

the historical enemy doctrine depicted Donovian maneuver. And while 

I was hoping to be able to demonstrate the frictions of COA 2 during 

wargaming, our time constraints forced us to only wargame the most likely 

COA 1. Unfortunately, this decision would cost us. The COEFORs ability 

to leverage both regular and irregular forces to gather intelligence during 

the reconnaissance fight proved a difference-maker. The Donovian regular 

forces sacrificed security for speed and quickly maneuvered through the 

Central Corridor to secure the high ground north of Siberia and Red Lake 

Pass while deploying forces with an AT capability into John Wayne Pass 

that slowed our rate of movement. This resulted in 3ABCT fighting earlier 

than anticipated on terrain not of our choosing. 
57

The time and effort spent building an accurate DOCTEMP and MCOO 

allowed me to understand how the enemy would use both his regular and 

irregular forces to achieve his mission objectives during the movement to 

contact. My mistake was not selling what I had assessed as the most likely 

COA to the commander. While the brigade was ultimately successful on the 

ground, we ended up in a knife fight when we could have wanted to bring 

more of our joint fires to bear at greater ranges. Ultimately, the flexibility 

of our commanders at echelon tipped the balance back in our favor as we 

were forced to overcome a near-peer enemy holding advantageous terrain. 

In closing, intelligence officers preparing for offensive and defensive 

operations at the NTC would do well to revisit those IPB tools from the 

now defunct Field Manual 34-130 that have been underutilized in the last 

ten year. By using these tools as a starting point, S2s can develop a decent 

assessment of likely enemy COAs, validate those assessments through 

wargaming and rehearsals and ultimately, ensure that, at echelon, those 

tools are paired with analytical assessment to paint the best possible picture 

for the commander of how the enemy will fight in space and time.

59

Story #15

Graphic Control Measures: Building a Narrative for Friendly and 

Enemy Operations

Lieutenant Chrystal Carmody was the Assistant Intelligence Officer for the 2d 

Battalion, 8th Infantry Regiment, in support of 2d Armored Brigade Combat Team 

(ABCT), 4th infantry Division’s decisive action training environment rotation at 

the National Training Center (NTC) in June 2013. Among the many offensive 

operations her unit performed, was the task to clear the town of Ujen after several 

days of irregular force harassment and lawlessness within the town.

On the morning of Training Day 13, the battalion was preparing to conduct 

the operation to clear the town of Ujen in order to destroy the Bilasuvar Freedom 

Brigade (BFB) forces that had taken control of the city, killed the local mayor 

and executed a captured US Soldier. Our key missions were to root out the BFB, 

recover the body of the Soldier, and enable the restoration of Atropian governance. 

I operated from the battalion TAC with the battalion S3, FSO, and ALO from the 

south of Ujen. Two companies were clearing the town from south to north, with 

the boundary between the companies set along the main road bisecting Ujen in 

half. The remaining companies of the battalion set an outer cordon to isolate the 

town and prevent BFB forces from entering or leaving the town. My situation map 

for the town included the battalion operational graphics which consisted of the 

company boundaries, a series of phase lines, and an objective area. In addition, I 

placed icons for templated and confirmed enemy locations; effectively tracking the 

progress of the battle, or so I thought. 

 It was about halfway through our progression that I noticed that the western 

infantry company had progressed much more rapidly than the eastern infantry 

company. The western company was near the northern edge of the town, while the 

eastern company was still in the center of the town—this had opened a gap between 

the units, allowing the BFB an opportunity to exploit the gap. The western infantry 

company had not reported crossing several phase lines, so we did not realize where 

the western company was until it reported nearing one of its objectives. I began to 

think of what other control measures I could have used to ensure the two companies 

operated in a coordinated manner, and immediately thought of contact points or 

coordination points that would have required the companies and their subordinate 

elements to cross-talk or physically meet. As I looked at our operational graphics, 

I realized that we have been somewhat vague in our application of graphic control 

measures. Had we included contact points, directions of attack, support by fire 

positions, and target points, we could have better created a visual narrative of how 

the operation would unfold. By placing contact points on the operational graphics, 

the battalion would visually indicate to the companies the commander’s intent for 
60

the units to make physical contact in order to ensure they remained abreast of one 

another and to exchange information on friendly and enemy forces and conditions 

in the town as they developed. 

This line of thought led me to reevaluate my own templated graphics for the 

enemy. I had marked enemy locations on the map with diamond unit symbols 

to indicate both identified and destroyed forces. In doing so, I had described the 

enemy force using improvised explosive device (IEDs), mortar position, and small 

arms ambush templates but none of these graphic representations captured how the 

enemy would actually be conducting all these activities on the map. If we had used 

purpose-oriented operational graphics, such as obstacles, observers, target points, 

ambush positions, routes and checkpoints, we would have created a much more 

visual narrative that would have allowed the battalion Commander and the rest of 

the staff to better visualize how the enemy would fight in space and time. 

Recognizing that we were too far along in the operation to alter templated 

graphics, I still took the time to pull out the enemy course of action situational 

template (SITEMP) for our attack the following day. The battalion SITEMPs 

identified enemy locations as a snapshot in time with unit icons placed in groups 

on the map based on the enemy’s task organization and disposition. In particular, I 

looked at routes the enemy might take to seize advantageous terrain. The products 

were adequate, but did little to explain how the enemy forces would maneuver, 

employ fires, and use other enablers to support their operations. I realized that 

I could use the operational graphics to describe how the enemy would fight in 

addition to where the enemy would be, and then drew a series of routes, attack 

by fire positions, observation posts, target points, smoke lines, which he used to 

describe in a narrative how the enemy would fight. 

As I looked at the COA sketches our battalion produced, I saw how difficult it 

was to adequately describe how the enemy would fight in sufficient detail without 

using a series of operational graphics. The lack of detail would reduce the value of 

my SITEMPs for the companies and platoons that would be executing the operation 

on the ground. Drawing on these lessons learned during mission planning for the 

subsequent fight – a movement to contact towards the Whale Gap – the S2 section 

was able to create the graphical products below to help subordinate commanders 

visualize how we expected the enemy to fight in time and space. This resulted in a 

much higher level of situational awareness and understanding across the task force 

during mission execution. Looking forward, S2s need to better understand how 

friendly forces maneuver and how to depict maneuver using operational graphics. 

When S2s use operational graphics to depict how the enemy forces will maneuver, 

Commanders, staffs, and subordinate troops can better understand how the enemy 

will fight and thus more easily defeat those efforts.
61

Figure 15-1. Enemy Most Likely Course of Action, MTC.

63

Story #16

Employing SIGINT Collection in Support of Operations

Captain Jonathan Wertz was the Military Intelligence Company Commander 

in support of 2d Armored Brigade Combat Team, 1st Infantry Division’s Decisive 

Action Training Environment rotation at the NTC. His company balanced DS and 

GS command support relationships while providing collection capabilities to the 

brigade and subordinate battalions in support of offensive, defensive and stability 

operations in the hybrid threat environment.

From the offset of our rotation, it was clear that employment of the MICO’s 

enabling capabilities would meet with friction as we attempted to balance 

command and support relationships with adherence to the brigade’s collection 

priorities. In particular, the SIGINT platoon experienced friction in three distinct 

areas: reporting collected information back to the Brigade for analysis, receiving 

clearly published task, purpose and collection guidance within the BCT mission 

orders, and lack of understanding on capabilities and limitations by leadership at 

both the battalion and brigade levels for the SIGINT systems; specifically Prophet 

and LLVI.

During the course of the rotation, the SIGINT platoon faced challenges in 

reporting intelligence to the Brigade in a timely manner. Without the information 

reaching the Brigade, it was not combined with information from other sources 

to produce all source analysis. During Brigade operations, it became imperative 

that collected information be analyzed and presented to the BCT Commander to 

support his decision making. To accomplish this, we had to modify our PACE plan 

to ensure we included two intelligence specific high frequency nets, FBCB2 and 

the Trojan-Lite. Unfortunately, neither I nor the Brigade staff coordinated with the 

task organized units to ensure that our concept of the PACE plan would, or could, 

be established, supported, and enforced. 

Rather, the SIGINT Teams were briefed a plan that was quickly negated by 

guidance given from the supported unit. As example, during the movement to 

contact, the LLVI teams were task-organized to 5-4 CAV, with that battalion’s 

leadership further pushing the teams down to support a specific troop. The Troops 

briefed, supported and enforced, their own PACE plans that did not take into 

account the need for their task organized collection assets to communicate directly 

with the BCT mission command nodes. In the end, two SIGINT reports were 

received from our forward LLVI teams by the Brigade after completion of the 

movement to contact operation. This was a critical friction point—the lack of 

understanding at the lowest levels of the purpose behind those assets led to their 

non-use in answering the Brigade Commander’s PIR. In hindsight, describing the 

PACE plan by system within the Brigade order and rehearsing the flow of reporting 
64

during the Brigade IC rehearsal, would have likely gone a long way towards 

reducing this friction and increasing the effectiveness of the SIGINT teams ability 

to execute the Commander’s intent for collection. 

Another factor that inhibited good flow of reporting was systems-based. 

FBCB2 is a widely used lower TI capability that proved its value in enabling 

wide and timely dissemination. Unfortunately, the Prophet teams do not have the 

FBCB2 systems organic to their vehicles. This was a major gap in capability that 

our MTOE prevented us from overcoming. Had we enabled our vehicles with 

BFT or FBCB2, we would have had a reliable means of ensuring that these critical 

collectors were capable of transmitting their collection back to the various mission 

command nodes. Again, as it was, we were hindered in our ability to effectively 

meet the Commander’s intent for these systems and their value was diminished. 

Turning to planning, while we appreciated the idea that too much detail could 

inhibit a subordinate’s ability to seize the initiative and make decisions, the lack 

of specific detail within the base OPORD unintentionally led to subordinate 

commanders trying to emplace sensors through “discovery learning” based on a 

lack of understanding and familiarity for the capabilities and limitations of those 

sensors resourced to them. When emplacing a SIGINT sensor to support the 

brigade collection plan, the NAI is selected at brigade, with the tasked collector 

selected given its specific capabilities—at least that is the way it should work. To 

be effective, the task and purpose for the collector needs to include: what NAI is 

being covered, what is being sensed in the NAI and who is supporting the sensor. 

These three specifics enable effective signal intercept, security for the sensors, and 

reporting to higher. Their lack of inclusion in our Annex L or base order, led to 

confusion in placement and prioritization of our SIGINT assets.

Finally, every maneuver commander and staff officer needs to understand the 

Brigade’s SIGINT sensor limitations and capabilities to ensure proper emplacement 

of the sensors. Without this understanding both planning and employment by 

subordinate commanders suffer, often with sensors emplaced in ineffective 

locations. As example, during the movement to contact, the troop commander 

securing the Prophet system located both sensors and the control in a valley where 

they could not intercept any enemy signals. During offensive operations, the 

Squadron emplaced SIGINT sensors in different locations from what was specified 

in the Brigade order. As a result, the NAIs tied to the Brigade Commander’s PIRs 

were not observed. 

While I had presented a capabilities briefing to each maneuver Battalion 

prior to arriving at NTC, the briefing was generic and did not serve to train the 

commanders and staff on the technical and tactical limitations of the systems. 

Additionally, off-the-shelf system briefings followed by company STX requiring 
65

the effective use of SIGINT sensors could help to educate and train company 

commanders and Battalion staff planners on these complex assets.

Until staff planners and subordinate commanders understand the SIGINT 

systems, the Brigade orders will continue to require substantial detail to ensure 

proper use. The Brigade base order requires, at a minimum, task organization, 

emplacement location, NAI observed, security requirements, and reporting 

procedures for all SIGINT assets. These minimum requirements need to be 

elaborated upon in Annex L. With more details explained in Brigade orders and 

better coordination through rehearsals and training, the Brigade’s SIGINT systems 

will be better utilized to support the Brigade Commander’s decision making and 

drive maneuver.

67

Story #17

Executing Combined Arms Live Fire Breaching Operations

Lieutenant Colonel John Pirog was the Commander of the 2d Battalion, 

69th Armor Regiment, which acted as one of two Combined Arms Battalions for 

3d Armored Brigade Combat Team, 3rd Infantry Division during the first-ever 

Decisive Action Training Environment rotation at the NTC. His unit was detached 

from the brigade and under operational control of the 52d Infantry Division in 

support of attacking Donovian Forces in the northern live-fire corridor.

The 52d Infantry Division tasked the Panthers of 2-69 AR to plan, 

synchronize, and conduct simultaneous live fire combined arms breaching 

operations in support of clearing two company-sized forward objectives. 

Before we detached, our brigade augmented our typical task organization 

(organic battalion with an attached forward support company) with an 

armored reconnaissance troop, an armored engineer platoon (equipped 

with two armored breaching vehicles), a Canadian light engineer company 

(equipped with LAVs and Bangalore torpedoes), an artillery battery 

(equipped with M109A6 Paladins), an MLRS platoon, a scout weapons 

team, an attack weapons team, a Predator UAV (armed with Hellfire 

missiles), and two fixed wing sorties (equipped with Mk 84 bombs). 

Conducting a full up military decision making process was a major 

factor in our success. We had about 36 hours from the receipt of mission 

to LD and we debated executing a rapid decision synchronization process 

to allow the battalion more time for rehearsals. We chose the full-up 

MDMP to ensure our plan was truly synchronized and fully employed 

all of our enablers throughout the mission. The battalion executive officer 

and S3 reaffirmed their critical roles in the process. These two worked in 

tandem to keep the process focused and on time and most importantly 

maximized the outputs from every member of the staff. Their teamwork 

resulted in increased efficiency and allowed the staff time to work through 

a detailed course of action analysis. The wargaming session led to several 

key modifications to our base plan. The overall process showed us how 

important every member of the staff is in creating a well synchronized plan 

that has a solid chance of succeeding. 

Though rehearsals continue to be the critical preparatory step in the 

troop leading procedure process, the combined arms rehearsal cannot give 

a commander a true sense of how long it takes to conduct complicated tasks 

such as a company passage of lines, occupying a PAA and conducting prefire checks, or conducting a dismounted manual breech with Bangalore 

torpedoes. During mission analysis, we relied on doctrinal estimates as a 
68

starting point, then either reinforced or modified the data with first hand 

experiences from unit leaders. It would have been more helpful though 

to personally observe how our enablers conduct their missions. Either 

during pre-rotation training or while at the National Training Center, I 

recommend that commanders observe enabler forces actually performing 

their routine tasks. That firsthand knowledge would have been helpful in 

reducing “lulls in fire” or having force sitting idle longer than necessary. 

During the breaching portion of our mission, I was too focused on the 

actual breeches and did not pay enough attention to the next critical event 

early enough. In each case, we were able to overcome the enemy through 

violence of action and massed effects, however, the fight could have been 

easier if we applied more combat power forward earlier to attrite the enemy 

or prevent him from repositioning in response to our maneuver. Instead of 

just using the MLRS and the Predator’s Hellfire missiles, we could have 

sent the attack and scout weapons teams forward as well as the ARS troop. 

Just as our company commanders were setting the conditions to transition 

through the breaching fundamentals, at the battalion level, I should have 

remained constantly focused on setting the conditions for the companies to 

transition from one critical event to the next. The breaches were critical, but 

an inability to clear the two objectives due to a loss of combat power would 

still have resulted in mission failure. 

The overall mission was successful and the battalion accomplished the 

commander’s intent ahead of schedule. Perhaps the greatest lesson learned 

for all levels throughout the battalion was how to effectively employ and 

synchronize all of our enablers to properly set the conditions to successfully 

transition from one critical event of the operation to the next. We entered 

the rotation having executed breaching operations at the platoon and the 

company level in both simulations and in the field against a live opposing 

force. Our leaders understood the tenets and how to apply the breaching 

fundamentals. Outside of the classroom however, we were not practiced at 

synchronizing and employing enablers external to the battalion as the assets 

were not available during our breach training. I had also not considered 

having either MLRS or a Predator in direct support of the battalion. The 

bottom line is that Battalion staffs that work as a team and incorporate 

significant NCO involvement can quickly overcome the many challenges 

of the fast paced and demanding operational environment.
69

Story #18

An Opportunity Missed

Lieutenant Colonel Larry Burris was the Commander of the 1st Battalion, 

66th Armored Regiment, supporting the 1st Brigade, 4th Infantry Division’s 

Decisive Action Training Environment rotation at the NTC, and task organized as 

a combined arms battalion. Upon alert of a Donovian invasion into Atropia, his 

unit was tasked to conduct a movement to contact from south of the Whale gap, 

across Siberia and destroying the enemy forces in the central corridor. 

The 1-66 AR occupied its attack position approximately seven kilometers 

south of the LD (Whale Gap) at approximately 2300 the night prior to LD. We 

postured ourselves to execute movement in a battalion column, company wedge 

formation. The task force executed a refuel at approximately 0330 in preparation 

for the crossing of LD later that morning. Upon notification that the Main Body of 

the 111th BTG had crossed PL Gene, we were given direction from the brigade to 

cross the line of departure at 0700. As depicted on our COA Statement and Sketch 

below, our task was to destroy two MIBNs of the enemy assault and exploitation 

forces in EA CAT in order to protect the right flank of the 52ID and the left flank 

of the 12th UK. 

The battalion was task organized with two armor company teams, one 

mechanized company team, FSC, mortars and scouts. We were enabled with 

CA, MISO, JTAC, ADA, chemical reconnaissance and our habitually associated 

engineer platoon. Key tasks for the battalion from my commander’s intent 

included: 

• Deliberately un-coil from the TAA in preparation for LD.

• Conduct route reconnaissance along axis of advance and establish 

OP 3 to identify enemy recon and AT forces 

• Destroy the AF/EF of the 111th BTG (2 MIBNs)

• Establish a hasty defense to defeat Donovian Counter-attack 

forces in EA BULL

• Sustain the battalion with timely logistics and maintenance support

Approximately eight hours earlier, the battalion’s “Team Recon” had crossed 

the line of departure under the OPCON of 7-10 CAV. The team consisted of our 

scout and mortar platoons along with a chemical reconnaissance section under the 

command of my HHC Commander. Their task was to confirm or deny the presence
70

of enemy reconnaissance forces in Porta Potty Wadi and Red Lake Pass and then 

conduct route reconnaissance north to hilltop 720 where they were to establish 

OPs, one BCT directed. Their purpose was to identify enemy forces in the central 

corridor from the west and to attempt to identify any enemy AT teams positioned 

along the north wall of the central corridor. Team Recon executed its mission, 

crossing the LD at 2300, with little enemy reconnaissance force contact and was 

set in their OPs prior to the main body’s movement. The team had observation 

down the central corridor to include coverage of both the brigade’s and battalion’s 

templated EAs. 

Figure 18-1. COA Sketch and Statement for MTC.
71

Upon LD, the Task Force moved as rapidly as possible with two armor company 

teams in the lead followed by our mechanized company team and the battalion 

support package. The only contact received was small arms and RPG fire targeting 

the refit and refuel package from a built up area south of Red Lake Pass which had 

been previously bypassed. The contact resulted in one fueler destroyed and two 

casualties which were promptly evacuated. Observation of the built up area was 

passed from one unit to the next as the task force passed by, but the lesson learned 

here is that we should have ensured a security element remained in overwatch of 

the built up area until our less protected support elements had passed by.

During the planning phase, we had templated a refuel/rearm point just north 

of the built up area but I opted not to execute based upon our rate of movement, 

remaining fuel levels and lack of enemy contact. As the main body moved north, 

the reconnaissance team identified a large enemy force approaching from the west 

moving towards the Columbia Wash. Based on what I was getting directly from 

my reconnaissance team, the brigade net, and the lack of contact in the east, I felt 

I could see what the enemy was attempting to do, at least in the east. It was my 

assessment the enemy did not know where 1-66 AR was and that they perceived 

an unprotected flank to 1-22 IN’s east. This meant that they were going to exploit 

the perceived flank east of 1-22 IN in order to get to the BCT rear area. What I did 

not have was a clear picture of what the enemy forces were doing in the west with 

7-10 CAV, nor did I have clear FM communications with 1-22 IN and the situation 

to their immediate front.

After consulting with the BCT Commander aboard his C2 aircraft via FM, he 

and I both estimated the enemy was attempting to exploit a seam between 1-22 IN 

and 1-66 AR in order to move down through Porta Potty Wadi to reach the brigade 

rear area. We both agreed the task force should establish a hasty assault by fire 

position oriented from the south side of the Columbia Wash, tied into Hill 720 and 

to the north wall of the central corridor. I positioned one tank company team to the 

north of Hill 720, one tank company team between the Columbia Wash and Porta 

Potty Wadi and a mechanized infantry team between Columbia Wash and Hill 720. 

The task force refuel and rearm package established itself at a position just north 

of Najalaban and were prepared to move on order to conduct a tactical refuel of 

the task force. 

A team of three AH64 (Apaches), in direct support to the battalion, checked 

on station shortly thereafter and requested guidance. The Apaches were originally 

planning to occupy an attack by fire position to the battalion’s northern flank but 

were unable to occupy due to a conflict in understanding where the attack by fire 

positions was in relation to the brigade’s northern boundary; a report given to me 

by the air mission commander over FM. It was later identified that the Aviation 

planners had incorrectly plotted the attack by fire position on their graphics. But 

on the fly, and not knowing this at the time, we had to react and enable the Apaches 

to get into the fight.
72

I made the decision to reposition the Apaches to a position over the shoulder of 

the task force; a position where they would have been able to engage the enemy to 

our west with immediate effects. But at that point, I received another call from the 

air mission commander that they were being ordered back to vicinity of the TAA to 

refuel as they had evidently launched prior to the trigger on the brigade’s decision 

support template. This was unfortunate as the aircraft were in a position to engage 

16 to 20 enemy vehicles in the central corridor. Regardless of the launch criteria, 

the Apaches should have been allowed to remain on station and engage the enemy 

forces in the central corridor as they were in a position to observe and engage the 

enemy’s main body forces. The task force could have then maneuvered west with 

the support of the Apaches, bounding company teams using the terrain to engage 

the enemy force in the central corridor. 

The Task Force had moved faster and along a route that the enemy had not 

anticipated, enabling the unit to gain a positional advantage on the high ground 

vicinity Snow Cone. An attack by fire position was established a few kilometers 

east of the planned location. Although we occupied this position of dominance 

on the east end of the central corridor, our dialogue over the aviation assets had 

robbed us of our initiative. We had stayed in one place for too long; in short, we 

lost the tactical advantage that we initially gained. In retrospect, I should have 

recommended to the BCT Commander that we continue the attack west and engage 

the enemy, even without the attack aviation assets. This would have enabled 

1-22 IN to occupy its attack by fire position along the Siberian Ridge and relieve 

some of the pressure that 7-10 CAV was feeling in the west. In the absence of 

communication with the BCT Commander, we should have retained the initiative, 

coordinated with 1-22 IN and executed the attack west. 

Instead, the enemy was able to establish a very effective smoke screen using 

vehicular mounted smoke generators and break contact to the west. We were able 

to achieve some effects with CAS on the enemy in the central corridor but we 

did not achieve the desired effect of massing both indirect and direct fires on the 

enemy main body. While we ultimately maneuvered west to our originally planned 

ABF, our earlier decision to push of fueling forced us to conduct a tactical refuel 

in order to continue movement as it had been approximately eight hours since our 

refuel prior to crossing the LD. After our refuel, we continued movement west 

to a hasty ABF south of Granite Pass in preparation for the establishment of a 

deliberate defense in support of 1-22s security operations in Razish. 

It is imperative that once the initiative is gained during the offense, that it 

is maintained. We, both the task force and the BCT, failed to do that. Had we 

executed the hasty attack west, the enemy would not have been able to retrograde 

to the west and preserve combat power that was later used against us during the 

defense; clearly an opportunity missed.
73

Story #19

Setting Conditions: Uncoiling from the Tactical Assembly Area

Lieutenant Colonel Nelson Kraft was the Commander of the 1st Battalion, 

15th Infantry Regiment, which acted as one of two Combined Arms Battalions 

for 3d Armored Brigade Combat Team, 3d Infantry Division during the first-ever 

Decisive Action Training Environment rotation at the NTC. His missions included 

securing the passage points at the Whale Gap and to follow and assume the attack 

in the Central Corridor.

The battalion’s participation in NTC Rotation 12-05 was an excellent 

opportunity for us to put our home station training at Fort Benning, GA to 

the test. The biggest difference that we faced in the desert environment as 

opposed to the wooded terrain of Georgia was the shear distance between 

friendly units and the ability to maneuver in much larger, spread out 

formations. The desert terrain paired with the decisive action environment 

brought to light that simply departing the tactical assembly area in an 

efficient manner can prove difficult. Throughout the rotation, we learned 

that orders and rehearsals must cover details of uncoiling out of the tactical 

assembly area and into attack positions to ensure conditions are set to 

enable crossing the line of departure on time. These lessons learned greatly 

enhanced the battalion’s combat effectiveness as we deployed to Kuwait in 

support of Operation Spartan Shield.

As my staff conducted MDMP, my executive officer and I stressed 

the importance of adhering to the planning timeline. I realized that the 

commanders needed time to plan for the missions and their associated 

rehearsals. The company commanders understood from previous 

discussion that uncoiling from the tactical assembly area would set the 

tempo for the entire operation, but to drive this point home I directed 

that they conduct FM rehearsals of the uncoiling process at a minimum. 

In order to afford them the time they needed, my staff could not fall 

behind in the planning process. We produced a good, not perfect, plan and 

pushed it down to companies in time for them to begin their troop leading 

procedures. In the fast paced environment of a decisive action rotation, 

you will never have the perfect plan. It is imperative to feed the companies 

information as quickly as possible in order to allow time for good troop 

leading procedures at the company and platoon level. As we figured out, 

that is where the majority of delays start out and lead to larger delays at 

the battalion level. 

We also learned (sometimes the hard way) that a unit is successful when 

it conducts deliberate and detailed rehearsals. Directly following the orders 
74

brief, company commanders conducted a confirmation brief with me to 

ensure understanding and clear up any confusion. I instructed my staff to 

be a part of this so they could update our graphics and execution matrix 

if there was a change or de-confliction that came out of the confirmation 

brief. This allowed everybody to go back to their company with a clear 

understanding of the common operating picture. Taking extra time at 

the confirmation brief made our combined arms rehearsals go extremely 

smooth. Not only were my commanders able to brief their mission, but they 

understood the overall mission of the battalion. My biggest regret is that 

we did not allow ourselves enough time to conduct a longer FM rehearsal. 

We were able to conduct an FM rehearsal, but not in as much detail as 

I would have liked. For Commanders, while it is ultimately a matter of 

available time, the value of being able to replicate the reliance on FM and 

lower TI systems that exists during execution makes the FM rehearsal an 

extremely effective format for ensuring synchronization of details. 

In execution, 1-15 IN learned the best way to ensure an efficient process 

of uncoiling out of the tactical assembly area is to set the conditions to do 

so when you first occupy it. All of our companies were task organized, but 

one company served as the brigade reserve. This left us with two infantry 

and one armor company teams. A/1-15 IN, an infantry company team was 

arrayed towards our direction of travel (north) as the first unit in the order 

of march. Their task was to establish contact with 3-1 CAV with whom we 

would conduct a passage of lines. D/1-15 IN, our remaining tank company 

team and second in the order of march, was arrayed to the west and south. 

B/1-15 IN, our other infantry company team was third in the order of march 

arrayed to the east and south. Our TOC and mortar platoon were located in 

the center of the tactical assembly area. The mortar platoon traveled behind 

D/1-15 IN, our main effort for the operation. 

The best thing we did was establish phase lines based on our time/

distance analysis that would set the conditions for elements to uncoil 

from the tactical assembly area and move to their attack positions while 

maintaining good separation. The use of our digital mission command 

systems, mainly the FBCB2/BFT, allowed the companies to track each other 

and anticipate when they needed to begin movement. Future rotational 

units would do well to publish the phase lines and triggers and then let 

subordinate commanders command the execution. While a detailed plan is 

good, too many details can stifle initiative and constrict flexibility. Giving 

the commanders the ability to lead according to the battalion commander’s 

intent will make it easier for the companies to move out of the tactical 

assembly area as well as allowing the battalion leadership to focus on the 

upcoming operation. 
75

As the Army continues to transition towards decisive action rotations at the 

National Training Center, units need to shift the focus of training away from counterinsurgency and back to a more conventional mindset. Commanders have much 

more freedom to exercise initiative in the decisive action training environment. 

This creates a need for good, not perfect, orders, detailed and extensive rehearsals, 

and giving commanders the ability to operate within the commander’s intent. 

Our unit experienced a plethora of growth through this rotation and we were able 

to realize these points and adapt to them. Units that are able to do this will set 

themselves up for success and maximize their training opportunity at the National 

Training Center.

77

Story #20

Uncoiling from Attack Positions to Cross the LD

Major Jim Brady was the Brigade Operations Officer of the 1st Armored Brigade 

Combat Team, 4th Infantry Division’s Decisive Action Training Environment 

rotation at the NTC. His unit conducted offensive and defensive operations against 

both regular and irregular forces in a complex operating environment for 14 days, 

beginning with the conduct of a movement to contact from a TAA through the 

Whale Gap towards the Central Corridor.

As a Field Grade officer with primarily a light infantry background, I’ve often 

questioned the complexities of uncoiling an armor formation. I say this from the 

perspective of uncoiling an Armored BCT for a rapid follow-on engagement. The 

execution of the Movement to Contact, Day 1 of Force on Force, at NTC was my 

first live experience at the brigade level. Eight months earlier, I was able to glean 

some lessons by observing 3/3 ID’s NTC 12-05 Rotation. That reminded me how 

choke points like the Whale Gap can place an uncoiling operation at risk. Officers 

and NCOs who have experience with this operation get a concerned look on their 

faces if one pays lip service to the process of uncoiling. My BCT Commander and 

several battalion commanders kept stressing the need to have a sound plan. With a 

good plan the brigade would have a fighting chance against the COEFOR. Without 

it, we were doomed to fail at the start gate. Naïve souls will try to rectify the 

complexities of uncoiling by developing a good plan with clear routes, dispersed 

staging positions, a reasonable movement table, and a practical communications 

structure. However, I know as many of my peers do that a good plan can fall apart 

in the first fifteen minutes of execution. Even most modern people understand the 

problems associated with large vehicle movements. We see this in everyday life 

on streets and highways. If there is no control then friction builds into a colossal 

traffic jam. It takes a traffic cop that understands the susceptible points of friction 

to force control back into the jam so that movement can regain momentum. My 

position at the BCT TAC, south of the Whale Gap, acted as an effective traffic cop 

for my Brigade’s uncoiling operation; however, “Murphy” in the form of poor 

FM communications was lingering all over the approach route, and it prevented 

me from seeing beyond this operation to the next bigger fight, the Movement to 

Contact. 

The BCT’s uncoiling and subsequent Movement to Contact plan was a solid 

product. It was guided by the BCT Commander’s extensive experience with 

Mechanized Armor Warfare. He wanted early dispersion, a screen along the 

Whale-Furlong, and multiple routes and Attack Positions to increase flexibility. 

Of course, having good communications was essential to all of this flexibility. 

The BCT’s Mission Command elements (MAIN & TAC) had to be able to read 
78

the enemy’s playbook through good reporting. This would enable them to make 

good decisions and recommendations for the Commander. We believed the 

COEFOR’s Division Recon would most likely set along the Whale-Furlong to 

target the BCT as it postured to pass through the Gap. The Commander’s “spidersenses” also informed him that the COEFOR would most likely rouse the IDP 

camp north of the Whale Gap to create a massive traffic jam. The plan took all of 

this into consideration and shored up other points of friction through a movement 

table, decision support products, emplacement of RETRANS and common digital/

analog graphics (See Figures 1 and 2). 

Figure 20-1. BCTs Concept Sketch for Crossing LD.
79

Our preparation and early movement activities followed a normal stream of 

events, and got the BCT on good footing to execute the plan. A lesson learned 

from 3/3 ID’s Rotation was that the BCT needed to allocate additional time to 

units transitioning between battalion live-fire events north of PL DRAGON back 

to TAA operations the day before Main Body LD. We did make some efficiencies 

for our rotation, but the units still felt rushed. The brigade executed its Combined Figure 20-2. BCTs Movement Table from TAA to LD.
80

Arms Rehearsal the morning of our last day of preparation. While the CAR may 

have resembled more of a back-brief than a rehearsal, the forum did enable the 

BCT Commander to further synchronize the plan, and it ensured that battalion 

commanders as well as the brigade’s warfighting functions were still executing 

according to his intent. A few of the battalion commanders requested adjustments 

to the Movement Table, and the BCT Commander approved. This drove me to 

ensure these adjustments, with minor graphical control changes, were incorporated 

into a final push of information to subordinates. I could always use more time 

in the area of disseminating last minute adjustments. It is an art that units need 

to practice; otherwise, subordinates don’t capture a change which adds to more 

confusion during execution. 

The BCT TAC pushed out later that afternoon; therefore, I felt rushed to tie 

up loose ends and get myself with the TAC firmed-up on the plan. I satisfactorily 

made my SP time with the TAC. We linked up with Team IDP en route so that 

they could handle that pesky problem with civilians jamming the Whale Gap. My 

TAC OIC emphatically told me that FM communications were going to be up, as 

he made multiple checks earlier that day. He went so far as to do long distance 

FM checks to really give them a good test. As one can probably guess, I lost FM 

well into my movement to the TAC’s preplanned position. My hope was that I 

could regain a good FM connection once I got the TAC settled. I was rushing to 

get myself up on FM prior to the BCT’s first conditions check on at 1800 hrs that 

evening. Alas, no joy in this area. I could listen but not transmit. Thank goodness 

I had a CPN. I was up on SVOIP, and the CPN’s remote CAU capability enabled 

me to use the TOC’s FM station to push through their systems. The limiting factor 

now was that I was anchored to the CPN and could not move without losing my 

connection to the MAIN and the BCT CDR. 

 Overall, movements flowed according to the plan. The first battalion to move 

out was 1-22 IN which had the task of establishing a screen along the WhaleFurlong. The BCT TAC had spotty FM with the 1-22 TAC, so it was hard to 

get a good read on their progress. Our FBCB2 capability enabled the TAC with 

a redundant means of tracking 1-22 IN’s progress. A systemic problem during 

the rotation was a lack of understanding how to execute good FBCB2 operations. 

There was a problem with role names, the number of essential platforms that had 

operational systems, and problems inherent with line of site which affects the 

FBCB2 and not the BFT. We also had a mix of FBCB2 and BFTs which could 

not talk to each other without a bridging solution. The Attack Helicopter Battalion 

was BFT based, while the rest of the brigade had spotty FBCB2 capability. In 

accordance with the movement table, the Fires Battalion and 1-66 AR began to 

move to their ATK Positions. 
81

We were getting close to the early LD of our Armored Recon Squadron (ARS). 

I felt that I had sufficient situational awareness to keep the Whale Gap opened 

and to prevent the IDP camp from becoming a problem. At around 2100 hrs, 

we received a directive from 52ID to stand down all operations due to the ARS 

finding live ammunition mixed with their blanks. When other battalions check 

their blank ammunition draw, there were a few other instances of this problem. 

NTC stood down our operations for 24 hrs which allowed some people to include 

myself to get some much needed rest. Without going into the impact of the 24 hrs 

stand down, I can say that we executed all the actions mentioned above with better 

effectiveness the next day. One could say that the previous day served as a full 

force rehearsal for actions prior to LD.

The early positioning of the BCT TAC certainly facilitated bringing forces 

up to and just through the Whale Gap; however, degraded RETRANS capability 

forward prevented the TAC from effectively advising the BCT CDR on Decision 

Points affecting the Movement to Contact. Team IDP successfully mitigated issues 

with roaming civilians along the approach route; therefore, it was a successful 

example of planning to mitigate risk. As I said earlier, the TAC was now anchored 

to the CPN, but it was not in a good position to receive and transmit over the 

Whale-Furlong. I had to make a decision on the appropriate time to jump the 

TAC forward. According to the plan, my BCT CDR wanted me to wait until the 

both CABs and the BCT reserve passed through the Gap. But now the conditions 

had changed. Neither the MAIN nor the TAC could give the Commander a good 

picture of the enemy set forward. The MAIN had a better picture because of its 

connection with the ARS MAIN whose internal RETRANs were better situated 

to range the 7-10 CAV Commander and Squadron S3. Once the BCT CDR took 

to ground and began to move inside his Mobile Command Group, he had very 

spotty FM communications with the MAIN. The TAC, however, was able to keep 

him abreast by relaying reports from the MAIN. At this point, I was getting 

personally frustrated with my inability to see forward of the Gap and to advise the 

Commander. 

After 1-22 IN crossed the Gap, I made a decision to re-position a portion of the 

TAC to the Whale Gap while the CPN and the S3’s M1068 with our only FBCB2 

remained fixed. This maintained the connection between the BCT CDR and the 

MAIN. Going to ground myself and moving cross country with the S2, FIRES, 

and TAC-P vehicles towards the Gap was a big time investment, and it cost me 

in terms of FM capability and situational awareness. Once I got set at the Whale 

Gap, all I had was FM with an OE-254 and the TAC-P’s HF capability. We had 

a poor connection to the MAIN and were still unable to effectively reach the 

FLOT with FM. By this time, the CABs were executing a Forward Passage of 

Lines through the remnants of the ARS. I had lost information superiority over 

the MAIN in terms of advising the BCT CDR. My big lesson about uncoiling 
82

from the BCT TAC’s perspective is that brigade mission command nodes need 

to be positioned and postured two steps ahead of the uncoiling operation. As 

always, good communications in redundant forms are necessary to keep the 

uncoiling operation from being too much of the focus, since it is the first in a 

series of events that allows the BCT to close with and destroy the enemy. 
83

Story #21

Role of the Reconnaissance Squadron in the Attack

Lieutenant Colonel Andrew Hilmes was the Commander of the 3d Squadron, 

1st Cavalry Regiment, which acted as the Reconnaissance Squadron for 3d 

Armored Brigade Combat Team, 3d Infantry Division during the first-ever Decisive 

Action Training Environment rotation at the NTC. His unit was tasked to conduct 

a zone reconnaissance in advance of 3/3 ABCT’s deliberate attack through Brown/

Debnam passes.

From the onset of the executing the Brigade’s deliberate attack on training 

day 11, the Reconnaissance Squadron was given only one specified task: conduct 

a reconnaissance in zone. As the mission progressed however, it became apparent 

that many more tasks would be required. And of even greater import, it became 

clear to me during the operations order briefing that the squadron was capable of 

contributing much more to the attack.

Our task organization for the attack was significantly reduced from what it 

had been during the brigade’s movement to contact and hasty defense missions. 

One of my troops was detached; task organized to 2-69 AR covering the northern 

axis for the Division. So at my authorized time to cross the LD, I had a squadron 

with a third less of its combat power and only a hand-full of enablers in support. 

To complicate matters, the full brigade OPORD wasn’t issued until nearly eight 

hours after the squadron had crossed the LD, by which time both of my ground 

cavalry troops had already made direct fire contact with the enemy. Because of 

this contact I decided I needed to remain with the squadron and manage the fight, 

so I chose not to attend the order and sent my XO instead. In hindsight, I regret this 

decision, because it became apparent later that multiple gaps existed in the plan 

as it concerned the squadron in the execution of the deliberate attack. By sending 

my XO, I ceded my personal ability to confirm the brigade’s concept of my unit’s 

mission with my own understanding of that mission.

Back in the fight, the squadron was still in contact and had a mission to 

reconnoiter prescribed objectives for the Brigade Commander but as of the morning 

of training day 12, I had yet to answer his key information requirement—the 

location of the enemy’s main obstacle belt. To that point, I had been deliberately 

controlling the tempo of maneuver for my troops in order to retain stealth in our 

reconnaissance. However, in order to deliver answer the commander’s PIR and 

enable his decision on where to focus the breach, I made the decision to transition 

the troops to rapid and forceful maneuver. It is worth noting that the rest of the 

brigade had not yet crossed the LD and did not appear to be in a position to conduct 

reconnaissance handover at the prescribed time and locations within the order 

before the squadron sustained heavy losses. It became clear to me that there was 

not a common understanding of the squadron scheme of maneuver to this point. 
84

Leaving my command post, I took my operations officer and maneuvered back 

across the LD to link up with my brigade commander at the 1-15 IN command 

post. During the ensuing discussion, I explained that we had changed tempo in 

an effort to locate the main obstacle belt and that this had effectively given away 

my troops positions. I expected that my combat power would quickly deteriorate 

quickly. Additionally, I conveyed to the commander my belief that the brigade 

had to cross the LD quickly or we would rapidly lose the initiative. Finally, I 

recommended to the brigade commander that we breach at Debnam Pass, where 

my Bravo Troop believed they had identified the main obstacle belt.

In execution of the breach, friction abounded. As 1-15 IN began their 

movement forward, we directed the troops to work through the passage of the main 

effort forward towards the designated breach point. This effort was hampered by 

several factors. First, the separation of 1-15 IN’s companies in their order of march 

was greater than we had anticipated, making it difficult to push significant combat 

power through the breach to gain any sort of initiative. Secondly, the brigade had 

never clearly defined our SOSRA drill, nor adequately rehearsed it. Lastly, the 

gaps in the brigade plan with respect to fires and its sequencing with the maneuver 

plan became evident as we stalled on the brigade effort stalled on the near side of 

the breach point. While the brigade order had directed that priority of fires shift 

to 1-15 IN as soon as the first company had breached the obstacle belt and crossed 

the pass, in execution we discovered that 1-15 IN was consumed by maneuvering 

through the breach and was not postured to process targets. While the squadron 

was in the best position to shape the fight with fires, the shifted priorities left us in 

no position to support 1-15 IN in the breach.

In closing, the challenges of executing mission command for the cavalry 

squadron in support of offensive operations are myriad. The squadron has to do 

whatever is necessary to make the brigade successful. Key is the need for mission 

orders to clearly define the role and duties that are expected of the squadron. Early 

on in the fight, I only had one specified task. As the fight progressed, that one task 

morphed into many. Looking back, I now realize that a gap existed in our brigade 

training plan for home station. Due to time constraints and internal prioritization, 

we focused almost exclusively on movement to contact at the expense of the 

brigade deliberate attack. Future squadron commanders must fight to balance their 

training objectives across the full spectrum of possible missions.
85

Story #22

Reinforcing the Cavalry Squadron for the Movement to Contact

Lieutenant Colonel Geoffrey Norman was the Squadron Commander of 

7th Squadron, 10th Cavalry Regiment supporting the 1st Brigade, 4th Infantry 

Division’s Decisive Action Training Environment rotation at the NTC. His force 

was called upon to conduct reconnaissance and security operations in support 

of a movement to contact through the Whale Gap and into the central corridor, 

during a hasty defense along centerline road, and in advance of a deliberate attack 

towards Crash Hill through Brown and Debnam Passes and the Colorado Wash. 

Early in our train-up for NTC the Brigade commander clearly stated that 

he envisioned an expanded role for the Armored Reconnaissance Squadron 

(ARS). FM 3-20.96 defines the “fundamental role of the squadron is conducting 

reconnaissance or security missions in support of the higher headquarters.” Our 

commander made it clear that he expected the ARS to conduct reconnaissance 

AND security missions in support of the BCT. This signaled a deliberate expansion 

of our role, which at times included significant economy of force operations and 

shaping operations. If we were asked whether our role was to “answer the boss’ 

PIR” or “fight like cavalry” the answer was a resounding “fight like cavalry.” More 

appropriately, the BCT commander saw his ARS “fighting like cavalry to answer 

to PIR and develop the situation for the BCT.” 

The current MTOE organization of the ARS limits the maneuver and mission 

command options for troop commanders to two platoons each, and the squadron 

to a total of only six maneuver platoons. Many missions assigned to the ARS 

require more than six maneuver units. To help compensate for this deficiency, 

we developed “Blue” platoons to add a third maneuver unit for each troop. We 

envisioned the Blue platoons as economy of force elements which focused on tasks 

such as tactical site exploitation, RETRANS security, convoy security, command 

post security, key leader engagements, and deception operations. These platoons 

were led by our most senior staff sergeants and lieutenants we took from the staff. 

The platoons were equipped with four M1151s with LRAS3 as well as Javelins, 

RETRANS, and deception equipment. We also made our platoons “pure” – all 

Bradleys or all M1151s. This enabled our leaders at the platoon-level to master 

single platforms and their associated weapons systems vice learn both M1151s and 

M3A3s.

The squadron developed a unique organization for the movement to contact 

(see figure 22-1). I organized and employed one troop as a “recon” troop to 

execute rapid and stealthy recon and move to the key terrain of the Siberian Ridge 

to establish a screen. The “recon” troop organization included three six HMMWV 

“Red” platoons and a four HMMWV “Blue” platoon. This mostly wheeled 
86

Figure 22-1. Squadron Organization for MTC.
87

formation was tailored for rapid, stealthy movement across permissive terrain prior 

to the enemy’s Brigade Tactical Group reconnaissance forces reaching key terrain 

or Observation Posts. A “counter-recon” troop followed the “recon” troop by two 

hours. The counter-recon troop consisted of two six M3A3 “White” platoons and 

one four HMMWV “Blue” platoon. This troop was optimized to gain contact with 

and destroy enemy BTG recon elements between the BCT’s line of departure and 

ground limit of advance. 

These two troops developed the situation for the BCT and answered Priority 

Intelligence Requirements in the east of the BCT area of operations along the axes 

of advance for the two following combined arms battalions from the Whale Gap 

to the central corridor. In the west around the Shelf and Bicycle Lake Pass, the 

squadron executed an economy of force operation with one tank company team 

and a “strike troop.” The tank company team, organized with engineers breached 

an COEFOR obstacle in the pass and attacked toward Brigade Hill to fix an enemy 

fixing or assault force templated to attack into the BCT’s flank through the Bicycle 

Lake Pass and Valley of Death. The Squadron’s “strike” troop consisted of a six 

M3A3 “White” platoon, a mechanized infantry platoon, a four HMMWV “Blue” 

platoon and deception section with Military Information Support Operation 

broadcast trucks. The strike troop was tasked to follow and support the tank 

company team in the west as they breached the Bike Lake Pass obstacle or follow 

and support the counter-recon troop in the east complete the destruction of the 

BTG recon forces (as depicted in figure 22-2).

This adapted task organization departed significantly from doctrinal 

organizations as depicted in FM 3-20.96 but worked well. The HMMWVs from 

the recon troop moved very quickly and quietly to the key terrain. The counterrecon M3A3s effectively gained contact and defeated Brigade Tactical Group recon 

in the east. These two troops benefited greatly from the continuous support from 

three scout weapons teams who provided uninterrupted coverage throughout the 

operation. In the west, the tank company team and strike troop breached a tough 

FASCAM obstacle in difficult terrain and fixed an enemy Mechanized Infantry 

Company that was poised to exploit Bike Lake Pass had it been open. However, 

we learned that our recon and counter-recon troop were separated too far in time 

and the recon troop was unable to retain several of their HMMWV-mounted and 

dismounted Observation Posts from significant attacks by enemy recon elements 

with BMPs and T80s. The strike troop became decisively engaged in the west and 

could not reinforce in the east to complete the destruction of identified BTG recon 

elements. Another significant mission command challenge was the fact that my 

squadron S3 controlled the fight in the east with the TAC and I controlled the fight 

in the west with the Mobile Command Group. This split our communications and 

made it difficult to maintain unity of effort within the squadron.
88

Figure 22-2. Squadron CONOP for MTC.
89

In retrospect, the optimal task organization would have been a lead troop with 

two or three HMMWV platoons and one M3A3 platoon. The trail troop should 

have consisted of two M3A3 platoons and a Blue platoon. The economy of force 

elements were organized about right. Overall, our scouts’ tenacity and lethality, 

coupled with our unique task organization, enabled the squadron to succeed in our 

first force on force mission.

91

Story #23

Reconnaissance Support in the Movement to Contact

Lieutenant Colonel Andrew Hilmes was the Commander of the 3d Squadron, 

1st Cavalry Regiment, which acted as the Reconnaissance Squadron for 3rd 

Armored Brigade Combat Team, 3d Infantry Division during the first-ever Decisive 

Action Training Environment rotation at the NTC. His unit supported the brigade 

by conducting reconnaissance and security operations in advance of the brigade’s 

movement to contact through Whale Gap and north across Siberia and into the 

Central Corridor.

So there we were, training day 7. The evening prior to the brigade’s movement 

to contact mission, and a major training focus for the squadron in the months 

preceding our arrival at NTC. We had devoted a lot of time and effort towards 

our preparation for this particular fight, and from a squadron perspective I thought 

we were more than ready to execute successfully. I understood my commander’s 

intent, and knew what was expected of the squadron as we set to LD. Over the 

next twelve hours, we would experience several key missteps that, while not 

invalidating our ultimate success, provided several good lessons learned on how 

a reconnaissance squadron can best set conditions for the success of the BCT’s 

movement to contact. 

Our planning process started smoothly; we thought we had a solid plan going 

into execution. The squadron task organization was quite large for the mission 

as we had been given the bulk of information collection enablers to facilitate 

building understanding of the enemy and terrain during the counter-recon fight. 

These enablers included COLTs for target observation and Prophets and LLVI for 

signals collection. We also had priority of support for Aviation assets, with the 

aviation task force in direct support of us, as well as support from Shadow and 

even CBRNE reconnaissance assets. We were also task organized with a tank 

company. All enablers were integrated into our planning process and participated 

thoroughly in our squadron rehearsals. As we crossed LD, I was fairly confident 

that intent, task and purpose were understood by all, and that enablers had been 

fully integrated into the squadron’s mission.

Almost immediately however, we began experiencing problems with our 

integration of enablers, most particularly the Shadow and the COLTS. While 

we had detailed our general squadron PACE plan, we found that we had gaps in 

our communications capabilities for these critical assets that precluded effective 

control. We knew that we were going to have issues communicating directly with 

the Shadow at the flight line, as the BCT had too many other nets to RETRANs 

so we had to rely on FBCB2. The COLTs as well were unable to talk to the 

squadron or brigade and what was planned as one of our key collection capabilities 
92

for painting the deeper picture of the enemy movement around Siberian Ridge, 

became absolutely ineffective at processing vital targets. 

Adding to our communications issues, the brigade had uncoiled from the 

TAA to the attack position very late the evening of training day 6, which in turn 

delayed the forward passage of lines of the squadron through 1-15 IN at the Whale 

Gap. 1-15 IN had been tasked to secure the LD, but the BCT’s forward posturing 

of all units south of the LD created a significant traffic problem. We literally 

couldn’t get the Squadron around all of the BCT’s assets to cross LD in time. 

As a result, our LD was late and we missed a critical opportunity to interdict the 

DTG Reconnaissance, as they were inserted, in Siberia. Additionally, while the 

Squadron TAC was directly behind the Squadron’s tank company and able to talk 

to the Squadron MAIN, the BCT TAC crossed LD extremely late and was not in 

position to range 3/1 CAV and 2-69 AR until well after our FPOL of 2-69 AR had 

occurred. This multiplied our communication problems, particularly with Brigade 

and impacted our ability to provide timely feedback to the Brigade Commander in 

shaping his understanding of the enemy set. 

Once the Squadron TAC was through Whale Gap and in place, we were able 

to overcome our earlier communications challenges somewhat but I found that the 

early FM issues had made us even more reliant on FBCB2 for communications. We 

arrived to NTC well versed at rapidly disseminating information via FBCB2. We 

also did not have our MTOE Harris 150 radios, so this was a way to work around 

our inability to talk, via FM, over extended distances. Once in position, our TAC 

worked effectively for the squadron, particularly in coordinating attack aviation. 

This was one area where we experienced great integration and synchronization. 

We had ensured a well-rehearsed plan to control these assets through the squadron 

Fires net and because of this the squadron had great effects on the enemy using 

attack aviation—effectively destroying the BTG and BTG reconnaissance elements 

through our efforts. In hindsight, this was one of the critical factors that enabled us 

to overcome the earlier friction and still facilitate the relatively smooth transition 

of 2-69 AR into the central corridor—one of our key tasks.

We had very good communications with 2-69 AR through the Forward Passage 

of Lines and into the central corridor. Yet while we thought we had a pretty good 

reconnaissance read on the enemy, we didn’t realize just how much of the COEFOR 

regimental main body had advanced to the eastern end of the central corridor and 

thus failed to inform 2-69 AR that they would be fighting in two directions once 

they passed through us. Our inability to clearly paint the picture for the decisive 

operation led to friction in their ability to turn the corner and meet the COEFOR 

with the full brunt of their main battle tanks—a limiting factor.
93

In hindsight, we learned a number of different lessons that proved valuable 

to reshaping even our understanding of reconnaissance operations in support of 

the movement to contact. First, the squadron’s plan for counter-reconnaissance 

was too deeply embedded with the Brigade uncoiling plan and not well rehearsed 

to facilitate our timeline. Second, enabler integration must occur early enough 

to ensure rehearsals and troop leading procedures that get down into talking the 

plan from sensor collection and back to mission command nodes—understanding 

capabilities and limitations is critical. Finally, communications from the squadron 

to its enablers, higher headquarters and sister battalions is vital and must be 

rehearsed with emphasis placed on redundancy in order to overcome potential 

friction and meet the brigade commander’s intent for reconnaissance.

95

Story #24

Kill Them Here and Keep Them East of the Passes

Major Ryan Kranc was the Operations Officer of the 1st Squadron, 11th 

Armored Cavalry Regiment acting as COEFOR in support of the first-ever 

Decisive Action Training Environment rotation at the NTC. His unit was taskorganized to replicate three mechanized infantry battalions (MIBN) of the 111th 

Donovian Tactical Group, a brigade-sized element. Additionally, he was able to 

leverage forty to fifty irregular forces to augment their regular forces. His missions 

included a movement to contact from the Donovian border west to east through the 

central corridor, a hasty attack towards Razish, and a deliberate defense of the 

international border from Crash Hill east towards Brown’s Cut and Debnam Pass.

The Brigade Tactical Group commander’s intent was clear and simple. Kill 

here, strongpoint here, and force the enemy into choosing between two wicked 

alternatives; breach through a complex obstacle zone overwatched by some of 

the deadliest anti-tank weapon systems on the battlefield as well as an integrated 

indirect fire plan, direct fire systems, anti-aircraft manpad systems, and rotary wing 

aviation or venture into the unforgiving Colorado Wadi, an avenue of approach 

gauntleted by anti-tank weapon systems and indirect fire at nearly every choke 

point and mobility corridor. The commander’s intent took less than five minutes 

to draw out and articulate to his staff.

Backward planning the design of the defense took considerably longer than 

the rough concept sketch the BTG commander scribbled out in dry erase pen on 

the operation officer’s office map. By assuming risk in believing that the enemy 

commander would not choose to take the southern route through Colorado Wadi, 

the BTG appropriated the majority of wheeled anti-tank weapon systems along the 

southern avenue of approach. This retained combat power in-depth and maintaining 

maneuver agility in being able to reinforce either the southern or northern avenues 

of approach with a MIBN. By developing an integrated defense in-depth with 

his main effort along with strong-pointing dismounted infantry with AT-5s in key 

terrain to the east of his main defensive belt and forward reconnaissance effort in 

the disruption zone able to conduct reconnaissance and battle handover at echelon, 

he provided the BTG and DTG early and accurate warning in the disruption zone 

as to the intent and probable course of action of the attacking enemy.

Both survivability and counter-mobility efforts were managed in a methodical 

approach. Each dig team was on the clock managed by MIBN commanders and 

NCOs who knew that the enemy would be attacking in less than 48 hours and 

that they were on a stringent timeline. Obstacle efforts were planned in the same 

way with Class IV and V points positioned to supply mine dumps that afforded 

maximum efficiency to the engineers emplacing the fix, disrupt, turn, and block 
96

obstacles. With the efficiency of a construction site foreman, the Engineer 

company commander monitored and adjusted efforts for both survivability and 

counter-mobility for the better part of two days.

Vehicle commanders sighted in primary, alternate, subsequent, and 

supplementary battle positions by walking the ground and laying on their bellies 

with binoculars to get an accurate feel for what their vehicle sights would see in 

the coming days. Once satisfied, dozers and ACEs would spend the next two 

hours carving out the battle position custom built for the vehicle’s maximum 

survivability, cover, and lethality. Once both battle positions and obstacles were 

developed, subordinate commanders went to work on integrating indirect fire 

plans. By integrating Fire Support Coordination Measures throughout the BTG, 

the FSO ensured both tactical and technical triggers were established to ensure 

timely and accurate delivery of fires at the critical point.

Identification of triggers was entirely dependent upon the desired outcome 

of the action. By focusing effort on what decisions the BTG Commander had to 

make, the staff developed the indicators leading towards the timely decision cycle 

to allow the BTG Commander to “see” the battlefield as it unfolded before him 

and to take action based upon the stimulus presented to his forces. In determining 

positions on the battlefield where the enemy commander had to choose one mobility 

corridor over another, NAIs and TAIs were established with redundant observation 

in order to determine the enemy course of action and confirm or deny the SITEMP 

developed by the S2. Once the enemy course of action was confirmed, the BTG 

referenced the triggers established by the FSO on the fires worksheet. Proper use 

of fires helped force the enemy farther into the engagement area and forced them 

into a decision to breach.

Once the enemy began their breach drill, the BTG knew it would take 30-45 

minutes from initiation to completion of the breach. As engineer breaching assets 

moved forward, the BTG placed BM-21s on standby to fire FASCAM onto the 

point of breach. Using the time metrics, it took 30 minutes to load the BM-21s 

with FASCAM before they were ready to fire. After those 30 minutes, the enemy’s 

first elements had just made it through the breach lane with the lead elements of 

the assault force. At that point, the BTG fired FASCAM into the breach, isolating 

the lead platoon of the assault force on the far side of the obstacle at the leading 

edge of a prepared MIBN(-) engagement area. Simultaneously, a dismounted 

strongpoint unleashed anti-tank missiles and 2S19 indirect fires on the follow-on 

assault force still on the near side of the breach. By waiting for conditions to be 

set in exercising tactical patience upon identification of the enemy’s intention to 

breach, the BTG rendered a CAB combat ineffective and the BCT in a significant 

problem set with how to continue the attack with limited assets since their primary 

breach force was destroyed. The battle culminated with the BTG still occupying 

the main battle zone with no enemy penetration of the main defensive belt.
97

Story #25

The Defense of Dezashah: Adaptation on the Battlefield

Captain Amos Fox was the Commander of Delta Company, 1st Battalion, 

11th Armored Cavalry Regiment acting as COEFOR in support of the first-ever 

Decisive Action Training Environment rotation at the NTC. His final mission was 

the defense of the Atropian town of Dezashah that had been seized during the 

Donovian invasion a week earlier. 

At the tail end of rotation 3d Brigade, 3d Infantry Division’s rotation at 

National Training Center, the remnants of the 11th Donovian BTG was charged 

with the defense of the area surrounding Dezashah and Crash Hill, protecting 

the international boundary and holding ground to the Brown and Debnam Pass 

complexes. D Company, 1st Squadron, 11th ACR, representing an MIBN (-) was 

charged with the defense of Dezashah and the defeat of a numerically and lethally 

superior combined arms battalion. In our preparation and execution we were 

ultimately successful in frustrating the attack of 1-15 IN.

 After receipt of mission, I identified several keys that I thought would prove 

the difference in my element’s success in achieving our directed task. These keys 

were: a) retaining flexibility through understanding Commander’s intent and not 

rigidly being wedded to a plan; b) identifying gaps in the attacking force’s scheme 

of maneuver; c) demonstrating audacity to exploit those gaps before the attacking 

force could close them; and d) after seizing the initiative from the attacking force, 

maintaining that initiative to complete their destruction and achieve victory. 

We had been designated as the shaping operation one for the BTG’s overall 

defense of the international boundary and the town of Dezashah. Our key task and 

purpose from the BTG Commander was to retain key terrain (Crash Hill) in order to 

allow the Decisive Operation to defeat the attacking force and retain the town. The 

decisive operation’s task was to retain Dezashah to maintain a Donovian presence 

in Atropia. Shaping operation two was tasked to disrupt enemy forces vicinity 

Matterhorn and Brown / Dednam Pass in order to prevent massing on the decisive 

operation. The BTG also retained one troop in reserve, positioned approximately 

1000 meters to the west of Dezashah.

To accomplish our primary task, I decided that we were going to conduct an 

area defense. The battle began with us defending with three platoons arrayed 

in a linear fashion roughly along the 26 Easting. I had been augmented with a 

Mechanized Infantry (Mech) platoon and an Anti-Tank (AT) section to help bolster 

my combat power. I placed one of my tank platoons to the north of Crash Hill 

and another to the south of Crash Hill. I positioned the Mech platoon and the AT 

section on Crash Hill. My reserve was a tank platoon, positioned approximately 

750 meters behind my main line of defense, as illustrated in the graphic below.
98

Figure 25-1. COEFOR Defense Scheme of Maneuver, Rotation 12-05.

During the reconnaissance / counter-reconnaissance fight, the rotational unit 

made their way from their assembly area vicinity Strawberry Fields towards our 

perimeter. They had found a position that offered excellent concealment on the 

northeast side of Hill 981. From the BTG scouts, I had a general idea where that 

attacking force had positioned, but I was not certain about their location. 

At this point, I assessed that they had the upper hand. First, they had 

successfully maneuvered their formation into our main battle area with minimal 

casualties. Second, we were unable to identify the location of their main body. 

Had they retained their momentum and attacked and capitalized on our lack of 

situational awareness, they could have potentially destroyed D Company. Instead, 

they chose to sit and wait. 

Recognizing the opportunity presented by the loss of momentum from the 

attacking force, I directed my element to attack and exploit the gap created. In 

a flash, we shifted from a terrain-based area defense, to an enemy-based mobile 

defense. Through this rapid transition, we were able to present an impression of 

more combat power than we actually had, creating indecision and caution on the 

part of the rotational element. Although outnumbered four-to-one, the tenacity 

of our attack overcame the numerical differences and we were able to destroy the 

attacking force and accomplish our mission. 

After the battle, I was able to draw a number of lessons from our successful 

defense. First, flexibility was key. Not becoming rigidly fixated on the plan enabled 

me to recognize an opportunity when it presented itself to seize the initiative from 

the attacking force and transition. Second, commanders must always be attentive to 

gaps in the enemy’s plan. The quicker a commander can identify gaps, the quicker 

a commander can exploit these gaps. My experience at NTC reinforced what I had 

been taught—that the commander who can adapt to the changing environment first, 

and subsequently act first, usually wins. Thirdly, units on the attack must maintain 
99

the initiative. Achieving momentum is difficult. Once established, Commanders 

must ensure to keep the pressure on until mission accomplishment. Allowing that 

initiative to slip away can have devastating effects. 

 In conclusion, the successful defense of Dezashah was a result of flexibility 

and audacity, built upon basic Soldier skills of fire, maneuver and MILES gunnery. 

Commanders must be vigilant in looking for surfaces and gaps in their opponents; 

these surfaces and gaps are not necessarily physical attributes, but can take the 

shape of weakness in initiative, momentum, and aggressiveness. D Company’s 

transition from an area defense to an attack within the greater BTG defense 

demonstrates the impact that well-trained Soldiers can accomplish when given 

opportunity to succeed.

101

Story #26

Mission Command and the Brigade Deep Fires Fight

Colonel Omar Jones was the Brigade Commander for 2d Armored Brigade 

Combat Team (ABCT), 4th infantry Division’s decisive action training environment 

rotation at the National Training Center (NTC) in June 2013. Lieutenant Colonel 

Keith R. Jarolimek was the Commander of the 3d Battalion, 16th Field Artillery 

Regiment, the 2d Armored Brigade Combat Team’s Fires Battalion. The brigade 

was comprised of two combined arms battalions, an armored reconnaissance 

squadron, a fires battalion, a special troop’s battalion, a support battalion, and an 

attached aviation task force. The brigades mission set included defending the area 

surrounding Dezashah and Crash Hill west of Brown and Debnam Pass complex, 

then conducting a counter attack to seize the central corridor and the towns of 

Ujen and Razish, and finally, a movement to contact south from the Siberian Ridge 

towards the Whale Gap.

During the preparation for our rotation at the National Training Center (NTC) 

in the environment, we knew a significant challenge was how best to articulate how 

the BCT would fight. We chose to use both the deep-close-security framework to 

describe operations in time and space as well as the decisive-shaping-sustaining 

framework to nest purpose. Using these two operational frameworks allowed the 

BCT to synchronize actions in the entirety of its area of operations (AO). 

We found it particularly useful to define the deep fight in the brigade. ADRP 3-0 

defines the deep fight as, ”In contiguous areas of operations, a deep area is an area 

forward of the close area that a commander uses to shape enemy forces before they 

are encountered or engaged in the close area.” With organic sensors – the Armored 

Reconnaissance Squadron (ARS), Combat Observation Lasing Teams (COLTs), 

UAS platoon, prophets, and other collection assets – and a myriad of shooters – the 

Fires Battalion, General Support Artillery, Close Air Support (CAS), Electronic 

Attack, and Army Attack Aviation – the modular armored brigade combat team can 

truly have a deep fight, where the brigade commander can effectively shape enemy 

forces by entering into the enemy commander’s decision cycle through joint fires 

and intelligence collection. How we executed the deep fight shifted based on the 

operation, but many of the principles and organization remained constant.

During this process, I leaned heavily on the FSCOORD to ensure synchronization 

through the planning process. As the Fires Battalion Commander, the FSCOORD 

is in the unique position to see across the brigade through his interaction with 

other organic and attached commanders, battalion fire support officers, the division 

operations staff, and the BCT staff. As the senior fire supporter in the brigade, he 

also has the tactical expertise and experience to assist the staff in synchronizing the 

application of joint fires (lethal and nonlethal) into the operation.
102

In addition to the doctrinal military decision making process (MDMP) steps, 

I directed the staff to conduct a deep strike targeting meeting, the focus of the 

Brigade fight. Attendees for the deep strike targeting meeting included all the 

players affecting the success in the Brigade fight. Participants from the BCT 

Staff were myself and the FSCOORD, the DCO, XO, S3, S2, FSO, collection 

manager, and Brigade Aviation Officer; from the ARS the Squadron Commander, 

S3, S2, and FSO; from the Aviation Task Force the S3 and Tactical Air Operations 

Planner, and from the Fires Battalion the S3 and Fire Direction Officer (FDO). The 

deep strike targeting meeting was in reality a backbrief to the brigade commander 

to ensure synchronization of the deep fight in time, space, and purpose. It was 

designed to confirm sensors for each NAI and shooters for each TAI and target. 

What we discovered is it was absolutely essential to layout in specifics capabilities 

and requirements that linked each sensor to the decision makers. We discussed in 

detail the pairing of assets to maximize the cross-cuing of sensors and their method 

to relay that information back to mission command nodes. We continually refined 

the deep strike targeting meeting, improving at each subsequent session. 

Figure 26-1. Deep Fight Targeting Meeting.

(Photo Courtesy of Colonel Christopher Doneski)
103

When planning for the defense, considerations for how the we arrayed forces, 

allocated battlespace, and applied the operational framework were affected by 

the brigade’s assigned area of operation, terrain, and coalition force operations. 

The division’s mandated limit of advance for maneuver forces (necessary due to 

coalition force operations) precluded a large security zone, but allowed the brigade 

space to shape the Donovian brigade tactical group (BTG) with joint fires as he 

executed his attack. I described my intent using mainly the deep-close-security 

framework, stating we wanted to kill the enemy deep before it entered the main 

battle area using joint fires observed through the ARS, UAS, and the BCT’s other 

organic sensors augmented by echelons above brigade (EAB) sensors such as 

JSTARS and coalition force reports.

The plan developed by the staff met the commander’s intent, integrating 

all available sensors and shooters into the defense but did not achieve the 

synchronization or level of detail needed for the deep fight to be successful. The 

staff produced a collection matrix, fire support execution matrix, and high payoff 

target list (HPTL), and operations synch matrix in an attempt to articulate the 

synchronization achieved during the wargame. In the end, these products did 

not clearly articulate the synchronization we wanted to achieve. Additionally, 

the FSCOORD and the staff did not achieve the level of detail in observation 

planning and sensor to shooter triggers, especially on the open terrain of the 

BCT’s forward area of operations, to effectively employ indirect fires to attrit the 

enemy force before it entered the main battle area. We were too non-prescriptive 

leaving observation planning strictly to the ARS. At the BCT level, we did not 

see the gaps from the various locations of the sensors on the ground to observe 

the BCT’s named areas of interest (NAIs), which they then could have covered 

with BCT and EAB level assets. The result was ineffective joint fires and a much 

larger force entering the main battle area than expected. The CABs were able to 

defeat the attacking BTG through direct fires and attack aviation, but the BCT lost 

opportunities to mass joint fires to help shape the close fight leading to higher than 

expected casualties.

As the BCT transitioned to conduct a counterattack against retrograding and 

reinforced BTG forces, we incorporated many of the lessons learned from the 

deep fight during the defense. In principle, the commander’s intent for the deep 

fight did not change, wanting to attrit and disrupt the enemy in his battle positions 

before the CABs attacked as the decisive operation. During the MDMP sessions 

for the counterattack, the staff achieved greater synchronization throughout the 

operational framework. The staff developed many of the same products described 

in the defense, but added a target synchronization matrix (TSM) using the Decide, 

Detect, Deliver, Assess (D3A) methodology to attack the our high payoff targets 

(HPTs). This document tied the HPT to a target or TAI where we wanted to 
104

achieve the commander’s desired effect and of course tying a shooter to the target 

or TAI. The TAI was then tied to a NAI where the HPT would be observed by the 

designated sensor, initiating the call for fire, CAS 9 line, or Attack Aviation 5 line.

The TSM greatly aided the deep strike targeting meeting for the counterattack. 

It allowed the participants to focus on each enemy formation and continue to shift 

focus from his disruption zone to main battle area to mobile reserve, and where he 

would be observed and attacked. Unfortunately, the staff did not do the subsequent 

upfront work to ensure each enemy formation could be “seen” by an observer 

and the triggers associated with the shooter were in sufficient detail to process 

timely and accurate joint fires. During execution, this led my team in the TAC, the 

FSCOORD and S3, to direct assets deep during the fight in order to shape the BTG 

for the CAB’s decisive attack.

After the counterattack, we had a condensed timeline to execute a movement 

to contact to destroy the remnants of enemy forces in the Division’s area of 

operations, rapidly expanding our Brigade’s battlespace. Building upon the deep 

fight lessons from the defense and offense, the BCT improved on our planning, 

rehearsal, and execution of the BCT deep fight. After the shortcomings of the 

counterattack, the BCT FSO and collection manager conducted a detailed TAINAI-sensor to shooter-trigger analysis to build appropriate sensor to shooter links 

in order to achieve the commander’s intent for attriting and disrupting enemy 

maneuver forces during the movement to contact in order for the CABs to destroy 

the enemy with direct fire. The deep strike targeting meeting executed during this 

battle period was by far the best, achieving a level of synchronization not seen in 

previous operations. Synchronization was achieved through the detailed planning 

of the FSO and collection manager and their cross talk with the ARS S3 and FSO. 

Our ability to refine this process and understand what products and synchronization 

must happen before, during and following this meeting has resulted in a effective 

system to synchronize and focus fires. In summary, we recommend BCTs adopt 

the deep-close-security framework in addition to the decisive-shaping-sustaining 

framework in the environment. While not described in this story, this framework 

also allows the commander to describe his intent for the security area in detail, 

ensuring synchronization throughout the entirety of the BCTs AO. A detailed 

deep fight approach, captured by a target synchronization matrix and collection 

matrix, and confirmed through a deep strike targeting meeting greatly enhances 

the BCT’s ability to shape the enemy through the width and depth of the its area 

of operations, truly setting the conditions for the combined arms battalion to be 

successful in the close fight but to be successful, it takes detailed analysis and 

planning, early enough in the planning process to give the ARS the time they need 

to execute their planning process at the squadron, troop, and platoon level. When 

synchronization of sensors and joint fires is achieved, it is a powerful enabler the 

brigade commander can use to truly shape and ultimately win any fight.
105

Story #27

Re-Learning Fires: Fire Support in Decisive Action

Lieutenant Colonel James Willard was the Commander of the 1st Battalion, 

10th Field Artillery Regiment during 3d Brigade, 3d Infantry Division’s Decisive 

Action Training Environment rotation at the NTC. Not only was he responsible 

for the employment of the brigade’s direct support (DS) artillery battalion but he 

also served as the senior advisor to the brigade commander as the fire support 

coordinator (FSCOORD). 

How does the FSCOORD balance time between the fires battalion and brigade 

and who defines the critical times at each location? Re-learning the role of the 

FSCOORD as we transition to a high-tempo hybrid threat environment at the 

National Training Center is imperative to the effective integration of Fires into the 

planning process. The ability of the FSCOORD to act as a bridge between fires 

and maneuver ultimately empowers the brigade commander to execute mission 

command in the operating environment of the NTC. 

From my perspective, the value of the FSCOORD role was most evident during 

the brigade’s deliberate planning. I was able to provide guidance, in accordance 

with the Commander’s intent, to both the BDE FSO and the brigade staff during 

critical periods of MDMP, especially course of action development and course 

of action analysis. My focus was to ensure that fires, both fixed and rotary wing 

aviation, and intelligence collection assets were effectively integrated in an effort 

to shape the Brigade battle space. 

The planning for and management of airspace during operations was a source 

of friction during much of the rotation. The major challenge was overcoming 

many of the habits developed during our Army’s experience in Operation Iraqi 

Freedom, where aviation assets rarely competed for airspace with artillery and 

mortar systems. Shifting back to more traditional airspace de-confliction measures 

initially proved contentious, impacting our ability to adequately plan control 

measures to facilitate simultaneous fires throughout the operation. We worked 

through many of these issues as the rotation progressed allowing us to bring 

the full weight of joint fires against our enemy at the conclusion of the rotation. 

Despite our progress, we could have been better prepared to de-conflict airspace, 

on the move, had we more thoroughly covered this aspect in the Combined Arms 

Rehearsals. 

As the FSCOORD, my involvement with brigade expanded throughout the 

rotation, significantly impacting the time available to drive the operations process 

at the fires battalion. This dynamic meant the battalion executive officer (BN XO) 

effectively ran the battalion in my absence, led the military decision-making process 

and created the mission orders that would prove critical for mission command 
106

during execution. In order to mitigate my physical absence during much of the 

BN MDMP process the XO often received guidance via various communications 

platforms, carried out my bidding during much of the MDMP process, and ensured 

parallel planning was executed to standard. This also dictated that the battalion 

staff establish and closely adhere to planning timelines to ensure the time I had 

available with the battalion was maximized at critical points in the MDMP process 

and rehearsals. This also allowed ample time for subordinate units to receive the 

mission, conduct rehearsals and prepare and position for the next fight. 

In transitioning from planning to execution, I found no reduction in my 

commander’s desire for me to weight my time in favor of the FSCOORD role. By 

ensuring that mission and intent were understood by my XO and staff during the 

MDMP process and confirmed during rehearsals and back-briefs, I was confident 

of their ability to execute that intent and accomplish the tasks directed for execution 

in the concept of fires while I maneuvered with the commander. 

 One of the biggest challenges was my ability to effectively perform the role of 

FSCOORD during the fight. While doctrine tells us the FSCOORD must be able 

to dynamically synchronize fires, provide a fires common operating picture (COP) 

to the brigade commander, and command the fires battalion simultaneously, this 

is easier said than accomplished in the high-paced operating tempo. One of those 

key frictions was the lack of a dedicated maneuver platform capable of operating 

well forward in the fight with the requisite systems to communicate on BCT CMD, 

BCT Fires, BN CMD, and BN Fires nets. The fast pace of the fight dictated the 

use of primarily FM and FBCB2 communications as critical mission command 

tools, as most ABC systems were unavailable due to their current lack of mobility. 

Without a mission command platform capable of facilitating these responsibilities, 

there was friction in the application and synchronization of fires. To reduce this 

friction, I initially positioned myself with the brigade commander, in his Bradley, 

during the movement to contact mission. While this provided me instant access 

to the commander to provide guidance and recommendations, I was limited in 

my ability to synchronize fires effectively by my lack of communications with 

fires assets, resulting in an incomplete fires COP. The remainder of the rotation I 

maneuvered in an up-armored HMMWV and operated from the BDE TAC upon its 

establishment. Though not ideal this was the most effective method based on the 

capabilities available for the fight.

Adding to this friction, we discovered in execution that there were not enough 

management systems within the ADAM/BAE Cell to support split operations 

between the Mobile CP, Main CP, and TAC. This was most evident during 

the movement to contact when the Mobile CP was well forward and had poor 

communications back to the Main CP and TAC; we had no capability to understand 

the airspace, let alone manage employment of airspace users. Ultimately, we were 
107

able to work through these frictions, but there were definite impacts to our ability to 

deliver timely fires during the movement to contact. To address this shortcoming 

we established an ADHOC joint fires team at the BDE TAC to manage distribution 

and de-confliction of fires resources. This group consisted of the FSCOORD, BDE 

FSO, ALO and Aviation BN S3, empowered by the BDE CDR and BDE TAC 

capabilities to rapidly re-direct and de-conflict joint fires assets to more effectively 

achieve the commander’s intent for fires. The establishment of this group had 

perhaps the greatest impact on the successes achieved as we neared the end of the 

rotation. 

In summary, the synchronization of fires with airspace de-confliction, ground 

maneuver forces, and information collection systems is a complex process that must 

be planned in detail, validated through war gaming, rehearsed at multiple echelons 

and supported by a multi-tiered communications plan. The FSCOORD is in a key 

position to implement this coordination, but must be part of the operations process 

from MDMP through transition to execution in order to ensure that coordination 

is sufficiently executed. In execution, the FSCOORD must constantly re-evaluate 

where the critical points of friction are that demand management, ideally operating 

from a maneuver system with enough digital capability to effectively manage the 

fires COP while simultaneously maneuvering with the commander.

109

Story #28

A Vote for Air Triggers in Planning the Deliberate Attack

Lieutenant Colonel Lance Calvert was the Battalion Commander of 3d 

Battalion, 1st Aviation Regiment supporting the 1st Brigade, 4th Infantry Division’s 

Decisive Action Training Environment rotation at the NTC. His force provided 

reconnaissance, security and attack aviation support to the ground maneuver 

elements of the Raider Brigade as they executed a movement to contact, a hasty 

defense, and a deliberate attack against near-peer Donovian Forces.

Achieving synchronization of joint fires requires detailed planning and 

coordination for the establishment of air triggers that take into account aircraft and 

crew limitations. Triggers planned too early limit the station time of the aviation 

assets. Triggers planned too late do not capitalize on their full capabilities. 

Identifying limitations and emplacing strategies to mitigate them early in the 

planning cycle is critical to ensuring assets are available for the decisive operation 

or at the decisive point. At NTC, the two most common limitations on our 

Multi-functional Aviation Task Force (MFATF) were aircraft maintenance and 

aircrew fighter management. Additional factors for planning include aircraft/

aircrew survivability systems, airspace and fire support control measures, and 

environmental impacts (weather, illumination).

The single most important factor in our achieving success proved to be 

establishing a constant two-way dialogue with the BCT Commander. This allowed 

the BCT Commander to fully understand the limitations of my battalion and the 

impacts that changes to the operational timeline would have on aircraft and aircrew 

availability. Nowhere is the friction between adherence to planning and flexibility 

to respond to enemy actions more sorely felt than in the decision to allocate 

aviation assets. In maintaining a constant dialogue and gaining understanding of 

those frictions enabled the BCT Commander to better make informed decisions 

regarding task organization of the aviation force and where and when to weight 

his main effort or, assume risk in asset availability to supporting efforts or during 

certain time periods. 

In our case SWT availability was limited by the number of available aircrews 

and their fighter management limits; AWT availability was limited by aircraft 

maintenance. Early in the rotation I was not as effective as I could have been 

in providing and opening this dialogue, and although aviation integration was 

effective, I did not fully synchronize my force into the fight. 

Aircraft survivability planning on the battlefield is a tremendous challenge, 

given the presence of near-peer air defense assets that are capable of shooting 

down aircraft that put themselves at risk. Detailed intelligence analysis is required 

on enemy surface to air missile and anti-aircraft capabilities, and how and where 
110

the enemy will echelon these assets and employ them. Our planning included how 

to avoid and defeat the threat with aircraft maneuver and survivability systems, 

but also required us to ensure our airspace control measures supported and enabled 

the BCT fires plan. Our Battalion FSO was embedded in the BCT fires planning 

to ensure our ACMs were incorporated to include the triggers (time and space) 

to activate, and more importantly, deactivate them as the attack moved forward. 

The SEAD fires (lethal and non-lethal) were planned to allow aircraft freedom of 

maneuver, while ensuring uninterrupted fire support to BCT ground forces. 

Environmental factors also limited us from enabling the BCT fight. On several 

occasions, we were challenged by severe weather phenomena and decreased 

illumination windows that increased the risk to our aircrews and ultimately held 

them out of the fight for periods of time. In fact, severe winds and turbulence 

grounded all rotary wing aircraft during the decisive operation. Our aviation 

planners and LNOs to the BCT were proactive in forecasting and communicating 

to the BCT CDR the impacts of weather on our operations. 

Synchronization of Army aviation into the BCT joint fires plan is a complicated, 

but not impossible task. The planning must take into account the BCT CDR intent 

for joint fires and how he sees the introduction of Army aviation into that plan, 

without limiting the effects of other joint fire assets. Triggers must be planned to 

allow maximum integration of assets and aviation capabilities, while remaining 

flexible and agile enough to support branches and sequels. Effective communication 

between the MFATF CDR and BCT CDR and staff is critical in understanding the 

capabilities and limitations of the aviation force, and more importantly, how the 

aviation force can enable the full integration of all joint fires assets.
111

Story #29

Radar Deception

Chief Warrant Officer 2 Steven Webb and Warrant Officer 1 Erik Dominguez 

were the Battalion Targeting Officer and Target Acquisition Platoon Leader, 

respectively, of the 4th Battalion, 42d Field Artillery Regiment supporting the 1st 

Brigade, 4th Infantry Division’s Decisive Action Training Environment rotation at 

the NTC. Their battalion was charged with providing lethal fires to destroy enemy 

main battle tanks and supporting systems, a requirement that demanded they retain 

the functionality and survivability of both their guns and radar systems. 

On the eve of our deployment to the National Training Center, 1st Armored 

Brigade Combat Team, 4th Infantry Division was determined to gain an edge. The 

NTC Mission Readiness Exercise was the last stop before we assumed the mission 

as strategic CENTCOM Reserve in Kuwait. The unit was poised to exercise a 

new form of doctrine called Decisive Action (DA) which required the careful 

management and balance of CAM and WAS. The 1st Brigade Commander sought 

to maximize his advantage over the opposing force and directed the creation of 

a Brigade Deception Cell with the charge that units support the development of 

deception techniques that would keep the enemy off balance. In the months leading 

up to the NTC rotation, 4th Battalion, 42d Field Artillery Regiment developed 

a concept for building a wooden version of a Q-36 radar which could meet the 

Commander’s intent on deception by increasing survivability of our actual radar 

systems. Soon after approval, the order was given to begin construction of a 

realistic Q-36 replica that would be thereafter affectionately be known as the 

“Woody.”

Woody had to be mobile, fit into a vehicle already owned by the unit, and be 

small enough to not overwhelm the unit’s constraints for moving equipment to 

NTC. We began reaching out to the field for advice; many had seen or heard of 

such concepts, but no one had any historical information on how to actually start 

construction. A Google search produced a picture of a similar radar, but it was 

fixed on a hard site. It took three months from inception to completion to turn the 

concept into reality—basically a wooden box similar in size to a Q-36 radar with a 

hinged panel replicating the radar face placed in the bed of a cargo trailer.

Employing the Woody became part of the units planning process. The goal 

was to emplace Woody in a position that could be observed by the COEFOR, but 

still meet radar site selection standards. The intent was to draw enemy indirect fire, 

then acquire and destroy the enemy’s firing element. 

We failed to get Woody into the fight during the first operation due to the fast 

pace of the mission. While opportunities were lost during the first engagement, 

a new sense of urgency to effectively employ Woody gained momentum as the 
112

battalion planned for the next fight. The planning to employ Woody would soon 

become reality and lend to a story of overwhelming success.

We decided to assume some risk and have the Target Acquisition Platoon 

Leader emplace Woody in a more visible location at dusk prior to the next battle. 

Being a defense, we knew the COEFOR had eyes deep, and that any radar would 

be high value targets worth the risk of unmasking any long range shooters. The 

Battalion’s Q-37 section moved to a hide position and prepared to emplace in order 

to acquire fires against Woody. Simultaneously, we emplaced Woody. Camouflage 

netting was used to hide all but the face of the radar, lending to a more realistic 

appearance. The Q-37 section and the Target Acquisition Platoon Leader displaced 

to a more secure site once Woody was set. 

COEFOR had positioned observers during the night who easily acquired 

visual identification of Woody. They called for heavy artillery fires, unmasking 

their long range batteries early in the battle. Unfortunately for the COEFOR, the 

Q-37 was positioned in a more secure position, hidden from enemy observation, 

and acquired the enemy indirect fire. The Q37 azimuth of search and cue schedule 

was optimal to acquire the enemy fires from template positions. The mission was 

processed through the Battalion’s Counter-fire Cell and Fire Direction Center and 

sent to the Guns. Both Paladins and MLRS conducted counter fire. The mission 

was an overwhelming success. 

The employment of Woody was highly effective. The unit’s success continued 

through creative positioning and queuing schedules that allowed the Q-36 and Q-37 

to remain unscathed for the remainder of the rotation. Survival of the Q-37 for 

the duration of the rotation became another first in NTC history. The 4th Battalion, 

42d Field Artillery Regiment received high praise for their creative plan and those 

involved were pleased at the results of their hard work. A few weeks of labor to 

create a simple box constructed out of scrap wood and left over paint, was well 

worth the price of contributing to the overall success of the Brigade’s mission 

objectives.
113

Story #30

Managing CASEVAC Operations in the Movement to Contact

Command Sergeant Major Dennis L. Bellinger was the Battalion CSM for 1st 

Battalion, 67th Armor Regiment, supporting 2d Brigade, 4th Infantry Division’s 

Decisive Action Training Environment (13-08) rotation at the NTC in June 2013. 

During the movement to contact on Training Day 14, the battalion was tasked to 

move southwest through Red Lake Pass and attack towards the remnants of the 

113th BTG that were located southwest of the Whale Gap.

“Casualty evacuation requires extensive planning, preparation, battlefield 

initiative, and coordination. Efficient or broken, your CASEVAC system will 

have a profound impact on the morale and combat effectiveness of your unit.”

–FM 7-20

During the planning phase for our movement to contact, I was concerned 

with the brigade’s plan for CASEVAC given our inability to conduct a full-on 

sustainment rehearsal. I felt added concern because of late changes in unit CEs 

which desynchronized the original concept of support that had been briefed in the 

OPORD. I brought in the medical platoon leader and platoon sergeant to find out 

what they were tracking through medical channels. I was quite surprised when 

the answer was—nothing. When I pressed they did little to offset my concerns 

when they replied with, “We attempted to contact Role II by FM and FBCB2, but 

have not received a reply from either mode of communications.” Upon hearing 

that, I reviewed what their actions should have been when they could not make 

contact with our higher headquarters, who they should have told and instructed that 

they immediately executed two things: continue to attempt to gain FM/ FBCB2 

communications with Role II and continue to conduct their TLPs, PCC/PCIs in 

preparation for our anticipated late night set and early morning LD. 

To assist their efforts, I directed the Battle Captain at the MAIN to try and raise 

Role-II assets on the brigade A&L net; even going so far as to drop down to the 

Role-II company net to attempt to make communication. We were not successful. 

I immediately joined a convoy to the BCT MAIN so that I could do a face-to-face 

with the brigade medical planner as we were losing time and I wanted to ensure that 

our CASEVAC plan was synched with brigade. In a one-on-one discussion about 

lack of communication ability with my Role-I representatives, we finally achieved 

mutual understanding about the four AXPs templated along my unit’s movement 

route, and the specific grid locations for the Role-II AXPs. At this point, I had a bit 

more confidence in our ability to execute the plan. Additionally, we had a larger 

discussion about Air CASEVAC capabilities in support of the MTC, and briefly 

discussed the role of the additional FLA and M113 support that was pushed to my 

BN to move casualties from Role-I back to the templated AXPs. 
114

 Armed with this information, I returned to the BN CP to conduct coordination 

with our MEDO, S3, and submit my recommendations for approval by the 

Commander. Our plan for casualties at the BN level was to co-locate the Forward 

Aid Station (FAS) and an additional M113 with the TAC for movement and colocate the Main Aid Station (MAS) with the Combat Trains CP. Our FAS was 

comprised of two M113s and an M557. The MAS consisted of two M113, a M557, 

an FLA, and an LMTV. The purpose of the additional assets was to have lift 

capability in the event of a MASCAL. We briefed company CPs on the templated 

brigade AXPs via FM. The flaw in the plan and the tactical risk that we took was 

not having adequate security for the FAS or the MAS lift assets if they needed to 

execute an AXP with Role-II in areas that had not been cleared of enemy forces. 

As a unit we had good communications with our MAS but still had not been 

able to acquire clear communications with Role-II until around 0340 – 2.5 hours 

before our LD time. The FAS crossed the LD at 0600 and had good communication 

until they were south of Red Lake Pass. This initially didn’t worry me too much 

as I assumed the combat trains and MAS would start their move as planned and 

would then be able to communicate. This didn’t happen, as the combat trains CP 

actually slowed their rate of travel while the FAS and I sprinted to keep up with the 

main body of the task force as it moved rapidly south of the Whale Gap to engage 

the enemy main body. One of the first losses in the fight was the engagement of 

the FAS M557 by an AT-5 resulting in one KIA, one urgent and one priority. This 

reduced our capability to do CASEVAC by 30% due to loss of transport capacity 

and supplies from that vehicle. 

Making matters worse, when we attempted to contact the MAS to ascertain 

their location we were not able to achieve positive communications because 

they were still 2-3 kilometers north of Red Lake Pass. Additionally, our lack of 

dedicated security prohibited the remaining FAS vehicles from moving to the 

damaged M577 and treating the casualties. As the task force started taking massive 

casualties across the formation, the scene quickly devolved into loosely-controlled 

chaos. Our lead element had received an unknown number of casualties, the 2d 

and 3d Armor teams were in a knife fight and quickly attritted. Simultaneously, 

our combat trains was attacked north of Red Lake Pass by two BRDMs that had 

gotten past the task force main body and we lost the MAS—both our primary and 

redundant means of executing CASEVAC had now been eliminated. 

Upon hearing of the loss of the MAS over the command net the battalion 

Commander initiated MASCAL procedures over the battalion and brigade nets. 

I immediately pulled my vehicle to the hasty FAS site and told the sergeant, “get 

ready, I think a flood of casualties are going to start coming in.” She acknowledged 

and went to her track and blasted the FAS grid over the battalion command and 

A&L nets again. Knowing that PSGs, TCs, BCs and 1SGs were all working the 
115

casualty care from point of injury to their casualty collection points and back to 

the FAS location, I felt that we would become quickly overwhelmed; a feeling 

that proved true in a matter of minutes. By this time, however, enemy resistance 

had almost ceased and the BCT Commander was directing additional medical and 

non-standard evacuation assets into the area with security provided by the BSTB’s 

infantry platoon and the BCT TAC.

Ultimately, the actions of our Sergeants saved the day. Nothing is more lethal 

on the battlefield than a trained Soldier, and I can attest that no one is more adept 

at saving lives than the Soldiers of my medical platoon. When we found ourselves 

stretched thin, a young sergeant at the FAS took charge of 1SGs, CPTs, SFCs and 

even the CSM at times—giving directions as others assumed roles as litter bearers, 

KIA collection point managers, and assisted loading casualties into non-standard 

CASEVAC vehicles for transporting. My confidence was renewed as I saw leaders 

from across the brigade rally to the aid of 1-67 AR. 

Looking back, I realize that the most important function that 1SGs and CSMs 

execute when reviewing CASEVAC procedures as we transition from planning 

to execution is ensuring rehearsals. CSMs must take the lead along with the 

sustainment cell to ensure that our concept of support is the best it can be. I believe 

that the consistent use of PCC and PCI checklists at the company, platoon and 

medical platoon level enabled us to be extremely successful at treating at the point 

of injury and getting our casualties back to the FAS. 1SGs have to ensure they 

understand the SOP, their role and the need for timely and accurate reporting in 

the execution phase. Finally, I cannot re-iterate enough the need for rehearsals 

all the way to PL /PSG and squad leader level, with extensive details so that all 

understand and can execute a plan that facilitates good CASEVAC operations. 

Over the course of the entire rotation we did pretty well on CASEVAC. The 

difference in the MTC from the other missions that led to so many casualties was 

the lack of time to conduct a sustainment rehearsal and in the event, much higher 

than expected casualty rates. 

At least 50 percent of our casualties died of wounds due to the lack of 

coordinated, effective CASEVAC procedures. Looking back, I believe some of 

the best TTPs on how units and leaders preparing for similar fights could focus 

their training to prevent this experience are:

- Have a plan (POI to CCP-FAS/MAS to Role II, MASCAL 

BATTLE DRILL)

- Ensure integration of the medical support plan with the tactical 

scheme of maneuver
116

- REHEARSE, REHEARSE, and REHEARSE!!!

- Plan for unanticipated casualties at undetermined locations.

- Realize that high tempo of MTC operations will often result in 

higher numbers of casualties. 

- Identify and use nonstandard CASEVAC vehicles (LMTVs, etc) 

to move minor injuries. 

- Order extra litters, back boards, with a goal of one per vehicle. 

- Build litter teams and train them.

- Incorporate CASEVAC and MASCAL events into home station 

training. 

- Tasks organize and allocate evacuation assets for projected 

casualties. 

- Plan a request for additional assets.

- Plan for and use proper ground and air assets for the different 

categories of casualties.

- Plan for and use AXPs.

- Ensure the locations of every battalion’s FAS/MAS grids are 

known.

- Request assistance when your FAS evacuation workload reaches 

90% of your unit capability.

- Develop and disseminate a medical support matrix

- Redundant communications is vital to effective CASEVAC.

- Ensure ambulance drivers are good at map reading and can 

navigate effectively at night under blackout conditions. 

- Plan to use RTD and slightly injured patients to assist in the event 

of a MASCAL.

These are just a few of the lessons we learned. Leaders at every level must 

anticipate the scale of possible casualties, along with the length of projected 

medical support lines, and do everything we can to mitigate these issues and save 

our Soldiers lives.
117

Story #31

Digitizing Sustainment for Decisive Action

Chief Warrant Officer 4 Joseph Bolte was the Brigade MATO for the Brigade 

Support Battalion of the 1st Armored Brigade Combat Team, 4th Infantry Division’s 

Decisive Action Training Environment rotation at the NTC. His unit conducted 

offensive and defensive operations against both regular and irregular forces in 

a complex operating environment, beginning with a movement to contact from 

a TAA south of the Whale Gap and into the Central Corridor and culminating in 

a deliberate attack through the Brown and Debnam Passes and the Washboard 

towards Crash Hill. 

Achieving synchronization of sustainment operations in the decisive action 

environment was critical to the success of our operations. The distances between 

the BSA and the locations of maneuver unit CTCPs, UMCPs, and TOCs were 

outside our ability to effectively communicate over FM without Retransmission 

nodes. We were only capable of retransmitting three channels, and with the focus 

on Command Net, Operations and Intel, and Digital Fires, we couldn’t rely on using 

the Administrative and Logistics (A&L) net for the backbone of our sustainment 

dialogue, as we had intended to prior to hitting the ground. 

During our train-up, we had anticipated not being able to rely solely on FM 

and had war-gamed possible solutions to mitigate the communications problem 

for sustainers in the brigade. The brigade had allocated a JNN to the BSB which 

enabled us to provide upper TI connectivity to FSC elements located in the BSA. 

In a fixed site, like the TAA or a static defense, this provided adequate capability 

to support sustainment, but when brigade conducted offensive operations that 

required mobility and maneuver we found ourselves lacking the lower TI systems 

that the maneuver battalions relied upon to communicate. While we had some 

FBCB2 systems and the ability to use TACSAT within our PACE we had critical 

MTOE shortages that had not been filled. We also discovered that the MTOE does 

not provide FBCB2 systems to the Support Operations Cell, forward CTCPs, and 

UMCPs. The systems we did have available were inadequate in quantity to enable 

the type of dialogue necessary for ensuring the details of communications between 

the BSA and the forward support elements on the move. 

We turned to our Logistics Information Systems (LIS) as a possible means of 

bridging this gap and gaining the reliable connectivity we needed through use of 

the Combat Service Support Very Small Aperture Terminal (CSS VSAT) and the 

Combat Service Support Automated Information Systems Interface (CAISI). The 

architecture below depicts our employment of the CSS VSAT and the JNN which 

enabled our ability to maintain communications with the maneuver battalions. What 

is not depicted here is the employment of FBCB2 as a means of communication 

during fast moving offensive operations that would prevent the set-up and use of 

the CSS VSAT or JNN.
118

Figure 31-1. Digital Logistics Network Architecture (BSA).

The use of the FBCB2 in the PACE plan would have been a valuable tool had 

we been allocated by MTOE enough systems for the BSB (this includes FSCs 

supporting maneuver units), which would have allowed for LOGSTAT reporting and 

coordination for emergency resupply when the distance of radio communications 

were too far. At the maneuver battalion the below LIS architecture was used 

to mitigate this problem by leaving the CTCP and UMCP in place until it was 

absolutely necessary to move them forward. 

Figure 31-2. Digital Logistics Network Architecture (Battalion).

The incorporation of these digital systems became a normal part of our rapid 

deployment and establishment of mission command nodes. During the move to 

the TAA, the BSA was one of the last elements in the brigade movement plan 
119

to arrive. In spite of this, we were able to have the CSS VSAT network up and 

operational at the BSB MAIN within 60 minutes of our arrival. The SPO and 

Brigade Maintenance Officer were able to communicate to FSCs at the CTCP 

and UMCP receiving LOGSTAT reports via voice satellite communications. The 

first 026-Report (Brigade Deadlined Equipment) was produced within two hours 

of arrival and had 98% accuracy. We took the use of the LIS architecture a step 

further by using it to connect the BCS3 and the MC4 thus providing a tactical 

NIPR capability via line of site over the CASSI to company CPs within the BSA. 

Additionally, we employed the CSS VSAT IP Phone as a means of communication 

when radio communications were too extended and upper TI was not available. We 

realized quickly that we had to educate ourselves on proper protocol because the 

CSS VSAT system is not a classified system and only FOUO communications can 

be transmitted. Adding to these challenges was the difficulty we experienced using 

BCS3 as the backbone for LOGSTAT reporting.

We had employed BCS3 during our War Fighter Exercise and during our BSA 

Operations previously, and felt we had a good process and architecture. However, 

we did not account for the need to certify all our systems before they could be put 

on the network at NTC. We were also challenged with communicating to the BCS3 

FSR on the architecture we had used during training. We were able to get the system 

operational by Training Day 7, but the information input into the BCS3 system for 

it to be fully operational was more than we had time or personnel to accomplish. 

We learned the need to dedicate operators at the brigade level upon arrival at RSOI 

in order to facilitate getting the system functioning prior to movement to the TAA.

The bottom line is that the proper employment of LIS architecture enabled 

the collection of critical sustainment information. The information provided our 

Brigade and Support Battalion Commanders the ability to make critical and timely 

decisions on sustainment issues that directly impacted the fight. By using digital 

architecture, sustainment enabled mission command as a combat multiplier and 

the employment of LIS was a key to that success.

121

Story #32

Power and Air: Considerations for Operating in Extreme Heat

Major Krattiger was the Executive Officer for 2d Brigade, 4th Infantry 

Division’s Decisive Action Training Environment rotation at the NTC in June 

2013. The brigade was comprised of two combined arms battalions, a cavalry 

squadron, a fires battalion, special troop’s battalion and support battalion, and an 

attached aviation task force. The brigades mission set included defending the area 

surrounding Dezashah and Crash Hill west of Brown and Debnam Pass complex, 

then conducting a counter-attack to seize the central corridor and the towns of 

Ujen and Razish, and finally, a movement to contact south from the Siberian Ridge 

towards Whale Gap.

Our recent rotation at the NTC was facilitated by some detailed planning and 

execution of power generation systems and processes as well as environmental 

controls. I have identified some of the items we addressed prior to and during the 

rotation to possibly assist others in being enabled with respect to power and air.

Knowing we would be operating the brigade main and brigade jump TOC 

in the extreme heat of the NTC, preparations began at home station with oil and 

filter changes on all Trailer Mounted Support Systems Medium and Large systems 

(TMSS-M / TMSS-L or DRASH equipment) coming to NTC prior to deployment. 

With respect to draw grid equipment, a detailed PMCS on the 60KW power plant 

was conducted with a focus on the oil and filters of the generators prior to drawing. 

Once the brigade main command post was established at TAA Warhorse, the 

60KW power plant; all TMSS-M, the TMSS-L, and M100/ M60 PDISE Power 

Distribution Boxes (PDU) were placed under camouflage netting to keep them out 

of direct sun light. In order to maintain back up power generation, all TMSS ECUs 

were linked into the central power grid, which also minimized fuel requirements 

for all but the 60k generators. In order to allow the generators time to cool down, 

instead of the normal 12-hour use of one generator, we shifted to a six-hour shift 

and changed generators at the hottest point of the day. As observed by the Bronco 

Team OC/Ts, this setup allowed the brigade to run the 60KW power plant at 90-95 

percent capacity which enabled the optimal performance of the power generation 

equipment. 

After arriving at the RUBA, the brigade main was set up to facilitate mission 

command and planning. This consisted of the TMSS-L system and one DRASH 

3XB shelter. All other TMSS-M systems and work space items (tables, chairs, 

projectors and screens) were set up and a PCC/PCI was conducted to ensure that 

no items were left in the RUBA. All task force command posts were set up within 

the area of the brigade main for the same reasons.
122

As for the establishment of the brigade main in TAA Warhorse, the ABCT S3 

OPS SGM led a quartering party consisting of, the A Co STB 1SG, B Co STB 1SG, 

and the STB BN S3. The location of the TOC was determined by the following 

criteria: 1) location had to be within the boundaries of TAA Warhorse that was 

dictated by the 52d ID; 2) ability for the brigade main to “talk” using FM, upper/ 

lower TI; 3) defensibility of the terrain including being 4 kilometers away from 

the closest town and not being located on top of a hill mass but not in low ground 

which would affect FM communications.

Despite having “good” communications with the RUBA with HMMWV 

antennas, FM communications were a challenge the once established at the location. 

It was not until BCT retransmission nodes were established that the brigade main 

had reliable FM communication. This problem was owned by the ABCT XO, 

S-6 and the OPS SGM and was resolved in due course. Other issues included 

additional enablers such as JTAC, CA, UAS Ground Control Station (GCS) being 

located at the brigade main which caused additional power draw that exceeded 

the planned Brigade Main central power grid. These enablers had not previously 

operated at the brigade main and were not part of the initial set-up and power 

grid plan but were deemed essential to integrated Command Information Center 

(CIC) operations. To adapt to this unforeseen problem, another 30k generator 

was brought to the brigade main and the power situation stabilized. In order to 

prioritize in the management of power in the grid, the brigade main CIC was the 

primary leg off the 60KW power generation set. This assisted in preventing power 

issues in other parts of the grid to impact operations in the brigade main CIC. As 

for air conditioning, 2 TMSS-M ECUs stopped blowing cold air but were repaired 

by the Tobyhanna Logistics Assistance Representative (LAR).

In hindsight, we deployed to the NTC with a solid command post and power 

grid SOP that required only minor adjustments due to the heat and additional 

power draw from attachments and enablers that were collocated with the brigade 

main. Units coming to the NTC at this time of year must be proactive and service 

all generators, TMSS-M/L ECUs and shelter ECUs (JNN, STT, ACT-E, TGS, 

GCS, TOPO, etc) to ensure both equipment and Soldiers have a climate controlled 

mission command node to operate top effectiveness.
123

Story #33

The Value of a Logistical Common Operating Picture

Major Jerome Russell Jr. was the Support Operations Officer for the 1st 

Armored Brigade Combat Team, 4th Infantry Division’s Decisive Action Training 

Environment rotation at the NTC. His unit conducted offensive and defensive 

operations, at the company, task force and brigade level against both regular and 

irregular forces in a complex operating environment that stressed sustainment 

operations continuously. 

From the moment I assumed the position of brigade support operations officer 

(SPO) about two months prior to the start of our rotation at the National Training 

Center, I knew we would be challenged to execute sustainment operations over 

the width and depth of the operational environment. But looking back, I realize 

that even then I didn’t have a full appreciation for the scope of logistical support 

required during our Decisive Action training exercise. 

During the brigade’s home station train-up we were limited by the size of 

the available training area at Fort Carson. The result; we were unable to fully 

exercise our ability to provide support to the entire brigade simultaneously. The 

BSB Commander recognized this limitation, and clearly voiced his intent prior to 

moving into the RSOI at NTC that we needed to develop a sustainment-specific 

synchronization matrix that was aligned with the brigade’s operational sync matrix 

to help mitigate that factor. It was a great idea, allowing me to get organized and, in 

hindsight, effectively track and execute resupply operations at all levels. As shown 

in figure xx, my section developed the logistical synchronization matrix to capture 

potential times when we would plan to conduct operations at Logistical Resupply 

Points from CSSB to the BSB, from BSB to FSC, and from FSC to maneuver unit. 

This became the lead product in the build of our logistical Common Operating 

Picture (LCOP) to track classes of supply and make adjustments to the plan based 

on mission changes or briefed updates. 

This product became the driver that kept our sustainment and logistics efforts 

in synch with the operational plan, and enabled us to stay apace with the everchanging conditions on the ground. I used it to work the logistics staff through the 

operations process, ensuring we continuously updated our staff estimates for each 

phase of the operation. It wasn’t until I was preparing to conduct our first brigade 

CSS Rehearsal that I realized how much of a living document the synchronization 

matrix had become. It provided me the ability to effectively plan and coordinate 

resupply operations at all levels. 

During our initial mission analysis, we identified shortfalls with Class I, 

Class III(B) (P), and Class IX distribution. For example, we identified that FSCs 

would not be able to sustain resupply of water due to their MTOE limitations. To 
124

counter this, we cross-trained FSC personnel to use a M105 HIPPO during our 

home station train-up and then task organized an M105 to each FSC during RSOI. 

This provided each FSC with a bulk water capability and decreased the number of 

vehicles on tactical convoy operations. 

A second example was highlighted during the brigade CAR, when the brigade 

commander, recognizing the class III limitations, directed that FSCs would 

conduct refuel and rearm operations directly to maneuver units while they were 

in their attack positions, and prior to LD. Using our planning tables as a baseline, 

we re-evaluated the plan using our time/distance analysis and the logistics estimate 

worksheet to calculate projected fuel consumption rates; we then clarified these 

rates by incorporating variables of idle time, secondary route time, and cross country 

time. We also anticipated maneuver units would remain in their attack positions 

for approximately 4-6 hours before LD. Recognizing that the plan required the 

FSCs to retain the ability to refuel forward while on the move, we then directed the 

BSB’s M978 tankers to conduct tactical refuel operations at the individual units’ 

attack positions. This enabled our FSCs to retain maximum capacity and gave us 

confidence across the brigade that we had a clear sight picture of fuel status at the 

start of combat operations. Again, the value of the LCOP was evident in my ability 

to understand where transition points for the various phases of the operation would 

exist, allowing me to recommend potential decision points for resupply operations 

and take a proactive vice reactive approach to sustainment operations. 

This isn’t to say that we didn’t experience friction. Training Days one through 

six (STX and LFX lanes) were the most difficult to plan and synchronize given the 

myriad requirements and varying mission sets occurring. This period often required 

the BSB to cross-level sustainment and direct FSCs to support other battalions in 

order to stay on the tight timeline requirements. We developed a graphic product 

to capture times and locations of maneuver units through their STX and LFX lanes 

and who would support them during those times. This was an extremely complex 

undertaking and to be successful I knew it had to be understood down to the lowest 

level. Timings between the CSSB, the BSB, and the supported FSC had to be 

synchronized and required constant communication between all three elements.

I quickly realized that the reporting process was our primary friction point due 

to the size of the operational environment. Our LOGSTAT reports were coming 

back incomplete; valuable information had to be assumed instead of relying on 

factual data. To reduce this friction, we used our graphic tool to ensure that every 

unit had a full three days of supply prior to any movements. This gave me time 

to determine future requirements based on consumption factors. To further gain 

clarity across the brigade, I defined what green, amber, red, and black reporting 

on LOGSTATs meant for supplies on hand. These statuses were then discussed in 

detail during our logistics sync meetings, which we executed daily. 
125

Again, unbeknownst to us during the original execution, our efforts during 

STX/LFX training at the brigade sustainment level provided critical rehearsal that 

would be built upon during our execution of force on force. Our success during 

that first week of training demonstrated to our sustainment Soldiers that our Area 

Support Concept could work. This resulted in increased confidence as we learned 

that the BSB was able to stretch our capabilities further than expected despite 

the personnel shortages leading into our deployment to NTC. The usefulness of 

identifying and creating key products that would allow us to refine our tactics, 

techniques and procedures on the go was paramount. By defining the LCOP and 

then rehearsing our plan through both formal rehearsals like the brigade CSS, and 

in execution of sustainment operations during non-force on force training, we were 

able to experience success within the complexity and enable successful mission 

execution.

127

Story #34

Balancing CAM and WAS: An STB Story

Lieutenant Colonel Joseph Mouer was the Commander for the Special Troops 

Battalion (TF Lonestar), supporting 2d Brigade, 4th Infantry Division’s Decisive 

Action Training Environment rotation at the NTC in June 2013. His unit was 

given the mission of managing the security area for the brigade as they conducted 

offensive operations eastward to defeat the Donovian invasion. His primary task 

was managing wide area security, with missions including interdicting the criminal 

element and neutralizing the BFB.

As the brigade sized up the operational environment that we would be facing 

at the NTC, the decision was made to assign TF Lonestar the mission to conduct 

wide area security operations in order to interdict the Bilosuvar Freedom Brigade 

(BFB) and other malign actors within the brigade rear area of Erdabil Province. I 

understood “interdict” from its doctrinal definition, and thus understood that my 

commander expected me to prevent, disrupt, or delay the enemy’s use of an area 

or route but I also knew that his expectations were for me to execute this mission 

with as little impact on overall brigade combat power as possible, and to leverage 

as much of the non-lethal effort as I could in order to protect that combat power.

Following the tactical road march and quartering party operations, the initial 

location for the BSTB, including HHC and task organized enablers, was in a base 

cluster, TAA Lonestar, separated by three kilometers from the brigade TAA. This 

presented challenges from a command and control perspective, as large portions 

of my battalion—the BCT MAIN, BCT HHC, MI Company and Signals Company 

CPs were all located within that TAA. Additionally, TAA Lonestar was located 

approximately three kilometers northwest of Nur and five kilometers northwest 

of Dezeshah, the two towns that constituted the key urban terrain within the rear 

area and thus the focus of my initial engagements. While this separation allowed 

for dispersion of units and increased flexibility to accomplish wide area security 

missions, the distances tested BSTB’s communications systems and security 

operations plans from the get-go. I had fairly rapid feedback as to the ability of 

my battalion MAIN to C2 our subordinate units. To increase mission command 

capacity, we were allocated a CPN and I made the decision to train the staff and 

headquarters on executing independently from the brigade; I wanted to test my 

digital infrastructure by severing dependency from the BDE MAIN. 

I had a good understanding of the brigade Commander’s intent: to establish 

conditions for the Atropian government to remain the legitimate and recognized 

authority in Atropia. This helped me define my wide area security mission, as I 

looked to prioritize limited assets against multiple lines of operation, including 

security, partnership, humanitarian assistance, neutralizing insurgents, interdicting 
128

criminal elements, supporting ASF, and influencing local populace and leaders to 

accept the Atropian Government as the best alternative for security and stability. We 

definitely saw the most critical task as security, recognizing that if we established 

security, all the other key tasks would follow. Given our limited combat power, 

we knew we had to effectively integrate all enablers including Department of State 

and host nation security forces.

To facilitate this focus, we created multifunctional teams consisting of a Civil 

Affairs, MISO, HCTs and MPs. We put these teams together to tackle the issue 

of establishing security in the the Dezeshah and Nur population centers, as I knew 

I would need to transition these towns back to the Atropians if I wanted to retain 

flexibility in my approach to Ujen and Razish. While the troops to tasks disparities 

of trying to conduct security for the TAA while committing our multifunction 

teams in Dezeshah and Nur proved difficult, I was able to mitigate this friction 

through the allocation of a Bradley Platoon from 1-67 AR to serve as my reserve. 

We quickly learned that our teams lacked in-depth understanding on the 

capabilities and limitations of the various specialty sections. As example, on 

early patrols, our MPs conducted key leader engagements (KLEs) while HCTs 

served as security. But as we progressed, the multifunctional team concept gained 

momentum in effectiveness as the individual specialty teams became familiar with 

each other. This was enabled by rehearsals, crosstalk and the creation of on-the-fly 

SOPs. Additionally, we discovered that our sharing of intelligence both internal 

to the multifunctional team, and external to the rest of the battalion and across the 

brigade, was inadequate. While we were executing patrol debriefs and entering 

them into our TIGR database, not all units had access to TIGR. To complicate 

this, each separate enabler had a counterpart within the brigade staff. Instead of 

creating a fused product and pushing that product through the battalion staff, we 

encountered enablers who went directly to their brigade counterparts and left us 

behind the curve. 

Promises made on the ground– such as providing humanitarian assistance in 

the form of water – sometimes took twelve hours to be cognitively understood by 

myself and the staff, and more than once presented a sight picture of disorganization 

to civilian leadership. The cross-leveling of KLE information when conducted by 

multiple individuals also proved to be challenging. The criticality of staff-to-staff 

synchronization was a need we learned the hard way in order to minimize “KLE 

fratricide.” Similarly, the brigade and battalion efforts at nonlethal/lethal/C-IED 

working groups and planning for the tactical mission were not synchronized – 

especially for the brigade defense. It took hindsight to recognize that these planning 

sessions must be collaborative and look holistically across both CAM and WAS to 

truly enable shared understanding of the challenges that the brigade faced. 
129

Shifting from Dezashah and Nur, which had predominately pro-US 

populations to Razish and Ujen, which were decidedly pro-Donovian proved 

the greatest challenge that we would face. The security issues within these two 

towns overwhelmed the ability of the BSTBs manning, and caused brigade to view 

them as larger mission sets requiring greater application of combat power. For 

my battalion, this meant coordination with 2-8 IN to ensure that we were able to 

establish a security-conditions based transition of those towns into our control. 

This transition had to ensure coordination not just on security, but also good staffto-staff crosstalk on fire control measures, combat support and combat service 

support. Triggers were established, but had to be wedded with the reality that we 

wouldn’t be seeing perfect conditions in either town—the Donovian regular forces 

were still a viable threat within the AO and we needed to free up 2-8 IN’s combat 

power for continuing offensive missions. As soon as we could, we leveraged our 

MPs as a security force, and shifted to conducting non-lethal operations that could 

enable and leverage local forces, again meeting the brigade Commanders intent. 

In Razish, we established a strong point at the government center with approval 

from the mayor and provincial governor, and worked our way out towards the 

periphery of the town, building capacity as we progressed. In Ujen, where the 

mayor had been assassinated, we required a larger security element to remain 

behind in order to ensure the pace. That said, the teams went to work as they did 

in Ujen, leveraging diplomatic, economic and informational contacts to create a 

narrative and enable the Atropian government to retake control of the city. 

While there were many lessons learned from our operations throughout 

the rotation, my biggest takeaway was my initial lack of understanding on the 

complexity of our mission and the demands that would be placed upon us by 

the execution of simultaneous CAM and WAS. In hindsight, I characterize the 

battalion’s mission as a cross brigade functional enabling mission with aspects of 

land ownership. The BSTB staff must be prepared to operate a fully functional 

command post while simultaneously planning to meet the Commander’s intent. 

With the BSTB’s organic enablers task organized across the brigade, the battalion 

must learn to do with minimal manning, and ensure continuous cross coordination 

of operations and support with both the task forces and the brigade headquarters. 

The need to effectively execute mission command, intelligence and movement and 

maneuver, are not particular to CAM. In fact, they required an increased level of 

synchronization during wide area security in order to present a unified narrative 

and face to the population. Our success in this challenging environment reminded 

me that BSTBs are operationally designed to be flexible and dynamic. And BSTB 

commanders and staffs can maximize this inherent capability to ensure the proper 

balance of attention between CAM and WAS, ensuring operational success.

131

Story #35

Discipline at the Heart of Combat Operations

Command Sergeant Major Edison Rebuck was CSM of the 1st Armored Brigade 

Combat Team, 4th Infantry Division’s Decisive Action Training Environment 

rotation at the NTC. His unit was comprised of two combined arms battalions, 

an armored reconnaissance cavalry squadron, a field artillery battalion, brigade 

support battalion, special troops battalion, and a multifunctional aviation task 

force. Prior to executing offensive and defensive operations to force the Donovian 

combat troops out of Atropia, his brigade occupied a Tactical Assembly Area along 

ASR Solerno to the east of TV Hill.

The Raider Brigade had taken on a long and comprehensive training regimen 

prior to our arrival at the National Training Center. Throughout our home station 

training, we identified discipline as one of the many bonds that would be critical 

towards enabling the brigade to execute its mission. That said, I often observed 

frustration in the more senior leadership at the platoon, company and battalion 

levels with the lack of field-craft knowledge amongst the junior Soldiers. I also 

saw that there were leaders who readily pointed their finger at what they viewed as 

Soldier inexperience and unfamiliarity when in reality we had identified a training 

shortfall. I knew that if we were going to succeed at NTC, it would be critical 

for us to meld the tactical experiences shared among our senior leaders with the 

experiences of operating out of protected forward operating bases known by the 

young leaders in our ranks over the past ten years – we had to get off the FOBs, 

literally.

It started with a definition of discipline at the highest level within the brigade. 

The need for persistent vigilance, managing priorities of work that integrated 

the simple tasks of guard duty rotations, interior and exterior security, refueling 

operations, Class I, 5988E flow and uniform standard enforcement—these weren’t 

treated as generational differences, but rather as training challenges that demanded 

incorporation into our training calendars. Discipline and its enforcement were at 

the heart of our training plan and would ultimately prove essential to our successful 

transition away from the FOB/COP mentality and back to the basics of Soldiers 

operating in Tactical Assembly Areas. This was a task that was universally 

embraced at all echelons and by all leaders. 

In my discussions with the many Soldiers and leaders of the brigade they 

readily admitted that over the past 10 years, the experience of junior leaders had 

been limited to conducting operations in hostile areas, returning to a secure and 

safe outpost, conducting refit, and then repeating the cycle. From the Battalion 

leadership’s perspective they agreed that not much emphasis was placed on 

executing continuous operations in open terrain. Basic skills such as noise and light 
132

discipline, sound discipline, personal hygiene and small unit fieldcraft were areas 

that received little to no emphasis throughout operations in Iraq or Afghanistan. 

The NTC provided our units with the opportunity to reverse these trends and 

develop engaged leaders who enforced basic discipline standards on the conduct 

of operations in the TAA. Starting with senior leaders teaching the standards to 

junior leaders and empowering them to develop and integrate TAA procedures into 

their lexicon, we actively refined our standing operating procedures from the topdown while incorporating feedback from the bottom-up. 

Even before our arrival at NTC, leaders knew that uniform and force 

protection standards were non-negotiable. Company and Battalion leadership 

ruthlessly enforced the Brigade’s uniform and security policies. Whether inside 

the TAA behind the line of departure or operating at a forward reconnaissance 

position overlooking the FLOT, a deliberate effort was made to reach into all 

areas and empower leaders to enforce standards. As with any training, there were 

some inevitable on-the-spot-corrections needed to keep the mindset tactical, but 

corrections were always viewed as training and leaders were encouraged to explain 

the reasoning behind the strict uniform enforcement policy as a deliberate shift 

towards continuous operations in hostile territory. 

One advantage of the austerity of NTC is the ability for Soldiers to quickly 

“get it.” Noise and light discipline are more easily taught when a sentry is able 

to identify an open command post tent flap over five kilometers away. And the 

need for proper field sanitation is easily learned when Soldiers are forced to 

form a line and pick up garbage that has been blown hundreds of meters away. 

At first, senior leaders carried the brunt of enforcement, but within days I saw 

a change in mindset as I visited maintenance areas and RETRANs sites and 

discovered Soldiers in uniform and conducting security. Tactical feeding was 

introduced throughout the formation. When I visited the BSA I waited in a line 

maintaining a five meter interval, facing out and pulling security. Looking back at 

the training rotation, it took engaged leadership at all levels to bring change. But 

when leadership worked as it did in our brigade, the effect was tremendous, as 

I witnessed Soldiers embracing their environment and forgetting that they were 

training. The effectiveness of our discipline campaign was also evident in the 

increased performance of our sustainment and maintenance sections, as we saw 

an increase in parts ordered as we moved through the rotation. Discipline enabled 

mission command and execution—our relatively low number of safety incidents 

allowed us to spend time maximizing operations at the lower levels, as evidenced 

by the total number of Raven flight hours accomplished by junior leaders as part of 

maintaining security against an uncertain irregular threat.

Learning, training and perpetuating discipline throughout the organization was 

well worth the cost of deliberately developing and sustaining it as a line of effort 
133

undertaken by all. The reward of seeing Soldiers embrace the discipline and, more 

importantly, grasp the reasoning behind the discipline far outweighed any cost in 

planning or resourcing. At the heart of the matter was our command decision to 

frame the challenge as a training opportunity and not as a shortfall in experience. 

This framing became one of the critical keys to the success of the Raider Brigade 

at NTC and is worth replicating. As a Command Sergeant Major, I purposefully 

made corrections as teaching points and targeted First Sergeants and Platoon 

Sergeants—energizing them became one of my most useful means of enforcement. 

As is usually the case, by empowering and sustaining leaders, a challenging area 

developed into a training and combat multiplier.

135

Appendix A

Brigade Tactical Group Application by Warfighting Function

By Colonel Christopher Doneski

The National Training Center (NTC) has conducted five Decisive Action 

(DA) rotations dating back to March 2013, and since then 11th Armored Cavalry 

Regiment (ACR) has served as the Division Tactical Group (DTG) headquarters. 

Two subordinate squadrons have alternated replication of the Brigade Tactical 

Group (BTG) headquarters. The 11th ACR has utilized numerous techniques in 

the preparation and execution of the role of the Contemporary Operating Force 

(COEFOR). This force evolved from the legendary Opposing Force (OPFOR) of 

the 1980s and 1990s but now includes hybrid threats that add complexity to the 

battlefield.

The basis for COEFOR doctrine is outlined in TC 7-100-2, Opposing Force 

Tactics, dated 1 September 2011. The application of these principals by staffs 

and units that understand and utilize US doctrine proved to be an effective force 

against a Heavy Brigade Combat Team (HBCT). Most notably, the Squadron 

implemented the guidance in the introduction of TC 7-100-2, “baseline tactical 

doctrine of a flexible, thinking, adaptive OPFOR that applies its doctrine with 

considerable flexibility, adaptability, and initiative.” Understanding the history of 

many of the battles at the NTC provided the COEFOR a great resource with which 

to analyze the tactical situation and apply combat power at the decisive points of 

each phase of the operation.

These lessons were applied within the warfighting functions to maximize 

advantages of direct fire ranges and knowledge of the terrain as it related to each of 

the functions. These principals guided analysis and decisions during or planning 

for the decisive action fights that were anticipated.

Planning and Execution

TC 7-100-2, paragraphs 1-66, 1-68 and 1-68, outlined below governs 

COEFOR actions and stands as the framework for development of plans utilized at 

the National Training Center. 

1-66. The systems warfare approach to combat is a means to assist the 

commander in the decision making process and the planning and execution of his 

mission. The OPFOR believes that a qualitatively and/or quantitatively weaker 

force can defeat a superior foe, if the lesser force can dictate the terms of combat. 

It believes that the systems warfare approach allows it to move away from the 

traditional attrition-based approach to combat. It is no longer necessary to match 

an opponent system-for-system or capability-for Strategic and Operational 

Framework Publication Date TC 7-100.2 1-15 capability. Commanders and 
136

staffs will locate the critical component(s) of the enemy combat system, patterns 

of interaction, and opportunities to exploit this connectivity. The OPFOR will seek 

to disaggregate enemy combat power by destroying or neutralizing single points 

of failure in the enemy’s combat system. Systems warfare has applications in both 

offensive and defensive contexts.

1-67. The essential step after the identification of the critical subsystems and 

components of a combat system is the destruction or degradation of the synergy of 

the system. This may take one of three forms—

•	 Total destruction of a subsystem or component

•	 Degradation of the synergy of components.

•	 The simple denial of access to critical links between systems or 

components.

1-68. The destruction of a critical component or link can achieve one 

or more of the following:

•	 Create windows of opportunity that can be exploited.

•	 Set the conditions for offensive action.

•	 Support a concept of operation that calls for exhausting the enemy 

on the battlefield.

Once the OPFOR has identified and isolated a critical element of the enemy 

combat system that is vulnerable to attack, it will select the appropriate method of 

attack. 

Intelligence Warfighting Function

Within the intelligence warfighting function it is critical that the COEFOR 

possess a significant understanding of the U.S. adversary. Significant knowledge 

of the ABCT structure as well as detailed research using open source methods 

to analyze the adversary prove invaluable to laying the framework for IPB. 

Individual and collective intelligence preparation of the battlefield (IPB) continued 

over multiple months. This included historical reviews of the battles in the central 

corridor covered in the US Army Command and General Staff College Press 

publication 66 Stories of Battle Command put together by the School for Command 

Preparation at Ft. Leavenworth. Analysis of the Brigade by warfighting function 

considering their capabilities, limitations, requirements and vulnerabilities was 

absolutely essential to understanding the BCT. Finally, all of these considerations 

of friendly and enemy were laid over the terrain to determine the enemy’s most 

likely and dangerous courses of action. These mission analysis products played 

a significant role in arrayal of forces and courses of action to achieve the tactical 

advantage at a specific time and place driving the other warfighting functions.
137

Fires Warfighting Function

The range and amount of fire support assets the BTG and DTG have are the 

one clear advantage the COEFOR has over a U.S. ABCT. The ability to mass and 

maintain the initiative was imperative to enable the success of the reconnaissance 

and main body forces due to the significant technological advantage of sensors and 

radars. 

The establishment of a fire support element (FSE) at the BTG level as well as 

replication of the S19, BM21 and BM30 artillery systems was critical to the success 

of the BTG. This replication forced the BTG to plan for the sequencing of fires and 

the deliberate repositioning to evade likely counter-fire and likely ISR in response 

to our missions. BTG fires capabilities include high explosive (HE), dual purpose 

(DPICM), family of scatterable mines (FASCAM) and non-persistent chemical 

agents (NP-chem). The scheme of fires attempted to maximize these capabilities 

and establish redundant sensors for these shooters from elements organic to the 

BTG, the DTG and the guerilla forces (BFB). These sensors were arrayed and 

tasked to identify targets on the BTG High Payoff Target List (HPTL) and the 

ability to maintain these eyes forward greatly enhanced the effectiveness of these 

fires and the ability to engage targets that disrupted and degrade RTU operations.

Movement and Maneuver Warfighting Function

Adaptability

It will seek to avoid types of operations and environments for which U.S. forces 

are optimized. During the course of conflict, it will make further adaptations, based 

on experience and opportunity. In general, the OPFOR will be less predictable 

than OPFORs in the past. It will be difficult to template as it adapts and attempts 

to create opportunity. Its patterns of operation will change as it achieves success 

or experiences failure. The OPFOR’s doctrine might not change, but its way of 

operating will.

TC 7-100-2 Opposing Force Tactics, dtd. 1 Sep 2011

The BTG rapidly gain proficiency maximizing our systems to conduct both 

movement and maneuver. The robust intelligence network and understanding of 

the terrain afforded the BTG to maintain rapid movement throughout the depth of 

the area of operations and only transition to maneuver in locations and situations 

that favored our systems.

The BTG and DTG utilized lift aviation to insert Scout teams deep into 

the AO. Our aviation assets performed additional critical missions to include 

reconnaissance and attack aviation missions. These were especially lethal during 

the counter-reconnaissance fight during the deliberate defense of the passes.
138

The BTG and DTG ground scouts are task organized with additional elements 

to provide a robust force capable of fighting for intelligence, information and key 

terrain. The DTG scouts are primarily a BRDM based force and normally terrain 

oriented. We have task organized with OSV and MTLB engineer variants to 

provide additional capabilities. However, this element is mostly a reconnaissance 

element that uses speed and stealth as opposed to fire power.

 The BTG scouts are a more robust organization that is composed of a mix of 

OSV, BRDM, dismount AT, mounted P148D AT systems and SA-18 capabilities. 

The BTG focuses on intermediate objectives to set conditions for the BTG main 

body’s decisive operation. The BTG scouts are both terrain and enemy focused 

when they can identify opportunities based on the ISM and HPTL. The success 

of the BTG scouts enables more rapid movement and delayed transition from 

movement to maneuver for the BTG first echelon Mechanized Infantry Battalions 

(MIBN).

Initiative

Doctrine guides OPFOR actions in support of the State’s objectives; OPFOR 

leaders apply it with judgment and initiative.

The MIBN is the basic formation and heart and soul of the BTG. The 

MIBNs are normally task organized with six MBTs, 14 OSVs, SA-18s, Sappers 

and occasional mounted AT sections. Although the task organization is mission 

dependant, this basic building block is the initial structure with which we base our 

scheme of maneuver. The ability to fight down to Company strength (2 MBT, 4 

OSV) is the building block for the MIBN. Each system is capable of defeating 

enemy Armored threats with either 125mm cannon for the MBT or 30mm cannon 

for the OSV. Each system also has the capability of 5 x AT5 missiles that can 

defeat any Armor within 2,000 meters.

The BTG focused its training at the crew and platoon levels to master the basic 

“blocking and tackling” of utilizing the terrain and killing at distance. Our efforts 

to maximize the seven forms of contact to our advantage proved decisive. Each of 

our subordinate elements developed proficiency in gaining visual contact through 

our scouts and advanced guard formations. Next, our platoons concentrated on 

developing those visual contacts with indirect fires and obstacles, both situational 

and deliberate obstacles. Finally, we massed effects of air, electronic warfare and 

NBC if possible to place the RTU on the horns of a dilemma to attempt to break 

contact before lethal direct fires completed the destruction.

Protection Warfighting Function

The BTG’s greatest threat is enemy aviation capabilities. The BTG has a 

significant anti-air capability with SA18s, SA6 and 2S6 air defense systems. Man 
139

Portable Air Defense (MANPAD) systems perform multiple functions not only 

primary protection against US aviation but as scouts forward and as rear-area 

security in depth. Additionally, the ability to position SA18s with ground based 

mechanized infantry and armor vehicles and mass fires in conjunction with the 

30mm from OSVs has proven extremely effective against stationary threats and 

UAS platforms.

Mission Command Warfighting Function

The BTG utilizes echeloned command posts that comprise both voice and 

digital communications. The BTG predominantly operates using voice to command 

and control the tactical fight. This includes both FM and GSM systems across the 

depth of the area of operations. The BTG has limited secure communications 

over satellite through digital systems. Finally, nothing replaces the face to face 

communications through courier or meetings especially during the preparation and 

between engagements.

The BTGs main command post serves as the hub for the mission command 

controlling and synchronizing the warfighting functions and connecting to DTG 

with support for fires. The Tactical Operations Center (TOC) coordinates the air 

defense coverage, allocation of attack aviation and deconfliction of fires through 

the Fire support element (FSE). Following the line of departure of the main body, 

the Squadron Tactical Command (TAC) was comprised of the BTG commander, 

operations officer and CSM. These elements are often collocated, but also operate 

dispersed remaining generally online with the various avenues of approach. This 

provides redundant communications and first hand observation by senior leaders 

to answer CCIR for the BTG.

The Combat Trains Command Post (CTCP) also plays a vital role in the 

sustainment of the MIBNs during offensive operations. The ability to predict 

consumption, specifically of Class V, and rapidly resupply is essential in the ability 

to maintain momentum during these types of operations.

Logistical Warfighting Function

Sustaining the BTG was a significant challenge both during the offensive and 

defensive operations. The S4 and HHT commanders working with the XO needed 

to develop projected consumption rates with very little historical data. During 

offensive operations, as stated, the consumption of Class V for our lead MIBNs 

was our greatest concern. Couple those challenges with the resupply of the P148D 

AT systems, a major killer on the battlefield had to be flawless in order to maintain 

momentum and the initiative. 

During the building of the defense, logistical resupply is potentially the 

greatest COEFOR weakness. Projecting the consumption of class IV barrier 
140

material, maintenance for the ACE and D7 dig assets and their Class III bulk and 

package requirements have not been truly tested in years. Although class III is 

a huge concern, understanding consumption rates and linking those to defensive 

planning is critical to bring combat trains on line to support resupply. Additionally, 

the supporting engineer company tied in the recovery and maintenance assets to 

minimize the downtime for the dig assets and ensured our counter-mobility and 

survivability positions where completed within 48 hours of the start of work. Timely 

defensive planning and preparations were critical, particularly if preparations are 

completed before the RTU reconnaissance crosses LD.

Conclusion

Despite the lack of experience at all levels, the BTG and COEFOR forces 

were successful in operations by executing the basics. The ability to get platoon 

and MIBNs multiple repetitions on offensive and defensive operations ensured the 

basic maneuver elements for the BTG were confident and lethal on the decisive 

action battlefield. Following articles will discuss in more detail some key areas 

that enable the success during the rotation. These areas include train-up of platoons 

in fire and maneuver, Troop/MIBN lessons learned, integrated air defense, staff 

planning and rehearsals at echelon. The products may provide a way forward to 

prepare for this most complex mission set.
141

Appendix B

Bilasuvar Freedom Brigade (BFB) Threat Considerations

By Colonel Christopher Doneski

One of the most significant changes to the order of battle the Rotational 

Training Units now face at NTC during DA rotations, is the Bilasuvar Freedom 

Brigade (BFB). This guerilla force presents new and unique challenges to the 

threat. The BFB’s affiliation with the Donovian forces provides the BFB access 

to a great complement of weapon systems while acting at times as a surrogate force 

for the Donovian land forces.

The BFB operates and lives throughout Atropia with greater density and 

influence with proximity to the Donovian border. Their influence and freedom of 

action diminishes further east, past the town of Razish. The guerillas are extremely 

adaptive and will pursue opportunities to further their cause by attacking, delaying, 

disrupting or harassing US forces in order to discredit US information operations 

and support Donovian strategic through tactical objectives.

Mission Command

The militant arm of the BFB is organized in company strength usually 

numbering between 80-120 fighters. The hierarchical structure directs the 

operations providing specific targets and instructions as well as a general mission 

and intent with which to operate. The individual, squad sized cells operate within 

these parameters to take advantage of opportunities as they present themselves.

Figure B-1. BFB Organization Chart (COEFOR Redbook).

The BFB utilizes GSM cell phones to communicate throughout the depth of 

the area of operations between BFB leadership and major subordinate cells. BFB 

also utilizes GSM for their reach back to Donovian forces and the BTG leadership. 
142

The BFB practices limited operations security when speaking on these systems but 

will speak in the clear when there is an operational need. The subordinate cells 

utilize mainly courier, face to face and push to talk communications to coordinate 

missions and pass information and directives. Following the Donovian incursion 

into Atropia, the BFB’s communications capability was greatly improved with FM 

push to talk and secure communications to the key command nodes.

Intelligence

The BFB serves as the conduit for Donovian forces into the HUMINT 

sources throughout the AO and often serves as a strategic recon for Donovian 

forces. The BFB’s ability to blend into the population and traverse the battlespace 

without a significant signature provides Donovian forces a significant capability 

of having eyes and reconnaissance forward of their forces and beyond the reach 

of Division Tactical Group (DTG) recon. These missions are accomplished 

primarily by reconnaissance patrols in civilian vehicles. The risks for these patrols 

are mitigated by operating in clean vehicles. This reduces the effectiveness and 

immediacy of reports and limits ability for direct action. However, these patrols, if 

engaged present a significant weapon for information operations against the RTU 

in regards to civilian casualties (CIVCAS). The BFB is not above orchestrating an 

opportunity to create a CIVCAS event.

Donovian intelligence and operations share a great deal of their understanding 

of the RTU order of battle and objectives with the BFB forces. The DTG and BTG 

commanders communicate directly with BFB leadership providing information 

and tasking the BFB to enable their operations. This is normally provided in 

the form of a high payoff target list (HPTL). The HPTL details the types of 

information the Donovian forces desire about the disposition of key systems 

and capabilities that answer the priority intelligence requirements (PIR) for the 

DTG/BTG commanders. The BFB played a significant role during Rotation 12-

05 as a strategic reconnaissance force providing a clear understanding of RTU 

reconnaissance, main body and command and control platforms. 

Fires

One of the BFB’s most significant roles was acting as forward observers. The 

ability to identify stationary targets and provide accurate locations enabled the 

BTG’s fires plan. During offensive operations, the BFB was extremely successful 

at identifying movement corridors and staging areas to target US force for the 

Donovian rocket artillery. Based on terrain features and familiarity with the AO, 

BFB spotters provided timely and accurate spot reports as a basis for indirect fire 

missions.

During the BTG defense of the Brown/Debnam passes, the BFB was the main 

observation for BTG fires east of the town of Ujen (Barstow Rd). The BFB located 

task force resupply points, field artillery positions and Brigade and Battalion 

Command Posts. These generally stationary positions were then processed for fire
143

//Unclassified//

HPTL

HPTL Indicator Desired effect

Best method/

weapons system

OH-58/UH60OH-58/UH-60 

spotted

Aircraft sustains 

significant damage 

and is forced to 

land or return to 

base. SWT normally 

operates in pairs. 

If one aircraft is 

damaged/destroyed, 

its wingman aircraft 

must disengage. 

Aircraft within 500 

meters. Effects 

on aircraft will 

be great if the 

aircraft is within 

300 meters. Utilize 

synchronization of 

RPGs/HMGs. 

LLVI Teams Large puck-style 

antenna (one foot 

in diameter x six 

inches in height) 

VIC of C2 node/

OP. LLVI teams will 

occupy forward 

elevated positions 

with scouts//recon 

elements. Effective 

LLVI positions will 

require line of 

sight. Additionally, 

positions may be 

established near 

C2 nodes in the 

enemy support 

zone. Effective 

implementation of 

LLVI teams requires 

a minimum of 

two teams with 

line of sight 

and overlapping 

coverage. 

Destruction of puck 

antenna and/or LLVI 

team required to 

displace. 

82 mm mortar, SAF/

RPG

Re-Supply 

(Fuelers) 

Fuel tankers Mobility kill/resupply, 

degradation

82 mm mortar, 82 

mm recoilless rifle, 

RPG, IED

Ground 

control 

System 

(Shadow) 

HMMWVs/

building IVO 

Shadow launching 

equipment and 

landing strip. 

Shadow grounding/

degraded. Shadow 

support. 

82 mm mortar, SAF/

RPG

Figure B-2. BTG High Payoff Target List.
144

mission execution when conditions most favored the BTG. The ability to have ten 

digit grids with a margin of error of less the 100 meters significantly enhanced the 

effectiveness of all the Donovian fires assets.

Direct Action

Where possible, the Donovian forces direct or encourage direct action against 

targets to impair the RTU capabilities. Many of these targets operate within the 

rear area and based on the security, provide BFB opportunities to conduct direct 

action against these targets. They are not strictly tied to RTU movements. The 

BFB has the capability to emplace improvised explosive devices (IEDs) to delay 

movement along a certain route or as part of a complex ambush against a target of 

opportunity within their capabilities normally involving logistic resupply.

The BFB is extremely proficient when operating and fighting within populated 

areas. Their familiarity with the urban terrain and the additional complexity of 

population provides them greater freedom to maneuver and safety within the 

towns. Their ability to utilize IEDs to cause casualties against RTU and civilian 

population rapidly increases the complexity of an urban fight if pursued into the 

towns.

The BFB is extremely proficient with direct fire weapons. When supported by 

Donovian forces, the BFB receives dismounted anti-tank capabilities with ranges 

of up to 1,500 meters.

Figure B-3. BFB reposition with PKM in Razish.

Organic to the BFB, the guerillas use RPGs, IED, crew serve machine guns 

up to 14.5mm and small arms. Their sniper capabilities are significant with 

proficiency up to 1200 meters.
145

Figure B-4. BFB fighter in Razish.

Conclusion

The potential for the BFB as a game changer remains significant. Although 

rarely exercised in the direct action role, the capabilities the BFB provided the 

BTG in terms of intelligence and observation of fires was immense. The time and 

space the BFB provided the Donovians with the defense of Razish provide pivotal 

in consuming Brigade focus and assets that allowed the defense of the passes to be 

complete prior to US ISR assets collecting on the composition and disposition of 

the defense. In the future, the ability to disrupt security and force the commitment 

of greater combat power in depth with continue to be a challenge for rotational 

units as the tackle the new threat at the NTC. 

147

Appendix C

List of Commonly Used Acronyms

ABCS-Army Battle Command System(s)

ABCT-Armored Brigade Combat Team

ABF-Attack By Fire

ACM- Airspace Control Measure

ADA- Air Defense Artillery

ADAM/BAE-Air Defense and Airspace Management/Brigade Aviation Element

AF- Attacking Force (Mission designation for a Donovian MIBN)

AGM- Attack Guidance Matrix

AHA- Alert Holding Area

ALO-Air Liaison Officer

AO-Area of Operation

AR- Armor

ARS- Armored Reconnaissance Squadron

ASR- Alternate Supply Route

AT- Anti-Tank

ATK PSN- Attack Position

AXP-Ambulance Exchange Point

BCT- Brigade Combat Team 

BFB- Bilosuvar Freedom Brigade (Donovian irregular forces designation)

BFT- Blue Force Tracker

BMNT- Before Morning Nautical Twilight

BSA- Brigade Support Area

BSB- Brigade Support Battalion

BSTB- Brigade Special Troops Battalion (Synonymous with STB)

BTG- Brigade Tactical Group (Donovian Mechanized Brigade)

C2-Command and Control

CA- Civil Affairs

CAB- Combined Arms Battalion

CAM-Combined Arms Maneuver
148

CAR- Combined Arms Rehearsal

CAS-Close Air Support

CASEVAC- Casualty Evacuation

CAU- Crew Access Unit (Intercom Equipment)

CAV- Cavalry

CBRNE- Chemical Biological Radiological Nuclear and Explosives

CCA-Close Combat Attack

CDR- Commander

CE-Critical Event

CMOC- Civil Military Operations Center

COA- Course of Action

COEFOR- Contemporary Operating Environment Force (11th Armored Cavalry 

Regiment)

COLT- Combat Observation Lasing Team

COP- Common Operating Picture

COP- Combat Outpost

CP- Check Point

CP- Command Post

CPN- Command Post Node

CPP- Command Post Platform

CUOPS- Current Operations

DATE- Decisive Action Training Environment

DCO- Deputy Commanding Officer

DOCTEMP- Doctrinal Template

DP- Decision Point

DS- Direct Support (Support Relationship)

DSM- Decision Support Matrix

DST- Decision Support Template

DTG- Division Tactical Group (Donovian Mechanized Division)

EA- Engagement Area

EAB- Echelons Above Brigade

ECP- Entry Control Point
149

EF- Exploitation Force (Mission designation for a Donovian MIBN)

EOD-Explosive Ordnance Disposal

EPLRS- Enhanced Position Location and Reporting System

EPLRS-ES- Enhanced Position Location and Reporting System-Enhanced 

Services

EVENTEMP- Event Template

FA-Field Artillery

FARP-Forward Arming and Refuel Point

FAS- Forward Aid Station

FASCAM- Field Artillery Scatterable Mines

FBCB2- Force XXI Battle Command Brigade and Below

FDO- Fire Direction Officer

FLOT- Forward Line of Own Troops

FM-Field Manual

FM- Frequency Modulation Radio

FOB- Forward Operating Base

FOC- Full Operating Capability

FPOL- Forward Passage of Lines

FRAGO- Fragmentary Order

FSC- Forward Support Company

FSCM- Fire Support Coordination Measure

FSCOORD- Fire Support Coordinator

FSO- Fire Support Officer

GRG- Gridded Reference Graphic

GS- General Support (Support Relationship)

HCT- Human Intelligence Collection Team

HHC-Headquarters and Headquarters Company

HF- High Frequency

HPT- High Payoff Target

HPTL- High Payoff Target List

HUMINT- Human Intelligence

IC- Information Collection
150

IDP- Internally Displaced Persons

IIA- Inform and Influence Activities

IN- Infantry

IOC- Initial Operating Capability

IPB- Intelligence Preparation of the Battlefield

IV- Inter-visibility

JCR- Joint Capabilities Release

JNN- Joint Network Node

JSTARS- Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System

JTAC- Joint Terminal Attack Control

KIA- Killed in Action

KLE- Key Leader Engagement

LAV- Light Assault Vehicle

LD- Line of Departure

LFX- Live Fire Exercise

LLVI- Low Level Voice Intercept

LNO- Liaison Officer

LOS- Line of Sight

MAIN- Main Command Post (Synonymous with TOC)

MAS- Main Aid Station

MASCAL- Mass Casualty

MATO- Material Officer

MCG- Mobile Command Group

MCOO- Modified Combined Obstacle Overlay

MDMP- Military Decision Making Process

ME- Main Effort

MFATF- Multi-Function Aviation Task Force

MI- Military Intelligence

MIBN- Mechanized Infantry Battalion (Donovian Mechanized Battalion)

MISO- Military Information Support Operations

MLRS- Multiple Launch Rocket System

MP- Military Police
151

MSR- Main Supply Route

MTC- Movement to Contact

NAI- Named Area of Interest

NCO- Non-Commissioned Officer

NIPR- Non-Secure Internet Protocol Routing

NTC- National Training Center

OE-254- Long Range FM Antenna

OIC- Officer in Charge

OP- Observation Point

OPCON- Operational Control (Command Relationship)

OPORD- Operations Order

OSRVT- One System Remote Vehicle Terminal

PAA- Position Area for Artillery

PAO- Public Affairs Officer

PACE- Primary, Alternate, Contingency, Emergency (communications 

redundancy)

PCC- Pre Combat Checks

PCI- Pre Combat Inspections

PIR- Priority Intelligence Requirement

PL- Phase Line

POI- Point of Injury

PSYOP- Psychological Operations

RECON- Reconnaissance Assets

RETRANS- Retransmission Site

ROLE I- Location of stabilization team on the battlefield

ROLE II- Location of surgical team on the battlefield

RP- Release Point

RPG- Rocket Propelled Grenade

RSOI- Reception, Staging, Integration and Onward Movement

RTU- Rotational Training Unit

RUBA- Rotation Unit Bivouac Area

SOP- Standing Operating Procedure
152

SEAD- Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses

SHORAD- Short Range Air Defense

SIGINT- Signals Intelligence

SIPR- Secure Internet Protocol Routing

SITEMP- Situational Template

STB- Special Troops Battalion (synonymous with BSTB)

STC- Slew to Cue

SP- Start Point

SPO- Support Operations Officer

STX- Situational Training Exercise 

SVOIP- Secure Voice over Internet Protocol

TAA- Tactical Assembly Area

TAC- Tactical Command Post

TACON- Tactical Control (Command Relationship)

TACP-Tactical Air Control Party

TACSAT- Tactical Satellite

TAI- Target Area of Interest

TF- Task Force

TI- Tactical Internet

TIGR- Tactical Ground Reporting System

TLP- Troop Leading Procedures

TOC- Tactical Operations Center

TSS- Target Selection Standards

UAS- Unmanned Aerial System

UAV- Unmanned Aerial Vehicle

UMCP- Unit Maintenance Collection Point

WAS- Wide Area Security

WIA- Wounded In Action 

154

Combat Studies Institute Press

US Army Combined Arms Center

Fort Leavenworth, Kansas 

Visit our website at: 

http://usacac.army.mil/cac2/index.asp