Victory Starts Here

A Short 40-Year History of the 

US Army Training and 

Doctrine Command

Combat Studies Institute Press

US Army Combined Arms Center

Fort Leavenworth, Kansas
The cover photo is a US Army photo of military operations in urban 

terrain (MOUT) at Fort Benning, Georgia. CGSC Copyright Request 

#13-382 C/E.
Victory Starts Here

A Short 40-Year History of the 

US Army Training and 

Doctrine Command

by

Benjamin King

Foreword by

General Robert W. Cone

General Editor

J. Britt McCarley, Ph.D.

Combat Studies Institute Press

US Army Combined Arms Center

Fort Leavenworth, Kansas
ii

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

King, Benjamin, 1944-

 Victory starts here : a short 40-year history of the US Army Training and Doctrine Command / by Benjamin King ; foreword by 

General Robert W. Cone.

 pages cm

 Includes bibliographical references and index.

 ISBN 978-0-9885837-8-8 (alk. paper)

 1. Military education--United States--History. 2. United States. 

Army Training and Doctrine Command--History. I. Combat Studies Institute (U.S.) II. U.S. Army Combined Arms Center. III. Title. 

 U408.3.K56 2013

 355.50973--dc23

 2013014288

First printing May 2013

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 digital CSI 

Press publications is available 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.

Layout and Design by 

Elizabeth J. Brown

Combat Studies Institute Press
iii

Foreword

I am pleased to share this monograph, a concise chronicle of what 

the command has accomplished in the past four decades. At this, the 40-

year mark in its history, the US Army Training and Doctrine Command 

(TRADOC) remains one of the most unique organizations in our Army. 

TRADOC’s first commander, General William E. DePuy, long ago envisioned a command devoted to a trinity of training, doctrine, and the future. 

Just as when it was first established in July 1973, TRADOC continues 

today to train individual Soldiers, develop and educate Army leaders, 

explore future requirements, develop doctrine, and serve as the architect 

of the future Army. These core functions have guided all of TRADOC’s 

commanders as they ensured the long-term readiness of our Army.

Over the years, TRADOC has adapted to keep pace with the times. 

Nevertheless, through four decades we have remained true to our origins. 

In fact, it is this balance of flexibility and resilience that kept our efforts vital to the Army’s overall success. Right now, TRADOC faces truly historic challenges, especially in regards to ongoing fiscal austerity. However, 

our organization was born in such a time and has led numerous transitions. 

So our history is uniquely valuable to today’s Army.

 Robert W. Cone . 

General, US Army

Commanding
iv

Preface

This new edition of Victory Starts Here is a short history of the US 

Army Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) as it is completing 

four decades of organizational existence. Established in July 1973 to solve 

the cumbersome command and control issues of the old US Continental 

Army Command (CONARC), TRADOC’s mission was to oversee Army 

schools, training, doctrine, and combat developments. Through time those 

missions have evolved, and TRADOC also has become responsible for 

preparing the Army for war and functioning as the Army’s “architect of the 

future.” General William E. DePuy, TRADOC’s first commander, understood that the Army required sound training, coherent organization, modern weapon systems, and relevant doctrine. His successors built on that 

foundation and addressed the need for future planning.

Readers will learn that TRADOC’s story is generally one of success. 

Still, as this monograph is published in spring 2013, the full effects of 

about a dozen years of conflict in Southwest Asia as part of the Global War 

on Terrorism, the 2005 Base Realignment and Closure effort that largely 

concluded in 2011, and now the fiscal uncertainty caused by the budgetary 

process known colloquially as “sequestration” altogether are presenting 

TRADOC with a set of “postwar” challenges that bear useful comparison 

to those the nation and the Army faced when the command was established in the wake of Vietnam. Where these trials will take TRADOC in 

the years to come cannot, of course, be determined with certainty right 

now. Assuming that the past is a reliable guide to the future (which is one 

of the compelling justifications for the study of history in the first place), 

then the Army is likely to continue to need an organization to train and 

educate Soldiers, to formulate and promulgate doctrine, to devise and determine weapons and organizations, and to puzzle out tomorrow’s Army. 

TRADOC’s future survival, therefore, seems to be imperative to a successful US Army.

This latest version of Victory Starts Here provides an overview of 40 

years of TRADOC’s service to the Army and the nation. Victory Starts 

Here continues the condensed format begun with the 30-year history. 

Nonetheless, the TRADOC Military History and Heritage Office owes an 

ongoing debt of gratitude to the 1993, 1998, 2003, and 2008 editions that 

commemorated the command’s 20th, 25th, 30th, and 35th anniversaries, 

respectively. Mr. John L. Romjue, Dr. Susan Canedy, Dr. Anne W. Chapman, Dr. Henry O. Malone, Dr. James T. Stensvaag, Mr. Benjamin King, 
v

Ms. Carol J. Lilly, and others who contributed to those editions deserve 

our continuing thanks. Notwithstanding, the TRADOC Military History 

and Heritage Office accepts responsibility for errors and will gratefully 

receive corrections.

J. Britt McCarley, Ph.D.

Chief Historian

US Army Training and Doctrine Command

Fort Eustis, Virginia

2013
vi

Contents page

Foreword........................................................................................ iii

Preface............................................................................................ iv

Chapter I TRADOC: A Historical Summary ...................................1

Chapter II TRADOC Leadership .....................................................5

General William E. Depuy.........................................................5

General Donn A. Starry..............................................................6

General Glenn K. Otis................................................................7

General William R. Richardson .................................................8

General Carl E. Vuono...............................................................9

General Maxwell R. Thurman .................................................10

General John W. Foss...............................................................11

General Frederick M. Franks, Jr. .............................................11

General William W. Hartzog ...................................................12

General John N. Abrams..........................................................13

General Kevin P. Byrnes..........................................................14

General William S. Wallace .....................................................15

General Martin E. Dempsey ....................................................16

General Robert W. Cone ..........................................................17

Chapter III Force Design and Weapons Development...................19

Army of Excellence .................................................................19

Force XXI ................................................................................20

Transformation.........................................................................21

Army 2020 ...............................................................................22

Weapons and Equipment..........................................................23

The Global War on Terrorism (GWOT)...................................29
vii

page

Chapter IV Doctrine.......................................................................31

Doctrine 2015...........................................................................36

Chapter V Training and Leader Development ...............................39

Basic Officer Leader Course (BOLC)......................................50

Chapter VI TRADOC in the Joint Service Arena ..........................53

Chapter VII Organizational Structure ............................................63

Initial Subordinate Organization..............................................63

Headquarters Organization and Reorganizations.....................65

Installations and Changes, 1973–2003 ....................................67

Intermediate Level Changes, 1973–2003 ................................67

Schools.....................................................................................69

Training Organizations.............................................................71

Test Organizations....................................................................72

TRADOC Organization ...........................................................73

The Brigade Modernization Command (BMC).......................73

The Training Brain Operations Center (TBOC) ......................74

The TRADOC G-2 Intelligence Support Activity (TRISA)....75

US Army Accessions Command (AAC)..................................75

Deputy Commanding Generals (DCG)....................................75

DCG-Combined Arms/CAC Commanding General................75

DCG-Futures/ARCIC Director................................................76

DCG-IMT ................................................................................76

DCG-Army Reserve.................................................................77

DCG-National Guard...............................................................77

Deputy Chiefs of Staff (DCS)..................................................77
viii

page

Personal and Special Staff........................................................77

Schools.....................................................................................78

Centers of Excellence (CoE)....................................................79

Other TRADOC Major Subordinate Organizations.................80

Chapter VIII International Activities.............................................81

Standardization and Interoperability........................................81

Bilateral Staff Talks..................................................................83

Chapter IX 2005 Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC)............87

Farewell to Fort Monroe ..........................................................91

Glossary .........................................................................................93

Appendix Additional Reading......................................................101

Index ..........................................................................................109

About the Author..........................................................................119
ix

Figures page

Figure 1. TRADOC Headquarters, Fort Eustis, Virginia.................2

Figure 2. Artillery Training at Fort Sill, Oklahoma. ........................3

Figure 3. General DePuy..................................................................5

Figure 4. General Starry...................................................................6

Figure 5. General Glenn K. Otis. .....................................................7

Figure 6. General Richardson. .........................................................8

Figure 7. General Vuono..................................................................9

Figure 8. General Thurman............................................................10

Figure 9. General Foss. ..................................................................11

Figure 10. General Franks, Jr.........................................................12

Figure 11. General Hartzog............................................................12

Figure 12. General Abrams............................................................13

Figure 13. General Byrnes. ............................................................14

Figure 14. General Wallace............................................................15

Figure 15. General Dempsey..........................................................16

Figure 16. General Cone................................................................17

Figure 17. M-1 Abrams Tank, One of the “Big Five.”...................25

Figure 18. Mine-Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) Vehicle. ..30

Figure 19. FM 100-5, Operations, 1976.......................................31

Figure 20. FM 3-07, Stability Operations, 2008...........................35

Figure 21. ADP 3-0, Unified Land Operations, 2011. ...................36

Figure 22. Basic Training...............................................................41

Figure 23. Armor Officer Basic Course, 2/16 Cavalry..................50
x

page

Figure 24. General Cone and Lieutenant General David D. Halverson 

discuss joint observation with Lieutenant Colonel Rustan S. 

Swichtenberg, US Air Force, at Fort Sill, Oklahoma. ............... 55

Figure 25. Brigadier Richard W. Haldenby, Deputy Director of Joint 

Warfare for the British Armed Forces Command, talks with 

David G. Paschal, Deputy Director of Headquarters TRADOC 

G-2’s Training Brain Operations Center (TBOC) in Newport 

News, Virginia. ....................................................................59

Figure 26. TRADOC Organizational Chart 1973. .........................63

Figure 27. TRADOC G-Staff Organization 2007..........................67

Figure 28. TRADOC Organization in Early 2013 (drawn largely 

from various elements of TRADOC website)....................76

Figure 29. Lieutenant General Bruno Kasdorf, German Army 

Chief of Staff meets with LTG David Halverson, TRADOC 

Deputy Commanding General/Chief of Staff, and senior 

leaders at Headquarters TRADOC, Fort Eustis, Virginia. .83

Figure 30. LTG David Halverson, TRADOC DCG/CoS, visits with Major General Farah Mohamed, Tanzania People’s Defense 

Force Chief of Operations and Training, at Headquarters 

TRADOC, Fort Eustis, Virginia.........................................84

Figure 31. Fort Monroe, Virginia....................................................... 92
1

Chapter I 

TRADOC: A Historical Summary

Established in 1955, the Continental Army Command (CONARC) 

was responsible for all the active units and armies in the continental United States (CONUS) as well as training centers, schools, and doctrine development. The only activity for which it was not responsible was combat developments—the purview of the Combat Developments Command 

(CDC), which was established in 1962. By the early 1970s, it was evident 

that the span of control for CONARC was too large for a single headquarters. The Chief of Staff of the Army, General Creighton W. Abrams, Jr., 

initiated Operation STEADFAST, which was carried out by his Assistant 

Vice Chief of Staff, Lieutenant General William E. DePuy. As a result of 

Operation STEADFAST, CONARC was inactivated, and on 1 July 1973, 

two new organizations were activated in its place: the United States (US) 

Army Forces Command (FORSCOM) assumed control of the Active 

Duty armies and units in CONUS and the US Army Training and Doctrine 

Command (TRADOC) assumed control of training centers, Army schools, 

and doctrine development. CDC was also inactivated on 1 July 1973 and 

TRADOC assumed the mission of combat developments. Each command 

maintained its own installations until the US Army Installation Management Agency (IMA) (later US Army Installation Management Command) 

(IMCOM) assumed responsibility for all Army installations in 2002. The 

establishment of TRADOC was something revolutionary in the US Army. 

For the first time in its history, basic and advanced individual training, 

Army branch schools and Army colleges, Reserve Officers’ Training Corps 

(ROTC), analysis, doctrine development, and combat developments were 

all the responsibility of a single headquarters. That TRADOC was a major 

command (MACOM) under the leadership of a full general indicated its 

importance in the new scheme of things.

TRADOC put combat developments back into the schools and focused 

the development of the Army’s tactical organizations, weapons and equipment, doctrine, and the training of soldiers in that doctrine. It also needed 

to reorient the Army’s thinking toward the Soviet Union’s dangerous and 

growing strategic threat to the North Atlantic alliance. The situation was 

exacerbated by what military observers in the United States and Europe 

described as a lost decade of weapons development by the US Army, stemming from a 10-year concentration on fighting and equip- ping for the Vietnam conflict. TRADOC came into existence during the American defense 

policy reorientation from Vietnam to North Atlantic Treaty Organization 
2

Victory Starts Here

(NATO), Europe, and the challenge of the Warsaw Pact buildup. Those efforts fundamentally transformed the Army into a modernized, trained, and 

ready force—a significant component of the successful political-military 

challenge against which Communist power shattered and the Cold War 

ended in 1989–91. It was the highly trained, professional Army of Excellence (AOE) whose combat units helped restore democratic government 

to Panama in Operation JUST CAUSE in 1989–90 and later expelled the 

armies of Iraq from Kuwait in Operation DESERT STORM in 1991. This 

same Army increasingly provided peace operations and humanitarian relief in places such as Somalia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Haiti, and Rwanda; 

and aided victims following natural disasters and the terrorist attack on the 

Pentagon and the World Trade Center in September 2001.

Early in the 1970s, the United States found itself in a strategic situation 

in which a shift of power in favor of the political dynamic of revolutionary 

socialism was advancing worldwide. The United States’ strategic reversal 

in Southeast Asia seemed to question the continued validity of its long and 

hard-contested policy of Communist containment, with the bitter past and 

recent sacrifices of that historic effort. The gains of the worldwide Communist revolution in the 1970s, funded and supplied by the Soviet Union, 

and, to a lesser degree, by China, were dramatic and alarming. Revolutionary power seizures and military coups in Africa, South and Southwest 

Asia, and Latin America went forward largely uncontested by American 

policy makers of the middle and late decade.

The stunning reversal and sudden termination of that revolutionary 

impulse in the world-changing events from 1989 to 1991 created a new 

strategic world. By the early 1990s, the collapse of communism and the 

disintegration of the Soviet Union had ushered in a new world of power. 

Figure 1. TRADOC Headquarters, Fort Eustis, Virginia.
3

TRADOC: A Historical Summary

The United States remained as the single superpower in an international 

order in which it could act with greater freedom to support national independence and democratic and free-market institutions. The imperatives of 

that situation seemed to dictate a smaller Army, one whose readiness was 

assured by the transit of new technological thresholds. In the mid-1990s, 

TRADOC institutionalized these new directions as the mid-future Army 

XXI, which included Force XXI, the TRADOC-led effort to determine 

future force structure based on digitally equipped forces.

Beginning in late 1999, a number of major Department of the Army 

initiatives—collectively termed “Transformation”—looked to the weapons, force structure, training, and doctrine of the Army well into the 21st 

century. TRADOC was in the vanguard of that effort. The advances in 

technology indicated an evolution to a battlefield on which time, distance, 

movement, and firepower existed in relationships arising from the evidence of the extended reach and pinpoint accuracy of weapons brought 

to effect by near-real-time intelligence, detection, target acquisition, and 

communications technology. This advent of a new strategic world and the 

emergence of a higher level of technological warfare took place in the 

context of a US military establishment sharply drawing down in the wake 

of the retrenchment of Soviet power. Against this background of radically 

altered strategic assumptions came the attack on the United States on 11 

September 2001 and the Global War on Terrorism (GWOT).

Once again, TRADOC was challenged to develop doctrine and train 

soldiers for a type of warfare very different from that of the Cold War or 

the first Gulf War of 1990–91. The war in Afghanistan (2001-present) has 

Figure 2. Artillery Training at Fort Sill, Oklahoma.
4

Victory Starts Here

been primarily a counterinsurgency conflict while the War in Iraq (2003-

2011) was characterized by both conventional and counterinsurgency warfare. By its 40th anniversary in 2013, TRADOC faced challenges similar 

to those at the time of its establishment in 1973. With active conflict winding down and reduced resources setting in, the command looked ahead to 

creating an Army of Preparation in which the organization, weapons, and 

doctrine of Army 2020 would be developed.
5

Chapter II 

TRADOC Leadership

During its 40-year history, TRADOC has had 14 commanders and 

each made a unique contribution.

General William E. Depuy

General William E. DePuy served 

as TRADOC’s first commander from 

1973 to 1977. He initially addressed 

TRADOC’s mission to get the Army 

ready to fight the next war, and his primary concerns were improvements in 

individual training, better support for 

training in units, new training doctrine, 

and a new emphasis and direction for 

combat developments activities. To correct the training difficulties that resulted 

from the Vietnam War, DePuy adopted a 

“back to basics” approach. Officer training courses were to prepare officers for 

their next assignment, the physical aspects of basic combat training (BCT) 

were toughened, and advanced individual training (AIT) was made more 

performance oriented. Another of DePuy’s major projects was the production of “how to fight” manuals and films that set forth Army doctrine in 

simple language. In addition, the Army Training and Evaluation Program 

(ARTEP) brought standardization to Army training.

DePuy and the TRADOC staff also made combat developments a 

prime concern. The process had to be harnessed to the present and near 

future. Heavily influenced by the 1973 Yom Kippur War with its increased 

lethality, especially in armored warfare, DePuy adjusted his emphasis 

from training the Army to win battles to specifically winning the first battle of the next war. This was because the initial battle of the Yom Kippur 

War was so critical. Due to the small size of the headquarters staff, the 

functional centers and schools undertook a major portion of the combat 

developments mission and the systems acquisition process.

DePuy instituted the installation contract system as a major innovation 

for improving management of the TRADOC structure and its installations. 

That document provided a medium for agreement between each installation commander and the TRADOC commander, specifying the tasks to 

Figure 3. General DePuy.
6

Victory Starts Here

be performed and the resources provided. Believing that doctrine should 

emanate from the highest levels of leadership, DePuy created a Tactical 

Doctrine Office separate from both combat developments and training 

functions that reported directly to him. During his tenure, the capstone 

document, Field Manual (FM) 100-5, Operations, was significantly revised to provide the basis for the aforementioned “how to fight” series and 

came to play a more central role in defining Army doctrine.

General Donn A. Starry

General Donn A. Starry assumed 

command of TRADOC from General 

DePuy in July 1977. The key concept 

for internal affairs during his tenure 

was “decentralization.” Accordingly, 

he began a pronounced decentralization 

of major projects to the integrating centers and schools. Also in line with that 

approach was his decision to move the 

three-star TRADOC deputy commander 

position from TRADOC headquarters to 

Fort Leavenworth, Kansas.

With regard to doctrine, Starry 

sought to answer what had come to be 

a substantial discussion and controversy over the Active Defense concept 

of the 1976 version of FM 100-5. He brought to TRADOC the idea of 

an integrated and extended battlefield—the Central Battle—to engage the 

enemy not only at the point of attack but also in depth. Another revision of 

FM 100-5 began almost immediately. The concept required extension of 

the combat developments period out 8 to 10 years, departing from DePuy’s 

focus on near-term problems. Following this approach, Starry hoped to 

harness the combat power of the oncoming generation of weapons and 

other modernization efforts.

Starry inherited from DePuy a process already underway to restructure divisions. Accordingly, he redefined division restructuring within a 

larger context that resulted in the first Battle Development Plan in 1978. 

Conceptualization and studies defined Army 86, which together formed 

the framework for force development that replaced the DePuy division restructuring. The doctrinal premises grounding the studies became known 

as AirLand Battle.

In addition, Starry assumed and expanded DePuy’s initiatives on training in a program dubbed Army 1990. Of special concern was TRADOC’s 

Figure 4. General Starry.
7

TRADOC Leadership

promotion of the need for a Combined Arms and Services Staff School 

(CAS3) for captains. Subsequently, the findings of a panel known as the 

Review of Education and Training for Officers (RETO) revolutionized 

both organization and execution in TRADOC schools.

General Glenn K. Otis

General Glenn K. Otis followed 

General Starry as TRADOC commander 

in August 1981. Internal to the command 

were his “3Ms”—management goals of 

mobilization planning, maintaining the 

force, and modernization of the force. 

In all three areas, training stood first in 

his list of priorities. Mobilization planning involved development of programs 

of instruction, training base expansion 

capacity, and equipment requirements. 

Maintenance of the force concentrated on 

training and maintaining the momentum 

of the previous command. The challenges of force modernization included managing the phase-in of interim and 

new organizations and the development of support packages for training 

(spare parts, maintenance, and field manuals). Given the recommendations 

of the RETO Study, ongoing changes in enlisted training, and the implications of AirLand Battle doctrine, Otis tended to look ahead for approximately 10 years. At his last TRADOC Commanders Conference in the fall 

of 1982, Otis added a “fourth M”—military history.

Over the course of 1982, TRADOC headquarters, at General Otis’ behest, developed a set of command goals in line with the recently promulgated seven Army goals. The purpose was to identify clearly each of the 

roles TRADOC would play in support of the Army goals. The seven Army 

goals addressed the areas of readiness, the human element, leadership, materiel, future development, strategic deployment, and management. With 

TRADOC’s declared purpose to prepare the Army for war, its attendant 

missions as stated were to develop doctrine, to conduct and guide Army 

combat developments, to develop and maintain the Army training system, 

and to command installations and organizations. The development of a 

specific set of goals for TRADOC prioritized activities and served as a tool 

for the application of resources, a touchstone for defining future roles of 

the command, a resource for the development of a formal document that 

would come out during his successor’s tenure, and a measure for progFigure 5. General Glenn K. Otis.
8

Victory Starts Here

ress. The new version of FM 100-5 codifying AirLand Battle, begun under 

Starry, was published 1982.

Many substantial initiatives came to the fore during Otis’ 18-month 

term as commander of TRADOC. Late in 1981, Otis determined that the 

time had come to step back and evaluate what had been accomplished in 

the area of training and to plan for what would take place in the following 

decade. That initiative developed into the Army Training 1990 concept. In 

addition, a much greater use of simulators and simulations quickly developed. Significant also was the establishment of the School of Advanced 

Military Studies (SAMS), a postgraduate extension of the Command and 

General Staff College (CGSC) at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, focusing on 

the operational level of war. In the force design arena, “light versus heavy” 

debates intensified as the Army established a High Technology Test Bed 

(HTTB) at Fort Lewis, Washington, to experiment with lightening the infantry Division 86.

General William R. Richardson

General William R. Richardson followed General Otis as TRADOC commander in March 1983. In accordance 

with Secretary of the Army John O. 

Marsh, Jr.’s “Year of Excellence,” Richardson introduced the watchword for his 

tenure, “Excellence Starts Here.” Early 

in his command, he spelled out his priorities: better training, implementation of 

new doctrine, force modernization and 

integration, and mobilization of the Reserve Component. With regard to training, he expected to spend much time 

tying up the loose ends of Army 1990 

and overseeing a new initiative termed “School Model 86.” The former 

focused on performance-oriented training while the latter was an effort 

to give back to the director of training and the academic departments of 

the TRADOC schools the importance to resident instruction and doctrine 

writing he believed had been usurped over time.

Richardson was commander at a time when much of the work of his 

predecessors was coming to fruition across the Army. FM 100-5 had been 

written and promulgated, and the derivative manuals were being written 

in the schools; the training program was solidly emplaced; the development of the organizational design of the Army of Excellence (AOE) was 

Figure 6. General Richardson.
9

TRADOC Leadership

undertaken; and weapons systems were coming on line. One of the biggest 

challenges Richardson noted for TRADOC was the recruitment and retention of good people within the command. Perhaps his first priority was to 

change the attitudes of officers and soldiers who considered assignment to 

TRADOC a dead end. Richardson was responsible for the establishment 

of several new agencies and departments at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas. 

Believing the heart of the Army was TRADOC, and the heart of TRADOC 

was Fort Leavenworth, he continued development of SAMS, created the 

School for Professional Development, the Center for Army Leadership, 

the Combined Arms Training Activity (CATA), the Center for Army Lessons Learned, and the Combined Arms Operational Research Activity. A 

final significant reorganization was the transformation of the Deputy Chief 

of Staff for the Reserve Officers’ Training Corps (ROTC) into the ROTC 

Cadet Command as a major subordinate command of TRADOC.

General Carl E. Vuono

General Carl E. Vuono succeeded 

General Richardson in June 1986. He 

announced that his mission focus would 

have two aspects. Taking a somewhat 

more restricted view of the concept of 

preparing the Army for war than had 

Richardson, Vuono stressed that TRADOC had to not only prepare the Army 

for war in the present, but it must look 

farther ahead in time as the architect of 

the future. He stressed that TRADOC 

must consider the whole spectrum of 

war, and while addressing current challenges, not neglect the goals into 6 major 

imperatives: doctrine, organization, training, leader development, materiel, and soldiers (DOTLMS). TRADOC’s responsibility was to ensure 

understanding of what the Army must be to win on the future battlefield. 

That understanding would provide vision and direction for the Army.

Vuono instituted guidelines for doctrinal development and derived 

the concept of the advanced collective training facilities, which led to the 

opening of the Joint Readiness Training Center (JRTC) at Fort Chaffee, 

Arkansas, and the Combat Maneuver Training Center (CMTC) at Hohenfels, Germany, and the initiation of the Battle Command Training Program 

at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas. Efforts in force modernization concentrated on improved application of the Concept Based Requirements System 

Figure 7. General Vuono.
10

Victory Starts Here

and a new emphasis on a system of systems approach to equipment modernization. Leader development was concentrated in the development of 

small group instruction and the invigoration of the Noncommissioned 

Officer Education System (NCOES). His program of “leading and caring” stressed excellence both in individuals and in installations of which 

they were a vital part. The TRADOC Long-Range Plan, published in May 

1987, was perhaps Vuono’s most ambitious effort. Designed to support 

TRADOC’s mission as the architect of the future, the plan constructed a 

vision of the command 10 years out based on Army long-term planning, 

the program objective memorandum (POM), and TRADOC goals.

General Maxwell R. Thurman

General Maxwell R. Thurman replaced General Vuono as TRADOC 

commander in June 1987 and stressed 

the command’s role as the key player in 

shaping the “azimuth for the Army of the 

future.” As set forth in a program known 

as “Vision 91,” Thurman’s stated objective was to serve the Army in the field. 

That would be accomplished by writing 

the doctrine by which it would fight, testing that doctrine for soundness, designing well-balanced and capable forces, articulating the equipment requirements of 

the commanders in the field, providing 

combat-ready soldiers to units around the world, and developing future 

leaders.

Vision 91 examined the central question of how the command should 

position itself to meet the challenges of 1991 and beyond. That period 

would be a time of substantial manpower and funding constraints. Vision 

91 sought to address the evolution of doctrine, especially in the joint arena; 

a more focused force design; a system-of-systems approach to materiel development; full-service leader development; tough, realistic training; and 

well-developed mission support capability.

While Vision 91 addressed the immediate period, Thurman developed 

a 30-year TRADOC Long-Range Planning Vision, which solicited the 

thoughts of the subordinate commanders toward the further development 

of a new long-range plan.

Figure 8. General Thurman.
11

TRADOC Leadership

General John W. Foss

General John W. Foss assumed the 

leadership of TRADOC in August 1989, 

as the Army began a period of downsizing 

and strategic reorientation. A variety of 

factors—international, national, political, 

and economic—had combined to compel 

the Army to change into a more flexible, 

smaller force. The concept of the three 

TRADOC integrating centers, which had 

traditionally been part of the organization, gave way in 1990 to two major subordinate commands: the Combined Arms 

Command (CAC) and the Combined 

Arms Support Command (CASCOM). 

Also in October 1990, TRADOC eliminated the installation contract by which the TRADOC commander had 

managed the outlays of the installations since the mid-1970s.

As the effects of geopolitical change were felt during the 1990s, the 

primary focus of the Army began to shift to the projection of land combat 

power from CONUS, as well as from forward-deployed forces where possible. That had implications across the force, from warfighting doctrine to 

organizational structure to equipment to training.

Foss addressed doctrinal challenges and changes through AirLand 

Battle-Future studies, doctrinal discussions, and map exercises, focusing 

on the nonlinear battlefield and the doctrine, organization, and logistics it 

would require. AirLand Battle-Future, later termed AirLand Operations, 

became the driving concept for TRADOC. Further, Foss directed the beginning of a revision of FM 100-5 to expand the doctrine into the strategic 

realm, although Operations DESERT SHIELD and DESERT STORM in 

1990–91 interrupted the effort.

General Frederick M. Franks, Jr.

General Frederick M. Franks, Jr. became the eighth TRADOC commander in August 1991. Franks set down his ideas regarding TRADOC’s 

future in five points: lead the Army through intellectual change, sustain 

excellence and relevance in training and leader development, propose 

modernization alternatives to maintain the technological edge for soldiers 

on future battlefields, foster organizational excellence, and focus on soldiers. The new TRADOC commander began anew the doctrinal revision 

Figure 9. General Foss.
12

Victory Starts Here

of FM 100-5. Convinced that doctrine 

was the basis of change and had to be a 

centerpiece of TRADOC activity, revision of FM 100-5 became a top priority 

to lead the Army through the intellectual 

readjustment from the Cold War to the 

post-Cold War Army. In addition, Franks 

instituted battle laboratories as a means 

to develop the capabilities for a force 

projection Army. The battle laboratories 

focused on the areas where the battle appeared to be changing and encouraged 

experimentation using simulations, prototypes, real soldiers, and real units to 

make the best use of technology and new requirements.

In his long-range planning guide for TRADOC, Franks interpreted 

TRADOC’s missions specifically. They were to set training standards and 

run the Army schoolhouse, provide modernization alternatives while representing the user to allow the Army to retain the battlefield edge, help the 

Army look to the future in warfighting, and foster organizational excellence.

General William W. Hartzog 

General William W. Hartzog became the ninth commanding general of 

TRADOC in October 1994. Like Franks, 

Hartzog’s efforts to meet the challenges 

of being the TRADOC commander took 

place against a background of a new 

global reality in which the primary concern was no longer a classic European 

air and ground war, but rather the possibility of many small operations. Further, the dramatic downsizing of forces 

to levels not seen since the pre-World 

War II era also shaped Hartzog’s and the 

command’s thinking and policy. Another 

factor that he had to consider in shaping the force of the future was the 

Army’s increasing involvement in peace operations, nation-building, and 

humanitarian relief.

Figure 10. General Franks, Jr.

Figure 11. General Hartzog.
13

TRADOC Leadership

Hartzog’s thinking about the 21st century Army was set down in the 

Force XXI Operational Concept. The key to the developmental work on 

Force XXI was a digitized Experimental Force (EXFOR) that stood up at 

Fort Hood, Texas, in 1994. Central to the shape of future forces was a series of advanced warfighting experiments (AWE) beginning in April 1994, 

prior to Hartzog’s arrival at TRADOC, and continuing through March 

1998. Looking even further into the future was an Army After Next project 

that sought to establish criteria for the Army by 2020.

Hartzog’s tenure saw the publication of two versions of TRADOC 

Pamphlet 525-5, Force XXI Operations, based on the Force XXI concept 

and leading to the publication of a new FM 100-5, Operations. The concept also guided the development of tactics, techniques, and procedures 

(TTP) to be employed by the EXFOR in executing the various AWE. In 

turn, TTP supported further doctrine development for the execution of operations across the seven battlefield operating systems and at each echelon 

of operations.

General John N. Abrams

General John N. Abrams began his 

4-year command of TRADOC in September 1998. His vision for the command 

was to prepare the Army for decisive victory in the full range of required joint and 

combined operations. This focus meant 

providing soldiers and leaders with disciplined training based on fully developed 

doctrine, leader development, organizations, and materiel. It also meant providing a readiness infrastructure for training 

and projecting Army forces. Coupling 

that determination with the requirement 

to transform the Army’s education and 

training, Abrams led the Army’s effort to rethink the entire leader development process, including resident training, advanced distance learning, 

and individual study. 

During Abrams’ command, two forces of change were propelling the 

Army in new directions: the ongoing efforts to make the Army more deployable and the revolution in computer and communications technology 

that had the potential of increasing battlefield awareness at all levels. In 

an address on 12 October 1999, Chief of Staff of the Army General Eric 

Figure 12. General Abrams.
14

Victory Starts Here

K. Shinseki made the case for transformation of the Army, specifying 

the need for both doctrinal and materiel change. A large portion of the 

challenges posed fell on TRADOC as the Army’s architect of the future. 

Responsibility of a brigade coordination cell for designing two Interim 

Brigade Combat Teams (IBCTs) at Fort Lewis, Washington, also fell to 

TRADOC.

To further the understanding of possible future warfare, Abrams instituted a series of Seminar War Games (SWG) beginning in July 2001. The 

SWG simulated the long-range deployment of an interim force and looked 

to define the objective force of the future and the Future Combat System 

(FCS). Transformation also called for a revision of the Army’s capstone 

doctrine, FM 100-5, Operations. A new version, renamed and carrying the 

joint Services number of FM 3-0, was published in the summer of 2001. 

The new doctrine was clearly cognizant of the changes in the nation’s geostrategic position and addressed the problems of deployment, asymmetric 

warfare, and the need for joint operations from major theaters of war to 

humanitarian relief.

Effective 15 February 2002, the US Army Accessions Command 

(AAC) was established as a subordinate command of TRADOC. The new 

command included the US Army Cadet Command, the US Army Recruiting Command, and the US Army Training Center, Fort Jackson, South 

Carolina. The purpose of establishing the command was to combine accessions and initial entry training (IET) under a single headquarters.

General Kevin P. Byrnes

General Kevin P. Byrnes assumed 

command of TRADOC in November 

2002 and was the first TRADOC commander whose entire tenure occurred during wartime. Reassessing the command’s 

missions, he strongly reaffirmed that 

training and leader development would 

be TRADOC’s number one priority, especially at the IET and NCOES levels. 

Quality instructors and exported training, 

to reach soldiers wherever they served, 

would also be important. In addition, Byrnes stressed innovation, jointness, accession and recruiting, development of the 

future force, and people. As part of the development of the future force, 

Figure 13. General Byrnes.
15

TRADOC Leadership

Byrnes emphasized a sense of urgency in helping the Army accelerate the 

transformation process and in enhancing the credibility of current Transformation initiatives, especially by soliciting ideas and proposals from 

industry. Perhaps even more important was the necessity to demonstrate 

the links between Army transformation and Department of Defense joint 

initiatives, to include joint exercises. Byrnes planned for TRADOC to become a futures command that would serve the Army well on the fielding 

of the Objective Force and be a link to Joint Forces Command (JFCOM) 

and the other Services.

In line with Byrnes’ goals, TRADOC headquarters was reorganized, 

and a Futures Center was established in October 2003. The center realigned functions and resources from the TRADOC staff and the objective 

force task force to develop and integrate into a joint warfighting environment, all aspects of the future force from concepts to capability. It was 

tasked to develop and integrate joint and Army concepts, architectures, 

and doctrine, organizations, training, materiel, leadership and education, 

personnel, and facilities doctine, organizations, training, material, leadership and education, personel, and facilities (DOTMLPF) capabilities.

General William S. Wallace

General William S. Wallace assumed 

command of TRADOC in October 2005. 

Like his predecessor, he was a wartime 

commander. Wallace’s view was that 

TRADOC was the architect of the Army 

to shape both today’s Army and the future combat force. The mission of TRADOC was to recruit, train, and educate the 

Army’s soldiers; develop its leaders; support training in units; develop doctrine; 

establish standards; and build the future 

Army. General Wallace also believed that 

TRADOC thought for the Army. As such, 

it had to meet the demands of a nation 

at war while simultaneously anticipating solutions to the challenges of 

tomorrow. To do this required changes in the way TRADOC viewed its 

mission. All activities were directed to provide input that reflected and assisted with the Contemporary Operating Environment (COE). Basic and 

advanced training were conducted to reflect the wartime challenges faced 

by soldiers in the field. Because much of the military operations occurred 

in cities in Iraq, military operations in urban terrain (MOUT) became part 

of training as did training in dealing with different cultures. Stability opFigure 14. General Wallace.
16

Victory Starts Here

erations became the key to success, and doctrine needed to reflect this. 

When General Wallace assumed command, the existing edition of FM 3-0 

was already 4 years old and had been published prior to the attacks on the 

World Trade Center and the Pentagon on 11 September 2001. The 2008 

version of FM 3-0 was evolutionary but had four revolutionary aspects. It 

stressed the importance of stability operations with a “whole government 

approach,” it acknowledged the critical nature and influence of information operations, it forged an operational concept that drove initiative and 

embraced risk to create opportunities, and it emphasized the central role 

of the commander in full spectrum operations. To accomplish TRADOC’s 

missions, Wallace set the command’s priorities as safety; supporting our 

nation at war; recruiting and training quality warriors; developing adaptive, innovative leaders; and designing the Army’s modular force. He also 

coined the motto “Victory Starts Here.”

There were three significant reorganizations of TRADOC during General Wallace’s tenure as commander. Under Wallace, TRADOC continued 

to design the current Army modular force and the future combat force. 

The Futures Center established under General Byrnes grew and became 

the Army Capabilities Integration Center (ARCIC) in 2006. In 2007, the 

TRADOC staff was reorganized to more closely align the command’s responsibilities with those of the Army Staff. The numerous changes made 

TRADOC more responsive to Army missions. The third change occurred 

near the end of Wallace’s tenure when the US Army Accessions Command 

became directly subordinate to the Department of the Army in October 

2008.

General Martin E. Dempsey

General Martin E. Dempsey assumed command of TRADOC on 8 December 2008. Prior to his assignment at 

TRADOC, Dempsey was the Deputy 

Commander of US Central Command, 

later serving as Acting Commander of the 

same from 28 March to 30 October 2008. 

Upon his assumption of TRADOC’s command, Dempsey was presented with a 

unique set of challenges. He was a wartime commander because the army was 

still fighting in Afghanistan, but resources 

were being reduced. Because he was new 

to TRADOC, Dempsey allowed himself Figure 15. General Dempsey.
17

TRADOC Leadership

90 days before he promulgated a vision for the command. One problem 

he saw was the time it took to get new doctrinal material to the field and 

make revisions to training. Rather than have a completely hierarchical organization in which most major decisions were made by the commanding general, Dempsey decided that TRADOC should be decentralized and 

become “commander–centric.” This allowed the commanders of the relatively newly established Centers of Excellence (CoE) and the school commandants to make appropriate decisions while the TRADOC Commander 

concentrated on the future. Another of Dempsey’s goals was to streamline 

the processes that generated products. The development of adaptive leaders was Dempsey’s top priority. Another one was his support of the Army 

Force Generation (ARFORGEN) model. One of the significant milestones 

of Dempsey’s tenure was the publication of TRADOC Pamphlet 525-3-0, 

under the title The Army Capstone Concept—Operational Adaptability: 

Operating Under Conditions of Uncertainty and Complexity in an Era of 

Persistent Conflict. It described what the future Army must do as part of 

the joint force to achieve the nation’s strategic objectives. It was predicated on the Army’s enduring missions and the future operational environment. On 11 April 2011, Dempsey left TRADOC to become the Chief of 

Staff of the Army, and then on 1 October 2011, he became Chairman of 

the Joint Chiefs of Staff. General Dempsey is first former TRADOC Commanding General to achieve the latter position.

General Robert W. Cone

As of the publication of this short history, General Cone has been Commanding 

General of TRADOC for about two years. 

He assumed command of TRADOC on 29 

April 2011 after serving as Commander, III 

Corps and Fort Hood, Texas, and Deputy 

Commanding General-Operations for US 

Forces-Iraq. Like his most recent predecessors, he is a wartime commander facing a 

number of unique challenges, one of which 

has been the move of the Headquarters TRADOC from Fort Monroe, Virginia, to nearby 

Fort Eustis, Virginia, as a result of the 2005 

Base Realignment and Closure Act (BRAC) 

process. After several years of preparation, the Headquarters arrived at its 

new location in summer 2011 with minimal interruption in operations. As 

the conflict in Afghanistan has continued to wind down, General Cone has 

faced the task of reorienting training, doctrine, and materiel development 

Figure 16. General Cone.
18

Victory Starts Here

from an Army of Execution to an Army of Preparation. This has meant 

developing doctrine to prepare the Army to fight both conventional and 

asymmetrical warfare and prepare adaptive leaders for that type Army. A 

major change in the presentation of doctrine has been the publication of 

Army Doctrinal Publications (ADP) in place of the field manuals that had 

been the mainstay of Army doctrine publications for over a century. ADP 

3-0, Unified Land Operations, was short and covered military principles 

that tended to change little over time. Other publications covering the operational and tactical levels of war were intended to be more detailed and 

subject to more frequent changes. All of these publication were becoming 

Internet based to provide the most rapid and widespread distribution to 

multiple audiences, including field units.
19

Chapter III

Force Design and Weapons Development

TRADOC designed the “TOE Army,” which meant more than 1,200- 

odd tables of organization and equipment (TOE) for “type” units from 

platoon through corps and above. This was a continuous process because 

organizations changed with new weapons, equipment, and doctrine. Since 

TRADOC’s establishment in 1973, the command designed and implemented the major division reorganization known as the Army of Excellence (AOE) and began to define the nature of the force 20 or more years 

into the 21st century. This “objective force” and a weapons and equipment 

“system of systems” known as the Future Combat System (FCS) were major components of a larger set of Department of the Army (DA) initiatives 

called Transformation. By the early 21st century, TRADOC was attempting to design rapidly deployable modular forces capable of deployment 

anywhere in the world on short notice.

Army of Excellence

The TRADOC-designed Army of Excellence (AOE), implemented by 

the Department of the Army (DA) from 1984 to 1986, was the first major 

reorganization of the tactical army since the Reorganization Objective, 

Army Divisions (ROAD) of the early 1960s. The TOE of the AOE supported AirLand Battle doctrine and the generation of weapons introduced 

in the 1970s and 1980s. The AOE owed much to the Division Restructuring Study (DRS) of 1976 as well as the Division 86 project and the Army 

86 studies that followed. Both studies were influenced by the lessons of 

the Yom Kippur War of 1973 and focused on heavy armor and mechanized 

infantry divisions. DA approved neither, and General Donn A. Starry began anew, because the heavy division was critical to operations in Europe 

during the Cold War. Studies of Division 86 (nonmechanized), Corps 86, 

and Echelons Above Corps 86 were completed in 1980. After crises in Afghanistan and Iran in the same period, Army 86 planners began studies of 

rapidly deployable units, because US Army forces also had to be prepared 

to meet contingencies in the non-NATO world.

In 1980, the Chief of Staff of the Army established a High Technology 

Test Bed (HTTB) in the 9th Infantry Division at Fort Lewis, Washington, 

to test concepts toward development of a lighter “high technology light 

division.” TRADOC and the Army Materiel Command (AMC) cooperated with the division’s parent commands, I Corps and the Army Forces 

Command, in this effort. Although valuable ideas emerged from the test 
20

Victory Starts Here

bed, no high-technology light division was fielded because of a lack of 

funding. This was a major dilemma. Heavy divisions were needed to meet 

the mechanized threat posed by the Warsaw Pact, and the Army had a fixed 

end strength of 780,000 personnel. The problem ended in June 1983 when 

Chief of Staff of the Army General John A. Wickham, Jr. directed the 

TRADOC commander, General William R. Richardson, to design a new, 

strategically deployable light infantry division with a strength of approximately 10,000 personnel that was globally deployable in approximately 

500 airlift sorties. To achieve this end, Wickham gave Richardson the authority to review and redesign the entire TOE Army. Undertaken by the 

Combined Arms Center (CAC) with support from the TRADOC branch 

schools, the AOE effort developed and put in place the force designs of 

the 1980’s Army. All elements of the tactical Army were reexamined. The 

AOE organizations modified but did not replace Army 86 designs. The 

notable exception was the new light infantry division, which was a threebrigade organization with a strength of 10,800 men. It was designed to 

operate in cities, forests, and mountain areas where heavy forces were at a 

disadvantage, and to buy time for heavy forces that deployed more slowly. 

The design was certified by the 7th Infantry Division (Light) at Fort Ord, 

California, and supported by the TRADOC test organizations from 1984 

to 1986.

In AOE, TRADOC force designers reduced the heavy divisions to approximately 17,000 personnel. Significant transfers from division to corps 

in field artillery, air defense artillery, and combat aviation left the divisions 

smaller and with less organic combat power. The redesigned corps thus 

provided a more powerful fighting organization at the operational level of 

war. The AOE design of heavy divisions and corps moved Army tactical 

organizations more fully into consonance with doctrine at the most significant level of organization. There was criticism that AOE had overemphasized combat power at the expense of support units, was too light, and 

lacked tactical mobility, but it met the challenge of deterring the Soviet 

threat in the Cold War. It also began the development of lighter, more rapidly deployable forces.

Force XXI

The search for a successor to AOE began on 8 March 1994 when 

Army Chief of Staff General Gordon R. Sullivan directed the start of a 

major campaign effort to lead to the future Army in the early years of the 

next century. The Force XXI redesign was supposed to be the last of the 

major operational Army reorganizations of the 20th century. That initia-
21

Force Design and Weapons Development

tive, however, would give way to the Transformation effort directed by 

Army Chief of Staff General Eric K. Shinseki beginning in late 1999.

The Force XXI project was a significant departure from previous efforts. It was the first force redesign effort in which newly emergent, computer-driven, constructive, and virtual simulation methods, equipment, 

and software were joined to live field simulations to test and analyze 

military unit designs. In addition, the multiyear Force XXI design effort 

was the first to invent and embody in those heavy fighting units a linked, 

instantaneous, and common situational awareness of the battlefield and 

the three dimensions affecting it. “Digitization” was the rubric given this 

revolutionary emerging capability. In support of Force XXI, TRADOC 

began several major projects. First, the capstone “how to fight” doctrine 

was brought up to date in 1993 in FM 100-5, Operations. A year later, 

the command published TRADOC Pamphlet 525-5, Force XXI Operations, a concept for the Army of the 21st century. Also in 1994, TRADOC 

accepted a project known as “Joint Venture,” and proceeded to redesign 

the operational Army on a new information-or-knowledge basis. Concurrently, a modern Louisiana Maneuvers (LAM) task force, begun in 1992, 

developed scenarios for the Army of the future.

From 1993 to 1995, TRADOC developed the concept for a key development vehicle for Force XXI, a division-sized Experimental Force 

(EXFOR). Late in 1994, the Army established the 4th Infantry Division, 

Mechanized, at Fort Hood, Texas, as a test bed for Force XXI. Beginning in 

1994 and continuing into 1998, TRADOC fielded several advanced warfighting experiments (AWE) to carry through a sequence of experiments 

and simulations to examine the emerging digitization concept. Bearing 

names such as Desert Hammer VI, Roving Sands, Prairie Warrior, Mobile Strike Force, Focused Dispatch, and Warrior Focus, these exercises 

and experiments from platoon to theater levels were variously directed 

by TRADOC’s battle laboratories and CAC’s National Simulation Center.

Transformation

As TRADOC looked forward to the 21st century, the Force XXI operational concept was not a finished product. The developmental work to 

lead an Army capable of executing Force XXI concepts remained to be 

completed. Then, 12 days into fiscal year 2000, the new Army Chief of 

Staff led the Service in a radically different direction. As noted above, 

Army Chief of Staff General Eric K. Shinseki announced on 12 October 1999 his plans for “Transformation” or for an Army transformed into 

one that was more “responsive, deployable, agile, versatile, lethal, surviv-
22

Victory Starts Here

able, and sustainable.” Transformation was seen as a sweeping program 

to enhance the Army’s capabilities and change how it would fight in the 

post-Cold War world. Combat-ready brigades in the target Army would be 

deployable anywhere in the world in 96 hours.

The transformed Army would be comprised of three key elements: 

the legacy force, the interim force, and the objective force. The legacy 

force centered on the major weapons systems that the Army currently had 

in its inventory. The interim force would provide crossover capabilities 

between the legacy force and the objective force during the development 

of the latter. The objective force was envisioned as a totally revamped 

Army with regard to equipment, organization, and training. The backbone 

of the interim force would be six to eight Interim Brigade Combat Teams 

(IBCT), the first two of which were established at Fort Lewis, Washington, 

beginning in 2000. These experimental units operated under the direction 

of TRADOC’s Deputy Commanding General for Transformation and a 

brigade coordination cell at Fort Lewis.

The FCS would be the primary weapons and troop carrying platform 

for the objective force. The FCS was envisioned as a “system of systems” 

employing a common vehicle platform. For the IBCT in the interim period, the Army chose a wheeled light armored vehicle known as the LAV 

III, later renamed Stryker. In July 2001, to help design a force projection 

Army that was decisive across the full spectrum of conflict in the 21st century, TRADOC commander General John N. Abrams established Seminar 

War Games (SWG) at the headquarters. Those fora brought together senior leaders, representing all the Army’s functions and responsibilities, to 

play out scenarios. To operate in a nonstandard environment they created 

“units of action” and “units of employment” that were significantly different from the “companies,” “battalions,” and “brigades” with which many 

participants were familiar. This allowed the creation of new types of units 

without ties to organizations of the past. Transformation initiatives represented an all-encompassing effort to accomplish the Army’s vision and to 

change the way the Army thought, trained, and fought.

Army 2020

As the war in Iraq ended and the war in Afghanistan was winding 

down, the strategic security environment for the United States remained 

complex, competitive, and unpredictable, and it promised to remain so 

for the foreseeable future. The US remained the preeminent global power 

but faced a host of complex relationships with competitors and partners. 

Further, global economic conditions forced many nations, including the 

US, to make hard fiscal choices. As the Army changed to meet its evolving 
23

Force Design and Weapons Development

requirements, it had to continue embracing its key characteristics of adaptability, flexibility, responsiveness, and depth, along with its experience of 

operating among populations across a variety of missions and activities. 

The future operational environment required that the Army prepare ready 

forces for a range of military operations and activities broader than its current counterinsurgency focus. The most significant of these developments 

were TRADOC’s Army 2020 efforts. This series of studies and projects 

pursued many of those holistic objectives. The overarching Army of 2020 

goal was to determine how to make the transition from the force of 2013 to 

the Army of 2020 in an era of fiscal austerity and still accomplish all that 

the Army must do as part of the joint force. This goal was designed to better support the full range of joint force commanders’ future requirements, 

creating opportunities to better achieve national objectives.

Weapons and Equipment

A major mission assigned to TRADOC on 1 July 1973 was combat developments—the systematic development of new and improved organization, equipment, weaponry, and doctrine. Combat developments had come 

to TRADOC from the former Combat Developments Command (CDC). 

The merger of combat developments with the training mission in one command guided the 1973 Army reorganization to reorient combat developments to the present and near future, and to apply new and improved 

materiel, organization, and doctrine to field units quickly. The reorganization decentralized the combat developments mission to the Army’s branch 

and service schools and placed the function with training.

Four basic elements constituted the TRADOC combat developments structure—the Deputy Chief of Staff for Combat Developments at 

the headquarters, the functional centers (renamed integrating centers in 

1976), the schools, and the test and evaluation agencies. TRADOC directed its combat developments responsibilities through the Deputy Chief 

of Staff for Combat Developments, which was established as the focal 

point for assigning projects and allocating and accounting for resources. 

Until 1990, the three functional centers directly subordinate and reporting 

to TRADOC headquarters—the Combined Arms Center (CAC) at Fort 

Leavenworth, the Logistics Center at Fort Lee, and the Soldier Support 

Center at Fort Benjamin Harrison—directed, coordinated, and integrated 

the combat developments work of the Army schools with which each was 

functionally associated. At the next level were the branch and specialist 

schools where the commandants had responsibility for both combat developments and the training and education missions. The fourth aspect of the 

combat developments system within TRADOC was a series of agencies 
24

Victory Starts Here

designed to provide data and reports from tests and experiments keyed 

to specific concepts and projects. Two of the most influential were the 

Combat Developments Experimentation Command (CDEC) at Fort Ord, 

California, and the Modern Army Selected Systems Test Evaluation and 

Review (MASSTER), an agency at Fort Hood, Texas.

The three major combat developments concerns were materiel, organization, and doctrine. Materiel development was a joint effort of TRADOC as the primary combat developer and AMC as the primary materiel 

developer. TRADOC played three essential parts in the effort. The first 

was to formulate and document requirements for specific materiel. The 

second was to monitor AMC development continuously, undertaking operational tests and analyses at critical points. The third role was to redraw 

organizations and refashion tactics as necessary to accommodate the new 

item. The combat developer determined a weapon’s need and operational 

specifications, monitored its development, and determined its ultimate issue to and use by the Army in the field.

The Middle East War of October 1973 was significant to the decision of where to place the combat developments function, and the Operation STEADFAST reorganization placed it in TRADOC. Members 

of TRADOC studied the war intensively, paying particular attention to 

the tremendous attrition of materiel and unparalleled lethality of modern 

weaponry. Those lessons greatly shaped the vision of modern war. Crucial 

to reform of the tactical force was recognition that modern armies in the 

1970s were crossing a technological threshold. The lethality of fire, the 

tempo of battle, and the immense attrition of the Middle East War had 

demonstrated a quantum leap in weapons technology.

TRADOC took a total systems approach to weapons development, 

bringing trainers, logisticians, and personnel managers into the process 

early. The total systems methodology spawned the concept of the TRADOC System Managers (TSM), formally approved in March 1977. The 

TSM represented all major weapon and materiel systems in development 

and functioned with the power and authority comparable to the project 

managers of AMC. The TSM was charged with integrating and organizing the development process. Introduction of a new Concepts-Based Requirements System (CBRS) in 1980 provided a development schematic, 

the goal of which was to place fighting concepts at the beginning of all 

TRADOC’s products across the board—doctrine, materiel requirements, 

organizations, and training developments. 

As management techniques and strategies were devised and emplaced, 

the 1970s and 1980s witnessed the launching of one of the most massive 
25

Force Design and Weapons Development

modernization programs in the history of the Army. The “Big Five” systems of greatly increased combat power included the M-1 Abrams main 

battle tank, the M-2 and M-3 Bradley Fighting Vehicles, the Black Hawk 

and Apache helicopters, and the Patriot air defense missile. The Multiple 

Launch Rocket System (MLRS) was also developed and fielded, as were 

individual equipment and electronic warfare protection devices. Anticipating a smaller force after the Vietnam drawdown, the ability to catch and 

keep the technological edge in weapons and equipment was imperative.

The modernization wave that began in the immediate post-Vietnam 

era crested in 1983. From that point, development was slower and more 

sporadic. By the late 1980s, modernization planning was less dramatic 

and aimed more at a coordinated effort, reduced budgets, and available 

resources. For instance, in 1986, the Department of the Army commissioned the Armored Family of Vehicles Task Force to examine the next 

phase of modernization. The emerging concept was that of an armored 

family of vehicles to be built around two common chassis. A total, phased 

replacement of the tracked and wheeled fleet would ensure compatibility, commonality, and survivability. Simultaneously, block improvements 

were projected for the Abrams main battle tank and the Bradley Fighting 

Vehicle. Upgrades were also planned for the AH-64 Apache.

The success of the total modernization effort was demonstrated in Operations DESERT SHIELD/STORM in 1990 and 1991. All of the “Big 

Five” systems were deployed and performed beyond expectations. The 

Figure 17. M-1 Abrams Tank, One of the “Big Five.”
26

Victory Starts Here

Apache attack helicopter, the Black Hawk transport and utility helicopter, 

the Abrams main battle tank, the Bradley Fighting Vehicle, and the Patriot 

missile system validated the combat developments process and products. 

The Army Helicopter Improvement Program (AHIP) had resulted in the 

OH-58D armed Kiowa Warrior, which flew close reconnaissance and attack support for the Apache. Likewise deployed and successful were the 

Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS), the longest-range surfaceto-surface missile in the Army inventory, along with its companion the 

MLRS. Additionally, unmanned aerial vehicles, the Joint Surveillance and 

Target Acquisition Radar System (JSTARS), and the XM40 series protective mask were success stories of Operation DESERT STORM.

In TRADOC’s first two decades of combat developments, the command witnessed a massive modernization program for large end-items 

that was justified by a serious security threat. Adequate resourcing and 

enlightened leadership resulted in the Abrams M-1 Tank and the Bradley 

Fighting Vehicle, which were still in service nearly three decades later. 

With the collapse of the Soviet Union, the need for weapons designed to 

fight a major heavily-armed adversary waned. The Army downsized and 

evolved from a forward-based force to a force projection one. In the new 

strategic environment, where asymmetrical warfare was the predominant 

type of conflict and heavy weapons such as the Crusader 155-mm howitzer and the Comanche helicopter were canceled, weapons like the Stryker 

light armored vehicle developed. As costs rose and numbers of weapons 

declined, technology had to be harnessed to ensure the new generations of 

weapons were more accurate and lethal than their predecessors.

With decreased funding levels, equipment requirements shifted to 

focus on long-term development and acquisition. Weapons systems had 

to provide broad coverage in low-, mid-, and high-intensity conflicts as 

well as contingency and special operations. The Department of the Army 

proposed four principles to guide modernization decisions: key future 

modernization programs would be protected, some current major weapons 

systems would be terminated, investment in product improvements and 

systems modifications would be restricted, and new technologies would 

be advanced.

On the management side, the concept of battle laboratories located 

at key centers and schools evolved during late 1991 and early 1992 as 

TRADOC reassessed requirements for the post-Cold War Army. Without 

a clear external threat driving requirements, concepts of warfare and the 

associated equipment needed to be reevaluated. The battle laboratories 

were designed to be the institutional means to determine, develop, and ex-
27

Force Design and Weapons Development

periment with equipment and technology, organizational design, and training. The trend in combat developments, with battle laboratories assisting, 

would be for fewer starts and dollars, higher technology, better integration, 

and more focus on joint efforts.

As TRADOC reached its 25th anniversary in 1998, the US Army’s 

modernization objectives were to project, sustain, and protect the force; 

win the information war; conduct precision strikes; and dominate the maneuver battle. Those objectives were formally set forth in the Army Modernization Plan update published in May 1994. The Modernization Plan 

and the Force XXI process were designed to move the Service to Army 

XXI, beginning with a conceptual base and continuing forward to postfielding improvements. Declining defense resources and downsizing of 

the force made it necessary for the Army to analyze future warfighting 

capabilities with an eye to development and fielding of battlefield systems 

that best supported the Army envisioned in the next century. TRADOC, as 

the architect of the future Army, continued to fulfill that role. But as the 

command reached its 30th year, the road to the Army of the 21st century 

had taken some sharp turns as the Transformation initiatives looked to a 

lighter, more deployable force by 2020.

The Transformation effort did not displace all of the tenets of Force 

XXI. Indeed, it built on many of them. The importance of projection and 

sustainment of the force could not be overstated. The Army of the 21st 

century had to be a smaller, continental United States (CONUS)-based 

force that required the ability to project and sustain its power anywhere in 

the world. To realize that objective, Army systems had to be light, lethal, 

and modular, so more capability could be achieved with fewer resources. 

The Army also needed to have sufficient strategic and tactical lift assets 

to move its forces around the globe. The Army had to project forces efficiently by taking advantage of new technologies to move only what was 

absolutely necessary. Improved logistical information systems and a new 

emphasis on split-based operations were designed to allow the Army to 

sustain its forces while projecting fewer support elements. In addition, 

there were new missions to be taken into consideration such as humanitarian relief. Modernization for the Army of the 21st century included denying information to the enemy through secure communications and direct 

attack against enemy command, control, communications, computers, and 

intelligence (C4I) assets. Joint efforts to expand their own C4I assets were 

designed to give US forces a complete picture of the battlefield that could 

be transmitted to all units. The Army Battle Command System with its 

many components would link commanders at all echelons. Global Posi-
28

Victory Starts Here

tioning System (GPS) receivers provided precise targeting and navigation 

data. A new information architecture also included communications systems to securely and rapidly move data from point to point.

A number of weapons and equipment projects underway promised to 

support the transforming Army deep into the 21st century. Of special importance was a vehicle for the interim force and an FCS that would provide an integrated “system of systems” for the soldier of the future. On 15 

April 2002, the Army accepted early editions of its new interim armored 

vehicle for the IBCTs. Known as the LAV (light armored vehicle) III, it 

was earlier renamed “Stryker” in February 2002. The Stryker was a 19-ton 

eight-wheel armored vehicle that would provide the Army with 10 different variations from infantry carrier vehicles to reconnaissance and medical evacuation vehicles. The new vehicles had robust armor protection, 

could travel at speeds of about 60 mph, and possessed common parts and 

a self-recovery capability. The Stryker also was designed to be deployed 

by C-130 aircraft and to be combat-capable on arrival in any contingency 

area.

The FCS program was a collaborative Defense Advanced Research 

Projects Agency (DARPA)/US Army project to design and demonstrate 

combat systems that could be the centerpiece of the Army’s future objective force. TRADOC’s role as the Army’s combat developer placed the 

command at the forefront of defining what was needed and how systems 

should be integrated. Transformation planners envisioned FCS as a networked force consisting of separate robotic direct fire, indirect fire, and 

sensor platforms controlled by a manned command-and-control platform. 

The FCS was intended to involve both ground and air systems, connected 

through a sophisticated sensor and communications network.

Also under development for the objective force was the RAH-66 Comanche helicopter. More than 20 years in development, the Comanche 

was expected to operate either as a stealthy reconnaissance system or as a 

highly lethal attack platform. Concurrently, the Army was testing a tactical 

unmanned aerial vehicle (TUAV), known as “Shadow,” which was meant 

to accompany initial-entry ground forces to transmit pictures of a battlefield back to a ground station. Resembling a radio-controlled aircraft, the 

newest TUAV had a 13-foot wingspan and could stay aloft over a target 

for 5 to 6 hours. Also being tested were prototypes of a High Mobility 

Artillery Rocket System (HIMARS), one of the Army’s new light artillery systems. Transportable in a C-130 aircraft, the early-entry artillery 

platform could launch the entire family of MLRS and ATACMS munitions 
29

Force Design and Weapons Development

to a range of 300 kilometers. HIMARS was designed to engage tube and 

rocket artillery, air defense concentrations, trucks, and light-armor personnel carriers.

The Global War on Terrorism (GWOT)

In addition to developing doctrine and materiel for the future, TRADOC was also concerned with developing the same for the Global War on 

Terrorism (GWOT), which began after the terrorist attacks on 11 September 2001. The challenges ranged from the application of conventional doctrine during the initial stages of the invasion of Iraq to supporting asymmetrical operations in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Material developments 

included the development of systems very different from the tanks, fighting 

vehicles, and rocket launchers of the 1980s. Examples are the Enhanced 

Logistic Off-Road Vehicle (ELSORV), under test in Afghanistan, and the 

Counter Radio-Controlled IED Electronic Warfare (CREW), a device for 

jamming the signals that detonate improvised explosive devices (IED).

One of the most successful counter-IED designs was the Mine-Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicle. Instead of a single design, it 

was a family of vehicles produced by a variety of domestic and international companies that generally incorporated a “V”-shaped hull and armor plating intended to provide protection against mines and IEDs. The 

Department of Defense (DOD), per joint service requirements, detailed 

three categories of MRAP. These included Category I vehicles, weighing about seven tons and capable of carrying six passengers; Category II 

vehicles, weighing about 19 tons and capable of carrying 10 passengers; 

and Category III vehicles, intended to be used primarily to clear mines 

and IEDs, weighing about 22.5 tons and capable of carrying up to 12 passengers. Vehicles fitting these descriptions were in use by the US Army 

and US Marine Corps (USMC) by 2003 but in very limited numbers and 

for specialized missions, such as Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) and 

other route-clearance work. These vehicles quickly gained a reputation 

for providing superior protection for their crews, leading to a suggestion 

that similar vehicles might be a better alternative for transporting troops 

in combat than uparmored High-Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicles 

(HMMWV). Large scale production of the MRAP began in 2007, and 

28,000 vehicles were produced before the program ended in 2012. 

The Giraffe Radar, which was primarily an air-defense radar, could be 

linked with a sensor system to aid the ground battle. The Battlefield Target 

Identification Device (BTID) is a combat identification system that increases combat effectiveness by minimizing false targeting errors, thereby 
30

Victory Starts Here

reducing fratricide or friendly fire combat losses. The Tactical Ground Reporting System combines a database of information about the war along 

with maps, which allows junior officers to study the terrain in light of past 

incidents and share information about conditions on the ground. Troops 

were shown a prototype by DARPA in late 2006, and the current version 

was introduced in 2007. During this period, unmanned aerial vehicles 

(UAVs) have been under constant development and have been used for 

reconnaissance and attack. However, not all developments were new, as 

the need for convoy defense saw a renewed interest in the same type of 

gun trucks used for convoy escort during the Vietnam War.

As the Army reduced its commitment in Iraq and Afghanistan, 

TRADOC faced challenges similar to those it faced in 1973 when it was 

established. After a long period of counterinsurgency warfare, it faced an 

uncertain future in preparing the Army for conflict in the years ahead. In 

that regard, the weapons and equipment for Army 2020 were yet to be 

developed.

Figure 18. Mine-Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) Vehicle.
31

Chapter IV

Doctrine

The year TRADOC came into existence saw the end of the US Army’s 

involvement in the Vietnam War and the end of the Arab–Israeli War. Vietnam focused the Army’s attention on counterinsurgency warfare against 

an elusive foe. Conversely, the Arab–Israeli War was a conflict unprecedented in tempo, lethality, and consumption of resources. Significant 

in themselves, these events occurred against a background of concerns 

over increasing Soviet power across the globe. It was obvious to General 

William E. DePuy, first Commanding General of TRADOC, that existing 

Army doctrine had to be revised. Thus, in 1974, DePuy began the process 

of change by sending letters to some of the TRADOC school commandants and by initiating a series of conferences to discuss the Middle East 

War and changes in Soviet doctrine. Not satisfied with the long process of 

developing new Army doctrine, TRADOC schools developed circulars on 

“how to fight.” Traditionally, the Combined Arms Center (CAC) at Fort 

Leavenworth, Kansas, was the agency assigned to write “capstone” doctrine such as field manuals (FM), but after several conferences concerning 

the issue, the task of writing a new FM on operations was transferred from 

CAC to the Concepts Branch of Headquarters, TRADOC, in 1975. The 

new FM 100-5, Operations, was published in June 1976.

The new FM 100-5 principally focused on potential conflict against the Soviets in Europe. It recognized the reality of 

the modern battlefield with its 

increased operational tempo and 

its increased lethality and that 

US forces needed to “fight outnumbered and win.” There was 

also emphasis on winning the first 

battle. The perception was that the 

United States had seldom won the 

first battle, because of the defeat 

at Kasserine Pass in World War II 

and Task Force Smith in Korea. The overall doctrine was called Active 

Defense. Despite its acknowledgment of a new strategic situation and the 

enhanced lethality of the modern battlefield, the 1976 edition of FM 100-5 

created considerable controversy. Broadly, the criticism centered on three 

Figure 19. FM 100-5, Operations, 1976.
32

Victory Starts Here

issues. First, the doctrine was defensive in nature and perceived by some 

to be an all or nothing defense without a substantial reserve. Second, the 

preoccupation with the first battle seemed to be a commitment to fight that 

battle without consideration of subsequent operations. Third, and perhaps 

most significant, the Active Defense was seen as tied too specifically to 

one Soviet operational maneuver that called for a massive armored breakthrough that was typical of World War II. Soviet doctrine, however, had 

also changed and called for multipronged attacks across the front seeking 

to exploit a weak point. As published, the 1976 FM 100-5 was a tactical 

manual of limited focus. While it addressed the Soviet threat to NATO, it 

did not address US responsibilities in other parts of the world nor did it 

address joint operations or counterinsurgency warfare.

As early as 1976–77, there were efforts underway to redefine the battlefield of the near future. Lieutenant General Donn A. Starry spearheaded 

these efforts while he was V Corps commander in Europe. Earlier as Chief 

of Armor, he had contributed greatly to the 1976 edition of FM 100-5 

and its Active Defense approach. As V Corps commander, however, Starry 

had gained a new appreciation of up-to-date Soviet doctrine and capabilities. In V Corps, the aspects of what Starry referred to as the Central 

Battle, such as the ranges and numbers involved, were fully analyzed. He 

realized that the commander’s view of the battlefield had to be wider and 

deeper than previously indicated by Active Defense. When Starry became 

TRADOC commander, these considerations became paramount in revising FM 100-5. During the same period, General Edward C. Meyer, Chief 

of Staff of the Army, recognized a need for the Service to be more responsive to global needs, hence more deployable. There was also the need to 

revise doctrine to reflect the more current Soviet threat. A major influence 

on Starry’s concept of the Central Battle was a study at the Field Artillery 

School, Fort Sill, Oklahoma, begun at his request. The study suggested 

interdicting targets deep in the enemy rear to disrupt the Soviet second 

echelon during an assault. That study also projected cooperation with the 

US Air Force, which led to the need for an integrated battle across a wider, 

deeper battlefield. By 1980, the Central Battle idea became known as AirLand Battle and the draft of a new FM 100-5 had begun. In addition to 

the recognized principles and fundamentals of war, AirLand Battle called 

for depth, agility, and synchronization, as well as an insistence on initiative on the part of leaders at all levels. Published in August 1982, the new 

FM 100-5 became the cornerstone of US Army doctrine. It was revised 

in 1986, and AirLand Battle remained doctrine through the Gulf War of 

1990–91. The 1982 and 1986 editions of FM 100-5 were improvements 

over the 1976 edition in that they briefly addressed joint operations and 
33

Doctrine

contingency operations; however, they remained Eurocentric and did not 

address counterinsurgency warfare.

With the demise of the Soviet Union, the strategic position of the United States changed drastically. Although in 1991 US and allied divisions 

smashed Iraqi military power using AirLand Battle doctrine, a philosophy 

that centered on fighting a major land power on the continent of Europe 

was no longer relevant. At the end of the Cold War, the United States 

emerged as a truly global power with the means to project its influence. 

Unfortunately, that did not mean peace. In the last decade of the 20th century, nearly half the countries in the world faced some sort of armed conflict, which included ethnic strife, political insurgencies, terrorism from 

political or transnational entities, or criminal elements that often masqueraded as political movements. The fall of the Soviet Union revealed challenges that were far more complex than were evident during the Cold War. 

The danger of facing a potential adversary in a land war that might turn 

nuclear was lessened, only to reveal multiple threats to the United States 

that did not originate in Moscow. This complex situation became known 

as asymmetric warfare, which included threats from diverse sources such 

as conventional forces, terrorists, and criminals. TRADOC commander 

General John W. Foss began the revision of Army doctrine in 1989. The 

Gulf War, however, delayed further developments.

On taking command of TRADOC in August 1991, General Frederick 

M. Franks Jr. set as his primary goal the revision of FM 100-5 and its publication by early 1993. In addition, he envisioned Army doctrine moving 

in a different direction than had his predecessor. Thus, the writing team at 

Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, was changed and the new team worked to produce a manual that was less a tactical treatise than the two preceding versions and more a statement of the Army’s position in a world that required 

deployment from CONUS rather than a forward-based Army. It stressed 

the numerous missions the Army faced in the current strategic environment and took a realistic view of joint requirements in future operations. 

General Franks was careful to ensure Army-wide consensus prior to publication and that the other US Services were privy to the elements of the 

new FM 100-5. In this way, it was a public document from its early stages 

and most of the criticism had been met prior to publication. FM 100-5, 

released in June 1993, scrapped the designation AirLand Battle. Because 

Franks did not want to focus attention solely on Army–Air Force cooperation, he did not select a single term to replace AirLand Battle. However, in 

the introduction to the 1993 FM 100-5, Franks insisted that AirLand Battle 

evolved into a variety of choices for a battlefield framework and a wider 
34

Victory Starts Here

inter-Service arena that allowed for the increasing incidence of combined 

operations.

During his tenure as TRADOC commander, Franks worked closely 

with Chief of Staff of the Army General Gordon R. Sullivan to change 

doctrine. In Exercise Desert Hammer, new versions of the M1 tank were 

tested at the National Training Center (NTC) in what would come to be 

considered the first advanced warfighting experiments (AWE). Franks also 

looked for a way to test the concept of Army XXI. Another aspect of the 

change in doctrine was the effort of the battle laboratories to explore the 

various aspects of the future battlefield. Their focus included maneuver, 

maneuver support, fire support, combat service support, and the new electronics aspects that included computers as well as more traditional electronic equipment on the battlefield. All of these fell loosely under the auspices of General Sullivan’s concept referred to as the modern Louisiana 

Maneuvers (LAM), a reference to the Army’s famous training maneuvers 

in 1940 that led to significant reorganization. The modern LAM concept 

was a process that brainstormed new ideas. Although a Department of the 

Army initiative, the LAM task force was headquartered at Fort Monroe, 

Virginia, in part because of Sullivan’s heavy reliance on the TRADOC 

commander, General Franks.

For the next decade, the changing international situation demonstrated 

the need for another update of FM 100-5. The plan for a modified version 

of the manual tentatively scheduled for 1996, however, was put on hold. In 

1999, Chief of Staff of the Army General Eric K. Shinseki made the case 

for both doctrinal and materiel changes in the Army, initiatives known 

collectively as Transformation. A large portion of the challenges posed 

fell on TRADOC as the Army’s architect of the future. At the same time, 

TRADOC was undergoing serious reductions in resources and personnel 

that affected both training and doctrinal development capabilities.

To further the understanding of possible future warfare, General John 

N. Abrams instituted a series of Seminar War Games (SWG) in July 2001 

and revitalized a class of planning documents referred to as “O&O” for organization and operations. The SWG enabled the review process for O&O 

and simulated long-range planning for an interim and then an objective 

force. The initial purpose of the SWG was to help design a force projection 

army that was decisive across the full spectrum of conflict on the 21st century battlefield. The SWG particularly addressed the challenges raised by 

the revolution in computer and graphics technology. A TRADOC brigade 

cell at Fort Lewis, Washington, tracked and analyzed two Interim Brigade 

Combat Teams (IBCT), which were also located there, and they tried new 
35

Doctrine

concepts for the future battlefield. Their idea resulted in a complete revision of the 1993 FM 100-5. To emphasize the break with the past, the joint 

numbering system of FM 3-0 was adopted for the new manual, which was 

cognizant of the changes in the nation’s geostrategic position. It clearly 

addressed the problems of deployment and asymmetric warfare and the 

need for joint operations in nearly every aspect of operations, from major 

theaters of war to humanitarian relief. The “Transformation” FM 3-0 was 

published in June 2001.

After the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001, TRADOC also had to 

support the war on terrorism. The command produced O&O for the Army 

on force protection and assessed the impact on the changed world situation 

on all other aspects of doctrine development. Especially critical was the 

development of joint doctrine that in the past had proceeded slowly and 

without the desired integration. As the Army became involved in Iraq and 

Afghanistan in both conventional and counterinsurgency situations, the 

need for an improved FM 3-0 became evident. The new manual, published 

in February 2008, was a significant improvement over its predecessor. It 

addressed the current realities of an unstable world in which the threat was 

constantly changing. In addition to emphasizing information warfare in 

conjunction with conventional and counterinsurgency warfare, it gave full 

weight to stability or civil support operations as part of the full spectrum 

of warfare.

Another notably important doctrinal publication was the update of FM 

3-07, Stability Operations,

in October 2008, which 

represented a milestone in 

Army doctrine. Unlike previous editions, it was designed as a road- map from 

conflict to peace. It institutionalized the hard-won 

lessons of the past while 

charting a path for the future. The manual focused 

on achieving unity of effort through a comprehensive approach to stability 

operations and remained consistent with a broader “whole of government” 

approach to those same operations. 

Figure 20. FM 3-07, Stability Operations, 2008.
36

Victory Starts Here

Doctrine 2015

As of the publication of this monograph, 

Doctrine 2015 has been 

an initiative to provide 

clear, concise, current, 

and accessible doctrine 

to the field. Doctrine 

is important to the US 

Army, as it provides a 

body of knowledge that 

serves as the foundation 

for the Profession and 

for the successful execution of Unified Land 

Operations. Doctrine 

2015 has accelerated the implementation of new doctrine across the force 

by providing the US Army with a completely revised structure of manuals. The top level of manuals will be Army Doctrinal Publications (ADP) 

that are only 10-15 pages in length. Supporting references, Army Doctrine 

Reference Publications (ADRP) and FMs, increase in length and depth 

of information. Doctrine 2015 has made these references available at the 

point of need through interactive media such as mobile applications. Additionally, Army Techniques Publications (ATP) will offer a “wiki” means 

of contributing to doctrine development. Doctrine 2015 has been in the 

process of capturing the essential lessons learned from 10 years of persistent conflict in Southwest Asia. It leverages a broader range of available 

collaborative technologies including wiki, interactive media instruction, 

video books, blogs, and social media. Most importantly, it has made doctrine more accessible to Soldiers. The first step in Doctrine 2015 was the 

publication of a series of ADPs. The first one was ADP 3-0, Unified Land 

Operations, which was published in 2011, and replaced the venerable FM 

3-0, Operations. The final edition of FM 3-0 was published in 2008. It 

was the last of the printed doctrinal manuals that had begun as Field Service Regulations in 1905. The purpose of ADP 3-0 was to provide a common operational concept for a future in which Army forces would need 

to prepare to function across the range of military operations, integrating 

their actions with joint, interagency, and multinational partners as part of 

a larger effort. Not counting appendices, ADP 3-0 was only 14 pages long 

and available on the Internet. 

Figure 21. ADP 3-0, Unified Land Operations, 2011.
37

Doctrine

The rest of the ADPs were:

1. ADP 1, The Army, September 2012.

2. ADP 1-02, Operational Terms and Military Symbols, August 

2012.

3. ADP 2-0, Intelligence, August 2012.

4. ADP 3-05, Special Operations, August 2012.

5. ADP 3-07, Stability, August 2012.

6. ADP 3-09, Fires, August 2012.

7. ADP 3-28, Defense Support of Civil Authorities, July 2012.

8. ADP 3-37, Protection, August 2012.

9. ADP 3-90, Offense and Defense, August 2012.

10. ADP 4-0, Sustainment, July 2012.

11. ADP 5-0, The Operations Process, May 2012.

12. ADP 6-0, Mission Command, May 2012.

13. ADP 6-22, Army Leadership, August 2012.

14. ADP 7-0, Training Units and Developing Leaders, August 2012.

39

Chapter V

Training and Leader Development

With the establishment of TRADOC, the Army’s training system began a major transformation. While many changes were evolutionary, they 

resulted in a revolutionary departure from the Vietnam era. The architects 

of this revolution were General William E. DePuy and his Deputy Chief 

of Staff for Training, Major General Paul F. Gorman. The latter was an 

advocate of performance-oriented training, which meant setting training objectives by carefully determining the tasks to be trained. After the 

objectives were set, the conditions under which the training was to take 

place were determined and the standards were established. Gorman and 

his “apostles and disciples” as DePuy later called them, also brought to 

training development an appreciation of rapidly advancing technology and 

an understanding of how it could be applied to training. In 1973, soldiers 

and officers were trained in accordance with the Army Training Program 

(ATP), which had been in use since World War I. The ATP prescribed the 

hours devoted to each subject and task. It was based on a conscript Army 

that had sufficient time to raise, equip, and train a combat force prior to 

its commitment to combat. With the beginning of the all-volunteer force 

in 1973, planners could no longer depend on an influx of draftees to meet 

their manpower needs. Other factors TRADOC had to consider in building a new training system were the post-Vietnam downsizing of the Army 

and the shrinking defense budgets of the 1970s. The Army needed better 

training that was more efficient and cost effective.

The lethality and ranges of the weapons used in the 1973 Arab–Israeli 

War brought home to DePuy and Gorman the tremendous importance of 

well-trained crews and tactical commanders. They agreed that the Army 

needed a “train-evaluate-train” program that required soldiers to perform 

to established standards. The program had to be progressive and sequential so that each level provided a foundation for the next higher one. They 

also believed that individual training in units was neglected and focused 

TRADOC’s effort there. Gorman’s idea was to reorient the TRADOC 

school system so it had a larger training intent than an educational one. 

Finally, both men believed a solid link had to be established between doctrine and training. Thus, the revision of FM 100-5, Operations, in 1976 

recognized the Service schools as the “Army’s source of combat developments and doctrine.”

Basic to the process of change was the adoption of a systems approach 

to training (SAT). The SAT consisted of five interrelated phases: analysis, 
40

Victory Starts Here

design, development, implementation, and evaluation. All issues involved 

in systems training, unit training, individual training, and training support 

were studied following the SAT model. In the face of decreasing budgets, 

it was obvious to TRADOC’s leaders that much individual training would 

have to be conducted in units. As a result, training developers began to create and field several programs to bring the training to the soldier. The Army 

Training and Evaluation Program (ARTEP) was a new performance- oriented program for collective training that placed responsibility for training 

directly on the unit. New skill qualification tests (SQT) were designed to 

provide an indicator of a soldier’s proficiency in his military occupational 

specialty (MOS). The self-development test, a follow-on program to the 

SQT, was eliminated in 1995. An updated and revised training and doctrinal literature program included soldiers’ manuals that set forth what the 

Army expected a soldier to know and be able to perform at each skill level. The new program also included commanders’ manuals, field manuals, 

“how to fight” manuals, technical manuals, and training circulars. To meet 

increasing manpower shortages, DePuy and Gorman greatly expanded a 

training extension course program, begun under Continental Army Command (CONARC), designed to export training to the field.

DePuy and Gorman also initiated changes in the initial entry training (IET) program and the Noncommissioned Officer Education System 

(NCOES). In July 1974, a new basic combat training (BCT) program was 

implemented that stressed discipline, decentralization to the lowest possible level, and the teaching of basic combat skills. TRADOC also made 

a major change in the structure of BCT. A new one-station unit training 

(OSUT) plan integrated some BCT and advanced individual training 

(AIT) into cohesive programs. That action meant fewer soldiers undergoing IET would have to take the two phases at two different locations, 

which saved travel costs. TRADOC also established a progressive and 

sequential NCOES in line with the Officer Education System (OES). Generals DePuy and Gorman left TRADOC headquarters in June 1977, but 

their reforms provided the foundation for a continuing training revolution. 

Their programs were revised, increased, and in some cases deleted; nevertheless, the changes from 1977 to 2008 did not undo their work.

During TRADOC’s first 40 years, it employed a number of school 

models and long-range training plans to guide the command in fulfilling 

its mission to train the Army’s soldiers and officers. School Model 76, 

TRADOC’s first, replaced the one operated by CONARC before Operation STEADFAST. It clearly demonstrated DePuy’s interest in training as 

opposed to education and Gorman’s interest in advanced technology. General DePuy directed his staff to develop new organizational concepts that 
41

Training and Leader Developmentl

would modernize and bring greater efficiency to the schools. School Model 76 was based on the premise that the commandants were responsible for 

the interface between combat developments and training developments. 

The combat developments function of the school created new weapons 

requirements, tactics, and tactical and support organizations, all based on 

approved doctrine. Training development personnel were responsible for 

resident training, extension training, simulation devices and simulators, 

and training literature to ensure the optimum employment of combat developers’ products. DePuy wanted the schools to be less instructor intensive and to take advantage of existing technologies.

Another initiative that affected the TRADOC schools was the establishment in 1982 of a military history education program, designed by 

the new Combat Studies Institute at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas. TRADOC 

Regulation 350-13, Military History Education Program (MHEP), first 

published in January 1982, formally established the effort and vested proponency for MHEP with the TRADOC chief of staff, and established command policy for the study of military history in the TRADOC Service 

schools and in senior ROTC detachments. The TRADOC MHEP was intended to foster a sense of historical mindedness in the Army community, 

resulting in sensitivity to the intellectual and functional values of military 

history as a necessary component of professional education and development.

In 1983, proponency for MHEP management shifted to the Combined 

Arms Center (CAC) commander with executive agency given to the Director, Combat Studies Institute. Also that year, a revised TRADOC Regulation 350-13 placed the requirement for instruction in military history 

with uniformed officers outside the command history program and made 

Figure 22. Basic Training.
42

Victory Starts Here

no provision for utilizing civilian branch historians in MHEP. However, 

as the TRADOC history program grew in the field, commandants used 

the branch historians to coordinate MHEP in their commands and to serve 

as adjunct instructors. By 2003, a majority of branch historians served 

frequently as adjunct instructors of military history. In August 1992, the 

proponency for TRADOC’s military history education program returned 

to TRADOC headquarters. At 35 years, TRADOC Regulation 350-13 encompassed heritage instruction in BCT as well and was once again being 

revised to reflect visions of a transforming Army.

By the summer of 1982, problems inherent in School Model 76 were 

evident. The most notable problem barred instructors in the academic 

departments from participating in training developments and combat developments. Almost immediately after the model’s adoption, the schools 

requested exceptions to that policy. A working group established by TRADOC Commander General Glenn K. Otis recommended the adoption of 

a new school model that integrated the future direction of the Army with 

the school model. By abandoning a reactive approach, TRADOC would 

be in a posture to participate actively in designing the way it operated in 

the future. The new model combined combat developments and training 

developments in the same directorate, thereby bringing training developments and evaluation into the system acquisition process earlier. Thus, 

evaluation could serve to provide information on the potential successes 

or failures associated with total system fielding. In 1983, TRADOC Commander General William R. Richardson approved School Model 83, giving back to the schools’ directors of training and the academic departments much of the responsibility for training developments they had lost 

in School Model 76.

In conjunction with a continuing assessment of TRADOC school organization, TRADOC Commander General Carl E. Vuono directed the 

development of a long-range plan to guide the command for 10 years into 

the future. TRADOC published its long-range plan in May 1987. Meanwhile, TRADOC training planners began writing “Army Training 1997” 

in support of that plan. Army Training 1997 was based on an unsuccessful 

earlier effort known as Army Training 1990. Specific guidance included 

the integration of Reserve Component training throughout the document 

under a “Total Army” concept. Additional emphasis was given to developing joint and combined operations and to the distributed training system. 

Army Training 1997 was published in September 1987. Major changes 

included in the final version dealt with leader development, future technology strategy, the connection between training developments and combat 

developments within the Concepts-Based Requirements System (CBRS), 
43

Training and Leader Developmentl

combat training centers, embedded training, and small group instruction. 

The long-range strategy provided for a new training system for warrant 

officers and a strong emphasis on civilian leadership training. The plan 

also included the results of an important study undertaken to draft a set of 

standards to improve training effectiveness and guide the evolution of IET.

In the fall of 1988, TRADOC Commander General Maxwell R. Thurman called for a reassessment of TRADOC’s status and the command’s 

short-term priorities. In a concept termed “Vision 91,” he outlined how the 

command should fulfill its mission through 1991 with regard to doctrine, 

force design, equipment requirements, leader development, training, and 

mission support. Training had to be consistent with doctrine, embedded 

into the development of new equipment, and made an integral part of force 

modernization. Institutional, unit, and individual training had to focus on 

teaching warfighting skills in a tactical field environment to produce soldiers who understood the specific tasks of their jobs and could perform 

them to established standards. According to Vision 91, training plans had 

to make use of technological advances, especially computer-based teaching and testing and the simulation of force-on-force maneuvers.

Concurrently, an Army Training 21 (not to be confused with Army 

Training XXI) concept was being developed. That plan laid down the specifics for developing a long-range “umbrella” training strategy for the late 

1990s and the first 20 years of the 21st century. It included such training strategies as distributed training, strategies based on the technical requirements of each MOS, civilian vocational and technical training for 

appropriate MOS, training in colleges and universities, recruiting by ability instead of aptitude, and reconfiguring the TRADOC school system to 

be more responsive to projected training requirements in the year 2020. 

For several years, suggested solutions to problems were tried, studied, and 

revised. In the end, the demands first of Army XXI and then of the various transformation efforts changed many of the parameters of the earlier 

initiatives.

As Thurman looked at how the command could best meet its responsibilities to 1991, TRADOC’s training managers were examining School 

Model 83 for needed changes. School Model 89 eliminated the “School 

Secretary” organizations at TRADOC schools, aligned the threat support 

office under the assistant commandant, and limited the number of training 

departments to four. Because of the number of requests for exemptions, 

which had to be considered on a case-by-case basis, School Model 89 was 

not implemented until 1990.
44

Victory Starts Here

Meanwhile, it was clear that the Army needed a new capstone training manual to keep pace with evolving training plans and doctrine. TRADOC’s new training philosophy was contained in FM 25-100, Training 

the Force, published in 1988 to take its place alongside FM 100-5, Operations, and FM 22-100, Military Leadership, as part of a trilogy of “train, 

fight, lead” manuals. FM 25-100, however, focused primarily on senior 

Active and Reserve commanders above battalion level. There was also a 

need for additional guidance to better apply the concepts of FM 25-100 

at battalion and company level. Accordingly, FM 25-101, Battle Focused 

Training, published in 1990, was developed to fill the void and serve as a 

“how to” manual for units in the field. In October 2002, the Army distributed FM 7-0, Training the Force, as an update to FM 25-100. This was in 

line with the adoption of the joint numbering system. Likewise in 2003, 

FM 7-1, Battle Focused Training, superseded the 1990 FM 25-101. The 

new manual was designed to bring training doctrine more in line with the 

emerging operational environment.

An important facet of the TRADOC training story was the command’s 

efforts to take advantage of ever more sophisticated technology that could 

be applied to training. This was increasingly evident in the transformation 

efforts of the late 20th and early 21st centuries. During the DePuy–Gorman years, several tactical engagement simulation systems were in use 

to support unit training in the field. One of these was known as squad 

combat operations exercise, simulated (SCOPES). SCOPES was designed 

to eliminate the judgment of umpires that was highly subjective, and featured a 6-power telescope mounted on a rifle with numbers affixed to each 

individual soldier for the identification of casualties. A similar system for 

training tank crews called REALTRAIN had a 10-power scope. In the early-to-mid-1970s, TRADOC began developing a more sophisticated tactical engagement simulator for use in force-on-force field training exercises. 

That system, the Multiple Integrated Laser Engagement System (MILES), 

revolutionized collective training in the Army. The upgraded MILES continued to be the Army’s most innovative and effective training device in 

2008.

From its inception, TRADOC was responsible for the development 

of dozens of system and non-system training aids and devices. Most were 

computer-based and designed to allow training when space, safety, cost, 

or environmental considerations might have prevented it. Simulators and 

simulations such as the Simulation Network (SIMNET), which joined 

more than 200 simulators, allowed units to participate in simulated battles 

without leaving home station. In the early years of the 21st century, SIM-
45

Training and Leader Developmentl

NET technology was applied to the development of a family of Combined 

Arms Tactical Trainers (CATT). A family of simulations (FAMSIM) allowed for training in command and control from platoon level to echelons 

above corps. DePuy’s and Gorman’s faith in the value of advanced technology applied to training, and the imagination and support of their successors placed the Army first among the Services in the field of training 

technology. It was rapidly advancing technology, too, that allowed for the 

establishment of the Army’s Combat Training Center (CTC) program. In 

1976, Major General Gorman began developing a concept for a national 

training center where heavy armored and mechanized infantry units could 

train in force-on-force and live-fire exercises and where data could be collected to support doctrine development, combat development, and a lessons-learned system. The first force-on-force maneuvers were conducted 

at the US Army National Training Center (NTC) at Fort Irwin, California, 

in January 1982.

The NTC was a joint TRADOC–Forces Command (FORSCOM) 

project. The major features of the training center were the employment of 

MILES for casualty assessment and a sophisticated data collection system 

for exercise control, a TRADOC Operations Group, a superbly trained 

opposing force (OPFOR), expert exercise observer-controllers, after action reviews of unit performance, and take-home packages designed to aid 

units in correcting deficiencies while training at home station. The success 

of the NTC in training heavy mechanized forces led the Army to establish 

the Joint Readiness Training Center (JRTC) for the training of light forces. 

In October 1987, the JRTC opened at its temporary home of Fort Chaffee, 

Arkansas. Like the NTC, it featured a TRADOC Operations Group and an 

OPFOR. Unlike the NTC, the JRTC was a TRADOC-only endeavor until 

it moved to a permanent home at Fort Polk, Louisiana, in 1993. At that 

time, the JRTC also became a TRADOC–FORSCOM effort. In 1988, the 

Army planned to establish a Combat Maneuver Training Center (CMTC) 

at Hohenfels, Germany, to provide the same realistic combined arms training exercises for troops in Europe as those at the NTC. Meanwhile in early 

1987, the Chief of Staff of the Army approved the concept of the Battle 

Command Training Program (BCTP) to train Active and Reserve division 

and corps commanders, their staffs, and major subordinate commanders in 

warfighting skills.

In May 1987, NTC, JRTC, CMTC, and BCTP were brought under a 

single training “umbrella” and became known as the CTC. Collectively, 

the CTC projects focused on integrating all elements of combat power 

and were designed to provide tough, realistic combined arms and services 
46

Victory Starts Here

training in accordance with AirLand Battle doctrine for units from squad 

through corps. The CTC provided the Army the capability to train heavy, 

light, and special operations forces across the spectrum of conflict. In 

the summer of 2002, the NTC became the focus of the US Army’s participation in Millennium Challenge, the first major joint experiment ever 

conducted. The Army conducted exercises with the new Stryker interim 

armored vehicle to test its deployability, especially when airlifted by a 

C-130 aircraft. The TRADOC battle labs also conducted experiments in 

satellite communications, intelligence, command and control, and terrain 

mapping. Lessons learned from Millennium Challenge helped develop a 

new joint training transformation project known as Joint National Training Capability (JNTC) that focused on the upgrading and certification of 

training ranges for joint training.

One of General DePuy’s requirements in the design of an integrated 

training system for the Army was that training programs were to be progressive and sequential. He also required that standards of performance be 

set and met at each level. As TRADOC reached the 30-year mark, the OES 

and the NCOES met both those criteria. After completing the officer basic and advanced courses, captains were required to attend the Combined 

Arms and Services Staff School (CAS3) that trained soldiers to function as 

staff officers with the Army in the field. Because its curriculum overlapped 

that of the advanced course, kept soldiers away from their assignments, 

and increased travel costs, CAS3 was discontinued in 2004. After attending the Command and General Staff Officer Course, majors and lieutenant colonels could be selected to attend the School of Advanced Military 

Studies (SAMS).

In the first decade of the 21st century, TRADOC considered transforming the OES to train the leaders who would command the objective 

force of the future. Many of the initiatives were the result of an Army 

Training and Leader Development Panel (ATLDP) study, which had revealed a number of weaknesses in the precommissioning through majors’ 

training programs. Changes were also designed to address transformation 

issues, a doubling in the number of deployments, and a smaller Army. Under consideration was a more integrated, three-level Basic Officer Leader 

Course (BOLC) for lieutenants, and a two-part course for captains that 

included both staff training and company command. Finally, an Intermediate Level Education (ILE) model prescribed both a core curriculum and 

electives. All courses would be timed to officer assignments. BOLC was 

implemented in fiscal year 2006.
47

Training and Leader Developmentl

NCOES served as the cornerstone of the “train-the-trainer” emphasis 

that guided TRADOC’s approach to its overall training responsibilities. 

DePuy’s and Gorman’s efforts to establish a sequential and progressive 

educational program for noncommissioned officers had evolved slowly 

over the 40 years of TRADOC’s existence. NCOES featured four vertically integrated levels of training: primary, basic, advanced, and senior. 

Those levels had, over a period of years, been tied to promotions in accordance with TRADOC’s long-range goals. Similar to training for NCOs 

was that for warrant officers. A Warrant Officer Leader Development Action Plan of February 1992 established a six-level program beginning with 

the Warrant Officer Candidate Course. In 2002, the ATLDP released a 

study focused on training and leader development requirements for warrant officers as the Army transformed to what was then known as the objective force. The study was part of the largest self-assessment ever done 

by the Army and affected warrant officer training from the Warrant Officer 

Candidate Course to the advanced course and brought it more in line with 

commissioned officer training. In 2004, the commanding general of TRADOC approved development of a single, two-phased Active Component 

and Reserve Component Warrant Officer Candidate Course that recognized the education, training, and experience of the majority of warrant 

officer candidates.

The Army’s IET program included BCT; AIT, which trained soldiers 

in their MOSs; and OSUT, which combined BCT and AIT for some career 

fields, primarily combat arms. On 1 October 1998, Army BCT had been 

expanded from 8 weeks to 9 weeks so that new soldiers could be immersed 

in the Army’s heritage and its seven core values: loyalty, duty, respect, 

selfless service, honor, integrity, and personal courage. The directive for 

the additional week of BCT had come from the Army Chief of Staff, in 

the wake of allegations of sexual harassment during IET at several Army 

installations. The revamped program also included human relations, rape 

prevention, and financial management. In addition, a 3-day field training 

exercise reinforced training given during BCT. Values-based training—

values, heritage, and tradition—would not end when soldiers graduated 

from BCT, but would continue into AIT to reinforce the instruction given 

in basic training and to keep those principles fresh. In 2003, Chief of Staff 

of the Army General Peter J. Schoomaker created Task Force Soldier. One 

of its tasks was to examine all Initial Military Training (IMT) to ensure it 

was preparing soldiers for combat. The results were 32 Warrior Tasks and 

12 Battle Drills that made training more relevant. The tasks fell into areas 

such as shooting, communicating, urban operations, moving, and fighting. 

The drills included reactions to combat situations and evacuation of casu-
48

Victory Starts Here

alties. The tasks and drills were implemented throughout IET in TRADOC 

in 2004 and a number of drills were included in AIT. In 2007, General 

William S. Wallace expanded BCT from 9 to 10 weeks without adding additional tasks. The primary purpose for the expansion by one week was to 

give drill sergeants the time to increase trainees’ understanding of critical 

tasks from simple familiarization with them to something much closer to 

mastery, which would then translate into better performance in units and 

operational settings.

From the beginning of the all-volunteer force in 1973 and into the 21st 

century there were important developments and much controversy concerning the training of men and women recruits together in BCT. In the absence of a pool of draftees, women enlistees were necessary to meet manpower requirements. As a result, the numbers and percentages of women 

in the enlisted ranks increased dramatically from the late 1970s through 

the beginning of the 21st century. That situation and the strong feminist 

movement, beginning in the late 1960s and strengthening until the early 

1980s, came together to indicate that the Army could no longer resist a 

program to integrate the sexes during BCT. From 1978 to late 1981, men 

and women were trained together in BCT at company level (for example, 

a company of three all-male platoons and one all-female platoon). That 

experiment encountered numerous difficulties, especially with physical 

training, and was terminated in 1981.

From 1982 to 1994, men and women were trained at separate locations. The Persian Gulf War of 1990–91 changed that arrangement when 

41,000 women deployed, some serving on the front lines. As a result, 

the Secretary of Defense declared that women could fly combat aircraft 

and serve on combat ships. Faced with such competition in recruiting, 

the Army once again established a gender-integrated BCT program. This 

time the companies were totally integrated. The new program had fewer 

problems and it opened more specialties to women; however, criticism remained and increased in 1996, after allegations of sexual harassment and 

rape during training at Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, and at other 

sites. The program remained, but was the object of numerous studies and 

investigations by Congress and other agencies. As TRADOC observed its 

40th anniversary, gender integrated training (GIT) remained Army policy.

Leader development has always been a concern of the Army. As a 

result, TRADOC brought that concern into sharper focus and institutionalized leader development programs on several levels. Since 1973, many 

studies have been conducted to investigate the status of leader development in the Army. In the fall of 1987, General Carl E. Vuono, Army Chief 
49

Training and Leader Developmentl

of Staff, tasked Major General Gordon R. Sullivan to conduct a formal 

study of leader development in the Army and to build an action plan to 

provide specific recommendations concerning changes needed in the 

Army leader development process. The action plan, submitted in April 

1988, envisioned a program that rested on three doctrinal pillars—institutional training, operational assignments, and self-development.

Another major initiative of the 1990s was the Future Army Schools 

Twenty-One (FAST) effort. The mission of a FAST task force was to establish an effective and efficient Total Army School System (TASS) of 

fully accredited and integrated Active Component/National Guard/ Reserve Component schools that provided standard individual training and 

education for the Total Army. One of the task force’s recommendations 

was the establishment of TRADOC as the sole accrediting authority for 

the schools, effective in January 1993. The major thrust of FAST was the 

establishment of a regionally-based Reserve Component school system 

under the auspices of TRADOC headquarters.

Looking to the Army of the 21st century, TRADOC trainers considered their challenge to be maintaining the essence of the Army’s education 

and training system and the utilization of the best combinations of live, 

virtual, and constructive simulations and simulators. That strategy was 

designed to unite the many ongoing training efforts into a clear, coherent 

vision to produce trained and ready units into the next century. To achieve 

the Army’s objectives in Force XXI to transform from an Industrial Age 

Army into a knowledge and capabilities based power projection Army, 

TRADOC had to concurrently develop the means and methods to train 

and sustain the force. To support efforts to have Force XXI reach its maximum potential and to ensure that training was included in every phase 

of Force XXI development, the TRADOC training community developed 

Army Training XXI (AT XXI). TRADOC’s AT XXI concept incorporated 

strategic plans for unit training and an integrated plan for the training of 

battle staff and collective tasks.

In late 1999, the AT XXI concepts were absorbed into a body of initiatives known as Transformation. While the new effort built on many of 

the ongoing AT XXI concepts and projects, some Transformation training 

initiatives were new. TRADOC developed both Senior and Tactical Leadership Courses to address the transition from a Cold War focus to a fullspectrum focus for the new IBCT at Fort Lewis, Washington. The Senior 

Course, for key leaders, was built on an “adaptive thinking methodology” 

and included a constructive simulation exercise. The Senior Course was 

held at Fort Lee, Virginia; Fort Huachuca, Arizona; Fort Knox, Kentucky; 
50

Victory Starts Here

Fort Benning, Georgia; and Fort Leavenworth, Kansas. The Tactical Leaders Course, held at Fort Lewis, featured training executed relative to the 

IBCT organization and operational concept and was based on the unique 

differences of how the IBCT would fight.

In 2008, the command’s training community remained dedicated to 

the development of competent soldiers, capable leaders, relevant products, 

and the shaping of future Army training in units and institutions utilizing information-based technology to support the objective force. It also 

demonstrated its flexibility by providing specialty training for soldiers deployed in the GWOT effort. 

Basic Officer Leader Course (BOLC)

BOLC was created to develop leaders with a common warrior experience, that is, more competent, confident, and adaptable, as well as effective at solving problems, making rapid decisions, and leading Soldiers in 

the full spectrum of operations. As a result of BOLC, each leader was to be 

ready to train and lead small units in combat immediately upon arrival at 

his or her first unit of assignment. BOLC at first was a three-phase training 

program designed to provide initial military training for junior commissioned and warrant officers in both active and reserve components. BOLC 

I, II, and III created officers grounded in the core leader competencies 

(leading, developing, and achieving) and capable of serving the modular force in full spectrum operations. All three phases were designed to 

be attended sequentially. BOLC I encompassed all military training conducted by the traditional pre-commissioning sources (United States Military Academy, Reserve Officer Training Corps, Officer Candidate School, 

and Warrant Officer Candidate School) and provided the foundation in 

Figure 23. Armor Officer Basic Course, 2/16 Cavalry.
51

Training and Leader Developmentl

the common skills, knowledge, and attributes desired of all officers. In 

February 2007, the Army implemented a four-week Direct Commissioned 

Officers Course to prepare directly commissioned officers, such as Judge 

Advocate General and select Army Medical Corps officers, for the rigors 

of BOLC. BOLC II was a six-week common block of instruction conducted eventually at two TRADOC schools (Infantry School, Fort Benning, Georgia, and Field Artillery School, Fort Sill, Oklahoma). It was 

an operationally relevant program that produced more capable, confident, 

mentally agile, and adaptable leaders through an emphasis on field craft, 

small unit leadership, and the Warrior Ethos. It also developed leaders who 

shared a common bond with their combined arms peers and were ready 

to lead small units in tactical environments upon arrival at their first unit 

of assignment. Chaplains, Medical Specialists, Medical Doctors, Dentists, 

and Nurses were excluded from attending based on proponent decision. 

BOLC III ranged from six weeks to 15 weeks and four days and consisted 

of branch-specific functional training conducted at existing TRADOC 

branch school locations. 

For BOLC II, the Army created a common core, tactical leadership 

phase of training. The methods of training in BOLC III were modified 

to make greater use of experiential training models to increase learning 

and to enhance the quality and effectiveness of training. This approach 

supported Officer Education System transformation and the goals of increased readiness, greater relevance to the force, and a more joint and 

expeditionary Army. The Army continued to identify capability gaps in the 

context of full spectrum operations and to adjust BOLC training curricula 

to address those gaps. Beginning in fiscal year 2009, newly appointed warrant officers were integrated into BOLC II to provide the training necessary to prepare them to meet the Army’s expectations of future warrant 

officers as leaders and technical experts within their respective fields. During General Dempsey’s tenure as TRADOC Commander, BOLC I became 

BOLC A, and BOLC II and BOLC III were combined to become BOLC B, 

all of which amounted to something of a return to the old two-part training 

scheme of a pre-commissioning phase followed by a basic course.

53

Chapter VI

TRADOC in the Joint Service Arena

From its beginning, TRADOC has been a participant in the joint service arena. It has cooperated in wartime operations and peacetime planning 

among US ground, air, and sea services. As the successor to CONARC, 

TRADOC worked closely with the Air Force Tactical Air Command 

(TAC) at Langley Air Force Base, Virginia. This was a continuation of 

efforts begun shortly after World War II. When TAC was disestablished in 

1992, TRADOC continued its joint work with Headquarters, Air Combat 

Command (ACC) (also at Langley AFB), which was responsible for all 

Air Force combat forces, both tactical and strategic. During the 1970s, 

cooperation developed steadily so that the 1980s yielded important procedural and doctrinal results. The command’s cooperative work with the US 

Marine Corps Combat Development Command, begun in the early 1980s, 

found points of common interest and agreement. In the post-DESERT 

STORM period, cooperative ventures began with US Navy agencies.

General Creighton W. Abrams Jr., Chief of Staff of the Army, and General George S. Brown, Chief of Staff of the Air Force, promoted the interService cooperation at the operational level that had developed during the 

Vietnam War. Post-Vietnam force reductions and the need to concentrate 

on warfighting in central Europe also played a role. General William E. 

DePuy, at Abrams’ request, worked to further Air Force–Army dialogue 

at his own level. A concurrent TAC initiative helped set up the first meeting of the “TAC–TRADOC dialogue” between DePuy and the TAC commander, General Robert J. Dixon, in October 1973.

Early discussions involved joint working groups centered on airspace 

management, reconnaissance and surveillance, and electronic warfare. 

The focus was on procedures to improve joint combat capabilities and to 

implement existing doctrine, rather than creating new doctrine. The 1973 

Middle East War encouraged greater cooperation, because of increased 

lethality in the air as well as on the ground. In July 1975, TRADOC and 

TAC established an Air-Land Forces Application Agency (ALFA) dedicated to managing the working groups and mutual projects. In November 1976, a TAC–TRADOC working group produced a joint manual on 

air-space management, which provided guidance to develop appropriate 

air control procedures on battlefields that promised to be more lethal and 

complex in the future.

The NATO doctrine of battlefield air interdiction incorporated the 

ALFA work. TAC–TRADOC work resulted in a November 1984 agree-
54

Victory Starts Here

ment on joint procedures for offensive air support. Joint suppression of 

enemy air defenses (J-SEAD), another significant project in cooperation 

with US Readiness Command, resulted in a joint concept published in 

April 1981 that outlined both Army and Air Force responsibilities. In 

December 1982, the three headquarters published the Joint Attack of the 

Second Echelon (J-SAK), which delineated attack procedures by level of 

command for the identification of an attack on the enemy follow-on echelons. The project lay at the heart of TAC contributions to the deep attack 

aspect of the Army’s AirLand Battle doctrine published in August 1982. 

TAC–TRADOC projects expanded in the late 1970s to joint tactical training projects, tests, and evaluations, and led to joint doctrine endeavors 

invaluable to the development of Army doctrine.

Although these joint agreements were useful, they were not doctrine. 

Close air support issues were complex and other Air Force missions competed with the Army for air resources. In addition, theater needs and concerns were paramount in any resource decision and took precedence over 

these agreements. The requirement for a better way to ensure cooperation 

was demonstrated in 1982 during Operation URGENT FURY when US 

forces prevented a Communist takeover of Grenada. The various branches 

observed different priorities and inter-Service communications were inadequate.

In April 1983, General Charles A. Gabriel, Chief of Staff of the Air 

Force, and General Edward C. Meyer, Chief of Staff of the Army, signed 

a memorandum of understanding in which both Services agreed to engage in joint training and exercises based on AirLand Battle doctrine and 

to continue other inter-Service efforts. This led to the inauguration of a 

major force development process by General Gabriel and General John 

A. Wickham Jr., Meyer’s successor. That program, “The 31 Initiatives,” 

was heralded as a means to design and field the best affordable AirLand 

combat force.

The 31 Initiatives program, which addressed seven basic areas of AirLand combat, included a number of joint projects already underway. Extending to 1988, the program furnished a high-level forum and focus for 

the solution of difficult bi-Service issues. An initiative on intratheater airlift led to the establishment in 1984 of the Airlift, Concepts, and Requirements Agency (ACRA) at Scott Air Force Base, Illinois. In January 1986, 

the two Services established the Army–Air Force Center for Low Intensity 

Conflict (CLIC), at Langley Air Force Base, Virginia.

The numbered initiatives included a variety of issues, including air 

defense, rear area operations, and joint suppression of enemy air defenses. 
55

TRADOC in the Joint Service Arena

Several initiatives dealt with special operations forces and search and rescue, while others addressed joint munitions development, combat techniques, and procedures for the combined arms battlefield. Air interdiction, 

joint target assessment, close air support, and the link between air liaison 

officers and forward air controllers were also important issues. A final 

group of original initiatives focused on the acquisition of aircraft to meet 

joint targeting and reconnaissance needs. Among these, the Joint Surveillance and Target Acquisition Radar System (JSTARS) that figured significantly in the Gulf War. There was also an affirmation of Army primacy for 

rotary wing combat support and Air Force primacy for fixed-wing support. 

An important program element was the uniformed Service chiefs’ agreement to a combined budgetary submission package for priority programs 

and establishment of a Joint Assessments and Initiatives Office to institutionalize the joint force development process. In June 1986, US Navy 

representation was added to that office. Ultimately numbering 38, the initiatives were substantially completed by 1987.

TRADOC’s work in joint doctrine proceeded along two tracks. The 

first was the multi-Service doctrinal literature published as field manuals 

together with one or more of the other Services. The second was publicaFigure 24. General Cone and Lieutenant General David 

D. Halverson discuss joint observation with Lieutenant 

Colonel Rustan S. Swichtenberg, US Air Force, at Fort 

Sill, Oklahoma.
56

Victory Starts Here

tion of multi-Service doctrine. The Goldwater-Nichols Defense Reorganization Act of 1986 assigned to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff 

(JCS) the responsibility to develop doctrine for joint employment of the 

Armed Forces. The newly established Operational Plans and Interoperability Directorate (J7) was responsible to the chairman of the JCS for the 

management of the joint doctrine development process. Along with the 

regional commanders and the Services, the J7 developed a Joint Doctrine 

Master Plan. TRADOC was a key player in the Army’s contribution to the 

whole JCS development effort.

In 1988, the JCS issued JCS Pub 1-01, Joint Publication System, Joint 

Doctrine and Joint Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures Development Program. This master regulation specified publications in the major categories of reference; intelligence; operations; logistics; plans; and command, 

control, and communications (C3) systems. Each had a capstone manual 

that brought together all joint doctrine approved by the three Services.

TRADOC reviewed JP 1, Joint Warfare of the US Armed Forces, for 

the Army, and it was published in November 1990 to aid ongoing operations in the Persian Gulf. This significant manual proceeded from the 

belief that warfare in the modern era was, in fact, joint warfare. The manual provided the basis for the future joint strategic view in discussions of 

American military power. For the warfighting level, TRADOC completed 

JCS Pub 3-0, Doctrine for Unified and Joint Operations, a capstone operational manual issued by the Joint Staff in 1990.

Cooperative work by TAC and TRADOC during 1989–90 produced 

a White Paper titled “Air Attack on the Modern Battlefield.” Approved 

by the two uniformed Service chiefs, the paper led to a five-part Air Attack Action Plan, which the Army and Air Force chiefs of staff signed to 

synchronize joint air attack combat planning and procedures. This led to a 

modernized Air Force tactical air control system–Army air-ground system 

(TACS– AAGS), which was tested and validated in exercises during 1990.

In 1984, TRADOC undertook important joint work through the ACRA 

covering multi-Service employment of the C-17 aircraft and its related activities, which were subjects of cooperative doctrinal and procedural effort 

between TRADOC, the Military Airlift Command (MAC), and the Marine 

Corps Combat Development Command. By the late 1990s, doctrine was 

increasingly joint, and Army doctrine manuals reflected that reality. Force 

projection from CONUS, which constituted the prime deployment trend 

of the post-Cold War, was innately joint. Such operations were indeed the 

purview of the regional commanders of joint forces.
57

TRADOC in the Joint Service Arena

Low intensity conflict (LIC) was a category of engagement short of 

all out war and consisted of diverse and unconventional military operations. The 1993 edition of FM 100-5, Operations, characterized LIC as 

operations other than war (OOTW). For most of the 1970s and 1980s, 

LIC defined the whole realm of operations below high- and mid-intensity 

conflict. It received considerable attention by TRADOC doctrine developers from the early 1980s on because defense policy became increasingly 

concerned with that type of military operation. Throughout the decade, 

LIC emerged as a major concern. In July 1985, TRADOC joined the Air 

Force and other agencies in the major Joint Low Intensity Conflict Study 

that was released in 1986. It summarized previous efforts and became a 

springboard for subsequent Army and joint doctrinal formulation and further work. The study revealed that the definition of LIC was too broad to 

accurately quantify the problem.

Planners recognized the major categories of insurgency- counterinsurgency, combating terrorism, peacekeeping operations, and peacetime contingency operations, as well as a host of subcategories, such as counterdrug efforts and disaster relief. The crucial question was when the use of 

force was appropriate and under what circumstances. In 1986, the Office 

of the Joint Chiefs of Staff promulgated an official definition of LIC, recognizing its diversity in general terms. But, general definitions were only 

useful in a limited way for the formulation of such multifaceted doctrine. 

A bi-Service LIC manual, FM 100-20/AF Pam 3-20, Military Operations 

in Low Intensity Conflict, was published in December 1990. The manual 

opened the way for effort on the JCS equivalent, JCS Pub 3-07, Doctrine 

for Joint Operations in LIC, which was retitled Military Operations Short 

of War.

Army oversight of the Center for Low Intensity Conflict (CLIC) resided with Headquarters, TRADOC until 1990, when it was transferred 

to the Department of the Army Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations and 

Plans. TRADOC, however, retained a close relationship with the CLIC 

for assistance in LIC concepts, doctrine, and training matters. In 1996, 

the CLIC was inactivated and its missions dispersed. Air Force and Army 

planners believed that LIC had been a predominant form of engagement 

for US forces since World War II and that the trend was likely to continue. 

The 1990 LIC doctrine spelled out critical differences between LIC and 

other conventional operations in activities such as foreign assistance and 

also provided an analysis of insurgencies. In the ambiguous environment 

of LIC, the contribution of military force to achieving the strategic aim 

was supportive and indirect. Political, economic, and psychological objec-
58

Victory Starts Here

tives shaped the way such operations were executed. What was important 

was understanding that military force had to be closely coordinated with 

other responses. One of the most perplexing issues was joint counterdrug 

operations. Doctrine, procedures, and training to assist the interdiction of 

the illegal drug flow into the United States were some of the many challenges and projects in which TRADOC, the joint agencies, and subordinate elements of the command were active.

The Mobility Concepts Agency (MCA), located at Fort Monroe, Virginia, since 1994, drew together doctrine and other developments for airlift and joint mobility for all the Services including a C-17 multi-Service 

employment concept, a study of early-entry deployability, and a study of 

joint theater airlift capabilities. Other studies of the period dealt with mobile offshore basing and the deployment sequence of joint reception, staging, onward movement, and integration.

The Commander in Chiefs (CINCs) Support Program, dating from 

August 1991, was a tool by which TRADOC-led teams annually visited 

the headquarters of the regional CINCs to determine their pressing developmental demands. The program responded comprehensively to the 

CINCs in all military development areas. In January 1996, the CINC, US 

Central Command, requested that TRADOC shift the program’s emphasis 

from specifically Army areas of interest to one more joint in nature. Other 

unified headquarters concurred. Consequently, TRADOC restructured the 

program, redesignating it the CINC Joint Warfighting Support Program. 

On 1 October 1996, the program was transferred to the Joint Warfighting 

Center at Fort Monroe, Virginia.

In October 1999, Atlantic Command, established in 1993 as a regional 

command with joint authority, was re-designated Joint Forces Command 

(JFCOM). In addition to its other responsibilities, JFCOM was given the 

mission of joint training and transformation as outlined in the Department 

of Defense’s Unified Command Plan. As the Army’s trainer, TRADOC coordinated closely with JFCOM. In 1999, JFCOM absorbed the Joint Warfighting Center into its Joint Training Center at Suffolk, Virginia. In 2002, 

TRADOC participated in Millennium Challenge, the US military’s largest joint peacetime exercise to date, which JFCOM controlled. TRADOC 

had the Army lead for Millennium Challenge 02 and coordinated with 

JFCOM to provide management oversight for the overall experiment and 

to achieve both joint and Army objectives. TRADOC was also the lead 

for Army Transformation Experiment 02 in which the Stryker armored 

vehicle was tested at the National Training Center (NTC).
59

TRADOC in the Joint Service Arena

The emphasis on joint operations called for a substantial revision of 

US Army doctrine in the form of FM 100-5, Operations. In a clear break 

with the past, the Army manual numbering system was dropped and the 

joint numbering system was adopted in 2001 when the manual became 

FM 3-0. The new manual recognized the changes in the nation’s geostrategic position since the end of the Cold War. It clearly addressed the problems of deployment and asymmetric warfare as well as the need for joint 

cooperation in nearly every aspect of operations, from major theaters of 

war to humanitarian relief. FM 3-0 was further revised in 2008 and placed 

even greater emphasis on joint interdependence.

In 2003, General Kevin P. Byrnes established a special relationship 

with the JFCOM because he believed the Army was built to support a joint 

forces commander. TRADOC, he believed, should operate as the Army’s 

component command with JFCOM. In addition, JFCOM would be a cosponsor of the annual transformation war game to be held at the Army 

War College in April 2003. That war game was followed by JFCOM’s war 

game Pinnacle Impact and by joint exercise Unified Quest. Byrnes emphasized that TRADOC had to increase the command’s insistence on joint 

exercises in the future and, in October 2003, established the TRADOC 

Futures Center, which became the core for development of joint doctrine 

in TRADOC. In 2006, the center evolved into the Army Capabilities Integration Center (ARCIC), which continued as the center of joint doctrine 

development. Five divisions in the Concept Development and Experiment 

Directorate were dedicated to joint issues.

Figure 25. Brigadier Richard W. Haldenby, Deputy Director 

of Joint Warfare for the British Armed Forces Command, 

talks with David G. Paschal, Deputy Director of Headquarters 

TRADOC G-2’s Training Brain Operations Center (TBOC) in 

Newport News, Virginia.
60

Victory Starts Here

Unlike previous decades when joint meant agreements with other Services on practices and procedures, the new joint environment focuses on 

multi-Service cooperation from inception. For example, Army FM 3-24, 

Counterinsurgency, published in 2006 was also Marine Corps Warfighting 

Publication 3-33.5, Counterinsurgency. The joint publications to which 

TRADOC contributed in 2007 included topics as varied as joint terminology, joint intelligence, joint operations, join amphibious operations, 

and space operations and logistics. In the area of materiel development, 

TRADOC contributed to weapons developments, joint heavy lift, aerial 

sensors, and improvised explosive device (IED) detectors. 

In May 2010, TRADOC participated in the Comprehensive Approach 

to Building Partnerships (CABP) Stakeholders’ Conference held in Arlington, Virginia. Participants included the Office of the Secretary of Defense, JFCOM J9, Joint Staff J5, Combatant Commands (COCOM), the 

Department of State, US Agency for International Development, the Commerce Department, several non-governmental organizations, and other 

multinational partners. There were two facilitated discussions and two 

CABP Baseline Assessments. One of the key gaps identified was the lack 

of situational awareness of Interagency capabilities and limitations and the 

same regarding Interagency priorities and goals within the COCOM areas 

of responsibility by the COCOM planners and decision makers. It was 

pointed out during the conference that the Armed Forces Staff College had 

changed its curriculum to provide more awareness of Interagency matters. 

This was a recurring theme that was also brought out at the 2011 Haiti Lessons Learned Conference by the XVIII Airborne Corps.

TRADOC participated in the periodic US Army and USMC Counterinsurgency Center Webcast which covered a diverse range of topics. 

Among the subjects of the webcasts were:

1. “Utility of Academic Partnerships in Counterinsurgency Training.”

2. “Radicalization Awareness.”

3. “Leader-Centric Warfare.”

4. “Irregular Warfare Update, Afghanistan.”

5. “Victory Has A Thousand Fathers, Sources of Success in Counterinsurgencies.”

6. “My Cousin’s Enemy is My Friend: A Study of Pashtun ‘Tribes’ 

in Afghanistan.”
61

TRADOC in the Joint Service Arena

On 4 August 2011, JFCOM, TRADOC’s longstanding partner in the 

joint field, was disestablished because of growing financial constraints in 

the defense community. The relationship with JFCOM had been both beneficial and convenient because of JFCOM’s close proximity in Suffolk, 

Virginia.

63

Chapter VII

Organizational Structure

In 1973, TRADOC consisted of a headquarters, 3 major subordinate 

commands, 16 branch schools, 8 military schools and colleges, 4 specialist schools, and a variety of special activities. Support agreements (intra-Army, inter-Service, and interagency), together with memorandums 

of understanding internal and external to TRADOC, helped smooth the 

complex administrative, logistical, and funding relationships. On its activation, TRADOC headquarters commanded, separately, its own installations, certain TRADOC tenants on those installations, and TRADOC 

tenants on non-TRADOC installations. Initially it directly commanded 20 

major installations through the commanders of the centers resident on 18 

of the installations and through the post commanders of Fort Monroe and 

Carlisle Barracks, which were not centers. In 2003, the Installation Management Agency (IMA) (later raised to a command) assumed direction of 

all Army installations. 

Initial Subordinate Organization

Initially organized on Operation STEADFAST principles of centralized management and decentralized operations, TRADOC executed its 

individual training mission through its Army training centers; service 

schools; Reserve Officers’ Training Corps (ROTC) regions and subordiFigure 26. TRADOC Organizational Chart 1973.
64

Victory Starts Here

nate detachments; and US Army Reserve schools, training divisions, and 

brigades under its operational control. The STEADFAST reorganization 

had divided and assigned the parts of the Army field establishment in the 

United States not by geography but by function. In 1973, TRADOC also 

monitored individual training in Army-operated Department of Defense 

schools, the Army War College, logistics-related schools operated by the 

Army Materiel Command (AMC), and other non-TRADOC schools and 

training centers. The headquarters accomplished its combat developments 

mission in 1973 through three mid-level functional centers, later designated integrating centers, as well as through the Service schools and other 

combat developments activities.

The 18 installations with centers were actually of three different types. 

Three functional centers—the CAC and Fort Leavenworth, the Administration Center and Fort Benjamin Harrison, and the Logistics Center at 

Fort Lee—drew together the training and combat developments tasks in 

their respective functional areas of combat and combat support, personnel administration, and logistics or combat service support. Two of the 

three functional center headquarters oversaw separate school and combat 

developments activities. The CAC commanded the Command and General 

Staff College (CGSC), the Combined Arms Combat Developments Activity, and the installation garrison. The Administration Center commanded 

the Institute of Administration, the Personnel and Administration Combat 

Developments Activity, and the garrison. The third functional center, the 

Logistics Center, was initially a combat developments- oriented organization, operating as a tenant on Fort Lee.

Ten more of the initial 18 center-type installations of TRADOC were 

Army branch or specialist school centers: the Engineer Center and Fort 

Belvoir, the Infantry Center and Fort Benning, the Air Defense Center and 

Fort Bliss, the Transportation Center and Fort Eustis, the Signal Center 

and Fort Gordon, the Armor Center and Fort Knox, the Quartermaster 

Center and Fort Lee, the Aviation Center and Fort Rucker, the Field Artillery Center and Fort Sill, and the Primary Helicopter Center and School 

and Fort Wolters.

The six remaining TRADOC center installations were training centers 

devoted primarily to basic combat and advanced individual training or, 

at Fort McClellan, to Women’s Army Corps basic training. These were 

the Training Center and Fort Dix; the Training Center and Fort Jackson; 

the Training Center and Fort Ord; the Training Center, Engineer and Fort 

Leonard Wood; the School/Training Center and Fort McClellan; and the 
65

Organizational Structure

Training Center, Infantry and Fort Polk. The commander of the Armor 

Center and Fort Knox also administered basic combat training.

Eight schools—the Air Defense, Armor, Engineer, Field Artillery, 

Infantry, Quartermaster, Southeast Signal, and Transportation Schools— 

were components of their respective branch centers, at which they were 

located. Three other branch schools were situated on TRADOC installations. The Institute of Administration was subordinate to the Administration Center and Fort Benjamin Harrison and commanded the resident 

Army Finance School and Army Adjutant General School; the Women’s 

Army Corps Center and School was subordinate to the School/Training 

Center and Fort McClellan; and, the Military Police School was subordinate to the Signal Center and Fort Gordon. The five remaining TRADOC 

branch schools were tenants on non-TRADOC posts—the Chaplain Center and School at Fort Hamilton, New York; the Intelligence Center and 

School at Fort Huachuca, Arizona; the Missile and Munitions Center and 

School at Redstone Arsenal, Alabama; the Ordnance Center and School 

at Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland; and the Signal School at Fort 

Monmouth, New Jersey.

In addition to the 16 branch schools, in 1973 TRADOC commanded 

four specialist schools: the Aviation School, part of the Aviation Center 

and Fort Rucker; the Primary Helicopter School and Fort Wolters; the US 

Army Element, School of Music, Norfolk, Virginia; and the US Army Institute for Military Assistance at Fort Bragg, North Carolina. TRADOC 

also commanded, through the installations involved, the Command and 

General Staff College (CGSC) at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, and the US 

Army Sergeants Major Academy at Fort Bliss, Texas. Department of Defense schools operated by TRADOC were the Defense Information School 

at Fort Benjamin Harrison, Indiana, and the Defense Language Institute at 

the Presidio of Monterey, California. Initially, TRADOC administered the 

Army ROTC program through four ROTC regions established under the 

STEADFAST reorganization.

Headquarters Organization and Reorganizations

Command of TRADOC resided with the commanding general, assisted at his headquarters at Fort Monroe, Virginia, initially by a single deputy 

commander, a chief of staff, and general and special staffs. The general staff consisted of seven deputy chiefs of staff (DCSs) who managed 

the major elements of the headquarters and exercised staff responsibility for the commanding general to the installations, centers, schools, and 

other subordinate elements. The seven DCSs established in Headquarters, 
66

Victory Starts Here

TRADOC in 1973 were responsible for Training and Schools, ROTC, 

Combat Developments, Resource Management, Personnel, Logistics, and 

Operations and Intelligence. In January 1974, the last named general staff 

agency was restructured as DCS for Operations, Readiness, and Intelligence. In 1974, “schools” was dropped from the title, but not from the 

purview of the DCS for Training.

There have been four major reorganizations of TRADOC headquarters since 1973. These occurred in 1979, 1990, 2002–03 and 2007. The 

1979 reorganization, implemented provisionally in April and formally 

on 1 October of that year, was prompted by the decision of TRADOC 

Commanding General Donn A. Starry to shift resources to the main mission components—the Deputies for Training, Combat Developments, 

and ROTC. Another impelling cause was Starry’s decision to involve 

TRADOC more emphatically in doctrine development. The new structure 

retained the DCSs for Training, Combat Developments, ROTC, and Resource Management. It disestablished the DCSs for Personnel; Logistics; 

and Operations, Readiness, and Intelligence. The 1979 action established 

new DCSs for Doctrine, Personnel and Logistics, and Engineer.

In 1990, the headquarters downsized with the rest of the Army. The offices of the DCSs for Personnel, Administration, and Logistics; Contracting; and Engineer; together with Surgeon, Chaplain, and other selected 

staff offices were merged into the DCS for Base Operations Support. The 

DCSs for Doctrine, Intelligence, and Combat Developments were merged 

into the DCS for Concepts, Doctrine, and Developments, with transfer of 

some functions to Headquarters, CAC, which became Combined Arms 

Command (CAC) in October 1990. A third major change was the establishment of the TRADOC Analysis Command (TRAC) at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, as DCS for Analysis on the headquarters staff, albeit with a 

local staff representative. This reorganization left the offices of the DCSs 

for Information Management, Resource Management, and Training substantially unchanged; the office of the DCS for Training was reorganized 

internally. The 1990 merger of the doctrine office with combat developments did not work well and on 1 October 1992 became the office of the 

DCS for Doctrine and the office of the DCS for Combat Developments.

The effort to transform TRADOC in line with changes to the entire 

Army began to bear fruit in 2002. Although the command did not expect 

all of the changes to be complete until 2006, after Congress initiated a new 

round of Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) actions, TRADOC leaders anticipated that the command would look significantly different by the 

end of 2003.
67

Organizational Structure

Effective 20 July 2007, the TRADOC staff was reorganized to improve 

the alignment of TRADOC responsibilities with the operational Army, and 

staff titles were changed to reflect the new G-Staff organization.

Installations and Changes, 1973–2003

TRADOC commanded 20 major installations on the day it was established. Fort Wolters closed in 1974, and Forts Ord and Polk were transferred to Forces Command (FORSCOM) when their missions changed 

from training to unit stationing. In 1992, training at Fort Dix, New Jersey, was phased out and it, too, was transferred to FORSCOM. Thereafter, 

TRADOC operated 16 installations until 1 October 2003 when the Army’s 

Installation Management Agency (IMA) assumed control of all Army installations. However, TRADOC mission commanders remained in the rating chains of the installation commanders to provide input on how the 

installations were run. IMA became Installation Management Command 

(IMCOM) in October 2006.

Intermediate Level Changes, 1973–2003

In September 1977, TRADOC’s intermediate-level structure was 

strengthened to give the three functional centers a stronger integrating 

role vis-à-vis their associated TRADOC schools. The three-star TRADOC 

deputy commanding general position moved from Fort Monroe, Virginia, 

to Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, making the commander of the Combined 

Arms Center (CAC) dual-hatted. Beyond his local duties as Commander, CAC, as Deputy Commander, TRADOC he was to execute specific 

TRADOC missions. He was to direct, coordinate, and integrate combined 

arms doctrine, organization, and combat and training development programs for the Army.

Figure 27. TRADOC G-Staff Organization 2007.
68

Victory Starts Here

In 1980, TRADOC reorganized and redesignated the Fort Benjamin 

Harrison agency as the US Army Soldier Support Center with much stronger doctrinal and training responsibilities in the personnel, administration, 

finance, and automatic data processing areas. The action also included replacement of the center’s Institute of Administration by a newly renamed 

US Army Institute of Personnel and Resource Management. Two branch 

schools, the Finance and Adjutant General Schools, along with two new 

specialist-type schools, the Computer Science School and the Personnel 

Management School, were aligned under the new institute. The institute 

was subsequently redesignated the Soldier Support Institute in 1984.

In April 1983, the Logistics Center commander at Fort Lee was redesignated the TRADOC Deputy Commanding General for Logistics, and the 

position was upgraded to a three-star billet. The Logistics Center remained 

in tenant status on the installation, which was commanded by one of its 

subordinate organizations, the US Army Quartermaster Center and Fort 

Lee. That anomaly was rectified on 3 January 1989 when the TRADOC 

commander brought the Fort Lee structure in line with that existing at Fort 

Leavenworth and Fort Benjamin Harrison by establishing the US Army 

Logistics Center and Fort Lee, with the US Army Quartermaster Center 

and School becoming the tenant.

The integrating center structure remained in place until the end of the 

Cold War, which ushered in a period of Army drawdown and consolidation. On 1 October 1990 TRADOC replaced the integrating center structure with two major subordinate commands. The Combined Arms Command replaced the Combined Arms Center (both abbreviated as CAC). 

Internal reductions and realignments recast the commanders of the Combined Arms Combat Developments Activity (CACDA) and the Combined 

Arms Training Activity (CATA) as deputy CAC commanders for combat developments and for training. The second major action merged the 

Soldier Support Center with the Logistics Center creating the Combined 

Arms Support Command (CASCOM) headquartered at Fort Lee, Virginia. 

At that time, the Soldier Support Center’s Soldier Support Institute was 

eliminated as an administrative organization layered between the center 

and the resident schools.

Because of budget reductions and a changed world situation, 

TRADOC launched a “reengineering” initiative in 1993. TRADOC headquarters assumed the integration function traditionally held by CAC and 

CASCOM. That action necessitated several organizational and functional 

changes in both CAC and CASCOM, most of which were completed by 

the end of 1994. In July of that year CAC once again became a center. The 
69

Organizational Structure

reorganization shifted some functions and personnel from Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, to other TRADOC installations. In addition, CAC’s combat development, doctrinal concepts, and integration functions moved to 

Headquarters, TRADOC. The CASCOM reorganization included the centralization of combat developments, training developments, proponency 

and evaluation, and standardization at Headquarters, CASCOM.

Schools

Under the STEADFAST reorganization, TRADOC commanded 16 

branch schools, 8 military schools and colleges, and 4 specialist schools. 

As previously noted, the Primary Helicopter School at Fort Wolters, Texas, 

was discontinued on 30 June 1974. TRADOC inherited two signal schools 

from Continental Army Command (CONARC), the Signal School at Fort 

Monmouth, New Jersey, and the Southeastern Signal School at Fort Gordon, Georgia. On 1 July 1974, the Monmouth organization became the 

Communications-Electronics School, and the Gordon organization was 

redesignated the Signal School, a step in the consolidation of all signal 

training at the southern post. That occurred 2 years later when the Communications-Electronics School was discontinued on 31 October 1976. 

The Chaplain School, located at Fort Hamilton, moved to larger facilities 

at Fort Wadsworth, New York, a subpost of Fort Dix, on 15 August 1974. 

It remained there until Fort Wadsworth was closed on 1 August 1979 and 

was relocated to Fort Monmouth, New Jersey. The Military Police School 

moved from Fort Gordon to Fort McClellan, Alabama, on 1 July 1975, to 

make room for the consolidation of signal training.

The Organizational Effectiveness Training Center was established on 

1 July 1975 at Fort Ord, California, to inculcate and teach organizational 

skills. It was redesignated the Organizational Effectiveness Center and 

School on 2 April 1979. After 10 years in operation, it was closed on 1 

October 1985. On 1 October 1976, the US Army Security Agency Training Center and School at Fort Devens, Massachusetts, was transferred into 

the TRADOC school system. The new TRADOC school was renamed the 

Intelligence School, Fort Devens, and was subordinate to the commandant 

of the Intelligence Center and School at Fort Huachuca, Arizona.

Beginning in the 1970s, female soldiers were integrated into the main 

branches of the Army. As a result, the Women’s Army Corps Center and 

School at Fort McClellan was discontinued in 1978. The first post-Vietnam move in the direction of a larger chemical training program occurred 

with the redesignation on 30 November 1976 of the Ordnance Center 

and School at Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, as the Ordnance and 

Chemical Center and School. As plans unfolded, the Chemical School was 
70

Victory Starts Here

moved and established as a separate school at Fort McClellan, Alabama, 

on 14 September 1979.

Changes continued in the 1980s. The Aviation School, historically a 

specialist school, became a branch school following designation of Army 

aviation as a branch by the Secretary of the Army on 12 April 1983. Simultaneous expansion of the aviation logistics mission prompted TRADOC to 

establish an Aviation Logistics School, collocated with the Transportation 

School, at Fort Eustis, Virginia, on 1 October 1983. Shortly thereafter, on 

10 January 1984, those two schools were merged as the Transportation and 

Aviation Logistics Schools. That arrangement continued until 1988 when, 

on 1 October, TRADOC brought the Aviation Logistics School under the 

direct authority of the Commander, US Army Aviation Center, while leaving it at Fort Eustis. A similar realignment occurred with placement of the 

Missile and Munitions Center and School at Redstone Arsenal, Alabama, 

under the commander of the Ordnance Center and School at Aberdeen 

Proving Ground, Maryland. On 3 August 1984, the Redstone facility was 

realigned and retitled the Ordnance Missile and Munitions Center and 

School.

On 1 October 1983, the Institute for Military Assistance at Fort Bragg, 

North Carolina, was redesignated the JFK Special Warfare Center, because 

of a special operations forces (SOF) realignment that year. The JFK Special Warfare Center was in essence a branch school but was categorized 

as a TRADOC special activity. Further SOF realignments transferred the 

TRADOC school to the US Army Special Operations Command at Fort 

Bragg on 20 June 1990. TRADOC gained the US Army School of the 

Americas (SOA) when provisions of the Panama Canal Treaty of 1977 

necessitated the transfer of that US Army Security Assistance Agency 

component, located at Fort Gulick, Panama, to CONUS. The school was 

relocated to Fort Benning and transferred provisionally to TRADOC on 

16 December 1985 and formally on 16 April 1986. On 17 January 2001, 

the SOA was inactivated and became the Western Hemisphere Institute for 

Security cooperation (WHINSEC), aligned directly under the Secretary of 

Defense with TRADOC as its executive agent. In 1988, following earlier 

designation of the Signal Center as proponent for the information mission 

area, the Computer Science School, a component of the Soldier Support 

Institute at Fort Benjamin Harrison, was transferred to Fort Gordon.

When the Department of the Army decided to develop advanced training for Army civilians in the form of the Army Management Staff College 

(AMSC), TRADOC assumed proponency for it in August 1987. AMSC 

initially opened in Baltimore, Maryland, in July 1986, and in August 1987, 
71

Organizational Structure

Fort Belvoir was selected as the new site for the school. Following assignment of a full-time commandant, classes were convened at the Fort Belvoir location in 1990. On 1 October 1991, TRADOC acquired the Army 

Logistics Management College (ALMC) at Fort Lee from AMC. In July 

2002, the two schools subordinate to the Ordnance Center and Schools, 

one at Redstone Arsenal, Alabama, and the other at Aberdeen Proving 

Ground, Maryland, were renamed, respectively, the Ordnance Munitions 

and Electronics Maintenance School (COMEMS) and the Ordnance Mechanical Maintenance School (OMMS).

Training Organizations

Throughout TRADOC’s history, training organizations continued to 

evolve. A large portion of basic combat and advanced individual training 

was conducted by the Army Training Centers (ATC) at Forts Dix, Jackson, 

and Leonard Wood, which were devoted specifically to that mission. Initial Entry Training (IET) was also conducted at the ATCs at Forts Knox, 

Benning, Gordon, Sill, and Bliss. Women’s Army Corps (WAC) training 

was conducted at Fort McClellan. TRADOC commanded seven ATCs 

in 1973. The number rose to 11 in 1976 when one-station unit training 

(OSUT) was phased in at several posts. OSUT enabled trainees to pass 

directly from basic to branch-related advanced individual training, saving 

both time and travel. The number of ATCs dropped to 8 in the early 1980s 

and was maintained at that level until the closeout of training at Fort Dix 

in 1992. TRADOC also commanded noncommissioned officer academies 

and drill sergeant schools through several of its installations, as well as an 

Active Component Officer Candidate School at Fort Benning.

The two specialized training agencies under TRADOC jurisdiction in 

1973, the Combat Arms Training Board at Fort Benning and the Training 

Aids Management Agency at Fort Eustis, were joined on 1 August 1974 

by a new Training Devices Requirements Office at Fort Benning, responsible for Army-wide training device requirements. The Fort Eustis agency 

was redesignated the Army Training Support Activity on 1 July 1975. The 

training support program at Fort Eustis was expanded and consolidated in 

a retitled Army Training Support Center on 1 July 1976.

The Training Management Institute, established at Fort Eustis on 16 

July 1975 to further training improvements through workshops and special projects, was redesignated the Training Developments Institute on 2 

May 1977. A further change was the combination of the Logistics Training Board at Fort Lee and the Combat Arms Training Board at Fort Benning into a redesignated Army Training Board on 1 October 1977. This 
72

Victory Starts Here

was also located at Fort Eustis. Both the Training Developments Institute, 

which was renamed the Training Technology Agency, and the Army Training Board eventually moved to Fort Monroe. The former was inactivated 

in 1988 and the latter in 1989.

Test Organizations

There were important early additions to TRADOC’s experiment and 

test capability that served the command in pursuit of its combat developments mission into the late 1980s. In August 1974, the major test facility at 

Fort Hood known as the Modern Army Selected Systems Test Evaluation 

and Review (MASSTER) was transferred to TRADOC from FORSCOM. 

Also transferred to TRADOC were five test boards of AMC’s subordinate 

Test and Evaluation Command. The test boards gave TRADOC, as the 

user representative, control over the means for early-stage conceptual and 

experimental work in the fields of airborne, communications, electronics, field artillery, infantry, armor, engineer, and air defense. These boards 

were subsequently joined by an aviation board and an intelligence and 

security board. As the testing mission grew, TRADOC established a headquarters, DCS for Test and Evaluation, in December 1980. That position 

was eliminated in March 1985 and the function returned to the DCS for 

Combat Developments.

Late in 2002, the position of Deputy Commanding General (DCG), 

Initial Entry Training (IET), created in 1997, became dual-hatted with the 

Army’s new Accessions Command (AAC). The mission for the DCG-IET 

was to ensure that initial entry training remained challenging, safe, relevant, realistic, and executed to Army standards. Originally, DCG-IET had 

oversight for IET policies and programs encompassing the entire process 

of bringing soldiers into the force from recruitment to the completion of 

AIT. With the establishment of the Accessions Command, the recruitment 

function became the responsibility of the new command. Another major 

change was the establishment of a TRADOC DCG, Transformation at Fort 

Lewis to command the brigade coordination cell of the Interim Brigade 

Combat Teams (IBCTs) that were established as a test bed for transformation initiatives.

The DCG, Combined Arms, physically located at Fort Leavenworth, 

Kansas, and the DCG, Combat Service Support, located at Fort Lee, Virginia, had oversight for near-term and mid-term training in their respective realms. The DCGs for the Army National Guard and for the Army 

Reserve, both headquartered at Fort Monroe, Virginia, were responsible 
73

Organizational Structure

for integrating doctrine, training, and combat development throughout the 

Reserve Components.

Also in 2002, the DCSs for Doctrine, Combat Developments, Training, and Intelligence received new titles. The DCS for Doctrine became 

the DCS for Doctrine, Concepts, and Strategy. Training now fell under the 

DCS for Operations and Training. The DCS for Combat Developments 

became the DCS for Developments to bring the title more in line with 

transformation efforts. The Directorate of Information Management came 

under the purview of the DCS for Command, Control, Communications, 

and Computers (DCSC4).

TRADOC Organization

TRADOC continued as a major command (MACOM) until the Army 

was reorganized in September 2006. At that time, it became one of three 

Army Commands (ACOM) along with FORSCOM and AMC. Headquarters, TRADOC consisted of a command group; the commanding general’s 

personal and special staffs; five DCGs—Initial Military Training (IMT), 

Combined Arms (CA), Army Capabilities Integration Center (ARCIC), 

Army National Guard (ARNG), and US Army Reserve (USAR); and the 

G-Staff consisting of the G1/4, G2, G3/5/7, G6, G8, and G9. ARCIC and 

G9 were one in the same function.

During the GWOT period, several unique organizations have evolved 

within TRADOC. Three of these were the Brigade Modernization Command (BMC), the Training Brain Operations Center (TBOC), and the 

TRADOC Intelligence Support Activity (TRISA).

The Brigade Modernization Command (BMC)

The BMC was initially organized as the Future Force Integration Directorate (FFID) of the Army Futures Center in 2005. The next year, the 

Futures Center became the Army Capabilities Integration Center (ARCIC). FFID’s initial mission was to establish an on-site integration organization to facilitate development, testing, and evaluation of the Future 

Combat System (FCS). In March 2007, ARCIC approved additional personnel for a general officer staff organization, which replicated a division 

headquarters. In August of that same year, the FFID mission was modified 

to integrate modernization efforts in support of Army transformation in 

order to provide to joint force commanders with FCS-enabled modular 

brigades beginning in fiscal year 2011 and an FCS Brigade Combat Team 

(BCT) at full operational capability in 2017. On 1 October 2007, FFID 

attained initial operational capability and assumed responsibility for FCS 
74

Victory Starts Here

from the Unit of Action Maneuver Battle Laboratory (UAMBL) at Fort 

Knox, Kentucky.

In late 2010, the Army Vice Chief of Staff directed that FFID, along 

with Fort Bliss, Texas, and White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico, together become the Army’s centerpiece for network integration. Since this 

would require a full BCT to load and test the network, the Chief of Staff 

of the Army (CSA) directed that the 2nd Brigade, 1st Armored Division 

take over the Army Experimental Task Force (AETF) mission from the 

division’s 5th Brigade which would be inactivated in March 2011. On 7 

February 2011 the CSA directed that FFID be re-designated the Brigade 

Modernization Command with a mission to conduct physical integration 

and evaluations of the network, capability packages, and other capabilities 

in order to provide doctrine, organizations, training, materiel, leadership 

and education, personnel, and facilities (DOTMLPF) recommendations to 

the Army.

The Training Brain Operations Center (TBOC)

The TBOC was founded in April 2009 to serve as the operations center 

for the US Army’s Training Brain under the direction of TRADOC’s G-2, 

all as part of the Army G-2 Operational Environment (OE) Enterprise, 

which assesses, defines, and integrates OE context for the Army. TBOC 

leverages the Army’s ability to access real-world data, information, and 

knowledge to create and enhance complex and dynamic environments for 

use by all TRADOC lines of operation: training, leader development and 

education, and concept and capabilities development. The TBOC delivers 

OE context across live, virtual, constructive, and gaming environments for 

use in individual, collective, and self-development training at all echelons. 

It supports: deploying expeditionary forces; contingency expeditionary 

forces; Active Duty, Reserve Component, and National Guard elements; 

Home Station Training; CTCs; and the Army’s CoEs (i.e., schoolhouses).

TBOC also provides scalable exercise design and transformed OE 

data tailored to a commander’s mission and training objectives. Thousands 

of real-world reports and intelligence products are all integrated through 

the TBOC-developed Traffic Integration Messaging System (TiMS) into 

training exercise scenarios. Hand scripting this amount and type of material traditionally would have taken hundreds of hours, but by automating 

these efforts, the TBOC has significantly reduced development requirements. Also in development has been the Training Brain Repository, which 

has been designed to revolutionize the way units apply the rigors of the OE 

to their Home Station Training. In addition to transforming data, TBOC 

has provided units with geo-specific training products to increase exercise 
75

Organizational Structure

realism, including real-world enemy networks, threat overviews, village 

atmospherics, and opposing force/role player character sheets. Its nationally recognized Systems Integration, Modeling, and Simulations (SIMS) 

team re-creates significant combat events or enemy tactics in the form of 

visualizations and gaming scenarios and has been developing the Army’s 

first-ever multiplayer online training capability.

The TRADOC G-2 Intelligence Support Activity (TRISA)

TRISA was established in December 2006 at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas. Its mission was to provide enterprise OE support to TRADOC, the 

Army, and the nation. It fostered collaboration to improve productivity 

through synthesis of TRADOC G-2 capabilities resident at Fort Leavenworth and selected elements at Fort Monroe, Virginia. TRISA consisted of 

six directorates/offices: Wargaming, Experimentation, Test, and Evaluation Directorate; Models and Simulations Operational Environment Directorate; Foreign Military Studies Office; Threats Directorate; University of 

Foreign Military and Cultural Studies; and Human Terrain System Directorate. It provided personnel and financial management and prioritized the 

work for the TRADOC DCS, G-2 directorates assigned to TRISA. It also 

provided advice and assistance to TRADOC senior leaders on the application of the OE and other intelligence policies and procedures.

US Army Accessions Command (AAC)

After moving to Fort Knox, Kentucky, as a result of BRAC 2005, 

AAC, the activity responsible for recruiting the service’s officer and enlisted ranks, was inactivated on 18 January 2012. This inactivation resulted from efficiency reviews conducted by the Army and DOD. AAC’s 

inactivation was expected to create economic savings through manpower 

reductions, including the elimination of two general officer and 65 other 

military positions, about 130 civilian positions, and 290 contractor manyears.

Deputy Commanding Generals (DCG)

DCG-Combined Arms/CAC Commanding General

TRADOC’s DCG-Combined Arms is dual-hatted as the commanding 

general of the Combined Arms Center (CAC), Fort Leavenworth, Kansas. 

CAC’s commander serves as the TRADOC proponent for leader development; professional military education (officer, warrant officer, noncommissioned officer, and civilian); mission command/battle command and 

command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (more commonly known as C4ISR); collec-
76

Victory Starts Here

tive training; Army doctrine; and dissemination of observations/lessons 

learned. The CAC commander is responsible for providing guidance, leadership, and command supervision to the branch centers/schools to ensure 

that training remains safe, relevant, and realistic and executed to Army 

standards. CAC’s commander is also responsible for the Army’s Combat 

Training Center Program.

DCG-Futures/ARCIC Director

The DCG-Futures is dual-hatted as the Army Capabilities Integration 

Center’s (ARCIC) director. ARCIC develops and integrates into a joint 

warfighting environment, from concept to capability, all aspects of the future force. This DCG and his staff develop and integrate Joint and Army 

concepts, architectures, and DOTMLPF capabilities; validate science and 

technology priorities; and lead future-force experimentation. The DCGFutures synchronizes and integrates Army capabilities with Joint, interagency, and multinational capabilities.

DCG-IMT

The DCG-Initial Military Training (IMT) is the TRADOC executive 

responsible for the Army’s officer, warrant officer, and enlisted training 

Figure 28. TRADOC Organization in Early 2013 (drawn largely 

from various elements of TRADOC website).
77

Organizational Structure

process through completion of IMT. The DCG-IMT is also responsible for 

providing IMT policy and execution guidance to TRADOC commanders 

and staff outside the IMT chain of command. IMT encompasses receptionbattalion operations that support IMT; basic combat training; advanced 

individual training; one-station unit training; Reserve Officer Training 

Corps; Officer Candidate School; Warrant Officer Candidate School; Basic Officer Leader Course (BOLC) Phases A and B; and recruiter, drill 

sergeant, and other IMT cadre training.

DCG-Army Reserve

The DCG-Army Reserve assists the TRADOC Commander in executing missions that require integration of Reserve Soldiers.

DCG-National Guard

The DCG-Army National Guard (ARNG) assists TRADOC’s commander in DOTMLPF matters affecting the training and readiness of 

Army National Guard Soldiers and champions TRADOC programs and 

future initiatives through existing senior-level forums.

Deputy Chiefs of Staff (DCS)

1. DCS, G-1/4 (Personnel and Logistics).

2. DCS, G-2 (Intelligence).

3. DCS, G-3/5/7 (Operations, Plans, and Training).

4. DCS, G-6 (Command, Control, Communications, and Computers).

5. DCS, G-8 (Resource Management).

Personal and Special Staff

1. Chaplain

2. Command Group Actions Office

3. Equal Employment Opportunity

4. Executive Services Office

5. Inspector General

6. Institute for NCO Professional Development

7. Internal Review and Audit Compliance

8. Military History and Heritage
78

Victory Starts Here

9. Public Affairs

10. Quality Assurance Office

11. Safety Office

12. Surgeon

Schools

TRADOC operates 35 centers and schools on 13 installations.

1. Adjutant General School, Fort Jackson, South Carolina.

2. Airborne School, Fort Benning, Georgia.

3. Air Defense Artillery Center/School, Fort Sill, Oklahoma.

4. Armor Center/School, Fort Benning, Georgia.

5. Army Logistics University, Fort Lee, Virginia.

6. Army Management Staff College, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas.

7. Army War College, Carlisle Barracks, Pennsylvania.

8. Aviation Center/School, Fort Rucker, Alabama.

9. Aviation Logistics School (128th Aviation Brigade), Fort Eustis, 

Virginia.

10. Basic Combat Training Center, Fort Jackson, South Carolina.

11. Chaplain School, Fort Jackson, South Carolina.

12. Chemical School, Maneuver Support Center, Fort Leonard Wood, 

Missouri.

13. Command and General Staff College, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas.

14. Defense Language Institute/Foreign Language Center, Presidio of 

Monterey, California.

15. Drill Sergeant School, Fort Jackson, South Carolina.

16. Engineer School, Maneuver Support Center, Fort Leonard Wood, 

Missouri.

17. Field Artillery Center/School, Fort Sill, Oklahoma.

18. Finance School, Fort Jackson, South Carolina.
79

Organizational Structure

19. Infantry Center/School, Fort Benning, Georgia.

20. Intelligence Center/School, Fort Huachuca, Arizona.

21. Military Police School, Maneuver Support Center, Fort Leonard 

Wood, Missouri.

22. Officer Candidate School, Fort Benning, Georgia.

23. Ordnance Center/School, Fort Lee, Virginia.

24. Physical Fitness School, Fort Jackson, South Carolina.

25. Quartermaster Center/School, Fort Lee, Virginia.

26. Ranger School, Fort Benning, Georgia.

27. Recruiting and Retention School, Fort Jackson, South Carolina.

28. School of Advanced Military Studies, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas.

29. School of Information Technology, Signal Center, Fort Gordon, 

Georgia.

30. Sergeants Major Academy, Fort Bliss, Texas.

31. Signal Center/School, Fort Gordon, Georgia.

32. Transportation Center/School, Fort Lee, Virginia.

33. University of Foreign Military and Cultural Studies (UFMCS), 

Fort Leavenworth, Kansas.

34. Warrant Officer Career College, Fort Rucker, Alabama.

35. Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation (WHINSEC), Fort Benning, Georgia.

Centers of Excellence (CoE)

TRADOC has made the transition to six CoEs centered largely on 

the same number of warfighting functions. A CoE has been defined as a 

designated command or organization within an assigned area of expertise 

that delivers current warfighting requirements; identifies future capabilities; integrates assigned DOTMLPF dimensions; and presents resourceinformed, outcomes-based recommendations to the TRADOC Commanding General:

1. The Field Artillery Center/School and Air Defense Artillery Center/School combined to form the Fires CoE at Fort Sill, Oklahoma.
80

Victory Starts Here

2. The Armor Center/School and Infantry Center/School combined 

to form the Maneuver CoE at Fort Benning, Georgia, which has 

developed a close coordinating relationship with the Aviation CoE 

at Fort Rucker, Alabama.

3. The still fairly newly styled Maneuver Support CoE, Fort Leonard 

Wood, Missouri, since the mid-1990s has consisted of the Chemical, Engineer, and Military Police Schools.

4. The Ordnance Center/School, Transportation Center/School, and 

Quartermaster Center/School combined to form the Sustainment 

CoE at Fort Lee, Virginia. Associated with the Sustainment CoE 

are the Ordnance Munitions and Electronics Maintenance School 

(OMEMS), Redstone Arsenal, Alabama, which has moved to Fort 

Lee, and the Soldier Support Institute (Adjutant General and Finance Schools), Fort Jackson, South Carolina.

5. The still relatively new Mission Command CoE was established 

as part of CAC at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, and has encompassed the Intelligence CoE at Fort Huachuca, Arizona, and the 

Signal CoE at Fort Gordon, Georgia. Intelligence has retained its 

identity as the sixth warfighting function.

6. Another CoE, not a warfighting one in this case, is the Initial Military Training (IMT) CoE at Fort Eustis, Virginia.

Other TRADOC Major Subordinate Organizations

1. Combined Arms Support Command (CASCOM), Fort Lee, Virginia.

2. TRADOC Analysis Center (TRAC), Fort Leavenworth, Kansas.

3. Center for the Army Profession and Ethic (CAPE), United States 

Military Academy at West Point, New York
81

Chapter VIII

International Activities

Since its establishment in 1973, TRADOC has managed an expanding 

program of bilateral staff talks and exchanges with allied armies. Included 

in the command’s responsibilities were the coordination of a quadripartite, 

or America, Britain, Canada, and Australia (ABCA) forum, and NATO 

standardization and interoperability programs.

Beginning in 1975 with the German Army, TRADOC began a series 

of bilateral army-to-army staff talks with other countries. By 2008, there 

were staff talks with 11 nations on a regular basis. In addition, TRADOC 

represented the US Army in more informal discussions with the Israeli Defense Force. International activities, including work with selected armies 

of Latin American nations, increased greatly. As part of the TRADOC liaison network, TRADOC officers served abroad in Germany, the United 

Kingdom, France, Spain, Italy, Turkey, Israel, Korea, Japan, and Canada. 

At the same time, 15 nations sent liaison officers to TRADOC headquarters. Of long-standing were the liaison arrangements with Australia, Brazil, Canada, France, Germany, Israel, Italy, Japan, Korea, the Netherlands, 

Spain, Turkey, and the United Kingdom. Additions that are more recent 

were representatives from the Czech Republic and Greece. By 2008, the 

number had grown to 17 with the addition of Singapore and Norway.

The International Army Programs Directorate (IAPD), Army Capabilities Integration Center (ARCIC), was responsible for the administration 

and logistical support of Foreign Liaison Officers assigned to Headquarters, TRADOC; the administrative support to TRADOC liaison officers 

assigned overseas; the implementation and day-to-day management of the 

TRADOC International Engagement Activities; and TRADOC support to 

Army-level bilateral staff talks. The Joint and Allied Doctrine Division 

(JADD) of ARCIC provided staff management for the integration of Army 

doctrine into joint, multinational, and multi-Service doctrinal publications. 

JADD wrote selected joint and multinational doctrine and coordinated and 

reviewed selected joint Army doctrine. It focused primarily on strategic 

and operational level doctrine.

Standardization and Interoperability

On its establishment, TRADOC continued Continental Army Command’s (CONARC) coordination of the Service schools’ participation in 

international standardization programs held under the auspices of NATO 

and ABCA. NATO meetings included separate panel and working party 
82

Victory Starts Here

conferences relating to a wide variety of military topics including weapons; inter-Service tactical air operations; mobility; nuclear, biological, and 

chemical (NBC) defense; and intelligence. ABCA meetings—more doctrinally oriented than the NATO meetings—related, among other things, to 

standardization in the fields of command and control, aviation, air defense, 

communications, and quality assurance.

In 1976, TRADOC assumed Department of the Army (DA) planning 

and coordination responsibilities for four NATO and four ABCA working 

parties. The new ABCA responsibilities included the air defense, armor, infantry, and surface-to-surface working groups. The NATO responsibilities 

were for the movements and transport, and rail movement and transport 

working parties; the land-based air defense weapons panel; and the NATO 

helicopter inter-Service working party. TRADOC provided delegates and 

data to the subgroups of both those forums. Actions in TRADOC’s purview that were agreed to by the national parties and cleared by the review 

bodies were implemented by TRADOC on DA approval.

During fiscal year 1977, a new Defense Department emphasis on developing standardized equipment with NATO allies began to be felt at 

TRADOC. Prompted as part of that defense policy was the related notion 

of seeking “interoperability” between like weapons or pieces of equipment 

that were being developed separately by the United States and an allied nation. The issue of a two-way street in weapons development was sensitive, 

and usually meant that the United States would have to adopt more alliedbuilt weapons into its own arsenal if the principles of standardization and 

interoperability were to have any meaning. The Nunn- Culver Amendment 

to the 1977 Department of Defense Appropriation Act formally committed the United States to standardization, or at least interoperability, with 

its allies.

During the 1980s, it became evident that doctrine to guide US Army 

operations with allied forces was needed. Though the writing of up-to-date 

Army and joint doctrine were priority efforts by necessity, it was also true 

that future wars of any large dimension would likely be allied enterprises. 

Some alliance-specific doctrine existed, such as Allied Tactical Publication 

(ATP)-35A, Land Force Tactical Doctrine, which was the NATO manual 

published by the Military Agency for Standardization in 1995. ATP-35A 

was contemporary with the 1993 edition of FM 100-5, which had several 

chapters devoted to combined arms operations. Also already published in 

a test version was JCS Pub 3-0, Doctrine for Joint Operations. But there 

was no formal and general combined operations field manual in the US 

Army inventory. Beginning in early 1989, TRADOC undertook the de-
83

International Activities

velopment of FM 100-8, Combined Army Operations. Doctrine writers 

completed the preliminary draft of FM 100-8 in September 1992 and sent 

it to the TRADOC Deputy Chief of Staff for Doctrine for approval. After 

some revision, it was resubmitted in December. Over the next 5 years, the 

draft manual underwent significant revision, and its name was changed to 

The Army in Multinational Operations. FM 100-8 was published on 24 

November 1997.

Bilateral Staff Talks

By virtue of its Army-wide doctrinal, combat developments, and training missions, TRADOC acted as the US Army’s executive agent for bilateral staff talks and exercised multilateral contacts with allied and friendly 

armies around the world. Those significant activities were carried out from 

the headquarters at Fort Monroe. Beginning in 1975 with the first formal 

staff talks with the army of the Federal Republic of Germany, the level 

of activity in bilateral army-to-army dialogue increased to include staff 

talks with armies of the United Kingdom, France, Italy, Spain, Canada, 

Brazil, Korea, Australia, Israel, and Japan. The primary objective for talks 

among formally allied armies was the enhancement of the ability to operate together with common understanding of the battlefield and interoperable equipment with which to fight. Further, in discussions with friendly 

countries, TRADOC aimed to develop instructive exchange on broader 

areas of interest. In addition, over its 40-year history, TRADOC increasingly carried out cooperative activities with the armies of several Latin 

Figure 29. Lieutenant General Bruno Kasdorf, German Army 

Chief of Staff meets with LTG David Halverson, TRADOC 

Deputy Commanding General/Chief of Staff, and senior leaders at 

Headquarters TRADOC, Fort Eustis, Virginia.
84

Victory Starts Here

American countries. In the absence of formal talks, informal bilateral exchanges were common, as were visits by senior officers of allied and some 

non-allied armies to TRADOC headquarters, centers, and schools, and numerous visits by senior TRADOC officials to other armies.

With the end of the Cold War, bilateral talks continued as routine without the urgency of a looming Soviet threat. New dialogues opened with 

former East Bloc countries and with China. However, with the beginning 

of the Global War on Terrorism (GWOT) in 2001, bilateral talks as well 

as issues of interoperability assumed a new urgency. Operations in Iraq 

included several allied nations, as did operations in Afghanistan. Once the 

conventional aspects of the war ended, counterinsurgency warfare dominated operations. Allies with experience in the counterinsurgency environment were asked for their views. During this period, TRADOC coordinated the reviewing, editing, and staffing of Allied Joint publications (AJP), 

which included the subjects of allied military police operations, joint airspace control, personnel recovery, targeting, information operations, and 

foreign humanitarian assistance. Like joint operations with other Services, 

the Army and TRADOC have become directly involved with allies in developing doctrine and procedures from inception rather than adjusting to 

already established procedures.

On 5 August 2011, the Director of ARCIC approved the Building 

Partner Capacity (BPC) Individual Training (IT) Action Plan. TRADOC 

served as the Army lead for the IT Line of Effort (LOE). This action plan, 

based on BPC IT LOE Working Group (WG) analysis, provided an initial 

Figure 30. LTG David Halverson, TRADOC DCG/CoS, visits 

with Major General Farah Mohamed, Tanzania People’s Defense 

Force Chief of Operations and Training, at Headquarters TRADOC, Fort Eustis, Virginia.
85

International Activities

review of the foundation knowledge and skills needed and at what levels 

of the Professional Military Education (PME) continuum they should be 

taught to further advance BPC competency and understanding, and to best 

enable the Army’s general purpose forces to collectively train and execute 

missions supporting BPC. The WG’s initial recommendations were further analyzed by training developers in various proponent agencies and 

CoEs to determine the exact course content, hours of instruction, and best 

ways to integrate the training and education of these knowledge and skills 

at various levels of PME. The BPC IT LOE Workshop identified 21 foundational knowledge and skills needed by Soldiers at various points in their 

career. TRADOC Pamphlet 525-8-4, The US Army Concept for Building 

Partner Capacity, was published on 22 November 2011. The BPC concept 

has included nine future force required capabilities that will improve the 

Army’s ability to prevent and deter conflict and prevail in a wide range of 

contingencies. The concept has underpinned the BPC capabilities-based 

assessment (CBA) that was already underway at the time of this publication.

87

Chapter IX

2005 Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC)

The fiscal year 2002 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) 

empowered DOD to pursue one BRAC round in 2005. The following 

were the major recommendations that most affected TRADOC and are 

drawn directly from the first volume of the May 2005 DOD BRAC Report. 

These lengthy primary-source passages convey the full Army institutional 

context within which BRAC 2005 fundamentally reshaped the TRADOC 

organizational landscape:

A. Recommendation: Realign Fort Bliss, Texas, by relocating the Air Defense Artillery (ADA) Center and School 

to Fort Sill, Oklahoma. Consolidate the ADA Center and 

School with the Field Artillery Center and School to establish a Net Fires Center.

Justification: This recommendation consolidates Net 

Fires training and doctrine development at a single location. The moves advance the Maneuver Support Center 

(MANSCEN) model, currently in place at Fort Leonard 

Wood, Missouri, which consolidated the Military Police, 

Engineer, and Chemical Centers and Schools. This recommendation improves the MANSCEN concept by consolidating functionally related branch centers and schools, 

fostering consistency, standardization, and training proficiency. It also facilitates task force stabilization by combining operational forces with institutional training. In 

addition, it consolidates both ADA and Field Artillery 

skill level I courses at one location, allowing the Army to 

reduce the total number of Military Occupational Skills 

training locations (reducing the TRADOC footprint). Additionally, it enhances military value, supports the Army’s 

Force Structure Plan, and maintains sufficient surge capability to address unforeseen requirements. It improves 

training capabilities while eliminating excess capacity at 

institutional training installations. This provides the same 

or better level of service at a reduced cost. This recommendation supports Army Transformation by collocating 

institutional training, Modification Table of Organization 

and Equipment (MTOE) units, research, development, 
88

Victory Starts Here

test and evaluation (RDT&E) organizations, and other Table of Distribution and Allowances (TDA) units in large 

numbers on single installations to support force stabilization and engage training.

B. Recommendation: Realign Fort Knox, Kentucky, by 

relocating the Armor Center and School to Fort Benning, 

Georgia, to accommodate the activation of an Infantry 

Brigade Combat Team (BCT) at Fort Knox, Kentucky, 

and the relocation of engineer, military police, and combat service support units from Europe and Korea. Realign 

Fort McCoy, Wisconsin, by relocating the 84th Army Reserve Regional Training Center (ARRTC) to Fort Knox, 

Kentucky.

Justification: This recommendation enhances military 

value, improves training and deployment capabilities, 

better utilizes training resources, and creates significant 

efficiencies and cost savings while maintaining sufficient 

surge capability to address unforeseen requirements. It 

properly locates Operational Army units in support of the 

Army’s Force Structure Plans and modular force transformation. This recommendation supports the consolidation 

of the Armor and Infantry Centers and Schools at Fort 

Benning and creates a Maneuver Center of Excellence 

for ground forces training and doctrine development. It 

consolidates both Infantry and Armor One Station Unit 

Training (OSUT), which allows the Army to reduce the 

total number of Basic Combat Training locations from 

five to four. This recommendation also relocates the 84th 

ARRTC to Fort Knox and supports another recommendation that relocates Army Reserve Command and Control 

units to Fort McCoy. These relocations enhance command and control within the Army Reserve and promote 

interaction between the Active and Reserve Components. 

This recommendation directly supports the Army’s operational unit stationing and training requirements by using 

available facilities, ranges, and training land at Fort Knox, 

Kentucky (vacated by the Armor Center and School), to 

effectively and efficiently relocate various Combat Support and Combat Service Support units returning from 
89

2005 Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC)

overseas, and as the installation platform for the activation of a new Infantry BCT. These units are a combination of the relocation of Integrated Global Presence and 

Basing Strategy (IGPBS)-related units returning from 

overseas and the activation of units as part of the Army’s 

modular force transformation.”

C. Recommendation: Realign Fort Eustis, Virginia, by 

relocating the Transportation Center and School to Fort 

Lee, Virginia. Realign Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, by relocating the Ordnance Center and School to 

Fort Lee. Realign Redstone Arsenal, Alabama, by relocating the Missile and Munitions Center to Fort Lee. 

Consolidate the Transportation Center and School and the 

Ordnance Center and School with the Quartermaster Center and School, the Army Logistics Management College, 

and the Combined Arms Support Command (CASCOM) 

to establish a Combat Service Support Center at Fort Lee.

Justification: This recommendation consolidates Combat 

Service Support (CSS) training and doctrine development 

at a single installation, which promotes training effectiveness and functional efficiencies. The moves advance the 

Maneuver Support Center (MANSCEN) model, currently 

in place at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, which consolidated Military Police, Engineer, and Chemical Centers 

and Schools. It enhances military value, supports the Army’s force structure plan, and maintains sufficient surge 

capability to address future unforeseen requirements. It 

improves training capabilities while eliminating excess 

capacity at institutional training installations. This provides the same or better level of service at a reduced cost. 

This recommendation supports Army Transformation by 

collocating institutional training MTOE units, RDT&E 

organizations, and other TDA units in large numbers on 

single installations to support force stabilization and engage training.

D. Recommendation: Realign Fort Eustis, Virginia, by 

relocating the Aviation Logistics School and consolidating it with the Aviation Center and School at Fort Rucker, 

Alabama.
90

Victory Starts Here

Justification: This recommendation consolidates Aviation training and doctrine development at a single location. Consolidating Aviation Logistics training with the 

Aviation Center and School fosters consistency, standardization, and training proficiency. It consolidates both 

Aviation skill level I–producing courses at one location, 

which allows the Army to reduce the total number of 

Military Occupational Skills training locations (reducing the TRADOC footprint). Additionally, it enhances 

military value, supports the Army’s Force Structure Plan, 

and maintains sufficient surge capability to address unforeseen requirements. It improves training capabilities 

while eliminating excess capacity at institutional training installations. This provides the same or better level of 

service at a reduced cost. This recommendation supports 

Army Transformation by collocating institutional training, MTOE units, RDT&E organizations, and other TDA 

units in large numbers on single installations to support 

force stabilization and engage training.

E. Recommendation: Close Fort Monroe, Virginia. Relocate the US Army Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) Headquarters, the Installation Management Agency (IMA) Northeast Region Headquarters, the US Army 

Network Enterprise Technology Command (NETCOM) 

Northeast Region Headquarters, and the Army Contracting Agency (ACA) Northern Region Office to Fort Eustis, 

Virginia. Relocate the US Army Accessions Command 

and US Army Cadet Command to Fort Knox, Kentucky.

Justification: This recommendation closes Fort Monroe, an administrative installation, and moves the tenant 

Headquarters organizations to Fort Eustis and Fort Knox. 

It enhances the Army’s military value, is consistent with 

the Army’s Force Structure Plan, and maintains adequate 

surge capabilities to address unforeseen future requirements. The closure allows the Army to move administrative headquarters to multi-purpose installations that provide the Army more flexibility to accept new missions. 

Both Fort Eustis and Fort Knox have operational and 

training capabilities that Fort Monroe lacks, and both have 
91

2005 Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC)

excess capacity that can be used to accept the organizations relocating from Fort Monroe. The recommended relocations also retain or enhance vital linkages between the 

relocating organizations and other headquarters activities. 

TRADOC HQs is moved to Fort Eustis in order to remain 

within commuting distance of the Joint Forces Command 

(JFCOM) HQs in Norfolk, Virginia. JFCOM oversees 

all joint training across the military. IMA and NETCOM 

HQs are moved to Fort Eustis because of recommendations to consolidate the Northeastern and Southeastern 

regions of these two commands into one Eastern Region 

at Fort Eustis. The ACA Northern Region is relocated to 

Fort Eustis because its two largest customers are TRADOC and IMA. The Accessions and Cadet Commands are 

relocated to Fort Knox because of recommendations to 

locate the Army’s Human Resources Command (HRC) at 

Fort Knox. The HRC recommendation includes the collocation of the Accessions and Cadet Commands with the 

Recruiting Command already at Fort Knox and creates a 

Center of Excellence for military personnel and recruiting 

functions by improving personnel lifecycle management.

As of the publication of this monograph, most of the major elements 

of the above recommendations that organizationally altered TRADOC 

(with some modifications) had been put into effect. The most significant 

exception was the eventual decision not to move the Aviation Logistics 

School to Fort Rucker, Alabama.

Farewell to Fort Monroe

Fort Monroe, Virginia, was Headquarters TRADOC’s home installation from the command’s inception in July 1973 until September 2011. It 

was such a part of TRADOC’s culture that the outline of the fort was part 

of the command’s distinctive unit insignia, or crest. The construction of 

Fort Monroe began at historic Old Point Comfort in 1818 as a result of 

apparent coastal defense lessons learned from the War of 1812. Designed 

initially to defend the Rip Raps artificial island and nearby Thimble Shoal 

shipping channel, the fort was complete enough in 1823 to be garrisoned 

while construction continued until 1834. In 1824, the fort became the location of the Artillery School of Practice, one of the Army’s first schools. 

During the Civil War, Fort Monroe was quickly reinforced and became a 

symbol of uninterrupted Federal presence in southeastern Virginia. It was 
92

Victory Starts Here

also the center of considerable military activity during the remainder of 

the war. One unique incident occurred in 1861. Union General Benjamin 

F. Butler declared that runaway slaves who had sought refuge at the fort 

were “contraband of war,” which meant that they were useful to the enemy 

and therefore could be “confiscated” by Federal forces. From that time 

on, runaways were known as “contrabands” as thousands sought freedom 

by crossing Union lines. Thus Fort Monroe gained the moniker of “Freedom’s Fortress.”

After the Civil War, Fort Monroe returned to its mission of coast defense and educating artillerymen. In the 1880s, the United States modernized its coast artillery defenses. Fort Monroe received new armament that 

at the time was the latest in military technology. By World War I, the fort 

boasted armament ranging from 3-inch rapid fire guns to 12-inch “disappearing” guns, the latter of which could fire a 1,080-pound projectile 

several miles. By World War II, the airplane had made the fort’s impressive armament obsolete. In 1955, Fort Monroe became the Headquarters 

of the US Army Continental Army Command (CONARC). It was an important mission which CONARC accomplished until 1973, when Fort 

Monroe became the home of the newly established US Army Training 

and Doctrine Command (TRADOC). With its brick buildings, tree-lined 

streets and scenic sea wall, Fort Monroe was a special place for those 

who lived and worked there, and many were sad to leave. General Martin E. Dempsey, the Commanding General of TRADOC just before the 

fort closed, commissioned a special volume entitled Freedom’s Fortress: 

A Pictorial Heritage of Fort Monroe as a memento. Despite its closure as 

an active Army installation, Fort Monroe remains part of both TRADOC’s 

history and heritage.

Figure 31. Fort Monroe, Virginia.
93

Glossary

AAC Army Accessions Command

ABCA America, Britain, Canada, and Australia

ACA Army Contracting Agency

ACOM Army Command

ACRA Airlift, Concepts, and Requirements Agency

ADA Air Defense Artillery

ADP Army Doctrinal Publications

ADRP Army Doctrine Reference Publications

AHIP Army Helicopter Improvement Program

AIT advanced individual training

AJP Allied Joint Publication

ALFA Air-Land Forces Application Agency

ALMC Army Logistics Management College 

AMC Army Materiel Command

AMSC Army Management Staff College

AOE Army of Excellence

ARCIC Army Capabilities Integration Center

ARFORGEN Army Force Generation

ARNG Army National Guard

ARRTC Army Reserve Regional Training Center

ARTEP Army Training and Evaluation Program

AT XXI Army Training XXI

ATACMS Army Tactical Missile System

ATC Army Training Center

ATLDP Army Training and Leader Development Panel
94

Victory Starts Here

ATP Army Techniques Publications

ATP Army Training Program

ATP Allied Tactical Publication

AWE advanced warfighting experiments

BCT basic combat training

BCT Brigade Combat Team

BCTP Battle Command Training Program

BMC Brigade Modernization Command

BOLC Basic Officer Leader Course

BPC Building Partner Capability

BRAC Base Realignment and Closure

BTID Battlefield Target Identification Device

C3 command, control, and communications

C4I command, control, communications, computers, 

 and intelligence

CABP Comprehensive Approach to Building Partner-

 ships

CAC Combined Arms Center/Combined Arms Com-

 mand

CALL Center for Army Lessons Learned

CAPE Center for the Army Profession and Ethic

CAS3 Combined Arms and Services Staff School

CASCOM Combined Arms Support Command

CATA Combined Arms Training Activity

CATT Combined Arms Tactical Trainer

CBA capabilities-based assessment

CBRS Concepts-Based Requirements System

CDC Combat Developments Command
95

Glossary

CDEC Combat Developments Experimentation Com-

 mand

CGSC Command and General Staff College

CINC commander in chief

CLIC Center for Low Intensity Conflict

CMTC Combat Maneuver Training Center

COCOM Combatant Command

CoE Center of Excellence

COE Contemporary Operating Environment

CONARC Continental Army Command

CONUS continental United States

CREW Counter Radio-Controlled IED Electronic War-

 fare

CSA Chief of Staff of the Army

CSS Combat Service Support

CTC Combat Training Center

DA Department of the Army

DARPA Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency

DCG Deputy Commanding General

DCS Deputy Chief of Staff

DCDSC4 Deputy Chief of Staff for Command, Control, 

 Communications, and Computers

DCSTE Deputy Chief of Staff for Test and Evaluation

DOD Department of Defense

DOTLMS doctrine, organization, training, leader develop-

 ment, materiel, and soldiers

DOTMLPF doctrine, organizations, training, materiel, lead-

 ership and education, personnel, and facilities
96

Victory Starts Here

DRS Division Restructuring Study 

ELSORV Enhanced Logistic Off-Road Vehicle

EOD Explosive Ordnance Disposal

EXFOR Experimental Force

FAMSIM family of simulations

FAST Future Army Schools Twenty-One

FCS Future Combat System

FFID Future Force Integration Directorate

FM field manual

FORSCOM Forces Command

G1/4 (Personnel and Logistics)

G2 (Intelligence)

G3/5/7 (Operations, Plans, and Training)

G6 (Command, Control, Communications, and 

 Computers)

G8 (Resource Management)

G9 (Concept Development, Experimentation, and 

 Requirements Determination)

GPS Global Positioning System

GWOT Global War on Terrorism

HDTE historical decision training exercise

HIMARS High Mobility Artillery Rocket System

HRC Human Resources Command

HTTB High Technology Test Bed

IAPD International Army Programs Directorate

IBCT Interim Brigade Combat Team

IED improvised explosive device
97

Glossary

IET initial entry training

IGPBS Integrated Global Presence and Basing Strategy

ILE Intermediate Level Education

IMA Installation Management Agency

IMCOM Installation Management Command

IMT Initial Military Training

IT Individual Training

JAAD Joint and Allied Doctrine Division

JCS Joint Chiefs of Staff

JFCOM Joint Forces Command

JNTC Joint National Training Capability

JP joint publication

JRTC Joint Readiness Training Center

J-SAK Joint Attack of the Second Echelon

J-SEAD joint suppression of enemy air defense

JSTARS Joint Surveillance and Target Acquisition Radar 

 System

LAM Louisiana Maneuvers

LAV light armored vehicle

LIC low intensity conflict

LOE Line of Effort

MACOM major command

MANSCEN Maneuver Support Center

MASSTER Modern Army Selected Systems Test Evaluation 

 and Review

MCA Mobility Concepts Agency

MHEP Military History Education Program
98

Victory Starts Here

MILES Multiple Integrated Laser Engagement System

MLRS Multiple Launch Rocket System

MOS military occupational specialty

MOUT military operations in urban terrain

MRAP Mine-Resistant Ambush Protected

MTOE Modification Table of Organization and 

 Equipment

NATO North Atlantic Treaty Organization

NBC nuclear, biological, and chemical

NCOES Noncommissioned Officer Education System

NDAA National Defense Authorization Act

NETCOM Network Enterprise Technology Command

NTC National Training Center

O&O organization and operations

OE Operational Environment

OES Officer Education System

OMEMS Ordnance Munitions and Electronics Mainten-

 ance School

OMMS Ordnance Mechanical Maintenance School

OOTW operations other than war

OPFOR opposing force

OSUT one-station unit training

PME Professional Military Education

POM program objective memorandum

RDT&E research, development, test and evaluation

RETO Review of Education and Training for Officers

ROAD Reorganization Objective, Army Divisions
99

Glossary

ROTC Reserve Officers’ Training Corps

SAMS School of Advanced Military Studies

SAT Systems Approach to Training

SCOPES squad combat operations exercise, simulated

SIMNET Simulation Network

SIMS Systems Integration, Modeling, and Simulations

SOA School of the Americas

SOF special operations forces

SQT skill qualification test

SWG Seminar War Games

TAC Tactical Air Command

TACS-AAGS tactical air control system–Army air-ground

 system

TASS Total Army School System

TBOC Training Brain Operations Center

TDA Table of Distribution and Allowances

TiMS Traffic Integration Messaging System

TOE table of organization and equipment

TRAC TRADOC Analysis Center

TRADOC US Army Training and Doctrine Command

TRISA TRADOC Intelligence Support Activity

TSM TRADOC System Managers

TTP tactics, techniques, and procedures

TUAV tactical unmanned aerial vehicle

UAV unmanned aerial vehicle

UFMCS University of Foreign Military and Cultural

 Studies
100

Victory Starts Here

US United States

USMC US Marine Corps

WAC Women’s Army Corps

WG Working Group

WHINSEC Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Coop-

 eration
101

Appendix

Additional Reading

Bronfeld, Saul. “Did TRADOC Outmanoeuvre the Manoeuvrists? 

A Comment.” War and Society 27 (October 2008): 111–

125.

———. “Fighting Outnumbered: The Impact of the Yom Kippur 

War on the U.S. Army.” The Journal of Military History 71

(April 2007): 465–498.

Brownlee, Colonel Romie L., and Brigadier General William J. 

Mullen III, interviewers. Changing an Army: An Oral 

History of General William E. DePuy, USA Retired. 

Carlisle Barracks, PA: US Military History Institute, and 

Washington, DC: US Army Center of Military History, 

1988.

Cameron, Robert S. Mobility, Shock, and Firepower: The 

Emergence of the U.S. Army’s Armor Branch, 1917–1945.

US Army Historical Series. Washington, DC: US Army 

Center of Military History, 2008.

———. To Fight or Not to Fight? Organizational and Doctrinal 

Trends in Mounted Maneuver Reconnaissance from the 

Interwar Years to Operation IRAQI FREEDOM. Fort 

Leavenworth, KS: Combat Studies Institute, Combined 

Arms Center, 2010.

Canedy, Susan, James T. Stensvaag, Anne W. Chapman, John L. 

Romjue, and Charles H. Cureton. TRADOC Support to 

Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm: A Preliminary 

Study. TRADOC Historical Study Series. Fort Monroe, VA: 

Office of the Command Historian, US Army Training and 

Doctrine Command, 1992.

Chapman, Anne W. The Army’s Training Revolution, 1973–1990: 

An Overview. TRADOC Historical Study Series. Fort 
102

Victory Starts Here

Monroe, VA: Office of the Command Historian, US Army 

Training and Doctrine Command, and Washington, DC: US 

Army Center of Military History, 1994.

———. The National Training Center Matures, 1985–1993. 

TRADOC Historical Monograph Series. Fort Monroe, VA: 

Military History Office, US Army Training and Doctrine 

Command, 1997.

———. The Origins and Development of the National Training 

Center, 1976–1984. TRADOC Historical Monograph 

Series. Fort Monroe, VA: Office of the Command Historian, 

US Army Training and Doctrine Command, 1992.

Chapman, Anne W., Carol J. Lilly, and Benjamin King. 

Transforming the Army: TRADOC’s First Thirty Years, 

1973–2003. TRADOC Historical Study Series. Fort 

Monroe, VA: Military History Office, US Army Training 

and Doctrine Command, 2003.

Chapman, Anne W., Carol J. Lilly, John L. Romjue, and Susan 

Canedy. Prepare the Army for War: A Historical Overview 

of the Army Training and Doctrine Command, 1973–1998. 

TRADOC Historical Study Series. Fort Monroe, VA: 

Military History Office, US Army Training and Doctrine 

Command, 1998.

Dastrup, Boyd L. Cedat Fortuna Peritis (Let Fortune Yield to 

Experience): A History of the Field Artillery School. Fort 

Sill, OK: Field Artillery Branch Historian’s Office, US 

Army Field Artillery School, 2011.

———. Eyes and Ears: A History of Field Artillery Target 

Acquisition. US Army Fires Center of Excellence Historical 

Monograph Series. Fort Sill, OK: Office of the Field 

Artillery Branch Historian, US Army Fires Center of 

Excellence and Fort Sill, 2008.
103

Appendix

———. Field Artillery: A History and Sourcebook. Westport, CT: 

Greenwood Press, 1995.

———. King of Battle: A Branch History of the U.S. Army’s Field 

Artillery. TRADOC Branch History Series. Fort Monroe, 

VA: Office of the Command Historian, US Army Training 

and Doctrine Command, and Washington, DC: US Army 

Center of Military History, 1993.

———. Modernizing the King of Battle, 1973–1991. US Army 

Field Artillery Center and School Historical Monograph 

Series. Fort Sill, OK: Office of the Command Historian, US 

Army Field Artillery Center and School, and Washington, 

DC: US Army Center of Military History, 2003.

———. Operation Desert Storm and Beyond: Modernizing the 

Field Artillery in the 1990s. US Army Field Artillery 

Center and School Historical Monograph Series. Fort Sill, 

OK: Command Historian’s Office, US Army Field Artillery 

Center and School, 2005.

Doughty, Major Robert A. The Evolution of U.S. Army Tactical 

Doctrine, 1946–76. Leavenworth Papers Number 1. Fort 

Leavenworth, KS: Combat Studies Institute, US Army 

Command and General Staff College, 1979.

Gole, Henry G. General William E. DePuy: Preparing the Army 

for Modern War. Lexington, KY: University Press of 

Kentucky, 2008.

Griffith, Robert K. Jr. The U.S. Army’s Transition to the AllVolunteer Force, 1968–1974. Army Historical Series. 

Washington, DC: US Army Center of Military History, 

1997.

Hamilton, John A. Blazing Skies: Air Defense Artillery on Fort 

Bliss, Texas, 1940-2009. Fort Bliss, TX: Air Defense 

Artillery Branch Historian’s Office, Air Defense Artillery 

School, 2009.
104

Victory Starts Here

Herbert, Major Paul H. Deciding What Has to Be Done: General 

William E. DePuy and the 1976 Edition of FM 100-

5, Operations. Leavenworth Papers Number 16. Fort 

Leavenworth, KS: Combat Studies Institute, US Army 

Command and General Staff College, 1988.

King, Benjamin. Victory Starts Here: A 35-Year History of the US 

Army Training and Doctrine Command. Fort Leavenworth, 

KS: Combat Studies Institute, US Army Combined Arms 

Center, 2008.

King, Benjamin, Richard C. Biggs, and Eric R. Criner. Spearhead 

of Logistics: A History of the U.S. Army Transportation 

Corps. Fort Eustis, VA: US Army Transportation Center, 

and Washington, DC: US Army Center of Military History, 

2001.

Kretchik, Walter E. US Army Doctrine: From the American 

Revolution to the War on Terror. Lawrence, KS: University 

Press of Kansas, 2011.

Linn, Brian M. The Echo of Battle: The Army’s Way of War. 

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2007.

Lock-Pullan, Richard. “‘An Inward Looking Time’: The United 

States Army, 1973–1976.” The Journal of Military History 

67 (April 2003): 483–512.

Raines, Edgar F. Jr. Eyes of the Artillery: The Origins of Modern 

U.S. Army Aviation in World War II. Army Historical 

Series. Washington, DC: US Army Center of Military 

History, 2000.

Raines, Rebecca R. Getting the Message Through: A Branch 

History of the U.S. Army Signal Corps. Army Historical 

Series. Washington, DC: US Army Center of Military 

History, 1996.

Romjue, John L. A History of Army 86, Volume I: Division 86: 

The Development of the Heavy Division, September 1978–
105

Appendix

October 1979. TRADOC Historical Monograph Series. 

Fort Monroe, VA: Historical Office, US Army Training and 

Doctrine Command, 1982.

———. A History of Army 86, Volume II: The Development of 

the Light Division, the Corps, and Echelons Above Corps, 

November 1979–December 1980. TRADOC Historical 

Monograph Series. Fort Monroe, VA: Historical Office, US 

Army Training and Doctrine Command, 1982.

———. American Army Doctrine for the Post-Cold War. 

TRADOC Historical Monograph Series. Fort Monroe, VA: 

Military History Office, US Army Training and Doctrine 

Command, 1996.

———. From Active Defense to AirLand Battle: The Development 

of Army Doctrine, 1973–1982. TRADOC Historical 

Monograph Series. Fort Monroe, VA: Historical Office, US 

Army Training and Doctrine Command, 1984.

———. The Army of Excellence, The Development of the 1980s 

Army. TRADOC Historical Monograph Series. Fort 

Monroe, VA: Office of the Command Historian, US Army 

Training and Doctrine Command, and Washington, DC: US 

Army Center of Military History, 1997.

———. “The Evolution of American Army Doctrine,” in The 

Origins of Contemporary Doctrine, edited by John Gooch. 

Strategic and Combat Studies Institute Occasional Paper 

Number 30. Camberley, UK: Strategic and Combat Studies 

Institute, 1997.

Romjue, John L., Susan Canedy, and Anne W. Chapman. Prepare 

the Army for War: A Historical Overview of the Army 

Training and Doctrine Command, 1973–1993. TRADOC 

Historical Study Series. Fort Monroe, VA: Office of the 

Command Historian, US Army Training and Doctrine 

Command, 1993.
106

Victory Starts Here

Sorley, Lewis. Press On! Selected Works of General Donn A. 

Starry. Two volumes. Fort Leavenworth, KS: Combat 

Studies Institute, US Army Combined Arms Center, 2009.

Staff of the Casemate Museum and the TRADOC Military History 

and Heritage Office, Freedom’s Fortress: A Pictorial 

Heritage of Fort Monroe. Fort Monroe, VA: TRADOC 

Military History and Heritage Office, US Army Training 

and Doctrine Command, 2011.

Swain, Colonel Richard M., comp. Selected Papers of General 

William E. DePuy: First Commander, U.S. Army Training 

and Doctrine Command, 1 July 1973. Fort Leavenworth, 

KS: Combat Studies Institute, US Army Command and 

General Staff College, 1993.

———. Strategy and Tactics for Learning: The Papers of 

General Paul F. Gorman. Fort Leavenworth, KS: Combat 

Studies Institute, US Army Combined Arms Center, 2012. 

Available only as an electronic archive at: http://usacac.

army.mil/cac2/csi/docs/Gorman/index.asp.

Trauschweizer, Ingo W. “Learning with an Ally: The U.S. Army 

and the Bundeswehr in the Cold War.” The Journal of 

Military History 72 (April 2008): 477–508.

———. The Cold War US Army: Building Deterrence for Limited 

War. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas, 2008.

Weigley, Russell F. History of the United States Army. Enlarged 

edition. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1984.

Weinert, Richard P. Jr. A History of Army Aviation, 1950–1962. 

TRADOC Historical Monograph Series. Fort Monroe, VA: 

Office of the Command Historian, US Army Training and 

Doctrine Command, 1991.
107

Appendix

Williams, James W. A History of Army Aviation: From Its 

Beginnings to the War on Terror. Bloomington, IN: 

iUniverse, 2005.

Yarrison, James L. The Modern Louisiana Maneuvers. Washington, 

DC: US Army Center of Military History, 1999.

109

Index

31 Initiatives, 54

84th Army Regional Training Center (ARRTC), 88

ABCA, 81–82

Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD, 48, 65, 69, 70, 71, 89

Abrams, General Creighton W., 1, 53

Abrams, General John N., 13–14, 22, 34

Active Defense, 6, 31–32

Adjutant General School, 65, 68, 78

Advanced Individual Training (AIT), 1, 5, 40, 47, 64, 71–72, 77

Advanced Warfighting Experiments (AWE), 13, 21, 34

Air Defense Artillery Center and School, , 78, 80, 87

Airborne School, Fort Benning, GA, 70

AirLand Battle, 6–8, 11, 19, 32–33, 46, 54

Air-Land Forces Application Agency (ALFA), 53

Apache helicopter, 25–26

Armor Center and School, 64–65, 78, 80, 88

Army 86, 6, 19–20

Army-Air Force Center for Low Intensity Conflict (CLIC), 54, 57

Army Capabilities Integration Center (ARCIC), 16, 59, 73, 76, 81, 84

Army Contracting Agency (ACA), 90

Army Logistics Management College (ALMC), Fort Lee, VA, 71, 89

Army Management Staff College (AMSC), 71, 78

Army Materiel Command (AMC), 19, 24, 64, 71–3

Army Modernization Plan, 27

Army of Excellence (AOE), 2, 9, 19–20

Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS), 26, 28

Army Training 1997, 42

Army Training and Evaluation Program (ARTEP), 5, 40

Army Training and Leader Development Panel (ATLDP), 46–47

Army Training Program (ATP), 39

Army Training XXI (AT XXI), 43, 49

Army Transformation Experiment 02, 58
110

Victory Starts Here

Army War College, Carlisle Barracks, PA, 59, 64, 78

Army XXI, 3, 27, 34, 43

Atlantic Command, 58

Aviation Center and School, Fort Rucker, AL, 64-65, 70, 78

Aviation Logistics Center and School, Fort Eustis, VA, 70, 78, 89-91

Basic Combat Training (BCT), 5, 40, 42, 47-48

Basic Officer Leader Course (BOLC), 46, 50-51, 77

Battle Command Training Program (BCTP), 9, 45

Battle Development Plan, 6

Battle Drills, 47

Battle Laboratories, 12, 21, 26-27, 34

Battlefield Target Identification Device (BTID), 29

Big Five Systems, 25-26

Bilateral Staff Talks, 81, 83-85

Black Hawk helicopter, 25-26

Brigade Combat Team (BCT), 74, 88-89

Brown, General George S., Chief of Staff of the Air Force, 53

Byrnes, General Kevin P., 14-16, 59

Carlisle Barracks, PA, 63, 78

Center for Army Lessons Learned (CALL), 9

Central Battle, 6, 32

Chaplain School, Fort Jackson, SC, 69, 78

Chemical School, Maneuver Support Center (MANSCEN), Fort Leonard 

Wood, MO, 78, 87, 89

China, 2, 84

Cold War, 2-3, 12, 19-20, 22, 26, 33, 49, 56, 59, 68, 84

Comanche helicopter, 26, 28

Combat Developments Command (CDC), 1, 23

Combat Developments Experimentation Command (CDEC), 24

Combat Maneuver Training Center (CMTC), 9, 45-46

Combat Service Support Center, Fort Lee, VA, 89

Combat Training Center (CTC), 45-46, 74, 76

Combined Arms and Services Staff School (CAS3), 7, 46 

Combined Arms Center/Command (CAC), 11, 20-21, 23, 31, 41, 64, 66- 

69, 75-76, 80
111

Index

Combined Arms Operational Research Activity, 9

Combined Arms Support Command (CASCOM), 11, 68, 80, 89

Combined Arms Tactical Trainers (CATT), 45

Combined Arms Training Activity (CATA), 9, 68

Command and General Staff College (CGSC), Fort Leavenworth, KS, 8,

64-65, 78

Command, Control, Communications, Computers, and Intelligence (C4I),

27

Communist, 2, 54

Concepts-Based Requirements System (CBRS), 24, 42-43

Cone, General Robert W., 17, 55

Continental Army Command (CONARC), iv, 1, 40, 53, 69, 81, 92

Corps 86, 19

Crusader 155-mm howitzer, 26

Contemporary Operating Environment (COE), 15

DePuy, General William E., iii, iv, 1, 5-7, 31, 39-41, 44-47, 53

Dempsey, General Martin E., 16-17, 51, 92

Desert Hammer, 21, 34

Digitization, 21

Division 86, 6, 8, 19

Division Restructuring Study (DRS), 19

Dixon, General Robert J., TAC commander, 53

Doctrine, iii, iv, 1, 3-4, 5-21, 23-24, 29, 31-37, 39, 41, 43-46, 53-59, 66, 

73, 76, 81-84, 87-90

Doctrine, Organization, Training, Leader Development, Materiel, and Soldiers (DOTLMS), 9

Doctrine, Organizations, Training, Materiel, Leadership and Education, 

Personnel, and Facilities (DOTMLPF), 15, 74, 76, 77, 79

Drill Sergeant Schools, Fort Benning, GA; Fort Jackson, SC; Fort Leonard Wood, MO, 71, 78

Engineer School, Maneuver Support Center, Fort Leonard Wood, MO, 78

Enhanced Logistic Off-Road Vehicle (ELSORV), 29

Experimental Force (EXFOR), 13, 21

Family of Simulations (FAMSIM), 45

Field Artillery Center and School, Fort Sill, OK, 64, 79, 80, 87
112

Victory Starts Here

FM 3-0, Operations, 14, 16-17, 35-36, 59

FM 3-07, Stability Operations, 35

FM 3-24, Counterinsurgency, 60

FM 7-0, Training the Force, 44

FM 7-1, Battle Focused Training, 44

FM 22-100, Military Leadership, 44

FM 25-100, Training the Force, 44

FM 100-5, Operations, 6, 10-14, 34, 44, 58

FM 100-5, Operations, 1976, 6, 31-32, 39

FM 100-5, Operations, 1982, 8, 32

FM 100-5, Operations, 1986, 32

FM 100-5, Operations, 1993, 21, 33, 35, 57, 82

Focused Dispatch, 21

Force XXI, 3, 13, 20-21, 27, 49

Fort Benjamin Harrison, IN, 23, 64-65, 68, 70

Fort Benning, GA, 49-51, 64, 70-72, 78-80, 88

Fort Bliss, TX, 64-65, 74, 79, 87

Fort Bragg, NC, 65-70

Fort Chaffee, AR, 9, 45

Fort Dix, NJ, 64, 67, 69, 71

Fort Eustis, VA, 2, 17, 64, 70-72, 78, 80, 83-84, 89-91

Fort Gordon, GA, 64-65, 69-70, 79-80

Fort Hamilton, NY, 65, 69

Fort Huachuca, AZ, 49, 65, 69, 79, 80

Fort Jackson, SC, 14, 64, 78-80

Fort Knox, KY, 49, 64-65, 74-75, 88, 90-91

Fort Leavenworth, KS, 6, 8-9, 23, 31, 33, 41, 49, 64-69, 72, 75, 78-80

Fort Lee, VA, 23, 49, 64, 68, 71-72, 78-80, 88

Fort Leonard Wood, MO, 64, 78-80, 87, 89

Fort McClellan, AL, 64-65, 69-71

Fort McCoy, WI, 88

Fort Monmouth, NJ, 65, 69

Fort Monroe, VA, 17, 34, 58, 63, 65, 67, 72-73, 75, 83, 90-92

Fort Ord, CA, 20, 24, 64, 69
113

Index

Fort Polk, LA, 45, 65

Fort Rucker, AL, 69

Fort Sill, OK, 3, 32, 50, 55, 64, 78-80, 87

Fort Wolters, TX, 64-65, 67, 69

Foss, General John W., 11, 33

Franks, General Frederick M. Jr., 12, 33–34

Future Army Schools Twenty-One (FAST), 49

Future Combat System (FCS), 14, 19, 22, 28, 73

Gender Integrated Training (GIT), 48

Global War on Terrorism (GWOT), 3, 29, 50, 73, 84

Grenada, 54

G-Staff, 67, 73

Gulf War, 3, 32–33, 48, 55

Haiti, 2

Hartzog, General William W., 12-13

Headquarters, Air Combat Command (ACC), 53

Headquarters, Tactical Air Command (TAC), 53

High Mobility Artillery Rocket System (HIMARS), 28–29

High Technology Test Bed (HTTB), 8, 19

Improvised Explosive Device (IED), 29, 60

Infantry Center and School, Fort Benning, GA, 50, 64, 79-80, 88 58, 68

Initial Entry Training (IET), 14, 40, 43, 47, 71-72

Installation Management Agency (IMA), 1, 63, 67, 90

Installation Management Command (IMCOM), 1, 67

Integrated Global Presence and Basing Strategy (IGPBS), 89 

Integrating Center, 6, 11, 23, 64, 68

Intelligence Center and School, Fort Huachuca, AZ, 65, 69, 79

Interim Brigade Combat Team (IBCT), 14, 22, 28, 34-35, 49, 50. 72

International Activities, 81

Iraq, 2, 4, 17, 22, 29-30, 33, 35, 84

JCS Pub 1-01, Joint Publication System, Joint Doctrine and Joint Tactics,

Techniques, and Procedures Development Program, 56

JCS Pub 3-0, Doctrine for Unified and Joint Operations, 56, 82

JCS Pub 3-07, Doctrine for Joint Operations in LIC, 57
114

Victory Starts Here

Joint Assessments and Initiatives Office, 55

Joint Doctrine Master Plan, 56

Joint Forces Command (JFCOM), Norfolk, VA, 15, 58-61, 91

Joint Publication System, 56

Joint Readiness Training Center (JRTC), 9, 45

Joint Suppression of Enemy Air Defense (J-SEAD), 54-55

Joint Surveillance and Target Acquisition Radar System (JSTARS), 26, 55

Joint Venture, 21

JP 1, Joint Warfare of the US Armed Forces, 56

Kuwait, 2

LAV (light armored vehicle) III, 22, 28

Liaison Officers, 55, 81

Low Intensity Conflict (LIC), 57

M-1 Tank, 25–26

M-2 Bradley Fighting Vehicle, 25

M-3 Bradley Fighting Vehicle, 25

Major Command (MACOM), 1, 73

Maneuver Center of Excellence, 88 

Maneuver Support Center (MACEN), 87, 89

Military Airlift Command (MAC), 56

Military History Education Program (MHEP), 41-42

Military Occupational Specialty (MOS), 40, 43, 47

Military Operations in Urban Terrain (MOUT), 16

Military Police School, Maneuver Support Center, Fort Leonard Wood, 

MO, 65, 69, 79-80, 87

Millennium Challenge, 46, 58

Missile and Munitions Center, 65, 70, 89 

Mobile Strike Force, 21

Mobility Concepts Agency (MCA), 58 

Modern Army Selected Systems Test Evaluation and Review (MASSTER),

 24, 72

Multiple Integrated Laser Engagement System (MILES), 44

Multiple Launch Rocket System (MLRS), 25

National Simulation Center (NSC), 21
115

Index

Net Fires Center, 87

Noncommissioned Officer Education System (NCOES), 10, 40

North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), 2, 19, 32, 53, 81-83

Objective Force, 14–15, 19, 22, 28, 34, 46-47, 50

Officer Candidate School, Fort Benning, GA, 50, 71, 77, 79 

Officer Education System (OES), 40, 51 

One-Station Unit Training (OSUT), 40, 47, 71, 88

Operation DESERT SHIELD, 11, 25

Operation DESERT STORM, 2, 11, 26, 53 

Operation JUST CAUSE, 2

Operation STEADFAST, 1, 24, 40, 63-65, 69 

Operation URGENT FURY, 54

Operations Other Than War (OOTW), 57

Ordnance Mechanical Maintenance School, Aberdeen Proving Ground,

MD, 71

Ordnance Munitions and Electronics Maintenance School, Redstone Arsenal, AL, 71 

Otis, General Glenn K., 7–8, 42

Panama, 2, 70 

Physical Fitness School, Fort Benning, GA, 79

Prairie Warrior, 21

Quartermaster Center and School, Fort Lee, VA,64, 68, 79, 80, 89

Ranger School, Fort Benning, GA, 79 

Redstone Arsenal, AL, 65, 70-71, 80, 89

Review of Education and Training for Officers (RETO), 7

Richardson, General William R., 8–9, 20, 42

Reorganization Objective, Army Division (ROAD), 19

Reserve Officers’ Training Corps (ROTC), 1, 9, 41, 63, 65, 66

Roving Sands, 21

School Model 76, 40-41

School Model 83, 42, 43

School Model 89, 43

School of Advanced Military Studies (SAMS), Fort Leavenworth, KS,

8-9, 46, 79
116

Victory Starts Here

School of Information Technology, Signal Center, Fort Gordon, GA, 79

Sergeants Major Academy, Fort Bliss, TX, 65, 79

Sexual Harassment, 47, 48

Shinseki, General Eric K., 14, 21, 34

Signal Center and School, Fort Gordon, GA, 64, 65, 70, 79

Simulation Network (SIMNET), 44

Skill Qualification Test (SQT), 40

Somalia, 2

Soviet Union, 1-2, 26, 33

Squad Combat Operations Exercise, Simulated (SCOPES), 44

Standardization and Interoperability, 81-83

Starry, General Donn A., 6–7, 19, 32, 66

Stryker, 22, 26, 28, 46, 58

Sullivan, General Gordon R., 20, 34, 49

Tactical Ground Reporting System, 30 

Tactical Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (TUAV), 28

Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures (TTP), 13, 56

Thurman, General Maxwell R., 10–11, 43

Total Army concept, 42

TRADOC Long-Range Plan, 10–11

TRADOC Organizational Structure, 63

TRADOC Pamphlet 525-5, 13, 21

TRADOC System Manager (TSM), 24

Transformation, 3, 14-15, 19, 21-22, 27-28, 34-35, 44, 46, 49, 58, 72, 73, 

87, 89, 90 

Transportation Center and School, Fort Eustis, VA, 64, 79, 80, 89 

US Army Accessions Command (AAC), 14, 16, 72, 75, 90, 91 

US Army Cadet Command, 9, 14, 90, 91 

US Army Forces Command (FORSCOM), 1, 19, 45, 67, 72, 73

US Army Human Resources Command (HRC), 91

US Army National Training Center (NTC), 34, 45, 46, 58 

US Army Network Enterprise Technology Command (NETCOM), Fort

 Eustis, VA, 90, 91 

US Marine Corps Combat Development Command, 53, 56 
117

Index

Unit of Action (UA), 74 

Vietnam, 1, 5, 25, 30, 31, 39, 53, 119 

Vision, 9, 10, 13, 16, 22, 24, 27-28, 33, 42-43, 48-49 

Vuono, General Carl E., 9, 10, 42, 48

Wallace, General William S., 15-16, 48 

Warrant Officer Career College, Fort Rucker, AL, 79

119

About the Author

Benjamin King was born in New Haven, Connecticut, in 1944. He 

graduated from the University of Connecticut with a degree in Liberal Arts 

(History) in 1965. From the time of his graduation until 1977, he was on 

Active Duty with the Army serving in Germany and Vietnam where he was 

awarded the Bronze Star with “V,” the Air Medal, and the Purple Heart. 

After his release from Active Duty, he served as a contract historian to 

the Casemate Museum from 1978 to 1979. In 1984 he was selected Chief 

of Simulations at the US Army Transportation School. During his tenure 

he designed the simulations TRANSWAR III, Transportation Movement 

Control in the Theater of Operations, and TRANSWAR IV, Truck Company Operations in the AirLand Battle. In 1992, Mr. King became the Command Historian of the US Army Transportation Corps. From 1992 to 1994 

he headed the team that wrote Spearhead of Logistics: A History of the US 

Army Transportation Corps, the second branch history completed in the 

Army. He also appeared in the Discovery Channel production of Machines 

that Won the War. In 2000, King accepted his current position as Research 

Historian in the TRADOC Military History and Heritage Office. Starting 

with his arrival, Mr. King completed six multiyear command histories to 

bring the headquarters up-to-date and wrote five subsequent annual command histories to keep the command current. His research on US Army 

doctrine and the history of TRADOC and its organization has been widely 

used, and parts of his monographs on soldiers and warriors were used in 

the Warrior Code. In addition, he designed 15 historical decision-training 

exercises (HDTE) that were used by the Army. Mr. King is also the co-author of Impact: The History of Germany’s V-Weapons, the definitive history of German surface-to-surface guided missiles published in 1998. He 

contributed to Coalition Air Warfare in the Korean War published by the 

US Air Force History and Museums Program and has articles published in 

Field Artillery Journal, Transportation Professional Bulletin, and Vietnam 

magazine. His book-length works of fiction include A Bullet for Stonewall, 1990; A Bullet for Lincoln, 1993; and The Loki Project, 2000. He 

lives in Isle of Wight, Virginia, with his wife, Loretta, and Trotter the Cat.


Victory Starts Here

A 40-year History of the

US Army Training and 

Doctrine Command

Combat Studies Institute Press

US Army Combined Arms Center

Fort Leavenworth, Kansas

Visit our website at:

http://usacac.army.mil/cac2/index.asp