Talk:Reorganization plan of United States Army

message: Theme referred from Peter Schoomaker, because it should have it's own lemma.(MARK S. 09:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: According to the page the 4th ID will be losing its CAB to the 1AD.  So they currently don't hae one?  I thought they still had one down at Fort Hood Texas along with 1st BDE.  Does the transformation have both 1BDE and the CAB moving to Carson?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Twix2247 (talk • contribs) 19:37, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  4ID CAB 

message: Why is V Corps being eliminated?
And why is United States Army Europe and United States Army Korea in bold?
205.174.22.26 (talk) 04:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: V corps is reactivated --Ancheta Wis    (talk  | contribs) 16:52, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  V Corps? 

message: Has anyone noticed that no reports seem to indicate the future whereabouts and/or designation of the 172nd Stryker Brigade Combat Team?  Does anyone know whether the Army plans to phase this unit out?--SOCL 18:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On a follow-up, I found out that 172nd Stryker will be reflagged as 1st Brigade, 25th Infantry Division upon return from deployment in Iraq, hence why it is no included anywhere.--SOCL 01:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Many NG divisions were completely cut out and reflagged as training commands.  For instance, 7th Infantry Division at Fort Carson has been reflagged Training Support Division West, presumably carrying no true brigade-type units in the same way most training support units usually do not.--SOCL 02:36, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  172nd Stryker BCT 

message: In positioning-end state, it says
21 armored brigades (Total: 1,160 of both M1 Tanks and M2 Bradleys; 600 M3 Scout vehicles) 
Does this mean 1160 M1s and M2s each or 1160 M1s and M2s combined ?Xerex 15:01, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Number of Tanks

message: As part of the army transofrming, 4 BDE of 1 ID will not be an armored BDE. It is a light infantry brigade as soon by the designation 4 IBCT, 1 ID. 
www.riley.army.mil
Hal06 (talk) 15:28, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 1st ID

message: This entire article, but particularly the "Culture Training and Readiness" section is of the worst kind of New Army jargon. This is an encyclopedia for world-wide public use, not an article in a military journal.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.238.92.21 (talk) 07:14, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. So much bullshit and so little information. 2A0D:6FC0:B76:5600:C4DB:18DC:F03C:5375 (talk) 12:39, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see Reorganization plan of United States Army#Multi-domain operations (MDO) for a summary. Or MDO Challenge (15 May 2019) *Start here* for MDO 101 The main point is that even a commander will no longer be safe, in future war. --Ancheta Wis    (talk  | contribs) 13:14, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Gobbledygook

message: The US Army entered World War I with very large divisions consisting of 2 Infantry Brigades of 2 Regiments each with a total of 8 Infantry Battalions per Division.
Shouldn't that read 16 Infantry Battalions per Division.? That is 4 battalions per regiment, 2 regiments per brigade and 2 brigades per division?--Caranorn (talk) 19:05, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Square Divisions 

message: Since we know the BCTs to be cut, we could simply strike through the deactivated BCTs as they occur. At least at Fort Bliss, the Maneuver battalions from the 3-1AD BCT will be reallocated to the remaining BCTs. --Ancheta Wis    (talk  | contribs) 02:35, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Troop cuts, 25 Jun 2013 

message: http://www.army.mil/article/106373/Brigade_combat_teams_cut_at_10_posts_will_help_other_BCTs_grow/
Phd8511 (talk) 12:46, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: So, they are effectively going back to the previous structure with 3 manoeuvre battalions? Green Giant (talk) 12:38, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes to BCTs 

message: The Network Integration Evaluations are producing equipment changes which are transforming Army tactics, beginning in 2011, and now going into production.  It seems appropriate to introduce them, as they are reported, into this article. --Ancheta Wis    (talk  | contribs) 13:05, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Network Integration Evaluations 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Transformation of the United States Army. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150518075747/http://www.thenewstribune.com/2015/02/24/3655957_jblms-division-headquarters-will.html?rh=1 to http://www.thenewstribune.com/2015/02/24/3655957_jblms-division-headquarters-will.html?rh=1
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:40, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I have found another citation which calls out a similar-sounding model, a Sustainable Readiness Model, again by Robert Abrams, rather than Sustainment Readiness Model. Abrams gave as example a sustainment deficiency in the citation that is in the article, but which is it?  Sustainable or Sustainment? --Ancheta Wis    (talk  | contribs) 17:51, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Readiness Model; which one? 

message: I found a citation showing the downsizing of 3rd BCT, 3ID to a maneuver battalion task force (TF 1-28), 28th Infantry Regiment. This seems to affect the count of ABCTs in the article. --Ancheta Wis    (talk  | contribs) 23:11, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: 3rd ABCT, 3ID?

message: http://www.armyrecognition.com/december_2016_global_defense_security_news_industry/the_2nd_infantry_brigade_combat_team_of_us_army_to_become_armored_brigade_in_2017_10112163.html
ACSilver (talk) 06:14, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  2 ICBT, 3 Div to be Armored BCT Team 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Transformation of the United States Army. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150330054548/http://fortblissbugle.com:80/first-apache-battalion-to-carry-drones-reflags-as-heavy-cav/ to http://fortblissbugle.com/first-apache-battalion-to-carry-drones-reflags-as-heavy-cav
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140814214012/http://armypubs.army.mil/doctrine/DR_pubs/dr_a/pdf/atp4_93.pdf to http://armypubs.army.mil/doctrine/DR_pubs/dr_a/pdf/atp4_93.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120824071527/http://armypubs.army.mil:80/epubs/pdf/go1204.pdf to http://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/pdf/go1204.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120306000906/https://secureweb2.hqda.pentagon.mil/vdas_armyposturestatement/2010/addenda/Addendum_F-Army%20Force%20Generation%20(ARFORGEN).asp to https://secureweb2.hqda.pentagon.mil/vdas_armyposturestatement/2010/addenda/Addendum_F-Army%20Force%20Generation%20(ARFORGEN).asp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:17, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: changed some section headings, etc, recently. --Sm8900 (talk) 02:04, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  new edits 

message: The current section on the Army's planning process needs to add in the evolution of the  Joint Modernization Command, which was formerly the Brigade Modernization Command. Now that the BCTs and modular support brigades are in place, the new focus is to operate in a Joint manner with the other services, and with the State Department, etc. It seems appropriate to include the central role of TRADOC in this.
The international partners of the US are part of this process. Joint Modernization Command, necessarily, will have an evolving part to play in all this. We have the citations in the article already, but I am inclined to wait for 2018, when the 2018 Joint Warfighting Assessment, which is currently being planned for Europe, actually happens. It only seems prudent to wait to put in the text until the news occurs.
For example, the 2017 rotation of the US-based ABCT to European Command was planned for, years ago. But we added in the applicable text in 2017.
In the same way, the modular Headquarters have been planned for, for years. Is this approach  all right with the other editors? --Ancheta Wis    (talk  | contribs) 23:46, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: sounds fine so far. I appreciate your message here to open a discussion on this. thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 03:13, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Planning process: its evolution 

message: Upon recording deployments, https://www.army.mil/article/190622/10th_aamdc_arrives_in_romania  (TOBRUQ LEGACY 17 --TL17), I was surprised to note that a July 2017 exercise involving 10th AAMDC does not have a "home" under Divisions and Brigades.  Simultaneously, SABER GUARDIAN 17 (SG17) is occurring as part of a 40,000 person / 23 country exercise for the Black Sea Region.  What TL17/SG17 amounts to is a unified exercise involving EUCOM (European Command) and a few US BCTs, which manages to project an impressive amount of power. 
The other deployments I recorded  were more granular. They involve CENTCOM (Southwest Asia) and PACOM (Pacific), and the BCTs cycle through the National Training Center before deploying. But there is not a European equivalent of the National Training Center.
I think I see part of the mismatch: I am not really sure where   "strategy / operations / tactics" exercises go into the article. 10th AAMDC operates at the theater level, and a BCT operates more locally. I admit that a mobile BCT can affect a larger area, which is the reason that the roving BCTs currently rotating through EUCOM are having such a large effect. The TL17 exercise involves setting up tactical operations centers and coordinating fires  with multinational partners, while SG17 is practicing forcible entries and river crossings with multinational partners. 
Do any editors have any ideas on how to approach an exercise of 10th AAMDC? --Ancheta Wis    (talk  | contribs) 09:29, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I just learned about the JMRC (Joint Multinational Readiness Center), located at Hohenfels AAF in Bavaria, Germany, (8 July 2016) JMRC Welcomes New Commander in Europe. It has more of a regional orientation than the National Training Center in the US.--Ancheta Wis    (talk  | contribs) 20:11, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  EUCOM / 10th AAMDC 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Reorganization plan of United States Army. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for https://secureweb2.hqda.pentagon.mil/vdas_armyposturestatement/2010/addenda/Addendum_F-Army%20Force%20Generation%20%28ARFORGEN%29.asp
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://fortblissbugle.com/first-apache-battalion-to-carry-drones-reflags-as-heavy-cav
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/pdf/go1204.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120306000906/https://secureweb2.hqda.pentagon.mil/vdas_armyposturestatement/2010/addenda/Addendum_F-Army%20Force%20Generation%20%28ARFORGEN%29.asp to https://secureweb2.hqda.pentagon.mil/vdas_armyposturestatement/2010/addenda/Addendum_F-Army%20Force%20Generation%20%28ARFORGEN%29.asp
*Corrected formatting/usage for https://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/67816.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070911201951/http://www.army.mil/institution/leaders/modplan/ to http://www.army.mil/institution/leaders/modplan/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:35, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: On 28 Sep 2017, at a Congressional hearing, the Army announced that after FY 2018, money allocated to 3 communications programs, one of them Win-T Increment 2 (the mobile communications upgrade from static communications nodes) will be shifted to a search for a more secure solution. This budget shift is $544 million. The equipment in the pipeline, for Stryker brigades, remains in place. Thus the $6 billion on Win-T increment 1, and a partial implementation for Increment 2, has revealed that there is a vulnerability in the communications chain, namely in the shift from commercial satellite coverage to WGS (the military equivalent) coverage. This vulnerability was demonstrated in the Russian electronic warfare moves in Ukraine.Lt. Gen. Bruce Crawford: Army to Stop WIN-T Increment 2 Procurement by End of FY 2018
*Army to Stop Buying Tactical Network Systems, General Says
*The role of COMSATCOM in Army communications and the WIN-T Increment 2
*After thorough review, Army to halt WIN-T Increment 2
*Army Moves Forward with WIN-T Despite Controversy
In other words, the Tactical command post changes have to be redone and hardened even further. --Ancheta Wis    (talk  | contribs) 07:50, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Difficulties with mobile command post deployment 

message: See Talk:United States Army Futures Command#Citations for references on the time and budget constraints on AFC.  John Hyten  of USSTRATCOM  notes a 5 year shortfall in the time available to provide materiel for the DoD. 
--Ancheta Wis    (talk  | contribs) 05:12, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  AFC time budget constraint 

message: https://www.stripes.com/news/army-to-transition-two-brigades-to-add-heavy-firepower-as-it-prepares-for-near-peer-conflict-1.548522
Sammartinlai (talk) 08:30, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  1 SBCT 1st Armoured to 1ABCT and 2 IBCT 4th Inf to 2 SBCT 

message: Here is another citation for Android Tactical Assault Kit (ATAK)PAUL MCLEARY (May 22, 2019) Close Air Support Timeline Cut; But JSOC Official Says Wait For Tech Was Too Long
--Ancheta Wis    (talk  | contribs) 00:10, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Android Tactical Assault Kit (ATAK) 

message: Unambiguously identifying a unit can tricky; 1st ABCT could be for multiple units. Here is an example best practice: "APS-5 equipment augments the 3/4 Armor Brigade Combat Team for Operation Spartan Shield". Kevin Fleming, 401st Army Field Support Brigade (October 5, 2019) "APS-5 equipment augments the 3/4 Armor Brigade Combat Team for Operation Spartan Shield" In this case  '3/4' unambiguously identifies 3rd ABCT/4th Infantry Division (Active Army). 3rd brigade is receiving 300 pieces for the incoming 30th ABCT (a National Guard unit with an unambiguous unit ID) to ensure the newest materiel is correct, as a service to the 30th ABCT, which is currently undergoing training in preparation for  Operation Spartan Shield. --Ancheta Wis    (talk  | contribs) 21:52, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unit identifiers 

message: This article incorrectly conflates two opposite and opposing reorganization efforts, the effort to transform from a division-based to a brigade-based force in early GWOT, and the ongoing effort to transform from a brigade-based to a division-based force starting in the late 2010s. The article does not distinguish between the two, and there should be two separate articles. 2620:104:E001:9010:A76B:D2B2:4846:1EC8 (talk) 18:46, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I propose a split of the LSCO transformation effort to transformation of the United States Army which is currently a redirect to this article. That way the multi-domain operations (MDO) effort, the Force modernization effort for Army of 2030, and the Force design effort for 2040 could split off to the transformation article.  -- Ancheta Wis    (talk  | contribs) 16:43, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  The mere existence of this article is misleading