The collection thusfar of emails for the list...
> I found an MTOE for a divisional MP company (which
Hi, John. This is Kiara, David's wife.
No, you are *not* misreading those manuals. MPs really *are* that well armed.
It freaks out some of the infantry types we've had to deal with, but a combat
MP unit is really motorized infantry, just with better armament, slightly more
specific missions, and a way around the combat exclusion laws for women.
PS - By the way - those "garrison turds" you were referring to? They're
exactly the same folks that pull combat duty - US Army MP's rotate out
between road duty and field duty. <smile>
> Well, my first question is to ask why you have 3 times
Flexibility. In short, someone realized that MP's would be assigned to a wide
variety of specialized tasks in very small teams, and decided to compensate
for it with weaponry.
Understand, too, that the MP corps is only about 35 years old at the moment.
The doctrine is still very much in the works, so to speak.
Back when I first started out as a platoon leader, each team consisted of 1
Hummer, 1 M-60, 1 M203/M16 combo, 2 M16's, 3 9mm (or 3 .45's, depending
on whether the Berettas had been fielded yet.)
A change to the TOE was starting to filter down, and we were starting to, in
theory, replace the M-60's with Mk19 grenade launchers, and, in some
cases,
.50 cals. The M-60's didn't come off the TOE, however, so we
theoretically had them, but they generally weren't fielded if you had the
heavier weapons available *and* had been able to get your vehicle mounts
modified to handle
the additional stress. It was pretty funny there for awhile - new toys,
but they'd break your vehicle if you actually fired them while mounted.
I'm certain there's some commander somewhere who both still has the M60's and
fields them along with the heavier weapons. And his troops hate him. With good
reason. <grin>
Additionally, as SAWs started being fielded, a SAW generally replaced one of
the M16's per team, rather than being issued in addition to it. We were
actually supposed to carry the SAW in addition to the M16 originally assigned,
but that's a pretty ridiculous way to handle weapons, so we generally just
sort of ignored that little piece of wisdom. Worst case, you locked the extra
M16 down in your vehicle if you had a mission where carrying a SAW was a bad
idea, and traded it out for the SAW as needed.
So a slightly more realistic version of the armament a team would *actually*
be carrying in the field is 1 Hummmer, 1.50 cal or 1 Mk19 or 1 M60, 1
M203/M16, 1 SAW, 1 or 2 M16s, 3 9mm pistols.
That said, that's *still* a lot of armament for 3 people. But it gets back to
mission flexibility. Yes, an MP platoon is *very* heavily armed. I used to
have a lot of fun with some of my infantry counterparts as a result.
> Do MP units have anything in the way of anti-armor
Not really. We played around with Hummer-mounted TOWs for awhile, but
it's generally whatever you can get issued in the way of LAWs. And hope that
you have priority for artillery or air support.
> What's an MP platoon HQ squad look like? I've got the
That's because the platoon HQ squad is a joke - it doesn't exist, but it
should.
Essentially, you have a 10th Hummer, with the platoon leader, platoon
sergeant, and a driver. This setup does *not* work, so what happens in
practice is that the squads get stripped of people so that the PL had a
personal team and the PSG has one as well. Or, if you're lucky, you have extra
bodies, and you might be able to acquire another Hummer from
somewhere. The folks who planned out the three-man team concept forgot
that
the PL and the PSG are generally in different places, and should be -
the PSG running beans and bullets, and the PL out handling operations.
What *should* exist is a six man HQ squad - 2 Hummers, 1 PSG, 1 PL, 2
drivers, 2 gunners. Oh. And while we're dreaming, I'd like a medic, a
commo guy, and a maintenance guy. We're never deployed close enough to company
HQ to actually get our support from company without a huge hassle.
Ooh - if I get to dream a little bit more, let's dump that garrison duty
stuff altogether and stop pretending that MP's can be both good cops and good
combat MP's. It's not possible. What you get are people who are lousy cops and
nowhere near as good in the field as they should be until they're thrown into
a combat assignment, and suddenly all that cop stuff goes out the window and
they get to learn all those infantry tactics that they've been claiming they
shouldn't have to bother with. <grin>
Best,
Kiara
> --- David Rodemaker <dar@horusinc.com> wrote:
> PS - By the way - those "garrison turds" you were
They just seem like different people in Kosovo than they are in garrison
pulling me over at 0200 because I'm in a wee bit of a hurry to get home.
Besides that, I got a bit soured on garrison MPs when I found out that the two
MP platoons we had at our kaserne in Germany had to strip another MP unit of
troops to deploy because they had lost 23 (out of about 70 total) of their
troops to a sting operation involving a heroin ring.
> Understand, too, that the MP corps is only about 35
*Blink, blink* I'm pretty sure we had MPs in WWII. How did that work?
> Back when I first started out as a platoon leader,
That's a little more rational...
> actually supposed to carry the SAW in addition to
I don't see how that works at all from the standpoint of simply arranging
these things on your body to carry, so I agree.
> wisdom. Worst case, you
Theoretically: On those missions where you didn't need a SAW, would it make
more sense to have a 12ga?
> So a slightly more realistic version of the armament
Much better.
> That's because the platoon HQ squad is a joke - it
Oh.
> Essentially, you have a 10th Hummer, with the
And the genius that thought this up?
Analogous setup in Engineers--we don't have any
drivers authorized for our PL or PSG. We have vehicles for them, but no
drivers, so they get pulled from the line squads.
> so what happens in
Now, how do these teams operate? Junior man obviously drives, but does the
team leader sit on the right seat and the guy in the middle man (SPC, I
presume?) the gun? And is that enough dismounts? Would a fourth man be better?
If a squad needs to dismount to do whatever, do you just pull the trucks over
and leave a guy to watch then, or a driver each, or full crews?
> What *should* exist is a six man HQ squad - 2
Hrm... Now that's the sort of info I need as
well--what should there be? Given that you want a
medic, commo, and mechanic, whose vehicles do they ride in? I figure you can
fit one, maybe two each in with your PSG and the PL. Should the PSG get an
unarmed cargo HMMWV instead of an uparmored one with a.50 cal?
> Ooh - if I get to dream a little bit more, let's
I've always assumed that divisional MPs focused on fighting and MP brigade MPs
focused on being cops.
That made sense to me--after all, engineers in the
division focus far more on combat than construction so I guess I assumed that
was how it was with everyone. If that were the setup you'd still have people
hopping back and forth between field and garrison units through their career,
but any given unit would keep the same focus. And I've never been pulled over
by a divisional MP, always an MP brigade MP.
John,
> They just seem like different people in Kosovo than
This is *far* too normal a situation. In general, all enlisted MPs dream of
being in a law enforcement activity (LEA) unit - the closest thing MPs
have to real (read civilian) cops. In fact, this is *not* where most of them
end
up - and they resent it. The recruiters spend a lot of time convincing
them that that they'll be prime candidates for civilian policing when they get
out. In general, this is not the case.
> *Blink, blink* I'm pretty sure we had MPs in WWII.
The MP Regiment became a separate entity about 35 years ago. Yes, we had MPs,
but not at all like what we have now. I don't have the facts straight
any more - I'll have to look them up for you. I braindumped most of
that when I got out. But for a long time, MP duty was not a primary mission,
but rather something you were detached to. Back to this later.
> I don't see how that works at all from the standpoint
Frankly, it *doesn't* work. Ideally, you leave the heavy stuff attached to the
vehicles.
Unless, of course, you have a platoon leader who thinks that vehicles can
break and who makes you learn to function without the vehicles. (Read "me".)
Then you get cussed out a LOT. And you learn to carry the stuff. You just
can't actually use any of it without putting something down. Or getting
creative.
> Theoretically: On those missions where you didn't
Not in general, no. We had shotguns as well - but they stayed in the
armsroom and were only pulled for garrison or riot duty, not for combat duty.
> And the genius that thought this up?
Stupid. And obviously had no combat experience. I'll go so far as to say they
had no field experience. And then someone will go look up the guy who wrote
the TOE and prove me wrong. <shrug> Fact is, it's stupid. Reality is that they
were probably trying to cut costs.
> Now, how do these teams operate? Junior man obviously
Got it in one. Except that the junior man is usually the gunner, 'cause the
middle guy doesn't want to have to carry it. All MPs want to drive. It's just
as much part of their nature as thinking that putting on a brassard
makes them bullet-proof. Now add in the fact that, in theory, the teams
are
supposed to be able to operate as individual 3 man teams, 24/7. Which
essentially means two up, one down. Another piece of doctrine with which I
thoroughly disagree.
And is that enough dismounts? Would a fourth
> man be better? If a squad needs to dismount to do
<chuckle> You learn to work with it. I don't know that a fourth would be
better, per se - it really would depend on the mission. In general, if
you need to dismount, you either leave the vehicle behind (if not needed) or
leave a security element for it. If you had specifics, I could tell you how
I'd deploy to handle it, but the situations vary so drastically (along with
the political situation as well) that I really can't comment on this
generally. Because we have three man teams, we plan accordingly, and we
generally don't plan to work in other size elements.
> Hrm. . . Now that's the sort of info I need as
PSG should get a cargo hummer, and the rest of our imaginary HQ squad should
have a maintenance vehicle - probably another cargo hummer given the
current selection of available vehicles.
> I've always assumed that divisional MPs focused on
Nope. Wrong assumption. <grin>
I was assigned to a brigade MP company, and spent more time in the field than
any of my divisional counterparts. The reason you're used to seeing brigade
MP's is that the LEA I mentioned earlier is generally part of an MP brigade,
but that unit has a radically different structure than the MP platoons we've
been discussing so far. Mind you, the divisions had fewer assets available, so
people didn't see them as much, but they were out there.
The core law enforcement activities are usually handled by the LEA, but then
augmented by whatever MP assets are available on post. Some divisional
commanders are better than others at keeping their MPs out of law enforcement
duties. But I've been a number of places where that wasn't the case, and all
available MPs rotated in and out of law enforcement duty (with the exception
of correctional officers, which is an entirely different
MOS).
I won't further complicate matter by getting into a discussion of CID and
*it's* wierd structures at the moment.
In general, an MP unit has too many focuses - both combat and garrison
duty - unless they're *really* lucky.
Best,
Kiara
> David Rodemaker wrote:
> The MP Regiment became a separate entity about 35 years ago. Yes, we
IIRC, many of the men who washed out of paratrooper training in WWII were
seconded to the MP's, which probably explains in part why the MP's seemed to
dislike troopers so much:).
> --- David Rodemaker <dar@horusinc.com> wrote:
> that that they'll be prime candidates for civilian
I don't know about MPs in specific, but of the
many-many soldiers I know, I'd have to say that anyone
who makes a good field soldier would probably not make a good cop. Wrong
mindset. Besides, if you want to be a cop that bad, find a police force that's
hurting for cops and join it, not the Army.
> wrote the TOE and prove me wrong. <shrug> Fact is,
That seems to be at the root of a lot of stupid MTOE issues.
> supposed to be able to operate as individual 3 man
Uh, I've done 24 hours ops long enough to know that if "down" is defined as
trying to snooze in the back of the truck while the other two pull missions,
it ain't going to work.
> PSG should get a cargo hummer, and the rest of our
Hrm. Now we've got 12 vehicles in a platoon.
We've almost got a company's worth of vehicles to go with our company's worth
of machine guns.:)
How about this: Commo guy is with the PL since she's
running around making the rounds of her teams--Commo
guy can do preventive maint on radios while PL is doing LT stuff. The medic
rides in the back of the PSG's HMMWV since casualty evacuation is his job, or
maybe the PL as needed, although an uparmored HMMWV is lousy for casualty
evac. The mechanic gets promoted to buck sergeant and gets a mechanic EM to
drive his
contact truck-version HMMWV. The PSG now doesn't need
a gunner. Since we're dreaming, it looks like this:
1xUp-armored HMMWV with Mk19 on top: PL, MP Driver,
Commo guy, MP Gunner. 3xM16s (maybe give Commo guy a
-203?), 1xSAW (for gunner to lug when dismounted),
3x9mm.
1xCargo HMMWV: PSG, MP Driver, Medic. 2xM-16s, 3x9mm.
1xContact Truck HMMWV: Mechanic NCO, Mechanic, 2xM16s.
9 troops and 3 trucks instead of 3 and 1.
> brigade, but that unit has a radically different
Which structure we'll never see on the wargaming table (if things have dropped
in the pot that badly it's no longer an interesting scenario).
> I won't further complicate matter by getting into a
Also not useful on the tabletop.:)
> > The MP Regiment became a separate entity about 35 years ago.
The following link has a nice, concise history of the history of the US
MP's:
http://www.azstarnet.com/~rovedo/mph2.html
Please note that "The Powers That Be", when I was in the service, dated the
start of the MP Regiment to 1965. Somewhere around here I've still got a
25th anniversary T-shirt... <grin>
Happy Reading!
Kiara
> I don't know about MPs in specific, but of the
I happen to agree with this completely. But then I also spent a great deal of
time explaining to soldiers that, no matter *what* they thought, joining the
Army potentially involved combat, not just the GI bill. <wry grin>
> Uh, I've done 24 hours ops long enough to know that if
Exactly. My CO didn't like that fact that I spent a lot of time arguing with
him about this, either.
> > PSG should get a cargo hummer, and the rest of our
*I* have absolutely no problem with this! It's only a company's worth of
vehicles if you're thinking like infantry. It's just right if you're thinking
like a combat MP! <beam>
> How about this: Commo guy is with the PL since she's
Hm. No 203 for the commo guy. My experience is that we're lucky if they can
qualify with an M16. So let's leave the commo guy with an M16. (And
I'll ignore my theory that *every* soldier should be combat-oriented
first and whatever other specialty they have second for now.)
The rest of it looks fine to me. Give the PSG a 203, however, or he'll be
swiping one from one of my squad leaders. (Personal experience speaking,
here.)
> 9 troops and 3 trucks instead of 3 and 1.
*Much* better.
Now. Shall we write this up and submit it to Fort McClellan? <g>
Kiara
> --- David Rodemaker <dar@horusinc.com> wrote:
> of time explaining to soldiers that, no matter
We don't have this problem in Combat Engineer units, but I've had that
discussion with mechanics and so forth.
> Now. Shall we write this up and submit it to Fort
Hey, don't you MP types have a professional magazine? Write it up and send it
in, complete with spiffy wiring diagrams.:) Who knows what will happen.