Pentomic Thoughts

I was flipping through an old Command Post Quarterly, and came upon a
write-up of the old Pentomic Division adopted briefly (56-62) by the
US Army in a desperate attempt to come up with a formation adaptable
to the kind of war that people thought WWIII would turn into--a horror
show featuring the total eradication of veterbrate life in Europe and most of
America and Asia via nuclear warhead. I don't know what the point was, but
someone thought it was worth it.

Anyway, the organization eliminated both the batallion and regimental levels
of command, replacing them with 5 "Battlegroups" of 4 infantry companies and
slices from the divisonal BNs (engineer, artillery, armor, etc). It failed
because it overwhelmed command and control capabilities. The resulting
battlegroups were also undersupported and
just too small to accomplish their intended missions--which were
written for regimental-sized formations.

It occured to me that those objections are somewhat reduced in the DSII
environment in some cases. Far more advanced C4 capabilities exist even today,
and DSII presupposes even more capability. It would
make commanding a force with a large number of company-sized elements
possible, if a bit demanding.

Obviously it is still too light on heavy assets to serve as front-line
forces, but in colonial applications, the primary need is for infantry to
serve as garission over larger areas than a traditional batallion could
control comfortably. It seems to me that it is a large batallion, not a small
regiment. YMMV and I need to remember that regiment sometimes means a
different thing to our commonwealth brethren. I mean brigade when I say
regiment, ok? It's also a hell
of a lot cheaper than buying a real serious first-line force.  And
most places, the threat just isn't there to justify such a thing.

Anyway, in general terms, here's what a possible Battlegroup could look like

Headquarters Company Combat Support Company
  Anti-armor platoon (5xsize 2 vehicle with size 3 fixed forward gun
or GMS/H systems)
Pioneer Platoon (3 squads dismounted sappers) The original org also included a
recon PLT, but I decided adding the armored cavalry troops (originally a
division asset) made it superfluous. Of course, you can also argue the pioneer
platoon ought to be integrated with the engineer company, YMMV. 5xInfantry
Company 3xRifle platoons Weapons platoon (2xlight mortars, 4xsize 1 vehicles
with GMS or DFFG) Heavy Mortar Battery 8xMedium Artillery, towed Engineer
Company 2xplatoons engineers Equipment platoon with earth moving equipment,
dump trucks, etc. Tank Company 3xplatoons, 5 size three tanks ea. Transport
Company Truck platoon: Enough trucks to motorize 1 entire infantry company
Carrier platoon: Enough APCs (size 2, light weapons only) to mechanize 1
entire infantry company Artillery Battery 8xMedium artillery pieces, SP FIST
Platoon: enough FO stands to place one with each infantry, engineer, and armor
company, plus another two for battlegroup control. Each mounted in a jeep.
Armored Cavalry Troop 3xRecon Platoons: 2xtanks. 1xAPC with 2 rifle teams.
4xSize 1
vehicles (RFAC/1 (T) if desired), 1xAPC with light artillery piece
mounted.

I swear I am not making up that recon platoon organization. Someone actually
sat down and decided this is what he'd want as a
platoon-sized force for recon.  I imagine you'd have to break it down
somewhat if you wanted to use it in DSII. Personally, if I were fielding the
entire troop, I'd break it into 7 platoons, 2 of tanks, 1 of infantry, 3 of
jeeps, and 1 of artillery. But YMMV.

I served (1971-73) in the 14th (renumbered later as the 11th) Armored
Cavalry Regiment and I can testify that that peculiar organization for the
recon platoon was still used in those days for the Armored Cavalry Platoon,
except that we had 3 tanks in the tank section. The "light artillery piece"
was actually a 4.2 inch mortar. Heck of a thing for a brand new second
lieutenant to command. The recon vehicle was a beast called the M114, a
maintenance nightmare, and some of ours mounted a 20mm cannon.

John,

Part of the reason for the recon organization is its use as a covering force
and the desire to present the "signature" of a larger force (I see tanks and
infantry, must be another battlegroup). At least that was part oh the rational
of oh the H series (ROAD) Armored Cavalry units.

Robert,

We had 4 M60's and 5 M113 (2 with TOW, 2 with Dragon) in my Platoon in
'78.

Mike
B-3/8 CAV (8th ID) 78-80

[quoted original message omitted]

What precisely does one DO with such a heterogeneous mess of troops? I
understand the mix of tanks and light armor, that's pretty standard
historically. But a single squad of infantry and a single mortar? How do you
integrate those?

Exactly. That's why successive reorganizations have simplified and
rationalized the cavalry platoon structure.

[quoted original message omitted]