Thread 64146898

What are the pros and cons of brigade centric army in peer to peer conventional war(yes this thread is about PLA)?

>>64146898 (OP)
If you get enough chinamen together they might be able to actually see where theyre driving

>>64146898 (OP)
>brigade centric army
what the fuck is even that, pencil dick

>>64146898 (OP)
Vely impleasive, vely ching khu lung

>>64146898 (OP)
Ukraine tried it for 2+ years before reverting back to army corps. Russians also were quick to scrap their BTG model (though for different reasons).
Take from that what you will.

>>64147792
>60 m^2
> ==
>645 ft^2
lmao. Chinamen spend 1/3rd of their income on renting a living room and brag about it because they have $300/mo left over afterwards

>>64147792
Trying way too hard

>>64146898 (OP)
Both have their uses. Really you just use the tool most appropriate for the situation, depending on the scale of the conflict and the resources available to you.

>Send 3 brigades to attack a position
Might as well do it as a division, and benefit from being commanded by a general and get the benefit of divisional assets instead of just their organic artillery. Might never happen again in the future [citation needed].

>Send 3 brigades to do COIN
Might as well have them be independent, and divide divisional assets, if appropriate, to the brigade. They're not going to be cooperating anyway. A divisional organization will just be a paper organization, get in the way, and not contribute.

>Send a brigade to attack a position/3 brigades attacking 3 positions, because the future of warfare is high speed low drag [citation needed]
Could be either. Depends on how far apart they are.

>>64147921
>Might never happen again in the future
it's happening right now. the AFU have gone back to a divisional model because individual brigades - which were useful back when the "firefighting" aspect of the war demanded maximum operational flexibility - lack the continuity required now of the more static operations

>to do COIN
the advantage of the brigade model in COIN, especially the US BCT model, was that you could put the division stateside and let it handle all the admin stuff, and the brigades rotate in and out of the operational area. this streamlines the process of rotating troops in and out, enabling an enduring deployment for years and years with minimum fuss. as you say, it doesn't matter if they're sort of broken up and different brigades in-country don't talk to each other as much, because
>They're not going to be cooperating anyway

>3 brigades attackeing 3 positions, because the future of warfare is high speed low drag
not going to happen, any kind of division-strength offensive will require at least a divisional if not a corps command

>>64147954
>not going to happen, any kind of division-strength offensive will require at least a divisional if not a corps command
It's easy to imagine a scifi future where brigades are doing a blitzkrieg on steroids and are too fast for divisional assets to catch up, either physically or mentally. Or just the fact that the ever-increasing trend of firepower and speed means that ever-smaller echelons become the unit of independent maneuver. Or a downsized military due to budget cuts, technological progress or depopulation. I say scifi but it might even happen in our lifetime.

It's shit in big war, you need corps and divisions. If Chinks really work on brigade level then AHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA

>>64147954
>which were useful back when the "firefighting" aspect of the war demanded maximum operational flexibility
mind you, if Ukraine had corps built around brigades like 3rd, 47th and azov from the start of war it would go much better. You can still have flexibility of brigades in corps allows to handle situations that single brigade can't do

am I the only person here who thinks this discussion is really stupid?

>>64148088
Every single chinkspammer thread is

>>64148088
I think this discussion would be valid...if largest war in last decade hard proven that no, you shouldn't fight with brigades if you can fight with divisions.
It was tried, tested and it failed

>brigade
>corps
>BTG
>division
>regimental
Etc. other than the amount of people in each, I’ve always been shit at understanding the different systems. Is it just at what point does an army allow its units to act independently?

>>64146898 (OP)
It's a trick question. Brigades always get expanded in war and divisions get downsized to reach the 6k-8k size.

The real difference is that divisions have more spots for upper-medium rank officers.

>>64148152
It's a quirk of historical linguistics which both generals and armchair generals have repeatedly tried to make more important than it is.

A regiment began as a large feudal levy: about 800 men. A division began in the 1700s as the first conception of combined arms smaller than a whole army. A corps began in the Napoleonic era when larger armies created the need of a word for multiple divisions.

Circa the world wars, a regiment came to mean the largest single-arm unit of up to 5k and a division came to mean the smallest combined arms unit of about 10k. Divisions at the time were about 10k - but crucially, they tended to shrink to about 6k when actually used by experts for sustained periods. Remember this part.

As combined arms spread, the new largest single arm unit became the battalion: about 800 men. The size above it was called a brigade: about 3k men. Brigades tended to expand to about 6k when used for sustained missions...

Because of all the number bloat going on, by the gulf wars era divisions had expanded to about 20-25k men, so calls began to retvrn to a smaller size. Get the picture?

>>64148152
No unit operates truly independently, chain of command stretches from the President to a private digging a trench in bumfuck nowhere. X-centric just means what level do forces consolidate support assets and that level is usually used as the main "piece" on the board by high command
Brigade centric => when you want to, say, start an offensive you task X specific Brigades for the task,
. Each brigade has its own fires, recon, combat engineers, logistics and other such support units, with upper echelon headquarters providing largely administrative support. This makes each brigade more flexible and better for COIN
Division centric => you use Y divisions for the same task instead. The brigades making up the divisions usually don't have the support units organic to them, these are instead consolidated at the division HQ and are attached to specific brigades for specific missions. This allows you to concentrate force multipliers where they're needed the most. For example a brigade tasked with making a breach in a fortified frontline could be reinforced with three brigades' worth of combat engineers by division HQ. This is a strictly better model for large scale war

>>64148220
I phrased and formatted this like the biggest ESL nigger on the planet, but I hope you get what I was trying to say

>>64148205
>>64148220
It’s mainly just a number thing because bigger armies have bigger numbers, and X centric shows that the support elements are situated at X. Support elements are flexible and could be at Y, Z, etc.

>>64147785
Presumably it means brigades are assigned organic resources and considered the primary unit upon which all strategy is derived from.

The US did it during the GWOT, especially in Iraq, because they were an occupying force. We've switched back because it's better to pool resources for larger attacks and the brigades will support one another in the field.

>>64147785
>t. Zoomer who wasn't around for the brigade debates during GWOT
You would think all the articulate responses would clue you in that this is a real thing and not just chink shilling but I guess you're not the brightest bulb.

>>64148152
Yeah, it's a numbers thing. And also about where support assets get located. Another way of looking at it is instead of saying
>brigade-centric
you say
>smaller division
But people are attached to historically defining formations using numbers and also it could imply a shuffle/elimination of certain ranks and pay-grades etc so it's easier to phrase the idea as brigade-centric.

>>64148301
>boomer who doesn't realize it predated gwot by a decade

>>64147985
that simply means a change in the idea of a division's area of responsibility, or frontage
even if 3 brigades operate on 3 different moons you still need a unified command level above them to coordinate and pool resources

>>64148016
the Ukes didn't really have the ability to make use of it anyhow; they were busy trying to field enough brigades in the first place and the line was very fluid
they had corps and divisions but they mainly existed to allocate resources rather than to coordinate operations

>>64148301
>t. idiot who doesn't realise I was calling out minimal-effort OP

>>64148152
>Is it just at what point does an army allow its units to act independently?
in a nutshell, kind of yes, but for the army, it indicates a very wide and crucial breadth of information of what the unit can and cannot do

>platoon, company, battalion, brigade, division, corps
is what you need to remember
the number of people in each unit is a big factor in determining what it can do, how many enemies it is expected to fight, and crucially, for how long before needing resupply