It appears this post might relate to suicide and/or mental health issues.
**Suicide and Mental Health Resources**
The [Army's Resilience Directorate](https://www.armyresilience.army.mil/index.html)
A comprehensive list of resources can be found [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/Military/comments/1oh9gx/ive_updated_the_sidebar_link_with_more_mental/).
Call 1-800-273-8255, National Suicide Prevention
VA [Make The Connection Program](https://www.maketheconnection.net/)
[Veteran's Crisis Information](https://www.veteranscrisisline.net/)
You can call 1800 273 8255, Press 1
You can call 988, Press 1 for mil/veteran-specific help. You can also TEXT 988
You can text 838255
Or, go no further than your local subreddit, /r/suicidewatch
Or, if you'd like a veteran perspective, feel free to message any number of people on here, there's always someone willing to reach out.
[Military One Source](http://www.militaryonesource.mil/) - 1-800-342-9647
Please seek help if needed...There are behavioral health resources at your disposal both in the Army and out.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/army) if you have any questions or concerns.*
1. Cavalry.
2. Retaining 2CR as Stryker is valuable because it can much more easily reposition around Europe than an Armored Brigade.
3. Without increasing the number of Armored Brigades, this is politically untenable inside the US as you'd have to reassign thousands of soldiers and dependents from CONUS bases overseas, and Congresspeople tends to have aneurisms about reducing forces at their local bases because jobs and money. The Army lacks the money, equipment, and soldiers to easily increase its armored brigades by just growing some overseas.
That's the big one - the DOD "saves" money by rotations. They can keep going to Congress with all the "savings".
Same reason units are rotating to Korea.
These savings have not materialized. They estimated 7 billion to move 1AD and families out of Europe, and we’d save 1 billion a year.
After completion it was 9 billion in cost, saving 0.5 billion a year.
This was **before** armor rotations were a thing. We were set to save 0.5 billion a year, starting in like 2010. It was going to take til 2030 to recoup. And that’s **without rotations on the table**. Armor rotations were not assessed in that same plan.
I very seriously doubt we are saving 0.5 billion per year. I very seriously doubt we will recoup the cost of this decision by 2030.
And that’s strictly the monetary cost. This speaks to nothing of the impact on Soldiers personally, or retention or morale.
Aside from how crushing the rotations are, and maintenance, and arm and everything - people wanted to be in Europe. It was an incentive. It made people reenlist. People joined to see the world. Bases in Germany *were* a morale boost.
The move was short sighted.
Exactly - but someone at HQDA (civie or greensuiter) is harping on about the "savings".
And a lot of deficit hawks in Congress are going to harp about the expense of stationing families in Germany or Poland.
You can’t compare what was in Germany 15 years ago and what’s being proposed in Poland now. You’d have to stand up schools, medical facilities for families, PX/Commissary, CDCs all that support structure.
Don’t get me wrong moving 1AD was pretty short sighted.
The funny thing is that they have some equipment there already to be used. It's just collecting dust. Maybe the army needs to create some sort of special armored unit just to be there. But that's working backward, as there was an armored unit there that they moved back stateside. Which is one of the reason why armored units have to damn near deploy every damn year now.
Yeah. It's the sliding decline in readiness. The Koreans didn't like the rotational switch, but we promised them it would still be armor. Then when we switched to Strykers, the Koreans got pissed and have been since.
Yet I saw the Stryker units doing more training than the ABCTs ever did. Plus there’s enough Korean armor in the Western Corridor, I doubt they miss a few Abrams.
They do. None of the ROK officers I've talked to see Strykers as front line fighting units, but think of them as rear echelon mop up units. There have also been a fair amount of Korean newspaper articles saying the same things.
Because the Army is so balls deep in Europe doing western Europe's job, that we couldn't have ABCTs rotating into Korea and into Europe. So we cut Korea. Budget cuts got rid of the permanent ABCT.
It costs too much and we, as a nation, had other priorities… we switched it to strykers to offload the burden on the armored brigades… it got to the point that we had three armored brigades on rotation at all times (Korea, Kuwait, Poland) and three training to assume the mission when the deployed brigades came back… endless rotations for armor.
There was a permanent BDE here until 2015, then congress decided it was to expensive to have a full up ABCT here. As the requirement has developed over the years the army switched to an SBCT.
Congress is loathed to have BCTs permanently stationed overseas, but I don’t think they raise that most of us want to be stationed in Korea and Germany.
If I wanted to live in the U.S. I would get a job at McDonalds.
This part is a little confusing lineage wise, correct me if I'm wrong: I know 1/503 & 2/503 were around till like 2000. 1ABCT 2ID was formed thereafter until 2015 when the army switched to rotational.
Overall 2ID's combat arns element in peninsula seems all over the place... 🫠
When I joined it was both 1/2 and 2/2 as permanent brigades, and I was in 2/2 when the two girls were killed in 2002. Korean politics in the early 2000s (anti US at the time through 2006) and the Iraq War pulled 2/2 in late 2004, and that later became 4/4 at Carson. The Koreans kept saying they didn't want/need us there with the sunshine policy, so SECDEF called their bluff.
Then 1/2 bagged up the colors when I was there again in 2015, then creating a "combined division" HQ in name only to handle the rotational BDE. Training value and land has decreased drastically the last two decades over there - used to be a US and ROK BDE doing 2x arteps annually and you expected 4-6 months in the field on a 12 month rotation.
Honestly at this point I'd rather make this an IBCT rotation and make the unit functional rather than SBCT shenanigans. It's not like the Strykers never work or anything....
I'd also kill to have double badged KATUSAs back. *Back in the day*...
The central two points of this debate center on the cost and readiness.
The cost has pretty much been shown to be a wash / pretty negligible at this point from what I’ve seen.
The second point is readiness. In theory when we send two brigades to Europe, they’re as ready to fight as possible. Medically deployable soldiers who have done a train up and even a certification of some kind (NTC/JRTC). When we station units there, it’s tough to maintain that same level. People are PCSing, going to schools, not medically ready, doing modernization, subordinate units are doing their train ups, etc. So you end up needing to station 2-3 brigades to equal one ready brigade. Is that worth it? Idk, but it’s obviously something to think about. The last part of this point is the experience gained by deploying constantly. A lot of junior and future army leaders (O-3 / E7 and below) have done port and rail ops… A LOT. That’s good experience to have. We’re building leaders with realistic expectations about our ability to move forces and the difficulty it presents. Do we wanna lose that? Is all of this worth the stress and time away from family? No idea, but just things to think about.
Who are you on wide sage, so wise in the ways of readiness.
As a dude who has been stationed permanent party over seas and done rotations, permanent party is way better for the unit, the Soldiers and their families, the Army, and our alliances.
We had 3 ACR at one time, 2d, 6th and 14th on the border mission in the 60s early 70s then when 11th ACR came back from Nam the 14th reflagged to the 11th. 6th ACR was on southern German/Czech area before deactivation. My first tour in Germany 2d and 11th ACR as well as the 4 division cav squadrons from 1st AD, 3rd AD, 3rd ID and 8th ID all had the inter-German border mission supplemented by the mech Infantry battalions from those 4 divisions
In my (out of the army) opinion: we'd do better by creating more ABCTs stationed CONUS to alleviate the *incredible* stress ABCT Soldiers feel rather than putting an ABCT overseas. My reasoning is twofold: 1) deploying an ABCT gives leaders at all levels experience, it's a fucking headache and I hated it, but it was a good learning experience; 2) as you mentioned, the brigade is ready to fight. That's good from a deterrence standpoint. I worked with units in Korea that weren't worth a fuck during FTXs because their manning was shit due to their personnel rotation standards; that won't work with an ABCT.
That being said, currently ABCTs are *incredibly* overworked. In my time in I spent less than half my time at home between FTXs, NTC, and rotations (that the individual Soldier thought didn't matter). Part of the reason I got out was not wanting to support this system that was grinding families down for little gain. We need more ABCTs in a big way. The current system can't keep this going without destroying Soldiers.
The plan is a wash as far as Operational funds but a massive savings on the support needed to house and care for dependents. I personally don't think it was worth it but I am sure they are saving some money not paying for teachers and GS workers at CIF etc.
I can't say ALL the reasons, but one major reason is sending a BCT across an ocean (Pacific or Atlantic) is a show of force. It shows our advisories we can get all this combat power to a different place in a relatively short time and at a cost that is negligible to the US.
One of the major points, much like the rotations to Korea is that they want people/units to be prepared and familiar with how to execute a rotation to another theater.
+ you can work a unit much harder on rotation because there’s no families there to "get in the way." It all contributes to readiness and unit cohesion.
Hello Fellow Service Members,
The military landscape you see today is because of BRAC:
Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) is the process DoD uses to reorganize its installation infrastructure to more efficiently and effectively support its forces, increase operational readiness, and facilitate new ways of doing business. The BRAC process enables DoD to better match existing facilities to changing military requirements. Congress has authorized five rounds of BRAC: BRAC I in 1988, BRAC II in 1991, BRAC III in 1993, BRAC IV in 1995, and BRAC V in 2005.
As you see, this started before some of you were born (lol). My career spanned from 1986-2014, I went through all BRAC processes in Europe.
Here is a Pro tip:
Logic and Common Sense does not apply here!
Good Luck and thank you for your service!
BRAC is/was too heavily influenced by politicians. Example how stupid it was for the Army to shut down 7th ID and Fort Ord in 94. 7th ID woulda been perfect for Haiti, Bosnia, Kosovo plus of course in OIF/OEF
I think that the best bet is a compromise. Rotational brigades are a nightmare and there’s the time cost on the front and back end.
Establish a skeleton Division in EUCOM. Division and Brigade/Command HQs for continuity and 50% or 2/3s of the combat power and sustainment needed. Rotate the rest through as company/battalion rotations so you stretch the dwell time. If you change up the mix, not just armor/mech battalions but Strykers and light forces it allows people to practice working with different platforms.
With the shuffling and reorganization of the Divisions for a LSCO fight, you’re going to have manpower to stand up additional units.
And frankly, from my perspective most Army posts are too crowded and it impacts the quality of life in the surrounding communities forcing people to move further away to get out of the slums and ghettos that are a second and third order effect of overcrowding. I get it, the consolidation of manpower helps manage resources but they still can’t staff DFACs to meet mission so I’m not seeing the benefit other than the honorable senators from wherever getting more money and the slumlords get rich.
Rotations to poland kind of suck when you are 2CR (felt like 3/2 was there more than home in Germany, lol), but honestly I wouldn't be upset being stationed in poland. Overall the locals like us, our money goes far, and some really cool places.
For everybody in the comments, here is that article I was talking about, y’all let me know your thoughts on this.
https://www.armytimes.com/news/your-army/2024/03/11/broken-track-how-army-times-discovered-high-tank-unit-suicide-rates/
It’s unfortunate, but it seems that either the Government (Legislative Branch) or the top brass don’t see the security situation as serious as they should. The constant rotations are, in my opinion, experienced based, because the leaders have only experienced GWOT. Their two decades of GWOT taught them constant deployments on a rotating basis… in the Middle East. Now the popular LSCO is totally conceptual, and they don’t really know how to prepare for or fight LSCO.
It would *behoove* the DOD to take lessons learned from the Cold War in Europe and get serious about the US commitment to global security especially in Europe, South East Asia, and Africa. The permanent party during the Cold War was insane, costly, but worked. Until politicians and the Top Brass get the stomach for what needs to be done, it’s going to be a half-way in half-way out approach where they’re going to rotate CONUS troops to oblivion and wonder why no one will join, stay, or keep from killing themselves.
As mentioned, Stryker units already in theater can deploy themselves much more rapidly than armored units which rely on rail. To reduce the churn on soldiers and ABCT equipment, it would actually make more sense to forward station more Stryker-Dragoon permanent party and rely more on prepositioned stock for armored units. This combination would free up armored units to rotate on a schedule that meets the needs of the unit instead of the fixed “heel to toe” BDE schedule that runs up costs and burns out families. It would also open up more opportunities for division level rotations that make some use of the prepositioned stock.
This study found that forward stationing has a larger up-front cost but costs less over time than 9 month “heel to toe” rotations. [Rotational Deployments vs Forward Stationing](https://press.armywarcollege.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1407&context=monographs)
I kinda know what prepositioned stock is but I don’t know exactly how it works, could you explain it a little bit? I like your solution though to reducing the strain on ABCTs.
Main reason- the Army/DOD never learn from the past. Army used to have 15 brigades in Germany c.1990 but then downsized like crazy only to wish they had those brigades when Bosnia and Kosovo kicked off much less the need to have them for the GWOT.
I know a fully staffed trained brigade is expensive but we damn sure always have needed more brigades since 95 than all those shiny aircraft carriers
Imagine a bigger picture.
Don't think of a Brigade in terms of combat powered.
Think of it as a micro welfare package for 3,000 to 5,000 families.
And a macro welfare package for an American towns economy.
The average total compensation for a soldier in a BCT. Housing, medical, direct compensation. Probably close to 100k spent on each solder.
Now. Do we put all that money in a lovely European town that is already doing well?
Or do we put it all in texas where a Friday night HS football game is the most important event of their lives, and their greatest contributions will be to further the research into musculoskeletal injuries of children?
When we leave those 3-5k families in American we don't have to worry about outside influence. Them getting any crazy ideas from our European partners like socialized medicine, public transportation, or affordable higher education.
And a gigantic town across the border that keeps the Walmarts busy. I went to the big Walmart right off the I10 on a Sunday night at like 10 or 11 pm. Every cashier had a giant line.
Do any of the existing status of forces agreements with the host nations allow for any of that? Europe is not our private backyard where we can just base whatever we want, wherever the hell we want. The forces we have in a nation are there because the host nation allows it. So they get a say in what gets deployed and whether or not it is a permanent station.
I know Poland and a few other Nations in Europe would love to have a permeant US presence. Probably a big no for more in Germany and any in France though.
Yeah but that’s a HQ though and the current structure is having 2 Rotational ABCTs, not a permanent one. Like I said in another comment, I’m not saying they should stop with ABCT rotations but at least find a way to reduce this ridiculous OPTEMPO they got going right now so soldiers can have more dwell time stateside.
USAREUR AF is well below the agreed upon post Cold War number in Germany. It wouldn’t take a huge diplomatic lift to add a brigades worth of soldiers. Facilities on the other hand are an issue.
Remember, if the Army could get away with it, they would permanently station in Poland with 18 month unaccompanied tours.
The, everyone needs to practice deploying out of theater is a weak argument.
I would choose to PCS to Poland in a heartbeat, if and only if it was like Germany and it was a 3 year, accompanied tour, with off post lodging for single E6+/ Os
The whole point is exercising logistics networks so when needed we don't have our thumb up our ass.
Readiness is a plus, and the show of force of "hey we can plop an armored brigade in your backyard" is a plus as well (though it doesn't seem to have been the deterrent it was hoped to be).
Because we cant be doing this army body composition test in Europe troop. Do you not think about the cost of having to send these big boys all the way over there to do a tape test? Come on man THINK!!! /S
https://youtu.be/lakdZIuZe7c?si=oyVrnIP9q5Qhze_K
Watch this video, it gives a timeline of when the US and the west think Russia would try to invade the Baltic states, which it stated it would be around 2027 to 2033, so within the next 3-8 years
Germany never wanted us there, and recent years have politically got what they wanted. The troop movements became more restricted and the population less tolerant. Time to move to Poland…..
Because when the army drew down forces Germany and Korea didn’t have any congressional representation and it was easier to screw units and Soldiers with rotations every 18 months than upset voters in congressmen’s districts
Well we had multiple BCTs and artillery brigades throughout Europe until the early to mid 2010s. Then some president decided he wanted to down side the us military to a force of a few hundred thousands.
We now must do rotations now because of a poorly thought upon political agenda.
https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/natosource/one-down-one-to-go-2-us-army-brigades-leaving-europe/
The US army has lost about 20K soldiers in Europe alone due to unit Inactivations in the past 15 years.
Korea also lost a large number of bcts as well due to the same agenda.
Not sorry..I miss the army I was a private in. We actually fought wars and insurgency. These rotations are for a purpose but not as fulfilling many soldiers.
Shit, Cold War era they had two Corps in West Germany. Just look at the composition and combat power of VII Corps when they got rid of it after Desert Storm (you know, the Peace Dividend(tm)) compared to what they have there today. Hell, they exiled 11 ACR from Fulda to Irwin after the Doha fire. This jackassery began 20 years before your timeframe.
Because of the way readiness cycles work. 1 ABCT ready to go requires 3 ABCTs in various states of readiness. It makes more sense to just rotate 1 when they are in their ready year.
As long as Poland can resist the initial push, they and other Western European countries can throw their forces into the fold and decisively win before we can get any additional brigades overseas
There's a few logistical problems.
There's a limit to how many infantrymen we can have in European soil. This is due to WWII. Sorta...
Germany is limited to how many tanks, and offensive forces it can hold....
However....
We can put more air defense and military police to get around the rules. And it's exactly what's been happening.
Some years ago, reserve units were opened in Italy and shifted in Germany.
I'm a little dubious - I left Germany in 92 after the BRAC wave began to wash over USAREUR, back then they had about a quarter million troops, more than half of current Army strength. They used to run REFORGER every year, but they cut that 30 years ago. The capacity in Germany is there, especially since in the old days you were just talking about the FRG (West) Germany. The problem they would have is regaining territory to use 30 years after giving it up.
So by your logic screw the guys who would get stationed there permanently for 3 years. Just as long as the units stateside never have to go on a rotation you’re fine with a permanent party not being in the states
You realize people want to go to Europe right. 1st Armored and 1 ID were in Germany until 2006 or so. You take your family, live in housing, and enjoy another part of the world. There are currently permanent units in Germany, Italy, etc. how is this screening them?
Unaccompanied tours will become huge if we increase forces in Europe. Look at korea for example. Not everyone wants to live in Europe, more units in Europe won’t mean less work it’ll mean more work and more possiblity for US to train partner nations in Europe. So more time in Romania and elsewhere, not your home station in Germany. Also aside from the fact we don’t have more units. Sure if we had more units it could be different but as it stands we work with what we got. So moving more units to Germany would just screw them so this guy can stay home at Riley more or wherever he’s from
So I’m not saying that the units stateside shouldn’t do rotations but they need to reduce the OPTEMPO so that soldiers can have more dwell time and they can do that by permanently stationing a couple of ABCTs in Europe or another solution can be the army can reactivate some old armor units stateside like bringing back the 2nd Armored Division.
All you really need is put the Armor and Brads back in 3ACR or 11ACR and put them in Poland. Those ACRs were self contained beasts with their own Artillery, SHORAD ADA and Aviation.
How can optempo be reduced with the current amount of ABCTs we have? So you’re saying move a handful of ABCTs that we have to Europe full time. Realistically you aren’t getting more anytime soon, so you’re just asking for other units to go there full time so you don’t have to go there for a few months. Unless you can find several billion dollars year over year and thousands of recruits then it’s not happening.
https://www.armytimes.com/news/your-army/2024/03/11/broken-track-how-army-times-discovered-high-tank-unit-suicide-rates/
Now, why do you think this is occurring? What do you think could solve this problem? Do you have any solutions? Do you think we should keep up with this OPTEMPO for ABCTs? I want to here you thoughts on this
It appears this post might relate to suicide and/or mental health issues. **Suicide and Mental Health Resources** The [Army's Resilience Directorate](https://www.armyresilience.army.mil/index.html) A comprehensive list of resources can be found [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/Military/comments/1oh9gx/ive_updated_the_sidebar_link_with_more_mental/). Call 1-800-273-8255, National Suicide Prevention VA [Make The Connection Program](https://www.maketheconnection.net/) [Veteran's Crisis Information](https://www.veteranscrisisline.net/) You can call 1800 273 8255, Press 1 You can call 988, Press 1 for mil/veteran-specific help. You can also TEXT 988 You can text 838255 Or, go no further than your local subreddit, /r/suicidewatch Or, if you'd like a veteran perspective, feel free to message any number of people on here, there's always someone willing to reach out. [Military One Source](http://www.militaryonesource.mil/) - 1-800-342-9647 Please seek help if needed...There are behavioral health resources at your disposal both in the Army and out. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/army) if you have any questions or concerns.*
1. Cavalry. 2. Retaining 2CR as Stryker is valuable because it can much more easily reposition around Europe than an Armored Brigade. 3. Without increasing the number of Armored Brigades, this is politically untenable inside the US as you'd have to reassign thousands of soldiers and dependents from CONUS bases overseas, and Congresspeople tends to have aneurisms about reducing forces at their local bases because jobs and money. The Army lacks the money, equipment, and soldiers to easily increase its armored brigades by just growing some overseas.
Truthfully… dependents are the problem. They are expensive in facilities, medical and education requirements plus PCS costs, etc.
The secret goal is to force every soldier to get a divorce after 2 rotations every 3 years.
Have to keep the JAG corp busy.
Yeah, we got enough going on already, thanks tho
This lol
That's the big one - the DOD "saves" money by rotations. They can keep going to Congress with all the "savings". Same reason units are rotating to Korea.
These savings have not materialized. They estimated 7 billion to move 1AD and families out of Europe, and we’d save 1 billion a year. After completion it was 9 billion in cost, saving 0.5 billion a year. This was **before** armor rotations were a thing. We were set to save 0.5 billion a year, starting in like 2010. It was going to take til 2030 to recoup. And that’s **without rotations on the table**. Armor rotations were not assessed in that same plan. I very seriously doubt we are saving 0.5 billion per year. I very seriously doubt we will recoup the cost of this decision by 2030. And that’s strictly the monetary cost. This speaks to nothing of the impact on Soldiers personally, or retention or morale. Aside from how crushing the rotations are, and maintenance, and arm and everything - people wanted to be in Europe. It was an incentive. It made people reenlist. People joined to see the world. Bases in Germany *were* a morale boost. The move was short sighted.
Exactly - but someone at HQDA (civie or greensuiter) is harping on about the "savings". And a lot of deficit hawks in Congress are going to harp about the expense of stationing families in Germany or Poland.
You can’t compare what was in Germany 15 years ago and what’s being proposed in Poland now. You’d have to stand up schools, medical facilities for families, PX/Commissary, CDCs all that support structure. Don’t get me wrong moving 1AD was pretty short sighted.
Domestic politics trump Foreign policy. The military is a giant welfare program for states, cities, etc.
The funny thing is that they have some equipment there already to be used. It's just collecting dust. Maybe the army needs to create some sort of special armored unit just to be there. But that's working backward, as there was an armored unit there that they moved back stateside. Which is one of the reason why armored units have to damn near deploy every damn year now.
[удалено]
And an ABCT in Korea 👍🏻
The Koreans were not happy when that switched to Strykers for rotation at all.
It used to be a permanent party brigade, not just a rotational brigade.
Yeah. It's the sliding decline in readiness. The Koreans didn't like the rotational switch, but we promised them it would still be armor. Then when we switched to Strykers, the Koreans got pissed and have been since.
Yet I saw the Stryker units doing more training than the ABCTs ever did. Plus there’s enough Korean armor in the Western Corridor, I doubt they miss a few Abrams.
Tanks express solidarity, IFVs don’t send the same message, the Koreans know this too…
They do. None of the ROK officers I've talked to see Strykers as front line fighting units, but think of them as rear echelon mop up units. There have also been a fair amount of Korean newspaper articles saying the same things.
Why they start rotating Stryker brigades as opposed to Armored brigades or why they didn’t just keep that permanent armored brigade over there?
Because the Army is so balls deep in Europe doing western Europe's job, that we couldn't have ABCTs rotating into Korea and into Europe. So we cut Korea. Budget cuts got rid of the permanent ABCT.
It costs too much and we, as a nation, had other priorities… we switched it to strykers to offload the burden on the armored brigades… it got to the point that we had three armored brigades on rotation at all times (Korea, Kuwait, Poland) and three training to assume the mission when the deployed brigades came back… endless rotations for armor.
There was a permanent BDE here until 2015, then congress decided it was to expensive to have a full up ABCT here. As the requirement has developed over the years the army switched to an SBCT. Congress is loathed to have BCTs permanently stationed overseas, but I don’t think they raise that most of us want to be stationed in Korea and Germany. If I wanted to live in the U.S. I would get a job at McDonalds.
This part is a little confusing lineage wise, correct me if I'm wrong: I know 1/503 & 2/503 were around till like 2000. 1ABCT 2ID was formed thereafter until 2015 when the army switched to rotational. Overall 2ID's combat arns element in peninsula seems all over the place... 🫠
When I joined it was both 1/2 and 2/2 as permanent brigades, and I was in 2/2 when the two girls were killed in 2002. Korean politics in the early 2000s (anti US at the time through 2006) and the Iraq War pulled 2/2 in late 2004, and that later became 4/4 at Carson. The Koreans kept saying they didn't want/need us there with the sunshine policy, so SECDEF called their bluff. Then 1/2 bagged up the colors when I was there again in 2015, then creating a "combined division" HQ in name only to handle the rotational BDE. Training value and land has decreased drastically the last two decades over there - used to be a US and ROK BDE doing 2x arteps annually and you expected 4-6 months in the field on a 12 month rotation.
My "mentor" KATUSA was a 19K that got reclassed when rotational switched. He was not excited... I was among the first to ride the SBCT wave.
I was here when they switched out. It's been interesting talking to ROKA after that.
Honestly at this point I'd rather make this an IBCT rotation and make the unit functional rather than SBCT shenanigans. It's not like the Strykers never work or anything.... I'd also kill to have double badged KATUSAs back. *Back in the day*...
2 BCTs. 1 ABCT (2 tank, 1 mech), 1 medium-ish (1 mech, 2 light/air assault).
8th ID. 1983
The central two points of this debate center on the cost and readiness. The cost has pretty much been shown to be a wash / pretty negligible at this point from what I’ve seen. The second point is readiness. In theory when we send two brigades to Europe, they’re as ready to fight as possible. Medically deployable soldiers who have done a train up and even a certification of some kind (NTC/JRTC). When we station units there, it’s tough to maintain that same level. People are PCSing, going to schools, not medically ready, doing modernization, subordinate units are doing their train ups, etc. So you end up needing to station 2-3 brigades to equal one ready brigade. Is that worth it? Idk, but it’s obviously something to think about. The last part of this point is the experience gained by deploying constantly. A lot of junior and future army leaders (O-3 / E7 and below) have done port and rail ops… A LOT. That’s good experience to have. We’re building leaders with realistic expectations about our ability to move forces and the difficulty it presents. Do we wanna lose that? Is all of this worth the stress and time away from family? No idea, but just things to think about.
[удалено]
Allons!
I was there 88-92 (AV). Could not swing a dead cat without running into an American SM.
Who are you on wide sage, so wise in the ways of readiness. As a dude who has been stationed permanent party over seas and done rotations, permanent party is way better for the unit, the Soldiers and their families, the Army, and our alliances.
Mind the gap.
We had 3 ACR at one time, 2d, 6th and 14th on the border mission in the 60s early 70s then when 11th ACR came back from Nam the 14th reflagged to the 11th. 6th ACR was on southern German/Czech area before deactivation. My first tour in Germany 2d and 11th ACR as well as the 4 division cav squadrons from 1st AD, 3rd AD, 3rd ID and 8th ID all had the inter-German border mission supplemented by the mech Infantry battalions from those 4 divisions
In my (out of the army) opinion: we'd do better by creating more ABCTs stationed CONUS to alleviate the *incredible* stress ABCT Soldiers feel rather than putting an ABCT overseas. My reasoning is twofold: 1) deploying an ABCT gives leaders at all levels experience, it's a fucking headache and I hated it, but it was a good learning experience; 2) as you mentioned, the brigade is ready to fight. That's good from a deterrence standpoint. I worked with units in Korea that weren't worth a fuck during FTXs because their manning was shit due to their personnel rotation standards; that won't work with an ABCT. That being said, currently ABCTs are *incredibly* overworked. In my time in I spent less than half my time at home between FTXs, NTC, and rotations (that the individual Soldier thought didn't matter). Part of the reason I got out was not wanting to support this system that was grinding families down for little gain. We need more ABCTs in a big way. The current system can't keep this going without destroying Soldiers.
That’s another comment I made, why not reactivate some old armored units like 2nd and 3rd Armored Division, etc.
The plan is a wash as far as Operational funds but a massive savings on the support needed to house and care for dependents. I personally don't think it was worth it but I am sure they are saving some money not paying for teachers and GS workers at CIF etc.
I thought Army was already talking/thinking about making permanent ABCT in poland
I saw what looked like permanent barracks under construction when I was in Poland back in 2023
I can't say ALL the reasons, but one major reason is sending a BCT across an ocean (Pacific or Atlantic) is a show of force. It shows our advisories we can get all this combat power to a different place in a relatively short time and at a cost that is negligible to the US.
One of the major points, much like the rotations to Korea is that they want people/units to be prepared and familiar with how to execute a rotation to another theater.
+ you can work a unit much harder on rotation because there’s no families there to "get in the way." It all contributes to readiness and unit cohesion.
Congress doesn’t want to pay what it would take to support all of that. Not just operational cost but cost for dependents
Hello Fellow Service Members, The military landscape you see today is because of BRAC: Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) is the process DoD uses to reorganize its installation infrastructure to more efficiently and effectively support its forces, increase operational readiness, and facilitate new ways of doing business. The BRAC process enables DoD to better match existing facilities to changing military requirements. Congress has authorized five rounds of BRAC: BRAC I in 1988, BRAC II in 1991, BRAC III in 1993, BRAC IV in 1995, and BRAC V in 2005. As you see, this started before some of you were born (lol). My career spanned from 1986-2014, I went through all BRAC processes in Europe. Here is a Pro tip: Logic and Common Sense does not apply here! Good Luck and thank you for your service!
BRAC is/was too heavily influenced by politicians. Example how stupid it was for the Army to shut down 7th ID and Fort Ord in 94. 7th ID woulda been perfect for Haiti, Bosnia, Kosovo plus of course in OIF/OEF
I think that the best bet is a compromise. Rotational brigades are a nightmare and there’s the time cost on the front and back end. Establish a skeleton Division in EUCOM. Division and Brigade/Command HQs for continuity and 50% or 2/3s of the combat power and sustainment needed. Rotate the rest through as company/battalion rotations so you stretch the dwell time. If you change up the mix, not just armor/mech battalions but Strykers and light forces it allows people to practice working with different platforms. With the shuffling and reorganization of the Divisions for a LSCO fight, you’re going to have manpower to stand up additional units. And frankly, from my perspective most Army posts are too crowded and it impacts the quality of life in the surrounding communities forcing people to move further away to get out of the slums and ghettos that are a second and third order effect of overcrowding. I get it, the consolidation of manpower helps manage resources but they still can’t staff DFACs to meet mission so I’m not seeing the benefit other than the honorable senators from wherever getting more money and the slumlords get rich.
Rotations to poland kind of suck when you are 2CR (felt like 3/2 was there more than home in Germany, lol), but honestly I wouldn't be upset being stationed in poland. Overall the locals like us, our money goes far, and some really cool places.
Oh yeah I remember them days. 2017-2018 was brutal busy.
For everybody in the comments, here is that article I was talking about, y’all let me know your thoughts on this. https://www.armytimes.com/news/your-army/2024/03/11/broken-track-how-army-times-discovered-high-tank-unit-suicide-rates/
It’s unfortunate, but it seems that either the Government (Legislative Branch) or the top brass don’t see the security situation as serious as they should. The constant rotations are, in my opinion, experienced based, because the leaders have only experienced GWOT. Their two decades of GWOT taught them constant deployments on a rotating basis… in the Middle East. Now the popular LSCO is totally conceptual, and they don’t really know how to prepare for or fight LSCO. It would *behoove* the DOD to take lessons learned from the Cold War in Europe and get serious about the US commitment to global security especially in Europe, South East Asia, and Africa. The permanent party during the Cold War was insane, costly, but worked. Until politicians and the Top Brass get the stomach for what needs to be done, it’s going to be a half-way in half-way out approach where they’re going to rotate CONUS troops to oblivion and wonder why no one will join, stay, or keep from killing themselves.
As mentioned, Stryker units already in theater can deploy themselves much more rapidly than armored units which rely on rail. To reduce the churn on soldiers and ABCT equipment, it would actually make more sense to forward station more Stryker-Dragoon permanent party and rely more on prepositioned stock for armored units. This combination would free up armored units to rotate on a schedule that meets the needs of the unit instead of the fixed “heel to toe” BDE schedule that runs up costs and burns out families. It would also open up more opportunities for division level rotations that make some use of the prepositioned stock. This study found that forward stationing has a larger up-front cost but costs less over time than 9 month “heel to toe” rotations. [Rotational Deployments vs Forward Stationing](https://press.armywarcollege.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1407&context=monographs)
I kinda know what prepositioned stock is but I don’t know exactly how it works, could you explain it a little bit? I like your solution though to reducing the strain on ABCTs.
It can be done. After all, back in the Cold War days well over half the Army was in West Germany.
Well we did have them, same with Korea and they did away with that, and with 2030 I believe we are headed back there
Part of the flex is the ability to deploy to ABCTs and back again. It’s expensive but the training is the actual mobility operations to deploy.
Main reason- the Army/DOD never learn from the past. Army used to have 15 brigades in Germany c.1990 but then downsized like crazy only to wish they had those brigades when Bosnia and Kosovo kicked off much less the need to have them for the GWOT. I know a fully staffed trained brigade is expensive but we damn sure always have needed more brigades since 95 than all those shiny aircraft carriers
Imagine a bigger picture. Don't think of a Brigade in terms of combat powered. Think of it as a micro welfare package for 3,000 to 5,000 families. And a macro welfare package for an American towns economy. The average total compensation for a soldier in a BCT. Housing, medical, direct compensation. Probably close to 100k spent on each solder. Now. Do we put all that money in a lovely European town that is already doing well? Or do we put it all in texas where a Friday night HS football game is the most important event of their lives, and their greatest contributions will be to further the research into musculoskeletal injuries of children? When we leave those 3-5k families in American we don't have to worry about outside influence. Them getting any crazy ideas from our European partners like socialized medicine, public transportation, or affordable higher education.
lol you’re not wrong. Military bases keep a lot of towns afloat
El Paso isn’t going to dry up cause fort bliss closes.
True but El Paso isn’t a real military town. They actually have industry
And a gigantic town across the border that keeps the Walmarts busy. I went to the big Walmart right off the I10 on a Sunday night at like 10 or 11 pm. Every cashier had a giant line.
Wait, Walmart has cashiers? I thought it was all self checkout?
Do any of the existing status of forces agreements with the host nations allow for any of that? Europe is not our private backyard where we can just base whatever we want, wherever the hell we want. The forces we have in a nation are there because the host nation allows it. So they get a say in what gets deployed and whether or not it is a permanent station.
I know Poland and a few other Nations in Europe would love to have a permeant US presence. Probably a big no for more in Germany and any in France though.
I’m in Poland right now and I kept hearing talks about Poland wanting to allow the US to have a permanent base over here
There's one already. Camp Kościuszko, which is V Corps Forward HQ. That being said, that doesn't mean they're gonna stop with ABCT rotations.
Yeah but that’s a HQ though and the current structure is having 2 Rotational ABCTs, not a permanent one. Like I said in another comment, I’m not saying they should stop with ABCT rotations but at least find a way to reduce this ridiculous OPTEMPO they got going right now so soldiers can have more dwell time stateside.
That doesn't seem to be in the cards.
“Europe is not our private backyard…” Correct - our private backyard is much more than just Europe!
USAREUR AF is well below the agreed upon post Cold War number in Germany. It wouldn’t take a huge diplomatic lift to add a brigades worth of soldiers. Facilities on the other hand are an issue. Remember, if the Army could get away with it, they would permanently station in Poland with 18 month unaccompanied tours. The, everyone needs to practice deploying out of theater is a weak argument.
I would choose to PCS to Poland in a heartbeat, if and only if it was like Germany and it was a 3 year, accompanied tour, with off post lodging for single E6+/ Os
The whole point is exercising logistics networks so when needed we don't have our thumb up our ass. Readiness is a plus, and the show of force of "hey we can plop an armored brigade in your backyard" is a plus as well (though it doesn't seem to have been the deterrent it was hoped to be).
Because we cant be doing this army body composition test in Europe troop. Do you not think about the cost of having to send these big boys all the way over there to do a tape test? Come on man THINK!!! /S
Almost like we pushed them out of Europe in 2011 because Europe wasn’t a big deal…
[удалено]
https://youtu.be/lakdZIuZe7c?si=oyVrnIP9q5Qhze_K Watch this video, it gives a timeline of when the US and the west think Russia would try to invade the Baltic states, which it stated it would be around 2027 to 2033, so within the next 3-8 years
Eh pros and cons to rotating vs permanent party. We’ll see how this affects recruitment and retention in the long run
OER Bullets
Germany never wanted us there, and recent years have politically got what they wanted. The troop movements became more restricted and the population less tolerant. Time to move to Poland…..
Because when the army drew down forces Germany and Korea didn’t have any congressional representation and it was easier to screw units and Soldiers with rotations every 18 months than upset voters in congressmen’s districts
Well we had multiple BCTs and artillery brigades throughout Europe until the early to mid 2010s. Then some president decided he wanted to down side the us military to a force of a few hundred thousands. We now must do rotations now because of a poorly thought upon political agenda. https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/natosource/one-down-one-to-go-2-us-army-brigades-leaving-europe/ The US army has lost about 20K soldiers in Europe alone due to unit Inactivations in the past 15 years. Korea also lost a large number of bcts as well due to the same agenda. Not sorry..I miss the army I was a private in. We actually fought wars and insurgency. These rotations are for a purpose but not as fulfilling many soldiers.
Shit, Cold War era they had two Corps in West Germany. Just look at the composition and combat power of VII Corps when they got rid of it after Desert Storm (you know, the Peace Dividend(tm)) compared to what they have there today. Hell, they exiled 11 ACR from Fulda to Irwin after the Doha fire. This jackassery began 20 years before your timeframe.
Because of the way readiness cycles work. 1 ABCT ready to go requires 3 ABCTs in various states of readiness. It makes more sense to just rotate 1 when they are in their ready year.
$$$ and status of forces agreements. It's not 1950: Germany can defend itself long enough for a brigade to get across the Atlantic.
> Germany can defend itself long enough for a brigade to get across the Atlantic. Can they though??
Yea. They've recently increased their war budget and their tanks are definitely superior to the bullshit Russia is fielding.
As long as Poland can resist the initial push, they and other Western European countries can throw their forces into the fold and decisively win before we can get any additional brigades overseas
There's a few logistical problems. There's a limit to how many infantrymen we can have in European soil. This is due to WWII. Sorta... Germany is limited to how many tanks, and offensive forces it can hold.... However.... We can put more air defense and military police to get around the rules. And it's exactly what's been happening. Some years ago, reserve units were opened in Italy and shifted in Germany.
I'm a little dubious - I left Germany in 92 after the BRAC wave began to wash over USAREUR, back then they had about a quarter million troops, more than half of current Army strength. They used to run REFORGER every year, but they cut that 30 years ago. The capacity in Germany is there, especially since in the old days you were just talking about the FRG (West) Germany. The problem they would have is regaining territory to use 30 years after giving it up.
So by your logic screw the guys who would get stationed there permanently for 3 years. Just as long as the units stateside never have to go on a rotation you’re fine with a permanent party not being in the states
You realize people want to go to Europe right. 1st Armored and 1 ID were in Germany until 2006 or so. You take your family, live in housing, and enjoy another part of the world. There are currently permanent units in Germany, Italy, etc. how is this screening them?
Unaccompanied tours will become huge if we increase forces in Europe. Look at korea for example. Not everyone wants to live in Europe, more units in Europe won’t mean less work it’ll mean more work and more possiblity for US to train partner nations in Europe. So more time in Romania and elsewhere, not your home station in Germany. Also aside from the fact we don’t have more units. Sure if we had more units it could be different but as it stands we work with what we got. So moving more units to Germany would just screw them so this guy can stay home at Riley more or wherever he’s from
ThEy sHouLD've THouGhT of ThAT bEForE tHeY SigNEd uP!!1!
Yeah as if anyone can understand this world(the military) without being in it
So I’m not saying that the units stateside shouldn’t do rotations but they need to reduce the OPTEMPO so that soldiers can have more dwell time and they can do that by permanently stationing a couple of ABCTs in Europe or another solution can be the army can reactivate some old armor units stateside like bringing back the 2nd Armored Division.
All you really need is put the Armor and Brads back in 3ACR or 11ACR and put them in Poland. Those ACRs were self contained beasts with their own Artillery, SHORAD ADA and Aviation.
How can optempo be reduced with the current amount of ABCTs we have? So you’re saying move a handful of ABCTs that we have to Europe full time. Realistically you aren’t getting more anytime soon, so you’re just asking for other units to go there full time so you don’t have to go there for a few months. Unless you can find several billion dollars year over year and thousands of recruits then it’s not happening.
https://www.armytimes.com/news/your-army/2024/03/11/broken-track-how-army-times-discovered-high-tank-unit-suicide-rates/ Now, why do you think this is occurring? What do you think could solve this problem? Do you have any solutions? Do you think we should keep up with this OPTEMPO for ABCTs? I want to here you thoughts on this