History Podcasts

Combat of Huhnerwasser, 26 June 1866

Combat of Huhnerwasser, 26 June 1866

Combat of Huhnerwasser, 26 June 1866

The combat of Huhnerwasser (26 June 1866) was the first clash between Austrian troops and the Prussian Army of the Elbe at the start of the Prussian invasion of Bohemia (Austro-Prussian War).

At the start of the war the Prussians had three armies ready to attack Austria. On their right (western) flank was the Army of the Elbe under General Karl E. Herwarth von Bittenfeld. This army had the task of invading Saxony, one of Austria's many German allies during the war. The Army of the Elbe crossed into Saxony on 16 June, and occupied Dresden on 18 June. The Saxon army put up no resistance and instead retreated to join up with the main Austrian army. The Prussians had overrun all of Saxony by 20 June. The Army of the Elbe then advanced across Saxony towards the Austrian border, ready for the next stage of the war - the invasion of Austrian Bohemia.

The Army of the Elbe and the Prussian 1st Army (Prince Frederick Charles) crossed the Austrian border on 23 June, heading towards each other and the Iser River. The 1st Army began the march some way to the east of the Army of the Elbe, but they rapidly closed in on each other.

On 26 June the Army of the Elbe had orders to reach Niemes and Oschitz, south-west of Gabel. The advance guard was sent south from Niemes, and eventually ran into an outlying Austrian force, Leiningen's brigade, which was posted near Hühnerwasser. At this point the main Austrian force in the area, General Clam-Gallas's I Corps, was concentrating at Münchengrätz, on the east bank of the Iser, and south-east of Hühnerwasser.

During the advance the Prussian advance guard ran into some Austrian cavalry at Hühnerwasser. The Prussians forced the Austrians back into some woods, which were defended by Leiningen's Brigade. At 11.00am General Schöler attacked the Austrian position, and the Austrian infantry retreated.

That ended the fighting for most of the day, but at around 6pm there was a fresh outburst of fighting, variously described as a counterattack or a skirmish with an Austrian jäger battalion. This attack was also repulsed. Typically of just about every clash during this war, the Prussians suffered lighter losses than the Austrians, with the credit normally going to the Prussian needle gun. The Prussians lost 7 dead and 43 wounded during the day's action. The Austrians lost 277 killed, wounded and missing.

To the north-east the 1st Army had also run into Austrian troops. The combat of Liebenau saw the Austrians pushed back from their outlying positions north of the Iser. They had then abandoned the town of Turnau, on the Iser, allowing the Prussians to occupy it unopposed. This gave them a foothold on the east bank of the river. That evening the Austrians attempted to counterattack, but they were defeated well to the south of Turnau (combat of Podol, 26-27 June 1866). The Prussians now had control of a long stretch of the Iser, and the Army of the Elbe and the 1st Army were firmly in touch with each other.

Crown Prince Albert of Saxony, commander of the Austrian and Saxon forces on the Iser, realised that his troops were in danger of being isolated. They spent 27 June preparing to retreat east to Gitschin, while the Prussians spent the day preparing for a full scale attack on Münchengrätz.


Illinois Military Records

Civil War Soldiers Database National Park Service

Complete history of the 46th regiment, Illinois volunteer infantry, a full and authentic account of the participation of the regiment in the battles, sieges, skirmishes and expeditions in which it was engaged Genealogy Gophers

Database for the Illinois Veterans' History Project Illinois State Archive

Database of Illinois Black Hawk War Veterans Illinois State Archive

Database of Illinois Civil War Veterans Serving in the U.S. Navy Illinois State Archive

Database of Illinois Civil War Veterans of Missouri Units Illinois State Archive

Database of Illinois Mexican War Veterans Illinois State Archive

Database of Illinois Soldiers' and Sailors' Home Residents Illinois State Archive

Database of Illinois Spanish American War Veterans Illinois State Archive

Database of Illinois War of 1812 Veterans Illinois State Archive

Database of Illinois Winnebago War Veterans Illinois State Archive

Database of the 1929 Illinois Roll of Honor Illinois State Archive

History of Fourteenth Illinois cavalry and the brigades to which it belonged Genealogy Gophers

History of the 57th regiment, Illinois voluteer infantry, from muster in, Dec. 26, 1861, to muster out, July 7, 1865 Genealogy Gophers

History of the Ninety-sixth Regiment, Illinois volunteer Infantry Genealogy Gophers

Illinois Civil War Muster and Descriptive Rolls Database Illinois State Archive

Illinois Soldier Burial Places, 1774-1974 Family Search

Illinois Veterans History Project Illinois Digital Archives

Illinois and the Civil War - Documents Illinois Digital Archives

Nationwide Gravesite Locator (burial locations of veterans) National Cemetery Administration

Record of the Services of Illinois Soldiers in the Black Hawk War, 1831-32, and in the Mexican war, 1846-48 Internet Archive

Record of the services of Illinois soldiers in the Black Hawk war, 1831-32, and in the Mexican war, 1846-8, containing a complete roster of commissioned officers and enlisted men of both wars, taken from the official rolls on file in the War department Genealogy Gophers

United States Casualties of Army Personnel, Dependents and Civilian Employees, 1961-1981 Family Search

United States Casualties of the Vietnam War, 1956-1998 Family Search

United States Civil War Service Records of Union Colored Troops, 1863-1865 Family Search

United States Civil War Service Records of Union Soldiers, 1864-1866 Family Search

United States Civil War Soldiers Index, 1861-1865 Family Search

United States Civil War Widows and Other Dependents Pension Files, 1861-1934 Family Search

United States Civil War and Later Pension Index, 1861-1917 Family Search

United States General Index to Pension Files, 1861-1934 Family Search

United States Headstone Applications for U.S. Military Veterans, 1925-1949 Family Search

United States Index to General Correspondence of the Pension Office, 1889-1904 Family Search

United States Index to Indian Wars Pension Files, 1892-1926 Family Search

United States Index to Naturalizations of World War I Soldiers, 1918 Family Search

United States Index to Service Records, War with Spain, 1898 Family Search

United States Korean War Battle Deaths, 1950-1957 Family Search

United States Korean War Dead and Army Wounded, 1950-1953 Family Search

United States Korean War Repatriated Prisoners of War, 1950-1954 Family Search

United States Mexican War Index and Service Records, 1846-1848 Family Search

United States Mexican War Pension Index, 1887-1926 Family Search

United States Military Personnel who Died During the Vietnam War, 1956-2003 Family Search

United States Muster Rolls of the Marine Corps, 1798-1937 Family Search

United States National Homes for Disabled Volunteer Soldiers, 1866-1938 Family Search

United States Naval Enlistment Rendezvous, 1855-1891 Family Search

United States Navy Widows' Certificates, 1861-1910 Family Search

United States Old War Pension Index, 1815-1926 Family Search

United States Records of Headstones of Deceased Union Veterans, 1879-1903 Family Search

United States Registers of Enlistments in the U.S. Army, 1798-1914 Family Search

United States Remarried Widows Index to Pension Applications, 1887-1942 Family Search

United States Union Provost Marshal Files of Individual Civilians, 1861-1866 Family Search

United States Union Provost Marshal Files of Two or More Civilians, 1861-1866 Family Search

United States Veterans Administration Pension Payment Cards, 1907-1933 Family Search

United States War of 1812 Index to Pension Application Files, 1812-1910 Family Search

United States War of 1812 Index to Service Records, 1812-1815 Family Search

United States World War I Draft Registration Cards, 1917-1918 Family Search

United States World War II Army Enlistment Records, 1938-1946 Family Search

United States World War II Draft Registration Cards, 1942 Family Search

United States World War II Draft Registration Cards, 1942 Family Search

United States World War II Prisoners of War of the Japanese, 1941-1945 Family Search

United States, Burial Registers for Military Posts, Camps, and Stations, 1768-1921 Family Search

United States, Veterans Administration Master Index, 1917-1940 Family Search

United States, World War I American Expeditionary Forces Deaths, 1917-1919 Family Search

United States, World War II Prisoners of War, 1941-1945 Family Search


Contents

Before General Schoomaker's tenure, the Army was organized around large, mostly mechanized divisions, of around 15,000 soldiers each, with the aim of being able to fight two major theatres simultaneously. Under the new plan, the Army would be organized around modular brigades of 3,000–4,000 soldiers each, with the aim of being able to deploy continuously in different parts of the world, and effectively organizing the Army closer to the way it fights. An additional 30,000 soldiers were recruited as a short-term measure to assist in the structural changes, although a permanent end-strength change was not expected because of fears of future funding cuts, forcing the Army to pay for the additional personnel from procurement and readiness accounts. Up to 60% of the defense budget is spent on personnel and an extra 10,000 soldiers would cost US$1.4 billion annually.

On November 22 and 23, 2002, the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs held the "Belfer Center Conference on Military Transformation". It brought together present and former defense officials and military commanders for the stated purpose of assessing the Department of Defense's progress in achieving a "transformation" of U.S. military capabilities. The conference was held at the Belfer Center at Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government. The United States Army War College and the Dwight D. Eisenhower National Security Series were co-sponsors. [39] In some respects this could be said to have been the birthplace of Transformation as a formal paradigm.

In 2004, the United States Army Forces Command (FORSCOM), which commands most active Army and Army Reserve Component forces based in the Continental United States, was tasked with supervising the modular transformation of its subordinate structure.

In March 2004, a contract was awarded to Anteon Corporation (now part of General Dynamics) to provide Modularity Coordination Cells (MCCs) to each transforming corps, division and brigade within FORSCOM. Each MCC contained a team of functional area specialists who provided direct, ground-level support to the unit. The MCCs were coordinated by the Anteon office in Atlanta, Georgia.

In 2007 a new deployment scheme known as Grow the Army was adopted that enabled the Army to carry out continuous operations. [40] The plan was modified several times including an expansion of troop numbers in 2007 and changes to the number of modular brigades. On 25 June 2013, plans were announced to disband 13 modular brigade combat teams (BCTs) and expand the remaining brigades with an extra maneuver battalion, extra fires batteries, and an engineer battalion.

History of ARFORGEN Edit

The Secretary of the Army approved implementing ARFORGEN, a transformational force generation model, in 2006. ARFORGEN process diagram 2010 Army Posture Statement, Addendum F, Army Force Generation (ARFORGEN) [41]

ARFORGEN model concept development began in the summer of 2004 and received its final approval from the Army's senior leadership in early 2006. [42]

In 2016 the Army force generation process ARFORGEN was sidelined because it relied mostly on the Active Army, in favor of the total force policy, which includes the Reserve and National Guard in the new model, the total force could have fallen to 980,000 by 2018, [43] subject to DoD's Defense Strategic Guidance to the Joint Staff. [44] : note especially pp.1–3 By 15 June 2017, the Department of the Army approved an increase in the Active Army's end-strength from 475,000 to 476,000. The total Army end-strength increases to 1.018 million. [45]

The commander-in-chief directs the planning process, through guidance to the Army by the Secretary of Defense. [44] Every year, Army Posture Statements by the Secretary of the Army and the Chief of Staff of the Army summarize their assessment [ReadyArmy 1] : minute 1:15:00/1:22:58 of the Army's ability to respond to world events, [46] [47] and also to transform for the future. [48] In support of transformation for the future, TRADOC, upon the advice of the Army's stakeholders, has assembled 20 warfighting challenges. [49] These challenges are under evaluation during annual Army warfighting assessments, such as AWA 17.1, held in October 2016. AWA 17.1 is an assessment by 5,000 US Soldiers, Special Operations Forces, Airmen, and Marines, [50] as well as by British, Australian, Canadian, Danish, and Italian troops. [51] [52] [53] [54] For example, "reach-back" is among the capabilities being assessed when under attack in an unexpected location, a Soldier on the move might use Warfighter Information Network-Tactical (WIN-T). At the halt, a light Transportable Tactical Command Communications (T2C2 Lite) system [55] : p.356 [56] [57] [58] [59] could reach back to a mobile command post, to communicate the unexpected situation to higher echelons, [60] [61] a building block in multi-domain operations. [62] [63] [6] [64]

Implementation and current status Edit

Grow the Army was a transformation and re-stationing initiative of the United States Army which began in 2007 and was scheduled to be completed by fiscal year 2013. The initiative was designed to grow the army by almost 75,000 soldiers, while realigning a large portion of the force in Europe to the continental United States in compliance with the 2005 Base Realignment and Closure suggestions. This grew the force from 42 Brigade Combat Teams (BCTs) and 75 modular support brigades in 2007 to 45 Brigade Combat Teams and 83 modular support brigades by 2013.

On 25 June 2013, US Army Chief of Staff General Raymond T. Odierno announced plans to disband 13 brigade combat teams and reduce troop strengths by 80,000 soldiers. While the number of BCTs will be reduced, the size of remaining BCTs will increase, on average, to about 4,500 soldiers. That will be accomplished, in many cases, by moving existing battalions and other assets from existing BCTs into other brigades. Two brigade combat teams in Germany had already been deactivated and a further 10 brigade combat teams slated for deactivation were announced by General Odierno on 25 June. (An additional brigade combat team was announced for deactivation 6 November 2014.) At the same time the maneuver battalions from the disbanded brigades will be used to augment armored and infantry brigade combat teams with a third maneuver battalion and expanded brigades fires capabilities by adding a third battery to the existing fires battalions. Furthermore, all brigade combat teams—armored, infantry and Stryker—will gain a Brigade Engineer Battalion, with "gap-crossing" and route-clearance capability. [65]

On 6 November 2014, it was reported that the 1st Armored Brigade Combat Team, 2nd Infantry Division, currently stationed in South Korea, was to be deactivated in June 2015 and be replaced by a succession of U.S.-based brigade combat teams, which are to be rotated in and out, at the same nine-month tempo as practiced by the Army from 2001–2014. [66]

Eleven brigades were inactivated by 2015. The remaining brigades as of 2015 are listed below. On 16 March 2016, the Deputy Commanding General (DCG) of FORSCOM announced that the brigades would now also train to move their equipment to their new surge location as well as to train for the requirements of their next deployment. [67] [68] [69] [70]

By 2018, Secretary of the Army Mark Esper noted that even though the large deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan had ceased, at any given time, three of the Armored Brigade Combat Teams are deployed to EUCOM, CENTCOM, and INDOPACOM, respectively, while two Infantry Brigade Combat Teams are deployed to Iraq, and Afghanistan, respectively. [71]

[At any given time,] there are more than 100,000 Soldiers deployed around the world —Secretary of the Army Mark Esper [71]

In 2019 the Secretary of the Army asserted that the planning efforts, including Futures Command, the SFABs, and the Decisive Action readiness training of the BCTs are preparing the Army for competition with both near-peer and regional powers. [72] [73] The Army and Marine Corps have issued "clear explanations and guidance for the 429 articles of the Geneva Conventions". [74] [75]

The Budget Control Act could potentially restrict funds by 2020. [76] [77] [78] [79] [80] [81] [82] [83] [84] [85] [86] By the 2024-2025 time frame, the Fiscal Year Development Plan (FYDP) will have reallocated $10 billion more into development of the top 6 modernization priorities, [Note 1] taking those funds from legacy spending budgets. [87]

The Army has now been organized around modular brigades of 3,000–4,000 soldiers each, with the aim of being able to deploy continuously in different parts of the world, and effectively organizing the Army closer to the way it fights. The fact that this modernization is now in place has been acknowledged by the renaming of the 'Brigade Modernization Command' to the "U.S. Army Joint Modernization Command," on 16 February 2017. [1]

Modular combat brigades Edit

Modular combat brigades are self-contained combined arms formations. [88] They are standardized formations across the active and reserve components, meaning an Armored BCT at Fort Hood is the same as one at Fort Stewart. [Note 2]

Reconnaissance plays a large role in the new organizational designs. The Army felt the acquisition of the target was the weak link in the chain of finding, fixing, closing with, and destroying the enemy. The Army felt that it had already sufficient lethal platforms to take out the enemy and thus the number of reconnaissance units in each brigade was increased. [Note 3] [89] The brigades sometimes depend on joint fires from the Air Force and Navy to accomplish their mission. As a result, the amount of field artillery has been reduced in the brigade design.

The three types of BCTs are Armored Brigade Combat Teams (ABCTs), Infantry Brigade Combat Teams (IBCTs) (includes Light, Air Assault and Airborne units), and Stryker Brigade Combat Teams (SBCTs).

Armored Brigade Combat Teams, or ABCTs consist of 4,743 troops. This includes the third maneuver battalion as laid out in 2013. The changes announced by the U.S. army on 25 June 2013, [65] include adding a third maneuver battalion to the brigade, a second engineer company to a new Brigade Engineer Battalion, a third battery to the FA battalion, and reducing the size of each battery from 8 to 6 guns. These changes will also increase the number of troops in the affected battalions and also increase the total troops in the brigade. Since the brigade has more organic units, the command structure includes a deputy commander (in addition to the traditional executive officer) and a larger staff capable of working with civil affairs, special operations, psychological operations, air defense, and aviation units. An Armored BCT consists of:

  • the brigade headquarters and headquarters company (HHC): 43 officers, 17 warrant officers, 125 enlisted personnel – total: 185 soldiers.
  • the Brigade Engineer Battalion (BEB) (formerly Brigade Special Troops Battalion (BSTB)), consisted of a headquarters company, signal company, military intelligence company with a TUAV platoon and two combat engineer companies (A and B company). The former BSTB fielded 28 officers, 6 warrant officers, 470 enlisted personnel – total: 504 soldiers. Each of the combat engineer company fields 13× M2A2 Bradley Fighting Vehicle (BFV) Operation Desert Storm-Engineer (ODS-E), 1× M113A3 Armored Personnel Carrier (APC), 3× M1150 Assault Breacher Vehicle (ABV), 1× M9 Armored Combat Earthmover (ACE), and 2× M104 Heavy Assault Bridge (HAB).
  • a Cavalry (formerly Armed Reconnaissance) Squadron, consisting of a headquarters troop (HHT) and three reconnaissance troops and one armored troop. The HHT fields 2× M3A3 Cavalry Fighting Vehicles (CFVs) and 3× M7A3 Bradley Fire Support Vehicles, while each reconnaissance troop fields 7× M3A3 CFVs. The squadron fields 35 officers and 385 enlisted personnel – total: 424 soldiers.
  • three identical combined arms battalions, flagged as a battalion of an infantry, armored or cavalry regiment. Each battalion consists of a headquarters and headquarters company, two tank companies and two mechanized infantry companies. The battalions field 48 officers and 580 enlisted personnel each – total: 628 soldiers. The HHC fields 1× M1A2main battle tank, 1× M2A3 infantry fighting vehicle, 3× M3A3 cavalry fighting vehicles, 4× M7A3 fire support vehicles and 4× M1064 mortar carriers with M120 120 mm mortars. Each of the two tank companies fields 14× M1A2main battle tanks, while each mechanized infantry company fields 14× M2A3 infantry fighting vehicles. In 2016, the ABCT's combined arms battalions adopted a triangle structure, of two armored battalions (of two armored companies plus a single mechanized infantry company) plus a mechanized infantry battalion (of two mechanized companies and one armored company). [90] This resulted in the reduction of two mechanized infantry companies the deleted armored company was reflagged as a troop to the Cavalry Squadron.
  • a Field Artillery battalion, consisting of a headquarters battery, two cannon batteries with 8× M109A6self-propelled 155 mm howitzers each (the changes announced by the U.S. Army on 25 June 2013, [65] include adding a third battery to the FA battalion, and reducing the size of each battery from 8 to 6 guns these changes also increase the number of troops in the affected battalions and also increase the total troops in the Brigade), and a target acquisition platoon. 24 officers, 2 warrant officers, 296 enlisted personnel – total: 322 soldiers.
  • a brigade support battalion (BSB), [91] consisting of a headquarters, medical, distribution and maintenance company, plus six forward support companies, each of which support one of the three combined arms battalions, the cavalry squadron, the engineer battalion and the field artillery battalion. 61 officers, 14 warrant officers, 1,019 enlisted personnel – total: 1,094 soldiers.

Infantry Brigade Combat Team, or IBCTs, comprised around 3,300 soldiers, in the pre-2013 design, which did not include the 3rd maneuver battalion. The 2013 end-strength is now 4,413 Soldiers:

  • Special Troops Battalion (now Brigade Engineer Battalion)
  • Cavalry Squadron
  • (2), later (3) Infantry Battalions
  • Field Artillery Battalion
  • Brigade Support Battalion [91]

Stryker Brigade Combat Team or SBCTs comprised about 3,900 soldiers, making it the largest of the three combat brigade constructs in the 2006 design, and over 4,500 Soldiers in the 2013 reform. Its design includes:

  • Headquarters Company
  • Cavalry Squadron (with three 14-vehicle, two-120 mm mortar reconnaissance troops plus a surveillance troop with UAVs and NBC detection capability)
  • (3) Stryker infantry battalions (each with three rifle companies with 12 infantry-carrying vehicles, 3 mobile gun platforms, 2 120 mm mortars, and around 100 infantry dismounts each, plus an HHC with scout, mortar and medical platoons and a sniper section.)
  • Engineer Company (folded into the Brigade Engineer Battalion) [An additional engineer company was added to the battalion [65] in the 2013 reform]
  • Signal Company (folded into the Brigade Engineer Battalion)
  • Military Intelligence Company (with UAV platoon) (folded into the Brigade Engineer Battalion)
  • Anti-tank company (9 TOW-equipped Stryker vehicles) (folded into the Brigade Engineer Battalion)
  • Field Artillery Battalion (three 6-gun 155 mm Howitzer batteries, target acquisition platoon, and a joint fires cell)
  • Brigade Support Battalion (headquarters, medical, maintenance, and distribution companies) [91]

Modular support brigades Edit

Combat support brigades Edit

Similar modularity will exist for support units which fall into five types: Aviation, Fires (artillery), Battlefield Surveillance (intelligence), Maneuver Enhancement (engineers, signal, military police, chemical, and rear-area support), and Sustainment (logistics, medical, transportation, maintenance, etc.). In the past, artillery, combat support, and logistics support only resided at the division level and brigades were assigned those units only on a temporary basis when brigades transformed into "brigade combat teams" for particular deployments.

Combat Aviation Brigades are multi-functional, offering a combination of attack helicopters (i.e., Apache), reconnaissance helicopters (i.e., Kiowa), medium-lift helicopters (i.e., Blackhawks), heavy-lift helicopters (i.e., Chinooks), and medical evacuation (MEDEVAC) capability. Aviation will not be organic to combat brigades. It will continue to reside at the division-level due to resource constraints.

Heavy divisions (of which there are six) will have 48 Apaches, 38 Blackhawks, 12 Chinooks, and 12 Medevac helicopters in their aviation brigade. These are divided into two aviation attack battalions, an assault lift battalion, a general aviation support battalion. An aviation support battalion will have headquarters, refuelling/resupply, repair/maintenance, and communications companies. [92] Light divisions will have aviation brigades with 60 armed reconnaissance helicopters and no Apaches, with the remaining structure the same. The remaining divisions will have aviation brigades with 30 armed reconnaissance helicopters and 24 Apaches, with the remaining structure the same. Ten Army Apache helicopter units will convert to heavy attack reconnaissance squadrons, with 12 RQ-7B Shadow drones apiece. [89] [93] The helicopters to fill out these large, combined-arms division-level aviation brigades comes from aviation units that used to reside at the corps-level.

Field Artillery Brigades (formerly known as "Fires Brigades" prior to 2014) provide traditional artillery fire (Paladin Howitzer, M270 MLRS, HIMARS) as well as information operations and non-lethal effects capabilities. After the 2013 reform, the expertise formerly embodied in the pre-2007 Division Artillery (DIVARTY) was formally re-instituted in the Division Artillery Brigades of 2015. [94] The operational Fires battalions will now report to this new formulation of DIVARTY, for training and operational Fires standards, as well as to the BCT. [95] [96]

Air Defense: The Army will no longer provide an organic air defense artillery (ADA) battalion to its divisions. Nine of the ten active component (AC) divisional ADA battalions and two of the eight reserve (ARNG) divisional ADA battalions will deactivate. The remaining AC divisional ADA battalion along with six ARNG divisional ADA battalions will be pooled at the Unit of Employment to provide on-call air and missile defense (AMD) protection. The pool of Army AMD resources will address operational requirements in a tailorable and timely manner without stripping assigned AMD capability from other missions. Maneuver short-range air defense (MSHORAD) [97] with laser cannon prototypes are fielding by 2020. [98]

Maneuver Enhancement Brigades are designed to be self-contained, and will command units such as chemical, military police, civil affairs units, and tactical units such as a maneuver infantry battalion. These formations are designed to be joint so that they can operate with coalition, or joint forces such as the Marine Corps, or can span the gap between modular combat brigades and other modular support brigades. [Note 4]

Sustainment Brigades provide echelon-above-brigade-level logistics. [99] On its rotation to South Korea, 3rd ABCT, 1st Armored Division deployed its supply support activity (SSA) common authorized stockage list (CASL) [100] as well. [101] The CASL allows the ABCT to draw additional stocks beyond its pipeline of materiel from GCSS-A. [101] The DoD-level Global Combat Support System includes an Army-level tool (GCSS-A), which runs on tablet computers with bar code readers which 92-A specialists use to enter and track materiel requests, as the materiel makes its way through the supply chain to the brigades. [102] This additional information can then be used by GCSS-A to trigger resupply for Army pre-positioned stocks, [102] typically by sea. [103] : p.12 The data in GCSS-Army is displayed on the Commander's Dashboard —Army Readiness-Common Operating Picture (AR-COP). [104] This dashboard is also available to the Commander at BCT, division, corps, and Army levels. [104]

The former Battlefield Surveillance Brigades, [105] now denoted Military Intelligence Brigades (Expeditionary), will offer additional UAVs and long-term surveillance detachments. [106] Each of the three active duty brigades is attached to an Army Corps. [105]

Security Force Assistance Brigades Edit

Security force assistance brigades (SFABs) are brigades whose mission is to train, advise, and assist (TAA) the armed forces of other states. The SFAB are neither bound by conventional decisive operations nor counter-insurgency operations. Operationally, a 500-soldier SFAB would free-up a 4500-soldier BCT from a TAA mission. On 23 June 2016 General Mark Milley revealed plans for train/advise/assist Brigades, consisting of seasoned officers and NCOs with a full chain of command, [107] : Minute 18:40/1:00:45 but no junior Soldiers. In the event of a national emergency the end-strengths of the SFABs could be augmented with new soldiers from basic training and advanced individual training. [107]

An SFAB was projected to consist of 500 senior officers and NCOs, which, the Army says, could act as a cadre to reform a full BCT in a matter of months. [108] In May 2017, the initial SFAB staffing of 529 soldiers was underway, including 360 officers. The officers will have had previous command experience. [107] : 21:20 Commanders and leaders will have previously led BCTs at the same echelon. [109] The remaining personnel, all senior NCOs, are to be recruited from across the Army. [110] [111] [112] Promotable E-4s who volunteer for the SFAB are automatically promoted to Sergeant upon completion of the Military Advisor Training Academy. [113] A team of twelve soldiers would include a medic, personnel for intelligence support, and air support, [114] as cited by Keller. [115] [116]

These SFABs would be trained in languages, how to work with interpreters, [117] and equipped with the latest equipment [118] such as Integrated Tactical Network (ITN) [119] using T2C2 systems [120] [121] including secure, but unclassified, communications [122] and weapons to support coalition partners, [123] as well as unmanned aircraft systems (UASs). [124] The first five SFABs would align with the Combatant Commands (SOUTHCOM, AFRICOM, CENTCOM, EUCOM, and USINDOPACOM, respectively) [4] an SFAB could provide up to 58 teams (possibly with additional Soldiers for force protection). [123]

Funding for the first two SFABs was secured in June 2017. [45] By October 2017, the first of six planned SFABs (the 1st Security Force Assistance Brigade) [125] was established at Fort Benning. [126] [107] : minute 50:00 On 16 October 2017, BG Brian Mennes of Force Management in the Army's G3/5/7 announced accelerated deployment of the first two SFABs, possibly by Spring 2018 to Afghanistan and Iraq, if required. [123] This was approved in early July 2017, by the Secretary of Defense and the Chief of Staff of the Army. On 8 February 2018, 1st SFAB held an activation ceremony at Fort Benning, revealing its colors and heraldry for the first time, and then cased its colors for the deployment to Afghanistan. [127] 1st Security Force Assistance Brigade deployed to Afghanistan in Spring 2018. [128]

On 8 December 2017, the Army announced the activation of the 2nd Security Force Assistance Brigade, [129] for January 2018, the second of six planned SFABs. The SFAB are to consist of about 800 senior and noncommissioned officers who have served at the same echelon, with proven expertise in advise-and-assist operations with foreign security forces. Fort Bragg was chosen as the station for the second SFAB [130] in anticipation of the time projected to train a Security Force Assistance Brigade. [129] On 17 January 2018 Chief of Staff Mark Milley announced the activation of the third SFAB. [115] 2nd SFAB undergoes three months of training beginning October 2018, to be followed by a Joint Readiness Training Center Rotation beginning January 2019, and deployment in spring 2019. [131] The 3rd, 4th, and 5th SFABs are to be stationed at Fort Hood, Fort Carson, and Joint Base Lewis-McChord, respectively [132] the headquarters of the 54th Security Force Assistance Brigade, made up from the Army National Guard, will be in Indiana, one of six states to contribute an element of 54th SFAB. [133] It is likely that these brigades will be seeing service within United States Central Command. [134] [135]

The Security Force Assistance Command (SFAC), a one-star division-level command [136] and all six SFABs will be activated by 2020. [6] The Security Force Assistance Directorate, a one-star Directorate for the SFABs, will be part of FORSCOM in Fort Bragg. SFAD will be responsible for the Military Advisor Training Academy as well. [137] [138] The 1st SFAB commander was promoted to Brigadier General in Gardez, Afghanistan on 18 August 2018. [139] The 2nd SFAB commander was promoted to Brigadier General 7 September 2018. [140] SFAC and 2nd SFAB were activated in a joint ceremony at Fort Bragg on 3 December 2018. [136] 2nd SFAB deployed to Afghanistan in February 2019. [141] [142] 3rd SFAB activated at Fort Hood on 16 July 2019 [143] 3rd SFAB will relieve 2nd SFAB in Afghanistan for the Winter 2019 rotation. [144]

Security Assistance is part of The Army Strategy 2018's Line of Effort 4: "Strengthen Alliances and Partnerships". [6] The Security Assistance Command is based at Redstone Arsenal [145] (but the SFAC is based at Fort Bragg). [136]

Army Field Support Brigades Edit

Army Field Support Brigades (AFSBs) have been utilized to field materiel in multiple Combatant Command's Areas of Responsibility (AORs). [146] [103] : p22–27 and p.77–78 Initially 405th AFSB prepositioned stocks for a partial brigade eventually, the 405th was to field materiel for an ABCT, a Division headquarters, a Fires Brigade, and a Sustainment Brigade in their AOR, which required multinational agreements. [147] Similarly, 401st AFSB configured materiel for an ABCT in their AOR as well. The objective has been combat configuration: maintain their vehicles to support a 96-hour readiness window for a deployed ABCT on demand. [148] In addition, 403rd Army Field Support Brigade maintains prepositioned stocks for their AOR.

Command headquarters Edit

Below the Combatant Commands echelon, Division commands will command and control their combat and support brigades. [149] Divisions will operate as plug-and-play headquarters commands (similar to corps) instead of fixed formations with permanently assigned units. Any combination of brigades may be allocated to a division command for a particular mission, up to a maximum of four combat brigades. For instance, the 3rd Infantry Division headquarters could be assigned two armor brigades and two infantry brigades based on the expected requirements of a given mission. On its next deployment, the same division may have one Stryker brigade and two armor brigades assigned to it. The same modus operandi holds true for support units. The goal of reorganization with regard to logistics is to streamline the logistics command structure [150] so that combat service support can fulfill its support mission more efficiently. [151] [152]

The division headquarters itself has also been redesigned as a modular unit that can be assigned an array of units and serve in many different operational environments. [153] The new term for this headquarters is the UEx (or Unit of Employment, X). The headquarters is designed to be able to operate as part of a joint force, command joint forces with augmentation, and command at the operational level of warfare (not just the tactical level). It will include organic security personnel and signal capability plus liaison elements. As of March 2015, nine of the ten regular Army division headquarters, and two national guard division headquarters are committed in support of Combatant Commands. [46] : Executive Summary [154] [155]

When not deployed, the division will have responsibility for the training and readiness of a certain number of modular brigades units. For instance, the 3rd Infantry Division headquarters module based at Fort Stewart, GA is responsible for the readiness of its combat brigades and other units of the division (that is, 3rd ID is responsible for administrative control —ADCON of its downtrace units), assuming they have not been deployed separately under a different division.

The re-designed headquarters module comprises around 1,000 soldiers including over 200 officers. It includes:

  • A Main Command Post where mission planning and analysis are conducted
  • A mobile command group for commanding while on the move
  • (2) Tactical Command Posts to exercise control of brigades [156]
  • Liaison elements
  • A special troops battalion with a security company and signal company

Divisions will continue to be commanded by major generals, unless coalition requirements require otherwise. Regional army commands (e.g. 3rd Army, 7th Army, 8th Army) will remain in use in the future but with changes to the organization of their headquarters designed to make the commands more integrated and relevant in the structure of the reorganized Army, as the chain of command for a deployed division headquarters now runs directly to an Army service component command (ASCC), or to FORSCOM. [153]

In January 2017, examples of pared-down tactical operations centers, suitable for brigades and divisions, were demonstrated at a command post huddle at Fort Bliss. The huddle of the commanders of FORSCOM, United States Army Reserve Command, First Army, I and III Corps, 9 of the Active Army divisions, and other formations discussed standardized solutions for streamlining command posts. [156] The Army is paring-down the tactical operations centers, and making them more agile, [149] [157] [158] [159] to increase their survivability. [96] [160] By July 2019 battalion command posts have demonstrated jump times of just over 3 hours, at the combat training centers, repeated 90 to 120 times in a rotation. [161] [162] The C5ISR center of CCDC ran a series of experiments (Network Modernization Experiment 2020 — NetModX 20) whether using LTE for connecting nodes in a distributed Command post environment was feasible, from July to October 2020. [163]

Four major commands Edit

United States Army Futures Command (AFC), grew from 12 people ("a small agile command") [164] at headquarters in 2018 [165] to 24,000 in 25 states and 15 countries in 2019. [166] Futures Command was slated to be the Army's fourth Army command (ACOM). [167] AFC joined the other Army commands FORSCOM, Army Materiel Command (AMC), and TRADOC as four-star commands. Austin, Texas became the station for the headquarters of Futures Command. [168] Initial operating capability is slated for 2018. [164] [169] Although the Army has enjoyed overmatch for the past seventy years, [34] more rapid modernization for conflict with near-peers is the reason for AFC, which will be focused on achieving clear overmatch [170] in six areas — long-range precision fires, [171] [172] next-generation combat vehicle, future vertical lift platforms, a mobile & expeditionary Army network, [173] [174] air & missile defense capabilities, [175] and soldier lethality [176] (i.e. artillery, armor, aviation, signal, air defense artillery, and infantry respectively see: Futures). [Note 1]

In a reform-oriented break with Army custom, leaders of AFC headquarters were to locate in a downtown property of the University of Texas System, while project-driven soldiers and Army civilians were to co-locate with entrepreneurs/innovators in tech hubs, in the vision of Under Secretary of the Army Ryan D. McCarthy. [177] [178] [31] The official activation ceremony of AFC was on 24 August 2018, in Austin, Texas [179] in a press conference on that day featuring Army Chief of Staff Milley, Secretary Esper, Mayor Adler, and AFC commander Murray, [180] Chief Milley noted that AFC was to actively reach out into the community in order to learn, and that Senator John McCain's frank criticism of the acquisition process was instrumental for modernization reform at Futures command. [180] : minute 7:30 In fact, AFC soldiers were to blend into Austin by not wearing their uniforms [to work side by side with civilians in the tech hubs], Milley noted in the 24 August 2018 press conference. [180] : minute 6:20 Secretary Esper said he expected failures during the process of learning how to reform the acquisition and modernization process. [180] : minute 18:20

The organizational design of AFC was informed by the cancellation of the Army's Future Combat Systems project. Under Secretary of the Army Ryan D. McCarthy reviewed the reasons for that cancellation. [31] : Minute 19:40 Thus "unity of command and purpose" [31] : Minutes 12:22, 23:01 was a criterion for the design by unifying previous modernization efforts in a single command the sub-goals would be met in do-able chunks. [181] [182] The ratio of uniformed personnel to Army civilian employees is expected to be a talent-based, task-based issue for the AFC commander. [31] : Minute 32:40 The expectation is that these reforms will enable cultural change across the entire Army, as a part of attaining full operational capability. [31] : Minute 27:14 [183] The Program Executive Offices (PEOs) of ASA (ALT) will have a dotted-line relationship with Futures Command. [184] [Note 1]

In order to separate Army modernization from today's requirement for readiness, [184] eight cross-functional teams (CFTs) [Note 1] [33] [181] [175] were transferred from the other three major commands to Futures Command. [184] United States Army Research, Development and Engineering Command and the United States Army Capabilities Integration Center [185] will report to the new command. [186] ATEC retains its direct reporting relationship to the Chief of Staff of the Army.

The first tranche of transfers into AFC included: Capabilities Integration Center (ARCIC), Capability Development and Integration Directorates (CDIDs), and TRADOC Analysis Center (TRAC) from TRADOC, and RDECOM (including the six research, development and engineering centers (RDECs), and the U.S. Army Research Laboratory (ARL) [187] ), and Army Materiel Systems Analysis Activity (AMSAA), from AMC, as announced by Secretary Esper on 4 June 2018. [188] TRADOC's new role is amended accordingly. [188] The Principal Military Deputy to the ASA(ALT) was also to become deputy commanding general for Combat Systems, Army Futures Command, while leading the PEOs he has directed each PEO who does not have a CFT to coordinate with, to immediately form one, at least informally. [189] General Murray has announced that AFC intends to be a global command, in its search for disruptive technologies. [190] Army Chief of Staff Milley was looking for AFC to attain full operational capability (FOC) by August 2019, [180] a goal since met.

As this modernized materiel is fielded to the brigades, the scheme is to equip the units with the highest levels of readiness for deployment with upgraded equipment earliest, while continuing to train the remaining units to attain their full mission capability. [191] Note that expertise, in say psychological operations, is not necessarily confined to the Active Army brigades if some operation were to require the expertise of a National Guard unit for example, an echelon above brigade might require that a unit with the most modern materiel be formed, to utilize that expertise. [64] The 10 Active Army divisions each have a deployable 3D printer for immediate operational requirements (to replace damaged materiel, subject to Army directives). [192] [193] [194]

By 2020, in the Fiscal Year 2021 budget request to Congress, the Army Acquisition Executive (AAE) was able to report progress in the partnership between Army Futures Command (viz. its CFTs) and his PEOs in ASA(ALT) —the office of Assistant Secretary of the Army (Acquisition, Logistics & Technology). [195] [Note 1]

Multi-domain operations (MDO) Edit

In 2017, the concept of multi-domain battle (MDB) [196] had emerged from TRADOC, [197] for which the Army sought joint approval from the other services instead, the Air Force recommended multi-domain operations (MDO) as the operating concept. [198] [20] [199]

Multi-domain operations cover integrated operation of cyberspace, space (meaning satellite operations, from the Army's perspective), land, maritime, and air. [200] A multi-domain task force was stood up in 2018 in I Corps for the Pacific, [196] built around 17th Field Artillery Brigade. MDO in the Pacific has to involve maritime operations MDO is planned for EUCOM in 2020. [20] [201] Multi-domain battalions, first stood up in 2019, comprise a single unit for air, land, space, and cyber domains [202] to ensure integration of cyber/EW, space, and information operations in more levels of command.

To me, ARCIC’s [MDO] analysis means the Army’s got to be able to sink ships, neutralize satellites, shoot down missiles, and deny the enemy the ability to command and control its forces.

Deterrence Edit

By 2020 the Army's programs for modernization were now framed as a decades-long process of cooperation with allies and partners, [204] [205] [206] for competition with potential adversaries who historically have blurred the distinction between peace and war, [207] [208] in the continuum between peace, cooperation, competition, crisis, and conflict. When meeting a crisis, the Army's preference is deterrence. [209] The need for deterrence against ballistic missiles is shifting to the need to deter or defend against attack by hypersonic weapons.

New cyber authorities have been granted under National Security Presidential Memorandum (NSPM) 13 [210] persistent cyber engagements at Cyber command are the new norm for cyber operations. [211] The CG of Futures Command (AFC) has noted that MDO will tie together the initiatives of AFC but failures are to be expected in the AFC initiatives, and the institutional response of the Army, which is traditionally risk-averse, will test how committed the nation is to Army reforms. [22]

Mesh networking is in play for the Mobile, Expeditionary Network: In Fiscal Year 2019, the network CFT, PEO 3CT, and PEO Soldier leveraged Network Integration Evaluation 18.2 [212] for experiments with brigade level scalability. [213] [214] [215] [216] Among the takeaways was to avoid overspecifying the requirements (in ITN [118] [217] Information Systems Initial Capabilities Document) to meet operational needs, [213] such as interoperability with other networks. [218] [219] : minute 26:40 [220] ITN —Integrated Tactical Network is being fielded to four brigades in 2021. [221] Up through 2028, every two years the Army will insert new capability sets for ITN (Capability sets '21, '23, '25, etc.). [222] [223] [216]

TRADOC designed exercises for Joint warfighter assessments —JWA 19, [224] [225] [226] at Fort Lewis, to clarify the jumps for Command Posts, to ensure their survivability during future operations. In 2019, there was a new focus on planning for large-scale ground combat operations (LSCO), [227] [228] [229] [230] [231] "that will require echelons above brigade, all of which will solve unique and distinct problems that a given BCT can't solve by itself."— LTG Eric Wesley. [23] [64] Computer simulations (DOTMLPF), of the survivability rates for the units, were then compared with the interaction strategies, tactics and operations of JWA 19, a highly contested environment. [224] JWA 19 occurred at multiple operational speeds, in multiple domains served by multiple services (cyber: operating in milliseconds air: operations at 500 miles per hour maritime: 30 knots and ground: 2 miles per hour). JWA 19 involved the militaries of the US, the United Kingdom, New Zealand, Canada, France, Australia and Singapore. [226]

Competition Edit

In September and November 2019 the Department of Defense (DoD) "scheduled a series of globally integrated exercises with participation from across the US government interagency to refine our plans" [232] — Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Joseph Dunford. This exercise was designed to help Secretary of Defense Mark Esper develop new plans, in the face of a change in chairmanship of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. [232] Specifically what was missing in 2019 was a joint concept [233] shared at the appropriate operational speed between the several domains, among the respective services, when fighting a peer adversary.—LTG Eric Wesley [Note 5] [234] [235] [236] Note the referenced LRHW graphic depicting a 2019 scenario— [237] [238] [239] This is a return to the use of echelons above brigade (Divisions, Corps, and Field Armies), with specific tasks to force current adversaries to return to competition, rather than conflict [240] [232] [241] kill chains were formed within seconds, by live-fire demonstration, as of September 2020. [37] [Note 5]

In 2019 the 27th Secretary of Defense ordered the four services and the Joint staff to create a new joint warfighting concept for All-domain operations (ADO), operating simultaneously in the air, land, sea, space, cyber, and the electromagnetic spectrum (EMS). [Note 6] In 2021 the 28th Secretary of Defense approved the Joint warfighting concept (JWC), which remains classified. [244]

The 20th CJCS has allocated roles to each of the services in concept development for Joint All-Domain Operations (JADO) [245]

  • the Air Force takes the lead for command and control (C2). The Joint services each have a C2 concept to be scaled —for the Army, C2 requires thousands of connections with the sensors and shooters, [Note 7] as compared with hundreds of connections with the sensors and shooters for the Air Force ABMS (Advanced Battle Management System) [246][Note 5][247]
  • the Navy will lead concept development in Joint fires: [245] its newest equipment (the newer Littoral Combat Ships, the MQ-8C, and the Naval Strike Missile) provides standoff for the Navy against its near-peers. [248][249] In February 2020, voices at the tactical level were supporting cross-domain, cross-role, cross-service interoperation: "Any sensor should be able to link to any shooter and any command and control node". [250] The combination of F-35-based targeting coordinates, Long range precision fires, and Low-earth-orbit satellite capability overmatches the competition, according to Lt. Gen. Eric Wesley. [251] A Space sensor layer of satellites (at 1200 miles above earth) [252] would position hundreds of Low-earth-orbit sensors for tracking hypersonic vehicles. This tracking layer would provide guidance information to the interceptors in the missile defense system. [252][242][253]
  • the Army will lead concept development for contested logistics. [254][245][193][192][103][255][104][256][257][258]
  • the service to lead concept development in 'Information advantage' is not yet determined by the Joint Staff J-7 as of 16 September 2020. [245] Build a kill chain faster than the adversary's OODA loop. [259][260][261]See Fog of war[262][263][264][257][265][266]

In late December 2019, the Air Force, Army, and Navy ran a Joint all-domain command and control (JADC2) [267] [214] connection exercise of Advanced Battle Management System (ABMS) [268] for the first time. This exercise is denoted ABMS Onramp, and will occur at four month intervals. [268] JADC2 is a joint multi-domain operation (MDO) [255] the exercise will involve the Army's Long range fires, ground-based troops, and Sentinel radar. The Air Force contributes F-22s and F-35s, while the Navy is bringing F-35Cs and a destroyer to ABMS Onramp. [269] [270] The December 2019 exercise used a NORTHCOM scenario. [271]

The April 2020 test of ABMS was delayed by the COVID-19 pandemic. [272] The test was to have spanned bases from Eglin AFB to Nellis AFB from Yuma Proving Ground to White Sands Missile Range— in this test, a simulated attack was to take place on 3 geographic commands: on Space Command, on Northern Command, and on Strategic Command's nuclear command, control, and communications.

JADC2 is to ensure continuity of commander's intent [273] — JADC2 was to be exercised in late August or early September 2020. [272] [274] [275] IBCS —Integrated Air and Missile Defense Battle Command System— is undergoing a Limited user test in August-September 2020 in preparation for a Milestone C acquisition decision. [276] IBCS is a critical building block for JADC2 [276] the ABMS test is a separate project. [277] Thirty-three different hardware platforms, some using 5G, 70 industry teams, and 65 government teams [Note 8] : minute 9:30 participated in this ABMS Onramp, the first week in September 2020. [Note 8] [278] By 13 May 2021 the 28th Secretary of Defense had approved the JADC2 strategy. [279]

In August 2020 a Large force test event (LFTE) was completed at Nellis AFB the test event demonstrated the ability of F-35s to orchestrate SEAD (Suppression of Enemy Air Defense) using F-22s, F-15Es, E/A-18Gs, B-2s, and RQ-170s. [280] In addition the ability of F-35s to direct Multi-Domain Operations (MDO) was demonstrated during the 2020 Orange Flag event at Edwards AFB (Orange Flag showed the ability of an F-35A to collect targeting data, relay that data to an airborne communications node, as well as to a simulated IBCS station). [280]

In Fall 2020, Futures Command is testing the data links between the Army's AI task force and its helicopters —Future Vertical Lift (FVL), its long-range missile launchers —Long range precision fires (LRPF), and its combat vehicles —(NGCV) [277] [259] [281] in Fall 2021 and going forward, the links between ABMS and Multi-domain operations are invited when the Army's Air and Missile Defense capabilities (AMD's IBCS and MSHORAD —Maneuver short-range air defense) have undergone further testing. [277] [282]

In September 2020, an ABMS Demonstration at WSMR (White Sands Missile Range) shot down cruise missile surrogates with hypervelocity (speeds of Mach 5) projectiles jointly developed by the Army and Navy. The Army interceptor stems from an XM109 Paladin howitzer [283] the Navy interceptor stems from a deck gun. [37] [284] [285] The data feeds used both 4G and 5G, as well as cloud-based AI feeds, to form the kill chains. [37] The kill chains directing the intercepts were developed from 60 data feeds, and took seconds to develop, as opposed to the minutes which previous processes took. Other 'sensor-to-shooter' kill chains included AIM-9 missiles launched from F-16s and MQ-9s, as well as a ground-launched AIM-9 missile (which was designed to be an air-to-air munition). Four National Test Ranges were involved in the demonstration, [37] as well as five combatant commands. [283] [284]

In October 2020 the DoD Acquisition chief completed an extensive redesign of the Adaptive acquisition framework (AAF) including software acquisition, middle-tier acquisition, defense business systems, acquisition of services, urgent capability acquisition and major capability acquisition. AAF now adheres to the updated DoD 5000.01 policy approved in September 2020 by her lead, the Deputy Defense Secretary. [266]

In March 2021, XVIII Airborne Corps hosts a Project Maven (AI-based) live-fire experiment which shares targeting data among F-35s, A-10s, HIMARS, and satellites. [286]

In January 2021 the Army announced its arctic strategy, for arctic, extreme cold, and mountainous environments, which affect the NORTHCOM, EUCOM, and INDOPACOM combatant commands. [287] A two-star multi-domain-enabled operational headquarters will be established for the Arctic. [288]

In June 2021 the 28th secretary of defense issued a classified memorandum directing the Services to engage in more joint experimentation and prototyping, in support of the All-domain operations (JADO) concept (the Joint warfighting concept). [289] [244] In Fall 2021, a Joint Force (Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, and Special Operations) will use Project Convergence 2021 (PC21) to simulate the distances in the First island chain of the Pacific Ocean. [290] A Multi-domain task force (MDTF), and Special Forces will take the lead during the Competition phase of the exercise. [290]

Conflict Edit

If you want to rapidly integrate all domains in order to take advantage of opportunities on a very lethal battlefield, you need a different type of C2 [command and control] structure. —Lt. Gen. Eric J. Wesley [232] [20] [233] [293] See CJADC2

In the view of John Hyten, Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, each force will have both a self-defense capability, and a deep strike capability, [198] [294] operating under a unified command and control structure, [295] [296] simultaneously across the domains, against the enemy. [37] [21] [Note 6] [29] The potential capability exposed by the use of AI in September 2020 poses a choice for the combatant commanders, who need to select their top priority, by answering "What do you want and how do we do it?" in November 2020. [38] Hyten now has an opportunity to shape the operation of the Joint requirements oversight council, say by providing a common operational picture to the combatant commanders and their forces in the respective domains, [38] and by getting to a position of relative advantage very quickly (faster than the enemy's OODA loop). [255]

Return to competition Edit

By 2020 the Joint all-domain concept [Note 6] was converging on the need to return to competition, [196] [240] [273] [297] [298] just short of conflict between near-peer adversaries. [37] [296] In 2021 the Chief of Staff of the Army described the Army's role in the Continuum of military competition, a Joint concept. [5]

Great power competition does not mean great power conflict. —Army Chief of Staff James C. McConville [299]

Alliances and partnerships Edit

An ongoing series of programs to strengthen relationships between the Army and its allies and partners is being implemented. [300] [301] [302] [303] These programs include demonstrations of cooperation, interoperability, and preparedness of its partners. [304] [239] [305] [306] [307] [308] [4] For example, in 2019 the Army uses DoD's State Partnership Program, to link 22 National Guard Bilateral Affairs Officers (BAOs) with 22 allies or partners in the 54 countries in European Command's area to facilitate common defense interests [309] [310] with the US. In all, 89 partnerships now exist. [311] [312] [313] See: Foreign Area Officer (FAO)

In 2019 Secretary of Defense Mark Esper identified the Indo-Pacific Theater as the priority theater for the United States. [314] A multi-domain task force for the Indo-Pacific Theater is planned for a Defender exercise. [315] [316] [317] [208] However, in light of the DoD 60-day travel ban due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the number of CONUS-based troops participating in Defender Europe 2020 was reduced to those troops already in Europe. [318] [319] [320] [321]

COVID-19 has been a 'wake up call to DoD' —Matthew Donovan [322]

In 2020 the Army lost 3 NTC training rotations to COVID-19. [323] [324]

JWA 20 was intended to exercise Multi-domain operations, and multinational forces, in EUCOM for 2020. [Note 5] [325] [24] [326] See: Vostok 2018. EUCOM's Multi-domain task force will be smaller than the Pacific's task force. [327] It is expected that the task forces are to be employed in the Defender exercises in both EUCOM [328] and the Pacific. [327] [239] Defender-Europe 2020 was to test the ability to deploy 20,000 Soldiers across Europe, for a 37,000-member exercise. [326] [307] [329] [330] [331] [332] [333] [334] [335]

  • Elements of the 1st Cavalry, 82nd Airborne, 1st Armored, 1st Infantry, and 3rd Infantry Divisions, 11 National Guard states and seven Army Reserve units were to rapidly deploy. [64][336][337][338][339]
    1. Reception, staging, onward movement and integration (RSOI) of a division-sized formation in EUCOM. A National Guard Brigade was to draw from pre-positioned stocks in EUCOM. [328][340][216]
    2. An immediate response force from 82nd Airborne Division was to conduct joint forcible entries. [ReadyArmy 2][338]
    3. A division command post spread across Europe was to conduct JWA 20, to test multi-domain operations (MDO) and other Futures Command capabilities, such as an initial prototype of Tactical Intelligence Targeting Access Node (TITAN), [341] a ground station for integrating the data feed between "sensors and shooters". [342]
      • While in Europe, the units were to spread out across the region for separate exercises with allies and partners to participate in their annual exercises. [204]

      In April 2019 Germany's 1st Armored Division took the role of exercise High Command (HICON) at Hohenfels Training Area, primarily for German 21st Armored Brigade, the Lithuanian Iron Wolf Brigade, and their subordinate units 5,630 participants from 15 nations took part in this Joint multinational exercise, which rotates the lead among the coalition partners. Germany's 1st Armored Division already had Dutch, British and Polish officers within its ranks. [352] The Army's 2nd Battalion, 34th Armored Regiment, took part in the exercise. [353] [354] Six engineering advisor teams from 1st Security Force Assistance Brigade provided hands-on experience and testing of secure communications between NATO allies and partners. [355] [54] [356]

      A reciprocal exchange of general officers between France and the US is taking place in 2019, under the U.S. Army Military Personnel Exchange Program (MPEP). [357] [358] Such programs with the UK, Australia, and Canada have already existed with the US. [357] A reciprocal pact for US and UK capabilities in Future Vertical Lift aircraft and Long Range Precision Fires artillery was signed in July 2020. [359] The UK and Australia are planning to participate in the US Army's Project Convergence 2022. [360]

      In 2020 the Secretary of the Army announced 5-month extended rotations to Indo-Pacific countries such as Thailand, the Philippines, and Papua New Guinea. [363] Multi-Domain Operations (MDO) task forces in the region have already been engaging in MDO-like exercises in concert with the armed forces of Japan, Thailand, and Singapore. [363]

      Two Multi-domain task forces are being requested for Indo-Pacom for 2021. [364] [365] [341] [361] 5th Security Force Assistance Brigade is regionally aligned with USINDOPACOM, [366] and plans to keep one-third of the brigade's advisor teams there at all times, while the other teams train at home station (JBLM), for their assignments in the region. [367] The third [368] [369] and fourth [370] ABMS Onramp exercises of Joint all-domain command and control (JADC2) are being planned in 2020, and 2021 for INDOPACOM, and EUCOM respectively. [368] [371] [370] [372] This is meant to bring key US allies into the planning for the Joint All-Domain Operations Concept, [198] [37] [368] thereby enabling their "participation in planning, execution and then debrief" after a coalition exercise [373] in overmatching the adversary, [296] and maintaining a Common operational picture (COP), [253] [257] to review measured responses, both kinetic and nonkinetic. [298] [265] The COVID-19 pandemic actually provided the impetus for rapid fielding of a DoD technology for separating Top secret, Secret, and Unclassified messaging, a necessary function for the Intelligence community. [368] [284] [374] In 2021 an MDTF exercised its sensor-to-shooter capabilities in operational vignettes at Joint Systems Integration Lab (JSIL, Aberdeen MD). [360] The JSIL connection of experimental networks with Army battle labs is a way to determine the bandwidth needed for these vignettes, to prepare Project Convergence 2021 for Joint All-Domain Command and Control (JADC2). [360]

      DoD's Joint AI Center (JAIC) has convened 100 online participants from 13 countries to discuss how to use AI in a way that is consonant with their national ethical principles, termed the 'AI Partnership for Defense' in 2020. [300] [375] [376] [377] [257] For example, the US has a policy of human permission needed in order to trigger the automatic kill chains. [378]

      In 2020 Army Chief of Staff Gen. James C. McConville discussed the combination of Multi-domain operations (MDO) and Joint All-Domain Command and Control (JADC2) with Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Charles Q. Brown. [379] On 2 October 2020 the Chief of Staff of the Army and the Chief of Staff of the Air Force signed a Memorandum of understanding (MOU) on Combined Joint All-Domain Command and Control (CJADC2) of the two services, a two-year agreement. Their staffs met again after 60 days to show their progress on connecting the Army's Project Convergence and the Air Force's ABMS into a data fabric in 2021. [380] [381] [382] [371]

      Defender Pacific 2021 focuses on the southwest Pacific region. [383] The Army will draw from a pre-positioned stock for its units, exercise its watercraft and an MDTF's long range precision fires. [383] In 2021 the 28th Secretary of Defense, Lloyd Austin, stated he expected to "review our posture in the Pacific from all aspects including presence, capabilities, logistics, exercises, infrastructure, and capacity building and cooperation with allies and partners" during his questioning by the Senate Armed Services Committee. [384] [385]

      An Arctic Multi-domain task force (MDTF) is planned, to balance the interests of the 8 partners of the Arctic Council, which include Russia, and China as an observer nation. [287]

      In April 2021, the Army announced EUCOM's Multi-domain task force (MDTF), and a Theater Fires Command are to deploy to the European Theater, and will be based in Wiesbaden, Germany. The Fires command is a headquarters to coordinate Long range fires (for ranges from 300 miles to thousands of miles) for the European theater. [386]

      In April 2021, 3000 headquarters-level troops, including UK 3rd Division and French 3rd Division, came to Fort Hood to exercise Corps-level and Division-level staffs on Large-scale combat operations (LSCO). [387] [388] The Mission Command Center of Excellence (MCCoE) provided Opposing forces (OPFOR) and multiple dilemmas for the Warfighters to train on. III Corps commander Pat White stated "the key goal of the exercise, to build international partnerships and increase interoperability, was realized". [387] British and French commanders noted the need to further develop electronic warfare and signals intelligence capabilities. [389]

      In May 2021, 7th Army Training Command led Dynamic Front 21 (DF21), a USAEUR-AF exercise in integrating joint fires for artillery units from 15 nations. The exercise was meant to increase the readiness, lethality, and interoperability for nearly 1800 artillery troops from the 15 nations at Camp Aachen, Germany. Later locations for DF21 included Vilseck Army Air Field, Germany, Grafenwoehr Training Area, Germany, and Torun, Poland. [390]

      Under Schoomaker, combat training centers (CTCs) emphasized the contemporary operating environment (such as an urban, ethnically-sensitive city in Iraq) and stress units according to the unit mission and the commanders' assessments, collaborating often to support holistic collective training programs, rather than by exception as was formerly the case.

      Schoomaker's plan was to resource units based on the mission they are expected to accomplish (major combat versus SASO, or stability and support operations), regardless of component (active or reserve). Instead of using snapshot readiness reports, the Army now rates units based on the mission they are expected to perform given their position across the three force pools ('reset', 'train/ready', and 'available'). [391] The Army now deploys units upon each commanders' signature on the certificate of their unit's assessment (viz., Ready). As of June 2016, only one-third of the Army's brigades were ready to deploy. [392] [393] : 5:55 By 2019, two-thirds of the Active Army's brigades [191] and half of the BCTs of the Total Army (both Active and Reserve components) are now at the highest level of readiness. [394] The FY2021 budget request allows two-thirds of the Total Army (1,012,200 Soldiers by 2022) to reach the highest level of readiness by FY2022 —Maj. Gen. Paul Chamberlain. [395] [396]

      "Soldiers need to be ready [397] [ReadyArmy 3] 100 percent of the time." [43] —Robert B. Abrams, FORSCOM commander, June 2, 2016

      Chief of Staff Mark Milley's readiness objective is that all operational units be at 90 percent of the authorized strength in 2018, at 100 percent by 2021, and at 105 percent by 2023. [398] [399] The observer coach/trainers [400] at the combat training centers, recruiters, [401] [402] and drill sergeants are to be filled to 100 percent strength by the end of 2018. [398] [403] In November 2018, written deployability standards (Army Directive 2018-22) were set by the Secretary and the Chief of Staff of the Army failure to meet the standard means a soldier has six months to remedy this, or face separation from the Army. [404] The directive does not apply to about 60,000 of the 1,016,000 Soldiers of the Army 70-80 percent of the 60,000 are non-deployable for medical reasons. Non-deployables have declined from 121,000 in 2017. [404] The Army combat fitness test (ACFT) will test all soldiers [405] at the minimum, the 3-Repetition Maximum Deadlift, the Sprint-Drag-Carry and an aerobic event will be required of all soldiers, including those with profiles (meaning there is an annotation in their record See: PULHES Factor) the assessment of the alternative aerobic test will be completed by 19 October 2019. [406]

      Soldier and Family Readiness Groups Edit

      Soldiers and Army spouses belong to Soldier and Family Readiness Groups (SFRGs), [407] [408] [ReadyArmy 3] renamed from (FRGs) [409] which mirror the command structure of an Army unit — the spouse of the 40th Chief of Staff of the United States Army has served on the FRG at every echelon of the Army. [410] : Ryan McCarthy, minute 39:33 The name change to SFRG is to be more inclusive of single soldiers, single parents, and also those with nontraditional families. [408] An S/FRG seeks to meet the needs of soldiers and their families, for example during a deployment, [411] or to address privatized housing deficiencies, [412] or to aid spouses find jobs. [413] As a soldier transfers in and out of an installation, the soldier's entire family will typically undergo a permanent change of station (PCS) to the next post. PCS to Europe and Japan is now uniformly for 36 months, regardless of family status [414] (formerly 36 months for families). Transfers typically follow the cycle of the school year to minimize disruption in an Army family. [415] By policy, DoD families stationed in Europe and Japan who have school-aged children are served by American school systems— the Department of Defense Dependents Schools. [416] Noncombatant evacuation operations are a contingency which an FRG could publicize and plan for, should the need arise. [103] : p.11

      When a family emergency occurs, the informal support of that unit's S/FRG is available to the soldier. [411] [417] (But the Army Emergency Relief fund is available to any soldier with a phone call to their local garrison. [418] [419] [420] Seventy-five Fisher Houses maintain home-away-from-home suites for families undergoing medical treatment of a loved one. The Army, Navy, and Air Force Medical Treatment Facilities (MTFs) are scheduled to complete their transfer to the Defense Health Agency (DHA) no later than 21 October 2021. This has been a ten-year process. The directors of each home installation's Medical treatment facility (MTF) continue to report to the commanders of their respective installations. This change transfers all civilian employees of each Medical treatment facility (MTF) to the Defense Health Agency (DHA). [421] [422] ) The name change links Soldier Readiness with Family Readiness. [409] Commanders will retain full responsibility for Soldier sponsorship after a move, especially for first term Soldiers in that move. [423]

      In response to Army tenant problems with privatized base housing, IMCOM was subordinated to Army Materiel Command (AMC) on 8 March 2019. [424] [425] [426] By 2020, AMC's commander and the Residential community initiative (RCI) groups had formulated a 50-year plan. The Army's RCI groups, "seven private housing companies, which have 50-year lease agreements" on 98% of Army housing at 44 installations, will work with the Army for long-term housing improvements, [427] [428] [429] and remediation. [426]

      In 2020 Secretary McCarthy determined that the Sexual Harassment/Assault Response & Prevention (SHARP) program has failed to meet its mandate, [430] particularly for young unmarried Soldiers at Fort Hood and Camp Casey, South Korea. [431] Missing soldiers were previously classified as Absent without leave until enough time has elapsed to be denoted deserters, rather than victims of a crime the Army has established a new classification for missing Soldiers, to merit police investigation. [432] [433] [434]

      In response to the report of the Fort Hood Independent Review Committee, the Army has established the People first task force (PFTF), an Army-wide task force that is headed by 3 chairs: 1) Lt. Gen. Gary M. Brito, 2) Diane M. Randon, and 3) Sgt. Maj. Julie A.M. Guerra, who are: 1) the deputy chief of staff G-1, 2) the assistant deputy chief of staff G-2, and 3) the assistant deputy chief of staff G-2 Sgt. Maj. respectively. [435]

      USAR mobilization Edit

      Plans are being formulated for mobilization of the Army Reserve (42,000 to 45,000 soldiers) very quickly. [436] For example, 'Ready Force X' (RFX) teams have fielded Deployment Assistance Team Command and Control Cells to expedite the associated equipment to the various ports and vessels which is required for the specific Reserve personnel who have been notified that they are deploying. [437] FORSCOM's mobilization and force generation installations (MFGIs) have fluctuated from two primary [438] [439] installations (2018) to an envisioned eleven primary and fourteen contingency MFGIs, in preparation for future actions against near-peers. [440] [441] [442] [64]

      National Guard training Edit

      The 29th chief of the National Guard Bureau, as director of the Army National Guard, plans to align existing ARNG divisions with subordinate training formations. [443] This plan increases the number of divisions in the Total Army from 10 to 18, and increases the readiness of the National Guard divisions, by aligning their training plans with large-scale combat operations. [443] Additional advantages of the August 2020 plan are increased opportunity for talent management, from the Company to the Division level, and opportunity for leader development unfettered by geographical restriction. [64] [336]

      "Associated units" training program Edit

      The Army announced a pilot program, 'associated units', in which a National Guard or Reserve unit would now train with a specific active Army formation. These units would wear the patch of the specific Army division before their deployment to a theater [444] 36th Infantry Division (United States) headquarters deployed to Afghanistan in May 2016 for a train, advise, assist mission. [445]

      The Army Reserve, whose headquarters are colocated with FORSCOM, and the National Guard, are testing the associated units program in a three-year pilot program with the active Army. The program will use the First Army training roles at the Army Combat Training Centers at Fort Irwin, Fort Polk, and regional and overseas training facilities. [446]

      The pilot program complements FORSCOM's total force partnerships with the National Guard, begun in 2014. [447] Summer 2016 will see the first of these units.

      • Associated units [448][449]
        • 3rd Infantry BCT, 10th Mountain Division, stationed at Fort Polk, Louisiana, associated with the 36th Infantry Division, Texas Army National Guard
        • 48th Infantry BCT, Georgia ARNG, associated with the 3rd Infantry Division, Stationed at Fort Stewart, Georgia
        • 86th Infantry BCT, Vermont ARNG, associated with the 10th Mountain Division, stationed at Fort Drum, New York
        • 81st Armored BCT, Washington ARNG, associated with the 7th Infantry Division, stationed at Joint Base Lewis-McChord, Washington
        • Task Force 1-28th Infantry Battalion., 3rd Infantry Division, stationed at Fort Benning, Georgia, associated with the 48th Infantry BCT, Georgia Army National Guard
        • 100th Battalion, 442nd Infantry Regiment, USAR, associated with the 3rd Infantry BCT, 25th Infantry Division, stationed at Schofield Barracks, Hawaii
        • 1st Battalion (Airborne), 143rd Infantry Regiment Texas ARNG, associated with the 173rd Airborne BCT, stationed in Vicenza, Italy
        • 1st Battalion, 151st Infantry Regiment, Indiana ARNG, associated with the 2nd Infantry BCT, 25th Infantry Division, stationed at Schofield Barracks
        • 5th Engineer Battalion, stationed at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, associated with the 35th Engineer Brigade, Missouri ARNG
        • 840th Engineer Company, Texas ARNG, associated with the 36th Engineer Brigade, stationed at Fort Hood, Texas
        • 824th Quartermaster Company, USAR, associated with the 82nd Airborne Division's Sustainment Brigade, stationed at Fort Bragg, North Carolina
        • 249th Transportation Company, Texas ARNG, associated with the 1st Cavalry Division's Sustainment Brigade., stationed in Fort Hood
        • 1245th Transportation Company, Oklahoma ARNG, associated with the 1st Cavalry Division's Sustainment Brigade., stationed in Fort Hood
        • 1176th Transportation Company, Tennessee ARNG, associated with the 101st Airborne Division's Sustainment Brigade, stationed at Fort Campbell, Kentucky
        • 2123rd Transportation Company, Kentucky ARNG, associated with the 101st Airborne Division's Sustainment Brigade, stationed at Fort Campbell

        Rifleman training Edit

        Soldiers train for weapons handling, and marksmanship first individually, on static firing ranges, and then on simulators such as an Engagement Skills Trainer (EST). More advanced training on squad level simulators (Squad Advanced Marksmanship-Trainer (SAMT)) place a squad in virtual engagements against avatars of various types, [450] using M4 carbine, M249 light machine gun and M9 Beretta pistol simulated weapon systems. [450] Home stations are to receive Synthetic training environments (STEs) for mission training, as an alternative to rotations to the National Combat Training Centers, which operate Brigade-level training against an Opposing force (OPFOR) with near-peer equipment.

        Some installations have urban training facilities for infantrymen, in preparation for Brigade-level training. [451]

        A 2019 marksmanship manual [452] "TC 3-20.40, Training and Qualification-Individual Weapons" (the Dot-40) now mandates the use of the simulators, [452] as if the Soldier were in combat. The Dot-40 is to be used by the entire Army, from the Cadets at West Point, to the Active Army, the Army Reserve, and Army National Guard [452] the Dot-40 tests how rapidly Soldiers can load and reload while standing, kneeling, lying prone, and firing from behind a barrier. [452] The marksmanship tests of a Soldier's critical thinking, selecting targets to shoot at, in which order, and the accuracy of each shot are recorded by the simulators. [452]

        Stryker training Edit

        Up to a platoon-sized unit of a Stryker brigade combat team, and dismounted infantry, can train on Stryker simulators (Stryker Virtual Collective Trainer - SVCT), which are in the process of being installed at 8 home stations. The 4th is being completed. [453] Forty-five infantrymen (4 Stryker shells) or thirty-six scouts (6 Stryker shells) can rehearse their battle rhythm on a virtual battlefield, record their lessons learned, give their after-action reports, and repeat, as a team. The Stryker gunner's seat comes directly from a Stryker vehicle and has a Common Remotely Operated Weapon Station (CROWS) and joystick to control a virtual .50 caliber machine gun or a virtual 30 mm autocannon. [453]

        Other CROWS configurations are possible. [454]

        Digital air ground integration ranges (DAGIRs) Edit

        Live-fire digital air ground integration ranges (DAGIRs) were first conceptualized in the 1990s, and established in 2012, [455] with follow-on in 2019. [456] The ranges initially included 23 miles of tank trails, [457] targets, battlefield effects simulators, and digital wiring for aerial scorekeeping. [456] These ranges are designed for coordinating air and ground exercises before full-on sessions at the National Training Centers. [456]

        Training against OPFORs Edit

        To serve a role as an Opposing force (OPFOR) could be a mission for an Army unit, as temporary duty (TDY), during which they might wear old battle dress uniforms, perhaps inside-out. [458] TRADOC's Mission Command Training Program, as well as Cyber Command designs tactics for these OPFORs. When a brigade trains at Fort Irwin, Fort Polk, or Joint Multinational Training Center (in Hohenfels, Germany) the Army tasks 11th Armored Cavalry Regiment, 1st Battalion, 509th Infantry Regiment (Abn), and 1st Battalion, 4th Infantry Regiment, respectively, with the OPFOR role, [459] and provides the OPFOR with modern equipment (such as the FGM-148 Javelin) to test that brigade's readiness for deployment. Multiple integrated laser engagement systems serve as proxies for actual fired weapons, and Soldiers are lost to the commander from "kills" by laser hits. [460]

        Training against cyber Edit

        Deceptive data intended to divide deployed forces are making their way into the news feeds, and are falsely implicating actual soldiers who are deployed at the time of the false social media reports, which are mixing fact and fiction. [461] [29]

        The Army now has its 10th direct-commissioned cyber officer: a Sergeant First Class with a computer engineering degree, and a masters in system engineering was commissioned a Major in the National Guard, 91st Cyber Brigade, on 30 July 2020. [462]

        Soldier integration facility Edit

        PEO Soldier has established a Soldier integration facility (SIF) at Fort Belvoir which allows prototyping and evaluation of combat capabilities for the Army Soldier. [463] CCDC Soldier center in Natick Massachusetts, Night Vision Lab at Fort Belvoir Virginia, and Maneuver Battle Lab at Fort Benning Georgia have prototyped ideas at the SIF. [463]

        Applications for Synthetic Training Environment (STE) Edit

        The Squad Advanced Marksmanship Training (SAMT) system, developed by the STE Cross-functional team from Futures Command, has an application for 1st SFAB. [464] Bluetooth enabled replicas of M4 rifles and M9 and Glock 19 pistols, with compressed air recoil approximate the form, fit and function of the weapons that the Soldiers are using in close combat. For 1st SFAB, scenarios included virtual reality attacks which felt like engagements in a room. The scenarios can involve the entire SFAB Advisor team, and engagements can be repeated over and over again. Advanced marksmanship skills such as firing with the non-dominant hand, and firing on the move can be practiced. [464]

        Nine Army sites are now equipped with the SAMT. Over twenty systems are planned for locations in the United States. [464] The Close combat tactical trainers are in use, for example, to train 3rd Infantry Division headquarters for a gunnery training event (convoy protection role), [465] and 2nd BCT/ 82nd Airborne close combat training. [466]

        • "A simulation places leadership teams in a situation akin to a Combat Training Center rotation, an intellectually and emotionally challenging environment that forgives the mistakes of the participants"—Dr. Charles K. Pickar [467][468]
        • "It is important for Soldiers to have an open and clear mind during the simulation so that they learn something from the experience."—Tim Glaspie [465]
        • "Repetition increases a team’s situational understanding of the tactics they’ll use . "—Maj. Anthony Clas [469]

        Other training environments include MANPADS for SHORAD in the 14P MOS at Fort Sill. [470]

        I believe that a training environment .. should be a maneuver trainer, and it should be a gunnery trainer. —Retired Gen. Peter W. Chiarelli, 32nd vice chief of staff of the Army [471]

        The force generation system, posited in 2006 by General Schoomaker, projected that the U.S. Army would be deployed continuously. The Army would serve as an expeditionary force to fight a protracted campaign against terrorism and stand ready for other potential contingencies across the full-spectrum of operations (from humanitarian and stability operations to major combat operations against a conventional foe).

        Under ideal circumstances, Army units would have a minimum "dwell time," a minimum duration of which it would remain at home station before deployment. Active-duty units would be prepared to deploy once every three years. Army Reserve units would be prepared to deploy once every five years. National Guard units would be prepared to deploy once every six years. A total of 71 combat brigades would form the Army's rotation basis, 42 from the active component with the balance from the reserves.

        Thus, around 15 active-duty combat brigades would be available for deployment each year under the 2006 force-generation plan. An additional 4 or 5 brigades would be available for deployment from the reserve component. The plan was designed to provide more stability to soldiers and their families. Within the system, a surge capability would exist so that about an additional 18 brigades could be deployed in addition to the 19 or 20 scheduled brigades.

        From General Dan McNeil, former Army Forces Command (FORSCOM) Commander: Within the Army Forces Generation (ARFORGEN) model, brigade combat teams (BCTs) would move through a series of three force pools [391] they would enter the model at its inception, the "reset force pool", upon completion of a deployment cycle. There they would re-equip and reman while executing all individual predeployment training requirements, attaining readiness as quickly as possible. Reset or "R" day, recommended by FORSCOM and approved by Headquarters, Department of the Army, would be marked by BCT changes of command, preceded or followed closely by other key leadership transitions. While in the reset pool, formations would be remanned, reaching 100% of mission required strength by the end of the phase, while also reorganizing and fielding new equipment, if appropriate. In addition, it is there that units would be confirmed against future missions, either as deployment expeditionary forces (DEFs-BCTs trained for known operational requirements), ready expeditionary forces (REFs-BCTs that form the pool of available forces for short-notice missions) or contingency expeditionary forces (CEFs-BCTs earmarked for contingency operations).

        Based on their commanders' assessments, units would move to the ready force pool, from which they could deploy should they be needed, and in which the unit training focus would be at the higher collective levels. Units would enter the available force pool when there is approximately one year left in the cycle, after validating their collective mission-essential task list proficiency (either core or theater-specific tasks) via battle-staff and dirt-mission rehearsal exercises. The available phase would be the only phase with a specified time limit: one year. Not unlike the division-ready brigades of past decades, these formations would deploy to fulfill specific requirements or stand ready to fulfill short-notice deployments within 30 days.

        The goal was to generate forces 12–18 months in advance of combatant commanders' requirements and to begin preparing every unit for its future mission as early as possible in order to increase its overall proficiency.

        Personnel management would also be reorganized as part of the Army transformation. Previously, personnel was managed on an individual basis in which soldiers were rotated without regard for the effect on unit cohesion. This system required unpopular measures such as "stop loss" and "stop move" in order to maintain force levels. In contrast, the new personnel system would operate on a unit basis to the maximum extent possible, with the goal of allowing teams to remain together longer and enabling families to establish ties within their communities.

        Abrams 2016 noted that mid-level Army soldiers found they faced an unexpected uptempo in their requirements, [43] while entry-level soldiers in fact welcomed the increased challenge. [43]

        Readiness model Edit

        ARFORGEN, "a structured progression of increased unit readiness over time, resulting in recurring periods of availability of trained, ready, and cohesive units prepared for operational deployment in support of geographic Combatant Commander requirements" was utilized in the 2010s. [472] [150] [229] [473] ARFORGEN was replaced by the Sustainable Readiness Model (SRM) in 2017. [474] [475] [476] [43] [67] In 2016 the Chief of Staff of the Army identified the objective of a sustainable readiness process as over 66 percent of the Active Army in combat ready state at any time [477] in 2019 the readiness objective of the National Guard and Army Reserve units was set to be 33 percent Total Army readiness for deployment was 40 percent in 2019. [191] [ReadyArmy 3]

        ReARMM (Regionally Aligned Readiness and Modernization Model) is a unit lifecycle model which goes into effect in October 2021. [478] ReARMM was introduced in October 2020. It is a force generation model which uses the total Army, the Reserve components as well as Active component when planning. [479] Dynamic force employment (DFE) will be used more often. [479] The Operational tempo will decrease, which gives Commanders will more times, 'training windows' during which their units can train, first at the small-unit level, and then at larger-step modernization of their formations. [478] The units can then train at echelon for Large scale combat operations (LSCO) at a more measured pace. [478]

        In 2018 Chief of Staff Mark Milley's readiness objective is that all operational units be at 90 percent of the authorized strength in 2018, at 100 percent by 2021, and at 105 percent by 2023. [398] The observer coach/trainers at the combat training centers, recruiters, and drill sergeants are to be filled to 100 percent strength by the end of 2018. [398]

        The requested strength of the Active Army in FY2020 is increasing by 4,000 additional troops from the current 476,000 soldiers [18] this request covers the near-term needs for cyber, air & missile defense, and fires (Army modernization). [18] [480]

        The Acting CG of FORSCOM, Lt. Gen. Laura Richardson, has noted that the Sustainable Readiness Model uses the Army standard for maintenance readiness, denoted TM 10/20, [67] which makes commanders responsible for maintaining their equipment to the TM 10/20 standard, meaning that "all routine maintenance is executed and all deficiencies are repaired". [481] : p. 79 But Richardson has also spoken out about aviation-related supplier deficiencies hurting readiness both at the combatant commands and at the home stations. [482] [483]

        Prepositioned stocks Edit

        Army Materiel Command (AMC), which uses Army Field Support Brigades (AFSBs) to provision the Combatant Commands, has established Army prepositioned stocks (APS) for supplying entire Brigade Combat Teams (BCTs), [485] at several areas of responsibility (AORs): [146] [103] : p.28:Defender Europe 2020 [298]

        • APS-1 is Continental US (CONUS) [485]
        • APS-2 in EUCOM, using several sites, [304][340][147] will accelerate the flow of up-to-date materiel there, to forward-operating sites. [486][304][487]
        • APS-3 in Pacific Ocean, uses ocean-going vessels. [488][317]
          1. The materiel positioning is allocated under the Calibrated force posture: [489]
          2. Some materiel will be drawn by units under the Dynamic force employment (DFE) initiative
          3. Some troop units will be forward deployed
          4. Some troop units will rotate in
          5. Some prepositioned stock is under discussion with specific nations with agreements to be announced (currently classified as of October 2020)
          6. An SFAB is allocated to the Pacific AoR
        • APS-4 in NE Asia [485]
        • APS-5 in CENTCOM's Camp Arifjan, Kuwait, [148] and SW Asia [485]

        By 2020 AMC had seven Army prepositioned stocks. [194]

        Medical readiness is being tested by the U.S. Army Medical Materiel Agency, an LCMC. The LCMCs are stocking three additional locations in the US (APS-1), as well as APS-2 (EUCOM), and Korea, as of 12 February 2019. [490] For example, during Operation Spartan Shield, the LCMC's relevant AFSB effected the hand-off of prepositioned stocks to 155th Armored Brigade Combat Team (ABCT) within 96 hours. [491] In the same Operation, 155th ABCT was issued an entire equipment set for an ABCT, drawn from APS-5 stocks, over 13,000 pieces. [492]

        Air Defense Artillery deployments Edit

        On 27 March 2018 the 678th Air Defense Artillery Brigade (South Carolina National Guard) deployed to EUCOM, Ansbach Germany for a nine-month rotation, for the first time since the Cold War. [493] 10th AAMDC is the executive agent for EUCOM.

        In September 2018, the Wall Street Journal reported that four Patriot systems— [494] Two from Kuwait, and one apiece from Jordan and Bahrain are redeploying back to the U.S. for refurbishment and upgrades, and will not be replaced. [495] In June 2021, 8 Patriot batteries and a THAAD battery are being withdrawn from the CENTCOM area to focus on Russia and China. [496]

        Forward-deployed materiel Edit

        As the U.S. Army's only forward-deployed Airborne brigade, 173rd Airborne Brigade Combat Team, stationed in EUCOM, was supplied with new communications materiel — Integrated Tactical Networks (ITN) in 2018. [497] New ground combat vehicles, the Infantry Carrier Vehicle - Dragoon (ICVD) are being supplied to 2nd Cavalry Regiment. ICVDs are Strykers with an unmanned turret and 30 mm autocannon (CROWS), and an integrated commander's station, upgraded suspension and larger tires. [497] [498] [499] The Army brigades of EUCOM have been in position for testing materiel, as its elements engaged in a 2018 road march through Europe, training with 19 ally and partner nations in Poland in 2018. [497]

        Dynamic force employment Edit

        This initiative, designed by then-DoD-Secretary James Mattis, exercises the ability of selected BCTs to rapidly surge combat-ready forces into a theater, [64] such as EUCOM, on short notice. [500] In several such cases, at the direction of the Secretary of Defense in March 2019, troops were rapidly alerted, recalled and deployed to a forward position, under (simulated) emergency conditions, to prove a capability (such as an ABCT, and a THAAD battery) [501] [502] [503] against near-peers. [504] The ABCT element next participated in a joint live-fire exercise with Polish troops of the 12th Mechanized Brigade, 12th Mechanised Division (Poland) in Drawsko Pomorskie Training Area, Poland. [505] (A Mission Command element of TRADOC served in the role of echelon-above-brigade for the maneuver and interoperability of the joint multi-national armored brigades.) [505] In September 2018, the 278th Armored Cavalry Regiment had already assumed a forward deployment in Poland. [506] [507] Poland and the US are planning for regular rotations going forward. [508] [509] [510] [511] [512] Similar initiatives are planned for other alliances. [307] [16] In August 2020 Poland agreed to pay almost all costs associated with US presence in the country [513] a forward command post for V Corps in Poland has been codified in an Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement between the US and Poland. [514] [515] [516]

        FORSCOM exercised its Emergency deployment readiness exercises (EDREs) in 2019 by sending 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 10th Mountain Division to the Joint Readiness Training Center in Fort Polk LA by sealift, simultaneously exercising the logistics planners at Fort Drum, the seaports in Philadelphia PA, and Port Arthur TX as well as 2nd BCT. [67] Through the EDRE program, 20 of the ports have been exercised to ready them for sealift deployments. [67] A division-sized move of 20,000 pieces of equipment from the US to Europe began a month-long process in January 2020. [332] [333] [337] [307] In 2020 the pre-COVID-19 plan was "wide-spanning maneuvers will focus on the Baltic States, Poland, and Georgia" (at the time) which would have involved 36,000 troops from 11 countries ranging from the Baltic to the Black Seas, [335] a number still in flux. [318] A number of the Defender-2020 objectives were met in 2020, despite a 60-day travel ban by DoD.

        By 2020 the 27th Secretary of Defense signaled that ABMS, its Internet of Military Things, and JADC2 were important parts for Dynamic force employment (DFE) in the Joint All-domain Operations Concept. [517] The Combatant commanders at Eucom, and at IndoPacom seek the AGM-183A (ARRW) hypersonic weapon on the bomber fleet for Dynamic force employment. [518]

        Overall, the Army would end up with 71 brigade combat teams and 212 support brigades, in the pre-2013 design. The Regular Army would move from 33 brigade combat teams in 2003 to 43 brigade combat teams together with 75 modular support brigades, for a total of 118 Regular Army modular brigades. In addition the previously un-designated training brigades such as the Infantry Training Brigade at Fort Benning assumed the lineage & honors of formerly active Regular Army combat brigades. In 2017 there were 31 brigade combat teams in the Active Army. Within the Army National Guard, there were to be 28 brigade combat teams and 78 support brigades. Within the Army Reserve, the objective was 59 support brigades.(Chief of Staff Mark Milley credits a previous Chief, Creighton Abrams, for placing most of the support brigades in the reserve and national guard, in order to insure that the nation would use the total army, rather than only the active army alone, in an extended war involving the entire nation.) [107] : minute 42:30 [519]

        The Reserve component will be playing an increased role. [64] In the Total Army, 8 ARNG divisions are to be trained to increase their readiness for Large scale combat operations, [443] [336] making 58 BCTs in the Total Army in 2018, [520] and 6 SFABs in 2020.

        Army commands Edit

        Army service component commands Edit

          Geographic commands
            / Ninth Army[521] headquartered at Vicenza, Italy / Third Army headquartered at Shaw Air Force Base, South Carolina / Fifth Army headquartered at Joint Base San Antonio, Texas / Sixth Army headquartered at Joint Base San Antonio, Texas / Seventh Army headquartered at Wiesbaden, Germany headquartered at Fort Shafter, Hawaii
            headquartered at Redstone Arsenal, Alabama headquartered at Fort Bragg, North Carolina headquartered at Scott Air Force Base, Illinois headquartered at Fort Gordon, Georgia

          Army direct reporting units Edit

            headquartered at Fort Bragg, North Carolina (MEDCOM) (INSCOM) headquartered at Fort Belvoir, Virginia (MDW) headquartered at Fort McNair, District of Columbia (USACIDC) headquartered at Marine Corps Base Quantico, Virginia (ATEC)

          Field armies Edit

            , headquartered at Rock Island Arsenal, Illinois (A component of FORSCOM responsible for training the reserve components when mobilized for overseas deployment) , headquartered at Camp Humphreys, South Korea (component of United States Forces Korea)

          Army corps Edit

            headquartered at Joint Base Lewis-McChord, Washington headquartered at Fort Hood, Texas headquartered at Fort Knox, Kentucky (to be active in autumn of 2020) [27] headquartered at Fort Bragg, North Carolina

          Divisions and brigades Edit

          In the post-2013 design, the Regular Army was planned to reduce to 32 BCTs after all the BCTs had been announced for inactivation. [523] The 2018 budget was to further reduce 40,000 active-duty soldiers from 490,000 in 2015 to 450,000 by 2018 fiscal year-end. Thirty installations would have been affected six of these installations would have accounted for over 12,000 of those to be let go. In early 2015, the plan was to cut entire BCTs by July 2015, a new plan, to downsize a BCT (4,500 soldiers) to a maneuver battalion task force (1,032 soldiers, with the possibility of upsizing if need be) was formulated. In 2015, a plan was instituted to allow further shrinking of the Army, by converting selected brigades to maneuver battalion task forces. [524] A maneuver battalion task force includes about 1,050 Soldiers rather than the 4,000 in a full BCT. [525] This 9 July 2015 plan, however, would preclude rapid deployment of such a unit until it has been reconstituted back to full re-deployable strength. This is being addressed with the § "Associated units" training program from the Reserve and Guard. In 2017 the National Defense Strategy and National Security Strategy [393] : 4:30 and a § Sustainable Readiness Model (SRM) managed to halt the cuts. [475] [43] Funding was allocated for two (out of six planned) Security Force Assistance Brigades (SFABs) in 2016 [526] composed of 529 senior officers and senior NCOs (a full chain of command for a BCT). [527] By 2020 all 6 SFABs were activated.

          The changes announced so far affect: [528]

          • The number of generals and SES's will decrease 25% by 2023, DoD-wide. [393] : 11:10
          • FORSCOM
            • Every HHBN (2-star, and higher, headquarters battalion) reduces by 10% [524]
            • 3rd ABCT, 3rd Infantry Division, Fort Benning [528]
            • 2nd SBCT, 25th Infantry Division, Schofield Barracks [524]
            • 3rd Expeditionary Sustainment Command relocates from Fort Knox to Fort Bragg [524]
            • 1st Theater Sustainment Command relocates from Fort Bragg to Fort Knox [524][228]
            • 81st Armored Brigade Combat Team, 40th Infantry Division to become an associated unit (SBCT) of 7th Infantry Division (81st's armor assets to be pre-positioned in Europe).

            Brigade Combat Teams Edit

            • 1st Armored Division, at Fort Bliss (Texas), regionally aligned with Central Command (CENTCOM) [529]
              • Headquarters and Headquarters Battalion [530]
              • 1st Armored Brigade Combat Team, converted from Stryker BCT on 20 June 2019 [531][532][533][534]
              • 2nd Armored Brigade Combat Team
              • 3rd Armored Brigade Combat Team
              • Combat Aviation Brigade deploys to Afghanistan early 2019 [535][536][537]
              • Headquarters and Headquarters Battalion
              • 1st Armored Brigade Combat Team
              • 2nd Armored Brigade Combat Team [539]
              • 3rd Armored Brigade Combat Team
              • Combat Aviation Brigade
              • Headquarters and Headquarters Battalion
              • 1st Armored Brigade Combat Team
              • 2nd Armored Brigade Combat Team, regionally aligned with African Command (AFRICOM) [540]
              • Combat Aviation Brigade
              • Headquarters and Headquarters Battalion
              • 1x Rotation Armored Brigade Combat Team, at Camp Casey, Camp Hovey, and Camp Humphreys, South Korea
              • Combat Aviation Brigade, at Camp Humphreys and K-16 Airfield, South Korea , at Camp Carroll, Camp Stanley, and Camp Humphreys, South Korea
              • Headquarters and Headquarters Battalion
              • 1st Armored Brigade Combat Team
              • 2nd Armored Brigade Combat Team (Georgia Army National Guard) [541]
              • Task Force 1-28: 1st Battalion 28th Infantry Regiment, at Fort Benning, Georgia [525][542]
              • Combat Aviation Brigade, at Hunter Army Airfield, Georgia
              • Headquarters and Headquarters Battalion
              • 1st Stryker Brigade Combat Team
              • 2nd Stryker Brigade Combat Team [533][544]
              • 3rd Armored Brigade Combat Team [545]
              • Combat Aviation Brigade
              • Headquarters and Headquarters Battalion
              • 1st Stryker Brigade Combat Team, 2nd Infantry Division
              • 2nd Stryker Brigade Combat Team, 2nd Infantry Division (Washington Army National Guard) [548][549]
              • Headquarters and Headquarters Battalion
              • 1st Infantry Brigade Combat Team
              • 2nd Infantry Brigade Combat Team [550] (Vermont Army National Guard) [551]
              • Combat Aviation Brigade
              • Headquarters and Headquarters Battalion
              • 1st Stryker Brigade Combat Team, at Fort Wainwright, (Alaska)
              • 2nd Infantry Brigade Combat Team
              • 3rd Infantry Brigade Combat Team
              • 4th Infantry Brigade Combat Team (Airborne), at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, (Alaska)
              • Combat Aviation Brigade
              • Headquarters and Headquarters Battalion
              • 1st Infantry Brigade Combat Team (Airborne)
              • 2nd Infantry Brigade Combat Team (Airborne)
              • 3rd Infantry Brigade Combat Team (Airborne)
              • Combat Aviation Brigade
              • Headquarters and Headquarters Battalion
              • 1st Infantry Brigade Combat Team (Air Assault)
              • 2nd Infantry Brigade Combat Team (Air Assault) [552]
              • 3rd Infantry Brigade Combat Team (Air Assault)
              • Combat Aviation Brigade [535] rotates stateside early 2019

              Active-duty combat brigades: 31 at the end of 2017

              • 11 Armored Brigade Combat Teams
                • 1st, 2nd, and 3rd ABCT at Fort Bliss (Texas), part of 1st Armored Division at Fort Bliss (Texas)
                • 1st, 2nd, and 3rd ABCT at Fort Hood (Texas), part of 1st Cavalry Division at Fort Hood (Texas) and 2nd ABCT at Fort Riley (Kansas), part of 1st Infantry Division at Fort Riley (Kansas)
                • 1st and 2nd ABCT at Fort Stewart (Georgia), part of 3rd Infantry Division at Fort Stewart (Georgia)
                • 3rd ABCT at Fort Carson (Colorado), part of 4th Infantry Division at Fort Carson (Colorado)
                • 1st and 2nd SBCTs at Fort Carson (Colorado), part of 4th Infantry Division at Fort Carson (Colorado)
                • 1st SBCT at Fort Wainwright (Alaska), administratively part of 25th Infantry Division at Schofield Barracks (Hawaii), but operationally under US Army Alaska at Joint Base Elmendorf–Richardson (Alaska)
                • 1st and 2nd SBCT at Fort Lewis (Joint Base Lewis–McChord) (Washington), administratively under the 2nd Infantry Division at Camp Humphreys (South Korea), operationally under the 7th Infantry Division HQ at Joint Base Lewis–McChord (Washington) (SBCT) at Rose Barracks in Vilseck (Germany), independent SBCT under US Army Europe at Lucius D. Clay Kaserne Barracks (Germany) (SBCT) at Fort Hood (Texas), independent SBCT under III Corps at Fort Hood (Texas)
                • 1st and 2nd IBCT at Fort Drum (New York), part of 10th Mountain Division at Fort Drum (New York)
                • 2nd and 3rd IBCT at Schofield Barracks (Hawaii), part of 25th Infantry Division at Schofield Barracks (Hawaii) at Fort Polk (Louisiana), a regular army brigade under the Army National Guard's36th Infantry Division at Austin (Texas)
                • 1st, 2nd and 3rd IBCT (Airborne) at Fort Bragg (North Carolina), part of 82nd Airborne Division at Fort Bragg (North Carolina) at Joint Base Elmendorf–Richardson (Alaska), administratively part of 25th Infantry Division at Schofield Barracks (Hawaii), but operationally under US Army Alaska at Joint Base Elmendorf–Richardson (Alaska) [554] at Caserma Ederle Barracks in Vicenza (Italy), independent brigade under US Army Europe at Lucius D. Clay Kaserne Barracks (Germany)
                • 1st, 2nd and 3rd IBCT (Air Assault) at Fort Campbell (Kentucky), part of 101st Airborne Division at Fort Campbell (Kentucky)

                Support brigades Edit

                Active-duty Support Brigades (with reserve-component numbers in parenthesis: ARNG/USAR)


                9th Cavalry Regiment

                On 28 July 1866, the 39th Congress of the United States passed an act to improve the peace establishment of the nation. This act authorized the formation of additional regiments in the US Army, 2 cavalry and 4 infantry. For the first time in the nation’s history, these Regular Army regiments were to consist of black enlisted Soldiers. The 9th Cavalry was organized on 21 September 1866 at Greenville, Louisiana, a town near New Orleans. Colonel Edward Hatch, a Veteran cavalryman and former general officer in the recently concluded Civil War, was selected to be the Regiment’s first commander. The 9th Cavalry, along with its sister regiment, the 10th Cavalry, became known as the “Buffalo Soldier” regiments a title of respect bestowed by the Indians they fought. The 4th Squadron, 9th Cavalry Regiment traces its lineage to the formation of Company D, 9th Cavalry Regiment and the 6th Squadron, 9th Cavalry traces its lineage to Company F.

                In the 1870s and the 1880s, the 9th Cavalry fought with great distinction throughout the western United States in numerous campaigns against marauding American Indians, Mexicans, and lawless settlers. The 9th Cavalry was often the only source of security on the frontier and was often at odds with those who would profit from banditry. While most of the 9th Cavalry’s actions were against hostile Indians, in 1884 the regiment also protected the friendly Indian tribes settled in present-day Oklahoma from settlers seeking to steal their land. From these early campaigns, the 9th Cavalry derived a part of its unit insignia: an Indian in breach cloth mounted on a galloping pony and brandishing a rifle in one hand. The 9th Cavalry Troopers earned fifteen Medals of Honor during the Indian Wars. Most of these medals were earned by noncommissioned officers leading small detachments of Soldiers. The regiment participated in campaigns against the Comanche, Utes, Sioux, and Apaches.

                Two months after the battleship Maine sank in Cuban waters, the Regiment, then stationed at Fort Robinson, Nebraska, was alerted for deployment to war. The Regiment departed four days later on 60 rail cars destined for Florida to stage for invasion. One of the first units to go ashore, it fought as dismounted infantry alongside Theodore Roosevelt’s Roughriders in the gallant charge up Kettle Hill and San Juan Heights. The Regiment’s commanding officer, Colonel Hamilton, was killed in action during the attack. It was there that the Regiment derived the rest of its insignia: the 5 bastioned fort patch of the V Corps, to which the 9th Cavalry was assigned. After the fighting ended in Cuba, the regiment was sent to another trouble spot, the Philippines.

                During the Philippine Insurrection, the 9th Cavalry continued its hard fighting tradition by conducting 3 successful deployments to the Philippines from 1900 to 1916 to fight the rebellious Moro tribesmen and earned the respect of the military governor, General Arthur MacArthur. While most of the Regiment was deployed to the Philippines, several troops remained stationed at the Presidio of San Francisco. In 1903, these troops served as a Guard of Honor to President Theodore Roosevelt. This was the first time black regular cavalrymen served in this capacity. During the 1920s and the 1930s, the Regiment patrolled the Mexican border and was assigned to the 3rd Cavalry Division on 1 March 1933.

                The Regiment was called upon again during World War II. On 10 October 1940, the 9th Cavalry was reassigned to the 2nd Cavalry Division and prepared for overseas deployment. The Regiment trained in the Arkansas Maneuver Area from August to October 1941 then returned to Fort Riley, Kansas. Due to overcrowding at Fort Riley, the Regiment transferred to Fort Clark, Texas in July 1942 where it continued training for combat in Europe. The War Department decided a second cavalry division unnecessary for victory and directed the 2nd Cavalry Division deploy to the Mediterranean theater and inactivate to provide replacements to critical logistical organizations. Accordingly, the Regiment dismounted, embarked at Hampton Roads, Virginia on 31 January 1944, arrived in North Africa on 9 February 1944, and was inactivated on 7 March 1944 at Assi-Ben Okba, Algeria. The Regiment’s Soldiers were transferred to support units.

                The 1st Battalion, 9th Cavalry shares the heritage of the 302nd Reconnaissance Troop (Mechanized), with which it was later consolidated. The 302nd Reconnaissance Troop was activated on 4 December 1943 in Australia and assigned to the 1st Cavalry Division. The 302nd participated in the New Guinea, Bismark Archipelago, Leyte, and Luzon campaigns.

                On 20 October 1950, the Regiment was redesignated the 509th Tank Battalion. The Battalion was activated on 1 November 1950, at Camp Polk, Louisiana, and reassigned to the 1st Cavalry Division. At the time the 1st Cavalry Division was in battle with the Republic of Korea. The 509th Tank Battalion arrived in Korea in time for the historic defense of Pusan and fought in numerous campaigns throughout the war, earning distinction and honor in the fight against North Korean and Chinese aggression. In December 1952, the Battalion became one of the early units to racially integrate. After the war, the Battalion patrolled the DMZ until 10 April 1956, when it was transferred back to Fort Knox Kentucky and inactivated. On 1 November 1957, Troop A, 9th Cavalry was reorganized and redesignated as Headquarters and Headquarters Troop, 1st Squadron, 9th Cavalry, with its organic elements concurrently constituted and activated. The Squadron was activated in Korea and reassigned to the 1st Cavalry Division where it conducted reconnaissance missions along the DMZ. The Squadron was transferred from Korea to Fort Benning, Georgia on 1 July 1965 and reorganized as part of the reflagging of the 11th Air Assault Division (Test) as the 1st Cavalry Division (Airmobile).

                On 15 September 1965, the 1st Squadron, 9th Cavalry arrived in the Republic of Vietnam and began operations as the divisional air cavalry squadron for the 1st Cavalry Division (Airmobile). The 1st Squadron, 9th Cavalry participated in such pivotal battles as the Ia Drang Valley, Khe Sahn, Binh Dinh, and Quang Tri. The Squadron was the first unit of the 1st Cavalry Division to capture North Vietnamese Soldiers with C Troop taking three prisoners on 30 October near Pleiku. The 1st Squadron, 9th Cavalry remained in Vietnam until 28 June 1971. During their time in Vietnam, elements of the 1st Squadron, 9th Cavalry earned 14 campaign streamers, 3 Presidential Unit Citations, 5 Valorous Unit Citations, and the reputation as one of the finest combat units in Vietnam. It is estimated that the 1st Squadron, 9th Cavalry was responsible for 50 percent of all enemy Soldiers killed by the 1st Cavalry Division during the war. It was for this reason that the Squadron earned the nickname “The Headhunters.” Three Troopers of the 1st Squadron, 9th Cavalry earned the Medal of Honor in Vietnam. 1LT Robert L. Poxon, B Troop, was awarded the Medal of Honor posthumously for his actions on 2 June 1969, in the Tay Ninh Province SGT Donald S. Skidgel, D Troop, was awarded the Medal of Honor posthumously for actions near Bong Son, Vietnam on 14 September 1969 and CPT Jon E. Swanson, B Troop, was awarded the Medal of Honor posthumously for his actions in the Kingdom of Cambodia on 26 February 1971. LTC John B. Stockton, commander of the 3rd Battalion, 17th Cavalry Regiment, is given credit for establishing the tradition of wearing the Cavalry Stetson, much to the chagrin of the Division command group. By the time the 11th Air Assault Division was redesignated the 1st Cavalry Division (Airmobile) the members of his unit, the 1st Squadron, 9th Cavalry Regiment, were wearing the hat. LTC Stockton transferred the “Cav Hat” tradition to the 1st Cavalry Division in Vietnam. By the end of the Vietnam War, many air and ground units were wearing the hat. The tradition was continued after Vietnam and has become the standard for all cavalry units in the Army. Hollywood honored the Squadron in its fictional portrayal of an attack on a communist base camp in the film Apocalypse Now.

                During the Squadron’s time in Vietnam it was 100 percent mobile with organic transport, which included nearly 100 helicopters. The unit had three air cavalry troops, and each troop had an aero scout platoon, an aero weapons platoon, and an aero rifle platoon. The mission of the aero scout platoon was to find the enemy. Until 1968, these platoons used OH-13 observation helicopters but by mid-1968 those ships were replaced by the faster, more maneuverable OH-6A Light Observation Helicopter (LOH). The scouts would skim low over the terrain searching for any sign of enemy movement or activity. The scouts were referred to as the “White” platoon. The aero weapons, or “Red” platoon, were initially made up of UH-1B (Huey) gunships until they were replaced by the AH-1G Cobra gunships in 1968. Armed with rockets, miniguns, and grenade launchers the “Red” gunships joined with the “White” scout ships to form the “Pink” team which made up the basic working unit of the squadron in Vietnam. The aero rifle platoon (Blues) complemented the aerial reconnaissance capabilities of the “Pink Team by providing ground reconnaissance. Transported by Huey slicks the Blues could be quickly inserted to check sightings by the aerial observer, assess the damage inflicted by the gunships, and pursue the enemy. The Squadron’s fourth troop, Delta Troop, was a ground cavalry unit with three platoons mounted on wheeled vehicles.

                After Vietnam, the Squadron returned to Fort Hood, Texas with the rest of the 1st Cavalry Division and served as divisional recon squadron until 16 October 1986, when it was inactivated. On 25 November, 1992, the 1st Squadron, 9th Cavalry was reactivated, reorganized as a mechanized infantry battalion, redesignated as the 1st Battalion, 9th Cavalry and assigned to the 1st Cavalry Division as part of the 3rd Brigade. The Battalion continued to be called upon for hard missions and completed deployments to the Emirate of Kuwait for Exercise Intrinsic Action and highly successful National Training Center rotations in July 1993, January 1996, and December 1997.

                Troop D, 9th Cavalry was reconstituted, reorganized, and redesignated on 19 March 1969 as Headquarters and Headquarters Troop, 4th Squadron, 9th Cavalry, and was subsequently reactivated. Its organic elements were concurrently constituted and activated. On 16 March 1987, the 4th Squadron, 9th Cavalry was moved to Fort Lewis, Washington, and was assigned to the 9th Infantry Division (Motorized) as the divisional reconnaissance squadron. In 1991 the squadron was inactivated along with the rest of the 9th Infantry Division.

                On 1 December 1957 F Troop, 9th Cavalry was reconstituted in the Regular Army as Headquarters and Headquarters Troop, 6th Reconnaissance Squadron, 9th Cavalry. It was redesignated on 30 June 1971 as Troop F, 9th Cavalry, assigned to the 1st Cavalry Division, and activated in Vietnam.

                Troop F, 9th Cavalry became the brigade reconnaissance troop for 3rd Brigade, 1st Cavalry Division on 20 April 1999. This activation was part of the transformation of the 1st Cavalry Division to the US Army’s Force XXI force structure. Between 2001 and 2004, the unit deployed with 3rd Brigade, 1st Cavalry Division in support of both Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom.

                On 20 September 2002, as part of the US Army’s Force XXI force structure, Headquarters and Headquarters Troop, 4th Squadron, 9th Cavalry was reorganized and redesignated as D Troop, 9th Cavalry, reactivated and assigned to 2nd Brigade, 1st Cavalry Division. There it served as the Brigade’s reconnaissance troop. The troop deployed with elements of the 2nd Brigade, 1st Cavalry Division to both Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom between 2001 and 2004.

                The Headhunters of the 1st Battalion, 9th Cavalry Regiment began deployment to Iraq in September 2003 in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom, arriving there in early 2004. There they operated in a very complex environment, assisting Iraqi institutions (Neighborhood councils, Iraqi National Guard, Iraqi police, etc), and facilitating quality of life improvements for the Iraqi people. During the deployment, Task Force 1-9th Cavalry Soldiers operated in one of the most dangerous sections of the Iraqi capital, including Sadr City. Two companies from 1-9th Cavalry were working with other Task Forces. Task Force 1-9th Cavalry consisted of C/1-9th Cavalry, HHC/1-9th Cavalry, C/1-153rd Infantry (from the Arkansas NG), A/8th Engineer Battalion, A/215th Forward Support Battalion, along with a PSYOPs and a Civil Affairs Team (both Army reserve units out of Florida and Texas respectfully).

                Task Force 1-9th Cavalry was located in downtown Baghdad, subordinate to 3rd Brigade, 1st Cavalry Division. Their area contained slums and lower to upper class neighborhoods. The dense urban terrain meant that the Headhunters had to do a whole lot of dismounted patrolling. The Task Force had been engaged in numerous combat actions. These included reacting to enemy ambushes, hasty attacks on enemy ambush positions, and numerous cordon and search operations to capture terrorists, insurgents, and gangsters. The enemy had employed Improvised Explosive devices, RPGs, mortar fire, small arms, and hand grenades against patrols. Task Force 1-9th Cavalry Soldiers did very well against these attacks due to their high level of training, protective equipment, and courage under fire.

                Unfortunately, Task Force 1-9th Cavalry suffered some casualties while conducting the mission. By early July 2004, there were over 30 Soldiers wounded and 2 killed. Specialist Miranda (from C/1-153rd Infantry) was killed on 19 May 2004 by an IED in a small alley. It also seriously injured 3 others, Specialist Crawford, Specialist Kuykendall, and Specialist Phillips (all 3 were evacuated to the United States). Specialist Pannell (also from C/1-153rd Infantry) was severely injured during a hand grenade attack and was also evacuated to the United States. He and Specialist Phillips went to Walter Reed to recover. Specialist Heines (from C/1-9th Cavalry) was killed when an RPG struck his HMMWV during a night engagement with insurgents. The rest of the wounded were able to return to duty within a few days.

                To improve quality of life and make contact with the locals, Task Force 1-9th Cavalry conducted patrols to assess essential services in the city, electricity, water, sewage, and trash removal. The Soldiers used these patrols to develop positive relationships with the people and see how they could help them. They also made sure the Iraqi civilians got to hear our side of the story. If the Iraqis were capable of seeing that the US Soldiers were genuine in their desire to help them, they would have dropped their support for insurgents, or even better, started providing more information to the coalition.

                As part of the Army’s transformation towards a modular force, the 1st Battalion, 9th Cavalry was inactivated and relieved from assignment to the 1st Cavalry Division on 14 July 2005 at Fort Hood. It was reorganized and redesignated as the 1st Squadron, 9th Cavalry and was reactivated on 18 October 2005 as the organic cavalry squadron assigned to the 4th Brigade Combat Team, 1st Cavalry Division at Fort Bliss, Texas. Additionally, the 4th Squadron, 9th Cavalry Regiment was activated and assigned to the 2nd Brigade Combat Team and the 6th Squadron, 9th Cavalry Regiment was activated and assigned to the 3rd Brigade Combat Team.

                In October 2006, the 1st Squadron, 9th Cavalry Regiment conducted their second deployment to Iraq out of Fort Bliss, Texas, and were detached from the 4th Brigade Combat Team, 1st Cavalry Division and attached to elements of the 25th Infantry Division. Upon returning from that deployment, the 4th Brigade Combat Team, 1st Cavalry Division was inactivated at Fort Bliss, Texas and its personnel reflagged as the 4th Brigade Combat Team, 1st Armored Division. The 4th Brigade Combat Team, 4th Infantry Division was inactivated and reflagged as the 4th Brigade Combat Team, 1st Cavalry Division, which, along with 1-9th Cavalry, was subsequently reactivated at Fort Hood, Texas.

                During Operation Iraqi Freedom 06-08, the 4th Squadron, 9th Cavalry Regiment “Darkhorse” deployed with Black Jack to Baghdad, Iraq, where it secured the International Zone the area of central Baghdad that is home to the U.S. Embassy, Iraqi Council of Representatives, and numerous other Iraqi and Coalition governmental offices. The squadron’s responsibilities were later expanded to conduct counterinsurgency operations throughout the Karkh District.

                The 6th Squadron, 9th Cavalry Regiment deployed to support Operation Iraqi Freedom 06-08 in 2007 along with the rest of the 3rd Brigade Combat Team which was responsible for the Diyala Province and the capital city of Baqubah and conducted operations in the Sala ah Din Province.

                From June 2008 until June 2009, 1-9th Cavalry deployed in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom 08-10. Operating initially in Southern Babil Province, the Squadron changed missions after deploying and was tasked with disrupting lethal smuggling from Iran to Iraq in the Maysan Province. Alongside the Iraqi Border Guards, the Squadron helped to secure 251 kilometers of border with Iran. The Head Hunter’s efforts significantly disrupted enemy smuggling and helped reduce attacks on coalition Soldiers across Iraq.

                In December of 2008 the 6-9th Cavalry again deployed with the “Grey Wolf” Brigade, this time to the Nenewa Province in northern Iraq. The 3rd BCT conducted full-spectrum operations to neutralize elements and to improve security, stimulate economic growth, and create enduring stability.

                In 2009 the 4th Squadron, 9th Cavalry again deployed to Iraq, this time to Kirkuk Province for OIF 09-10, where it was responsible for the security, stability, and reconstruction of the Daquq district and the Taza, Laylan, and Rashaad sub-districts. The squadronpartnered with the 15th Iraqi Army Brigade and Iraqi police from each of its districts to conduct area security and stability operations for an operating environment of over 3,000 square kilometers. The squadron also helped to balance ethnic tensions through the training and equipping Iraqi security forces, improvement of essential services, and the support and promotion of the legitimate government.

                In 2011 the 4-9th Cavalry deployed a third time to Iraq, in support of Operation New Dawn and also deployed with the 2nd BCT to Afghanistan 0m 2013 to support Operation Enduring Freedom.

                Redesignated as 1st Battalion, 9th Cavalry Regiment and reorganized as a combined arms battalion the 1-9th Cavalry was relieved of its assignment to the 4th Brigade Combat Team which was inactive and assigned to the 2nd Brigade Combat Team on 17 October 2013. The Headhunters deployed to Korea for a nine-month deployment along with the rest of the 2nd Brigade Combat Team in 2015.

                Today the 9th Cavalry Regiment is represented by the 1st Battalion, 9th Cavalry which is a combined arms battalion and assigned to the 2nd Brigade Combat Team and two Armored Reconnaissance Squadrons, the 4th Squadron assigned to the 2nd BCT and the 6th Squadron assigned to the 3rd BCT.


                Antarctic Treaty Implemented (1961)

                Antarctica is the huge continent at the “bottom” of the earth (image by Dave Pape)

                Ask any fifth-grader to name the seven continents, and you’ll get the right answer, including Antarctica as one of the seventh. But Antarctica is different than the other six. Antarctica belongs to all of the world’s people, but can be used only certain ways. The Antarctic Treaty, which entered into force on June 23, 1961, governs how the world treats this very special place.

                The Antarctic Treaty was created as the first post-World War II agreement to limit the spread of arms, particularly nuclear weapons. It was also a response to seven countries (Argentina, Australia, Chile, France, New Zealand, Norway and the United Kingdom) that claimed sovereignty over some parts of the continent. Most other nations did not recognize those claims, but awareness rose that a permanent solution was needed to avoid actions (such as mining) on those claims and any new ones. During 1957-1958, those seven nations plus five more joined together in a global scientific program known as the International Geophysical Year (IGY). The Antarctic region was a major site for their scientific work.

                Spurred by the success of that venture, the United States led an effort with the other eleven IGY participating nations to prepare a treaty to govern the Antarctic. The treaty was completed on December 1, 1959, followed by its endorsement by the 12 original participants in its drafting it began operating about 18 months later, on June 23, 1961. The Antarctic Treaty has provided for a long-term peaceful agreement to maintain the region as a global resource.

                The treaty has assured that the Antarctic is used exclusively for research and conservation. Article I states the matter plainly: “Antarctica shall be used for peaceful purposes only.” Based on Article I, all research facilities and the information obtained by research studies are open to everyone for inspection and use.

                An addition to the treaty that entered into force in 1998 (often called the Madrid Protocol) addressed environmental protection more fully. The addition created a Committee for Environmental Protection to enforce the treaty’s principle that “(t)he Parties commit themselves to the comprehensive protection of the Antarctic environment and dependent and associated ecosystems and hereby designate Antarctica as a natural reserve, devoted to peace and science.” It includes a framework for protecting the native flora and fauna and prohibits the introduction of non-native species. It also allows for enhanced protection of special areas with “outstanding environmental, scientific, historic, aesthetic or wilderness values…”


                Military Training at Valley Forge

                Despite the harsh conditions, Valley Forge is sometimes called the birthplace of the American army because, by June of 1778, the weary troops emerged with a rejuvenated spirit and confidence as a well-trained fighting force.

                Much of the credit goes to former Prussian military officer Friedrich Wilhelm Baron von Steuben. At the time, the Prussian Army was widely regarded as one of the best in Europe, and von Steuben had a sharp military mind.

                Von Steuben arrived in Valley Forge on February 23, 1778. General George Washington, impressed by his acumen, soon appointed von Steuben temporary inspector general. In his role, von Steuben set standards for camp layout, sanitation and conduct. For instance, he demanded that latrines be placed, facing downhill, on the opposite side of camp as the kitchens.

                More importantly, he became the Continental Army’s chief drillmaster. Von Steuben, who spoke little English, ran the troops through a gamut of intense Prussian-style drills. He taught them to efficiently load, fire and reload weapons, charge with bayonets and march in compact columns of four instead of miles-long single file lines.

                Von Steuben helped to prepare a manual called “Regulations for the Order and Discipline of the Troops of the United States,” also called the 𠇋lue Book,” which remained the official training manual of the Army for decades.

                The British soon tested the Continental Army’s newfound discipline at the Battle of Monmouth, which took place in central New Jersey on June 28, 1778. While many historians consider the Battle of Monmouth a tactical draw, the Continental Army fought for the first time as a cohesive unit, showing a new level of confidence, according to the American Battlefield Trust. The Americans used artillery to hold off British troops and even launched bayonet counterattacks—skills they had sharpened while drilling under von Steuben at Valley Forge.

                “In the old days,” writes archivist and author John Buchanan, “the Continentals probably would have fled.” But, as Wayne Bodle writes in The Valley Forge Winter: Civilians and Soldiers in War, after their six months of training in the mud and snow of Valley Forge, Washington’s troops became imbued with 𠇊 deeper identification with and pride in their craft.”

                Following British victories at the Battle of Brandywine (September 11, 1777) and the Battle of the Clouds (September 16), on September 18 General Wilhelm von Knyphausen led British soldiers on a raid of Valley Forge, burning down several buildings and stealing supplies despite the best efforts of Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Hamilton and Captain Henry Lee to defend them. The engagement became known as the �ttle of Valley Forge.” The Continental Army left Valley Forge for good in June 1778.


                Over There: A Buffalo Soldier in World War I

                Offered in celebration of Black History Month and in recognition of the 100th anniversary of America's participation in World War I, the Buffalo Soldier objects in the Division of Armed Forces History serve as a fascinating intersection of African American and World War I history.

                In the fall of 1918, through the thick haze of gun smoke and mustard gas, French soldiers, American Expeditionary Forces (AEF), and German soldiers toiled in their respective trenches, fighting and scrapping through dirt and the leftover splinters of a forest, the destruction of World War I surrounding them. Fought from September 26 to the Armistice on November 11, the Meuse-Argonne Offensive included the 365th Infantry Regiment, 92nd Division "Buffalo Soldiers." Corporal Benjamin Blayton was one of those who served in this historic American regiment.

                Benjamin Blayton was born on December 6, 1897, in Lincoln County, Oklahoma. He worked on his family's farm from a young age before eventually moving to Washington, D.C., and becoming an electrician. At the age of 20, he enlisted in the United States Army on January 5, 1918, and became a member of the Buffalo Soldiers. The Buffalo Soldier division was formed on September 21, 1866, primarily comprised of African American soldiers from the 9th and 10th Calvary Regiments of the U.S. Army. The Buffalo Soldiers were primarily responsible for supporting westward expansion by helping to build new settlements and to protect settlers. It was their role in campaigns against American Indians in the West that led to their regimental nickname. The Buffalo Soldiers National Museum explains, "The combat prowess, bravery, tenaciousness, and looks on the battlefield, inspired the Indians to call them Buffalo Soldiers… Buffalo Soldiers, down through the years, have worn the name with pride."

                Mustered out of Camp Funston, Kansas in October 1917, the 92nd Division of the 365th Infantry Regiment drew African American soldiers from all over the United States. Although they were part of the United States Army, prejudices of the era prevented most African American units from participating in combat with the American or British forces. As a result, most African American soldiers served as laborers. However, a few units, including the 92nd, served in combat with the French Army, whose soldiers did not object to fighting alongside African Americans. Blayton served in France from June 1918 until February 1919 when he returned to the U.S. after the end of the war.

                The 92nd Division saw combat during the Meuse-Argonne Offensive, the ultimate battle of World War I, which claimed over 26,000 American soldiers. Blayton survived and was awarded the World War I Victory Medal with Meuse-Argonne and Defensive Sector battle clasps. He was honorably discharged March 19, 1919. Upon returning to Washington, he was awarded the District of Columbia World War Service Medal in recognition of his wartime service.

                Blayton remained in D.C. for the rest of his life. In 1920 he married Oletha Brown and they had four children together. He told his children about his wartime experiences, both the good—eating in French restaurants and learning to speak French fluently—and the bad—enduring the trenches and watching friends die in battle. Blayton passed away in 1991 just months before his 94th birthday. His daughter Gwendolyn Robinson, who donated his uniform and related objects to the museum in 1994, remembered her father as a gallant and eloquent man who was active in his community, who worked hard to provide for his family, and who instilled in his children a sense of their own self-worth.

                Christy Wallover is an assistant project manager in the Office of Project Management and Editorial Services. Patri O'Gan is a project assistant in the Division of Armed Forces History.


                This is how a trial by combat actually worked

                So, you got caught up in some legal action and you think you’re a tough enough fighter. You just saw that episode of Game of Thrones and decided, screw it — you want a trial by combat. While it’s still kind of technically legal in New York, it hasn’t ever been done. But if you want to be the first in a couple hundred years to have your fate decided in such a way, here’s how it works.

                According to Medieval European law, a judicially sanctioned duel could take place to settle a disagreement in the absence of adequate evidence, a confession, or witnesses. It was mostly used to settle civil disputes and minor infringements. In Great Britain and Ireland, for example, you couldn’t use a trial by combat to appeal a murder charge.

                I mean technically, if you killed someone and got a trial by combat, all you’d have to do is kill another person in front of a judge and then you’re free to go. Seems unproductive.

                The logic behind a trial by combat is best explained by looking at a similar, not-really-fair-and-impartial system, trial by ordeal. This is, essentially, just like the witch-hunt scene in Monty Python and the Holy Grail (but with a much deeper religious connection). In brief, the accused are subjected to “an ordeal,” like having a hot iron pressed against their skin. If God was on their side, he’d send divine intervention to save the accused. In that specific scenario, if your skin burnt, you’re guilty. If not, you’re free.

                The “ordeals” spanned the gamut of ridiculousness at the discretion of the judge. Another infamous example was the trial by water that was used on accused witches (sound familiar?). All an accused witch would have to do to earn freedom is sink and not have their skin burnt by the water.

                Which isn’t that difficult if you exhale, stay calm, and not be thrown in acid.

                A trial by combat was seen in the same way and generally used for things like land disputes in England. The two parties could settle on the location of a border between their lands in front of a judge and could either do the fighting themselves or request a champion. Each participant entered a sixty-foot-large square with a war hammer, a cudgel, a spear, and a shield. Knights could bring their own stuff, of course, which was much nicer.

                Once the battle began, there was no stopping until one fighter was dead, disabled, or cried “Craven.” If the fight was stopped because of someone’s cowardice, they would immediately lose the trial and also be charged with outlawry. The winner of the combat got their way — after all, if God hadn’t wanted them to win, they wouldn’t have, right?

                The trials were also said to have drawn in large crowds. Who wouldn’t want to see two farmers fight to the death over who owned a tree?

                Historians can’t verify the last known trial by combat but the last certain judicial battle was in Scotland in 1597, when Adam Burntfield avenged his brother’s death.


                Battle of the Little Bighorn

                On June 25, 1876, Native American forces led by਌razy Horse and Sitting Bull defeat the U.S. Army troops of General George Armstrong Custer in the Battle of the Little Bighorn near southern Montana’s Little Bighorn River.

                Crazy Horse and Sitting Bull, Lakota Sioux leaders, strongly resisted the mid-19th-century efforts of the U.S. government to confine their people to reservations. In 1875, after gold was discovered in South Dakota’s Black Hills, the U.S. Army ignored previous treaty agreements and invaded the region. This betrayal led many Sioux and Cheyenne tribesmen to leave their reservations and join Sitting Bull and Crazy Horse in Montana. By the late spring of 1876, more than 10,000 Native Americans had gathered in a camp along the Little Bighorn River–which they called the Greasy Grass—in defiance of a U.S. War Department order to return to their reservations or risk being attacked.

                In mid-June, three columns of U.S. soldiers lined up against the camp and prepared to march. A force of 1,200 Native Americans turned back the first column on June 17. Five days later, General Alfred Terry ordered Custer’s 7th Cavalry to scout ahead for enemy troops. On the morning of June 25, Custer drew near the camp and decided to press on ahead rather than wait for reinforcements.

                At mid-day, Custer’s 600 men entered the Little Bighorn Valley. Among the Native Americans, word quickly spread of the impending attack. The older Sitting Bull rallied the warriors and saw to the safety of the women and children, while Crazy Horse set off with a large force to meet the attackers head on. Despite Custer’s desperate attempts to regroup his men, they were quickly overwhelmed. Custer and some 200 men in his battalion were attacked by as many as 3,000 Native Americans within an hour, Custer and every last one of his soldier were dead.


                Defense of the Kansas Frontier 1866-1867

                COMPARATIVELY speaking, the year 1866 passed rather quietly on the Kansas frontier. Indian depredations were not only less numerous but of a more petty nature than those of the previous years. Early in the year the Southern Cheyennes and Arapahoes sent messengers to their northern tribesmen to persuade those hostiles to make peace. Col. E. W. Wyncoop, former commander at Fort Lyon, was appointed by the War Department to escort the envoys. [1]

                Indian outbreaks in Kansas began in May along the Solomon river and near Lake Sibley. [2] Gov. S. J. Crawford at once organized a battalion of militia and sent them to the region. The state troopers soon engaged a band of Cheyennes in a sharp fight in the Lake Sibley neighborhood. [3] In July and August several raids by the Pawnees and Omahas occurred on White Rock and Lulu creeks, tributaries of the Solomon river. [4] In October and November hunters were driven in by Indians on the Solomon, and petty robberies and thefts were committed in Clay, Republic and Shirley counties.

                Governor Crawford discovered in August that not only the Pawnees but Osages as well were responsible for recent frontier outrages. He therefore ordered Col. W. F. Cloud of the state militia to visit their reservations and investigate. Gen. W. S. Hancock, commanding the Department of the Missouri, was requested to furnish an escort from Fort Riley for Colonel Cloud. [5]

                Overland transportation suffered more than did the frontier settlements during 1866. [6] The Smoky Hill route continued to receive its full share of attention by the Indians. This no doubt was due to the fact that the Union Pacific railroad, eastern division, was moving rapidly westward along the Kaw and Smoky Hill valleys and gave promise of soon threatening the favorite buffalo hunting

                GARFIELD: DEFENSE OF THE KANSAS FRONTIER 327

                grounds of the red men. The Butterfield Overland Despatch, which monopolized traffic over the route, was purchased by the Holladay interests in 1866 and merged with the Platte line into the Holladay Overland Mail and Express Company. [7] On April 20 the new company started a daily schedule from both Topeka and Denver. As fast as the railroad was completed westward the stages were moved to "End of Track." [8]

                As a protection to freighters the War Department in February issued an order which required wagon trains to be made up of at least twenty wagons and thirty men before they would be allowed to pass Fort Kearney on the Platte trail, Fort Riley on the Smoky Hill route or Fort Larned an the Santa Fe trail. [9] Stages on all routes were guarded, generally by military escorts, while passing through the Indian country. At each station a noncommissioned officer with a squad of soldiers met the stage and escorted it to the next station. [10]

                Throughout the year Governor Crawford exerted tremendous efforts to put down Indian disturbances. The expense of defending the frontier with state militia was so great that the governor hesitated to use them. As a consequence he appealed to the War Department and district commanders to protect the settlements, but received no response. [11] He telegraphed to the Secretary of War for cavalry arms, with which to arm the settlers, but failed to get them. The War Department informed Crawford that a shortage of troops prevented them from properly guarding the border. Crawford replied by offering to raise a Kansas regiment to be mustered into the United States service for the purpose of protecting the frontier until it could be replaced by army regulars. This offer was also rejected. [12] These efforts having failed, the Kansas executive telegraphed to the department commander at Fort Leavenworth stating that immediate action was needed and that, if the department commander would not act, he (the governor) would send Major General Cloud (formerly Colonel Cloud) with militia to pursue the Indians to their reservations, punish them and compel indemnity for their past conduct. [13] This elicited a response from General Hancock who, on August 28, assured the governor that he would cooperate with the state authorities in every possible way. Hancock had sent a scouting party of

                328 THE KANSAS HISTORICAL QUARTERLY

                one hundred cavalrymen from Fort Harker to the Solomon and suggested that they operate with the state militia who were already scouting in that region. [14]

                In the meantime General Cloud was touring the settlements upon the Republican and Solomon rivers. Here he proceeded to organize the residents into militia companies. He reported that the majority of the settlers were Civil War veterans and possessed guns, but needed ammunition. [l5] As a result of his personal observations Cloud recommended to Governor Crawford that the militia be re organized and that a United States military post be established in the exposed region. [16]

                In the latter part of August Colonel Wyncoop, in his official role as peacemaker, assembled a group of Cheyenne and Arapahos chiefs at Fort Harker for a council. The Indians thought that the government had forgotten them, since their promised annuities hadn't been received. Their attitude toward the construction of the railroad up the Smoky Hill was one of resignation to the inevitable. They realized (so they said) that the white man was too numerous to be overcome. Futhermore, they promised to restrain their young men from additional depredations. [17]

                At no time in 1866 did the activities of the Indians assume the proportions of a general outbreak such as that of 1864-ཽ. The strenuous attempts of Governor Crawford to compel the War Department to intervene in behalf of Kansas now seem unnecessary. He accomplished, however, another piece of work which perhaps was more constructive. Having learned from the commander of Fort Harker that most of the outrages and murders committed by the Indians could be traced to alcoholic liquors, Governor Crawford recommended that the state legislature prohibit all liquor traffic in Kansas beyond the limits of the organized counties. [18] The legislature, in compliance with this suggestion, passed House bill No. 105, which became a. law on February 23, 1867. [19]

                GARFIELD: DEFENSE OF THE KANSAS FRONTIER 329

                Additional evidence that the governor and people of Kansas may have been excessively excited over Indian troubles during the year was furnished by Gen. William T. Sherman, who had been touring Kansas and Colorado in the fall of 1866. Sherman encountered no Indian troubles other than rumors. In referring to the latter he said, "These are all mysterious, and only accountable on the supposition that our people out West are resolved on trouble for the sake of the profit resulting from the military occupation." [20]

                In his personal narrative Governor Crawford stated: "When I returned from Washington in April, 1867, General Hancock was in the field with a handful of United States troops, and the plains of Kansas were swarming with bloodthirsty Indians." [21] Hancock had left Fort Leavenworth early in March upon a campaign designed to bring the Indians into submission. By showing a large force, including artillery, it was hoped that the red men would be frightened into a permanent peace. Hancock with six companies of infantry and artillery marched to Fort Riley, where he was joined by Col. George A. Custer with four companies of Seventh cavalry and one infantry company. At Fort Harker the expedition added two more cavalry troops. With this small army Hancock marched to Fort Lamed, arriving April 7. [22]

                Cheyennes and Sioux were camped on Pawnee Fork about thirty miles northwest of the fort. When the Indians persistently refused to come in and make a treaty, Hancock decided to march on their encampment. On April 11 the regiment moved forward. Before reaching the camp they were met by a large body of Indians bearing a white flag. The chiefs said they wanted peace instead of war nevertheless Hancock's troops moved forward and camped near their village. The Indians, fearing another Sand Creek massacre, fled during the night. Custer pursued them the next day, but the Indians, after raiding the Overland Stage Company stations on the Smoky Hill, scattered. Hancock burned the Indian village on Pawnee Fork and then marched to Fort Dodge. After remaining at Dodge several days his troops headed for Fort Hays. Then he returned to Fort Harker, and on May 7 left that place for Leaven

                330 THE KANSAS HISTORICAL QUARTERLY

                worth. Custer with his Seventh cavalry remained in the field in pursuit of Pawnee Killer and his band of hostile Sioux. "Hancock's War" thus came to a sudden end following an auspicious beginning. [23]

                Custer's pursuit of Pawnee Killer extended northward into Nebraska. The hostiles refused all overtures of peace and several times turned on Custer and became the pursuer instead of the pursued. After campaigning throughout the greater part of the summer the expedition returned to Fort Wallace in July, having failed to gain a decisive victory. Lieutenant Kidder and a party of ten men, sent from Fort Sedgwick, Nebraska, with dispatches for Custer, were annihilated by Indians. [24]

                Hancock's campaign was unfortunate in its results, since it accomplished little except to incite the Indians to commit further depredations. Indian outbreaks in Kansas had been negligible prior to the expedition up Pawnee Fork. It is possible, therefore, that the war in 1867 was thus precipitated by General Hancock himself. With both the Pacific railroads stretching out through the Indian country, the situation was extremely delicate when the year opened. [25]

                Indian depredations in Kansas were centered on the Smoky Hill route and the settlements in the Solomon and Republican valleys. By the middle of July the Union Pacific, eastern division, had reached Fort Harker and the town of Ellsworth. On September 18 the track extended to the 275-mile post at a point within ten miles of Fort Hays. [26]

                As early as April 22 Indians were reported swarming along the Smoky Hill route. [27] It was estimated by stage passengers that they numbered from two to three thousand. Possibly a great many of these were the Cheyennes and Sioux whom Hancock had routed a few days previously on Pawnee Fork. The greatest danger point along the route was the stretch between Ellsworth and Fort Wallace. During most of the summer engineering and road-building crews were advancing through this region. On May 23 R. M. Shoemaker, general superintendent of the Union Pacific, eastern division, telegraphed Governor Crawford announcing an Indian attack on workers near Monument station. [28] In June Shoemaker's telegrams per

                GARFIELD: DEFENSE OF THE KANSAS FRONTIER 331

                sistently called upon Crawford for aid. Beginning with a raid west of Fort Harker on June 14, the depredations increased in number and intensity. Shoemaker wired Crawford on June 21 asking for militia. This was followed three days later by an urgent message in which he informed the governor that two workers had been killed and all workmen driven off the line for a distance of twenty miles. Five hundred stands of the best arms and plenty of ammunition were requested. The telegram closed with this statement: "Unless you send us protection our work must be abandoned." [29] On June 24 John D. Perry, president of the Union Pacific, eastern division, appealed to Crawford for immediate aid, stating that in the absence of General Hancock he knew no other one to whom he could turn. Perry explained that Indian depredations extended along the whole line of road, that one thousand laborers on seventy-five miles of line had been driven in, and that his men were practically unarmed. [30] Shoemaker frantically wired Crawford on June 28 announcing more depredations west of Fort Harker and closed with a sweeping declaration that unless the road were promptly protected all the workers would be- driven off and all the citizens would be forced to leave the region. [31]

                Upon the receipt of Shoemaker's wire of June 21 Governor Crawford acted. His first efforts were directed toward getting arms and ammunition for the railroad workers. On June 22 he appealed to the War Department for two thousand stands of cavalry arms and ammunition. [32] Two days later he again wired Secretary Stanton asking him immediately to direct the commanding officer at Fort Leavenworth to turn the arms and ammunition over to the state. [33] Before sending this message to Stanton the Kansas executive had attempted to get ten thousand rounds of ammunition from Fort Leavenworth. [34] Whether or not the arsenal had refused the request until otherwise instructed by Stanton is not clear. The fact remains that on the same day, by special order No. 136, General Hancock directed the commander of the Leavenworth arsenal to issue ten thousand round of 58-caliber cartridges to the state of Kansas. [35] Many of the guns needed were in possession of the militia consequently Crawford instructed Capt. John G. Haskell, at Lawrence,

                332 THE KANSAS HISTORICAL QUARTERLY

                to call in all the state and Federal arms and ammunition in Lawrence and have one thousand stands packed for immediate shipment. [36] On June 28 the governor wired Capt. J. C. French, at Fort Leavenworth, to ship what arms and ammunition he had as soon as possible. [37] Shoemaker's men were thus provided with plenty of munitions within a few days after the sending of their appeal for protection.

                Simultaneously with his campaign to provide arms for the railroad workers, Governor Crawford endeavored to gain permission to organize a regiment of volunteer cavalry for service on the frontier. In his telegram to Stanton on June 24 Crawford volunteered to raise such an organization. To give additional weight to his request the governor inclosed President Perry's dispatch and added his own observation that the railroad west of Fort Harker and all Kansas frontier settlements would have to be abandoned unless prompt and decisive measures were taken. Stanton replied on June 27, referring him to General Grant, commander in chief of the army. [38] Grant naturally turned the matter over to Sherman, who was commanding the military division of the Missouri.

                Sherman wired Crawford on June 26, accepting the battalion of mounted volunteers provided that Gen. A. J. Smith, at Fort Harker, deemed them to be necessary. Sherman stipulated that the battalion should consist of six or eight companies to be used for four months. [39] General Smith signified his consent the next day in a telegram to Crawford however, on June 28 he informed the governor that Sherman had countermanded the order. [40] Shoemaker's message of the twenty-eighth also reported Sherman's change of mind. Crawford accordingly telegraphed Sherman and earnestly requested a reversal of his orders. In his plea the governor said that it was impossible to move against the Indians with militia. [41] As a result of this action General Sherman again reversed his decision and on July 1 gave Crawford permission to raise the volunteer battalion. [42] At once Governor Crawford issued a proclamation calling upon the people of Kansas for volunteers. Thus the Eighteenth Kansas cavalry came into existence.

                GARFIELD: DEFENSE OF THE KANSAS FRONTIER 333

                Why did General Sherman first consent to the raising of the volunteer cavalry and then countermand the order? Apparently a conflict was going on in Sherman's mind between his personal views of the situation and his desire to cooperate with Crawford and the railroad officials. Sherman had little sympathy with the Indian, whom he considered the enemy of civilization. [43] At the same time he favored government protection for the transcontinental roads. [44] Why, then, should he object to a proposition whereby the Union Pacific, eastern division, should get immediate protection? The answer is that he was heartily opposed to the raising of volunteer troops by any state for the defense of its local interests because all other states and territories that had contact with the Indians would instantly start a clamor to do likewise. [45] It was his personal belief that each of the western states and territories wanted the entire United States army for its own protection. [46] Sherman had stated his views quite plainly in a long telegram to Crawford on June 24. The general tone of his message was a bit of advice to Crawford to act cautiously. The complete text of the telegram is given below:

                "Your dispatch of to-day is this moment received. I had already committed myself to be in St. Louis to-morrow from Omaha. I mailed you a circular defining as clearly as I can express how far you can help us to maintain peace on the border. This circular you ought to receive to-day. Until congress gives to the military power the right to say what Indians are at peace and what at was, this conflict of races must go on. In the meantime I must leave to General Hancock to do his best. He is to-day at Denver, will start back on the Smoky Hill on the 27th and should reach Fort Harker and the telegraph in ten days. The Indians thus far seem to confine their attacks to isolated trains and to the roads and are in small bands strung from. Minnesota to. Texas. Yet almost every Indian agent says his particular Indians are at home and at peace. If you choose to organize a battalion of volunteers, say six or eight companies, and offer them to General Hancock on his arrival at Fort Harker, if he wants them I will approve, but my notion is he has troops enough. If we can only see where the Indians will turn up, which seems impossible, I prefer you deal with General Hancock as he is on the spot all the time." [47]

                334 THE KANSAS HISTORICAL QUARTERLY

                Having yielded to the insistence of Crawford and the railroad people, however, Sherman came to Kansas immediately in order to be near the scene of action.

                When General Sherman reached Fort Harker in July to investigate the Indian situation, railroad construction was advancing at an unusually slow rate up the Smoky Hill valley, while transportation from "End of Track" to Denver on the Smoky Hill Stage line was virtually suspended. Only two stages had passed through to Denver during the month of June, and none had made the attempt in July up to the time of his arrival at the fort. [48] Sherman at once looked into the matter. The result was a startling discovery which, if known sooner, likely would have forced him to withhold permanently his consent to the organization of the Eighteenth Kansas cavalry. Sherman, upon investigation, was convinced that Indian depredations were not the real reason for the suspension either of railroad building or of travel on the Smoky Hill stage line. He contended instead that the railroad was delayed by excessive rainfall, while the stage line did not operate due to selfishness and cowardice on the part of the stage company officials. [49] The general was also led to suspect that Kansas newspapers and citizens were exaggerating Indian rumors. His natural conclusion, accordingly, was that neither Kansas nor the railroad and stage line needed the protection which they had gained as the result of Governor Crawford's persistent efforts.

                Following his investigation of the Smoky Hill stage situation Sherman transmitted a telegram to Crawford in which he condemned the stage company in no uncertain terms for its failure to operate.

                "I believe there are other causes than Indians why the Smoky Hill stage has not run. The railroad was delayed by high water and not by Indians and the stages have stopped for want of connection and because it is not profitable. I want both railroad and stage companies to prosper, but cannot excuse them from doing their share of service unless they make efforts equal to the occasion. All our posts and intermediate stations to Denver are safe. Trains of wagons go with light escort and even single carriers run from post to post. General Smith has offered the stage company any amount of guard, but they won't go. Keep this to yourself, only help me quiet down unnecessary alarm, which as you can see often does as much harm as real danger, and of course all parties having close contracts avail themselves of the alarm to avoid services and claim compensation and damage." [50]

                GARFIELD: DEFENSE OF THE KANSAS FRONTIER 331

                Two days later Sherman informed Crawford that the Eighteenth Kansas cavalry was being mustered in at Fort Harker and that a company each of infantry and cavalry had been assigned to guard Shoemaker's construction trains. He then closed with this statement: "Though I assert that Indians have not delayed the progress of this road one hour. The stage company deserves severe treatment for their efforts to avoid their contract, and they may be the means of breaking up the Smoky Hill line altogether." [51]

                The stage company referred to by General Sherman was Wells Fargo & Co., who had bought out the Holladay interests in 1866 and had perfected a merger of several mail, express and stage lines in the West. [52]

                Sherman's indictment was not the only one hurled at the company. Senator Pomeroy, of Kansas, while attempting to defend Wells Fargo & Co. before the senate, unwittingly let fall information which supported Sherman's contention. Pomeroy and Thayer, of Nebraska, were denying the oft-repeated accusation of eastern papers that the contractors of the West wanted an Indian war. In the course of debate Pomeroy stated that, due to Indian raids, Wells Fargo was losing money daily in the performance of their United States mail contract, and that they would give a million dollars to get out of it. [53] This in itself is an indication that the company was not overly eager to continue operations on the Smoky Hill route during June and July.

                From still another source Sherman's criticism is substantiated. Postmaster General Alex W. Randall, in his report for 1867, mentioned a similar denouncement of Wells Fargo & Co. as follows:

                "During the spring and summer months the complaints as to the manner in which the service was being performed, and the great delay in the arrival of mail from the east at Denver.. , were more numerous than at any time since the present route hay been in operation. It was charged that the Indian troubles, complained of by the contractor and given by his agents as an excuse for nonperformance of service, were a pretense, and that this was no reason why the mails should not be conveyed regularly and within schedule time." [54] The postmaster general concluded, on the other hand, that the contractor (Wells Fargo & Co.) was not to blame for the delay in service. The Indian situation on the plains, he decided, was really serious. As proof for this final conclusion, he cited official reports to

                336 THE KANSAS HISTORICAL QUARTERLY

                the War Department by General Sherman and other army officers. [55] It is evident that the postmaster general knew nothing of Sherman's revelations to Crawford concerning the refusal of the stage company to resume service even under heavy escort.

                Western transportation companies undoubtedly did take advantage of the United States government during this period. By the nature of their contracts they could collect their money whether or not they maintained an unbroken schedule. Regardless of the motive of the stage company, whether it was to make money with a minimum amount of effort, as implied by Sherman, or to keep from losing money, as may be inferred from Pomeroy's statement, the fact remains that service was suspended intentionally for several weeks on the Smoky Hill line.

                There is, of course, some evidence to justify the stage company for discontinuing its service. A special correspondent of the Leavenworth Conservative, located at Fort Wallace with a railroad engineering expedition, declared that the route was closed because the troops for its protection had been sent to guard the Platte line. The writer was highly indignant because the interests of the Smoky Hill line were sacrificed for those of the Platte. This correspondent, in two separate articles, maintained that the stage stations were being attacked daily and that during the month of June $100,000 worth of property was destroyed and many lives were lost. An account of an Indian raid at Pond Creek station was also given. Even Fort Wallace was attacked on June 21 by about 300 Indians, according to the writer. The article of July 2 stated that the fort was still besieged. [56] Practically the same assertions were made by Gen. W. W. Wright, chief engineer of the Union Pacific, eastern division, in a report to Pres. John D. Perry on June 29. Wright was commander of the engineering expedition at Fort Wallace. [57]

                The truth of the whole matter probably is that during the Indian raids of the latter part of June the stage company officials had reasons for abandoning service nevertheless in the early part of July, when traffic should have been resumed, they failed to perform their duty.

                Another problem with which General Sherman had to contend was that of false reports and rumors of Indian uprising. His personal attitude toward this question was well expressed in his telegram to Governor Crawford on July 8, in which he requested that Crawford

                GARFIELD: DEFENSE OF THE KANSAS FRONTIER 337

                help him to quiet unnecessary alarm. In a letter to his brother, Senator Sherman, the general denounced the publication of rumors. "Not only real depredations are committed" (by the Indians), he asserted, "but every fear, or apprehension, on whatever it may be founded, is published, and protection claimed and demanded." Sherman furthermore emphasized the fact that the clamor of the western people for protection really weakened the military power in the region since it necessitated breaking up his forces into small groups. This, he declared, prevented the collection of any large army to carry an offensive into the Indians' own country, the Yellowstone and Red river localities. [58]

                Sherman's belief that Indian rumors were harmful was upheld by the Fort Harker correspondent to the Leavenworth Conservative. In an article to his paper on July 8, 1867, the writer complained about the false propaganda which was being circulated by a rival paper, the Leavenworth Commercial. The writer for the Conservative denied that there was any truth to the recent stories of Indian raids near Ellsworth. He added that between Harker and Hays all was quiet. Beyond that point he had no information, since, for some reason unknown to the people of his vicinity, the stage had not come through from the west for some time. [59]

                After General Sherman had returned to St. Louis the Republican of that city printed an article from Fort Harker which reported the massacre near Fort Larned of a party of Catholic priests and nuns. Sherman at once published a reply denying the truth of the incident and rebuking newspaper journalists for publishing unfounded rumors. [60] Later it was proved that the article was false. The story of the massacre had been published by a Leavenworth rival of the Conservative. The editor of the Conservative, although stating that he had not printed the report, denied that the newspapers of Kansas were publishing exaggerated stories. At the same time he warned his readers to beware of Indian news printed in any rival Leavenworth papers. [61]

                Additional proof that one of the Leavenworth papers was guilty of "yellow journalism" comes from an entirely different source. A prominent official of the Union Pacific, eastern division, writing from Leavenworth, Kan., in September, 1867, reported that the

                338 THE KANSAS HISTORICAL QUARTERLY

                town was a great place for the manufacture of news. He also mentioned that a reporter for a Leavenworth publication was filling his paper with startling accounts of Indian raids and horrible murders which were being copied by "all the eastern papers as the true state of affairs in the West." [62]

                While the Sherman investigation and newspaper controversy were taking place the Eighteenth Kansas cavalry was organized, mustered into service and baptized with fire. When Governor Crawford issued his call for volunteers on July 1 it was his intention to raise eight companies of cavalry for six months' service. As a matter of fact only four companies were raised and the regiment was required to serve only four months. The reason for this change of plans will soon be apparent.

                Recruiting officers found that they could get sufficient men but very few horses. Crawford on July 3 asked Sherman if the government would furnish horses for part of the men. Sherman refused, stating that if eight mounted companies could not be furnished a less number would be sufficient. [63] Telegrams and letters literally poured into the executive offices in Topeka during the next few days. The majority of these were in regard to getting horses. Accordingly, Crawford on July 10 again telegraphed Sherman, inquiring if he would take part of the men unmounted. Sherman again rejected the suggestion, remarking that if the men could not be mounted they were not wanted. [64] This attitude of Sherman was quite disconcerting to certain Kansans who were striving mightily to organize a full eight-company regiment. On July 5 Governor Crawford received the following telegram from A. Green, of Manhattan: "I can get horses if adjutant general will issue certificate of indebtedness. Pottawatomie is best place. I came up with General Sherman. He would not grieve if you fail. Come up to-morrow." [65]

                According to the terms of enlistment, each volunteer was supposed to furnish his own horse. He was then to be armed, equipped and paid by the United States as were other regular troops. In case a volunteer had no horse and was unable to purchase one the state guaranteed to stand security for the payment.66 In order to pay all creditors for horses purchased without waiting for a delayed legislative appropriation, the recruits gave their personal notes at the

                GARFIELD: DEFENSE OF THE KANSAS FRONTIER 339

                time of purchase. The recruiting officer was then instructed to draw the cash pay of each soldier so indebted and transmit it to the creditor until the note was paid in full. [67] The governor assured all questioners that each soldier who furnished a horse would be reimbursed later by legislative appropriation. With the horse problem once solved the routine of organization went on steadily. By July 15 the Eighteenth Kansas was mustered into United States service at Fort Harker. The battalion was made up of four companies with a total enrollment of 358 officers and enlisted men. [63] That there was a real need for the regiment was revealed by General Sherman in his annual report for the year. The report explained that the Eighteenth was called into service to replace six companies of Seventh cavalry that had been transferred to the Platte in the summer. [69] Under the able leadership of Maj. Horace L. Moore, of Lawrence, the Eighteenth Kansas performed creditably and was of real service to the state and nation. In addition to fighting the Indians the men faced a far deadlier enemy, cholera, which took a heavy toll of recruits at Fort Harker. On July 24 the regiment was at Fort Larned. Shortly afterwards it was moved to Fort Dodge and finally to Fort Hays on August 15. While stationed at Fort Hays the Eighteenth performed its most active service. On August 22 part of the regiment participated in the battle of Beaver creek. Following an Indian raid on the Smoky Hill stage line at Big Creek station, Maj. George A. Armes organized an expedition of the Tenth United States and Eighteenth Kansas cavalry and pursued the hostiles north into the Republican valley. While out on a scout for the expedition Captain Jenness, of the Eighteenth Kansas, and a small body of troops were attacked by about 500 Indians. They withstood the onslaught until rescued. The Indians then attacked the entire force. The battle raged for six hours before darkness caused the fighting to cease. Satanta, the Kiowa chief, was reported to have led the Indians. [70] The soldiers' losses were three killed and thirty-five wounded. [71] Meanwhile Major Moore and the remainder of the Eighteenth were campaigning in the same general region. Although neither Indians nor

                340 THE KANSAS HISTORICAL QUARTERLY

                soldiers could claim decisive victories, the campaign had the effect of breaking up the Indian concentration along the Smoky Hill and the Republican. The northern Indians retreated to the north, while the Comanches, Kiowas, southern Cheyennes and Arapahoes headed South, where they met the Peace Commission at Medicine Lodge in October. [72] The Eighteenth continued to serve until October 29, when it was ordered to Fort Harker to be mustered out. On November 15 the final muster took place. [73] It was deemed unnecessary to keep the soldiers in service for six months since there was no need for them during the winter. About ten per cent of the regiment lost their lives during their four months of service.

                Throughout the months of July and August reports of Indian depredations had continued to come in. A perfect reign of terror took place in Colorado Territory during the early part of July. Settlers left the country, and there was talk of discontinuing overland travel. [74] One of Custer's scouts, in relating the story of the Kidder massacre and an attack by Indians on Custer's supply train, closed the interview with these words: "If any man thinks there is no war with, or danger from, the Indians, let him make a trip from Wallace to Harker and then he will realize it." [75]

                [Service] was finally resumed on the Smoky Hill route, the first westbound mail coach reaching Denver July 27, after a ten-day trip from Fort Harker. Indians were numerous between Harker and Monument station, and according to reports were virtually in possession of one hundred miles of the road. [76] Santa Fe coaches, on the other hand, were coming through to Fort. Harker unmolested, though many Indians were seen along the route. [77]

                Osages dwelling in the southeast section of the state caught the fever of the Indian war on the plains and performed some minor depredations. Governor Crawford paid them a visit in August and called them to account for thieving of horses and other stock from settlers. The Osages promptly returned the property and thereafter remained "good Indians." [78] The governor discovered that Indian traders were daily supplying the Osages as well as the wild plains tribes with arms and ammunition. [79]

                GARFIELD: DEFENSE OF THE KANSAS FRONTIER 341

                The Indian Peace Commission, which had been appointed in July by act of congress, held a meeting in St. Louis on August 8. As a result General Sherman ordered all department commanders in the division of the Missouri to assume defensive tactics only, thus giving the Indians a chance to receive messages sent out from the Peace Commission and to act on them. [80]

                In view of this change of tactics upon the part of the military authorities, matters became somewhat complicated when the Indians again attacked the Smoky Hill route in September. Shoemaker wired Crawford on September 21 informing him that one of the principal contractors and three men had been killed by Indians on September 19. Since Gen. A. J. Smith, at Fort Harker, could give no additional protection the general superintendent asked the governor for an infantry regiment at once to guard the working parties. [81] Crawford replied immediately. "Your dispatch received. Will tender regiment to General Sherman. If he will not accept on behalf of government, I will endeavor to make other arrangements." [82] Governor Crawford then made a speedy trip to Fort Hays to investigate matters and upon his return sent two telegrams to Sherman describing the situation and offering to immediately organize a regiment of volunteers. [83]

                Sherman's reply threw cold water on the proposition. The complete telegram follows:

                "HEADQUARTERS, MILITARY DIVISION OF THE MISSOURI,
                ST. Louis, September 24, 1867.
                "Governor Crawford: With the present convictions of the Indian Com- mission to be at Fort Harker the eighth I would not be willing to accept more volunteers. Mr. Shoemaker ought not to push his parties too far out till we meet the Cheyennes.

                W. T. SHERMAN, Lieut. General:" [84]

                Sherman thus remained consistent with his previous position. Crawford, plainly, was out of sympathy with the Peace Commission and considered defense of the railroad paramount. The crux of the matter was whether or not the road actually needed more protection than it was already getting. Considerable light was shed on the question by Mr. Marshall, who was on the scene at Fort Harker as a representative of the railroad's eastern financial interests. Writing from Junction City on September 18, Marshall explained that

                342 THE KANSAS HISTORICAL QUARTERLY

                he had just gone up to the end of the track with the railroad commissioners, that a military escort had accompanied the train and that they were not molested. Further on he stated:

                "The Indians west of us have been making some trouble lately, but I do not apprehend any trouble with our trains. There have been several attacks made on wagon trains and some stock stolen, and a few men killed, but those things you must expect when you pass over other people's grounds." [85]

                The Peace Commission, following its meeting in St. Louis, headed northwest up the Missouri river in order to treat with the Sioux and northern Cheyennes before meeting the tribes in Kansas. Sherman invited Crawford to meet the commission at Fort Leavenworth on August 11. [86] Crawford accepted and presented his views to the commissioners. A Leavenworth daily, reporting the governor's presence in town, had this to say: "The governor will confer with the peace powwow-ists, but is not known to sympathize with their policy. He is for exhorting peace, we guess." [87] In September Crawford further vented his opinion of the commission. "I am waiting patiently," he wrote, "the result of the efforts of this Peace Commission. If they fail to do their duty the state of Kansas will not fail." [88] Sherman, also, was not optimistic about the possibility of peace, although he expressed some hopes. Writing to his brother on September 28, he predicted that. the Indian wars were not over, since it would take years for the Peace Commission to fulfill the requirement of the law passed by congress. [89]

                In October the Peace Commission arrived in Kansas. Its personnel had been carefully chosen from both military men and civilians. Generals Terry, Harney, Sanborn, and Auger represented the army, while Commissioner Taylor upheld the interests of the Indian Bureau. Senator Henderson, of Missouri, represented congress and Col. Samuel F. Tappan stood for the nation at large. For a month prior to the meeting the Indian Bureau had been assembling a vast amount of material near Medicine Lodge to give the Indians as presents. These stores included coffee, sugar, flour, dried fruits, arms and ammunition and a herd of cattle. [90]

                Once the Indians were assembled, the powwow began. Estimates of the number of Indians present vary from five thousand to fifteen

                GARFIELD: DEFENSE OF THE KANSAS FRONTIER 343

                thousand. [91] The tribes represented were the Cheyenne, Arapahoe, Comanche, Kiowa, and Kiowa-Apache. Tall Bull, a prominent. Cheyenne war chief, ably stated the Indians' case when he told the commissioners that the red men were on the warpath to prevent Kansas and Colorado being settled by palefaces. He said that the Indians claimed that part of the country as their own, and did not want railroads built. through it to scare away the buffalo. At one time during the early stages of the conference it seemed that negotiations would stop and a general massacre ensue. Since there were less than five hundred soldiers present, the commissioners exhibited some uneasiness. Nevertheless, the Indians were kept in awe by a show of artillery, so the powwow continued. [92]

                Two treaties were drawn up and signed. On October 21 the commissioners reached their final agreement with the Comanche, Kiowa and Apache tribes. The Cheyennes held off until a week later, when they and their Arapahoe allies came to terms. The two treaties were nearly identical. According to the final arrangement the Indians agreed to

                (1) Withdraw all opposition to the construction of the Pacific railroads.
                (2) Relinquish their claims lying between the Platte and Arkansas.
                (3) Withdraw to reservations set apart for them.

                In return the Indians received the following concessions:
                (1) A large reservation and an enormous amount of supplies. (The Comanches, Kiowas and Apaches were assigned to a. reserve north of the Red river. The Cheyennes and Arapahoes were allotted about three million acres in the Cherokee outlet in Indian territory.)
                (2) The right to hunt south of the Arkansas river so long as the buffalo ranged there in such numbers as to justify the chase. No white settlements were to be allowed between the Arkansas river and the southern boundary of Kansas for a period of three years. [93]

                Contrary to a general impression which has grown up in the United States, the Medicine Lodge treaty did not bring peace to the frontier. After loading the Indians with guns and ammunition the Peace Commission promised to provide more for them the next spring. This mistaken policy on the part of the commissioners practically undid everything that had been accomplished by the treaty. It remained for the military authorities to bring about peace

                344 THE KANSAS HISTORICAL QUARTERLY

                by conquest in 1868. [94] Even from the standpoint of the Indian, the treaty was a failure. "The giving of a few presents and the signing of treaties by a few chiefs would not appease the Indians, whose livelihood, the buffalo, was being destroyed and driven away." [95] The young men of all the tribes bitterly opposed the treaty hence it could not be expected that the terms of the agreement would be observed.

                After the break-up of the great Medicine Lodge encampment the Indians headed south and west, leaving the Kansas frontier in peace during the fall and winter. Sheridan, upon taking command of the Department of the Missouri, reported everything comparatively quiet. [96] At the very close of the year reports reached Topeka of Indian depredations on White Rock creek in Republic county. These proved to be the work of a party of Omahas and Otoes. [97]

                The year 1867 was outstanding in the annals of plains warfare. Commencing early in the spring, the war between Indians and whites dragged through a long summer and well into the autumn. While no general massacre of settlers took place, there were over four hundred citizens murdered by the southern tribes in Kansas and Nebraska during 1866 and 1867. Sixteen engagements occurred during the latter year between Indians and United States troops in the Missouri department. So numerous, indeed, were the conflicts on the plains that one writer has credited the summer of 1867 with more actual cavalry fighting than any season in the ten years of plains combat from 1864 to 1874. [98] While this statement may be correct, it is well to add that the conflicts between the military and Indians during the year were not especially bloody. In the entire Department of the Missouri during 1867 nineteen soldiers were killed and fifty wounded, while only ten Indians were sent to the happy hunting grounds. [99]

                Notes

                1. Kansas Daily Tribune, Lawrence, December 12, 1865.
                2. "Report of Major General Cloud, K. S. M.," Adjutant General's Report, 1866, p. 3.
                3. Crawford, Kansas in the Sixties, pp. 231-232.
                4. Major Cloud's Report," p. 4.
                5. Crawford to Hancock, August 30, 1806, Correspondence of Kansas Governors, Crawford Copy Book, p. 39. Manuscript, Archives, Kansas Historical Society.
                6. Crawford, Kansas an the Sixties, p. 231.
                7. Root and Connelley, The Overland Stage, p. 47.
                8. Ibid., p. 55.
                9. Ibid., p. 310 Junction City Union, March 10, 1866.
                10. Root and Connelley, The Overland Stage, p. 100.
                11. Governor Crawford's annual message, 1867, Senate Journal, Kansas Legislature, 1807, p. 35.
                12. Ibid.
                13. Ibid., p. 36.
                14. Ibid., p. 37.
                15. General Cloud to T. J. Anderson, adjutant general, July 5, 1866, Adjutant General's Correspondence. (Kansas.) Archives, Kansas Historical Society.
                16. Cloud's Report, Adjutant General's Report, 1866, p. 5.
                17. News item, Junction City Union, August 25, 1866.
                18. Governor's Message, Crawford, 1867, pp. 37-38. Liquor traffic was already prohibited by federal law in the Indian country, which included the unorganized counties of Kansas. The law was not being well enforced, however. Crawford felt that enforcement could best be accomplished by state law. He adopted the theory that the state government held jurisdiction over the entire state whether organized into counties or not. In taking this position he differed sharply with the interpretation of the commander at Fort Harker, who held that the federal government had sole jurisdiction over the region.
                19. House Journal, Kansas Legislature, 1867, p. 929.
                20. Letter to John Sherman, October 20, 1866 The Sherman Letters (Correspondence between Gen. w. T. Sherman and Senator John Sherman, 1837-1891. Edited by Raphael Sherman Thorndike. New York, Charles Scribner's Sons, 1894), p. 277. Hereafter cited as The Sherman Letters.
                21. Crawford, Kansas in the Sixties, p. 251.
                22. William E. Connelley, "The Treaty Held at Medicine Lodge," Kansas Historical Collections, v. XVII, pp. 601-606. Hereafter cited as Connelley, "Medicine Lodge Treaty."
                23. The narrative of Hancock's War is taken from Mr. Connelley's article.
                24. Connelley, "Medicine Lodge Treaty," p. 603.
                25. For a criticism of Hancock's judgment see Grinnell, The Fighting Cheyennes, p. 239.
                26. Letter from B. Marshall to Col. John B. Anderson, September 18, 1867, the John B. Anderson Papers. Personal correspondence of Col. John B. Anderson, prominent eastern financier, Archives, Kansas Historical Society. Hereafter cited as the John B. Anderson Papers.
                27. Dispatch from Denver, April 22, in Junction City Union, April 27, 1867.
                28. C. K. G., Crawford (telegrams), pp. 42-43. Archives, Kansas Historical Society.
                29. Ibid., p. 43.
                30. Ibid., p. 134.
                31. Ibid., p. 37.
                32. Crawford to Stanton, June 22, 1867, C. K. G., Crawford (Telegrams), p. 133.
                33. Crawford to Stanton, June 24, 1867, Ibid., p. 133.
                34. Crawford to commanding officer at Fort Leavenworth, June 24, 1867, Ibid., p. 135.
                35. Adjutant General McKeever to Governor Crawford, June 24, 1867. Adjutant General's Correspondence, 1867 (Kansas).
                36. Crawford to Haskell, June 24, 1867. C. K. G., Crawford (Telegrams), p. 134.
                37. Ibid.
                38. Crawford, Kansas in the Sixties, p. 256.
                39. Sherman to Crawford, June 26, 1867, C. K. G., Crawford (Telegrams), p. 43.
                40. General n. J. Smith to Governor Crawford, June 27 and 28, 1887, Ibid., p. 44.
                41. Crawford to Sherman, June 28, 1867, Ibid., p. 44.
                42. Sherman to Crawford, July I, 1887, Ibid., p.45.
                43. Letter from Sherman to Dodge, January 18, 1867, Grenville M. Dodge, Personal Recollections of Abraham Lincoln, Ulysses S. Grant, and William T. Sherman (Council Bluffs, Iowa, The Monarch Printing Co., 1914), p. 198. Hereafter cited as Dodge, Personal Recollections. Sherman had referred to the Indian wars as follows: "I want to punish and subdue the Indians, who are the enemies of our race and progress, but even in that it is well sometimes to proceed with due deliberation."
                44. Letter to Senator John Sherman, September 28, 1887, The Sherman Letters, p. 298. In reference to Senator Henderson's theory that congress had not intended to furnish governmental protection to transportation companies, Sherman emphatically stated that he, himself, had always acted upon the theory that when congress located a road it amounted to a promise to protect that road.
                45. Sherman to Dodge, May 27, 1887, Dodge, Personal Recollections, pp. 200-201.
                46. Ibid.
                47. Sherman to Crawford, June 24, 1887, C. K. G., Crawford (Telegrams), p. 50.
                48. Leavenworth Daily Conservative, July 10, 1867.
                49. Sherman's assertion that high waters was the chief cause for the delay in railroad construction is substantiated by the fact that the bridges all along the Union Pacific, eastern division, were built too low, thus inviting destruction of the road bed by floods. Statement of B. Marshall to Col. John B. Anderson, September 18, 1867. The John B. Anderson Papers.
                50. C. K. G., Crawford (Telegrams), p. 47.
                51. Sherman to Crawford, July 10, 1867, C. K. G., Crawford (Telegrams), p. 48.
                52. Leroy R. Hafen, The Overland Mail, 1869-1869 (The Arthur H. Clark Company, Cleveland, 1926), p. 319.
                53. Senate Debate 1867, Cong. Globe, 40 Cong., 1 seas., p. 688.
                54. House Ex. Doc., No.1, 40 Cong.,2 sess., pp. 4-5.
                55. Ibid., p. 5.
                56. Printed in the Leavenworth Daily Conservative, July 10, and 11, 1867.
                57. Senate Debate, 1867, Cong. Globe, 40 Cong., 1 sess., p.688.
                58. Letter to Senator Sherman, July 16, 1867 (written from Fort Harker), The Sherman Letters, p. 290.
                59. Leavenworth Daily Conservative, July 10, 1867.
                60. Reprint of Sherman's letter of July 19 to the St. Louis Republican, Leavenworth Daily Conservative, July 23, 1867.
                61. Ibid.
                62. B. Marshall to Col. John B. Anderson, Sept. 18, 1867. The John B. Anderson Papers.
                63. C. K. G., Crawford (Telegrams), pp. 136 47.
                64. Ibid., p. 48.
                65. Ibid., p. 69 (the italics are mine).
                66. Crawford's instructions to Colonel Moonlight, of Leavenworth, July 5, C. K. G., Crawford (Telegrams), p. 136.
                67. Crawford's instructions to Col. John A. Martin, of Atchison, July 8, Ibid.
                68. Wilder, Annals of Kansas, July 15, 1867.
                69. Annual Report of the Military Division of the Missouri, October 1, 1867, Report of Secretary of War, 40 Cong., 2 sess., pp. 34-35.
                70. "The Battle of Beaver Creek," George B. Jenness, Kansas Historical Collections, v. IX, pp. 443-452.
                71. General Hancock's report to Governor Crawford, Aug. 24, C. K. G., Crawford (Telegrams), pp. 38-39.
                72. Crawford, Kansas in the Sixties, p. 261.
                73. Wilder, Annals of Kansas, p. 468.
                74. Letter from news correspondent in Denver, Leavenworth Daily Conservative, July 18, 1867.
                75. Reprint from Junction City Union, Leavenworth Daily Conservative, July 25, 1867.
                76. Reprint from Denver News of July 27, Leavenworth Daily Conservative, August 4, 1867.
                77. Leavenworth Daily Conservative, July 27, 1867.
                78. Crawford, Kansas in the Sixties, p. 280.
                79. Crawford to Sherman, August 5, 1867, C.K.G., Crawford (Telegrams), p.138.
                80. Sherman's Annual Report, Report of the Secretary of War, 40 Cong., 2 sess., p. 37.
                81. C. K. G., Crawford (Telegrams), p. 34.
                82. Ibid., p. 138.
                83. Ibid., p 138 The two telegrams are similar to content, the first having been directed to Sherman at Omaha, while the second was sent the following day to St. Louis. Crawford apparently wanted to e sure that Sherman would get the message immediately.
                84. Ibid., p. 40.
                85. Letter to Col. John B. Anderson, the John B. Anderson Papers.
                86. Telegram to Crawford, August 10, 1867, C. K. G., Crawford (Telegrams), p. 38.
                87. Leavenworth Daily Conservative, August 11, 1867.
                88. Letter to J. R. Mead, an Indian trader, Sept. 4, 1867, C. K. G., Crawford (Copy Book), p. 57.
                89. The Sherman Letters, p. 296.
                90. Connelley,"Medicine Lodge Treaty," pp. 603-604.
                91. Connelley says 5,000. Crawford estimated the total number of warriors at 3,000. This would mean a total population of approximately 7,500.
                92. Crawford, Kansas in the Sixties, p. 277.
                93. Terms of the Medicine Lodge Treaty derived from: Sheridan, Personal Memoirs, v. II, p. 284 Crawford, Kansas in the Sixties, p. 278 Charles J. Kappler, Indian Affairs, Laws, and Treaties, v. I, p. 764.
                94. Connelley, "Medicine Lodge Treaty," pp. 604-605.
                95. Grinnell, The Fighting Cheyennes, p. 266.
                96. Sheridan, Personal Memoirs, v. II, p. 282.
                97. Letter from Thomas Lovewell to Governor Crawford, December 23, 1867, Adjutant General's Correspondence, 1867 (Kansas).
                98. James A. Hadley, "The Death of Lieutenant Kidder," Indian Depredations and Battles, Clippings, v. I. p. 64., Kansas Historical Society.
                99. Report of the Secretary of War, 1867, 40 Cong., 2 sess., Ser. No. 1324, pp. 45, 46.

                Kansas History: A Journal of the Central Plains

                The latest in scholarship on Kansas history, published quarterly since 1978 by the Kansas Historical Foundation.


                Watch the video: Battle of Königgrätz 1866 - Austro-Prussian War DOCUMENTARY (January 2022).