12th Cavalry Regiment’s Early Contribution to Building Post-Vietnam Armored Force: Ground Force for Air-Cavalry Combat Brigade Tests I and II

It was 1971; the Army was following a trajectory of disengagement from its operations of the last decade in Viet nam. Looming large on the horizon was the Army’s viability to confront an ag gressive Soviet Bloc force on the plains of Europe, especially with its diminished armored-force capabilities of the day. To remedy this shortfall, the Army had begun a range of force-design initia tives that would result in the fielding of the AH-64 Apache attack helicopter, M-1 Abrams main battle tank, M-2 Bradley Infantry Fighting Vehicle, M-3 Bradley Cavalry Vehicle and other sys tems, as well as the modified tables of organization and equipment that were introduced for U. S. armored forces in the middle 1980s. Two of the early initiatives in this massive project occurred at Fort Hood, TX, in 1971-72. The 1st Battalion, 12th Cavalry, and 1st Battalion, 13th Armor, played significant roles in this effort. The first of these two initiatives was the extensive six-month program of Air-Cavalry Combat Brigade (ACCB) Test I conducted at Fort Hood and ad ministered by the U. S. Army’s Modern Army Selected Systems Test, Evaluation and Review project. The test was an effort to study and evaluate how experience and lessons-learned in the appli cation of air-assault and attack-helicopter capabilities developed and applied in Vietnam might also apply to a European situation against Soviet ground forces. The 1st Cavalry Division had been returned from Vietnam and reorganized as a tri-capability division with one armored brigade, one attack-helicopter brigade and one air-assault brigade to support the test. Company A of the division’s 1st Brigade, 2nd Battalion, 12th Cavalry Regiment, saw its 1st Platoon placed under the operational control of Company A, 1st Battalion, 13th Armored Regiment, for the six months of Test I. The platoon returned to the control of its parent unit at the conclusion of the test. Preparing to deploy The parent company of the test platoon then needed to prepare for de ployment with the entire 2nd Battalion for the several weeks of maneuver that would comprise Test II. Unfortunately, due to other missions and funding, the other elements of Company A had only limited opportunity to train and exer cise tactically during the preceding six months. In addition, anew company command er had taken command two months earlier. Although he was an infantry captain, he had no prior experience with mechanized infantry. Fortunately, he was an open-minded officer with prior enlisted service, most as anon commissioned officer, so the new com pany commander called the 1st Platoon leader to his office for a meeting short ly after assuming command. The pur pose of the meeting was to discuss de velopment of a plan to tap into the maneuver expertise developed by the Figure 1. A Company A platoon leader observes forward from a track in a de fensive position during ACCB II.

platoon leader and Soldiers of 1st Platoon by devising an accelerated train ing program to bring the company and its other platoons to an enhanced level of maneuver proficiency. There was a limited time window to put a training effort in motion before the company would deploy for Test II. Time was of the essence. The two officers discussed several con cepts regarding how the compressed training program could be managed in the limited time available. The format decided on was almost entirely experi ential, and it would apply a “lane train ing approach.” Using a “demonstration and do” format within the lane train ing approach, the two officers expect ed to achieve a viable training com pression – a sort of crash course for the company. The leaders of the other platoons were responsible for prelimi nary checks, inspection of equipment and baseline individual and collective preparatory training with training ob jectives identified by the 1st Platoon leader. The effort would be an intense immersion in tactical maneuver by the platoons of Company A, 2–12 Cav. Emphasizing intensity To emphasize the intensity, the pla toons of Company A would be exer cised in various tactical-movement, defense and attack missions and scenar ios in lanes, allowing units to observe the veteran 1st Platoon, then execute with critique and execute again. This process continued until the platoons were proficient with the movement and employment of tracks, squads and platoons on the different scenarios to the standard the 1st platoon leader indicated. The company dedicated a full week to this concentrated maneuver-training rodeo. The 1st Platoon leader, who served as the company’straining officer, coordinated with range control for an excellent maneuver box he was familiar with in detail from Test II. It was selected for its ideal terrain for the purpose of this training concentration and for its close proximity to the cantonment to minimize lost time to travel. Some maneuver boxes were significant distances from the barracks – upward of 10 to 25 miles in some cas es. The distances would support movement-to-contact exercises. The company commander issued the order to deploy, and the company training officer took control of the company for the exercise. For a week, the platoons of the company savored the unique flavor of the dust of Central Texas as they went through one itera tion of movement-to-contact, attack, defend and do it again. They had feed back and lessons-learned sessions included in the training. By the end of the week, the platoons and their squads were proficient in these exercises. The squads, platoons and their vehicle crews became confident in their equipment and their ability to exercise it in these maneuvers. Attention was also given to mounted land navigation and command-and-control communications. At about midpoint in the training density, the company commander took command of the lanes’ maneuvers from his command track, gaining expe rience moving and maneuvering the company tactically from the track. By the end of the week, he was experienced in the movement of the compa ny and command-and-control suffi cient to deploy on Test II. Some more work would be done the following week to further enhance his abilities. The program developed by the 1st Platoon leader and the company commander worked well. Two weeks later, when the company crossed the start point for movement to its initial tactical assembly area for Test II, the com pany moved with confidence. It would continually improve on the skills and abilities gained during the weeks of the Test II. Lessons learned The vignette illustrates some interest ing takeaways of effective leadership under less-than-ideal conditions. A key constraint was a shortage of time to prepare a fairly large and complex or ganization, one that had not recently exercised and with anew leader who was not familiar with the type of organization. Figure 2. A Company A platoon sergeant and track driver work on an engine problem during ACCB II.

The first takeaway: The leader did not stand on bluffing or posturing around his lack of experi ence. He recog nized that he had an expert source in a subordinate and promptly appealed to that source to jointly develop a plan to prepare and then work the plan. He gave the subordinate the necessary authority to act. The subordinate accepted the task and responsibility. He acted swiftly to develop the plan, coordinate it and provide the necessary support. He aggressively executed the plan, while being careful to respect the commander’s preroga tives and position. When the company deployed and exe cuted its maneuver missions during the test, it did so with skill and competen cy under the company commander’s command. None of this would have been possible had leaders not moved beyond ego and focused instead on the mission, how best to prepare, doing that preparation and keeping leader ship flexible and tailored to the task. Although inexperienced at the start, a deploying on the first Continental U. S. multidivision force-on-force maneuver exercise to be conducted by the Army as it came out of Vietnam. The multi-week Gallant Hand Exercise saw Company A perform well as a mechanized-infantry company. The company met its regimental motto well: “Semper Paratus” or “always pre pared.” Retired LTC Tom Rozman is employed as the principle, TRR and Associates, LLC. He has served as director, Collective Training Directorate, Deputy Chief of Staff for Training, U. S. Army Training and Doctrine Command, Fort Monroe, VA; force-development officer for infantry and lethality systems, Department of the Army Armored Family of Vehicles Task Force, Pentagon and Fort Eustis, VA; assistant G-3, 1st Armored Division, Ansbach, Germany; battalion executive officer and acting command er, 1-46 Mech, Erlangen, Germany; battalion executive officer, 2-6 Mech, Er langen; and commander, Company A, 1-58 Mech, Fort Benning, GA. His mili tary schooling includes Command and General Staff Officer’s Course, Infantry Officer’s Advanced Course, Infantry Officer’s Basic Course, Parachute School and Ranger School. He holds a bache lor’s of science degree in engineering from the U. S. Military Academy, West Point, NY, and a master’s of business administration from the University of Massachusetts. His awards and honors include the Legion of Merit and three awards of the Meritorious Service Medal. Figure 3. The Company A commander provides guidance during ACCB II. ACCB – air-cavalry combat brigade Acronym Quick-Scan competent leader team formed among the officers and noncommissioned officers. They gelled through the lane training and even more so during the test. The company would continue to build on this foundation, eventually

Figure 4, left. A squad leader in 1st Platoon mounts up his squad during

ACCB II.