Page:John Banks Wilson - Maneuver and Firepower (1998).djvu/286

264 when it asked the Infantry School to examine both infantry and airborne infantry regiments. Four goals were to guide the effort: elimination of nonfighters; expansion and more effective use of firepower; simplification and improved organization and control; and a reduction in the size of the regiment. Army Field Forces dropped the last goal when it decided austerity should begin in service and support units before being applied to infantry and airborne infantry regiments. Both regiments were to be alike except for the number of antitank weapons.

The infantry regiment recommended by the Infantry School consisted of three rifle battalions, a headquarters and headquarters company, a service company, an antitank company, and a weapons company armed with .50-caliber machine guns. Removed from the regiment were the medical, heavy mortar, and tank companies. Assets of the tank company were transferred to the division and those of the heavy mortar company to the division artillery; instead of the medical company, medical personnel were assigned directly to the infantry battalions. The study proposed merging the heavy weapons company of each infantry battalion with the battalion headquarters company, except for the heavy .50-caliber machine guns, which were to be integrated into each battalion's three rifle companies. Additional automatic rifles were placed in the battalions, and more communication personnel were assigned throughout the regiment.

Maj. Gen. Robert N. Young, Commandant of the Infantry School, had many reservations about the proposed changes and believed that thorough field testing was needed to evaluate them. As a result, an underequipped and understrength 325th Infantry, an element of the 82d Airborne Division, began testing the organization in May 1953 and completed the evaluation in September. The results indicated that the proposed regimental organization was less effective than the one then being used in Korea.

In the meantime, the Tactical Department of the Infantry School had also begun work on a new type of infantry division. The redesign effort also sought to eliminate nonfighters and to increase firepower as well as to simplify the organization and improve control at the divisional level by using task force organizations similar to those in the armored division. A fixed organization such as an infantry regiment, the studies noted, forced the commander to base his operational plans on the organization rather than on the mission. Task force structures would permit him to organize his forces to accomplish a broader variety of missions. The division that evolved consisted of three brigade headquarters, nine infantry battalions, two armored battalions, division artillery, and combat and combat service support. The brigade headquarters elements had no permanently assigned combat or support units. No reduction resulted in the size of the division, which totaled 18,762 officers and enlisted men.

In April 1954 Army Chief of Staff Ridgway shifted the emphasis of divisional studies. Under pressure from the Defense Department for smaller units, he noted that divisions had increased firepower and capabilities but were larger and less mobile than their World War II counterparts. The possibility existed, he