previous post next post  

Train as you fight. Fight as you train.

So, there I am, visiting Bill and Bob's Excellent Afghan Adventure when I'm hit with a reverie bat. A reverie bat is like a cluebat - it provides sudden flashes of insight, but hurts less.

Memories of the Army in the 70's, training in the 80's,  Desert Shield and Storm in the 90's, and... the present.  In this case, Afghanistan.  This picture is what knocks all those disjointed memories out of the nooks and crannies...  the banner Old Blue uses for the blog - of an Afghan BMP and M113. 

Afghan Army BMP and M113, from the banner of Bill and Bob's Excellent Afghan Adventure blog: http://billandbobsadventure.blogspot.com/

It's the markings on the vehicles that cause the cascade.

Circle Trigon Party.  Aggressor Armed Forces.  Train as you fight.  Why are the French on that flank?  Heh.

So, if you're an old soldier...  Circle Trigon Armed Forces, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Aggressor Nation, Inc

That's the tagline I used to put on documents and such stuff meant to be found when searching "bodies" or POWs during training events back in the 70's.  That bring back some memories?

One of the lessons learned and relearned by armies throughout history is that if you train against your own troops using your own tactics... you get really good at fighting yourself.  Which, absent civil wars, you just don't do very often.

Plus, if you don't give your tactical intel guys realistic training, they tend to give unrealistic assessments, and don't have skills, like order of battle analysis, that would be nice to have. 

Heh. Okay, we still haven't really fixed that problem.  There still a lot of learning by doing going on.

However, the State Department, peaceniks, and some foreign nations get, well, downright cranky when you just throw some real, sovereign nation out there as the enemy you train against.  And they use it to justify cranky behavior on their part; oh, like taking off their shoe and pounding it on the table, etc.  So, what's a self-respecting army that would like to at least try to get it right to do? 

Create your own "enemy" of course.

Hence the birth of the Circle Trigon party, and Aggressor Nation.  Right after WWII.  The earliest version I've found of FM 30-102 Handbook on Aggressor Military Forces is dated June 1947 and was approved by Army Chief of Staff Eisenhower, whose approval line appears under this caveat:

1. FM 30-102, Handbook on Aggressor Military Forces, is published for the information and guidance of all concerned.
2. The country, peoples and forces described herein are entirely fictitious. Any resemblance to existing countries or forces is inadvertent and coincidental.
 
Emphasis in the original.  The program was extensive on paper, if perhaps somewhat haphazard in execution.  It laid out vehicle markings, special uniforms... and when fully implemented, the Aggressors were to speak in... Esperanto.  Yep.  There is even a documentary from the era available on DVD if you want it.   

The manual laid out the history of Aggressor Nation, had the de rigeur organizational wiring diagrams, with orders of battle and unit organizations.  There was a map of the territory, and symbology unique to Aggressor Nation to go along with that Esperanto, so you could do up your maps and overlays correctly, vice just using NATO-standard graphics.

This program survived into the 70's though it was petering out in my experience.  We revived it with a vengeance when we created the Combat Training Centers and the Battle Command Training Program in the 80's, with the three "dirt" CTCs and the the "digital" training center of BCTP soldiering on strong today - training facilities that are generally the envy of every other Army on the planet.

Train as you fight, fight as you train.  That was the mantra. 

One of the reasons we spent so much money on the dirt CTCs was to have a place where we could put a dedicated OPFOR (Opposing Force) with vehicles and uniforms that were modified to be dissimilar from ours.  Not our fault if those people most likely to oppose us also happened to supply military equipment and training to the people we were most likely to shoot at... so if it all looked very...um, well, Soviet - they had only themselves to blame. 

Because one of the problems with the Aggressor program was it used standard Army vehicles.  There were the special uniforms, with the funky helmet and Circle Trigon patch, like you see these guys wearing.

Aggressor armed forces personnel.   The picture is from this excellent site on the Berlin Brgade: http://www.berlin-brigade.de/aut-hist/us-maneuver.html 

The problem is - we were training tank and anti-tank gunners to shoot at... their own stuff.  Even if it did have a nice little Circle Trigon on it, like this M47 on the tank gunnery range at Graf.

US M47 on the Graf gunnery range - with Circle Trigon markings.

Or, like this Berlin Brigade M48, or this M113, also in USAREUR:

M113 with Circle Trigon maneuver markings.

One of the things about Desert Shield and Desert Storm was we found ourselves in a Coalition where people on our side, the Syrians and Egyptians, were equipped with Warsaw Pact gear - exactly the kind of gear we had just spent the last decade training our gunners to pull the trigger on.

For all the other tactical reasoning - one reason the French forces in Desert Storm were positioned where they were - on the Corps flank, [I goofed, and got called on it in the comments] one of the reasons the Saudis and Brits were between the Syrians and Egyptians and our guys... was the Pact-equipped folks wanted something between them and us, in case our guys engaged in reflexive shooting.  They'd heard about our training, and didn't want to validate our silhouette recognition and trigger reflexes.

Train as you fight, fight as you train.

Which brings us back to Old Blue's banner - I saw the Afghan Army markings... and my trigger finger got all itchy, in a "those were the days" kind of reverie.

And the picture just unifies the theme.  The M113, the BMP, the Circle Trigon-like markings.  From those three visuals in the picture, you can spin a tale of Army training over a six decade span.

Kewl.

And, it gave me something to write about.  No doubt some one will now fill the comment section with "Me too!" stuff about the Air Force and Navy Aggressor programs...

Several of the pictures used here came from this excellent website on the Berlin Brigade - which is maintained by a German, who has done a really good job.  They didn't all hate us!  If you are a Berlin Brigade vet, you owe it to yourself to visit - and if you've got pics to share - you should!

19 Comments

You have an error in memory.
The French were on the left flank of XVIII Corps
which was to the left of VII Corps
which was on the left of the Egyptian-Syrian Corps
(tri-border was the boundary between them and US). 
1st Cav Div was the Div to the left of the Soviet equipped units. 
I MEF was to the right of them in the pocket.
US/British/French equipped Arab units had the streach from I MEF to the sea.

The French were the far left screen with none of the arab forces near them.
The UK 1st Armored Div was closest to them,
it was just to the left of 1st Cav Div.
 
The only thing I don't understand...why are the Afghans painting the Circle Trigon mark on their armor?  Did we throw old equipment at them so they would have something to drive, and didn't bother painting over the marks?  Or did we get it from them to use as OPFOR?  Or is it just a coincidence and they painted it on their because it means something different to them?

No doubt some one will now fill the comment section with "Me too!" stuff about the Air Force and Navy Aggressor programs...

Haha okay...so here's what I wanna know...with SO many airframes flowing out of Russia for the past 50 years, why is it that we're still flying F-5s as OPFOR when we could be using the real deal?

 
The French were the far left screen with none of the arab forces near them.
The UK 1st Armored Div was closest to them,


I'm surprised the Brits weren't the ones with itchy trigger fingers...I know I would be, in their position...

 
Heh.  Well, I admit I didn't want to spend another hour or so on the post, DJ.  Ya caught me.  Sigh.  The memory comes from discussions I had at the Command and General Staff College, oddly enough.

Josh - those markings are the proper markings for the Afghan Army, and,if wikipedia is to be believed, actually date back, intermittently, to the 1880's.

Heh.  I found my notes.  It was the Saudis between 2AD and the Marines and Brits between the Arabs and 1st ID..  You're correct, DJ, an error in memory.  Nice thing about the Internet - I can fix it.
 
Josh sez
Haha okay...so here's what I wanna know...with SO many airframes flowing out of Russia for the past 50 years, why is it that we're still flying F-5s as OPFOR when we could be using the real deal?
Spare parts. ;)

Well, that, and there weren't that many airframes "flowing" out until after the fall of the USSR. Even then, many former Warsaw Pact countries (as John points out above) still used those aircraft in front-line units.

Not to mention Russian/Soviet engines suck rocks. Power plants have been a usually-unappreciated advantage for the West since the beginning of the 20th century.

And the avionics are primitive, and would need replacement so that the pilots could interface with our networks.

So we have: relative paucity of airframes, crappy engines, and dissimilar avionics. Oh, and no spare parts.

It's probably cheaper to use the F-5s, although I thought the A-4s were a great idea.


 
Hey John,

RE: the picture of the BMP and M-113. Do the Afghans carry two sets of tools to fix and or repair their equipment? They would need metric to work on the former Russian stuff and Craftmans to work on our old stuff. Is Sears in the area? It just popped into my head.

I think I need a nap.
 
I dunno.  Mebbe some of our Afghan vets can chime in.

I do know that every tool set I've bought in the last decade has had both metric and imperial tools in it.

Which, of course, has nothing to do with anything military.
 
Besides the engines (which I'm sure drive it) the MC rate for soviet designed/built airframes is dismal.  When the Luftwaffe inherited MIG-29s from the fall of the wall they discovered that it was a struggle to make 30% MC rate, even as they were keepig their aging F-4Fs at 70+%.  That's not good enough when you spend a lot of money to set up a scenario at REd Flag, Green Flag, etc...
 
with SO many airframes flowing out of Russia for the past 50 years, why is it that we're still flying F-5s as OPFOR when we could be using the real deal?

The number is actually rather low, and then there's the problem with spare parts.
OPFOR army forces usually use(d?) standard equipment fitted with plywood or fiberglass panels to make them look more like WarPac hardware.
Some helicopters were similarly modified to look like WarPac choppers.
With high performance aircraft this is not an option.

As an alternative the Navy leased several IAI KFirs from Israel, to give the flyboys something to fight against that didn't look and fly as much like a Phantom or Tomcat.
The F-5E was chosen because of its similarity in size, speed, and agility to the MiG-21. When engaging at near-BVR ranges it suffices quite well. When closer in, the speeds are far higher than they are for most land engagements, and identity is more readily established by behaviour than looks alone.
 
As to MiG-29 engines, they're rated at 500 hours.
That's not 500 hours between overhaul, it's 500 hours until they're ready for the scrapheap.
 
Actually, when they first showed up at Langley for their inaugural visit to the States after the Wall fell, an AN-124 was in tow, stuffed to the gunwales with spare engines. The Russians told us they swapped them out at 60 (yeah, six-zero) hours. And you're right J.T....they don't do "maintenance" on engines, they just replace them, or did.

When I got to war college, one of the profs did his PhD dissertation on Soviet industrial techniques. The use-and-toss attitude, he believed, came from the experiences of WW II. No time to do any of that refurb nonsense; just spit another one out from the East-of-the-Urals assembly lines and GET TO BERLIN! That approach STILL hadn't gone away as late as the early 80s.
 
Snerk!  I told ya the aviation types would take it over...
 
Of course we did...;)
 

The banner picture looks at home on your site, John.  It's an honor to have the reference. 

Afghanistan is like Alice's Restaurant when it comes to hardware.  It will probably be Pakistani, but it will work in a pinch.   You just need to know where to find it.   My terp found cell phone chargers with clips to hook directly to a 12 volt car battery in the bazaar in a small town.  Plus, I'm sure we provided them with tool kits for the 113's.  The Afghan drivers were actually pretty interested in their vehicles.  They keep the old Russian dogs running.  I've got some video of them firing the gun on the BMP.  

It freaked me out to see the Daschka on the 113, though.  They Afghans were very proud of that gun.   Very simple, very hard to mess up.  Big, powerful cartridge.  Not what you are used to seeing on a 113.   Seeing the two vehicles in the same livery in a war was bizarre. 

 

   
I just finished Red Eagles: America's Secret MiGs by Steve Davies, which gives a good account of how hard it was to keep just a handful of MiG-17s, -21s, & -23s operational, and to train people to fly them.  Good read.

http://www.amazon.com/Red-Eagles-Americas-General-Aviation/dp/1846033780
 
I know two of the US pilots originally trained *here* back in the DreamTime to fly the Mi-8 and Mi-17 and another one who's just an Mi-24 guy. The engines got swapped out at 300 hours and went to the recycle bin to get turned into soda cans.

I still have my Green Trigon ID card and my "paybook" stashed in a drawer at home -- and yeah, everything's in Esperanto.
 
Sh1fty - I added it to my Amazon shopping list, thanks.

BillT - So did you all have to learn to read Esperanto?
 
If you know Spanglish, you can read Esperanto, Josh.