FW: FW: MP organization

John,

> They just seem like different people in Kosovo than
> they are in garrison pulling me over at 0200 because
> I'm in a wee bit of a hurry to get home.  Besides
> that, I got a bit soured on garrison MPs when I found
> out that the two MP platoons we had at our kaserne in
> Germany had to strip another MP unit of troops to
> deploy because they had lost 23 (out of about 70
> total) of their troops to a sting operation involving
> a heroin ring.

This is *far* too normal a situation.  In general, all enlisted MPs
dream of
being in a law enforcement activity (LEA) unit - the closest thing MPs
have
to real (read civilian) cops.  In fact, this is *not* where most of them
end
up - and they resent it.  The recruiters spend a lot of time convincing
them
that that they'll be prime candidates for civilian policing when they
get
out.  In general, this is not the case.

> *Blink, blink*   I'm pretty sure we had MPs in WWII.
> How did that work?

The MP Regiment became a separate entity about 35 years ago.  Yes, we
had
MPs, but not at all like what we have now.  I don't have the facts
straight
any more - I'll have to look them up for you.  I braindumped most of
that
when I got out.  But for a long time, MP duty was not a primary mission,
but
rather something you were detached to.	Back to this later.

> I don't see how that works at all from the standpoint
> of simply arranging these things on your body to
> carry, so I agree.

Frankly, it *doesn't* work.  Ideally, you leave the heavy stuff attached
to
the vehicles.

Unless, of course, you have a platoon leader who thinks that vehicles
can
break and who makes you learn to function without the vehicles.  (Read
"me".)	Then you get cussed out a LOT.	And you learn to carry the
stuff.
You just can't actually use any of it without putting something down. 
Or
getting creative.

> Theoretically:  On those missions where you didn't
> need a SAW, would it make more sense to have a 12ga?

Not in general, no.  We had shotguns as well - but they stayed in the
armsroom and were only pulled for garrison or riot duty, not for combat
duty.

> And the genius that thought this up?

Stupid.  And obviously had no combat experience.  I'll go so far as to
say
they had no field experience.  And then someone will go look up the guy
who
wrote the TOE and prove me wrong.  <shrug>  Fact is, it's stupid. 
Reality
is that they were probably trying to cut costs.

> Now, how do these teams operate?  Junior man obviously
> drives, but does the team leader sit on the right seat
> and the guy in the middle man (SPC, I presume?) the
> gun?

Got it in one.	Except that the junior man is usually the gunner, 'cause
the
middle guy doesn't want to have to carry it.  All MPs want to drive. 
It's
just as much part of their nature as thinking that putting on a brassard
makes them bullet-proof.  Now add in the fact that, in theory, the teams
are
supposed to be able to operate as individual 3 man teams, 24/7.  Which
essentially means two up, one down.  Another piece of doctrine with
which I
thoroughly disagree.

And is that enough dismounts?  Would a fourth
> man be better?  If a squad needs to dismount to do
> whatever, do you just pull the trucks over and leave a
> guy to watch then, or a driver each, or full crews?

<chuckle>  You learn to work with it.  I don't know that a fourth would
be
better, per se - it really would depend on the mission.  In general, if
you
need to dismount, you either leave the vehicle behind (if not needed) or
leave a security element for it.  If you had specifics, I could tell you
how
I'd deploy to handle it, but the situations vary so drastically (along
with
the political situation as well) that I really can't comment on this
generally.  Because we have three man teams, we plan accordingly, and we
generally don't plan to work in other size elements.

> Hrm. . . Now that's the sort of info I need as
> well--what should there be?  Given that you want a
> medic, commo, and mechanic, whose vehicles do they
> ride in?  I figure you can fit one, maybe two each in
> with your PSG and the PL.  Should the PSG get an
> unarmed cargo HMMWV instead of an uparmored one with a
> .50 cal?

PSG should get a cargo hummer, and the rest of our imaginary HQ squad
should
have a maintenance vehicle - probably another cargo hummer given the
current
selection of available vehicles.

> I've always assumed that divisional MPs focused on
> fighting and MP brigade MPs focused on being cops.
> That made sense to me--after all, engineers in the
> division focus far more on combat than construction so
> I guess I assumed that was how it was with everyone.
> If that were the setup you'd still have people hopping
> back and forth between field and garrison units
> through their career, but any given unit would keep
> the same focus.  And I've never been pulled over by a
> divisional MP, always an MP brigade MP.

Nope.  Wrong assumption.  <grin>

I was assigned to a brigade MP company, and spent more time in the field
than any of my divisional counterparts.  The reason you're used to
seeing
brigade MP's is that the LEA I mentioned earlier is generally part of an
MP
brigade, but that unit has a radically different structure than the MP
platoons we've been discussing so far.	Mind you, the divisions had
fewer
assets available, so people didn't see them as much, but they were out
there.

The core law enforcement activities are usually handled by the LEA, but
then
augmented by whatever MP assets are available on post.	Some divisional
commanders are better than others at keeping their MPs out of law
enforcement duties.  But I've been a number of places where that wasn't
the
case, and all available MPs rotated in and out of law enforcement duty
(with
the exception of correctional officers, which is an entirely different
MOS).
I won't further complicate matter by getting into a discussion of CID
and
*it's* wierd structures at the moment.

In general, an MP unit has too many focuses - both combat and garrison
duty - unless they're *really* lucky.

Best,

Kiara