Re: Attachment levels [DS2]

Hi,

Also remember that technology for support services may reach such a 
high level that attachment is no longer required.  

For example -- why couldn't EW/Comms be handled by an extremely 
good, expert AI system, included with command vehicles?  Reduces
your intelligence section to the three or four analysis/interrogators,
plus liasion to the appropriate levels.  The need for other items may
be reduced or eliminated -- if you're operating with a naval squadron,
for example, base services would be provided by the squadron.  

However, what this does indicate is that a self-sustaining force has to
be of a minimum size; below that size, capability is going to be 
sacrificed, and you can't get around that.  A battalion task force
will not be able to deploy for sustained independent operation 
without a lot of attachments, and it's uneconomical to make these
attachments a permanent part of battalion TO&E.   (I think I'm
agreeing with Tom here.  (8-) )

JGH

"Barclay, Tom" wrote:
> 
> Mike brown replied to my original post, chock full of good info.
> My further comments marked with [Tomb].
> 
> First, one overridding question: Mike's answers were based (I think)
on
> modern doctrine, which is what I asked for. Let us project that the
forces
> fighting in the Tuffleyverse will often tend to be smaller (due to
transport
> requirements) in total size and more self-reliant, so they may not
have
> higher-level formations to draw on. This suggests attachment of some
higher
> level assets at lower level (even if in small qty) does it not?
Because a
> capability usually present at brigade or corps level may still be
required
> by a b'n sized force if the nearest brigade HQ is light-years out.
> 
> Perhaps this suggests some positions are multi-role (ie the doctors do
> dentistry too in these cases). This might be a requirement given that
> supporting men and machines in vast numbers is problematic. Thoughts?

[MUNCH]

-- 
*** Jerry Han - jhan@warpfish.com - http://www.warpfish.com/jhan ***
    "Life's not long, so I hope when I am finally dead and gone,
    won't you gather 'round? When I am lowered into the ground..."
	  Crash Test Dummies, "At My Funeral" -- TBFTGOGGI
From - Wed Dec 13 16:38:53 2000
Return-Path: <owner-gzg-l@scotch.csua.berkeley.edu>
Received: from scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (scotch.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[128.32.43.51])
	by lilac.propagation.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id MAA17953;
	Mon, 11 Dec 2000 12:00:12 -0600
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost)
	by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with SMTP id
eBBHxds24829;
	Mon, 11 Dec 2000 09:59:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (bulk_mailer v1.12); Mon, 11 Dec
2000 09:59:38 -0800
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
	by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) id eBBHxb224808
	for gzg-l-outgoing; Mon, 11 Dec 2000 09:59:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from soda.csua.berkeley.edu
(IDENT:g06Re3Yp7/+wVjGBb7HZkyuWW2arTfcf@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[128.32.43.52])
	by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id
eBBHxaP24803
	for <gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU>; Mon, 11 Dec 2000 09:59:36
-0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp4.quixnet.net (psmtp4.array3.laserlink.net
[63.65.123.54] (may be forged))
	by soda.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.1) with ESMTP id
eBBHxZf13950
	for <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>; Mon, 11 Dec 2000 09:59:35 -0800
(PST)
	(envelope-from LASERLIGHT@QUIXNET.NET)
Received: from hqmknt04enu ([63.88.48.82])
	by smtp4.quixnet.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id MAA25398
	for <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>; Mon, 11 Dec 2000 12:59:34 -0500
(EST)
Message-ID: <001101c0639c$25a34940$1e0aa8c0@hqmknt04enu>
From: "Chris DeBoe" <LASERLIGHT@QUIXNET.NET>
To: <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>
References:
<9DB05BB477A8D111AF3F00805F5730100D1006E7@exchange01.dscc.dla.mil>
Subject: Re: [OT] Military Rank Comparison
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 12:59:45 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200
Sender: owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
Reply-To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Delivered-To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Status:   
X-Mozilla-Status: 0000
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
X-UIDL: 39d245de00000839

Jane's has it for Naval ranks, near the front of the book IIRC.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Bell, Brian K (Contractor)" <Brian_Bell@dscc.dla.mil>
To: "Gzg-L (E-mail)" <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>
Sent: Monday, December 11, 2000 12:49 PM
Subject: [OT] Military Rank Comparison

> OK, I'm going to show my ignorance (again). 
> 
> Does anyone know of a good chart (preferably on the web) of Military
Rank
> comparisons from different services and different countries?