Department of the Army Historical Summary: FY 1976

III.

Force Development

The U.S. Army is that combination of active and reserve forces with civilian support elements designed to meet the needs of national security. Accordingly, the Army in 1974 began planning for sixteen active divisions which, given adequate resources, will be operational during fiscal year 1978.

Military and civilian manning, active units and reserve components, combat forces and support echelons, nuclear and conventional capabilities, and overseas and CONUS deployments—these are the factors that together are referred to as force structure. In 1973 Chief of Staff Creighton W. Abrams recommended major changes in Army force structure, primarily because of the continuing Soviet threat and the imminence of nuclear parity. The core of these changes was the call for sixteen active divisions, an increase of three above existing force levels.

To implement a sixteen-division force, the Army decided to convert 50,000 support spaces to combat spaces, rather than seek an increase in manpower. Limitations on personnel, however, meant that the three new divisions would have only two active brigades. The third brigade for each division would come from the National Guard, an approach that would help improve reserve component readiness. The cutback in active support forces also increased reliance on the reserve components for the bulk of support necessary to sustain the Army in combat. Four divisions in the sixteen-division force now have roundout brigades. In fiscal year 1976 the final two infantry divisions were activated: the 24th at Fort Stewart, Georgia, and the 5th at Fort Polk, Louisiana.

There were a number of changes in the Planning, Programming, and Budgeting System during the fiscal year. The Army’s Program Objective Memorandum was submitted for fiscal years 1978 through 1982, with emphasis on planning for 1978. The memorandum is the single document which presents total force programs, including manpower and materiel costs and supporting rationale. It was submitted to the Secretary of Defense as the Army’s recommendation for resource requirements within the guidelines published in the Defense Planning and Programming Guidance Memorandum (PPGM). The Program Objective Memorandum emphasized operational readiness, the ability of forces to deploy, the modernization of weapons systems, and improved use of manpower. Specific programs recommended sought to increase combat capability by

[18]

converting units, realigning headquarters, and reducing support troops. The Program Objective Memorandum also called for increased reliance on the reserve components and the development of heavy and light corps that could meet differing battlefield requirements.

Two major analyses were conducted by the Army staff on the past year’s Program Objective Memorandum. The first, Army Readiness Analysis (OMNIBUS 76), assessed the operational readiness of the Army. The study concerned three areas: the capability of the Army to deploy and sustain its combat forces, the performance implications of deficiencies in combat and support units, and possible changes in resource allocation that could improve force performance. The second analysis, Total Army Analysis, defined the minimum essential force structure for the active Army, the Army Reserve, and the National Guard. Based on these two analyses, the following year’s program for fiscal years 1979 through 1983 can be constructed and additional improvements in the Army’s force structure recommended.

A third related study was also conducted. Called the Conceptual Design for the Army in the Field (CONAF-V), it evaluated conceptual force designs in a total Army context within imposed budgetary constraints. Besides providing a basis for developing new force designs, CONAF-V reinforced the belief that enough early combat power could be provided to support the new NATO strategy of forward defense.

During the report year the Army continued the Support Activities Staffing Review as part of its emphasis on a balanced support structure with minimum staffing and grades for enlisted and civilian positions. Approximately 500 civilian positions were eliminated, 800 others were approved for downgrading, and the documentation of enlisted positions for elimination or downgrading was nearly completed by the close of the fiscal year. Civilian reductions and downgrading are continuing.

The Army’s Authorization Documents System (TAADS) established organizational, personnel, and equipment requirements to support Army units in the performance of their assigned missions. By September 1976 Army headquarters had received, primarily through its Automatic Digital Network, 1,106 modification tables of organization and equipment and tables of distribution and allowances for unique organizations. This figure was nearly 90 percent of the 1,331 required for the end of fiscal year 1977. Already 30 percent of the TAADS documentation needed for fiscal year 1978 is on file at Army headquarters.

A similar program for application at the installation level, Installation—The Army Authorization Document Systems (ITAADS), is being field tested and planned for extension to forty-five sites. The objective is to provide a more accurate and rapid system for documenting the authorized strength in manpower and equipment at installations.

[19]

In March 1976 the Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations and Plans asked the U.S. Army Strategic Studies Institute to write a comprehensive account of the Army’s roles and missions for publication. In September the Institute forwarded a draft, entitled “The Army: Roles and Principles,” and recommended that it be published as a field manual. Besides its coverage of roles and missions, the manual discusses principles for the employment of Army forces and the extent of the Army’s operational capabilities. The manual has been reviewed by the Army staff and is being prepared for publication next year.

The Army continued to develop its goals and objectives. The goals had to be definitive in order to assure coordinated effort, yet broad enough to avoid interference in command objectives. They were to provide a basis for measuring progress. In fiscal year 1975, the Army published a broad set of goals designed to improve the quality of its manpower, the use of its resources, and its preparations for the future. From those basic goals, the Army in fiscal year 1976 developed several objectives. One manpower objective is to determine how to build up adequate forces quickly after mobilization. Another is to continue to decentralize training and to emphasize performance standards and combat arms training. A personnel objective is to adhere more closely to prescribed tour lengths and increase time on station.

Doctrine for electronic combat received considerable attention this past year. Electronic warfare (EW) includes signals interception, identification, location, and jamming, and the deception of enemy command, control, intelligence, and weapons systems. Since electronic warfare is a very complex field and involves many elements of the Army, an Electronic Warfare Master Plan (EWMP) was prepared during the report year. It specifies EW objectives, defines policy, and identifies tasks that must be performed to achieve the position necessary for effective combat operations. Through this plan the Army monitors its major commands. A program to complement the Electronic Warfare Master Plan was started to improve Army plans, programs, and training criteria in electronic warfare. An important study was also conducted with the Air Force on joint EW operations.

The 1973 Arab-Israeli conflict underscored the importance of accumulating accurate information. Collecting electronic battlefield information through the interception of electromagnetic emissions is called signal intelligence electronic warfare. The Army has recognized that its equipment has not kept pace technologically with Soviet communications and other electronic equipment found on the battlefield. U.S. equipment is manually operated and slow. Accordingly the Army has been conducting a comprehensive program to develop equipment capable of support-

[20]

ing commanders at the division and corps level. There were budget requests this year for the development and purchase of hardware such as sound ranging systems and counterbattery radar.

On 3 May 1976 the Vice Chief of Staff approved a new doctrine for the use of counterbattery fire. Since World War I, counterbattery fire had been the traditional mission of artillery at the corps level, but it will now be transferred to the division and a target acquisition battery will be activated in each division. New tables of organization and equipment and field manuals reflecting the changes have been published. Three high-priority divisions of the U.S. Army Forces Command received target acquisition batteries on 21 June 1976, and other divisions will receive them over the next two years.

The antiballistic missile deployment at the Stanley R. Mickelson Safeguard Complex, Grand Forks, North Dakota, became fully operational on 1 October 1975, meeting to the day an objective set four years earlier. In February 1976, based upon an earlier recommendation by the Secretary of Defense to reduce the scope of Safeguard operations, Congress voted to discontinue the deployment of missiles at Grand Forks, but to retain the perimeter acquisition radar. All missiles were removed by the end of the fiscal year, and the perimeter acquisition radar was modified to provide expanded early warning and attack assessment.

Notwithstanding the discontinuance of Safeguard deployment, the Secretary of Defense directed the Army to conduct a rigorous research and development effort, within the provisions of the Antiballistic Missile Treaty, that would preserve U.S. options to develop and deploy a ballistic missile defense (BMD) system and preclude technological surprise by the Soviets.

The BMD research and development activity is centered in two interrelated programs—advanced technology and systems technology. The Advanced Technology Program is oriented to advance the state of the art of BMD components, improve the understanding of BMD phenomenology, and investigate the feasibility of new defensive concepts and technologies. Major research efforts are conducted in the areas of interceptor missiles, radar and optical sensors, data processing, and reentry physics. The Systems Technology Program deals with the development and deployment of BMD systems. These systems are kept current by incorporating the gains made through the Advanced Technology Program. The Kwajalein Missile Range, which is under the BMD Program Manager, provides the technical facilities and instruments for full-scale testing of BMD systems and components; it is also

[21]

used extensively by the other services for testing strategic offensive systems.

The Army has made the commitment to provide women an equal opportunity to participate in the nation’s defense, and in the past decade it has made much progress in expanding the number of roles open to them. Although they will not be assigned to units whose primary mission is combat or direct combat support, enlisted women are now serving in 371 (91 percent) of the military occupational specialties (MOS’s) ; the warrant officer program has also been opened to them. In May 1976, women received commissions for the first time through the Army Reserve Officers’ Training Corps (ROTC). As of 30 September women were enrolled in 280 of the 285 higher education institutions that offer Army ROTC. Enrollment data is shown below:

With the phase-out of the Women’s Army Corps Direct Commission Program, ROTC will become the major source of women officers by fiscal year 1978.

In addition to these programs, the United States Military Academy was opened to women, and 119 were admitted in July 1976 for graduation with the class of 1980. Male and female cadets receive common training, except for a few essential adjustments to accommodate physiological differences. The Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel has commissioned a special study, Project Athena, which will examine the impact of coeducation on West Point and on the women themselves.

While the Army was smoothly integrating women into its training cycle, it developed a new management tool to determine, forecast, and train the personnel for the all-volunteer Army. The Army Training Requirements and Resources System was the result. The automation provided by the system allowed the Department of the Army and the Training and Doctrine Command to cope with seasonal fluctuations and to integrate training management. Later efforts will bring the reserve components into the system so that their requirements can be better determined.

To save travel expenses associated with the transfer of basic combat training (BCT) graduates to their advanced individual training (AIT) locations and to reduce training costs, Congress requested that the Army test the one station unit training (OSUT) concept. One station

[22]

unit training combines both basic combat and advanced individual training in one location and uses the same training cadre for both programs. The Training and Doctrine Command conducted the study using 17,000 trainees at six locations. The results showed that OSUT programs produced qualified graduates more quickly than separate basic combat and advanced individual training. They also showed that trainee attitudes and morale were at least as high as those in separate BCT and AIT units. The Army expects that by fiscal year 1979 less than 20 percent of its trainees will have to move to other stations to continue training. By contrast, in 1972, 75 percent of the recruits received basic combat and advanced individual training at separate locations.

The Army continued to develop individual training programs for each specialty from advanced individual training through senior enlisted service in its Noncommissioned Officer Education System (NCOES). The system is an integral part of the Enlisted Personnel Management System (EPMS) and prepares soldiers to assume duty positions at higher skill levels. During the fiscal year, programs were started at the primary and basic training levels and implementation will continue throughout fiscal year 1977. Training was also fully established at both the advanced and senior levels o£ the Noncommissioned Officer Education System. The general NCOES structure is shown below:

In fiscal year 1976 the Vice Chief of Staff approved the recommendations contained in the Army Linguist Personnel Study. The study recommended that all intelligence officers possess at least an elementary proficiency in a foreign language and that language training programs be developed by the end of fiscal year 1977. During fiscal year 1976 the commander in chief of U.S. Army, Europe, requested and DA approved a special six-week “Gateway to German” language program for future USAREUR brigade and battalion commanders.

Acting upon the request of the Assistant Chief of Staff, Intelligence, the Army sought and got approval from the Department of Defense and the State Department to institute Opposing Force programs. Under the programs, soldiers will be trained to use Soviet weapons and tactics so that they can act as a realistic enemy during maneuvers.

On 3 and 4 March 1976 the Department of Electrical Engineering at the U.S. Military Academy issued a graded home study project to 823 cadets enrolled in its standard course, EE304. The study project was

[23]

turned in by each cadet two weeks later. During the grading of papers, a notation by a cadet admitting unauthorized collaboration led to the discovery that three papers had unusual similarities; however, later investigations indicated that a number of cadets were involved. The very nature of the problem and the esteem with which the academy is held by the nation brought both press and congressional scrutiny.

On 21 June the Secretary of the Army, the superintendent of the academy, and the commandant of cadets appeared for a hearing before the Senate Armed Services Subcommittee on Manpower and Personnel; at that time the number of cadets implicated in the EE304 situation was 171. In August the Secretary of the Army and the superintendent appeared against before the subcommittee; by then 202 EE304 cases had been referred to the superintendent. At the hearing the Secretary of the Army announced that he was appointing a special advisory panel to assess the situation and its underlying causes. Mr. Frank Borman, president and chief executive officer of Eastern Airlines, was appointed chairman of the panel. The secretary also stated that cadets who violated the honor code in respect to EE304 would be separated from the academy but allowed to apply for readmission in the spring of 1977. His action allowed cadets, who at that time had not been implicated, a ten-day grace period to admit unauthorized collaboration and be eligible to apply for readmission. The two-year active Army service requirement for dismissed cadets was waived. Finally, as a matter of equity, the secretary permitted all honor cases which arose during the 1975-76 academic year to be reviewed upon request.

Based on guidance issued by the Chief of Staff and Secretary of the Army, the 1976 Army Study Program was published in September 1975 with 459 individual studies identified as matters of high priority to the Army. The study areas were within the categories of science and technology, manpower and personnel, concepts and plans, operations and force structure, logistics, and management.

During the year Department of the Army Pamphlet 5-5 and Army Regulation 5-5 (revised) were published in response to DOD Directive 5010.22, The Management and Conduct of Studies and Analyses. This directive was the result of the Ad Hoc DOD Audit of Study and Analysis, in which the Army participated. This new directive will help to improve study management and interservice coordination.

[24]

Return to Table of Contents

	Return to CMH Online
	Last updated 7 September 2004