Train as We Fight: Training for Multinational Interoperability

67 July-September 2015 Train As We Fight: Training for Multinational Interoperability by LTC Paul B. Gunnison, MAJ Chris Manglicmot, CPT Jonathan Proctor and 1LT David M. Collins The 3rd Armored Brigade Combat Team (ABCT), 3rd Infantry Division, assumed the U.S. Northern Command (NORTH COM) regionally-aligned-force (RAF) mission March 1, 2014. NORTHCOM RAF consisted of operating as the quick-reaction force/rapid-response force for homeland defense and natu ral-disaster response, and theater-se curity cooperation (TSC) with our Mex ican and Canadian partners. This arti cle describes TSC support provided for Canada’s Exercise Maple Resolve 2014 by 3rd Squadron, 1st Cavalry Regiment. Exercise Maple Resolve was a major Canadian training exercise that took place in late May 2014 at the Canadian Maneuver Training Center, Canadian Forces Base Wainwright in Alberta, Canada. The purpose of this article is to provide a perspective on training for interoperability through training cen ters and share lessons-learned from 3-1 Cavalry to man, train and equip a scout platoon to operate as the con temporary-operating-environment force (COEFOR). Interoperability through training centers “Units should train in peacetime as they will fight in war.” –Field Manual (FM) 25-101, Battle-Focused Training, September 1990 The U.S. Army continues to operate un der the principle of “train as you fight” spelled out in FM 25-101. Leaders use realistic training and incorporate train ing aids to give their Soldiers the clos est experience of fighting in combat as possible. As the Army continues to transition from counterinsurgency-fo cused combat training center (CTC) ro tations to the decisive-action training environment, units must continue to incorporate training with coalition partners. The Army’s CTC program is the para mount training event for units prepar ing for deployment and is most often the means for leaders to validate that a unit is fully trained. It is during a CTC rotation that Soldiers should receive the most realistic training possible, tru ly heeding to the “train as you fight” mantra. Currently, Army Regulation 350-50 defines the CTC program’s mis sion as “providing realistic joint and combined-arms training, according to Army and Joint doctrine, approximat ing actual combat.” This mission statement is to be achieved through the following objec tives:

• Focus on a mission-essential task list with training for combat opera tions as part of the joint team.

• Train for unified land operations and decisive-action missions, in cluding offense, defense, stability and defense support of civil au thorities.

• Stress realistic, sustained, multiechelon and fully integrated collec tive combat training for brigade combat teams (BCTs), multifunc tional support brigades, functional support brigades, division and corps headquarters, Army service-component commands and opera tional headquarters so these units can fulfill missions as joint-force land-component commands or joint task forces.

• Focus on performance-oriented training in a realistic tactical or op erational environment assessed against established tasks, condi tions and standards.

• Support achieving and sustaining leader development and unit-warf ighting readiness using a combina tion of integrated live, virtual and constructive simulations.

• Facilitate commander’s readiness assessments through live-fire, force-on-force and computer-sim ulated exercises that integrate all aspects of lethal and nonlethal ef fects, tailored to the operational environment from platoon to corps level and based on unit-warfighting focus and CTC capabilities.

• Include instrumented urban-oper ations training experience during the rotation.

• Incorporate reception, staging, on ward movement and integration operations, regeneration and de ployment training.

• Fully integrate decisive actions.

• Execute mission-rehearsal exercis es for brigades and below and mis sion-readiness exercises for divi sions and above, as required. While the CTC program’s mission state ment ensures that units train for actu al combat as much as possible, the ob jectives should increase frequency to incorporate operations with other co alition partners. The program should include an additional objective for an interoperability training experience with a coalition force during the rota tion. Interoperability is the measure of the degree to which various organiza tions or individuals are able to operate together to achieve a common goal. In teroperability is an excellent measure of performance to ensure units are prepared to fight as a part of a coali tion force. Similar to our own CTC rotations, Can ada conducts Exercise Maple Resolve annually to validate its task forces’ readiness for deployment. As Canada’s largest annual exercise, Exercise Maple Resolve 2014 incorporated some 5,000 Soldiers from Canada, the United King dom and the United States (including active-duty, Reserve and National Guard units). The focus of this exercise ensures that the rotational unit is pre pared to deploy in support of a coali tion unit and accomplish the three mandates of the Canadian armed forc es:

• Protect Canada and defend its sov ereignty;

68 July-September 2015

• Defend North America in cooperation with the United States; and

• Contribute to international peace and security through operations around the world, most often in partnership with allies from other countries. Training for Maple Resolve The variation between U.S. CTC and Canada’s combat maneuver training center (CMTC) objectives poses several challenges in interoperability. The differences between traditional U.S. training objectives and those seen in Exercise Maple Resolve 2014 brought into focus some disparity in U.S. forces’ communication abilities, planning processes and tactics. The differing training objectives between the United States and Canada created several challenges such as degraded communication abilities, differing planning processes and differing tactics. Although the planning and deployment for Exercise Maple Resolve identified several lessons to increase interoperability, the opportunity for United States to train in Canada in Exercise Maple Resolve further strengthened the military-to-military partnership. The 3-1 Cavalry planned and executed a high-operational-tempo training timeline to train a wheeled scout platoon. The training consisted of the doctrinal training for a scout platoon, with more training to increase interoperability. The training timeline (Figure 1) describes training for 1/C/3-1 Cavalry’s scout platoon at Fort Benning, GA. The 3-1 Cavalry’s training approach:

• Maximize training through force-on-force. The 3-1 Cavalry leveraged section vs. section scenarios to create a force-on-force exercise achieving realistic training at the section level while t r a i n i n g b o t h s e c t i o n s simultaneously. This allowed the scouts to have an opposing enemy force working against them at all times, which increased the importance of mastering their fieldcraft as well as developing internal standard operating procedures (SOP) within their sections. Although efficient, this required external support for training support and validation to allow the entire platoon to be dedicated to the training event. Therefore, the platoon vs. platoon training not only supported the deploying unit but also was an opportunity to train sister platoons. Figure 1. Training glidepath to Exercise Maple Resolve 2014.

69 July-September 2015 For units selected to train in support of TSC missions, force-on- f o r c e t r a i n i n g p r o v i d e s opportunities to train multiple units, especially under a constrained timeline.

• Training in Canada. The time planned for 1/C/3-1 Cavalry to de ploy early to Canada allowed the platoon a training opportunity and familiarization with Canada’s CMTC terrain. Also, the platoon integrat ed to the Canadian element they augmented into and presented an opportunity to conduct formal training to learn their SOPs and how they maneuvered.

• Mounted/dismounted. The 1/C/3- 1 Cavalry deployed to primarily support as a mounted scout pla toon, but the advantages of focus ing both mounted/dismounted ca pabilities paid dividends in provid ing a larger capability set for the Canadians. During Exercise Maple Resolve, the platoon required enough parts for each vehicle to be on hand and easily accessible, so maintenance crews had to be on standby for mechanical issues and to ensure all vehicles stayed run ning and well maintained. More over, during the rotation, 1/C/3-1 Cavalry increased dismounted op erations to further support their Canadian counterparts. The pla toon conducted 26 missions and accrued a battle-damage assess ment of 37 vehicles, seven helicop ters and 289 dismounts – the high est throughout the exercise. Most of the damage the platoon was able to inflict was through limited mounted operations, with exten sive dismounted tasks to establish observation posts (OPs) unob served by the enemy. With the help of the Canadian fire-support cell, the platoon accurately delivered fires onto targets of opportunity, which aided in the prevention of enemy maneuver to the flanks, drawing them into key engage ment areas. The platoon’s ability to understand and leverage the Cana dians’ combat power was critical to their achievement.

• Training aids. U.S. training centers maintain their rank as among the best training centers in the w o r l d b e cause they use training aids such as the Multiple Integrated La ser-Engage ment System (MILES). To maintain training aids’ advantages, the platoon required the installation of the Canadi ans’ Weap ons-Effects Simulation (WES) sys tem, similar to the U.S.- equivalent MILES. How ever, interop erability to in stall the WES system to 1/C/3-1 Cavalry weapon systems created challenges. As a result, the Canadians creatively adapted the WES system to limit the amount of firepower the pla toon was able to engage enemy forces with due to the weapon’s smaller caliber. Therefore, future deploying U.S. forces at the Cana dian CMTC must allot planning time to deconflict training-aid compatibility.

• Vehicle identification. The Soldiers of 1/C/3-1 Cavalry required more vehicle-identification training. Upon arrival, the platoon leader ship requested from their Canadi an counterparts training on vehicle identification. The Canadians trained them on identifying enemy from friendly vehicles and under standing their weaknesses to de stroy threats. For units attending the training held at Canada’s CMTC, a vehicle study guide should be published and easily assessable for nation participation. These units should be tested on their knowl edge, similar to the U.S. version of the gunnery-skills test, before they attend training.

• Communication. The lack of in teroperability among coalition forces created setbacks in the ex ercise’s initial phases. Communica tion devices were not compatible, causing difficulties in reporting, limiting the amount of information obtained from the battlefield that could be passed to higher. Dis mounted Harris AN/PRC-150 radi os had to be used to establish a line of communications. Although the AN/PRC-150 allowed for an estab lished communication line, it could not be encrypted, which left the platoon’s transmissions open to in terception by electronic-warfare elements roaming the battlefield. The platoon countered this through the use of the terrain index-refer ence system and grid index-refer ence system, which allowed the platoon to operate in an unsecure net without compromising opera tional security. During their trainup, the platoon incorporated these methods during their section and platoon situational-training exer cise lanes. Figure 2. The 1st Platoon built multiple OPs throughout Ex ercise Maple Resolve to observe significant information on named areas of interest, which contributed to the COE FOR mission’s overall success. Maple Resolve was held at Fort Wainwright, Alberta, Canada, in late May 2014. (Pho to by SPC Kyle Olson)

70 July-September 2015 Conclusion The objective of Exercise Maple Re solve 2014 compared to a U.S. CTC ro tation is that the unit is prepared to deploy as a coalition force, not as a stand-alone unit. TSC missions such as 3-1 Cavalry’s participation in Maple Re solve provide an opportunity to in crease interoperability with Canada due to the divergence between U.S. and Canadian training-center objec tives. In preparation for future TSC missions, deploying units should train to provide a range of capabilities from dismounted/mounted, in degraded conditions and, if possible, under a replicated environment similar to their partnered unit/roleplayers. The 3-1 Cavalry’s support of Exercise Maple Re solve 2014 identified several lessons-learned to assist in future TSC mission planning and preparation to support our Canadian military partners. LTC Paul Gunnison commands 3-1 Cav alry Squadron, 3rd ABCT, 3rd Infantry Di vision, Fort Benning, GA. His past duty assignments include squadron execu tive officer and S-3, 2-3 Armored Cav alry Regiment (ACR), Fort Hood, TX; bri gade military-transition-team chief, 1/1 Infantry Division, Amarah, Iraq; commander, C/1-7 Cavalry, Fort Hood; and scout-platoon leader, I/3-2 ACR, Fort Polk, LA. His military schooling in cludes Command and General Staff College, Cavalry Leader’s Course, Com bined Arms and Services Staff School and Armor Officer Basic Course. LTC Gunnison holds a bachelor’s of science degree in Russian and German from the U.S. Military Academy and a mas ter’s of arts degree in management and leadership from Webster Universi ty. He served two combat tours in Iraq in 2009 and 2011, and one operational tour to Bosnia-Herzegovina in 1998. MAJ Chris Manglicmot is squadron op erations officer with 3rd BCT, 1st Cavalry Division, Fort Benning. Previous duty assignments include brigade planner, 3rd Brigade, 3rd ABCT, 3rd Infantry Divi sion, Fort Benning; national programs director, Soldier for Life Program, Of fice of the Chief of Staff of the Army, Washington, DC; national programs di rector, Warrior and Family Support Pro gram, Office of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Washington, DC; troop commander, 1st Brigade, 7th Cav alry Division, Fort Benning; and squad ron operations officer, 1st Brigade, 7th Cavalry Division, Fort Benning. His mil itary schooling includes Command and General Staff College, Cavalry Leader’s Course, Armor Maneuver Captain’s Ca reer Course, Armor Basic Leader’s Course, Master Fitness Trainer Course and Air Assault Course. MAJ Manglic mot holds a bachelor’s of science de gree in engineering management from U.S. Military Academy and a master’s of science degree in policy manage ment from Georgetown University. He is the recipient of the three Bronze Star Medals and two Meritorious Service Medals. He was also a Joint Chiefs of Staff/Army Staff intern. CPT Jonathan Proctor commands Head quarters and Headquarters Troop, 3-1 Cavalry, 3rd ABCT, 3rd Infantry Division, Fort Benning. Previous assignments in clude commander, Troop B, 3-1 Caval ry, 3rd ABCT; S-3 plans officer, 3rd ABCT; and mortar-platoon leader and anti-ar mor platoon leader , 2-327 Infantry, 1st Brigade, 101st Airborne (Air Assault), Fort Campbell, KY. CPT Proctor holds a bachelor’s of science degree in chemical engineering from Colorado School of Mines. 1LT David Collins is executive officer for Bravo Troop, 3-1 Cavalry, 3rd Brigade, 3rd Infantry Division, Fort Benning. Pre vious assignments include scout-pla toon leader, Troop C, 3-1 Cavalry, 3rd Brigade, 3rd Infantry Division; and squad leader and team leader, Compa ny C, 3rd Battalion, 75th Ranger Regi ment, Fort Benning. His military school ing includes Army Reconnaissance Course, Infantry Officer Basic Course, Ranger and Airborne schools, Emer gency Medical Technician Basic and Combatives Level I. 1LT Collins holds a bachelor’s of science degree in sociol ogy from West Virginia University. Acronym Quick-Scan ABCT – armored brigade combat team ACR – armored Cavalry regiment BCT – brigade combat team CMTC – combat maneuver training center COEFOR – contemporary-operating-environment force CTC – combat training center FM – field manual MILES – Multiple Integrated Laser Engagement System NORTHCOM – (U.S.) Northern Command OP – observation post RAF – regionally aligned forces SOP – standard operating procedure TSC – theater-security cooperation WES – Weapons-Effects Simulation (system)