Notes from the Field: Practices for Enhancing Your Rotational Deployment

Winter-Spring 2024 Notes from Field: Practices for Enhancing Your Rotational Deployment by LTC Timothy W. Decker and MAJ Alexander Boroff Rotational deployments are not new experiences for our Army. Neverthe less, each one is different enough that it warrants its own special consider ations. This article describes several best practices for units to consider as they embark upon a rotational deploy ment to the eastern flank of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). While our own experiences were de rived from a unique mission set in NATO Battle Group - Poland, they are applicable across most of the Baltic states and many other European coun tries. Specifically, given our experienc es to date, we believe there are four topics that incoming units should con sider in their training philosophies to best position themselves while for ward: interoperability with allies, tai loring training events, land and range usage, and cultural exchanges. Interoperability with allies It goes without saying, working with al lies is hard. But, as former Defense Secretary James Mattis reminds us, “A nation with allies thrives. Nations with out them die.” Indeed, nurturing rela tionships with our allies is one of the primary reasons we are deployed to Eastern Europe. Early in our rotation, our outgoing unit scheduled a “NATO Road Show” to in troduce the incoming commander, the command sergeant major, and the op erations officer to their adjacent units and higher headquarters. This proved especially invaluable for two reasons. First, it allowed face-to-face introduc tions between commanders and pri mary staff officers. These connections and relationships proved important in the coming months as we navigated our new envi ronment. Sometimes a phone call to the right person is the lever required to make training happen! Second, it al lowed us to see, in very real terms, how our tactical actions had strategic effects. Receiving commanders’ intents Figure 1: U.S. Army tank crews with Alpha “Animal” Company and Bravo “Bar barian” Company, 2nd Battalion, 69th Armor Regiment, 2nd Armored Brigade Combat Team, supporting 3rd Infantry Division, fire rounds from M1A2 Abrams tanks at Bemowo Piskie Training Area, Poland Sept. 12. (U.S. Army photo by Alex Soliday) in-person enabled us to better scope our training objectives to nest with NATO strategy in the Baltic states. As we planned and executed this tacti cal training, we quickly learned of both the importance and limitations of in teroperability. Interoperability is vital to ensuring unity of purpose and com mand. In an ideal world, NATO allies should be able to assemble in multinational formations and communicate securely using organic equipment. Our experience showed this is a very high bar to clear. In practice, we succeeded through deliberate placement of liai son officers (LNOs). For day-to-day ac tivities, our LNO to our higher head quarters, the Polish 15th Mechanized Infantry Brigade, simplified coordina tion and made communication much more responsive than relying on NATO-Secret email systems or our tactical satellite link. In tactical exercises with our foreign sub-units, we found the technical interoperability solutions to be less effective than placing radio telephone operators with an organic radio at command-and-control nodes to “swivel chair” information from U.S. to foreign systems, and back. Due to these personnel and equipment re quirements, as well as technical limita tions, the lowest level at which true in teroperability occurred for us was the battalion. Tailoring training events Upon arrival to our Forward Operating Site (FOS) in Poland, we established a “campaign plan” covering the duration of our rotation, which looked very sim ilar to a standard armored brigade combat team training strategy. We dis covered Polish training, in practice, is more geared towards collective live fire events rather than the situational training exercises more familiar to U.S. Soldiers. As such, their training land is designed almost exclusively for live fire use. While this may be somewhat out of the ordinary for a “normal” training progression, it made collective live fire training very easy to conduct. Leaning into this opportunity made us

Winter-Spring 2024 uncomfortable due to the usual restric tive nature of live fire training and our normalized experiences of conducting live fire exercises only after completing situational training exercises. On the other hand, live fire exercises were sig nificantly easier to execute when incor porating allies, given that our training simulation devices (e.g. MILES) were rarely one-for-one matches with those of other nation’s armies. Tailoring the unit’s training events to the specific environment and constraints will yield better results than attempting to force a U.S. training strategy into an incom patible foreign training architecture. Land, range usage Range scheduling and usage at our FOS was not something that looked famil iar to a U.S. audience. While there is a very rigid system akin to the Range Fa cility Management Support System (RFMSS), it takes more interaction to function properly and more detailed planning than we were used to. While a unit can simply reserve land in RFMSS and then cancel it as necessary, Polish ranges require regular meetings and confirmations to ensure their ranges are used properly and supported in ac cordance with Polish range regula tions. The Training Support Activity Eu rope is a great enabler which can help units who are new to theater use Figure 2: Polish tank fires during the Iron Spear exercise in Adazi, Latvia, Nov. 13, 2023. U.S. Army Soldiers with Bravo Company, 2nd Battalion, 69th Armored Regiment “Panther Battalion”, 2nd Armored Brigade Combat Team, 3rd Infantry Di vision supporting NATO’s enhanced Forward Presence Battle Group Poland, joined multinational troops from Canada, Germany, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Spain, and the United Kingdom representing NATO enhanced For ward Presence Battle Groups from Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, and Poland for the exercise. (U.S. Army photo by Capt. H. Howey) foreign ranges effectively. With time and practice, these systems became fa miliar and did not limit our training op portunities. Perhaps the most notable difference between U.S. and Polish range sched uling is the difference in planning ho rizons. Many Polish units finalize their scheduled training land within two weeks of execution after roughly “lock ing” the land three months prior. While we adhered to a self-imposed six-week horizon, even as the NATO Battle Group, we were second in priority to Polish Army units when it came to land allocation. We found tremendous val ue in coordinating cordially with these units, which enabled us to achieve our training objectives through co-use agreements or incorporation of multinational elements. Training, cultural exchanges As alluded to earlier, situational train ing exercises at the company level and below face technical interoperability limitations that constrained our junior leaders’ direct interaction with our al lies. Nevertheless, our junior leaders had numerous chances to train individ ually with our allies. We had direct li aison authority with two Polish sister mechanized infantry battalions, and the Polish Territorial Defense Forces were always willing to execute training with us; we interacted with both regu larly. While this most often amounted to simple individual weapons training, we incorporated these forces into our platoon collective events as well. Rare ly do U.S. units have the opportunity to face real BMP-1s as an opposing force, or to receive in-depth briefings and hands-on training with these sys tems while executing live fire training. On the civilian side, towns near Polish military installations are somewhat akin to those in our own country. We received regular invitations from town mayors, local churches, and other rep resentatives to participate in commu nity events. In our case, we had so many communities interested in mu tual support that we assigned each company, battery, and troop com mander responsibility for at least one town. This provided opportunities for our junior leaders to engage with local key leaders, and for our Soldiers to conduct cultural exchanges. The Polish National Foundation, Morale Welfare and Recreation, and our own Building Strong and Resilient Teams events were a further boon to our ability to expose Soldiers to Polish culture. These experiences allowed Soldiers to interact with foreign cultures in unique ways and were a tremendous source of

Winter-Spring 2024 stress relief and restoration in between training events. Conclusion The U.S. Army has been conducting ro tational deployments for generations, and there are many lessons learned during the years that remain applicable for today’s officers and leaders. Never theless, each deployment is unique in time and location, and each will have its own variables to consider when planning. Our own rotational deploy ment to NATO’s eastern flank provided us with useful insight into contempo rary U.S. European Command missions. Considering working with allies and the challenges of interoperability will allow better integration early. Tailoring training events to the environment at hand while remaining flexible with country-specific systems and customs will also allow units to maximize the training opportunities available to them, some of which might not be fea sible at home station. Finally, leaders and Soldiers should engage with their local communities to embrace cultural exchanges as a means of professional development and personal fulfillment. Deliberately addressing these topics early in the rotation will place units in a position of relative advantage and create meaningful memories for Sol diers and leaders throughout the for mation. LTC Timothy W. Decker is the commander, Forward Land Forces NATO Battle Group – Poland. His previous assignments include commander, 2nd Battalion, 69th Armor Regiment, 2nd Armored Brigade Combat Team, 3rd Infantry Division, Fort Stewart, GA.; director, Commander’s Action Group, U.S. Army North (Fifth Army), Fort Sam Houston, TX; operations officer, Holistic Health and Fitness Directorate, Center for Initial Military Training, Fort Eustis, VA; brigade executive officer, 2nd Infantry Brigade Combat Team, 3rd Infantry Division, Fort Stewart; and squadron executive officer, 6th Squadron, 8th Cavalry Regiment, 2nd Infantry Brigade Combat Team, 3rd Infantry Division, Fort Stewart. LTC Decker’s military schools include Command and General Staff College, Fort Leavenworth, KS; Joint Firepower Control Course, Fort Leavenworth; Ranger School, Fort Moore, GA; Faculty Development Course, Fort Moore; Maneuver Captain’s Career Course, Fort Knox, KY; Armor Officer Basic Course, Fort Knox, KY; and Air Assault School, Fort Smith, NY. He has bachelor’s of science degree in computer science from the U.S. Military Academy and a master’s of business administration degree from Kansas State University. LTC Decker’s awards include the Bronze Star Medal with two oak leaf clusters, the Meritorious Service Medal with three oak leaf clusters, the Joint Service Commendation Medal, and the Combat Action Badge. He has two combat deployments to Afghanistan, two combat deployments to Iraq, and has been part of a dual military couple during his entire career. MAJ Alexander Boroff is the operations officer, 2nd Battalion, 69th Armor Regiment, 2nd Armored Brigade Combat Team, 3rd Infantry Division, Fort Stewart, GA. His previous assignments include G35 plans officer, 3rd Infantry Division, Fort Stewart; cyber strategy, policy and plans officer, Department of the Army Management Office – Strategic Operations, G-3/5/7, Headquarters, Department of the Army, Pentagon, Washington, D.C.; public affairs desk officer, Directorate of Management, Joint Staff, Pentagon, Washington, D.C.; commander, Troop C, 3rd Squadron, 61st Cavalry Regiment, 2nd Infantry Brigade Combat Team, 4th Infantry Division, Fort Carson, CO; and brigade plans officer, 2nd Infantry Brigade Combat Team, 4th Infantry Division, Fort Carson. MAJ Boroff’s military schools include Command and General Staff College, Fort Belvoir, VA; Ranger School, Fort Moore, GA; Pathfinder School, Fort Moore; Cavalry Leader’s Course, Fort Moore; Maneuver Captain’s Career Course, Fort Moore; Army Reconnaissance Course, Fort Moore; and Armor Basic Officer Leader’s Course, Fort Moore. He has a bachelor’s of Science degree in mechanical engineering from the U.S. Figure 3: A U.S. Army Soldier with 2nd Battalion, 69th Armored Regiment “Pan ther Battalion,” 2nd Armored Brigade Combat Team, 3rd Infantry Division, walks beside a Romanian Soldier down a snowy path during the land navigation por tion of the Croatian “Winter Challenge” at Bemowo Piskie Training Area, Po land, Jan. 5, 2024. The Croatian “Winter Challenge” is a 15-kilometer competi tion consisting of seven events: land navigation, small arms firing, wall climb ing, obstacle course while wearing a gas mask, rope crossing, low-crawl and obstacle climbing, and a hand grenade toss. U.S., Polish, Romanian, and Croa tian troops representing NATO’s enhanced Forward Presence Battle Group Po land participated. (U.S. Army photo by Dan Yarnall)

Winter-Spring 2024 Figure 4: U.S. Army Soldiers with Golf “Gambler” Forward Support Company, 2nd Battalion, 69th Armored Regiment, 2nd Armored Brigade Combat Team, 3rd Infantry Division, with residents during a holiday festival in Mikołajki, Poland, Dec. 3, 2023. (U.S. Army photo by Sgt. Cesar Salazar Jr.) Military Academy, a master’s of science degree in systems engineering from Johns Hopkins University and a master’s degree of policy management from Georgetown University. MAJ Boroff’s awards include the Bronze Star Medal, Meritorious Service Medal with one oak leaf cluster, and the Combat Action Badge. He has one combat tour: Operation Enduring Freedom with the 3rd Infantry Division, rotation 12-13. MAJ Boroff also participated in one U.S. European Command rotation in Poland, rotation 23-24, serving as the enhanced Forward Presence Battlegroup – Poland Operations Officer. He also co-runs a military professional writing web log named “Thought to Action.” Acronym Quick-Scan FOS – forward operating site LNO – liaison officer NATO – North Atlantic Treaty Organization RFMSS – Range Facility Management Support System ADAZI, LATVIA – A Polish tank moves into position to join NATO Allies from Canada, Germany, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Netherlands, Spain, the United Kingdom and U.S. Army Soldiers with Charlie and Bravo Companies, 2nd Battalion, 69th Armored Regiment “Panther Battalion,” 2nd Armored Brigade Combat Team, 3rd Infantry Division supporting NATO’s enhanced Forward Presence Battle Groups from Estonia, Poland, Latvia, and Lithuania, for exercise Iron Spear in Adazi, Latvia, Nov. 13, 2023. The 3rd Infantry Division’s mission in Europe is to engage in multinational training and exercises across the continent, working alongside NATO allies and regional security partners to provide combat-credible forces to V Corps, America’s forward deployed corps in Europe. (U.S. Army photo by Capt. H Howey)