At the U.S. Military Academy (USMA) in West Point, New York, research has always served as a valuable learning tool for cadets as well as a means of professional development for the faculty. Cadet and faculty research projects also have provided Department of Defense agencies with outstanding analyses in many areas. Therefore, West Point's Department of Systems Engineering has incorporated real-world experiences heavily into its curriculum.
One of the department's current research efforts focuses on developing a decision support tool to assist commanders and planners in making decisions on base camp locations and facility layouts. To gather research material, Cadets First Class Jon Hall and Tara Kitzman, engineering management majors enrolled in USMA's Advanced Individual Academic Development Program, traveled to Canberra, Australia, last summer to work with the cadets and faculty at the Australian Defence Force Academy. During their internship in Australia, Hall and Kitzman participated in a training exercise that centered on site and layout considerations for an Australian Army combat service support battalion (CSSB). The two cadets directed their efforts toward comparing Australian Army doctrine on setting up a CSSB to U.S. Army doctrine on setting up a forward support battalion (FSB).
The Australian Army consists of approximately 30,000 soldiers. They organize, deploy, and fight primarily as brigades. As such, they do not have the multi-echeloned support structure of the U.S. Army. So a primary logistics consideration for the Australian brigades is how they will link to their own home station support structures or those of their allies.
The makeup of the Australian Army's CSSB is very similar to that of the U.S. Army's FSB. The CSSB consists of a headquarters element, a transport squadron, a health company (with medical and dental assets), a field supply company, and a field workshop. The main difference in the makeup and mission of brigade-level support is that the U.S. Army maintains transportation assets at the main support battalion, while the Australian Army's transport capabilities reside in the CSSB.
The process used to determine the site for the CSSB in many ways resembles the process of locating the FSB. The Australians use the acronym "PEACHS" to ensure that high-priority siting requirements are met. This acronym covers most of the elements that the U.S. military also considers essential.
The first letter of the acronym stands for protection. During the training exercise, Australian logistics branch captains first determined if their current site was suitable to sustain protection against the enemy and selected the optimal location for their machinegun nests. Similarly, U.S. doctrine states that protection is a primary consideration when choosing a unit's site.
The letter "E" in PEACHS stands for existing tracks. The Australians look for locations with access to road networks that will accommodate their transportation assets. Similarly, U.S. Army doctrine states that the FSB location should include roads that can accommodate vehicles.
The next letter in the acronym, "A," stands for access to the main supply route, which both the Australians and Americans consider critical in providing support.
The letter "C" stands for camouflage and concealment, which is the same as the U.S. Army term "cover and concealment."
The "H" in PEACHS represents hardstanding. Hardstanding means that the ground at the location must be able to withstand heavy trucks and changes in weather. During the training exercise, the Australian captains determined if the ground could sustain heavy vehicles in the harshest weather.
The last letter of the acronym, "S," stands for space, which refers to the potential for expansion. Both the Australians and the Americans may find it necessary to expand the existing locations of their logistics forces as their inventories increase.
Other important considerations not specifically included in PEACHS include access to sewage disposal, central proximity for operations, and distance to ports and runways.
In many ways, the considerations for choosing a CSSB site are the same as for choosing an FSB site. However, two distinguishing factors in the site selection process for a CSSB are sustainability and the distance from its home port. The CSSB is responsible for maintaining 3 to 14 days of supply, depending on the commodity. The CSSB's ability to sustain forward units is contingent upon the stocks it maintains and its access to home station supplies or alternate methods of resupply such as local purchase. Conversely, the U.S. Army's FSB sustains forward units primarily through supply point transfer operations. The FSB does not maintain a large inventory but instead draws from the echeloned supply system. The FSB is resupplied by both the main support battalion and corps support units and therefore does not need to look for locations that can hold and sustain large quantities of supplies.
 |
An Australian soldier checks vehicles to be used in a military training exercise. |
Lastly, since the Australians focus mainly on defending their island-nation from attack, they are not as engaged as the U.S. Army in force projection. They tend to choose locations that are close to their main home seaports. The United States has the logistics assets to sustain longer missions and reach out farther in the world.
Just as the Australian Army and the U.S. Army are similar in their support location criteria, they also have common guidelines for the layout of their brigade-level support areas. In their respective doctrine, they have examples of the layout of all of the individual elements within the support area. Standardized layouts for units within the Australian brigade maintenance area (BMA) and the U.S. Army brigade support area (BSA) provide many benefits. For example, standard layouts provide soldiers with the opportunity to become familiar with the area quickly. With a standard layout, a soldier coming into an area at night has some idea of where to go without having been there before. A standard layout also allows forces to occupy an area faster, since they already know where and how they will set up their elements.
Australian and U.S. logisticians alike must account for technical and tactical requirements of their elements regardless of the terrain. Technical needs and tactical considerations sometimes will dictate deviations from the standard layouts, but the layouts provide a good baseline from which commanders and operations officers can plan.
A main difference in the layouts of a BMA and a BSA is in how they defend the overall support areas. Both armies are concerned with the security and defense of their bases. Elements in a BMA usually collocate in one area, set up one main base, and maintain a full perimeter to defend the entire base. They use only two entry points to minimize the places where visitors can come onto the base. The BSA, on the other hand, employs a base cluster technique in which each element of the FSB and maneuver unit field trains comprises a base. These bases integrate to form the defensive plan for the BSA. The BSA elements, or bases, do not have to cover a 360-degree perimeter because they have other units around them that cover part of the area. Therefore, it is crucial that the base commanders account for the other bases' capabilities in their defensive planning.
The considerations for laying out elements within the Australian Army's BMA and the U.S. Army's BSA are very similar. The layouts of both focus on simplicity and efficiency of operations. Both armies position their headquarters in the center, where they can maximize their command and control of the unit. In addition, they both separate their unit administrative areas from the technical areas. The medical elements of both the BSA and BMA are located deep inside the bases since these medical companies have limited defensive capabilities and still must function while under attack. Both forces also consider safety distances between commodities, such as ammunition and fuel, when planning the layout. Because the BMA has one large perimeter, CSSB planners know the importance of maintaining the integrity of each individual element within the BMA.
Australian and U.S. Army doctrines reveal many similarities in the factors used to determine the best locations and layouts for CSSBs and FSBs. The principles of the Australian CSSB siting acronym, "PEACHS," reflect many of the principles found in U.S. Army doctrine for the selection of FSB locations. Simplicity and efficiency are common themes of typical CSSB and FSB layouts. The differences, such as the importance of being close to home ports, can be attributed primarily to different logistics unit structures and types of missions. ALOG
Major Sandra L. Vann-Olejasz is an assistant professor of systems engineering at the U.S. Military Academy (USMA). She has a B.S. degree in computer science from USMA and a master's degree in business administration from Georgetown University.
The author thanks Cadets First Class Jon Hall and Tara Kitzman for their significant contributions to the preparation of this article. Agencies interested in sponsoring cadets from the U.S. Military Academy for summer academic internships should contact the academy's Operations Research Center at (845) 938-5897.