[Tweet Text]
In the changing military situation, Russia's recent plan to transform brigades into divisions has attracted widespread attention. This plan is seen as a major change to the existing military structure of the Russian army, however, at the same time, many countries around the world are actively promoting modular transformation with divisions to brigades as the core. This raises a profound question worth exploring: Is Russia's current military readjustment going against the trend of history, or does it represent the direction of future military development?
In order to understand the ins and outs of the transformation of divisions into brigades, we have to go back to the roots. At the beginning of the 21st century, the U.S. Army took the lead in promoting the modular transformation with divisional transformation into brigades as the core, and formed a highly modular force system through the construction of heavy, medium, and light brigade combat teams, as well as various support brigades. The goal of this transformation is to improve the autonomous and sustained combat capabilities of the force, so that it can flexibly deploy forces and achieve efficient operations in the face of different threats. This modular approach has been a great success in battlefields such as Iraq and Afghanistan, and provides a powerful model for other countries to follow.
However, Russia's recent conflict in Ukraine has exposed some of the shortcomings of its current brigade-battalion structure. Problems such as the relative aging of the main battle equipment, the lack of sustained combat capability, and the lack of comprehensive support and battlefield adaptability are obvious. The previously considered advantages of rapid penetration and breakthrough and pulling out key points have not been effectively exerted in the conflict in Ukraine. Therefore, the plan launched by Russia to transform brigade divisions is actually a powerful response to these problems.
It is worth noting that this is not the first attempt at military reform by the Russian army. As early as 2008, Russia began to carry out a "new look" reform, reducing the total size of the army and comprehensively restructuring it into a fully mobile standing brigade. Especially after the outbreak of the Ukrainian crisis, the Russian army quickly formed a large number of battalion tactical groups, showing strong mobility and independent combat capabilities. However, the conflict in Ukraine has also revealed some of the limitations of this brigade-battalion system, requiring reforms that are more flexible and adaptable to diverse threats.
Comparing the modular transformation of the US military with Russia's brigade transformation plan, we see the two key words of "modularity" and "degree of freedom". Through modularization, the U.S. military has achieved flexible deployment in different scenarios and maintained a high degree of autonomous combat capability. However, this also faces the problem of battlefield "resistance", that is, in complex terrain, weather, humanities and other environments, the modular "degree of freedom" may be limited, and more supplements and support are needed.
In this context, the Russian army's brigade plan to transform into divisions appears to be more pragmatic. By integrating the ground forces into brigade-sized units, the Russian army aims to make up for the shortcomings of the previous system and increase the overall combat effectiveness of the troops. And a number of issues in the conflict in Ukraine have given an urgent impetus to this plan. However, in order to achieve a smooth transition from brigade to division, Russia also needs to solve a series of problems, such as the aging of its main battle equipment and the lack of combat capability.
Generally speaking, the question of whether a division will be transformed into a brigade or a brigade into a division is not the key issue, but whether the army's establishment system can give full play to the advantages of the existing weaponry and technological base and achieve a flexible response to diversified threats. The goal of military reform should be to be able to fight and win wars. Therefore, when the armed forces of different countries adjust their establishment, they need to take into account their own national conditions and weaponry, avoid blindly following suit, and achieve real military innovation.
In future military development, modular transformation and brigade division planning may become two different trends, and countries need to make wise choices according to their own circumstances. This is also an area worthy of attention and in-depth study, because the advantages of the armed forces are not only reflected in the form of establishment, but also have a bearing on the overall quality and response capability of the armed forces. It is hoped that all countries will learn from each other's strong points and make up for their weaknesses in military reform and continuously enhance their national defense capabilities. [2007 words]
[Tweet Text]
Recently, Russia announced a plan to transform brigades into divisions, which has attracted widespread attention. This plan seems ordinary, but in the international military arena, it has caused a wave. In order to understand the true intent of this military change, let us recall the origins of the transformation of divisions into brigades.
The initiator of the divisional transformation into brigades was the U.S. Army, which launched a modular transformation with divisional transformation into brigades as the core in 2004. The original intention of this change was to cope with the two long wars of the time and the current situation of making ends meet. The modular transformation enables the unit to be more flexible and autonomous through the construction of heavy, medium, and light brigade combat teams, as well as various support brigades. This successful experience was quickly replicated internationally, including in Russia.
However, the Russian army's conflict in Ukraine has exposed some problems of the current brigade-battalion system, such as the aging of main battle equipment and the lack of sustained combat capabilities. The advantages of rapid penetration and breakthrough and point control, which were originally favored, have not been fully exploited on the battlefield. Therefore, Russia launched the Brigade Transformation Division program, which aims to compensate for these shortcomings.
It is worth noting that this is not the first attempt at reform by the Russian army. As early as 2008, Russia launched a "new look" reform, reducing the total size of the army and comprehensively restructuring it into a fully mobile standing brigade. After the outbreak of the Ukrainian crisis, the Russian army quickly formed a large number of battalion tactical groups, showing strong mobility and independent combat capabilities. However, the conflict in Ukraine has also revealed some of the limitations of this brigade-battalion system, requiring reforms that are more flexible and more adaptable to diverse threats.
Comparing the modular transformation of the US military with Russia's brigade transformation plan, we see the two key words of "modularity" and "degree of freedom". Through modularization, the U.S. military has achieved flexible deployment in different scenarios and maintained a high degree of autonomous combat capability. However, this also faces the problem of battlefield "resistance", that is, in complex terrain, weather, humanities and other environments, the modular "degree of freedom" may be limited, and more supplements and support are needed.
In this context, the Russian army's brigade plan to transform into divisions appears to be more pragmatic. By integrating the ground forces into brigade-sized units, the Russian army aims to make up for the shortcomings of the previous system and increase the overall combat effectiveness of the troops. However, in order to achieve a smooth transition from brigade to division, Russia also needs to solve a series of problems, such as the aging of its main battle equipment and the lack of combat capability.
Generally speaking, the question of whether a division will be transformed into a brigade or a brigade into a division is not the key issue, but whether the army's establishment system can give full play to the advantages of the existing weaponry and technological base and achieve a flexible response to diversified threats. The goal of military reform should be to be able to fight and win wars. Therefore, when the armed forces of different countries adjust their establishment, they need to take into account their own national conditions and weaponry, avoid blindly following suit, and achieve real military innovation.
In future military development, modular transformation and brigade division planning may become two different trends, and countries need to make wise choices according to their own circumstances. This is also an area worthy of attention and in-depth study, because the advantages of the armed forces are not only reflected in the form of establishment, but also have a bearing on the overall quality and response capability of the armed forces. It is hoped that all countries will learn from each other's strong points and make up for their weaknesses in military reform and continuously enhance their national defense capabilities. [2074 words]