Armorhoody,

Great points. I am hoping we can open the spectrum of how we look at deception and how it is employed. For your point about mechanized/armor formations and deception difficulties, I think we need to conversely look at the fact that the need to deceive is even greater for our mechanized forces. This re-iterates Chief of Staff Gen. Milley’s comments about the future operating environment, when the enemy detects us he will target us and kill us faster than he ever has.

What formation other than the ABCT produces more EM signature, radio traffic, and physical footprint than our armored formations?

Some creative deception plans I have seen both at the company level in classroom settings as well as from lesson learned presentations by Marines in Twenty-Nine Palms as apart of their Integrated Training Exercise (ITX) which is similar to our NTC include;

1. Marines used chemical lights attached “ivans” in combination with camo netting to build false silhouettes/signatures for vehicle and dismounted OPs. These OPs, especially at night, attracted fire missions from the EN OPFOR, these OPFOR fire missions were exploited with counter-battery fire from the Battalion.

2. Tank Platoons/Artillery Sections return to use wire-run communications between positions IOT reduce radio emissions.

3. Mechanized Infantry formations going black on radio communications and switch to signal flags to avoid collection/targeting.

4. Feints/Demonstrations through maneuver and fires can and does work.

I’ve attached a product from the 3rd Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU) which showcases some of the planning outputs for each stage of MDMP in using information to achieve deception, useful in planning for this problem above the company level.

Are we sprinkling our deception assets on at the end of the planning process and calling it good enough? Who is responsible for planning for deception in your unit, or have you seen Soldiers at all echelons seeking creative ways to deceive our opponents?

Steven