fluence of Armor's combat
command concept. Your
long experience in building
the mission-type formation
has proven invaluable in ar-
riving at a division that can
be tailored from combina-
tions of standard infantry,
tank, mechanized units for
a particular mission.
[All of the combat arms will
find increased opportunities
for the use of their capabili-
ties in the new organization.
The mechanized division,
for example, will afford op-
portunities for infantry-ar-
mor training and operations
that we have previously had
only in very limited degree.
[Those who have developed
this new structure and those
who have thus far reviewed
it-find it a sound step in
modernization. We believe
it offers a logical move in the
continuing evolution of com-
bat formations.]
[The study of a concept of
organization along these
lines is actively underway.
This concept envisions flex-
ible armored, mechanized,
infantry, and airborne divi-
sions whose basic tactical
units would be interchange-
able, both within and be-
tween divisions.
[All of the divisions would
have a common base. By
the addition of standard in-
fantry, armored mecha-
nized unit "building blocks"
to this base, divisions could
be tailored for particular
missions and specific geo-
graphic areas.
[I believe that you recognize
the influence of Armor's
combat command structure
in this study. I feel, also,
that you recognize the need
for a mechanized division
to meet the requirements
for increased mobility, and
for protection on both the
nuclear and nonnuclear bat-
tlefields.]'