Divisions in the Dirt or Divisions in Concrete?
It’s Time to Scale Up Collective Training for the MDO Era
By MAJ Elliot L. Corey
Article published on: December 1, 2025 in the Infantry Winter 2025-2026 Issue
Read Time: < 20 mins
Paratroopers assigned to 1st Battalion, 503rd Infantry Regiment,
173rd Airborne Brigade, and French soldiers conduct training in
Lithuania on 19 May 2025. (Photo by Elena Baladelli)
The time is 0200. Over the next 18 hours, a joint task
force (JTF) led by the 82nd Airborne Division will
open a convergence window for a joint forcible entry
(JFE). A Marine air-ground task force (MAGTF) will conduct
an amphibious assault to establish a beachhead. Inland, an
airborne infantry battalion and a Ranger battalion will seize
an airfield. After establishing both lodgments, the JTF must
establish a ground line of communication (GLOC) between
the beach and the airfield by fighting its way through dense
urban terrain (DUT).
This, however, is not a real-world mission but a hypothetical
training exercise held near St. Louis, MO. The exercise
builds U.S. Army and joint interoperability by expanding
upon the Army’s “Divisions in the Dirt” (division integrated)
concept. As the military shifts its focus toward large-scale
combat operations (LSCO), division and corps headquarters
must become experts in battlefield orchestration — shaping
the deep with long-range fires, attack aircraft, and integrated
capabilities from the joint force, and sustaining the close to
ensure subordinate units can dominate their assigned areas.1
To win the next fight, divisions and corps must incorporate
multidomain capabilities into tactical maneuver in all types
of terrain.
The time is right to scale up collective training for the
multidomain operations (MDO) era. As a potential solution,
the Army should create a Joint Exportable Training Package
for Existing Urban Terrain (JET-PEUT) much like the Joint
Pacific Multinational Readiness Center’s (JPMRC’s) operating
concept. Using the experience of the JPMRC as a model,
the Army should create an exportable training capability that
replicates a combat training center (CTC) environment in
urban terrain in the continental U.S. (CONUS) and elsewhere.
The JET-PEUT would provide a way for divisions and corps
to train on realistic urban terrain in a live, virtual, constructive
(LVC) training environment.
The JET-PEUT’s primary advantage is that it can be
extremely scalable, tailorable, and exportable, enabling
commanders to conduct each JET-PEUT exercise in specific
areas that more realistically portray the reality of today’s
battlefield. With the addition of JPMRC, the Army now can
train large formations in nearly every operating environment
(OE) possible: jungle, archipelagic, Arctic, mountainous,
desert, wetlands, forest, riverine, and plains. There is one
glaring omission: the modern urban OE. The JET-PEUT aims
to address this gap.
Looking Back to Look Ahead
This isn’t the first time the United States has wrestled with
the problem of training large formations. In the fall of 1941,
as the Germans dominated Europe and the Japanese raced
across China, the U.S. Army was struggling to mobilize and
train its forces. In response, Army Chief of Staff GEN George
C. Marshall devised the Louisiana Maneuvers, a series of
large-scale (approximately 400,000 Soldiers) force-on-force
exercises in which two armies fought across large swaths of
Louisiana, Arkansas, and the Carolinas.2 These exercises
provided field maneuver experience to a green officer and
Soldier corps and allowed the Army to test and train on
emerging concepts. The Army learned several critical lessons,
including the need to integrate infantry and armor formations,
the effectiveness of antitank weapons against armored formations,
and the potential of tactical close air support.3
Similarly, the Army of the 1980s understood more realistic
training would be required to defeat a numerically superior
Warsaw Pact military in combat. For example, the 1982
iteration of Field Manual (FM) 100-5, Operations, which
introduced AirLand Battle doctrine, reinforced the severity
of the threat environment: “The conditions of combat on the
next battlefield will be less forgiving of mistakes and more
demanding of leader skill, imagination, and flexibility than any
in history.”4 This period’s sense of
urgency led to the creation
of the National Training Center (NTC).5 Further, the massive
success of the LSCO invasion force during Operation Desert
Storm is often attributed to the decade of experimentation,
learning, training, and field experience reaped from NTC.6
The Army is at another training inflection point. Like the
two periods listed above, today, the Army and the joint force
must construct ways to train divisions, corps, and joint force
headquarters in the most realistic settings. Additionally, with
modernization progressing across the Department of War
(DoW), we must understand what concepts and equipment
will work and how as well as what integrated formations and
tactics are required for the modern fight. The JET-PEUT can
help accomplish these goals.
The rest of this article is divided into two main sections.
Section I, “Why Is JET-PEUT Needed?” argues that the
time is right to fix the collective training gap in urban combat
readiness across the joint force. The JET-PEUT would offer
CONUS-based formations an additional option to achieve
multidomain warfighting experience at a reasonable cost.
Furthermore, the current doctrine and OE demonstrate
the need for increased training capability at scale that the
JET-PEUT could fulfill. Lastly, the JET-PEUT would offer
opportunities to test modernization concepts across the DoW.
Section II, “What Would It Look Like?” uses the JPMRC as
a model for the JET-PEUT. It discusses the main challenges
in making the JET-PEUT a reality, including
exporting an instrumentation system into a
civilian environment and scaling up existing
DUT training permissions to incorporate
brigade-sized or larger formations. Finally,
the article returns to the hypothetical exercise
introduced at the beginning to discuss how it
could be implemented in real life.
Section I: Why Is JET-PEUT Needed?
Maintaining a comparative advantage
over our principal adversaries is essential to
national security. Army and DoW leadership
are laser-focused on this prospect — eliminating
waste and obsolete programs to
concentrate solely on training and modernizing
for the next fight.7 Army Chief of
Staff GEN Randy George
has emphasized that the Army must be ready for any fight,
anywhere, and to cut any requirement that doesn’t improve
warfighting readiness.8 This is
precisely what the JET-PEUT
concept is designed to do; it takes these sentiments and
presents them in training form. As the Army progresses to
Transformation in Contact (TiC) 2.0, it will need additional
training options to test new concepts at the scale at which
they are designed to function.9 The
current CTC infrastructure
could be further optimized to train the division as the unit of
action through forward-thinking concepts like the JET-PEUT.
The JET-PEUT could improve warfighting readiness by meeting
doctrine’s requirements for LSCO in DUT and providing a
needed venue for experimentation, innovation, and training.
First, the JET-PEUT would help meet current U.S. Army
doctrine requirements for large-scale conventional ground
forces to conduct MDO in DUT. FM 3-0, Operations, states
conducting combined arms operations in DUT that integrate
joint capabilities, allies and partners, and conventional and
irregular forces will be essential to future success.10 Army
Training Publication (ATP) 3-06/Marine Corps Tactical
Publication 12-10B, Urban Operations (UO), further stresses
the importance of UO proficiency in future conflict — though
it does note the difficulty in replicating the complexity of
urban terrain in a training environment — such as working
infrastructure, high numbers of noncombatants, and the
underground, surface and super-surface spaces that impede
maneuver.11
Figure 1 — The Muscatatuck Urban Training Center
(Photo courtesy of Indiana National Guard)
No doctrine, however, suggests a method to train large
formations for urban combat beyond stating that it will be
necessary and begins with small unit mastery. Additionally,
most urban training facilities at home stations are platoonlevel
military operations on urban terrain (MOUT) facilities
constructed of container express (CONEX) boxes and lacking
infrastructure. CTC facilities are more realistic: The Joint
Readiness Training Center (JRTC) includes 18 villages (the
largest containing 51 buildings), while the Indiana National
Guard’s Muscatatuck Urban Training Center (MUTC)
includes 120 buildings.12 However,
the current limitations in size, density, and vertical features — coupled
with insufficient
noncombatant players — result in a lack of realism.13 As a
result, units cannot train on critical tasks ranging from urban
navigation to air-ground coordination in an urban OE. The
JET-PEUT could close this gap.
Figure 2 — Funded CTC Rotations for Fiscal Years 2023-2025
(Office of the Under Secretary of War [Comptroller]/Chief Financial Officer, Defense Budget Overview)
Next, the JET-PEUT could provide a way for the Army to
identify the optimal task organization to meet the challenge
of LSCO in DUT at a reasonable cost. This is a problem
set that TiC 2.0 is designed to help solve. Yet, current CTC
rotations are still designed around a single brigade combat
team (BCT), costing tens of millions for each rotation.
Consider the Fiscal Year (FY) 2025 DoW budget allocation
of 22 fully funded CTC rotations.14 For FY25, only two fullscale
Division in the Dirt rotations were scheduled, with four
additional rotations supported by division tactical headquarters
(DTAC).15 This is terrific output,
and these rotations’
consistently high level of warfighting readiness is essential.
However, a significant portion of the current funding stream
is still being devoted to training individual BCTs with minimal
focus on joint, interagency, intergovernmental, and multinational
(JIIM) and multi-component interoperability. If something
like the JET-PEUT could be allocated to four or five
rotations annually, the number of headquarters trained by
division-integrated rotations could increase by 50 percent. A
more creative use of the current funding stream could result
in an increased overall readiness assessment (RA) rating
across the Army regarding capacity and capability measurements
for combat.16 Thus, a larger
number of formations and
headquarters certified for combat could be
achievable in the near term.
Third, the current OE demonstrates the
need for a capability like the JET-PEUT
that will drive the rapid innovation required
for successful MDO in DUT. The 2022
Battle of Kyiv between the Armed Forces
of Ukraine (AFU) and the Armed Forces of
the Russian Federation (AFRF) provides
an excellent example. This battle involved
sophisticated MDO in an incredibly complex
OE: a densely populated, modern European
city with advanced infrastructure, extensive
underground spaces, highways, waterways,
canals, bridges, DUT, and peri-urban sprawl
interspersed with forests and significant
elevation change. As the battle played out,
jamming and counter-jamming operations
co-occurred over civilian electromagnetic
spectrum (EMS)
traffic, all severely degrading
communications and equipment
performance on both sides.17
The AFU was the first to realize
the importance of maintaining
situational awareness by any
means possible. The Ukrainians
fused critical information flows
into an advanced battle network and overlayed it on top of
an effective natural and man-made obstacle network, making
Kyiv an MDO nightmare for the attacking forces.18 This intelligence
fusion system, called Delta, collected and processed
a wide range of information from closed-circuit cameras,
traffic cameras, drones, satellites, human intelligence, foreign
partners, and other sources into a common operating picture
(COP) — tracking the Russian invasion force in real time.19
Although Delta and other key innovations had been developed
and improved since Russia’s initial incursion into Crimea in
2014, their rapid employment and ease of use was a combat
multiplier for the Ukrainians.20
Delta considerably improved
the Ukrainians’ targeting ability, shortening the sensor-toshooter
cycle and enabling Ukrainian artillery, drone teams,
and ambush units to engage more targets faster and allocate
limited resources effectively.
However, not all innovations or MDO tactics favored the
Ukrainians. The Russians began their invasion with a massive
multidomain onslaught designed to overwhelm Ukrainian
defenses. It consisted of an initial electronic warfare attack
to degrade Ukrainian air defense systems, coordinated
airstrikes against a broad range of tactical targets, and cyberattacks
against Ukrainian governmental infrastructure — all
designed to support a swift coup de main of the Ukrainian
capital via an air assault and several armored columns.21
Most of these operations succeeded. Russian deception
efforts, designed to fix AFU combat power in the Donbas,
were also mostly successful.22
Smoke rises over part of Kyiv, Ukraine, on 27 February 2022 during the Battle of Kyiv.
(Photo courtesy of Ukrinform via depositphotos.com)
Ultimately, however, the Russians
failed to seize the capital as they struggled
to synchronize and sustain their
various lines of operations. The disparity
in situational awareness repeatedly
favored the AFU, and they capitalized.
This battle provides a clear example
for why something like the JET-PEUT
is needed. As the Army and joint force
expand use of the Maven Smart System
and other Joint All Domain Command
and Control (JADC2) concepts, it will
need an arena to test their capabilities
and limitations at the scale and conditions
necessary for success on tomorrow’s
battlefield.23 Wishful thinking
that
current battlefield digitization platforms
will work as designed when the OE
devolves into a situation of maximum
complexity is no longer sufficient.
Lastly, in an era where unmanned
aerial systems (UAS) fill the skies, it’s
increasingly difficult to keep command
posts (CPs) undetected and protected
from enemy indirect fire (IDF). Using
existing hardstands, basements, and
underground facilities for CPs is emerging
as a best practice, especially in Ukraine.24 These locations
protect CPs from detection and IDF, mask electromagnetic
emissions, and can be made to look inconspicuous.25
However, current division and brigade CPs may not operate
this way nor train their Soldiers to establish this type of CP
configuration. Several TiC programs and Command and
Control (C2) Fix initiatives are designed to enable smaller,
more survivable command posts.26
Still, these efforts will
require consistent and realistic training to ensure their functionality.
The JET-PEUT could offer an avenue to develop
urban-specific tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTPs)
before the outbreak of conflict and before American lives are
put at risk. Think “Divisions in Concrete” to accompany the
Divisions in the Dirt concept.
Section II: What Would It Look Like?
Saying that we need to train large formations for LSCO
on realistic terrain is one thing, but making it happen is quite
another. Implementing the JET-PEUT would be challenging.
While not discounting this difficulty, this section uses
the JPMRC as a model to demonstrate that the JET-PEUT
is possible. It would not be another CTC, but a vehicle to
enhance current CTC rotations. It would enable division and
corps headquarters to direct realistic tactical operations in
the field while stressing joint and interagency interoperability.
First, the JPMRC shows how creating a specific capability
can produce intended results quickly. In just over three
years, the JPMRC implemented an Army executive order
by transforming into a fully instrumented CTC that conducts
rotations in Alaska and Hawaii, as well as partnered rotations
west of the International Date Line (IDL) through Operation
Pathways.27 JPMRC “builds BCT
readiness and partner
capacity, assures our allies and partners of our willingness to
train where we will fight, and integrates Joint, Multi-Domain,
and Multinational Forces” to build relationships and enhance
interoperability.28 Each rotation
is division enabled with either
the 25th Infantry Division or the 11th Airborne Division serving
as both the higher command (HICOM) and exercise support
group for each exercise. The significant role played by the
division headquarters stresses and stretches division-level
systems and provides combat-credible readiness in theater
on the region’s terrain.29
Further, each rotation is unique and
constantly evolving, which makes the JPMRC an attractive
option for joint service component, special operations forces,
and multinational participation. The JET-PEUT could function
similarly, offering scalable, exportable JIIM and MDO training
under the most realistic conditions and terrain short of combat.
Figure 3 — Situational Awareness is Essential in the Urban Fight
This figure from ATP 3-06 demonstrates the disparity in situational awareness resulting from effective
or ineffective reconnaissance and battle network construction before and during urban combat. The top
figure, where very little is understood in real time, could be attributed to the AFRF’s experience in
attacking
Kyiv in the first six weeks of the war. This can be contrasted with the bottom right picture, which
demonstrates the AFU’s effective real-time digital situational awareness created by the Delta system
and other innovations on the fly, overlayed with the AFU’s internal lines and layered defense in depth.
However, we must solve two main problems before making
the JET-PEUT a reality. The first is developing an exportable
instrumentation system that can be used in existing urban
terrain without disrupting the local population. Existing
systems — those used at CTCs such as the Home Station
Instrumentation Training System (HITS) and the Instrumented
Multiple Integrated Laser Engagement System (I-MILES)
— are large emitters and not designed for use off military
installations.30 Furthermore,
large-emitting legacy systems
do not replicate the subtle EMS signature of our current
adversaries.31 This complicates
training and goes against
the forward-thinking approach of the JET-PEUT and similar
concepts designed to train the dual objectives of EMS detection
and signature masking among ground force elements.
The JPMRC is trying to solve this problem. One success
is increasing the use of player unit radios and implementing
small private networks with integrated Mobile Ad Hoc
Network capabilities.32 These
efforts reduce the exercise’s
overall EMS and connectivity requirements and lessen the
individual Soldier’s size, weight, and power burden. They also
more realistically portray the EMS signature of participating
elements. While not a perfect solution that imitates battlefield
effects and provides exercise control (EXCON) data, these
steps are necessary as the JPMRC looks to increasingly
integrate with international partners. Similar concepts could
be introduced stateside in the search to safely scale up
collective training for LSCO in an urban environment.
The second problem to solve is streamlining the complex
coordination required for training off installation. Currently,
realistic military training (RMT) off federal real property is
regulated by Department of Defense Instruction (DoDI)
1322.28.33 This document
establishes uniform planning guidance,
risk assessment authorities, approval levels, legal and
public affairs duties, and the guidelines for coordinating with
civil authorities. DoDI 1322.28 understands the limitations of
installation-only training, stating: “RMT is critical to force readiness;
however, environments replicating those encountered
in actual operations may not be available in the size or desired
level of realism on federal property. Urban environments are
the most complex and difficult to emulate on federal property
and are the desired environment for most RMT.”34
However, the current approval chain is long, extending from
local city councils to county emergency response services
and sometimes even to the state level.35 Establishing a
precedent for streamlined exercise approval and civil-military
coordination is a crucial first step. As an added benefit, the
staff work required to create RMT perimeters outside federal
real property will also inherently stress JIIM interoperability.
The difficulty involved in greenlighting the exercise is part of
the training value.
Returning to the example exercise proposed at the beginning
of the article, the following description explains what
it could look like. Interviews with the JPMRC, the Combat
Training Center Directorate (CTCD), and local officials from
O’Fallon, IL, helped inform the concept.36 The hypothetical
training area would extend from Scott Air Force Base (SAFB)
in O’Fallon to the eastern bank of the Mississippi River, utilizing
vacant office buildings, warehouses, and shipping infrastructure
in East St. Louis and along the eastern bank of the
Mississippi River. The beachhead objective and the pockets
of urban terrain would be established under military operations
areas to manage military airspace, and DoDI 1322.28
regulations cover the ground maneuver perimeters.37 The
areas would also include spectrum management permissions
based on coordination with local and state government officials.
These stipulations enhance safety and deconflict with
emergency response elements and other civilian agencies.
EXCON could run from SAFB, located about 25 kilometers
east of the beachhead objective site on the Mississippi
River. SAFB could also house the airfield objective, while the
XVIII Airborne Corps, serving as the senior Army headquarters
could run HICOM from Fort Bragg, NC. The two urban
objectives along the route from the airfield to the beachhead
could be established within perimeters enforced by military
and civilian police to keep local civilians safe.
The exercise could be conducted in a LVC-integrated
architecture (LVC-IA) and connected to a broader operation
across CONUS. Another BCT from the 82nd Airborne
Division could also execute a concurrent mission at JRTC,
and the exercise originating from SAFB could facilitate JIIM
training by including local, state, and federal law enforcement
and emergency response partners.
Once the convergence window opens, the MAGTF,
afloat in the Mississippi River aboard two medium landing
ships (LSMs), would move to the beachhead objective.38
Simultaneously, the airborne element, in flight on C-17
Globemaster IIIs, would approach the airfield objective. The
3rd Infantry Division’s air-land element begins loading onto
C-5M Galaxy and C-17 Globemaster III aircraft at Hunter Army
Airfield, GA. Over the next 24 hours, the JTF commander
would synchronize the amphibious assault with the airfield
seizure, expand the lodgment, and establish a GLOC from
the beachhead to the airfield. The XVIII Airborne Corps
would continue shaping the deep fight to enable its subordinate
elements to support an eventual brigade-sized wet
gap crossing in the LVC-IA. (See Figure 4 — A Hypothetical
Example Showing What the JET-PEUT Could Look Like.
Conclusion
Fighting LSCO in urban terrain is inevitable in the next fight.
Bypassing urban areas will not always be an option. The Army
must scale up its urban combat training to meet this challenge.
The gap in large-scale, realistic urban combat training
is a critical vulnerability. Mirroring the success of the JPMRC,
the JET-PEUT could bridge this gap. By working through
local partners to transform existing urban areas into dynamic,
instrumented training environments, JET-PEUT could enable
the Army to test MDO concepts, develop vital JIIM TTPs,
and cultivate agile, adaptable division and corps staffs. While
challenges in instrumentation and civil-military coordination
are significant, they are not insurmountable. Instead, the difficulty
involved in establishing JET-PEUT exercises could offer
inherent training value. Embracing “Divisions in Concrete”
alongside “Divisions in the Dirt” will increase readiness and
help the Army and joint force win our nation’s wars.
Lastly, the JET-PEUT offers a different problem to train
for and provides commanders with an avenue for innovative
exercise design. As the Army continues its transition back to
an Army of readiness for LSCO against a near-peer adversary
— just like the Army of the 1980s was a purpose-built
force designed to defeat the Soviet Union in the Fulda Gap, or
Marshall’s Army was explicitly created to penetrate the Atlantic
Wall and rid the world of Nazi tyranny — we need a capability
to consistently train complex joint operations realistically to
prepare for the next fight. Ultimately, in much the same way
as the JPMRC provides combat-ready forces in theater, the
JET-PEUT can provide combatant commanders with a largescale,
JIIM-qualified, urban-ready component.39 The risk of
inaction is too high. The increased readiness and lethality the
JET-PEUT would provide the Army and joint community are
absolutely worth the great efforts required to make it happen.
Notes
1. Field Manual (FM) 3-94, Armies, Corps, and Division
Operations, 2021, para. 4-102; Todd South, "Divisions in the Dirt: The Army's Plan for the Next Big War,"
Army Times, 6 May 2024, https://www.armytimes.com/news/yourarmy/2024/05/06/divisions-in-the-dirt-the-armys-plan-for-the-next-big-war/.
2. "The Louisiana Maneuvers," State of Louisiana National
Guard, 24 May 2007, https://web.archive.org/web/20070524090534/http://www.la.ngb.army.mil/dmh/immm_hist.htm;
Robert Citino, PhD, "The Louisiana Maneuvers," 11 July 2017, https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/articles/louisiana-maneuvers.
3. Jennifer McCardle, "Simulating War: Three Enduring
Lessons from the Louisiana Maneuvers," War on the Rocks, 17 March 2021, https://warontherocks.com/2021/03/simulating-war-three-enduring-lessons-from-the-louisiana-maneuvers/.
4. FM 100-5, Operations, August 1982, 1-3.
5. Anne W. Chapman, "The Origins and Development of the
National Training Center, 1976-1984," Fort Monroe, VA: Office of the Command Historian, U.S. Army Training
and Doctrine Command, 1992, 15.
6. Douglas W. Craft, "An Operational Analysis of the
Persian Gulf War," (Carlisle Barracks, PA: Strategic Studies Institute, U.S. Army War College, 31 August
1992), AD-A256 145.
7. David Vergun, "Pentagon Prioritizes Homeland Defense,
Warfighting, Slashing Wasteful Spending," U.S. Department of War, 9 February 2025. https://www.war.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/4060775/pentagon-prioritizes-homeland-defense-warfighting-slashing-wasteful-spending/;
GEN Randy George and Hon. Dan Driscoll, Army Transformation Initiative Memo, 1 May 2025.
8. Michelle Tan,"'We Will Be Ready': George Describes His
Focus Areas," Association of the United States Army, 15 August 2023, https://www.ausa.org/articles/we-will-be-ready-george-describes-his-focus-areas.
9. Mark Pomerleau, "Army Updating Brigades Based on Results
from Transforming-in-Contact 1.0," DefenseScoop, 27 March 2025, https://defensescoop.com/2025/03/27/army-updating-brigades-transforming-in-contact-randy-george/.
10. FM 3-0, Operations, March 2025, para. 1-51.
11. Army Techniques Publication (ATP) 3-06/Marine Corps
Tactical Publication 12-10B, Urban Operations, July 2022, D-1.
12. Kenneth K. Goedecke and William H. Putnam, "Urban
Blind Spots: Gaps in Joint Force Combat Readiness," Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs,
Harvard Kennedy School, November 2019, 31-32, https://www.belfercenter.org/publication/urban-blind-spots-gaps-joint-forcecombat-readiness.
13. Russell W. Glenn, "Preparing for the Proven
Inevitable: An Urban Operations Training Strategy for America's Joint Force," (Santa Monica, CA: RAND
Corporation, 2006), 107.
14. Office of the Under Secretary of War
(Comptroller)/Chief Financial Officer, Fiscal Year 2025 Budget Request, 4 April 2024, 3-11.
15. FY25 CTC Rotational Calendar, Combat Training Center
Directorate (CTCD), Fort Leavenworth, KS.
16. Department of the Army Pamphlet 525-30, Army
Strategic Readiness Assessment Procedures, June 2015, 33.
17. Corey L. Elliot, "Fighting the Future: Multi-Domain
Military Operations Are Already Here. But What Is the Best Way to Prepare Ground Forces for this Reality?"
(unpublished master's degree thesis, University of Bologna, 2024).
18. Ibid., 53.
19. John Spencer and Liam Collins, "Urban Warfare Project
Case Study #12 - Kyiv," Modern War Institute at West Point, 21 February 2025, https://mwi.westpoint.edu/urban-warfare-project-case-study-12-battle-of-kyiv/.
20. Interview with Dan Billquist, Joint National Training
Capability (JNTC) integrator/liaison to CTCD, U.S. Army Pacific Command (USARPAC) G3 Training, 21 May 2025.
21. Mykhaylo Zabrodskyi et al, "Preliminary Lessons in
Conventional Warfighting from Russia's Invasion of Ukraine: February – July 2022," RUSI Special Report
(London: Royal United Services Institute for Defence and Security Studies, 2022), 24.
22. Ibid., 28.
23. Courtney Albon, "Palantir Wins Contract to Expand
Access to Project Maven AI Tools," C4ISRNet, 30 May 2024, https://www.c4isrnet.com/artificial-intelligence/2024/05/30/palantir-wins-contract-to-expand-access-toproject-maven-ai-tools/.
24. Center for Army Lessons Learned (CALL), Lessons
Learned from the Ukrainian Territorial Defense Forces: Command Post Survivability, No. 24-862 (Fort
Leavenworth, KS: Center for Army Lessons Learned, 2024), 1.
25. Ibid., 2.
26. MG Michelle M. Donahue, "The C2 Fix Initiative: What
It Means for Sustainment Forces," Army Sustainment (Winter 2025), https://www.lineofdeparture.army.mil/Journals/Army-Sustainment/Army-Sustainment-Archive/ASPB-Winter-2025/The-C2-Fix-Initiative/.
27. See the Joint Pacific Multinational Readiness Center
Overview Brief. POC: Mr. Scott Wilson, JPMRC Program Manager, G3T, USARPAC, 10 April 2025.
28. Ibid., 3.
29. Ibid., 5-7.
30. This point was discussed in detail during the
author's interview with MAJ Ryan Rothschild, Program Support Division Integration Chief, CTCD, and Mr.
Billquist, JNTC integrator/liaison to CTCD, 4 April 2025.
31. Sarah Lee, "Electronic Warfare Innovations in
Aerospace & Defense," Number Analytics blog, 10 April 2024, https://www.numberanalytics.com/blog/electronic-warfare-innovations-aerospace-defense.
32. Interview with MAJ Rothschild and Mr. Billquist, 4
April 2025; also see Nokia's description of the Banshee tactical radio: https://www.nokia.com/industries/defense/banshee-4g-tactical-radio/#key-features.
33. Department of Defense Instruction 1322.28, Realistic
Military Training (RMT) Off Federal Real Property, 18 March 2013 (incorporating Change 3, effective 24 April
2020).
34. Ibid., 8.
35. This point was discussed during a phone interview on
3 April 25 with Brad White, chief of the O'Fallon Fire Department, O'Fallon, IL, and key POC for conducting
training outside of Scott Air Force Base; author interview with MAJ Rothschild and Mr. Billquist, 4 April
2025.
36. Author interview with Mr. White; author interview
with Mike Kolodzie, exercise planner, USARPAC, Fort Shafter, HI, via Microsoft Teams on 5 May 2025. For the
CTCD, the author conducted an interview with MAJ Rothschild and Mr. Billquist, 4 April 2025. Author
conducted a follow-up interview with Mr. Billquist on 21 May 25 at Fort Leavenworth.
37. For the definition of Military Operations
Areas/General, see the Federal Aviation Administration's website: https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/pham_html/chap25_section_1.html.
38. This capability does not exist yet, though the
program has moved into production. See Ronald O'Rourke, "Navy Medium Landing Ship (LSM) Program: Background
and Issues for Congress," Congressional Research Service Report R46374, 21 April 2025, https://crsreports.congress.gov for more information.
39. CGSC Learning Resource Center, Combined Arms Research
Library, e-mail submission, 20 May 2025, reviewed for grammar, punctuation, and clarity of expression. MAJ
Elliot L. Corey is currently serving as the battalion operations officer for 2nd Battalion, 12th Infantry
Regiment, 2nd Stryker Brigade, 4th Infantry Division. His previous assignments include serving as commander
of C Company, 1st Battalion, 505th Parachute Infantry Regiment, 3rd Brigade Combat Team (BCT), 82nd Airborne
Division; chief of plans for 3/82 BCT; battalion S-4 for 1st Battalion, 38th Infantry Regiment, 1st Stryker
Brigade Combat Team, 4th Infantry Division; executive officer for A Company, 1-38 IN; scout platoon leader
for 1-38 IN; and platoon leader in 2nd Battalion, 8th Infantry Regiment, 2nd Brigade, 4th ID. MAJ Corey
earned a bachelor's degree in government from Cornell University; he was selected as an Olmsted Scholar for
the class of 2022. After learning Italian at the Defense Language Institute, he earned a master's degree in
political science from the University of Bologna (Bologna, Italy).
Author
MAJ Elliot L. Corey is currently serving as the battalion operations
officer for 2nd Battalion, 12th Infantry Regiment, 2nd Stryker Brigade, 4th
Infantry Division. His previous assignments include serving as commander of
C Company, 1st Battalion, 505th Parachute Infantry Regiment, 3rd Brigade
Combat Team (BCT), 82nd Airborne Division; chief of plans for 3/82 BCT;
battalion S-4 for 1st Battalion, 38th Infantry Regiment, 1st Stryker Brigade
Combat Team, 4th Infantry Division; executive officer for A Company, 1-38
IN; scout platoon leader for 1-38 IN; and platoon leader in 2nd Battalion,
8th Infantry Regiment, 2nd Brigade, 4th ID. MAJ Corey earned a bachelor’s
degree in government from Cornell University; he was selected as an
Olmsted Scholar for the class of 2022. After learning Italian at the Defense
Language Institute, he earned a master’s degree in political science from the
University of Bologna (Bologna, Italy).