ATP-5-0-2-1 Staff Reference Guide Volume 1 Download
Page 178 of 440
Appendix A 162 ATP 5-0.2-1 07 December 2020 Table A-4. Breach planning considerations in the military decision-making process (continued) Steps of the MDMP Breach planning considerations COA comparison • Analyze and evaluate the advantages and disadvantages for each COA in relation to the ability to execute the breaching: Ability (time-distance) to shift breaching assets between units beyond the line of departure. Ability to reinforce the breaching forces or respond to enemy counterattacks within the breach area (use of a reserve). COA approval • Approval for any changes to the essential tasks for mobility. • Approval for recommended priorities of effort and support. • Approval for requests for engineer augmentation to be sent to higher headquarters. Orders production • Ensure that the task organization of engineer forces and critical breach equipment is accurate and clear, to include the necessary instructions for effecting linkup. • Ensure the quality and completeness of subunit instructions for performing breaching. SOSRA suppress, obscure, secure, reduce, and assault PREPARING FOR BREACH ACTIVITIES A-16. During preparation, the commander and staff continues to review IPB products against the current situation and refining the plans based on reporting from information collection assets. For example, this can include adjustments to the breach organization, the scheme of maneuver, or the fire support plan. Subordinate units begin implementing the task organization while performing precombat checks and inspections. Most importantly, the unit conducts a rehearsal as close as possible to the same conditions as the actual breach. At a minimum, it should be a leader and key-personnel walk-through and individual rehearsals by support, breach, and assault forces. EXECUTING BREACH ACTIVITIES A-17. Execution involves monitoring the situation, assessing the mission, and making necessary adjustments. The most common adjustments are the allocation of additional assets to the support, breach, or assault force due to attrition, changing the location of the point of breach or penetration, modifying the scheme of maneuver, and changing the order of the units through the created lane. GAP CROSSING A-18. This section is derived from ATP 3-90.4/MCWP 3-17.8. A-19. Gap crossing in support of maneuver is similar to a breach in that the friendly forces are vulnerable while moving through a lane or across a gap. Friendly units are forced to break movement formations, concentrate within lanes or at crossing points, and reform on the far side before continuing to maneuver. While, much of the terminology and planning associated with gap crossing is the same as a breach, a gap crossing and a breach have a series of differences in complexity and task organization. The scale and scope of a gap crossing is vastly great than a breach. Additionally, the amount and type of equipment involved in a wet-gap crossing far outnumbers those required for a breach. Sometimes breaching will include a gap crossing (tank ditch) as a reduction method. The primary focus of planning and preparation is normally focused on the breach, which causes the gap crossing to be discussed as a subordinate part of, rather than a sequential component of the breach.