FM Intelligence Preparation of the Battlefield. CHAPTER 1 . Everyone in the US Army conducts some form of IPB. For example: A rifleman in an infantry . United States Army Command and General Staff College .. Current doctrine accepts that goal, as reflected in FM “IPB is an analytical. FIELD MANUAL Headquarters. Department of the Army. Washington, DC , 8 July INTELLIGENCE PREPARATION OF THE BATTLEFIELD.
|Published (Last):||22 October 2014|
|PDF File Size:||17.38 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||11.38 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
This is primarily a discussion of what is known about the threat facts and the results of analysis of fk facts assumptions. Characteristics of geography include general characteristics of the terrain and weather, as well as such factors as politics, civilian press, local population, and demographics. The collection manager uses these additional tools to ensure that the collection plan stays synchronized with the command’s operations. Following staff recommendations, the commander decides upon a COA and issues implementing orders.
The event template identities the NAI where the activity will occur. Step 2 evaluates the 34-1330 of the environment with which both sides must contend. Some of these involve employment of the ISOS assets under his control.
New decisions and COAs lead to updating and refining the collection plan, intelligence synchronization, and new decision support tools. Both the event template and event matrix depict the times during which the activity is expected to occur.
The description of the battlefield’s effects identifies constraints on potential friendly COAs and may reveal implied missions. Describe the Battlefield’s Effects.
FM Intelligence Preparation of the Battlefield – Figures B through B
This enables staff planning and the development of friendly COAs. Furthermore, every staff officer cm prepare detailed IPB products tailored for his own functional area. It also identifies opportunities the battlefield 34–130 presents, such as avenues of approach, engagement areas, and zones of entry, which the staff integrates into potential friendly COAs and their staff estimates. When the commander selects a particular friendly COA, he also approves and prioritizes the supporting intelligence requirements.
Step 4 integrates the results of the previous steps into a meaningful conclusion. The intelligence estimate forms the basis for the facts and assumptions of the decision making process, armh the other staff estimates and the remaining steps in the decision making process.
He bases the AI’s limits on the amount of time estimated to complete the command’s mission and the location and nature of the 34-13 of the battlefield which will influence the operation. Doctrine Versus Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures. As the size of the unit increases, the level of detail required in the IPB 34130 increases significantly.
The enemy is following his own plans and timelines; those determined during staff wargaming are only estimates. The products of IPB are the basis of the intelligence estimate.
FM – Intelligence Preparation of the Battlefield –
The IPB process identifies any critical gaps in the command’s knowledge of the battlefield environment or threat situation. Applying the IPB process helps the armu selectively apply and maximize his combat power at critical points in time and space on the battlefield by The details these tools provide are the basis of an effective intelligence collection plan.
Therefore, staffs should ensure they use IPB, wargaming, and intelligence synchronization as dynamic tools rather than as one-time events. At this level it requires little formal education beyond realistic field training exercises FTXs against a “savvy” enemy.
Define the Battlefield Environment.
Accordingly, the major IPB effort occurs before and during the first of five steps in the decision making process. Sign In Sign Out.
When operating against a new or less well-known threat, he may need to develop his intelligence data bases and threat models concurrently. IPB products also enable staffs to exploit the modem technology of the ISOS by focusing collection systems that now provide near-real-time NRT information in sufficient accuracy to conduct direct targeting. This requires key members of the staff to “huddle” or conduct “mini-wargaming. Threat evaluation also provides the detailed information on the threat’s current dispositions, recent activities, equipment, and organizational capabilities the staff needs to f their own staff estimates and planning.
IPB is a systematic, continuous process of analyzing the threat and environment in a specific geographic area. As part of COA analysis and comparison, or immediately after, the staff generally starts the targeting process with a targeting conference. IPB forms the arrmy for defining the COAs available to the friendly command and drives the wargaming process that selects and refines them. For a thorough discussion, see Chapter 2.
The products developed during IPB are so critical to this cycle and the staff planning effort that it is a distinct function. The decision to use a sketch instead of an overlay to depict the battlefield’s effects or the threat’s available COAs is a matter of TTP. The commander bases his initial intelligence requirements on the critical gaps identified during IPB in the mission analysis step of the decision making process. The remainder of the staff “fights” each potential friendly COA and notes where and when in its execution decisions are required to make the COA successful.
This evaluation focuses on the general capabilities of each force until COAs are developed in later steps of the IPB process. Refined and updated requirements result from staff wargaming and selection of a particular friendly COA.
IPB is an essential element of the intelligence cycle. The ISOS is the flexible architecture of procedures, organizations, and equipment that collect, process, store, and disseminate intelligence. FM discusses intelligence synchronization and the collection management process in detail. Whenever possible, he plans and arranges direct dissemination of targeting intelligence from the collector to the targeting cell or appropriate tire support element FSE.
The battle staff then wargames the best friendly response or preemptive action based on the updated set of IPB predictions. Incorporating the results of IPB into COA development ensures that each friendly COA takes advantage of the opportunities the environment aarmy threat situation offer and arym valid in terms of what they will allow.