During the 1970's, the US Army considered forming a new kind of unit-the Tri-Cap Division. Tri-Cap was an acronyrn for "triple capability." This new formation was to be a flexible, quick-reaction unit capable of launching a counterat tack able to stop any advancing Soviet unit in its tracks.

A Tri-Cap division was to have consisted of three very different components plus the usual assets. These were a brigade each of attack helicopters, airmobile infantry, and armor. Whenever a Soviet breakthrough occurred, elements of the Tri-Cap division would move to intercept. The attack helicopters would rush in and shoot up the Soviet spearhead. The airmobile infantry would drop in front of the breakthrough to seal off the gap and halt the enemy advance. Meanwhile, the armored brigade would move up and eliminate the Soviet spearhead and force remaining Soviet units back.

[Ed. Note: This thinking (the Army's, not Mr. Meldrum's) reflects a very linear attrition-based doctrine. Note that the division is using its force on the enemy spearhead (their strongest point) in an attempt toplug a gap andforce them back to "their" side of the line. A more modern doctrine would allow the spearhead in, cut it off from its support, and mop up the spearhead afterward. That type of plan focuses our strength on their weakness-the support of the spearhead. Once unhooked from support, the supply-hungry spearhead will be much easier to destroy. This is a doctrinal point I wanted to make before Mr. Meldrum moves on. I won't interfere with his article again. I just wanted players to notice the type of doctrine the Army is using at this point in their development.]

The problem, however, is that the Tri-Cap division was good for only one thing: the set-piece counterattack. Army research and wargaming revealed that this kind of unit was not able to take and hold ground. It was also far too prone to attrition. Such a unit would work well against Soviet units strung out across miles of European roads and fields, but to go up against a concentrated Soviet Tank Division would be an entirely different proposition.

The Army's unsuccessful experiment with the Tri-Cap division, however, does appear to have left its mark on current US Army formations.

Currently, most US Army heavy divisions have an attached Aviation Battalion consisting of scout, attack, and transport helicopters. Also, US Army Armor and Mechanized Infantry Divisions are almost identical in composition with only an emphasis on either armor or mech depending on the formation. This is in contrast to the Tri-Cap division which was basically an Airmobile Division with an attached Armored Brigade. So, it seems that the "legacy" of the Tri-Cap experiment was to balance US Army heavy divisions with respect to their composition and to add aviation capability to improve their firepower and flexibility. Adding transport helicopters also permits heavy divisions to "convert" a limited number of their organic mechanized infantry into airmobile infantry.

The main objective of this article is to provide players with a Tri-Cap unitthat they can substitute into existing scenarios using existing game equipment. Players can then see for themselves whether the Tri-Cap concept would have actually worked in the field or whether it would have proved unworkable in combat.

There are actually two separate Tri-Cap units for this game. The first is intended to be a battalion-sized unit composed of several companies and additional assets. This intended for use in the in the campaign game and NATO scenarios of Force Eagle's War. The second formation is intended to be a companysize "slice" of the battalion for use in the company/team scenarios. This is just a company-sized force with a proportion of the same number of vehicles and assets as the battalion.

[Ed. Note: Jim, does your research indicate the application of Tri-Cap doctrine down to the company level? I was under the impression that Tri- Cap was the function of the division and it didn't form Tri-Cap "task forces." I'm just curious if this is the way the doctrine was meant to work or if its a representation in miniature of it. A t this point it is not clear to me and I am interested in it.]

Unless otherwise mentioned, all rules from Force Eagle's War are in effect at all times. Please refer to the original game rules for resolving disputes between the game rules and the variant material presented here. Unless specifically mentioned, all scenario parameters remain unchanged.

Force Eagle's War Scenarios:

For Scenario 1, use a Tri-Cap unit composed of.

All Task Force Eagle HQ and asset units All helicopters All units of 2-75 th Rangers All units of companies A, B, and E.

Set up is the same as for scenario I for both sides. The US player may add one task force asset as an option. Tlie AH64's enter on turn one, followed by the UH60's and the Rangers at 0600. All remaining US units enter play at 0800.

Scenario 3:

All US HQ units, assets and Company A are deployed as per the regular scenario. All Rangers and helicopters are in the US Holding Box. The Soviet player may use either the Tank Battalion or MRB Lbut not both. Soviet attack helicopter use is optional but not recommended.

Scenario 5:

All scenario parameters are the same. Deploy all US HQ units and assets plus all units of Company A on the map at full strength. The UH60 and Rangers are in the holding box, Soviets may use either the Tank Battalion or MRB 1. but not both.

Scenario 9.

All scenario parameters are the same. Deploy the US HQ, assets and A/2-75 Rangers as indicated in theregular scenario. Place 3x AH64in theUS HoldingBox for theUS player. Sovietsuse theunits and set up from the regular scenario.

Company and Team Scenarios:

The Tri-Cap unit for these scenarios consists of: US Tank Heavy Team' version 1; battalion/task force elements; A/2-75 Rangers, 6x UH60.

Modify the company and team scenarios as follows:

1 -Same but US tanks enter on turn 2, all other US units enter on turn I .

2--Same as 1.

3-As indicated.

4-Put the AH64's in the US Holding Box. They may appear on rum 5.

5- Same as 4.

6-As indicated.

NATO Scenarios:

The Tri-Cap unit for the NATO scenarios consists of all Force Eagle HQ units and assets, all AH64 and UH60 helicopters, all Rangers, and all units of Companies A, B and E.

Modify the NATO scenarios as follows:

1-Same as US attack helicopters enter on the 0600 game turn.

2-As indicated.

3-As indicated.

4-Reverse sides: US becomes the Soviet player anduses the Soviet set ups and victory conditions-and vice-versa. The Soviet player must use the Tank Battalion.

5-Use the initial set up. At 1100, the UH60's and Rangers enter play. As an option, add 2x AH64. At 1300, the US HQ, assets, and Companies A, B, and E enter play.

Note: In all Tri-Cap scenarios in this article, the Rangers may notenter play unless carried in by UH60 helicopters. The UH60's may enter and leave themaps anynumber oftimes until allofthe US Rangers have been moved from the US Holding Box onto the map.

If the Soviet player has shot down all of the US transport helicopters, then the US player gets sufficient UH60 units to enter all remaining Ranger units into play one rum later. The Soviet player, however, gets credit for shooting down the lielicopters together with the units that they were originally carrying.

Response: Letter to Editor (Ops 4)