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):||10 December 2007|
|PDF File Size:||10.43 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||15.79 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 those facts assumptions. This evaluation focuses on the general capabilities of each force until COAs are developed in later steps of 34130 IPB process. Products developed in this step might include, but are not limited to Such decisions can only be made within the context of a given situation.
FM Intelligence Preparation of the Battlefield – Introduction
At this level it requires little formal education beyond realistic field training exercises FTXs against a “savvy” enemy. For a complete discussion of the targeting process, fj FM As part of COA analysis and comparison, or immediately after, the staff generally starts the targeting process with a targeting conference.
The results and products of IPB, conveyed in the intelligence estimate, are essential elements of the decision making process. Step 2 evaluates the effects of the environment with which both sides must contend. 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.
As part of his initial planning guidance, the commander uses these gaps as a guide to establish his initial intelligence requirements. It is the application of battlefield common sense. This requires key members of the staff to “huddle” or conduct “mini-wargaming. 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.
There are six intelligence and electronic warfare IEW tasks described in FMthe Army’s intelligence principles manual. 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 staff continues to estimate the situation as the operation progresses, adapting the command’s COA to unforeseen changes in the situation. IPB is an essential element of the intelligence cycle.
The enemy is following his own plans and timelines; those determined during staff wargaming are only estimates. When the commander selects a particular friendly COA, he also approves and prioritizes the supporting intelligence requirements. Generally, these are analyzed in more detail for areas within the command’s area of operations AO and battle space than for other areas in the AI.
Army Publishing Directorate
Enemy capabilities and vulnerabilities identified during evaluation of the threat allow the commander and staff to make assumptions about the relative capabilities of the friendly command. IPB supports further development of requirements by identifying the activity which will satisfy each requirement and where and when the activity is expected to occur. The details these tools provide are the basis of an effective intelligence collection plan.
This guidance generates additional intelligence requirements in support of each potential friendly COA the targeting process supports. 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. The intelligence estimate forms the basis for the facts and assumptions of the decision making process, driving the other staff estimates and the remaining steps in the decision making process.
Figure shows an example attack guidance matrix. Appendix A discusses in more detail the relationship between IPB and wargaming.
When operating against a new or less well-known threat, he may need to develop his intelligence data bases and threat models concurrently. Refined and updated requirements result from staff wargaming and selection of a particular friendly COA.
Every soldier thinks through an informal IPB procedure, but commanders and staff officers undertake a more formal process. This supports the commander’s decisions during COA execution and helps him to quickly confirm or deny the assumptions used during COA development. Finally, the commander leads the IPB effort. The IPB process identifies any critical gaps in the command’s knowledge of the battlefield environment or threat situation.
Using the results of staff wargaming and IPB as a guide, they decide Figure shows this wargaming.
Here you summarize the effects of the battlefield environment on ary and enemy COAs, list the set of probable threat Wrmy in order of probability of adoptionand list the threat’s exploitable vulnerabilities. Although they usually emphasize graphic depictions doctrinal templatesthreat models sometimes emphasize matrices or simple narratives. This enables staff planning and the development of friendly COAs. The products of IPB are the basis of the intelligence estimate. IPB forms the basis for defining the COAs available to the friendly command and drives the wargaming process that selects and refines them.
It also identifies opportunities the battlefield environment presents, such as avenues of approach, engagement areas, and zones of entry, which the staff integrates into potential friendly COAs and their staff estimates. Both of these examples illustrate an informal application of IPB; that is, describe the effects of the battlefield and determine the threat’s COAs. However, the MI unit commander will use the IPB process to support his own unique planning requirements. FM discusses intelligence synchronization and the collection management process in detail.
Incorporating the results of IPB into COA development ensures that each friendly COA takes advantage of the opportunities the environment and threat situation offer and is valid in terms of what they will allow. Furthermore, every staff officer should prepare detailed IPB products tailored for his own functional area. The description of the battlefield’s effects identifies constraints on potential friendly COAs and may reveal implied missions. This assessment of the environment always includes an examination of terrain and weather but may also include discussions of the characteristics of geography and infrastructure and their effects on friendly and threat operations.
Given what the threat normally prefers to do, and the effects of the specific environment in which he is operating now, what are his likely objectives and the COAs available to him?
New decisions and COAs lead to updating and refining the collection plan, intelligence synchronization, and new decision support tools. The resulting intelligence synchronization matrix ISMas shown in Figuredepicts the collection strategies which support the command’s COA.
As the size of the unit increases, the level of detail required in the IPB effort increases significantly. IPB not only enables a staff to put steel on target but also helps prioritize and maximize the effects of targeting.