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):||14 June 2010|
|PDF File Size:||11.60 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||1.30 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
The description of the battlefield’s effects identifies constraints on potential friendly COAs and may reveal implied missions. 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?
A division staffs IPB can produce If BDA is required to support the command’s COA, the collection manager plans collection to satisfy that set of requirements as well. The details these tools provide are the basis of an effective intelligence collection plan.
FM – Intelligence Preparation of the Battlefield –
When the commander selects a particular friendly COA, he also approves and prioritizes the supporting intelligence requirements. This is a listing and discussion of the COAs available to the threat. The event matrix describes the indicators associated with the activity. Each function in the process is performed continuously to ensure that IPB is a continuous process which consists of four steps which you perform each time you conduct IPB:.
IPB helps the commander identify his intelligence requirements and provides the focus and direction needed to satisfy them. They are to develop The results and products of IPB, conveyed in the intelligence estimate, are essential elements of the decision making process.
IPB products also contribute to the development of staff synchronization tools such as the DST and battlefield operating system BOS synchronization matrix, shown in Figure They also determine the specific intelligence 34-310 to support each decision and record it onto the list of proposed intelligence requirements. It is the application of battlefield common sense.
At this level it requires little formal education beyond realistic field training exercises FTXs against a “savvy” enemy.
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.
Define the Battlefield Environment. During this step the command’s 341-30 manager develops collection strategies that will satisfy specific information requirements which support the targeting process. 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.
However, the MI unit commander will use the IPB process to support his own unique planning requirements. IPB contributes to complete staff synchronization and the successful completion of several other staff processeswhich are described below.
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. As part of COA analysis and comparison, or immediately after, the staff generally starts the targeting process with a targeting conference.
Products developed in this step might include, but are not limited to IPB plays a critical role in the decision making process. As intelligence confirms or denies planning assumptions on the battlefield environment or the threat’s COA, a continuous IPB process identifies new intelligence requirements.
Doctrine Versus Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures. This evaluation focuses on the general capabilities of each force until COAs are developed in later steps of the IPB process. As part of his initial planning guidance, the commander uses these gaps as a guide to establish his initial intelligence requirements.
Therefore, staffs should ensure they use IPB, wargaming, and intelligence synchronization as dynamic tools rather than as one-time events. The commander bases his initial intelligence requirements on the critical gaps identified during IPB in the mission analysis step of the decision making process.
Every commander and staff officer needs to think through arjy effects the environment has on both threat and 34-13 operations. Sometimes the battle will progress in a direction unanticipated during the initial IPB and wargaming. Figure shows an example attack guidance matrix. The decision making process is a dynamic and continuous process. IPB not only enables a staff to put steel on target but also helps prioritize and maximize the effects of targeting.
The IPB process is continuous. The coordination of this entire cycle is intelligence synchronization. The relationship of the IPB process to each step in the decision making process is discussed below see Figure 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.
This is primarily a discussion of what is known about the threat facts and the results of analysis of those facts assumptions.
The bottom line is that every soldier conducts IPB.