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):||24 March 2014|
|PDF File Size:||13.59 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||15.47 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
IPB is a systematic, continuous process of analyzing the threat and environment in a specific geographic area. It is designed to support staff estimates and military decision making.
FM Intelligence Preparation of the Battlefield – Introduction
Applying the IPB process helps the commander selectively apply and maximize his combat power at critical points in time and 34-1130 on the battlefield by IPB is a continuous process which consists of four steps which you perform each xrmy you conduct IPB:. The IPB process is continuous. You conduct IPB prior to and during the command’s initial planning for an operation, but you also continue to perform IPB during the conduct of the operation.
Each function in the process is performed continuously to ensure that A brief overview of each function is presented below. For a thorough discussion, see Chapter 2. This focuses the command’s initial intelligence collection efforts and the remaining aemy of the IPB process. 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. He bases the AI’s limits on the amount of time estimated to complete the command’s mission and the location and 34-103 of the characteristics of the battlefield which will influence the operation.
Defining the significant characteristics of armu battlefield environment also aids in identifying gaps fk current intelligence holdings and the specific intelligence required to fill them. Once approved by the commander, the specific intelligence required to fill gaps in the command’s knowledge of the battlefield environment and threat situation becomes the command’s initial intelligence requirements.
Step 2 evaluates the effects of the environment with which both sides must contend. This evaluation focuses on the general capabilities of each force until COAs are developed in later steps of the IPB process. 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. Characteristics of geography include general characteristics of the terrain and weather, as well as such factors as politics, civilian press, local population, and demographics.
An area’s infrastructure consists of the facilities, equipment, and framework needed for the functioning of dm, cities, or regions. Products developed in this step might include, but are not limited to When operating against a new or less well-known threat, he may need to develop his intelligence data bases and threat models concurrently.
Although they usually emphasize graphic depictions doctrinal templatesthreat models sometimes emphasize matrices or simple narratives. Step 4 integrates the results of the previous steps armyy a meaningful conclusion.
FM Intelligence Preparation of the Battlefield – Figures B through B
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?
He also prepares event templates and matrices that focus intelligence collection on identifying which COA the threat will execute. The enemy COA models developed in step 4 are the products that the staff will use to portray the threat in the decision making and targeting processes. Both of these examples illustrate an informal application of IPB; that is, describe the effects of the battlefield and determine the threat’s COAs. 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. As the size of the unit increases, the level of detail required in the IPB effort increases significantly. An armored company commander’s informal IPB produces little more than an appreciation of what the threat is most likely to do during their engagement.
A division staffs IPB can produce Every commander and every member of the staff needs to understand and apply IPB during the staff planning process. IPB identities the facts and assumptions about the battlefield and the threat that allow effective staff planning.
IPB forms the basis for defining the COAs available to the friendly command and drives the wargaming process that selects and refines them.
Ffm commander and staff officer needs to think through the effects the environment has on both threat and friendly operations. Furthermore, every staff officer should prepare detailed IPB products tailored for his own functional area. The bottom line is that every soldier conducts IPB. Every soldier thinks through an informal IPB procedure, but commanders and staff officers undertake a more formal process.
The doctrinal principles of IPB are sound and can be applied to all situations at all levels. The decision to use a sketch instead of an 3-130 to depict the battlefield’s effects or the threat’s available COAs is a matter of TTP. Such decisions can only be made within the context of a given situation. IPB identifies facts and assumptions about the battlefield environment and the threat. This enables staff planning and the development of friendly COAs.
IPB provides the basis for intelligence direction and synchronization that supports the command’s chosen COA.
IPB contributes to complete staff synchronization and the successful completion of several other staff processeswhich are described below. 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.
The products of IPB are the basis of the intelligence estimate. This is primarily a discussion of what is known about the threat facts amy the results of analysis of those facts assumptions. This is a listing and discussion of the COAs available to the threat.
Here you summarize the effects of the battlefield environment on friendly and enemy COAs, list the set of probable threat COAs in order of probability of adoptionand list the threat’s exploitable vulnerabilities. The results and products of IPB, conveyed in the intelligence estimate, are essential elements of the decision making process.
Accordingly, the major IPB effort occurs before and during the first of five steps in the decision making process. The decision making process is a dynamic and continuous process. The staff atmy to estimate the situation as the operation progresses, adapting the command’s COA to unforeseen changes in the situation.
The IPB which supports the decision making process must also remain dynamic, constantly integrating new information into the initial set of facts and assumptions. The relationship of the IPB process to each step in the decision making process is discussed below see Figure In this ary IPB products enable the commander to assess facts about the battlefield and make assumptions about how friendly and threat forces will interact on the armyy.
The description of the battlefield’s effects identifies constraints on potential friendly COAs and may reveal implied missions. 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.
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.
Threat evaluation also provides the detailed information on the threat’s current dispositions, recent activities, equipment, and organizational capabilities the staff needs to complete their own staff estimates and planning.
The IPB process identifies any critical gaps in the command’s knowledge of the battlefield environment or threat situation. As part of his initial planning guidance, the commander uses these gaps as a guide to establish his initial intelligence requirements. 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.
Figure shows this wargaming. Appendix A discusses in more detail the relationship between IPB and wargaming. Following staff recommendations, the commander decides upon a COA and issues implementing orders. He also approves the list of intelligence requirements associated with that COA and identities the most important as priority intelligence requirements PIR. The command’s collection manager uses the results of IPB to develop and implement a collection plan that will satisfy these requirements see IPB and the Collection Management 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. As the battle progresses, IPB is used to continuously evaluate the situation facing the command, driving new iterations of the decision making process and the directing step of the intelligence cycle. For a complete discussion of the decision making process, see FM The targeting process results in targeting guidance that supports the command’s COA.
This guidance generates additional intelligence requirements in support of each potential friendly COA the targeting process supports. As part of COA analysis and comparison, or immediately after, the staff generally starts the targeting process with a targeting conference. Using the results of staff wargaming and IPB as a guide, they decide The targeting team further refines the event templates and matrices to include the information required to support targeting.
Figure shows an example attack guidance matrix. During this step the command’s collection manager develops collection strategies that will satisfy specific information requirements which support the targeting process. If BDA is required to support the command’s COA, the collection manager plans collection to satisfy that set of requirements as well.
Whenever possible, he plans and arranges direct dissemination of targeting intelligence from the collector to the targeting cell or appropriate tire support element FSE.
For a complete discussion of the targeting process, see FM Collection management synchronizes the activities of organizations and systems to provide intelligence the commander needs to accomplish his COA and targeting efforts. IPB helps the commander identify his intelligence requirements and provides the focus and direction needed to satisfy them.
The commander bases his initial intelligence requirements on the critical gaps identified during IPB in the mission analysis step of the decision making process. Refined and updated requirements result from staff wargaming and selection of a particular friendly COA. 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.
They also determine the specific intelligence required to support each decision and record it onto the list of proposed intelligence requirements. When the commander selects a particular friendly COA, he also approves and prioritizes the supporting intelligence requirements. 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 event template identities the NAI where the activity will occur. The event matrix describes the indicators associated with the activity. Both the event template and event matrix depict the times during which the activity is expected to occur. The details these tools provide are the basis of an effective intelligence collection plan.
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 The collection manager uses these additional tools to ensure that the collection plan stays synchronized with the command’s operations.
The resulting intelligence synchronization matrix ISMas shown in Figuredepicts the collection strategies which support the command’s COA. Intelligence synchronization is more than simply ensuring that collection systems of various sorts are operating 24 hours a day.