TC 7-100.2 Opposing Force Tactics

This training circular (TC), as part of the TC 7-100 series, describes an opposing force (OPFOR) that exists for the purpose of training U.S. forces for potential combat operations. This OPFOR reflects a composite of the characteristics of military and/or paramilitary forces that may be present in actual operational environments (OEs) in which U.S. forces might become involved in the near- and mid-term. Like those actual threats or enemies, the OPFOR will continue to present new and different challenges for U.S. forces. The nature of OEs is constantly changing, and it is important for U.S. Army training environments to keep pace with real-world developments.

Operational Environments

The DOD officially defines an operational environment as “a composite of the conditions, circumstances, and influences that affect the employment of capabilities and bear on the decisions of the commander” (JP 3-0). This definition applies to an OE for a specific operation, at any level of command. In planning a training scenario and its road to war, trainers need to take into consideration the entire OE and its impact on the OPFOR’s operations and tactics.

Contemporary Operational Environment

The Contemporary Operational Environment (COE) is the collective set of conditions, derived from a composite of actual worldwide conditions, that pose realistic challenges for training, leader development, and capabilities development for Army forces and their joint, intergovernmental, interagency, and multinational partners. COE is a collective term for the related aspects of contemporary OEs that exist or could exist today or in the near- and mid-term future (next 10 years). It is not a totally artificial construct created for training. Rather, it is a representative composite of all the operational variables and actors that create the conditions, circumstances, and influences that can affect military operations in various actual OEs in this contemporary timeframe. This composite can, therefore, provide realistic and relevant conditions necessary for training and leader development.

Why It Is Called Contemporary

The COE is “contemporary” in the sense that it does not represent conditions that existed only in the past or that might exist only in the remote future, but rather those conditions that exist today and in the near- and mid-term future. This composite COE consists not only of the military and/or paramilitary capabilities of potential real-world adversaries, but also of the manifestations of the seven other operational variables that help define any OE.

Training Applications

The COE is particularly valuable in training. Its flexible composite should be capable of addressing the qualities of virtually any OE in which the units or individuals being trained might be called upon to operate. In training environments, an OE is created to approximate the demands of actual OEs that U.S. forces might encounter and to set the conditions for producing desired training outcomes. This involves the appropriate combination of an OPFOR (with military and/or paramilitary capabilities representing a composite of a number of potential adversaries) and other variables of the OE in a realistic, feasible, and plausible manner. See TC 7-101 for more detail on the incorporation of the COE into the design of training exercises.

The Army trains as it will fight. It trains and educates its members to develop agile leaders and organizations able to adapt to any situation and operate successfully in any OE. A training objective consists of task, conditions, and standard. The “conditions” for Army training events must include an OE that is realistic, relevant, and challenging to the ability of the training unit to accomplish the same kinds of mission-essential tasks that would be required of it in an actual OE for an actual operation. As much as possible, a combination of live, virtual, constructive, and gaming training enablers can help replicate conditions representative of an actual OE. (See FM 7-0.)

Chapter 1: Hybrid Threat Roles and Relationships in Training

Main article: Chapter 1: Hybrid Threat Roles and Relationships in Training

A Hybrid Threat Force Structure is a training tool that should allow the U.S. Army to train against a challenging and plausible sparring partner that represents the range of possible opponents the Army could face in actual conflict. It enables training of all arms of the Army and prepares the Army for potential combat operations.

Chapter 2: Hybrid Threat Force Structure

Main article: Chapter 2: Hybrid Threat Force Structure

This chapter and the organizational directories to which it is linked provide the Hybrid Threat Force Structure (HTFS) to be used as the basis for a threat organization in all Army training, except real-world-oriented mission rehearsal exercises. This includes the forces of Threat actors as well as key non-state actors. In most cases, the organizations found in the HTFS will require task-organizing (see chapter 3) in order to construct a threat order of battle appropriate for a training event.

Chapter 3: Task-Organizing

Main article: Chapter 3: Task-Organizing

The concept of task-organizing for combat is not unique to the Threat. It is universally, performed at all levels, and has been around as long as combat. The U.S. Army defines a task organization as “A temporary grouping of forces designed to accomplish a particular mission” and defines task-organizing as “The process of allocating available assets to subordinate commanders and establishing their command and support relationships” (ADRP 1-02). Task-organizing of the Hybrid Threat must follow Hybrid Threat doctrine (see TC 7-100, FM 7-100.1, and TC 7- 100.2) and reflect requirements for stressing U.S. units’ mission essential task list (METL) in training.

Chapter 4: Equipment Options

Main article: Chapter 4: Equipment Options

The Hybrid Threat Force Structure (HTFS) organizational directories provide example equipment types and the numbers of each type typically found in specific organizations. The purpose is to give trainers and training planners a good idea of what a Threat Force Structure should look like. However, training requirements may dictate some modifications to this baseline. Therefore, training planners have several options by which they can modify equipment holdings to meet particular training requirements.