The Modular Brigade Combat Team
These questions are really targeted to current serving US Army soldiers, but anyone in the know feel free to jump in:
1) How do you feel about the "new" brigade combat team structure at this point; how's the organization working out?
2) Should a third (or fourth?) manuever battalion be added as standard?
3) Are any of the brigades (especially Light/Airborne/Air Assault) deploying with additional manuever battalions attached?
RSTA, transformation, cont.
I don't want to insinuate that I am not a supporter of the Cav's mission, in regards to the light BDE, however, I think a recon troop attached at BDE or adding the RSTA to a BDE in addition to the 3 INF BNs would have been wiser. Another option would be to have a RSTA troop attached to each BN. Maybe we don't have the personnel to do that.
Just as RTK highlighted, the RSTA Sqn aren't exclusively conducting the "R" (recon), "S" (surveillance) or "TA" (target acquisition). They are just another maneuver unit...except with less Soldiers, thus handicapped in comparison to the INF units, who also own battlespace in Iraq or Afghanistan, but have more capabilities because they have more companies, with more Soldiers.
Transformation also greatly affected the Field Artillery, as well. Now instead of 3 firing batteries of six guns, we have two firing batteries of eight. There are more platoons, but less commands. The Headquarters Battery was also greatly reduced in size, because the FIST moved to the INF or RSTA and all of the support is now in the Combat Support Companies. HHB now basically consists of the staff, survey, met, radar, medics and ammo. This has hindered the FA because many times, they will own battlespace in Iraq or Afghanistan, in addition to their indirect fire/counter-fire mission, they have to conduct an INF mission as well. Now, we only have three batteries to own battlespace, as opposed to four and HHB is severely hampered by having so few Soldiers, they can basically only function as a platoon.
Another case of perfectly good doctrine...
...bollixed up by reality.
Current BCT organization is flawed for two primary reasons.
1. The RSTA squadron, as originally envisioned, was much more robust and high-tech than what ended up on the ground. It was not intended to be a maneuver element but to surveill and shape the 'whitespace' between the infantry battalions. In this way, you reduced the need for infantry because they could be employed with max efficiency. Unfortunately, the RSTA organization was reduced to save money/bodies (see #2 below) and some of the technological solutions have yet to show up (cf 'spiral development'). Yet this did not result in the addition of a third infantry battalion to compensate.
2. The driver for this product was we needed a certain number of brigades - the pie just had to be sliced thinner.
Good news is that all involved recognize what we have now is an interim solution - or compromise - that will have to be fixed in the future. Bad news is that interim solutions have a habit of hanging around long past their expiration date.
None of which is helped by the fact that, historically, cavalry has been habitually misused when placed in the hands of infantrymen or tankers.
Been there and done that. It's also been my
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Eden
...None of which is helped by the fact that, historically, cavalry has been habitually misused when placed in the hands of infantrymen or tankers.
experience that the Cavalryman who tells said Infantryman or Tanker what he should be doing most always got to do that -- and do it his way... ;)
Some thoughts on the original question...
1. I don't think the structure is that bad, and it does have some high points. Infantry and Armor companies together in the CAB--about time. People will argue taking the support/maintenance/DFAC platoons away from BN HHCs and putting them in the FSC of the BSB stinks, but in the end they are going to be attached to the maneuver BNs anyway so it doesn't really matter. Having a Q36/Q37/ 4 LCMRs at the BCT Level in the Fires BN is money...especially in Iraq/Afghanistan. Also creating the BSTB to help handle all the "free agent" platoons and companies attached to the BCT (EOD/Psyop/MI/Signal/CA/NBC/MP) assists a BCT CDR greatly. The low point is that we created "Reconnaissance Squadrons," and that's exactly what we have--units that are equipped to conduct Recon Missions only, and can only do most Security missions or fight for information with augmentation. We can go on and on about that....If we are going to make them do those kinds of missions without aumentation, we either incur mucho risk or will lose alot of bubbas.
A big point to remember is that the BCT is Modular--the BNs aren't. When you Task Organize a maneuver BN away, which happens plenty in Iraq (at least it did 03-04 and 05-06 from what I saw) now you are in a situation where the BCT CDR has only 1 CAB left or one Rifle BN left in either HBCT/IBCT. Now he is almost forced to give an AO to the Recon Squadron or a small one to the Fires BN--which they are not equipped to do. So that's why it probably happens.
2. Yes, we could use a third--three is always better than 2--mainly it would preserve options for a BCT CDR when faced with a problem of having only 1 Maneuver BN if one was task organized away. The big issue to remember here though is that the Army's end strength is a zero-sum game. We aren't going to get more than 547,000 in the immediate future, and all the Manpower allocations are accounted for in 48 BCTs and the other types of brigades out there--so we can dream about it, but it probably won't happen. The Armor Branch is facing similar roblems right now with trying to fix the above-mentioned problems in the Recon Squadrons when trying to execute Full Spectrum Operations in COIN or fight for information. No other branch is volunteering to give up manpower allocations, and many of the proposed changes to the MTOE, including extra dismounted Cavalry Scouts in all 3 types of Recon Squadons, trade humvees in for Bradleys, add tanks and tank crews--well, the additional people have to come from somewhere. I dare not mention where with so many Brave Rifles around here....wouldn't do that to you, RTK.
3. Don't know.
True that. I'd go for four maneuver
Co/Coy/Trp/Sqdrn per Bn/Regt (Commonwealth, not USMC). For the vehicular types, two Tank / SPG and two Inf per Bn. Yes, mixed vehicles. Not a problem; check an H series ACR. The nominal problem is pure branch parochialism...
Div CavSqn (US) should have tanks and four ground troops, one per BCT, plus an air troop. Train the Cav Sqn, put the Troops OpCon or Atchd (METT-TC) to BCT and the relationship will insure, in most cases, the Cav gets to do Cav stuff...
Huh? Yeah, yeah. I know. However, much as I think it should disappear, I don't think the Division's going away anytime soon for several reasons, two big ones. Not those, well, them too -- but mostly log and comm... ;)