So you want to keep the divison vs. the COL MacGregor idea of eliminating the two-star HQ? How do most company and field grades feel about this?
Also, will light infantry brigades go back to a brigade base of three maneuver battalions?
Printable View
We discussed this a while ago- if you eliminate the divisions from OIF, V Corps would have had like 70 something subordinates. I agree with COL MacGregor that span of control can be extended beyond three, but I don't believe that eliminating the division echelon is possible. The trend in thought currently seems to be that the division is not as capable of modularity as our doctrine assumes, and the division CGs would rather deploy with their habitual BCTs.
The other big problem with modularity is that we cut the number of enabling brigades, so divisions don't have the subordinate HQs that our doctrine assumes for missions like river crossings, counterfire, etc.
I can only speak for the small group of officers that I've discussed this issue with, but I think that most agree that we need the division echelon.
Don't know. Everyone acknowledges that all BCTs should have at least 3 maneuver BNs, and that the RS/RSTA doesn't substitute effectively across the full spectrum of operations (although they have been an effective stop-gap during the current COIN/LIC operations in OIF and OEF). The real constraint is $$, which constrains people. I'm anxious to see what happens in the drawdown we are sure to face soon.Quote:
Also, will light infantry brigades go back to a brigade base of three maneuver battalions?
What are the rumors going around regarding the BCTs? When the drawdown comes do the BCTs get a third maneuver battalion (except SBCTs)? Does the equipment and organization of the ARS and RSTA change, etc? Is the whole idea of "transformation" and the "modular" force going bye-bye and the U.S. goes back to the legacy force (which won the Gulf War and OIF)?
I see that you addressed the third maneuver battalion in a previous post.
It's my understanding that recommendations were to made about restructuring the BCT after this years Unified Quest - anyone here have any info on that?
What should a Full Spectrum BCT look like? Combined Arms Battilions like the HBCT or Combined Arms like the SBCT? Maybe a one battalion each of HBACT/IBCT/SBCT? ACR design?
FiBs have their own issues. The ones at Sill are pretty squared away, but the ones at Lewis and especially Hood are manpower pools for taskings. Training is an afterthought under those conditions.
Not to mention that most FiBs don't have cannon units which means that there is no opportunity to rotate personnel through them to maintain competency on rocket and tube systems, let alone other artillery skills.
For that matter, should the FiBs have cannons? I can only think of two that do.
I can't speak for the (mis)-use of FiBs as tasking pools, but the COL-level CDR and staff allows the planning/execution of BTRY EXEVALs and BN level training, which is impossible in the BCTs. We've always had support cycles, and as the BCT deployments slow down, so will that kind of distractor.
The lack of cannon expertise is a problem, although the FiB HQ should have the requisite expertise, with or without assigned cannon units. Lewis and Bragg do, Hood was supposed to get a cannon BN, don't know about Sill. I think that every FiB should have a cannon BN.
Pretty sure that in order to minimize the overall personnel increase, the size of HBCT Bns will drop from 4 to 3 companies. Overall increase of 8 to 9.
Adding a third Bn will also require increases is: Artillery (third firing Btry), BSB (additional FSC), and probably engineers (more platoons or a second company).
Will we keep CABs? Hmmm, probably, but as tank or mech heavy. Could we go the SBCT route with tanks organic to mech companies? Sure we could, but should we? :eek:
All being done against a "slow down" or operartional deployments and a return to "conventional" operations as well as the decrease in Active-duty end strenght and smaller DoD budgets.
Pretty sure costs will have a big impact on this issue.