Re-structuring the BCT

[82redleg]

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?

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.

Also, will light infantry brigades go back to a brigade base of three maneuver battalions?

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.

[gute]

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.

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.

[gute]

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?

[TAH]

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?

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?

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.