Page 10 of 12 FirstFirst ... 89101112 LastLast
Results 181 to 200 of 227

Thread: Re-structuring the BCT

  1. #181
    Council Member 82redleg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USAWC, Carlisle Bks
    Posts
    224

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TAH View Post
    By combing two BCTs you would get fewer bigger units and get a personnel savings from the reduced number of HQs (BCT HHC(185 PAX), FA Bn HHB (86 PAX), STB HHC (165 PAX), & CSS Bn HHC (85 PAX)). By using a CAB HQ as the ARS HQ you save 290 PAX.

    Two "standard" HBCT = 3711 X 2 = 7422

    7422 -185 (extra BCT HHC) - 86 (extra FA HHB) - 165 (extra STB HHC) - 85 (extra CSS HHC) - 290 (ARS HHTs) = 6610
    Details, but the savings is really more than this. At least the CO HQs in the BSB can be saved (consolidating larger maint, med and distro COs, although maybe justifying split supply and trans COs with the increased scope). Same with the FSC for the FA BN and ARS (some of the capability needs to be retained, but these COs are already far smaller than their maneuver peer). MI and SIG COs, too, so you've saved at least an additional 6-7 CO HQs. At an average of 10 pax, that's another 65 pax.

    Elements of the FA BN TGT Acquisition Platoon (radar, met and survey) are in the same position. At a minimum, you don't need 2 platoon HQs. A single met section can support a BN, whether 2 or 4 batteries, and a you don't need 4 survey teams, either (each BN still has 2, the same as the old 3 battery BN- at most you need 3 of the 4).

    That's almost an additional 100 people, plus the excess capacity in the BSB and BSTB. I'm not smart enough on these organizations to know the details, but I know that our BSB supported 3 additional BNs, plus some other additional units (on an area support basis) AND provided manpower for other missions- definitely don't need all the pax. Likewise, the elements of the SIG CO and MICO that augment the BCT staff (analysis, NET OPS) are still supporting the same BCT HQ, although the analysts can probably be used to process additional information, the platoon HQ that supports them isn't needed, and the SIG CO is still only supporting 2 CMD posts.

  2. #182
    Council Member gute's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    322

    Default

    Came across this article in Army Magazine. I like the author's ideas, but we do seem to be past it now (article written in Mach 2005).

    http://www.ausa.org/publications/arm.../Lowe_0305.pdf



    If the above link does not work this one should:

    http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m.../ai_n11852055/

  3. #183
    Council Member Infanteer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    347

    Default

    I like the nice pictures!

    I work in a Brigade with 7 subordinate units (and 2 OPCOM at times) - it is big and, in my opinion, a bit unwieldy. He's advocating Brigades with 10 subordinate units. I don't know if that is the greatest idea.

  4. #184
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default Having been in a couple Brigades that large

    (one was occasionally even a bit larger with about 15 direct subordinates at one time) that operated quite successfully, IMO it is a matter of how much autonomy is granted subordinate units. If they are trusted to perform, they will -- provided the Bde doesn't go into the overcontrol mode.

    It probably helped that both Bdes had Commanders whose philosophy echoed the words of one as he retired to his tent nightly "Wake me if all the Bns are in heavy contact."

  5. #185
    Council Member Infanteer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    347

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken White View Post
    IMO it is a matter of how much autonomy is granted subordinate units. If they are trusted to perform, they will -- provided the Bde doesn't go into the overcontrol mode.
    I'll agree to an extent - it depends on what the units are doing. If you're doing some sort of pacfication where the Bde gives areas A,B,C,D,E,F and G to its units, then yes it can be easy as the superior HQ is a "caretaker". This could be taken to the unit (bn) level as well. I'm sure you'll agree with me that anyone above the rank of major in a small war has a limited tactical role.

    When you start moving pieces together in a smaller battlespace it'll get a bit harder; every subordinate beyond two adds an additonal layer of friction; I guess the question is when does the difficulties outweigh the benefits?

    I'll also add my own perspective from peactime management. Training and managing 8000 people is harder than training 4000 people. Unscientifically, I'm willing to bet two Bde Comds with 50-man staffs and 4000 people will accomplish more than 1 Bde Comd with a 100-man staff and 8000 people.

  6. #186
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default No disagreement from me on any of that.

    However, two points occur to me. First, that in combat, while the old METT-TC rules and a good commander can make most anything work, it is foolish to design for the latter factor (given mandatory democratic nation personnel policies) and too many folks, even experienced people who should know better, lose sight of the former factor...

    Secondly, we make an error, I think, in designing a lot of stuff during peace time that does not work well in combat. The bureaucratic tradeoffs necessary in organizing, funding, staffing and just getting things done in peace can -- should -- disappear in combat and thus the operational rules can and will differ. Unfortunately, I doubt there's any way around that.

    Fortunately, the troops most always make it work in spite of the impediments.

  7. #187
    Council Member TAH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    115

    Default Maybe

    Quote Originally Posted by Infanteer View Post
    I'll agree to an extent - it depends on what the units are doing.

    Training and managing 8000 people is harder than training 4000 people.

    Unscientifically, I'm willing to bet two Bde Comds with 50-man staffs and 4000 people will accomplish more than 1 Bde Comd with a 100-man staff and 8000 people.
    1. Things always end up depending on the specific situation

    2. Not sure I agree with its easier to train 4K versus 8K. Once you get a training opertion/plan up and running, it get easier the biger you get. There will be thru-put issues but the same cocnept that worked for 4K will work for 8K.

    3. Well, you could use a Blue/Gold way of doing business and then I might agree. With 4K versus 8K you probably don't need the full 100% increase in staff to handle the 100% increase on BOG. More likely the 8K staff would end up being around 60-70 unless you make a shift/jump for O6/Colonel level to a GO Command. General's need/get a whole lot more staff sections that don't really get used lower down , (PAO, Military History Section) O6 commands also don't need as many folks in the S8 (funding) and S4 (CSS) sections as you will find in a G8 or G4.

    For the most part, once you carve out functional sections like scouts, mortars, medics, MPs, etc the Bn and Bde Hqs are 100-125 folks doing staff work.

  8. #188
    Council Member TAH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    115

    Default Doing the Math

    Same number and organization of 12 maneuver companies.

    2 big Bns of 6 companies or

    3 Bns of 4 Companies or

    4 small Bns of 3 companies.

    2 versus 3 versus 4 Bn Hqs of the same size

    2 versus 3 versus 4 FSC of different sizes

    An estimate would be 500-600 Hq/support PAX for a 2 X 6

    900-1000 for 3 X 4 and 1000-1400 for 4 X 3

    Fewer bigger Bns allows for an overall PAX savings that could be turned into more Bns and possibly moer BCTs. Of just savings overall.

  9. #189
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    489

    Default

    The Modular BCT's were a derivative of MacGregor's ACR concept. That concept was way too expensive for the Army to ever afford, so decisions were made as a compromise to capture the combined arms nature of the ACR. Even after the initial drafts of the Modular BCT's were examined, there was an issue with the costs associated with the BCT's.

    Then an "either/or" scenario appeared. The Army was forced to decide between BCT's with three infantry/combined arms battalions and a recce squadron, which would result in X number of BCT's, or they could accept a two infantry/combined arms battalions and a recce squadron and have Y number of BCT's. The Y number resulted in more BCT's - which is why it was accepted.

    There have been rumors floating around for a year or so now about returning to the three infantry/combined arms battalion structure. If enacted, it would reduce the number of BCT's to the X level mentioned earlier. There's no such thing as a free lunch when it comes to force structure.
    "Speak English! said the Eaglet. "I don't know the meaning of half those long words, and what's more, I don't believe you do either!"

    The Eaglet from Lewis Carroll's Alice in Wonderland

  10. #190
    Council Member Fuchs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,189

    Default

    The army was downsizing, so how could that concept have been too expensive? There was surplus equipment from saved formations for almost whatever structure you could think of IIRC.

  11. #191
    Council Member gute's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    322

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fuchs View Post
    The army was downsizing, so how could that concept have been too expensive? There was surplus equipment from saved formations for almost whatever structure you could think of IIRC.
    When the decisions were made the U.S. Army was growing due to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. I believe the 3ID was the first division to convert when it rotated back to the U.S. after the invasion in 2003. Now with the draw down in Iraq the large numbers of BCTs are not needed so the Army is able to consolidate the BCTs into three maneuver battalion BCTs like they wanted at the beginning but could not because of the requirement for troops in Iraq. IMO the U.S. Army took the best of a bad situation and made it work.

    It's my understanding that the Army is conducting a force review and we should all know in a couple of months if the modular BCT is the way forward or a passing fad.

  12. #192
    Council Member Cavguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Honolulu, Hawaii
    Posts
    1,127

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fuchs View Post
    The army was downsizing, so how could that concept have been too expensive? There was surplus equipment from saved formations for almost whatever structure you could think of IIRC.
    The real $$ in our budget is personnel costs, not equipment. (IIRC around 60%).

    Agree all else. Now that Iraq is over I expect a re-design of the modular BCTs within the next few years. Interestingly, Stryker units retained three maneuver BNs plus recce squadron.
    "A Sherman can give you a very nice... edge."- Oddball, Kelly's Heroes
    Who is Cavguy?

  13. #193
    Council Member TAH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    115

    Default Ditto

    Correct on the biggest cost is for personnel.

    A bit about the Strykers.

    1. They didn't really retain three battalions, they have always had three battalions.

    2. They cut corners: No Bn Headquarters for the Engineer Co, AT Co, MI Co, Signal Co, they have only 4 vehicles in their recon/scout platoons as opposed to the "standard" of 6, the MGS platoons were cut down to 3 (from the standard of 4) and then they eliminated the extra/fourth crewmen, same thing happened with the AT Platoons 3 versus 4 vehicles.

    In order to stay inside current troop levels, the follolwing could be done to add a third maneuver battalion to each HBCT/IBCT.

    Standdown 5 HBCTs, convert total number of troops to new maneuver Bn + third FA Battery, additional Forward SPT Co, and an additional Engineer Co.

    Standdown 9 IBCTs, same method as above.

    Impacts at the DIV level:
    1. Reduce the number of BCT per DIV from 4 to 3.
    2. Increase the number of maneuver Bn per DIV from 8 to 9.
    3. Same increase in FA Firing Batteries.
    4. Increase the number of Engineer Co from 4 to 6
    5. Reduce the number of Special Troop Bns, FA Bn, Support Bns & BCT HHCs from 4 to 3. Fewer BN Command opportunities for Engineers, MP, NBC, FA, & Log O5s.

    Happy New Year BTW

  14. #194
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    489

    Default

    Modularity wasn't approved until 2004 and the real effects didn't even take place until 2005.

    The Active Duty Army was on the increase from 480,000 to 520,000, then up to 569,000. The Guard also transformed their BCT's from the old Limited Division XXI or Army of Excellence design to Modular formations...shedding a lot of old Armor/Mech equipment in the process.

    There was NO surplus equipment. The Redlegs in IBCT's were short of howitzers to such an extent that one gun had to be taken off a ski resort in California (used for avalanche control) and a number had to be bought off the Taiwanese (we had sold them these guns well in the past) before the new howitzers (M119A2's) were introduced...which has taken years.

    The BCT's also had a massive influx of ABCS equipment - III Corps and a few SBCT's were the only units to really have a full compliment of ABCS equipment. We also replaced a bunch of rolling stock, switching out 30 year old 2.5 ton and 5 ton trucks for newer versions. This was all done within increases in the budget as well.

    Of course, we also suffered from the giant sucking wound known as FCS which diverted billions of dollars that could have been used on existing programs.

    Modularity also had significant increases in field grade officers and senior NCO positions over the old force structure, which led to additional costs.

    The costs associated with Modularity were and are enormous. I think the Guard alone has had close to $30B of equipment pumped into it over the last decade...



    Quote Originally Posted by Fuchs View Post
    The army was downsizing, so how could that concept have been too expensive? There was surplus equipment from saved formations for almost whatever structure you could think of IIRC.
    "Speak English! said the Eaglet. "I don't know the meaning of half those long words, and what's more, I don't believe you do either!"

    The Eaglet from Lewis Carroll's Alice in Wonderland

  15. #195
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    499

    Default I don't understand:

    How is the Army any more modular now than it had been all along since getting rid of Pentomic for ROAD?

    I read the idea behind going to brigade HQs in the division was to recreate the flexibility found in the combat commands of the WWII armored division. The brigade had home battalions, but I know battalions were often cross attached to other brigades within the division for operations. And I think 3d Brigade, 82d Airborne Divison was OPCONNED to the 101st in Vietnam.

    I thought that was modularity. Maybe it's just flexibility?
    Last edited by Rifleman; 01-03-2011 at 02:20 AM.
    "Pick up a rifle and you change instantly from a subject to a citizen." - Jeff Cooper

  16. #196
    Council Member 82redleg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USAWC, Carlisle Bks
    Posts
    224

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rifleman View Post
    How is the Army any more modular now than it had been all along since getting rid of Pentomic for ROAD?

    I read the idea behind going to brigade HQs in the division was to recreate the flexibility found in the combat commands of the WWII armored division. The brigade had home battalions, but I know battalions were often cross attached to other brigades within the division for operations. And I think 3d Brigade, 82d Airborne Divison was OPCONNED to the 101st in Vietnam.

    I thought that was modularity. Maybe it's just flexibility?
    It has to do with deployable units, or what level is modularly deployable.

    In early OEF/OIF, when a division deployed a BCT, the BCT required a slice of the divisional MSCs (a BN from DIVARTY and DISCOM, and ENG if a heavy DIV, and companies from the MI BN, ADA BN, EN BN if a light DIV, SIG BN. A couple of separate platoons, too (MP and CHEM, IIRC). This offered the division the opportunity to fatten the first BCT deployed, at the expense of follow on BCTs. It also created issues with prep and training- when do you stop falling under your organic functional command and fall under the BCT you will deploy with. I can remember my BN CDR bouncing between the BDE and the DIVARTY, getting conflicting guidance. Despite a DIV directed task org effective, it was a negotiation on which DIVARTY events we would still participate in, rating changes effective, etc, etc, etc. Then, when a DIV deploys separate from its BCTs, those functional commanders have nothing to command- yeah, they are still special staff officers, but they have full time representatives for that.

    There are also administrative details that are difficult when you are attached to a BCT. As a BN, its not too bad, but some things cause confusion to change over and back between the organic and attached HQ. For companies and platoons, its even worse (since they aren't set up to be administratively separate, but when deployed with their BCT are separated from their organic HQ).

    I think that the BCTs are better overall- most of the training issues attributed to modularity are really attributable to a shortage of force structure and rapid turn around between deployments- than the division based force- we had 7 de facto BCTs before 2004 (only 82d, 101st and 1st CAV had all of their BCTs co-located).

  17. #197
    Council Member Fuchs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,189

    Default

    Let's face it; the modern brigade is the equivalent of World War divisions. We could simply rename them divisions, for they aren't much smaller than the Russian idea of a division anyway.

    You need a combined arms team including
    * the capability to penetrate MBT frontal armour (AT),
    * the capability to shoot building-destroying shells in direct and indirect fire (105mm HE and greater),
    * the capability of electronic reconnaissance (triangulation and monitoring) and radio jamming,
    * the capability to deploy enough infantry to search a large village or fight your way through a forest road,
    * the capability to sustain the force itself for at least three days without major supply deliveries
    of a much smaller size than a brigade or division.

    The really, really interesting formation is therefore rather a mixed and reinforced battalion (battalion battle group / Kampfgruppe) with a three-digit head count
    and
    for missions that emphasize economy of force and reconnaissance the correct size would be a mixed company (this one would then substitute infantry with a dismount scout platoon).

    I understand that the approach of "pure" administrative units is still widely preferred, but I don't get why a formation such as a brigade has even today still only one TO&E.
    It should have several ones:

    An early training TO&E (training within units; equipment proficiency, typical unit missions, reaction drills).

    A late training TO&E (advanced training in mixed battle groups).

    A Battle group / maneuver team / Kampfgruppe / fighting column type of TO&E for a combat-heavy land campaign.

    An occupation / blue helmet TO&E.

    A skeleton self-defence TO&E (support units serve as makeshift infantry and AT troops, original combat units down reduced by attrition down to a third by assumption).

  18. #198
    Council Member TAH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    115

    Default Modular Training

    Quote Originally Posted by 82redleg View Post
    I think that the BCTs are better overall- most of the training issues attributed to modularity are really attributable to a shortage of force structure and rapid turn around between deployments- than the division based force- we had 7 de facto BCTs before 2004 (only 82d, 101st and 1st CAV had all of their BCTs co-located).
    Being on the outside, I've heard that there are training issues with the modular BCTs. Mostly revolve around low-density situations, FISTs/FOs in the maneuver Bns, Planning of fires across BCTs, collective training of MI, MP and Engineers.

    TAH

  19. #199
    Council Member 82redleg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USAWC, Carlisle Bks
    Posts
    224

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TAH View Post
    Being on the outside, I've heard that there are training issues with the modular BCTs. Mostly revolve around low-density situations, FISTs/FOs in the maneuver Bns, Planning of fires across BCTs, collective training of MI, MP and Engineers.

    TAH
    Yes, I lived in a BCT for 3 years. There are issues, but I think that most of them come from the deployment/optempo, not the organization.

    How much influence does the BN staff have on individual training? Not much, its the responsibility of the PLT and CO chain of command.

    How much MOS specificity do you need for, for instance, MI platoon training? Again, IMO, not much- it is integrated into manuever training, not a stand alone event.

    Yes, there are some difficulties, but they are not insurmountable.

  20. #200
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    499

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fuchs View Post
    The really, really interesting formation is therefore rather a mixed and reinforced battalion (battalion battle group / Kampfgruppe) with a three-digit head count...
    Indeed it is interesting. I was fortunate enough to be in one when many considered it the choice duty in the cold war army of the '80s.

    But I understand it came with it's own problems (or special considerations), although not insurmountable. For instance, I believe our battalion combat team's battery commander had a previous battery command in the 82d to learn his trade under an FA battalion commander before being considered for battery command in the battalion combat team. The engineer platoon leader might have been likewise, I remember he was a 1LT.

    FWIW, the USMC MEU(SOC) is a similar concept.
    "Pick up a rifle and you change instantly from a subject to a citizen." - Jeff Cooper

Similar Threads

  1. Wargaming Small Wars (merged thread)
    By Steve Blair in forum Training & Education
    Replies: 317
    Last Post: 02-21-2019, 12:14 PM
  2. mTBI, PTSD and Stress (Catch All)
    By GorTex6 in forum Trigger Puller
    Replies: 177
    Last Post: 04-20-2016, 07:00 PM
  3. The BCT CDR's Role Security Force Assistance
    By Rob Thornton in forum Equipment & Capabilities
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 04-08-2008, 12:09 AM
  4. The Army's TMAAG
    By SWJED in forum FID & Working With Indigenous Forces
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 03-27-2008, 01:29 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •