Re-structuring the BCT

[82redleg]

This article was written shortly after the modular organizations were introduced http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-135843315.html

Based on the size of the BCT staff, I agree with the author- we should have gone for BIG (4 maneuver BN) BCTs, with comparably increased enabling/combat support assets, commanded by BG. The staff already in place can handle it. During my last rotation, my BCT had 1 BN detached, but recieved the attachment of 3 additional BNs, plus operated dispersed across Iraq. The only addition to the staff would be an aide for the CG.

When modularity was first announced, I thought that we were going to increase the HQs while we fought for an end-strength increase, then use that increase to put the third maneuver BN back in each BCT- unfortunately, we used the 30000 strength increase to build more BCTs, instead.

Finally, I'm not a heavy guy, but I don't think that the ARS (its not technically a RSTA) is underarmored for recon work. I think that M3s are plenty. It is anemic, with only 6 platoons. It should have at least 3 platoons per troop, if not 4 (I'd personally trade larger platoons, with a strong dismounted capability, for more smaller platoons). I certain situations (specifically enemy and terrain) tanks might be nice, but in another, infantry might be useful. Task organization of a tank or mech company is the solution, not building a bloated organization permanently, unless you know you will fight it. The ACR and the DIV CAV SQDN were appropriate to the Fulda Gap fight, but not everywhere.

THere's been plenty of discussions on this site regarding the employment of recon and cavalry units. It should be a pretty easy search.

[Fuchs]

What's the current organisation of a U.S. Army brigade combat team (is it still being called unit of action?)?

[gute]

Thanks for the response 82redleg. I have already the article - found it a couple of weeks ago - interesting and seems to be direction the army should go.

Fuchs: The U.S. Army is calling the Unit of Action either a Heavy BCT, Infantry BCT or Stryker BCT. The HBCT is commanded by a Colonel, has two Combined Arms Battalions (2/M1, 2/M2 companies each), one RSTA squadron, a fires battalion (2/SP155mm Paladin battety), a Brigade Support Battalion, and a Brigade Troops Battalion. The IBCT has the same structure, but with two infantry battalions. The SBCT has three maneuver battalions and it's structure is a little different. If you go to Wikipedia - Transformation of the U.S. Army you will find a write-up on the BCT.

[Fuchs]

Mixed battalions in garrison - interesting. It has been tried many times and cancelled almost as often. I assume we'll have a well-founded understanding of their performance about five years after the formations returned to normal peacetime duty (after OEF/ISAF).

- - - - -

I think of brigades more in a mobile warfare environment than in an occupation environment. Surely a Bde HQ can handle less maneuver elements in mobile warfare than when sitting in the same place for months.

An important constant (or variable?) is the maximum size of a directly (first hand, in person, on the spot) controllable combat team (Kampfgruppe as envisaged in the first Bundeswehr Heer structure).
This seems to have been about 2-3 battalions historically. Battalions may be the wrong unit of measurement, though - it may be better to measure this in vehicle count (less motorcycles without sidecars) or road march length of the combat team.
Anyway; German division leaders were apparently unable to control much more than two or three battalions as vanguard during an advance.
We might have increased this limit with BFT and similar equipment, but then again management on LCD screens is not direct control (and leadership, especially inspiration!!!) of units and the further increased dispersion of troops was a powerful trend for decades.

So far, I assume that a combat team should be no larger than three battalions. That's two battalions infantry & armour plus a mix of many smaller support units (mortars, combat engineers) to me.

One such combat team is a mixed regiment to me, two are a small brigade, three a large brigade and four a division.


Large armies might go for the large brigade, smaller armies (than US, PRC or Russia) might go for the small brigade instead to get a meaningful quantity of Bdes.
Very small armies (Denmark, for example) should probably rather go for some kind of single combat team "not meant for the Schwerpunkt" light cavalry regiments for vanguard, rear guard, security, recce, counter-recce and raids in order to get a meaningful quantity of formations.
We got finally rid of the division structure in many armies (based on WW2 insights that were already accepted in NATO as correct insights back in the late 50's!) and that's fine. Four combat teams per formation are great on paper (many formation possibilities...3 up+1 back, 1 up+3 back, 2-2, 2 right+1 left+1 back, ...), and rather disappointing in reality. We've had this with ideas about four Bdes per Div already.


Looking at the small or large Bde, I'd like to propose a closer look at the support functions. Such a Bde of two combat teams could team up the support units with another light mech battalion (on APCs) that acts as reserve and security force.
The support elements themselves (arty, log, signals, AD, medical, Bde HQ) could be sized to provide their services to much more than the own combat teams. They could create a "support aura" of about 80 km diameter (especially with arty) in support of rather cheap or very small units (non-combined arms infantry Rgts without arty or light cavalry companies, battalions).

In addition to this, I'd add basic infantry training battalion at the home garrison (four to six months basic training).

This would create a Bde of
* two or three combined arms (mortars, not arty) combat teams
* a light mech infantry-reinforced bunch of support units that provide support services in a radius of up to 80 km (not only to its combat teams)
* a "Bn+civil services" stationary garrison element


Brigade structures usually look as if the brigades were meant to fight as quite solid blocks, when in reality we would need many rather small units or detachments to actually have an eye on (or control of) the surrounding terrain. Those many small eyes & daggers in the landscape would benefit greatly if the Bde in the field had the surplus support capability to assist them.


This extra capacity would also perform nicely with incomplete (non-combined arms) allied contingents attached in a campaign like the Afghan one.