Consolidating Corps Level Support
Is there anything to be gained, other then fewer HHCs, by consolidating combat support units such as military police, engineer, signal and chemical brigades at the corps level to make one large brigade? Same with combat service support brigades.
Would combining fires brigades with ADA brigades do anything other then reduce the number of brigade HHCs?
Modular and Functional Brigades
As of my latest read, there are two types of non-BCTs brigade level units in the US Army: Modular Multi-function Support Brigades and Functional Brigades.
There are 100 Modular Brigades across the three components Active, National Guard and Army Reserve. The types are: Fires, Combat Aviation (with four sub-types), Maneuver Enhancement (MPs, ENG, NBC), Sustainment (CSS minus Medical), and Battlefield Survelliance (MI with a sprinkling of Cavalry).
There 127 Functional Briages of 11 types: EOD, MP, CID, ADA, NBC, ENG, MI, POL, SIG, MED, and Theater Aviation.
Seems that as a general rule of thumb, modular divisions are built using BCTs and modular briagdes and Corps/theater troops are from the functional briagde pool. Not to say you will not see a functional brigade assigned to a division. But only very seldom will a modular brigade be under Corps control.
Lots of powering down to enable divisions to fight the fight. Corps seem to be the focus of Joint and Combined operations vice conducting their own operations.
Pretty much gone are the Corps Deep Attacks with helos and MLRS. Now, Corps gives the mission/task to the appropriate division to plan and execute.
What went out with transformation/modualization was:
The Division "Base" (MI Bn, Engineer Bn, Signal Bn, ADA Bn, Cav Sqdrn, Band, MP Co), DISCOMs and COSCOMs, DIVARTYs and Corps Artillery, Division Cavalry and ACRs,
At the action/execute level, these have been replaced by Sustainment Brigades, Fires Brigades and to a much lesser extent Battlefield Survelliance Brigades. Planning responsibilities are bit murkier.
It makes no sense to press CSS into brigades. Regiments and battalions are the proper size, and there's little to be gained by mixing them.
It makes sense to mix dissimilar components into a whole if these components reinforce each other, such as combat arms in a combined arms system.
CSS on theother hand should not be pressed into brigades, but we should strive for optimum size units - battalions and regiments.
The intermediate command level between them and Corps Cmdr himself should be a CSS Cmdr (one star) at corps HQ.
The other question - should CSS be located at Corps or at Div or Bde - is more difficult to answer. It depends a lot on the operational concept. I would keep most CSS at a secured, "rear" Corps area.
Don't let the terminology fool you...
The term that some years ago applied to a few CSS separate Companies and a Battalion or two was 'Group.' It was analogous to a Regiment but was generally a purpose or task specific aggregation -- or Grouping -- of units for specific functions. It usually did not have a large staff or headquarters as it responded to a General Officer Command -- which was also responsible for providing some support (and protection in the form of tactical firepower) to the Group supporting it...
A Group was a Colonel command whereas a Brigade was commanded by a Brigadier General. Here are the old definitions from the DoD Dictionary:
Group.(DOD) 1. A flexible administrative and tactical unit composed of either two or more battalions or two or more squadrons. The term also applies to combat support and combat service support units.
Brigade. (DOD) A unit usually smaller than a division to which are attached groups and/or battalions and smaller units tailored to meet anticipated requirements. Also called BDE.
That Brigade definition reflects the 1964-2002 version, prior to that, a Brigade also contained a reasonably sized staff and headquarters, was essentially self-supporting, was combat or combat support only and was for the combat brigades, generally multi-arm or branch,
The term Group fell into disfavor for after the 1964 reorganization of the US Army Division wherein Brigades were introduced as Colonel commands when organic to a Division. That reorganization changed the name of the organic, fighting Colonel Commands from Battle Groups (which the Armor and Infantry Colonels hated for many reasons, not least the name, Group, as that was previously applied only to lesser beings in the CSS fields). To make sure everyone was confused, the Army retained other Brigades (Separate), in combat commanded by a Brigadier General and in peacetime, sometimes a BG, occasionally a Colonel...
After that 1964 change, the CSS Colonels objected to being called Group Commanders while their Armor and Infantry peers were called Brigade Commanders. So Group as a term was left behind. ..
In the US, in peacetime, military effectiveness is trumped by political correctness...
Most of those CS and CSS elements of today are in fact Groups but will be called Brigades. Just so everyone's happy...
When I was in V Corps Artillery in 1980 the 42nd Field Artillery Group I was assigned to was redesignated as a brigade. The main change was the addition or more commo assets so it would serve as an alternate Tactical Operations Center for the 3rd Armored Division.
Yes, the supported corps or division staff would have to plan & synchronize the operations of one or the other type battalions. Span of control, 3-5 subordinate units. If the Division is trying to plan and C2 3-5 BCTs, plus 3-5 FA BNs, plus 3-5 ADA BNs, plus whatever else, something would lose out- probably the detail required by a BN and/or the synchronization of ensuring the BNs are working together.Originally Posted by gute
Got it.
I might be missing the point of modularity. My reasoning behind combining the MP, EN, CHEM, and SIG brigades into one large brigade commanded by a BG is to reduce the number HHCs, thus reducing personnel. Or, designing this as a large Combat Support Brigade that may be broken down into several Maneuver Enhancement Units of Action with attached Stryker units.
Same with Combat Service Support.
Combining 212FA and 11ADA would consist of eight battalions under one HHC instead of two. If this combined brigade had been deployed to Iraq in 2003 for the invasion, would this combined brigade have run into serious span of control and C2 issues? Also, are the functions of these two separate so different it would make no sense to combine em?
First, the Maneuver Enhancement BDEs already C2 a mix of maneuver/combat arms, engineer, MP and chemical- the mix is tailored based on the mission. It can own an AO, or it can serve in an area support role.
Sustainment BDEs work generally the same way- they are mix and matched with CSSB HQs and whatever functional companies are required by the mission.
In my opinion, for a single BDE HHC to C2 to functions of 212 FA and 11 ADA, with 8 BNs in 2003, you would have to make the single HHC significantly larger simply to execute the different functions required. An FA FDC doesn't contain the personnel or equipment to C2 ADA, or vice versa. You could get some savings in the personnel and logistics arenas, but even there you would have to increase, simply to accomadate the increased workload by increased numbers serviced.
So in the end to have effective control of a combined FA and ADA brigade one would have to increase personnel in the HHB, thus no real manpower savings.
Scrap that idea. that's why go to the experts.
The FA and ADA split off from each other in the 1950s or 1960s because of different missions and weapons systems. If I recall correctly the Traversing and Elevating Mechanism for the old M2 Browning .50-caliber Machine Gun, originally intended to be mainly an air defense weapon, is graduated in mils, not degrees (6400 mils = 360 degrees), which shows the old Field Artillery connection between the two branches.
Wait a moment.
The amount of planning is not reduced. It's rather getting dispersed from Div HQ to Div and Bde or whatever HQs.
Let's also keep in mind that TO&Es on paper are one thing, the chaos of war an entirely different thing.
Bdes would detach battalions in wartime when Corps HQ is tailoring the forces for their tasks.
Headquarters and Headquarters Battery
Just a minor point -- Redlegs have HHBs, not HHCs.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks