AC/RC Force Structure

[82redleg]

...The only way to pay for a third maneuver battalion across the board is to decrease the number of BCT's.

Agreed, and I think everyone understands this. If you're going to go to big BCTs, you might as well go with big BCTs, and make them 4 maneuver BNs, plus the Recon, FA, BSB and STB/BEB. I fall back on the Military Review article "Small BCTs Undermine Modularity" from about 2005.

I would have no objection if some of the Guard BCT,s were heavy. In fact some should be. I would leave it to the Guard Bureau and the various states to decicde,

Did you get a chance to look up my other post?

Reasons for the flags:
A division headquarters in Germany would be valuable in exercising C&C over the 170th - 172nd -173rd and 2nd SCR.

Agreed. With 45 BCTs, 4 BCTs per division would seem to justify 11 divisions, but we only have 10. Germany would be the logical choice. Of course, if 170th and 172nd go away (as planned), that logic is weakend.

A division headquarters at Lewis for the same reason.

Agreed, but I don't see where I Corps is doing such a horrible job. Since BCTs are employed individually anyway, the tie between BCT and DIV is not as important- they are supposed to be able to plug into any DIV or CORPS HQ.

A flag change for the 1st AD, would eliminate one of the type divisions were have around that are in fact not required in that the division is a modular control headquarters. In elimination of the 1st AD I would consolidate its history and lineage with the 1st ID. I would do the same for all of the inactive armored divisions and consolidate them with a like numbered infantry division. There is little chance that any of these units will ever be called off the inactive rolls and it would seem that this would be a rather straightforward method of preserving their histories. Not an ideal solution, but better I think then having the only memory of these fine units, being a file locked away in some drawer at CMH

There is not cost to having a division called 1st AD vice having one called 9th ID. They are the same- the only difference is a different color flag. You'll create more cost changing than by holding what you have.

The First Cavalry Division would remain but in a new role as the unbrella force for the various Stryker Cavalry Brigades. By the way I call them that, not only because of the conversion of the 2nd Cavalry to the Stryker construct, or the impending conversion of the 3rd. I do so because they to me are more like the cavalry of old, the mounted dragoon. It is nothing more than my personal interpretation of history. I realize what a nut roll this would be in reorganization. It may possibly be cost prohibative. That is also the reason I would like to see two more created/converted/restationed. perhaps one at Fort Polk and one at Fort Sill. That is also the reason for my wishing to move a freshly trained Stryker brigade from Pennsylvania to Texas, proximity to a proposed Stryker community. Then there is the Mexican Border.

Your logic is fine, and I agree with your historical analysis. However, 2CR and 3 CR have nothing (or very little) to do with 1st CD, other than a common name. Moving SBCTs to FT Hood (and the TXARNG) based on the very unlikely possibility of employment on the Mexican border seems silly to me. We have posse comitatus and all that. Moving the ARNG BCT would almost certainly be cost prohibitive- you won't move many (if any at all) of the Soldiers, so you've wasted the last 5 years of human capital development.

...Reflag all of the existing division headquarters as Corps headquarters. Down echelon all of the now larger brigades with the division designations (1st Infantry Division lineage become 1st Infantry Brigade). A few of the traditionally seperate brigades would be required also (i.e 173rd and more).I would think it appropriate for the larger (approx 5000 +/-) brigade to be commanded by a BG. It would be a way of preserving history which I look upon, if used correctly, as an unquanifiable force multiplier. Such an action would fit in nicely with the present modular construct of the Army. Just another thought on a bright Sunday morning.

This is another idea that has been brought up- in fact, it was proposed to the CSA GEN Schoomaker when the modular force was created. The decision brief was floating around, were he was given the three options of (1) minimal change (what he selected), (2) elevated echelon (what your describe) and (3) hybrid regiment. Since we are already doing option (2) in the ARNG, I think that was a better choice, with the advantage of removing a visual connection between DIV and BCTs that isn't supposed to exist. I'd still support executing that option, as I think I discussed here. I'll see if I can find the link.

[Tyree]

Everything I wrote above the PS in the above post is nothing more than a mental exercise, well really a yellow legal pad and pencil exercise to bring back a sense of historical structure. I believe you have discovered my strategms. Now I will get really serious

I would welcome a forced based upon brigades, that carry the flags of former divisions. I have the presentation of the three options on my desk as I write this. Of course at lot of that presentation has been overcome by events, particularly in the Guard.

The elevated option would be my preference. A BCT with four maneuver battalions, along with everything else would be a very formidable force. It would probably top out in the 5000-5700 range. I would favor that over all other options.

I want to thank for your response to my straw man. Everything you have said is quite well thought out and I do appreciate all you have contributed.

I would like to see a link to you previous post in this area. In fact I would like to see everything you have written which touches on this subject matter. It seems I have found a kindred soul.

[82redleg]

Here a couple of threads that touch similar concepts.

http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/...&highlight=BCT

http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/...&highlight=BCT

http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/...&highlight=BCT

[Fuchs]

(1) Reserve forces get usually less training time / year.

(2) Reserve forces belonging to a small active force with long-serving (volunteer, not conscript) troops will not be able to draw fully from trained former AC personnel.


Both in combination leads me to the conclusion that reserve forces (or most of them) should focus on not very training-intensive missions.
This in turn leads to my preference for relatively small stand-alone reserve forces, such as a regional battalion battlegroups. Training in larger formations and training deployments to foreign terrains and climates should be skipped until a time of crisis.

Such reserve forces could then augment active forces after a brief period of additional training or be assigned rather auxiliary tasks.

The concept of reserve / national guard brigades that go to war on short notice is for me as great wars-concerned guy (who thinks that small wars are usually a stupidity) simply an unacceptable negligence.

[ganulv]

Training in larger formations and training deployments to foreign terrains and climates should be skipped until a time of crisis.

Anyone who says the United States Government doesn’t do anything well undersells its knack for engineering crisises.

[Tyree]

82REDLEG: Thanks for the links. Over the next few days or so I will review them, and let you know what I think. Right now it is drywall and light fixture time down in the old mess hall , oops dining facility.

[gute]

I would imagine that some have read this report, which really does not get too specific. What I do question is the idea of shifting the majority of heavy forces to the reserves/national guard - what does that mean? If the Army was forced to shift heavy forces to the national guard where do the heavy forces go? Do we re-set the national guard brigades back to armor brigades that were "transformed" into IBCTs? Or do we look to change existing IBCTs west of the Mighty Miss into HBCTs because there is more room to train?

Link to cited report:http://www.cnas.org/hardchoices

[Ken White]

They are actually -- logically and militarily -- fairly easy. Unfortunately, they are, politically, a number of varying size Rice Bowls all full of a mass of worms -- or worse.

Hard to say how it'll work out, we'll see -- but your comment about west of the Mississippi is very appropriate. The issue is not training room per se -- the NTC provides more maneuver space than is neccessary -- but range fans. Twenty years ago I tried to point out to folks that after 2020 or so, the likelihood of having adequate ranges for 105mm much less 120mm and above east of that river was quite slim. The antiwar Squirrels have been using and will continue to use environmental, heritage and other pretexts to shut down impact areas and live fire in general on both coasts -- they will not stop. They would totally ban training if they thought they could. Fortunately, the folks in flyover country are more sensible.

I also strongly believe it in the interest of the Nation that the 1980s concept of combat arms units only in the ArNG be revisited. While the Guard slickly co-opted the 'Militia' title as theirs alone, that's a politically beneficial belief and a flaky law, not a Constitutional clause. The Nation can do recruiting, training, location, employment and mission things with the Guard it cannot do with the USAR -- and vice versa. That versa indicates that some USAR combat units would be beneficial so also would some currently USAR peculiar skills be beneficial to the Guard and the States. Laws can be changed...