Quote Originally Posted by gute View Post
I believe that would be two brigades with three battalions each - 18 companies (based on three company battalions).

One of the major complaints about the BCT in Iraq was the insufficient engineer forces, but the complaints about too few military police, engineers and arty all have to do with a design based on offensive operations, but used for stablity operations to increase the number units available for deployment.

So, taking recommendations from Storr and your opinion, how about a brigade with three maneuber battalions, each with one tank, one infantry and one engineer company, one fires battalion, signal company, small brigade HHC.
I'll have to check out Storr's argument, but I'm inclined to disagree. I like big, robust units. It allows commanders to rotate units out and have a flexibility to keep a reserve, guard a base camp, a LOC, detach a unit for a special mission, etc, without breaking a sub unit. If you send a company from a 2 company BN, that BN is now broken. If you send a CO from a 4 company BN, that BN is simply slightly less flexible, especially if it has 4 + a weapons/CSC, not 4 including a weapons/CSC.

Large units also inhibit staffs from micromanaging- a BCT staff will be more involved with the operations of its subordinates if there are only 2 than if there are 4.