Re-structuring the BCT

[Infanteer]

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.

[Ken White]

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.

[TAH]

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.

[TAH]

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.

[Ski]

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.

[Fuchs]

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.

[gute]

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.

[Cavguy]

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.

[TAH]

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

[Ski]

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...

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.

[Rifleman]

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?