Came across this a couple of days ago. There is also a monograph out there by Maj McGee that recommends the same.
http://www.usace.army.mil/about/Lead...lion_(BEB).pdf
Sounds like the Commonwealth model - Canada employs forces in a method very similiar to your description.Originally Posted by Fuchs
Came across this a couple of days ago. There is also a monograph out there by Maj McGee that recommends the same.
http://www.usace.army.mil/about/Lead...lion_(BEB).pdf
Brigade Engineer Battalion (BEB)
Here is the link to the monograph:
http://cdm15040.contentdm.oclc.org/c...ISOBOX=1&REC=8
Unified Qwest
Here is a link to more talk of restructuring the modular BCT:
http://www.dodbuzz.com/2011/02/08/ar...odel-doctrine/
Unified Quest
Sorry, Unified Quest not Qwest.
related:
Leichte Divisionen vs. ACR
More on BCTs
Thought I saw something earlier this week (Army Times?) that talked about adding a third maneuver battalion and an engineer battalion to each BCT.
Will be interesting to see if that happens and how it gets "paid for" with a projected down-sizing of the acitve Army by 40,000 or so.
I would think that with the decrease in combat tours/brigade rotations that the Army will consolidate BCTs, which will for the most part put support troops on the chopping block. I read that the engineer school reached out to the combined arms maneuver center and suggested replacing the the special troops battalion with a brigade engineer battalion. The BEB would obviously command the engineer forces in the brigade along with the signals and MI companies.
Hitting the Century mark
Post Number 100!
Confirming what Gute said, the BEB (Brigade Engineer Battalion) will take the place of the existing BSTBs in HBCT/IBCTs and get added into SBCTs.
The "bill payers" will be EBA (Echelon Above Brigade) engineer units.
What is getting added to the existing BSTB will be a second engineer company with a vertical construction platoon, a horizontal contruction platoon and a route clearance platoon.
The new BEB will retain C2 of the existing Signal, MI, MP and NBC units inside a BSTB. Much easier when the Engineers, MPs, and NBC guys all report to the same two-star at Leonard Wood.
Are there enough engineer battalion headquarters to go around to fill all 45 BCTs? The Army must be planning on cutting the number of brigades and consolidating maneuver battalions.
Maybe the BEB should actually be called the MEB for Maneuver Enhancement Battalion. Anyways, it seems to be a step in the right direction.
We call them "Combat Engineer Regiments"
STBs to BEBs
From what I've read, they will covert the existing Special Troops Bn Hqs toan Engineer Bn Hqs (Means an Engineer O5 CMD slot vice MP or Eng or Chem or Signal or MI). Pretty mush as wash for the 73 (45 AC + 28 ARNG) BCTs.
Some work to do for the SBCTs as they don't already have STBs.
The "Arms & Legs" increases (construction and Route clearing) are getting re-programed from EAB (Echelon Above Bde). A shell game.
They did a similar thing back in the 90s to create the Engineer Groups in the heavy divisions. Moved Corps GroupHQs & Bns down into the division.
Good idea? Probably. Increases the level of engineer support at the BCT level and retains an O5 Hqs to potentially be the Rear Area Operations C2 node.
Potatoe or Potatoe?
Oh you Commonwealth guys
It's most funny with the Swiss, most of whom ordinarily speak a funny version of German, but with strong French influences.
They call engineers "Genietruppen" - to a German, that means 'genius troops'.
The Dutch also call them 'Genie'. So in their case it must mean 'genius engineers' then
Nothing that results in human progress is achieved with unanimous consent. (Christopher Columbus)
All great truth passes through three stages: first it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
(Arthur Schopenhauer)
ONWARD
As I wrote before, IMO the BEB is a step in the right direction, but do believe that calling it a Maneuver Enhancement Battalion makes more sense. Assign at a minimum a company each of MPs, chemical and engineers - ADA when needed.
Signals and MI would be assigned to the RSTA - a battalion organization and not a squadron. Add the target and acquisition platoon from the fires battalion to the RSTA HHC, signals is A company, MI is B, Recon is C and surveillance and sensors D. The arty batteries assigned directly to the maneuver battalions.
Yes/no?
Signal and MI are tactically controlled by the BCT staff- large portions of those companies work in the BCT TOC and augment the S2/S6. It really doesn't matter which battalion staff conducts their administration, although the BSB or STB/BEB make more sense to me than the RS (only the SBCTs have RSTA) because their other assets are more probably more closely located.
Target Acquisition platoon from the fires BN includes survey and MET that don't fit well with the RS mission set, and directly support the fires mission- the only element that is really target acquisition is the radar. The radar is limited as a target acquisition asset- it is really a counterfire asset. While the counterfire fight and the RSTA fight have to be coordinated, I think that the FA BN HQ should manage the CF fight.
FA batteries assigned directly to maneuver BNs is a horrible idea. The battalions (with a LTC CDR, a CSM and a staff) are barely able to train themselves in the BCTs- separate batteries in the maneuver BNs will be even worse trained. Separate batteries has worked in the past, but in highly specific circumstances and with specially selected leadership, not as the general organizing principle. In addition, the FA BN command and staff bring the capability to manage a centralized, massed fight to the BCT CDR- it will be much more difficult to create this from scratch for the situtations where it is required (high intensity fighting) than to let batteries operate autonomously in the current fight.
In addition, the FA BN brings an additional BN C2 capability to the BCT- look at all the different mission sets that have been given to FA BNs- maneuver/land owner HQ (whether with organic elements re-roled as maneuver or with attached maneuver units- I've seen it done both ways), counterfire/artillery HQs, MiTT coordinator, civil support/CA coordinator, I'm sure I've missed some. The point is that the BN HQ gives the BCT commander a great deal of flexibility he would lose if you simply put the firing batteries in the maneuver BNs, which are already pushing the limits of span of control.
Can not argue with experience and knowledge. Thanks for the detailed explanation.
I find the modular BCTs and transformation fascinating - why, I don't really know. Maybe it's the idea of change, technology and fighting in the 21st Century.
I take it you believe the FA BNs should be removed from the BCTs as an organic element and only assigned when needed?
No, the BCT is the right place for the (used to be DS) fires BNs. Without the in-lieu-of missions competing for training time, the BNs can train themselves- especially once we start getting BCTs commanders that have grown up with the idea that they are responsible for everyone, not just training maneuver and everyone else shows up trained. The only thing the BN really needs help for is planning/resourcing battery level external evaluations, and that can be worked out. My proof for this is the 7 de facto separate BDEs we had since the 90s drawdown (from 1995 or so, only 1st CAV, 101st ABN and 82nd ABN had all 3 of their BDEs co-located with the HQs- the other 7 divisions had a BDE at another post as a de facto separate BDE).
What would help would be providing every division with a fires BDE, so that there is a COL commander that can supervise/coordinate this training for the division.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks