Well, this is an excellent issue to raise Rifleman.
First off, do what works in the situation you're in (we all agree on that as is). Secondly, maybe a general guideline for many situations might be to consider a Company as more or less permanent, but its constituent sub-units as more or less modular, though they may have a permanent structure for administrative purposes. Battalion and above, that could be more interesting. So, Thirdly, I am inclined to view the Battalion (or Battle Group when all the Combined Arms Atts and Dets are made) as best suited for modularity, especially with such routine attachments as Tank Companies, Artillery Batteries, Engineer Companies, etc., that render these sub-units practically more a part of said Battalion than the Rifle Companies that are routinely detached to other Battalions.
The Armored Cavalry Troop, Squadron, and Regiment (I'm thinking of 3rd ACR and a few of the Heavy Div Squadrons here) are often held up as an "ideal" Combined Arms tactical organization. Few would disagree with this. The only persistent problem that the Arm Cav has is a relative lack of Infantry, and when performing typical Arm Cav tasks, that's actually not a problem, since the Arm Cav is not normally intended to seize and hold ground in quite the same way as a Battalion or Brigade.
But for the Battalion to achieve something approaching the combined-arms excellence of the Arm Cav, the Combat Team concept may offer a useful modular approach to that ideal. Infantry Companies of a reasonable, but preferably modest size - such as what Wilf has been proposing - paired with Tank Companies along with AT and AA Sections, plus a Reconnaissance and an Engineer Platoon (each attached from Reconnaissance and Engineer Companies attached to the Battalion), to form Combat Teams, may be a way to achieve this. And back to the point about modest-sized, but nevertheless tactically effective (of course) Rifle Companies; with Companies of such a size, perhaps an Infantry Battalion could muster six such Rifle Companies for administrative purposes, plus a Weapons Company. For operations, however, it would cross-attach Companies with a Tank Battalion similarly organized. If, say, 3 Companies of each were so cross-attached, then the Infantry and Tank Battalions so involved could form 3 Combat Teams each, using habitually-attached Companies.
Or we could just reorganize Battalions permanently along the lines of Arm Cav Squadrons, but incorporating permanent Combat Teams of a Rifle Company and a Tank Company each. That would mean permanent relationships rather than either habitual attachment or modularity per se.
Bookmarks