I) No size fits it all

II) Not every formation needs to be combined arms, some can be meant as attachments or to get attachments.

III) I'd spend ~20% of everything on reconnaissance, cavalry, skirmish troops that are not bound to any formation, but answer to a Corps.
These skirmishers are the key to my idea of a corps structure and operational art. The decision is in the skirmishing, all else is either about delaying or about mopping up quickly broken forces.

IV) No divisions.

V) Heavy brigades would be meant to go into very unfair, advantageous battles mostly. Routine tasks would include almost no LOS combat.

VI) Expert and reserve infantry formations would be separate; expert infantry would be similar to the best marines, ranger and Jäger units while reserve infantry would offer the cheap, quick training, quantity element.


The heavy brigades structure would be about 2-3 rather large combined arms (mortars instead of arty) battlegroups (~ Kampfgruppe) and one support group (providing support in a large radius to the battlegroups, skirmishers and other forces + additional infantry bn on APCs).

The area support function of the support group is rather unorthodox while the battlegroups (or Kampfgruppen) would look like something from the 40's or 50's (1st Heeresstruktur, ~58-62).

Reserve infantry battlegroups and heavy skirmisher companies could work together with a heavy brigade in order to add certain capabilities and tricks.



This does certainly sound like a patchwork of strange stuff. I didn't mention all the reasoning in it, just the superficialities.
It makes a lot of sense in a 40+ pages draft (that's meant to be published as a 200 pp. book, not online).


In short: I('d) develop a corps concept, not a brigade concept.