Re-structuring the BCT

[82redleg]

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?

It has to do with deployable units, or what level is modularly deployable.

In early OEF/OIF, when a division deployed a BCT, the BCT required a slice of the divisional MSCs (a BN from DIVARTY and DISCOM, and ENG if a heavy DIV, and companies from the MI BN, ADA BN, EN BN if a light DIV, SIG BN. A couple of separate platoons, too (MP and CHEM, IIRC). This offered the division the opportunity to fatten the first BCT deployed, at the expense of follow on BCTs. It also created issues with prep and training- when do you stop falling under your organic functional command and fall under the BCT you will deploy with. I can remember my BN CDR bouncing between the BDE and the DIVARTY, getting conflicting guidance. Despite a DIV directed task org effective, it was a negotiation on which DIVARTY events we would still participate in, rating changes effective, etc, etc, etc. Then, when a DIV deploys separate from its BCTs, those functional commanders have nothing to command- yeah, they are still special staff officers, but they have full time representatives for that.

There are also administrative details that are difficult when you are attached to a BCT. As a BN, its not too bad, but some things cause confusion to change over and back between the organic and attached HQ. For companies and platoons, its even worse (since they aren't set up to be administratively separate, but when deployed with their BCT are separated from their organic HQ).

I think that the BCTs are better overall- most of the training issues attributed to modularity are really attributable to a shortage of force structure and rapid turn around between deployments- than the division based force- we had 7 de facto BCTs before 2004 (only 82d, 101st and 1st CAV had all of their BCTs co-located).

[Fuchs]

Let's face it; the modern brigade is the equivalent of World War divisions. We could simply rename them divisions, for they aren't much smaller than the Russian idea of a division anyway.

You need a combined arms team including
* the capability to penetrate MBT frontal armour (AT),
* the capability to shoot building-destroying shells in direct and indirect fire (105mm HE and greater),
* the capability of electronic reconnaissance (triangulation and monitoring) and radio jamming,
* the capability to deploy enough infantry to search a large village or fight your way through a forest road,
* the capability to sustain the force itself for at least three days without major supply deliveries
of a much smaller size than a brigade or division.

The really, really interesting formation is therefore rather a mixed and reinforced battalion (battalion battle group / Kampfgruppe) with a three-digit head count
and
for missions that emphasize economy of force and reconnaissance the correct size would be a mixed company (this one would then substitute infantry with a dismount scout platoon).

I understand that the approach of "pure" administrative units is still widely preferred, but I don't get why a formation such as a brigade has even today still only one TO&E.
It should have several ones:

An early training TO&E (training within units; equipment proficiency, typical unit missions, reaction drills).

A late training TO&E (advanced training in mixed battle groups).

A Battle group / maneuver team / Kampfgruppe / fighting column type of TO&E for a combat-heavy land campaign.

An occupation / blue helmet TO&E.

A skeleton self-defence TO&E (support units serve as makeshift infantry and AT troops, original combat units down reduced by attrition down to a third by assumption).

[Rifleman]

The really, really interesting formation is therefore rather a mixed and reinforced battalion (battalion battle group / Kampfgruppe) with a three-digit head count...

Indeed it is interesting. I was fortunate enough to be in one when many considered it the choice duty in the cold war army of the '80s.

But I understand it came with it's own problems (or special considerations), although not insurmountable. For instance, I believe our battalion combat team's battery commander had a previous battery command in the 82d to learn his trade under an FA battalion commander before being considered for battery command in the battalion combat team. The engineer platoon leader might have been likewise, I remember he was a 1LT.

FWIW, the USMC MEU(SOC) is a similar concept.

[Infanteer]

I understand that the approach of "pure" administrative units is still widely preferred, but I don't get why a formation such as a brigade has even today still only one TO&E.
It should have several ones:

Sounds like the Commonwealth model - Canada employs forces in a method very similiar to your description.

[gute]

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

[gute]

Here is the link to the monograph:

http://cdm15040.contentdm.oclc.org/c...ISOBOX=1&REC=8

[gute]

Here is a link to more talk of restructuring the modular BCT:

http://www.dodbuzz.com/2011/02/08/ar...odel-doctrine/

[gute]

Sorry, Unified Quest not Qwest.

[TAH]

I think that the BCTs are better overall- most of the training issues attributed to modularity are really attributable to a shortage of force structure and rapid turn around between deployments- than the division based force- we had 7 de facto BCTs before 2004 (only 82d, 101st and 1st CAV had all of their BCTs co-located).

Being on the outside, I've heard that there are training issues with the modular BCTs. Mostly revolve around low-density situations, FISTs/FOs in the maneuver Bns, Planning of fires across BCTs, collective training of MI, MP and Engineers.

TAH

[82redleg]

Being on the outside, I've heard that there are training issues with the modular BCTs. Mostly revolve around low-density situations, FISTs/FOs in the maneuver Bns, Planning of fires across BCTs, collective training of MI, MP and Engineers.

TAH

Yes, I lived in a BCT for 3 years. There are issues, but I think that most of them come from the deployment/optempo, not the organization.

How much influence does the BN staff have on individual training? Not much, its the responsibility of the PLT and CO chain of command.

How much MOS specificity do you need for, for instance, MI platoon training? Again, IMO, not much- it is integrated into manuever training, not a stand alone event.

Yes, there are some difficulties, but they are not insurmountable.