MCG said:
From the Infantry perspective, which was the greater loss: the fourth rifle coy or the combined loss of the mortars, pioneers, and anti-armour?
In my opinion (for whatever it's worth) losing the integral support was by far a bigger blow. Many military forces have utilized a 3+1 formula (3 maneuver, 1 support) to great success. I look at the TO&E's of US battalions and they only have 3 rifle companies. As well, Companies get along with 3 Platoons while Regiments/Brigades get along with 3 battalions of Infantry.
Sure, the fourth company can dramatically add to the options and flexibility of a Battalion Commander (PBI's anecdote is a good example). You could probably make a good case to support the idea that one overstrength Battalion (4 coys, 100% manning) would be more effective then 2 understrength ones (3 coys each, 75% manning). However, I would advocate getting a fourth company as a lower end priority for the Infantry right now.
Three company or four doesn't drastically change the capabilities of an Infantry Battalion - extra "boots-on-the-ground" can only go so far in providing an additional threat to a well-prepared enemy. However, when a CO doesn't have his
organic support - whether it be his indirect fire support and assault/mobility assets available for a "hardened target" or his Anti-Armour assets on hand to deal with an immediate heavier threat, there is a big problem. Three companies or four companies may just sit in the mud and plug away at the bad guy (or worse, just "go over the top" of the trenchline) for lack of their own support. If any of you haven't, read English and Gudmunddson's
On Infantry. you'll see that the most successful Infantry organizations and doctrine at
any level were those that were able to most effectively utilize a
combined arms approach to the tactical battle.
Without the support assets, the Battalion Commander is simply unable to exercise a combined arms approach at his level of the tactical battle (threats posed in a way that makes an enemy vulnerable to one if he deals with the other). We've been giving company commanders access to "the Armoury" floor for his coy support and we arm a Brigade Commander with a combined arms team, so why strip the battalion commander of this essential capability?
I remember hearing a rumor that the Brigade was going to take some aspect (or all?) of the duties of the Battalion Recce Platoon and stick in into a Brigade ISTAR function. IMHO, if this happens, it will spell the end of the Battalion as an independent unit of action - which in this day in age is the completely wrong way to go about things (as for why, see my "Downward Diffusion of Combined Arms" thread).
Anyways, I'll get off my soapbox now....
Infanteer