US Army to add 3rd Manevuer Battalion to each Brigade

[VinceW]

The US Army starting this year are reducing the number of Brigades from 44 to 32 by 2017 they're adding a 3rd Maneuver Battalion to each Brigade they're going back to 3 Brigades per Division.

http://www.dodbuzz.com/2013/02/20/army-to-add-more-infantry-battalions-in-2013/

 

[little jim]

One word gents - sequestration.

There are lots of threads out there on other sights – look into it and shudder.

Talk has been going on for awhile now on the reduction in BCTs to add a maneouvre unit to the existing BCTs.  It will be interesting to see how this plays out.  In the HBCTs (or ABCT or whatever the term is this week) the two manouvre battalions are typically Combined Arms Battalion.  So a unit, like 1-64 Armor isn’t really an armoured battalion in Canadian terms – it has two companies of tanks and two companies of Brad infantry.  Will be interesting to see if when they go back to three manouvre battalions if they revert to per transformation status and become pure infantry or armour (unlikely).  Don’t discount the CAV though……

And now a bit of a hi-jack.

See below for the impact sequestration will have on the army,; take a moment to think of the impact on the US economy when they say things like “loss of 20% of their pay” and just over a thousand companies will “face moderate to high risk for bankruptcy.”:

U.S. Army

• We are terminating an estimated 3,100 temporary and term employees and have directed an immediate Army-wide hiring freeze. These employees typically fill gaps in our installation services such as Army substance abuse programs, law enforcement, physical security, public works, and installation education programs.

• We have initiated planning to furlough up to 251,000 civilians for one day a week for twenty-two weeks, in full recognition of the risks of decreased productivity, morale, and the loss of 20% of their pay while furloughed. In addition to the hardship this poses to our dedicated workforce, this furlough will have an immediate trickle-down effect as the majority of these civilians are located throughout the U.S. on our posts and stations, and their spending directly impacts local economies and contributes towards state and local taxes. Any furlough would have an immediate impact on fire and emergency services, law enforcement, airfield operations, and all of our Army family programs.

• We are making plans to cancel 3rd and 4th quarter depot maintenance. As a result, we are terminating employment of an estimated 5,000 temporary, term, contractor, and permanent employees due to the reduced Depot Maintenance workload.

• We will reduce Army purchase orders with 3,000 companies, of which 37%, or approximately 1,100, may consequently face moderate to high risk for bankruptcy. The reduction in maintenance will delay equipment readiness for six Divisions (3rd Infantry Division [Georgia], 4th Infantry Division [Colorado], 10th Mountain Division [Louisiana and New York], 25th Infantry Division [Alaska and Hawaii], 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault) [Kentucky] and 82d Airborne Division [North Carolina]).

• These delays will halt the reset of 1,000 Tactical Wheeled vehicles, 14,000 communication devices and 17,000 weapons in Active and Reserve units for three to four years following redeployment.

 

[ArmyRick]

Back on track....

What is more useful to the US Army? 3 combined arms battalions for their HBCT at the cost of fewer Brigades? Or More Brigades?

 

[little jim]

Back on track....

What is more useful to the US Army? 3 combined arms battalions for their HBCT at the cost of fewer Brigades? Or More Brigades?

The official party line is that the 2x manoeuvre battalions per brigade was ideal for the GWOT.  The Army had planned to cut 8 BCTs to facilitate and now with sequestration are looking at cutting 'five or more.'  Idea is to be able to fight a “very complex war in Korea” to training and advising and contingency operations.

The transformation brigades were designed to be more capable of deploying independently so had larger logistics support elements.  The move to fewer brigades will also cut these capabilities and US Forces will have to rely on more prepositioned equipment and reducing ability to operate independently from 72 to 48 hours.

They retain the option of going back to two manoeuvre battalions per brigade if they become involved in sustained combat operations in a future theatre.

To be honest from my view point they don't make as much as a distinction at the battalion level as we do.  I have seen infantry pure, combined arms and cav battalions all get re-rolled into up-lift organizations to support SOF in Afghanistan (look up village stability operations). 

This is an organization that has divisions larger than the Canadian Army - we are talking the move from 44 to 32 brigades.  Christ I have heard anecdotal discussions that they were considering at one point going to the USMC (or Canadian) standard of Majors for Coy Commanders but would be unable to manage all of those career paths centrally.

So to answer your question - the US Army appears to be leaning to fewer brigades with more fight and less log.

 

[Old Sweat]

I am inclined to think that this is a case of the US Army getting back to 'real soldiering' after the COIN years. There is a theory that the army never really was comfortable with anything short of preparing for battle against the Red Hordes, and in fact did not have a published COIN doctrine until Petreaus et al were able to impose one. The question is whether or not the stated reason which appears in the article

Basically we are proposing fewer, more capable BCTs for the future,” said Maj. Gen. Arthur Bartell, deputy director of the Army Capability Integration Center. “Two-maneuver-battalion BCTs worked in a [counter-insurgency] environment, but a three-maneuver-battalion design gives commanders more agility and more flexibility across the range of military operations.”

is a pragmatic response to the financial reality or a retrograde step that does not recognize the lack of any modern potential enemies to fight. I would like to go for the first option, which preserves maneuver companies and battalions while reducing some flexibility in command and control.

 

[tomahawk6]

The Stryker brigades have 3 rifle battalions. The light/airborne BCT's did not.

 

[little jim]

The Stryker brigades have 3 rifle battalions. The light/airborne BCT's did not.

Roger that - but that's only like eight of their current 42 active brigades (counting 2CR and the CAV).

Be interesting to see what the USMC does with their RCTs - especially with the Canadian Army's current infactuation with them.

 

[FJAG]

is a pragmatic response to the financial reality or a retrograde step that does not recognize the lack of any modern potential enemies to fight. I would like to go for the first option, which preserves maneuver companies and battalions while reducing some flexibility in command and control.

I tend to agree. When I review the orbat for US forces over the years in Afghanistan I see plenty of mixing and matching and most IBCTs operate with more than their assigned two inf bns/1 Cav Sqn/1 Arty Bn notwithstanding these are COIN ops. This was especially true in the pre-surge days where 3 or 4 bns were deployed more often then 2 or less. The plug and play concept clearly applies to these organizations.

One could really go either way: 1) have a 2 bn BCT as establishment and augment it with another bn from another org to make it more robust or 2) Have a 3rd bn BCT as standard and leave a bn at home when deploying on a less robust mission.

Opting for 3 bn BCTs reduces the numbers of brigade headquarters and probably allows for some facility downsizing while keeping the tooth end of the organization stable. Savings should result.

One question I have is will the reduced number of BCT be able to keep pace with the operational tempo the Americans have set themselves over the last decade?

Another question I have is this: while the the inf bns from BCTs that are being struck off strength will be redistributed to beef up the remaining BCTs, what will happen to the organic arty bn, cav sqn, support bn and special troops bn of the BCTs that are being struck? Are they disappearing as well for even more cost savings? I haven't seen anything that says they will be redistributed.

 

[Old Sweat]

Here is a link to a wikipedia item on the original brigade combat team (BCT) organization. It appears to be well documented, but is still an unofficial source. Note that there are three types of BCT.

Re FJAG's question re what happens to the other arms and services, I surmise that some sub-units will follow the battalions to the new model BCTs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brigade_combat_team

 

[FJAG]

I gave that a bit of thought Old Sweat and did look at that Wikipedia page as well as several others before posing the question.

I think several of the special troops etc don't need scaling up while the support bn probably does.

What perplexed me more than anything else were the Cav and arty components. 

When you look at arty, note that the Stryker BCT has three manoeuvre bns supported by a traditional US 3 x 6 gun bty arty bn. The two bn BCTs on the other hand have an arty bn of 2 x 8 gun btys which is a 16 to 12 gun ratio. That said though, as you and I both know, there's more to arty structure than pure gun numbers. I frankly do not know what the rationale is behind the differing structures in the US especially with us going to four gun batteries - in effect a IBCT or HBCT two troop bty could conceivably already support up to two manoeuvre bns. There's a US doctrine element here that's not quite clear to me.

Similarly my reading of the Cav structure is that when the Yanks changed the Cav Squadron structure from the old heavy tank/Bradley mixes to the new light "scout" structure, they really created organizations that don't work very well. So the question is: to what extent will the Cav Sqns be restructured in organization, manpower and equipment.

I guess the bottom line for me is that an announcement that they want to go from 2 to 3 manoeuvre bns is only half of the issue. The other half is how are the other organic elements changing?

 

[Old Sweat]

Agreed, but we don't have enough information to know where they are going with the arty structure. The simple answer would be to send a battery (and its adm slice) with each of the battalions being transferred, which implies a reduction in the number of FA battalions. The question is what kind of a divisional and corps artillery structure falls out of this in terms of general support (not in the tactical mission term exactly) units not all of which would be tube. One of the more important things a battery brings is the observation and liasion capability along with the additional support during mobile operations. This presumes that this extra capability had not been built in to the two battery organization in a manner similar to ours.

I am not an expert in 'cav' missions, but I wonder if the light brigades were just way too light for anything more than COIN and thus there is a move to reinvent something like cav?

And, of course, what about engineers and aviation?

Another question is just how many divisions are going to be left. If a few independent brigades survive, we are still talking a maximum of 9 or 10 divisions, with an unknown number of the various types. With the stated 32 brigades, that presumably leads to 96 battalions of a mixture of light, stryker, mech and armor. That is roughly eight times the number in the Canadian Army which is not all that many.

 

[GnyHwy]

I read the implied task of the Arty as form a Regt of guns in DS to the Bde,  3 x 6, or 2 x 8.  I prefer the 2 x 8 with the option of splitting to 4 x 4 for complex terrain. My speculation is that these guns and STA assets will be grouped at Div and will not be permanently part of the Bde.  What will be permanently part of the Bde are the fire support teams (FST) and/or LOs to the manoeuvre comds.

IMO this is the way of the future, and we are kind of doing it in regards to the FOO Btys we have in the CF, but we are half assing it. 

This is nothing new.  Guns are commanded at highest level and controlled at the lowest.  For a FST Maj (LO to BG Comd) to be IC of any guns is commanding at lower, and potentally counter productive to the other BGs who could potentially use the support.

My solution:

1 x FSCC at Bde, with a LCol as LO to Bde Comd and a Maj as his Fires /Ops O; and

3-5 x FST Plts (1 x Maj, and 4 x Capts); and

2 x 8 gun bty's each commanded by Capt's, but overseen by a Maj (Regt 2 i/c).

Lastly, STA assets need to be long endurance assets, that don't need to move (on ground) in order to react to fast changing situations of the BGs.   

 

[FJAG]

Another question is just how many divisions are going to be left. If a few independent brigades survive, we are still talking a maximum of 9 or 10 divisions, with an unknown number of the various types. With the stated 32 brigades, that presumably leads to 96 battalions of a mixture of light, stryker, mech and armor. That is roughly eight times the number in the Canadian Army which is not all that many.

Don't forget their National Guard units and the Marines. In addition they have five regular and two NG Special Forces Groups which have all been upgraded to 4 x bns; the 3 bns of the 75th Ranger Regt; and the god-only-knows how many thousands of people who now make up JSOC--oh yeah and the SEALs.