NEW: Follow the Editorial Staff on
StrategyPage Twitter Link


GROUND COMBAT +

AIR COMBAT +

NAVAL OPERATIONS +

SPECIAL OPERATIONS +

HUMAN FACTORS +

SPECIAL WEAPONS +

WARFARE BY THE NUMBERS +

LOGISTICS +

TOOLS +


Visit StrategyPage's US Cavalry Store



Armor Article Index : Current 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics

Goodbye To The Heavies

October 7, 2009:  The U.S. Army is converting two of its Heavy Brigade Combat Teams (HBCT) into  Stryker Brigade Combat Teams (SBCT), which will replace tracked vehicles (M-1 tanks and M-2 infantry vehicles) with wheeled Stryker Infantry Vehicle. The goal is to have a lighter and more quickly deployable force, focused more toward infantry operations, rather than heavy armor based tracked vehicles. Lighter units have proven more effective and flexible in diverse counterinsurgency environments the past few years.

SBCT’s comprise 3 Stryker infantry battalions, each having 36 Stryker vehicles distributed among 3 companies (12 each). Nine Stryker Mobile Gun vehicles,  mounting 105 mm guns are there for anti-tank and infantry support roles. Nine Strykers, equipped with guided anti-tank missiles, form an anti-tank company. There’s also an artillery battalion with 18 towed 155mm Howitzers, a support units (usually company size) for Medical, Maintenance and Distribution, Headquarters, Signal, and Engineers. There is  Reconnaissance squadron comprised of 42 vehicles. Total brigade manpower is 3,900 troops.

In comparison, HBCT’s contain two battalions of 28 M1 Abrams tanks each (14 per company) along with two infantry companies of 14 Bradley’s each. There is also an armed reconnaissance squadron of 30 Bradley’s. An artillery battalion has 16 M-109 155mm self-propelled howitzers along with a support battalion and brigade special troops battalion consisting of headquarters, signal, intelligence, security and engineer companies round. Total brigade manpower is 3,900 troops.

1st HBCT of the 1st Armored Division along with the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment will undergo the transformation in 2011 and 2012 respectively. This brings the total number of the Army’s Brigade Combat teams, all of which are designed to be self sustaining without additional support, to 45, and continues to confirm the move away from Cold War era doctrine of Heavy, to counterinsurgency mode with Light. -- Mike Perry

 

submit to reddit
Send Link to a Friend
Next Article SURFACE FORCES : Warships With No One On Board


Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Sort in Reverse Order Posted

Aluffarb       10/7/2009 11:45:22 AM
I'm concerned that the ongoing effort to convert our heavy combat units into lighter Stryker teams is overlooking the fact that many armor-rich environments exist in the world.  We might regret this move if we are ever involved in armed conflict against North Korea, China, or (dare I say it) Russia all of whom possess ground forces that emphasize heavy armor (tanks, IFV, and heavy SP artillery).  Furthermore, many Middle East nations that are potential US adversaries (Iran, Syria, Pakistan) also have large tank inventories.  I would hate to be in a Stryker unit going mano a mano against against a battalion of Chinese Type 99 or Russian T-90s.  It seems that we have a tendency to go to extremes in our military planning, in that whenever there appears to be change in the nature of the conflicts we are involved in we automatically assume that that is going to be the way all subsequent conflicts will be.  Just because we happen to be currently involved in so-called assymmetrical warfare does not mean that we might not at some point in the future be engaged in a more traditional conflict with an opponent equipped with heavy armor.  Our forces need to be both trained and equipped for all possible contingencies.  Considering that the M1 family of tanks and the M2/3 Bradleys were essentially designed in the late 1970s/1980s the time has come to develop and procure the next generation of US armor.  Sadly, given the current administration in power this is not likely to occur anytime soon.  I pray that the US electorate will come to its senses in 2012 and return the Presidency to an individual who possesses more cojones than B.H.Obama.
 
Quote    Reply

JFKY    Uh Hello!   10/7/2009 11:56:38 AM
Two/some is not ALL...two brigades, further are becoming Stryker brigades, still leaving a number of heavy brigades...thank you.
 
Quote    Reply

LB    19 "Heavy Brigades"   10/7/2009 4:05:18 PM
So now the US Army is down to 19 active tank battalions and 19 active mechanized infantry battalions.  Once upon a time 38 battalions was a corp of 3 1/2 divisions.  Taking away the last Armored Cavalry Regiment is among the most idiotic choices the US Army has made.  Clearly "brigades" of one mechanized infantry battalion are far less useful than Stryker brigades of 3 light mechanized infantry battalions for counter insurgency.  That was blindingly obvious to even those born without eyes.  The binary brigade concept is flawed.
 
Moreover, the original plan was for some divisions to have 5 brigades with 10 maneuver battalions.  Heavy divisions used to have 11 or 10 battalions later mostly dropped to 9 post Cold War.  Every US Army division now has 8 battalions in 4 "brigades"- except for Stryker brigades.  The US Army is creating more old fashioned brigades of 3 maneuver battalions because somebody figured out "brigades" of 200 or so dismounted infantry was not quite a brigade.  It's beyond obvious that the US Army needs more infantry and that means more infantry and mechanized battalions.  Even Obama and Clinton both campaigned for an expanded US Army to at least 12 divisions.  The Army however pleads it can't be expanded because more personal are too expensive.
 
This of course after they created more brigade HQ's, more artillery battalion HQ's, and a virtual plethora of new battalion level units.  Here's a simple exercise.  How many redundant personal are freed up by creating 4 maneuver battalion heavy brigades because right now we're tying up 7,800 soldiers in these same 4 battalions in 2 modular heavy brigades.  We used 4 battalion brigades in heavy divisions during the Cold War as did other nations because it generated the most bang for the buck and created a robust unit able to sustain losses and keep going in combat while providing for varied maneuver of 4 sub units.  Now we have a brigade that if it tries to leave a battalion to consolidate an objective just lost half the brigades maneuver elements.  It's beyond ridiculous.
 
Before anyone asserts the cavalry/recon sdqn is a maneuver battalion please provide in your reply exactly how many dismounts are in said unit and the total size of the unit.
 
Quote    Reply

RTO Trainer       10/7/2009 7:32:43 PM
Divisions today only have one Battalion, a Special Troops Battalion with organic Intelligence and Signal support companies and mobile command posts.  Brigades are no longer organic to Division, though most Active Duty Divisions maintain traditional alignments with the Brigades to preserve Lineage and Honors.
 
Quote    Reply

ambush       10/7/2009 9:29:33 PM

  The Army does not need fewer heavy brigades or more Stryker Brigades. It needs more Light Infantry Brigades and Aviation (meaning Helicopter) assets.  This is where the authorized increase in strength should have gone.  Well that and Special Ops but those ranks are harder to fill.  I would even go so far as converting some of the Stryker  units to light Infantry.

 
Quote    Reply

Photon       10/8/2009 12:58:13 AM
Non-allied powers like China and Russia, while they have large armored forces, these forces cannot walk the oceans and harm the US.  Furthermore, in case of Russia, the most it can do is to mass its own forces against former Soviet republics, but hardly in shape to march beyond that.  What about China?  The Korean Peninsula, Vietnam, and neither the Himalayas -- none of these places are tank countries.  Chinese blitzkrieg into Mongolia and Siberia?  Not so fast, unless it does not mind being on the receiving end of Russian nukes.  (Not that going north would even be a good idea to begin with:  Southeast Asia would be much more important for China.  Preponderance in naval and air powers, not armored power, would be at premium.)  Nor does the US have a whole region of its own or of its allies that shares lengthy borders with these two giants to require positioning a large number of armored units:  Hardly a NATO-WP scenario, unless there is a colossal Eurasia-wide reshuffling of the alliances involving whole chunks of regions taking different sides.
 
Quote    Reply

LB    Reality vs Fantasy   10/8/2009 1:38:40 AM
In fantasy land one needs less maneuver elements because one has information dominance and shares all information over the super network allowing smaller brigades of 2 infantry battalions or 2 heavy battalions.  In reality if you want to increase the number of actual riflemen you have to now send another brigade.  So instead of sending 2 brigades of 6 infantry battalions you now have to send 3 brigades.  Guess which is more cost effective?
 
Certainly the US Army needs more light infantry battalions.  However, instead of adding two light infantry battalions by creating a new modular brigade of 3,300 just add 1 battalion to existing "brigades" of 2.  That is 560 per battalion so 1,360 and even adding another 280 to the brigade to beef up support and combat support units means one can add almost double the number of light fighters in the US Army by adding battalions to existing brigades vs creating new brigades of two battalions.  One new brigade is 3,300 vs about 1,680 to just add 2 battalions to existing brigades.  One saves much more of course by using heavy brigades of 4 battalions not 2.
 
In reality warfare is manpower intensive and counter insurgency warfare even more so.  Binary brigades that emphasize firepower are the least cost effective for COIN and provide the least bang for the buck by fielding the lowest ratio of riflemen to support troops.  3,300 troops to put 2 leg infantry battalions in the field is simply ridiculous. 
 
There are currently 15 active infantry brigades in the US Army within the 4th ID, 10th MTN, 25th ID, 82nd, and 101st.  Only the 10th MTN, 82nd, and 101st are all infantry and between the 3 of them they now have 24 infantry battalions vs the 27 they used to have in the good old days when they used to have 3 brigades not 4.  
 
It seems to have been lost on many observers but the original plan was for some divisions to have 5 modular brigades thus gaining 1 maneuver battalion over the old 3 brigade and 9 battalion structure.  With every division at 4 brigades the US Army in fact cut itself by 10 maneuver battalions.  Note the USMC added a battalion to every existing division to most cost effectively expand combat power.
 
It's not like the US Army has not tried to reorganize itself and failed before due to flawed doctrine.  See Pentomic divisions. 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

hansalfaone       10/10/2009 3:58:26 AM
It makes me madder than hell the Army is going to piss away the 3rd ACR's capability.  HR McMaster's leadership and operations with the 3rd ACR drafted a concept for the Surge...which worked.
 
The author needs to do more homework.  The 3rd ACR is almost twice the size of an HBCT.  So, we are trading two for one, (or 3 or 4 to one if you want to analyze realative combat power).
 
I'm glad my days as an amor officer are numbered.  The Army's ungrateful attitude towards its "mounted arm of decision" is atrocious.
 
Quote    Reply

ambush       10/11/2009 10:37:54 PM

It makes me madder than hell the Army is going to piss away the 3rd ACR's capability.  HR McMaster's leadership and operations with the 3rd ACR drafted a concept for the Surge...which worked.

 

The author needs to do more homework.  The 3rd ACR is almost twice the size of an HBCT.  So, we are trading two for one, (or 3 or 4 to one if you want to analyze realative combat power).

 

I'm glad my days as an amor officer are numbered.  The Army's ungrateful attitude towards its "mounted arm of decision" is atrocious.



 I do agree that the Army?s priorities in this case seem screwed up but I have been a long time critic of the Stryker program.  The Brigades have never lived up to the original  reason for their creation,  the ability to deploy the whole brigades  in the 96 hours anywhere in the worldwide  and the ability of the Stryker vehicle to assault land from a C-130. 

 

 I honestly believe that e intent behind the Stryker Brigades was Peace Keeping, maybe low level Peace Making but not combat.  The Brigades seem to perform well in Iraq where the terrain seems ideal but I have doubts about places like Afghanistan where, as I understand it , the Canadians traded in some of these LAV type vehicles for M-113s. 

 

I think it might be better to put the vehicles into what the Marines used call ORF  (Operational Readiness Float) or some type of transportation outfit and issue them to the  Infantry Outfits as needed.  Or perhaps have one Stryker battalion per division.  
 
Sad to say that the same "genius"  who gave the Army the black beret and the Stryker is now running the VA.
 
As a retired Marine have always been amused by the Army's branch rivalries . Granted that Marien Corps has its Blue dollar vs Green Dollar vs Blue Green Dollar fights but the Army's Branch conflicts seem like tribal warfarer at times.
 
Quote    Reply

sinoflex       10/11/2009 11:23:09 PM



 I honestly believe that e intent behind the Stryker Brigades was Peace Keeping, maybe low level Peace Making but not combat.  The Brigades seem to perform well in Iraq where the terrain seems ideal but I have doubts about places like Afghanistan where, as I understand it , the Canadians traded in some of these LAV type vehicles for M-113s.  

Canada has also deployed Leopard 2 tanks alongside its LAVs and M-113s and is looking at purchasing a tracked IFV like the Swedish CV90s that have deployed to Afghanistan. It wasn't too long ago that Canada was planning to get rid of its Leopard 1s and replace them with the mobile gun system and go primarily with a LAV armored force. Afghanistan changed those plans.
 
Quote    Reply

hansalfaone       10/12/2009 2:31:05 AM
Actually Ambush, the Stryker BCT is great in the Baghdad AOR.  It's fast, it can haul a lot of troops to trouble areas quickly, while retaining the IBCT's ability to seize restricted and undesirable terrain - 172nd's 4 month extension is just partial evidence of this.  I'm a fan of the SBCT (did my PL time there actually), I'm not a fan of further heavy force castration.  The 3rd ACR.... what a unique, self-contained, self-securing organization, and we are going to piss it away.
 
Yes...Afghanistan did save the Canadian tracked force....
 
Quote    Reply

Kasmir       10/12/2009 7:29:06 AM
The Stryker brigades have 3 infantry battalions plus a cav squadron. 5/2 SBCT deployed at the end of July to Kandahar province. The 4 maneuver battalions operating independently. One infantry battalion is in nearby Zabul province, one is in Maiwand, and one is in Arghandab just NW of Kandahar city. The cavalry squadron is patrolling the Kandahar/Pak border down at Spin Boldak, so it is indeed a maneuver battalion. From what I hear, they've all settled in fairly well. Michael Yon just announced he'll be embedding with them shortly for a couple of months.
 
Quote    Reply

Jeff_F_F       10/15/2009 11:40:12 AM

Non-allied powers like China and Russia, while they have large armored forces, these forces cannot walk the oceans and harm the US.  Furthermore, in case of Russia, the most it can do is to mass its own forces against former Soviet republics, but hardly in shape to march beyond that.  What about China?  The Korean Peninsula, Vietnam, and neither the Himalayas -- none of these places are tank countries.  Chinese blitzkrieg into Mongolia and Siberia?  Not so fast, unless it does not mind being on the receiving end of Russian nukes.  (Not that going north would even be a good idea to begin with:  Southeast Asia would be much more important for China.  Preponderance in naval and air powers, not armored power, would be at premium.)  Nor does the US have a whole region of its own or of its allies that shares lengthy borders with these two giants to require positioning a large number of armored units:  Hardly a NATO-WP scenario, unless there is a colossal Eurasia-wide reshuffling of the alliances involving whole chunks of regions taking different sides.

I have to admit that China marching against Russia in a replay of the Mongol invasion seems like an attractive scenario for a real WWIII. However besides nukes, I think the endless wastelands of Siberia and the Gobi might well be as tough to sustain heavy armor operations in as the Himalayas, though for logistic rather than tactical reasons.
 
Quote    Reply

Jeff_F_F       10/15/2009 11:55:37 AM
Then again, that logistic situation may be improving...
 
"Russia and China have agreed to allow Chinese companies to extend China's high speed (over 200 kilometers an hour) rail line into Russia. These rail lines, based on Japanese technology, are very popular in China, and would revolutionize travel in Russia's Far East." www.strategypage.com/qnd/russia/articles/20091015.aspx?comments=Y
 
Quote    Reply





New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
1.Modern Air Power: War Over the Middle East
2.Commander: Napoleon at War
3.Close Combat: Watch am Rhein
4.Gallic Wars
5.Fast Action Battle: The Bulge

100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
 
 
 

StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2009StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy