---

Horsesoldier said “From the perspective of a former cavalryman, I think the guys writing the study are a tad bit retarded if they think a cavalry squadron (or "recon battalion" if you don't know what you're talking about . . .) is *not* a maneuver element. “

---

I have a heavy bct graphic which shows 40 LRASSSS hummers for 2 scout platoons(for btns?) & 3 recon troops.85+ brads for BCT. To me this says the recon btn might not have enough combat power to be a full maneuver element.

four manuver elements seems less a challenge to me than two. Of course there was the US Army Pentomic Divsion with its five regiments five companys each. It died a early death. Every now & then in the USMC planning/exercises I was in on, someone would propose using the recon element as a manuver group. To which the response would be: whats doing the recon? Of course the cav bn of the BCT is not strictly a recon unit... still I'd not want to have to choose between having a third manuver element & having my flanks properly screened, continual reconissance, counter reconissance...

I think William Lind (yes, controversial, I know) advocated four manuever elements as ideal in his book on manuever warfare. Fewer than four gave the commander fewer options; more than four was difficult to employ effectively, i.e. the five battlegroups of the late 1950's. A brigade with three line battalions and a cav squadron would seem to fit the bill nicely. That's just a supposition on my part. I mean as a former fire team leader I'm an expert on manuever warfare dotcha know?

"I mean as a former fire team leader I'm an expert on manuever warfare dotcha know?" Hey, your there. After all everything Chesty knew he learned on squad patrol in Hati. Of course Lind is the last word on it. He got to hang out with the Marines. ; )

>>Well, I'm not a 19D but I would think of a cav squadron as a manueuver element. But a cav squadron is short on dismounts, correct? << Yeah -- a six vehicle Bradley scout platoon, as an example, has twelve dismounts it can put on the ground (assuming full strength -- if not full-strength, the dismounts are usually the first guys to get cut, like mech infantry units but with less room for cutting). I think the UA recon squadron, however, has less firepower but more boots, making it suitable for a wider range of operations where mechanized manuever is not the decisive activity.

>>Speaking from a Marines point of view, so I could be wrong, but are the reconnaissance assets in the new Brigades really a maneuver element in the same sense as a "line" battalion or aare they a supporting asset like artillery? The Reconnaissance Battalion in a Marine Division is never or almost never sent on missions as a battalion or even company element as you would a regular infantry battalion or Company. << Probably the better counterpart, at least in the heavy UAs, would be the Marine LAV units. Army cavalry units have a range of missions including reconnaissance, but also economy of force and screening missions where there is an expectation that they will slug it out with the enemy before handing the battle off to follow on forces or falling back through friendly lines, etc. >>No matter how you cut it the Brigades are still one combat arms battalion smaller than they used to be. I think the question still remains can technology make up the difference? << The new division format, however, is four line brigades/UAs, so the division ends up with eight armor or mech infantry battalions (down from nine) but augmented by four reconnaissance squadrons (up from one), which to me looks like a net gain in shooter units, as well as a significant gain in situational awareness and RSTA capabilities.

>>The new division format, however, is four line brigades/UAs, so the division ends up with eight armor or mech infantry battalions (down from nine) but augmented by four reconnaissance squadrons (up from one), which to me looks like a net gain in shooter units, as well as a significant gain in situational awareness and RSTA capabilities.<< I was under the impression that the Division was going to be more or a less and adminsitrative holding unit for the brigades. The brigades would be deployed independently of the Division.

>>We know that two basic elements have worked on occasion; some commanders can effectively employ four. Three seems to be tried and true though. Or perhaps more accurately three plus one for light troops. The Stryker organization, regardless of whatever you think of the vehicle itself, seems to be holding true with three basic elements plus the cav squadron.<< I think the Stryker issue probably boils down to the basic one, that the SBCT was initially laid out with the MTOE it has, and that MTOE is unlikely to change while doctrine and the Stryker system are still being developed, tested, and refined. The Abrams and Bradley are, comparatively, very mature systems whose performance is very well understood, so playing with organization is safer with less chance for unexpected outcomes. >>Both Schoomaker and MacGregor were cav officers. How did they come to such opposite conclusions with similar backgrounds? << I suppose it really depends on what echelon you want to provide the most resources to. The UA gives a lot of combat power back to the battalions, by going back to four line companies each, versus the three under the old MTOE. The UA may lose a battalion headquarters (though it really does not do so, since the RSTA squadron HQ is present), but it only loses a single line company in doing so. At the division level, there's actually a 20% or so increase in teeth companies, with the division going from 27 to 32 line companies, and a modest 400% increase in cavalry troops from three (ground) cavalry troops in the div cav to twelve RSTA troops. It's kind of hard to see where the army has become longer on the tail and leaner on the tooth, as the study claims, when one looks at any number in the equation except for the number of infantry or armor battalion headquarters within the division.

>>I have a heavy bct graphic which shows 40 LRASSSS hummers for 2 scout platoons(for btns?) & 3 recon troops.85+ brads for BCT. To me this says the recon btn might not have enough combat power to be a full maneuver element. << Last time I checked (which was a while ago, and MTOE may have changed) the RSTA squadron in the UA was to consist of nine scout platoons (three per troop) each with three M3 Bradleys and three Gun Hummers, for 27 of each vehicle in the squadron (not counting vehicles at troop and squadron HQ levels). The lack of organic tanks is somewhat disturbing, but I'd say by vehicle count it's a legitimate manuever unit (and one that can be plussed up with attachments as needed for a given mission). (I'm also inclined to suspect that the RSTA squadron will end up with organic tanks somewhere along the way, after the UA gets some real work outs and its organization begins to be refined . . .)

>>and a modest 400% increase in cavalry troops from three (ground) cavalry troops in the div cav to twelve RSTA troops.<< Let me go ahead and self-edit before someone catches the error -- that should be 200%, since I did not count the three BRTs currently on the books for brigade level reconnaissance along with the division's three heavy ground cav troops.