Defanged?

Is our Army reorganization into brigades making our combat units too fragile?

One of the centerpieces of the US Army's transformation plan has been its proposal to break down divisions into something called "Brigade Combat Teams." The idea is that the US would be able to deploy the brigades with minimal support from higher-level HQ, something like the US Marine Corps' pioneering MEUs. By expanding the number of brigades in the army, moving some dedicated support units into the BCTs, and increasing each brigade's UAV, reconnaissance, and C4SI capabilities, the idea was that the US would effectively have more deployable combat units.

Now some studies prepared by the Institute for Defense Analyses (IDA) on behalf of the Pentagon's Program Analysis and Evaluation Directorate make the case that the result will actually be something else: growth of HQ staff at the expense of combat troops, reducing maneuver batalions by 20% while growing headquarters by 11.5%.

So will our new brigade combat teams be too fragile because they have only two combat battalions? Good question. When I proposed organizing more but smaller divisions (two brigades each) [link updated. see pp. 91-93] to be more deployable and provide a better rotation base, I also proposed a structure that would allow an additional brigade to be plugged in if the division faced high intensity combat.

But consider our new battalions will have four line companies instead of three. So we are really going from 9 line companies in a brigade to 8. (Although the Stryker units will retain three maneuver battalions with the traditional three companies I assume) Plus, we have included a reconnaissance battalion (called different things in the heavy, Stryker, and infantry brigades) to call in the awesome firepower we have available. Now, this unit is quite light (and I suspect too light). In the past, recon units that started light have heavied up to become virtually indistinguishable from combat units.

Indeed, our old armored cavalry regiments--which are reconnaissance units--are outstanding brigade-sized combined arms units that might have served as an adequate organization for our new units. We shall see if networked fighting makes more sense with the new brigade combat team organization.

But my point is that with an additional battalion of light recon in the brigade combat team that doesn't seem to be counted as a manuever unit, we may yet be able to heavy this unit up to maneuver unit status to allow it to slug it out with peer units while delivering firepower. Then we might have units with more maneuver companies than current brigades. And have more brigades.
So I don't assume the new brigades are more fragile and could yet evolve into a more robust unit if we rethink what the recon battalion should look like. Or we might decide to go back to the triangular structure like the Stryker brigades retain.
UPDATE: The Weekly Standard blog reports on a critique of the reorganization. I believe I addressed these concerns above. The criticism focused on reductions in maneuver battalions.
Well let's look at line companies. With 33 brigades in a triangular structure (3 companies in each battalion and 3 battalions in each brigade, resulting in 9 companies per brigade) we have 297 line companies. With each division having another cavalry squadron (battalion), add 30 more companies. So call it 327 line companies under the old organization.
With 42 new BCTs each having two maneuver battalions of 4 companies each, we have 336 line companies. Since the five active Stryker brigades retain the triangular structure, add 5 more line companies for a total of 341 line companies. This is 14 more companies than the old strcuture. Where is the reduction in combat power?
Now I do have concerns over the new recon battalions. They are way too light, I think, and I'd rather they have Bradleys and Abrams. If you add 42 of these battalions that will be in each BCT and heavy them up so they can maneuver against the heaviest enemy, with even a triangular structure we'd have 126 more line companies.
I'm just not convinced that the Army is defanged.
ANOTHER UPDATE: Strategypage comments:

Traditionalists in the army don’t want to give up the three combat battalion brigade concept. This has been around for about 90 years. Before that, there were four battalions per brigade. Before that, it varied a lot. One thing is certain, there are historical trends at work here, as well as fear of new ideas. The historical trend has been one of putting fewer and fewer troops into the combat zone, and substituting technology for those missing troops. This trend has been particularly visible in the last century.

Like I said, I have some concerns, too, about the loss of a third maneuver battalion; though the presence of a third battalion--the recon unit--allays these concerns, and I think they could evolve into a manuever-capable unit as our current cavalry squadrons are (recall how 3rd ID's cavalry squadron took apart Iraqi units it encountered in 2003). Plus, remember that German World War II regiments contained either two armored or two infantry battalions per regiment by later in the war. They managed to slug it out on the Eastern Front in very high intensity operations because of their artillery support.