U.S. Army May Cut 10 Active-Duty Brigades – Defense News

The U.S. Army may cut 10 of its 45 active-duty brigade combat teams (BCTs) as it works to meet President Obama’s order to slice defense spending, said an Army official familiar with the budget deliberations.

via U.S. Army May Cut 10 Active-Duty Brigades – Defense News.

As usual, when there’s a Democrat in the White House, it’s time to gut the services.


Via War News Updates.

8 thoughts on “U.S. Army May Cut 10 Active-Duty Brigades – Defense News”

  1. One of the conversation topics at the Lex meet up back in July by Dirt Sailor was the coming cuts in the force. As he put it “they are gutting the force.” KInd of a raw way of putting it, but all too accurate.

    The services have done a poor job with teh RIFs they have staged in the past. The post Vietnam RIF was very poorly done, and done in most unjust ways. Bill Tuttle can tell you about his experiences at that time. Dept. Of The Army told him one thing in writing, then later rescinded what they told him. It was all too common.

    Supposedly the Army tried to get back soem of those men later on, but doubt they had much luck. Hard to blame those guys when they were screwed so hard.

  2. While I don’t advocate cutting ten BCTs from the force, if, as the article alludes to, it resulted in putting a third maneuver battalion into the understrength BCTs, that would be a very good thing. As it is right now, the BCTs need a third maneuver battalion, an engineer battalion, and a bit more power in the armored reconnaissance squadron in order to fight a major combat operation. It depends, really, on how much subordinate combat power they are cutting and/or restructuring from those ten BCTs. Best case, I could take ten BCT headquarters and do away with them, freeing up the 20 combined arms battalions to put a third BN into twenty of the existing BCTs, convert 10 BSTBs into ten engineer battalions, create three fires brigades from the ten FA battalions, and then only really deactivate ten support battalions and ten recon squadrons for a savings of 10-11k soldiers. Or I could cut everything from ten BCTs for a savings of, depending on what type of BCTs, around 35k. Of course, it makes much longer odds for anyone under consideration for brigade command in 5-6 years, though!

  3. And so it begins. “Defense is expensive” is a meme that won’t go away with a leftist media and Democrats in two branches of government. And then we’ll have to rebuild these BCT’s a few years down the road.

    And how many subject matter experts, key leaders and trainers will we lose? That you can’t put a price tag on.

    1. While losing expertise/leadership is a valid concern, we have already done so. Pulling engineer battalions apart to put separate companies in combined arms battalions was bad. Pulling Intel battalions apart to put separate MI Companies in the BCT was bad. Pulling signal battalions apart to put signal companies in the BCTs was bad. Pulling FA Brigades apart to put separate FA battalions in BCTs was bad. Pulling the FOs out of the FA battalions and putting them in the combined arms BNs and recon squadrons was bad. In a nutshell, Modular BCTs have already been bad for the army from the standpoint of expertise becuase we deactivated a whole lot of battalions, lost the ability to promote junior leaders into more challenging positions, and did away with the BN leadership that was the subject matter expert in those branches. Who trains the junior guys when the senior guys are already gone? If the leadership from deactivated BCTs are put back into consolidated, branch-specific units, then there are increased opportunities for those leaders to develop both themselves and the subordinates underneath then. As for me, if I had to fight a major combat operation, I would rather fight with a couple fewer BCTs, if the result is that the remaining BCTs are more powerful. The current BCT is by no means optimized to fight a traditional “real” war. The army is determined to get a third combined arms battalion in each BCT. If this is the way that it is achieved, then it is not all bad. If the 10 BCTs go away, but there is no resultant gain in the combat power of the remaining ones, than it is bad. The jury is still out.

  4. Republican Presidential Candidates say Cut-and-Run. This is the result of no shared sacrifice across the nation and economic classes. Don’t blame the Democrats for unnecessary wars people that don’t care about vets.

Comments are closed.