What is the point of having MI and Signal assets inside of a Brigade Engineer Battalion?

2018-05-18T14:50:43-04:00

Why did the Army move away from the Brigade Special Troops Battalion which held pretty much the same unit, but at a larger scope than a "BEB". Why not just put MI and Signal back into MI and Signal units like they were prior to the BCT concept. I read the handbook for structuring the BEBs from the Army Center of Lessons Learned and throughout the entire handbook, MI and Signal are only mentioned in small pieces, unlike the Engineers who are specifically outlined on how to structure them.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made May 18 at 2018 3:00 PM

2018-05-18T15:00:05-04:00

Shhhhh, you’re speaking common sense

Response by CW2 Private RallyPoint Member made May 18 at 2018 3:05 PM

2018-05-18T15:05:30-04:00

As long as I've been a 35N, MI has been in MI units.

Response by Sgt Wayne Wood made May 18 at 2018 3:11 PM

2018-05-18T15:11:48-04:00

Think you’ve got issues? The Marines are going to a 3-man fireteam...

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made May 18 at 2018 3:15 PM

2018-05-18T15:15:59-04:00

I'm just as interested in knowing the answer, SGT.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made May 18 at 2018 3:20 PM

2018-05-18T15:20:10-04:00

In all actuality it really depends on whether the commander actually knows how to utilize his enablers [MI assets].

Response by MAJ James Woods made May 18 at 2018 3:23 PM

2018-05-18T15:23:37-04:00

Once the Army realized it was a mistake getting ride of the Engineer Brigades in the mid-2000s in order to create Separate BNs and Companies that can deploy separately in support of different Division HQs and BCTs, they decided to bring back the BNs aligned with actual BCTs. Many Commanders didn't even like the BSTB concept; doctrinally, it was confusing, a BN HQs responsible for an MI, Signal, Combat EN, MPs and CBRNE Recon in garrison for admin and training but those units are operationally controlled by BCT HQs once employed. Now the BCT has a far more robust EN capability than before.

Response by SGT David A. 'Cowboy' Groth made May 18 at 2018 3:24 PM

2018-05-18T15:24:25-04:00

Interesting thought share and question.

Response by CSM Darieus ZaGara made May 18 at 2018 3:27 PM

2018-05-18T15:27:09-04:00

Why does it matter which commander they report to daily, I am sure it does not impact their mission. Thank you for your service.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made May 18 at 2018 3:30 PM

2018-05-18T15:30:32-04:00

It makes sense that have it this way. When you can supply the deployed Brigade combat team Centric. The days of having supper Gaither Engineers don't make sense anymore. It's much better to have them internal so you can train together. They really should be organic to the Brigade anyway instead of being their own Brigade.

Response by SPC David S. made May 18 at 2018 3:42 PM

2018-05-18T15:42:35-04:00

Hope this helps - it explains the reasoning behind it however it doesn't mean its suppose to make sense.

From the forward of the The Brigade Engineer Battalion - A Leader’s Guide

"The decision to convert the brigade special troops battalion (BSTB) to a brigade
combat team (BCT), brigade engineer battalion (BEB), enhances engineer
mission support by providing the required engineer mission command and
staff, as well as the organizational capability, within all BCT organizations."

https://usacac.army.mil/sites/default/files/publications/15-12_0.pdf

15-12_0.pdf

hûÍ@ àdSpNÁ)8ç,V/ q.Ëà2.p*k{»-q"qÊívôêèÕÑ«WG¿èGòO+às5!«ã\À5j[xöúg-Ò#ÃÄuÎ,arXÉËµâÖ0Íòô_/ 23 endstream endobj 474 0 obj stream hÞì}oÛ6Æ¿?uGß"@ë-Aþ$6($5¶u8.}û=µ&mEAd_ä@]Z

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made May 18 at 2018 3:52 PM

2018-05-18T15:52:42-04:00

I'm way out of date on Army unit organizations, but on the surface it looks like they are just putting the combat support slices in the same brigade, which makes sense. Engineer, signal and MI are (or at least were) all classified as combat support units vs combat service support units.

Response by CSM Richard StCyr made May 18 at 2018 4:14 PM

2018-05-18T16:14:15-04:00

The Engineer units in the legacy battalions had MI terrain and intel analysts in the S2-3 Recon sections up to and into the late 90's when they were pulled under the restructure.
The Communications section was always robust even up to and through at least 2009 even under the modular concept. When we did the pipeline in 03 it was 220 miles long and we were able to maintain comms without external support. Given the competing priorities I doubt we could have done that without our own dedicated commo section.
While the MI and commo are only mentioned in small pieces their contribution to Engineer missions are invaluable. Also think of the title of the unit "Brigade Engineer Battalion" engineer support operations are the units primary mission so when writing doctrine one tends to write about the main mission.
I grew up in the Combat Heavy Construction Battalions and they were huge units that supported wide swaths of battle space.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made May 18 at 2018 4:32 PM

2018-05-18T16:32:18-04:00

I wholeheartedly agree

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made May 18 at 2018 4:35 PM

2018-05-18T16:35:32-04:00

They are a needed asset without trashing the BCT idea there is really nowhere else to put them. Remember the BEB directly replaced the STB.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made May 18 at 2018 5:13 PM

2018-05-18T17:13:13-04:00

It’s all politics, all the BCt conversations brief well; but it’s about command slots and who’s leading those units. MI and Signal have a weird belief that they should always be staff centric; so giving up commands in BN since they lost their Division Battalions has been the Norm. They try but lose the fights at the Combat Arms (MFE) table; the most recent winner was the Engineer Branch who is now the winner of the Command skits at the BDE; but when your unitniant an Engineer unit; call it whatever; it’s about who is charge. I liked the fact that under the BSTB BSB concept all the branches could compete for commands and it seemed fair and developed Command centric leaders in branches who normally prefer an “S” in front of their Title. The changes in force structure, any of them; that put one branch under another. In a Command relationship will develop an inherent systemic issue of training, support and mentoring. It makes itbsystemic to personality based. When you see it; unless you are a water walker; try not to jump in that pond-there be giants in them waters who will tribally take care of their own first-it’s just human nature! It’s an Army thing

Response by CW4 Guy Butler made May 18 at 2018 7:16 PM

2018-05-18T19:16:15-04:00

They are there to help tie the battalion HQ into the S2 and S6 networks. It’s part of the Common Operating Picture in CPOF.

Response by CW4 Private RallyPoint Member made May 19 at 2018 9:29 AM

2018-05-19T09:29:37-04:00

While most of us understand the BCT make up and how it all is "supposed to work" from what I have seen it isn't. Non combat arms personnel are not receiving the training they need to do their job. As an enlisted member I was assigned to a separate MI BN run by an MI LTC. From watching and listening to officers and soldiers it seems we have lost some of our capability because no one knows what do do with the Non cambat arms MOSs. Same thing happened with Artillery, hence the reason there are now Artillery BDEs back in Divisions. Also the reason the Aviation BDE was never split and brought under the BCT. Just my opinion.

Response by COL Private RallyPoint Member made May 20 at 2018 4:07 AM

2018-05-20T04:07:20-04:00

SSG Private RallyPoint Member, the BCT is the unit of deployment for the US Army. BCT's are deployed without organic division support...since we don't deploy whole divisions. Those MI and signal units you talk about resided at the division level prior to the BCT's. What started to happen was that COCOMs were requesting smaller, deployable units and even when they did receive Divisions, they were task organizing them to do the missions that were required. A division never remained whole. So, when we built deployable BCT's, they were going to be lacking the necessary enabler support. As far as why a BEB and not a BSTB, well...at least this way you have an engineer commander who can conduct maneuver support and survivability missions. With a BSTB commander, you've basically got an unnecessary C2 node in a deployed situation. They become the rear-d or they become a garrison commander in a deployed environment. Not an operational solution. It's an admin solution. I would prefer the MI Company be with the cavalry squadron, but that's just because no one else in the Brigade cares more about the mission of the MICO than the Cavalry. Annex I is the cavalry squadron's OPORD. If they aren't trained properly, integrated into the BDE S2 and the BDE S3, then you are going to get a bad Annex-I, which screws everything up from the start. Signal...tough call. I'd put them in the BSB, honestly. The Anti-Tank guys should probably be with the cavalry as well, since there are more gunnery and tank killing experts in the cavalry (armor officers) than in the other battalions. As far as admin, it doesn't matter where they are. No one is going to be a great trainer for a signal company in the Brigade, but they will be ok. My biggest concern would be the MICO. The squadron commander needs to either have a hell of a CPT in that position or they need to leverage an MI BDE that is on post.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made May 27 at 2018 12:33 PM

2018-05-27T12:33:36-04:00

I have but a small foxhole, but I still fail to understand why we shifted the primary deployable unit from a division to a brigade combat team. People always say, "it's cause we deploy smaller units." That may be the case now in 2018, but back in 2006-2007 when the BCT transformation occurred, it definitely was not the case. We literally had over 150,000 troops deployed at the time.

For example, when I deployed to Iraq in 2010, we had a BCT from 4th ID up north, a BCT from 1st ID in Baghdad, a BCT from 1st Armored Division in the South, and my BCT from the 82nd ABN in the West... all under the 25th ID HQ. It made no sense!

Then when I deployed to Afghanistan in 2013, we literally had three BCTs from the 10th MTN all deployed at the same time... but working under the 101st Division HQ!

Bottom line, in my very narrow personal opinion, the BCT construct has destroyed the concept of "Unity of Command" in the Army.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made May 14 at 2020 9:07 PM

2020-05-14T21:07:00-04:00

I don't think the "top" really considered what the "weapon system" consisted of vis a vis MI and Signal, in the transformation. Having to explain to and Infantry Commander or an Engineer Commander why your linguists have to go away for a month for language training, you analysts need to go for three weeks across the country for live environment training seems to trip a lot of MI leaders up. But like artillery, where the battalion as a whole is the actual weapon, not the individual guns. It would be more productive to retain those Soldiers within their our Brigade or Battalion elements and slice detachments out as the mission requires to train with deploying units and prepare the support they need to provide for the tip of the spear, and execute the mission.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 24 at 2020 2:24 PM

2020-12-24T14:24:46-05:00

Once upon a time, the Army recognized that there are several CO-sized elements that provide service to the ENTIRE Brigade. They also recognized that they didn't want CO-sized subordinates, so they put them in a mystical element that we called the "Brigade Support Battalion". Then along came the evil, selfish EN branch and proceeded self-pleasuring aggrandizement. So, they convinced the naïve Department of the Army to restructure the BSB to have TWO EN COs, and rename the BSB to an Engineer BN. Thus ensuring that not only don't we have any SC or MI BN commands to compete for, we can't even compete for the (defunct) BSBs. And we all lived CRAPPILY ever after!