Wanted to put this in a forum for keen and serious military (operational) discussion, but found none on ARRSE suitable. So here goes in the Int Cell... Whilst heavily engaged in both Afghanistan and Iraq, the US Army completed a root & branch restructuring of their operational and tactical fighting units. The key objective was to cascade down support assets such that the brigade, not the division, became the primary unit of deployment. That's to say, brigades (BCTs) are now established with support assets that allow it to deploy and operate independently of higher in-theater command without first 'borrowing' said assets from above. Divisions and corps thus became simple C2 formations with no tactical units permanently under command. One of intentional side-effects of this restructuring was that the brigade became significantly lighter in numbers and in firepower. Of the four modular types, 3 have only 2 battle group/task force elements. The SBCT retains a third. All 4 types of BCT have a robust recce element, but so would have any of the legacy brigade formations. TRADOC ninjas several years ago were very keen to suggest that these smaller units would be able to do more, more effectively, and with more bite, than legacy formations - despite the orbat looking to have thinned itself out by 30%. You know, the old saw that new technologies out trump simples numbers. To cut a long story short, I'm interest in knowing other people's perceptions and experience of these 'smaller' units. After 5 years or so of operational experience, do they provide the right level of firepower and boots on the ground? Do you think they would survive contact against a worthy opponent in high-end warfare - as opposed to the current low end constabulary work. Discuss.