Do Stryker Brigade Combat Teams Need Forward Support ...

mission integration between the BSB and the maneuver
battalion and, as the resident subject matter expert,
can assist the supported battalion’s S–4 with the development
of a viable sustainment plan.
Screening the LST
The screening criteria for operational courses of
action––suitable, feasible, acceptable, distinguishable,
and complete—apply to the selection and implementation
of the LST.
Suitable. The LST is a suitable solution to sustaining
SBCT maneuver battalions. It provides the appropriate
level of capability with an adequate amount of command
and control for any operational mission.
Feasible. Lieutenant Colonel Dwayne M. Butler
and Major Eric J. Van De Hey outlined the feasibility
of the LST in their article, “The Logistics Support
Team: SBCT Combat Multiplier,” in the November–
December 2005 issue of Army Logistician. In this
article, the authors articulated how the LST concept
worked well in their unit’s combat training center
rotations and during deployment operations in Iraq.
The LST provided a command and control node
for direct support assets forward of the BSB and
increased the sustainment capability for maneuver
battalion commanders.
Acceptable. The LST concept is currently in place
as an acceptable method of support as outlined in FM
4–90.7. The use of tailorable and flexible sustainment
organizations should continue to increase in Army
36
doctrine. This type of sustainment requires critical
thinking and the development of concepts that do not fit
into any established category.
Distinguishable. The LST is distinguishable from
the FSC concept. The LST leader does not have
Uniform Code of Military Justice authority over LST
Soldiers or any administrative responsibilities for the
equipment and Soldiers other than tactical readiness
and mission execution.
Complete. The LST is a complete course of action
with a command and control node and sustainment
capabilities organic to the BSB. The flexibility to move
assets allows the BSB SPO to optimize support for
surge operations.
Drawbacks to the LST Concept
Although the LST approach is a sound concept in
SBCT sustainment operations, this course of action has
some disadvantages. First, maneuver battalion commanders
would prefer to have sustainment capabilities
indigenous to their organizations. But, as long as Title
X regulations prevent females from being assigned to
maneuver battalions, these organizations will not have
organic logistics assets.
Second, the LST leaders and noncommissioned
officers in charge must be taken out of current BSB
positions, leaving the BSB area short of platoon leaders,
sergeants, and squad leaders during full-spectrum
operations. If all five maneuver battalions have an
LST functioning in combat, five officer positions in
the BSB will be left vacant. This problem can
be relieved either by having the BSB’s noncommissioned
officers rise to the task or by shifting
around lieutenants within the BSB before operational
deployments. This risk is acceptable, but
the effects must be mitigated through detailed
training and systems integration by the BSB
SPO. Another shortfall of the LST model is that
individual LSTs may not habitually train with
their supported battalions. The LST must be
familiar with the supported battalion’s standing
operating procedures so that they can function
together seamlessly in established battle drills.
The fact that LSTs do not train with their maneuver
battalions is understandable because the LST
concept does not support the desire of many
warfighters to “own” their logistics. Even with
the FSC model, maneuver battalion commanders
essentially lose their logistics assets. The unit’s
modification table of organization and equipment
requires specific and thorough memorandums of
An LST leader confers with a combat repair
team maintenance technician about
supporting their maneuver battalion.
JULY–AUGUST 2008