In the years since Operation Desert Storm, there has been a significant restructuring of the United States Army that has had an enormous impact on the structure of the cavalry at brigade level and above. It began by ensuring the existence of a cavalry organization at every echelon of the Army from battalion to corps, then stripped them from all organizations higher than brigade. The end result was the addition of a cavalry squadron at the brigade level, at the expense of the divisional cavalry squadron, which no longer exists. Concurrently, the Army retained only one of its three active Armored Cavalry Regiments (ACRs), and not a single one of its National Guard ACRs. The continued existence of the one remaining ACR (3d ACR) is still uncertain as the Army failed to address the organization in all of its major transformation documents. It thus begs the question, is the ACR still relevant? Given the desire of the government of the United States to achieve quick victories with fewer troops through rapid dominance as demonstrated in Operation Iraqi Freedom I, do the capabilities of the armored cavalry regiment fit into this paradigm given a future potential adversary? Using the hypothetical example of a conflict with Iran, it is reasonable to assume that the United States will attempt to once again use rapid dominance to achieve its goals quickly with as few troops as possible. Analyzing the mission and the threat the enemy will pose, there is the identified need for a ground unit that will operate independently in front of the attacking corps in order to allow the corps and division commanders to preserve their combat power until the decisive place and time. Additionally, that corps commander will need an independent unit to operate over hundreds of kilometers in order to defeat the rear area threat. Our doctrine identifies the ACR as this type of unit, as its structure and doctrine is ideally suited to act as a covering force at the front or flanks of a corps and to deal with the rear area threat. Ideally, the heavy ACR is an independent organization that can conduct offensive and defensive reconnaissance and security missions as well as economy of force missions for the corps commander over the corps' frontage facing most types of threats. The ACR differs from the modular Brigade Combat Teams (BCTs) in three important ways: its air-ground integration, intelligence and reconnaissance capabilities and training, and its organic CSS capabilities. Whereas a BCT has combined arms, it does not possess manned reconnaissance, attack helicopters, or lift helicopters in the same numbers as the ACR. Nor is the majority of the BCT trained to conduct reconnaissance and security operations, as is the ACR. Finally, the ACR possesses a robust logistical foundation that allows it to plug into theater level support nodes. The modular BCT is not fully organized nor equipped to do this. However, due to the lack of ACRs, a substitute must be identified. The Infantry BCT (IBCT), Heavy BCT (HBCT) and Stryker BCT (SBCT) are examined to determine if they can fulfill the requirements of a covering and rear area security force. Should an ACR not be available, the HBCT is determined to be the next best unit to perform the covering force mission, while the SBCT is the ideal unit for rear area operations. The ACR is still the optimal choice for the offensive cover mission, as it is specifically designed to perform this mission. Since there is only a single ACR left, it must be preserved for this mission that it performs better than any other brigade-sized unit.

ADA 471143 Approved for public release; Distribution is unlimited. The opinions and conclusions expressed herein are those of the student-authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College or any other governmental agency. (References to these studies should include the foregoing statement.)