I thought this would be a better place to respond to your last post on the "What If . . . ." thread.
I think the only good thing about brigades was the ability to make more room for organizations that would otherwise be deactivated.
Yet take a look at the brigades of the 82nd and 101st Airborne Divisions. All four brigades of the 82nd go not only by the BCT designation but by a regimental designation as well. Each brigade has the 1st and 2nd Bns of a regiment associated with the division during WWII.
The 101st does the same thing although it has one brigade with the 1st and 2nd Bns of the 187th Inf which served with the 11th Airborne in the Pacific and independently in Korea. The 188th and 511th Inf were left out in the cold.
I worked with a guy who served in the 173rd Airborne Brigade in Vietnam. When I asked him what battalion he served in he said, "The 3rd." When I asked him what regiment, he said, "The 173rd."
It made sense because all the infantry battalions of the 173rd were from the same parent regiment, the 503rd.
If your going to do that you may just as well reorganize regiments and keep them unique or reduce regiments to battalions.
At the 1986 LBHA conference at Auburn, NY, there was a ceremony at the Keogh/Upton/Alexander grave site, and a color guard from the 10th Mountain Div's reserve brigade was present. The brigade colors were those of the old 27th Inf Div, so retaining divisions by reducing them to brigades was done.
In a regimental scheme, I wouIdn't have any battalions. Companies seem to be the main building blocks of task forces (I don't know if that's the current term), so I'd have 8 or more manuever companies per regiment of whatever mix, infanrty only, airmobile, airborne, tank and infantry. To control them, 2 company commanders would be majors and 2 Lt Cols, including the regt XO, would lead task force HQ detachments for larger operatoions. You might allow one or two additional Majs on the regimental staff. The number of field grade officers in a regiment would be 6 or 7. That would save a few pennies.
I'd do away with any idea of "up or out" for qualified company commanders. Some men, like Benteen, were born to be company commanders. Remember Dick Ewell said something like, "I knew everything there was to know about commanding a company of dragoons and nothing about commanding a division."
There were some units that had their most distinguished service as battalions, and I would have left tank and ranger battalions with their original battalion designations rather than go back to regiments that saw no service except in the 2nd and 3rd Armored Divisions. I also would have kept and made official "Merrill's Marauders" and the 1st Special Service Brigade.
There are to many cavalry regiments. I'd keep the old cavalry regiments and the cavalry groups, of WWII, and the Texas NG cavalry regiments that served as infantry, the 112th and 124th, and the WWII racon sqdns of the armored divisions. Also If that's not enough use old infantry battalions and make then infantry recon battalions, but save as many unique units as possible.
The 101st and 82nd and the independent airborne brigades could be used to preserve 22 or 24 old paratroop and glider regiments, and if that's not enough to fill the brigades some old straight leg infantry regiments.
In any case the Army's not going to go back to a regimental system, so I think it should fill up brigades with as many old distihguished regiments as it can and perhaps add new virgin units if it has to.
Also since the Arrmy likes brigade so much nor Brig Gen should ever command a brigade. We have too many generals as it is