by Tony Grajales
Power corresponds to the human ability not just to act but to act in concert. – Hannah Arendt
Spartans, Raiders, and the Pyramid
In the U.S. Army, sustainment operations are more than support functions; they are a battlefield advantage. While many large organizations tend to focus on processes and systems, the reality is that people and culture are integral parts of success. What follows is a discussion and lessons learned from a relationship between a DSSB SPO (Division Sustainment Support Battalion Support Operations) and two BSB SPOs (Brigade Support Battalion Support Operations). Think of the DSSB as a regional team closer to corporate headquarters and the BSB as a franchise team closest to the customer. The relationship demands constant coordination, high stakes, and little room for error. As a DSSB SPO within a sustainment brigade, I worked with two vastly different brigade combat teams: Raider, driven by speed and decisive action, and Spartan, grounded in discipline and deliberate execution.
In theory, these differences should complement one another, with the DSSB (known as Pyramid) acting as the base to set the foundations of the Raiders’ hunger for action and the Spartans’ deliberate, methodical pace to reach a union. In practice, it often felt like a misaligned structure, each shifting in opposite directions. Despite issues and complexity, our team found certain drivers that enabled success. First, all problem-solving should incorporate the lowest capable echelon. Second, validate all requests utilizing a checklist. Third, establish forums that allow all parties to align, troubleshoot, and ratify actions and mission orders. This was all accomplished through four “fighting products” meant to synchronize, coordinate, and validate all parties.
The DSSB-BSB Relationship
The BSB provides logistical support to its brigade, while the DSSB oversees the bigger picture, ensuring that resources flow not just to one brigade but across multiple units in a division. In the best cases, the DSSB and BSB SPOs work hand in hand to bridge the tactical and operational levels of logistics, ensuring that fuel, ammunition, and parts are always where they need to be.
Working with the Raider and Spartan teams quickly exposed how fragile synchronization between units could be. The Raider Brigade operated at a relentless tempo, often treating the DSSB like a vending machine, demanding immediate support with little coordination. The Spartan Brigade, by contrast, valued deliberate, disciplined execution, sometimes to the point of isolation. As the DSSB SPO, I found myself in the middle, balancing Raider’s constant demands with Spartan’s precise expectations. I envisioned my role as an integrator, ensuring unique logistical assets and capabilities were seamlessly aligned and always mission-ready to support the division. However, my peers in the brigade combat teams viewed the DSSB more like a self-checkout kiosk that provided assets for their missions. The peculiar thing is that none of us were wrong. Key events highlighted this struggle.
Integrating the Maintenance Surge Platoon: A Debacle
The first real test of this delicate relationship came when I was tasked with integrating a Maintenance Surge Platoon into both Raider and Spartan’s operations. This Surge Platoon was a specialized task force meant to temporarily boost maintenance performance.
Raider, true to its name, immediately seized on the opportunity to utilize the Maintenance Surge Platoon to its fullest capacity. They demanded constant, immediate access, seeing the Surge Platoon as a quick-fix solution to every readiness shortfall. Spartan, on the other hand, hesitated. With their characteristic restraint, they wanted to carefully integrate the Surge Platoon into their existing processes, ensuring no disruption to their austere logistical systems.
This divergence in approaches led to chaos. Raider overwhelmed the Surge Platoon with requests, causing delays and burnout, while Spartan’s slow, methodical process frustrated the DSSB, which expected quicker planning cycles and results. Miscommunication compounded the problem, as Raider often bypassed DSSB channels entirely to sidestep perceived bottlenecks. The result? A breakdown in readiness reporting, confusion over priorities, and a general sense of frustration across the division.
In retrospect, the failure wasn’t about the Surge Platoon itself; it was about the clash of cultures. Raider’s aggressive tactics were at odds with Spartan’s measured approach, and as the DSSB, I struggled to reconcile the two. Ultimately, it wasn’t the Surge Platoon that failed; it was our ability to integrate it smoothly into two very different operational philosophies. We failed to be functional. We couldn’t synchronize well enough to provide task and purpose to the Surge Platoon. If boosting maintenance tested our ability to align capabilities, recovery operations pushed us to the brink of inter-unit friction.
Recovery Operations and Heavy Equipment Transport
The second major challenge was recovery operations, specifically the use of heavy-duty transport vehicles to move broken-down equipment. Once again, Raider and Spartan’s distinct personalities came to the fore, and I found myself navigating the resulting friction.
Raider’s approach to recovery operations was, unsurprisingly, fast and aggressive. They viewed the DSSB transport vehicles as tools for immediate recovery, often calling for transport before proper coordination. Their logic was simple: if a vehicle was down, get it back up as soon as possible, by any means necessary.
Spartan, meanwhile, treated recovery operations like a chess game; every move was carefully calculated. Their requests were fewer but highly specific, often waiting until the absolute last moment to pull the trigger, ensuring no resources were wasted. This left the DSSB in the dark until Spartan revealed the details.
The resulting disconnect was predictable: recovery would arrive late or in the wrong location, coordination between units would break down, and the whole recovery effort became a lesson in frustration. While Spartan’s meticulousness ensured their assets were eventually recovered in good order, Raider’s impatience often led to equipment languishing in the field, awaiting the proper coordination they had initially bypassed. Once again, the problem wasn’t the capability itself; it was the competing philosophies that defined Raider and Spartan’s approach to logistics.
The Disconnect: Brigade Concepts of Support and DSSB Integration
The fundamental disconnect between all three units was understanding each other’s objectives. While Raider and Spartan understood how their own units operated, there was a lack of awareness of how the DSSB fit into the larger picture.
Raider’s mindset meant they often viewed the DSSB as a reactive entity, there to support them as needed, without much regard for the broader division’s logistical requirements. Spartan’s austere approach sometimes led them to underutilize DSSB integration.
This lack of understanding became particularly problematic during times of rapid changes in the division’s priorities. This disconnect wasn’t just about logistics; it was about the fundamental difference in how these units viewed their place within the Army structure. The tension between units was never about resources, priorities, or commands; rather, it was about planning better. We all wanted the best but found it difficult to achieve it.
Best Practices: Lessons on Making it Function
Despite the challenges, valuable lessons emerged. Raider thrived with clear, frequent updates that clarified intent. Spartan benefited from proactive engagement, where we offered support before it was requested. This approach was found through weekly forums to discuss their upcoming concerns.
Flexibility proved essential. While Raider and Spartan had different operational philosophies, neither was superior. Adapting DSSB operations to fit both models turned friction into innovation. We created on-call mission support packages and split assets into two categories: internal company operations and division-level missions, enabling responsive sustainment. This was done using a checklist that sought to understand if requests were feasible, acceptable, suitable, and complete.
Lastly, the DSSB used the 3DSB Mission Support Request Portal to track and manage logistics requests, improving collaboration across echelons. Four “fighting products” or key tools helped rapidly organize data, enabling synchronization and cultural alignment with Raider’s urgency and Spartan’s deliberation. The four fighting products were the mission tracker, the distribution synchronization matrix, the Common User Land Transportation summary, and the sustainment decision support matrix. These helped push details down to the lowest possible echelon to enable parallel planning for the crews executing missions. This allowed quicker synchronization and troop-leading procedures to happen at the company level.
Charting the Future of DSSB-BSB Collaboration
The DSSB SPO and BSB SPOs’ relationship is one of constant negotiation. It balances speed and precision, friction and flow. Success requires patience, flexibility, and mutual respect for what everyone is trying to accomplish. Navigating these dynamics not only strengthens sustainment but also fuels innovation.
Success is not about choosing sides; it is about adapting. Leaders must be cultural translators, shifting between unit styles without losing tempo or trust. By having periodic forums to discuss upcoming events, one can begin to look ahead. Additionally, using a checklist prevents errors in execution, manages complexity, and enhances communication. Lastly, bringing the lowest echelon possible to plan as quickly as possible creates better plans and execution. In the end, our mission depends on leaders who can align diverse approaches into a synchronized effort. It all starts with a unified effort.
Major Anthony “Tony” Grajales is a Logistics Officer currently serving in the 3rd Division Sustainment Brigade within the 3rd Infantry Division at Fort Stewart, Georgia. Major Grajales holds degrees from St. John’s University in New York City and Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University. Major Grajales is also a graduate of the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College and the School of Advanced Military Studies.
