This paper examines the need for divisions using the following methodology. The criteria of span of command and control, communications technology, and the role of the division are used to discuss doctrine, history, and theory. A review of current doctrine examines whether there is a hole in the doctrine that requires a change. The history section follows the evolution of the current division by studying the general history of the division, the evolution of the modern division, and studies the 1st Infantry Division during the 20th Century. The theory section presents the current and recent arguments for both eliminating and retaining the division. The most common argument for eliminating the division is that future technology will enable commanders to increase their span of command and control. Opponents disagree, stating that technology is an enabler, not a replacement. The review of current doctrine revealed no shortcoming that needs addressed. The history discussion revealed that the span of command and control fluctuated very little over the past century. Span of command and control remains an issue of the human element. What has changed, in some cases drastically, is communications technology and the role of the division. Technological advances allow a significant amount of information to be collected, sent, and received. It also assists a commander and staff in visualization, but does not increase his span of command and control. The role of the division has evolved to include Title X responsibilities, serve as other headquarters such as C/JFLCC and ARFOR, and coordination with other agencies. The conclusion of this paper is that the division is necessary and should not be eliminated. | Does The U. s. Army Need Divisions? by Lester A Layman, Paperback | Indigo Chapters | Does The U.s. Army Need Divisions? by Lester A Layman, Paperback | Indigo Chapters