Which is cheaper to maintain, a Guard/Reserve unit or Active Duty unit?

It would be cheaper to maintain the vehicles at an active duty post than it would be to maintain them in the Guard or Reserve because of the fact that they would actually be used for training, not just sitting there in a tank barn and MAYBE
getting used once a month.

I think you may be confusing who it would be cheaper for. States have a budget, so maybe they don't want to allocate a large portion of their guard budgeting to a Bradley unit when federal funds are lacking because the feds gave up the last two wars just recently, but are setting up for a new war...slain that goof idea fairy

Guard. Active usually gets more money than they can spend and nothing changes about how much they get each year. The Guard gets money as needed and available. Usually, it's the bare minimum to meet the minimum requirements for mission readiness.

I'll stop myself here before I say too much, but the simply explanation is greed.

Because active personnel are continually rotating (PCS). I would say that there would be more continuity with a Guard/Reserve unit then an active unit. Being Guard/Reserve for the most part train with the same folks continually. Also a lot fewer AGR needed to maintain the equipment. I'm sure there are pros and cons to which side is cheaper to maintain. But it seems like it is always mentioned that the Guard/Reserve are cheaper.

Since PA has an ABCT, IBCT, and a SBCT it only makes sense to reflag the ABCT since they would be more of a drain on the funding.

The decision is sometimes a negotiation, who will pay for what. Sometimes the AC will sign over the equipment without giving the budget to go with it. The benefit for NG units to stay light if the budget is not increased, is your unit will retain funds for personnel development. In the end people matter more than equipment.

Something to think about: ARNG formations are maintained by both federal and state funding. As a former ARNG tanker I can say from firsthand experience that mechanized formations are extremely cost and maintenance intensive. If I had to guess I would say either your state, federal, or both sources of funding have been cut. I know our school budget has been hit extremely hard this year.

The real question is cheaper for who? A light infantry unit is cheaper for your state without a doubt. The federal government is likely going to spend the money either way. However with the reduced requirements for training and gunnery for the RC, you're probably correct that it's cheaper for the nation as a whole. It would be interesting to see a side-by-side comparison.

ABIC is only over three drill weekends vs maybe 2 weeks for RA?

It is a bunch of arbitrary metrics. In the big picture , Guard and Reserve Units are cheaper. FORSCOM 500 plans every piece of information that it would cost to be funded by Overseas Contingency Fund. You have once a month and two weeks a year to be in compliant with the planning phase if you are in the reserves. This comes out of the military personnel appropriation budget. Active gets BAH which automatically almost doubles the cost. They are expensive and need to be justified every year which is why we keep reserves. Title 10 statues let you mobilize reserve troops without budgeting for them. It keeps military dominance and saves cost at the same time. Everything is a perishable skill, but combat arms are especially perishable since there is no application in the civilian world. Your federally focused reserve forces are restricted to support functions and National Guard can have combat arms if they want (the state helps pay for those facilities).