Informing the Army’s Future Structure

[Brad Sallows]

Perhaps the armour veterans of a major shooting war were actually quite well situated to come up with the organization for their forces post-war? Maybe they knew what they were on about?

Yes; maybe, assuming that the last organization was the "correct" one and would not have changed again had the war gone on. The US knew what they were on about also - '44-45 medium company orbat was CO, CS (105mm), "spare", and 3x5.

The 18- (OC, 2xCs, 5x3) and 19- (OC, 2xCS, 4x4) tank squadrons are of the past; no harm arises from checking the work again.

Nevertheless, it'd be worth validating the organization. 2 units totalling 6 sub-units of 3x4 (2 of 3 of 14=84) has some advantages over 1 of 4 sub-units of 4x4 (4 of 19=76). 2025 is three years away; lots of time.

 

[GR66]

Yes; maybe, assuming that the last organization was the "correct" one and would not have changed again had the war gone on. The US knew what they were on about also - '44-45 medium company orbat was CO, CS (105mm), "spare", and 3x5.

The 18- (OC, 2xCs, 5x3) and 19- (OC, 2xCS, 4x4) tank squadrons are of the past; no harm arises from checking the work again.

Nevertheless, it'd be worth validating the organization. 2 units totalling 6 sub-units of 3x4 (2 of 3 of 14=84) has some advantages over 1 of 4 sub-units of 4x4 (4 of 19=76). 2025 is three years away; lots of time.

Much better to review and validate the organization then equip properly to match that requirement (including planning for Armour School/RCEME requirements, VOT allowances, spares, etc.) than to organize to suit the numbers you have. Sadly, that's not the Canadian way seemingly.

 

[GK .Dundas]

There is a reason and let's be honest the reason we are debating this issue at all is because we're too damn cheap to buy a sufficient number of tanks. Not because we're tactical/strategic geniuses.
And one the.main reasons we have a 19 vehicle squadron at all is the need to continue to operate in spite of casualties. And make no mistake there WIll BE casualties.
There's an old saying when the steel begins to sing,all plans turn to water.

 

[Brad Sallows]

What's the magic number for over-equipping in order to carry on in spite of casualties? Why not 29?

 

[Kirkhill]

What's the magic number for over-equipping in order to carry on in spite of casualties? Why not 29?

Question - does the unit get degraded first or does the command element die first? And when do you take a degraded/decapitated element out of combat and replace it with a fresh one?

 

[Kirkhill]

Here's s another question - much of our debating over the years has been of this nature. In the realm of equipment the debate has not been so much about organizational numbers as about which system, which caliber, which range band. I think the Ukrainians are demonstrating that futility of those arguments. Their answer seems to be anything and everything that works. All of the above and lots of them.

Capbadge identity doesn't seem to be an issue nor does long term logistics. Soviet pattern kit, local mods, Polish mods, Slovak mods, Swedish mods, British kit, MRAPs, Aussie Bushmasters, Leo 1s and 2s (there's one for FJAG's retention argument) and Abrams if they can get their hands on them. 1908 Maxims. Anything that will put a round downrange.

 

[Brad Sallows]

I think the Ukrainians are demonstrating that futility of those arguments.

Impossible (too soon) to tell. Throwing everything at hand into a defensive fight for a few weeks, when the attacker can't freely use the vast, sodden steppes, doesn't validate anything.

 

[WLSC]

Any organisation will have is advantages and is disadvantages. There's a need for a doctrinal solution and build the ''need'' around it. I really do like the square Cbt Team, damn it's impressive power when you see one. Is there other solution, of course with there own plus/minus. Probably that real connaisseur will be able to argue on details for years.

At the end of the day, all variants will win destroy the enemy, with their own style and plus/minus.

The one we have is big but damn effective. The question is more about do we want less and bigger Cbt team of more and smaller?

 

[Kirkhill]

Impossible (too soon) to tell. Throwing everything at hand into a defensive fight for a few weeks, when the attacker can't freely use the vast, sodden steppes, doesn't validate anything.

On the other hand it is a pattern often replicated, especially in WW2.

Israel 1947 to 1973.
Britain, all theaters 1939 to 1945.
Russia, all theaters (domestic, captured and lend/lease)
Germany, all theaters (domestic, occupied, captured, allied)

Heck, even Britain's adoption of the 9mm and the Sten was to accommodate German ammunition which was expected to be available in abundance on the continent.

Stens
Blacker Bombards, PIAT and other Spigot Mortars.
Lewis Guns

 

[Kirkhill]

Canadian Square Combat Team

19 MBT
15 LAV
+Atts

9x Sections with 7 Dismounts = 63 Dismounts + Pl HQ and Wpns Dets

Swedish Pansar Battalion

23 MBT
23 CV90
4x FOO
4x AA
4x Recce
8x Mor

18x Sections with 6 Dismounts = 108 Dismounts + 6 Ground Commanders + Recce Pl.

 

[Brad Sallows]

On the other hand it is a pattern often replicated, especially in WW2.

Sure, but if you have the industrial capacity, you want to be the US. Shermans. Deuce-and-a-halfs. C-47s. Liberty ships.

The one we have is big but damn effective.

Sure, but as Infanteer pointed out, "square combat team" == best part of the combat power of the battle group out of the hands of the CO and into the hands of one OC, and another OC sidelined.

 

[KevinB]

Sure, but as Infanteer pointed out, "square combat team" == best part of the combat power of the battle group out of the hands of the CO and into the hands of one OC, and another OC sidelined.

Or in current CA terms takes a Inf Bn and a Armd Reg’t and leaves nothing left over…

 

[WLSC]

Sure, but if you have the industrial capacity, you want to be the US. Shermans. Deuce-and-a-halfs. C-47s. Liberty ships.



Sure, but as Infanteer pointed out, "square combat team" == best part of the combat power of the battle group out of the hands of the CO and into the hands of one OC, and another OC sidelined.

Yep because it's a temporary plug and play. It's in the pro vs con columns. There's how many variant of Cbt teams? I would like to see a comparative study of the most commun one.

I'm more attach to the effect of the inf/tank team than our cbt team per say, even if I'm a big fan.

 

[KevinB]

One reason I like 4 Rifle Coy’s in a Bn.
You can field a Inf Heavy Cbt Team, kick another for a Armor Heavy Cbt Team, and have a spare.
Now is it more logical to have that spare in another separate Bn, maybe, but ideally you can have both

 

[Kirkhill]

Sure, but if you have the industrial capacity, you want to be the US. Shermans. Deuce-and-a-halfs. C-47s. Liberty ships.

Agreed, but that only works if your factories are out of range of the enemy and you have got slews of gold and IOUs for gold coming into the country from banks in Montreal.

 

[Brad Sallows]

No, it works if you settle on a few types and, after the competitions, you tell the losers they can either manufacture (for example) Shermans instead of Valentines and Churchills and Cromwells and and Comets and whatnot, or go without work. Unless their shops are primitive and still use non-mass-production methods which produce equipments which can not necessarily exchange major pieces because they don't quite fit the same...

Ukraine enjoys the benefit of a bunch of countries being willing to send it stuff, so that it can use up a one-off distribution and move onto the next one. It isn't burdened with having to maintain it all for months, yet.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Underlying weakness almost without regard to particular branch/role/function/capability being spitballed: insufficient time/money to experiment with doctrine; no recent history of severely bloody nose to motivate us if we can't find it within ourselves.

 

[WLSC]

One reason I like 4 Rifle Coy’s in a Bn.
You can field a Inf Heavy Cbt Team, kick another for a Armor Heavy Cbt Team, and have a spare.
Now is it more logical to have that spare in another separate Bn, maybe, but ideally you can have both

That's one of the reason that made me suggest a brigade with 1 tank regiment of 2 (19 tanks) sqn and 2 inf bn with 2 x (4 x pl) coys. Same principle but bigger.

 

[Kirkhill]

That's one of the reason that made me suggest a brigade with 1 tank regiment of 2 (19 tanks) sqn and 2 inf bn with 2 x (4 x pl) coys. Same principle but bigger.

On the other hand, if the Square Combat Team is the common form of use then why not organize some portion, (1/3? 1/4? 1/2?) of the standing army in permanent teams. If we created organized 1/4 of the force in Permanent Combat Team (3 Battle Groups?) then you would still have 9 Battle Groups worth of General Duties units that could be employed in other tasks or converted to Combat Teams based on Lessons Learned.

 

[Brad Sallows]

1 regt of 2, plus 2 bn of 2, equals 6 sub-units. For anyone worried about fragility, that's a pretty fragile brigade.

I instinctively favour triangular as a minimum, so 3 of 3 for total 9 sub-units. "Square" (increase) some of it, maybe, but don't shrink below that.

Consider:
a one-armd-regt (square, 1x4x19 + 2 = 78 gun tanks), three-inf-bn (triangular) mixed brigade (13 sub-units)
a two-armed-regt (triangular, 14 per sub-unit, 2x3x14=84 + 2 =86 gun tanks), two-inf-bn (triangular) mixed brigade (12 sub-units)

Play them off against each other or through same set of tactical problems; see how they do. But note that the second choice adds only 8 gun tanks and leaves an entire infantry bn left over, including a huge PY difference.