Informing the Army’s Future Structure

[WLSC]

No. The differences between Canada and the US can translate into many differences of size, composition, and capabilities within brigades.


Nobody said there were “ Canadian requirements call for complete lack” of anything. Your being hyperbolic and making a strawman.


Nobody said comparisons can’t be made, but there is no intellectual rigour in defining the requirements for a Canadian battalion entirely in the foundations of what is or is not suitable as for a battalion in a brigade combat team.

Canada does not have echelons above brigade. The US has echelons above corps. We may need things at the battalion or brigade level that do not exist at the same levels in the US. We may not need capabilities or equipment that the US has because we have other ways of achieving the effect. There may also be things in the US structure that we cannot afford.

I was going there also. We should field a CMBG in the middle of a coalition div, right? Ressources to achieve the mission « need » to be available as much as possible inside that command. When you can field multiple divisions, you can define your requirements quiet differently.

 

[Brad Sallows]

We should field a CMBG in the middle of a coalition div, right?

That template works for stuff at the low end of the intensity scale. I doubt a multinational division composed of brigade groups that can't easily cross-attach stuff works as well as a pure one. Any fight big enough to merit a brigade group contribution from Canada is probably big enough to attach that formation to an allied corps.

 

[Kirkhill]

I was going there also. We should field a CMBG in the middle of a coalition div, right? Ressources to achieve the mission « need » to be available as much as possible inside that command. When you can field multiple divisions, you can define your requirements quiet differently.

I would aim to provide a Canadian Division (minus).

Build the Division with all the enablers but plan on only having one or two brigades that are supplied by Canada with the ability to incorporate 2 or 3 allied brigades from smaller, less rich countries that are able to put up manpower instead.

So Divisional Arty, Divisional Air Defence, Divisional Heli Support, Divisional Engineers, Divsional Transport, Divisional C4ISR, Divisional Medical at the expense infantry and armoured slots.

Maybe even design the Battle Groups as the spines to which allied companies, or even battalions could attach to create Groups or Brigades.

That model would also work for attaching independent companies from the Canadian Reserves.

 

[IKnowNothing]

I was going there also. We should field a CMBG in the middle of a coalition div, right? Ressources to achieve the mission « need » to be available as much as possible inside that command. When you can field multiple divisions, you can define your requirements quiet differently.

This would hold water if xBCT templates were being used to justify removing capabilities rather than adding them.

 

[KevinB]

I would aim to provide a Canadian Division (minus).

Build the Division with all the enablers but plan on only having one or two brigades that are supplied by Canada with the ability to incorporate 2 or 3 allied brigades from smaller, less rich countries that are able to put up manpower instead.

So Divisional Arty, Divisional Air Defence, Divisional Heli Support, Divisional Engineers, Divsional Transport, Divisional C4ISR, Divisional Medical at the expense infantry and armoured slots.

Maybe even design the Battle Groups as the spines to which allied companies, or even battalions could attach to create Groups or Brigades.

That model would also work for attaching independent companies from the Canadian Reserves.

I would categorically disagree.

I think one needs to devise several strategies depending on location and threat level (as well as National Level of Commitment)

For signifiant Peer/Near Peer Conventional High Intensity Conflicts I would recommend building Bde's that can be attached to capable allied nations Divisional forces(UK or US).
Canada is missing (and has made ever effort to avoid) certain necessary enablers for formations, or enough of certain items it does have to operate in a Near Peer High Intensity conflict (I'm American, and would argue we don't have a Military Peer therefor I will call things either Near Peer, or Sub Peer, as well as High, Mid, and Low Intensity conflicts.

My experience in dealing with other nations armed forces is basically the only folks you can truly trust to do the job and watch your back are the ABCA countries.



So for that either XVIII Abn Corps - for a Light Brigade (or BattleGroup etc), or III, V etc Corps from the US Army.

Personally I think Canada would get a lot more bang for the buck with XVIII Airborne - as that is our QRF that goes out the door first - until heavier forces can show up. The Lack of C-17's held by the RCAF would be a limiter, and the Medium CMBG's wouldn't be deployable like the SBCT's in XVIII.

Given the Canadian Army force structure - the easy way to do that is assign the LIB's to a Light Bde - with Light type support (M777 for Arty etc).
The LAV's would be then in 2 Medium Bde (one could be a Medium with Tank) - that would be assigned to Armored or SBCT based Div's.

For Sub Peer "High Intensity" conflicts - Canada could contribute either a Bde HQ and some units to be made up with other coalition countries, or a Div HQ and a Bde towards the Div.

 

[Kirkhill]

I would categorically disagree.

I think one needs to devise several strategies depending on location and threat level (as well as National Level of Commitment)

For signifiant Peer/Near Peer Conventional High Intensity Conflicts I would recommend building Bde's that can be attached to capable allied nations Divisional forces(UK or US).
Canada is missing (and has made ever effort to avoid) certain necessary enablers for formations, or enough of certain items it does have to operate in a Near Peer High Intensity conflict (I'm American, and would argue we don't have a Military Peer therefor I will call things either Near Peer, or Sub Peer, as well as High, Mid, and Low Intensity conflicts.

My experience in dealing with other nations armed forces is basically the only folks you can truly trust to do the job and watch your back are the ABCA countries.



So for that either XVIII Abn Corps - for a Light Brigade (or BattleGroup etc), or III, V etc Corps from the US Army.

Personally I think Canada would get a lot more bang for the buck with XVIII Airborne - as that is our QRF that goes out the door first - until heavier forces can show up. The Lack of C-17's held by the RCAF would be a limiter, and the Medium CMBG's wouldn't be deployable like the SBCT's in XVIII.

Given the Canadian Army force structure - the easy way to do that is assign the LIB's to a Light Bde - with Light type support (M777 for Arty etc).
The LAV's would be then in 2 Medium Bde (one could be a Medium with Tank) - that would be assigned to Armored or SBCT based Div's.

For Sub Peer "High Intensity" conflicts - Canada could contribute either a Bde HQ and some units to be made up with other coalition countries, or a Div HQ and a Bde towards the Div.

How much independence of action does the Canadian government wish to retain?

As much as I like both the US and the light XVIII Corps model I wouldn't want Canada to continue to be anybody's "Auxilliary" .

We are a gun-shy nation. We don't like casualties. We want to help. We don't want to die. We are rich.

The answer is to commit as few people as possible to the front lines and make those that we do commit as effective as possible. Consequently Gunners, FOO/FACs and Air Defenders. Light/Medium troops for skirmishing and observing and shaping. Maybe a small (Battle Group) heavy element for counters.

And lots of Combat Support and Combat Service Support that has utility in high and low intensity conflicts, stabilization and disaster relief efforts, domestically and abroad.

And we put ourselves at the service of ABCANZUS when we choose and of other nations when we find it to our liking. I would definitely continue to look at ABCANZUS as our key organizing principle, including getting involved with the AUKUS project, and ensure interoperability in organisations, equipment and standards.

 

[WLSC]

If I’m not mistaken, a CMBG is design to be somewhat independent vs a xBCT because in comes whit a « full package » under one commander. So it all depends on what Canada would like to do. Remember that at the start of WW2, the CG wanted to give a Div and attachement (for the army) for the fight in France. Soon came the 2e Div and after that, the s&it hit the fan.

So even if we supply a Div (-), that would mean what, 2 x CMBG + Div troops. Again, if I’m not mistaking it’s roughly the same type of units/formations organised differently.

So, if we train as CMBGs and have to fight and organise as a Div, I don’t see a lot of change for the actual manoeuver units/sub-units in their job. I would be very surprised if we go above a full Div. That’s in my view the Canadian context. The CMBG make sense to me for that reason.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Too many names and acronyms. There are brigades, and there are brigade groups. Nowadays it seems everyone is seized with variations of the latter.

 

[GR66]

As much as I like both the US and the light XVIII Corps model I wouldn't want Canada to continue to be anybody's "Auxilliary" .

Let's be honest. In any fight against Russia or China (or North Korea or Iran) EVERYONE will be USA's "Auxilliary".

 

[Kirkhill]

If I’m not mistaken, a CMBG is design to be somewhat independent vs a xBCT because in comes whit a « full package » under one commander. So it all depends on what Canada would like to do. Remember that at the start of WW2, the CG wanted to give a Div and attachement (for the army) for the fight in France. Soon came the 2e Div and after that, the s&it hit the fan.

So even if we supply a Div (-), that would mean what, 2 x CMBG + Div troops. Again, if I’m not mistaking it’s roughly the same type of units/formations organised differently.

So, if we train as CMBGs and have to fight and organise as a Div, I don’t see a lot of change for the actual manoeuver units/sub-units in their job. I would be very surprised if we go above a full Div. That’s in my view the Canadian context. The CMBG make sense to me for that reason.

If I remember right xBCTs were created to ease rotational pressures in Iraq. Rather than only having 10-12 divisions to play with they created 30 to 40 BCTs and spread the Divisional Enablers around amongst the BCTs. This was largely to put more "infantry" into security duties converting tankers, gunners, and MPs into infanteers for the duration of their tours.

Some reduced levels of enablers were retained to support the BCTs in the field. This has resulted in skill fade and loss of capabilities.

To rectify the situation the BCTs have been reformed into Divisions but have retained many of their own enablers while the Division starts to bring in Corps enablers like MRLS systems.

My sense is that, at all levels, the areas operations, interest and influence are all becoming wider, deeper and more autonomous.

A Canadian Division could have a lot of influence. A model that could be scaled down is the First Canadian Army in general and the II Canadian Corps in particular.

First Canadian Army - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Kirkhill]

Let's be honest. In any fight against Russia or China (or North Korea or Iran) EVERYONE will be USA's "Auxilliary".

Or Russia's. Or China's. Or North Korea's or Iran's. Currently much of the west, including the US is Ukraine's "Auxilliary".

There are many instances where poorer countries are facing the prospect of lower intensity conflicts and would be happy to have a wealthier "Auxilliary" jump in to assist them.

And some times we might not feel like waiting for Uncle Sam's permission.

 

[KevinB]

Or Russia's. Or China's. Or North Korea's or Iran's. Currently much of the west, including the US is Ukraine's "Auxilliary".

There are many instances where poorer countries are facing the prospect of lower intensity conflicts and would be happy to have a wealthier "Auxilliary" jump in to assist them.

And some times we might not feel like waiting for Uncle Sam's permission.

Which I mentioned is fine for low intensity conflict.
But you don’t train an army to do low intensity conflict - you train for high intensity.

Low intensity conflicts don’t require the same forces as high, and you can make do without as high a degree of support as Team USA or Team UK offers.

Or else you really need to dig deep into the treasury and fund a significantly better equipped Army and AirForce if you want to Play Expeditionary Force against a more significant opponent.

 

[Kirkhill]

Which I mentioned is fine for low intensity conflict.
But you don’t train an army to do low intensity conflict - you train for high intensity.

Low intensity conflicts don’t require the same forces as high, and you can make do without as high a degree of support as Team USA or Team UK offers.

Or else you really need to dig deep into the treasury and fund a significantly better equipped Army and AirForce if you want to Play Expeditionary Force against a more significant opponent.

Absolutely agreed.

The balance is always blood or treasure. Canadian governments have been reluctant to relinquish either.

The RCAF is by its nature, dependent on treasure more than blood.
The RCN could folllow the RCAF but is still likes its blood stake.
The Canadian Army has neither blood nor treasure to stake but from its organizational bias it seems inclined to spend blood rather than treasure.

Personally, as a taxpaying Canadian father I would sooner we spend treasure.

 

[IKnowNothing]

@Kirkhill so basically flip the script entirely and go from infantry heavy lacking enabler heavy to enablers lacking infantry.

How many decades to plan, pitch, and implement?

 

[Kirkhill]

@Kirkhill so basically flip the script entirely and go from infantry heavy lacking enabler heavy to enablers lacking infantry.

How many decades to plan, pitch, and implement?

Next millenium....

But I live in hope.

 

[IKnowNothing]

Next millenium....

But I live in hope.

Honestly though... (and fully slapping my own hand for coming up with a uniquely Canadian solution after my snit last night)

A. Consolidate the "Mech" fleet into symetrical Leo and Lav based armoured regiments, and one fully loaded up and enabled LAV battalion per CMBG. Pre-position one of each in Europe.

B. Convert the Artillery to Archers (or ACSV based AGM's) to free up PY's, use said PY's to accomplish any/all of
have proper sized 155 battery (s)
SHORAD battery
HIMARS Battery

A + B covers peacetime battlegroup sized deployments, and full mobilization gets two host nation infantry Btn's to round out to Bde strength


C. Use TAPV's to turn 1 Battalion per into Light Cavalry/Skirmishers and AD. Organize in pairs, one escort and one weapons carrier, 3 pairs per platoon, 3 platoons per Coy, 3 Coy's. One each ATGM's, MANPAD, mortar. Preposition armour plating and weapons stocks (or a whole set if we want to give Textron more money), heavier and more useful version of a QRF that help in the delaying action of the early days of the conflict and/or provide those enablers to an allied formation.

It would be better if C was done with something easier to airlift, but we have what we have.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Convert the Artillery to Archers (or ACSV based AGM's) to free up PY's

Where is the savings? Keep in mind that ammunition has to be handled by people at some point, and that people tire.

 

[IKnowNothing]

Where is the savings? Keep in mind that ammunition has to be handled by people at some point, and that people tire.

(For Archer) Gun crew 3-4, mechanized replenishment vehicle crew 2. I don't know but would assume palletized reloading of the replenishment vehicle.

 

[Brad Sallows]

There are very few systems that wholly eliminate people from handling the ammunition into the breech. I'd rather have people involved than more moving parts.

 

[KevinB]

Honestly though... (and fully slapping my own hand for coming up with a uniquely Canadian solution after my snit last night)

A. Consolidate the "Mech" fleet into symetrical Leo and Lav based armoured regiments, and one fully loaded up and enabled LAV battalion per CMBG. Pre-position one of each in Europe.

You don't have enough Leo's, and your lacking an ATGM on your IFV - so your only tank killing item is the tank.

B. Convert the Artillery to Archers (or ACSV based AGM's) to free up PY's, use said PY's to accomplish any/all of
have proper sized 155 battery (s)
SHORAD battery
HIMARS Battery

Maybe hold a trial for a new SPG? Determine what is needed for other assets.

A + B covers peacetime battlegroup sized deployments, and full mobilization gets two host nation infantry Btn's to round out to Bde strength

It doesn't you just want it to.

C. Use TAPV's to turn 1 Battalion per into Light Cavalry/Skirmishers and AD. Organize in pairs, one escort and one weapons carrier, 3 pairs per platoon, 3 platoons per Coy, 3 Coy's. One each ATGM's, MANPAD, mortar. Preposition armour plating and weapons stocks (or a whole set if we want to give Textron more money), heavier and more useful version of a QRF that help in the delaying action of the early days of the conflict and/or provide those enablers to an allied formation.

It would be better if C was done with something easier to airlift, but we have what we have.

Donate TAPV to Ukraine, or given them to the Service BN and MP's to use for convoy escort.
Anyone trying to sell it as a Light CAV system really needs their heads examined.