Informing the Army’s Future Structure

[GR66]

Ignoring the specifics of how the various Units and Sub-Units are structured I'd think that a reasonable goal for a country the size and wealth of Canada would be to be for our Army to be able to lead a Multi-National Division with a Canadian Divisional HQ and supporting elements plus a single Brigade with the other two Brigades being supplied by allied forces.

On mobilization we should be able to field and sustain a fully Canadian Division. We can debate what types of Brigades, how they are equipped, where they are deployed, whether elements are pre-positioned in various locations, etc., but overall in my opinion the above should be an achievable goal around which the other discussions should take place.

 

[FJAG]

Just came across this article in Canadian Army Today:

Time for a new tank killer | Canadian Army Today

canadianarmytoday.com

This line caught my eye:

The ATGMR project is still in the identification phase, but Gendron hopes that with some push a request for proposals could be released around 2025, after more urgent projects such as the Canadian Modular Assault Rifle are near implementation. Until then, the BGM-71 remains serviceable, albeit on its final legs.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Just came across this article in Canadian Army Today:



This line caught my eye:

Nice to see that the 'micro' takes precedence over the 'macro' ...

 

[GR66]

What are people's thoughts on the US pulling their Close Support Artillery Battalions from the Brigades and concentrating them in an Artillery Brigade?

For Canada I don't see any advantage in doing that as it would have to be an Artillery Brigade with its component Regiments geographically separated otherwise we'd lose the ability to do combined arms training with the other Branches. Organizationally would there be any advantage to a dispersed Artillery Brigade over Close Support Regiments directly within the Maneuver Brigades?

 

[ueo]

I think

I think Ontario is the key to unlocking your 70/30, 30/70.

Its just such a perfect fit geographically and with respect to the reserve CBG's. 70/30 2 CLBGin Petawawa(Light Protected Mobility) in TAPV's( ideally JLTV or Ocelot) and MiSu's/ modernized Bisons, 30/70 3 CLBG (Light Motorized) in commercial side by sides and/ or ISV.

After that I wonder if the 30/70 reserve brigade is the best use the PY's. Use the Alberta PRes to make 1 CABG a 70/30, but then re-role and spread the Regulars around as necessary to add capabilities. BC gets a 30/70 coastal defence battlegroup (battery of surface to surface, battery of shorad, a couple companies of mountain infantry to defend them) Sask/Man provides expanded artillery with HIMARS, loitering munitions, Shorad, etc.

Did we not do this waltz some years back with a 70/30 Bn group in Borden?

 

[ueo]

2 Division are just 2 Divisions. A Corps requires the Command, Combat Support, and Sustainment elements to build around 2 or more Divisions.

Dont think we could provide an "adequately supported" (read necessary indirect fire, engr and adm resources, etc) battalion or a Brigade today.

 

[KevinB]

Did we not do this waltz some years back with a 70/30 Bn group in Borden?

No It was 10/90 and for the Infantry was just the 3rd Bn’s
Then 3 RCR was still in London.
3VP Work Point in BC
3 VanDoo in Valcatraz

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

No It was 10/90 and for the Infantry was just the 3rd Bn’s
Then 3 RCR was still in London.
3VP Work Point in BC
3 VanDoo in Valcatraz

Not quite.

The 90/10s were partially an attempt to retain Reg F units as 4 CMBG was struck from the order of battle at the end of the Cold War. It was a confusing time organizationally. 4 CMBG permanently had 1R22eR on its order of battle. The 4 CMBG anglo infantry battalion, though, rotated between the 2 PPCLI and 3 RCR. The battalion of either Regiment would be in Winnipeg when they were not in Germany. 1 RCR was in London and 2 RCR were in Gagetown. 3 RCR was in Germany as 4 CMBG was cut. I am not sure when the 1 CMBG move from Calgary to Edmonton occurred but it was likely decided upon at that time as well, adding to the swirl. As part of the early 90s cuts/reorganizations 1 RCR was moved to Petawawa circa 1992.

I believe that 3 R22eR in Valcartier simply (?) renumbered to 1 R22eR as 4 CMBG was struck. The 3rd Battalions were then turned into 10/90s (I am not sure where the 3VP HQ was at this time, but the Work Point closure was part of this). With the RCR the battalion numbering made it easy - turn 3 RCR into 10/90 and find a logical home. Borden was selected, which made a certain amount of sense given the geographical disposition of the militia units. London would have also made sense but perhaps that would have salted the wounds for all involved including the planners who had "closed" the base. The Reg F 8CH from 4 CMBG landed in Gagetown/Moncton as a Total Force Armoured Regiment that took in C Sqn RCD (with attendant rebadges) so the mix with 8CH(M) was closer to 50/50. This lasted until 1997 when they were removed from the Reg F order of battle and the Reg F 8CH members badged to one of the other three Reg F armoured regiments. It was a bewildering time.

The 10/90 Infantry battalions trained and functioned until it was realized that the rotational peacekeeping of the mid-90s needed a larger force. So the 3rd Battalions were reinstated with some attendant recruiting increases and CTs but without kit - the so-called Mechanized Infantry battalions on light scales. That's another thread. I worked alongside the 3 RCR 10/90 for a couple of things as I was an armoured reservist in London at the time. My memory was that the reservist soldiers/junior officers in the sub-units were happy enough to have well organized training and a larger cadre of NCOs available to teach QL4 courses and develop some expertise.

 

[ArmyRick]

3 VP was at Work Point barracks until '93 or '94. They then converted to 10/90 and I think they spread around BC. In 2VP we got a whole bunch of 3VP posted in during APS 94. Then after Airborne disbandment, I remember Patricia Jump Coy was sent to Edmonton, and about that time they announced the standing up again of the 3rd battalions. PPCLI jump coy was basically the first of the 're-born" 3VP.

 

[FJAG]

I am not sure when the 1 CMBG move from Calgary to Edmonton occurred but it was likely decided upon at that time as well, adding to the swirl.

The move of 1 CMBG from Calgary to Edmonton happened in 1997. My understanding at the time was that decision for the move happened much earlier under the Conservative government when Don Mazankowski (MP from Vegrevile just east of Edmonton) was the Deputy Prime Minister. Several other Fed departments ended up having offices or elements move to Edmonton during this time.

4 AD also made the move from Germany during this time eventually ending up in Moncton.

 

[daftandbarmy]

The 10/90 Infantry battalions trained and functioned until it was realized that the rotational peacekeeping of the mid-90s needed a larger force. So the 3rd Battalions were reinstated with some attendant recruiting increases and CTs but without kit - the so-called Mechanized Infantry battalions on light scales. That's another thread. I worked alongside the 3 RCR 10/90 for a couple of things as I was an armoured reservist in London at the time. My memory was that the reservist soldiers/junior officers in the sub-units were happy enough to have well organized training and a larger cadre of NCOs available to teach QL4 courses and develop some expertise.

It worked OK, right up until the Reg F reconstituted their 3rd battalions (after the wolf wandered away from the door) and they took all our soldiers with them in a massive CT scam.

My reserve unit was left a hollow shell, and it took several years to recover. So mission accomlished I guess

 

[KevinB]

@TangoTwoBravo roger I forgot it was 1RCR that first moved to Pet (from London)

For some reason I forgot that and thought 3RCR did 10/90 in London.

 

[markppcli]

Just came across this article in Canadian Army Today:



This line caught my eye:

I read this and was enraged.

Actually the last three or four articles they’ve produced have been attempts to defend the procurement process. While I appreciate that they’re doing a job, it’s been a bad look. The defence of the ISSP article was literally just a chat with a Thales representative put to paper.

 

[KevinB]

I read this and was enraged.

Actually the last three or four articles they’ve produced have been attempts to defend the procurement process. While I appreciate that they’re doing a job, it’s been a bad look. The defence of the ISSP article was literally just a chat with a Thales representative put to paper.

I guess I must have missed how TOW is semi-automatic.


Not a lot of accuracy in that article.

 

[FJAG]

I guess I must have missed how TOW is semi-automatic.


Not a lot of accuracy in that article.

But he's the guy at DLR - so ...

 

[Kirkhill]

SACLOS?

Semi-automatic command to line of sight - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[SeaKingTacco]

SACLOS?

Semi-automatic command to line of sight - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Yup- TOW is a fairly classic SACLOS system. Not my favourite, because the time of flight is horrific…

 

[KevinB]

SACLOS?

Semi-automatic command to line of sight - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I realy hate that term, as it’s inaccurate.

There is absolutely nothing semi-automatic about it.
It’s a manually guided wire controlled system. It’s not semi-automatic as it uses active input by the launcher seeker to align the missile (using the rocket engine as a reference) onto the target selected by the users crosshair.

Even the earlier beam rider missiles where not semi-automatic, I might accept semi-active, as the eye was taking/took ‘snap shot pictures’ and aligned to the target from the beam that way.

 

[AmmoTech90]

I realy hate that term, as it’s inaccurate.

There is absolutely nothing semi-automatic about it.
It’s a manually guided wire controlled system. It’s not semi-automatic as it uses active input by the launcher seeker to align the missile (using the rocket engine as a reference) onto the target selected by the users crosshair.

Even the earlier beam rider missiles where not semi-automatic, I might accept semi-active, as the eye was taking/took ‘snap shot pictures’ and aligned to the target from the beam that way.

Sure it's semi automatic. Not in the sense of small arms but in terms of control.

Manual means you keep the sight on the target and fly the missile to the target.

Automatic means you launch the missile and ignore it.

Semi-automatic means one of the aspects (sight picture or control) is automatic. For all SACLOS I know about, the control is automatic and sight picture is manual. So it could be semi-manual or semi-automatic and automatic was chosen.

The motor is not used for tracking as it normally burns out partway through flight, thermal or optical beacon is tracked by the firing post. TOW's flight motor burns for less than 2 seconds and it coasts the rest of the way to the target.

 

[Good2Golf]

I realy hate that term, as it’s inaccurate.

There is absolutely nothing semi-automatic about it.
It’s a manually guided wire controlled system. It’s not semi-automatic as it uses active input by the launcher seeker to align the missile (using the rocket engine as a reference) onto the target selected by the users crosshair.

Even the earlier beam rider missiles where not semi-automatic, I might accept semi-active, as the eye was taking/took ‘snap shot pictures’ and aligned to the target from the beam that way.

I get what you’re saying, KevinB, but the difference between semi-automatic and semi-active is the location of the steer-signal. TOW with wire or RBS70 with laser, still has command signal sent from the CLU to the missile.

Semi-active has to my knowledge always represented a system where the missile itself is generating steer cues from RF or laser energy painted onto and reflected from the target, like say an AIM-7 Sparrow or RIM-162 ESSM missile (RF) or an AGM-114K or M Hellfire (STANAG 3733 laser designated).