Informing the Army’s Future Structure

[Kirkhill]

Does interoperable have to mean identical? Given the diversity of options within NATO, SEATO and ABCANZUS it seems to me there is room for a degree of flexibility.

 

[FJAG]

But you need two sets of those for an armoured division at minimum.

Anyway. Nice dreams.

 

[IKnowNothing]

So if a 2Bde+ Division with 2Bn Bde's is an acceptable target

Current 3rd Division Area
Div HQ
1x Cav/Armoured Recce Regiment
1x Square Combined Arms Battalion (Cad pattern tank squadrons)
Div Artillery
Div AD
Div Engineers

Current 4th Division Area (Based at Pet)
1x Cav/Recce Squadron
2x Mech Battalion
(Edit) 1x Reinforced Mech Coy (AT and Mortar Platoon added)
Bde CS Arty
Bde Engineers

Current 2nd Division Area (Based at Val)
Same


That uses 7/9 Armoured Squadrons, 15/27 Inf Coy's, 1/3 Armoured HQ's, 4/9 Inf HQ's, half of the tanks, ~5/6s of the LAV's (4/6 Bn + 1 Coy +some to have the Cav fully Lav mounted. Enough Artillery to look after CS for the Bde's (albeit towed), Div artillery is entirely imaginary, as is AD.

Put the colocated CBG's directly under area command to round out (both individual augment platoon level)

Put Light Bn's with Bde HQ's at Borden and Montreal, commence building out Hybrid 30/70 light Bde's

 

[KevinB]

So if a 2Bde+ Division with 2Bn Bde's is an acceptable target

Current 3rd Division Area
Div HQ
1x Cav/Armoured Recce Regiment
1x Square Combined Arms Battalion (Cad pattern tank squadrons)
Div Artillery
Div AD
Div Engineers

Current 4th Division Area (Based at Pet)
1x Cav/Recce Squadron
2x Mech Battalion
Bde CS Arty
Bde Engineers

Current 2nd Division Area (Based at Val)
Same


That uses 7/9 Armoured Squadrons, 14/27 Inf Coy's, 1/3 Armoured HQ's, 4/9 Inf HQ's, half of the tanks, ~3/4's of the LAV's (4/6 + some to have the Cav fully Lav mounted. Enough Artillery to look after CS for the Bde's (albeit towed), Div artillery is entirely imaginary, as is AD.

Put the colocated CBG's directly under area command to round out (both individual augment platoon level)

Put Light Bn's with Bde HQ's at Borden and Montreal, commence building out Hybrid 30/70 light Bde's

If you got to 2 Bde+ Div’s you need 3 Maneuver Bn Bde’s (I’d argue you need those anyway even if you go to 3 Bde+ Div’s
I’d argue the Cav Sqn isn’t a Maneuver entity in these terms generally those are Tank or Inf entities.

I’m also of the opinion that if you are going to have Light, Med and Heavy(ish) Bde’s the heavier forces are better ones to run at 30/70 and your Light ones are more suited for 70/30 as you can deploy them a lot quicker.

 

[IKnowNothing]

I've read documents and reports that indicate two is easier to control, and actually more effective. A Division doesn't need an entire brigade for reserve, it needs a Bn max, if not a Cbt Tm.

Would this hold true at a smaller scale- Bde doesn't need an entire Bn for reserve, but a reinforced Coy instead?

 

[Infanteer]

Yes.

 

[KevinB]

Yes.

But I would suggest it clearly does reduce one’s ability to push a counter attack.

 

[Kirkhill]

In which case

11 Div Pattern +

2x Lt Inf Brigades
with 2x Lt Inf Battalions and 2x LAV based Cavalry Regiments and 1x Lt CS Arty Regiment

1x Combined Arms Brigade with 3x LAV/Leo CA Units and 1x SP Arty Regiment

= 6x Infantry Battalions, 3x MBT Squadrons in 1 Armoured Regiment and 2x Cavalry Regiments

With 3 Bde HQs one Lt HQ can be detached with a Battle Group while the other battalion and cavalry regiment (-) could be attached to the second Brigade leaving the following

1 Battle Gp as the core of a multinational Canadian Brigade Gp or adjunct to an Northam element

1 deployable 2 Brigade div with 3 Combined Arms Units and 3 Infantry Units with adequate numbers for support and enablers.

 

[Infanteer]

But I would suggest it clearly does reduce one’s ability to push a counter attack.

Launching a company into a counterattack vs a battalion has the advantage of timeliness. It's far easier to get a sub-unit moving on an objective in a chaotic situation than it is a full unit. When timeliness is of the essence, a smaller element now is better than a larger element too late.

 

[Kirkhill]

If you got to 2 Bde+ Div’s you need 3 Maneuver Bn Bde’s (I’d argue you need those anyway even if you go to 3 Bde+ Div’s
I’d argue the Cav Sqn isn’t a Maneuver entity in these terms generally those are Tank or Inf entities.

I’m also of the opinion that if you are going to have Light, Med and Heavy(ish) Bde’s the heavier forces are better ones to run at 30/70 and your Light ones are more suited for 70/30 as you can deploy them a lot quicker.

Kevin you seem to be thinking entirely in Heavy terms. I would argue that in a dispersed field even a light cavalry squadron/troop can disrupt and exploit. Or a LAV infantry company with a troop/platoon of tanks in support.

 

[KevinB]

Kevin you seem to be thinking entirely in Heavy terms. I would argue that in a dispersed field even a light cavalry squadron/troop can disrupt and exploit. Or a LAV infantry company with a troop/platoon of tanks in support.

Situational dependent yes.
I’m not a medium force fan, especially for Canada as it’s medium forces miss a slew of needed enablers to fight against an armor equipped foe.

A US Cav Sqn be it either Heavy, Stryker or Light has an enormous amount of firepower compared to a CAF one.
But only the Armored Cav units can effectively screen and fight a withdrawal against an armor threat.

I’m very leery of using OS Ukraine information in force structures, as they don’t truly reflect the actual situation on the ground and UKR has been fantastic at keeping battlefield OPSEC.

I think Light Forces and Medium forces can do fantastic things against certain situations, but not everything, and for that one needs a mix of Heavy Armor, that can hold and fix, and more agile forces than can flex as needed.

 

[Kirkhill]

Situational dependent yes.
I’m not a medium force fan, especially for Canada as it’s medium forces miss a slew of needed enablers to fight against an armor equipped foe.

A US Cav Sqn be it either Heavy, Stryker or Light has an enormous amount of firepower compared to a CAF one.
But only the Armored Cav units can effectively screen and fight a withdrawal against an armor threat.

I’m very leery of using OS Ukraine information in force structures, as they don’t truly reflect the actual situation on the ground and UKR has been fantastic at keeping battlefield OPSEC.

I think Light Forces and Medium forces can do fantastic things against certain situations, but not everything, and for that one needs a mix of Heavy Armor, that can hold and fix, and more agile forces than can flex as needed.

Canada will never be able to act in all situations. And that is equally true, if not more so, if it had a Heavy Army. The cost of enablers would escalate as would the logistical costs.

Light and Medium forces will find a home on any battlefield. They probably won't be crushing trenches. But they might be dominating the countryside around those trenches. Or securing the LOCs. Or supplying more bodies to secure towns. Or operating where the tanks can't go.

We're going to choose our fights - and if the time permits - adjust our organization to suit the situation.

 

[IKnowNothing]

I’m not a medium force fan, especially for Canada as it’s medium forces miss a slew of needed enablers to fight against an armor equipped foe.

A US Cav Sqn be it either Heavy, Stryker or Light has an enormous amount of firepower compared to a CAF one.

Should (operative word) be a straighter and shorter path to change the accuracy of those statements than to throw everything out and rebuild heavy. A properly equipped LAV6 based CAV would/should material outgun it's Stryker equivalent (though that gap will close once 50/50 Dragoon/CROWS-J is rolled out.

I’m also of the opinion that if you are going to have Light, Med and Heavy(ish) Bde’s the heavier forces are better ones to run at 30/70 and your Light ones are more suited for 70/30 as you can deploy them a lot quicker.

Granted it would be better, but again- shorter and straighter path to expanded force. Tanks have to be out west. EC based mech has to be Pet/Val/Gagetown. But light forces based in Southern Ontario/ Greater Montreal have much great access to a substantial reserve pool (current & future), don't have the same training footprint, and can deploy to the larger training areas far more easily.

 

[KevinB]

Tanks don’t HAVE to be out West.
Tanks and artillery simply require larger training areas. Western Canada has actual mountains unlike the eastern and central parts.

The fact the CAF doesn’t have any bases suited to Armored/Mech warfare training is telling enough.
Before anyone says Wainwright, it’s still very limited for any real live fire maneuver with 25mm. Wx was great for the Grizzly - with the .50 not the LAV with the 25mm. Suffield is pretty good, if you didn’t effectively give control to the Brits and DRES.

The CAF needs to do a realistic assessment of their basing options and create some actual true training centers for modern warfare.

 

[ArmyRick]

Its very interesting watching the ideas for what Canada could/should/would do. I love reading the input, ideas and comparisons to our allies.

What I find very tough to add anything useful lately. I know, I know, I am part of the napkin field marshall crowd. Main reason I have difficulty is that our current government has ZERO desire to take defence seriously. At all.

I had a glimmer of hope when the Soviet Union, er..ops I mean Putin's Russia invaded the Ukraine and basically escalated things very badly. BUT NOPE. Trudeau, Freeland and crew are more concerned with fighting "climate change" (or using that excuse for cash grab), stopping "hate" (or people who disagree with anything Liberal) or paying attention to 2SLBQTIGVABTEUNGGG++++ (Fook, who can keep up with all the letters these days? Even my friends that are gay can't tell me what they mean)

I think first step is acknowledging there will be NO new equipment purchased (thats not already on the books) and no new personnel added or new units. Not going to happen. Nope. Nada. Nopers.

So with our current equipment and troops, would it be better to keep 3 brigades in the regular army with reduced infantry battalions or 2 brigades with more units? Curious on your thoughts?

 

[KevinB]

IMHO given the option of 3 or 2 Reg BDE

With a clean sheet of paper I’d opt for an ABCT with all the bells and whistles ( maybe even more) and an Airborne/Air Assault IBCT.

But again that requires effort and I don’t see that occurring.

 

[FJAG]

Tanks don’t HAVE to be out West.
Tanks and artillery simply require larger training areas. Western Canada has actual mountains unlike the eastern and central parts.

The fact the CAF doesn’t have any bases suited to Armored/Mech warfare training is telling enough.

We did have. In it's day Borden and Meaford were into tanks, but the tanks outgrew the facilities.

Gagetown played a role after that and even Shilo served the Germans well for many years.

It's really only Petawawa and Valcartier that are a bit anemic and that's mostly because so much of the ranges are unsuitable for wide ranging open manoeuvre.

Before anyone says Wainwright, it’s still very limited for any real live fire maneuver with 25mm. Wx was great for the Grizzly - with the .50 not the LAV with the 25mm. Suffield is pretty good, if you didn’t effectively give control to the Brits and DRES.

The CAF needs to do a realistic assessment of their basing options and create some actual true training centers for modern warfare.

I sometimes think that we're not doing enough with simulated munitions for our large calibre weapons or in using civilian terrain like we did in Germany. There's shooting and then there's realistic battalion level tactical manoeuvre. The two do not need to be combined in the same exercise. 4 CMBG shot on very restrictive ranges but manoeuvred in the most realistic terrain possible.

Don't get me wrong. I see the benefits of a facility like NTC that can run a BCT at a time ... and even CMTC ... but quite frankly restrained in both equipment and money and ranges as we are, I think that the biggest bang for the buck we get is at the battalion/battle group level for integrated live fire and manoeuvre while brigade level is best kept to simulated exercises. If we turn out good battle groups (heavy, medium and light) capable of working within a sim-trained brigade framework then we've done well.

I think first step is acknowledging there will be NO new equipment purchased (thats not already on the books) and no new personnel added or new units. Not going to happen. Nope. Nada. Nopers.

You're probably right.

So with our current equipment and troops, would it be better to keep 3 brigades in the regular army with reduced infantry battalions or 2 brigades with more units? Curious on your thoughts?

My thoughts, as expected, run more in the nature of more deployable brigade and battalion headquarters than we have but with (please don't yell at me) fewer RegF troops. Do that through more ResF integration in things like 30/70 brigades and battalions.

We are constantly deploying contingents with the equivalents of a battle group headquarters overseen by rump TF/NCE headquarters which are akin to a small brigade headquarters. We need to continue to have enough of those so that we can do the rotations to suit the deployment requirements set out in the SSE. In addition we need trained and knowledgeable headquarters if we are ever going to expand in an emergency.

My gut math tells me we can reduce the 5 div HQs to 2 and the 3+1+10 brigades to probably 6 manoeuvre and 4 support using existing manning levels. We convert the around 30 major RegF units and the 130+ ResF units into around 50 hybrid units plus a half dozen training units. All done without any equipment changes other than what's already on the books.

I've put this diagram up before and I'm in the process of revising it but it's shows one way to do that. (Note that the Readiness FL 4 category is for a prepositioned armoured brigade's equipment in Latvia with minimal full time manning, and in large measure concurrently replacing the functions of CMTC as a training and certification venue.

 

[quadrapiper]

If we turn out good battle groups (heavy, medium and light) capable of working within a sim-trained brigade framework then we've done well.

How much of a difference would there be for sim trainees from a "real" brigade exercise, assuming there's enough "noise" being input into their world to mirror real-world, real-time flukery?

 

[KevinB]

We did have. In it's day Borden and Meaford were into tanks, but the tanks outgrew the facilities.

Lot of things have outgrown the facilities.

Arty, would be one, but for the fact one doesn’t need to practice loading super charge etc.
If the CAF gets into rockets though that will require a lot more room, just for safety templates.

Also a 1 dimensional target doesn’t do a good job for LAV or Tank crews, in the same way a Fig 11 doesn’t do a good job for the rifleperson in fire and maneuver (other than ensuring a strict script is adhered to and no deviation of firing lines…
So I’d argue its isn’t just the ranges that have been outgrown.

Gagetown played a role after that and even Shilo served the Germans well for many years.

Both within very strict repetitive traces.
I mean I haven’t been in Gagetown since 1988 but I probably could do a template for Lawfield Corridor by memory…

It's really only Petawawa and Valcartier that are a bit anemic and that's mostly because so much of the ranges are unsuitable for wide ranging open manoeuvre.

Pet is pretty jammed up with CSOR and the SOAS one one side - but across the road there are a lot of areas that could be reconfigured - it would mean merging a lot of impact areas and clearance though.

I haven’t been to Valcatraz other than a brief stop over - so I can’t really comment on that, but looking at a map I’d agree with your assessment.

 

[Kirkhill]

Launching a company into a counterattack vs a battalion has the advantage of timeliness. It's far easier to get a sub-unit moving on an objective in a chaotic situation than it is a full unit. When timeliness is of the essence, a smaller element now is better than a larger element too late.

Wasn't that Rommel's take on the counter-attack? Was he the chap that advocated keeping 10% of his force in his pocket just for the counter-attack?