• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Informing the Army’s Future Structure

Kirkhill said:
Understood - I guess what I am picking up from what the Russians and Ukrainians are laying down is that the basic wiring diagrams of teams, sections, platoons, companies, battalions, brigades, divisions, corps are all still valid.

But.

The degree of dispersion has increased putting more reliance on small units, strategic corporals, mission command and wide dispersion. All of those have been necessitated by the wide distribution of novel technologies and forced older technologies to be reapplied.
Click to expand...
Don’t forget casualties. Both sides have taken horrific losses.
 
FJAG said:
Well I said I was going to inflict another Napkin Force on everyone so here it is:
Click to expand...
Fairly minor difference of opinion about your proposed flyover 3 Brigade deployment to Poland.

Currently NATO Multinational Division North (HQ in Adiza) consists of 2 x Brigades:
  • Estonian 1st Infantry Brigade
    • NATO eFP Battlegroup Estonia (w/UK as Lead Nation - attached)
  • Latvian Mechanized Infantry Brigade
    • NATO eFP Battlegroup Latvia (w/Canada as Lead Nation - attached)
The UK is already looking at expanding it's Estonian presence to a full Brigade by committing additional flyover forces to it's current eFP Estonia deployment. Canada could do the same by expanding our eFP contribution to a full Brigade. The resulting NATO Multinational Division North would then look something like:

  • NATO Multinational Division North HQ (Adiza, Latvia)
    • Estonian 1st Infantry Brigade
    • UK Brigade (flyover elements + eFP Estonia)
    • Latvian Mechanized Infantry Brigade
    • Canadian 3 Brigade
      • 3 Brigade HQ (100/0)
      • Tank Regiment (10/0 - Flyover)
      • LAV Battalion (10/0 - Flyover)
      • eFP Latvia Battlegroup (100/0)
      • Artillery Regiment (10/0 - Flyover)
      • Service Battalion (30/0 - Flyover)
This would give a couple of advantages over a full flyover Brigade deployment to Poland.
  1. Probably a much easier sell politically to increase our current Latvian commitment (and mostly with flyover troops rather than significant additional physically deployed troops) than establishing a completely new Brigade-size commitment to Europe.
  2. Having eFP Latvia replacing a 3rd maneuver flyover unit would provide for both greater depth for our mechanized forces to replace potential battle losses as well as possibly freeing up additional Canadian-based LAV forces for non-NATO deployments without adding personnel stress to our NATO commitment.
  3. Would ensure that our Canadian-led eFP Latvia forces would fall under Canadian Brigade command in any conflict.
  4. Having our eFP Latvia rotations and our flyover 3 Brigade training rotations both in the same location would provide greater ability for our troops to become familiar with the area in which they'd be likely to operate. Flyover troops that have already taken part in an eFP Latvia rotation would already know the area.
  5. Since eFP is permanently manned it would in effect mean we have a 30/70 Brigade in place for Day 1 of a conflict rather than a 10/90 Brigade. It would also give our 3 Brigade HQ an actual 100% manned maneuver unit to train with rather than just annual flyover units (and tabletop exercises).
  6. A Brigade-level commitment to Latvia should give us some seats in the NATO Multinational Division North HQ which would be co-located in Adiza with both our eFP Latvia deployment and our 3 Brigade HQ.
  7. Our logistics system would be able to focus on supplying our troops in a single geographic location.
 
“One of the big problems we identified in this particular scenario is going to be we have too much data, and we haven't been able to correlate it in the way that we want to provide it to the warfighter,” McKean said. “A few years ago, we wouldn't have had that problem because we weren't even talking to each other, and our machines certainly wouldn't be talking to each other. And so that's a huge step forward, the fact that we are all sharing data. … We have the capability right now to take multiple communication pathways. Some of those are very military-specific. Some of those are actually quite commercial. And we can use those in multiple ways, so if one is denied, we switch to another one.”
Click to expand...

www.thedrive.com

Array Of Sensors, Unmanned Systems Creating Data Headaches For Army Commanders

Battlefield data is vital, and lots of it is great, but Army leaders are concerned they are burdened with an embarrassment of riches.
www.thedrive.com www.thedrive.com

Here's the Fort Irwin exercise from a British perspective - focusing on the Rangers - not so much a Special Force as, perhaps, a new Experimental Corps of Riflemen.

www.forces.net

Ranger Regiment troops trial new cutting-edge battlefield kit on first deployment with US Special Forces

Allies from the UK, US and Australia have been testing 300 new technologies to demonstrate their future fighting capabilities.
www.forces.net www.forces.net
 
GR66 said:
Fairly minor difference of opinion about your proposed flyover 3 Brigade deployment to Poland.

Currently NATO Multinational Division North (HQ in Adiza) consists of 2 x Brigades:
  • Estonian 1st Infantry Brigade
    • NATO eFP Battlegroup Estonia (w/UK as Lead Nation - attached)
  • Latvian Mechanized Infantry Brigade
    • NATO eFP Battlegroup Latvia (w/Canada as Lead Nation - attached)
The UK is already looking at expanding it's Estonian presence to a full Brigade by committing additional flyover forces to it's current eFP Estonia deployment. Canada could do the same by expanding our eFP contribution to a full Brigade. The resulting NATO Multinational Division North would then look something like:

  • NATO Multinational Division North HQ (Adiza, Latvia)
    • Estonian 1st Infantry Brigade
    • UK Brigade (flyover elements + eFP Estonia)
    • Latvian Mechanized Infantry Brigade
    • Canadian 3 Brigade
      • 3 Brigade HQ (100/0)
      • Tank Regiment (10/0 - Flyover)
      • LAV Battalion (10/0 - Flyover)
      • eFP Latvia Battlegroup (100/0)
      • Artillery Regiment (10/0 - Flyover)
      • Service Battalion (30/0 - Flyover)
This would give a couple of advantages over a full flyover Brigade deployment to Poland.
  1. Probably a much easier sell politically to increase our current Latvian commitment (and mostly with flyover troops rather than significant additional physically deployed troops) than establishing a completely new Brigade-size commitment to Europe.
  2. Having eFP Latvia replacing a 3rd maneuver flyover unit would provide for both greater depth for our mechanized forces to replace potential battle losses as well as possibly freeing up additional Canadian-based LAV forces for non-NATO deployments without adding personnel stress to our NATO commitment.
  3. Would ensure that our Canadian-led eFP Latvia forces would fall under Canadian Brigade command in any conflict.
  4. Having our eFP Latvia rotations and our flyover 3 Brigade training rotations both in the same location would provide greater ability for our troops to become familiar with the area in which they'd be likely to operate. Flyover troops that have already taken part in an eFP Latvia rotation would already know the area.
  5. Since eFP is permanently manned it would in effect mean we have a 30/70 Brigade in place for Day 1 of a conflict rather than a 10/90 Brigade. It would also give our 3 Brigade HQ an actual 100% manned maneuver unit to train with rather than just annual flyover units (and tabletop exercises).
  6. A Brigade-level commitment to Latvia should give us some seats in the NATO Multinational Division North HQ which would be co-located in Adiza with both our eFP Latvia deployment and our 3 Brigade HQ.
  7. Our logistics system would be able to focus on supplying our troops in a single geographic location.
Click to expand...
I actually like that idea with some minor modifications.

Firstly, my placing 3 Bde into Poland as predicated on two things: 1) better training facilities than Latvia (one of the primary purposes of 3 Bde is as a replacement of CMTC in Wainwright and thereby converting those PYs and the function to 3 Bde) and 2) additional strategic depth for secure airheads for a flyover deployment and sustainment in case of emergency. There's also the connection with the US V Corps but that's secondary.

Adazi is quite limited and can provide, at best, very limited live fire for larger calibre weapons. There is a possibility of a larger facility in the area of Selija/Salonia which could be up to three times the size of Adazi and thus slightly more useful for live fire. I tend to see dry manoeuvre out in the "wild" as we did in Germany (and probably less destructive vis a vis manoeuvre damage because of the greatly reduced tracked component of the brigade).

That leaves strategic depth for flyovers and deployment. The Options are 1) based in Latvia with risk of having access to the equipment cut off or 2) based in Poland with access to equipment more assured but requiring an approach march from the Polish base through the Sulwaki Gap to Latvia. Either way there is a risk that needs to be mitigated.

I'm not sure how I feel about the eFP being 100/0 and part of 3 Bde. Firstly, right now the eFP is more in the nature of a 30/70 with the 70 coming from other NATO countries. I definitely prefer that it should stay that way so as to ensure other NATO nations stay "at risk" in Latvia and create a united deterrent.

That leaves the question of whether the eFP BG should be part of 3 Bde or remain under the Latvian Mechanized Brigade. If the latter than we need to have a second 10/0 LAV battalion as part of 3 Bde (as previously contemplated); if the former, we can save ourselves a battalion's worth of gear to keep back in Canada but will not be able to exercise a whole fly-over bde in one shot. I guess one could keep a second 10/0 LAV battalion there in any event and have 3 Bde with four manoeuvre battalions. Personally I think I'd rather have a clean and full flyover bde and leave the eFP BG with the Latvian Mech Bde as a signal of commitment. Our government/Army leadership would probably prefer the eFP integrated into 3 Bde to minimize the scale of our commitment.

🍻
 
ueo said:
So who on the west coast has a real Cbt Team? Just wondering,
Click to expand...
Well a combat team is just a combined arms team built around a company or squadron. Surely 39 CBG can put together one of those ?
 
markppcli said:
Watching Ukrainian success videos is always going to give you skewed results since you see what a) was a success and b) will get more views.
Click to expand...

All true Mark. But success videos do tend to re-establish the bar as to what is possible.

Even that attack was only partly successful as 3 or so Russians managed to escape. But 7 didn't. And the Ukrainians appear to have suffered no causalties. Enhanced Situational Awareness?
 
markppcli said:
Well a combat team is just a combined arms team built around a company or squadron.
Click to expand...
That was the case, but the definition has been updated (probably more for reasons of Canadian Army identity than for doctrine) to require there be tanks in a combat team.
 
McG said:
That was the case, but the definition has been updated (probably more for reasons of Canadian Army identity than for doctrine) to require there be tanks in a combat team.
Click to expand...
Mo-litia Tanks...

RCAC Reservist in his G-Wagon saying "tankety-tank, tankety-tank, tankety-tank"
 
Kirkhill said:
All true Mark. But success videos do tend to re-establish the bar as to what is possible.

Even that attack was only partly successful as 3 or so Russians managed to escape. But 7 didn't. And the Ukrainians appear to have suffered no causalties. Enhanced Situational Awareness?
Click to expand...

It's a good idea to let a couple survive so they can spread the word about what's coming to the rest ;)
 
McG said:
That was the case, but the definition has been updated (probably more for reasons of Canadian Army identity than for doctrine) to require there be tanks in a combat team.
Click to expand...
I stand corrected
 
markppcli said:
1500 odd reservists can’t manage to mass in one place ?
Click to expand...

Yes. And 39 CBG has enough 'odd' ones to fulfill the requirement ;)

The primary barrier to concentrating for annual summer exercises, as I understand it, is usually leadership (lack of joint RegF/ARes), planning skills (coordination of summer courses with FTX needs) and money.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Kirkhill
    • Insightful
    • Like
Analysis of US Wishlists 2025
Replies
0
Views
3K
Kirkhill
Kirkhill
Kirkhill
Small Radio Networking and Clouds
Replies
15
Views
16K
Kirkhill
Kirkhill
Kirkhill
Industrial Strategy - Capitalizing the Canadian Forces
2 3
Replies
47
Views
47K
Kirkhill
Kirkhill
dimsum
MND Mandate Letter 2021
2
Replies
25
Views
39K
FJAG
FJAG
Kirkhill
Melding Russian, Chinese and American Strategy - Convergence and Peer Wars
Replies
0
Views
7K
Kirkhill
Kirkhill
Back
Top